HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2016 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
4:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 2016-17 WATER ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW (MATTINGLY / FLOYD / ELKE –
15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund report; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund budget, with final
action with the adoption of the 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Approve the transfer of revenue collected for new development meters to the
expenditure account for applicable meter purchases on a quarterly basis.
2. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW (MATTINGLY /
FLOYD / ELKE – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund financials; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund budget, with final
action with the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 2
3. 2016-17 TRANSIT ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW (GRIGSBY / BOCHUM /
ANGUIANO / BETZ – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Report; and
2. Conceptually approve the FY 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund budget, with the adoption
of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Approve a four-year contract with First Transit, Inc. to operate and maintain the City’s
Transit system and authorize the Mayor to execute the same; and
4. Authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to execute a one-year
agreement extension with Cal Poly for continuation of the Subsidy Agreement for Free
Fare ridership on SLO Transit; and
5. As part of Short Range Transit Plan consideration (August, 2016), bring forward final
recommendations for service changes and capital improvement investments; and
6. Approve the appropriation of grant money, in the amount of $186, 636, for the upgrade
of the SLO Transit Automatic Vehicle Location system.
4. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW (GRIGSBY /
BOCHUM / FUCHS / BETZ – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Review and discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Parking Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approve the FY 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Budget, with final
actions with the adoption of the FY 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving an increase in Parking Citation Fines and Forfeitures for
miscellaneous violations.”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 3
5. 2014-15 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST OF
SERVICE FEE STUDY (JOHNSON / WARNER – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Simultaneous with the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan:
1. Approve the 2014-15 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated May 2016; and
2. Approve the Cost of Service Study completed in December 2014 and updated in May
2016.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2016 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 4
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Christianson
INTRODUCTIONS
6. CHRIS MILLER, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO (PAC) (LICHTIG – 10 MINUTES)
APPOINTMENTS
7. SHORT-TERM APPOINTMENT TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
(HRC) (PRICE – 5 MINUTES)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittee:
1. Approve a leave of absence for HRC Commissioner Maria Troy; and
2. Appoint Nancy Welts to the HRC for a short-term appointment of up to six (6) months
effectively immediately.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. 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.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 5
CONSENT AGENDA
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.
8. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
9. MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 2016 (PRICE /MAIER)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of April 5, 2016.
10. ADDITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1214 MILL STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS
“THE THERESA TORRES TRUE HOUSE” (CODRON / VAN LEEUWEN)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution entitled
“A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adding the
property located at 1214 Mill Street to the Master List of Historic Resources, HIST-2842-
2019.”
11. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY’S COLLECTION OF FIRE AND
LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES (OLSON / MAGGIO)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Auditor to collect fees for
2016-17 Fire and Life Safety Inspections of multi-dwelling properties containing three or
more dwelling units on the secured property tax roll pursuant to California Government
Code Section 54988.”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 6
12. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
(GENP-3108-2016) (CODRON / GERSHOW)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept the 2015 General Plan Annual
Report.
13. SINSHEIMER PARK PLAYGROUND; SPECIFICATION NO. 90650 (GRIGSBY /
VAN BEVEREN)
Recommendation
1. As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, approve plans and
specifications for the Sinsheimer Park Playground Project (Project), Specification No.
90650; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids and authorize the City Manager to
award a contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than the Engineer’s Estimate of
$529,700; and
3. Authorize the transfer of funds from the following accounts to the project’s construction
phase account:
a. $184,923 from the Play Equipment Replacement Master Account (91103)
b. $322,023 from the Playground Equipment 13-14 Account (91246)
c. $161,672 from the Santa Rosa Skate Park Account (90752)
d. $62,889 from the Completed Projects General Fund Account
4. Approve a California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) agreement purchase with
Miracle Recreation Equipment Company in an amount not-to-exceed $165,000 for the
purchase of play equipment for the Sinsheimer Park Playground project and authorize
the Finance Director to execute a purchase order following the bid opening; and
5. Approve a purchase with Columbia Cascade Company in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 for the purchase of two embankment slides.
14. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - LAND SURVEYING, ARCHITECTURE,
CIVIL ENGINEERING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION (GRIGSBY / ATHEY)
Recommendation
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide:
a. Land Surveying Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.LS
b. Architecture Design Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.AD
c. Civil Engineering Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.CE
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 7
d. Property Acquisition Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW; 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.
15. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2784, 625 TORO STR EET (TR
176-05) (CODRON / DOSTALEK)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the Final Map for Tract 2784 (625 Toro Street, TR 176-05),”
and authorize the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement.
16. ADDITION OF THE PROPERTY AT 535 HIGUERA TO THE MASTER LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES AS “THE ROBERT POLLARD HOUSE”(CODRON /
OETZELL)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adding the
property at 535 Higuera Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as “The Robert
Pollard House” (HIST-2793-2016).”
17. MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 UPGRADE (JOHNSON / SCHMIDT / GUARDADO)
Recommendation
1. Approve a purchase order for the purchase of Microsoft Office 365 Government Plan
subscription licenses from Dell Computer Corporation in an amount not to exceed
$140,500 per year for the next three years; and
2. Authorize waiver of formal bids to cooperatively purchase Microsoft Office 365
licensing using the County of Riverside’s Microsoft Enterprise Agreement #01E73134
as allowed under 3.24.060 E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Muncipal Code; and
3. Authorize the Finance and Information Technology Director to approve future purchase
orders for years two and three; and
4. Approve a contact in the amount of $45,000 to Planet Technologies for the migration of
City email to the Microsoft Government Cloud using GSA Contract # GS-35F-0360J.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 8
18. CONTROL SYSTEMS FLEET EXPANSION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91458
(MATTINGLY / GRIGSBY / BOCHUM / SCHMIDT / ELKE / SHUCK)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the Finance Director to expand the City Fleet by two vehicles; and
2. Authorize the Finance Director to execute a purchase order to Toyota of San Luis
Obispo in the amount of $67,178.06 for the purchase of two 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x
4 pickups.
19. URBAN FOREST CONTRACT SERVICES (GRIGSBY / COMBS)
Recommendation
1. Approve Request for Proposal for "Urban Forestry Contract Services;" and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for proposals; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with the selected contractor in an
amount not-to-exceed the authorized budget.
20. REQUEST FOR CONTINUED USE OF ON-CALL LIST FOR LEGAL SERVICES
(DIETRICK)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the City Attorney’s continued use of the current on-call list for contract legal
support; and
2. Authorize the City Attorney to review and accept cost of living increase proposals from
firms and attorneys on the current on-call list for contract legal support.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
21. ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MATTINGLY / FLOYD / METZ – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving amendments to the Water and Wastewater Management
Element of the General Plan (GENP-3215-2016).”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 9
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting the revised Urban Water Management Plan.”
BUSINESS ITEMS
22. ADOPTION OF 2016-2017 GANN LIMIT AND 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET (LICHTIG / JOHNSON / STANWYCK / BRADFORD –
90 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting the Appropriations Limit for 2016-17,” in compliance with
Article XIII B of the State Constitution, Gann Spending Limitation Initiative; and
2. Receive and discuss the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplemental Budget Report, including
Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives progress report and the Five Year
Forecast update; and
3. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement, adopting the
2016-17 Budget, and amending the Fund Balance and Reserve Policy (C).”
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
Time limit—3 minutes each.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a
question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her 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)
ADJOURNMENT
Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m., in the Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 14, 2016 Page 10
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City 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) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. 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 www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director Utilities - Water
Brigitte Elke, Utilities Business Manager
SUBJECT: 2016-17 WATER ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund report; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund budget, with final
action with the adoption of the 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Approve the transfer of revenue collected for new development meters to the expenditure
account for applicable meter purchases on a quarterly basis.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Water Division is responsible for securing and protecting the community’s surface and
ground water supplies, treating water to meet stringent water quality standards, and safely
distributing it to the community. Distributing recycled water is also an important function of this
division. Maintaining complex infrastructure including a dam, multiple storage tanks, and
pressure zones will soon be assisted by the installation of sophisticated monitoring equipment on
pumps, tanks, and pressure regulating valves that will allow for remote access and control of
these systems. This project is currently underway and will result in a modernization of control
systems that will allow the City to improve the efficiency of operations.
Although rainfall levels were near average in 2016, the prolonged drought has fully engaged the
community in laudable water conservation efforts with water use down almost 20% as compared
to 2013. The Utilities Services team performed hundreds of water audits, administered water
reduction programs, and ensured community member compliance with State and local mandates
along with multiple outreach, engagement, and education activities. Additional funding is
requested to support the continued temporary staffing needed to fulfill the needs of the water
conservation program efforts.
The addition of 2,102 acre feet of water from Lake Nacimiento to the City’s water supply was an
important milestone achieved in 2016. In light of the ongoing drought conditions on the Central
Coast and in order to be prepared to maximize the use of water from Nacimiento, additional
funding is requested to support the energy and staffing requirements for 24/7 water treatment
1
Packet Pg. 11
plant operation. This additional expense is significant and requires the deferral of critical capital
projects identified in the Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan adopted in
January 2016. Reprogramming funds for a capital improvement project to expand the City’s
groundwater program is also requested.
The FY 2016-17 budget approved within the 2015-17 Financial Plan provides the basis for the
review of the Water Enterprise Fund for this report. All assumptions made during the preparation
of the Financial Plan were reviewed and necessary updates and adjustments incorporated.
As outlined in the FY 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis, which forecasts the financial
position of the Water Fund through FY 2020-21, the City continues to:
1. Provide adequate water supply for the community; and
2. Fund debt service for the completed Water Treatment Plant improvements and the City’s
share of long-term financing obligations for the Nacimiento water supply; including
operational cost for the full allocation of Nacimiento water; and
3. Manage capital maintenance projects to maintain the community’s water infrastructure
assets; including a groundwater well project; and,
4. Provide recycled water for landscape irrigation and construction water purposes.
FY 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis Report
The FY 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Financials (Attachment A) include the above-noted
changes, an update to the Fund’s financial position and underlying assumptions, and incorporates
the updated capital improvement plan.
2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement: FY 2016-17 Budget
Revenue Update
Due to the ongoing severe drought conditions, the City Council approved a drought surcharge to
be added to the 2015-16 and 2016-17 rates. The purpose of the drought surcharge is to ensure
adequate revenues are received to effectively run the water utility within fiscal policy
requirements. The basis for the amount of the surcharge was the difference in revenue loss due to
lower water consumption because of the community’s successful efforts to conserve water. With
the surcharge in place, the revenue forecast remains in line with the revenue assumptions
provided during the 2015-17 Financial Plan review.
1
Packet Pg. 12
Revenue Category
Adopted 2016-
17 Budget
2016-17 Budget
Supplement Variance
Water Sales 17,216,708$ $ 17,216,708 0%
Agency Sales 905,000$ 850,000$ -6%
Late Charges 150,000$ 150,000$ 0%
Credit Card Fees (85,000)$ (85,000)$ 0%
Dev. Impact Fees 800,000$ 800,000$ 0%
AB 939 Reimbursement 137,700$ 135,000$ -2%
Meter Sales 47,100$ 71,000$ +51%
Other Revenue 75,600$ 150,000$ +98%
Investments 50,000$ 50,000$ 0%
Total 19,297,108$ 19,337,708$ 0.21%
The adopted water service rates in support of the City’s 2015-17 Financial Plan were approved
during a public hearing on June 16, 2015 in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements.
FY 2016-17 Water Rates
Customer Type All Customers 1
Inside the City Rates
Drought Surcharge
1 - 8 Units $6.92/ Unit
$1.10/Unit
9+ Units $8.65/ Unit
$1.37/Unit
Base Fee
Drought Surcharge
$9.98
$0.74
1 1 unit = 100 Cubic Feet = 748 gallons of water
Operating Program Update – Exhibit A.1
The Water Enterprise Fund administers seven operating programs, five of which are on track
with their respective work programs within allocated resources. Two significant operating
program changes are requested: one for the Source of Supply program to account for the increase
in operating cost for the additional water allocation from Lake Nacimiento; and one for
continued temporary staffing in the Utilities Services section conservation program in order to
fulfill the educational components, state-mandated enforcement measures, and other activities
related to the continuation of drought conditions.
1
Packet Pg. 13
Water Operating Programs
Adopted 2016-
17 Budget
2016-17 Budget
Supplement Variance
Water Admin & Engineering 724,561$ 846,858$ 17%
Source of Supply 8,718,966$ 9,771,026$ 12%
Water Treatment Plant 2,505,881$ 2,771,220$ 11%
Water Distribution 1,506,734$ 1,397,945$ -7%
Utilities Services 621,189$ 721,421$ 16%
Total Operating Budget 14,077,331$ 15,508,470$ 10%
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Amendments – Exhibit A.3
The Water Fund is recommending the addition of a new capital improvement project for an
expanded groundwater program that will coordinate with existing water supplies. The cost for
study and design of a productive wellfield and accompanying centralized wellhead treatment,
and re-construction of an existing well is estimated to cost $1,470,000.
The CIP approved with the 2015-17 Financial Plan adoption for FY 2016-17 was revised in
order to accommodate one new capital project request and to keep the overall 2016-17 budget
within available resources . CIP project phases were paced out over a longer period of time given
the drought’s impact on revenues and workload measures. The table below shows the
recommended realignment of the CIP.
Account Title
FY 2016-17
per 2015-17
FP Adoption
FY 2016-17
Financial
Supplemental
Budget Variance
Water Dist Sys Improv
Pipeline Replacements $1,255,000 $0 ($1,255,000)
Construction Management - Pipeline Repl.$125,000 $0 ($125,000)
Trench Repair $125,000 $150,000 $25,000
Raise Valve Covers $25,000 $0 ($25,000)
Storage Tank Maintenance $700,000 $900,000 $200,000
Reservoir Replacement $5,300,000 $0 ($5,300,000)
CIP Request - Groundwater Program $0 $1,470,000 $1,470,000
TOTAL $7,530,000 $2,520,000 ($5,010,000)
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement work program was established in consideration of
available resources and the Water Fund will be able to fund the water program operation without
changes to the adopted rates.
1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachments:
1.a a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis
1
Packet Pg. 15
ATTACHMENT 1
FY 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund
FINANCIAL SECTION
1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW
II. 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT: FY 2016-17 BUDGET
A. Revenue Information
B. Operating Program Data
D. Debt Service Summary
WATER FUND ANALYSIS – FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
A.1. Changes in Financial Position
A.2. Projection Assumptions
A.3. Capital Improvement Plan
2
1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents the financial condition of the Water Enterprise Fund, based on the 2015-17
Financial Plan Supplement: FY 2016-17 Financial Supplemental Budget and includes revenue
information, operating and debt service data. The data considers regulatory requirements,
infrastructure maintenance, and adopted City financial policies and the fund’s standing
considering the assumptions made for the 2015-7 Financial Plan Supplement.
II. REVENUE DATA
A. Revenue Summary
The Water fund’s projected revenues are summarized in Table A below.
Table A. Revenue Summary
Original Revised Original Revised
Budget Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Investment & Property Revenue 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 0
Water Service Charges 15,224,450 15,224,450 - 15,299,972 15,299,972 0
Water Base Charges 1,420,800 1,420,800 1,916,736 1,916,736
Sales to Other Agencies 845,000 845,000 - 905,000 850,000 (55,000)
Development Impact Fees 1,300,000 1,500,000 200,000 800,000 800,000 0
AB 939 Reimbursement 134,300 134,300 - 137,700 135,000 (2,700)
Account Set-up Fees 105,800 105,800 - 100,000 100,000 0
Connection Charges & Meter Sales 46,000 58,659 12,659 47,100 71,000 23,900
Other Revenues 101,700 103,007 1,307 40,600 115,000 74,400
Total 19,228,050 19,442,016 213,966 19,297,108 19,337,708 40,600
2015-16 2016-17
Overall, revenue projections for FY 2016-17 are in alignment with the 2015-17 Financial Plan
with a conservative assumption for development impact fees. Operational income streams remain
as assumed due to the adopted drought surcharge that balances the continued conservation efforts
from the community and ongoing drought conditions. FY 2015-16 revenue projections are based
upon actual revenue collection through March 31, 2016. Beyond FY 2016-17, Water Service
Charges are estimated using projected water service rate changes applied to the previous year’s
projected sales (Exhibit A.2).
3
1.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With the 2015-17 Financial Plan, the City Council adopted rates applicable to both years of the
Financial Plan in accordance with Proposition 218 noticing. In order to keep the fund healthy and
in good financial standing for bond ratings, the Council approved and increase to the base fee
and the introduction of a drought surcharge effective July 1, 2015. The new rates, applicable July
1, 2016 are summarized below which incorporates a further increase to the base fee and the
drought surcharges as the volumetric rates remain the same:
Water Rates Increase
Base Fee 7.63$ 9.98$ 31%
Drought Surcharge 0.37$ 0.74$ 100%
Tier 1 Rate 6.92$ 1 - 8 units 6.92$ 1 - 8 units 0%
Drought Surcharge 0.98$ 1.10$ 12%
Tier 2 Rate 8.65$ 9+ units 8.65$ 9+ units 0%
Drought Surcharge 1.23$ 1.37$ 11%
2015-16 2016-17
79%
10%
4% 4% 3%
2016-17
Water Sales
Base Fee
Sales to
Agencies
Impact Fees
Other
revenue
78%
7%
5%
8% 2%
2015-16
Water
Sales
Base Fee
Sales to
Agencies
Impact
Fees
Other
revenue
Revenue Distribution 2015-16 & 2016-17
4
1.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following table compares the FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 monthly cost for residential
customers based upon various usage levels and approved water rates.
Residential Monthly Water Bill Comparison
Consumption 3 units 8 units 12 units 25 units
Water Current $31.70 $71.20 $110.72 $239.16
Water Proposed July 1, 2014 $34.78 $74.88 $114.96 $245.22
Variance $3.08 $3.68 $4.24 $6.06
Cal Poly Rates. FY 2016-17 Sales to Other Agencies (Cal Poly) are projected to decrease based on
current water usage. The percentage of water rate Cal Poly will pay in 2016-17 will increase
from 50% to 51% of applicable rate as defined in the Cal Poly rate agreement adopted in 2012.
The decreased rate is due to the exclusion of cost of the Source of Supply program as Cal Poly
has its own source of supply in Whale Rock. As listed under Operating Program Summary, the
Source of Supply program accounts for approximately 63% of the Water Enterprise Fund
operating program cost.
B. Operating Program Summary
The Water Division Operating Program budgets are summarized in Table B. The summary
reflects the operating program base budget amounts for FY 2016-17. The most significant
change can be seen in the Source of Supply program due to the cost increase for the full
allocation of Nacimiento water supply. A Significant Operating Budget Change request is before
the City Council for approval and incorporated in these assumptions.
Water Operating Programs
Adopted 2016-17
Budget
2016-17 Budget
Supplement Variance
Water Admin & Engineering 724,561$ 846,858$ 17%
Source of Supply 8,718,966$ 9,771,026$ 12%
Water Treatment Plant 2,505,881$ 2,771,220$ 11%
Water Distribution 1,506,734$ 1,397,945$ -7%
Utilities Services 621,189$ 721,421$ 16%
Total Operating Budget 14,077,331$ 15,508,470$ 10%
5
1.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. Debt Service Summary
The Water fund’s debt service obligations are summarized in Table D below.
The Nacimiento Water Supply Project debt financing is facilitated through the County of San
Luis Obispo, and the City’s share of the debt service costs are accounted for as an operating
expense in the Source of Supply operating program budget. No new debt financing is proposed
in 2016-17.
Water
Admin
Source of
Supply
Water
Treatment
Water
Distribution
Utilities
Services Total
2015-16 $763,963.10 $8,640,298.$2,535,336.$1,437,924.$814,981.00 $14,192,502
2016-17 $846,858.00 $9,771,026.$2,771,220.$1,397,945.$721,421.00 $15,508,470
Variance 110.85%113.09%109.30%97.22%88.52%109.27%
$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
$18,000,000.00
Operating Budgets
Table D. Debt Service Summary
Adopted 2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Supplement
2012 Water Revenue Bonds 572,000.00$ 572,000.00$
2006 Water Revenue Bonds 1,030,948.00$ 1,030,948.00$
State Revolving Fund - Water Reuse 525,457.00$ 525,457.00$
2009 Public Safety Radio System Upgrade 36,801.00$ 36,801.00$
2009 Public Saftey Communication Center 28,586.00$ 28,586.00$
Total Debt Service 2,193,792.00$ 2,193,792.00$
6
1.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT A
FY 2016-17 WATER FUND
FUND ANALYSIS
FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
7
1.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - WATER FUND
2015-16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Mid-Year Current
Budget Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Water Sales
Water Service Charges 15,224,450 15,224,450 15,299,972 16,065,000 16,547,000 17,208,900 17,897,300
Water Base Charges 1,420,800 1,420,800 1,916,736 2,403,072 2,691,000 2,880,000 2,995,200
Sales to Other Agencies 845,000 845,000 850,000 892,500 919,300 956,100 994,300
Late Charges 150,000 150,000 151,050 152,107 153,172 154,244
Credit Card Fees (80,000)(85,000)(85,595)(86,194)(86,798)(87,405)
Development Impact Fees 1,300,000 1,500,000 800,000 809,600 819,300 831,200 843,300
AB 939 Reimbursement 134,300 134,300 135,000 138,800 142,700 147,000 151,400
Account Set-up Fees 105,800 105,800 100,000 100,700 101,400 102,100 102,800
Connection Charges and Meter Sales 46,000 58,659 71,000 71,500 72,000 72,500 73,000
Other Revenues 101,700 33,007 50,000 50,400 50,800 51,200 51,600
Total Revenues 19,228,050 19,442,016 19,337,708 20,647,027 21,459,413 22,365,375 23,225,739
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Utilities 14,169,442 14,192,503 15,508,470 15,162,081 15,337,460 15,580,246 15,474,913
General Government 1,797,668 1,797,668 2,038,842 2,348,856 2,443,179 2,162,975 2,204,295
Total Operating Programs 15,967,110 15,990,171 17,547,312 17,510,937 17,780,639 17,743,221 17,679,208
Capital Improvement Plan 6,878,369 6,878,369 2,958,493 7,329,642 2,253,867 4,207,145 3,663,200
Debt Service 2,192,461 2,192,461 2,193,791 2,561,914 2,565,217 2,520,432 2,525,315
Total Expenditures 25,037,940 25,061,001 22,699,596 27,402,493 22,599,723 24,470,798 23,867,723
16,645,250 16,645,250 17,216,708 18,468,072 19,238,000 20,088,900 20,892,500
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Expenditure Adjustment 34,737 35,431 36,140 36,863
PERS employer rate increase (35,500)(38,300)(39,300)(10,700)
Projected Debt Proceeds 5,000,000
Total Other Sources (Uses)0 0 0 4,999,237 (2,869)(3,160)26,163
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (5,809,890)(5,618,985)(3,361,888)(1,756,229)(1,143,178)(2,108,583)(615,821)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 21,857,589 21,857,589 16,238,604 12,876,716 11,120,487 9,977,308 7,868,725
Adj to balance to CAFR
Working Capital, End of Year 16,047,699 16,238,604 12,876,716 11,120,487 9,977,308 7,868,725 7,252,904
Reserve (20% of operating)3,193,400 3,198,000 3,509,500 3,502,200 3,556,100 3,548,600 3,535,800
Rate Stabilization Reserve (10% of sales revenue)900,000 900,000 1,615,000 1,695,800 1,746,600 1,816,500 1,889,200
CJPIA Designated Reserve 131,406 131,406
Unreserved Working Capital 11,822,893 12,009,198 7,752,216 5,922,487 4,674,608 2,503,625 1,827,904
1.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS - WATER FUND
CATEGORIES 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Utilities Service Fees CPI Projections 2.3%0.7%0.7%0.7%0.7%0.7%
Nacimiento Payment for Operating and Maintenance & Reserves $1,854,163 $2,962,738 $2,752,700 $2,820,700 $2,890,400 $2,961,900
Nacimiento Payment for SLO County Debt Service $4,698,580 $4,781,194 $4,779,385 $4,778,440 $4,738,137 $4,741,205
Debt Service - 2012 Water Revenue Bonds $568,600 $572,000 $569,600 $571,600 $567,800 $568,400
Debt Service - 2006 Water Revenue Bonds $1,032,748 $1,030,948 $1,033,548 $1,035,348 $1,030,873 $1,035,293
Debt Service - State Revolving Fund Loan - Water Reuse Project $525,457 $525,457 $525,457 $525,457 $525,457 $525,457
Projected Debt Service - 2021 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Projected Debt Service-Reservoir Replacement $0 $0 $367,909 $367,909 $367,909 $367,909
Debt Service - 2009 Public Safety Radio System Upgrade $37,055 $36,801 $36,841 $36,408 $0 $0
Debt Service - 2009 Public Safety Communications Center $28,600 $28,586 $28,560 $28,496 $28,394 $28,256
Revenue Debt Coverage 122%80%311%130%170%198%
Net Revenues/ Debt Service 0.92 0.47 2.93 1.14 1.52 1.89
Water Service Rate Increase (Volumetric only-does not include base rate
and drought surcharge in 2014-2018)0.0%0.0%5.0%3.0%4.0%4.0%
Tier 1 Drought Surcharge 0.98$ 1.10$ 1.18$ 1.23$
Tier 2 Drought Surcharge 1.23$ 1.37$ 1.48$ 1.54$
Water Base Rate 7.63$ 9.98$ 12.33$ 12.82$ 13.40$ 13.94$
Water Base Fee Drought surcharge 0.37$ 0.74$ 1.11$ 1.15$
1.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
Water Treatment
Major Facility Maintenance 202,425 170,000 290,000 160,000 160,000
Air Compressor Replacements (design)
Air Compressor Replacements (construction)
Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Study)14,935
Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Design)35,000
Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Const)100,000
Floating Cover Replacements
IT - MP2 Upgrade
Wash Water Tank #2 (Design)15,000
Wash Water Tank #2 (Const)170,000
Reservoir 2 Replacement (Study)65,600
Reservoir 2 Replacement (Design)184,400
Reservoir 2 (Construction)5,000,000
Reservoirt 2 Replacement ( CM)300,000
Reservoir 1 Replacement-design
Fleet Replacement: Compact Pickup
Fleet Replacement: Service Body Truck 59,100
Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Study)20,000
Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Design)80,000
Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Const)
Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Const Mgmt)
Treatment Plant Ozone Generation Upgrade 700,000
SCADA Upgrade with Controllers
Fleet Replacement Forecast
Total 676,460 340,000 5,590,000 160,000 160,000 800,000
Water Distribution
WATER SERVICES
1.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWATER SERVICES
Distribution System Improvements - Pipelines 1,860,000
Mt View, Hill, West, Lincoln, etc.-Design 125,000
Mt View, Hill, West, Lincoln, etc.-Const 1,255,000
Mt View, Hill, West, Lincoln, etc.-Const Mgmt 125,000
Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito, etc - Design 125,000
Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito, etc - Const 1,258,000
Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito, etc - Const Mgmt 125,000
Craig, Christina, Jaycee, etc -Design 135,000
Craig, Christina, Jaycee, etc -Const 1,350,000
Craig, Christina, Jaycee, etc -Const Mgmt 135,000
Patricia, Highland, La Entrada - Design 127,000
Patricia, Highland, La Entrada - Construction 1,270,000
Patricia, Highland, La Entrada - Construction Mgmt 127,000
Serrano Zone Consolidation-(Study & Design)100,000
Serrano Zone Consolidation Phase 1 (Const)1,000,000
Serrano Zone Consolidation Phase 1 (Constr Mgmt)100,000
Serrano Zone Consolidation Phase 2 (Const)1,000,000
Serrano Zone Consolidation Phase 2 (Constr Mgmt)100,000
Trench Repairs 126,330 150,000 180,000 180,000 180,000
Raise Valve Covers 125,765 0 25,000 25,000 25,000
Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes 82,500 82,500 85,000 87,500 90,000
Fire Hydrants and Parts 25,000 25,000 25,000 30,000 30,000
16" Waterline Replacement (Design)
16" Waterline Replacement (Construction)-Phase I
16" Waterline Replacement (Construction)-Phase 2 1,544,847
Fel Mar Pump Station (Design)
Fel Mar Pump Station Const)
Ferrini Zone Consolidation (Design)
Ferrini Zone Consolidation (Const)
Ferrini Zone Consolidation (Const Mgmt)
1.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWATER SERVICES
Slack Tank Consolidation (Design)100,000
Slack Tank Consolidation (Const)
Slack Tank Consolidation (Const Mgmt)
Edna Saddle Water Tank Recoating
Fire Lateral Reimbursement
Tank Maintenance (Study)20,000 75,000
Tank Maintenance (Design)42,500
Tank Maintenance (Construction)600,000 675,000
Tank Maintenance (CM)130,000 70,000
IT - CityWorks Upgrade 30,450
Fleet Replacement: Portable Generators (50% share)152,900
Distribution Pump Station Upgrades
Water Pump Station Analysis 4,096
Fleet replacement: Pickup 28,500
Fleet replacement: Caterpillar Backhoe Loader & Attachments 136,000
Fleet replacement: Portable vacuum pump 112,000
Fleet replacement: Service body truck 110,700
Extended Cab Pickup Truck 34,500 28,500
Fleet Replacement Forecast
Sinsheimer Parking Resurface
Street Reconstruction 2013
Sinsheimer Parking Resurface
Monterey Waterline Replacement (Design)
Monterey Waterline Replacement (Const)27,385
Monterey Waterline Replacement (CM)
1.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWATER SERVICES
Foothill/Chorro PRV Replacement (Design)4,996
Foothill/Chorro PRV Replacement (Const)86,950
Total 4,280,220 1,112,500 1,695,000 2,034,000 3,926,000 2,863,200
Water Customer Service
Fleet replacement: Compact Pickups 57,000
Total 0 0 0 0 57,000 0
Utilities Services
Fleet replacement: Compact Pickup 25,256 25,200
Total 25,256 25,200 0 0 0 0
Administration and Engineering
879 Morro Refurbishment 75,330
Groundwater (Study)70,000
Groundwater (DN)250,000
Groundwater (CN)1,150,000
Fleet replacement: Sedan 33,700
Corporation Yard Security-PW Project
Mobile Equipment Lifts & Safety Stands
Total 75,330 1,470,000 0 33,700 0 0
General assumption for future planning purposes
Total Water Services CIP Requests 5,057,265 2,947,700 7,285,000 2,227,700 4,143,000 3,663,200
Shared Information Technology
Fox Pro Replace
Laserfiche
UB System Upgrade 1,667
City Website Upgrade (4% share)
Water Reuse Automation Impr 53,921
Wirless Net Infrastructure Replacement
Telemetry System Upgrade (Design)70,796
Telemetry System Upgrade - Construction 1,488,369
1.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWATER SERVICES
Virtual Private Network (VPN) Replacement 9,028
Network Firewalls 15,259
Network Security Upgrades
GPS System Replacement
Network Switching Infrastructure Replacement 14,140
Radio Handhelds and Mobile Replacements 24,282
VM Infrastructure 8,945 8,945
Server Operating System 1,848
VoIP 20,360
Finance System Replacement
Document Management System
Tait Radio System 24,282
Office Application Software Replacement 12,400 16,773
UPS Battery Replacement 1,885 1,885
Enterprise Storage Growth
Storage Capacity Upgrade and Replacement
Total Share of Information Technology CIP 1,629,037 10,793 44,642 26,167 64,145 0
Completed Projects 192,067
TOTAL WATER FUND CAPITAL PLAN 6,878,369 2,958,493 7,329,642 2,253,867 4,207,145 3,663,200
1.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment1.a: a - 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Analysis (1368 : 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund Review)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Dave Hix, Utilities Deputy Director, Wastewater
Brigitte Elke, Utilities Business Manager
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund financials; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund budget, with final
action with the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Wastewater Division is responsible for collecting wastewater from businesses and
residences and transporting it to the Water Resource Recovery Facility where it is treated to high
standards for reuse in the creek system and as an irrigation water source. Additionally, solids
treatment creates and utilizes energy while the biosolids it creates are beneficially reused for
their nutrients. Protection of the entire wastewater system, its staff, and the environment is
provided through the Environmental Programs group in compliance with the federal pretreatment
program. The Water Quality Laboratory team serves the City related to water quality studies,
data, testing, and analyses to ensure appropriate regulatory compliance and operational decision-
making. Operating, maintaining, and installing and/or replacing the hundreds of millions of
dollars of wastewater infrastructure assets is the responsibility of this entire team of
professionals.
Ongoing water conservation has resulted in significant reductions in indoor water use resulting in
decreased wastewater flows to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). Designed to treat
5.1 million gallons per day (MGD), the WRRF is currently processing 2.74 MGD for 2015 with
summer flows being as low as 2.15 MGD. Low flows have resulted in some increased
maintenance in the wastewater collection system and challenging treatment situations at the
WRRF.
The WRRF completed its energy efficiency project, a public/private partnership with PG&E, in
December 2015. A component of the project is presently generating about 25% of the facility’s
energy requirements. In January 2016, the project was awarded project of the year in the
environmental class from the American Public Works Association local chapter. Also in
December 2015, the design consultant for the WRRF project was hired and the draft
2
Packet Pg. 30
Environmental Impact Report was released in April 2016 with completion scheduled for early
summer. Design of the WRRF project continues. The wastewater collection system
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy was approved by City Council in January 2016. This strategy
document is a valuable tool that includes an operating model of the collection system, prioritized
capital improvement list, and recommendations such as a strategy to control inflow and
infiltration.
The FY 2016-17 budget approved within the 2015-17 Financial Plan provides the basis for the
review of the Sewer Enterprise Fund for this report. All assumptions made during the preparation
of the Financial Plan were reviewed and necessary updates and adjustments incorporated.
As outlined in the FY 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis, which forecasts the financial
position of the fund through 2020-21 the City will be able to:
1. Continue to deliver safe and reliable wastewater services to the community within the FY
2016-17 adopted sewer rates; and
2. Maintain its operation in FY 2016-17 within approved budget levels without any
adjustments; and
3. Continue capital improvement projects to maintain the community’s wastewater
infrastructure assets; and
4. Maintain a relatively healthy working capital balance and revenue plan while working to
position the Fund for financing terms needed for the upcoming WRRF project.
FY 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis Report
The FY 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund analysis report (Attachment A) includes the details of
assumptions used to complete the review, changes in financial position, and an update on major
capital activities.
Revenue Update
Annually, the Utilities Department captures residential water use during December, January, and
February to establish the winter water use average and the sewer cap for the upcoming fiscal
year. Analysis of the use data indicates a further drop in indoor water consumption due to
ongoing extraordinary conservation efforts driven by the severe drought conditions. The Sewer
Fund is expecting a revenue drop of $1.4 million dollars as the average sewer cap will drop from
five to four units. No immediate changes to rates adopted on June 23, 2015 are recommended but
the revenue shortfall will require an adjustment to projected future rate increases in order to
adequately position the fund to support the debt service required for the WRRF project and other
critical capital projects.
2
Packet Pg. 31
Revenue Category
Adopted 2016-
17 Budget
2016-17 Budget
Supplement Variance
Customer Sales 15,668,900$ 14,300,000$ -9%
Agency Sales 942,800$ 875,000$ -7%
Late Charges 150,000$ 150,000$ 0%
Credit Card Fees (80,000)$ (85,000)$ 6%
Dev. Impact Fees 250,000$ 300,000$ 20%
Industrial User Charges 71,100$ 70,000$ -2%
Meter Sales 47,100$ 71,000$ 51%
Other Revenue 146,300$ 202,500$ 38%
Investments 50,000$ 50,000$ 0%
Total 17,246,200$ 15,933,500$ -8%
The adopted sewer rate for 2016-17 reflects a 3% increase, effective July 1, 2016.
Rate Category 2015-16 2016-17
Base Fee $8.32 $8.57
Volume Charge $9.17 $9.44
Increase on average household of 4 units* $45.00 $46.33
Average Increase $1.33
* average based on winter water use cap.
Operating Program Update
The Sewer Enterprise Fund includes seven operating programs, all of which are on track with
their work programs within allocated resources. No increases or changes from the assumptions
made in the 2015-17 Financial Plan for are recommended for FY 2016-17.
Sewer Operating Programs
Adopted 2016-
17 Budget
2016-17 Budget
Supplement Variance
WW Administration 797,829$ 956,406$ 20%
WW Collection 1,232,041$ 1,046,199$ -15%
WW Pretreatment 280,210$ 258,694$ -8%
Water Reclamation Facility 3,625,551$ 3,582,761$ -1%
Water Quality Laboratory 750,164$ 775,609$ 3%
Utilities Services 416,841$ 479,174$ 15%
Total Operating Expenditure 7,102,636$ 7,098,843$ -0.05%
Capital Improvement Program Update
The recommended program will stay within approved overall funding for the fiscal year. Some
projects identified in the 2015-17 approved capital program for 2016-17 are being rescheduled.
Construction bids are coming in higher and engineer’s estimates have been increased to reflect
this change. The 2015-17 Financial Plan reflected the Foothill Lift Station replacement in 2016-
17. Funding of this facility has been adjusted to reflect new estimates. Below is a list of projects
and changes recommended to the previously approved funding.
2
Packet Pg. 32
Account Title
FY 2016-17
per 2015-17
FP Adoption
FY 2016-17
Financial
Supplemental
Budget Variance
Master Coll Sys Improv
CN-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, trench &
pipe bursting $630,000 $0 ($630,000)
CM-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, trench
& pipe bursting $60,000 $0 ($60,000)
Lift Stations
CN-Foothill Lift Station $1,100,000 $1,600,000 $500,000
CM-Foothill Lift Station $125,000 $155,000 $30,000
WRRF Upgrade
Program Mgmt-WRRf Upgrade $1,500,000 $0 ($1,500,000)
CN-WRRF Upgrade $68,032,000 $0 ($68,032,000)
CM-WRRF Upgrade $6,000,000 $0 ($6,000,000)
WRRF Major Maintenance $155,000 $105,000 ($50,000)
TOTAL $77,602,000 $1,860,000 ($75,742,000)
Project Highlights
Energy Efficiency Project
The Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) completed its energy efficiency project, a
public/private partnership with PG&E, in December 2015. A component of the project is
presently generating about 25% of the facility’s energy requirements.
Water Resource Recovery Facility Project & Collection System
In December 2015, the design consultant for the WRRF project was hired and the draft
Environmental Impact Report was released in April 2016 with completion scheduled for early
summer. Design of the overall WRRF Project continues. The wastewater collection system
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy was approved by City Council in January 2016. This strategy
document is a valuable tool that includes an operating model of the collection system, prioritized
capital improvement list, and recommendations such as a strategy to control inflow and
infiltration.
Wastewater Collection
The California/Higuera/Marsh sewer replacement was recently completed. The project replaces
mainlines that are over 100 years old and redirects to the flow that retires two vulnerable clay
lines under the railroad.
2
Packet Pg. 33
FISCAL IMPACT
While a revenue loss of $1.4 million is anticipated and cost estimates for capital projects
increased (requiring the re-programming of certain capital projects), the Sewer Fund will be able
to fund 2016-17 operations without immediate changes to the adopted rates or utilization of the
rate stabilization reserve. However, rate assumptions (Exhibit A) have been adjusted in outer
years to keep the fund healthy into the future.
Attachments:
2.a a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis
2
Packet Pg. 34
ATTACHMENT 1
FY 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
FINANCIAL SECTION
2.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW
II. 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT: FY 2016-17 BUDGET
A. Revenue Summary
B. Operating Programs
D. Debt Service Summary
SEWER FUND ANALYSIS – FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
A.1. Changes in Financial Position
A.2. Projection Assumptions
A.3. Capital Improvement Plan
2
2.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents the financial condition of the Sewer Enterprise Fund, based on the 2015-17
Financial Plan Supplement: FY 2016-17 Financial Supplemental Budget and includes revenue,
operating, and debt service information. The data incorporates regulatory requirements,
infrastructure maintenance, and adopted City financial policies and the fund’s standing
considering the assumptions made for the 2015-7 Financial Plan Supplement.
II. SEWER FUND REVENUE
A. Revenue Summary
The Sewer Fund’s 2016-17 projected revenues are summarized below together with 2015-16
estimates:
Table A. Revenue Summary
Original Revised Original Revised
Budget Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance
Investment & Property Revenue 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 0
Sewer Service Charges 13,748,145 13,748,145 - 14,160,600 12,749,800 (1,410,800)
Sewer Base Fee 1,464,400 1,464,400 1,508,300 1,550,200 41,900
Sales to Cal Poly 915,300 915,300 - 942,800 875,000 (67,800)
Development Impact Fees 350,000 600,000 250,000 250,000 300,000 50,000
Industrial User Charges 69,500 69,500 - 71,100 70,000 (1,100)
Account Set-up Fees 105,800 105,800 - 108,200 100,000 (8,200)
Connection Charges & Meter Sales 46,000 46,000 - 47,100 71,000 23,900
Other Revenues 107,200 107,200 - 108,100 102,500 (5,600)
Total 16,856,345 17,106,345 250,000 17,246,200 15,868,500 (1,377,700)
2015-16 2016-17
The continued drought conditions and the water conservation efforts by the community are now
effecting indoor water use and the expected sewer fund revenue. The evaluation of the 2015-16
winter cap period revealed a drop from an average of five units used during December, January,
and February to four units. The effects are reflected in the revenue assumption for sewer service
charges with an estimated drop of $1.4 million. The revenue assumptions shown for the five-year
forecast are based on that new base. Assumed rate increases (Exhibit A.2) were adjusted to keep
the fund healthy over the forecast period.
3
2.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVENUE COMPARISON 2015-16 to 2016-17
With the 2015-17 Financial Plan, the City Council adopted rates applicable to both years of the
Financial Plan in accordance with Proposition 218 noticing. The approved rates approved a
three-percent increase effective July 1, 2015. The new rates, applicable July 1, 2016 are:
Rate Category 2015-16 2016-17
Base Fee $8.32 $8.57
Volume Charge $9.17 $9.44
The following table compares the FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 monthly cost for residential
customers based on the average sewer cap for each year and approved sewer service rates.
80%
10%
6% 2% 2%
2016-17
Sewer
Charges
Base Fee
Sales to
Agencies
Impact
Fees
Other
revenue
80%
9%
5% 4%
2% 2015-16
Sewer
Charges
Base Fee
Sales to
Agencies
Impact
Fees
Other
revenue
4
2.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cal Poly Rates: Based on the 2012 agreement between the City and Cal Poly, applicable rates
for Cal Poly are increasing in 2016-17. Cal Poly’s rate is established using a methodology based
on the University previously making capital contributions to the Water Resource Recovery
Facility upgrade projects, as well as collection system-related improvements. The debt related to
these projects has now been retired and the University’s rates will continue to increase until they
reach 100% of the City rate. Effective July 1, 2016, Cal Poly’s rate will go from 94% to 97% of
the City rate. Cal Poly will be paying the full rate by 2017-18. However, based on current usage
patterns, the overall revenue from Cal Poly is expected to decrease due to ongoing conservation
efforts at the university.
B. Operating Program Summary
The Sewer Fund Operating Program budgets are summarized in Table B. The summary reflects
the operating program base budget amounts for FY 2016-17. There are no changes to the
assumed cost from the 2015-17 Financial Plan adoption for the overall budget. However, the
distribution of funding changed between programs with MOU adjustments taking effect within
the individual programs.
Sewer Operating Programs
Adopted 2016-17
Budget
2016-17 Budget
Supplement Variance
WW Administration 797,829$ 956,406$ 20%
WW Collection 1,232,041$ 1,046,199$ -15%
WW Pretreatment 280,210$ 258,694$ -8%
Water Reclamation Facility 3,625,551$ 3,582,761$ -1%
Water Quality Laboratory 750,164$ 775,609$ 3%
Utilities Services 416,841$ 479,174$ 15%
Total Operating Expenditure 7,102,636$ 7,098,843$ -0.05%
Comparison Average Single Family Residential Sewer Customer Monthly Bill
2015-16 2016-17
AWWU SFR “Sewer Cap”: 5-Units 4-Units
Rates Average Bill Rates Average Bill
Base Charge: $8.32 $8.32 $8.57 $8.57
Volume Charge (Sewer Cap x Rate): $9.17/unit $45.85 $9.44/ unit $37.76
Total $54.18 $46.33
5
2.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. Debt Service Summary
The Sewer Fund’s debt service obligations are summarized in Table D.
As the Water Resource Recovery Facility project is moving through the EIR and design process,
the financial assumptions now place a first debt payment in FY 2017-18.
WW
Admin
WW Pre-
Treatment
WW
Collection WRRF WQL Utilities
Services Total
2015-16 $920,026.$272,150.$1,218,42 $3,672,95 $751,770.$424,092.$7,259,42
2016-17 $956,406.$258,694.$1,046,19 $3,582,76 $775,609.$479,174.$7,098,84
Variance 103.95%95.06%85.86%97.54%103.17%112.99%97.79%
$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$7,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
Operating Budgets
Table D. Debt Service Summary
Adopted 2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Supplement
WRRF Energy Efficiency Project 618,544$ 618,544$
Tank Farm Lift Station - Private Placement 184,500$ 184,500$
Tank Farm Lift Station - I-Bank 558,500$ 558,500$
2009 Public Safety Radio System Upgrade 41,800$ 41,800$
2009 Public Saftey Communication Center 32,500$ 32,500$
Total Debt Service 1,435,844$ 1,435,844$
6
2.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
Attachment 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT A
FY 2016-17 SEWER FUND
FUND ANALYSIS
FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
7
2.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - SEWER FUND
2015-16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Mid-Year Current
Budget Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Service Charges
Customer Sales
Sewer Service Charges 13,748,145 13,748,145 12,749,800 13,103,300 13,496,400 13,901,300 14,318,300
Sewer Base Fee 1,464,400 1,464,400 1,550,200 1,596,700 1,644,600 1,693,900 1,744,700
Sales to Cal Poly 915,300 915,300 875,000 901,300 928,300 956,100 984,800
Late Charges 150,000 150,000 150,000 151,050 152,107 153,172 155,470
Credit Card Fees (80,000)(80,000)(85,000)(85,595)(86,194)(86,798)(88,099)
Development Impact Fees 600,000 600,000 300,000 253,000 256,000 259,700 265,600
Account Set-Up Fees 105,800 105,800 100,000 100,700 101,400 102,100 103,600
Industrial User Charges 69,500 69,500 70,000 70,500 71,000 71,500 72,600
Connection Charges and Meter Sales 46,000 46,000 71,000 71,500 72,000 72,500 73,600
Other Revenue 37,200 37,200 37,500 37,800 38,100 38,400 39,000
Total Revenue 17,106,345 17,106,345 15,868,500 16,250,255 16,723,713 17,211,875 17,719,570
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Utilities 7,220,332 7,259,425 7,098,843 7,249,248 7,415,005 7,597,301 7,711,260
General Government 1,576,026 2,069,099 2,081,360 2,392,224 2,487,415 2,208,095 2,293,385
Total Operating Programs 8,796,358 9,328,524 9,180,203 9,641,473 9,902,419 9,805,396 10,004,645
General Carryover
Capital Improvement Plan 19,997,912 20,093,672 4,023,275 78,278,349 3,275,305 1,725,743 2,238,700
Debt Service 1,437,573 1,437,573 1,435,587 6,180,663 6,178,077 6,134,285 6,136,287
Total Expenditures 30,231,843 30,859,769 14,639,065 94,100,485 19,355,801 17,665,424 18,379,632
Other Sources (Uses)
Other Operating Adjustments (109,334) (111,521) (113,751) (116,026)
PERS employer rate increase (18,200)(34,900)(35,800)(9,800)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 74,000,000
Other Sources (Uses)(443,073)
Total Other Sources (Uses)(443,073)0 0 73,872,466 (146,421)(149,551)(125,826)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (13,568,571)(13,753,424)1,229,435 (3,977,764)(2,778,508)(603,100)(785,888)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 27,050,422 27,071,809 13,318,385 14,547,820 10,570,056 7,791,548 7,188,448
Working Capital, End of Year 13,481,851 13,318,385 14,547,820 10,570,056 7,791,548 7,188,448 6,402,559
Reserve (20% of operating)1,759,300 1,865,700 1,836,000 1,928,300 1,980,500 1,961,100 2,000,900
Rate Stabilization Reserve (5% of sales)733,200 733,200 681,200 700,200 721,200 742,900 765,200
CJPIA designated Reserve 135,062 135,062
Unreserved Working Capital 10,854,289 10,584,423 12,030,620 7,941,556 5,089,848 4,484,448 3,636,459
2.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS - SEWER FUND
CATEGORIES 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Utilities Service Fees CPI Projections 2.3%0.7%0.7%0.7%0.7%1.5%
Debt Service - 2009 Public Safety Radio System Upgrade $42,033 $41,800 $41,800 $41,300 $0 $0
Debt Service - 2009 Public Safety Communications Center $32,442 $32,500 $32,400 $32,400 $32,300 $32,100
Debt Service - I-Bank Loan for Tank Farm Lift Station $559,328 $558,500 $557,500 $556,600 $555,600 $554,500
Debt Service - Private Placement for Tank Farm Lift Station $185,020 $184,500 $183,700 $182,700 $181,500 $185,000
Debt Service - Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade $0 $0 $4,746,900 $4,746,900 $4,746,900 $4,746,900
Debt Service - WRRF Energy Efficiency Project (15 Years)$618,720 $618,544 $618,363 $618,177 $617,985 $617,787
Development Impact Fee Growth Rate 0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.75%0.75%
Working Capital Requirement @ 20% of operating expenditures $1,865,705 $1,836,000 $1,928,300 $1,980,500 $1,961,100 $1,992,700
Debt Service Coverage at 110% of Net Revenues (2)499%445%103%106%117%122%
Sewer Service Rate Increase 4.6%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
2.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Review)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SEWER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Budget PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
Wastewater Collection
Collection System Improvements 2,310,912
DN-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, trench & pipe bursting 60,000
CN-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, trench & pipe bursting 630,000
CM-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, trench & pipe bursting 60,000
DN-Walnut, Morro, Jeffery, etc trench & pipe bursting 80,000
CN-Walnut, Morro, Jeffery, etc trench & pipe bursting 1,100,000
CM-Walnut, Morro, Jeffery, etc trench & pipe bursting 80,000
DN-Serrano, Bressi, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 50,000
CN-Serrano, Bressi, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 600,000
CM-Serrano, Bressi, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 50,000
DN-Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting 100,000
CN-Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting 1,215,000
CM-Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting 100,000
Inflow/Infiltration Reduction 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Raise Manholes 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Telemetry System Improvements 100,000
CN-Sewerline Improvement 09-10
CM-Sewerline Improvement 09-10
Collection System Infrastructure Replacement Strategy 456
Marsh/Higuera/California 999,397
Laguna Lift Station
Design
Construction
Construction Management
Calle Joaquin Lift Station
Design 40,761
Construction 2,390,389
Construction Management 295055
Madonna Lift Station
WASTEWATER SERVICES
2.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SEWER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Budget PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWASTEWATER SERVICES
Design 620,454
Construction
Construction Management
Margarita Lift Station
Easement Acquisition 50,000
Design 55,355
Construction 800,000
Construction Management 100,000
Foothill Lift Station
Easement Acquisition 50,000
Design 123,907
Construction 1,600,000
Construction Management 155,000
Buckley Lift Station
Design
Construction
Construction Management
Airport Lift Station
Study 50,000
Design 100,000
Construction 1,400,000
Construction Management 150,000
Silver City Lift Station
Study
Design 100,000
Construction 1,400,000
Construction Management 150,000
Sewerline Repl Rachel 941
Sewerline Repl Stafford 10,287
Marsh St Siphon (PW project)39,978 240,000
2.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SEWER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Budget PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWASTEWATER SERVICES
SY-JENNIFER RR/HIG-MARSH 23,379
DN-SANTA ROSA SWRLINE REPL
CN-SANTA ROSA SWRLINE REPL
CM-Santa Rosa Sewerline Repl
RR Safety Trail Hath/Taft
SCADA Upgrade Integration 23,932
Roadway Sealing 2014
IT - CityWorks 23,454
Fleet Particulate Matter Trap Retrofit
Fleet Replacement: 1/2 Ton Pickup
Fleet Replacement: Hydro-Cleaner 375,000
Fleet Replacement: Portable Generators (50% share)152,900
Equipment Replacement: Generator (50% share)
Fleet Replacement: CCTV Van 169,100
Fleet Replacement: 1 1/2 Ton Service Trucks 144,000
Fleet Replacement: Portable Sewage Pump 36,900
Fleet Replacement: Caterpillar Mini Escavator (pooled)78,000
Total Collection 8,380,658 2,510,900 2,545,000 2,983,000 1,250,000 1,315,000
Water Resource Recovery Facility
Major Maintenance 1,235,735 105,000 - - 875,000
Emergency Dig - Chloride Leak
WRRF Energy Efficiency
Design 1,325
Construction 1,388,503
WRRF Upgrade
Study/Environmental 633,116
Program Management 2,114,481 1,500,000
Design 5,999,918 1,300,000
Construction
2.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SEWER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Budget PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWASTEWATER SERVICES
Infrastructure 20,156,800
Disinfection 13,860,800
Nutrient Removal 19,214,400
Contingency 13,300,000
Flood Control 1,500,000
Construction Management 6,000,000
WRRF Fiber Optic Impr
Digester 2 Cleaning
WRF Sludge Bed
WRRF Cooling Towers
IT - iFix Replacement 250,000
IT - HachWims 30,000
IT - MP2 Replacement 30,000
Telemetry System Improvements
Fleet Replacement: Utility Trucks (3)36,800 57,600
Fleet Replacement: Sedan 33,000
Fleet Replacement: Sedan
Fleet Replacement: 4-Wheel Drive Loader
Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck w/Flat Bed & Crane 71,500
Fleet Replacement: Top-Kick Dump Truck (pooled)0
Fleet Replacement: Compact Pickup Truck
Fleet Replacement: Decanter Trailer 8,500
Fleet Replacement: Dump Truck
Total WRRF 11,442,879 1,405,000 75,589,600 80,000 310,000 875,000
Total without CIPs under Debt Financing
Pretreatment
Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck 39,000 25,900
Total Pretreatment 0 0 0 39,000 0 25,900
Distribution
2.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SEWER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Budget PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWASTEWATER SERVICES
Water Meters and boxes 82,500 82,500 85,000 87,500 90,000
Total Pretreatment 82,500 82,500 85,000 87,500 90,000 0
Water Quality Laboratory
Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck 22,800
Total Quality Laboratory 0 0 0 0 0 22,800
Administration and Engineering
From Creek Decom
Street Reconstruction 2013
EA-UB SYSTEM UPGRADE
Fleet Replacement: Sedan 38,500
879 Morro Refurb 82,722
Shared - Corporation Yard Security
Shared - Corporation Yard Emergency Generator
Shared - Fleet Management & Fueling System Consolidation & Replacement
Corp Yard Security-PW Project
Shared - Mobile Equipment Lifts & Safety Stands
Total Admin 82,722 0 0 38,500 0 0
1,250,000
Total Wastewater Services CIP Requests 19,988,758 3,998,400 78,219,600 3,228,000 1,650,000 2,238,700
Total Wastewater CIP without Debt Financing 8,463,380 2,510,900 2,545,000 3,060,500 1,250,000 1,363,700
Shared Information Technology
Server Operating System 4,260
VOIP 15,789
City Website Upgrade (4% share)
UB System Upgrade 1,667
Network Firewalls 8,918
Finance System Replacement
Virtual Private Network (VPN) Replacement 18,958
2.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SEWER FUND
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Budget PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSEDWASTEWATER SERVICES
Network Switching Infrastructure Replacement 27,252
Radio Handhelds and Mobile Replacements 42,960
Tait Radio System 42,960
Document Management System
Google Search Appliance Replacement
Office Application Software Replacement 9,000
VM Infrastructure 20,615 20,615
Enterprise Storage Growth
CA-FOX PRO REPLACE
CA-LASERFICHE
GPS System replacement
UPS Battery Replacement 4,345 4,345
Total Share of Information Technology CIP 15,012 24,875 58,749 47,305 75,743 0
Completed Projects 89,902
TOTAL SEWER FUND CAPITAL PLAN 20,093,672 4,023,275 78,278,349 3,275,305 1,725,743 2,238,700
2.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment2.a: a - 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund Analysis (1369 : 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
Ryan Betz, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: 2016-17 TRANSIT ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Report
(Attachment A); and
2. Conceptually approve the FY 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund budget, with the adoption
of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Approve a four-year contract with First Transit, Inc. to operate and maintain the City’s
Transit system and authorize the Mayor to execute the same; and
4. Authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to execute a one-year
agreement extension with Cal Poly for continuation of the Subsidy Agreement for Free
Fare ridership on SLO Transit; and
5. As part of Short Range Transit Plan consideration (August, 2016), bring forward final
recommendations for service changes and capital improvement investments; and
6. Approve the appropriation of grant money, in the amount of $186, 636, for the upgrade of
the SLO Transit Automatic Vehicle Location system.
DISCUSSION
Background
This report presents a review of the annual Transit Enterprise Fund for the FY 2015-16 and a
forecast for the FY 2016-17. This forecast looks at key issues and trends which could have an
impact on the overall health of the fund. In this regard, staff is pleased to report that the Transit
Fund is balanced and the revised 2016-17 budget is consistent with operating assumptions
adopted in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The fund is healthy and the assumptions have been
updated based upon changes to State revenue allocations.
The public transit industry depends significantly on State and Federal funding source to provide
service to the public. Fluctuations in the price of motor vehicle fuel over the last two years have
3
Packet Pg. 50
brought both a benefit and detriment for transit operations. On one side, the Fund receives a
benefit in the reduced operating costs; however, this is offset later on the revenue side as transit
funds derived from sales tax on motor vehicle fuel are reduced and the program receives lower
than anticipated revenues
The Transit Fund estimates move forward with caution and conservative estimates. The
projections also include provisions for the new operations contract from FY 2016-17 through FY
2019-20 with three possible additional annual extensions. The Cal Poly agreement assumes a
one year extension of the current agreement in order to consider funding needs of any Short
Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommendations. Implementation of SRTP recommendations are
anticipated beginning FY 2017-18. The delay from the anticipated FY 2016-17 implementation
is due to the extensive amount of information and analysis for both SLO Transit and RTA. In
addition, the draft recommendations have sweeping changes from current operations and Council
is scheduled to consider those recommendations and approve changes in service in the summer
of 2016.
The FY 2015-16 budget assumed a fare increase beginning in the 2016-17 to coincide with
service changes. That fare increase is now projected for the 2017-18 and will be a subject of
discussion when the SRTP is brought forward. Therefore, the rates will be discussed in the
context of overall service changes.
Below is a summary of the status of the Transit Fund:
a. The Transit Fund is in a solid position for FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17. No fare
increases are being proposed for FY 2016-17.
b. Federal grant revenue is expected to meet projections for FY 2016-17. State revenues
have been lowered to reflect recent forecasts by SLOCOG. Transportation Development
Act (TDA) funding will be down 6% and State Transportation Assistance (STA) will be
down 17% from estimated revenues in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
c. Significant working capital exists in the fund to help in annual costs and to address
funding shortfalls as state and federal funding may be lower than anticipated.
d. Options for implementing services proposed in the Short Range Transit Plan will be
presented to the City Council in Fall of FY 2016-17 with a goal of any change in service
for FY 2017-2018.
e. Some service changes from the SRTP have been considered in the five year budget
forecast. However, depending upon final approved service changes, additional revenue
from fare increases or other funding sources may be needed.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Transit Fund, in its current state, continues to ensure there is a
viable mobility option for local residents and visitors to the area. A wide range of users continue
to receive services, including the: transit-dependent, elderly, disabled, students and commuters.
Attachment A includes a full description of the Transit Fund for FY 2016-17. The remainder of
3
Packet Pg. 51
this report will briefly touch on some of the highlights of the Fund.
Transit Accomplishments in FY 2015-16
The following is a short list of highlights accomplished during FY 2015-16.
1. Ridership - It is projected that the total ridership for SLO Transit will reach near 1.2
million patrons for FY 2015-16, representing a slight increase from last year. This will be
an all-time high for SLO Transit and is likely due to the closure of the parking lots on Cal
Poly for the South Dormitory project.
2. School tripper service – Successfully initiated school tripper services from the
Downtown to SLO High School resulting in access and mobility improvements for
students and faculty. This initiative was in response for additional service and creatively
utilized a vehicle purchased for $1 from another agency and employed marketing at the
high school.
3. Sweeper Service – Implemented additional service along high demand routes,
particularly for high Cal Poly demand, to reduce and eliminate “leave behinds” and
overcrowding.
4. Funding – worked with SLOCOG and other county transit providers to address funding
issues and develop transit objectives for a countywide self-help initiative, if approved for
the fall ballot.
Transit Fund Issues
Table 1: Revenues
Revenue Category
2015-16
Budget
2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Revision Variance
Investment and Property Revenues 5,800$ 5,800$ 5,800$ 0%
From Other Governments
TDA Revenues (LTF)1,326,287$ 1,366,075$ 1,286,625$ -6%
TDA Revenues (STA)253,284$ 193,585$ 159,890$ -17%
Other Grants 15,000$ 15,000$ 175,200$ 1068%
FTA Grants 2,556,492$ 1,424,554$ 1,424,554$ 0%
Service Charges 693,596$ 724,849$ 690,381$ -5%
Other Revenues 4,600$ 4,600$ 4,600$ 0%
TOTAL REVENUES 4,855,059$ 3,734,463$ 3,747,050$ 0.3%
3
Packet Pg. 52
Federal Funding – No Proposed Changes
Staff is forecasting Federal funding to be consistent with prior projections. Federal funding
appropriations have yet to be made by Congress and could be affected by the fall elections.
Federal allocations to SLO Transit are determined each year in coordination with RTA and
SLOCOG. The 2015-16 FTA amounts shown above include $1.25 million in CMAQ funding to
assist with the replacement of three buses which have been ordered and are scheduled to a rrive in
April 2017.
State Funding – Marginal decrease
State transit funding (TDA) in the form of the Local Transit Fund (LTF) and State Transit
Assistance (STA), are projected to decrease from what was previously projected. This is due to
continual lower statewide fuel prices utilized for transit funding, as well as lower statewide sales
tax on general goods allocated to transit agencies. Fortunately, the City has built up working
capital from prior years to assist in addressing this reduced amount for next year.
Cal Poly Subsidy Agreement – Recommendation for a one-year extension
The Cal Poly Subsidy agreement plays a considerable role in the generation of local farebox and
the overall health of the Transit Fund. The current four-year subsidy agreement is set to expire
June 30th, 2016. Staff has been working with Cal Poly administration to institute a new
agreement. There are, however, issues that impact the feasibility of a long term contract at this
time. Those issues are:
The closing of the Grand Ave parking lot has caused a significant increase in Cal Poly
ridership on SLO Transit. This has created the need for additional service in order to keep
up with demand and reduced leave behinds.
The SRTP recommendations have taken longer than anticipated.
The Cal Poly Masterplan update is still underway and it is not known if major transit
needs will change.
New policies for incoming freshman and addition of more night classes may have an
effect on transit operations.
3
Packet Pg. 53
The University is assessing the feasibility of its current method of funding the transit
agreement.
Because of these issues, Staff has requested Council authorize the City Manager or her designee
to execute (when negotiations have been completed) a one-year extension with Cal Poly at 3%
for FY 2016-17. This increase is in line with the annual increase for the subsidy agreement over
the last three years. Cal Poly administration is considering this request and negotiations are
continuing. The 3% represents $12,830 in revenue. This amount is included in all fund
assumptions. Should the negotiations conclude other than anticipated staff would return to
Council for further direction.
Table 2: Expenditures
Expense Category
2015-16
Budget
2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Revised Variance
Operating Programs
Transportation 3,436,228$ 3,481,135$ 3,448,368$ -1%
General Government 277,329$ 277,329$ 288,995$ 4%
Total Operating Programs 3,713,557$ 3,758,464$ 3,737,363$ -1%
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 2,078,878$ 129,033$ 228,369$ 77%
Expenditure Savings 250,000$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,792,435$ 3,887,497$ 3,965,732$ 2.0%
Overall projected expenditures are in line with those established in the FY 2015-17 Financial
Plan. As discussed below, the Maintenance and Operations contract has been rebid and the
contract costs are slightly lower than anticipated and average out at 3% increase per year over the
four years of the contract. There will be a significant savings in FY 2015-16 ($250,000) due to
the delays in implementing the SRTP. This savings will be used in subsequent years to assist
with any state funding shortfalls discussed in the revenue section above.
Contract for Purchase Transportation Services- First Transit
Staff received approval from Council on December 15th, 2015 to release a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for the operation of a fixed-route public transit system. The contract term would be for a
base four-year contract and the possibility of three one-year extensions. As detailed in
Attachment C, SLO Transit received and evaluated seven proposals. These proposals were
ranked by a committee of local transit professionals and then compiled to the top three firms
based upon meeting the technical objectives of the RFP. These three firms were then interviewed
and ranked according to overall response to the proposal requests, management team members,
and once a final firm was determined, a review of cost proposal to make sure it was consistent
with City revenues and funding.
The City’s RFP process uses several different factors in awarding the vendor that represent the
best value in delivering services to the public. Though the cost of the service is one factor,
3
Packet Pg. 54
others include the quality of service, a history of excellent service, and an understanding of the
specific needs of the City. The final outcome of this lengthy and detailed process is the
recommendation that the SLO Transit system be awarded to First Transit, Inc. First Transit
Inc.’s proposal demonstrated a high level of quality of service, experience in delivering transit
services to its customers and was the lowest cost of the top three technically rated firms. The cost
proposal represents a moderate 4% increase in year one of the contract (the FY 2015-17 plan
projected 7%) and future year increases that result in a four year average increase of 3%. These
costs are within budget estimates of the Financial Plan.
Staff recommends Council approve the Contract for Operations and Maintenance with First
Transit, Inc. for the period of FY 2016-17 through FY 2020-21 (Attachment B)
Table 3: Final – Operations & Maintenance Contract Costs
Summary of totals FY 2016-17 Chg FY 2017-18 Chg FY 2018-19 Chg FY 2019-20 Chg
Total Annual Fixed Costs 1,182,270$ 1,186,533$ 1,227,215$ 1,259,205$
Total Annual Variable Hours Costs 978,483$ 1,012,021$ 1,049,459$ 1,084,587$
Total Annual Variable Insurance
Costs 51,355$ 52,376$ 53,414$ 54,478$
Total Annual Cost 2,212,108$ 3.93%2,250,930$ 1.75%2,330,088$ 3.52%2,398,270$ 2.93%
Four Year Avg: 3.03%
Fuel Costs
Fuel prices for the FY 2016-17 have been maintained as anticipated in the Financial Plan but it is
likely at the end of this budget the overall prices will be lower than expected. Industry forecasts
continue predict a return to historic levels. It is, however, difficult to forecast when this will
occur – hence staff take a conservative approach based upon prior market volatility. While this
low fuel price trend does account for some savings it is offset by the decrease in LTF state
assistance funds.
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
The Financial Plan assumed that SRTP recommendations for service changes could occur as
early as July 2016. This will not be the case as the SRTP is still working its way through
advisory bodies of the City and RTA. Staff expects to present the SRTP to the City Council in
August of 2016-17. As a result, the previously approved $250,000 for ongoing potential service
enhancements will not be spent in 2015-16, with a portion assumed to be expended in 2016-
2017. Based upon current draft recommendations by the consultant, and potential sweeping
changes to service delivery, the major SRTP recommended service enhancements are anticipated
not to begin until the 2017-18. Some funding will be necessary to prepare for these service
changes and the revised budget has included $100,000 for these purposes. This issue will be fully
discussed when the Council considers SRTP recommendation and appropriate start dates of
changes in service.
3
Packet Pg. 55
As identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, a significant issue for future fiscal years is the major
capital needs of the Transit Fund. Specifically, based upon recommended FTA fleet replacement
guidelines, SLO Transit should replace eight (8) regular buses, one (1) trolley, and the double
deck bus between the years 2019 to 2021. Total replacement costs for these vehicles are almost
$6,000,000, well beyond the ability of the fund to accomplish in such a short period. The
proposed budget continues to forecast for the retirement and replacement of four fixed-route
vehicles and the trolley beginning in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20. Additional recommendations
on alternatives of funding vehicle replacements will be brought forward as part of the SRTP.
Table 4: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Project Name 2016-17 Budget 2016-17 Revised Defference
Bus Stop Shelters and Bench Improvements 92,000$ 36,000$ (56,000)$
Bus Stop Equipment Projects 31,300$ -$ (31,300)$
Transit AVL System (New) -$ 186,636$ 186,636$
VM Infrastructure 4,751$ 4,751$
Server Operating System 982$ 982$
Total CIP Budget 129,033$ 228,369$ 99,336$
SLO Transit Automatic Vehicle Location Upgrade System
Staff recommends the appropriation of grant funding ($155,629 in Proposition 1B and $31,007
in TDA) for the upgrade of the Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system. The AVL system
enables staff to monitor vehicle location, using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS), in real time.
The current AVL system is no longer supported by the manufacturer which was bought out by
another company (Clever Devices). Without the continual AVL system support, SLO Transit
will eventually lose all functionality to monitor the buses in the field via the AVL system. The
updated system is necessary in order to preserve GPS monitoring. This has a direct impact on the
smartphone application used by thousands in the City, known as the SLO Bus Tracker App . The
Bus Track App is dependent on the existence of an AVL feed. The Prop. 1B funding was
approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) at its April 6, 2016 board
meeting. The Prop. 1B grant requires a 20% local match. Staff is requesting the use of TDA fo r
the 20% local match.
FISCAL IMPACT
As shown in the Transit Enterprise Fund Financial Schedule, staff is projecting FY 2015-16 to
end with a working capital balance of $2,137,819 and $1,914,938 in FY 2016-17. Although not
a policy of the fund, this projected balance ensures the Transit Fund has a minimum 20% reserve
policy and allows a cushion for unanticipated changes in operating costs for future years.
3
Packet Pg. 56
Countywide Self Help Initiative
SLOCOG continues to work towards proposing a ½ cent sales tax for transportation purposes in
the November ballot. A component of that initiative will directly assist transit providers in the
county. These funds could assist SLO Transit in meeting new service standards or help with
vehicle replacement as discussed above.
No additional funds for the self-help initiative have been included in the supplemental budget. If
approved by voters, these additional revenues will be brought back as part of the 2017-19
Financial Plan.
Attachments:
3.a a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016
3.b b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract
3.c c - 2016 Transit Operations Maintenance Contract Award Recommendation
Summary
3.d d - First Transit - SLO Transit Cost Proposal BAFO
3
Packet Pg. 57
Transit Enterprise Fund
slotransit.org
2016-17 Supplemental Budget
Transit Enterprise Fund
2016 Fund Analysis
June 14, 2016
3.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 2
2016 Transit Fund
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Contents
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3
II. TRANSIT FUND ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 4
A. Federal Funding................................................................................................................ 4
B. State Funding.................................................................................................................... 4
C. Cal Poly Subsidy Agreement ........................................................................................... 5
D. Contract for Purchase Transportation Services ................................................................ 5
E. Fuel Costs ......................................................................................................................... 6
F. General Government ......................................................................................................... 6
G. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) .................................................................................... 6
H. Farebox ............................................................................................................................. 7
I. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ...................................................................................... 7
III. FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................................................ 8
IV. EXHIBIT A – Changes in Financial Position ...................................................................... 8
3.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 3
2016 Transit Fund Report
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents a review of the annual Transit Enterprise Fund for FY 2015-16 and a
forecast for FY 2016-17. This review looks at key issues and trends which could have an impact
on the overall health of the fund. To this regard, staff is pleased to report that the Transit Fund is
balanced and the revised 2016-17 budget will be consistent with operating assumptions adopted
in the 2015-17 Financial Plan with changes.
In recognition of the transit industry’s dependency on State and Federal funding, the Transit
Fund program is still moving forward with caution and with conservative estimates. Estimates
take into account both the Cal Poly Subsidy agreement and the Operations and Maintenance
Contract. The new costs for the operations contract are accounted for as well as a 3% increase in
the Cal Poly subsidy revenue for the free fare program. Each of these programs were set to
expire at the end of FY 15-16. The new operations contract will be from FY 16-17 through FY
2019-20 with three additional extension years possible. The Cal Poly agreement assumes a one
year extension of the current agreement in order to consider funding needs of any Short Range
Transit Plan recommendations. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommendations are deferred
for a year since Council has yet to consider those recommendations and approve changes in
service. Similarly, the FY 2015-16 budget assumed a fare increase in FY 2016-17; this issue will
be discussed as part of the SRTP and for this budgeting purposes a .25 cents fare increase is
assumed starting in FY 2017-18.
a. The Transit Fund is in a solid position for FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17. No fare
increases are being proposed at this time.
b. Significant working capital exists in the fund to help in annual cost and address
funding shortfalls as state and federal funding may be lower than anticipated.
c. Federal grant revenue is expected to meet projections for FY 15-16 and FY 16-17,
while State revenues are expected to be lower than projections. TDA funding will
be down by 3% for FY 2016-17 and STA will be down approximately 15%. Staff
is able to shift previously unspent State funding to offset the reduction in revenue.
d. Options for implementing services proposed in the Short Range Transit Plan will
be presented to the City Council in Fall FY 2016-17 with a goal of any change in
service for FY 2017-18.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Transit Fund, in its current state, continues to ensure there is a
viable mobility option for local residents and visitors to the area. A wide range of users continue
to receive services, including the: transit-dependent, elderly, disabled, students and commuters.
3.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 4
This report will briefly touch on some of the accomplishments of the past year, provide information
on Transit Fund revenue sources and expenses, and address overall transportation operations.
II. TRANSIT FUND ISSUES
A. Federal Funding
Federal funding assistance is provided to SLO Transit in the form of FTA 5307 grant funds.
These Federal resources are available to urbanized areas, with a population of 50,000 or more.
The SLO Urbanized area includes populations of Cal Poly, county areas and the prison to reach
the 50,000 population criteria. 5307 funds can be used as operating assistance of transit services
or for capital expenses. The federal share for the funding of any one of these activities is not to
exceed 50 percent of operating expenses or 80 percent of capital expenses of the net project cost.
As part of the 2015-16 Mid-Year Budget Review, federal grant revenue was increased due to the
carryover funding of the replacement of three buses. Staff expects the FTA 5307 amounts in FY
16-17 to meet the original projected amount of $1,424,554 but final amounts are subject to
federal appropriations and negotiations with SLOCOG and RTA.
B. State Funding
State funding assistance is provided to SLO Transit in the form of “TDA” funds. The State’s
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding is comprised of two sources of funding for
transportation programs. The first, Local Transportation Fund (LTF), is derived from ¼ cent
collected in retail sales taxes. The second, State Transportation Assistance (STA), is derived
from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel. Both of these funds are distributed to the regions by
the State. The regional agency, SLOCOG, then allocates this amount to each of the seven cities,
the County, SLOCOG, and the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency for the San Luis
Obispo region. LTF funds are apportioned according to population numbers, for: public transit,
street/road improvements and bikeway/pedestrian facilities. STA funds are formula-based and
used for public transit purposes.
New calculation and allocation methodologies recently went into effect for the State Transit
Assistance (STA) program, altering the way distribution of these vital funds was supposed to
work. As a result of these changes implemented by the State Controller’s Office, the pool of
eligible STA recipients has been vastly expanded, resulting in reduced allocations for traditional
STA recipients and again raising questions over the definition of “transit operator” on which the
recipient pool is based. In response to these unanticipated changes, the California Transit
Association asked the Legislature to intercede and compel a temporary halt to these changes
while also working on a more durable solution to resolve ambiguity in law and ensure the rules
are well understood moving forward. In the meantime, this new interpretation and the resulting
reduced funds in STA has nominal consequences in this immediate fiscal year but can create
larger issues in later fiscal years if not addressed by new legislature.
Similarly State transit funding in the form of Local Transit Fund (LTF), has also seen a decrease
for what was previously projected. This is due to continual lower statewide fuel prices from
which the transit support tax is derived. Overall LTF revenues are expected to be $1,286,625 or
3% lower than FY 2015-16 levels. Again, the effect of reduced LTF funds has a modest
consequence in the current fiscal year but could have greater implications to the transit budget in
later fiscal years if downward trends continue.
3.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 5
Fortunately, there are two solutions. Lower fuel prices also have a corresponding effect of
resulting in a savings to the fuel cost line item. Also, because fuel prices had been higher in
previous fiscal years, we have held state funding to assist in SRTP implementation and more
state assistance was received, the Transit Fund has a developed a working capital reserve which
can now be reinvested to address current and future transit fund shortfalls. Between the fuel cost
savings and the built up working capital, these amounts will help address the reduced STA and
LTF revenues.
Table 1: Revenues
Revenue Category
2015-16
Budget
2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Revision Variance
Investment and Property Revenues 5,800$ 5,800$ 5,800$ 0%
From Other Governments
TDA Revenues (LTF)1,326,287$ 1,366,075$ 1,286,625$ -6%
TDA Revenues (STA)253,284$ 193,585$ 159,890$ -17%
Other Grants 15,000$ 15,000$ 175,200$ 1068%
FTA Grants 2,556,492$ 1,424,554$ 1,424,554$ 0%
Service Charges 693,596$ 724,849$ 690,381$ -5%
Other Revenues 4,600$ 4,600$ 4,600$ 0%
TOTAL REVENUES 4,855,059$ 3,734,463$ 3,747,050$ 0.3%
C. Cal Poly Subsidy Agreement
Cal Poly subsidy plays a considerable roll in the generation of local farebox and the overall
health of the Transit Fund. The current four-year subsidy agreement is set to expire June 30th,
2016. Staff has been working with Cal Poly administration to institute a new agreement
however, there are significant issues that are challenging to a long term contract at this time. For
example, the closing of the Grand Ave parking lot has caused a significant increase Cal Poly
ridership on SLO Transit This has created the need for additional service to be dispatched in
order to keep up with demand and reduce leave behinds. The SRTP recommendations have taken
longer than anticipated and still need Council review and approval. There is also talk of baring
incoming freshmen and sophomores and creation of more night classes which is also anticipated
to have an effect on transit operations. Because of these issues, Staff has requested a one-year
extension with Cal Poly at 3% for fiscal year 2016-17. This increase is in line with the annual
increase for the subsidy agreement over the last 3 years.
D. Contract for Purchase Transportation Services
Staff received approval from Council on December 15th, 2015 to release a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for the operation of a fixed-route public transit system within City limits and California
Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) campus. The contract term would be for a base four-
year contract and the possibility of three one-year extensions. SLO Transit received and
evaluated seven proposals, interviewed and scored the top three proposing firms and
recommends the SLO Transit system be awarded to First Transit, Inc. First Transit Inc.’s
proposal was the lowest cost of the top three technically rated firms. Cost proposal represents a
moderate 4% reduction in FY 2016-17 than what was originally budgeted and results in a four
year average increase of 3% - within budget estimates of the Financial Plan.
3.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 6
Table 2: Negotiated First Transit Best and Final Offer
E. Fuel Costs
Fuel prices for FY 2016-17 have been maintained as anticipated in the financial Plan but it is
likely that we will end lower than expected. Industry forecasts continue predict a return to
historic levels however it is difficult to forecast when this will occur – hence we take a
conservative approach based upon prior market volatility. While this low fuel price trend does
account for some savings it is offset by the decrease in LTF state assistance funds.
F. General Government
The Cost Allocation plan is a method for calculating the support expenses incurred, for time
dedicated to managing Transit related projects. The Cost Allocation Plan, which also affects the
performance of farebox ratio, is considered a Central Service Cost Allocation plan by the Federal
Transit Administration and does not require its review or certification. FY 2016-17 cost
allocation will be slightly above the original 2016-17 adopted amount of $277,300 at $288,995.
G. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
The Financial Plan assumed that SRTP recommendations for service changes could occur as
early as July 2016. This will not be the case as the SRTP is still working its way through
advisory bodies of the City and RTA. Staff expects to present the SRTP to the City Council in
August FY 2016-17. As a result, the previously approved $250,000 for ongoing potential service
enhancements will not be spent in 2015-16 and only a portion in FY 2016-17. Based upon
current draft recommendations by the consultant, and potential sweeping changes to service
delivery, SRTP recommended service enhancements are anticipated not to begin until FY 2017-
18. This issue will be fully discussed when the Council considers SRTP recommendation and
appropriate start dates of changes in service.
A significant issue for future fiscal years is the major capital needs of the Transit Fund.
Specifically, based upon recommended fleet replacement guidelines of FTA, the fleet
replacement schedule calls replacement of eight (8) regular buses, one (1) trolley, and the double
deck bus between the years 2019 to 2021. Total replacement costs for these vehicles is almost
$6,000,000 which is well beyond the ability of the fund to accomplish in such a short period. The
proposed budget continues to forecast for the retirement and replacement of four fixed-route
vehicles and the trolley in 2018 and 2019. Additional recommendations on alternatives of
funding vehicle replacements will be brought forward as part of the SRTP.
Table 3: Expenditures
3.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 7
Expense Category
2015-16
Budget
2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Revised Variance
Operating Programs
Transportation 3,436,228$ 3,481,135$ 3,448,368$ -1%
General Government 277,329$ 277,329$ 288,995$ 4%
Total Operating Programs 3,713,557$ 3,758,464$ 3,737,363$ -1%
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 2,078,878$ 129,033$ 228,369$ 77%
Expenditure Savings 250,000$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,792,435$ 3,887,497$ 3,965,732$ 2.0%
H. Farebox
State policy requires that annual farebox revenue equals 20% of the operating budget. TDA audit
for FY 2014-2015 showed a farebox ratio of 23%. The FY 2015-16 farebox ratio is projected to
be around 20% requirement with year-end savings – particularly in fuel. Projections for FY
2016-2017 indicate that we may dip below the 20% farebox recovery ratio if all expenses come
in at budget and we do not receive any additional revenue. However, historically, the Transit
Fund has had yearend operating savings that help push the ratio above the 20% minimum.
I. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
SLO Transit Automatic Vehicle Location Upgrade System
Staff recommends the appropriation of grant funding ($155,629 in Prop 1B and $31,007 in TDA)
for the upgrade of the Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system. The current AVL system is
no longer supported by the manufacturer which was bought out by another company (Clever
Devices). Without the continual AVL system support, SLO Transit will eventually lose all
functionality to monitor the buses in the field via the AVL system. The updated system is
necessary in order to preserve Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) monitoring which also has a
direct impact on the smartphone application used by thousands in the City, known as the SLO
Bus Tracker App and which is dependent on the existence of an AVL feed in order to provide .
The Prop. 1B funding was approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) at it’s April 6, 2016 board meeting. The Prop. 1B grant requires a 20% local match.
Staff is requesting the use of TDA for the 20% local match.
Table 4: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Project Name 2016-17 Budget 2016-17 Revised Defference
Bust Stop Shelters and Bench Imrovements 92,000$ 36,000$ (56,000)$
Bust Stop Equipment Projects 31,300$ -$ (31,300)$
Transit AVL System (New) -$ 186,636$ (186,636)$
VM Infrastructure 4,751$ 4,751$
Server Operating System 982$ 982$
Total CIP Budget 129,033$ 228,369$ 99,336$
3.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Page 8
III. FISCAL IMPACT
As shown in the Transit Enterprise Fund Financial Schedule, staff is projecting FY 2015-16 to
end with a working capital balance of $2,137,818 and $1,914,936 in FY 2016-17. Although not
a policy of the fund, this projected balance ensures the Transit Fund has a minimum 20% reserve
policy and allows a cushion for unanticipated changes in operating costs for future years.
IV. EXHIBIT A – Changes in Financial Position
2016-17 TRANSIT FUND
FINANCIAL SCHEDULE
Mid-Year
2015-16
Adopted
2016-17
Revised
2016-17
Projected
2017-18
Projected
2018-19
Projected
2019-20
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
From Other Governments
TDA Revenues (LTF)1,326,287 1,366,075 1,286,625 1,312,357 1,338,605 1,365,377
TDA Revenues (STA)253,284 193,585 159,890 159,890 159,890 159,890
Other Grants 15,000 15,000 175,200 15,000 15,000 15,000
FTA Grants 2,556,492 1,424,554 1,424,554 1,445,162 2,346,289 2,567,008
Service Charges 693,596 724,849 690,381 728,506 744,316 760,555
Other Revenues 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600
TOTAL REVENUES:4,855,059 3,734,464 3,747,050 3,671,316 4,614,499 4,878,230
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 3,436,228 3,481,135 3,448,368 3,475,106 3,697,522 3,780,074
General Government 277,329 277,329 288,995 288,995 288,995 288,995
Total Operating Programs 3,713,557 3,758,464 3,737,363 3,764,101 3,986,517 4,069,069
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 2,078,878 129,033 228,369 89,546 1,213,564 1,450,673
TOTAL EXPENDITURES:5,792,435 3,887,497 3,965,732 3,853,647 5,200,081 5,519,742
Other Sources (Uses)
Cashflow adjustment for working capital
Operating Transfers Out
Other (58,081)(76,041)(21,550)
Expenditures Savings 250,000 0 0 0
Contingencies (MOA Adjustments)(4,200)
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES:250,000 0 (4,200)(58,081)(76,041)(21,550)
Revenues and Other Sources
(Over/Under) (687,377)(153,033)(222,882)(240,412)(661,623)(663,062)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 2,825,195 702,876 2,137,819 1,914,938 1,674,526 1,012,902
Working Capital, End of Year Fund
Reserves
2,137,819 549,842 1,914,938 1,674,526 1,012,902 349,841
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - TRANSIT FUND
3.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment3.a: a - Transit Fund Analysis 2016 (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
SLO TRANSIT, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
This AGREEMENT is made this _______ day of ________, 2016, by and between the CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO a municipal corporation and charter city, hereinafter referred to as “CITY” and
__________________, hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR.”
WITNESSED:
WHEREAS, on ________________, 2015, the City Council authorized the release of a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the operation and maintenance of specified transportation services; and,
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR submitted a proposal dated March 9, 2016 in response to the said RFP to
provide such services in the method and manner and for the costs set forth in the proposal, subsequent
clarifications and the "Best and Final Offer" dated May 23, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that CONTRACTOR has the management and technical
personnel, expertise and other useful assets of sufficient quantity and quality to provide CITY’s
transportation services; and,
WHEREAS, the subject RFP is attached to this agreement as Exhibit B and
CONTRACTOR's proposal including the “Best and Final Offer” is attached as Exhibit C and both are by
this reference made a part of this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties do agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
CITY hereby contracts with CONTRACTOR to operate and maintain specified transportation services
upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
a. Term. Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the term of this agreement shall be
from July 1, 2016 through and including June 30, 2020 with three (3) one-year contract
extension options as indicated in Section 2.c.
b. Month-to-Month Extensions. Upon completion of the term of this agreement, including any
option term described below, CITY may, at its sole discretion, extend the term of this agreement
on a month-to-month basis up to a maximum of six (6) months. CITY shall notify
CONTRACTOR of such extensions at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date of this
agreement. The compensation rates in effect during the last monthly period of the full term of
this agreement or any option terms as applicable shall remain in effect during any such
extensions.
c. Option Terms. CITY, at its sole discretion, may extend this agreement for up to three option
terms of one year each for a maximum contract term, including the initial term, of four years
(through June 30, 2020). If the CITY decides to consider exercising option term years, the price
formulas for the extension years shall be negotiated. If the negotiation price formula are not
3.b
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
advantageous to the CITY, the CITY can have the contract go to back to RFP.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
CONTRACTOR shall provide the transportation services set forth in Exhibit A entitled "Scope of Work"
attached and by this reference made a part of this agreement. Such services shall continue to be provided
by CONTRACTOR until the "Scope of Work" is amended pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
agreement.
4. MAXIMUM OBLIGATION
CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR in consideration for its services as described herein.
The maximum cost to be paid by CITY to CONTRACTOR shall not exceed $2,212,108 in Year One;
$2,250,930 in Year Two; $2,330,088 in Year Three; and, $2,398,270 in Year Four based on the services
specified in Exhibit A.
5. PRICE FORMULA
CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR for performance of the services set forth in this agreement as
follows:
a. Payment of a fixed hourly rate per vehicle service hour of $30.06 in Year One; $31.09 in
Year Two; $32.25 in Year Three; $33.32 in Year Four. A vehicle service hour is defined as on
vehicle providing passenger service for one hour during the service hours specified herein. A
vehicle service hour shall be deemed to have commenced when a vehicle leaves CITY’s
Transit Center (located at 990 Palm Street) to provide the services required
herein and shall not include any out-of-service vehicle time used for vehicle operator
breaks or lunches. A vehicle service hour shall terminate when a vehicle returns to
CITY Transit Center prior to any cleaning, servicing or fueling of the vehicle. The
hourly rate shall include vehicle operator wages, fringe benefits, indirect labor and all
consumable material costs that can be tracked by vehicle service hour such as vehicle
maintenance parts and supplies including oil.
b. Payment of a fixed monthly rate of $98,047.28 in Year One; $98,393.04 in Year Two;
$101,773.57 in Year Three; and $104,429.54 in Year Four to compensate CONTRACTOR for
all work to be performed under this agreement as defined in Exhibit A, except that which is
included under Paragraph 5(a) and Paragraph 7 of this agreement including, but not limited
to: vehicle operator non-service wages; management, controller and maintenance employee
wages and said employees fringe benefits and indirect labor costs; bus washing and
cleaning supplies; uniforms; report reproduction; office supplies; project telephones; all
other related operational costs; and the contract management fee.
c. Payment of a fixed monthly rate of $4,754.82 in Year One; $4,849.37 in Year Two; $4,945.52
in Year Three; and $5,044.07 in Year Four for the cost incurred in providing all vehicle and
general liability insurance required under this agreement as such insurance is defined in this
agreement. This amount shall be in excess of the fixed monthly rate as defined herein. CITY
reserves the right, however, to alternatively secure all or part of the specified insurance
coverage through other means.
d. Compensation for those items and services provided by CITY and which are specified in
Exhibit A shall not be included in the hourly or monthly rates as defined above. Such
items and services include, but are not limited to diesel fuel and gasoline; tires; radios
including connection fees and service agreements; city owned vehicles; licenses for radios
3.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
and vehicles; routine maintenance of radios; major facility furnishings; telephone system,
building security, office copy machine; all major vehicle components which are engines,
transmissions, differentials, and design retrofits; and, office, garage and parking
facilities.
Additionally, CITY s h a l l provide all marketing, tickets, passes, brochures, and related
collateral service materials.
6. EXTRA SERVICES
Special promotional and community services shall be considered extra services and will be provided only
with the authorization of CITY and the mutual consent of the CONTRACTOR. Such services shall be
defined as those non-permanent service hours operated outside of the services identified in Exhibit A.
Extra services shall be considered a change to this agreement as defined herein and shall be in excess of the
maximum price defined in Paragraph 4. The costs for extra services will be determined at a rate per
vehicle service hours of $33.27 in Year One; $33.63 in Year Two; $34.95 in Year Three; and $36.03 in
Year Four and billed separately from the services specified in Exhibit A.
7. GENERAL AND VEHICLES INSURANCE
a. Throughout the term of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain a
comprehensive general liability insurance policy providing no less than TEN MILLION
DOLLARS ($10,000,000) per occurrence with a total policy limit of no less than TEN
MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000) combined single limit bodily injury and property
damage coverage. Said policy shall include coverage for premises (specifically including
dangerous condition of public property as well as coverage for the facility and
property provided by CITY for CONTRACTOR’s use during the term of this contract), personal
injury, and blanket contractual, but shall not include coverage for vehicle liability and/or
vehicle physical damage insurance (vehicle liability and vehicle damage insurance shall be
provided pursuant to Paragraph (b), below). CONTRACTOR shall name CITY a n d
each of its member jurisdictions or other parties as required by CITY, including their
officers, employees and agents, as additional insureds on said policy. CONTRACTOR shall
cause such additional insureds to be added to its policy of insurance by way of an
endorsement which endorsement shall be a CG 20 10 11/85 or equivalent additional
insured endorsement. (The ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT) The
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT shall not be an omnibus endorsement,
but shall specifically and directly name each additional insured. Such ADDITIONAL
INSURED ENDORSEMENT will explicitly include coverage for the additional
insureds for both ongoing and completed operations so long as the liability of an
additional insured arises out of the work of the named insured, or so long as an additional
insured’s liability arises out of the named insured’s performance of this Agreement. The
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT shall not contain any provisions which
limit or restrict coverage for the additional insureds beyond the extent set forth above.
Any insurance carrier providing insurance called for in this section shall be from a California
admitted carrier and have a minimum rating of A.M. Best Rated A, or better. Any self-insured
retention shall be declared by CONTRACTOR and approved in writing by CITY. With
respect to any self-insured retention, t h e c o ve ra ge provided for CITY, its member
jurisdictions, and other parties required by CITY shall be equal and identical to the
coverage of the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall provide written documentation
to CITY that establishes that as to any self-insured retention, the additional insured
parties shall have coverage to the same extent as the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR
shall provide CITY with the ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENTS required by
this paragraph within thirty (30) days of the Notice of Contract Award and, upon request,
3.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
a copy of the entire policy of insurance. Such policy or policies of insurance shall provide
that they may not be cancelled without at least 30 days written notice to CITY.
CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY a copy of the current policy of insurance and all
endorsements, as well as documentation for coverage under any self-insured retention,
within ten (10) days of receiving such a request from CITY).
b. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with vehicle liability insurance in the amount of TEN
MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000) per occurrence with a total policy limit of TEN
MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000) combined single limit for bodily injury and
property damage. Coverage will also include collision and comprehensive physical damage
with a deductible not to exceed TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000). Any deductible
will be the responsibility of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall name CITY and each
of the member jurisdictions, or other parties as required by CITY, including their officers,
employees and agents, as additional insured on said policy and shall furnish CITY with
evidence of insurance within 30 days of the notice of contract award. Such policy or
policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days
written notice to CITY. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY a copy of the current policy
of insurance and all endorsements within ten (10) days of receiving such a request from
CITY.
c. In case of damage, destruction or loss of any vehicle or equipment provided by CITY
u n d e r the terms of this agreement, CITY agrees that the liability of CONTRACTOR for
said damage or destruction shall be limited to the fair market value of the vehicle or
equipment at the time of loss.
d. During this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall maintain an appropriate Fidelity Bond or
other security acceptable to CITY providing protection up to the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) with respect to any one occurrence of theft or other
dishonest conduct by CONTRACTOR'S employees, officers or agents of CITY funds ,
equipment or inventory other than vehicles.
In lieu of a Fidelity Bond, CONTRACTOR may provide CITY with an irrevocable and
absolute Letter of Credit in the form set out in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
CITY shall be entitled to draw upon the Letter of Credit to compensate it for all losses it
sustains occasioned by the theft or other misconduct of CONTRACTOR’s employees,
officers or agents. CITY’s losses shall include its investigative expenses, including the costs
of its experts and attorneys, in addition to the value of the funds, equipment or property in
question. At the earliest practicable time, and not later than thirty (30) days after discovery
by CITY of the loss, CITY shall give CONTRACTOR written notice of such discovery.
CONTRACTOR shall have thirty (30) days to directly reimburse such loss to CITY. With
appropriate notice, CONTRACTOR shall be provided a reasonable time to investigate the
loss. CONTRACTOR’s responsibility to reimburse CITY for the loss shall be to the full
extent of such loss and shall not be limited to TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
CONTRACTOR reserves the right to dispute the value of the loss. In the event that
CONTRACTOR has not reimbursed the loss within said thirty (30) days, CITY may draw
against the Letter of Credit to recover its loss and, as stated above, if the Letter of Credit
is insufficient to fully compensate CITY, CONTRACTOR shall remain obligated to
compensate CITY to the full extent of its loss.
3.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
When a loss is alleged to have been caused the theft, fraud or other dishonesty of any
one or more of CONTRACTOR’s employees, officers, or agents, but CITY is unable to
designate the specific person causing such loss, CITY shall have the benefit of the Letter
of Credit provided that the evidence submitted reasonably establishes that the loss was in
fact due to the fraud or dishonesty of one or more such persons.
Presentation of the Letter of Credit shall be required either electronically or not more than fifty
(50) miles from San Luis Obispo, California.
Notice shall be delivered in accordance with Section 25 of this Agreement.
Not less than thirty (30) days after CITY has drawn against the letter of credit,
CONTRACTOR shall deposit funds sufficient to restore the letter of credit to the original
amount thereof.
In lieu of a Fidelity Bond or Letter of Credit, CONTRACTOR may provide CITY
with a cash deposit of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS which shall be held without
payment of interest by CITY and CITY shall be entitled to draw upon the deposit in the
same manner and for the same purposes as regarding the above described Letter of
Credit. Not less than thirty (30) days after CITY has drawn against the cash deposit,
CONTRACTOR shall restore the cash deposit to the original amount thereof. The cash
deposit shall be held by CITY during the term of the Agreement. Within thirty (30) days
of termination or expiration of the Agreement, CITY shall return the cash deposit to
CONTRACTOR, less any amount used by CITY p u r s u a n t to this Agreement.
e. Should, at any time, any of the insurance policies required by this Agreement be
unsatisfactory to CITY, at its sole discretion, CONTRACTOR shall promptly obtain a
new policy, submit the same to CITY. Upon failure of CONTRACTOR to furnish,
deliver or maintain any insurance and endorsements as required by this Agreement, at the
election of CITY, this Agreement may be immediately terminated as provided herein.
Failure of CONTRACTOR to obtain and maintain any required insurance shall not
relieve CONTRACTOR of any liability under this Agreement (and CONTRACTOR
may be answerable to CITY for damages or any other remedy on account of such breach)
nor shall the insurance requirements be construed to conflict with or otherwise limit the
obligations of CONTRACTOR concerning indemnification.
f. All insurance provided by CONTRACTOR shall be primary and any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by CITY and its member jurisdictions shall be excess of
CONTRACTOR's insurance and shall not contribute to it.
g. CONTRACTOR’s failure to provide the insurance required by this section, or
CONTRACTOR’s submission of insurance policies, endorsements and other
documentation (whether or not such documentation is “accepted” by CITY) shall not
waive or satisfy the CONTRACTOR’s obligation to provide CITY with the insurance
required by this Agreement if it has failed to do so. Should CONTRACTOR fail to
provide insurance in the form and amount specified by this Agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall be directly liable to CITY to provide it with both a defense and
indemnity for any losses which CITY incurs to the extent such losses would have been
covered by insurance as is specified in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above,
CONTRACTOR shall not be required to indemnify CITY from loss or liability to the
extent such loss or liability arises from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of
3.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
CITY, its agents, directors and employees, at such time that such sole negligence or
willful misconduct has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
h. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds
broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements as
set forth above and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured. Furthermore, the
requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits
specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and limits of coverage of any
insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured, whichever is greater. The
defense and indemnifications of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall
not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement. All
deductibles and self- insured retentions (SIR) must be disclosed to CITY for approval and
shall not reduce the limits of the liability. Policies containing any SIR provision shall
provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named
insured or CITY. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance
policy and endorsement coverage under this Agreement. Failure to exercise this right
shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise it later.
8. WORKER’S COMPENSATION
CONTRACTOR certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California
which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake
self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and it certifies that it will comply with such
provisions and furnish CITY with a Certificate of Insurance before commencing the performance of this
agreement. Furthermore, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify CITY, its officers and employees, for any
claims in law or equity occasioned by failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with this provision or which
arise out of any job related injury, including third party claims against CITY by CONTRACTOR’S or
subcontractor’s employees. The indemnification provisions of this paragraph shall survive the termination
of this agreement or any extensions thereof.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold CITY (and CITY’s
member jurisdictions) and its representative officers, directors, employees and agents free and harmless
from and against any and all claims, suits, liens, demands, damages, injuries, liabilities, losses and
expenses of any kind, including reasonable fees of attorneys and expert witnesses, to the extent they arise
out of or are in any way connected with the performance of this Agreement by CITY, its agents, directors
or employees, or by CONTRACTOR, its agents, directors or employees, whether such claims, liens,
demands, damages, losses or expenses are based upon a contract or upon a claim for personal injury, death
or property damage or upon any other legal or equitable theory whatsoever.
CONTRACTOR agrees, at its own expense and upon written request by CITY, to defend any claim, suit,
action or demand brought against CITY on any injury, loss or liability, actual or alleged, covered herein.
Notwithstanding this defense obligation, CONTRACTOR shall not be required to indemnify CITY from
loss or liability to the extent such loss or liability arises from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of
CITY, its agents, directors and employees, at such time that such sole negligence or willful misconduct has
been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with a
defense until such determination has been made (i.e. until a court of competent jurisdiction has determined
that the loss or liability arises from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY, CONTRACTOR
shall provide a defense as to such loss or liability). CONTRACTOR’s indemnity obligations survive
termination of this Agreement.
3.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
10. PERFORMANCE BOND
The faithful performance by CONTRACTOR of each and every term, condition, and provision of this
agreement is expressly made a condition precedent for the payment of any sums agreed herein to be paid to
CONTRACTOR by CITY. To insure performance, CONTRACTOR shall post with CITY a bond or other
acceptable security in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%) of the first year contract price.
Such bond or security shall be subject to the approval of CITY's Attorney and Finance Director and shall
be executed by CONTRACTOR and a surety company licensed to do business as such in the State of
California. The condition of the bond shall be that the CONTRACTOR shall fully and faithfully perform
all conditions and covenants of this agreement or the face amount of such bond shall be forfeited to CITY.
The bond may be a renewable one-year bond, and shall be renewed annually before its expiration date;
provided, however, that such bond must remain in full force and effect from and after the date CITY
makes any demands for payment on the bond until CITY releases such claim. Provision of such bond or
its equivalent is a material covenant of this agreement and CITY shall not approve any security which is
not unconditionally payable to CITY upon CITY demand. CITY reserves the right to rescind the
requirement for a performance bond at any time.
11. INVOICES
a. All hourly costs shall be invoiced to CITY monthly following the service month provided.
Said invoices shall specify the dates of service and the number of vehicle service hours
claimed. Hourly costs shall be directly traceable by dispatcher and/or driver trip sheets and/or
employee time cards, copies of which will be submitted to CITY monthly with each invoice.
b. The monthly fixed rate and insurance rate shall be invoiced monthly following the service
month provided. All reports and submissions required under this agreement shall be
accurately completed and submitted to CITY prior to payment of said monthly rate invoices.
c. Any extra services provided under this agreement shall be invoiced separately following
the provision of such services. Copies of all appropriate passenger and service logs shall be
attached to each extra service invoice prior to payment.
12. PAYMENT
All payments by CITY to CONTRACTOR shall be made in arrears. Payment shall be made by CITY no
more than thirty (30) days from receipt of an invoice. Payment of invoices will be made on a monthly
basis. If CITY disputes any item on an invoice for a reasonable cause, CITY may deduct that disputed item
from the payment, but shall not delay payment for the undisputed portions. The amounts and reasons for
such deletions shall be documented to CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) working days of the receipt of
the invoice by CITY. Payments shall be by voucher or check payable to and mailed first-class to:
[INSERT CONTRACTOR NAME & MAILING ADDRESS]
13. OPERATING REVENUES
All operating revenues collected by CONTRACTOR are the property of CITY. Operating revenues
include, but are not limited to, all fares and the proceeds from the sale of tickets and passes. Operating
revenues shall be counted and kept separately under appropriate security. Within one working day from
collection, unless otherwise agreed upon, CONTRACTOR shall deposit fares at a banking institution as
directed by CITY. Reports on the revenues collected and deposited shall be provided to CITY on a timely
basis. CITY shall be provided with a written description of CONTRACTOR'S procedures regarding the
collection, counting and controlling of fare revenues. These procedures are subject to CITY's audit and
approval.
14. CONTROL
d. All services to be rendered by CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall be subject to the
3.b
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
control of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall advise CITY of matters of importance and make
recommendations when appropriate; however, final CITY shall rest with CITY.
e. CITY shall not interfere with the management of CONTRACTOR'S normal internal
business affairs and shall not attempt to directly discipline or terminate CONTRACTOR
employees. CITY may advise CONTRACTOR of the performance of any employee having a
negative effect on the service being provided.
15. CONTRACT ASSIGNMENT
This agreement shall not be sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or encumbered by
CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of CITY which consent may be withheld in CITY’s
sole and absolute discretion. Any assignment, transfer, conveyance or encumbrance of this agreement
without CITY’s prior written approval shall be null and void. CONTRACTOR shall not sell or otherwise
transfer its interest in this agreement without prior written notification to CITY. Upon receiving such
notification from CONTRACTOR, CITY may, at its sole discretion, decide to exercise its right to
terminate this agreement. Subject to this provision, the agreement shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective parties.
16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a. Disputes arising in the performance of this agreement shall be decided in writing by the
Transit Manager. This decision shall be final and conclusive unless within ten (10) days from the
date of receipt of its copy, CONTRACTOR mails or otherwise furnishes a written appeal to the
Transit Manager. In connection with any such appeal, CONTRACTOR shall be afforded an
opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its position. The decision of the
Transit Manager shall be binding upon the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR shall abide
be the decision.
b. Unless otherwise directed by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall continue performance under this
agreement while matters in dispute are being resolved.
c. Should either party to this agreement suffer injury or damage to person or property because of any
act or omission of the party or of any of his employees, agents or others for whose acts he is
legally liable, a claim for damages therefore shall be made in writing to such other party within a
reasonable time after the first observance of such injury of damage.
d. Unless this agreement provides otherwise, all claims, counterclaims, disputes and other
matters in question between CITY and CONTRACTOR arising out of or relating to this agreement
or its breach will be decided by arbitration if the parties mutually agree, or in a court of
competent jurisdiction within the State of California.
e. The duties and obligations imposed by this agreement and the rights and remedies available there
under shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and
remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. No action or failure to act by CITY or
CONTRACTOR shall constitute a waiver of any right or duty afforded any of them under this
agreement, nor shall any such action or failure to act constitute an approval of or acquiescence in
any breach there under, except as may be specifically agreed in writing.
17. RESOLUTION OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT ISSUES
The Federal Procurement Regulations shall be used where applicable to define, resolve, and settle
procurement issues. Unless otherwise directed by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall continue performance
under this agreement while matters in dispute are being resolved.
3.b
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
18. STOP WORK
CITY may stop work on CITY's transportation system upon forty-eight (48) hours written notice to
CONTRACTOR. CITY shall be liable for all relevant costs incurred prior to the stop-work period and for
restart, if any. When exercising this provision, CITY shall be obligated for the costs of severance for
personnel assigned to CITY's transportation system in accordance with the published policy and
procedures of CONTRACTOR, a copy of which shall be provided to CITY upon request. Additionally, the
cost associated with operations and facilities close down, shall be the obligation of CITY. CONTRACTOR
shall make all reasonable efforts to minimize costs to CITY.
19. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT
a. All the terms, conditions, and covenants of this agreement are considered material and in the
event CONTRACTOR breaches or defaults in the performance of any such terms, conditions,
or covenants which are to be kept, done or performed by it, CITY shall give CONTRACTOR
ten days written notice either by certified mail or by personal service, describing such breach or
default, and if CONTRACTOR fails, neglects or refuses for a period or more than ten days
thereafter to remedy, or cure such breach or default, then CITY without further notice, may
terminate this agreement. In the event of termination of this agreement as hereinabove
specified, CITY shall have the right to take immediate possession of all equipment and
facilities provided by CITY to CONTRACTOR and of the facilities and equipment supplied
by CONTRACTOR under the provisions of this agreement. In the event CITY does take
possession of CONTRACTOR-supplied facilities and equipment, CONTRACTOR shall be
reimbursed by CITY for the actual cost of the temporary use of said facilities and equipment. If
it is later determined by CITY that CONTRACTOR had an excusable reason for not
performing, such as a strike, fire, or flood, events which are not the fault of or are beyond
the control of CONTRACTOR, CITY, after setting up a new delivery of performance
schedule, may allow CONTRACTOR to continue work, or treat the termination as a
termination for convenience.
b. Bankruptcy: Either (a) the appointment of a receiver to take full possession of all or
substantially all of the assets of CONTRACTOR or (b) a general assignment by
CONTRACTOR for the benefit of creditors, or (c) any action taken by or suffered by
CONTRACTOR under any insolvency or bankruptcy act shall constitute a breach of the
agreement by CONTRACTOR and CITY shall have the option to terminate this
agreement. The parties specifically agree that the selection of CONTRACTOR is based on
factors that render contractor especially suited to perform this agreement, such that the
identity of contractor is central to the obligations in this contract. Accordingly, this contract
is similar to a personal services contract and non-assignable under 11 USC 365 (c).
20. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
The performance of work under this agreement may be terminated by CITY in accordance with this clause
in whole, or from time to time in part, whenever the Transit Manager shall determine that such termination
is in the best interest of CITY. Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to CONTRACTOR of a
notice of termination specifying the extent to which performance of work under the agreement is
terminated, and the date upon which such termination becomes effective. After receipt of a notice of
termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Transit Manager, CONTRACTOR shall:
a. Stop work under the agreement on the date and to the extent specified in the notice of
termination;
b. Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, services, or facilities, except as may be
necessary for completion of such portion of the work under the agreement as is not terminated;
3.b
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
c. Terminate all orders and subcontracts to the extent that they relate to the performance of work
terminated by the notice of termination; assign to CITY in the manner, at the times, and to
the extent directed by the Transit Manager, all of the right, title, and interest of
CONTRACTOR under the orders and subcontracts so terminated, in which case CITY shall
have the right, in its discretion, to settle or pay and or all claims arising out of the termination
of such orders and subcontracts; settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of
such termination of orders and subcontracts, with the approval or ratification of the Transit
Manager, to the extent he may require, which approval or ratification shall be final for all the
purposes of this clause; transfer title to CITY and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to
the extent, if any, directed by Transit Manager the fabricated or unfabricated parts, work in
process, completed work, supplies, and other material produced as part of, or acquired in
connection with the performance of, the work. terminated, and the completed or partially
completed plans, drawings, information and other property which, if the agreement had been
completed, would have been required to be furnished to CITY; use its best efforts to sell, in
the manner, at the times, to the extent, and at the price(s) directed or authorized by the
Transit Manager, any property of the types referred to above, provided, however, that
CONTRACTOR shall not be required to extend credit to any purchaser, and may acquire any
such property under the conditions prescribed by and at a price(s) approved by the Transit
Manager, and provided further, that the proceeds of any such transfer or disposition shall be
applied in reduction of any payments to be made by CITY to CONTRACTOR under this
agreement or shall otherwise be credited to the price or cost of the work covered by this
Contract or paid in such other manner as the Transit Manager may direct; complete
performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the notice of
termination; and take such action as may be necessary, or as the Transit Manager may direct,
for the protection or preservation of the property related to this agreement which is in the
possession of CONTRACTOR and in which CITY has or may acquire an interest.
d. CONTRACTOR shall be paid its costs, including contract close-out costs, and profit on
work performed up to the time of termination. CONTRACTOR shall promptly submit its
termination claim to CITY to be paid CONTRACTOR.
21. REMEDIES ON BREACH (WAIVER OF REMEDIES)
The duties and obligations imposed by the agreement and the rights and remedies available hereunder shall
be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or
available by law. No action or failure to act by CITY or CONTRACTOR shall constitute a waiver of any
right or duty afforded any of them under the agreement, nor shall any such action or failure to act
constitute an approval of or acquiescence in any breach hereunder, except as may be specifically agreed in
writing. In the event that CITY elects to waive its remedies for any breach by CONTRACTOR of any
covenant, term or condition of this agreement, such waiver shall not limit CITY’s remedies for any
succeeding breach of that or of any other term, covenant or condition of this agreement. It is agreed that in
the event of failure by CONTRACTOR to perform the services required by this agreement, in addition to
all other remedies, penalties and damages provided by law, CITY may provide such services, and deduct
the cost of doing so from the amounts due or to become due to the CONTRACTOR. The costs to be
deducted shall be the actual costs to CITY to provide such services.
22. RIGHTS UPON TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS
Upon expiration or earlier termination of this agreement, CITY shall have the right to provide the services
by means of its own employees or pursuant to contract with other carrier(s) or otherwise. CONTRACTOR
agrees to forever waive any claim, of any sort or nature, against CITY based upon CITY's operation, or
contracting for the operation, of the service, or any portion of it. CONTRACTOR shall also waive any
3.b
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
right that it otherwise might have to claim entitlement to benefits afforded to private mass transportation
companies under Section 3(e) of the Federal Transit Act of 1964 (49 USC Sec. 1602(e)), as it now exists or
hereafter may be amended. CONTRACTOR also hereby forever waives any claims of unfair competition
that it otherwise might assert, any rights that otherwise might accrue to it under the above- mentioned
provisions or under any other similar or comparable provisions of the law. Having entered into this
agreement shall not be the sole reason whereby the CONTRACTOR shall be inhibited, penalized, or
disqualified from submitting proposals for subsequent transportation, management, and operation
programs under the jurisdiction of CITY.
23. CHANGES
CITY, without invalidating this agreement may order additions to or deletions from the work to be
performed. Such changes shall be specified to CONTRACTOR in writing. If justified, the "Maximum
Obligation" will be adjusted accordingly. New provisions must be mutually agreeable to both CITY and
CONTRACTOR. A shift of vehicle service hours between services within the maximum value or an
increase or decrease of up to ten percent within the current span of service would not constitute a change as
defined in this agreement, but any such shift or change shall only occur at the direction of CITY.
24. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
This writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter of this
agreement and no modification hereof shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by
a writing signed by both parties to this agreement. There are no understandings, agreements or conditions
with respect to the subject matter of this agreement except those contained in this writing.
25. NOTICES
All notices required to be given with respect to this agreement shall be in writing and mailed first
class, postage prepaid to the persons named below or at such addresses as the parties may file with
each other for such purpose.
Mr. Nick Promponas, SVP
If to CONTRACTOR First Transit, Inc.
7581 S. Willow Drive, Suite 102; Tempe, AZ 85283-5033
Copy To: Mr. Mike Petrucci, General Counsel
First Transit, Inc.
600 Vine Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2400
If to CITY: Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo, SLO TRANSIT
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
26. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
All inventions, improvements, discoveries, proprietary rights, copyrights and patents made by
CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall be made available to CITY with no royalties, charges, or other
costs, but shall be owned by CONTRACTOR. All manuals prepared by CONTRACTOR for use by
CONTRACTOR in other locales shall be made available to CITY at no charge but shall be owned by
CONTRACTOR and shall not be disclosed, or released by CITY without prior written consent of
CONTRACTOR. Reports and manuals prepared by CONTRACTOR under this agreement for specific use
in CITY's system shall become the property of CITY. CONTRACTOR, however, shall have the right to
print and issue copies of these reports. CONTRACTOR may make presentations and releases relating to
the project. Papers and other formal publications shall be approved by CITY prior to release.
27. FORCE MAJEURE
CONTRACTOR shall not be held responsible for losses, failure to perform, or excess costs caused by
3.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
events beyond the control of CONTRACTOR. Such events may include, but are not restricted to, the
following: fire, epidemics, earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster; acts of the government; riots,
strikes, war or other civil disorders; or fuel shortages. In every case, CONTRACTOR shall resume
performance at the earliest possible date following the cessation of such unforeseen causes or events.
CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to no compensation for any service, the performance of which is excused
pursuant to this paragraph.
28. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS
All information, data, reports, records, maps, survey results as are existing, available, and necessary for
carrying out the work under this agreement, shall be furnished to CONTRACTOR without charge by
CITY, and CITY shall cooperate in every way possible in the carrying out of the work without undue
delay.
29. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
In the event of a major emergency such as an earthquake, flood, or man-made catastrophe,
CONTRACTOR shall make transportation and communication resources available to the degree possible for
emergency assistance. If the normal line of direct CITY from CITY is intact, CONTRACTOR shall follow
instruction of CITY. If the normal line of direct CITY is broken, and for the period it is broken,
CONTRACTOR shall make best use of transportation resources following to the degree possible the
direction of an organization such as the San Luis Obispo Office of Emergency Services, the police, Red
Cross, or National Guard, which appears to have assumed responsibility within CITY's service area.
Emergency uses of transportation may include evacuation, transportation of injured, and movement of people
to food and shelter. CONTRACTOR shall be reimbursed in accordance with the normal "Price Formula"
and "Payment" or, if the normal method does not cover the types of emergency services involved, then
on the basis of fair, equitable and prompt reimbursement of CONTRACTOR'S actual costs.
Reimbursement for such major emergency services shall be over and above the "Maximum Obligation" of
this contract. Immediately when the emergency condition ceases, CONTRACTOR shall reinstate
normal transportation services.
30. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND REPORTS (AUDIT AND INSPECTION)
a. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 18.36(i), CONTRACTOR shall permit CITY, the FTA
Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States, the California State
Controller, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments or any of their authorized
representatives access to any to books, documents, papers and records of CONTRACTOR
which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes of making audits,
examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. Further, CONTRACTOR agrees to permit any of
the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoever or to copy excerpts and
transcriptions as reasonably needed.
b. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain all books, records, accounts and reports required under
this contract for a period of not less than three years after the date of termination or
expiration of this contract, except in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising
from the performance of this contract, in which case CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain
same until CITY, the FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General, or any of their duly
authorized representatives, have disposed of all such litigation, appeals, claims or exceptions
related thereto. Reference 49 CFR 18.39(i)(11).
31. TRANSFER OF TITLE TO EQUIPMENT
All equipment, parts and supplies purchased by CONTRACTOR under this agreement, either as a direct
charge expense or within the defined scope of services, shall become the property of CITY upon either
the payment of the direct charge invoice or the expiration or termination of this agreement for any reason
3.b
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
unless otherwise specified in writing. The applicable depreciation schedule and residual value, if any, of
such items shall be established prior to the execution of this agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain a
perpetual inventory of all such equipment and supplies purchased under this and any prior agreement, to
be submitted for review on or before August 31 of each year. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible
for the replacement of any equipment, parts and supplies purchased or provided, either by CITY or
CONTRACTOR, under this agreement that is lost or unreasonably destroyed while under the control
of CONTRACTOR.
32. TRANSPORTATION DATA REPORTING
CONTRACTOR shall report operating and financial data to CITY in accordance with the California Public
Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Section 99243, and California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 3, Subchapter
2, as required under California Transportation Development Act, and with Level "R" of the Uniform
Financial Accounting and Reporting Elements as required by the National Transit Database System and the
Federal Transit Act of 1964 as both are amended from time to time.
33. PERMITS AND LICENSES
At its sole cost and expense, CONTRACTOR shall obtain any and all permits, licenses, certificates, or
entitlement to operate as are now or hereafter required by any agency, specifically including, but not
limited to, those that may be required by the California Public Utilities Commission, the California
Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles and local jurisdictions, to enable CONTRACTOR to
perform this agreement. Copies of all such entitlements shall be provided to CITY when received by
CONTRACTOR. In the event that any aspect of this agreement requires prior approval by the PUC, the
CONTRACTOR shall submit necessary application forms. Both parties shall appear as necessary and
cooperate in the commission approval process. CITY reserves the right to oppose, support or be neutral
on any such request and on the PUC's ruling thereon. CONTRACTOR covenants to obtain all such
approvals before commencing operations, and to conform to the PUC ruling thereon, at its sole cost and
expense.
34. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICE
a. In connection with the execution of this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex,
age or national origin. CONTRACTOR shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants
are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race,
color, religion, sex, age, or national origin or ancestry. Such action shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or
recruitment advertising, layoff or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation;
and, selection for training, including apprenticeship. CONTRACTOR must submit a properly
executed and current Employer Information Report (EEO-1) upon request of CITY.
CONTRACTOR further agrees to insert a similar provision in all subcontracts, except
subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
b. CONTRACTOR shall also comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-352) and with all applicable regulations, statutes, laws, etc., promulgated
pursuant to the civil rights acts of the state and federal government now in existence or
hereafter enacted. Further, CONTRACTOR shall also comply with the provisions of Section
1735 of the California Labor Code.
c. CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate, nor allow any of its officers, employees, or agents
to discriminate against any passenger or patron because of race, color, sex, age, or national origin
or ancestry.
3.b
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
d. CONTRACTOR shall promptly notify CITY of any discrimination complaints.
CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, conform to any final orders issued by
any State or Federal agency with jurisdiction to correct the CONTRACTOR'S discrimination in
employment and/or service and shall fully save harmless and indemnify CITY in this regard.
35. LABOR PROVISIONS
In accordance with 40 U.S.C. 329 and 29 CFR Part 5, CONTRACTOR hereby certifies compliance with the
following provisions related to the employment of mechanics and laborers under the Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act.
a. Overtime Requirements. No contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract
work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit
any such laborer or mechanic in any work week in which he or she is employed on such work to
work in excess of eight hours in any calendar day or in excess of forty hours in such work week
unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in any calendar day or in
excess of forty hours in such work week.
b. Violation; Liability for Unpaid Wages; Liquidated Damages. In the event of any violation of the
clause set forth in subparagraph (b)(1) of 29 CFR Section 5.5, contractor and any subcontractor
responsible therefor shall be liable for the unpaid wages. In addition, such contractor and
subcontractor shall be liable to the United States for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages
shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic, including watchmen or
guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in subparagraph (b)(1) of 29 CFR Section 515
in the sum of $10 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work
in excess of eight hours or in excess of the standard work week of forty hours without payment of
the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in subparagraph (b)(1) of 29 CFR Section 5.5.
c. Withholding for Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages. CITY shall upon its own action or
upon written request of authorized representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to
be withheld, from any monies payable on account of work performed by the contractor or
subcontractor under any such contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor,
or any other federally assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act, which is held by the same prime contractor, such sums as may be determined to be necessary
to satisfy any liabilities of such contractor or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated
damages as provided in the clause set forth in subparagraph (b)(2) of 29 CFR Section 5.5.
d. Non-Construction Grants. Contractor or subcontractor shall maintain payrolls and basic payroll
records during the course of the work and shall preserve them for a period of three years from the
completion of the contract for all laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen, of each
such employee, social security number, correct classifications, hourly rates of wages paid, daily and
weekly number of hours worked, deductions made, and actual wages paid. Further, the recipient
shall require the contracting Officer to insert in any such contract a clause providing that the records
to be maintained under this paragraph shall be made available by contractor or subcontractor for
inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of Department of Transportation
(“DOT”) and the Department of Labor and the Contractor or subcontractor will permit such
representatives to interview employees during working hours on the job.
e. Subcontracts. Contractor or subcontractor shall insert in any subcontracts the clauses set forth in
subparagraph (a) through (e) of this paragraph and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to
include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for
3.b
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in
subparagraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph.
f. CONTRACTOR and any subcontractor shall comply with 40 U.S.C. 3701.
36. TRANSIT EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE AGREEMENTS
a. General Transit Employee Protective Requirements – To the extent that the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) determines that transit operations are involved, CONTRACTOR agrees to
carry out the transit operations work on the underlying contract in compliance with terms and
conditions determined by the U.S. Secretary of Labor to be fair and equitable to protect the interests
of employees employed under this contract and to meet the employee protective requirements of 49
U.S.C. A 5333(b), and U.S. DOL guidelines at 29 C.F.R.-Part 215, and any amendments thereto.
These terms and conditions are identified in the letter of certification from the U.S. DOL to FTA
applicable to the FTA Recipient’s project from which Federal assistance is provided to support
work on the underlying contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to carry out that work in compliance with
the conditions stated in that U.S. DOL letter. The requirements of this subsection (1), however, do
not apply to any contract financed with Federal assistance provided by FTA either for projects for
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 5310(a)(2), or for
projects for nonurbanized areas authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 5311. Alternative provisions for these
projects are set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this clause.
b. Transit Employee Protective Requirements for Projects Authorized by 49 U.S.C.§ 5310(a)(2)
for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities – If the contract involves transit
operations financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. §
5310(a)(2), and if the U.S. Secretary of Transportation has determined or determines in the future
that the employee protective requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5333(b) are necessary or appropriate for
the state and the public body subrecipient for which work is performed on the underlying contract,
CONTRACTOR agrees to carry out the Project in compliance with the terms and conditions
determined by the U.S. Secretary of Labor to meet the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5333(b), U.S.
DOL guidelines at 29 C.F.R. Part 215, and any amendments thereto. These terms and conditions are
identified in the U.S. DOL’s letter of certification to FTA, the date of which is set forth Grant
Amendment or Cooperative Agreement with the state. CONTRACTOR agrees to perform transit
operations in connection with the underlying contract in compliance with the conditions stated in
that U.S. DOL letter.
c. Transit Employee Protective Requirements for Projects Authorized by 49 U.S.C.§ 5311 in
Nonurbanized Areas – If the contract involves transit operations financed in whole or in part with
Federal assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 5311, CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the
terms and conditions of the Special Warranty for the Nonurbanized Area Program agreed to by the
U.S. Secretaries of Transportation and Labor, dated May 31, 1979, and the procedures implemented
by U.S. DOL or any revision thereto.
d. CONTRACTOR also agrees to include any applicable requirements in each subcontract involving
transit operations financed in whole or part with Federal assistance provided by FTA.
37. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 794; 49 U.S.C. § 5301(d); and all regulations promulgated to implement the ADA and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, as may be applicable to CONTRACTOR.
3.b
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
38. CIVIL RIGHTS
During the performance of this contract, CONTRACTOR, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest,
agrees as follows:
a. Nondiscrimination. In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000d, section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6102, section
202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Federal transit law at
49 U.S.C. § 5332, CONTRACTOR agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex age, or disability. In
addition, CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing regulations and
other implementing requirements FTA may issue.
b. Equal Employment Opportunity. The following equal employment opportunity requirements
apply to the underlying contract:
c. Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Sex – In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and Federal transit laws at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, CONTRACTOR
agrees to comply with all applicable equal employment opportunity requirements of U.S.
Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) regulations, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,
Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor,” 41 C.F.R. Parts 60 et seq., (which
implement Executive Order No. 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” as amended by
Executive Order No. 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment
Opportunity,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e note), and with any applicable Federal statutes, executive orders,
regulations, and Federal policies that may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in
the course of the Project. CONTRACTOR agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants
are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race,
color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,
layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training,
including apprenticeship. In addition, CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with any implementing
requirements FTA may issue.
d. Age – In accordance with section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 623 and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, CONTRACTOR agrees to
refrain from discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. In
addition, CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.
e. Disabilities – In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 12112, CONTRACTOR agrees that it will comply with the requirements of the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment
Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, pertaining to employment
of persons with disabilities. In addition, CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with any implementing
requirements FTA may issue.
f. Subcontracts. CONTRACTOR agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed
in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA, modified only if necessary to identify
the affected parties.
g. Employer Information Report. CONTRACTOR must submit a properly executed and current
Employer Information Report (EEO-1) upon request of CITY
3.b
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
39. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
e. It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBE) as defined in 49 CFR Part 26, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the
performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds under this
agreement. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 applies to this agreement.
f. CONTRACTOR agrees to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) as defined in
49 CFR Part 26 have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and
subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds provided under this agreement. In
this regard, CONTRACTOR and subcontractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps
in accordance with 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises have the
maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. CONTRACTOR and its
subcontractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, national origin, age or sex in the
award and performance of federal-assisted contracts.
g. CONTRACTOR shall cooperate fully with CITY in meeting any of CITY's commitments and
goals with regard to the maximum utilization of disadvantaged business enterprises.
CONTRACTOR shall keep records of DBE participation in all activities carried out pursuant to
this agreement, and shall report to CITY all such participation and efforts made to
encourage DBE participation as required by CITY. See Appendix H – DBE Goal for the current
established goal.
h. CONTRACTOR shall incorporate the provisions of this paragraph in all applicable subcontracts.
40. DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING
CONTRACTOR agrees to establish and implement a drug and alcohol testing program that complies with
49 CFR Part 655, produce any documentation necessary to establish its compliance with Part 655, and
permit any authorized representative of the United States Department of Transportation or its operating
administrations, the State Oversight Agency of California, or CITY, to inspect the facilities and
records associated with the implementation of the drug and alcohol testing program as required under 49
CFR Part 655 and review the testing process. CONTRACTOR agrees further to certify annually its
compliance with Part 655 and to submit the Management Information System (MIS) reports by March 1
of each year to CITY. To certify compliance, CONTRACTOR shall use the “Substance Abuse
Certifications” in the “Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for Federal Transit Administration
Grants and Cooperative Agreements,” which is published annually in the Federal Register.
41. CHARTER SERVICE OPERATIONS
The CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) and 49 CFR Part 604, and any
amendments thereto that may be issued, which provides that recipients and subrecipients of FTA
assistance are prohibited from providing charter service using federally funded equipment or facilities
if there is at least one private charter operator willing and able to provide the service, except under one
of the exceptions at 49 CFR 604.9. Any charter service provided under one of the exceptions must
be "incidental," i.e., it must not interfere with or detract from the provision of mass transportation.
42. SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS
CONTRACTOR agrees that neither it nor any subcontractor performing work in connection with this
agreement will engage in school bus operations for the transportation of students or school personnel
exclusively in competition with private school bus operators, except as permitted by 49 U.S.C. § 5323(f) and
FTA regulations , “School Bus Operations,” 49 C.F.R. Part 605, and any amendments thereto that may be
issued. Any applicable school bus agreement required by these regulations is incorporated by reference and
made part of this agreement.
3.b
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
43. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
a. Energy Conservation. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the mandatory standards and
policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State energy conservation
plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
b. Interest of Members of or Delegates to Congress. In accordance with 18 USC, Section 431, no
member of, or delegate to, the Congress of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part
of this agreement or to any benefit arising therefrom.
c. Conflict of Interest. No employee, officer, director or agent of CITY shall participate in the
selection, award or administration of this agreement if a conflict of interest, real or apparent,
would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when the employee, officer or agent, or any
member of his immediate family, or an organization which employs, or is about to employ same,
has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award. No employee, officer, or agent
of CITY shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof during
his tenure or for one year thereafter.
d. Clean Water Act. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or
regulations issues pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq. CONTRACTOR agrees to report each violation to CITY and understands and
agrees that CITY will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FTA and
the appropriate EPA Regional Office. CONTRACTOR also agrees to include these
requirements in each subcontract exceeding $100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal
assistance provided by FTA.
e. Clean Air Act. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or
regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
CONTRACTOR agrees to report each violation to CITY and understands and agrees that CITY
will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FTA and the
appropriate EPA Regional Office. CONTRACTOR also agrees to include this requirement in
each subcontract exceeding $100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance
provided by FTA.
f. Debarred Bidders. This agreement is a covered transaction for purposes of 49 CFR Part 29. As
such, CONTRACTOR has verified by signed certification that none of its principals, as defined
at 49 CRR 29.995, or affiliates, as defined by 49 CFR 29.905, are excluded or disqualified
at 49 CFR 29.940 and 29.945. CONTRACTOR is required to comply with 49 CFR 29, Subpart
C and must include the requirement to comply with 49CFR 29, Subpart C in any lower tier
covered transaction it enters into.
g. Conflict of Transportation Interests. The CONTRACTOR shall not divert any revenues,
passengers, or other business from CITY's project to any taxi or other transportation operation
of CONTRACTOR without the written approval of CITY.
h. Conflicting Use. The CONTRACTOR shall not use any vehicle, equipment, personnel or other
facilities which are dedicated to CITY for performing services under this agreement for any
use whatsoever other than provided for in this agreement without the prior approval of CITY.
i. Fair Employment and Housing Act. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the requirements of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
3.b
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
j. Working Conditions. It shall be a condition of this agreement, and shall be made a condition of
each subcontract entered into pursuant to this agreement, that the CONTRACTOR or the
subcontractor shall not require any laborer or mechanic employed in connection with the
performance of this agreement to work under working conditions which are unsanitary,
hazardous or dangerous to his health or safety, as determined under the California Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Chapter 993, Statutes of 1973).
k. Federal Changes. CONTRACTOR shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA
regulations, policies, procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed
directly or by reference in the Master Agreement between CITY and FTA, as they may be
amended or promulgated from time to time during the term of this contract.
CONTRACTOR’S failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this contract.
l. No Obligation By The Federal Government.
1. CITY and CONTRACTOR acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding any concurrence
by the Federal Government in or approval of the solicitation or award of the underlying
contract, absent the express written consent by the Federal Government, the Federal
Government is not a party to this contract and shall not be subject to any obligations or
liabilities to CITY, CONTRACTOR, or any other party (whether or not a party to that
contract) pertaining to any matter resulting from the underlying contract.
2. CONTRACTOR agrees to include the above clause in each subcontract financed in
whole in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the
clause shall not be modified, except to identify the subcontractor who will be subject to its
provisions.
m. Fly America Requirements. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with 49 U.S.C. 40118 (the “Fly
America” Act) in accordance with the General Services Administration’s regulations at 41 CFR
Part 301-10, which provide that recipients and subrecipients of Federal funds and their
contractors are required to use U.S. Flag air carriers for U.S. Government-financed international
air travel and transportation of their personal effects or property, to the extent such service is
available, unless travel by foreign air carrier is a matter of necessity, as defined by the Fly
America Act. The Contractor shall submit, if a foreign air carrier was used, an appropriate
certification or memorandum adequately explaining why service by a U.S. flag air carrier was
not available or why it was necessary to use a foreign air carrier and shall, in any event,
provide a certificate of compliance with the Fly America requirements. The Contractor agrees to
include the requirements of this section in all subcontracts that may involve international air
transportation.
n. Recycled Products. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all of the requirements of
Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
6962), including but not limited to the regulatory provisions of 40 CFR Part 247, and Executive
Order 12873, as they apply to the procurement of the items designated in Subpart B of 40 CFR
Part 247. CONTRACTOR agrees to include these requirements in every subcontract.
o. Taxes/Licenses. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for paying any and all Federal, State,
and Local taxes. CONTRACTOR shall also be responsible for securing and paying for any
and all business licenses and taxes that may be required for the operation of services within
the scope of this agreement.
3.b
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
p. Failure to Act. No action or failure to act by either party shall be a waiver of a right or duty
afforded under this agreement, nor shall such action or failure to act constitute a breach of this
agreement, except as specifically agreed to in writing.
q. Conflict of Interests. CONTRACTOR shall not divert any revenues, passengers, or other
business from CITY to any taxi or other transportation operation.
r. Waiver and Non-Waiver. A waiver by one party of a right to a remedy for breach of this
contract by the other party shall not be deemed to waive the right to a remedy for a subsequent
breach by the other party. Both parties, having had the opportunity to consult an attorney
regarding the provisions of this agreement, agree to waive the principle of contract interpretation
that an ambiguity will be construed against the party that drafted the ambiguous provision.
s. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this agreement. CONTRACTOR’S failure to
deliver goods/services on time shall be a material breach of this contract. If CONTRACTOR
fails to deliver goods/services on time, CITY, at its discretion, may procure those
goods/services from another source. If the price paid by CITY for goods/services procured from
another source under this paragraph is higher than the price under this agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall pay CITY the difference between those prices. CITY may deduct that
difference from any amount CITY owes CONTRACTOR.
t. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). For all ITS property and services, the Contractor
agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the
National ITS Architecture and Standards to the extent required by 23 U.S.C. Section 517(d) and
23 CFR part 655 and 940.
44. LOBBYING
CONTRACTOR shall comply with 31 U.S.C. 1352, which provides in part that no
appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal
actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of
any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement. CONTRACTORS who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more
shall file the certification required by 49 CFR Part 20, "New Restrictions on Lobbying." Each
tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay
any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee
of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other
award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier shall also disclose the name of any registrant under
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who has made lobbying contacts on its behalf with non-
Federal funds with respect to that Federal contract, grant or award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352.
Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the recipient.”
45. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS
CONTRACTOR warrants and covenants that it shall fully and completely comply with all
applicable Federal, State, and Local laws and ordinances, and all lawful orders, rules and
regulations issued by any CITY with jurisdiction in all aspects of its performance of this
3.b
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
agreement. CONTRACTOR shall hold CITY harmless from any claims or charges by reason of the
CONTRACTOR's or any subcontractor's failure to comply with the applicable laws or any
regulations adopted pursuant thereto and shall reimburse CITY for any fines, damages or expenses
of any kind incurred by it by reason of said failure. This paragraph shall survive the termination of
this agreement or any extensions thereof.
46. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR RELATED
ACTS
a. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civic Remedies Act of
1986, as amended, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801 et seq. and U.S. DOT regulations, “Program Fraud Civil
Remedies”, 49 C.F.R. Part 31, apply to its actions pertaining to this agreement. Upon
execution of the underlying contract, CONTRACTOR certifies or affirms the truthfulness and
accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, it may make, or causes to be made, pertaining
to the underlying contract or the FTA assisted project for which this contract work is being
performed. In addition to other penalties that may be applicable, CONTRACTOR further
acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim,
statement, submission, or certification, the Federal Government reserves the right to
impose the penalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 on CONTRACTOR to
the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate.
b. CONTRACTOR also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or
fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification to the Federal Government under a
contract connected with a project that is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance
originally awarded by FTA under CITY of 49 U.S.C. § 5307, the Government reserves the right
to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5307(n)(l) on CONTRACTOR, to
the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate.
c. CONTRACTOR agrees to include the above two clauses in each subcontract financed in whole
or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clauses shall not
be modified, except to identify the subcontractor who will be subject to the provisions.
47. INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TERMS
The preceding provisions include, in part, certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by DOT,
whether or not expressly set forth in the preceding contract provisions. All contractual provisions required
by DOT, as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1E are hereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the
contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a
conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not perform any act,
fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any CITY requests, which would cause CITY to be in
violation of the FTA terms and conditions.
48. PRIVACY ACT
The following requirements apply to the CONTRACTOR and its employees that administer any system of
records on behalf of the Federal Government under any contract involving Federal Privacy Act requirements.
CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with, and assures the compliance of its employees with, the information
restrictions and other applicable requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Among other
things, CONTRACTOR agrees to obtain the express consent of the Federal Government before the
CONTRACTOR or its employees operate a system of records on behalf of the Federal Government.
CONTRACTOR understands that the requirements of the Privacy Act, including the civil and criminal
penalties for violation of that Act, apply to those individuals involved, and that failure to comply with the
terms of the Privacy Act may result in termination of the underlying contract. CONTRACTOR also agrees to
3.b
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
include these requirements in each subcontract to administer any system of records on behalf of the Federal
Government financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA.
49. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
a. Neither of the parties hereunder shall be deemed to be the agent, employee, partner, or joint
venture of the other. CONTRACTOR is and should be an independent contractor performing
services under this agreement for the consideration herein set forth.
b. CONTRACTOR'S employees shall at all times be and remain the sole employees of
CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for payment of all employees'
wages and benefits. CONTRACTOR, without any cost or expenses to CITY, shall faithfully
comply with the requirements of all applicable State and Federal enactments with respect to
employer's liability, worker's compensation, unemployment insurance and other forms of
Social Security, and also with respect to withholding of income tax at its source from wages of
said employee and shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY from and against any and all liability,
damages, claims, costs and expenses of whatever nature arising from alleged violation of such
enactments or from any claims of subrogation provided for in such enactment or otherwise.
c. This agreement does not constitute a contract of employment between CITY and CONTRACTOR
or any agents, officers or employees of CONTRACTOR. After the expiration or termination of
this agreement, CONTRACTOR'S successor shall be permitted to hire any CONTRACTOR
employees previously employed on this program. At that time, in hiring a CONTRACTOR
employee or a former CONTRACTOR employee, CITY shall ensure and require that such
employment process fairly treat former CONTRACTOR employees as members of the general
public with no discrimination, no waiver of job advertising, no consideration of employee's
seniority with CONTRACTOR and no other privilege different from that accorded to members
of the general public.
50. TRANSITION TO FUTURE OPERATOR
Up to and for a minimum of thirty (30) days following the effective date of termination or expiration of
this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall provide to either CITY or any future operator selected by
CITY, CONTRACTOR'S full cooperation in the transition to the successor operator. This shall
include, at a minimum, consultation regarding labor and management issues (including a delineation
of wages and benefits by employee category), access to non-confidential personnel files and
maintenance records. CONTRACTOR shall provide its best professional effort to assure a smooth
transition from CONTRACTOR'S services to those provided by the new operator and shall cooperate fully
with CITY and the new operator to this end.
51. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this agreement is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall have no effect on the validity of the remaining provisions of this
agreement and such remaining provisions shall continue to remain in full force and effect.
52. PRECEDENCE OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The total agreement between the parties consists of the documents specified in this paragraph. In the
event of a conflict or ambiguity arising between said documents, or any term or condition therein, the
document having precedence shall be determined as follows:
a. Any supplemental agreements executed after the date of this agreement.
b. This agreement and attachments thereto, including Exhibit A (Scope of Work).
3.b
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
c. Exhibits B (RFP) and C (CONTRACTOR’S proposal including any “Best & Final Offer”) to this
agreement.
53. ADDITIONAL TERMS
In the case of dispute the prevailing party in any action between the parties to this agreement, brought to
enforce the terms of this agreement, may recover from the other party its reasonable costs and attorneys’
fees in connection with such an action.
The validity in whole or in part of any provision of this agreement shall not affect the validity of other
provisions. CITY's failure to insist in any one or more instances upon the performance of any term or terms
of this agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of CITY's right to such performance
or to future performance of such a term or terms, and CONTRACTOR'S obligations in respect thereto
shall continue in full force and effect. Time shall be of the essence. Changes hereto shall not be binding
upon CITY except when specifically confirmed in writing by CITY.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by and
through their respective officers thereunto duly authorized on the date written below their signatures.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
__________________________ By:_________________________
Lee Price, MMC Mayor Jan Marx
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR:
First Transit Inc.
By: __________________________
J. Christine Dietrick Nick Promponas
City Attorney Its: Senior Vice President
3.b
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment3.b: b - SLO Transit & First Transit Inc. Contract (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
From: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: 2016 Award of SLO Transit Operations & Maintenance Contract Process - Summary
RECOMMENDATION
Award a four-year base contract, with the option of three individual one-year extensions, to First
Transit Inc. for the Operations & Maintenance of the SLO Transit Public Fixed-Route System to be
effective July 1st, 2016 through June 30th, 2020.
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo operates a fixed-route public transit system within City limits and
California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) campus. Vehicle operations and vehicle
maintenance are provided under contract by a third party vendor since 1996 and has had various
vendors/contractors to perform these duties since then. The current contract was awarded to First
Transit Inc. on June 6th, 2006. That contract term called for a base three-year contract and the
possibility of seven one-year extensions. All one-year extension options were approved by Council
and are now exhausted. The contract termination date is set for June 30th, 2016.
RFP Process
Staff received approval from Council on December 15th, 2015 to release a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for the continual acquisition of these services from a qualified and responsible vendor.
Ensuing, staff made notice of the RFP on the City’s website, local periodicals, trade publications and
e-bid board. An overview and tour of the transit system was given at the preproposal conference
held on January 27th, 2016 and whereby 20-25 individuals from various firms attended. February
5th marked the deadline for submitting questions for clarification and soon after, on February 19th,
and addendum was posted addressing the questions and comments that came in. March 9th
marked the deadline for proposals to be delivered.
SLO Transit received a total of seven proposals from various firms, including: MV Transportation,
National Express, Silverado, Storer Transit Systems, First Transit Inc., Roadrunner and Transdev. As
specified in the RFP, proposals were scored based on “best-in-value” as defined by the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA), whereby the ability to meet technical merit was scored before
consideration of costs by the Evaluation Committee. The inter-disciplinary Evaluation Committee
consisted of two City staff persons, a representative from the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG), a representative from CalPoly staff and a member of the Mass
Transportation Committee (MTC) as an observer to the process.
The Evaluation team scored all submitted proposals independently. The combine technical
evaluation scores then defined the top three firms. Only these firm’s Cost Proposals were opened
up to determine if they were within competitive range of each other. If one of these proposals had
been significantly out of range (above) with the other two, it would have been disqualified as not
being applicable for a “best-in-value” determination. A consideration was also given to the fourth
3.c
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment3.c: c - 2016 Transit Operations Maintenance Contract Award Recommendation Summary (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund
place scored proposal to see if it was statistically indistinguishable (within a few points) from the
third place scored proposal. However, there was a clear demarcation between the third place
scored proposal and the fourth; and all three top scored proposals were within competitive range
of each other.
Table 1: RFP Proposal Evaluation Scores
The top three scored proposing firm were invited to continue on in the evaluation process.
Interviews with corporate organization representatives and the proposed management team
(General Manager, Maintenance Manager and Operations/Safety Manger) were held on April 5th.
Another round of evaluations and scoring was given based on the interview and qualifications of
both the firm and proposed management team by a second evaluation team relevant to monitoring
day-to-day operations.
Table 2: Group Interview Scores
3.c
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment3.c: c - 2016 Transit Operations Maintenance Contract Award Recommendation Summary (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund
The results of the extensive RFP and Evaluation Committee(s) scoring process suggests that the
contract for the operations & maintenance of the SLO Transit system should be again awarded to
First Transit Inc. Not only did First Transit Inc. score the highest in both the technical and interview
evaluations, but they also had the lowest proposed cost of three top scoring vendors, representing
a true “best-in-value” ranking. Staff therefore entered into negotiation with First Transit in order to
receive First Transit’s Best and Final Offer.
The contract term would be for a base four-year contract and the possibility of three one-year
extensions, as approved by Council.
Table 3: Cost Proposal Comparison Analysis
3.c
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment3.c: c - 2016 Transit Operations Maintenance Contract Award Recommendation Summary (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund
FISCAL IMPACT
First Transit Inc.’s initial proposal was already the lowest proposed cost of the top three technically
rated firms. This remains true even after netting out “Start-Up Cost” and extra “Tech” line items
the non-incumbent proposers included.
Table 5: Cost Analysis Net of Extra Costs
Furthermore, Federal Transit Administration allows for service purchasers to enter into “Best and
Final” cost negotiations. By shifting some proposed costs from “Variable Rates” to “Fixed Rates,
staff was able to achieve over a $26,000 savings over the life of the contract. First Transit’s “Best
and Final offer” cost proposal represents a modest 3% increase from the current contract and
lower than originally anticipated.
Table 6: First Transit 2016 Original Cost Proposal
Table 7: Negotiated First Transit Best and Final Offer
3.c
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment3.c: c - 2016 Transit Operations Maintenance Contract Award Recommendation Summary (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund
First Transit, Inc.
600 Vine Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-241-2200
Fax: 513-684-8852 May 2, 2016
Gamaliel Anguiano sent by email to GAnguiano@slocity.org
Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Adjustments – Pricing Submittal for Request for Proposal (RFP) Specification - 91433;
Operation and Maintenance of Fixed Route, Public Transit Services
Dear Mr. Anguiano,
Please find in the attached file our pricing with the adjustments we discussed at our meeting
last Friday. We moved the Road Supervisor wage and benefits costs from the variable cost
lines to fixed costs thus reducing the variable rate to $30.06 in year one.
Additionally, we reexamined our total annual miles and adjusted the deadhead portion which
had a positive effect on our liability insurance and maintenance costs. The revised price pages
also reflect these adjustments.
Equally important, we have revisited our efforts to positively impact driver retention. Above all
else, we have always stressed providing a respectful workplace and paying attention to the
details that impacts each employee’s workday. We are revisiting internal communications
among our operating staff to ensure that every day, employees are greeted when they come
to work and then thanked for a job well done.
We are re-evaluating our recruiting efforts and plan to utilize our expanded corporate
recruiting team to assist with job fairs in San Luis Obispo. Other efforts will include the
following:
Our General Manager Al Rusco is taking a training seminar to boost our
“onboarding experience” that in part is geared towards creating a stronger
commitment among new employees about working for SLO Transit.
Offering a $500.00 hiring bonus to trainees.
Offering a $500.00 hiring bonus to existing hourly staff for their efforts.
Our General Manager has reached out to our region recruitment expert and
requested a review of our local processes including tracking where each applicant
has heard about the open positions.
3.d
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment3.d: d - First Transit - SLO Transit Cost Proposal BAFO (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
2
We will institute a more formal exit interview program to better track why people
leave.
We will add a “catch them doing right” program and give operators small
rewards like $5.00 - $10.00 dollar gift cards when we see them doing well in the
field.
We will concentrate on delivering a positive message to our employees, even when
the information must include corrective action.
The net incentives that we earn through excellent service for the City will be
distributed to the hourly employees either as cash rewards and/or fun gifts or
events.
First Transit is committed to continually improving the service that we provide to the City of
San Luis Obispo. We want to continue to work with the City on route changes that will improve
service for our passengers and help reduce some of the on-the-job stress for our employees.
And, we will remain committed to providing the safest possible service and will do so in a
professional and efficient manner.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Jim Rude
Director of Business Development
First Transit, Inc.
913 915-1061 (cell)
913 871-1255 (fax)
Jim.rude@firstgroup.com
Cc: Don Swain
3.d
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment3.d: d - First Transit - SLO Transit Cost Proposal BAFO (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Budget Elements Year Year Year Year
One Two Three Four
Office Expenses:
Site Manager Wages 82,150$ 83,793$ 85,469$ 87,178$
Site Manager Benefits 24,495$ 25,450$ 26,448$ 27,490$
Operations Supervisor Wages 222,599$ 226,711$ 230,900$ 235,166$ Ops Mgr, Admin Clerk
Operations Supervisor Benefits 66,166$ 68,698$ 71,343$ 74,107$ & Dispatchers
Road Supervisor Wages 101,858$ 103,691$ 105,558$ 107,458$
Road Supervisor Benefits 33,964$ 35,236$ 36,562$ 37,945$
Non-Revenue Vehicles $22,672 $24,000 $25,357 $26,095
Insurance:
Materials and Supplies $5,233 $5,233 $5,233 $5,245 Computer/Shop Capital
Telecommunications 16,888$ 17,310$ 17,743$ 18,186$
Other (Vehicle Liability Ins):$51,355 $52,376 $53,414 $54,478
$5,703 $5,817 $5,932 $6,051
$33,719 $34,562 $35,426 $36,312
6,800$ 6,970$ 7,144$ 7,323$
Subtotal 673,603$ 689,848$ 706,530$ 723,034$
Operating Expenses:
Trainer Wages
Trainer Benefits
Driver Wages 719,522$ 742,546$ 768,649$ 792,410$
Driver Benefits $227,873 $237,610 $248,148 $258,699
Physical/Drug Tests $3,888 $3,985 $4,085 $4,187
Materials & Supplies
Uniforms $14,556 $14,920 $15,293 $15,675
Other (Identify):
$12,644 $12,960 $13,284 $13,616
Subtotal 978,483$ 1,012,021$ 1,049,459$ 1,084,587$
Maintenance Expenses:
Maintenance Manager Wages 69,958$ 71,357$ 72,784$ 74,240$
Maintenance Manager Benefits 20,960$ 21,775$ 22,626$ 23,515$
Mechanic Wages 87,315$ 88,887$ 90,487$ 92,115$
Mechanic Benefits 27,350$ 28,336$ 29,363$ 30,433$
Other Maintenance Labor 49,285$ 50,172$ 51,075$ 51,994$
Other Maintenance Benefits 9,964$ 10,228$ 10,500$ 10,781$
Maintenance parts & Supplies $107,731 $87,321 $100,047 $104,821
ATTACHMENT 3
SLO TRANSIT PROPOSAL COST FORM
General Liability Insurance
Facility Utilities & Expenses
Office Supplies
Safety/Recruiting
3.d
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment3.d: d - First Transit - SLO Transit Cost Proposal BAFO (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Cleaning Supplies $2,811 $2,867 $2,922 $2,978
Lubricants & Fluids $5,124 $5,124 $5,123 $5,122
Materials & Supplies
Other (Identify):
$14,694 $15,061 $15,437 $15,823
Subtotal 395,191$ 381,127$ 400,364$ 411,824$
Other Expenses:
Start Up Costs -$ -$ -$ -$
Performance Bond 3,051$ 3,181$ 3,376$ 3,561$
Corporate Overhead & Support $88,484 $90,037 $93,204 $95,931
Management Fee $55,303 $56,273 $58,252 $59,957
Other (Identify)
16,368$ 16,777$ 17,196$ 17,626$
$1,625 $1,666 $1,707 $1,750
Subtotal 164,831$ 167,934$ 173,735$ 178,825$
Operating & Maintenance Expense 1,373,674$ 1,393,147$ 1,449,823$ 1,496,411$
Revenue Vehicle Insurance Expense 673,603$ 689,848$ 706,530$ 723,034$
Monthly Fee (Fixed Costs)98,522.52$ 98,877.76$ 102,267.94$ 104,933.78$
Vehicles Service Hour Rate (Variable Costs)30.06$ 31.09$ 32.25$ 33.32$
Insurance Rate Per Revenue Vehicles 251.74$ 256.74$ 261.83$ 267.05$ Per Rev Veh / Per Mos
offer shall remain in effect for 90 days from the date set for opening proposals unless withdrawn pursuant to the conditions of the subject RFP.
Name of Proposing Firm:
Signature: Date:
Person Authorized to Bind Proposing Firm
Signer's Name:
Title:
First Transit, Inc.
Environmental Charges
Payroll/IT Services
Travel
The above budget breakdown and the other attached materials represent an offer to do work as described in this proposal. It is understood that this
May 2, 2016
Bradley Thomas
President
3.d
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment3.d: d - First Transit - SLO Transit Cost Proposal BAFO (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Office Expenses Subtotal 553,904$ 567,580$ 581,637$ 595,439$
Insurance / Other Subtotal (Less Auto Liability)$68,344 $69,892 $71,479 $73,117
Maintenance Expense Subtotal 395,191$ 381,127$ 400,364$ 411,824$
Other Expenses Subtotal 164,831$ 167,934$ 173,735$ 178,825$
1,182,270$ 1,186,533$ 1,227,215$ 1,259,205$
12 12 12 12
98,522.52$ 98,877.76$ 102,267.94$ 104,933.78$
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Operating Expenses Subtotal 978,483$ 1,012,021$ 1,049,459$ 1,084,587$
978,483$ 1,012,021$ 1,049,459$ 1,084,587$
32,546 32,546 32,546 32,546
30.06$ 31.09$ 32.25$ 33.32$
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Vehicle Liability Insurance Subtotal $51,355 $52,376 $53,414 $54,478
51,355$ 52,376$ 53,414$ 54,478$
17 17 17 17
3,020.88$ 3,080.93$ 3,141.99$ 3,204.58$
12 12 12 12
251.74$ 256.74$ 261.83$ 267.05$
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Total Annual Fixed Costs 1,182,270$ 1,186,533$ 1,227,215$ 1,259,205$
Total Annual Variable Hours Costs 978,483$ 1,012,021$ 1,049,459$ 1,084,587$
Total Annual Variable Ins Costs 51,355$ 52,376$ 53,414$ 54,478$
2,212,108$ 2,250,930$ 2,330,088$ 2,398,270$
# of Vehicles
Explanation of Cost Elements from SLO Transit Cost Proposal Form
FIXED COSTS
# of Months
TOTAL FIXED COSTS
Cost Per Month
VARIABLE COSTS - HOURS
TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS HOURS
Vehicle Service Hours
Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour
VARIABLE COSTS - VEHICLE INS
TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS VEH INS
Cost Per Vehicle - Annual Liability Ins
# of Months
Cost Per Vehicle Per Month
Total Annual Fixed and Variable
SUMMARY OF TOTALS
3.d
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment3.d: d - First Transit - SLO Transit Cost Proposal BAFO (1362 : 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Review)
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor
Ryan Betz, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review and discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Parking Fund Review (Attachment A); and
2. Conceptually approve the FY 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund budget, with final action with
the adoption of the FY 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Adopt a Resolution approving an increase in Fines and Forfeitures for miscellaneous
violations.
DISCUSSION
Background
This report presents a review of the annual Parking Enterprise Fund for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-
16 and a forecast for the FY 2016-2017 Supplemental Financial Budget. This review looks at key
issues and trends which could have an impact on the overall health of the fund. In this regard,
staff is pleased to report that the Parking Fund is balanced and the revised FY 2016-17
Supplemental Financial Budget is consistent with the operating assumptions adopted in the 2015-
17 Financial Plan with minor adjustments discussed below.
Consistent with previously adopted policies, the long-term forecast of the Parking Fund
continues to assume a 10% system-wide rate, fines and forfeiture adjustment every three years.
The forecast shows these will be necessary in FY 2018-19 and again in FY 2020-21 to fund
anticipated expenses, capital projects, and debt service obligations. Minor fine adjustments are
recommended in FY 2016-17 to increase fines for the overtime parking violations, no permit in
lot violations, 72-hour violations, and nighttime parking of large vehicles violations.
The Palm-Nipomo parking structure is programed to begin construction during FY 2017-18. The
anticipated costs for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure were developed several years ago, and
staff will be working with a consultant to update the cost and project timeline. A parking
structure rehabilitation and assessment study, including anticipated costs to replace outdated
structure equipment, is anticipated to be completed in FY 2016-17.
4
Packet Pg. 98
This review highlights a healthy fund that is able to support both current and anticipated
expenses, capital projects, and debt service obligations while maintaining the minimum 20%
reserve level in working capital in accordance with the City Financial Management policies.
As outlined in the FY 2016-17 Parking Fund Analysis (Attachment A), which forecasts the
financial position of the Parking Fund through FY 2019-20, the City is able to:
1. Provide parking services and access for the Downtown businesses, visitors and patrons;
and
2. Provide parking services and enforcement for residential parking permit district; and
3. Fund debt service for the completed parking structures as well as long-term financing
obligations for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure; and
4. Meet bond covenants and debt ratios to maintain a strong bond rating; and
5. Meet Enterprise Fund reserves as set by City policy; and
6. Continue capital maintenance projects to maintain assets and provide high quality
services; and
7. Promote revitalization and reinvestment in our Downtown by accommodating public-
private partnerships with the Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown projects.
Parking Fund Accomplishments in FY 2015-16
Although the Fund Review is focused on financial and budgetary information, it is important to
look at the accomplishments that have occurred during this past fiscal year. The following is a
list of some of the highlights that Parking Services has accomplished in FY 2015-16.
1. Worked with project applicants, property and business owners and the public to begin
construction of the Garden Street Terraces project and Phase II of the Chinatown project.
2. Successfully relocated existing credit card meters from surface parking lots 2, 3, and 11;
increased the parking meter rate from $1.25 to $1.50 at these locations; and increased
rates in the parking structures hourly rate from $0.75 per hour to $1.00 per hour.
3. Hired a new Parking Services Supervisor as approved in the 2015-17 Financial Plan and
recommended in the Parking Organizational Study (2014).
4. Conducted a Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure update for Council in January 2016 and
reactivated the project for environmental and design.
Summary of Operating Programs
There have been minimal revisions to the Parking Fund expenses for FY 2016-17.
1. Consistent with the General Fund assumptions, Parking Staffing, Contract Services, and
4
Packet Pg. 99
Other Operating expenses assume an increase of 3% in 2017-18, 3.25% in 2018-19, and
3.5% in 2019-20 for anticipated changes in Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Cost of
Living Adjustments (COLA), and minimum wage.
2. Operating expenses for Palm-Nipomo are programmed beginning in FY 2018-19 but
could be delayed depending upon the start of construction of the structure.
3. The amount budgeted for General Government decreased by $26,984.
Table 1: Expenditures
Expense Category
2015-16
Budget
2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Revised Variance
Operating Programs
Transportation 2,328,330$ 2,188,099$ 2,188,099$ 0%
General Government 711,587$ 711,587$ 684,603$ -4%
Total Operating Programs 3,039,917$ 2,899,686$ 2,872,702$ -1%
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 1,952,970$ 50,798$ 50,798$ 0%
Debt Service 970,817$ 969,389$ 969,400$ 0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,963,704$ 3,919,873$ 3,892,900$ -1%
Capital Improvement Program
Below is the summary of the anticipated 2016-17 Financial Plan capital project budget
projections for the Parking Services Enterprise Fund.
1. New Parking Structure. To be conservative, the Palm-Nipomo parking structure is
projected for July 2017; the earliest date at which construction could begin. Debt
financing will be used to fund a significant portion of the project. The current project
construction estimate is $23.6 million with $17.45 million in debt financing.
2. Parking Structure Equipment Retrofit. Although not programed into the Fund
Analysis (Attachment A), staff anticipates the need for additional funding for replacing
outdated parking structure equipment. This project was originally estimated as a retrofit
to the existing equipment. Unfortunately, the manufacturer is now out of business and a
retrofit is not possible. Instead, a full replacement of the parking structure’s control
system is needed. The project is currently funded at $113,000, however a review of the
equipment replacement costs is projected to exceed that amount. Though a final amount
is not yet known, staff will be combining this assessment of what equipment fits the
structures best with the Parking Structure Assessment and Rehabilitation Study project,
funded at $135,000. This is anticipated to begin in FY 2016-17. Staff will ask the
consultant to recommend equipment retrofits for existing structures as well as equipment
for the new Palm-Nipomo parking structure. We anticipate having this product as a first
item of work for the consultant and expect to come to Council at the FY 2016-17 Mid-
Year with recommendations for any additional funding.
4
Packet Pg. 100
3. New Parking Demand and Supply Model. Staff anticipates a return to Council in FY
2016-17 with a request for use of Parking Fund monies to pursue the development of a
Downtown parking demand and supply model. This project is not shown in the Fund
Analysis because a total cost for the project is not yet known. This project would result in
a tool similar to the City’s traffic model. It would help forecast the parking and access
needs for the Downtown area, analyze issues such as extending the Parking In-Lieu fee
program east of Santa Rosa Street, assist in developing appropriate pricing strategies for
parking, and assess individual development projects for adequacy in parking supply.
Development of a portion of this model was anticipated to be completed as part of a joint
effort with the project proposal for the old Shell station site. However, that particular
project is no longer being pursued by the applicant and the need for better tools to help
staff analyze parking scenarios still exists. In addition, it became apparent during the in-
depth parking study associated with the Palm/Nipomo Structure that such a tool would
save hours of staff time and yield accurate information easily and quickly to help policy
makers and the community comprehensively understand Downtown parking dynamics.
None of the aforementioned projects are included or assumed in this budget review, they
are all subject to future Council review and action that will be requested at a later date.
Revenues
Overall, Parking Fund revenues are healthy as the economy continues to improve. Revenues
have largely stabilized since the installation of the credit card capable meters and enforcement of
Sunday parking implemented three years ago. However, the last half of FY 2015-16 has seen the
closures of Lots 2, 3 and 11 and significant changes in parking locations habits (and revenue) are
expected.
Table 2: Revenues
Revenue Category
2015-16
Budget
2016-17
Budget
2016-17
Revision Variance
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 174,200 166,200 166,200
Streets 1,523,800 1,606,200 1,539,100 -4%
Parking Structure Collections 1,044,200 1,183,700 1,054,700 -11%
Long-Term Parking Revenues 430,600 434,900 434,900
Lease Revenues 480,500 482,900 500,500 4%
Parking In-Lieu Fees 2,787,530 20,200 20,200
Other Service Charges 100 100 100
Total Service Charges 6,440,930 3,894,200 3,715,700 -5%
Investment and Property Revenues 28,300 45,500 48,200 6%
Fines and Forfeitures 663,200 673,000 669,900
Other Revenues 0
TOTAL REVENUES 7,132,430 4,612,700 4,433,800 -4%
Revenues in the structures as well as on-street meters are anticipated to continue to increase due
4
Packet Pg. 101
to this relocated demand as a result of the lot closures. Table 3 below shows Parking Fund
revenue trends with actuals for the previous three years, the budgeted amount for the two
financial plan years, and revised amounts for FY 2016-2017. Significant Parking In-Lieu fees
were collected in FY 2015-16 due to the construction of Chinatown and the Garden Street
Terraces projects. These fees, although shown as revenues, are one -time only and are to be used
for the development or maintenance of parking that satisfies the demand requirements of new
development projects within the Parking In-Lieu fee area.
Table 3: Parking Fund Revenue Trends
(1) Loss of Public Parking Lots 2, 3, and 11 to construction projects
(2) Garden Street Terraces project loan repayment and rent payment
(4) Parking In-Lieu fees for Garden Street Terraces, Granada Hotel & Bistro, and phase 2 of the Chinatown project
Fines and Forfeitures are not anticipated to change to significantly over the next fiscal year.
There is a recommendation included with this Fund review to increase the fine amounts for the
following violations:
1. 72-Hour violation from $23 to $33
2. Nighttime parking of large vehicles (oversized vehicle) violation from $23 to $33
3. Overtime parking violation from $38 to $43
4. No permit in lot violation from $33 to $38
At this time, the fiscal impact for these fine amount changes will be minimal. An analysis of
citations from January 2015 to December 2015 shows the increase in fine amounts will generate
approximately $6,000 in additional revenue. Table 4 below compares the current parking
violation fine amounts with other municipalities in the area.
4
Packet Pg. 102
Table 4: Parking Violation Fine Amount Comparison
SLO City SLO City Cuesta Arroyo Paso
Current Proposed Cal Poly College Grande Robles
10.36.050 USE OF STREETS FOR STORAGE
OF VEHICLES PROHIBITED $23 $33 $58
10.36.150 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF LARGE
VEHICLES $23 $33
10.36.235 RESTRICTED PARKING - NO
PERMIT LOT $33 $38 $40 $39
10.40.010 OVERTIME PARKING $38 $43 $35 $68 $53 $33
VIOLATIONCODE
Overall, it is anticipated that Parking Fund revenues will continue to steadily grow as the
economy improves from the recession. Consistent with previous adopted policies, Revenue
projections assume a conservative 1% annual growth and a major 10% increase in revenues is
assumed in FY 2018-19 and every 3 years thereafter for periodic rate enhancements.
FISCAL IMPACT
As shown in the Parking Enterprise Fund Financial Analysis (Attachment A), staff is projecting
an end of year working capital of $9,643,354 in FY 2015-16 and $9,673,056 in FY 2016-2017.
The 2016 Parking Fund Analysis includes the key assumptions used in preparing Fund
projections. Consistent with the analysis presented to the Council in this report and in the 2015 -
2017 Financial Plan, there are sufficient funds to support operations, capital projects, and debt
service needs of the Parking Fund.
Attachments:
4.a a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis
4.b b - Resolution Approving an Increase in Fine Amounts
4
Packet Pg. 103
Parking Enterprise Fund
2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement
Parking Enterprise Fund
2016 Fund Analysis
4.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 2
June 14, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3
II. 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN ................................................................................................. 3
a. Summary of Operating Programs ........................................................................................ 3
b. Capital Improvement Program ............................................................................................. 4
c. Revenues .............................................................................................................................. 5
d. Debt Service ......................................................................................................................... 5
III. ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 6
1. General Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 6
2. Parking Lots ......................................................................................................................... 6
3. Street Parking ....................................................................................................................... 6
4. Parking Structures ................................................................................................................ 6
5. Long Term Parking .............................................................................................................. 6
6. Parking Leases ..................................................................................................................... 7
7. Parking In-Lieu .................................................................................................................... 7
8. Investment Earnings............................................................................................................. 7
9. Parking Fines ....................................................................................................................... 7
10. Transportation & General Government Expenses ........................................................... 7
11. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Expenses ...................................................................... 8
12. Debt Service ..................................................................................................................... 8
IV. EXHIBIT A – 2015-17 Changes in Financial Position .......................................................... 9
4.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 3
2016 Parking Fund Report
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents a review of the annual Parking Enterprise Fund for the FY 2015-16 and a
forecast for FY 2016-17. This review looks at key issues and trends which could have an impact
on the overall health of the fund. To this regard, staff is pleased to report that the Parking Fund is
balanced and the revised 2016-17 budget will be consistent with the operating assumptions
adopted in the 2015-17 Financial Plan with some minor adjustments.
As previously assumed in the long-term forecast of the Parking Fund, system parking rate, fines
and forfeiture adjustments will be necessary in FY 2018-19 and again in FY 2020-21 to fund
anticipated expenses, capital projects, and debt service obligations. Minor fine adjustments are
recommended in the FY 2016-17 primarily to increase fines for the 72-hour violations and
overnight large trailer violations. The Palm-Nipomo parking structure is programed to begin
construction during the 2017-18 fiscal year to show the future fiscal impacts on the Parking
Fund.
This review highlights a healthy fund in its ability to support both current and anticipated
expenses, capital projects, and debt service obligations while maintaining the minimum 20%
reserve level in working capital in accordance with the City Financial Management policies.
II. 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN
1. Summary of Operating Programs
Below is the summary of the revised 2015-17 Financial Plan operating budget projections
for the Parking Services Enterprise Fund. Operating expenses for Palm-Nipomo is
programed to begin during FY 2018-19 but could be delayed depending upon construction
start date or delays during construction.
4.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 4
2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020
Budget Budget Revised Projected Projected Projected
Staffing 1,309,824$ 1,310,591$ 1,268,891$ 1,349,909$ 1,393,781$ 1,478,627
Contract Services 670,100$ 683,750$ 683,750$ 704,263$ 727,151$ 771,416
Other Operating Expenses 223,271$ 235,458$ 235,458$ 242,522$ 250,404$ 266,425
CalJPIA Retrospective Work Comp
CalJPIA Retrospective Alloc. Lib.35,028$
Cost Assumptions for Class/Comp 11,220$
Palm-Nipomo Expenses 197,570$ 202,887$
Total Parking Services 2,203,195 2,229,799 2,188,099 2,296,694 2,371,336 2,516,468
2. Capital Improvement Program
Below is the summary of the revised 2015-17 Financial Plan capital project budget
projections for the Parking Services Enterprise Fund. The Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure is
projected for July 2017; the earliest date at which construction could occur. Debt financing will
be used to fund a significant portion of the project.
Parking Capital Program 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Budget Budget Revised Projected Projected Projected
Fleet Replacement: 2 Go-4s 34,000$
Fleet Replacement: Utility Vehicle 27,100$ 27,100$
Fleet Replacement: Pickup Trucks 29,500$ 31,500$
Palm Nipomo Construction 23,600,000$
Parking Structure Assessment 66,667$ 10,000$ 10,000$
Marsh Street Parking Garage Circ.
Improve.78,000$
IT MS Office Replacement 4,909$
IT Radio Replacement 10,100$
IT Storage Capacity Upgrade 5,600$
IT UPS Battery Replacement 646$
IT VM Infrastructure 3,065$ 3,065$ 3,065$
IT Vehicle License Plate
Recognition 135,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$
IT VoIP 6,233$ 646$
IT Radio Handhleds 9,339$
IT Tait Radio System 633$ 633$ 9,339$
IT Firewall Replacement 4,069$
IT Network Swith Replacement 4,955$
IT Finance System Replacement 62,500$
Carryover from Previous Years
Palm-Nipomo Land acquistion and
Environmental 227,117$
Palm-Nipomo Design 1,067,873$
Parking Structure Equipment
Upgrades 113,000$
Other Carryover projects 544,980$
Total Parking Capital Program 2,233,283$ 50,798$ 50,798$ 23,641,272$ 83,485$ 120,998$
4.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 5
Although not shown in the table above, staff anticipates the need for additional funding
for the upgrade of the parking structure equipment project currently funded at $113,000.
A final amount is not yet known. Staff will be combining this with the Parking Garages
Assessment and Rehabilitation Study project that will being in FY 2016-17 and will ask
the consultant to recommend equipment retrofits for existing structures as well as the new
Palm-Nipomo parking structure.
3. Revenues
It is anticipated that Parking Fund revenues will continue to steadily grow as the
economy improves from the Great Recession. Consistent with previous adopted policies,
Revenue projections assume a conservative 1% annual growth and a major 10% increase
in revenues is assumed in 2018-19 and every 3 years thereafter for periodic rate
enhancements.
Anticipating revenue changes for the closures of Lots 2, 3, and 11 have been forecast
however, revenue changes due to public redistribution from these closures may be off
depending where people choose to park after closures.
2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020
Revised Budget Revised Projection Projection Projection
Revenues
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 174,200 166,200 166,200 155,400 170,900 172,600
Streets 1,523,800 1,606,200 1,539,100 1,554,500 1,709,900 1,727,000
Parking Structure Collections 1,044,200 1,183,700 1,054,700 1,065,200 1,171,700 1,276,000
Long-Term Parking Revenues 430,600 434,900 434,900 439,300 483,200 488,000
Lease Revenues 480,500 482,900 500,500 502,900 531,800 534,500
Parking In-Lieu Fees 2,787,530 20,200 20,200 20,400 22,400 22,600
Other Service Charges 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total Service Charges 6,440,930 3,894,200 3,715,700 3,737,800 4,090,000 4,220,800
Investment and Property Revenues 28,300 45,500 48,200 54,900 21,000 15,800
Fines and Forfeitures 663,200 673,000 669,900 666,600 733,300 740,600
Other Revenues
Total Revenues 7,132,430 4,612,700 4,433,800 4,459,300 4,844,300 4,977,200
4. Debt Service
Debt Service for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure is scheduled to begin in FY 2017-
18. Annual payments for Palm-Nipomo are estimated to average $1.4 million depending
upon final debt financing terms. The next debt service to be retired is for the Marsh Street
Parking Structure expansion, which will occur in August 2031.
4.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 6
Parking Debt Service 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Revised Budget Revised Projected Projected Projected
Marsh Expansion until Aug 2031 420,578$ 419,729$ 419,729$ 418,856$ 417,955$ 417,027$
919 Palm until Jun 2036 540,439$ 539,899$ 539,899$ 538,755$ 539,803$ 540,275$
Palm-Nipomo until Jun 2047 1,086,023$ 1,452,112$ 1,450,684$
Dispatch Ctr Upgrade until Jun 2039 9,800$ 9,800$ 9,800$ 9,800$ 9,700$ 4,200$
970,817$ 969,428$ 969,428$ 2,053,434$ 2,419,570$ 2,412,187$
III. ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been programed into the long-term forecast of the Parking
Fund.
1. General Assumptions
a. Minimum working capital reserve should equal at least 20% of the total Operating
Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and
Poor's rating criteria. Based upon this policy, the minimum reserve level should
be approximately $575,000. The year-end working capital greatly exceeds the
minimum reserve policy levels.
b. Consistent with previously adopted policies, Parking Fund Revenue sources
assume a conservative 1% annual growth and a 10% increase every three years
for periodic rate adjustments.
2. Parking Lots
a. Parking revenues and expenses from Lot 14 will cease due to the construction of
the Palm-Nipomo parking structure in FY 2017-18.
3. Street Parking
a. No major changes in Street Parking assumptions have been programed.
4. Parking Structures
a. It is anticipated that some of the drivers that would have parked in Lot 14 will
instead park in garages due to the loss of lot parking spaces. Due to the first hour
free in garages, it is anticipated that only 50% of the revenues formerly tied to Lot
14 will be retained through garage parking fees.
b. A study will be conducted in FY 2016-17 to determine condition of the parking
structures and make recommendations for new annual maintenance plans to
extend the useful life of each structure and minimize emergency repair needs.
5. Long-Term Parking
a. There was an increase in 10-Hour Parking Meter Permit sales in FY 2015-16 due
to the establishment of a Residential Parking Permit District near the downtown
4.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 7
area and the recent closure of three public parking lots downtown. Future
increases in 10-Hour Parking Meter Permit sales are limited by the total number
of permits available throughout a given fiscal year.
6. Parking Leases
a. Section 16 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of San Luis
Obispo and Garden Street SLO Partners, L.P. states that the Parking Fund will
loan the developer $500,000, assumed in 2016-17. In the same year, the developer
will begin repayment to the City Parking Fund by paying approximately $36,000
per year for 30 years with the option of a balloon payment buyout at the end of 10
years.
b. Section 6 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of San Luis
Obispo and Garden Street SLO Partners, L.P. states that the Developer will an
annual rent equal to the annual net revenue from the operation of surface parking
lot 2. The fund review projects this amount at $204,379 however final annual
amount has yet to be determined and it may be more or less depending upon time
of calculation. The annual base rent shall be increased on the first day of every
third fiscal year by the amount of increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
the period of three (3) years immediately preceding but in no event shall the
increase be less than two percent (2%) nor more than four percent (4%) per year,
for a cumulative total increase of not less than six percent (6%) and not more than
twelve percent (12%) in any three year period.
7. Parking In-Lieu
a. No Parking In-Lieu fee assumptions have been programed.
8. Investment Earnings
a. Assumes projected interest earnings of 0.5% annually.
9. Parking Fines
a. Transfer of parking fines to the Police Department is approximately $105,400 for
FY 2016-17.
b. State and County surcharges of $13 per paid parking citation is added then
deducted from fine revenues.
c. A total 1% decrease in fine revenues due to the loss of Lot 14 for the construction
of Palm-Nipomo parking structure in FY 2017-18.
10. Transportation & General Government Expenses
a. Transportation operating expenses attributed to Parking Lot 14 will decrease by
$7,400 in FY 2017-18 and thereafter.
b. Parking Staff, Contract Services, and Other Operating expenses assume an
increase of 3% in FY 2017-18, 3.25% in 2018-19, and 3.5% in 2019-20 for
4.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 8
anticipated changes in Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Cost of Living
Adjustments (COLA), and minimum wage.
c. General Government expenses decreased by $26,984 in FY 2016-17 due to the
results of the FY 2014-15 Cost Allocation Plan.
d. General Government assumes no annual increase.
11. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Expenses
a. The Palm Nipomo parking structure construction is estimated at $23.6 million in
FY 2017-18. There will be a $6,000,000 contribution from working capital and
$17,600,000 proceeds from debt financing or Bond Issuance. Final amounts will
be determined as the project construction documents move forward in the City
process.
b. Assumes Finance and Information Technology capital projects that have
associated Parking Fund support will occur in the projected years.
c. A vehicle license plate recognition pilot program ($135,000) will occur as a
carryover project in FY 2016-17 to determine if the technology can improve
operational costs and enhance enforcement in the Downtown and residential
neighborhoods.
12. Debt Service
a. Assumes a 30-year level debt service, net proceeds of $17,600,000 and bond
issuance on July 1, 2018. Interest payment and principal payment is due
beginning in FY 2017-18, estimated at $1.4 million annually.
4.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
2016 Parking Fund Analysis
Page 9
IV. EXHIBIT A – 2015-17 Changes in Financial Position
2015-17 PARKING FUND
FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - PARKING FUND BUDGET
Mid-Year Adopted Revised Projected Projected Projected
2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Revenues
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 174,200 166,200 166,200 155,400 170,900 172,600
Streets 1,523,800 1,606,200 1,539,100 1,554,500 1,709,900 1,727,000
Parking Structure Collections 1,044,200 1,183,700 1,054,700 1,065,200 1,171,700 1,276,000
Long-Term Parking Revenues 430,600 434,900 434,900 439,300 483,200 488,000
Lease Revenues 480,500 482,900 500,500 502,900 531,800 534,500
Parking In-Lieu Fees 2,787,530 20,200 20,200 20,400 22,400 22,600
Other Service Charges 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total Service Charges 6,440,930 3,894,200 3,715,700 3,737,800 4,090,000 4,220,800
Investment and Property Revenues 28,300 45,500 48,200 54,900 21,000 15,500
Fines and Forfeitures 663,200 673,000 669,900 666,600 733,300 740,600
Other Revenues
Total Revenues 7,132,430 4,612,700 4,433,800 4,459,300 4,844,300 4,976,900
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 2,328,330 2,188,099 2,188,099 2,296,693 2,574,833 2,663,305
General Government 711,587 711,587 684,603 684,603 684,603 684,603
Total Operating Programs 3,039,917 2,899,686 2,872,702 2,981,296 3,259,436 3,347,908
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 1,952,970 50,798 50,798 23,641,272 83,485 120,998
Debt Service 970,817 969,389 969,400 2,053,434 2,419,570 2,412,187
Total Expenditures 5,963,704 3,919,873 3,892,900 28,676,002 5,762,491 5,881,093
Other Sources (Uses)
Cashflow adjustment for working capital
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out (151,011)(186,930)(43,100)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 17,600,000
Other 38,071
GST Loan per Council Approval (500,000)
(11,198)
Total Other Sources
(Uses)38,071 - (511,198) 17,448,989 (186,930)(43,100)
Revenues and Other Sources; Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 1,206,797 692,827 29,702 (6,767,713) (1,105,121) (947,293)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 8,436,557 10,279,336 9,643,354 10,972,163 4,204,450 3,099,329
Working Capital, End of Year 9,643,354 10,972,163 9,673,056 4,204,450 3,099,329 2,152,036
4.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment4.a: a - 2016-17 Supplement Parking Fund Analysis (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN INCREASE IN PARKING CITATION FINES
WHEREAS, State law provides, in Vehicle Code Section 40203.5, that cities establish the
amount of parking penalties, fees, and surcharges; and
WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City to recover administrative fees, parking penalties,
fees and collection costs related to civil debt collection, late payment penalties, and other related
charges; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of the
parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the staff report and held a public meeting on the proposed
changes to the parking citation fine amounts.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Effective July 1, 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo Penalty Schedule is hereby
amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Upon motion of ___________________, seconded by_____________________ and
on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____ day of ___________, 2016.
_______________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
4.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment4.b: b - Resolution Approving an Increase in Fine Amounts (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
4.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment4.b: b - Resolution Approving an Increase in Fine Amounts (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/1/2016
CODE & SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTY
SLMC 10.12.050 INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE/AUTHORIZED OFFICER 93
SLMC 10.14.030 OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 58
SLMC 10.14.090 UNAUTHORIZED PAINTING ON CURBS 58
SLMC 10.34.020 OVERNIGHT CAMPING (10pm - 6 am) 100
SLMC 10.36.020 STOPPING OR STANDING IN PARKWAYS PROHIBITED 33
SLMC 10.36.030 STOP/STAND/PARK IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 33
SLMC 10.36.040 NO PARKING ZONE - PROHIBITED PARKING - Also Taxi Zone (d) 53
SLMC 10.36.050 USE OF STREETS FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES PROHIBITED 33
SLMC 10.36.070 REPAIRING OR GREASING VEHICLE ON PUBLIC STREET 23
SLMC 10.36.080 WASHING OR POLISHING VEHICLES 23
SLMC 10.36.090 PARKING ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS 23
SLMC 10.36.100 PARKING PROHIBITED ON NARROW STREETS 23
SLMC 10.36.110 PARKING ON GRADES 23
SLMC 10.36.120 UNLAWFUL PARKING - PEDDLERS, VENDORS 23
SLMC 10.36.130 EMERGENCY PARKING SIGNS 23
SLMC 10.36.140 LARGE/COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING NEAR INTERSECTION 23
SLMC 10.36.150 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES 33
SLMC 10.36.160 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF VEH W/OPERATING AIR/REFRIGERATION 23
SLMC 10.36.200 PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA 38
SLMC 10.36.230 PERMITS - DISPLAY OF PERMITS 28
SLMC 10.36.235 NO PERMIT LOT 38
SLMC 10.40.010 TIMED PARKING 10 MINUTES TO 10 HOURS (Overtime Parking) 43
SLMC 10.40.020 BACKING INTO PARKING SPACE PROHIBITED 28
SLMC 10.40.040 PARKING PARALLEL ON ONE-WAY STREETS 21
SLMC 10.40.050 DIAGONAL PARKING 21
SLMC 10.40.060 PARKING SPACE MARKINGS 33
SLMC 10.40.070 NO STOPPING ZONE 21
SLMC 10.40.080 ALL NIGHT PARKING PROHIBITED (3-5am) 38
SLMC 10.44.020 CURB MARKING TO INDICATE NO STOPPING/PARKING REGS. 23
SLMC 10.44.030 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN YELLOW ZONE 53
SLMC 10.44.040 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN WHITE ZONE 33
SLMC 10.44.050 STANDING IN ANY ALLEY 33
SLMC 10.44.070 DISABLED PARKING 338
SLMC 10.48.010 CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL DISTRICT 58
SLMC 10.48.020 ADVERTISING VEHICLES 33
SLMC 10.48.030 ANIMAL DRAWN VEHICLES 33
SLMC 10.48.040 TRUCK ROUTES 88
SLMC 10.48.050 COMM. VEHICLES PROHIBITED FROM USING CERTAIN STREETS 88
4.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment4.b: b - Resolution Approving an Increase in Fine Amounts (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 4
R ______
SLMC 10.48.060 MAX. GROSS WT. LIMITS OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS 88
SLMC 10.52.040 PARKING METERS - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 23
SLMC 10.52.050 UNLAWFUL TO PARK AFTER METER TIME HAS EXPIRED 33
SLMC 10.52.060 UNLAWFUL TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND LIMIT 15
SLMC 10.52.070 IMPROPER USE OF METER 15
SLMC 10.52.080 PARKING METERS/STANDARDS - PROPER USE 15
SLMC 10.52.110 MOTORCYCLE SPACES 15
CVC 5204(a)* CURRENT TAB IMPROPERLY ATTACHED *25
CVC 21113(a) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-MOVING 116
CVC 21113(b) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-PARKING 33
CVC 21113 (c) DRIVEWAYS, PATHS, PARKING FACILITIES ON GROUNDS 33
CVC 22500.1 STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: FIRE LANE 116
CVC 22500(a) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: WITHIN INTERSECTION 33
CVC 22500(b) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON A CROSSWALK 33
CVC 22500(c) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: BETWEEN SAFETY ZONE 33
CVC 22500(d) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: W/IN 15' FIREHOUSE ENTRANCE 33
CVC 22500(e) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: PUBLIC/PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 33
CVC 22500(f) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON SIDEWALK 33
CVC 22500(g) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ALONG/OPPOSITE OBSTRUCT 33
CVC 22500(h) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON ROADWAY SIDE OF VEHICLE 33
CVC 22500(i) IMPROPER PARKING IN BUS ZONE 263
CVC 22500(j) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: IN TUBE OR TUNNEL 33
CVC 22500(k) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: UPON BRIDGE EXCEPT AUTH 33
CVC 22500(l) IMPROPER PARKING IN WHEELCHAIR ACCESS 263
CVC 22502(a) CURB PARKING 33
CVC 22502(b) PARKING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC 33
CVC 22502(c) CURB PARKING - WHEELS MORE THAN 18 INCHES FROM CURB 33
CVC 22504(a) UNINCORPORATED AREA PARKING 33
4.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment4.b: b - Resolution Approving an Increase in Fine Amounts (1367 : 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Review)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager/ Interim Director of Finance & Information
Technology
SUBJECT: 2014-15 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST OF
SERVICE FEE STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Simultaneous with the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan:
1. Approve the 2014-15 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated May 2016
(Attachments A &B1); and
2. Approve the Cost of Service Study completed in December 2014 and updated in May
2016 (Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
Cost Allocation and Reimbursement to the General Fund
Consistent with best practices, the City has prepared a formal Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
(CAP). One of the primary uses of the CAP is to quantify in dollars, the relationship between
administrative and support services contained within the General Fund, also known as central
service cost centers, and the programs they support throughout the City in order to provide
reimbursement for those services to the General Fund. The CAP can also be used to determine the
appropriate amount of administrative and support costs that may be charged to an existing or new
grant.
The CAP is prepared using actual operating expenses from one year and the resulting cost
allocations are programmed into the City’s budget two years later. Basing the CAP on actual
amounts allows the City to avoid the need to recalculate and true-up the allocations at a later date,
making it easier for the programs to manage the costs represented by the calculation. In this case,
the CAP is based on 2014-15 actual costs and the cost allocations are reflected in the 2016-17
proposed budget.
Two CAP Documents Required
There are two CAP documents presented. The first is a full cost plan which considers all
administrative and support costs that are allocated across all programs. The second CAP is the A-87
Plan which conforms to Office of Management & Budget Circular A-87 guidelines that determine
1 Full copies of the Cost Allocation Plans are included in the Council Reading File and were posted online for public
review.
5
Packet Pg. 117
which costs can be allocated to federal grant programs. It is this plan that is used to allocate costs to
the Transit Fund because it receives grants from the Federal Transit Authority. Under the A-87
guidelines, the costs of the City Council are not allocated to other programs.
The full cost version of the CAP establishes the allocable costs shown in the table below for the
Water, Sewer, Parking and Whale Rock Funds. The amounts shown in the column labeled
“Direct Billing Adjustments” represent amounts that offset the CAP-generated cost allocations to
the enterprise funds because certain costs can be charged back to the General Fund by the
programs that receive allocated costs from the CAP. For example, the costs for maintaining the
underground utilities locator program are accounted for in the Water Fund while this function also
benefits the General Fund for storm drains, traffic signal conduit and fiber optic lines. The Sewer
Fund also receives a benefit from this service as it helps identify the location of wastewater
collection lines. The net amount is represented in the column labeled “Actual” and that is the
amount that will be transferred to the General Fund.
2016-17 Reimbursement Transfers (Full CAP)
Fund
Cost allocation
based on 2014-15
actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Water 1,477,598 1,477,598
Sewer 1,591,041 1,591,041
Parking 684,603 684,603
Whale Rock 122,510 122,510
Total $3,875,752 $0 $3,875,752
The table below reflects the costs from the Central Services A-87 Cost Allocation Plan that are
allocable to the Transit Fund.
2016-17 Reimbursement Transfers (A-87 CAP)
Upon approval by the Council, the CAP certification will be signed by the Finance Director/City
Treasurer.
Cost of Services Analysis
In addition to the Cost Allocation Plan, the City has also prepared a Cost of Service Analysis
which establishes the annual cost of providing the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds with access
to the City’s right of way property, as well as the cost of providing police and fire protection for
both funds. This fee analysis replaces the franchise in-lieu fee which had previously been
charged to the utility enterprise funds based on a percentage of revenue. As part of the fee
analysis that was prepared, enterprise facilities that are not within the city limits wer e excluded
from consideration. The cost of service calculation yielded the following amounts for the years
Fund
Cost allocation
based on 2014-15
actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Transit 288,995 0 288,995
5
Packet Pg. 118
shown. For 2015-16, actual costs from 2013-14 were used and for the 2016-17 calculation,
actual costs from 2014-15 formed the basis for these calculations.
Water Enterprise 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Public Safety $253,959 $148,054 $229,410
Right of Way $455,867 $321,554 $331,835
Total:$709,826 $469,608 $561,245
Sewer Enterprise 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Public Safety $228,648 $219,357 $259,982
Right of Way $321,927 $227,076 $230,337
Total:$550,575 $446,433 $490,319
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2014-15 Central Services Full Cost Allocation Plan, net of direct billing adjustments results in a
total cost recovery of $4,164,747 in 2016-17. This amount is slightly above the estimate that is
shown the 5-Year Fiscal Forecast.
Attachments:
5.a a - CAP Summary
5.b b - OMB Summary
5.c c - Cost of Service Fee Calculation 2015-16
5.d d - Council Reading File - San Luis Obispo_FY2015 OMB A-87 CAP
5.e e - Council Reading File - San Luis Obispo_FY2015_Full CAP
5
Packet Pg. 119
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CENTRAL SERVICE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Fiscal Year 2015
Prepared May 5, 2016
1870 Divot Road
Carson City, NV 89701
775-883-3182
www.costplans.com
email: mahoney@costplans.com
5.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
5.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost Allocation Plan Fiscal Year 2015 COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTIONThe Central Service Cost Allocation Plan was prepared using a consistent approach and treatment of direct or indirect costs; in no case have costs charged as direct costs to programs been included as indirect costs. Actual expenditure information was obtained from the financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015. Statistics used to allocate costs were taken from FY 2015 data by performing one hundred percent counts, or in some cases, conducting a representative sample period count. STEP-DOWN ALLOCATION PROCEDUREA double step-down allocation procedure was used to distribute costs among central services and to programs that receive benefits. The double step-down procedure initially requires a sequential ordering of agencies. Department indirect cost allocations are then made in the order elected to all benefiting programs, including cross allocations to other central services. To insure that the cross-benefit of services among central services is fully recognized, a second step-down allocation for each central service is made. Costs allocated to each central service consist of the following:First Allocation – the actual operating expenditures, exclusive of unallowable items (i.e. capital expenditures, interest expense, and general government costs as designated by OMB Circular A-87), plus all allocated costs from other central services, which have been identified up to this point. Second Allocation – costs from other central services made subsequent to that section’s first allocation. With respect to the double step-down methodology, two important points should be noted: 1. The initial sequencing of Central Services was made in consideration of the ordering which maximizes the benefits of the services, and 2. After the second allocation of each central service, that service was “closed” and could not receive any additional allocation from other central services. To ease comprehension and to avoid unnecessary bulk in the plan, the first and second allocations are shown on the same schedule within the plan. 5.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost Allocation Plan Fiscal Year 2015 Prepared by: COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGYFORMATA Table of Contents is included at the beginning of the Plan. The allocation of costs has been accomplished in the same order as shown in the Table of Contents. The Table of Contents also permits the ready identification of the following summary data and sections of the Plan: Summary Data – Three summary schedules are provided at the beginning of the Plan: 1. Allocated Costs by Department (Schedule A) – provides the costs allocated from each central service to each operating department. The central service departments are listed on the left side of the page and the operating programs detailed in theplan are listed across the top. Costs shown at the bottom of each column represent the costs allocated to the department or fund. 2. Summary of Allocated Costs (Schedule C) – summarizes the costs allocated from each central service. The column labeled “Total Expenditures” is the total costs of the central service department. The column labeled “Cost Adjustments” are any costsadded or deducted from the central service. These costs are additions or subtractions to the cost identified in the General Ledger. The column labeled “Total Allocated” is the amount allocated to each operating department (this agrees with Schedule A). 3. Summary of Allocation Bases (Schedule E) – provides the bases used to allocate the costs for each function of every central service. Detail Data – information on each central service are presented in the following format: 1. Nature and Extent of Services – a narrative description of the central service and each function that was identified. Also described are the allocation bases used for each function and any other relevant information on expenditures. 2. Costs to be Allocated – presents the total costs to be allocated based on actual expenditures from the financial statements.Allocated additions represent costs allocated to a central service from other central services. 5.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost Allocation Plan Fiscal Year 2015 COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGYFORMAT (Continued)3. Costs to be Allocated by Function – costs for each Central Service are functionalized to the extent deemed necessary to insure the application of an allocation basis that most closely correlates with the benefits derived by receiving programs. Total costs allocated are the same as reflected on the previous schedule. Functions of the central services are listed across the top of thepage and a detailed schedule is provided on each function. 4. Detail Allocation – detailed schedule of the allocation of each function is provided on all allocated functions except for General Administration. Costs of General Administration are re-allocated to all other agency functions based on functional costs unlessotherwise noted. 5. Departmental Cost Allocation Summary – provides a summary of the costs allocated by function. The programs that receive allocations are listed on the left side of the page and the central service functions are listed across the top. INTERVIEWSThrough discussions and review with Departmental staff, Mahoney & Associates Consulting, LLC established functions performed by central service departments and costs associated with each function. 5.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 5.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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
5.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
,9$&DS &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH&RVW$OORFDWLRQ7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV6FKHGXOH72&6FKHGXOH3DJH1DUUDWLYH &RVWVWREH$OORFDWHG &RVWVE\)XQFWLRQ 'HWDLO$OORFDWLRQ)LUH+\GUDQW $OORFDWLRQ6XPPDU\ (QJ'HY5HY 8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV 1DUUDWLYH&RVWVWREH$OORFDWHG &RVWVE\)XQFWLRQ 'HWDLO$OORFDWLRQ8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV $OORFDWLRQ6XPPDU\
5.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
,9$&DS &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH&RVW$OORFDWLRQ$OORFDWHG&RVWVE\'HSDUWPHQW6XPPDU\SDJH6FKHGXOH$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH'HSDUWPHQWV)LUH$GPLQ)LUH$GPLQ*UDQW(PHUJHQF\5HVSRQVH)LUH$SSDUDWXV+D]DUG3UHYHQWLRQ+D]DUG3UHY*UDQW7UDLQLQJ6HUYLFHV5HFUXLW$FDGHP\7HFKQLFDO6HUYLFHV%XLOGLQJ8VH&KDUJH&LW\ &RXQFLO &LW\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ &LW\ $WWRUQH\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 5HFRUGV )LQDQFH 1HWZRUN6HUYLFHV *HRJUDSKLF,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFHV 6XSSRUW 6HUYLFHV +XPDQ5HVRXUFHV 5LVN0DQDJHPHQW :HOOQHVV3URJUDP 3XEOLF:RUNV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ%XLOGLQJ 0DLQWHQDQFH 9HKLFOH (TXLSPHQW0DLQWHQDFH&,33URMHFW(QJLQHHULQJ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQ(QJLQHHULQJ1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV3URWHFWLRQ 8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV +D]DUG3UHYHQWLRQ 8WLOLW\6YF (QJ'HY5HY 8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV 6XEWRWDO 3URSRVHG&RVWV 5.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
,9$&DS &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH&RVW$OORFDWLRQ6XPPDU\RI$OORFDWHG&RVWV6XPPDU\SDJH6FKHGXOH&'HSDUWPHQWV7RWDO([SHQGLWXUHV&RVW$GMXVWPHQWV7RWDO$OORFDWHG'LUHFW%LOOHG 7RWDO 5.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment5.a: a - CAP Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
OMB A-87 CENTRAL SERVICE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Fiscal Year 2015
Prepared May 5, 2016
1870 Divot Road
Carson City, NV 89701
775-883-3182
www.costplans.com
email: mahoney@costplans.com
5.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
5.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, CA OMB A-87 Central Service Cost Allocation Plan Fiscal Year 2015 COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTIONThe OMB A-87 Central Service Cost Allocation Plan was prepared using a consistent approach and treatment of direct or indirect costs; in no case have costs charged as direct costs to programs been included as indirect costs. Actual expenditure information was obtained from the financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2015. Statistics used to allocate costs were taken from FY 2015 data by performing one hundred percent counts, or in some cases, conducting a representative sample period count. STEP-DOWN ALLOCATION PROCEDUREA double step-down allocation procedure was used to distribute costs among central services and to programs that receive benefits. The double step-down procedure initially requires a sequential ordering of agencies. Department indirect cost allocations are then made in the order elected to all benefiting programs, including cross allocations to other central services. To insure that the cross-benefit of services among central services is fully recognized, a second step-down allocation for each central service is made. Costs allocated to each central service consist of the following:First Allocation – the actual operating expenditures, exclusive of unallowable items (i.e. capital expenditures, interest expense, and general government costs as designated by OMB Circular A-87), plus all allocated costs from other central services, which have been identified up to this point. Second Allocation – costs from other central services made subsequent to that section’s first allocation. With respect to the double step-down methodology, two important points should be noted: 1. The initial sequencing of Central Services was made in consideration of the ordering which maximizes the benefits of the services, and 2. After the second allocation of each central service, that service was “closed” and could not receive any additional allocation from other central services. To ease comprehension and to avoid unnecessary bulk in the plan, the first and second allocations are shown on the same schedule within the plan. 5.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, CA OMB A-87 Central Service Cost Allocation Plan Fiscal Year 2015 Prepared by: COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGYFORMATA Table of Contents is included at the beginning of the Plan. The allocation of costs has been accomplished in the same order as shown in the Table of Contents. The Table of Contents also permits the ready identification of the following summary data and sections of the Plan: Summary Data – Three summary schedules are provided at the beginning of the Plan: 1. Allocated Costs by Department (Schedule A) – provides the costs allocated from each central service to each operating department. The central service departments are listed on the left side of the page and the operating programs detailed in theplan are listed across the top. Costs shown at the bottom of each column represent the costs allocated to the department or fund. 2. Summary of Allocated Costs (Schedule C) – summarizes the costs allocated from each central service. The column labeled “Total Expenditures” is the total costs of the central service department. The column labeled “Cost Adjustments” are any costsadded or deducted from the central service. These costs are additions or subtractions to the cost identified in the General Ledger. The column labeled “Total Allocated” is the amount allocated to each operating department (this agrees with Schedule A). 3. Summary of Allocation Bases (Schedule E) – provides the bases used to allocate the costs for each function of every central service. Detail Data – information on each central service are presented in the following format: 1. Nature and Extent of Services – a narrative description of the central service and each function that was identified. Also described are the allocation bases used for each function and any other relevant information on expenditures. 2. Costs to be Allocated – presents the total costs to be allocated based on actual expenditures from the financial statements.Allocated additions represent costs allocated to a central service from other central services. 5.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
City of San Luis Obispo, CA OMB A-87 Central Service Cost Allocation Plan Fiscal Year 2015 COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGYFORMAT (Continued)1. Costs to be Allocated by Function – costs for each Central Service are functionalized to the extent deemed necessary to insure the application of an allocation basis that most closely correlates with the benefits derived by receiving programs. Total costs allocated are the same as reflected on the previous schedule. Functions of the central services are listed across the top of thepage and a detailed schedule is provided on each function. 2. Detail Allocation – detailed schedule of the allocation of each function is provided on all allocated functions except for General Administration. Costs of General Administration are re-allocated to all other agency functions based on functional costs unlessotherwise noted. 3. Departmental Cost Allocation Summary – provides a summary of the costs allocated by function. The programs that receive allocations are listed on the left side of the page and the central service functions are listed across the top. INTERVIEWSThrough discussions and review with Departmental staff, Mahoney & Associates Consulting, LLC established functions performed by central service departments and costs associated with each function. It was the primary objective of Mahoney & Associates to use data representative of services provided to users while still adhering to the specifications of the OMB Circular A-87 cost principles. 5.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 5.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
CERTIFICATE OF COST ALLOCATION PLANThis is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief:(1) All costs included in this proposal to establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2015 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) are allowable in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A 87, "Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments," and the Federal award(s) to which they apply. Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan.(2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the awards to which they are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently.I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.Governmental Unit: _____________________________________________________Signature: ____________________________________________________________Name of Official: _______________________________________________________Title: ________________________________________________________________Date of Execution: _____________________________________________________5.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 5.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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
5.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
,9$&DS &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$20%$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH&RVW$OORFDWLRQ7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV6FKHGXOH72&6FKHGXOH3DJH1DUUDWLYH &RVWVWREH$OORFDWHG &RVWVE\)XQFWLRQ 'HWDLO$OORFDWLRQ8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV $OORFDWLRQ6XPPDU\ 5.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
,9$&DS &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$20%$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH&RVW$OORFDWLRQ$OORFDWHG&RVWVE\'HSDUWPHQW6XPPDU\SDJH6FKHGXOH$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH'HSDUWPHQWV&LW\&RXQFLO&XOWXUDO$FWLYLWLHV(FRQ'HY1DW5HV3URWHFWLRQ&RPP3URPRWLRQ+XPDQ5HODWLRQV&RPP'HY$GPLQ&RPPLVVLRQV &RPP'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ%XLOGLQJ8VH&KDUJH &LW\$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ &LW\$WWRUQH\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 5HFRUGV )LQDQFH 1HWZRUN6HUYLFHV *HRJUDSKLF,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFHV 6XSSRUW 6HUYLFHV +XPDQ5HVRXUFHV 5LVN0DQDJHPHQW :HOOQHVV3URJUDP 3XEOLF:RUNV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ%XLOGLQJ0DLQWHQDQFH 9HKLFOH (TXLSPHQW0DLQWHQDFH &,33URMHFW(QJLQHHULQJ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQ(QJLQHHULQJ1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV3URWHFWLRQ 8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV +D]DUG3UHYHQWLRQ 8WLOLW\6YF (QJ'HY5HY 8WLOLW\6HUYLFHV 6XEWRWDO 3URSRVHG&RVWV 5.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
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b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
,9$&DS &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$20%$&HQWUDO6HUYLFH&RVW$OORFDWLRQ6XPPDU\RI$OORFDWHG&RVWV6XPPDU\SDJH6FKHGXOH&'HSDUWPHQWV7RWDO([SHQGLWXUHV&RVW$GMXVWPHQWV7RWDO$OORFDWHG'LUHFW%LOOHG 7RWDO 5.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment5.b: b - OMB Summary (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2014‐15 using 2012‐13 Actual AmountsAllocation TypeWater EnterpriseSewer EnterpriseTotal Enterprise AllocationPublic Safety 253,959$ 228,648$ 482,607$ Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 455,867$ 321,927$ 777,793$ Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (3,300)$ (3,300)$ Total 709,826$ 547,274$ 1,257,100$ Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2015‐16 using 2013‐14 Actual AmountsAllocation TypeWater EnterpriseSewer EnterpriseTotal Enterprise AllocationPublic Safety 148,054$ 219,357$ 367,410$ Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 321,554$ 227,076$ 548,630$ Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (3,360)$ (3,360)$ Total 469,607$ 443,073$ 912,680$ Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2016‐17 using 2014‐15 Actual amountsAllocation TypeWater EnterpriseSewer EnterpriseTotal Enterprise AllocationPublic Safety 229,410$ 259,982$ 489,391$ Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 331,835$ 234,337$ 566,172$ Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$ Total 561,244$ 490,319$ 1,051,563$ HF&H Consultants, LLC5/24/2016 12:38 PMCopy of SLO Alloc Model 2015‐17 Financial Plan Cost of Svc WS fees ‐revised for 2016‐17 suplementalSummary5.c
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment5.c: c - Cost of Service Fee Calculation 2015-16 (1374 : 2014-2015 Cost Allocation Plan)
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Lee Price, MMC, Interim City Clerk
SUBJECT: SHORT-TERM APPOINTMENT TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS
COMMISSION (HRC)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittee:
1. Approve a leave of absence for HRC Commissioner Maria Troy; and
2. Appoint Nancy Welts to the HRC for a short-term appointment of up to six (6) months
effectively immediately.
DISCUSSION
Human Relations Commissioner Maria Troy was appointed to the HRC in June of 2014 and was
reappointed to a four-year term March 15, 2016. Due to unusual circumstances, Commissioner
Troy has requested a leave of absence. Pursuant to the Advisory Body Handbook and past
practice, leaves of absence are generally not granted except under very unusual circumstances
and when authorized in advance by the Council.
Council Members Carpenter and Rivoire serve as the Council Liaison Subcommittee (CLS) to
the HRC and have recommended that the Council grant Commissioner Troy’s leave of absence
request, and further, to and appoint Nancy Welts for a short-term appointment, consistent with
the Advisory Body Handbook. Ms. Welts applied for the HRC earlier this year and was
interviewed by the CLS on February 19, 2016. The CLS found her qualified and recommended
her for a future opening on the HRC. Ms. Welts is able and willing to serve a short -term
appointment.
7
Packet Pg. 167
Page intentionally left
blank.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, April 5,
2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - MONTH OF THE CHILD
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Melinda Skolowski, representing Community
Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) Family Services, proclaiming April 2016,
as “Month of the Child” and “Child Abuse Prevention Month” in the City of San Luis
Obispo.
2. PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Lisa Bruce, representing Respect Inspire Support
Empower (RISE), proclaiming April 2016 as “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” and April
30th as “Walk a Mile In Her Shoes Day” in the City of San Luis Obispo.
9.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment9.a: a - 04-05-16 Minutes (1395 : Minutes of April 5, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 5, 2016 - DRAFT Page 2
3. PRESENTATION BY PETER WILLIAMSON REPRESENTING SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG), REGARDING
RIDESHARE'S BIKE MONTH
Peter Williamson, representing San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG),
provided a presentation on Rideshare’s Bike Month and announced Bike to Work Day on
Friday May 20, 2016.
Mayor Marx requested to reorder the agenda to hear Council Communications and Liaison
Reports before Public Comment. By consensus, the City Council reordered the agenda as
requested.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Mayor Carpenter requested to agendize the Democracy Voucher Program for
reconsideration at a future City Council meeting. By consensus, the City Council agreed to
reconsider this item at a future Council Meeting. City Manager Lichtig announced that the
matter would be placed on the agenda for April 19, 2016 at 4:00 p.m.
LIAISON REPORTS
Mayor Marx reported her attendance at the Regional Leadership Forum endorsed by the
California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG), with no expense to the City.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Kyle Jordon, San Luis Obispo, urged the Council to direct City staff to make safety
improvements to the railroad crossing at California and Foothill a priority.
Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, expressed gratitude to City Staff for conducting a compatibility
workshop, shared concerns about traffic impacts from new developments and urged the Council
to make 71 Palomar a City park.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, asked the Council to develop a strategy to ensure the viability of
locally owned, small businesses in the downtown.
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, shared concern about environmental impacts (water and climate)
because of growth and new development.
Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the reliability of water resources.
Biz Steinberg expressed appreciation for the “Month of the Child” proclamation and to the Parks
and Recreation Department for providing quality programs, like “Children’s Day”.
Claudia Andersen, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns about impacts to neighborhoods caused
by college students.
9.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment9.a: a - 04-05-16 Minutes (1395 : Minutes of April 5, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 5, 2016 - DRAFT Page 3
Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo, mentioned the “100 Anniversary Find Your Park” initiative
and spoke about the positive benefits of spending time outdoors in public parks, trails and
outdoor spaces. She urged the City to consider neighborhood parks in the General Plan.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, addressed water quality/availability and climate
change, and urged the City to explore some form of mitigation.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve the consent Calendar Items 4 through
6, with Council Member Ashbaugh registering a recusal on Item 6 due to a potential conflict of
interest (business interest of spouse).
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. TERRACE HILL AND WASH WATER TANKS MAINTENANCE;
SPECIFICATION NO. 91425
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve a transfer of $57,000 from the Water Storage Reservoirs Maintenance and Tank
Master Account to the design phase of the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks
Maintenance project account; and
2. Approve a transfer of $26,484 from the Water Completed Projects Account to the design
phase of the Terrace Hill and Wash Water Tanks Maintenance project account.
6. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A POTENTIAL PARKING STRUCTURE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SANTA ROSA INFILL PROJECT
CARRIED 4-0-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH RECUSED) to:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with
1144 Higuera Investments, LLC in a final form subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, reimbursing the City for consultant work related to the study of City
participation in the potential parking structure associated with the Santa Rosa Infill
Project; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the consultant contracts associated with the
reimbursement agreement.
9.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment9.a: a - 04-05-16 Minutes (1395 : Minutes of April 5, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 5, 2016 - DRAFT Page 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. APPEAL OF A CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO DENY
PROPERTY OWNER’S APPEAL OF AN AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION
(ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMIT AND OTHER
VIOLATIONS) AT 1269 FREDERICKS
Council Members announced the following Ex Parte Communications: Council Member
Rivore met with City Staff, Council Member Ashbaugh met with the Appellant and Mayor
Marx met with Staff.
Community Development Director Michael Codron, Chief Building Official Anne
Schneider, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Fire Marshal Rodger Maggio and
Code Enforcement Officer Teresa Purring provided an in-depth staff report and
recommendation to deny the appeal. Staff responded to Council questions.
Matthew Boutte, attorney representing the Appellants Steven and Kathie Walker, provided
background information and spoke in support of the appeal. Appellant Kathy Walker
described difficulties she and her husband have experienced personally, with the property
and with the City.
Public Comments:
The following San Luis Obispo residents spoke in favor of granting the appeal: Odile Ayral,
Gary Dwyer, Linda White, Carolyn Smith, Tammy Cody, Camille Small, Brett Strickland,
Sandra Rowley (Residents for Quality Neighborhoods), Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Cheryl
McLean, and Mike Clark.
Michelle Tasseff spoke in support of the recommendation to deny the appeal.
---End of Public Comments---
Staff responded to additional Council questions regarding the history of issues and
violations. Community Development Director Codron clarified that City Staff have not had
access to the property since 2014 and emphasized that it is the City’s intention to work with
the property owners to develop a mutually acceptable abatement agreement to address the
code violations.
Lengthy Council discussion followed. Vice Mayor Carpenter argued in support of the
appeal, noting that the situation is unique and that the Walkers want to move forward in
good faith. The City Attorney provided guidance to the Council on proposed modifications
to the draft resolution denying the appeal and advised that if the City and the Walkers reach
an agreement, the matter need not return to the City Council. Vice Mayor Carpenter stated
that he would prefer the matter come back to the Council.
9.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment9.a: a - 04-05-16 Minutes (1395 : Minutes of April 5, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 5, 2016 - DRAFT Page 5
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (VICE MAYOR CARPENTER VOTING
NO) to adopt Resolution No. 10703 (2016 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California denying an appeal of the Construction
Board of Appeals’ decision to deny an appeal filed by the property owner of an amended
Notice of Violation for construction without a permit and other violations”, as amended
(Section 2. Action: Modified to include language to deny the appeal; add the word “may”
before “continue to exist”; strike “…and as such constitute a public nuisance, and the
property owners are responsible for such violations.”; and add the following language in
italics “…The Property Owners are hereby directed to work with the Chief Building
Official within the next ninety (90) days to complete a subsequent inspection and establish a
time frame for compliance, …”
8. REVIEW OF REQUEST TO INITIATE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED
MADONNA ON LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH
INCLUDES A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, SENIOR HOUSING,
PARK, AND OPEN SPACE USES (12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD)
Contract Planner Shawna Scott provided a detailed staff report. Community Development
Director Codron summarized key issues, including the proponent’s request to develop above
the 150-foot elevation, which is currently inconsistent with Land Use Element.
Applicant John Madonna (John Madonna Construction) spoke to the merits of the proposed
project. Vic Montgomery (RRM Design Group) provided a PowerPoint presentation
highlighting the conceptual design for a mix of land uses within the proposed Froom/II
Villagio Specific Plan.
Council questions followed.
Public Comments:
The following San Luis Obispo residents spoke in favor of the concept design: Leslie Halls,
Elliott Marshall, Rob Rossi, Dave Romero, Judie Reiner, Carl Dudley, Ken Reiner, Brian
Ackerman, Cordelia Perry, Ray Walters (Principle of Villagio Communities), and Charlene
Rosales.
The following San Luis Obispo residents expressed concerns about the proposed project
because of environmental impacts to wetlands, open space and wildlife: Neil Havlik, Mila
Vujovich-LaBarre and William Waycott.
---End of Public Comments---
Individual Council comments followed in support of conceptual approval.
9.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment9.a: a - 04-05-16 Minutes (1395 : Minutes of April 5, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 5, 2016 - DRAFT Page 6
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CARPENTER 5-0, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to adopt
Resolution No. 10704 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing initiation of an application for the Proposed
Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan and General Plan amendments, including
related actions in support of the application” and directed the applicant to present alternative
development plans, observing the 150-foot Elevation Development Limit Policy.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:29 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
__________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2016
9.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment9.a: a - 04-05-16 Minutes (1395 : Minutes of April 5, 2016)
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: ADDITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1214 MILL STREET TO THE MASTER LIST Of HISTORIC RESOURCES
AS “THE THERESA TORRES TRUE HOUSE.”
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
adding the property located at 1214 Mill Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as “The
Theresa Torres True House.”
DISCUSSION
Background
The property owner has requested that the property located at 1214 Mill Street be included in the
City’s Master List of Historic Resources as “The Theresa Torres True House.” The property is
currently included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing Historic
Resource, and is located within the Mill Street Historic District.
On April 25, 2016, the CHC considered this request. The CHC found that the property meets the
eligibility criteria for historic listing as a Master List Historic Resource and recommended that
the City Council add the property to the Master List of Historic Resources (Attachment D, CHC
Resolution).
Building Architecture
10
Packet Pg. 174
As described in the CHC staff report and Historic Resource Evaluation, the house is an excellent
example of a Queen Anne Cottage, and has retained its original architectural character
(Attachments B & C). The house retains the authentic physical identity of a Queen Anne
Cottage, in its display of characteristics that are associated with the home’s period of
significance, built in the late 1800s. These characteristics include a forward facing shingled
gable, recessed porch with spindled columns, octagonal bay widow and the house is highly
ornamental. The property also features an historic granite hitching post with stamped concrete
base near the property’s street frontage. The stamped concrete base identifies the house as the
“True House”, named for the home’s original owner Theresa Torres True. No other Queen Anne
Cottage style homes with this degree of historic integrity and adherence to Queen Anne
architectural style are found elsewhere within the Mill Street District, making the home a rarity
within this locale.
Theresa Torres True
The house was built for Teresa Torres True in 1899, who was a single mother and local
seamstress. Although her life and occupation alone does not meet the set criteria of a person of
outstanding recognition or contribution, it is of some significance to note her existence in con text
to the property. The original granite hitching post with iron ring is still in place along the street
frontage of the property. A portion of the original concrete sidewalk at the base of the post also
remains, with the words “TRUE HOUSE 1899”. Making note of this person, their connection to
the property and their role in the community, gives context to this historic aspect of the property,
although the property does not appear to meet the criteria for historical significance in relation to
the original owner.
Evaluation of Eligibility for Listing
The house is eligible to be added to the Master List of Contributing Historic Resources because
the house exhibits a high level of historic integrity, is over 50 years old , and satisfies necessary
criteria as set in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (§14.01.070). The house satisfies
architectural criteria in terms of style and design, as a rare example of a Queen Anne Cottage
within the Mill Street Historic District. The house has a high level of notable attractiveness with
aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship. The house also satisfies
the set criteria in terms of integrity. The satisfied criteria for integrity includes the structures
placement on its original site, the degree in which the structure maintained its historic character
and appearance, and the degree in which it has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
Conclusion
10
Packet Pg. 175
The house qualifies for the Master List of Historic Resources based on architectural criteria and
criteria for integrity of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. On April 25, 2016, the CHC
recommended the City Council add the property to the Master List of Historic Resources as the
historic Theresa Torres True House (Attachment D, CHC Resolution).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) since the proposed action is authorized by a local ordinance to assure the
maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory
process involves procedures for protection of the environment, as described in Section 15308 of
the CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
Listing the property as a Master List Historic Resource will result in no fiscal impacts to the
City. However, the addition of the property to the Master List will allow the applicants to qualify
for the Mills Act program, since only properties listed on the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources are eligible to apply for a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract. Mills Act
contracts require an application and fee of $3,867, commitment to specific improvements, and/or
maintenance of the property, review by the CHC, and final approval by the City Council. Fiscal
impact analysis is included in the Council agenda reports for Mills Act contracts.
ALTERNATIVES
Continue the item for additional analysis or discussion.
Do not add the property to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, based on findings that
the property does not satisfy the criteria for designation as a Master List Historic Resource. This
action would result in the property remaining on the Contributing List of Historic Resources.
Attachments:
10.a a - Draft Council Resolution (1214 Mill)
10.b b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants,
2016
10.c c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments)
10
Packet Pg. 176
10.d d - Cultural Heritage Committee final Resolution No. CHC-1007-16
10.e e - Vicinity Map - HIST-2842-2016 (1214 Mill)
10
Packet Pg. 177
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1214
MILL STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES,
HIST-2842-2019
WHEREAS, applicant Lawrence Brooks, on March 2, 2016, submitted a complete
application to add his residence to the Mater List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo at a public
hearing held in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on April 25, 2016, and recommended the City Council add the property to the Master
List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, on June 14, 2016, for the purpose of considering
adding the property located at 1214 Mill Street to the Master List of Historic Resources (HIST-
2842-2016); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicants, interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing, and
the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Council makes the following findings of consistency with
Historic Preservation Program Ordinance eligibility criteria for Master List Historic Resources:
1. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it is an excellent
example of a Queen Anne Cottage that is at least 50 years old, and has retained its original
architectural character.
2. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it is a rare example
of a Queen Anne Cottage within the Mill Street Historic District.
3. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it has an authentic
physical identity which displays characteristics that existed during the home’s period of
significance, such as a forward facing shingled gable, recessed porch with spindled columns,
octagonal bay widow, is highly ornamental and features an historic granite hitching post
with stamped concrete base near the property’s street frontage.
4. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it satisfies the style
and design architectural criteria and integrity criteria, Section 14.01.070, of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance
10.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment10.a: a - Draft Council Resolution (1214 Mill) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources Determination - 1214 Mill)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
SECTION 2. Action. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby add the
property located at 1214 Mill Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as the historic “Theresa
Torres True House”.
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that
the above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by Section 153 08 of the California
Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2016.
_____________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
_____________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim 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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
10.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment10.a: a - Draft Council Resolution (1214 Mill) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources Determination - 1214 Mill)
10.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
10.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment10.b: b - Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
Meeting Date: April 25, 2016
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of an application requesting the addition of 1214 Mill Street to the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1214 Mill Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen
Planning Technician
FILE NUMBER: HIST-2842-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the City Council add the property to the Master List of Historic Resources.
2.0 SITE DATA
Applicant Lawrence Brooks & Heidi Harmon
Historic Status Contributing Property
Zoning R-2 (Medium-Density Residential)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 0.13 Acres (5,850 square feet)
Environmental
Status
Categorical Exemption, Class 3,
Section 15308, Resource Protection,
CEQA Guidelines.
3.0 BACKGROUND
The property owner has submitted an application requesting the Contributing historic residence
at 1214 Mill Street be added to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. Bertrando &
Bertrando Research Consultants (“Bertrando Report”) prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation
report that recommends adding this house to the Master List of Historic Resources as the Theresa
Torres True House.
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Site Description
10.c
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
HIST-2842-2016
1214 Mill Street
Page 2
The property is located in a Medium-Density Residential (R-2-H) Zone and is within the Mill
Street Historic District. The residence was constructed in 1899 and is on a lot measuring
approximately 5,850 square feet in area. At the rear of the property there are two wooden
buildings. The building in the eastern corner was built as a garage in 1923, and a workshop was
built in the western corner of the lot sometime after 1957. There are many other contributing
properties in the neighborhood including a Master List property at 1266 Mill Street, the Shipsey
House, which is located to the east, at the end of the block, which was classified as a Master List
Resource in 1983.
4.2 Architectural Description
As discussed in the Bertrando report
(Attachment 3), this home is an excellent
example of a Queen Anne Cottage from the
turn of the 20th century. The home exhibits
characteristics of this style including an
asymmetrical frontage with and front facing
gable and octagonal bay window, porch and
medium pitched roof. The detailing to the
house includes ornamental roof cresting, front
facing small dormer, and decorative front
porch brackets.
The residence was recognized in 1983 as a Contributing historical resource. The Mill Street
Historic District was later established in 1987. The house was described in the Historic Resource
Inventory as a highly decorated one-story Queen Anne Cottage with rich detail, a forward facing
gable with square butt shingles, and having a decorated bargeboard (Attachment 4).
5.0 EVALUATION
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC §14.01.060), will make a recommendation to the City Council for final action. Master
List Resources are the most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age,
architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in
the City’s past. A resource must be at least 50 years old and exhibit a high level of historical
integrity in order to be eligible for designation as a Master List Resource. The resource must also
satisfy criteria related to architecture, history, or integrity.
The following evaluation highlights the significance criteria. Most notably, this residence is
excellent example of a Queen Anne Cottage from the turn of the twentieth century.
5.1 Architectural Criteria (§14.01.070 A)
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
Figure 1: 1214 Mill Street; Teresa Torres True House
10.c
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
HIST-2842-2016
1214 Mill Street
Page 3
1. Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and detail within that
form (e.g., arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.) Building style will be
evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of the existence at any time in the locale; and or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and /or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these
styles are put together.
2. Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit
and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detain of elements. Also,
suggests degree to which the designer accurately interpreted and conveyed the style.
Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details, and
craftsmanship […];
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although
the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
Staff Analysis: The Queen Anne Cottage style has a number of defining qualities, of which the
proposed home is an excellent example. These include:
Asymmetrical design with a forward facing shingled gable
Raised finish floor
Recessed Porch with spindled columns
Medium pitched roof
Highly ornamental, including using wall surfaces as decorative elements
Round or octagonal rooms/bay windows
The relative purity of this traditional style is connected to these qualities. Some previously
removed elements on the home were replaced and have brought much of the style back to
recognition. Where new construction was needed, it was done in the same style as what existed
on the home and some wood used was specially milled for the rehabilitation.
The Mill Street Historic District encompasses many different architectural styles. Within the
district there are recognized examples of the Queen Anne style, most notably the Righetti House
on the corner of Johnson and Palm. The Queen Anne Cottage style is not as large and spacious as
many of the Queen Anne style examples. This reduced scale is due to the limitations of smaller
10.c
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
HIST-2842-2016
1214 Mill Street
Page 4
rectangular urban lots and working men’s, or women's, budgets. No other Queen Anne Cottage
style homes with this degree of purity are found elsewhere within the Mill Street District, making
the home a rarity within this locale.
The aesthetic appeal of the home is attributed to its rich detail. Notably, the home was featured in
the Fire Department Souvenir of San Luis Obispo in 1904, as an outstanding addition to the town
(Figure 2). In the years leading up to 1980 some of the detailing in this picture was removed.
Recent rehabilitation efforts have brought the appearance of the home back to what is seen in this
picture. This was achieved by the replacement of certain elements including the ridge cresting,
porch brackets and small dormer which can be seen on the home currently.
5.2 Historic Criteria (§14.01.070 B)
Person, Event, Context:
Staff Analysis: The house was built for Teresa Torres True in 1899, who was a local seamstress.
Although her life and occupation alone does not meet the set criteria of a person of outstanding
recognition or contribution, it is of some significance to note her existence in context to the
property. The original granite “hitching post” with iron ring is still in place along the street
frontage of the property. A portion of the original concrete sidewalk at the base of the post also
remains, with the words “TRUE HOUSE 1899” (Figure 3). Making note of this person, their
connection to the property and their role in the community, gives context to this historic aspect
of the property, although the property does not appear to meet the criteria for historical
significance.
Figure 2: 1214 Mill Street as seen in the Fire Department
Souvenir of San Luis Obispo, 1904
10.c
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
HIST-2842-2016
1214 Mill Street
Page 5
5.3 Integrity (§14.01.070 C)
Authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Staff Analysis: The house is over 100 years old and has been rehabilitated and restored to convey
its historical physical identity. The foundation has been replaced as a part of recent rehabilitation
efforts, but occupies its original site and placement on the property. The home has also retained a
high degree of its historical character and conveys its significance as a rare example of a Queen
Anne Cottage style home. It has recently been returned to its original appearance, which is
evident through the examination of the available pictures taken over time (figures 4-7). The
existence of the original granite hitching post and stamped concrete also adds to the properties
integrity.
Figure 3: Hitching Post with brass ring and stamped concrete at base
10.c
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
HIST-2842-2016
1214 Mill Street
Page 6
Figure 4: Circa 1904
Figure 6: 1983
Figure 5: Circa 1980
Figure 7: 2016
6.0 SUMMARY
Within the Mill Street Historic District, this is the only example of this style of home and
satisfies the criteria in the Historic Preservation Ordinance as a rare example of the Queen Anne
Cottage architectural style; and the property has sufficient integrity to convey its significance.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the City Council add the property to the Master List of Historic Resources.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Find that the property does not satisfy eligibility criteria for designation as a Master List
Resource and recommend to the City Council that it not be added to the Master List of
Historic Resources.
10.c
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
HIST-2842-2016
1214 Mill Street
Page 7
2. Review and consider the Historic Resource Evaluation and continue the item to provide
additional time for collecting additional information that may be useful in determining
whether the property is eligible for designation as a Master List Resource.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Historic Resource Evaluation, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, 2016
4. Historic Resource Inventory, 1983
10.c
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment10.c: c - Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2016 (without attachments) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADD THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1214
MILL STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, HIST-2842-2016
WHEREAS, applicant Lawrence Brooks, on March 2, 2016, submitted a complete
application to add his residence to the Mater List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on April 25, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under HIST-2842-2016; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings
1. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it is an excellent
example of a Queen Anne Cottage that is at least 50 years old, and has retained its
original architectural character.
2. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it is a rare
example of a Queen Anne Cottage within the Mill Street Historic District.
3. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it has an authentic
physical identity which displays characteristics that existed during the home’s period of
significance, such as a forward facing shingled gable, recessed porch with spindled
columns, octagonal bay widow, is highly ornamental and features an historic granite
hitching post with stamped concrete base near the property’s street frontage.
4. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it satisfies the
style and design architectural criteria and integrity criteria, Section 14.01.070, of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Section 2. Environmental Review. Historic listing is exempt from environmental review
(Section 15308 (Resource Protection)).
Section 3. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend the City Council
add the property located at 1214 Mill Street to the Master List of Historic Resources.
10.d
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment10.d: d - Cultural Heritage Committee final Resolution No. CHC-1007-16 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources Determination -
Resolution No.XXXX-16
1214 Mill Street (HIST-2842-2016)
Page 2
On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of April, 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
10.d
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment10.d: d - Cultural Heritage Committee final Resolution No. CHC-1007-16 (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources Determination -
R-2-H
O
R-2
R-2-HR-2
R-2-H
R-3
R-3-HR-2-H
R-2
R-3-H
PFR-2
R-2-H
O
R-2-H
MILLT
O
R
OPEAC HVICINITY MAP File No. 2842-20161214 MILL ST ¯
10.e
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment10.e: e - Vicinity Map - HIST-2842-2016 (1214 Mill) (1376 : Master List of Historic Resources Determination - 1214 Mill)
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY’S COLLECTION OF FIRE
AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution enabling the continued collection of multi-dwelling property fire and life
safety inspection fees via the secured property tax roll administered by the County.
DISCUSSION
In May 2005, the Council approved a cost recovery program for State-mandated fire and life
safety inspections for multi-dwelling properties with three or more units. As part of this
program, on June 7, 2005, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1472 authorizing the collection of
annual fees for these inspections through the secured County property tax roll as the most cost
efficient method for fee collection.
In April, 2007, the Council approved a reduction in fees for apartment buildings, as reflected in
Exhibit A to the attached resolution. Staff is not recommending any further changes in the
current fees for 2016-17. However, the County requires an annual resolution adopted by the
Council authorizing the continued collection of these fees on the property tax roll. Staff is
recommending that the fee collection continue to be done through the secured property tax roll in
2016-17 and is requesting that Council adopt the required resolution to authorize that collection.
CONCURRENCES
Finance & Information Technology Department concurs with the recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
In fiscal year 2015-16, the City is scheduled to collect $194,000. Projected revenue for fiscal
year 2016-17 is $194,000.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the resolution and go to a less cost effective billing system by the Finance Division.
This option is not recommended as the County collection of the billing through the property tax
assessment is efficient and the City Finance Department does not have the staff capacity to
11
Packet Pg. 214
undertake this billing system.
Attachments:
11.a a - Resolution Multi Dwelling Program Fees 2016
11
Packet Pg. 215
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AUDITOR TO COLLECT FEES FOR 2016-17 FIRE AND LIFE
SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTIES
CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS ON THE
SECURED PROPERTY TAX ROLL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54988.
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code
Section 17921 annually to inspect multi-dwelling properties containing three or more dwelling
units, including apartments, certain residential condominiums, hotels, motels, lodging houses and
congregate residences; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2 authorizes cities to
charge property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy, the Council adopted Resolution Nos. 9799
(2006 Series) and 9889 (2007 Series) updating the master fee schedule, as specifically set forth in
“Exhibit A” hereto, and authorizing the collection of these fees on the secured property tax roll;
and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue collection of these fees on the secured
property tax roll for 2016-17:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) and
Municipal Code Chapter 3.50, the Council hereby authorizes and directs that Fire and Life Safety
Inspection fees shall be collected on the secured property tax roll by the San Luis Obispo County
Auditor-Controller for fiscal year 2016-17. A listing of fees by assessor’s parcel number shall be
provided to the County Auditor-Controller for collection on the 2016-17 secured property tax roll
in accordance with their schedule and data format requirements, pursuant to California
Government Code 54988.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted on June 14, 2016.
11.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment11.a: a - Resolution Multi Dwelling Program Fees 2016 (1301 : Resolution Authorizing County Collection of Fire & Life Safety Fees)
Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim 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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
11.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment11.a: a - Resolution Multi Dwelling Program Fees 2016 (1301 : Resolution Authorizing County Collection of Fire & Life Safety Fees)
Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
Multi-Dwelling Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule
Apartment Houses
$28.00 per unit per year
Administrative fee of $65.00 per year per facility
$10,000 maximum per property
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority, other governmental agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations.
Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior
Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences
1 to 30 units $200 per year per facility
31 to 80 units $300 per year per facility
More than 80 units $400 per year per facility
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the following
definitions as set forth in the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 2: Definitions and
Abbreviations, Section 202 and Chapter 3, Section 310.
Apartment house is any building, or portion thereof, which contains three or more dwelling
units, including R-2 (building construction type) residential condominiums.
Congregate residences are any building or portion thereof that contains facilities for living,
sleeping and sanitation, as required by this code, and may include facilities for eating and
cooking, for occupancy by other than a family. A congregate residence may be a shelter,
convent, monastery, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, but does not include jails, hospitals,
nursing homes, hotels, or lodging houses.
Dwelling unit is any building or portion thereof that contains living facilities, including
provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, as required by this code, for not more
than one family, or a congregate residence for ten or less persons.
Hotel is any building containing six or more guest rooms intended or designed to be use, or
which are used, rented or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes
by guests.
Lodging house is any building or portion thereof containing not more than five guest rooms
where rent is paid in money, goods, labor or otherwise. (A lodging house includes bed &
breakfast facilities and hostels, but excludes single family dwellings).
Motel shall mean the same as hotel as defined in this code.
11.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment11.a: a - Resolution Multi Dwelling Program Fees 2016 (1301 : Resolution Authorizing County Collection of Fire & Life Safety Fees)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN
ANNUAL REPORT (GENP-3108-2016)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept the 2015 General Plan Annual Report.
DISCUSSION
Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and actions
taken to implement it during the past year (Attachment A). The report is provided to help citizens
and City officials gauge progress towards achieving the goals listed in the General Plan.
Development of the Annual Report also complies with Land Use Element Policy 11.3 and state
law, which says that “the planning agency shall … provide an annual report to the legislative
body on the status of the general plan and progress in its implementation, including the progress
in meeting its share of regional housing needs…” (California Government Code §65400).
The Long Range Planning Division of the Community Development Department has the primary
responsibility for staff work involving the General Plan and has compiled data and information
provided by all City departments for inclusion in the 2015 General Plan Annual Report.
Significant progress was made by all City Departments towards implementing General Plan
policies in 2015.
Background
According to Land Use Element Policy 11.3 the City shall prepare an annual report on the status
of the General Plan, which is to include the following items:
A) A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet
General Plan goals;
B) A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to
meeting General Plan goals;
C) An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be
necessary;
D) A status report for each General Plan program scheduled to be worked on during that
year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on
schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is
lagging;
E) A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space
preservation policies and programs; and
12
Packet Pg. 219
F) Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan.
The Annual Report is an opportunity for the City to keep the General Plan current by reflecting
on how well the General Plan continues to meet the City’s goals and objectives. It is also an
opportunity to review how well the programs identified in the General Plan are being
implemented and to determine if programs are still relevant or if priorities should be reassigned.
In addition, assessment of the implementation of the General Plan informs the City Council
about the availability of resources and about programs and projects that might be initiated as the
City develops a new financial plan. During the budgeting process, the City Council reviews the
progress being made to implement the General Plan and decides whether or not to move forward
with additional work program items over the next two years.
Report Organization
The General Plan contains an array of policies and implementing programs covering most types
of City actions. The Annual Report touches on the major programs that saw activity in 2015. The
report is organized around the following key implementation areas:
Planning and Building Activity
Housing and Residential Growth
Nonresidential Growth
Specific Plan Implementation and Development
Water Supply
Historic Preservation
Circulation
Safety
Neighborhood Wellness
Open Space Protection
Parks and Recreation
In addition, the 2015 Annual Report includes a discussion of the following:
Community Development Department Organizational Assessment Implementation
Plans Under Development
Climate Action Plan Implementation
Economic Development
New Policy Initiatives
Report Highlights
2015 saw the initial implementation of the newly updated Housing, Land Use and Circulation
Elements. A direct result of the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) was
the initiation in 2015 of three Specific Plans: Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna on
LOVR. Those three specific plans will have a significant impact on the future of development in
San Luis Obispo over the next 20 plus years.
The South Broad Street Area Plan was also adopted with the LUCE at the end of 2014. As a
result, in 2015, there were four new mixed use and residential projects approved or underway
12
Packet Pg. 220
within the South Broad Street Area Plan boundary.
In 2015, work also began on the development of several other plans identified in the LUCE,
including:
Downtown Concept Plan
Mission Plaza Master Plan
Subdivision Regulations Update
Sign Regulations Update
Open Space Maintenance Plan
A number of new programs and ordinances were also initiated in 2015, such as the
Neighborhood Matching Grant Program, Rental Housing Inspection Program, and the Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program.
Development activity remained strong in 2015. Building permits issued continued to rise, as did
construction valuation; 2015 was the fourth year in a row to see a notable increase in this area.
Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of residential construction
permits (as shown in Table 6 on page 19) the annual growth rate in 2015 was 0.30 percent, which
includes new single-family and multi-family market-rate residential construction. This is well
within the limit of the one percent annual residential growth rate identified in the Land Use
Element. The five-year average growth rate is very similar at 0.29 percent.
In comparison, based on final building permits issued, 67,141 square feet of net new non -
residential floor area was added to the City in 2015. This is a decrease of 9 percent from 2014,
which saw 73,743 square feet of net new non-residential space. The annual non-residential
growth rate was 0.58 percent (see Figure 4, page 25).
The FY 2015-17 Housing, Open Space, and Transportation Major City Goals resulted in
significant activities in these General Plan program areas, as detailed in the Annual Report.
In addition, a video slideshow of highlights from the 2015 General Plan Annual Report is
included on the General Plan page of the City web site (www.slocity.org/generalplan).
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the 2015 General Plan Annual Report on May 11, 2016 and
unanimously recommended it be forwarded to Council with minor changes, the most substantive
of which was augmentation of information on the City’s work with Cal Poly on the Master Plan,
and on the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Report (Attachment B). A new cover
photo was also selected.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department prepares the General Plan Annual Report with
significant input from other City departments. Administration (including Natural Resources and
Economic Development divisions), Utilities, Public Works, Police, Fire, and Parks and
12
Packet Pg. 221
Recreation Departments collaborated with the Community Development Department on this
report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The General Plan Annual Report is covered under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3): The activity is
covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for
causing significant effect on the environment. Any actions that could result in a physical change
in the environment would be identified as projects and would be subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, whic h
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The annual report does not change the
General Plan and, therefore, has no fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
Continue the item and direct staff to make revisions or include additional information.
Attachments:
12.a a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report
12.b b - 5-11-16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12
Packet Pg. 222
2015
General Plan Annual Report
www.Slocity.org
12.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
San Luis Obispo from Bowden Ranch Open Space. Photo credit: Tina Risley, #pixonpeaks
12.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Community Development Department
Our Mission Statement
Our mission is to serve all persons in a positive and courteous manner and help ensure that San
Luis Obispo continues to be a healthy, safe, attractive, and enjoyable place to live, work, or
visit. We help plan the City’s form and character, support community values, preserve the
environment, promote wise use of resources, and protect public health and safety.
Our Service Philosophy
The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department (CDD) staff provides high
quality service when you need it. We will:
• Listen to understand your needs;
• Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions;
• Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City’s rules;
• Help resolve problems in an open, objective manner;
• Maintain high ethical standards; and
• Work to improve our service.
12.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
3
Acknowledgements
Report reviewed by the Planning Commission May 11, 2016, and
accepted by the City Council on June XX, 2016
City Council
Jan Marx, Mayor
John Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter
Carlyn Christianson
Dan Rivoire
Planning Commission
Chuck Stevenson, Chair
John Fowler, Vice Chair
Hemalata Dandekar
John Larson
Ronald Malak
William Riggs
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Project Manager
Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning
Jenny Wiseman, Assistant Planner, Long Range Planning
Staff Contributors
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, Development Review
Anne Schneider, Deputy Director, Building and Safety
Andrew Collins, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor
Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Brian Wheeler, Traffic Engineer
Chris Staley, Police Captain
The 2015 General Plan
Annual Report was
prepared by the
Community Development
Department for review
by the Planning
Commission and
acceptance by the City
Council. The Community
Development
Department’s Long-
range Planning Division
often takes the lead for
staff work involving the
General Plan. However,
all City departments and
advisory bodies are
involved in General Plan
implementation and have
contributed to the 2015
General Plan Annual
Report.
12.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
4
Christine Wallace, Neighborhood Services
Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer
Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor
Doug Carscaden, Recreation Supervisor
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Greg Hermann, Principal Analyst
Hal Hannula, Supervising Civil Engineer
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager
Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner/Engineer I
Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Melissa Mudgett, Recreation Manager
Molly Cano, Tourism Manager
Pam Ouellette, WRF Chief Operator
Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal
Steven Orozco, Planning Intern
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Public Works
Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
12.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
5
Table of Contents
Community Development Department .................................................................................................................. 2
Our Mission Statement .............................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
General Plan Element Updates ............................................................................................................................. 11
Land Use and Circulation Elements ......................................................................................................... 11
Housing Element ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Community Development Department ................................................................................................................ 12
Customer Service/Process Improvements ............................................................................................... 12
Coordination with Other Agencies .......................................................................................................... 12
Planning and Building Activity............................................................................................................................... 15
Yearly Planning Application Trends ......................................................................................................... 15
Monthly Planning Application Trends...................................................................................................... 15
Building Permits and Plan Reviews .......................................................................................................... 16
Valuation of Construction ........................................................................................................................ 18
Housing and Residential Growth .......................................................................................................................... 19
Quantified Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 21
Affordable Housing .................................................................................................................................. 22
Funding and Grant Programs ................................................................................................................... 24
Homeless Services Support ...................................................................................................................... 25
Non-Residential Growth ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Commercial and Industrial Growth Management ................................................................................... 28
Jobs-Housing Balance .............................................................................................................................. 29
Specific Plan Implementation and Development ................................................................................................. 30
Margarita Area Specific Plan .................................................................................................................... 30
Airport Area Specific Plan ........................................................................................................................ 30
Orcutt Area Specific Plan ......................................................................................................................... 31
Avila Ranch ............................................................................................................................................... 31
San Luis Ranch .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan .............................................................................................................. 32
South Broad Street Area Plan .................................................................................................................. 33
Plans Under Development .................................................................................................................................... 34
Downtown Concept Plan Update ............................................................................................................ 34
Mission Plaza Master Plan ....................................................................................................................... 34
Subdivision Regulations Update .............................................................................................................. 35
Sign Regulations Update .......................................................................................................................... 35
Climate Action Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Municipal Actions .................................................................................................................................... 36
City and Community Partner Actions....................................................................................................... 37
12.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
6
Economic Development ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation ....................................................................................................... 41
Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation .............................................................................................. 41
Promote and Enhance Quality of Life ...................................................................................................... 42
New Policy Initiatives ............................................................................................................................................ 44
Homestay Rentals .................................................................................................................................... 44
Rental Housing Inspection Program ........................................................................................................ 44
Medical Marijuana ................................................................................................................................... 44
Expanded Polystyrene.............................................................................................................................. 44
E-cigarettes .............................................................................................................................................. 45
Historic Preservation ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Design Review Workshop ........................................................................................................................ 46
Water Supply......................................................................................................................................................... 47
Circulation ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Transportation Network Improvements .................................................................................................. 48
Transportation Planning Accomplishments ............................................................................................. 49
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) ............................................................................................. 51
Parking Management ............................................................................................................................... 51
Safety ................................................................................................................................................................. 52
Emergency Preparedness and Response ................................................................................................. 52
Hazard Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 53
Staff Training ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Mutual and Automatic Aid ....................................................................................................................... 54
Community Action Team (CAT) ................................................................................................................ 55
Multi-Dwelling Property Inspection Program .......................................................................................... 55
Fire and Life Safety Inspections ............................................................................................................... 55
Hazardous Materials Inspections ............................................................................................................. 55
Vegetation Management ......................................................................................................................... 56
Critical Facilities Locations and Reducing Structural Hazards .................................................................. 56
Neighborhood Wellness ........................................................................................................................................ 57
Neighborhood Matching Grants .............................................................................................................. 57
Neighborhood Officer Program – Police Department ............................................................................. 57
Code Enforcement – Community Development Department ................................................................. 58
Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Outreach – Police Department .................................................. 59
Downtown Alcohol Outlets ...................................................................................................................... 60
Open Space Protection ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Parks & Recreation ................................................................................................................................................ 63
Collaborative Programs............................................................................................................................ 63
Volunteers ................................................................................................................................................ 64
Open Space Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 64
Park Improvement Projects ..................................................................................................................... 65
Public Art Program & Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 67
12.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 68
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Total Planning Applications Received per Calendar Year ............................................. 15
Figure 2 - Total Planning Applications Received Per Month by Calendar Year ............................ 16
Figure 3 - Housing Unit Construction Based on Permits Finaled .................................................. 21
Figure 4 - Net Annual Growth Rates of Non-Residential Sectors (2005–2015) ............................ 26
Figure 5 - San Luis Obispo Payroll & Employment ........................................................................ 40
Figure 6- Alcohol Outlets within Downtown Boundary ................................................................ 60
List of Tables
Table 1- Building Permits Issued 2012-2015 Comparison ............................................................ 17
Table 2- Building Division Project Statistics, 2012-2015 Comparison .......................................... 18
Table 3- Valuation of Construction, 2012-2015 Comparison ....................................................... 18
Table 4- Housing & Population ..................................................................................................... 19
Table 5- One Percent City Population Growth Projection (From LUE Table 3) ............................ 19
Table 6- Residential Units Added to the City (01/01/05 – 12/31/15) .......................................... 20
Table 7- Progress towards Meeting Quantified Objectives (01/01/14 to 6/30/19) ..................... 22
Table 8 - Affordable Housing Project Highlights from 2015 ......................................................... 23
Table 9- 2015 Projects Under Review with Non-Residential Square Footage ............................. 27
Table 10 - Current Jobs/Housing Balance ..................................................................................... 29
Table 11 – City Water Resource Availability ................................................................................. 47
Appendices
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
12.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
8
Introduction
The General Plan is a comprehensive statement of the City’s goals and how those goals will be
achieved over the long-term. Policies and programs in the General Plan provide guidance to the
public, staff and decision-makers on development-related issues. The General Plan is adopted
and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens, appointed
advisory bodies, other agencies, and City staff.
Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and provides an
overview of actions taken to implement the Plan during the past year, as provided by California
Government Code Section 65400. This report is provided to help citizens and City officials gauge
progress towards achieving the City’s stated goals and objectives. It is also an opportunity to
review how well the Plan’s programs are being implemented. The Annual Report fulfills the
requirements of State law, and the General Plan itself. According to Land Use Element Policy
11.3 the City shall prepare an annual report on the status of the General Plan, which is to
include the following items:
A) A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet
General Plan goals;
B) A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to
meeting General Plan goals;
C) An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be
necessary;
D) A status report for each General Plan program scheduled to be worked on during that
year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on
schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is
lagging;
E) A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space
preservation policies and programs;
F) Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan.
12.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
9
Background
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general
plan that addresses seven topics, typically referred to as
“elements.” Additional topics, or general plan elements, may
be included. The law also requires general plans to be
comprehensive, internally consistent and provide a long-term
perspective. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
publishes General Plan Guidelines, which includes the
following general plan basics:
1. Geographic Comprehensiveness: The general plan
must cover all of the territory within the jurisdiction’s
boundaries.
2. Regionalism: The general plan must take into account
regional plans for transportation, air quality and water
quality, and must spell out measures needed to meet
federal or state standards for the region.
3. Issue Comprehensiveness: General plans must
address the jurisdiction’s physical development over
the long term, but because the general plan is the
most comprehensive expression of the general
welfare, it should also recognize social and economic
concerns.
4. Internal Consistency: All of the general plan elements
must be internally consistent. Each element’s data,
analyses, goals, policies and programs must be
consistent and complement one another. This
includes consistency with area plans and specific
plans.
5. Long-Term Perspective: The general plan must
address the welfare of current and future
generations, although the time-frames may vary
among the different elements. The Housing Element,
for instance, must be updated every five years.
State law says the general plan should be kept current. The
City of San Luis Obispo does this through this annual review
process, comprehensive updates, and through amendments.
Updates to entire elements are done as needed and include a
look at underlying conditions and preferences. Amendments
are typically smaller in scope and involve changing one part in
City of
San Luis Obispo
General Plan
Elements
Land Use
Update Adopted December
2014
Circulation
Update Adopted December
2014
Housing
Update Adopted January
2015
Conservation and
Open Space
Revised 2014
Safety
Revised 2012
Parks and Recreation
Adopted 2001
Water and Wastewater
Revised 2010
Noise
Adopted 1996
12.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
10
a way that fits within the overall framework. Consideration of
amendments is triggered by private applications or by direction
from the City Council.
Changes to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan require
hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. The
type of notice provided for the hearings depends on the type of
proposed change, but always includes a descriptive item on the
meeting agenda, which is published in the newspaper. The City’s
website and public access television channel provide additional
information.
2013-15 Council Goals
Implementation of the
General Plan ties directly
to Council Goals adopted
in the FY 2013-15
Financial Plan:
Implement strategies to
address homelessness
Continue and enhance
neighborhood wellness
initiatives
Continue to provide
essential services and
sustain the City’s short
term and long term fiscal
health
Expand bicycle and
pedestrian paths
Implement the Economic
Strategic Plan and create
head of household jobs.
Assess and renew the
downtown by supporting
cultural attractions &
reduce incidents of illegal
activity
Complete construction of
a skate park
Expand and enhance
open space quality and
amenities
Enhance maintenance of
City infrastructure
Improve transportation
including construction of
Los Osos Valley Road
overpass, and improve
walkability of the City’s
neighborhoods and
commercial districts.
12.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
11
General Plan Element Updates
Land Use and Circulation Elements
The update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE) of the General Plan was approved by the City
Council on December 9, 2014. In early 2015, staff updated
the City’s website, distributed the updated General Plan to
interested parties, printed copies of the new plan maps,
and closed out the consultant’s contract.
In 2015, work began implementing programs in the
updated Land Use and Circulation Elements, such as the
Downtown Concept Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Sign
Regulations, Neighborhood Matching Grants, and Mission
Plaza Master Plan, among many others.
Housing Element
On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted an update
to the City’s Housing Element that will guide City housing
actions through 2019. The Housing Element was updated
in response to input received through two community
workshops and meetings with eight different groups and
organizations, as well as other input received beginning in
Fall 2013. The update process was a tool to modify
housing policies and programs to reflect the changing
needs, resources and conditions in the community, and to
respond to changes in state and federal housing law.
Throughout 2015, staff began implementing programs
which include: starting an inventory of City owned
property which could be used for housing, initial research
into a possible workforce housing definition, and
continuing to use Federal, State and local funds for
development and rehabilitation of affordable housing.
The 2015 General Plan Program Status Implementation
List (Appendix A) reflects the updated the programs (and
progress toward implementation) from the updated LUCE
and Housing Element.
2015-17 Council Goals
Following extensive
community outreach, on
January 24, 2015 the
Council set goals for FY
2015-17:
Major City Goals:
Protect and maintain open
space.
Implement the Housing
Element, facilitate
workforce, affordable,
supportive and transitional
housing option, including
support for needed
infrastructure within the
City’s fair share.
Prioritize implementation of
the Bicycle Master Plan and
improve and maintain
bicycle, pedestrian, and
transit facilities.
Other Important Objectives:
Improve neighborhood
wellness, work with
residents, Cuesta, and Cal
Poly, increase public safety,
code compliance, and
collaborative solutions.
Initiate implementation of
the Laguna Lake Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan.
Adopt a Downtown Concept
Plan, develop a plan for
expansion of Mission Plaza,
and improve safety,
infrastructure, and
maintenance in the
Downtown.
Implement the City’s Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy
with focus to reduce
unfunded liabilities.
12.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
12
Community Development Department
Customer Service/Process Improvements
The Community Development Department continued to implement its Organizational
Assessment focusing on monitoring the effectiveness of process improvements and
performance tracking. The Continual Improvement Group (CIG) met weekly to review the
development review process to determine if any recent changes need modification or if a new
way to review projects is appropriate. The CIG worked with IT throughout the year to devise
Key Performance Indicators s (KPI’s)
which are posted on the City’s website
and imbedded into the Financial Plan.
These KPI’s tell the public the expected
time frames in which to receive
Planning approvals and building
permits, amongst other information.
Other upcoming related tasks to
improve customer service and the
development review process include
utilizing “dashboards” to display the
status of projects and developing more
key performance measures for both
internal and external participants in
the process.
Improving customer service and the development review process are helping to carry out one
of the major goals of the City Economic Development Strategic Plan: streamlining the process
and removing barriers to job creation. The Developers Roundtable – a cross-representation of
local architects, engineers, planners, and project representatives – has been a valuable partner
in reviewing process improvements. The idea of opening the front counter at the noon hour
was a direct response to input from the Roundtable in 2015, and was implemented in early
2016. The Council’s Major City Goal of Housing for the 2015-17 Financial Plan further places
emphasis on the need to be effective and efficient in the review of engineering, planning, and
building permit applications.
Coordination with Other Agencies
In addition to City-initiated efforts to implement the General Plan, City staff responded to
development plans and applications from other agencies in 2015, and coordinated with other
agencies on General Plan priorities. Some examples include:
County: The 2005 Memorandum of Agreement endorsed by the County Board of Supervisors
and the City Council sets out a process by which the County informs the City of projects
proposed within the San Luis Obispo Area Plan (referral area). This referral process enables the
12.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
13
City to provide input regarding how well proposed projects meet City policy objectives and
whether there are impact fees that may apply to projects. There were eighteen projects
proposed outside of the City’s boundaries but within the County referral area to which City staff
provided responses in 2015.
Cal Poly Master Plan: The City provided
Council-endorsed comments to Cal Poly on land
use concepts which will be used for further
refinement and inclusion in a draft
environmental impact report for the Cal Poly
Master Plan Update. The City’s comments,
provided by Mayor Marx in a letter to Cal Poly
President Jeffrey Armstrong, included
recommended “Guiding Principles” to be
considered by Cal Poly when further refining the
Master Plan. The guiding principles call for the
Master Plan to continue to support
neighborhood wellness efforts by following
recommendation in the Neighborhood
Wellness/Community Civility report; to provide
on campus housing for all undergraduate
students, and for programs to incentivize faculty
and staff to locate within existing neighborhoods
close to campus to stabilize neighborhoods and
reduce vehicle trips. The guiding principles are
based on relevant General Plan Policies in the
areas of Neighborhood Wellness, Economic Health, Housing, Multi-Modal Transportation, Open
Space, Diversity, and Public Services. Staff anticipates continued collaboration with Cal Poly on
the Master Plan Update in the coming year.
Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Report: On May 21, 2013 Council approved the
formation of the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group. This group
comprised of Cal Poly University leadership, Cuesta College leadership, City staff, residents and
students of both institutions has met regularly between October 2013 and May 2015. The
Vision and Goals of the working group were established to guide the process:
• Vision: A City in which year-round residents and students actively collaborate to build
community and communicate in an environment that fosters mutual respect and
understanding.
• Goals: To enhance the quality of life for all residents, with particular emphasis on
building positive relations between residential and student-aged neighbors through a
cultural shift in social behaviors.
12.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
14
The Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group identified six objectives to
research and formulated recommendations that support the vision and goals as stated above.
Within the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Working Group, smaller sub-
committees formed to take ownership of the research and recommendations for each
objective. Each monthly meeting in late 2014 through early 2015 was specifically dedicated for
the group to discuss and refine the recommendations of each individual sub-committee and
work towards consensus. The final report was presented to the San Luis Obispo City Council on
May 19, 2015 and can be found on the City’s website. Implementation is underway.
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): City staff continued to actively participate in the update
of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan in 2015. While this plan is adopted by the
independent ALUC, the City continued sharing technical information (from a City-hired aviation
consultant), and participating in ALUC hearings. This collaboration is vital to ensure that the
City’s policies that direct future development to occur within the City’s urban reserve line are
informed by a data-driven understanding of the noise and safety constraints associated with
future aircraft operations. In 2015, the County Airport Land Use Commission undertook a
process to hire an outside airport planning consultant to provide peer review work and
technical advice for the current draft Airport Land Use Plan.
12.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
15
Planning and Building Activity
Application totals are tracked monthly and maintained on a calendar and fiscal year basis.
Reports are broadly distributed both within the City and to outside organizations. Tracking of
the applications and permits serves as an indicator of development trends and a tool for budget
forecasting.
Yearly Planning Application Trends
Planning applications include: use permits, architectural reviews, subdivisions, zoning
amendments, and administrative actions. Figure 1 below shows planning application totals
since 2004. The figure highlights the historic highs of 2005, the effects of the following
economic downturn, and the solid development recovery starting in 2013.
Figure 1 - Total Planning Applications Received per Calendar Year
Source: Community Development Department, 2015
Monthly Planning Application Trends
Figure 2 shows planning applications received on a monthly basis for the last 4 years and shows
the high volumes of applications in 2015. While 2014 saw greater amounts of applications
received from January to September, applications received in 2015 between September and
December were greater than at any time in the last 4 years.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015352 364 353
315
243
185 202 182 194
259
338 316 Number of Applications 12.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
16
Figure 2 - Total Planning Applications Received Per Month by Calendar Year
Source: Community Development Department, 2015
The Community Development Department uses trends and adjusts staffing to correspond to
current development activity. When application numbers decreased during the recession, staff
levels were reduced commensurately. Staff levels have since increased to meet demand.
Additionally, consultants have been brought on board to manage particularly large and complex
projects, such as Righetti Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Avila Ranch. The application totals shown
in Figure 2 only capture numbers of applications and are not reflective of the size and
complexity of individual project applications. In addition to the three complex projects
mentioned above, the City is now processing other large projects in the Margarita and Orcutt
areas, as well as downtown mixed use projects and large multiple family developments.
Building Permits and Plan Reviews
Building permits are issued for various projects ranging from the relatively simple (e.g. water
heaters, window change outs, reroofing, etc.) to the more complex projects (e.g. additions and
new buildings). Plan reviews are typically required for the more complex projects where it is
necessary to review proposed design documents for code compliance.
12.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
17
Table 1- Building Permits Issued 2012-2015 Comparison
BUILDING PERMITS
ISSUED
2015 2014 2013 2012
permits units permits units permits units permits units
Single Family 151
157 79
97 54
54 32
68
Multi Family 16
75 22
115 9
43 8
25
Commercial 37
60 5
- 9
2 6
9
Public-New Buildings &
Alterations 0
- 0
- 0 0
Residential
Additions/Alterations 306
8 230
1 324 3 282
1
Commercial
Additions/Alterations 186
5 162
- 156 170
Motel Rooms 0
- 0
- 0
TOTAL 696 305 498 213 552 102 498 103
Source: Community Development Department, 2015
Table 1 depicts the number of building permits issued over the past 4 years. In 2015, 167
permits were issued for single-family and multi-family projects. This represents 232 residential
units. The level of residential permits issued in 2015 is over four times greater than in 2012.
Table 2- Building Division Project Statistics, 2012-2015 Comparison
PROJECT STATISTICS 2015 2014 2013 2012
Plan Check Applications Submitted 935 675 687 507
Source: Community Development Department, 2015
Table 2 shows the number of plan check applications conducted by the Building Division over
the last four years. The Building Division has added a contract Assistant Permit Technician to
help with the continued rise of permit applications as well as utilizing plan review consultants
for the more complex and large projects such as Chinatown, SLO Brew, Garden Street Terrace,
and Pacific Courtyards.
12.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
18
Valuation of Construction
Construction valuation is a good indicator of the level of private investment in building
construction. Table 3 depicts the annual construction valuation over the past 4 years. Calendar
year 2015 was the fourth year in a row to see a notable increase in this area.
Table 3- Valuation of Construction, 2012-2015 Comparison
VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION 2015 2014 2013 2012
Single Family 37,904,420 26,974,176 14,152,752 11,380,280
Multi Family 12,079,291 16,088,664 6,661,543 2,301,857
Commercial 16,159,822 3,739,324 14,856,188 2,515,368
Public-New Buildings & Alteration 0 0 0 0
Residential Additions/ Alterations 6,811,376 7,053,269 7,429,135 7,228,496
Commercial Additions/Alterations 17,473,806 16,169,065 12,859,158 10,719,880
Total Valuation 90,429,815 70,024,498 55,958,776 34,145,884
Source: Community Development Department, 2015
12.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
19
Housing and Residential Growth
The 2015 Department of Finance data estimated the City’s population to be 45,802, as shown in
Table 4. This equates to 1.5 percent growth since the 2010 Census when the City’s population
was estimated to be 45,119. Total housing units grew by 2.0 percent in the same time period
with a total of 20,966 housing units in the City at the end of 2015.
Table 4- Housing & Population
Housing and
Population 2010 2015
Total Housing Units 20,553 20,966
Total Population 45,119 45,802
Source: Dept. of Finance; Community Development
Department
The Land Use Element policy related to residential growth (LUE 1.11.2) states that the City’s
housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on average, based on
established thresholds shown in Table 5, from the Land Use Element:
Table 5- One Percent City Population Growth Projection (From LUE Table 3)
Year Approximate Maximum
Number of Dwellings*
Anticipated Number of People based
on 2.2 persons per dwelling
2013 20,697 45,541
2015 21,113 46,456
2020 22,190 48.826
2025 23,322 51,317
2030 24,512 53,934
2035 25,762 56,686
Estimated urban reserve capacity: 57,200
Source: Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Table 3, page 1-37.
*2013 population based on CA Department of Finance data and projected based on 1
percent annual growth.
This policy was modified in 2010 under Ordinance No. 1550 to an average of one percent per
year over the five-year Housing Element planning period. The policy change responded to slow
residential growth trends combined with the phasing and financing plans incorporated into the
Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan Areas. As of 2015, the City’s population and total housing
units are less than the Land Use Element’s 2015 projections and therefore are consistent with
growth management regulations. In addition, the Residential Growth Management Regulations
12.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
20
(MC 17.88) requires each specific plan area to adopt a phasing schedule for residential growth
to ensure that established thresholds in the Land Use Element are not exceeded.
Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of residential construction
permits, as shown in Table 6 the annual growth rate in 2015 was 0.30 percent, which includes
new single-family and multi-family market-rate residential construction. This is well within the
limit of the 1 percent annual residential growth rate identified in the Land Use Element. The
five-year average growth rate is very similar at 0.29 percent.
Over the last 10 years, the City has experienced a total growth in housing units of 2.88 percent,
while the average annual growth rate for the last decade was 0.29 percent. State law requires
that affordable units deed-restricted to extremely low, very low, or low income households are
not factored into residential growth rate calculations. Nonetheless, if those units are added, the
average annual growth rate for the last decade was still only 0.37 percent.
Anticipated growth projections provided in the Land Use Element are the basis for many other
assumptions in the General Plan, such as transportation needs. Since the actual growth rate
continues to be lower than the projection, assumptions based on these projected rates remain
valid.
Table 6- Residential Units Added to the City (01/01/05 – 12/31/15)
Year SFR -
Detach
SFR -
Attach MFR Annex
Units
Total
Units Net Mkt Net Mkt
Growth
Mkt Aff Mkt Aff Mkt Aff Rate
2006 17 0 4 0 9 10 40 30 0.15%
2007 16 0 5 0 99 5 125 120 0.60%
2008 7 0 23 0 -1 28 57 29 0.14%
2009 16 0 3 0 29 10 58 48 0.24%
2010 15 0 17 0 23 34 89 55 0.27%
2011 0 2 0 0 23 42 18 85 41 0.20%
2012 16 0 1 0 17 0 34 34 0.17%
2013 16 3 0 0 63 10 92 79 0.38%
2014 67 0 0 0 25 22 114 92 0.44%
2015 27 0 1 0 34 11 73 62 0.30%
10-yr
Total 197 5 54 0 321 172 18 767 590 2.88%
5 Year Average Annual Growth Rate 0.29%
Source: 2015 Building Permits Finaled, Community Development Department
Note: Units shown are net totals accounting for demolitions.
12.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
21
New housing types in 2015 consisted of a mix between detached single family (27) and
attached multi-family units (45) with approximately 30 percent of multi-family units deed-
restricted for affordability. One multi-family unit was dedicated at the “very-low” affordability
level, four multi-family units were dedicated at the “low” affordability level, and six multi-family
units were dedicated at the “moderate” affordability level.
It should be noted that over the past 10 years, 63 percent of new housing construction has
been in the form of attached multi-family development, with 23 percent deed restricted for
affordability. Figure 3 shows the construction trends of single family and multi-family housing
since 2002.
Figure 3 - Housing Unit Construction Based on Permits Finaled
Source: Community Development Department, 2015
Quantified Objectives
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction establish quantified objectives for their fair
share of regional housing needs by income group. Deed-restricted affordable units count
towards meeting the quantified objectives, and housing built at densities the state presumes
are affordable qualify as well. The quantified objectives are for the five-year period between
Housing Element updates. The Housing Element includes goals, policies and programs to
accommodate affordable housing programs that meet the City’s quantified objectives, mixed-
income housing, housing variety and tenure, and special-needs housing.
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Single
Family
Multifamily
12.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
22
Table 7- Progress towards Meeting Quantified Objectives (01/01/14 to 6/30/19)
Income Category
(% of County Median Income)
Regional Housing Need Allocation
SFH
QO2
SFH
Built1
MFH
QO2
MFH
Built1
Total
QO
Total
Built1
Extremely Low (< 30%) 0 0 142 0 142 0
Very Low (30-50%) 0 0 143 1 143 1
Low (51-80%) 72 0 107 24 179 24
Moderate (81-120%) 81 0 121 8 202 8
Above Moderate (> 120%) 191 95 287 59 478 154
TOTAL UNITS 344 95 800 92 1,144 187
Source: 2015 Housing Element, City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
1 Reflects net units constructed 01/01/14 thru 6/30/19. 2 Reflects Quantified Objectives for each category
The City’s most recent Housing Element was adopted in January 2015, with a planning period
from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019. As shown in Table 7, above, 33 housing units, or
about 18 percent of all housing units added in the City since 2014 were affordable to extremely-
low, very-low, low and moderate income households. In its first two years (2014-2015), the City
is at 16 percent of achieving its Quantified Objectives for housing through 2019. Achieving the
quantified objective is not a requirement, yet it is a way to measure how effective the City has
been in terms of housing programs and policies to advance the construction of affordable
housing. It should be noted, however, that market conditions and the financing environment
are the primary drivers that determine the production of affordable housing.
Affordable Housing
The City’s Housing Programs Manager (HPM) focuses on affordable housing development and
other important General Plan Housing Element goals. The HPM serves on the Board of Directors
for the Workforce Housing Coalition, the Funding Commission for the SLO County Housing Trust
Fund, and contributes to the work of the Homeless Services Oversight Council. These efforts
contribute to an improved environment for planning and development of affordable housing in
the City of San Luis Obispo.
In 2015, the City entered into Affordable Housing Agreements for 31 affordable units (1 very-
low, 10 low, and 20 moderate income) through long-term and equity-share affordability
agreements pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement. Over $500,000 in
affordable housing in-lieu fees were collected.
12.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
23
Staff began research and stakeholder interviews in 2015 regarding the possibility of adding
workforce housing as an income category in the City’s Zoning Regulations and Affordable
Housing Standards. Further research will be incorporated in the 2016 Zoning Regulation update.
Table 8 identifies affordable housing accomplishments for 2015:
Table 8 - Affordable Housing Project Highlights from 2015
Project Affordable
Units Status Special Notes
Moylan
Terrace
(860
Humbert)
27 units
(2 very-low;
14 low-
income; 11
moderate)
60 units in Phases 1-3
have been built and sold.
Final Phase (phase 4, 20
units) is currently under
construction with
completion scheduled for
Summer 2016
The City contributed an Affordable Housing
Fund (AHF) grant of $709,900 for property
acquisition and an impact fee deferral loan
for the affordable units.
South Hills
Crossing
(313 South)
43
Construction underway.
Completion scheduled for
Summer 2016
The City provided a loan in the amount of
$650,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund
and a development impact fee deferral loan
in the amount of $716,166. A lottery for the
units opened in Winter 2015; the project will
be completed by Summer 2016.
860 On the
Wye
19 (10 units
set aside for
homeless
veterans)
Construction slated to
begin Spring 2016
Project received low-income housing tax
credits in September 2015. AHF award of
$352,029 awarded to HASLO in Fall 2015.
Iron Works 46
All planning entitlements
have been awarded.
HASLO will be applying for
low income housing tax
credits in 2016
This mixed-use project located at 3680
Broad is a colaboration between HASLO and
For the Future Housing. The City has
awarded a $920,000 AHF award to the
project.
Specific Plan Areas
Orcutt Area 53 proposed
at this time
Units split between 2
subdivisions approved in
2015
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan projects up to
1,000 units. At full build out, up to 150 new
affordable units will be created.
Margarita
Area
36 proposed
at this time
1 subdivision under
construction, 1 subdivision
under planning review
The Margarita Area Specific Plan projects up
to 850 units. Up to 130 new affordable units
are expected at build out.
Rehabilitation
Sydney St.
Transitional
Housing
1 single
family
residence
Completed Fall 2015.
Houses 5 formerly
homeless individuals
TMHA and HASLO rehabilitated one single
transtional dwelling. The City awarded a
$95,814 AHF award for this rehabilitation
project.
Source: Community Devleopment Department, 2015
12.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
24
Funding and Grant Programs
1. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG): The CDBG program provides
annual funding for eligible affordable housing projects and support for the homeless
shelter. Over the past five years the CDBG Program has provided over $1,500,000
towards affordable housing and approximately $700,000 towards homeless services.
Projects funded for the 2015 Program Year included homeless services, affordable
housing land acquisition, and emergency shelter rehabilitation.
2. Affordable Housing Fund (AHF): In
2015, the City awarded $1,397,843
in AHF loans to local non-profits to
assist with new affordable housing
development or rehabilitation.
$920,000 was awarded to Iron
Works for development of 46 new
affordable units; $352,029 was
awarded to 860 On the Wye for
development of 19 new affordable
units; $95,814 helped TMHA
rehabilitate a transitional housing
unit; and $30,000 went to the
Housing Trust Fund for assistance
with affordable housing operations.
3. Down Payment Assistance:
$121,580 in down payment assistance loans were awarded to three, low and moderate
income households. All three homebuyers purchased affordable units in the Moylan
Terrace Development.
4. Grants in Aid (GIA): The City’s Human Relations Commission approved $135,500 in
grants to non-profit organizations whose focus is homeless prevention (including
supportive services and transitional housing), hunger and malnutrition prevention,
supportive physical and mental health services, and services for seniors and/or people
with disabilities. Awards were approved by Council in July and distributed in August.
5. San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (HTF): The HTF provides financing, technical
assistance and advocacy to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City. HTF
staff serve as a resource to City staff working with developers on affordable housing
projects. Since 2005, the HTF has provided over $17 million in financing for affordable
housing projects county-wide, contributing to the creation or preservation of 641
affordable dwelling units. The City continues to support the HTF with Affordable
Housing Funds to help support the operating costs of the HTF.
Iron Works
860 On the Wye
12.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
25
Homeless Services Support
1. Homeless Services Center: In
January 2015, the City Council
approved a $250,000 grant for
CAPSLO’s new Homeless Service
Center located at 40 Prado.
Building permit review is currently
underway. The facility will combine
services currently provided at the
Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter
and Prado Day Center, consistent
with the 10-Year Plan.
2. Safe Parking Pilot Program: The
program provides seven parking spaces located at the Prado Day Center. This allows
homeless persons with vehicles a safe place to temporarily park with the goal of
eventually transitioning them into permanent housing. The City provides $10,000
annually to CAPSLO for the program.
3. Homeless Issues Working Group: The City has a Homeless Issues Working Group which
meets bi-monthly to support and implement the 10-Year Plan and to identify, evaluate,
and implement strategies to reduce the impacts of homelessness within the City.
4. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC): Staff continues to participate in HSOC
quarterly general meetings. Priorities and recent accomplishments of the HSOC include:
making Housing First the main priority, joining the 100,000 Homes Campaign, and using
the Housing First approach to assist the most vulnerable, chronically homeless persons
who are at risk of dying on the streets. As part of the 50Now program, over 30
individuals have been placed into housing under this program.
5. Homeless Veteran Support: In 2015, Mayor Marx accepted the Mayor’s Challenge to End
Veteran Homelessness. As of November 2015, 54 homeless veterans have been placed
into housing by local HUD Veteran’s Assistance programs.
6. Good Neighbor Policy: The City continues to implement the Good Neighbor Policy (GNP)
to communicate community expectations and City commitments as it relates to the
City’s support of homeless services. The GNP provides a framework in which the City will
support and regulate Homeless Service Providers in the Community who are seeking
City permits, entitlements or funding.
40 Prado Project Rendering
12.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
26
Non-Residential Growth
Based on final building permits issued, 67,141 square feet of net new non-residential floor area
was added to the City in 2015. This is a decrease of 9 percent from 2014, which saw 73,743
square feet of net new non-residential space. The annual growth rate was .58 percent.
Figure 4 illustrates the net annual growth rate of nonresidential sectors beginning in 2005. Net
annual nonresidential includes the growth in square feet of office, services and manufacturing,
retail, hotel, and institutional uses. In 2015, new office space was the largest non-residential
sector, with 63,352 square feet of net new floor area. More than two thirds of that (45,610
square feet) is from MindBody’s new office on Tank Farm Rd.
Figure 4 - Net Annual Growth Rates of Non-Residential Sectors (2005–2015)
Source: Building Permits Finaled, Community Development Department
Note 1: Annexed floor area excluded from growth rate calculations: 2008, portions of AASP.
Note 2: Demolition of nonresidential square footage included in calculations.
Table 9, on the following page, describes mixed-use and non-residential projects in different
phases of the review process in 2015. A significant increase in non-residential projects is
anticipated to be completed in 2016, since over 300,000 square feet of non-residential floor
area was under construction in 2015. There were also projects containing over 400,000 square
feet of new floor area that received planning approvals but were not yet under construction.
Not all may ultimately be constructed.
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
12.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
27
Table 9- 2015 Projects Under Review with Non-Residential Square Footage
Project Name Address Nonres.
Sq. Ft. Type Status
Mixed Use (Residential and Commercial)
*Santa Rosa Street Infill 1101 Monterey 98,000 Retail, Hotel, Office Pre-application
*Freemont Square 1009 Monterey 64,600 Retail, Office Pre-application
*Laurel Lane Mixed Use 1240 Laurel 2,306 Retail In Planning
San Luis Square 570/590 Marsh 21,322 Commercial, Retail In Planning
*San Luis Ranch 0 Dalidio 200,000 Comm., Hotel, Office In Planning
*Avila Ranch Buckley Rd. 20,000 Comm./Business Park In Planning
*Froom Ranch LOVR 45,000 Retail In Planning
*Public Mkt-Long-Bonetti
Ranch 3897 S. Higuera 46,932 Service-Commercial In Planning
*Olive Mixed Use 1042 Olive 3,500 Commercial, Retail In Planning
*Caudill Mixed Use 774 Caudill 5,327 Commercial, Retail In Planning
*22 Chorro 22 Chorro 2,041 Commercial, Retail In Planning
*956 Monterey 956 Monterey 5,180 Commercial Entitled
*Iron Works 3680 Broad 4,400 Retail Entitled
*Wingate 3725 Orcutt 5,000 Commercial Entitled
*Ellsworth Tract 470 Tank Farm TBD Commercial Entitled
*Jones Property 3761 Orcutt 15,070 Commercial Public Improvement Plan
Garden Street Terraces 1119 Garden 25,047 Retail, Hotel Building Review
Monterey Place (Leitcher) 667 Monterey 25,000 Office, Retail Building Review
Broad St. mixed 3049 Broad 9,500 Office, Retail Building Review
*Santa Rosa Mixed use 1135 Santa Rosa 5,942 Commercial, Office Building Review
*The Junction 2120 Santa Barb. 1,200 Retail Building Review
Chinatown 861 Palm 46,140 Retail, Hotel Under construction
Pacific Courtyards 1327 Osos 8,000 Office, Retail Under construction
Commercial
Chevron Tank Farm 276 Tank Farm 800,000 Commercial Tract In Planning
*279 Bridge 279 Bridge Street 23,309 Commercial-Manufac. In Planning
*Perry Ford 12200 LOVR 16,673 Service Commercial In Planning
Digital West 600 Tank Farm 80,000 Service-Commercial Entitled
Aerovista Place 862 Aerovista 37,230 Office-Business Park Entitled
*Santa Rosa St.
Development 1101 Monterey 10,000 Retail Entitled
*BMW Dealership 1251 Calle Joaquin 23,945 Service Commercial Building review
*Discovery SLO 1144 Chorro 25,210 Retail, Bowling Building review
*SLO Brew Production 855 Aerovista 31,000 Office, Brewery Under construction
*University Square 890 Foothill 20,000 Retail Under construction
12.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
28
*Foothill Plaza 793 Foothill 68,531 Retail Under construction
Aerovista Office 892 Aerovista 44,000 Office Under construction
Airport Business Center 4450 & 4460 Broad 47,000 Service-Commercial Under construction
Other
*TownPlace Suites 1301 Calle Joaquin 56,975 Hotel In Planning
*Motel Inn 2223 Monterey 40,000 Hotel, restaurant Entitled
*Homeless Services Center 40 Prado 20,000 Homeless Service
Center Building review
*Granada Hotel expansion 1130 Morro St. 9,871 Hotel Expansion Building Review
1845 Monterey Hotel 1845 Monterey 60,368 Commercial - Hotel Building review
Source: Community Development Department, 2016
*New projects since 2014
1. Project Review hierarchy: Pre-application, In Planning, Entitled, Public Improvement Plans in review, Building review,
Under construction.
Commercial and Industrial Growth
Management
Land Use Element Policy 1.11.4 states that
each year, the Council will evaluate the
actual increase in non-residential floor area
over the preceding five years. The Council
shall consider establishing limits for the rate
of nonresidential development if the
increase in non-residential floor area for any
five-year period exceeds five percent. The
five-year net non-residential growth rate for
2011 through 2015 was 3.70 percent, and
the five-year average annual average growth
rate was 0.74 percent.
According to the policy, any limits so
established shall not apply to:
A. Changed operations or employment levels, or relocation of ownership change, of any
business existing within the City at the time the limit is set;
B. Additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core;
C. Public agencies;
D. Manufacturing, light industrial, research businesses, or companies providing a
significant number of head of household jobs.
Each year the Council has considered whether or not to implement limits to new non-
residential floor area and has decided against establishing limits. If limits are established they
would only apply to certain types of new commercial floor area, such as new offices or new
retail establishments outside of the downtown core.
Chinatown Commercial Development under Construction
12.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
29
Jobs-Housing Balance
The jobs-housing balance is a planning tool to review whether a community has a healthy
balance between jobs and the housing supply available to potentially house workers for those
jobs. This balance may be impacted by the match between wage levels and housing costs;
whether all workers in a house have employment in the community in which they live; whether
preferences are met within the community for either housing or employment; and whether
options are available nearby for either housing or employment.
The balance of jobs/housing in an area has implications for transportation systems, however
even an ideal balance may not prevent daily in- or out- commute patterns. According to
planning literature, the desired target is a jobs-to-housing-units ratio of 1.5:1, which reflects
that there is more than one worker living in the average household. Table 10 shows that the
current jobs-to-housing ratio inside the City limits is 1.6:1. When you include major employers
just outside the City limits the ratio is 1.8:1.
Table 10 - Current Jobs/Housing Balance
Estimated jobs in City limits 33,000
Housing units 20,966
Jobs to housing ratio 1.6:1
Cal Poly jobs (not in City) 2,811
California Men's Colony jobs (not in City) 1,899
Jobs to housing ratio including neighboring
major employers (CP and Men’s Colony) 1.8:1
Sources: SLOCOG RHNA, 2013; Cal Poly CMC, 2015; Community
Development Department, 2015.
Implementation strategies in the updated land use and housing elements of the general plan
seek to reduce the jobs/housing ratio through programs targeted at additional housing within
the city limits. Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the gap between housing demand (due
to more jobs and college enrollment) and housing supply should not increase. The jobs/housing
balance is also consistent with SLOCOG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast projections, which
shows a projected jobs/housing balance of 1.8:1 by 2035, and is included in the LUCE EIR.
12.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
30
Specific Plan Implementation and Development
The General Plan requires approval of specific plans as a precursor to development of the City’s
major expansion areas. Specific plans typically contain more detailed land-use and design
standards than the General Plan, and address the timing and financing of public facilities.
Specific plans can supersede the Zoning Regulations, or lead to amendments to the Municipal
Code. The process for adopting a specific plan is similar to the process for adopting or
amending a section of the General Plan.
Margarita Area Specific Plan
The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)
was approved on October 12, 2004. The
remaining portions of the Margarita Area in
the County were annexed into the City in
2008. By the end of 2015, the Serra
Meadows Tracts 2342 and 2353 were
nearing completion with all 177 units sold
and either completed or under
construction, except for the model home
complex. Toscano Tract 2428 started
construction of their public improvements
and their model home complex, but their
map has not yet recorded, so no units have
been sold yet. The portion of Prado Road
required to be constructed by the Western Enclave projects (Tracts 2342, 2353, and 2428) is
nearing completion. There are no projects nearing approval that would trigger the extension of
Prado Road to Broad Street.
Airport Area Specific Plan
The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) was adopted by the City Council in August 2005.
Substantial amendments to the AASP, including amendments to land use policies, circulation
and financing plan were adopted by City Council in September 2014. The amendments were
prompted by the Chevron remediation and development project and the EIR that was
developed to review the project. The City Council certified the EIR for the Chevron project in
September 2014.
The remediation portion of the Chevron project is proposed under the current County
jurisdiction and is under review. At the end of 2015, the remediation was anticipated to take up
to 3 years and could begin as early as August 2016. Once annexed to the City, the development
portion of the Chevron project could include up to 800,000 square feet of commercial floor
area and result in substantial circulation changes, including the re-alignment and extension of
Santa Fe Road to Prado Road, the widening of Tank Farm Road and the incorporation of bicycle
trails. The project is proposed to be developed in phases over 20 years or more.
New Residences at Serra Meadows
12.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
31
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 3063 (Righetti Ranch) and 3066 (Jones Ranch) projects were
approved in 2015. The Righetti Ranch project includes 304 residential units (272 single-family
and 32 multi-family), the Righetti Hill open space, almost 14 acres of public parks and extensive
pedestrian, bicycle, and road improvements. The adjacent Jones Ranch property is a mixed-use
commercial-residential project, including 56 residential units and a community commercial
project of just over 15,000 square feet. In 2015, an application was also received for the West
Creek project at the corner of Johnson and Orcutt; proposed for a mix of 67 single-family units
and 105 multi-family units of residential housing, totaling 172 units.
Avila Ranch Specific Plan
In early 2015, Avila Ranch, LLC, submitted a
development plan proposal for a new,
primarily residential development with up to
720 units on a 150-acre site north of Buckley
Road, located within the Airport Area Specific
Plan (AASP) boundaries. The project also
includes 15,000 square feet of neighborhood-
serving retail and office uses next to a
neighborhood park, as well as the
preservation of agricultural uses and open
space.
Based on staff input, as well as preliminary input from various advisory bodies, the proposed
development plan was refined and updated on December 18, 2015. Since then, the Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal and recommended further refinements. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being prepared to analyze the project, and will
likely be released later in the Summer of 2016. The project will undergo review from the Airport
Land Use Commission, and then ultimately be considered for potential approval toward the end
of 2016. The project will phase over time, and likely be developed over a period of 10-12 years.
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
The San Luis Ranch project is a Specific Plan Area (formerly referred to as Dalidio) identified in
the City’s General Plan. The project includes a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses
while preserving substantial areas of open space and agriculture on a 131.3-acre property. The
intent is for the project to be consistent with the development parameters described in the
City’s recently updated LUCE, which envisions up to 500 residential units, 200,000 square feet
of commercial uses, 150,000 square feet of office, 200 hotel rooms, at least 5.8 acres of parks,
with a goal of preserving 50 percent of the site in agriculture and open space.
Avila Ranch Site Plan
12.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
32
The site is in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County,
surrounded by areas within the City of San Luis
Obispo, and within the City’s Sphere of Influence,
generally bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive
and U.S. Highway 101.
The applicant prepared a draft Specific Plan in April
2015, which was subsequently reviewed by City staff.
The applicant revised the Specific Plan on August 28,
2015. Since then, the plan has been reviewed by
various advisory bodies and the Planning Commission.
Their collective recommendations will be incorporated
in a Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan, which will also
include mitigation measures that are part of the EIR
for the project. The Draft EIR is currently being prepared, and potentially set for public release
in July 2016.
A key issue for this project is the timing and need for improvements at the existing Prado Road
interchange with Highway 101, which is called for in the LUCE. Various concepts are currently
under review, with the City coordinating closely with Caltrans on a Project Study Report (PSR).
The Specific Plan’s circulation system will ultimately reflect the outcome of that study, which is
crucial to address long-range circulation issues in the southern end of the City.
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan
The pre-application and Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment initiation request process
for the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan was initiated in May 2015. The
applicant is conceptually proposing a mix of uses including: 200 multi-family apartments; 75
attached or detached single-family dwellings; 25,000-45,000 square feet of commercial retail; a
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) consisting of 276 independent living units, 66
independent living villas and assisted living units, 122-bed skilled nursing and memory care
facility, common use area, recreational facilities, and ancillary improvements; and parks and
open space.
Some components of the applicant’s conceptual plan are different from the vision identified in
the Land Use Element for this Specific Plan Area, including a proposed reduction in commercial
retail structural area, the addition of the CCRC, and proposed development above the 150-foot
development limit line. Therefore, the conceptual project was presented to the City Planning
Commission on December 9, 2015 to consider the initiation request, provide a
recommendation to the City Council, and provide feedback to the applicant and staff regarding
the applicant’s proposed mix of uses and plan to amend the Land Use Element to allow
development above 150 feet in ground elevation. The Planning Commission determined that
additional information was needed in order to make a formal recommendation to the City
Council regarding the initiation request and the hearing was continued to April 2016.
San Luis Ranch Site Plan
12.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
33
South Broad Street Area Plan
The South Broad Street Area Plan had been in process since 2006. The draft Area Plan was
unanimously endorsed by the Planning Commission in November 2012, and after early 2013
review and revision by the Council, the plan was endorsed to move forward as part of the LUCE
update. The Council’s action in December 2014 to adopt the Land Use and Circulation Element
update also included adoption
of the South Broad Street Area
Plan.
Since adoption, the following
projects have been approved or
are under review within the
South Broad Street Area Plan:
• Broad Street Mixed Use
(3049/3099 Broad): 8
residential units and 6,000
square feet of retail space.
• 860 On the Wye (860
Humbert): 19 affordable
rental units and community
room; 10 units set aside for
homeless veterans.
• The Yard (2450 Victoria): 25 live/work units and 18 residential units.
• The Junction (2120 Santa Barbara): 69 residential units and 1,200 square feet of commercial
space.
In April 2015, the City applied for an Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grant for
complete street improvements to Broad Street within the plan area, but did not rank high
enough for funding.
South Broad Street Area Plan Site Overview
12.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
34
Plans Under Development
Downtown Concept Plan Update
The update to the Land Use Element included a program to update the Downtown Concept
Plan, which was originally adopted by the City Council in 1993. The primary objectives of the
project are to assess and update the present development, vision, goals and concepts related to
downtown, in order to provide a road map for future public projects and guidance for private
development in the downtown and surrounding areas.
On August 18, 2015, the City Council approved the scope of work and request for proposal for
consultant services. Two Council Members were appointed to serve as a subcommittee to
select members of the plan’s volunteer advisory body, the Creative Vision Team. On November
10, 2015 the City Council signed a resolution creating the Creative Vision Team (CVT) for the
Downtown Concept Plan update and defining its term and charge. Twenty-eight applications
were received and a team of nine volunteers were appointed by the City Council to advise the
City in the development of the Downtown Concept Plan. Four of the CVT members authored
the original Downtown Concept Plan. Consultant contracts were signed on December 3, 2015,
and the first CVT meeting was held on December 9. Early work included coordination with the
Mission Plaza Master Plan team, development of the Outreach and Engagement Strategy, and
work on the Existing Conditions Summary. The first quarter of 2016 will include wide-ranging
public engagement activities with a draft plan anticipated for public review in the fall.
Mission Plaza Master Plan
Concurrent with the Downtown Concept Plan is the development of the Mission Plaza Master
Plan. Since its inception in the 1970s, Mission Plaza has served as the cultural and historical
“heart” of the San Luis Obispo’s downtown. Given the Plaza’s age, popularity, and extensive
use, the Council authorized the Mission Plaza Master Plan and Assessment in July 2015 for this
important community hub. This was consistent with the Council-approved 2013-15 Major City
Goal to “Assess and Renew the Downtown,” which included a task for the development of a
Mission Plaza Master Plan. Council continued this focus with adoption of the Other Important
Objective for the Downtown in the currently adopted 2015-17 Financial Plan. Also identified in
the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements is the expansion of Mission Plaza,
originally envisioned in the 1993 Downtown Concept Plan.
A consultant team was hired in November 2015 to work with City staff to assess the present
condition, uses and policies related to the existing Mission Plaza; determine impacts of Plaza
events on adjacent residential neighbors, businesses, Old Mission Church operations and San
Luis Obispo Creek habitat; explore expansion of the Plaza into the adjacent Broad/Monterey St.
“dogleg” through permanent or temporary street closures; and provide a vision for the future
of the Plaza and surrounding streets. Project scope refinement, inventory work, background
research, and preliminary outreach took place in 2015. The overall goal of the project is to
revitalize and refresh this important community hub and provide the City a road map for
planning of future maintenance and development projects for the Plaza. Staff anticipates public
12.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
35
engagement activities taking place in early 2016, with a draft plan completed in the Summer.
Subdivision Regulations Update
The Subdivision Regulations Update project aims to achieve several important objectives:
• Include updated regulations for recent trends in subdivision ownership and design,
including small lot subdivisions, airspace subdivisions, three dimensional subdivisions,
and potentially other forms of infill development ownership.
• Create a more user friendly document with a simple layout that provides clear graphics,
examples, and guides the user through a set of steps to understanding the subdivision
review process and how to prepare a successful application.
• Update the regulations for consistency with recent Map Act updates and base law.
• Include cross references to other applicable City standards and regulations such as
stormwater requirements, building codes, and utility metering requirements.
Staff completed initial outreach to stakeholders and interested parties in 2015. Currently staff
and the project consultant are refining a public draft Subdivision Regulations Update which is
anticipated to be available for public review in the mid-year 2016 timeframe. Staff anticipates
Council review and completion of the project towards the end of 2016.
Sign Regulations Update
In 2015, the project consultant concluded the project’s first phase, receiving input from staff
and gathering public comments in stakeholder interviews. Staff anticipates the availability of a
public draft ready for review in mid-2016
12.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
36
Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2012. The Plan contains quantified
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the community and City operations.
It also serves as the City’s Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Several strategies from the
Climate Action Plan were incorporated in the LUCE update. Implementing the CAP includes
those actions the City can directly impact and those actions for which the City engages the
community.
Municipal Actions
Strategies in the CAP include review of City
facilities and operations to identify opportunities
for emissions reductions. In 2015, the City
continued its efforts to make improvements to
municipal facilities that will result in lowered
emissions. Including:
Facility Upgrades: In 2015, the City Facilities
Division continued the work of replacing
inefficient building lighting fixtures to LEDs at a
variety of City facilities, including Utilities
Administration, Parking Services, flag lighting at
Fire Station 1, security lighting at Fire Station 4,
and the public use room of the Senior Center.
Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): The
WRRF partnered with PG&E for an energy
efficiency project called SST (Sustainable
Solutions Turnkey) that was completed in 2015.
The central part of this project was a
cogeneration system that burns biogas produced
by the digestion of solids extracted from the
wastewater the facility treats every day. Average
daily production is 55,000 scf (standard cubic feet) per day. An IC engine runs on the biogas,
which, in turn, runs a generator that creates electricity to power the facility. The estimated
savings in electrical power costs is 15-20%. The WRRF is also participating in a Self-Generating
Incentive Program, which will result in greater savings from PG&E. Aging equipment was
replaced in the SST project; that has created future savings in equipment maintenance/cleaning
as well as reduced energy consumption of the new and more efficient equipment. Overall, the
project is expected to have a payout of 12.5 years.
The new NPDES permit that went into effect in December of 2014 is driving many process
equipment changes that will be installed during the WRRF Upgrade. Staff is currently in the
middle of this upgrade, working with the WRRF’s Program Manager, WSC, and the Facility’s
Facility Upgrades at Senior Center
12.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
37
design engineers, CH2M. Additionally, the upgrade includes expansion of the facility to
accommodate expected growth rates of the city in the next 20 years.
One of the two major process changes will result in a decreased carbon footprint by eliminating
two chemicals currently being used in the disinfection process. This change will take 130 tractor
trailer chemical trucks that drive up from Los Angeles chemical facilities off the road every year.
The added bonus of eliminating these chemicals is that it will substantially reduce the amount
of salts in the wastewater, improving
effluent to the creek and recycled water
quality to customers.
The second major process change will
position the WRRF for future expansion of
the recycled water system to possibly
include indirect and/or direct potable re-
use by providing a very high quality
effluent as a first step. As the WRRF
moves forward with the Facility Upgrade,
guiding documents such as the WRRF’s
Charter, the Triple Bottom Line, and other
tools will aid staff and its partners in
providing the City of San Luis Obispo with
a community asset we can all be proud of.
Municipal Water Conservation: In 2015
the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department was able to reduce potable
water use at our parks by 26%, saving
nearly 8 million gallons of water. The City
has invested heavily in our recycled water
system over the years; the parks and
landscape medians listed to the right are
all irrigated with recycled water.
City and Community Partner Actions
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) is a financing
mechanism that allows property owners to finance eligible energy and water efficiency, and
renewable energy projects, by adding the cost as an assessment to the property tax bill. This
mechanism eliminates upfront costs and allows repayment to be made over a long timeframe,
typically from five to twenty years. In 2015, City and County staff coordinated on a PACE
program selection process, with the County Energy Program leading the effort. Three PACE
programs were selected by the County and the City: Renew Financial (CaliforniaFIRST),
Renovate America Inc. (HERO), and Ygrene. The County Board of Supervisors approved
12.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
38
contracts and resolutions on November 17, 2015. The City Council followed suit in early 2016,
allowing three PACE Program providers to operate within the City of San Luis Obispo.
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA): CCA is a system that allows cities and counties to
aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a defined jurisdiction in order to
secure alternative energy supply contracts on a community-wide basis, while allowing
consumers not wishing to participate to opt out. The City Council has directed staff to develop
initial feasibility studies with two providers of Community Choice Aggregation programs as well
as participate in a potential program with the Counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and
Ventura. Early information on these efforts are expected in spring 2016.
Compact of Mayors: In August, 2015, Mayor Marx signed a letter declaring the intent of the
City of San Luis Obispo to comply with the Compact of Mayors, the world’s largest cooperative
effort among mayors and city leaders to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, track progress, and
prepare for the impacts of climate change. The goal is to become fully compliant with the ideas
set forth in the Compact, and to publicly report on outcomes within the next three years.
Civic Spark: CAP strategy implementation in 2015 included collaboration with regional partners
for outreach and education. AmeriCorps staff resources were again made available through the
Local Government Commission and funding by the Air Pollution Control District (called
CivicSpark). Civic Spark program staff have been working with local cities and the County to
collect information regarding permits issued for energy upgrade projects (to aid in future
reporting on CAP implementation) and to identify permit streamlining opportunities for small
scale photovoltaic installations (a process which the City of San Luis Obispo already has in
place). The CivicSpark team has also developed a web site and handouts to educate residents
and business owners about energy retrofits and energy reduction actions.
City Planning, Transportation and Utilities staff participated in the CivicSpark Block Party:
Simple Steps for Energy Efficiency at the Downtown Farmers’ Market on May 28, 2015, along
with other Civic Spark and agency partners.
12.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
39
The illustration below represents data collected on residential solar systems installed in the City
of San Luis Obispo in 2014, compiled in 2015 by CivicSpark staff.
12.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
40
Economic Development
On October 16, 2012 the City Council approved the adoption of the Economic Development
Strategic Plan (EDSP). The EDSP focuses on creating a system that supports and sustains
industries creating head of household jobs. The EDSP is organized into four overarching
strategies:
• Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
• Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation
• Promote and Enhance the San Luis Obispo Quality of Life
• Build on Existing Efforts and Strengthen Regional Partnerships
As part of the City’s effort to build on existing efforts and strengthen regional partnerships, in
2015 the City, in cooperation with SLOCOG, the EVC and Beacon Economics, was able to secure
access to the California Employment Development Department’s confidential data. This data is
available from 2008 and will be released quarterly into the future. The City contracted with
Beacon to do a historical analysis as well as future updates. As an example of the data available,
Figure 5 below compares payrolls in the City of SLO to the County and highlights that since 2009
payrolls in the City have grown by 13.8% just ahead of 11.5% mark set in the rest of the County,
the full report can be found on the City’s website.
Figure 5 - San Luis Obispo Payroll & Employment
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015
Economic Development highlights from 2015 include:
12.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
41
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
Permit Processing
The Development Review Team (DRT)
continued to work to ensure a
consistent and expedient approach
across all involved departments. The
team now has an automated solution
to track all projects in the system and
measure the performance of the
organization in meeting our published
cycle times. The team has also
formalized the process for using
determinant processing agreements
and other tools to streamline the
approval process.
The Continuous Improvement Group (CIG), a sub-set of the Development Review Team
continues to actively work on permit process improvements and accountability measures
through cross-department and cross-functional input, action and alignment with key
performance indicators. The CIG is currently working on a prioritized list of projects to further
improve the entitlement and permitting processes. The major items are reviewing and updating
the online checklists and streamlining the intake process. The team is also working with the
Community Development Department on their major initiatives. The City’s website was also
updated with a specific section on “Doing Business” to enhance the interaction between the
business community and the City.
Infrastructure and Fees
Following the infrastructure study sessions in March 2014, Council directed staff to develop a
prioritized list of infrastructure projects for the City to invest in from an economic development
and quality of life perspective. That initiative evolved into the Infrastructure Investment Capital
Fund (IICF) and Infrastructure Investment Capital Improvement Project (IICIP), which Council
approved in March of 2015. The work program for the AB1600 Fee program update was also
initiated in late 2015.
Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation
Entrepreneurship
The Economic Development Program was actively working with partners to promote an
environment that supports entrepreneurship and start-ups. The City continued to support the
SLO HotHouse financially and professionally. In 2015, the HotHouse started 17 new businesses,
counseled 123 clients, created 64 jobs and had an overall investment in the community of more
than $3.7 million.
12.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
42
Access to Broadband
The City continues to work with a Tri-County consortium through the Economic Vitality
Corporation (EVC) to develop a broadband road map that can be used by various jurisdictions
to develop their own broadband roadmaps (strategy 2.3). The City is also working with the
Downtown Association on possible Wi-Fi solutions in the downtown area
Promote and Enhance Quality of Life
Tourism and Community Promotions
The year of 2015 marked the highest
collection of transient occupancy tax
(TOT) in the history of San Luis
Obispo, contributing slightly over $7
million directly into the City’s general
fund.
In addition, the lodging properties
throughout the City returned to
steady occupancy rates that met or
exceeded business prior to the
recession. Much of this success can
be credited to the City’s focused
strategic tourism efforts lead by the
City’s Tourism Business Improvement
(TBID) district. In 2015, the TBID
executed a multi-faceted tourism
campaign which included the
following elements: rebranding the
City’s tourism logo, developing a
compelling and award-winning
advertising campaign for use in print,
digital and email marketing outreach,
strengthening the #ShareSLO
outward facing social media
campaign on Instagram, Facebook,
and Twitter, and attending more than
a dozen events and tradeshows to
promote the SLO brand.
In 2015 the City also hosted more than 45 media outlets, travel writers and bloggers, facilitating
articles, feature stories and videos showcasing the Central Coast as more than a one-night
stopover. This effort resulted in hundreds of prominent placements in publications including
12.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
43
The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Sunset Magazine and Travel+Leisure, among others,
recognizing SLO as a destination.
The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) continued the commitment to enhance the San
Luis Obispo experience for residents as well as visitors. The PCC funded vital promotional grants
to over 25 local non-profit organizations through the annual grants-in-aid process in an effort to
enrich the social, cultural, and diverse community events and activities available throughout
the City. To support these activities as well as all events in the city, the PCC developed a smart
phone app to serve as the community go-to resource for all of the happenings in San Luis
Obispo. Additionally, the PCC provided financial and program support to boost the visitor
service offerings in the city through the funding of programs like the tear-off city maps for
visitors and financial contribution to the operational costs for the downtown Visitors Center.
The PCC also contributed seed funding for the development of a trailhead beautification guide
to be used throughout all city open space locations as reference guide for proper signage and
user service.
12.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
44
New Policy Initiatives
In 2015, the City completed several policy initiatives across a wide variety of subject areas with
the support of all City departments. Those initiatives included:
Homestay Rentals
In 2013, the City received a variety of complaints regarding short term rentals as well as
requests to permit them in the City. In response, the City Council held a study session to
explore the issue, and directed staff to draft an ordinance with input from various perspectives.
Staff worked throughout 2014 to develop permit requirements and performance standards and
in January 2015, the City Council approved an ordinance to allow for owner-occupied
homestays while continuing the prohibition of non-owner occupied vacation rentals. The City is
currently monitoring compliance with the ordinance and taking enforcement action when
appropriate.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
After holding a study session in 2014, the City Council approved a Rental Housing Inspection
Program in May 2015. The program includes all residential rental units which are single family
dwellings, duplexes and some condominiums. Each of the units is required to have an
inspection every 3 years. Those units which pass an initial city conducted inspection and have
no code violations at the end of the 3 years can apply for the self-certification program.
Inspections are scheduled to being in April 2016.
Medical Marijuana
After an initial public hearing in 2014, the City Council directed staff to focus on the potential
nuisance effects of medical marijuana cultivation. In March 2015, the City Council added a new
section to the Health and Safety section of the Municipal Code to regulate offensive odors.
Council reaffirmed, with Resolution No. 10683 on December 15, 2015, that the City’s permissive
zoning code prohibits marijuana
businesses, operations and issues. The
City is currently responding to odor
related complaints and taking
enforcement action when appropriate.
Expanded Polystyrene
In response to requests from the
community, the City Council held a
study session in 2014 to review
regulatory options for prohibiting the
use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) food
and drink containers in the City. In June
2015, the City Council adopted an
12.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
45
ordinance to regulate the use of EPS products. Significant outreach was conducted with the
public community prior to the ordinance taking effect in December 2015. The ordinance
included a provision for only warning for the first six months after the ordinance became
effective which expires in July 2016.
E-cigarettes
In February 2014 the City Council directed staff to agendize consideration of an ordinance to
include e-cigarettes in existing regulations for tobacco products and smoking. After outreach to
the public and business community on the issues, staff returned to the Council with an
ordinance in March 2015 which was approved. The City is currently monitoring compliance with
the ordinance and taking enforcement action when appropriate.
12.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
46
Historic Preservation
Design Review Workshop
On June 10th and 11th, the Community
Development Department hosted a design
review/historic preservation training
workshop for the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC), Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC), Planning staff, and
members of the public. The training covered
key principles of design review for
development in historic districts, and for
projects located adjacent to or on properties
with historic resources. Page and Turnbull, a
San Francisco based firm with expertise in
architectural design, planning, and
preservation, led the training event.
The workshop started with discussion of key
principles in historic preservation including
determining historic significance, integrity,
and context; and highlighted proper
application of local tools such the Historic
Preservation Guidelines, historic surveys, and
the Historic Context Statement. The second
session built on the foundation of the first
day by providing an overview of national
standards for treatment of historic
properties, and used examples and
interactive activities to engage the
participants in evaluation and discussion of
local examples. The training provided
opportunities to discuss design review issues
that arise with development in the historic
context, and the community’s commitment
to quality design as a means of maintaining
our sense of place.
12.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
47
Water Supply
In 2015, the City obtained water from five sources: Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake);
Whale Rock Reservoir; Nacimiento Reservoir; recycled water from the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF); and groundwater.
Table 11– City Water Resource Availability
Water Resource 2015 Annual Availability
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock
Reservoir 6,940 AF Safe Annual Yield1
Nacimiento Reservoir 3,380 AF Dependable Yield2
Recycled Water 185 AF 2014 Annual Usage3
Siltation to 2060 (500 AF) WWME Policy A
4 Nacimiento Reservoir (Full Allocation) 2,102 AF Secondary Supply5
TOTAL 12,107 AF
Source: Water and Wastewater Management Element, 2010, Utilities Department, 2016.
1Safe Annual Yield is the quantity of water which can be withdrawn every year while operating both reservoirs in
coordinated operations under critical drought conditions. Safe Annual Yield is determined from a computer model,
which accounts for siltation loss through 2010 (per WWME Policy A 4.2.1).
2Dependable Yield is the contractual amount of water the City has right to from Nacimiento Reservoir.
3The quantity of recycled water included is the actual prior year’s recycled water usage (2015) per WWEA7.2.2.
4Reservoir siltation is a natural occurrence that reduces storage capacity over long periods, resulting in the reduction of
safe annual yield.
5 In March 2016, the City Council approved the addition of 2,102 afy from Nacimiento Reservoir to the City’s secondary
water supply. Secondary water supplies are used to meet short-term losses to the City’s water supply due to events
such as drought or maintenance and repair of infrastructure.
In 2015, availability from these sources equaled
12,107 acre-feet, as shown in Table 11. This
supply meets the projected primary water supply
need at General Plan build out of 7,330 acre-feet,
plus an additional 1,174 acre-feet for a reliability
reserve and a secondary water supply of 3,603
acre-feet.
The primary water supply was calculated using
the City’s build-out population (53,700 people)
and the water use rate of 114.4 gallons per capita
per day (a ten-year running average of the City’s
actual per capita water use-down from last year’s
average of 118.5 gpc). The reliability reserve was
calculated using the City’s 2015 population
(45,802) and 20 percent of the aforementioned
water use rate. The secondary water supply
includes the remaining water resources.
Santa Margarita Lake
12.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
48
Johnson Ave. buffered bike lanes
Green bike lanes at Broad and Orcutt
Circulation
Transportation Network Improvements
The General Plan defines “level of service” as the quality of traffic during the peak traffic hour
of the day. Level of service A is free-flowing traffic while level of service F is extreme
congestion. At the end of 2013, the last time data was available; approximately 95% of the
City’s major intersections were within acceptable levels of service as established in the
Circulation Element. The following transportation network accomplishments implemented the
Circulation Element of the General Plan in 2015:
Vehicular
• Numerous traffic signal and intersection
optimization improvements were completed as
part of the City’s Traffic Operations Program and
ongoing traffic signal management responsibilities.
• Numerous traffic safety improvements were
implemented as part of the City’s Traffic Safety
Program.
• Construction was 75 percent complete on the Los
Osos Valley Road interchange project, with
completion anticipated in the Spring of 2016.
• A mobile speed feedback trailer was deployed at
over 50 locations consistent with the City’s radar
sign program. Additionally, a second speed
feedback trailer was purchased in 2015.
Bicycle
• Green bike lanes were installed at the
intersections of Broad and Orcutt, Santa
Rosa and Walnut, Santa Rosa and Olive,
and Santa Rosa and Montalbon.
• Half a mile of buffered bike lanes were
installed on Johnson Avenue between
Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road.
• Bike lanes were installed on Chorro Street
between Peach and Palm Streets.
• The intersection of Pacific and Morro
Street was enhanced to give priority to bicycle
transportation along the Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard.
12.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
49
New SLO Tripper
• The City’s supply of short-term bicycle parking continued to expand as part of the City’s
“Racks with Plaques” bicycle rack donation program.
• Bike valet parking service continued at the weekly Thursday night Farmer’s Market and
during the summertime Concerts in the Plaza.
Transit
• SLO Transit saw a 2% increase in ridership
from 2014, transporting over 1,170,700
during calendar year 2015. This represents
a new all-time record high in ridership for
SLO Transit. The prior record was set only
a year ago.
• Free Wi-Fi is now installed on 80% of the
Fleet thanks to a State grant which paid
for Automatic Passenger Counters and
ancillary equipment. This also comes with
the added benefit of seeing live
occupancy data on transit buses as rider
board and exit vehicles and which will
help with making real-time and long term decisions.
• New Tripper bus service was introduced for improved access to the San Luis Dr.
neighborhood and SLO High School around bell times.
• Work on the SLO Transit Joint Short Range Transit Plan is near completion. This will
provide a comprehensive analysis of the local and regional public transit system.
Findings from this analysis will help shape the future of the City’s transit system and
help build continuity with RTA services.
Transportation Planning Accomplishments
The following transportation planning projects were implemented in 2015, consistent with
programs in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Vehicular
• The City began its 2015/16 citywide traffic count project. This data is used for virtually
all transportation studies and assessments in the City.
• The 2014 Traffic Safety Report was presented to City Council in January 2016, and data
collection and analysis is being performed on a continuing basis for 2015-16.
• The Railroad Square parking and access plan is currently underway. Initial parking
studies have been completed, an initial public workshop was held with businesses in the
area and staff is continuing to study and develop concepts for consideration.
12.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
50
Helmet Fitting at Bike Rodeo
Bicycle/Pedestrian
• The City received recognition as a Gold Bicycle
Friendly Community by the League of American
Bicyclists.
• The City was awarded $3,200,000 in Active
Transportation funds to support the construction
of the Railroad Safety Trail segment from Taft to
Phillips including a bike bridge over Union Pacific
Railroad.
• The City submitted grant applications for
construction of the Railroad Safety Trail bridge at
Phillips Lane; the Prefumo Creek bikeway from
Oceanaire to Calle Joaquin; and the Bob Jones
Trail from LOVR to Octagon Barn.
• Utilizing Bicycle Coalition volunteers,
abandoned bicycles in the
downtown are being identified and
removed to maintain the availability
of short-term bicycle parking.
• In September, the City held its
annual Bicycle Rodeo instructing City
youth on safe bicycling techniques
and proper riding habits.
• In May, the City participated in Bike
to Work Month activities,
encouraging the use of active
transportation.
• The City collaborated with the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Coalition and other community
volunteers to offer bicycle safety education training.
• The Public Works Department targeted Cal Poly’s Week of Welcome (WOW) for the
promotion of bicycle-on transit use.
• The City provided annual bicycling awareness training to SLO Transit drivers.
• The City conducted its ninth annual Halloween Traffic Safety campaign passing out 3,700
reflective Halloween bags to elementary school students.
12.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
51
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM)
Construction plans for the Fixlini NTM improvements were completed in 2015 and construction
will begin in early 2016. The Chorro (Broad to Buchon) NTM is currently in progress and
temporary traffic calming devices will be installed in early 2016 for monitoring. The
Woodbridge neighborhood also received minor improvements in 2015 as a result of the NTM
Program. Below is the current queue of neighborhoods qualifying for a Traffic Improvement
Plan. Neighborhoods are listed in the order they were received:
1. Chorro (Broad to Buchon)—in progress
2. High (Higuera to Broad)—scheduled to start in 2016
3. Augusta (Sinsheimer to Laurel)
4. La Entrada and Ramona
5. Mill Street (Santa Rosa to Grand)
Parking Management
Parking was a major focus area in 2015.
1. As part of the FY 2015-16 Financial Plan a new
management position, Parking Services Supervisor,
was created to oversee daily operations of Parking
Services to allow the Parking Manager to allocate
more time to management and City direction.
2. Phase 1 of the Chinatown project (development along
Monterey Street) commenced with removal of
approximately 45 spaces. Credit card meters were
relocated to other areas of high activity in the
Downtown.
3. Parking Lot #2 closed as part of the Garden Street
Terraces Project (Hotel Serra) with all credit card
meters being relocated to other areas of high activity
in the Downtown.
4. Staff hired Walker Consultants to prepare additional information on the demand and
parking supply issues for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and presented information as
part of a study session in January 2016.
5. The “Super Core” meter area was expanded by Council as part of FY 2015-16 Fund review
and directly tied to areas where credit card meters are in use.
6. As part of the FY 2015-16 Parking Fund review, structure rates were brought into
alignment with all structures now at $1.00 per hour – with first 60 Minutes free.
7. The donation meters were continued as part of the City’s directed giving campaign to end
homelessness.
12.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
52
Safety
Emergency Preparedness and Response
In 2015, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) continued its new program in which all
staffed City facilities are assigned a different SLOFD crew and/or staff member for disaster
preparedness training and other emergency response education. This year, in light of tragic
events throughout the nation involving
workplace violence, this program was expanded
with a key partnership from San Luis Police
Department (SLOPD). In addition to fire crews
visiting each facility to provide evacuation
training/drills, emergency preparedness tips, fire
extinguisher training, and disaster service worker
information, a small cadre of SLOFD and SLOPD
trainers visited City workplaces to discuss the
tenants of the “run, hide, fight” workplace safety
curriculum. Supervisors were engaged to develop
evacuation plans specific to violent incidents.
Related to workplace safety, SLOFD and City
Information Technology (IT) staff partnered to evaluate the City’s capabilities in providing
urgent staff communiques, including safety alerts and notifications regarding Emergency
Operating Center activation status. Together with SLOPD, SLOFD and IT also evaluated the
functionality of the use of 9-1-1 from City networked computers and discovered needed
improvements to aide in pinpointing the location of
an emergency. In 2015 several solutions were put in
motion, including: the use of the intercom function of
City phones to provide timely alerts within
workplaces; the installation of phone switches to
increase the accuracy of pinpointing emergencies;
and the expansion of our use of an existing paging
services contract to notify key personnel in the event
of a disaster or critical safety issue.
Regarding employee training and preparedness,
SLOFD partnered with all departments in developing
the minimum training and certification required for
all City employees. In July 2015, this program was
implemented with a one-year completion schedule.
The majority of certification classes are available
online and self-paced. For those few traditional
classroom-centric required classes, SLOFD scheduled
12.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
53
classes to meet the needs of the City.
Early winter storm projections called for a strong El Nino event in the 2015-2016 rainy season.
SLOFD and Public Works partnered to perform a gap analysis of the City’s preparedness. The
results of this gap analysis informed the City’s priorities and became the basis for a concerted
public education effort, including a companion video and new website,
www.SLOCity.org/Prepared.
SLOFD also hosted the annual Open House as
part of Fire Prevention week activities and
provided emergency preparedness information
to residents and visitors. New to this year’s
Open House was the inclusion of other City
staff to discuss issues related to the drought.
Hazard Mitigation
SLOFD in collaboration with other city
departments and community agencies
completed the first annual review of the 2014
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The
LHMP provides guidance on how to reduce the community’s vulnerability to natural hazards.
This plan calls for annual stakeholder meetings to update progress and identify collaborative
opportunities. The results of this annual meeting were brought back to the City Council in early
2016.
Staff Training
Safety Element Program 9.4 states that the City will train police officers and other City
employees to levels appropriate for their tasks and responsibilities.
The California Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training (POST), which
mandates minimum content and hours for
basic and in-service training, regulates the
training of police officers and communication
technicians. The Police Department maintained
compliance with POST requirements for in-
service training hours for required employees.
This was accomplished by sending employees
to POST-certified training courses in various
topics, with the associated costs reimbursed by
POST, and by providing in-house training for
employees.
12.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
54
The San Luis Obispo Police Department
(SLOPD) also conducts in-house training
through the use of employees who are
certified instructors in a variety of police-
related job functions, including defensive
tactics and use of firearms.
Mutual and Automatic Aid
Section 9.10 of the Safety Element indicates
that the City will work with other jurisdictions
to obtain and follow adequate mutual-aid and
automatic-aid agreements. SLOPD participated
in Mobile Field Force joint operations training with Cal Poly University Police. The purpose of
this training was to coordinate mutual aid response efforts and action directed towards the
gathering of large, unruly crowds that could result in a riot or significant property damage.
SLOPD also coordinated efforts with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District in facilitating
active shooter training. Both school district staff and law enforcement personnel had an
opportunity to be involved in active shooter/multi-casualty scenario-based training and become
familiar with each other’s policies and practices in the event of an actual significant event.
The City has participated in a regional Special Weapons and Tactics Team (Regional SWAT) since
2008. The Regional SWAT team allows
participating cities to leverage limited
resources and maximize coordination and
special expertise during critical incidents.
SLOFD deployed on several requests for
Mutual Aid throughout the State in 2015,
including the massive Valley, Rough, and
Butte fires. Fire personnel deployed to
large-scale incidents receive invaluable on-
the-job training, and the costs associated
with their deployment are reimbursed to
the City.
Additionally, SLOFD improved upon the Automatic Aid agreement with CAL FIRE. Under this
agreement, the closest emergency response crew will be dispatched to fire and medical
emergencies, regardless of jurisdiction. Automatic aid between SLOFD and Cal Fire/SLO County
Fire occurs on almost a daily basis now, ensuring that the closest resources in the correct
amount are sent to emergencies in and around the City, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.
SLOFD is also a member of the Regional Urban Search and Rescue (USAR), County Hazardous
Materials Response Team, County Fire Investigation Strike Team, and the County Type III
Incident Management Team. These regional teams provide exceptional service to the
Cuesta Fire
12.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
55
communities of participating agencies at a fraction of the cost of providing that service
autonomously.
Community Action Team (CAT)
2015 marked the third year of the Police Department’s deployment of the two-officer
Community Action Team (CAT). CAT Officers continue to identify problems and crime trends
that negatively impact the quality of life of residents, business owners and visitors. CAT Officers
have focused on several individuals in our community who are involved in adverse and
repetitive criminal activities that negatively impact our community. They have been successful
in working with others to find alternatives to incarceration that include enhanced and focused
service placement and transitional housing. The program has continued to grow and the
relationships in the court system have proven very valuable. Many of the repeat offenders from
previous years have now been placed into treatment programs. The others that refused
treatment have been given significant sentences to reduce their impacts on the community.
CAT officers work collaboratively with a myriad of individuals and groups, including patrol
officers, investigators, the Neighborhood Outreach Manager, other city departments, social
service providers, business groups, and other governmental agencies as appropriate.
Multi-Dwelling Property Inspection Program
Under the direction of the Fire Marshal, the Fire Prevention Bureau inspects all multi-dwelling
properties (three or more units) in the City to ensure that they meet a reasonable degree of fire
and life safety. This state-mandated program helps safeguard residents and visitors who
patronize local hotels, and generates approximately $194,000 in revenue that offsets
implementation costs. The Fire Prevention Bureau completed approximately 677 inspections of
apartments, hotels, and fraternity and sorority houses in 2015.
Fire and Life Safety Inspections
SLOFD engine companies completed over 1,300 fire and life safety inspections in 2015. In
addition, Fire Prevention Bureau staff completed over 200 inspections of schools, hospitals and
nursing homes, day care centers and assisted living centers, and large public assembly
occupancies. A portion of these inspections resulted in Fire Code operating permits, which
generated approximately $133,000 in revenue.
Hazardous Materials Inspections
The Fire Prevention Bureau serves as a “Participating Agency” in the County’s Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA). Businesses that use or store hazardous materials in an appreciable
quantity, generate hazardous wastes, or operate underground or aboveground petroleum
storage tanks are subject to inspection. The Hazardous Materials Coordinator conducted 275
facility inspections in 2015, which generated over $90,000 in permit fee revenue.
12.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
56
Vegetation Management
While fewer weed complaints were fielded
by the Fire Prevention Bureau in 2015, there
was again a significant increase in
complaints regarding dead pine trees due to
the pitch canker epidemic. The Fire
Department completed 2 major wildland
fuel reduction projects in City-owned open
space in 2015. Wildland fuel reduction and
chipping projects were conducted in the Irish
Hills Open Space off Prefumo Canyon Road
in conjunction with the city’s Natural
Resources and Ranger Service programs and
Cal Fire Cuesta Camp crews. As a result the
emergency access and egress road at the end of Isabella Street was opened up and the
meadow restored. Staff also partnered with Public Works to remove 68 hazardous dead pine
trees in Laguna Lake Natural Preserve, Sinsheimer Park and on Terrace Hill. These projects were
made possible from a combination of budget funding and grant funds from the San Luis Obispo
County Fire Safe Council.
Critical Facilities Locations and Reducing Structural Hazards
Section 9.19 of the Safety Element tasks the City with identifying and evaluating hazards in
existing structures, with the highest priority given to critical facilities. This effort includes
maintaining and replacing City facilities, routine code inspections of certain commercial and
residential buildings, complaint-based code inspections for all buildings, mitigating hazards
associated with unreinforced masonry buildings (URM), and outreach regarding structural
safety of private wood-frame buildings.
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation
The 2004 URM Ordinance required full strengthening by July 2010 unless partial, Level A,
strengthening was completed by July 1, 2007. Where Level A was completed by the deadline,
Level B work could be delayed until July 1, 2012. Level A strengthening consists of installation of
anchors between building walls and roof, walls and floors, and bracing of any parapets. Level B
consists of Level A work plus installation of the steel members that stabilize the storefront and
frame. Distinction between Level A and B was established by ordinance to encourage owners to
complete this significant portion of the strengthening process as soon as possible.
Of the 126 URM buildings in the City, 118 have completed seismic strengthening or were
otherwise brought into compliance with the ordinance and the last eight are currently under
construction. These include development projects such as the future Garden Street Terrace and
Chinatown Projects.
12.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
57
Neighborhood Wellness
Land Use Element Program 2.14 states the City will help identify neighborhood problems, and
undertake a wide range of focused development review, capital improvement, and code
enforcement efforts to help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Matching Grants
The City Council identified Neighborhood Wellness as a Major City Goal in the 2013-15 Financial
Plan and has carried this goal forward into the 2015-17 Financial Plan as an Other Important
Council Objective. One of the strategies identified in the respective budgets is to support
activities to establish or bolster neighborhood cohesiveness. Neighborhood Matching Grants
are a mechanism to provide support to neighborhoods for activities and projects that engage
neighbors in positive ways.
On July 1, 2015, staff received input from the Human Relations Commission (HRC) on the
proposed Neighborhood Matching Grant (NMG) Program. On August 18, 2015, following
additional outreach, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Neighborhood
Matching Grant Pilot Program for two years, with $5,000 available for distribution in FY 2015-
16, and $10,000 in FY 2016-17. The City Council also delegated the responsibility of awarding
Neighborhood Matching Grants to the HRC. Staff came back to the HRC on September 2, 2015,
to discuss the program in more detail.
As described in the Neighborhood Matching Grant Guidelines, grant requests may range from
$250 to $5,000. For every dollar awarded by the City, the neighborhood provides an equal or
greater match consisting of volunteer labor, donated professional services, materials or a
monetary contribution. At the conclusion of the second year, the program will be evaluated and
future funding will be determined.
The 2015-16 Grant cycle opened on September 14, 2015, and eight draft applications were
received by the deadline of October 23. A staff team reviewed the applications and provided
feedback to the applicants. Final applications were due on January 8, 2016; three applications
were received and the HRC awarded funding to two of the applicants. Next year’s Annual
Report will describe the implementation of those projects, as well as the second round of
applications.
Neighborhood Officer Program – Police Department
In 2013 the Police Department launched a Neighborhood Officer Program that divides the City
into 13 distinct “neighborhoods,” each with dedicated patrol officers assigned to address City
neighborhood issues. The Neighborhood Officers act as liaisons between the Police
Department, the community, and a variety of city agencies. The Neighborhood Officers assist
with public education, crime prevention, establishing Neighborhood Watch groups, and
neighborhood specific problems. The Neighborhood Officer Program offers residents and
business owners a personal option when police assistance is needed and an immediate
12.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
58
response isn’t needed. Residents and
businesses can find their Neighborhood
Officer on the City webpage and contact them
directly either by phone or email.
In 2015 the Neighborhood Officers conducted
neighborhood walks where they contacted a
variety of residents within their assigned
areas to introduce themselves, discuss the
Neighborhood Officer program and make
themselves available as needed. In the
neighborhoods near Cal Poly, the Code
Enforcement Neighborhood Services Specialists joined the Neighborhood Officers to help
educate residents to the Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance. These walks will continue on
a regular basis to keep open lines of communication with the residents in these neighborhoods.
Code Enforcement – Community Development Department
The City’s Code Enforcement Office, which reports directly to the Community Development
Department’s Chief Building Official, deals primarily with violations of building codes and zoning
regulations. Examples of code violations that impact neighborhood quality include:
• Property Maintenance Violations
• Sign Violations
• Unpermitted Construction
• Substandard Buildings
• Occupancy Violations
• Land Use Violations
In 2015, there were 234 code enforcement cases opened in response to requests for field
investigations and proactive enforcement. These included land use and zoning violations,
property maintenance and substandard building violations, among others.
In addition, there were 633 Neighborhood Services code enforcement cases, which included
violations such as visible storage, failure to screen waste containers, dead or overgrown
vegetation and yard parking. Neighborhood Services conducts proactive outreach and
enforcement measures in residential areas throughout the city and attends numerous outreach
events at Cal Poly, Cuesta, The San Luis Obispo Board of Realtors, as well as regular
Neighborhood Wellness and RQN meetings. These outreach efforts are ongoing.
In May 2015, the City Council adopted an Ordinance establishing the Rental Housing Inspection
Program which requires all residential rentals to have exterior and interior inspections every
three years.
12.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
59
Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Outreach – Police Department
Police Department SNAP employees (Student Neighborhood Assistance Program) continue to
conduct parking enforcement in neighborhoods during evening hours. In 2015 they issued
2,498 parking citations for violations in residential parking permit districts. SNAP also issues
Disturbance Advisory Cards (DACs) which are formal warnings, in response to substantiated
noise party complaints. In 2015, SNAP issued 549 DACs, compared to 227 in 2014. SNAP also
assists with graffiti abatement and identifying abandoned vehicles for towing.
In response to the need for non-adversarial processes that address community conflicts, the
City of San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Creative Mediation, a local non-profit,
developed the SLO Solutions Program in 2004 to offer free conflict resolution and mediation to
City residents. The program served 1,335 residents in 2015.
Neighborhood Wellness meetings were held bi-monthly in 2015 which gave staff the
opportunity to share information about neighborhood initiatives and projects. The meetings
also gave residents the opportunity to ask questions and share concerns.
12.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
60
Downtown Alcohol Outlets
Since the effective date of the Alcohol Outlet Regulations on June 19, 2012, through June 30,
2015, there has been no violation of any new Use Permit or alcohol outlet in the Downtown
Association Boundary. In addition, violations for existing establishments have been on the
decline. The City’s Downtown Bar/Restaurant Inspection Program will continue to ensure
compliance with the Alcohol Outlet Regulations and Use Permit conditions for existing and
future businesses in the downtown area.
Previous reporting on alcohol outlets downtown focused on alcohol outlets within each census
tract, however these census tracts ranged in size and geographical areas. The Downtown
Association Boundary captures alcohol outlets that are more centralized downtown which are
directly affected by the Deemed Approved Alcohol Outlet Regulations. Figure 6 shows the
number of these types of licenses within the Downtown Association Boundary per fiscal year
Figure 6- Alcohol Outlets within Downtown Boundary
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2016
Notes:
Type 23: Small Beer Manufacturer Brew Pub or Micro-brewery (on-site sale of specialty beers only) or license
Type 41: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (where full meals are served) or license
Type 42: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Public Premises (Beer & Wine Bars) or license
Type 47: On-Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (Beer, Wine and Spirits, General Restaurant) or license
Type 48: On-Sale General for Public Premises (where full meals are not served, Bar/Tavern) or license
Type 75: On-Sale General Brew Pub (Brewery & General Restaurant)
12.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
61
Open Space Protection
The General Plan contains many goals, policies and programs focused on open space
protection. The policies apply to sensitive lands within the City’s urban reserve as well as land in
the greenbelt area that is protected for its biological, agricultural, aesthetic and/or watershed
protection value. The Land Use and Circulation Element and Conservation and Open Space
Element address this subject in detail.
The highlights of 2015 include:
1. Completed the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan 2015
Update.
2. Completed the Terrace Hill
Open Space Conservation
Plan
3. Continued implementation
of the Calle Joaquin
Agricultural Reserve
Master Plan with Central
Coast Grown, for
educational and local
agriculture production
purposes.
4. The City’s Ranger Service program, in
partnership with the Central Coast
Concerned Mountain Bikers (CCCMB)
and other volunteers, continued to
expand multiuse trails in the Froom
Ranch portion of Irish Hills Natural
Reserve, as well as through the
neighboring Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) parcel under a
Memorandum of Agreement with BLM,
increasing the hiking, trail running and
mountain biking opportunities in that
open space by several miles.
5. The Skills Course at the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve continued to be expanded upon
and improved through volunteer and Ranger work days. All new construction balanced
resource protection and recreation, as appropriate.
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (photo credit: Doug Bush)
Anna’s hummingbird at Terrace Hill Open Space
12.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
62
6. Continued invasive species vegetation control along Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo
Creek and continued planting native plants to restore the habitat.
7. Continued to implement the Stormwater Management Plan as required by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Plan focuses on improving stormwater quality
through Best Management Practices (BMPs), including: construction site monitoring,
municipal operations, development review, and public participation to reduce pollution
run-off.
8. Participated in planning and implementation of several important ongoing City projects,
including: Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Redevelopment Plan; Los Osos Valley
Road/Hwy 101 interchange project; and the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plans.
9. Collaborated with Public Works on maintenance projects to protect natural resources
onsite with the Broad Street and Toro Street stream bank repairs.
10. Continued steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) surveys along San Luis Obispo Creek
with biologists from California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
11. The Ranger Service and the Natural Resources Program prepared the City of San Luis
Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan as part of the Open Space Major City Goal. The
Open Space Maintenance Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for day-to-day
maintenance activities, as well as long-term improvements and enhancements, including
items such as signs and kiosks, gates and fencing, or parking and trash. The Open Space
Maintenance Plan also includes two technical appendices: the City of San Luis Obispo
Vegetation Management Plan: The Wildland–Urban Interface and Integrated Vegetation
Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo 2015-2020. It was
adopted by the City Council in December 2015.
12. The 2015-17 Council objective to “Initiate Implementation of the Laguna Lake Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan” is underway. To that end, a comprehensive consultant team
led by MNS Engineers is designing dredging and sediment management options,
developing financing options, completing environmental review and securing regulatory
agency permits. Staff plans to get approval from Council in summer 2016 for selection of
the preferred design and financing alternative, leading towards a “shovel ready” project
anticipated for the 2017-19 financial plan period. Another component of the Laguna Lake
Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is the installation of an accessible path; our own Public
Works Engineering team began designing this facility in 2015, and it should be complete
later this year.
12.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
63
Parks & Recreation
In 2015, the Parks and Recreation Department continued to offer a wide variety of programs
and activities that enhance the quality of life in the community. The following tasks were
accomplished implementing the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan:
Collaborative Programs
Sports
The City provides recreation sports opportunities for youth, adults and seniors. Collaboration
with the City and the San Luis Obispo County YMCA continued in 2015. Indoor Soccer (Futsal),
Basketball, and Flag Football provided activities for over 1,100 local children through the
combined efforts of both the City and YMCA. The City partnered with the Giants Baseball
Corporation to bring the Jr. Giants Program to our community. Junior Giants is a non-
competitive baseball program that focuses on building confidence, teamwork, integrity, and
leadership skills. The City continues to work collaboratively with the Youth Sports Association
and San Luis Coastal Unified School District to develop and renovate sports fields to meet the
needs of youth. Adult recreational sports include adult softball, adult soccer, ultimate Frisbee,
table tennis and volleyball programs. Senior sport activities (55+) include Boomer Softball and
Pickleball programs.
Community Programs
City-sponsored community programs help to gather citizens in a healthy, positive environment.
Over 1,000 youth at Meadow Park participated in a food donation-based walking Halloween
Parade, co-sponsored by Mindful Mothers. Other community programs in 2015 included Movie
Nights, Reindeer Run, Bike Rodeo, and Garden Clean-up Days. Additional collaborations, from
Health and Wellness Seminars and Senior Center Contract Classes, have provided much needed
services and programs to the community, especially underserved populations. Community
Gardens are provided at four locations. There are 100+ garden plots available to City residents
to lease. The Parks and Recreation Department
continues to offer online program registration,
facility reservations, and satisfaction surveys to its
customers; in 2015 the Department continued to
enhance its web and social media presence.
SLO Triathlon
In 2015 the City sponsored the 36th annual SLO
Triathlon. The SLO Tri occured on the fourth
Sunday in July at Sinsheimer Park and included a .5
mile swim, 15 mile bike and 3.1 mile run course.
Approximately 200+ community volunteers made
this annual event possible. The SLO Triathlon
12.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
64
focuses on completion, rather than competition, and draws 1,200 participants state-wide
annually to the event.
Youth Services
The Club STAR, Sun ‘N Fun, and SLO Teens programs continue to provide necessary child care
and social experiences for over 1,000 elementary and middle school aged youth, incorporating
character development, community service, academic support, tools for resiliency and making
positive choices, in a safe and nurturing environment. In the 2015-16 school year, Youth
Services provided programming at six school sites. New programming for the Transitional
Kinder (TK) class was provided at Bishop’s Peak and CL Smith Elementary Schools.
Other programs during the school year included two Teacher Work Day Camps, a week-long
Spring Break Camp for school-aged youth, two All STAR Fun Zones (open to all local youth in
grades 4-6), one Kids’ Night Out (serving TK-6 grade), as well as numerous onsite special events.
Summer programming also provided essential care for over 500 families. KidVENTURE’s
Ultimate Day Camp provided traditional camp experiences to school-age campers and a training
opportunity for the 14-16 aged Counselors-in-Training (CIT). The Teen Spot Camp, open to 14-
16 year olds, gave teens a place to safely recreate while focusing on technology, leadership
development and outdoor adventures.
Volunteers
Over 20,000 volunteer hours in a variety of programs and events were logged in 2015.
Volunteers supported services at the Senior Center, Laguna Lake Golf Course, and Jack House,
and events and activities such as Junior Giants, SLO Triathlon, Movie Night, Youth Sports,
Reindeer Run, Bike Rodeo, and Ranger Work
Days. Quest program participants provided
volunteer assistance to the Department to gain
work experience and become engaged in positive
behaviors.
Open Space Maintenance
The City’s Ranger Service program employs full-
time rangers and other part time staff that
actively maintain the City’s open spaces. Over 26
tons of trash was removed from San Luis Obispo
Creek and City open spaces by staff and
volunteers, with the largest amounts of material
collected during the annual Creek Day clean-up
event.
In 2015, park rangers led 14 hikes through City
open spaces, and held 75 work days. City parks,
12.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
65
open spaces, and joint use facilities were patrolled nearly every day of the year. Staff provided
environmental education courses through the City’s STAR and Sun ‘N Fun programs and had
two one-week Junior Ranger Activity Camps that were attended by children ages 7-10.
Collaboration with the public and the Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (3CMB)
resulted in new trail being construction at Irish Hills, Cerro San Luis, Stenner Springs, and
Reservoir Canyon, and miles of trails being maintained throughout the City’s open space
network. Hundreds of volunteers turned out for multiple events and provided thousands of
hours of service taking care of the City’s open spaces.
Park Improvement Projects
SLO Skatepark
The SLO Skate Park
project at Santa Rosa
Park was completed in
2015. It progressed
from a dream of the
local skate community,
to a master plan, and
finally to construction
and reality, after being
adopted as a Major City
Goal and Measure Y
priority project in the
2013-15 Financial Plan.
The 15,500-square-foot concrete skate park is already an invaluable addition to the City, serving
50-100+ locals and visitors alike on a daily basis. Programming in 2015 included Winter and
Spring Break Skate Camps, summer events, and the County-wide Monster Skate series.
Sinsheimer Pool Re-Plastering
The Sinsheimer Pool Re-plastering project
was completed on January 8, 2016. This
project consisted of re-plastering, retiling,
and re-marking the swimming pool. Other
pool improvements included replacing the
existing pool lights with new energy efficient
LED light fixtures and a drain system safety
upgrade.
12.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
66
Project Completion was critical for the protection of the pool’s steel reinforced concrete
structure. Pool water is highly corrosive and pool liner failure would lead to expensive repairs.
The project was funded through the half cent sales tax approved by City residents.
The SLO Swim Center has agreements for pool use with the SeaHawks, San Luis Obispo Unified
School District, YMCA, Club Polo and Scuba clubs. Swim lessons are provided year-round to
individuals of all ages and abilities. Recreational swim opportunities are provided during Spring
Break and summer while lap swimming is available year-round. The SLO Swim Center had
approximately 83,000 visitors in 2015.
World Trade Center Monument
The City’s 9/11 Memorial, named “standing tall” was dedicated on October 2, 2015. There are
403 rods rounding a steel I-beam from the World Trade Center. Each rod represents an
emergency responder life lost on 9/11. The memorial was designed to give the community an
opportunity to lay their hands on a
piece of our nations’ history. The
massive steel I-beam, which was once
a structural support for one of the
World Trade Center twin towers, is
now surrounded by “virtues” inscribed
inside the memorial walls. These
words represent the characteristics
exemplified by the men and women
who lost their lives as first responders
on 9/11. In this memorial, they will
forever ‘stand tall’ upon the virtues for
which they lived their lives.
Laguna Lake Golf Course
A programmatic reorganization, focusing on maintenance and operations, occurred in 2015 at
Laguna Lake Golf Course, prompted by the retirement of a long-time golf course supervisor.
Golf operations include the management of the pro-shop and golf round sales, driving range,
concessionaire food services, lessons, contract classes and special events (such as night golf and
tournaments). Parks and Recreation maintenance staff manages the expansive and diverse turf
areas and specialized equipment. The Laguna Lake Golf course provided 35,000 rounds of golf
in 2015.
12.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
67
Historic Jack House and Gardens
The Historic Jack House and Gardens located at 536
Marsh Street provides guided history tours,
programming, and special events. In 2015, the Jack
House was rented for 50+ weddings and other
events. Volunteer docents provided tours for
approximately 150 individuals or groups from May
to December. The Jack House closed from
December to April for annual maintenance. In 2015,
the elevator shaft was removed from the dining
room area and both the exterior and interior of the
Jack House were restored to their original historic
period.
Public Art Program & Master Plan
In 2015, the City of San Luis Obispo embarked upon its first ever Public Art Master Plan. The
Public Art Program began in May 1990 and today enjoys a robust public art collection of 70
public art pieces (both temporary and permanent). The primary objective of the Public Art
Master Plan is to assess and update the vision, goals and concepts related to public art in San
Luis Obispo in order to provide a road map for future public art projects.
In 2015, the city hosted numerous community engagement
opportunities for Council members, staff, developers, artists,
schools and community members to engage in the
development of the Public Art Master Plan. It is anticipated
that 2016 will see the adoption and implementation of the
Master Plan.
12.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
General Plan Annual Report 2015
68
Conclusion
The City’s General Plan guides the use and protection of the City’s various resources to meet
community purposes. It reflects consensus and compromise among a wide diversity of citizens’
preferences, within a framework set by state law. The General Plan is published in separately
adopted elements, each containing policies and implementing programs. The General Plan
Annual Report summarizes the major programs in these elements that saw activity in 2015.
One outcome of an annual report is the evaluation of whether actions that have occurred
indicate a change in the general vision of the community that requires a more comprehensive
update of the General Plan. The most prominent activities undertaken by the City in 2015
related to efforts to begin implementation of three key elements of the General Plan that were
most recently updated: Land Use, Circulation and Housing. The input received as part of these
update processes helped align the General Plan with the community’s vision. That vision was in
part reflected in the City Council’s adopted Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives for
FY 2015-17 as described on page 11 of this report. Staff will continue to implement these goals
and objectives in 2016, and they will be further reported on in the 2016 Annual Report.
A status list of all General Plan programs is included in the following technical appendix.
12.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
LAND USE ELEMENT
1 Growth Management
1.14.1 The City will monitor reports from the County “resource management system” and advocate
for adherence to that system. O CDD/Utilitiies
1.14.2 The City shall advocate and help arrange quarterly coordination meetings among planning
directors of local jurisdictions to discuss regional issues. O CDD/Admin
1.14.3. The City will participate with the County in reviewing and providing input on County projects
and general plan amendments that have potential to impact the City or be inconsistent with
City policies. O CDD
1.14.4. The City shall seek County Board of Supervisors approval amending the County Land Use
Element to make it consistent with this element. The City will work with the County during
updates of the County's plan for the San Luis Obispo planning area.
1.14.5. The City shall maintain a memorandum with the County, pledging that neither agency
approve a substantial amendment to its plan for San Luis Obispo's planning area without
considering the recommendation of the other agency O CDD
1.14.6. The City shall prepare and maintain a Planning Area Map in the General Plan. The City will
establish and maintain County concurrence for the map, which applies to the City’s Planning
Area outside the urban reserve.O CDD
1.14.7. The City shall maintain a development fee program that covers costs associated with City
services and facilities. Periodic review of the fees collected will ensure they are adequate to
cover City costs.O CDD
2.1 Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
2.10.1. The City shall review, revise if deemed necessary, and actively enforce noise, parking, and
property-development and property-maintenance standards. O CDD
2.10.2. The City shall implement, and regularly review and update property-maintenance regulations
focused on proper enclosure of trash, appearance of yards and buildings from the street,
and storage of vehicles.O CDD
2.11.1 The City shall evaluate student housing preferences and consider revising development
standards to better meet them in multifamily housing near campus.
2.11.2. The City shall review, and revise, if deemed desirable, its standards for multifamily housing
so that apartments will provide usable open space and storage similar to the requirements
for condominiums.
2.12. The City shall adopt special development standards to guide addition of dwellings within
Downtown residential areas to implement Policy 2.8.
2.13. The City will consider new regulations, for Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential
areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill
homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities
allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings.
O CDD
2.14. The City shall implement Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans to help residents preserve
and enhance their neighborhoods. O CDD
2.15. The City will evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of dwelling units per acre
(based on bedroom count) and height, parking, and setback standards, to regulate
residential building intensity, and bulk and mass. Floor area limits will be considered.
2.16. The City shall evaluate the potential to use portions of City-owned parking lots and
structures for residents’ parking.O CDD/PW
Page A-1
12.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
2.17. The City shall require new housing projects in the Downtown area to provide residents with
information and services to off-set vehicle needs, such as providing transit passes, providing
space for hourly car rental services, and providing on-site bicycle storage facilities.
2.18. The City shall evaluate the potential for development fees to fund new parking spaces in an
additional parking structure for residents of new housing projects in the Downtown core.O CDD
3 Commercial & Industrial Development
3.9. The City shall amend its Zoning Regulations to implement the changes included in the 2014
General Plan update program.
3.10. Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines will include measures such as
location and shielding of mechanical equipment; location of truck loading, trash collection
areas, and loudspeakers; noise attenuation measures along property lines to prevent
unacceptable noise exposure for residential areas or other noise-sensitive uses.
3.11. The City shall investigate ways to encourage more cohesion between the existing shopping
centers on Madonna Road.
3.12. The City shall amend the Community Design Guidelines to address transitions between
neighborhood commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
3.13. The City shall review zoning regulations to consider allowing visitor-service uses in office
zones adjacent to community commercial zones in the Downtown and adjacent to Monterey
Street between Johnson and Santa Rosa.
3.14. The City will investigate emerging technologies and trends to evaluate whether updates to
zoning regulations are needed.O CDD
3.15. The City shall implement appropriate strategies for business retention and expansion with a
focus on those providing head-of-household jobs. OAdmin
3.16. The City shall provide zoning incentives and investigate a program coordinating commercial
and industrial development for the provision of child care and elder care for workers.
4 Downtown
4.24 The City shall update the Downtown Concept Plan by 2016 and shall regularly update the
plan as required to address significant changes in or affecting the Downtown area including
the opportunity for meaningful public input.O CDD
4.25. The City shall consider features of "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center"
(Downtown Concept Plan) in the approval of projects in the Downtown, recognizing that the
plan is a concept and is intended to be flexible.O CDD
4.26. The City shall undertake a study of visual resources within the Downtown core area to
identify potential locations for new public-owned open places with access to views of
important scenic resources. The City will consider acquisition of one or more of these open
places as resources permit.
O CDD
4.27. The City shall explore the full or partial closure and re-design of Broad Street between Palm
and Monterey Streets, and Monterey Street between the two connections with Broad Street
to effectively extend, either permanently or for special events.OPW
4.28. The City shall modify zoning regulations to allow efficiency units and variable density in the
Downtown Core.
Page A-2
12.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
4.29. The City shall work with the Downtown businesses and residents, the BID, and Chamber of
Commerce to manage impacts from downtown drinking establishments, and if necessary,
enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown
is safe and pleasant.
O CDD, Admin
4.30. The City shall develop a master plan for San Luis Obispo Creek in the Downtown area.
4.31. The City shall prepare an inventory of uses in the Downtown Core. Particular attention shall
be given to identifying uses at the street level as these uses directly impact the pedestrian
experience and vibrancy of the Downtown. This information shall be used to target business
support and attraction.
O CDD
4.32. The City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specific criteria for evaluating use
permits for bars/taverns, night clubs and late night drinking establishments.
4.33. The City will modify its Community Design Guidelines to enhance Safety and Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design.
4.34. The City, working with the Downtown Association, businesses, landlords, and residents will
consider emergency callboxes at strategic locations in the Downtown.
4.35. The City working with the Downtown Association, Downtown businesses and residents shall
develop a program to encourage lighted storefronts and street frontages throughout the
night.
4.36. All specific plans shall identify design features utilized to enhance public safety.O CDD
4.37. The City shall conduct a nighttime safety audit of key areas of the City to see where
deficiencies in environmental design may exist and should be improved. Key Areas should
be defined as areas experiencing higher crime than City average by SLOPD.
5 Public & Cultural Facilities
5.3. The City shall continue to work to develop a plan for meeting additional space needs in the
Downtown. The City shall work with the County to coordinate site selection, building design,
circulation and utility services, parking, trip reduction, and funding.
5.4. The City, Cal Poly, and the Foundation for the Performing Arts will jointly manage the
performing arts center on the Cal Poly campus.OAdmin
5.5. The City shall undertake a study of its surplus facilities for possible reuse by cultural and non-
profit groups.
5.6. The City shall consider incentives to support establishment of social service facilities in the
city.
6 Resource Protection
6.2.1. The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems-based maps of the city,
the urban reserve, and the planning area to guide in land use designations and decision-
making.O CDD/IT
6.2.2. The City shall seek to protect resource areas deemed worthy of permanent protection by fee
acquisition, easement, or other means. O CDD/Admin
6.5.1. Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas shall include designation of "sensitive sites,"
which shall be subject to architectural review. O CDD
6.5.2. The City shall create and maintain a GIS layer to accurately document development limit
lines as they are applied in the General Plan.
Page A-3
12.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
6.5.3. Consistent with the Community Design guidelines, all hillside areas are considered sensitive
sites, and architectural review is required for new development. The Community
Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need
architectural review.
O CDD
6.7.1. The City shall ensure new development complies with the City’s flood plain ordinance,
setbacks, specific plans, and design standards to minimize flood damage and flood plain
encroachment.O CDD
6.7.2. The City shall administer the National Flood Insurance Program standards.O CDD/PW
6.7.3. The City shall notify owners of creeks and adjacent properties in advance of work, and use
care in any needed removal of vegetation.O CDD/PW
6.7.4. The City shall evaluate the feasibility of establishing a financing district or districts to address
flood concerns in affected areas.
7 Airport Area
7.13. The City shall continue to work with the County and regional airlines to assure that regional
airline services are continued and expanded to adequately serve the needs of the population
in the service area of the airport.O CDD
7.14. The City will annex the Airport area denoted in the Airport Area Specific Plan and
accommodate incremental development consistent with the growth management policies,
including those concerning adequacy of resources and services and development paying its
own way.
7.15. In approving development proposals, the City will assure that Airport Area properties noted
in the Airport Area Specific Plan secure protection for any on-site resources identified in the
Conservation and Open Space Element. To help maintain the greenbelt, properties shall
also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the
urban reserve. If it is not feasible to obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication
shall be paid when the property is developed.
O CDD/Admin
7.16. The City shall create an Airport Overlay Zone to reflect the boundaries of the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan within the City limits. The purpose of the
Airport Overlay Zone is to codify airport compatibility criteria in areas for which the City may
override the Airport Land Use Commission determination to ensure compliance with the
requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Utilities Code, Section
21670, et. seq.)
O CDD
7.17. The City shall update its Zoning Regulations to address allowable uses and development
standards for areas the City may override a determination of inconsistency. Zoning
regulations shall be consistent with the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act, use
guidance from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and comply with related
state and federal requirements relating to airport land use compatibility.
7.18. The City shall review of General and Specific Plans and Amendments, Zoning ordinance or
amendments, or Building code changes within the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
Land Use Plan boundary. As well as including referral to the Airport Land Use Commission
as specified in Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code for a determination of
consistency with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan.
O CDD
8 Special Focus Areas
8.3. The City will review and update Ordinance 1130 and involve residents to ensure that
neighborhood concerns are addressed.O CDD
Page A-4
12.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
8.4. The City will update the Mid-Higuera Area Plan for this multi-block commercial area to reflect
current needs and changes that have occurred since the 2001 plan was adopted.
8.5. The Caltrans site is planned for redevelopment from a Caltrans office and yard complex to a
mixed use development. Commercial uses will be described under the Tourist Commercial
designation, and redevelopment plans shall consider the suitability of realignment of the
Madonna/South Higuera intersection. The site should be developed to serve as a gateway
into the community, with consideration of additional open space uses, retention and
rehabilitation of the Master List historic structure, and retention of Heritage Trees on the site.
The site shall also include a park site north of Madonna Road.
8.6. Lands behind the General Hospital building that are inside the City’s Urban Reserve line will
be designated as Public (for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low
Density and Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential
care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas.
The remaining site outside the City’s Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The
City shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban
reserve line as part of any development proposal.
8.7. The City shall implement the South Broad Street Area Plan to create a safe, attractive and
economically vital neighborhood with a mix of complementary land uses. O CDD
8.8. The Madonna Inn Area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis
Mountain and the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park.This area may
be developed further only if surrounding hillsides including area outside the Urban Reserve
Line are permanently protected as open space.
8.9. The 38-acre area of the Sunset Drive-in Theater / Prado Road Area should be further
developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo
Creek. Once flooding, access, and agricultural preservation issues are resolved, the area
would be suitable for development as a mixed use development with a mix of Commercial
uses. Permanent open space shall be required. A full assessment of the Drive-in Theater
site’s potential as a historic resource will need to be evaluated and addressed. Bicycle
connectivity for this area is an important component for future development.
8.10. The Pacific Beach area is planned for redevelopment from current use as a continuation
school, school office and park uses to commercial retail uses along Los Osos Valley Road
and Froom Ranch Road and the remaining site maintained under a Park designation.
8.11. Development of Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area is suitable for commercial mixed use and
other uses in the Tourist Commercial designation. Development of the area must address
preservation of and transition to the agricultural parcels/uses to the northwest; connectivity
to the Dalidio Ranch area; viewshed preservation; and treatment as a gateway to the City
visible from Highway 101.
O CDD
8.12. Flooding and access issues must be resolved for the LOVR Creekside Area prior to
developing Medium High Density Residential. Agricultural Designations must be maintained
along the west side of site. Compatibility with adjacent residential areas to the east will be
required. Permanent protection of the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be
addressed. The south side of the site will need to accommodate relocation of LOVR right-of-
way and changes related to the planned Highway 101 interchange.
8.13. The Broad Street at Tank farm Road Site will be used as a mixed use site and provide a
strong commercial presence at the intersection. Areas along the creek on the western edge
of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention to
connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially
important in the development of this corner.
Page A-5
12.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
8.14. In regards to the CalFire / Cal Poly-owned property on Highway 1, the City shall collaborate
with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of campus property. The master
Plan shall address sensitive visual and habitat resources, circulation issues, impacts to City
services, transition and potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
O CDD
8.15. Future development of the North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) shall address open space
requirements under Policy 1.13.8 and open space buffers in accordance with Conservation
and Open Space Element Policy 8.3.2. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open
Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development
shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be
provided to Los Cerros Drive as feasible. Density shall be limited to 7 units / acre.
8.16. Future development of the Alrita Properties shall address hillside planning requirements
under Policy 6.4.7C. Additional analysis will need to occur in the LUCE EIR to evaluate
potential water service issues, and additional analysis is needed to determine if the City’s
water distribution system can adequately serve development in this area. Density shall be
limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance.
9 Sustainability
9.10. The City shall update master tree plan and develop recommendations to renew and maintain
the urban forest and plant more trees.
9.11. The City shall review and regularly update the Climate Action Plan and shall annually report
to the City Council on implementation of the Climate Action Plan.O CDD
9.12. The City shall regularly review and update its building codes and ordinances to identify
revisions that promote energy efficient building design and construction practices. O CDD
9.13. The City shall consider the feasibility of providing incentives for new and renovated projects
that incorporate sustainable design features such as constructing new buildings that are
solar ready, or off-setting significant operational energy use through use of solar water
heating, photovoltaic systems, geothermal or wind energy systems.
9.14. The City shall design all new City facilities to meet the requirements specified for certification
as LEED Silver construction or equivalent rating system.
9.15. The City shall promote and pursue a wide range of renewable energy financing options
including a renewable energy fund or loan program.C CDD
9.16. The City shall evaluate the feasibility of a regional Community Choice Aggregation program
to procure electricity from renewable resources.OAdmin
10 Healthy Community
10.6. The City shall regularly review and update master plans for City parks to designate areas for
community gardens where appropriate.
10.7. The City shall update the Community Design Guidelines to encourage the inclusion of
communal gardens within multi-family residential developments with 10 or more units.
10.8. The City shall work with the community to develop a resource guide to facilitate design that
promotes a healthy and active lifestyle.
Page A-6
12.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
CIRCULATION
2 Traffic Reduction
2.2.1. In coordination with county agencies, the City shall support efforts in establishing county-
wide trip reduction programs.OPW
2.2.2. The City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City
employees.OPW
2.2.3. The City shall work with employers to establish a voluntary commuter benefit options
program that provides commute options for employees. OPW
2.2.4. The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational
institutions to provide incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of
transportation.
OPW
3 Transit Service
3.2.1. The City shall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5-year time frame) and
coordinate with SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit Plan (20-year time
frame). OPW
3.2.2 The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to all groups.CPW
3.2.3. The City shall work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to maintain
and expand commuter bus service to and from the City of San Luis Obispo during peak
demand periods. OPW
3.2.4. The City shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to
evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of consolidated service.OPW
3.2.5. The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive marketing and promotion program to
reach individual target audiences.OPW
3.2.6 The City shall update its Short Range Transit Plan to evaluate adding mass transit stops at
the high school and the middle school.CPW
3.2.7. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service
analysis.CPW
3.2.8. The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional transit center downtown.OPW
4 Bicycle Transportation
4.2.1. The City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and other
educational institutions.OPW
4.2.2. The City shall maintain and regularly update its Bicycle Transportation Plan as needed to
reflect changes in state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies
and standards of this Circulation Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation
Plan shall consider Safe Routes to School
OPW
4.2.3. The City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to de-emphasize the use of
automobiles and promote the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans.OPW
4.2.4. The City shall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for secured
bicycle parking and ancillary facilities.OPW
4.2.5. The City should obtain railroad right-of-way and easements to establish a separated bike
path and pedestrian trail through San Luis Obispo.OPW
4.2.6. The City shall maintain its GOLD level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community
and pursue a gold level designation.OPW
Page A-7
12.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
4.2.7. The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of
county bikeways to support a regional bicycle network.OPW
4.2.8. The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to address
bicycle loss, theft, and safety problems.OPD
5 Walking
5.2.1. The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage
walking and to expand facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown.
The plan shall include pedestrian safety assessments in accordance with State and Federal
guidelines.
5.2.2. Areas outside of the Downtown, the City shall implement its program for installation of a
continuous and connected pedestrian network giving areas with the heaviest existing or
potential pedestrian traffic priority in funding.OPW
5.2.3. The City shall continue to implement its annual program of enhancing existing curbs with
ADA compliant ramps. OPW
5.2.4. The City shall continue to coordinate with SLOCOG and local schools to pursue Safe Routes
to School programs and grant opportunities.OPW
5.2.5. The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation
Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan.OPW
6 Multi-Modal Circulation
6.2.1. As funding permits the City shall biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians,
bikes, vehicles and transit to maintain and update its database of transportation conditions
and to evaluate the state of the transportation system. OPW
7 Traffic Management
7.2.1. Those traffic programs identified in the Circulation Element that have the greatest potential
to reduce traffic increases shall have priority for implementation.OPW
7.2.3. On a bi-annual basis, as funding permits the City shall implement an ongoing and
comprehensive transportation monitoring program. OPW
7.2.4. The City shall regularly, as funding permits, conduct a travel behavior survey of residents to
estimate their use of different types of transportation.OPW
7.2.5. The City shall work with the County to jointly develop and adopt design and construction
standards for streets within the City's Urban Reserve.OPW
7.2.6. The City shall revise its Subdivision Regulations to include right-of-way and design
standards. OPW
7.2.7. The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and
operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections
to a particular roadway including navigation routes to direct traffic to preserve the safety and
efficiency of the transportation system.
OPW
7.2.8. The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways.OPW
7.2.9. The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.1.4 concurrent with the
2015-17 Financial Plan. CPW
Page A-8
12.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
8 Neighborhood Traffic Management
8.2.1. As funding permits the City shall provide neighborhood traffic management services for
residential areas that have traffic volumes or speeds which exceed the thresholds
established in Table 4.OPW
8.2.2. The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or
volumes exceed standards set by Table 4, Street Classification Descriptions and Standards.OPW
8.2.3. The City shall analyze residential streets for their livability with regards to multi-modal traffic
noise, volumes, speed, and safety as well as the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
and potential excess right-of-way pavement. OPW
8.2.4. The City shall identify and address regional cut-through traffic issues in the City.OPW
9 Street Network Changes
9.2.1. The City will establish building setback lines for routes listed on Table 5.OPW
9.2.2. The City shall ensure that changes to Prado Road (Projects 1, 2, and 19 on Table 5) are
implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area development.
Sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road
interchange or overpass will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project
Study Report.
OPW
9.2.3. The City shall adopt and regularly update a plan and standards for the installation and
maintenance of landscaped medians, parkways, signs, utilities, street furniture, sidewalks
and bicycle lanes. Within the Downtown, street amenities shall be consistent with the
Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines.
OPW
9.2.4. The City will evaluate complete street designs to maximize the shared right of way for all
users as a method of achieving an overall objective for the Conceptual Physical Plan of the
City's Center to improve the pedestrian environment in the downtown. O PW, CDD
9.2.5. As part of any proposal to further develop the Dalidio-Madonna Area, the alignment and
design of extensions of Froom Ranch Way connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101)
shall be evaluated and established if consistent with the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle
Joaquin Reserve.
OPW
9.2.6. The City shall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways or corridors
that promote the city’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate
roadways with surrounding districts.OPW
10 Truck Transportation
10.2.1. Trucks should turn off motors when parked. The City shall work with the Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) for guidance in establishing standards that address air and noise pollution
from idling trucks.OPW
10.2.2. The City's Home Occupation Permit Regulations should be amended to ensure that
commercial trucks are not used to make regular deliveries to home occupations in
residential areas.OPW
10.2.3. The City shall continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in appropriate
downtown areas.OPW
10.2.4. The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles.
Page A-9
12.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
11 Air Transportation
11.2.1. The City shall work with the County Airport to encourage the use of quieter and more
environmentally sensitive aircraft.OAdmin
11.2.2. The City shall work with the County Airport to support the further development of airport
facilities and attract additional passenger airline services.OAdmin
11.2.3. The City shall work with the County Airport to pursue funding opportunities, such as Airport
Improvement Program grants.OPW
11.2.4. The City shall work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to complete updates of
the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Airport in regard to significant
changes in noise, adjacent land impacts, and safety zones.O CDD
12 Rail Transportation
12.2.1. The City supports maintaining and increasing daily train service connecting San Luis Obispo
with points north and south, with departures and arrivals in the morning, mid-afternoon and
evening.
OPW
12.2.2. The City shall support San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in evaluating the feasibility
of passenger rail service to connect points within the county.OPW
12.2.3. The City shall coordinate railroad facility infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific
Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the City shall work with the Air
Pollution Control District and others to discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.O CDD
12.2.4. The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or proposed changes in passenger and
freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and well-being of residents of the community
including the transport of combustible materials.OPW
12.2.5.The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through
the City.OAdmin
13 Parking Management
13.2.1. The City shall maintain and regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan
(every 5 years) including parking demand reduction strategies and consider emerging best
practices.OPW
13.2.2. The City shall regularly monitor the use of public parking in the downtown.OPW
13.2.3. The City shall coordinate with SLOCOG during periodic updates to SLOCOG’s Park and
Ride Lot Development report to evaluate the need for and location of park-and-ride lots to
serve commuters.
OPW
13.2.4. The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after
considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study.OPW
13.2.5. The City shall continue to work with the Downtown Association to evaluate the use of curb
space in the downtown and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces.OPW
13.2.6. The City shall continue to operate the downtown trolley as a parking management tool to
reduce congestion.OPW
14 Neighborhood Parking Management
14.2.1. Upon request from residents or other agencies, the City will evaluate the need for
neighborhood parking permit programs or other parking management strategies in particular
residential areas.
OPW
14.2.2. The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing
districts.OPW
Page A-10
12.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
15 Scenic Roadways
15.2.1. The City will participate with Caltrans, the County and other cities to establish a program for
enhancing the visual character of the Highway 101 corridor consistent with the US 101
Aesthetic Study for San Luis Obispo County. OPW
15.2.2. The City shall revise its Community Design Guidelines to incorporate concern for the
protection of views and vistas from scenic roadways.
15.2.3. The City shall adopt a street corridor landscaping plan for scenic roadways. Indigenous
species will be used unless shown to be inappropriate.OPW
15.2.4. Both the City and the County should enforce an amortization program for the removal of
billboards along scenic roadways.O CDD
16 Circulation Element Implementation, Program Funding and Management
16.2.1. Transportation Work Program shall be regularly updated as part of the City Financial Plan,
and must be consistent with the Circulation Element. Will cover a five-year period, shall be
updated to include modified projects and costs if warranted. OPW
16.2.2. The City shall update its multimodal transportation impact fee ordinance in accordance with
State Law (AB1600). OPW
16.2.3. Prior to implementation of a project identified in this element, the City shall reevaluate its
need and include an analysis of alternatives that can achieve the desired results at lower
costs and with less environmental impacts. OPW
16.2.4. Major development proposals to the City will include displays of the proposal's interfaces
with nearby neighborhoods, and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation
effects on the entire community.OPW
Page A-11
12.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
HOUSING
1 Safety
1.4. Provide financial assistance for rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership units using
Federal, state and local housing funds O CDD
1.5. Continue Code enforcement to expedite removal of illegal/unsafe dwellings. O CDD
1.6. Enact a rental inspection program to improve condition of housing stock. O CDD
1.7. Continue to support local & regional solutions to homelessness by funding programs such
as Maxine Lewis and Prado Center. O CDD
1.8. Create educational campaign to encourage owners of older residences to conduct seismic
upgrades CDD
2 Affordability
2.5. Continue to manage the Affordable Housing Fund to serve as a sustainable resource for
supporting affordable housing development and as a source of both grant funding and
below-market financing for affordable housing projects. O CDD
2.6. Continually review existing and proposed building, planning, engineering and fire policies
and standards as housing developments are reviewed, which determine whether changes
are possible that could assist the production of affordable housing. O CDD
2.7 Continue to implement existing procedures that speed up the processing of applications,
construction permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing projects O CDD
2.8. Continue to pursue outside funding sources for City impact fees so that new dwellings that
meet the City’s affordable housing standards can mitigate their facility and service impacts. O CDD
2.9. Maintain exemptions for extremely-low, very-low and low-income households. O CDD
2.1. Continue to assist with issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or other
financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs.O CDD
2.12. Consider incorporating HOA fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for
affordable rents and home sales prices. CDD
2.13. In conjunction with the Housing Authority and local housing agencies, continue to preserve
at-risk units by providing technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and
the community. O CDD
2.14. In conjunction with local housing providers and the local residential design community,
continue to provide technical assistance as requested by the public, builders, design
professionals and developers regarding design strategies to achieve affordable housing.O CDD
2.15. Evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and the effect of Table 2A on the
City’s ability to provide affordable housing in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation, per Policy 2.4.CDD
2.16. The City will evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability in its
Affordable Housing Standards to increase housing options in the City for those making
between 121 percent and 160 percent of the San Luis Obispo County median income. O CDD
2.17. Continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances
for low, very low and extremely low income households.O CDD
3 Housing Conservation
3.8. Adopt an ordinance that implements policy 3.2 to discourage removal or replacement of
affordable housing.CDD
Page A-12
12.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
3.9. Through collaboration of agencies offering rehabilitation programs, the city will use State,
Federal, or housing funds to correct unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions, improve
accessibility and energy efficiency. O CDD
3.1. Continue to encourage the creation of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and the
Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing loss" program.O CDD
3.11. Continue to identify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal
historic listing in accordance with guidelines and standards to help property owners repair,
rehabilitate and improve properties. O CDD
3.12. Annually monitor and track affordable housing units at-risk of being converted to market rate
housing, to provide resources to support the Housing Authority, and local housing agencies.O CDD
3.13. Work with non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, or the Housing Authority of the
City of San Luis Obispo, to encourage rehabilitation of residential, commercial or industrial
buildings. O CDD
4 Mixed-Income Housing
4.5.Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects
or establish conditions of approval to implement the mixed-income policies.O CDD
4.6. Consider amending the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing
Incentives to require that affordable units in a development be of similar number of
bedrooms, character and basic quality.
O CDD
5 Housing Variety and Tenure
5.5. Review new developments for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or
establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure
policies. O CDD
6 Housing Production
6.11. Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC
17.88) exemption for new housing in the Downtown Core that is enforceably restricted for
extremely-low, very low, low- and moderate income households. O CDD
6.12. Continue to allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the
Downtown Core and possibly use city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where
appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or who provide
proof of reserved, off-site parking.
O CDD
6.13. Continue to develop incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core,
particularly in mixed-use developments. Explorer projects density based on average unit
size to encourage development of smaller efficiency units. O CDD
6.15. Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility
zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed use housing where land development patterns
are suitable and impact to Low-Density Residential areas is minimal. O CDD
6.16 Continue to provide resources that support the SLO County Housing Trust fund’s efforts to
provide below-market financing and technical assistance to affordable housing developers to
increase affordable housing production in the City of San Luis Obispo.O CDD
6.17. Encourage residential development through infill development and densification within City
Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.O CDD
6.18. Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, surplus land for
housing, to convert vacant or underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing.O CDD
Page A-13
12.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
6.19. Continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density bonuses, parking
reductions, development incentives, and City financial assistance.O CDD
6.2. Continue to financially assist in the development of affordable housing to extremely low,
very-low, low- or moderate income households using State, Federal and local funding
sources, while giving priority to projects that result in the maximum housing benefits for the
lowest household income levels.
O CDD
6.21. Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non-profit sources,
to assist affordable housing development for different income households and first- time
homebuyers.O CDD
6.22. Continue to exempt the rehabilitation or remodeling of 4 dwellings up to 1200 square feet
each from Architectural Review Commission review. New multi-unit housing may be allowed
with “Minor or Incidental” or staff level architectural review, unless located on a sensitive or
historically sensitive site.
O CDD
6.23. Assist in the production of affordable housing by identifying vacant or underutilized City-
owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate public property, where feasible and
appropriate for such purposes. O CDD
6.24. Community Development staff will proactively provide information for properties suitable for
housing as identified in the Land Use and Housing Elements. O CDD
6.25. Consider amending the General Plan to designate the 46 acres associated with the former
County General Hospital as a “Special Considerations” zone, suitable for housing
development on areas of the site of less than 20 percent average slope, including open
space dedication and public improvements are part of the project.
O CDD
6.26 Continue to update the Affordable Housing Incentives (Chapter 17.90, SLOMC) and Zoning
Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law.O CDD
6.27 Evaluate and consider increasing the residential density allowed in the Neighborhood-
Commercial (CN), Office (O) and Downtown Commercial (CD) zoning districts. O CDD
6.28. Evaluate how lot patterns (i.e. size, shape, slope) in the City’s multi-family zones affect the
City’s ability to meet housing production policies. O CDD
6.29. Continue to pursue incentives to encourage development of Secondary Dwelling Units. O CDD
6.3. Consider adopting Subdivision and Zoning Regulation changes to support small lot
subdivisions, ownership of bungalow court developments, and eliminate the one acre
minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning, and other subdivision design alternatives. O CDD
6.31. Consider scaling development impact fees for residential development based on size,
number of bedrooms, and room counts.O CDD
6.32. Continue to submit annual Housing Element progress reports to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development per Government Code Section 65400. O CDD
7 Neighborhood Quality
7.9. Continue to implement strategies, as early notification through electronic media, website
improvements, neighborhood outreach meetings, to ensure residents are aware of and able
to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods. O CDD
7.1. Continue to work with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns, problems,
trends and opportunities for improvements of specific neighborhoods. O CDD
7.11. Continue to fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming devices,
crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve aesthetics, safety and
accessibility.OPW
Page A-14
12.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
7.12. Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking
districts, to address the lack of on- and off-street parking in residential areas.O CDD/PW
7.13. Continue the City’s Neighborhood Services and proactive enforcement programs to support
neighborhood wellness.O CDD
8 Special Housing Needs
8.13. Continue to provide resources that support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs
of the homeless and displaced women and children and other agencies O CDD
8.14. Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in the cost of
mobile home park rents.O CDD
8.15. Continue to look for opportunities in specific plan areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile-
home parks, cooperative or limited equity housing, manufactured housing, self-help housing,
or other types of housing that meet special needs.O CDD
8.16. Advocate developing more housing and refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly University.O CDD
8.17. Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus
fraternity/sorority living groups. O CDD
8.18. Jointly develop and implement a student housing plan and continue to support "good
neighbor programs" with Cal Poly State University, Cuesta College and City residents, and
improve communication and cooperation between the City and the schools. O CDD
8.19. Provide public educational information at the Community Development Department public
counter on universal design concepts for new and existing residential dwellings.O CDD
8.2. Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing in all zoning
districts where residential uses are allowed. O CDD
8.21. Continually look for (land, retail or commercial space, motels, apartments, housing units,
mobile home parks) that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing
and permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and families.O CDD
8.22. Consider an overlay zone to existing and future mobile home and trailer park sites to provide
additional requirements, such as rent stabilization and a mobile home park conversion
ordinance.
CDD
8.23. Encourage the creation of housing for persons with developmental disabilities. The City will
seek grant opportunities for housing construction and rehabilitation. O CDD
8.24. Continue to coordinate with the County,social services providers and non-profit
organizations for delivery of existing, improved and expanded services, including case
management, drug, alcohol, detoxification, and mental health services. O CDD
8.25. Continue to engage Homeless Services Oversight Council and Friends of Prado Day Center
to identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the impacts of homelessness. O CDD
9 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design
9.7. Continue to educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy
conservation issues, including the City’s energy conservation policies and Climate Action
Plan. Staff shall work with applicants to achieve the City’s energy conservation goals.O CDD
9.8. Continue to provide long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing and adjacent
properties, consistent with historic preservation guidelines, and revise regulations found to
be inadequate.O CDD
Page A-15
12.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
9.9. Continue to implement the Water Quality Control Board’s “Post-Construction Stormwater
Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”, to
reduce the amount of impermeable surface.O CDD
9.1. Implement Climate Action Plan programs to increase production of “green” housing units
and projects and require sustainable and/or renewable materials, water and energy
technologies. O CDD
9.11. Continue to promote building materials reuse and recycling in site development and
residential construction, including flexible standards for use of salvaged, recycled, and
“green” building materials. Continue the City’s construction and demolition debris recycling
program (Chapter 8.05 - Municipal Code)
O CDD
9.12. Consider incentivizing dwelling units to a minimum size of 150 square feet, consistent with
the California Building Code, by reduced impact fees and property development standards.CDD
9.13. Consider participating in financing programs for sustainable home improvements such as
solar panels, heating and cooling systems, water conservation and energy efficient windows.O CDD
10 Local Preference
10.3.Continue to work with the County of San Luis Obispo for any land use decisions that create
significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City to
mitigate housing impacts on the City. O CDD
10.4. Encourage residential developers to sell or rent their projects to those residing or employed
in the City first before outside markets.O CDD
10.5. Work with Cal Poly to address the link between enrollment and the expansion of campus
housing programs at Cal Poly University to reduce pressure on the City's housing supply.O CDD
10.6. Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would: 1) provide funding
to help Cal Poly University provide adequate on-campus student housing, and 2) allow State
universities and community colleges to enter public-private partnerships to construct student
housing.
O CDD
11 Suitability
11.3. The City will continue to ensure the ability of legal, non-conforming uses to continue where
new development is proposed. O CDD
Page A-16
12.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
NOISE
1.12. Review public and private development proposals for Noise Element conformance. OCD
1.13. Require noise studies early in the review process when project noise may exceed allowable
limits. OCD
1.14. Assure that noise mitigation measures are carried-out during construction. OCD
1.15. Monitor compliance with mitigation measures after project completion. OCD
1.16. The city will work with the California Highway Patrol and the County Sherriff`s Office to
enforce loud vehicle exhaust systems and sound amplication systems.
1.17. The city will purchase and pursue alternatives to the use of noisy equipment for city
operations.
1.18. The will periodically review and update the Noise Element.
1.19. the City will make the Noise Guidebook available to anyone involved in project design and
review.
Page A-17
12.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
2 Air
2.3.1. Employ best available practices in City operations. OUT
2.3.2. Consult with APCD on significant development proposals. OCD
2.3.3. Promote alternative transportation/land use strategies. OCD
2.3.4. Provide alternative transportation incentives. OPW
2.3.5. Amend the General Plan as needed to achieve air quality goals. OCD
3 Cultural Heritage
3.6.1. Promote public awareness of cultural resources through activities, including tours & clean-
up events. CADM
3.6.2. Provide financial assistance and incentives for historic preservation. OCD
3.6.3. Expand ARC guidelines to address specific guidance for new buildings in historic districts. CCD
3.6.4. Prepare post-disaster historic preservation standards.
3.6.5. Assist the CHC in preparing archaeological resource guidelines. CADM
3.6.6. Provide cultural resource awareness public educational programs, which display artifacts
which illuminate past cultures. CADM
3.6.7. Encourage partnering for preservation. OADM
3.6.8. Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings. OCD
3.6.9. Rehabilitate and maintain City-owned adobes and historic structures. OADM
3.6.10. Implement Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper. CCD
4 Energy
4.6.1. Promote efficient City energy use. OUT
4.6.2. Manage City operations for energy self-reliance.
4.6.3. Promote Sustainable design in City facilities. OPW
4.6.4. Reduce obstacles to energy conservation. OCD
4.6.5. Encourage sustainable employee commuting practices. OHR
4.6.6. Promote energy conservation education. OUT
4.6.7. Administer State Building Energy Standards. OCD
4.6.8. Encourage energy-efficient design in private development projects. OCD
4.6.9. Address solar access in new development. OCD
4.6.10. Retrofit City facilities for energy savings. OUT
Page A-18
12.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
4.6.11. Seek financial assistance for energy efficiency improvements in City facilities. OUT
4.6.12. Monitor energy use in City facilities and prepare biannual report for City Council. OUT
4.6.13. Prepare energy conservation plan for City facilities. CD
4.6.14. Adopt green building standards. OCD
4.6.15. Consider City-owned green energy utility. UT
4.6.16. Promote technology and energy conservation businesses. OADM
4.6.17. Require solar power for new dwellings. OCD
4.6.18. Seek Air Pollution Control District support for maintaining air quality. OCD
5 Materials
5.5.1. Use materials efficiently in City operations (computer technology and copying) OUT
5.5.2. Promote City materials reuse and recycling. OUT
5.5.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts. OUT
5.5.4. Use materials with reduced environmental impacts in City operations and facilities. OPW
5.5.5. Maintain inventory of recycling businesses and services. OUT
5.5.6. Expand City public information efforts on energy and materials conservation goals. OUT
5.5.7. Encourgage energy efficiency and Green Building in new development. OCD
5.5.8. Ensure new development projects include space for materials recycling/storage. OCD
7 Natural Communities
7.7.1. Protect natural communities. OADM
7.7.2. Implement the Natural Communities policies from program. OADM
7.7.3. Participate in any area-wide planning efforts such as Habitat Conservation Plans under the
U.S.Endangered Species Act. OADM
7.7.4. Participate in environmental review conducted by other agencies for projects that could
affect natural communities in the San Luis Obispo planning area. O ADM, CDD
7.7.5. Develop and maintain current benchmark information on habitat types and conditions. OADM
7.7.6. Replace invasive non-native vegetation with native vegetation. OADM
7.7.7. Preserve ecotones through changes to or conditions on new development. OADM
7.7.8. Protect wildlife corridors through changes to or conditions on new development. OADM
7.7.9. Adopt creek setback requirements. CCD
Page A-19
12.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
7.7.10. Implement natural communities policies through the Tree Committee. OPW
8 Open Space
8.7.1. Protect open space resources. O ADM
8.7.2. Enhance and restore open space. OADM
9 Views
9.3.1. Locate and design public facilities and utilities consistent with General Plan. OPW
9.3.2. Update community design guidelines to address views from scenic routes.
9.3.3. Maintain and apply Sign Regulations consistent with the General Plan. OCD
9.3.4. Conduct environmental and architectural review consistent with General Plan. OCD
9.3.5. Require visual assessments for projects affecting important scenic resources and views
from public places. OCD
9.3.6. Determine that view blockage along a scenic roadway is a significant impact. OCD
9.3.7. Review development in unincorporated County for consistency with General Plan. OCD
9.3.8. Advocate State and County scenic highway designations and protective programs for
scenic routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other communities. OCD
9.3.9. Place underground existing overhead utilities, with highest priority for scenic roadways,
entries to the City, and historic districts. OPW
9.3.10. Prohibit billboards. CCD
9.3.11. Remove existing billboards through amortization, conditions of development approval and
grants for enhancing open space and transportation corridors. OCD
9.3.12. Preserve the Morros, in cooperation with other government agencies, non-profit land trusts
and property owners. OADM
9.3.13. Establish and maintain a program of describing and monitoring viewsheds within and
adjacent to City limits to establish a photographic baseline of visual setting.
10 Water
10.3.1. Efficient water use OUT
10.3.2. Maintain Water quality OUT
Page A-20
12.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
SAFETY
8 Hazardous Trees
8.1. Identify and maintain or remove hazardous trees for City property and assist property
owners. OPW
8.2.5. B Review emergency response plans of utilities and transportation agencies. OFD
9 Avoiding and Preparing For Emergencies In General
9.2. Maintain and annually update emergency response plan. OFD
9.3. Evaluate fire-flow and identify deficiencies. CUT
9.3. A Meet response-time objective of four minutes. OFD
9.3. B Set response-time objective for Public Works. CPW
9.3. C Set response-time objective for Utilities. CUT
9.4. A Train fire fighters, police, building inspectors, public works, & utilities staff. OFD
9.4. B Train building & planning staff in lessons from previous disaster areas. OCD
9.4. C Conduct non-nuclear disaster-response exercises. OFD
9.5. Obtain information about specific location & type of fire & toxic hazards. OFD
9.6. A Participate in periodic regional disaster-response drills. OFD
9.6. B The city will review the hazard assessment studies and emergency response plans of
utilities and transportation agencies.
9.6. C Work w/CalTrans on hazardous materials approved routes and related safety precautions. OFD
9.7 Establish emergency operation center in Fire Station 1 and backups sites. CFD
9.8. Expand and keep current safety-related information. OFD
9.9. Keep Multi-hazard Emergency Response Plans current. OFD
9.10. Work with other jurisdictions on mutual-aid & automatic-aid agreements. OFD
9.11. Prepare for post-disaster recovery. OFD
9.15. A Develop program to familiarize residents with fire hazards and appropriate responses. OFD
9.15. B Promote efforts of the Fire Safe Council. OFD
9.15. C Continue CERT training program. OFD
9.15. D Support education programs for lower grades to teach fire hazards. OFD
9.16. Help organizations that provide emergency outreach & education. OFD
9.17. Encourage & participate in individual home inspection programs. OFD
9.19. A Identify & evaluate facility hazards for City owned property. CPW
9.19. B Establish routine code inspections for commercial, industrial, public-assembly, & group
housing. OCD
Page A-21
12.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
9.19. C Establish complaint-based code compliance for all buildings. CCD
9.19. D Implement City-adopted program on Unreinforced masonry buildings. CCD
9.19. E Provide outreach program for earthquake bracing of wood-frame buildings. OCD
9.20. Administer zoning, subdivision, & Architectural standards consistent with police & fire
recommendations. OCD
9.21. Fire, police, public works, & utilities review development applications for safety objectives. OCD
9.22. A Maintain & administer building regulations in conformance with State requirements. OCD
9.22. B Maintain & administer fire regulations in conformance with State requirements. OFD
9.23. Conduct fire & hazardous materials inspections in commercial, industrial, & multifamily
buildings. OFD
Page A-22
12.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
PARKS AND RECREATION
3 Parks and Recreation Facilities
3.14.2. Partner with schools and other joint users to renovate existing sports fields. O P&R
3.14.5. As space becomes available, additional fields will be added in the vicinity of Damon-Garcia
Sports Complex. O P&R
3.16.2. Acquire property and construct a community center. P&R
3.16.3. Update & improve indoor facilities. C P&R
3.17.1. Implement the revised Laguna Lake Park Master Plan. O P&R
3.18.1.1 Implement the revised Sinsheimer Park Master Plan. O P&R
3.18.1.2. Construct a therapy pool at the SLO Swim Center. C P&R
3.19.1. Continue the Playground Equipment Replacement Program. O P&R
3.19.2. Pursue joint use of SLO High School swimming pool. C P&R
4 Parks and Recreation Activities
4.2.2.1. Regularly evaluate demand and need and modify as appropriate. O P&R
4.2.2.2. Conduct periodic public evaluations of services. O P&R
4.2.2.3. Regularly publicize recreational opportunities. O P&R
4.2.2.4. Consider needs of underserved groups. O P&R
4.2.4. Avoid offering recreation activities classes or activities that unnecessarily duplicate
commercial programs.
4.2.8. Collaborate with groups providing high risk programs in open space areas. O P&R
4.3.2.1 Recruit at-risk youth to participate in activities. O P&R
4.3.2.2. Collaborate with other agencies in serving at-risk youth. O P&R
4.3.3.1. Evaluate services to determine benefits O P&R
4.3.3.2. Accommodate schedules of working people. O P&R
4.3.3.3. Prioritize new activities from results of public input. O P&R
4.3.6. Continue to maintain publicly accessible open space trails. O P&R
5 Financing
5.1.1. Develop collaborative fee exchange with S.L.C.U.S.D. C P&R
6 Implementation
6.0.1. Continue to improve existing fields. O P&R
6.0.2. Transition from multi-use to single use fields. O P&R
6.0.3. Develop joint use agreements with other agencies in addition to schools. C P&R
6.0.4. Develop new programs to not conflict with existing field use. O P&R
6.0.5. Ensure athletic fields are provided within new residential development. O P&R
Page A-23
12.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
6.0.6. Add fields in Damon-Garcia Sports Complex. C P&R
6.0.6. Consider additional fields for needs not addressed with Damon Garcia fields. O P&R
6.1.1. Upgrade Recreation Center to provide interim community center. C P&R
6.1.2. Secure funding for a therapy pool to be located at the SLO Aquatics Center. P&R
6.1.3. Consider revenue enhancement to fund new community center. O P&R
6.2.1. Construct mini-parks at Purple Sage Drive and at Marsh & Santa Rosa. C P&R
6.2.2. Support neighbor efforts to develop mini-parks. O P&R
6.3.1. Acquire open space property to construct trails. O P&R
6.3.2. Use a variety of techniques to acquire open space. O P&R
6.3.3. Design new parks so they can connect to recreational trails. O P&R
6.3.4. Connect existing parks & open space with trails. O P&R
6.4.1. Schedule "unmet needs" projects through the CIP process. O P&R
6.4.2. Look for alternatives to address unmet needs projects. O P&R
6.5.1. Complete implementation of existing master plans, such as those for Sinsheimer and
Laguna Lake Parks. O P&R
Page A-24
12.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
WATER AND WASTEWATER
A 2 Water Management (Multi-Source Water Supply)
A 2.3.1. Work cooperatively on regional water issues & resource planning. OUT
Participate with SLO County in Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. OUT
A 2.3.3. Participate with other appropriate agencies in controlling invasive species which could
impact water supplies. OUT
A 2.3.4. Work with agencies to minimize water quality impacts. OUT
A 2.3.5. Continue to work with SLO County-operation of Salinas Reservor & Nacimiento project. OUT
A 2.3.6. Complete sanitary surveys for Salinas & Whale Rock reservoirs every five years. UT
A 3 Water Management (Water Resource Availability)
A 3.3.1. Provide water resource update to Council as part of annual report. OUT
A 3.3.2. Update safe annual yield computer model for Salinas & Whale Rock reservoirs following
drought periods. CUT
A 3.3.3. Monitor ongoing research for potential long term impacts to water supplies from climate
change. OUT
A 4 Water Management (Siltation)
A 4.3.1. Work with other agencies to implement Best Management Practices to reduce siltation. OUT
A 4.3.2. Continue education & outreach to owners in watersheds to reduce siltation. OUT
A 4.3.3. Consider periodic siltation studies at each reservoir. UT
A 4.3.4. Provide annual update on siltation to Council. OUT
A 5 Water Management (Water Supply Accounting and Demand Projection)
A 5.3.1. Provide annual update on water supply & demand projections to Council. OUT
A 5.3.2. Conduct periodic updates to water development impact fees. OUT
A 5.3.3. Prepare Urban Water Management Plan every five years. OUT
A 5.3.4. Prepare water supply assessments for large new developments. OUT
A 5.3.5. Analyze water efficiency program impacts to overall reduction in water demand. OUT
A 6 Water Management (Water Conservation)
A 6.3.1. Work with SLO County water agencies to identify cooperative water efficiency measures. OUT
A 6.3.2. Participate in state & regional water conservation efforts. OUT
A 6.3.3. Implement Water Shortage Contingency Plan as required. OUT
A 7 Water Management (Recycled Water)
Page A-25
12.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Appendix A: General Plan Program Implementation Status List
Status as of
December
2015
Program
No. Program Summary Completed or
Ongoing Lead Dept
A 7.3.1. Expand recycled water distribution system. OUT
A 7.3.2. Review development projects to ensure recycled water is used appropriately. OUT
A 7.3.3. Present annual recycled water use as part of annual report to Council. OUT
A 7.3.4. Consider delivery of recycled water to customers outside City limits. UT
B 2 Wastewater Management (Wastewater Service)
B 2.3.1. Expand capacity in collection system and Water Reclamation Facility.OUT
B 2.3.2. Evaluate wastewater flows of proposed projects. OUT
B 2.3.3. Conduct periodic updates to wastewater development impact fees. UT
B 3 Wastewater Management (Wastewater Treatment)
B 3.3.1. Prepare & implement Water Reclamation Facilty master plan. OUT
B 3.3.2. Work cooperatively on regional water quality issues. OUT
B 4 Wastewater Management (Collection System)
B 4.3.1.Investigate cost-effective methods for reducing infiltration and inflow to the wastewater
collection system. UT
B 4.3.2. Provide education and outreach regarding infiltration and inflow. OUT
B 4.3.3. Support retrofit of sewer laterals to reduce infiltration and inflow. OUT
B 4.3.4. Update Sewer System Management Plan to maintain its applicability. OUT
B 4.3.5. Maintain master plans for wastewater service to developing areas of City. OUT
B 4.3.6. Review development proposals to ensure necessary infrastructure is in place. OUT
B 4.3.7. Provide a Pretreatment Program pursuant to Clean Water Act. OUT
Page A-26
12.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment12.a: a - 2015 General Plan Annual Report (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order
on Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chairperson Stevenson.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Stevenson led Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Present: Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Hemalata Dandekar, John Larson,
Vice-Chair John Fowler and Chair Charles Stevenson
Commissioners
Absent: None
Staff
Present: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson,
Deputy Long Range Planning Director Xzandrea Fowler,
Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
Rebecca Gershow, Acting Housing Programs Manager Jenny
Wiseman, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and
Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Action: UPON MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR FOWLER, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, the Planning Commission Minutes of March 23 rd,
2016 were approved as written on the following 5:0:1 vote:
12.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment12.b: b - 5-11-16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2016 Page 2
AYES: Fowler, Dandekar, Malak, Larson, Riggs
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There was no member of the Public wishing to comment on Non-Agenda Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 363 Santa Rosa Street. USE-2551-2015: Review of a proposed new
automatic car wash facility in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) Zone, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review; CT zone; SLO Wash
Partners, applicant.
Project Planner Van Leeuwen provided the Staff Report and responded to
Commission questions.
George Garcia, Applicant’s Representative, presented an overview and site layout,
and responded to Commission questions regarding operations. He explained that the
conveyor-style average wash time per vehicle (from site entry to departure) would be
between 3 and 3.5 minutes with the drying blower cycle averaging 20-30 seconds;
hours of operation were “dawn to dusk” and that each wash cycle uses 15-18 gallons
of water and added that based on current technologies, 80% of that water is
reclaimed and reused for the following wash cycle.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENT
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, urged the Council and Commissions to automatically
discuss climate change with every impending project.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, voiced objections to the project because it is located
at the gateway of the City, which already has heavy traffic patterns.
Matt Sansone, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project location and service
provided.
---End of Public Comment---
Chair Stevenson closed the Public Hearing.
Commission discussion and additional questions to Staff and the Applicant followed
12.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment12.b: b - 5-11-16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2016 Page 3
regarding project phasing, zoning and compatibility, noise mitigation and water use.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RIGGS, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LARSON, the Commission approved Resolution granting a Use
Permit allowing the establishment and operation of a car wash in the Tourist
Commercial (C-T) Zone and determining that the project is exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act as represented in the Staff Report and
Attachments. Motion passed 6:0:0 on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Riggs, Larson, Malak, Dandekar, Fowler, Stevenson
NOES: None (1 Seat Vacant)
ABSENT: None
Chair Larson called for short recess.
2. Citywide. GENP-3108-2016: General Plan Annual Report for 2015; City of
San Luis Obispo Community Development Department.
Associate Planner Gershow and Acting Manager Wiseman provided the Staff Report
and requested Commission feedback before forwarding the Report to City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
San Luis Obispo residents David Brodie and Cheryl McLean spoke in agreement with
comments included in a written correspondence submitted by resident Alan Cooper
urging limits on the growth of non-residential development and noting concerns about
climate change and impacts to the work force.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, remarked that it is commercial development that
drives the need for housing and commented that the delineation between workforce
housing and student rentals has become too vague.
---End of Public Comment---
Commission discussion followed regarding purview and opportunities for additional
study; and provided feedback to Staff regarding the Annual Report, as outlined in the
actions, as follows:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LARSON, the Commission approved the Staff Recommendation to
forward the 2015 General Plan Annual Report to City Council for consideration, with
minor modifications (add more information regarding the Cal Poly Master Plan and
coordination with Cal Poly; and select a new cover photo). Motion passed 6:0:0 on the
12.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment12.b: b - 5-11-16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2016 Page 4
following roll call vote:
AYES: Dandekar, Larson, Malak, Riggs, Fowler, Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY VICE-
CHAIR FOWLER, the Commission voted to agendize a Study Session to examine the
existing Housing policies, strategies and programs related to achievement of the City’s
housing goals at a future meeting. Motion passed 5:1:0: on the following vote:
AYES: Dandekar, Fowler, Malak, Larson, Stevenson
NOES: Riggs
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brad T. Opstad
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on MONTH DATE, YEAR
____________________________
Lee Price
Interim City Clerk
12.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment12.b: b - 5-11-16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1370 : General Plan Annual Report 2015)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: SINSHEIMER PARK PLAYGROUND; SPECIFICATION NO. 90650
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, approve plans and specifications
for the Sinsheimer Park Playground Project (Project), Specification No. 90650; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids and authorize the City Manager to award a
contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than the Engineer’s Estimate of $529,700; and
3. Authorize the transfer of funds from the following accounts to the project’s construction
phase account:
a. $184,923 from the Play Equipment Replacement Master Account (91103)
b. $322,023 from the Playground Equipment 13-14 Account (91246)
c. $161,672 from the Santa Rosa Skate Park Account (90752)
d. $62,889 from the Completed Projects General Fund Account
4. Approve a California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) agreement purchase with Miracle
Recreation Equipment Company in an amount not-to-exceed $165,000 for the purchase of
play equipment for the Sinsheimer Park Playground project and authorize the Finance
Director to execute a purchase order following the bid opening; and
5. Approve a purchase with Columbia Cascade Company in an amount not to exceed $25,000
for the purchase of two embankment slides.
DISCUSSION
Background
Sinsheimer Park is a popular community park, providing facilities which attract users from
throughout the city and county. The majority of the park, as we know it today, was developed in
the 1970’s and 80’s. The playground sits at the heart of the park, and is surrounded by the
baseball stadium, softball fields, tennis and volley ball courts, group barbeque areas, and is
bordered by Sinsheimer Elementary School to the east. The existing play equipment was
installed in 1993, and needs to be brought up to current California playground regulations.
Additionally, the pathway that serves the split level play areas is steeply graded, damaged, and
irregular due to age and tree root intrusion. The irrigation system is non-functioning and
landscaping has all but vanished. In general, the play area and surrounding turf and landscaped
13
Packet Pg. 322
areas are due for renovation.
Playground renovation plans and specifications (available for review in the Council Reading
File) have been prepared, and the project is ready for bid solicitation. As in past playground
projects, it is recommended that the play equipment be purchased by the City and provided to the
Contractor for installation on the project. This enables the City to take advantage of cooperative
purchasing discounts and also speed up construction, since the contractor will not have to wait
for materials to arrive.
Design and Public Engagement Process
The Project’s public design process included two community workshops and three Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings. Attachment B, Parks and Recreation staff report dated April
1, 2015, provides a more complete description of the playground renovation including play area
conceptual renderings and summary of the public engagement undertaken for this project.
Over 50 members of the public participated in a hands on exercise to identify park amenity
priorities on-site contemporaneous to a SLO Blues Game. Additionally children’s input was
received during a “kids only” session.
What came out of this public engagement is a proposed playground that provides a variety of
experiences in response to what kids want and will actually use. The topography of the site
offers some exciting opportunities for increased play using elements not present in the City’s
current playground inventory. The hill slides are anticipated to be widely popular and are
designed to increase creative play. Due to the elevation change being utilized in t he park it will
also offer increased playground experience for those in wheelchairs – who will be able to roll to
a slide and come down.
In summary, the Project includes a complete playground area renovation and expansion
including new multi-level play equipment, protective surfacing, accessible walkways, picnic
tables, benches, new irrigation, trees and drought tolerant plant material. The new accessible
walkways will allow access to the upper play area as well as the second level of the play “tower”
structure and the hillside embankment slides.
Additional Scope of Work
Additional work items which were not part of the original scope are included in the playground
project, because they are necessary for Building Code compliance:
1. Pathway Reconstruction. Replacement and relocation of the root-damaged walkway
through the redwoods and re-grading and replacing the steep walkway to the upper level
play area with an accessible path. This work is necessary to comply with current
accessibility requirements for public spaces in the California Building Code, and will be
included in the playground replacement contract work. The estimated improvement costs
are $97,000.
2. Irrigation Redesign. Redesign and modification of the existing irrigation system to
accommodate the new play area and walkways and, bring the irrigation system into
compliance with local and state water saving mandates to optimize water usage. This
13
Packet Pg. 323
work will be included in the playground replacement contract work. The estimated
irrigation costs are $28,000.
3. Restroom Upgrades to be Accessibility Compliance. The baseball stadium restrooms,
which serve the playground, will likewise require modifications to bring them into
compliance with California Building Code accessibility requirements. The restro om work
was not included in the playground project original scope of work. The Building Code
was modified after the playground was initially funded, and now requires the restroom
upgrades. Among other minor modifications, this restroom work will include adding an
accessible men’s urinal, lowering three toilets and relocating flush handles. The restroom
modifications will be performed under a separate contract with an estimated cost of
$15,000.
These additional work items, together with the general increase in construction costs in the past
year, are reasons for the additional funds needed for the project as discussed in the Fiscal Impact
section.
Play Equipment Purchase
During the spring of 2012, play equipment manufacturers were selected via a Request for
Qualification (RFQ) process to provide equipment for use in City playground projects. On May
9, 2012, the City Manager approved on-call contracts, good for five years, with the following
manufacturers for the purchase of play equipment:
1. GameTime
2. Landscape Structures, Inc.
3. Miracle Recreation Equipment Company.
One criterion for selection was that the manufacturers participate in cooperative purchasing
programs such as the California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) and/or US Communities.
This requirement enables the City to purchase equipment and supplies at discounted prices. The
City has purchased play equipment via these programs since 2006 and staff recommends
continuing with this approach.
During the design phase for this project, play eq uipment designs were solicited from all three
manufacturers based on feedback from the first community workshop. Two designs that best
responded to the design intent were presented at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
on February 4, 2015, where they selected a preferred design. This design was presented at a 2nd
community workshop where participants were given an opportunity to refine the equipment by
selecting their preferred components. The final design was approved by the Parks and Recreation
Commission at its April 1, 2015 meeting and includes equipment from Miracle Recreation
Equipment Company, one of the approved play equipment vendors. Staff recommends
purchasing the play equipment (except for the embankment slides) through a CMAS agreement
and processing the purchase order for the procurement after bids are opened when award for
construction is imminent.
In addition to the play equipment purchase from Miracle, the project design also includes two
straight 14’ plastic embankment slides. After soliciting prices from each of the three on-call
13
Packet Pg. 324
vendors, staff discovered that none of the three offer slides that meet the project requirements for
these embankment slides. A search of other play equipment vendors who offer embankment
slides resulted in only one company - Columbia Cascade Company of Oregon – that provides a
straight plastic 14’ embankment slide. Recommendation #5 in this report is for the purchase of
the two embankments slides from Columbia Cascade Company.
CONCURRENCES
The project was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission at its April 1, 2015 meeting
(Minutes of the meeting are included as part of Attachment B).
Sinsheimer Park is situated on property owned by San Luis Coastal Unified School District
(District). Under the terms of the long term joint use agreement between the City and the District,
improvements to the park require input from the District’s Assistant Superintendent Ryan Pinkerton
who has provided the same.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Community Development Department granted this project a Categorical Exemption
pursuant to Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines (Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing
Facilities). A Notice of Exemption was filed through the Community Development Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2013-15 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, Pages 3-395 to 3-399, Playground
Equipment Replacement identifies $310,000 of local revenue sales tax funds (then Measure Y) to
support the design, construction and construction management phases for the renovation of the
Sinsheimer Park Playground and also identifies the use of the remaining balances of the Play
Equipment Replacement master account and the Sinsheimer Equipment Replacement project
account. A total of $601,770 of playground budget is currently available to support this project.
The proposed budget and estimated project costs for the Sinsheimer Playground Renovation
project are shown below.
13
Packet Pg. 325
Available Playground Budget:
Sinsheimer Playground (90650) construction phase balance $77,693
2009-11 Play Equip. Replacement (91103) account remaining balance $184,923
2013-15 Playground Equip. (91246) master account remaining balance (Meas Y)$322,023
$584,639
Estimated Construction Costs:
Construction Estimate $529,700
Play Equip. Purchase - Miracle Recreation $165,000
Play Equip. Purchase - Columbia Cascade $25,000
Soils Compaction/Materials Testing $7,500
Construction Administration $15,000
Restroom modifications $15,000
Contingencies $52,000
Total Estimated Construcion $809,200
Shortage ($224,561)
Recommended Transfers
Transfer from completed Santa Rosa Skate Park Project (90752) (Meas Y)$161,672
Transfer from the General Fund Completed Projects Account (99899)$62,889
Total Transfers $224,561
As shown above, the estimated project costs total $809,200 which exceeds the available
playground budgets for the Sinsheimer Playground project. An additional $224,561 is required to
fully fund this project. These additional costs could be covered through the transfer of available
funds from the completed Santa Rosa Skate Park project which has an available General Fund
Measure Y balance of $161,672 and the transfer of $62,889 from the General Fund Completed
Projects account which has an available balance of $75,564.
If approved, a Budget Amendment Request will be prepared to transfer all remaining playground
master account funds, remaining Santa Rosa Park Play Equipment funds and recommended
transfers as reflected above to the Sinsheimer Playground project construction account.
Construction management and inspection will be handled by in-house staff.
Staff recommends approval to award a CMAS purchase agreement to Miracle Recreation in an
amount not-to-exceed the proposed budget of $165,000 and a sole source purchase to Columbia
Cascade Company in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for the purchases of play equipment for
Sinsheimer Playground Renovation project. Staff will execute the purchase orders following
construction contract award.
A contract for the restroom work will be approved under a separate action by the proper
13
Packet Pg. 326
awarding authority with the appropriately licensed contractor once the scope of work and costs
are refined.
Potential Grant Opportunity
At the time of writing this report, staff has applied for a Housing Related Parks Program grant
opportunity offered through the state Department of Housing and Community Development for
this project. Early estimates indicate this grant could be as much as $287,000 due to the
proximity of Sinsheimer Park near qualifying housing tracts. Notification regarding the
distribution of these grant funds is expected to be released in June 2016. In the event the City is
awarded this grant for Sinsheimer Playground, any excess project funds will be returned to the
Playground Equipment Master Account and made available to other playground or park
maintenance Capital Improvement Plan projects.
Attachments:
13.a a - Location Map
13.b b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes
13.c c - Council Reading File - 90650 Plans
13.d d - Council Reading File - 90650 Special Provisions
13
Packet Pg. 327
Sinsheimer Park
Playground Renovation
Project Location
SINSHEIMER PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION
SPECIFICATION NO. 90650
13.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment13.a: a - Location Map (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 - Advertise)
CityofSanLuisObispo, Title, Subtitle
3
Public Comment
Don Wiggan, resident of Paul Lane, said he borders Rachel Court where new trailhead is proposed.
His property is not fenced and visually exposed to the new trail placement between their residence
and a 12 ft. retaining wall. He asked the Commission consider the trail relocation on the other side
near a fenced residence. Staff Hill acknowledged the privacy issues and an impact to the residence.
Staff Hill said he would be willing to approach other properties owners to explore a realignment to
give some protection to the property owners. Staff Hill continued that he would discuss this
potential realignment of Rachel Court trailhead with the developers and to Council on May 16, 2015.
MOTION: (Regier/Updegrove) Recommend to City Council adoption of the Terrace Hill
Conservation and Open Space.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
7. REVIEW PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT LAYOUTS FOR SINSHEIMER PARK
Bridget Fraser, Lief McKay)
Director Stanwyck introduced Senior Civil Engineer, Bridget Fraser, and Consultant, Leif McKay
RRM), for the presentation of the revised conceptual design of the Sinsheimer Park Playground
Replacement project. Consultant McKay provided the Commission with a brief recap of the process
and project goals. In summary, the playground design utilizes existing slopes, provides signature
features, improves accessibility and offers a variety of new play experiences. Individual elements
were recommended through both student and community feedback. The project schedule is
estimated to have a final design in the Spring and construction to begin in the Fall. Completion of
the playground is estimated for late 2015/early 2016.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Single asked about opportunities for disabled access to enjoying the playground park.
Consultant McKay responded that the design address the physical disabled access with fully
accessible paths, bridge feature, slides and ground level activities. This design provides a variety of
elements to accommodate a range of experiences.
Commissioners thanked the Consultant RRM for incorporating stakeholder feedback and additional
inventive ADA compliance, above and beyond the minimal requirements, into the playground
design.
Commissioner Parolini asked about additional project funding should contingencies be needed. Staff
Fraser felt confident with current budget estimates.
MOTION: (Single/Baker) Recommend to City Council to approve the Sinsheimer Park Playground
conceptual design.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
8. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Director Stanwyck presented a summary of budget items to present to City Council on April 21,
2015 Strategic Budget Direction. Budget requests for Open Space and Maintenance are in support of
the Major City Goal. A Golf Course reorganization is within existing resources and focusses on two
programming elements of golf course maintenance and operations/programming. Capital
Improvement Projects for Public Art Funding, Laguna Lake ADA Accessible Trail and Tennis Court
lighting at Sinsheimer Park have also been submitted for Council consideration.
13.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report
Date: April 1, 2015
Subject: Sinsheimer Park Playground Renovation
Prepared by: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Bridget Fraser, Sr. Civil Engineer, Public Works Department
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed improvements to the Sinsheimer Park playground and forward the
recommendation to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
Background
Sinsheimer Park is a highly used community park which provides for many uses and a range of
facilities which attract users from throughout the city and county. The park includes the pool
complex, baseball stadium, softball fields, tennis courts, group barbeque areas, volley ball courts
and a playground. The park is also situated adjacent to Sinsheimer Elementary School making
the play area a convenient after-school destination for school age kids.
The play equipment at Sinsheimer Park was originally installed in 1991 and retrofitted in 1998.
The California State Playground Safety Regulations require public agencies to bring playgrounds
and play equipment installed before 1999 into compliance with current playground related
standards set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the
guidelines set forth by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPCS). In
addition, the Parks and Recreation Department has a policy of scheduling play equipment
replacement on a 15 year cycle which is considered the equipment’s useful life. The existing
equipment is currently 17 – 24 years old and is overdue for replacement.
Utilizing savings from prior play equipment projects has allowed this project to elevate from a
simple play equipment replacement project to a complete playground renovation with
expectations of Sinsheimer Playground becoming a destination park. Additional budget has been
directed to larger and/or additional play equipment, an expanded play area as well as site
improvements including additional trees and landscaping, benches, and correcting accessibility
issues with the existing steeply graded pathways as well as addressing the pathways damaged by
tree roots.
Design Development Process Recap
On June 30, 2014, a Community Playground Design workshop was held at the entrance to the
Sinsheimer Stadium prior to a Blues Baseball game where over 50 participants (from the
13.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 1, 2015
Page 2 of 3
G:\Projects\ActiveProjects\Parks-Landscaping\90650 Sinsheimer PlaygroundEquip\_Documents\3- Preconstruction\Permits & Approvals\PRC\4-1-15 PRC Sinsheimer
Playground.docx
neighborhood and those attending the ball game) provided feedback on preferred play equipment
and design themes with emerging trends as follows:
Utilize the terrain (hillside) in the design
Include an iconic structure (tower)
Providing accessibility is important
Provide shade
Provide challenging equipment for all ages
Climbing and sliding features are popular
Provide appropriate equipment/areas for different age groups
Site Concepts were developed and various play equipment layouts obtained from several
manufacturers based on this feedback. Two equipment layouts that best responded to the design
intent were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on February 4, 2015. A
majority of the Commissioners preferred the equipment submitted by Miracle Recreation
Equipment.
On February 18, 2015, a second community meeting was held at Sinsheimer Elementary School.
Notices were mailed to residents surrounding the park (1,500+) and flyers given to school
officials to post around the school. Approximately 20 kids and a handful of adults attended the
afternoon meeting. Participants were presented with the playground layout and equipment
selections based on the input from the first community meeting and the February PRC meeting.
Participants were also given an opportunity to help refine equipment layout by selecting their
preferred colors and picking their preferred components on a few of the standalone play
components. Neighbors who were not able to attend the afternoon meeting provided feedback to
staff via email.
Final Design Concept
The final design for the Sinsheimer playground provides a variety of play experiences that are
currently unavailable in San Luis Obispo. The adjacency of play equipment allows for ‘circuit’
play - children can move from feature to feature from different directions, and with varied levels
of challenging elements, this design will grow with the children who use it.
The upper and lower pads of the existing playground have been modified in shape and position
in order to allow for a three-tier tower element on the upper pad to connect to the lower pad.
Access to this upper pad is accessible via a new pedestrian path that bisects the tot lot and lower
play pad and then loops around behind the upper pad. A play bridge connects this path to the
middle tier of the tower element, where there is a tube slide to the lower pad. Two more tube
slides from the upper tier connect to the upper and lower pads, respectively. This new pedestrian
path then ends at a double hill slide with a 14’ drop in elevation, and is flanked by climbing
features for access from the bottom of the slope. Adjacent to the hill slide is a tumbling/sliding
hill with synthetic turf surfacing. The lower pad also features a zip line element and a snowboard
freestyle feature, both of which received overwhelming support at our public meetings. The 2-5
year play area also features a hill slide, but with a 3’ drop in elevation, and is accompanied by a
small “tower” play structure with a spiral slide and swings.
13.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 1, 2015
Page 3 of 3
G:\Projects\ActiveProjects\Parks-Landscaping\90650 Sinsheimer PlaygroundEquip\_Documents\3- Preconstruction\Permits & Approvals\PRC\4-1-15 PRC Sinsheimer
Playground.docx
Also included in this design is increased shade via new trees, landscaping in and around the
playground and seating opportunities throughout.
The concept plan and exhibits prepared for the 2/18/2015 community meeting are shown in
Attachment 1. A final revised concept plan is shown in Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is currently $555,000 available budget for this project. The preliminary cost estimate for
equipment and installation is $510,000-525,000 not including any contingency. Project is funded
with Measure Y General Funds.
FURTHER ACTION
Upon approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission and after subsequent architectural
review by the Community Development Department, construction documents will be prepared
for installation and presented to the City Council for approval to proceed with construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Play area concept plan and exhibits as presented to community on 2/18/2015
2. Final play area concept plan
13.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
Sinsheimer Park Playground |MARCH 25, 2015CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANZip Line‘Viper’ (rope balance)Big Kid Swings‘Reflex’ (see-saw)Hoopz ClimberNet ClimberGroup Saucer SwingGroup SpinnerSnowboard FreestyleJax ClimberDouble SlidesBig Kids(5-12)Big KidsLittle Kids(2-5)BridgeLoop ClimbersRope PullTumbling/Sliding HillSlideSwingsPlay StructureGrassGrassBench13.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
Sinsheimer Park Playground |MARCH 25, 2015COLOR OPTIONS ABCD13.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
Sinsheimer Park Playground |MARCH 25, 2015CONCEPTUAL PLAN UPDATE Double SlidesBig Kids(5-12)Big KidsLittle Kids(2-5)BridgeLoop ClimbersRope PullTumbling/Sliding HillSlideSwingsPlay StructureGrassGrassZip LineSnowboard Freestyle FeatureTower ElementLimit of new pavingPLAN CHANGES tUpper play pad reduced in sizetPath to Double Hill slides shifted to work better with existing topo (resulting in bridge extension)tLower pad reshaped to accommodate Zip Line featuretNew pedestrian path extended to meet extents of future re-paving planned by Parks & Rec13.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment13.b: b - PRC 4-15-2015 Sinsheimer Playground Staff Report & Minutes (1122 : Sinsheimer Park Playground Spec. No. 90650 -
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: David Athey, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - LAND SURVEYING,
ARCHITECTURE, CIVIL ENGINEERING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide:
a. Land Surveying Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.LS
b. Architecture Design Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.AD
c. Civil Engineering Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.CE
d. Property Acquisition Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW; 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.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) implements Council priorities by including projects
that build and improve infrastructure. The responsibility for delivering most of these projects is
assigned to the Public Works Engineering Division. The CIP includes a project mix that is both
designed and managed by City staff, and projects that use consultant services. Maintaining a list
of prequalified on-call service consultants, that provide various areas of specialized work, has
enabled Public Works to expedite project delivery.
Public Works’ on-call service approach has been used successfully for many years, starting with
survey services in 1998. This approach expanded in 2007 to other disciplines including
engineering, property acquisition, and architecture. The City’s CIP projects are mostly modest in
size, and the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) generally draws local consulting firms. Seventy
five percent of the City’s current on-call civil engineering, survey, architecture, and property
acquisition service contracts are with firms from San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara
County.
Consultants typically remain on contract for two to three years. Existing consultant contracts in
land surveying, architectural design, civil engineering, and property acquisition services expire
14
Packet Pg. 336
this year. Therefore, the City needs to re-advertise for these services through the RFQ process.
The RFQ model is used to identify consultant skill sets and qualifications. In addition, the RFQ
process determines how those skills align with the type of work proposed in the City’s CIP. This
is in contrast to a Request for Proposals (RFP) model, which is project specific. After evaluating
the RFQ submittal packages, two to three top consultants in each specialized area will be
selected to enter into an agreement with the City. Consultant selection is based on their
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 is implemented rapidly, without the need for an individual RFP.
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 CIP Engineering
Project Manager will work with the consultant to determine the final cost for the design. The
specific project work will then be authorized via a Purchase Order through the Finance
Department, referencing the signed agreement for the terms and conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The RFQ process, in and of itself, does not obligate any funds for CIP consultant work. After
the agreements are executed by the City Manager, scoping meetings and Purchase Order
issuance will follow, obligating CIP funds. Work will be billed to individual project accounts,
within the authorized and appropriated project budgets.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Individual Project RFPs. Council can direct staff to proceed in a more traditional fashion
issuing RFP’s for each individual project. On the plus side, a company with greater experience
in the specific work might be attracted. On the minus side, 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 very little benefit. RFPs can still be issu ed on a case-by-case basis
when specialized skills, not available through on-call contracts, are needed.
2. In-house Approach. The Council could direct staff to complete more of the work in-house. At
this time, resources are not sufficient to deliver the proposed volume of work in a timely manner
without consultant augmentation. In some cases, such as Property Acquisition, staff does not
have the credentials necessary to complete the work.
Attachments:
14.a a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ
14.b b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ
14.c c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ
14.d d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ
14
Packet Pg. 337
Notice Requesting Qualifications for Land Surveying Services
Specification No. 50410.2016.LS
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals from interested consultants to provide Surveying
Services required for City capital improvement projects pursuant to Specification No. 50410.2016.LS. The City
proposes to select several qualified consultants to perform these services on an as-needed basis for specific
individual projects for a contract term of approximately two years.
Description of Services:
In general, required services shall consist of various land surveying services related to the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan or other City projects to ensure projects are constructed in accordance with the contract
documents and City requirements.
Qualification Submittal Deadline:
All qualification submittals must be received by the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on July 20, 2016.
Submittals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the following:
RFQ title
Specification number
Consultant name
Time and date of the proposal opening
Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Doing Business / Bids & Proposals page.
Pick up a copy of the RFQ at the above address
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Contact David Athey at (805) 781-7108 or dathey@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for
Qualifications.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance of
agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
14.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 2 of 20
Specification No. 50410.2016.LS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION .............................................................................. 7
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 9
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 16
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 16
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 19
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms ...................................................................................................... 20
14.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 3 of 20
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
General
The City is requesting qualifications from qualified consultants to provide on-call land surveying services. Currently
the City is not adequately staffed to perform this work. The City is interested in generating a list of qualified
consultants specializing in this type of work to draw from as needed . While the exact list of the City’s future land
surveying needs is unknown at this time, consultants should expect land survey services will be required to help
facilitate the City’s Capital Improvement Plan work. The City’s existing Capital Improvement Plan may be found on
the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Staff anticipates that the 2017-19 Capital Improvement Plan will be similar in variety and scope to the 2015-17
Plan. The successful consultants will be expected to perform the types of services outlined in this request.
Scope of Consultant Services
The City is looking for qualified consultants to perform land survey work. The bulk of the work would be comprised
of:
1. topographic surveys used for the design of Capital Improvement Plan projects
2. replacement of vertical and horizontal control monuments
3. staking of easements and property lines
4. review of proposed Tract Maps
5. record / title report search
Topographic survey work must be submitted to the City in:
1. Portable Document Format (PDF)
2. AutoCAD Civil 3D including all necessary files and directories
3. one paper document of topographic work
AutoCAD files must use City standard:
1. borders
2. layer name
3. layer color
4. layer line weight
in compliance with Engineering Standards Appendix F.
Occasionally, control monuments are destroyed or disturbed and need to be reset. When vertical controls need to
be reset, the new vertical control monument may be set in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 – Section E
– Vertical Control (Benchmarks).
When establishing horizontal control monuments, the consultant must complete the necessary research which may
include:
1. map
2. legal descriptions
3. deed
4. corner record
Reset horizontal control monuments must be established on the:
1. centerlines of right-of-way
2. property corners
A corner record must be filed with the County and a copy delivered to the City as part of the work. All work must be
in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 – Section E.
Project Proposals
As land surveying needs arise within the City, the City will request the consultant to provide a proposal of work and
cost estimate for individual service. The City reserves the right to negotiate the proposed work scope and amount
of compensation on an individual service basis. Payment of prevailing wages is required and copies of payment
records must be submitted to the City upon request.
14.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 4 of 20
The consultant must correct any errors or omissions to work at no additional cost to the City.
Time constraints are selection factors on individual service request. The consultant must start work within two
weeks from receipt of a written authorization to proceed unless an alternate timeframe has been agreed upon. The
City expects the work to be actively pursued until complete.
Vertical and Horizontal controls for this work must be based on the City’s vertical and horizontal control networks.
Information concerning these control networks can be found on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/documents-online
14.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 5 of 20
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RF Q
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
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis
Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall include one electronic
copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against
premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of
Consultant, 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 Consultant’s insurance coverage during
proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 13 below, endorsements are not required until contract award.
The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFQ package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFQ package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal,
in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications" will be considered. All
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited t o be present
at the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. 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 permitte d. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and
discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
14.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 6 of 20
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. 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.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notic e of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the Cit y's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; a ny bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
14.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 7 of 20
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing land surveying, filing of official maps and records, any other
qualifications or specialties which you make your firm well-suited in assisting the City in survey work other
similar activities.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work .
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project.
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff.
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
Capital Improvement Plan work on schedule.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City.
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Qualification proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and
other short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. 3 copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. 1 pdf format electronic copy must be submitted on flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Qualification proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the qualification proposals will be based on the following qualifications:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing survey work .
2. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff.
3. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services .
4. Ability to respond quickly to work requests.
Qualification proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordan ce with the above
criteria. Where one or more qualification proposals are rated consistently higher than others, the consultant s
may be selected as the top ranked consultants for purposes of contract negotiation.
14.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 8 of 20
Alternatively, a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) may be selected for follow-
up interviews and presentations, or requests for additional clarifying information, before the final top ranked
consultants for contract negotiation are determined.
6. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFQ ........................................................ June 20, 2016
Receive qualification proposals .......................... July 20, 2016
Complete proposal evaluation ....................... August 26, 2016
Award contract ........................................ September 20, 2016
14.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 9 of 20
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by an d
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested proposals for Land Surveying Services per Specification No. 50410-2016-
LS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
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, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between October 2016 and December 2018.
3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at eac h 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified
of the increases in advance. Rates may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal
to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
4. Work Delays. Should the Consultant 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 Consultant. 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 reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
5. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant 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 Consultant 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 Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its s ervices 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
14.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 10 of 20
fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
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 Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30 (thirty) calendar day
notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination of the contract is in the best interest of
the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
6. Ability to Perform. The Consultant 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 any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
7. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall co ntain all provisions of this agreement.
8. Contract Assignment. The Consultant 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 en tity of any
kind without the previous written consent of the City.
9. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requir ements 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 Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
10. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
11. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this c ontract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consultant staff shall pr ovide a Conflict of Interest
Statement where determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant 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
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub -consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial in terest 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 Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
12. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
14.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 11 of 20
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
13. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
14. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant 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. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
16. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
17. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant'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.
19. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant 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
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
20. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub -consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work
hereunder.
21. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
22. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's poss ession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
14.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 12 of 20
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall
waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities su bsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the am ounts
provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notif y the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time
extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
23. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negli gence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
24. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
25. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
26. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
27. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s standardized title blocks and
coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review using either the full D (24x36) form at or a reduced 11x17
format. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format.
Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appro priate. Submittals shall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate.
2 copies of the draft work products
1 copy of the final preliminary work products, plus markups
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies.
Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side,
including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction AND one electronic copy
submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original stamps and signatures
Electronic files shall be submitted on CD and all files must be compatible with t he Microsoft operating system.
Each CD must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. Files may be emailed to the City in
lieu of putting them on CD.
28. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
14.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 13 of 20
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be author ized in writing
by the Consultant.
29. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the propert y
of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior
written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
30. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies
as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Consultant's direct expense.
31. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as
necessary in performing workscope tasks.
32. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s
within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
33. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant shall submit a
proposed workscope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon project fee. Should the
Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required
to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project
by project basis.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly
rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be
reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this
agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that
currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an
original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Consultant (Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by
14.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 14 of 20
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Use for Federally Funded Projects. This agreement is subject
to Title 49, Part 26 Code of Federal Regulations entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs” when project work is for a federally funded
project. In order to ensure the State Department of Transportation achieves its federally mandated statewide
overall DBE goal, the City encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of
this agreement. The City will make a determination on a project by project basis for reasonably expected DBE
participation to compete for the sub-consulting opportunities in this agreement. The Consultant is responsible
to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26.
The Consultant shall notify the City of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation on federally funded
projects, maintain records of DBE usage and complete and submit to the City the final report of DBE utilization
prior to receiving final payment. Records shall show the name and business address of each DBE and the total
dollar amount actually paid to each.
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the
Consultant by the City.
The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49 CFR 26 in the award and administration of
US DOT assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach
of this agreement, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as the City
deems appropriate.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: David Athey
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Qualifications Specification No. 50410.2016.LS and
Consultant's proposal dated X, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. 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 Engineer.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any tim e during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates
or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
14.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 15 of 20
43. 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. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual 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: CONSULTANT:
___________________________________
Name of Company
By: ___________________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
14.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 16 of 20
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 50410.2016.LS
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
14.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 17 of 20
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant 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 bu t not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? 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 Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regardi ng your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 18 of 20
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 19 of 20
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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 Insuranc e.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
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 Consultant 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 following provisions:
1. 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 Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant'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
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant'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's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability covera ge
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 work
commences.
14.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Land Surveying Services Page 20 of 20
Section G
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual requires the Consultant and the City to complete reporting forms for
Federally Funded Contracts on a project-by-project basis.
At the time of federal project initiation, the Consultant will be required to furnish information to the City in order for
the City to complete the require Local Agency Forms. The Consultant must complete and furnish to the City the
forms required to be completed by the Consultant prior to the issuance of the project Purchase Order.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual forms may be obtained from the Caltrans website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm .
Required forms include:
1. Exhibit 10-A: A&E Consultant Audit Request Letter and Checklist
2. Exhibit 10-B: Suggested Consultant Evaluation Sheet
3. Exhibit 10-C: Consultant Contract Reviewers Checklist
4. Exhibit 10-H: Sample Cost Proposal
5. Exhibit 10-I: Notice to Proposers DBE Information
6. Exhibit 10-K: Consultant Certification of Costs and Financial Management System
7. Exhibit 10-O1: Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment
8. Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Information (Word version)
9. Exhibit 10-Q: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
10. Exhibit 10-R: A&E Sample Contract Language
11. Exhibit 10-S: Consultant Performance Evaluation
12. Exhibit 10-T: Panel Member Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Statement
13. Exhibit 10-U: Consultant in Management Position Conflict of Interest Statement
14. Exhibit 17-F: Final Utilization Report (to be completed at Project Completion)
14.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment14.a: a - 2016 Land Surveying Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Notice Requesting Qualifications for Architectural Design Services
Specification No. 50410.2016.AD
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals from interested consultants to provide for Architectural
Design Services required for City projects pursuant to Specification No. 50410.2016.AD. The City proposes to
select several qualified consultants to perform these services on an as-needed basis for specific individual projects
for a contract term of at least two years.
Description of Services:
In general, needed services consist of architecture design and facility study services related to the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan or other City projects. The selected consultants will prepare master planning documents along
with high quality construction plans and specifications, in accordance with the contract documents and City
requirements and standards. The City is currently interested in consultants with public facility and public safety
facility master planning, assessment and design experience.
Qualification Submittal Deadline:
All qualification submittals must be received by the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on July 20, 2016.
Submittals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the following:
RFQ title
Specification number
Consultant name
Time and date of the proposal opening
Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Doing Business / Bids & Proposals page.
Pick up a copy of the RFQ at the above address
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Contact David Athey at (805) 781-7108 or dathey@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for
Qualifications.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance of
agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
14.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 2 of 20
Specification No. 50410.2016.AD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION .............................................................................. 7
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 9
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 16
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 16
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 19
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms ...................................................................................................... 20
14.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 3 of 20
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is looking for consultants interested in working with the City to deliver the City’s Capital Improvement
Program, in the work area of Architectural planning and design.
Background:
The City is requesting qualifications from consultants to provide architectural planning and design services.
Currently the City is not adequately staffed to perform this work. The City is interested in generating a list of
qualified consultants specializing in municipal and public safety facility design and planning to draw from as
needed. Consultants should expect architectural design services will be required to help facilitate the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan work. Currently, the City has a Police Facility Site Assessment, which will require architectural
design services in 2016-2017 and is considering for funding a full Citywide Facilities Master Plan, to be considered
for funding with the City’s 2016-17 budget. The City’s existing Capital Improvement Plan may be found on the
City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Staff anticipates that the 2017-19 Capital Improvement Plan will be similar in variety and scope to the 2015-17
Plan. The successful consultants will be expected to perform the types of services outlined in this request.
Workscope – Architectural Design:
The City is looking for consultants who specialize in the design of public facilities and public safety facilities
including, but not limited to police facilities. Architectural firms without public safety facility experience will still be
considered as well as architectural firms who only specialize in public safety facilities.
The consultant(s) selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to deliver study documents and high
quality biddable plans and specifications for construction, consistent with current policies and procedures. The
prime consultant will be responsible to obtain, oversee, and be responsible for work products for ancillary services,
such as electrical and mechanical, as part of their work.
The outline below is meant to clarify the consultant’s role, but not be an all-inclusive list of every task needed to
achieve the work product. A City staff person will be assigned as your contact for each individual project.
1. Attend scoping meeting with project proponent.
2. Submit a detailed workscope including:
a. list of key work items
b. schedule which includes required turn-around times for City staff input and products
c. list of any sub-consultants needed for the work
d. cost proposal which is subject to negotiation
3. Obtain information by:
a. completing research of City archives of record drawings,
b. contacting affected utility companies,
c. performing facility investigation,
d. researching code requirements
e. any other record searches required to complete the work.
4. Complete preliminary reports, such as building assessments, if required in project scope.
5. Engage in public review process as required in the workscope.
6. Insure the plans are compliant with the California Building Codes.
7. Prepare and submit initial 50% draft plans, specifications, and construction estimate for City review and
comment. Address comments.
8. Prepare and submit 90% draft plans, specifications, and construction estimate for City review and
comment. Address comments.
9. Prepare and submit 100% draft plans, specifications, and construction estimate for City review and
comment
10. Submit plans to the Building Division for building permits, addressing comments and resubmitting as
needed.
14.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 4 of 20
11. Prepare and submit completed approved bid package including plans, specifications and construction
estimates signed and stamped by the professional of record.
12. Receive red line plans after construction work is complete and prepare record plans and submit to City.
13. Plans must be completed using AutoCAD software and compliant with City Engineering Standards
Appendix F, including:
a. borders
b. layer name
c. layer color
d. layer line weight
City Staff will typically complete, or manage through others, the following items:
1. Obtain the environmental document.
2. Pay all permit fees.
3. Obtain permits for creek-related work from regulatory agencies.
4. Complete staff reports for approval.
5. Advertise and award construction contracts.
6. Provide construction management.
This work may be assigned to the consultant depending upon consultant’s capabilities, available City staffing and
available funding.
14.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 5 of 20
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RF Q
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
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis
Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall inc lude one electronic
copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against
premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of
Consultant, 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 Consultant’s insurance coverage during
proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 13 below, endorsements are not required until contract award.
The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFQ package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFQ package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal,
in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications" will be considered. All
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present
at the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. 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.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and
discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
14.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 6 of 20
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. 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.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consult ants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant) 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 Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
14.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 7 of 20
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing architectural work for government facilities, including essential
service buildings related to police and fire operations, tenant improvements, any other qualifications or
specialties which you make your firm well-suited in assisting the City.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work .
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
Capital Improvement Plan work on schedule.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City.
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Qualification proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and
other short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. Three copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. One PDF format electronic copy must be submitted on flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Qualification proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the qualification proposals will be based on the following qualifications:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing architectural work
2. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff
3. Recent experience in successfully performing services desired by the City (public safety facility design,
tenant improvements, etc.)
4. Ability to respond quickly to work requests
Qualification proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the above
criteria. Where one or more qualification proposals are rated consistently higher than others, the consultant s
may be selected as the top ranked consultants for purposes of contract negotiation.
14.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 8 of 20
Alternatively, a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) may be selected for follow -
up interviews and presentations, or requests for additional clarifying information, before the final top ranked
consultants for contract negotiation are determined.
6. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFQ ........................................................ June 20, 2016
Receive qualification proposals .......................... July 20, 2016
Complete proposal evaluation ....................... August 26, 2016
Award contract ........................................ September 20, 2016
14.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 9 of 20
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested proposals for Architectural Design Services per Specification No. 50410-
2016-AD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
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, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between October 2016 and December 2018.
3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified
of the increases in advance. Rates may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal
to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
4. Work Delays. Should the Consultant 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 Consultant. 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 reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
5. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant 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 Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations,
responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, h owever, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant 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" include s
14.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 10 of 20
fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
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 Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30 (thirty) calendar day
notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination of the contract is in the best interest of
the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
6. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all
capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and compl ete the work
hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
7. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
8. Contract Assignment. The Consultant 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.
9. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant 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 Consultant of any of its obligations to ful fill its contract
requirements.
10. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the co ntract period and for three years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
11. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consult ant staff shall provide a Conflict of Interest
Statement where determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant 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
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant 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 Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
12. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
14.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 11 of 20
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
13. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
14. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant 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. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consulta nt is
required to pay.
16. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
17. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant'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 e mployees.
19. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant 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
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
20. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work
hereunder.
21. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
22. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
14.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 12 of 20
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall
waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts
provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time
extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
23. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
24. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
25. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
26. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
27. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s standardized title blocks and
coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review using either the full D (24x36) format or a reduced 11x17
format. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format.
Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals shall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate.
2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies and 50% plans and estimate
1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups
2 copies of the 90% plans, specifications and estimate plus 50% markups
2 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups
1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% markups
1 copy of the final record drawings after construction
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies.
Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side,
including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction AND one electronic copy
submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original stamps and signatures
In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s work, the final
specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
In the event the City will be completing the Record Dra wings, the final plans will also be required to be
submitted in AutoCAD
14.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 13 of 20
Electronic files shall be submitted on CD and all files must be compatible with the Microsoft operating system.
Each CD must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. Files may be emailed to the City in
lieu of putting them on CD.
28. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
29. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property
of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior
written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
30. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies
as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Consultant's direct expense.
31. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is
attendance by the Consultant at up to 3 public meetings to present and discuss its findings and
recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing
workscope tasks.
32. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s
within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
33. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant shall submit a
proposed workscope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon project fee. Should the
Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required
to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project
by project basis.
14.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 14 of 20
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to t his agreement. Hourly
rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be
reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this
agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that
currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an
original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Consultant (Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Use for Federally Funded Projects . This agreement is subject
to Title 49, Part 26 Code of Federal Regulations entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs” when project work is for a federally funded
project. In order to ensure the State Department of Transportation achieves its federally mandated statewide
overall DBE goal, the City encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of
this agreement. The City will make a determination on a project by project basis for reasonably expected DBE
participation to compete for the sub-consulting opportunities in this agreement. The Consultant is responsible
to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26. Participation of DBE’s in the specified
percentage is not a condition of award.
The Consultant shall notify the City of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation on federally funded
projects, maintain records of DBE usage and complete and submit to the City the final report of DBE utilization
prior to receiving final payment. Records shall show the name and business address of each DBE and the total
dollar amount actually paid to each.
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the
Consultant by the City.
The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49 CFR 26 in the award and administration of
US DOT assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach
of this agreement, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as the City
deems appropriate.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: David Athey
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
14.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 15 of 20
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Qualifications Specification No. 50410.2016.AS and
Consultant's proposal dated X, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. 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 Engineer.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates
or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
43. 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 specif ically incorporated herein shall be of any force
or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made an d
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual 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: CONSULTANT:
___________________________________
Name of Company
By: ___________________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
14.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 16 of 20
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 50410.2016.AD
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
14.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 17 of 20
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant 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 the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? 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 Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 18 of 20
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 19 of 20
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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 Insuranc e.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
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 Consultant 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 following provisions:
1. 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 Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant'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
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant'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's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability covera ge
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 work
commences.
14.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Architectural Design Services Page 20 of 20
Section G
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual requires the Consultant and the City to complete reporting forms for
Federally Funded Contracts on a project-by-project basis.
At the time of federal project initiation, the Consultant will be required to furnish information to the City in order for
the City to complete the require Local Agency Forms. The Consultant must complete and furnish to the City the
forms required to be completed by the Consultant prior to the issuance of the project Purchase Order.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual forms may be obtained from the Caltrans website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm .
Required forms include:
1. Exhibit 10-A: A&E Consultant Audit Request Letter and Checklist
2. Exhibit 10-B: Suggested Consultant Evaluation Sheet
3. Exhibit 10-C: Consultant Contract Reviewers Checklist
4. Exhibit 10-H: Sample Cost Proposal
5. Exhibit 10-I: Notice to Proposers DBE Information
6. Exhibit 10-K: Consultant Certification of Costs and Financial Management System
7. Exhibit 10-O1: Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment
8. Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Information (Word version)
9. Exhibit 10-Q: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
10. Exhibit 10-R: A&E Sample Contract Language
11. Exhibit 10-S: Consultant Performance Evaluation
12. Exhibit 10-T: Panel Member Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Statement
13. Exhibit 10-U: Consultant in Management Position Conflict of Interest Statement
14. Exhibit 17-F: Final Utilization Report (to be completed at Project Completion)
14.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment14.b: b - 2016 Architecture Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Notice Requesting Qualifications for Civil Engineering Design Services
Specification No. 50410.2016.CE
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals from interested consultants to provide for Civil
Engineering Design Services required for City projects pursuant to Specification No. 50410.201 6.CE. The City
proposes to select several qualified consultants to perform these services on an as-needed basis for specific
individual projects for a contract term of approximately two years.
Description of Services:
In general, needed services consist of various civil design activities related to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
or other City projects. Selected Consultants will prepare high quality construction plans and specifications in
accordance with City requirements and standards.
Qualification Submittal Deadline:
All qualification submittals must be received by the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on July 20, 2016.
Submittals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the following:
RFQ title
Specification number
Consultant name
Time and date of the proposal opening
Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Doing Business / Bids & Proposals page.
Pick up a copy of the RFQ at the above address
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Contact David Athey at (805) 781-7108 or dathey@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for
Qualifications.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance of
agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
14.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 2 of 20
Specification No. 50410.2016.CE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION .............................................................................. 7
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 9
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 16
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 16
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 19
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms ...................................................................................................... 20
14.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 3 of 20
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is looking for consultants interested in working with the City to deliver the City’s Capital Improvement
Program, in the work area of Civil Engineering Design.
Background:
The City is requesting qualifications from qualified consultants to provide Civil Engineering design services.
Currently the City is not adequately staffed to perform all Capital Improvement Plan work. The City is interested in
generating a list of qualified consultants specializing in this type of work to draw from as needed. While the exact
list of the City’s future Civil Engineering design services is unknown at this time, consultants should expect Civil
Engineering design services will be required to help facilitate the City’s Capital Improvement Plan work. The City’s
existing Capital Improvement Plan may be found on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Staff anticipates that the 2017-19 Capital Improvement Plan will be similar in variety and scope to the 2015-17
Plan. The successful consultants will be expected to perform the types of services outlined in this request.
Workscope – Civil Engineering Design:
The consultant(s) selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to deliver a high quality and biddable
sets of plans and specifications for construction, consistent with current policies and pro cedures. Necessary work
may include studies, investigations, surveying, modeling or other engineering analysis or reports to support
development of project plans and specifications.
The outline below is meant to clarify the consultant’s role, but not be an all-inclusive list of every task needed to
achieve the work product. A City staff person will be assigned as your contact for each individual project.
1. Attend scoping meeting with project proponent.
2. Submit a detailed workscope including:
a. list of key work items
b. schedule which includes required turn-around times for City staff input and products
c. list of any sub-consultants needed for the work
d. cost proposal which is subject to negotiation
3. Obtain information by:
a. completing research of City archives of record drawings,
b. contacting affected utility companies,
c. performing facility investigation,
d. researching code requirements
e. any other record searches required to complete the work.
4. Complete preliminary reports or studies, such as infrastructure assessments, if required in the project
scope.
5. Engage in public review process as required in the workscope.
6. Prepare and submit initial 50% draft plans, specifications, and construction estimate for City review and
comment. Address comments.
7. Prepare and submit 90% draft plans, specifications, and construction estimate for City review and
comment. Address comments.
8. Prepare and submit 100% draft plans, specifications, and construction estimate for City review and
comment
9. Submit plans to the Building Division for building permits, addressing comments and resubmitting as
needed.
10. Prepare and submit completed approved bid package including plans, specifications and construction
estimates signed and stamped by the professional of record.
11. Receive red line plans after construction work is complete and prepare record plans and submit to City.
12. Plans must be completed using AutoCAD software and compliant with City Engineering Standards
Appendix F, including:
a. borders
14.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 4 of 20
b. layer name
c. layer color
d. layer line weight
City Staff will typically complete, or manage through others, the following items:
1. Obtain the environmental document.
2. Pay all permit fees.
3. Obtain permits for creek-related work from regulatory agencies.
4. Complete staff reports for approval.
5. Advertise and award construction contracts.
6. Provide construction management.
This work may be assigned to the consultant depending upon consultant’s capabilities, available City staffing and
available funding.
The City encourages engineering firms that specialize in services such as wastewater, water or separate technical
fields to apply as specialty engineering consultant services are sometimes required. The City may, at its sole
discretion, add specialty service categories to the Civil Design Services on call list.
14.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 5 of 20
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and ac ceptance of all provisions of the RFQ
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
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis
Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall include one electronic
copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against
premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of
Consultant, 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 Consultant’s insurance coverage
during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 13 below, endorsements are not required until
contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFQ package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFQ package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal,
in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications" will be considered. All
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited t o be present
at the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. 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 permitte d. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and
discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
14.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 6 of 20
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. 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.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notic e of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the Cit y's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; a ny bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
14.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 7 of 20
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing civil engineering work for government clients and facilities, any other
qualifications or specialties which you make your firm well-suited in assisting the City in engineering work
other similar activities.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work .
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
Capital Improvement Plan work on schedule.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City.
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Qualification proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and
other short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. Three copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. One PDF format electronic copy must be submitted on flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Qualification proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the qualification proposals will be based on the following qualifications:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing civil engineering work
2. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff
3. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services
4. Ability to respond quickly to work requests
Qualification proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the above
criteria. Where one or more qualification proposals are rated consistently higher than others, the consultant s
may be selected as the top ranked consultants for purposes of contract negotiation.
14.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 8 of 20
Alternatively, a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) may be selected for follow -
up interviews and presentations, or requests for additional clarifying information, before the final top ranked
consultants for contract negotiation are determined.
6. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFQ ........................................................ June 20, 2016
Receive qualification proposals .......................... July 20, 2016
Complete proposal evaluation ....................... August 26, 2016
Award contract ........................................ September 20, 2016
14.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 9 of 20
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested proposals for Civil Engineering Design Services per Specification No.
50410-2016-CE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City f or said
services.
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, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between October 2016 and December 2018.
3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified
of the increases in advance. Rates may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal
to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Ur ban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
4. Work Delays. Should the Consultant 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 comp letion may, at the City's sole option, be extended
for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. 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 reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
5. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant 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 Consultant 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 Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant 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" incl udes
14.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 10 of 20
fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
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 Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30 (thirty) calendar day
notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination of the contract is in the best interest of
the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
6. Ability to Perform. The Consultant 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 any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
7. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consul tant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
8. Contract Assignment. The Consultant 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.
9. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant 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 Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
10. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
11. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consultant staff shall provide a Conflict of Interest
Statement where determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant 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
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant 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 her eby expressly agreed that, in the
performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
12. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
14.c
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 11 of 20
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
13. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, ex cepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liabilit y;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
14. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant 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. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
16. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including bui lding and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
17. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant'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.
19. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant 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 fr om the
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
20. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performanc e of the work
hereunder.
21. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
22. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consu ltants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consu ltant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submi ttal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
14.c
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 12 of 20
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall
waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts
provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter wh atsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time
extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
23. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant .
24. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
25. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
26. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
27. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s standardized title blocks and
coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review us ing either the full D (24x36) format or a reduced 11x17
format. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format.
Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. T he City’s current
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals shall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriat e.
2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies and 50% plans and estimate
1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups
2 copies of the 90% plans, specifications and estimate plus 50% markups
1 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups
1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% markups
1 copy of the final record drawings after construction
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies.
Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side,
including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproducti on AND one electronic copy
submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original stamps and signatures
In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s work, the final
specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
In the event the City will be completing the Record Drawings, the final plans will also be required to be
submitted in AutoCAD
14.c
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 13 of 20
Electronic files shall be submitted on CD and all files must be compatible with the Microsoft operating system.
Each CD must be clearly labeled and have a pr inted copy of the directory. Files may be emailed to the City in
lieu of putting them on CD.
28. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
29. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property
of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior
written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of t he contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
30. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies
as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Consultant's direct expense.
31. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is
attendance by the Consultant at up to 1 public meetings to present and discuss its findings and
recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing
workscope tasks.
32. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s
within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
33. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant shall submit a
proposed workscope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon project fee. Should the
Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required
to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project
by project basis.
14.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 14 of 20
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attach ed to this agreement. Hourly
rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be
reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this
agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that
currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an
original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Consultant (Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 3 0 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its considerat ion by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Use for Federally Funded Projects. This agreement is subject
to Title 49, Part 26 Code of Federal Regulations entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs” when project work is for a federally funded
project. In order to ensure the State Department of Transportation achieves its federally mandated statewide
overall DBE goal, the City encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of
this agreement. The City will make a determination on a project by project basis for reasonably expected DBE
participation to compete for the sub-consulting opportunities in this agreement. The Consultant is responsible
to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26
The Consultant shall notify the City of any changes to its anticipa ted DBE participation on federally funded
projects, maintain records of DBE usage and complete and submit to the City the final report of DBE utilization
prior to receiving final payment. Records shall show the name and business address of each DBE and the total
dollar amount actually paid to each.
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the
Consultant by the City.
The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49 CFR 26 i n the award and administration of
US DOT assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach
of this agreement, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as the City
deems appropriate.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: David Athey
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Qualifications Specification No. 50410.2016.CE and
Consultant's proposal dated X, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
14.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 15 of 20
41. 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 Engineer.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates
or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
43. 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 in corporated herein shall be of any force
or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual 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: CONSULTANT:
___________________________________
Name of Company
By: ___________________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
14.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 16 of 20
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 50410.2016.CE
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
14.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 17 of 20
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant 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 bu t not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? 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 Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regardi ng your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 18 of 20
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 19 of 20
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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 Insuranc e.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
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 Consultant 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 following provisions:
1. 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 Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant'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
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant'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's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability covera ge
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 work
commences.
14.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Civil Design Services Page 20 of 20
Section G
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual requires the Consultant and the City to complete reporting forms for
Federally Funded Contracts on a project-by-project basis.
At the time of federal project initiation, the Consultant will be required to furnish information to the City in order for
the City to complete the require Local Agency Forms. The Consultant must complete and furnish to the City the
forms required to be completed by the Consultant prior to the issuance of the project Purchase Order.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual forms may be obtained from the Caltrans website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm .
Required forms include:
1. Exhibit 10-A: A&E Consultant Audit Request Letter and Checklist
2. Exhibit 10-B: Suggested Consultant Evaluation Sheet
3. Exhibit 10-C: Consultant Contract Reviewers Checklist
4. Exhibit 10-H: Sample Cost Proposal
5. Exhibit 10-I: Notice to Proposers DBE Information
6. Exhibit 10-K: Consultant Certification of Costs and Financial Management System
7. Exhibit 10-O1: Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment
8. Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Information (Word version)
9. Exhibit 10-Q: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
10. Exhibit 10-R: A&E Sample Contract Language
11. Exhibit 10-S: Consultant Performance Evaluation
12. Exhibit 10-T: Panel Member Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Statement
13. Exhibit 10-U: Consultant in Management Position Conflict of Interest Statement
14. Exhibit 17-F: Final Utilization Report (to be completed at Project Completion)
14.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment14.c: c - 2016 Civil Engineering Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Notice Requesting Qualifications for Right-of-Way and Property Acquisition Services
Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals from interested consultants for Right of Way Acquisition
Services. These services are required for City projects pursuant to Specification No. 50410.201 6.ROW. The City
proposes to select several qualified consultants to perform these services on an as -needed basis for specific
individual projects for a contract term of approximately two years.
Description of Services:
In general, required services shall consist of various property acquisition services related to the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan or other City projects to ensure projects have necessary property rights for construction of the
project and to provide other property information as needed.
Qualification Submittal Deadline:
All qualification submittals must be received by the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on July 20, 2016.
Submittals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the following:
RFQ title
Specification number
Consultant name
Time and date of the proposal opening
Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Doing Business / Bids & Proposals page.
Pick up a copy of the RFQ at the above address
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Contact David Athey at (805) 781-7108 or dathey@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for
Qualifications.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance of
agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
14.d
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 2 of 19
Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION .............................................................................. 6
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 8
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 15
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 15
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 16
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 18
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms ...................................................................................................... 19
14.d
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 3 of 19
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is looking for consultants interested in working with the City to deliver the City’s Capital Improvement
Program, in the work area of Right-of-Way and Property Acquisition.
Background:
The City is requesting qualifications fr om qualified consultants to provide acquisition services. Currently the City is
not adequately staffed to perform this work. The City is interested in generating a list of qualified consultants
specializing in this type of work to draw from as needed. While the exact list of the City’s future acquisition services
is unknown at this time, consultants should expect acquisition services will be required to help facilitate the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan work. The City’s existing Capital Improvement Plan may be found on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Staff anticipates that the 2017-19 Capital Improvement Plan will be similar in variety and scope to the 2015-17
Plan. The successful consultants will be expected to perform the types of services outlined in this request.
Workscope – Right-of-Way Acquisition:
Consultants should expect to perform acquisition services related to Capital Improvement Projects. Projects might
include required easement negotiation or property acquisitions needed for utility upgrades, storm drainage
improvements, bike path construction, or traffic circulation improvement projects.
Substantial acquisition, including the appraisal of property and relocation of businesses and/or residents may be
required on projects funded in part by Federal funds. Consultants may also assist with negotiations with Union Pacific
Railroad or other private parties for modifications to existing easem ents, and/or the purchase of non-City owned
property for a variety of uses.
The Consultant shall demonstrate the ability to carry out the duties associated with the acquisition process, including
conformance with federal laws. These duties may include, but are not limited to, property appraisal, negotiations and
relocation assistance of property owners and/or occupants, closings and settlements.
The Consultant may be asked to obtain Preliminary Title Reports and complete the necessary research where legal
descriptions of property lines are involved.
The consultants shall be expected to be able to render services on an “as-needed” basis.
14.d
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 4 of 19
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and ac ceptance of all provisions of the RFQ
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
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis
Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall include one electronic
copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against
premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of
Consultant, 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 Consultant’s insurance coverage during
proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 13 below, endorsements are not required until contract award.
The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFQ package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFQ package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal,
in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications" will be considered. All
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present
at the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. 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.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative propos al (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and
discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
14.d
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 5 of 19
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. 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.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail t o it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant) 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 Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
14.d
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 6 of 19
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing property acquisition work for government agencies, any other
qualifications or specialties which you make your firm well-suited in assisting the City in property acquisition
work.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work .
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
Capital Improvement Plan work on schedule.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City.
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Qualification proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and
other short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. 3 copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. 1 pdf format electronic copy must be submitted on flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Qualification proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the qualification proposals will be based on the following qualifications:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing property acquisition work
2. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff
3. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services
4. Ability to respond quickly to work requests
Qualification proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the above
criteria. Where one or more qualification proposals are rated consistently higher than others, the consultant s
may be selected as the top ranked consultants for purposes of contract negotiation.
14.d
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 7 of 19
Alternatively, a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five proposers) may be selected for follow -
up interviews and presentations, or requests for additional clarifying information, before the final top ranked
consultants for contract negotiation are determined.
6. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFQ ........................................................ June 20, 2016
Receive qualification proposals .......................... July 20, 2016
Complete proposal evaluation ....................... August 26, 2016
Award contract ........................................ September 20, 2016
14.d
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 8 of 19
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested proposals for Right-of-Way and Property Acquisition Services per
Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW .
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was acce pted by City for said
services.
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, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between October 2016 and December 2018.
3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified
of the increases in advance. Rates may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal
to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
4. Work Delays. Should the Consultant 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 Consultant. 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 reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
5. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant 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 Consultant 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 Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant 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. "Rea sonable value" includes
14.d
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 9 of 19
fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonme nt 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 Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30 (thirty) calendar day
notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination of the contract is in the best interest of
the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
6. Ability to Perform. The Consultant 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 any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
7. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
8. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract,
or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contra ct to any individual or business entity of any
kind without the previous written consent of the City.
9. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant 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 Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
10. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to re cords shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
11. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consultant staff shall provide a Conflict of Interest
Statement where determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant 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
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub -consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no on e 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 Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultan t
and not an agent or employee of the City.
12. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
14.d
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 10 of 19
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
13. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of secur ing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
14. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant 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. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this para graph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
16. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City wil l pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
17. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant'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 injur y to the public and employees.
19. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant 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
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
20. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of th e work
hereunder.
21. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
22. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake
an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of
ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall
give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered
patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
14.d
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 11 of 19
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant
or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall
waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts
provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or no t a change order, time
extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
23. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out o f, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
24. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
25. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
26. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
27. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible
if using the reduced format. Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless
authorized.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals s hall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate.
2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies
1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups
2 copies of the final reports or technical studies
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies.
Final documents shall be submitted as camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side,
including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction AND one electronic copy
submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all original stamps and signatures
In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s work, the final
specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
Electronic files shall be submitted on CD and all files must be compatible with the Microsoft operating system.
Each CD must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. Files may be emailed to the City in
lieu of putting them on CD.
28. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
14.d
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 12 of 19
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to trans fer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or mach ine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
29. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property
of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior
written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
30. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provi de such additional copies
as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Consultant's direct expense.
31. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is
attendance by the Consultant at up to2 public meetings to present and discuss its findings and
recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing
workscope tasks.
32. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s
within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
33. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant shall submit a
proposed workscope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by pr oject work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon project fee. Should the
Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or defic iencies, the Consultant shall be required
to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project
by project basis.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly
rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be
reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this
agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that
currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
14.d
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 13 of 19
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an
original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the
Consultant (Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved c laims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Use for Federally Funded Projects . This agreement is subject
to Title 49, Part 26 Code of Federal Regulations entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs” when project work is for a federally funded
project. In order to ensure the State Department of Transportation achieves its federally mandated statewide
overall DBE goal, the City encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of
this agreement. The City will make a determination on a project by project basis for reasonably expected DBE
participation to compete for the sub-consulting opportunities in this agreement. The Consultant is responsible
to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26.
The Consultant shall notify the City of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation, maintain records of
DBE usage and complete and submit to the City the final report of DBE utilization prior to receiving final
payment. Records shall show the name and business address of each DBE and the total dollar amount
actually paid to each.
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the
Consultant by the City.
The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49 CFR 26 in the award and administration of
US DOT assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach
of this agreement, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as the City
deems appropriate.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: David Athey
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Qualifications Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW and
Consultant's proposal dated X, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. 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 Engineer.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
14.d
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 14 of 19
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates
or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
43. 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. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made a nd
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual 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: CONSULTANT:
___________________________________
Name of Company
By: ___________________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
14.d
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 15 of 19
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
14.d
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 16 of 19
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant 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 the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? 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 Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.d
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 17 of 19
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
14.d
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 18 of 19
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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 Insuranc e.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
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 Consultant 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 following provisions:
1. 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 Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant'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
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant'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's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability covera ge
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 work
commences.
14.d
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Right-of-Way & Property Acquisition Services Page 19 of 19
Section G
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Federally Funded Contract Forms
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual requires the Consultant and the City to complete reporting forms for
Federally Funded Contracts on a project-by-project basis.
At the time of federal project initiation, the Consultant will be required to furnish information to the City in order for
the City to complete the require Local Agency Forms. The Consultant must complete and furnish to the City the
forms required to be completed by the Consultant prior to the issuance of the project Purchase Order.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual forms may be obtained from the Caltrans website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm .
Required forms include:
1. Exhibit 10-A: A&E Consultant Audit Request Letter and Checklist
2. Exhibit 10-B: Suggested Consultant Evaluation Sheet
3. Exhibit 10-C: Consultant Contract Reviewers Checklist
4. Exhibit 10-H: Sample Cost Proposal
5. Exhibit 10-I: Notice to Proposers DBE Information
6. Exhibit 10-K: Consultant Certification of Costs and Financial Management System
7. Exhibit 10-O1: Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment
8. Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Information (Word version)
9. Exhibit 10-Q: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
10. Exhibit 10-R: A&E Sample Contract Language
11. Exhibit 10-S: Consultant Performance Evaluation
12. Exhibit 10-T: Panel Member Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Statement
13. Exhibit 10-U: Consultant in Management Position Conflict of Interest Statement
14. Exhibit 17-F: Final Utilization Report (to be completed at Project Completion)
14.d
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment14.d: d - 2016 Property Acquisition Services RFQ (1351 : Request for Qualifications - Public Works On Call Services)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2784, 625 TORO STREET
(TR 176-05)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Final Map for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street, and authorize the
Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement.
DISCUSSION
Background
Tract 2784 (TR 176-05) is located at 625 Toro Street (Attachment A). A vesting tentative map
for Tract 2784 was approved by the City Council on July 17, 2007, by Resolution No. 9920
(Series 2007) (Attachment B). The tentative map (Attachment C) approved a one lot subdivision
for the purposes of creating 10 condominium lots.
Approving the Final Map
The tentative map has an initial two-year life per Municipal Code Section 16.10.150. With the
automatic extensions granted by the State Legislature per Sections 66452.21, 66452.22,
66452.23, and 66452.24 of the Subdivision Map Act, this vesting tentative map now has an
expiration date of July 17, 2016.
The final map for Tract 2784 is ready to be approved and recorded. Pursuant to Section
16.14.080 of the Municipal Code, the Public Works Director has determined that the final map is
in substantial compliance with the tentative map and approved modifications thereof.
Section 66474.1 of the Subdivision Map Act states that “a Legislative body shall not deny
approval of a final or parcel map if it has previously approved a tentative map for the proposed
subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map is in substantial compliance with the
previously approved tentative map.” The approval of a final map is considered a ministerial
action.
Appropriate securities have been submitted to guarantee completion of the required subdivision
improvements as shown in the Subdivision Agreement (Attachment D). The resolution
approving the final map (Attachment E) also authorizes the Mayor to sign the Subdivision
Agreement requiring the Subdivider to complete the subdivision improvements.
15
Packet Pg. 417
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department concurs with the recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the final map is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval of final subdivision
maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant financial impact to the City associated with approving the final map for
Tract 2784. The public improvements that will be constructed with this phase will result in a
minimal increase in maintenance costs for water services and sidewalk upon acceptance of the
improvements by the City.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval of the final map. Denying approval of the final map can apply if findings are
made that the requirements or conditions of the tentative map have not been met or performed
(Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act) or if findings are made that the final map is not in
substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map (Section 66474.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act). Because the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map
and all of the conditions of the map will be met or securities deposited prior to map recordation,
Sections 66474.1 and 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act require that City Council approve the
map. Therefore, denying approval of the final map is not a recommended alternative unless the
required findings are made.
Attachments:
15.a a - Vicinity Map
15.b b - Resolution No. 9920
15.c c - Tentative Map
15.d d - Subdivision Agreement
15.e e - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map
15.f f - Exhibit 1 to Attachment e - Tract Map
15
Packet Pg. 418
15.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment15.a: a - Vicinity Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment15.b: b - Resolution No. 9920 (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment15.b: b - Resolution No. 9920 (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment15.b: b - Resolution No. 9920 (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment15.b: b - Resolution No. 9920 (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment15.b: b - Resolution No. 9920 (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.c
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment15.c: c - Tentative Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
1
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is dated this ______ day of ___________201___ by and
between Naranji, LLC, a California limited liability company, herein referred to as
"Subdivider," and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, herein referred to as the "City."
RECITALS
REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE to that certain proposed subdivision of real
property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, a
description of which is shown on the Final Map of Tract 2784, City of San Luis Obispo,
California, as approved by the City Council on the ____ day of ___________, 201___.
The Subdivider desires that said Tract 2784 be accepted and approved as a Final
Map pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations of the City of San Luis Obispo (Title 16 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code), and
It is a condition of said regulations that the Subdivider agree to install the
improvements as set forth on the plans therefore.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
In consideration of the foregoing, the Subdivider does hereby agree to construct
and install the following subdivision improvements in accordance with said subdivision
regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications on file in the office
of the City Engineer, City of San Luis Obispo, to wit:
1. PARKING AND DRIVEWAY SURFACING
2. WATER SERVICES AND FIRE HYDRANTS
3. SEWER MAIN AND LATERALS
4. LANDSCAPING AND STREET TREES
15.d
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
2
5. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
6. SIDEW ALKS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACH
7. ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION: In addition to the
inspection and approval of such facilities by the City, each public utility shall be
required to file a letter stating that the developer has properly installed all facilities to
be provided by him, and that the said utility is prepared to provide service to
residents upon request.
8. ANY & ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS shown on plans or required by project
approvals.
All of the above facilities shall be installed in the locations designated and to the plans and
specifications on file and approved by said City.
The lines and grades for all of said improvements shall be established by the
Subdivider in accordance with said approved plans and specifications.
The Subdivider agrees that the work of installing the above improvements shall
begin within thirty (30) days from the date of recording of the final map, and that the work
shall be completed within twelve (12) months of said recording date, unless an extension
has been granted by the City, provided that if completion of said work is delayed by acts of
God or labor disputes resulting in strike action, the Subdivider shall have an additional
period of time equivalent to such period of delay in which to complete such work. Any
extension of time hereunder shall not operate to release the surety on the Improvement
Security filed pursuant to this agreement. In this connection, the surety waives the
provisions of Section 2819 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
No building permits will be issued nor occupancy granted after the expiration date
of the agreement until completion and acceptance of all subdivision improvements unless
specifically approved by the City.
15.d
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
3
The Subdivider does also agree to comply with the conditions established by the
the City Council and has paid the necessary fees as indicated on the attached Exhibits 1
and 2.
The restoration of lost section corners and retracement of section lines within the
Subdivision shall be in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 8771 et seq., of the
Professional Land Surveyors Act, Chapter 15 of the Business and Professions Code of the
State of California.
The Subdivider attaches hereto, as an integral part hereof, and as security for the
performance of this agreement, an instrument of credit or bond approved by and in favor
of the City of San Luis Obispo, and conditional upon the faithful performance of this
agreement. Said instrument of credit or bond is in the amount of $340,000, which is the
amount of the estimated cost of said improvements.
Subdivider agrees to remedy any defects in the improvements arising from faulty
workmanship or materials or defective construction of said improvements occurring within
twelve (12) months after acceptance thereof. In accordance with Sections 66499.7 and
66499.9 of the Government Code of the State of California, upon final completion and
acceptance of the work, City will release all but 10% of the improvement security, that
amount being deemed sufficient to guarantee faithful performance by the Subdivider of his
obligation to remedy any defects in the improvements arising within a period of one year
following the completion and acceptance thereof.
Completion of the work shall be deemed to have occurred on the date the building
permit is finaled. Neither periodic nor progress inspections or approvals shall bind the City
15.d
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
4
to accept said improvements or waive any defects in the same or any breach of this
agreement.
“AS-BUILT” record drawings are to be submitted within four weeks of completion of
construction and prior to City acceptance of the public improvements.
If the Subdivider fails to complete the work within the prescribed time, the
Subdivider agrees that City may, at its option, declare the instrument of credit or bond
which has been posted by Subdivider to guarantee faithful performance, forfeited and
utilize the proceeds to complete said improvements, or city may complete said
improvements and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the Subdivider or his
surety.
The Subdivider has deposited with the City a labor and materials surety in the
amount of 50% of the above described subdivision improvements ($170,000) in
accordance with State law .
Said Subdivider shall pay an inspection fee for City to inspect the installation of said
subdivision improvements, and to verify that they have been completed in accordance with
the plans and specifications.
Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled "Subdivision," all plans and
specifications on file with said City Engineer as a part of said Subdivision Map, and all
other documents filed with the City by the Subdivider and approved by the City are hereby
referred to for further particulars in interpreting and defining the obligations of the
Subdivider under this agreement.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any
15.d
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
5
claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to
attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions
relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”).
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any Indemnified Claim upon being
presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against
an Indemnified Claim.
It is understood and agreed by and between the Subdivider and the City hereto that
this agreement shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of
the respective Parties to this agreement.
It is agreed that the Subdivider will furnish copies of the successful bidder's contract
unit prices and total bid prices for all of the improvements herein referred to.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUBDIVIDER
Naranji, LLC, a California limited liability
company
MAYOR Jan Marx
Parimal Naran, Manager
Yatin Naran, Manager
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
15.d
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
6
EXHIBIT 1
TRACT 2784
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
1. Park-in-lieu fees have been paid, as listed in the attached EXHIBIT 2.
2. Water and sewer impact fees shall be paid at time of building permits through the
Community Development Department per the fee schedule in effect at that time.
3. Transportation impact fees shall be paid at time of building permits through the Community
Development Department per the fee schedule in effect at that time.
4. The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of Council Resolution 9920 (2007 Series)
approving the tentative map.
15.d
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
7
EXHIBIT 2
TRACT 2784 - FEE AND BOND LIST
625 Toro Street
Amount Form Date Received Bond Release Status
Bonds and Guarantees:
Total Faithful Performance $340,000
xxx xxx Can be released upon City acceptance of
improvements and deposit of one-year
warranty surety.
Labor & Materials (50% of total cost of
improvements
$170,000 xxx xxx Can be released 90 days after
acceptance of improvements, if no
claims. (Civil Code Section 8412)
10% Warranty To be
collected prior
to release of
Faithful
Performance
Bond
Can be released one-year after
acceptance of improvements, if no
defects.
Fees:
Map Check Fee $8,973 Check 5/1/15
Plan Check Fee Paid with building permit application
Improvement Plan Inspection To be collected with encroachment permit
Park In-Lieu Fee1 $45,980 xxx xxx
Water Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit
Wastewater Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit
Transportation Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit
1 All Impact Fees are adjusted annually (July 1) based on CPI. Credit given for demolished units.
15.d
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment15.d: d - Subdivision Agreement (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR
TRACT 2784 (625 TORO STREET, TR 176-05)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning the vesting tentative map
for Tract 2784, as prescribed in Resolution No. 9920 (2007 Series); and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all required subdivision improvements or will
submit appropriate securities to guarantee installation of the required subdivision improvements
as shown on the approved plans prior to map recordation, and all fees have been received or will
be received prior to map recordation, as prescribed in the Subdivision Agreement; and
WHEREAS, all conditions required per said Resolution No. 9920 (2007 Series) applicable
to Tract 2784 have been met prior to final recordation of the map; and
WHEREAS, approval of a final map is statutorily exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects
(approval of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State
CEQA Guidelines).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The final map for Tract 2784 as shown on the attached Exhibit 1 is found to
be in substantial compliance with the tentative map.
SECTION 2. The Subdivision Agreement for Tract 2784 is hereby approved.
SECTION 3. Approval of the final map for Tract 2784 is hereby granted.
SECTION 4. The Mayor and City staff are authorized to take action necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
15.e
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment15.e: e - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2016.
________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim 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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
15.e
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment15.e: e - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.f
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment15.f: f - Exhibit 1 to Attachment e - Tract Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.f
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment15.f: f - Exhibit 1 to Attachment e - Tract Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
15.f
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment15.f: f - Exhibit 1 to Attachment e - Tract Map (1365 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2784, 625 Toro Street)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Director of Community Development
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ADDITION OF THE PROPERTY AT 535 HIGUERA TO THE MASTER LIST
OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS “THE ROBERT POLLARD HOUSE”
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A) adding
the property at 535 Higuera Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as “The Robert
Pollard House.”
DISCUSSION
Background
The property owner has requested that the property located at 535 Higuera Street be included in
the City’s Master List of Historic Resources as The Robert Pollard House. The property is not
currently included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, nor is it located within an
historic district.
On April 25, 2016 the Cultural Heritage Committee considered this request. The Committee
found that the property meets eligibility criteria for historic listing and recommended that the
City Council add the property to the Master List of Historic Resources.
Site and Setting
The site is located just beyond the western edge of the downtown area, on the south side of
Higuera Street, between Carmel and Nipomo Streets, in a Retail Commercial (C-R) Zone. The
immediate surroundings are characterized by small-scale commercial development mixed with
older single-family homes. Many of the residential structures are older buildings with historical
character, particularly along the westerly end of Higuera. However, only a few properties in the
immediate area are listed historic resources, including: the Norcross House (546 Higuera), the
Creamery (570 Higuera), and the Jack House (536 Marsh), all Master List Historic Resources;
and the Wilkenson House (412 Marsh), a Contributing List Resource.
The property is a rectangular parcel, 10,430 square feet in area, developed with a single-family
residence estimated to have been built around 1876, a detached garage and a small cottage
constructed later. The applicant and James Papp have prepared a narrative description of history
of the property (Attachment C), the house, and the people associated with them. This report
16
Packet Pg. 438
summarizes relevant information from the applicant’s narrative.
Building Architecture
As described in the applicant’s narrative, the residence is “a single story in plain ranch house
style” sheathed in wood shiplap siding, with gabled roof forms and a covered porch. The
architect is not identified, but the builder was Robert Pollard, an early resident of San Luis
Obispo who as further described in this report, was active in local civic affairs.
The Pollard Family
Robert Pollard, born in Virginia and educated in New Orleans, came to San Luis Obispo in 1852.
He was the brother of Samuel Pollard, of Cambria, who was himself, as detailed in the
applicant’s historical narrative, an influential local figure active in the civic affairs of 19th
Century San Luis Obispo County. After his arrival in San Luis Obispo, Robert Pollard held
several important public posts, including Assistant Postmaster, Deputy Assessor, and Deputy
Recorder. He was later elected County Coroner and appointed San Luis Obispo City Clerk. His
personal life was similarly active: he was elected secretary of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church
and appointed to the committee soliciting building funds to build the church; installed as Noble
Grand of the Odd Fellow’s Chorro Lodge; and elected Secretary of the San Luis Obispo Society
of Pioneers.
Robert Pollard married Jane Chesney in 1874, and together they had three children: Harr y, Mary
Frances, and Josephine. Mary Frances Pollard worked for the San Luis Obispo Tribune as a
compositor (typesetter) and was a signatory to the charter of the local International
Typographical Union Chapel 576. Josephine Pollard owned a millinery store in the Charles
Johnson Building on Chorro Street. The Pollard family lived in the house since its construction,
until Robert Pollard’s death in 1911. The family relocated to Los Angeles, but all are now buried
in the San Luis Cemetery.
E.D. Bray and Pauline Bray Martin
Egbert Delaney “E.D” Bray was a prominent Central Coast architect and builder. He arrived in
Cambria with his family from Missouri in 1877, started business in Santa Maria, and relocated
the business to San Luis Obispo in 1909. The applicant’s historical narrative describes the
distinctive nature of E.D. Bray’s buildings, which include, among many listed historic resources,
the Crossett House and Righetti Apartments, both Master List Historic Resources. He lived in the
house at 535 Higuera since 1916, leaving it in 1935 to live with his daughter Leola on Peach
Street until his death in 1946.
Pauline Bray, E.D. Bray’s daughter was the first woman to work in a bank in San Luis Obispo,
hired by the Commercial Bank in 1917. She also sang, played piano, performed radio theater and
comedy, and entertained in prominent homes throughout the City. In 1935, after her father
moved to Peach Street, she moved into the house at 535 Higuera with her husband, Gene Martin,
and her daughter, Jean Martin, who continues to occupy the house to this day, carrying on the
memories of its builder and former occupants.
16
Packet Pg. 439
Evaluation of Eligibility for Listing
Inclusion in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources is limited to the most unique and
important historic properties and resources in terms of age, architectural or historical
significance, rarity, or association with important persons or evens in the City’s past. To be
eligible for such listing, an historic resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at
least 50 years old, and meet one or more of the eligibility criteria described in § 14.01.070 of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance (see Attachment D).
Architectural Criteria
The house satisfies criteria under § 14.01.070 A (1) (b) related to architectural style. The simple
rectangular plan, unadorned wood frame construction, simple window pattern and detail, and
gabled roof of the house exhibits a vernacular architectural style representative of the period of
San Luis Obispo’s establishment as a City in the last decades of the 19th Century. The architect
of the building is unknown, as is common with such early vernacular structures, but the house is
one of the few remaining examples of residential development from this early period of the
City’s history.
Historic Criteria
The house is closely associated with the lives of several persons important to local history, as
summarized in this report and detailed in the applicant’s historical narrative, satisfying criteria
under § 14.01.070 (B) (1) and (B) (3) related to historical persons and context. Robert Pollard
was the builder of the house, and lived in it for the remainder of his life, about 35 years. He was
particularly significant to the community as a public servant, having conducted a multitude of
important functions in San Luis Obispo County and City government during its earliest days, and
through his involvement in the development of the local Episcopal Church, and in the Odd
Fellows Lodge and San Luis Obispo Society of Pioneers. Its subsequent owner, E.D. Bray,
designed many signature buildings that continue to reflect the patterns of early 20th Century
residential development in the City, and occupied the house for almost 20 years.
These accomplishments are echoed by the participation of Mary Frances Pollard in the
establishment of a local labor organization and by Pauline Bray Martin’s pioneering entry into
the financial sector. Mary Frances Pollard lived in the house with her father until his death in
1911. After the death of E.D. Bra y, Pauline Bray Martin continued to own and occupy the house
with her husband, Gene Martin, and their children. Her daughter, Jean Martin, owns and
continues to occupy the house to this day.
Integrity
The house also satisfies criteria under § 14.01.070 (C), related to historical integrity: as it sits on
the site on which it was built in the late 19th Century and occupies its original foundation. Minor
additions have been made to the structure, but its residential character and vernacular style have
been preserved by retention of the basic elements of its simple design: the unadorned wood
16
Packet Pg. 440
frame construction, shiplap siding, gable roof forms, and simple window pattern and detail.
Smaller structures have been added to the property, but the residential setting and the feeling and
association with early 19th Century residential development in the City have been retained, as
the structures are small and located in the rear of the lot, inconspicuous to the viewer.
Conclusion
According to the information in the applicant’s narrative documenting the historical significance
and architectural character of the house, the property is eligible for designation as a Master List
Historic Resource because of the rarity of the late 19th Century residential vernacular style o f the
house, (§ 14.01.070 (A) (1) (b) – Architectural Criteria: Style), its association with the lives of
historically important people and major patterns of local history (§ 14.01.070 (B) – Historic
Criteria), and the authenticity of its physical identity (§ 14.01.070 (C) - Integrity).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). It is limited to preservation of historical resources, as described in § 15331 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
Listing of the property as a Master List Historic Resource will have no fiscal impacts.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not add the property to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, based on finding
that the property does not satisfy the criteria for designation as a listed Historic Resource.
2. Continue the item for additional information or discussion
Attachments:
16.a a - Draft Resolution
16.b b - Vicinity Map
16.c c - Applicant Narrative
16.d d - Historic Criteria (Historic Preservation Ordinance)
16
Packet Pg. 441
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THE PROPERTY AT 535 HIGUERA
STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS “THE
ROBERT POLLARD HOUSE” (HIST-2793-2016)
WHEREAS, applicant Jean Martin filed an application on February 23, 2016, for review
of the inclusion of the property at 535 Higuera Street (“the Property”) on the City’s Master List
of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on April 25, 2016, and recommended that the City Council add the Property to the
Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
on June 14, 2016, for the purpose of considering the request to add the Property to the Master
List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and
interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it satisfies more
than one of the evaluation criteria for historic resource listing described in the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, exhibits a high level of historic integrity, and, being depicted on
a Sanborn Map prepared in 1903, is more than 50 years old.
2. The house satisfies evaluation criteria for historic resources listing related to architectural
style (§14.01.070 A). It is a rare remaining example of an owner-built residence
exhibiting a vernacular style representative of the period of San Luis Obispo’s
establishment as a City in the last decades of the 19th Century.
3. The house satisfies evaluation criteria for historic resources listing related to histor ical
persons and with predominant patterns the City’s history (§14.01.070 B(1) and B(3)). It is
closely associated with Robert Pollard, who held many important public posts and made
important contributions to local institutions during the City’s early hist ory, and E.D.
Bray, a noted local architect with several works included in the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources. It is also associated with Mary Frances Pollard, who participated in
16.a
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment16.a: a - Draft Resolution (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
the establishment of a local labor organization, and with Pauline Bray Martin, the first
woman to work in the local banking sector.
4. The house exhibits a high level of historic integrity and satisfies evaluation criteria for
historic resources listing related to historic integrity (§14.01.070 C). The structure
occupies its original site and the extent of its original foundation. The residential
character and vernacular style of the house have been preserved, despite subsequent
additions, by retention of the basic elements of its simple design: the unadorned wood
frame construction, shiplap siding, gable roof forms, and simple window pattern and
detail. The residential setting and the feeling and association with early 19th Century
residential development in the City have been retained with the location of additional
structures to the property, as the added structures are small and located in the rear of the
lot, inconspicuous to the viewer.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The project is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is limited to the
designation of a historical resource, an action taken to preserve a historical resource, as described
in §15331 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby
determine that the property located at 535 Higuera Street does qualify for listing as a Historic
Resources and hereby approves the addition of the property to the Master List of Historic
Resources as "The Robert Pollard House.”
Upon motion of Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member ________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of June, 2016.
___________________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
16.a
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment16.a: a - Draft Resolution (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
____________________________________
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
16.a
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment16.a: a - Draft Resolution (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
C-R
C-R
C-D
C-D
C-RHIGUERA
VIC INITY MAP HIST-2793-2016535 Higu era St ¯
16.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment16.b: b - Vicinity Map (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
1
The
Robert
Pollard
House,
535
Higuera
Street
Application
for
Master
List
Status
Owner
and
Applicant:
Jean
A.
Martin
1.
Introduction
2.
Timeline
3.
The
Genealogy
of
535
Higuera
Street
4.
Early
Images
of
the
Norcross,
Pollard,
and
Jack
Houses
5.
The
Evolution
of
the
House
6.
Occupants
The
Builder:
Robert
Pollard
Union
Founder
Franky
Pollard
and
Businesswoman
Jo
Pollard
Architect-‐Builder
E.
D.
Bray
Banker
Pauline
Bray
Martin
Introduction
The
Robert
Pollard
House,
which
dates
from
1876,
is
one
of
a
cluster
of
three
of
San
Luis
Obispo’s
oldest
surviving
residential
wooden
structures
in
the
city’s
West
End
district.
Figure
1:
Pollard
House
façade,
2015
The
other
two,
the
Norcross
House,
dating
from
1873
or
1874
(San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune,
25
April
1874),
and
the
Jack
House,
from
1878
(San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune,
27
July
1878),
are
both
in
the
Master
List
and
the
latter,
with
its
gardens,
in
the
National
Register
of
Historic
Places.
All
three
were
built
by
significant
San
Luis
Obispo
pioneers;
occupy
their
original
locations;
and
are,
in
their
street
appearance,
little
changed
from
the
time
of
their
construction.
A
passerby
of
1876
would
instantly
recognize
the
Pollard
House
today,
with
its
roof
sloping
toward
the
street,
a
separate
front
porch
roof
running
the
width
of
the
façade,
and
twinned
front
windows.
A
visitor
of
1876
would
find
the
same
doors,
door
hardware,
window
glass,
and
interior
arrangements
in
the
front
section
of
the
house.
16.c
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
2
The
Pollard
House
appears
in
the
iconic
1877
engraving
Bird’s-‐Eye
View
of
San
Luis
Obispo.
Its
absence
from
the
earliest
photographic
panoramas
of
the
city,
by
Thomas
Houseworth
and
Carleton
Watkins,
helps
us
date
both
of
those
works
to
1873–76.
In
contrast
to
the
Italianate
Jack
House
and
carpenter
Gothic
Norcross
House,
both
two
stories,
the
Pollard
is
a
single
story
in
plain
ranch
house
style.
It
rivals
the
Jack
House,
however,
for
primary
and
secondary
documentation.
Only
two
families
have
owned
the
Pollard
House,
and
the
second
remained
in
close
communication
with
the
first.
Not
only
did
County
Coroner
and
City
Clerk
Robert
Pollard
build
and,
for
the
remaining
thirty-‐five
years
of
his
life,
occupy
the
house,
but
it
was
the
birthplace
and
residence
of
compositor
and
early
union
local
founder
Mary
Frances
“Franky”
Pollard
and
independent
businesswoman
Josephine
“Jo”
Pollard;
the
prominent
Central
Coast
architect-‐
builder
E.
D.
Bray
during
his
most
productive
San
Luis
Obispo
period;
and
Pauline
Bray
Martin
while
she
worked
as
the
first
woman
banker
in
San
Luis
Obispo.
In
addition,
the
Pollard
House
and
property
are
a
physical
reminder
of
the
social
and
business
network
of
gentiles
and
Jews
in
late-‐nineteenth-‐century
San
Luis,
maintained
to
a
large
extent
through
the
Independent
Order
of
Odd
Fellows.
16.c
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
3
Timeline
1832
Robert
Pollard
born
in
Richmond,
Virginia
August
16
1850–52
Merchant
Samuel
Adams
Pollard,
who
came
West
for
the
Mexican-‐American
War,
serves
as
postmaster,
county
recorder,
clerk,
deputy
treasurer,
district
attorney,
and
first
chair
of
the
board
of
supervisors
in
San
Luis
Obispo
1852
Robert
Pollard
moves
to
the
county
at
his
brother
Samuel’s
urging;
sets
up
in
business
in
Cambria
1861–65
Robert
Pollard
returns
to
Virginia
to
fight
in
the
Civil
War
1869
Tomas
Higuera
grants
deed
for
lots
on
Higuera
Street
to
John
Allan
July
17
1873
Robert
Pollard
elected
secretary
of
St.
Stephen’s
Episcopal
Church
in
San
Luis
Obispo
and
appointed
to
committee
to
solicit
building
funds
1874
Robert
Pollard
marries
Jane
Chesney
1875
John
Allan
grants
deed
for
lot
on
Higuera
to
Max
Pepperman
September
15
1875
Robert
Pollard
installed
as
Noble
Grand
of
IOOF
Chorro
Lodge
(SLO)
1876
Mary
Frances
Pollard
born
in
April;
Max
Pepperman
grants
deed
for
Higuera
Street
lot
to
Robert
Pollard
May
1
1877
Robert
Pollard
elected
county
coroner
1879
Robert
Pollard
elected
secretary
of
San
Luis
Obispo
Society
of
Pioneers;
appointed
city
clerk
of
San
Luis
Obispo
March
3,
serving
till
March
21,
1881
1894
Mary
Frances
Pollard
hired
by
San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune.
Her
first
paycheck
pays
for
a
dining
room
extension
to
the
house
1898
Pauline
Bray
born
1902
Mary
Frances
Pollard
co-‐founds
International
Typographical
Union
Chapel
576
1909
E.
D.
Bray
moves
his
design
and
construction
business
from
Santa
Maria
to
the
City
of
San
Luis
Obispo
1911–30
E.
D.
Bray
designs
and
constructs
commercial
and
residential
buildings
in
San
Luis
Obispo,
including
nine
in
the
Master
and
Contributing
Lists
1911
Death
of
Robert
Pollard
1912
Pollard
family
moves
to
Los
Angeles
1912–13
The
Joseph
Green
family
of
Green
Brothers
rents
the
Pollard
House
till
E.
D.
Bray
builds
them
a
house
1913–16
The
Euer
family
rents
the
Pollard
House
1916
E.
D.
Bray
purchases
the
Pollard
House
1917
Pauline
Bray
graduates
from
high
school,
works
briefly
for
District
Attorney
Charles
A.
Palmer,
and
at
his
recommendation
is
hired
by
Commercial
Bank
as
first
woman
in
banking
in
San
Luis
Obispo
1918
Pauline
Bray
becomes
the
legal
owner
of
the
Robert
Pollard
House
1927
Pauline
Bray
marries
Gene
Martin
1933
Pauline
Bray
Martin
retires
from
banking
1934
Jean
A.
Martin
born
1935
E.
D.
Bray
leaves
the
Pollard
House
and
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
Gene
Martin,
and
Jean
Martin
move
into
it
1956
Jean
Martin
admitted
to
first
class
of
women
at
Cal
Poly
since
1930
1972
Death
of
Gene
Martin
1988
Death
of
Pauline
Bray
Martin
16.c
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
4
The
Genealogy
of
535
Higuera
Street
The
land
that
would
eventually
hold
the
Norcross,
Pollard,
and
Jack
Houses
was
known
as
the
Fields
of
Carrasco
and
acquired
by
Tomas
Higuera,
descendant
of
a
De
Anza
Expedition
family
who
came
to
San
Luis
in
1855
(Betsy
Bertrando,
“Information,
as
requested,
for
the
house
located
at
546
Higuera
Street,”
no
date:
1).
The
1870
Harris
and
Ward
map
of
San
Luis
shows
a
large
section
on
the
north
of
Higuera
Street
sold
off
to
Calvin
Mills
(via
David
Mallagh),
but
Tomas
Higuera
retains
the
south
side
of
the
street
almost
to
Pacific,
with
M.
Henderson
and
one
Haley
owning
the
Pacific
Street
frontages.
Marsh
Street
has
yet
to
continue
beyond
Nipomo.
The
1874
Harris
map
of
San
Luis
shows
Norcross
in
possession
of
his
now
smaller
lot,
Higuera
owning
the
central
part
of
the
block
where
Marsh
would
eventually
run,
and
Higuera,
J.
Allan,
A.
Godoy,
H.
M.
Warden,
and
E.
M.
Day
owning
the
Higuera
Street
frontages,
with
Allan
owning
three
lots,
on
one
of
which
the
Pollard
House
was
to
be
built.
Max
Pepperman
bought
the
lot
from
John
Allan
15
September
1875.
The
current
owner
of
the
Pollard
House,
Jean
Martin,
has
the
deed
transferring
ownership
of
the
50’-‐wide,
300’-‐
deep
lot
from
Max
Pepperman
to
Robert
Pollard
for
$450,
signed
1
May
1876
and
recorded
8
May
at
twenty-‐five
minutes
past
10
a.m.
by
County
Clerk
and
Recorder
Nathan
King.
Pollard’s
daughter
Franky
attested
to
its
being
in
the
hand
of
her
father,
who
was
deputy
county
clerk
at
the
time
(Frances
Pollard,
letter
to
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
17
July
1957).
Pepperman,
along
with
the
Sinsheimers
and
Goldtrees,
was
one
of
San
Luis
Obispo’s
thriving
community
of
Jewish
merchants
and
bankers
in
the
second
half
of
the
nineteenth
century,
being
the
first
businessman
on
record
in
the
city
to
merchandise
such
holidays
as
Valentine’s
Day
and
Christmas
with
San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune
advertisements.
From
1872
to
1877
he
bought
six
lots
in
the
city
from
various
owners.
Figure
2:
Deed,
Max
Pepperman
to
Robert
Pollard,
1876.
Courtesy
of
Jean
Martin.
In
1878
Pollard
and
Pepperman
were
both
elected
trustees
of
the
Chorro
Lodge
of
the
Independent
Order
of
Odd
Fellows,
or
IOOF,
a
fraternal
organization
that
welcomed
both
Christians
and
Jews.
Figure
3:
Pepperman’s
Valentine
advertisement,
San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune,
5
February
1870.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Pollard
bought
a
further
20-‐foot
frontage
on
the
west
of
his
lot
running
from
Higuera
to
Marsh
Street
from
Isaac
Goldtree
on
27
January
1882
for
$100.
The
lot
extended
to
Marsh
16.c
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
5
Street,
and
Pollard
farmed
it.
Franky
Pollard
told
the
house’s
second
owner,
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
that
she
and
her
sister
Josephine
had
a
burial
for
one
of
their
dolls
on
the
property,
which
bordered
the
Catholic
Cemetery;
their
father
continued
to
plow
around
the
site,
thinking
it
was
a
real
grave;
and
they
never
told
him
for
fear
of
a
spanking
(Pauline
Bray
Martin,
letter
to
Louisiana
Clayton
Dart,
26
June
1969:
2).
On
February
24
,
1879
the
San
Luis
Obispo
city
council
resolved
that
R.
E.
Jack
and
Robert
Pollard
be
granted
“the
privilege
to
tap
the
sewer
on
Marsh
Street,
for
the
purpose
of
irrigation,”
in
Jack’s
case
presumably
for
his
wife
Nellie
Hollister
Jack’s
famous
garden
(the
1880
census
lists
a
gardener
as
their
only
live-‐in
servant)
and
in
Pollard’s
case
presumably
for
his
crops.
According
to
Pauline
Bray
Martin’s
account
from
Franky
Pollard,
the
Marsh-‐facing
section
was
sold
in
1902
to
Mrs.
A.
M.
Lilley,
shown
in
the
May
1903
Sanborn
map
of
San
Luis
Obispo.
Figure
4:
535
Higuera
Street,
San
Luis
Obispo
Sanborn
map,
May
1903 .
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Robert
Pollard
died
in
1911,
and
in
1912
his
family
left
San
Luis
Obispo
for
Los
Angeles,
renting
the
house
to
the
Jewish
merchant
Joseph
Green
(who
had
been
one
of
Pollard’s
pallbearers),
his
wife
Nell,
and
their
children
Kenneth
(“Pinky”)
and
Alva
(Pauline
Bray
Martin,
op.
cit.:1).
Joseph
and
Kenneth
were
both
principles
in
Green
Brothers
men’s
clothing
store,
a
longtime
San
Luis
Obispo
establishment
on
Monterey
and
later
Higuera
Streets.
They
moved
in
1913
when
E.
D.
Bray
completed
their
house
at
1042
Palm
Street
(since
demolished)
(Dan
Krieger,
“First-‐Rate
Clothiers
Outfit
County’s
Men,”
Times
Past,
Tribune,
11
Dec.
2010;
Jean
Martin,
“E.
D.
Bray:
Architect
and
Builder
of
the
Central
Coast,”
La
Vista
2015:
92.).
The
family
of
a
railroad
man
named
Euer
lived
at
535
Higuera
till
1916,
when
Bray
purchased
the
house
and
moved
there
with
his
wife,
Bertie
Belle
Barnett,
and
children.
His
daughter
Pauline
Bray
soon
graduated
from
high
school,
went
to
work,
and
took
over
payments,
and
in
1918
ownership
was
transferred
to
her
name.
Her
mother
died
in
1934,
and
from
1935
until
his
death
in
1946,
E.
D.
Bray
lived
with
his
daughter
Leola
at
1027
Peach
Street,
while
the
Pollard
House
was
occupied
by
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
her
husband
Eugene
Martin,
and
their
one-‐year-‐old
daughter
Jean
Martin,
who
in
2016
continues
to
make
it
her
home.
Early
Images
of
the
Norcross,
Pollard,
and
Jack
Houses
The
two
earliest
known
panoramic
photographs
of
San
Luis
Obispo,
the
Carleton
Watkins
view
from
early
1876
(Metropolitan
Museum
of
Art
1986.1189.79)
and
the
Thomas
Houseworth
view
from
slightly
before—both
taken
from
the
rise
near
the
western
end
of
16.c
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
6
Higuera—show
the
Norcross
House
on
the
north
side
of
Higuera
and
nothing
to
the
west
of
it
on
the
other
side
of
the
street,
where
the
Allan
lots
were
in
1874
and
the
Pollard
House
would
later
be
built.
In
the
1877
Bird’s-‐Eye
View
of
San
Luis
Obispo
engraved
by
E.
S.
Glover
and
published
by
A.
L.
Bancroft
and
Company,
San
Francisco,
the
Robert
Pollard
House
appears
in
its
current
location
and
with
its
current
configuration
and
façade:
the
gables
perpendicular
to
the
street
and
the
roof
slope
descending
to
a
columned
porch.
Figure
5:
E.
S.
Glover,
Bird’s-‐Eye
View
of
San
Luis
Obispo,
1877
(detail).
The
old
Jack
House
is
on
the
left,
the
Norcross
House
in
the
center,
and
the
Pollard
House,
with
an
outbuilding
behind,
on
the
right.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
The
current
Jack
House
has
yet
to
be
built,
although
the
earlier
one
stands
directly
behind
it
on
Higuera.
In
a
panoramic
photograph
taken
from
Cerro
San
Luis
circa
1885
from
about
the
same
angle
as
the
Bird’s-‐Eye
View,
the
Jack
House
and
the
Robert
Pollard
House
are
both
visible,
with
the
Norcross
House
between
them
behind
trees.
The
one-‐story
Pollard
House,
with
its
roof
sloping
toward
the
street,
covering
a
porch
along
the
full
front
of
the
house,
matches
both
the
appearance
in
the
Bird’s-‐Eye
View
and
its
appearance
today.
Figure
6:
Panoramic
photograph
of
San
Luis
Obispo
from
Cerro
San
Luis,
circa
1885
(detail).
The
Jack
House
is
on
the
left
amid
trees,
the
Norcross
House
obscured
behind
trees
in
the
middle,
and
the
Pollard
House
surrounded
by
a
white
picket
fence
and
shaded
by
two
or
three
tall
trees
on
the
right.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
16.c
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
7
The
Evolution
of
the
House
The
Pollard
House
today
consists
of
a
front
section
whose
roofline
runs
parallel
to
Higuera,
with
a
gable
at
each
end,
and
a
rear
one
whose
roofline
runs
perpendicular
to
Higuera,
with
a
gable
facing
Marsh.
This
arrangement
is
similar
to
the
Norcross
House,
though
there
the
front
section
is
two
stories
and
back
section
was
originally
one
story,
and,
as
attested
by
the
Watkins
and
Houseworth
photographs
circa
1876
and
Glover
Bird’s-‐Eye
View
of
1877,
both
sections
were
built
at
the
same
time.
In
the
Bird’s-‐Eye
View,
only
the
front
section
of
the
Pollard
House
appears.
In
the
1903
Sanborn
map—absent
two
later
east
and
west
pushouts—the
house’s
footprint
is
largely
as
it
is
today,
a
structure,
twice
as
long
as
wide,
its
narrow
end
facing
the
street.
The
rear
section
was
added
in
parts
from
1894,
the
first
with
Franky
Pollard’s
first
Tribune
paycheck
of
twenty
dollars
(Pauline
Bray
Martin,
letter
responding
to
Telegram-‐
Tribune
Centennial
Edition,
7
August
1969).
The
exterior
wood
of
this
extension
is
visible
inside
the
cabinets
of
the
adjoining
kitchen
wall.
Figure
7:
The
Pollard
House
east
front
from
the
rear,
early
1900s,
with
a
bay
window
since
superseded
by
the
east
pushout
and
the
rear
dining
room
extension
built
1894.
The
front
door
is
at
the
east
end
of
the
façade,
under
the
porch;
paired
four-‐light
sash
windows
with
original
panes
and
muntins
are
set
to
right.
The
interior
of
the
façade
is
occupied
by
a
parlor,
with
no
separate
entry.
A
hallway
facing
the
door
runs
from
the
parlor
along
the
original
east
wall
past
a
bedroom
on
the
west
to
a
doorway
in
what
was
the
original
south
wall,
and
into
what
is
now
a
dining
room.
The
parlor,
front
bedroom,
and
hallway
comprise
the
house
seen
in
the
1877
engraving.
Comments
by
Franky
Pollard
suggest
part
of
the
hallway
was
a
kitchen.
In
the
rear
addition
to
the
house,
behind
the
front
bedroom,
is
an
additional
Figure
8:
1894
exterior
wall
inside
kitchen
cabinet.
bedroom
that
was
once
a
storeroom
with
an
external
entrance,
and
east
of
that
the
dining
room.
A
bathroom
was
added
behind
the
second
bedroom
and
new
kitchen
behind
the
dining
room
shortly
before
the
1903
Sanborn
map.
16.c
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
8
The
original
house
is
20’
wide
and
24’
deep,
for
480
square
feet.
The
storeroom/bedroom
and
dining
room
addition
added
10
feet
to
the
rear
and
the
bathroom
and
kitchen
addition
a
further
10
feet,
for
400
square
feet,
and
the
east
pushout
247
square
feet.
The
original
house
has
10’4”
ceilings,
the
dining
room
9’10”
and
the
storeroom/bedroom
9’7”
ceilings
(suggesting
they
might
have
been
added
separately).
The
History
Center’s
next
Sanborn
map
from
April
1926
shows
a
pushout
on
the
east
wall;
this
includes
a
small
bedroom
in
front,
and
behind
it
extends
the
dining
room
east.
It
was
built
before
the
tenure
of
the
Brays,
probably
while
the
Pollards
still
lived
there.
For
his
daughter
Pauline,
E.
D.
Bray
built
a
china
cabinet
separating
these
two
rooms
circa
1918;
he
also
added
wainscot
paneling
to
the
dining
room
and
pilastered
wainscot
paneling
to
the
parlor,
as
well
as
extending
the
front
porch
columns
and
rafters
into
a
pergola,
the
only
change
to
the
façade
in
140
years.
A
closet
pushout
on
the
west
wall
between
the
bedrooms
was
also
added
during
the
Bray
period,
when
Pauline
Bray
was
earning
money
as
a
bank
employee.
Figure
9:
West
front,
2015,
the
parlor
window
in
front,
the
original
bedroom’s
twin
windows,
behind,
with
a
twentieth -‐century
closet
pushout
shared
by
the
front
and
rear
bedroom
(originally
a
storeroom)
joining
the
original
house
with
the
rear
extension.
16.c
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
9
Figure
10:
Parlor,
looking
west,
with
E.
D.
Bray’s
pilastered
paneling.
Owner
Jean
Martin
stands
between
portraits
of
her
mother,
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
the
owner
from
1918,
and
father
Eugene
Martin.
Figure
11:
Hall,
in
a
straight
line
to
the
original
rear
wall
and
probable
rear
entrance,
now
the
door
to
the
dining
room,
added
in
1894.
Figure
12:
Dining
room,
with
E.
D.
Bray’s
wainscot
paneling
and
built-‐in
china
cabinet.
The
house
retains
many
original
windows
and
other
early
features,
such
as
button
light
switches.
Much
original
front
door
hardware
remains;
such
as
was
replaced
has
been
accessioned
into
the
collection
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
In
1955–
16.c
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
10
56,
the
Martin
family
repapered
the
house
and
removed
eight
layers
of
paper
from
the
parlor
ceiling,
most
in
shades
of
red,
and
including
a
newspaper
reporting
on
President
Chester
Alan
Arthur’s
visit
to
San
Francisco
in
the
early
1880s.
Outlets
for
gas
lamps
were
discovered
at
that
time.
Outbuildings
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
Pollard
House
appear
on
the
1903
Sanborn
map
and
are
gone
by
1926,
replaced
by
a
garage
at
the
southeast
corner.
A
later
pasteover
on
the
map,
possibly
from
1930,
includes
a
cottage
near
the
southwest
corner
of
the
house,
which
remains
today.
Pauline
Bray
Martin
writes,
“When
I
first
moved
here
in
1916,
the
street
out
front
was
just
a
dirt
road,
and
cattle
were
driven
by.
There
were
no
sidewalks,
and
there
was
a
little
picket
fence
across
the
front
of
the
lot.
In
1918,
1919,
or
1920,
I
do
not
know
which,
the
original
101
Highway
was
built
up
the
middle
of
Higuera
Street,
and
we
the
property
owners
had
to
pave
from
that
little
strip
to
our
sidewalk,
which
we
built”
(Pauline
Bray
Martin,
“Ye
Old
House
at
535
Higuera
Street,”
no
date).
The
Builder:
Robert
Pollard
Robert
Pollard
was
born
in
Richmond,
Virginia
on
16
August
1832
and
moved
with
his
parents
to
New
Orleans,
where
he
was
educated
(“The
Passing
of
Robert
Pollard,”
San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune,
27
Jan.
1911:
4).
In
1852,
at
the
urging
of
his
elder
brother
Samuel,
he
came
to
California
via
Nicaragua.
Figures
13,
14,
and
15:
Robert
Pollard
as
a
young
man,
after
the
Civil
War,
and
as
an
old
man.
Courtesy
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Samuel
Pollard,
who
had
taken
part
in
a
four-‐thousand-‐mile
march
from
Missouri
to
Monterrey
for
the
Mexican-‐American
War
(Daily
Republic,
22
March
1888),
was
a
16.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
11
ubiquitous
presence
in
local
government
in
the
early
American
years
of
San
Luis
Obispo,
serving
in
the
1850s
and
’60s
as
the
first
chair
of
the
county
board
of
supervisors,
county
clerk
and
recorder
and
treasurer,
school
superintendent,
justice
of
the
peace,
district
attorney,
and
(as
owner
of
the
only
store
in
the
City
of
San
Luis
Obispo)
postmaster.
He
married,
firstly,
Captain
William
Dana’s
daught er
Josepha
Dana
de
Tefft
and,
secondly,
Maria
Antonia
Robbins,
widow
of
Leandro
Roman
Branch,
thus
allying
himself
with
three
of
the
major
pioneer
families
(“Samuel
Pollard,”
Cambria
History
Exchange,
http://cambriahistory.org/?p=252
[accessed
2
Feb.
2016]).
Figure
16:
Samuel
Pollard.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Samuel
Pollard
in
his
late
years
became
a
source
for
local
history
of
the
early
American
period,
writing
dramatic
newspaper
accounts
of
the
events
he
had
witnessed,
including
the
first
American
trial,
where,
since
there
was
“only
one
other
man
in
town
besides
the
judge
and
myself
who
could
read
English[,
…
c]onsequently,
the
first
pleading
before
a
court
of
law
in
this
county
was
done
by
the
aforementioned
county
recorder–
merchant–postmaster–deputy
treasurer–district
attorney.
I
had
never
opened
a
law
book
in
my
life”
(Joseph
Carotenuti,
“Samuel
Adams
Pollard,”
Journal
Plus,
Aug.
2011:
32).
After
Robert
Pollard
arrival
in
the
county ,
he
spent
some
years
at
Cambria
in
business.
During
the
Civil
War,
he
went
back
to
the
South
via
Panama
and
served
in
the
Washington
Artillery.
After
the
war
he
returned
to
San
Luis
Obispo
and
served
as
deputy
county
clerk
under
Charles
W.
Dana
and
Nathan
King,
assistant
postmaster
with
Jacob
Simmler,
then
as
deputy
assessor
and
deputy
recorder
(“The
Passing
of
Robert
Pollard”;
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
letter
to
Louisiana
Clayton
Dart:
1).
He
was
also
the
city
clerk
of
San
Luis
Obispo
1879–81
under
Mayor
W.
A.
Henderson.
Myron
Angel
writes
of
Pollard’s
election
as
county
coroner
in
1877,
the
year
after
he
built
the
house
on
Higuera,
beating
the
Republican
candidate
1,027
to
931.
Angel
also
notes
his
election
as
secretary
of
St.
Stephen’s
Episcopal
Church
in
1873
(land
developer
Chauncey
Phillips
was
treasurer)
and
his
presence
on
the
committee
of
three
(with
Judge
McD.
R.
Venable
and
M.
Henderson)
to
solicit
funds
to
build
the
church.
16.c
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
12
Figure
17:
Robert
Pollard
(right)
with
“Uncle
Henry
Loobliner”
(as
described
by
Frances
Pollard
on
the
back
of
the
photo),
Jewish
merchant
who
became
IOOF
noble
grand
two
years
after
Pollard’s
term
finished,
in
front
of
Loobliner’s
store
in
San
Luis
Obispo,
circa
1890.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Angel
includes
Robert
Pollard’s
installation
as
Noble
Grand,
the
highest
office
of
the
IOOF’s
Chorro
Lodge,
in
1875
and
his
election
as
founding
secretary
of
San
Luis
Obispo’s
Society
of
Pioneers
in
1879
(Myron
Angel,
History
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County
[Oakland:
Thompson
and
West,
1882]:
160,
282,
197,
209).
Pollard
was
also
involved
in
the
crude
oil
and
asphalt
business
in
Edna
Valley
(Pauline
Bray
Martin,
letter
to
Louisiana
Clayton
Dart:
2).
There
was
previous
evidence
of
an
asphalt
drive
leading
to
a
carriage
house
on
the
property.
He
also
appears,
from
a
photograph
inscription
in
the
History
Center,
to
have
had
a
ranch
in
the
area
of
Arroyo
Grande.
A
brand
for
Robert
Pollard
is
registered
in
1877.
In
1874
Pollard
married
Jane
Chesney
of
Somerset,
Kentucky,
then
thirty-‐four,
in
Paso
Robles.
16.c
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
13
Figure
18:
Robert
Pollard’s
brand.
Courtesy
of
Jean
Martin.
Figure
19:
Jane
Chesney
Pollard
about
the
time
of
her
marriage.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Figure
20:
Frances
Pollard
on
ground
on
left,
Robert
(standing)
and
Jane
Pollard
(seated
in
chair)
in
the
center,
behind
535
Higuera
(at
left)
looking
toward
Cerro
San
Luis.
Figure
21:
Siblings
Harry
(seated
left)
and
Frances
and
Josephine
(standing),
circa
1920s.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
They
had
three
children:
Harry,
Frances
(Franky),
and
Josephine
(Jo).
Franky
was
born
the
month
before
Robert
Pollard
purchased
the
property
on
Higuera.
After
thirty-‐five
years
of
residence
in
the
house,
Robert
Pollard
died
and
received
his
obsequies
there,
and
was
16.c
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
14
buried
in
the
IOOF
cemetery,
his
pallbearers
including
such
notables
as
George
McCabe
and
August
Vollmer,
as
well
as
Joseph
Green,
who
would
be
the
next
occupant
of
his
house
(“A
Pioneer’s
Funeral,”
Tribune,
[?]
Jan.
1911).
Jane
Chesney
Pollard’s
remains
were
returned
to
San
Luis
Obispo
for
burial
in
1920,
when
her
pallbearers
included
George
McCabe
and
Morris
Green,
another
principle
in
Green
Brothers.
Robert
Pollard
and
his
wife
and
three
children
are
all
buried
in
the
IOOF
cemetery,
also
known
as
San
Luis
Cemetery.
Figures
22
and
23:
Pollard
family
markers,
San
Luis
Cemetery
Franky
and
Jo
Pollard
Mary
Frances
Pollard
was
born
in
April
1876,
her
sister
Josephine
in
January
1878.
According
to
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
Franky
Pollard
worked
as
a
“printer”
for
the
San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune
and
claimed
to
have
earned
her
first
paycheck
from
the
newspaper
in
1894
(Pauline
Bray
Martin,
letter
responding
to
Telegram-‐Tribune
Centennial
Edition,
7
August
1969).
In
the
1900
census
of
the
Pollard
House,
however,
both
she
and
her
sister
are
listed
as
milliners,
along
with
a
twenty -‐eight-‐year-‐old
lodger
in
the
house,
Anne
Fairbanks.
Perhaps
this
was
because
of
a
break
in
Franky’s
Tribune
work.
The
San
Luis
Obispo
City
and
County
Directory
of
1901
(J.
M.
Deeds)
lists
Josephine
as
a
milliner
and
her
sister
as
a
compositor,
and
on
27
December
1902
Mary
F.
Pollard
was
the
only
woman
with
six
men
who
was
a
signer
of
the
charter
of
one
of
San
Luis
Obispo’s
earliest
union
locals,
Chapel
576
of
the
International
Typographical
Union.
The
charter
still
hung
in
the
newpaper’s
composing
room
in
1969
(San
Luis
Obispo
County
Telegram-‐Tribune,
7
August
1969).
Pollard
worked
for
the
Tribune
under
Benjamin
Brooks,
who,
from
1886
to
1922,
was
the
longest
serving
editor
and
owner
of
the
newspaper
(David
Middlecamp,
“The
Storied
Life
of
a
Tribune
Owner,”
Photos
from
the
Vault,
Tribune,
13
May
2012).
16.c
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
15
Figures
24
and
25:
Mary
Frances
Pollard
circa
1900
and
Jo
Pollard
circa
1920s.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Leaving
San
Luis
for
Los
Angeles
with
her
mother
and
sister
in
1912,
Franky
worked
for
the
Germaine
Seed
Company
for
twenty
years
and
moved
to
Santa
Barbara
in
1961,
dying
in
1967
at
the
age
of
ninety.
She
contributed
to
the
Telegram-‐Tribune’s
Centurama
feature,
celebrating
the
hundredth
anniversary
of
San
Luis
Obispo
cityhood,
in
May
of
1956
(“Frances
Pollard
Reminisces
over
Old
Times,”
Telegram-‐Tribune,
Apr.–May
1956).
Franky’s
younger
sister
Jo
owned
a
millinery
store
in
the
Charles
Johnson
Building
on
Chorro
Street
between
Monterey
and
Higuera,
“the
handsome
display
in
the
windows
inevitably
arresting
the
attention
of
every
passerby[,
…]
the
fabrics
choice
and
the
fashions
of
the
very
latest,”
according
to
an
article
in
the
Tribune
(“The
New
Millinery
Store,”
San
Luis
Obispo
Tribune,
no
date).
Both
sisters
continued
to
visit
San
Luis
Obispo
and
the
Pollard
House
during
summers
while
the
Martins
were
in
residence.
“I
know
you
love
the
old
home
as
I
do,”
Frances
Pollard
wrote
to
Pauline
Bray
Martin
in
1957
(Mary
Frances
Pollard,
letter
to
Pauline
Bray
Martin,
17
July
1957).
Architect-‐Builder
E.
D.
Bray
“Egbert
Delaney
Bray
was
among
the
prominent
self-‐made
architects,
engineers,
and
contractors
who
made
the
towns
of
the
Central
Coast
in
the
early
twentieth
century”
(Jean
Martin:
83–94).
Bray
was
born
in
Crawford
County,
Missouri
in
1868.
His
family
was
associated
with
the
Hearsts
and
moved
to
Cambria
when
he
was
nine.
They
also
lived
in
Arroyo
Grande.
E.
D.
Bray’s
father
was
a
carpenter,
and
E.
D.
trained
with
relations
who
were
carpenters
in
the
Los
Angeles
area,
including
for
the
movie
studios
(ibid.).
After
his
1893
marriage
he
moved
first
to
San
Luis,
where
Pauline
Bray
was
born
in
1898,
and
then
Santa
Maria,
where
he
started
his
business
as
a
builder,
contractor,
engineer,
and
architect.
His
late
Arts
and
Craft–style
buildings
were
noted
for
fine
detail,
and
he
had
numerous
wealthy
families
among
his
clients.
Bray
studied
with
the
San
Jose
16.c
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
16
architects
Frank
Delos
Wolfe
and
Charles
McKenzie,
a
number
of
whose
buildings
are
in
the
National
Register
of
Historic
Places.
McKenzie
designed
the
Master
List
Barneberg
House.
Annie
L.
Morrison
and
John
H.
Haydon’s
1917
History
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County
and
Environs
credits
Bray
with
fifty-‐seven
buildings
in
Santa
Maria,
including
prominent
houses,
four
business
blocks,
the
Christian
Church,
and
Masonic
Temple.
In
1909
he
moved
his
business
to
San
Luis
Obispo,
where
he
specialized
in
residential
architecture,
including
mansions,
apartment
buildings,
and
modest
bungalows.
Figure
26:
E.
D.
Bray
(in
suit)
and
his
construction
crew
in
front
of
the
Wilkinson
House,
412
Marsh
Street,
1915
(detail).
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Bray’s
buildings
are
instantly
recognizable
for
their
interior
craftsmanship,
exterior
touches
like
cut-‐outs
in
exposed
rafters
under
eaves,
and
their
gracious
proportions.
Prominent
Bray
buildings
in
San
Luis
Obispo
include
the
Crossett
House
and
Righetti
Apartments
(both
in
the
Master
List);
1346
Morro,
the
Robasciotti
Houses
(862
and
872
Toro),
the
Wilkinson
House
(412
Marsh),
and
the
Emery
House
and
Todd
House
(1176
and
1190
Pismo),
all
in
the
Contributing
List;
and
the
Wickenden
House
at
Johnson
and
Higuera
(now
Matt
Kokkonen’s
office)
and
the
Easton
Mills
House
at
Johnson
and
Pacific
(now
the
Dorothy
D.
Rupe
Center
Hospice).
He
did
not,
however,
live
in
one
of
his
own
buildings.
He
purchased
the
Pollard
House,
made
minimal
changes
to
it
(mostly
inside),
and
transferred
ownership
of
it
to
his
daughter
Pauline
Bray
while
continuing
to
live
in
it
till
1935.
Banker
Pauline
Bray
Martin
Pauline
Marguerite
Bray
married
Alford
Eugene
“Gene”
Martin,
the
son
of
Robert
Franklin
and
Henrietta
Newlove
Martin,
for
whom
Bray
built
a
grand
house
at
800
South
Broadway
in
Santa
Maria
that
later
served
as
the
Santa
Maria
Club
and
Landmark
Square.
(The
Newloves
had
discovered
oil
on
their
property
on
Mount
Solomon.)
Pauline,
graduating
from
San
Luis
Obispo
High
School
in
1917,
went
to
work
for
a
lawyer,
then
for
District
Attorney
Charles
A.
Palmer,
and
then
(when
Palmer
decided
not
to
run
again)
for
the
16.c
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
17
Commercial
Bank,
one
of
two
banks
in
the
city.
Palmer,
president
of
the
Board
of
Education,
convinced
Mr.
Kemper,
a
member
of
the
board
and
cashier
of
the
bank,
who
had
decided
to
try
employing
a
woman,
to
hire
Pauline
Bray.
Pauline
Bray
was
the
first
woman
to
work
in
any
bank
in
San
Luis
Obispo.
She
took
care
of
correspondence
and
remittances
from
other
banks,
made
up
the
deposits
for
Atascadero
founder
E.
G.
Lewis,
inspected
and
filed
checks,
managed
the
safe
deposit
vault
and
customers,
and
proved
all
transactions
at
the
end
of
the
day
before
the
other
employees
could
leave.
Her
salary
rose
from
$50
to
$140
per
month,
and
by
the
time
of
her
retirement
in
1933,
there
were
seven
women
working
at
what
had
become
the
Security
First
National
Bank.
Pauline
Bray’s
portrait
hangs
in
San
Luis
Obispo’s
City
Hall
as
a
founding
mother,
representing
a
generation
who
pioneered
work
for
women
in
the
financial
sector.
Bray
also
sang,
played
the
piano,
and
performed
in
radio
theater
on
KVEC.
She
also
sang
in
the
different
choral
societies
and
churches
and
entertained
in
prominent
homes
throughout
the
city,
singing,
playing
the
piano,
and
performing
clean
comedy.
In
1927
Pauline
Bray
married
Eugene
Martin
of
Santa
Maria,
who
became
plant
superintendent
for
Shell
Oil.
Their
daughter
Jean
Martin
was
born
in
1934,
and
in
1935
the
family
moved
to
535
Higuera
Street.
Figure
27:
Pauline
Bray
and
two
nieces
in
front
of
the
Pollard
House
looking
toward
the
Norcross
House,
early
1920s.
Courtesy
of
Jean
Martin.
Figure
28:
Gene
and
Jean
Martin
in
front
of
the
Pollard
House,
the
Henry
House
visible
at
the
left,
1937.
Courtesy
of
the
History
Center
of
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
Eugene
Martin
continued
to
live
in
the
house
till
his
passing
in
1972
and
Pauline
Bray
Martin
till
her
passing
in
1988.
Jean
Martin—member
of
the
first
women’s
class
at
Cal
Poly,
local
teacher
for
thirty-‐nine
years,
and
prominent
local
historian—continues
to
live
in
the
house
and
maintain
its
historic
features.
Application
prepared
by
Jean
Martin
and
James
Papp
16.c
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment16.c: c - Applicant Narrative (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
12
14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource,
the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated
that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the
following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
(1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building
style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
16.d
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment16.d: d - Historic Criteria (Historic Preservation Ordinance) (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
13
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced
development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at
810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,
or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which
a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member,
etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or
nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions
(e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad
officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether
the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis
Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
16.d
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment16.d: d - Historic Criteria (Historic Preservation Ordinance) (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
14
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity
will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s)
for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
16.d
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment16.d: d - Historic Criteria (Historic Preservation Ordinance) (1371 : Master Listing: Robert Pollard House (535 Higuera))
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Interim Finance & IT Director
Prepared By: Steve Schmidt, Information Technology Manager
Miguel Guardado, Network Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 UPGRADE
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a purchase order for the purchase of Microsoft Office 365 Government Plan
subscription licenses from Dell Computer Corporation in an amount not to exceed $140,500
per year for the next three years; and
2. Authorize waiver of formal bids to cooperatively purchase Microsoft Office 365 licensing
using the County of Riverside’s Microsoft Enterprise Agreement #01E73134 as allowed
under 3.24.060 E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Muncipal Code; and
3. Authorize the Finance and Information Technology Director to approve future purchase
orders for years two and three; and
4. Approve a contact in the amount of $45,000 to Planet Technologies for the migration of
City email to the Microsoft Government Cloud using GSA Contract # GS-35F-0360J.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s current email messaging infrastructure (Microsoft Exchange 2010 server and
Microsoft Outlook 2010 client) which are a part of the Microsoft Office 2010 Professional suite
are outdated and need to be upgraded. Significant changes in software maintenance and
upgrades have occurred over the past few years. In the past, the City would upgrade Microsoft
software approximately every five years. At the five-year point, the old software would lack
sufficient functionality and vendor upgrades to support the City’s business needs. Therefore,
every five years, the City would invest significantly in upgrading software versions, and City
staff would go through a fairly steep learning curve in migrating to newer software versions.
Microsoft Office 365 eliminates that learning curve, smooths costs, and prevents the City from
falling behind in technology through a subscription model of software maintenance. Rather than
buying a traditional license upgrade every five years, the City will pay a subscription fee that
ensures the City’s business use of the Office suite will evolve in real time with enhancements to
the suite. Microsoft Office 365 also provides a significant amount of cloud-based storage that
17
Packet Pg. 466
will eliminate much of the current and future data storage concerns of the City.
Microsoft has improved its cloud-based email messaging in the Office 365 version, which has
proven to be a more efficient, reliable, secure, and dynamic solution to government agencies and
businesses. The total first year cost of the Microsoft Office 365 purchase is $140,500. This
purchase is based on a three year contract paid on a yearly basis. In addition, there is a one -time
expense of $45,000 for configuration, installation and migration services. The one-time expense
will be absorbed by the Network Services budget as well as the first year licensing costs.
Microsoft Office productivity software is one of the City’s most critical systems. The current
email messaging infrastructure is becoming inadequate and outdated. Moving to Office 365 and
Microsoft’s Government cloud-based platform will provide increased security, reliability,
collaboration, and mobility. Adopting the Office 365 model will greatly reduce staff hours
currently needed to maintain and support on premise equipment. These hours will allow staff the
time needed to progress on other important projects. Currently there are many Departmental IT
projects that are not being implemented due to insufficient available hours. The City’s email
messaging system is obsolete by industry standards.
Upgrading to Office 365 ProPlus, which includes Access, Excel, SharePoint, Skype, OneNote,
Outlook, PowerPoint, Publisher and Word with Microsoft Exchange Online, the City will realize
several benefits. A major benefit of the project will be the implementation of SharePoint. The
addition of SharePoint will be a significant leap forward in collaboration for the City.
SharePoint was identified by the Department Head team as a “must have” collaboration tool.
Other benefits are:
User friendly platform that works well on many mobile devices
Provides full access to Office application
Each license can be installed on up to 5 computers and mobile devices for seamless work on
documents
Exchange online provides increased total database storage capacity
Exchange Database recovery time will be reduced
Features such as Data Loss Prevention (DLP), eDiscovery, Encryption, and Rights
Management Services (RMS) will provide data security, data integrity and Legal Holds on
emails
Staff requested price quotes from four implementation vendors, and negotiated pricing with each
of the vendors. Planet Systems has been identified as the most competitive vendor for this
upgrade project after a careful review of the price quotes and proposals from several oth er
vendors for the primary reasons outlined below:
Planet Systems offered the most competitive price through the negotiation period.
Planet Systems was given very impressive reviews by customers.
Planet Systems provided a detailed Statement of Work and their Analysis Team proved
extremely knowledgeable and thorough in explaining each phase of the project.
Project Timeline
This project will be implemented in three phases as shown below. All three phases will have a
17
Packet Pg. 467
training component to them. City staff estimate that the entire project will take 90 to 120 days to
complete.
1. Migration of email accounts to the Cloud – Approximately 30 days to complete.
2. Software installation on City computers – Approximately 30 days to complete.
3. Installation and configuration of SharePoint, OneDrive and Skype collaboration tools –
Approximately 60 days to complete.
CONCURRENCES
Network Services staff presented the Office 365 project to the City Department Head Team and
the Information Technology Steering Committee. Both groups are supportive of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City has two Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in the amount of $225K from the 2013 -15
Financial Plan. One of these CIPs was authorized for the replacement and upgrade of the City’s
Microsoft Office productivity software - Outlook, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. The other CIP
was authorized for increasing the City’s local network storage. These funds will be utilized to
fund the Office 365 Implementation and migration, projects which are consistent with the
purpose of the original CIPs but more reflective of current technology opportunities.
The City’s three year Enterprise Agreement with Dell Inc. will begin June 2016 and will end
June 2019. The City is required to renew its license count annuall y and Network Services has set
aside $10,000 as a contingency to cover unexpected changes.
Staff will utilize the Microsoft Office Replacement CIP to fund the cost of the Microsoft
licensing for the first two years. Departments will be expected to submit Significant Operating
Program Changes (SOPC) for budget years 2017-19 to cover their individual department cost
based on user count at $75/user/per year. The remaining balance of the Microsoft licenses will
be funded from the remaining CIP funds and Network Services budget. Staff has “smoothed”
the future CIP funding that will occur in years 2018-19 over future years. It is important to note
that the future CIPs and Department- level SOPCs have not been approved, but need to be for the
funding model to be successful.
The graph below illustrates the funding sources.
O365 Funding 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
CIP**225,000$ 50,000$ -$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$
Carry Forward -$ 39,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Departments -$ -$ 38,625$ 38,625$ 38,625$ 38,625$ 38,625$ 38,625$ 38,625$ 38,625$
IT 51,000$ 101,875$ 78,375$ 78,375$ 78,375$ 93,875$ 93,875$ 93,875$ 93,875$
O365 Cost*185,500$ 140,500$ 140,500$ 154,500$ 154,500$ 154,500$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$
Carry Forward 39,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
*Includes 1st yr Implementation
** Spread Future Replacement CIP Funds Across Multiple Years Starting In Year 2018
17
Packet Pg. 468
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative would be to purchase Microsoft licenses for individual users and keep services on-
site status quo. This option would limit the security, reliability, collaboration, mobility and
would require additional server and storage hardware to maintain services on-site. A major goal
in the current IT Strategic Plan is to move towards cloud-based services whenever possible. This
alternative is not recommended.
Attachments:
17.a a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134
17.b b - Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Quote from Dell
17.c c - Microsoft Volumn Licensing Count for City of SLO
17.d d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement
17.e e - Microsoft Program Signature Form
17.f f - Planet GSA Contract
17.g g - Planet Migration and Configuration Quote
17
Packet Pg. 469
PUARC-1200 RECAPVersion: 1Bid: RFQ #PUARC-1200 - Microsoft Enterprise LicenseEnd Date: Oct. 11, 2011@1:30PMItem NameApplications Added at Signing 2% Added at Signing 1.25% Added at Signing 0.25% Added at Signing 0.00% Added at Signing -1.50% Added at Signing -2.50%Applications True-ups 4% True-ups 1.25% True-ups 0.25% True-ups 0.00% True-ups -0.50% True-ups 0.00%Systems Added at Signing 2% Added at Signing 1.25% Added at Signing0.25% Added at Signing 0.00% Added at Signing -1.50% Added at Signing -2.50%Systems True-ups 4% True-ups 1.25% True-ups 0.25% True-ups 0.00% True-ups -0.50% True-ups 0.00%Servers Added at Signing 2% Added at Signing 1.25% Added at Signing0.25% Added at Signing 0.00% Added at Signing -1.50% Added at Signing -2.50%Servers True-ups 4% True-ups 1.25% True-ups 0.25% True-ups 0.00% True-ups -0.50% True-ups 0.00%New Additional Products (Non-Specific) Added at Signing 2% Added at Signing 1.25% Added at Signing 0.25% Added at Signing 0.00% Added at Signing -1.50% Added at Signing -2.50%New Additional Products (Non-Specific) True-ups 4% True-ups 1.25% True-ups 0.25% True-ups 0.00% True-ups -0.50% True-ups 0.00%Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up % PC Mall Gov, Inc.ExcelFormat : Bid Tabulation By VendorDell Marketing, L.P.EnPointe Technologies Sales Inc Insight Public Sector, Inc.Softchoice CorporationSUMMARY: Recap Cost is provided at a level D-7.5 cost plus mark up percentage (%). Negative numbers represent a "below cost" percentage. The County has determined Insight Public Sector, Inc. to be the overall most responsive and responsible bidder for this commodity. The County reserves the right to reject any or all offers, to waive any discrepancy or technicality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the County to be most advantageous to the County. CompuCom Systems, Inc.Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %DATE:11/9/2011PUARC-12001 of 1The County of Riverside Purchasing and Fleet Services2980 Washington St. Riverside, CA 92503Ph:(951) 955-4937 www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.usPCS: Ines MarkPh:(951) 955-4944email: imark@co.riverside.ca.us17.a
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
2980 WASHINGTON STREET • RIVERSIDE, CA 92504-4647 • (951) 955-4937 • FAX (951) 955-4946
NOTIFICATION TO BIDDERS
REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) # PUARC-1200
Microsoft Enterprise License
Riverside County Purchasing and Fleet Services would like to thank you for
submitting a proposal for the above mentioned RFQ.
The overall most responsive and responsible vendor:
Insight Public Sector, Inc.
The County has recommended that Insight Public Sector, Inc., be awarded a
contract which is scheduled to be submitted for approval at the County of
Riverside Board of Supervisors’ meeting on
November 8, 2011, Agenda No. 3.27
In addition the other five vendors will be listed for statewide contracts:
CompuCom, Softchoice Corp, PC Mall Gov, EnPointe Technologies, and Dell
Marketing
The County appreciates your interest and your company’s name will remain on
our vendor’s list for future bid considerations.
Please visit the County of Riverside Purchasing
Website for future opportunities at:
www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us
Ines Mark
Procurement Contract Specialist
NIGP CODE: 20800, 20811
17.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
1
REQUEST FOR QUOTE # PUARC-1200
Microsoft Enterprise License
By:
Ines Mark
Riverside County Purchasing & Fleet Services
2980 Washington Street
Riverside, CA 92504-4647
Telephone: (951) 955-4937
Email: imark@co.riverside.ca.us
NIGP Code(s):20800, 20811
17.a
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
2
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
I. Vendor Registration – Unless stated elsewhere in this document, vendor must register online at www.Purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and
http://http://www.publicpurchase.com//with all current Vendor information, to be registered on the County’s database.
II. For all RFQ’s Riverside County’s Purchasing website will post a letter of notification on its website, and will provide a direct link to PublicPurchase.com.
III. Format - Use the electronic format provided by PublicPurchase.com. If submitting more than one bid, separate the bid documents.
IV. Pricing/Delivery/Terms/Tax - All pricing shall be quoted F.O.B. destination, (e.g., cash terms less than 20 days should be considered net) excluding
applicable tax, which is a separate line item. The County reserves the right to designate method of freight. The County pays California Sales Tax and is
exempt from Federal excise tax. In the event of an extension error, the unit price shall prevail.
V. Other Terms and Conditions - The terms and conditions as indicated in this document and/or attached are hereby included with full force and like effect as
if set forth herein. Copies of the applicable Terms and Conditions may be obtained by contacting Riverside County Purchasing at the number shown above
and requesting a copy be faxed or mailed to you.
VI. Period of Firm Pricing - Unless stated otherwise elsewhere in this document, prices shall be firm for 90 days after the closing date, and prior to an award
being made.
VII. Specification/Changes - Wherever brand names are used, the words "or equal" shall be considered to appear and be a part of the specification. If you are
quoting another make or model, cross out our nomenclature and insert yours. If no make or model is stipulated, insert yours. Attach applicable specifications
and/or brochures. Variations in manufacturers, design, etc., may be acceptable, bidders are encouraged to offer them as alternatives; however, the County
reserves the right to reject those alternatives as non-responsive.
VIII. Recycled Material - Wherever possible, the County of Riverside is looking for items made from, or containing in part, recycled material. Bidders are
encouraged to bid items containing recycled material as an alternative for the items specified; however, the County reserves the right to reject those
alternatives as non-responsive.
IX. Method of Award - The County reserves the right to reject any or all offers, to waive any discrepancy or technicality and to split or make the award in any
manner determined by the County to be most advantageous to the County. The County recognizes that prices are only one of several criteria to be used in
judging an offer and the County is not legally bound to accept the lowest offer.
X. Return of Bid/Closing Date/Return to - The bid response shall be submitted electronically to PublicPurchase.com by 1:30 p.m. on the closing date listed
above. Bid responses not received by County Purchasing by the closing date and time indicated above will not be accepted. The County will not be
responsible for and will not except late bids due to slow internet connection, or incomplete transmissions.
XI Local Preference - The County of Riverside has adopted a local preference program for those bidders located within the County of Riverside. A five percent
(5%) price preference may be applied to the total bid price during evaluation of the bid responses. To qualify as a local business, the business must have
fixed offices within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County and must credit all sales taxes paid resulting from this RFQ to that Riverside County
location. or
XII. Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Preference - The County of Riverside has implemented a Disabled Veteran Owned Business preference policy. A
three percent (3%) preference shall be applied to the total bid price of all quotes/bids/proposals received by the County from certified disabled veterans
owned businesses. If the bid is submitted by a non-Disabled Veteran owned business, but lists subcontractors that are identified and qualified as Disabled
Owned Business, the total bid price will be adjusted by 3% of the value of that subcontractor’s portion of the bid
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IF CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS HEREBY MADE PART OF THIS RFQ
X APPENDIX "A” PLANS/DRAWINGS SAMPLES X EXHIBITS (A) X_ ATTACHMENT (Product List)
#116-110 Special Conditions/Response #116-130 Equipment Information Sheet
_X #116-260 Local Business Qualification Affidavit #116-310 Boilerplate Contract
IF CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED WITH FULL FORCE
AND LIKE EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH HEREIN
X #116-200 General Conditions X #116-210 General Conditions Materials and/or Services
_ #116-230 General Conditions - Equipment #116-220 General Conditions - Public Works
#116-240 General Conditions - Personal/Professional Service
To access any of these General Conditions go to www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us, located in Vendor Registration/Bidding Opportunities.
If an addendum is issued for this procurement, it will be the vendor’s responsibility to re trieve all
applicable addendum(s) from the Public Purchase website.
17.a
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
3
APPENDIX A
1.0 INFORMATION
1.1 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - It is agreed by the parties that time is of the essence, and in the event
complete delivery is not made within the schedule set by the County, and pursuant to the bid
specifications, damage will be sustained by the County, it will be impractical, and extremely difficult to
ascertain, and determine the actual damage sustained. Therefore, it is agreed that the successful bidder
shall pay to the County of Riverside, as fixed and liquidated damages, and not as penalty, a dollar sum in
the amount of $_________ per calendar day for each and every calendar day that a delay in making
delivery in excess of the time or times specified. It is further agreed that in the event such damages are
sustained by the County, the County shall deduct the amount from any payment due or that may become
due to the vendor under the contract.
1.2 "Electronic submission hereof is certification that the Bidder has read and understands the terms and
conditions hereof, and that the Bidder’s principal is fully bound and committed." All County terms and
conditions are found at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us. Bidders must acknowledge the applicable
terms and conditions that are checked at the bottom of page 2 of this document.
1.3 CASH DISCOUNT_% from receipt of good or invoice, whichever is later. (terms less than 20 days will
be considered net) Cash discount shall be applied to grand total.
1.4 Delivery: ___ calendar days after receipt of order.
1.5 Please Check: ____Disabled Veteran ____ Local Business – if checked, the above signer certifies that
the above business is located within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County and that all sales
taxes generated based on this RFQ will be credited to that location in Riverside County. If claiming
Local Preference please submit form 116-260.
1.6 If Bidder experiences technical issue with the online bidding process, Bidder must contact the
Procurement Contract Specialist (PCS) for further bid submission instructions. Bidder must contact the
appropriate PCS a minimum of 1 hour prior to bid close time of 1:30 PM.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
A. Wherever these words occur in this RFQ, they shall have the following meaning:
B. “RFQ” shall mean Request for Quote.
C. “Addendum” shall mean an amendment or modification to the RFQ (Request for Quote).
D. “Bid” shall mean the proposal submitted by a Bidder on the Bid Form consistent with the Instructions to
Bidders, to complete the Work for a specified sum of money and within a specified period of time.
E. “Bidder” shall mean an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation that submits a qualified Bid for the
Work, either directly or through a duly authorized representative.
F. “Contractor” shall mean any employee, agent, or representative of the contract company used in
conjunction with the performance of the contract. For the purposes of this RFQ, Contractor and Bidder
are used interchangeably.
17.a
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
4
G. “COUNTY” shall mean the County of Riverside and its agencies.
H. “CCISDA” shall mean the California County Information Services Directors Association
I. “MISAC” shall mean the Municipal Information Systems Association
J. “LAR” shall mean the Large Account Resellers
K. “EA” shall mean Enterprise Agreement
L. “Qualified Device” shall mean any personal desktop computer, portal computer, workstation, or similar
device that is used by of for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. It does not include: (1) any
computer that is designated as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) any Industry Device, (3)
any device running an embedded operating system (e.g., Windows Phone 7) that does not access a
virtual desktop infrastructure, or (4) any device that is not managed and/or controlled either directly or
indirectly by Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Enrolled Affiliate may include as a Qualified Device any
device which would be excluded above (e.g., Industry Device).
M. “MDOP” shall mean Microsoft Desktop Optimization Platform
N. “MSDN” shall mean Microsoft Developer Network
3.0 PURPOSE/BACKGROUND
3.1 Purpose
a) The County of Riverside is soliciting bids for a consortia approach to collectively enter into a Microsoft
Enterprise Agreement and Select program in order to utilize the desktop volumes to achieve the best
possible price as detailed in this RFQ. Microsoft has demonstrated flexibility in dealing with
CCISDA\MISAC to accommodate government issues and concerns to offer a customized Enterprise
Agreement that will work for all government agencies within the state of California.
b) The purpose of this RFQ is to seek both renewal pricing for those under the current Microsoft
Agreement from any authorized LAR within the State of California plus allow new enrollments to take
place based on combined volumes of those staying with the old agreement, those renewing in this new
contract, and those joining into the new contract for the first time.
c) The intent of this RFQ is to award to no more than five (5) Microsoft authorized and responsible Large
Account Resellers (LAR) in the State of California that meets the terms and conditions of this RFQ. The
LAR(s) will serve as the administrator of this agreement and will collect all dollars directly from those
jurisdictions enrolled under this awarded contract.
3.2 Background
a) Since June 19, 2001, The California County Information Services Directors Association (CCISDA)
and the Municipal Information Systems Association (MISAC) of California have been participating in
a state-wide Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) and Select program. The County of Riverside will
continue to administer this award, to include participation from CCISDA and MISAC.
17.a
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
5
b) The California County Information Services Directors Association (CCISDA) is the official
organization of the county information technology directors in the state of California. They represent the
58 California counties in the area of information technology and county government.
c) The Municipal Information Systems Association (MISAC) of California is a statewide organization of
approximately 150 member agencies. They represent the 475 Cities and Special Districts in the state of
California in the area of information technology and county government.
d) Current participation in this successful contract has surpassed 488,000 desktops and over 460 separate
enrollments to this Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. The current Large Account Resellers (LAR) have
worked with each of these entities to explain the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, helped them make
decisions about their licensing needs, provided enrollment assistance, and coached them during annual
EA requirements including true-ups and annual payments. The awarded LAR(s) will be required to
deliver this same level of service, as well as provide continuing education to enrollees on other services
and benefits provided to participants in the EA.
e) The LAR(s) must allow CCISDA/MISAC members with the opportunity to continue to enroll in the
Enterprise Agreement after the open enroll period at a highly discounted price based on cumulative
volumes of desktops enrolled under the new and existing contracts.
f) In addition, many government entities could not purchase from a sole LAR due to local preference
purchasing requirements. The intent of this RFQ is to award to multiple Large Account Resellers
(LARs) under a single agreement and to get credit for volumes under the existing contract and for those
that want to change to the renewal contract or for those governments enrolling for the first time.
g) Many counties do not upgrade their software on their desktops on an annual basis and most do so every
two to three years. As a result, most may not benefit from Software Assurance under the Select Program
nor can justify an Enterprise Agreement. Therefore, to make an Enterprise Agreement a tool for
government, it must be cost effective, ease licensing management, and encourage government to stay
current with new software versions to take advantage of the latest technological improvements that
could benefit employee productivity. An additional benefit can be realized through other offerings made
available to EA participants. When such offerings are introduced, it is imperative that the LAR make the
offering known to the agency in order for them to obtain the most out of their EA investment.
4.0 PRODUCT LINE
4.1 Enterprise Agreement Program Products
The products offered under the Enterprise Agreement (EA) may be purchased individually or in total as follows:
4.2 Enterprise Products
a) The Enterprise Agreement offers California County Governments access to the most recent releases of
the Desktop Professional Platform products. The Enterprise Agreement Desktop Platform products are:
i. Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Edition with MDOP
ii. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010
iii. Microsoft Core Client Access License Suite or Enterprise Client Access License Suite
17.a
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
6
b) Government entities who enroll in the Professional or Enterprise Platform (the Windows 7 Enterprise
Edition operating system upgrade, Office Professional Plus 2010, and Core CAL Suite or Enterprise
CAL Suite) receive a platform discount on top of their already discounted enterprise software product.
c) Government entities not adding products at signing may still add additional products to their enrollment
at any time with License & Software Assurance (pro-rated annually for the remaining term of their
enrollment).
d) For full product listing see excel attachment “PUARC-1200 Product listing.”
4.3 Additional Products and Services
a) Nearly all other available Microsoft software titles are obtainable as additional products. They provide
the same License & Software Assurance coverage as enterprise products, but do not require an
enterprise-wide commitment. For products licensed at signing, payments can be spread throughout
enrollment years in the same way that enterprise product payments are annualized. Also, additional
products at signing will have corresponding pricing for the use of the True Up ordering process,
enabling an annual consolidation of ordering. Government entities not adding products at signing may
still add additional products to their enrollment at any time with License & Software Assurance (pro-
rated for the remaining term of their enrollment).
b) Premier Services are available through the Riverside Master Agreement for as long as it is offered as
products under the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement.
c) Examples of software products available as additional products include Office Visio, Microsoft Project,
Windows servers, Exchange servers, Microsoft Office SharePoint Servers, SQL Servers, Visual Studio
Team Edition (w/ MSDN), MapPoint Web Service, and many others.
d) A complete list of additional products is available on the Microsoft Product List at:
http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PL.aspx
e) To learn more about Product Use Rights, visit:
http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PUR.aspx
4.5 Customized Components:
a) The awarded Large Account Reseller(s) as part of the contract must be willing to accept the
administration of the contract. California government entities will enroll by Agency (understanding that
all desktops in a department must be committed unless the desktop has an asset tag where it has been
paid and owned by another government jurisdiction).
b) Commitment for each government entity is at least 25 desktops in the entire organization. Organizations
under 25 qualified workstations are required to combine enrollments with other local government
entities for a total of at least 25 qualified workstations s to qualify. The government entity who handles
the enrollment for multiple jurisdictions will also be responsible for distributing license confirmations.
c) The LAR’s are required to provide annual reports of qualified workstation counts by enrollment and ask
for desktop true-ups for net additional desktops added during each contract year. The customer is
expected to true up additional products added to during past year. Quarterly reports of licenses
purchased under the Select agreement (provided by this contract) must also be provided including
product and version number. It is preferred that this capability be provided though the Internet.
17.a
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
7
d) All products covered under the EA automatically include Software Assurance for either the full thirty-
six (36) or sixty (60) month contract period options. During the contract period, participating
government entities will be entitled to all version upgrades at no additional charge. And on termination
of the contract, participating organizations will own the most current version of covered products as of
the contract termination date, whether the version is installed or not.
e) During the EA each participant will be required (but not limited) to count total qualified workstations in
their organization which will be reported to the LAR. Other counts such as True-Up of additional
products and additional of 'not-at-signing' products may be required.
f) The Enterprise Agreement term is sixty (60) calendar months from the date of acceptance, or an optional
thirty-six (36) months if requested. Enrollment for this program will be open until the expiration of the
Master Agreement. While the number of net desktops in each organization may increase annually, there
could be certain economic issues (such as discontinuing a government service due to funding) or
political shifts (such as County Courts becoming a State Agency or a government entity filing for
bankruptcy) that could impact desktop counts. Microsoft will deal with decreases in qualified
workstation counts on an individual basis without penalty to other enrollments. EA participants that
terminate for cause, will own licenses equal to the portion of the total contract period for which they
participated. Participants terminating prior to year 2 shall own licenses for 1/3 of the total desktops
enrolled. Participants terminating prior to year 3 shall own licenses for 2/3 of the total desktops enrolled.
The licenses shall be for the current version of the products at the time of termination. If any one
County/Department terminates the enterprise agreement, it shall have no bearing or impact on the others
enrolled.
g) EA enrollees receive perpetual license to the most current version of the software covered under this
agreement upon initial payment. By participating under the EA, enrollees immediately become current
and stay current. Net new desktops added during the contract period immediately have the right to install
the most current versions of the products covered under the EA and the “true-up” payment must be
made at the beginning of the next contract year.
h) All new software covered and purchased under the EA is to be delivered to the COUNTY electronically,
unless explicit instructions are communicated that delivery method would be otherwise.
5.0 TIMELINE DATES:
1. RELEASE OF REQUEST FOR QUOTATION September 20, 2011
2. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS
Bidders must submit their questions online at
PublicPurchase.com. All questions submitted are within the
correct RFQ located on PublicPurchase.com.
Must be submitted by:
Date: October 3, 2011
Time: 1:30 PM
3. DEADLINE FOR QUOTATION SUBMITTAL
Bid results are posted on PublicPurchase.com
October 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM
4. TENTATIVE DATE FOR AWARDING CONTRACT 5-90 days, contingent upon
lowest bidder meeting all of the
bid specifications.
17.a
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
8
6.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The period of performance shall be for 5 year(s), with each year renewable in one-year increments, with the
completion date of 12/31/17, with no obligation by the County of Riverside to purchase any specified amount of
services.
7.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Procedures for Submitting Quotations
All quotations must be submitted in accordance with the standards and specifications contained within this
Request for Quote (RFQ).
The County reserves the right to waive, at its discretion, any irregularity, which the County deems reasonably
correctable or otherwise not warranting rejection of the quotation.
The County shall not pay any costs incurred or associated in the preparation of this or any quotation or for
participation in the procurement process.
Quotes must be specific unto themselves. For example, “See Enclosed Manual” will not be considered an
acceptable quotation. Receipt of all addenda, if any, must be acknowledged in the quotation.
Late quotations will not be accepted. Postmarks will not be accepted in lieu of this requirement. Quotations
submitted to any other County office will be rejected.
8.0 METHOD OF AWARD (Specifications)
Quotations will be evaluated based on relevant factors, including but not limited to the following:
a. Lowest overall purchase price
b. Adherence to specifications as detailed in this RFQ (PUARC-1200)
c. Prompt payment discounts on 30 days or less
d. Warranties
e. All associated delivery costs
f. Delivery date
g. Product acceptability
h. Service/Customer Support
9.0 EVALUATION PROCESS
All quotations will be given thorough review. All contacts during the review selection phase will be only
through the Purchasing Department. Attempts by the Bidder to contact any other County representative may
result in disqualification of the Bidder. The County recognizes that prices are only one of several criteria to be
used in judging an offer, and the County is not legally bound to accept the lowest offer.
17.a
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
9
10.0 INTERPRETATION OF RFQ
The Contractor must make careful examination and understand all of the requirements, specifications, and
conditions stated in the RFQ. If any Contractor planning to submit a quote finds discrepancies in or omissions
from the RFQ, or is in doubt as to the meaning, a written request for interpretation or correction must be given
to the County. Any changes to the RFQ will be made only by written addendum and may be posted on the
Purchasing website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and PublicPurchase.com. The County is not
responsible for any other explanations or interpretations. If any provision in this agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue
in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. All notices regarding this procurement may be
posted on the County’s purchasing website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and PublicPurchase.com.
11.0 CANCELLATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The County may cancel the procurement process at any time. All quotations become the property of the County.
All information submitted in the quotation becomes “public record” as defined by the State of California upon
completion of the procurement process. If any proprietary information is contained in or attached to the quote, it
must be clearly identified by the Bidder; otherwise, the Bidder agrees that all documents provided may be
released to the public after bid award.
The County reserves the right to withdraw the Request for Quote (RFQ), to reject a specific quote for
noncompliance within the RFQ provisions, or not award a bid at any time because of unforeseen circumstances
or if it is determined to be in the best interest of the County.
12.0 COMPENSATION
12.1 The County shall pay the awarded bidder for equipment and services performed, after the equipment are
installed and tested to the satisfaction of the County. Expenses incurred and compensation shall be paid in
accordance with an invoice submitted to County by awarded bidder. The County shall pay the acceptable
invoice within thirty-(30) working days from the date of receipt of the invoice, or the goods/services are
received, whichever is later.
12.2 No price increases will be permitted during the first year of the award. All price decreases (for example,
if CONTRACTOR offers lower prices to another governmental entity) will automatically be extended to the
County. The County requires written proof of cost increases prior to any approved price adjustment. After the
first year of the award, a minimum of 30-days advance written notice is required for consideration and approval
by County. No retroactive price adjustments will be considered. The net dollar amount of profit will remain
firm during the period of the Agreement. Annual increases shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index- All
Consumers, All Items - Greater Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange County areas (Microsoft Enterprise
License Agreement) and be subject to satisfactory performance review by the County and approved (if needed)
for budget funding by the Board of Supervisors.
13.0 USE BY OTHER POLITICAL ENTITIES
The CONTRACTOR agrees to extend the same pricing, terms, and conditions as stated in this Agreement to
every political entity, special district, and related non-profit entity in Riverside County. It is understood that
other entities shall make purchases in their own name, make direct payment, and be liable directly to the
CONTRACTOR; and County shall in no way be responsible to CONTRACTOR for other entities’ purchases.
17.a
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
10
Exhibit A
Software Assurance Benefits:
The Enterprise Agreement includes Software Assurance, Microsoft’s enhanced maintenance program that helps
customers get the most out of their software investments. Access to valuable benefits such as training,
deployment planning, software upgrades, and product support can help increase the productivity of the entire
organization. Awarded LAR(s) will continue to educate and assist participants on what these benefits are and
how participants can take full advantage of them.
Here are details on Software Assurance benefits throughout each phase of software management.
Stage Benefit Description
Planning
Stage
New Version
Rights
With Software Assurance, you receive new versions
of licensed software released during the term of your
agreement to deploy at your own pace as they
become available. You can reduce the costs
associated with acquiring new version releases and
immediately take advantage of the latest technology.
Spread
Payments
You can make payments annually, instead of making
one up-front payment. This helps you to reduce initial
costs and forecast annual software budget
requirements up to three years in advance.
Deployment
Stage
Packaged
Services:
Information
Work Solution
Services
These one- to three-day partner-managed workshops
help IT teams learn how desktop applications assist
support deployment, security, and infrastructure
business goals like project prioritization. You also
learn how to implement high-value projects in the IT
environment to maintain or accelerate productivity.
Workshops include Information Work Business Value
Discovery and Information Work Architectural Design
Session.
Microsoft
Windows Pre-
installation
Environment
(WinPE)
This is a tool based on the Windows Server® 2003
operating system and the Windows XP Professional
operating system that allows IT staff to build custom
solutions that speed up deployment through
automation, so they spend less time and effort
keeping desktops updated. WinPE can run Windows
setup, scripts, and imaging applications.
Using Stage Training
Vouchers
You will receive training vouchers for training on
select courses from Microsoft Certified Partners for
Learning Solutions (CPLS), the premier authorized
training channel for delivering learning products and
services on Microsoft technology. Taking training
from Microsoft CPLSs helps you prepare for
deployment, enable smoother migration, and stay up-
to-date with the latest Microsoft technologies, giving
you the competitive advantage you need.
17.a
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
11
Exhibit A Cont’
Software Assurance Benefits:
eLearning
Courses
Microsoft’s eLearning provides your employees
access to individual, on-demand Microsoft software
courses. eLearning can be delivered online or offline
and includes simulations, hands-on exercises, and
learning assessments.
Home Use
Program
The Home Use Program increases employee
productivity and maximizes the value of your
Microsoft Office investment because with it, your
employees can use Office desktop programs for work
or personal needs.
Microsoft
Windows 7
Enterprise
Edition
The Windows 7 Enterprise Edition is optimized for
large organizations and includes features such as
data protection that safeguard lost or stolen PCs,
application compatibility, and the ability to deploy a
single image in multiple locations around the world
(per availability of Windows Vista), helping you to
lower your deployment and management costs.
Microsoft
Virtual PC
Express
Migrate legacy applications during an operating
system upgrade in a safe, protected way. Microsoft
Virtual PC Express supports a single instance of a
virtual operating system (in comparison, Virtual PC
2004 supports multiple instances). Virtual PC
Express will be made available to our Software
Assurance customers in early 2006, ahead of the
Windows Vista Enterprise Edition.
Maintenance
Stage
24 X 7
Problem
Resolution
Support
With Software Assurance, you can be continuously
connected with Microsoft for your support needs. You
can select the right level of help when you need it
with business-critical 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
phone support for all Microsoft server products,
Windows, and the 2007 Microsoft Office system, in
addition to unlimited Web support.
17.a
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
12
Exhibit A Cont’
Software Assurance Benefits:
Unlimited Web
Support
Complement your business-critical 24 hours a day, 7
days a week phone support with unlimited Web
support during business hours, and decide which
level of support is best for the issue. This helps you
lower your total cost of support and ownership
through time and gives you a choice for how to use
your direct connection to Microsoft.
TechNet Plus
Subscription
with Two
Support
Calls/Year
IT professionals have access to TechNet Plus
subscription media, featuring resources such as the
Microsoft Knowledge Base, software updates,
utilities, technical training, and how-to articles to help
them succeed. They also have access to additional
premium TechNet Plus benefits, including evaluation
software without time limits, pre-release versions of
Microsoft products, two technical support incidents
per year, and TechNet Plus Subscriber Online
Services. IT professionals can also access TechNet
Managed Newsgroups with more than 100 IT-related
newsgroups, where they can post technical questions
and are guaranteed responses by the next business
day.
“Cold”
Backups for
Disaster
Recovery
Customers with Software Assurance for Microsoft
server software, as well as related Client Access
Licenses, are eligible for complimentary "cold
backup" server licenses for disaster recovery.
Corporate
Error
Reporting
Corporate Error Reporting (CER) gives you a clear
and easy way to monitor and review error information
so you can control deployment of fixes and
resolutions. It provides the ability for applications and
the operating system to collect and report on crashes
in the system.
Transition
Extended Life-
cycle Hotfix
Support
Enter into Extended Hotfix Support Account (EHSA)
as hotfix issues arise. Annual fees and required sign-
up periods associated with EHSA are waived for
Software Assurance customers, increasing peace of
mind and reducing support costs. A Premier or
Essential Support agreement is a pre-requisite for
eligibility.
For more information about Software Assurance benefits, please visit:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa
17.a
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200
Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M.
Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11
13
Local Business Qualification Affidavit
The County of Riverside Local Business Preference may be applied to this Request for Proposal/Quotation. If you qualify
for this preference, please submit this form along with your response to this RFP/Q.
Definition of Local Business
A local business shall mean a business or firm with fixed offices located within the geographical boundaries of Riverside
County, and authorized to perform business within the County. In doing so, credit all sales tax from sales generated within
Riverside County to the County, and who provide product or perform contracted work using employees, of whom the
majority are physically located in said local offices.
Local businesses” shall have a Riverside County business street address . Post office box numbers, residential addresses,
or un-staffed sales offices shall not suffice to establish status as a “local business.” To qualify as a “local business” the
location must be open and staffed during normal business hours and the business must establish proof that it has been
located and doing business in Riverside County for at least (6) six months preceding its certification to the County as a
local business.
Additional supporting documentation that may be requested by the County to verify qualification includes:
1. A copy of their current BOE 531-A and/or BOE 530-C form (State, Local & District Sales, and Use Tax Return
Form). This is what businesses submit to the State Board of Equalization when paying the sales tax to the State
of California indicating the amount of the payment to be credited to each jurisdiction (i.e. Counties, Cities).
2. A current business license if required for the political jurisdiction the business is located.
3. Proof of the current business address. The local business needs to be operating from a functional office that is
staffed with the company’s employees, during normal business hours.
Business Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Physical Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________ FAX: _________________ E-Mail: ___________________________________
Length of time at this location: ______________ Number of Company Employees at this address: ________
If less than 6 month, list previous
Riverside County location: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Business License # (where applicable): __________________ Jurisdiction_________________________________________
Hours of Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
Primary function of this location (i.e., sales, distribution, production, corporate, etc):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________ ________________
Signature of Company Official Date
_________________________________________________________________
Print Name, Title
Submittal of false data will result in disqualification of local preference and/or doing business with the
Riverside County.
Form # 116-260 Rev 8/04
17.a
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.a
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment17.a: a - County of Riverside Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Contract 01E73134 (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Program Type: Enterprise Enrollment Date: 4/15/2016
Payment Schedule: Annual
Billing Currency: US Dollar Dell Marketing LP
Term Of Agreement:3 Years (36 Months)One Dell way
Round Rock, TX 78682
Drew Byford
Drew_Byford@Dell.com
PRICING EXPIRES: 5/14/2016 TERMS NET 30
Contact: Miguel Guardado FOB DESTINATION
Contact email: mguardado@slocity.org
Enrollment # US - California GVT-E6
SECTION 2 - Monthly Subscriptions
Product Description Part Number(SKU)Net Unit Price(USD)License Quantity Extended Amount(USD)
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS
EntMobilitySteFull G ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL
MVL PerUsr AAA-11233 82.08 530 43,502.40
O365GovE3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr AAA-11894 183.00 530 96,990.00
140,492.40
Product Description Part Number(SKU)Net Unit Price(USD)License Quantity Extended Amount(USD)
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS
EntMobilitySteFull G ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL
MVL PerUsr AAA-11233 82.08 530 43,502.40
O365GovE3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr AAA-11894 183.00 530 96,990.00
140,492.40
Product Description Part Number(SKU)Net Unit Price(USD)License Quantity Extended Amount(USD)
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS
EntMobilitySteFull G ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL
MVL PerUsr AAA-11233 82.08 530 43,502.40
O365GovE3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr AAA-11894 183.00 530 96,990.00
140,492.40
421,477.20
Total Year 1 Payment
Total Year 2 Payment
Total Year 3 Payment
TOTAL SECTION 2 VALUE YEARS 1 - 3
Agency: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
17.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment17.b: b - Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Quote from Dell (1372 : Microsoft Office 365
Customer must complete all required Microsoft enrollment documentation. The EA cannot be executed
(processed at Microsoft) until both the complete documents and PO are received for the fir st annual
payment.
Dell offers this quote for the first of three annual payments for [Customer]’s Microsoft Enterprise
Agreement Enrollment. This quote will expire within the month of issuance; upon expiration of this quote,
the quoted prices may no longer be valid. For customer’s general information and budgeting purposes,
Dell includes the above as an estimate for subsequent years of [Customer]’s Microsoft Enterprise
Agreement. Prices for subsequent Enrollment years are not binding on Dell or [Customer] in any way and
will be determined on the Enrollment anniversary date.
17.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment17.b: b - Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Quote from Dell (1372 : Microsoft Office 365
17.c
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment17.c: c - Microsoft Volumn Licensing Count for City of SLO (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
17.c
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment17.c: c - Microsoft Volumn Licensing Count for City of SLO (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 1 of 10
Document X20-12057
Enterprise Enrollment State and Local
Enterprise Enrollment number
(Microsoft to complete) Framework ID
(if applicable)
Previous Enrollment number
(Reseller to complete)
This Enrollment must be attached to a signature form to be valid.
This Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment is entered into between the entities as identified in the signature form
as of the effective date. Enrolled Affiliate represents and warrants it is the same Customer, or an Affiliate of
the Customer, that entered into the Enterprise Agreement identified on the program signature form.
This Enrollment consists of: (1) these terms and conditions, (2) the terms of the Enterprise Agreement
identified on the signature form, (3) the Product Selection Form, (4) any supplemental contact information
form or Previous Agreement/Enrollment form that may be required, (5) any order submitted under this
Enrollment. This Enrollment may only be entered into under a 2011 or later Enterprise Agreement. By
entering into this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the
Enterprise Agreement.
All terms used but not defined are located at http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts. In the event of
any conflict the terms of this Agreement control.
Effective date. If Enrolled Affiliate is renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from one or
more previous Enrollments or agreements, then the effective date will be the day after the first prior
Enrollment or agreement expires or terminates. Otherwise, the effective date will be the date this Enrollment
is accepted by Microsoft. Any reference to “anniversary date” refers to the anniversary of the effective date
each year this Enrollment is in effect.
Term. The initial term of this Enrollment will expire on the last day of the month, 36 full calendar months
from the effective date of the initial term. If the Enrollment is renewed, the renewal term will expire 36 full
calendar months after the effective date of the renewal term. Any reference in this Enrollment to "day" will
be a calendar day.
Terms and Conditions
1. Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this Enrollment will have the definition in the Enterprise Agreement. The
following definitions are used in this Enrollment:
“Additional Product” means any Product identified as such in the Product Terms and chosen by Enrolled
Affiliate under this Enrollment.
“Community” means the community consisting of one or more of the following: (1) a Government, (2) an
Enrolled Affiliate using eligible Government Community Cloud Services to provide solutions to a
Government or a qualified member of the Community, or (3) a Customer with Customer Data that is subject
to Government regulations for which Customer determines and Microsoft agrees that the use of
Government Community Cloud Services is appropriate to meet Customer’s regulatory requirements.
Membership in the Community is ultimately at Microsoft’s discretion, which may vary by Government
Community Cloud Service.
17.d
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 2 of 10
Document X20-12057
“Enterprise Online Service” means any Online Service designated as an Enterprise Online Service in the
Product Terms and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Online Services are
treated as Online Services, except as noted.
“Enterprise Product” means any Desktop Platform Product that Microsoft designates as an Enterprise
Product in the Product Terms and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Products
must be licensed for all Qualified Devices and Qualified Users on an Enterprise-wide basis under this
program.
“Expiration Date” means the date upon which the Enrollment expires.
“Federal Agency” means a bureau, office, agency, department or other entity of the United States
Government.
“Government” means a Federal Agency, State/Local Entity, or Tribal Entity acting in its governmental
capacity.
“Government Community Cloud Services” means Microsoft Online Services that are provisioned in
Microsoft’s multi-tenant data centers for exclusive use by or for the Community and offered in accordance
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-145. Microsoft
Online Services that are Government Community Cloud Services are designated as such in the Use Rights
and Product Terms.
“Industry Device” (also known as line of business device) means any device that: (1) is not useable in its
deployed configuration as a general purpose personal computing device (such as a personal computer), a
multi-function server, or a commercially viable substitute for one of these systems; and (2) only employs an
industry or task-specific software program (e.g. a computer-aided design program used by an architect or
a point of sale program) (“Industry Program”). The device may include features and functions derived from
Microsoft software or third-party software. If the device performs desktop functions (such as email, word
processing, spreadsheets, database, network or Internet browsing, or scheduling, or personal finance),
then the desktop functions: (1) may only be used for the purpose of supporting the Industry Program
functionality; and (2) must be technically integrated with the Industry Program or employ technically
enforced policies or architecture to operate only when used with the Industry Program functionality.
“Managed Device” means any device on which any Affiliate in the Enterprise directly or indirectly controls
one or more operating system environments. Examples of Managed Devices can be found in the Product
Terms.
“Qualified Device” means any device that is used by or for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise and
is: (1) a personal desktop computer, portable computer, workstation, or similar device capable of running
Windows Pro locally (in a physical or virtual operating system environment), or (2) a device used to access
a virtual desktop infrastructure (“VDI”). Qualified Devices do not include any device that is: (1) designated
as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) an Industry Device, (3) not a Managed Device. At its
option, the Enrolled Affiliate may designate any device excluded above (e.g., Industry Device) that is used
by or for the benefit of the Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise as a Qualified Device for all or a subset of Enterprise
Products or Online Services the Enrolled Affiliate has selected.
“Qualified User” means a person (e.g., employee, consultant, contingent staff) who: (1) is a user of a
Qualified Device, or (2) accesses any server software requiring an Enterprise Product Client Access
License or any Enterprise Online Service. It does not include a person who accesses server software or
an Online Service solely under a License identified in the Qualified User exemptions in the Product Terms.
“Reseller” means an entity authorized by Microsoft to resell Licenses under this program and engaged by
an Enrolled Affiliate to provide pre- and post-transaction assistance related to this agreement;
“Reserved License” means for an Online Service identified as eligible for true-ups in the Product Terms,
the License reserved by Enrolled Affiliate prior to use and for which Microsoft will make the Online Service
available for activation.
"State/Local Entity" means (1) any agency of a state or local government in the United States, or (2) any
United States county, borough, commonwealth, city, municipality, town, township, special purpose district,
17.d
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 3 of 10
Document X20-12057
or other similar type of governmental instrumentality established by the laws of Customer’s state and
located within Customer’s state’s jurisdiction and geographic boundaries.
“Tribal Entity” means a federally-recognized tribal entity performing tribal governmental functions and
eligible for funding and services from the U.S. Department of Interior by virtue of its status as an Indian
tribe.
“Use Rights” means, with respect to any licensing program, the use rights or terms of service for each
Product and version published for that licensing program at the Volume Licensing Site. The Use Rights
supersede the terms of any end user license agreement (on-screen or otherwise) that accompanies a
Product. The Use Rights for Software are published by Microsoft in the Product Terms. The Use Rights for
Online Services are published in the Online Services Terms.
“Volume Licensing Site” means http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts or a successor site.
2. Order requirements.
a. Minimum Order requirements. Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise must have a minimum of 250
Qualified Users or Qualified Devices. The initial order must include at least 250 Licenses for
Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services.
(i) Enterprise Commitment. Enrolled Affiliate must order enough Licenses to cover all
Qualified Users or Qualified Devices, depending on the License Type, with one or more
Enterprise Products or a mix of Enterprise Products and the corresponding Enterprise
Online Services (as long as all Qualified Devices not covered by a License are only used
by users covered with a user License).
(ii) Enterprise Online Services only. If no Enterprise Product is ordered, , then Enrolled
Affiliate need only maintain at least 250 Subscription Licenses for Enterprise Online
Services.
b. Additional Products. Upon satisfying the minimum order requirements above, Enrolled
Affiliate may order Additional Products and Services.
c. Use Rights for Enterprise Products. For Enterprise Products, if a new Product version has
more restrictive use rights than the version that is current at the start of the applicable initial or
renewal term of the Enrollment, those more restrictive use rights will not apply to Enrolled
Affiliate’s use of that Product during that term.
d. Country of usage. Enrolled Affiliate must specify the countries where Licenses will be used
on its initial order and on any additional orders.
e. Resellers. Enrolled Affiliate must choose and maintain a Reseller authorized in the United
States. Enrolled Affiliate will acquire its Licenses through its chosen Reseller. Orders must be
submitted to the Reseller who will transmit the order to Microsoft. The Reseller and Enrolled
Affiliate determine pricing and payment terms as between them, and Microsoft will invoice the
Reseller based on those terms. Throughout this Agreement the term “price” refers to reference
price. Resellers and other third parties do not have authority to bind or impose any obligation
or liability on Microsoft.
f. Adding Products.
(i) Adding new Products not previously ordered. New Enterprise Products or Enterprise
Online Services may be added at any time by contacting a Microsoft Account Manager or
Reseller. New Additional Products, other than Online Services, may be used if an order is
placed in the month the Product is first used. For Additional Products that are Online
Services, an initial order for the Online Service is required prior to use.
(ii) Adding Licenses for previously ordered Products. Additional Licenses for previously
ordered Products other than Online Services may be added at any time but must be
included in the next true-up order. Additional Licenses for Online Services must be ordered
17.d
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 4 of 10
Document X20-12057
prior to use, unless the Online Services are (1) identified as eligible for true-up in the
Product Terms or (2) included as part of other Licenses.
g. True-up requirements. Enrolled Affiliate must submit an annual true-up order that accounts
for any changes since the initial order or last order. If there are no changes, then an update
statement must be submitted instead of a true-up order.
(i) Enterprise Products. For Enterprise Products, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the
number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if ordering user-based Licenses) at the
time the true-up order is placed and must order additional Licenses for all Qualified Devices
and Qualified Users that are not already covered by existing Licenses, including any
Enterprise Online Services.
(ii) Additional Products. For Additional Products that have been previously ordered under
this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the maximum number of Additional
Products used since the latter of the initial order, the last true-up order, or the prior
anniversary date and submit a true-up order that accounts for any increase.
(iii) Online Services. For Online Services identified as eligible for true-up in the Product
Terms, Enrolled Affiliate may reserve the additional Licenses prior to use and payment may
be deferred until the next true-up order. Microsoft will provide a report of Reserved
Licenses in excess of existing orders to Enrolled Affiliate and its Reseller. Reserved
Licenses will be invoiced retroactively to the month in which they were reserved.
(iv) Subscription License reductions. Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the quantity of
Subscription Licenses at the Enrollment anniversary date on a prospective basis if
permitted in the Product Terms, as follows:
1) For Subscription Licenses that are part of an Enterprise-wide purchase, Licenses may
be reduced if the total quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance for an applicable
group meets or exceeds the quantity of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if
ordering user-based Licenses) identified on the Product Selection Form, and includes
any additional Qualified Devices and Qualified Users added in any prior true-up orders.
Step-up Licenses do not count towards this total count.
2) For Enterprise Online Services that are not a part of an Enterprise-wide purchase,
Licenses can be reduced as long as the initial order minimum requirements are
maintained.
3) For Additional Products available as Subscription Licenses, Enrolled Affiliate may
reduce the Licenses. If the License count is reduced to zero, then Enrolled Affiliate’s
use of the applicable Subscription License will be cancelled.
Invoices will be adjusted to reflect any reductions in Subscription Licenses at the true-up
order Enrollment anniversary date and effective as of such date.
(v) Update statement. An update statement must be submitted instead of a true-up order if,
since the initial order or last true-up order, Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise: (1) has not
changed the number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users licensed with Enterprise
Products or Enterprise Online Services; and (2) has not increased its usage of Additional
Products. This update statement must be signed by Enrolled Affiliate’s authorized
representative.
(vi) True-up order period. The true-up order or update statement must be received by
Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to each Enrollment anniversary date. The third-
year true-up order or update statement is due within 30 days prior to the Expiration Date,
and any license reservations within this 30 day period will not be accepted. Enrolled Affiliate
may submit true-up orders more often to account for increases in Product usage, but an
annual true-up order or update statement must still be submitted during the annual order
period.
17.d
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 5 of 10
Document X20-12057
(vii) Late true-up order. If the true-up order or update statement is not received when due:
1) Microsoft will invoice Reseller for all Reserved Licenses not previously ordered and
2) Subscription License reductions cannot be reported until the following Enrollment
anniversary date (or at Enrollment renewal, as applicable).
h. Step-up Licenses. For Licenses eligible for a step-up under this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate
may step-up to a higher edition or suite as follows:
(i) For step-up Licenses included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may order according to
the true-up process.
(ii) If step-up Licenses are not included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up
initially by following the process described in the Section titled “Adding new Products not
previously ordered,” then for additional step-up Licenses, by following the true-up order
process.
i. Clerical errors. Microsoft may correct clerical errors in this Enrollment, and any documents
submitted with or under this Enrollment, by providing notice by email and a reasonable
opportunity for Enrolled Affiliate to object to the correction. Clerical errors include minor
mistakes, unintentional additions and omissions. This provision does not apply to material
terms, such as the identity, quantity or price of a Product ordered.
j. Verifying compliance. Microsoft may, in its discretion and at its expense, verify compliance
with this Enrollment as set forth in the Enterprise Agreement.
3. Pricing.
a. Price Levels. For both the initial and any renewal term Enrolled Affiliate’s Price Level for all
Products ordered under this Enrollment will be Level “D” throughout the term of the Enrollment.
b. Setting Prices. Enrolled Affiliate’s prices for each Product or Service will be established by its
Reseller. As long as Enrolled Affiliate continues to qualify for the same price level, Microsoft’s
prices for Resellers for each Product or Service will be fixed throughout the applicable initial or
renewal Enrollment term. Price levels and Microsoft’s prices to Resellers are reestablished at
the beginning of the renewal term. However, if Enrolled Affiliate qualifies for a different price
level during the applicable initial or renewal term, Microsoft may at its discretion establish a
new price level for future new orders either upon Enrolled Affiliate’s request or on its own
initiative. Any changes will be based upon price level rules in the Product Selection Form.
4. Payment terms.
For the initial or renewal order, Enrolled Affiliate may pay upfront or elect to spread its payments over the
applicable Enrollment term. If an upfront payment is elected, Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate’s
Reseller in full upon acceptance of this Enrollment. If spread payments are elected, unless indicated
otherwise, Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate’s Reseller in three equal annual installments. The first
installment will be invoiced upon Microsoft’s acceptance of this Enrollment and on each Enrollment
anniversary date. Subsequent orders are invoiced upon acceptance of the order and Enrolled Affiliate may
elect to pay annually or upfront for Online Services and upfront for all other Licenses.
5. End of Enrollment term and termination.
a. General. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate must immediately order and pay for Licenses
for Products it has used but has not previously submitted an order, except as otherwise
provided in this Enrollment.
b. Renewal Option. At the Expiration Date of the initial term, Enrolled Affiliate can renew
Products by renewing the Enrollment for one additional 36 full calendar month term or signing
17.d
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 6 of 10
Document X20-12057
a new Enrollment. Microsoft must receive a Renewal Form, Product Selection Form, and
renewal order prior to or at the Expiration Date. The renewal term will start on the day following
the Expiration Date. Microsoft will not unreasonably reject any renewal. Microsoft may make
changes to this program that will make it necessary for Customer and its Enrolled Affiliates to
enter into new agreements and Enrollments at renewal.
c. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew.
(i) Software Assurance. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew Software Assurance for any
Product under its Enrollment, then Enrolled Affiliate will not be permitted to order Software
Assurance later without first acquiring a new License with Software Assurance.
(ii) Online Services eligible for an Extended Term. For Online Services identified as eligible
for an Extended Term in the Product Terms, the following options are available at the end
of the Enrollment initial or renewal term.
1) Extended Term. Licenses for Online Services will automatically expire in accordance
with the terms of the Enrollment. An extended term feature that allows Online Services
to continue month-to-month (“Extended Term”) is available. During the Extended
Term, Online Services will be invoiced monthly at the then-current published price for
Enrolled Affiliate’s price level as of the Expiration Date plus a 3% administrative fee for
up to one year. If Enrolled Affiliate does want an Extended Term, Reseller must submit
a request to Microsoft. Microsoft must receive the request not less than 30 days prior
to the Expiration Date.
2) Cancellation during Extended Term. If Enrolled Affiliate has opted for the Extended
Term and later determines not to continue with the Extended Term, Reseller must
submit a notice of cancellation for each Online Service. Cancellation will be effective
at the end of the month following 30 days after Microsoft has received the notice.
(iii) Subscription Licenses and Online Services not eligible for an Extended Term. If
Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew, the Licenses will be cancelled and will terminate as
of the Expiration Date. Any associated media must be uninstalled and destroyed and
Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise must discontinue use. Microsoft may request written
certification to verify compliance.
d. Termination for cause. Any termination for cause of this Enrollment will be subject to the
“Termination for cause” section of the Agreement. In addition, it shall be a breach of this
Enrollment if Enrolled Affiliate or any Affiliate in the Enterprise that uses Government
Community Cloud Services fails to meet and maintain the conditions of membership in the
definition of Community.
e. Early termination. Any Early termination of this Enrollment will be subject to the “Early
Termination” Section of the Enterprise Agreement.
For Subscription Licenses, in the event of a breach by Microsoft, or if Microsoft terminates an
Online Service for regulatory reasons, Microsoft will issue Reseller a credit for any amount paid
in advance for the period after termination.
6. Government Community Cloud.
a. Community requirements. If Enrolled Affiliate purchases Government Community
Cloud Services, Enrolled Affiliate certifies that it is a member of the Community and
agrees to use Government Community Cloud Services solely in its capacity as a
member of the Community and, for eligible Government Community Cloud Services,
for the benefit of end users that are members of the Community. Use of Government
Community Cloud Services by an entity that is not a member of the Community or to
provide services to non-Community members is strictly prohibited and could result in
termination of Enrolled Affiliate’s license(s) for Government Community Cloud
Services without notice. Enrolled Affiliate acknowledges that only Community
17.d
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 7 of 10
Document X20-12057
members may use Government Community Cloud Services.
b. All terms and conditions applicable to non-Government Community Cloud Services
also apply to their corresponding Government Community Cloud Services, except as
otherwise noted in the Use Rights, Product Terms, and this Enrollment.
c. Enrolled Affiliate may not deploy or use Government Community Cloud Services and
corresponding non-Government Community Cloud Services in the same domain.
d. Use Rights for Government Community Cloud Services. For Government
Community Cloud Services, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Use
Rights:
(i) Government Community Cloud Services will be offered only within the United
States.
(ii) Additional European Terms, as set forth in the Use Rights, will not apply.
(iii) References to geographic areas in the Use Rights with respect to the location of
Customer Data at rest, as set forth in the Use Rights, refer only to the United
States.
17.d
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 8 of 10
Document X20-12057
Enrollment Details
1. Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise.
a. Identify which Agency Affiliates are included in the Enterprise. (Required) Enrolled Affiliate’s
Enterprise must consist of entire offices, bureaus, agencies, departments or other entities of
Enrolled Affiliate, not partial offices, bureaus, agencies, or departments, or other partial entities.
Check only one box in this section. If no boxes are checked, Microsoft will deem the Enterprise
to include the Enrolled Affiliate only. If more than one box is checked, Microsoft will deem the
Enterprise to include the largest number of Affiliates:
Enrolled Affiliate only
Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates
Enrolled Affiliate and the following Affiliate(s) (Only identify specific affiliates to be included
if fewer than all Affiliates are to be included in the Enterprise):
Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates, with following Affiliate(s) excluded:
b. Please indicate whether the Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise will include all new Affiliates acquired
after the start of this Enrollment: Exclude future Affiliates
2. Contact information.
Each party will notify the other in writing if any of the information in the following contact information page(s)
changes. The asterisks (*) indicate required fields. By providing contact information, Enrolled Affiliate
consents to its use for purposes of administering this Enrollment by Microsoft, its Affiliates, and other parties
that help administer this Enrollment. The personal information provided in connection with this Enrollment
will be used and protected in accordance with the privacy statement available at
https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/servicecenter.
a. Primary contact. This contact is the primary contact for the Enrollment from within Enrolled
Affiliate’s Enterprise. This contact is also an Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing
Service Center and may grant online access to others. The primary contact will be the default
contact for all purposes unless separate contacts are identified for specific purposes
Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* City of San Luis Obispo
Contact name* First Miguel Last Guardado
Contact email address* mguardado@slocity.org
Street address* 990 Palm St
City* San Luis Obispo
17.d
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 9 of 10
Document X20-12057
State/Province* CA
Postal code* 93401-
(For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx)
Country* US
Phone* 805-781-7017
Tax ID
* indicates required fields
b. Notices contact and Online Administrator. This contact (1) receives the contractual notices,
(2) is the Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may grant online
access to others, and (3) is authorized for applicable Online Services to add or reassign
Licenses and step-up prior to a true-up order.
Same as primary contact (default if no information is provided below, even if the box is not
checked).
Contact name* First Last
Contact email address*
Street address*
City*
State/Province*
Postal code* -
(For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx)
Country*
Phone*
Language preference. Choose the language for notices. English
This contact is a third party (not the Enrolled Affiliate). Warning: This contact receives
personally identifiable information of the Customer and its Affiliates.
* indicates required fields
c. Online Services Manager. This contact is authorized to manage the Online Services ordered
under the Enrollment and (for applicable Online Services) to add or reassign Licenses and
step-up prior to a true-up order.
Same as notices contact and Online Administrator (default if no information is provided
below, even if box is not checked)
Contact name*: First Last
Contact email address*
Phone*
This contact is from a third party organization (not the entity). Warning: This contact
receives personally identifiable information of the entity.
* indicates required fields
d. Reseller information. Reseller contact for this Enrollment is:
Reseller company name* Dell Inc.
Street address (PO boxes will not be accepted)* One Dell Way
City* Round Rock
State/Province* TX
Postal code* 78682
Country* USA
Contact name* Government Contract Admin
Phone* 847-465-3700
Contact email address* US_MS_VL_Admin@Dell.com
* indicates required fields
17.d
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
EA2015EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Aug2015) Page 10 of 10
Document X20-12057
By signing below, the Reseller identified above confirms that all information provided in this
Enrollment is correct.
Signature*
Printed name*
Printed title*
Date*
* indicates required fields
Changing a Reseller. If Microsoft or the Reseller chooses to discontinue doing business with
each other, Enrolled Affiliate must choose a replacement Reseller. If Enrolled Affiliate or the
Reseller intends to terminate their relationship, the initiating party must notify Microsoft and the
other party using a form provided by Microsoft at least 90 days prior to the date on which the
change is to take effect.
e. If Enrolled Affiliate requires a separate contact for any of the following, attach the Supplemental
Contact Information form. Otherwise, the notices contact and Online Administrator remains
the default.
(i) Additional notices contact
(ii) Software Assurance manager
(iii) Subscriptions manager
(iv) Customer Support Manager (CSM) contact
3. Financing elections.
Is a purchase under this Enrollment being financed through MS Financing? Yes, No.
If a purchase under this Enrollment is financed through MS Financing, and Enrolled Affiliate chooses not to
finance any associated taxes, it must pay these taxes directly to Microsoft.
17.d
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment17.d: d - Microsoft Software Enterprise Agreement (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA,LatAm)ExBRA,MLI(ENG)(Aug2014) Page 1 of 2
Program Signature Form
MBA/MBSA number 000-saandrew-008
Agreement number 01E73134
Note: Enter the applicable active numbers associated with the documents below. Microsoft requires
the associated active number be indicated here, or listed below as new.
For the purposes of this form, “Customer” can mean the signing entity, Enrolled Affiliate,
Government Partner, Institution, or other party entering into a volume licensing program agreement.
This signature form and all contract documents identified in the table below are entered into between
the Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate signing, as of the effective date identified below.
Contract Document Number or Code
<Choose Agreement> Document Number or Code
<Choose Agreement> Document Number or Code
<Choose Agreement> Document Number or Code
<Choose Agreement> Document Number or Code
<Choose Agreement> Document Number or Code
Enterprise Enrollment X20-12057
<Choose Enrollment/Registration> Document Number or Code
<Choose Enrollment/Registration> Document Number or Code
<Choose Enrollment/Registration> Document Number or Code
<Choose Enrollment/Registration> Document Number or Code
Product Selection Form 0433453.002 (New)
Amendment M97 (New)
Document Description Document Number or Code
Document Description Document Number or Code
Document Description Document Number or Code
By signing below, Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate agree that both parties (1) have received, read
and understand the above contract documents, including any websites or documents incorporated by
reference and any amendments and (2) agree to be bound by the terms of all such documents.
Customer
Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)* City of San Luis Obispo
Signature*
Printed First and Last Name* Miguel Guardado
Printed Title Network Services Supervisor
Signature Date* 04/29/16
Tax ID
* indicates required field
17.e
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment17.e: e - Microsoft Program Signature Form (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA,LatAm)ExBRA,MLI(ENG)(Aug2014) Page 2 of 2
Microsoft Affiliate
Microsoft Corporation
Signature
Printed First and Last Name
Printed Title
Signature Date
(date Microsoft Affiliate countersigns)
Agreement Effective Date
(may be different than Microsoft’s signature date)
Optional 2nd Customer signature or Outsourcer signature (if applicable)
Customer
Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)*
Signature*
Printed First and Last Name*
Printed Title
Signature Date*
* indicates required field
Outsourcer
Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)*
Signature*
Printed First and Last Name*
Printed Title
Signature Date*
* indicates required field
If Customer requires physical media, additional contacts, or is reporting multiple previous Enrollments,
include the appropriate form(s) with this signature form.
After this signature form is signed by the Customer, send it and the Contract Documents to Customer’s
channel partner or Microsoft account manager, who must submit them to the following address. When
the signature form is fully executed by Microsoft, Customer will receive a confirmation copy.
Microsoft Corporation
Dept. 551, Volume Licensing
6100 Neil Road, Suite 210
Reno, Nevada 89511-1137
USA
17.e
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment17.e: e - Microsoft Program Signature Form (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 1
(i) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Federal Supply Service
Authorized Federal Supply Schedule Price List
On-line access to contract ordering information, terms and conditions, up-to-date pricing, and the
option to create an electronic delivery order are available through GSA Advantage! ®, a menu-
driven database system. The INTERNET address GSA Advantage! ® is: GSAAdvantage.gov
Schedule Title: General Purpose Commercial Information Technology Equipment, Software
and Services
FSC Group, Part, and Section or Standard Industrial Group (as applicable): Not applicable.
FSC Class and/or Product code(s) and/or Service Codes (as applicable): 7010
Contract number: GS-35F-0360J
For more information on ordering from Federal Supply Schedules click on the FSS Schedules button at
fss.gsa.gov
Contract period - 4-6-99 through 4-5-19
Price List Price List Price List Price List current through modification current through modification current through modification current through modification #### P0P0P0P0----0000021, effective April 4, 2014021, effective April 4, 2014021, effective April 4, 2014021, effective April 4, 2014
PlanetPlanetPlanetPlanet Technologies,Technologies,Technologies,Technologies, IncIncIncInc
20400 Observation Drive, Suite 204, Germantown, MD 20876
301-721-0100, 301-721-0189 Fax
www.go-planet.com
17.f
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 2
Approved Amendments
Mod #: Title: Date of Action
A013 Schedule 70 Refresh 24 10/5/2009
A095 Schedule 70 Refresh 26 9/30/2010
A112 Authorized Negotiators 5/9/2011
A160 Schedule 70 Refresh 27 5/9/2011
A188 Schedule 70 Refresh 28 9/21/2011
A197 Schedule 70 Refresh 29 9/21/2011
A215 Schedule 70 Refresh 30 2/23/2012
A308 Schedule 70 Refresh 31 6/11/2013
A344 Removal of Clause I-FSS-125 12/11/2013
A345 Schedule 70 Refresh 32 03/04/2014
Business size. Other Small Business
(ii) CUSTOMER INFORMATION: The following information should be placed under this heading
in consecutively numbered paragraphs in the sequence set forth below. If this information is
placed in another part of the Federal Supply Schedule Price List, a table of contents must be
shown on the cover page that refers to the exact location of the information.
1a. Special Item No 132-51 Information Technology Professional Services – services
descriptions are on pages 8 to 12 and awarded prices are on page 12.
1b. Identification of the lowest priced model number and lowest unit price for that model
for each special item number awarded in the contract.
Sr. Analyst - $95.72
1c. A description of all corresponding commercial job titles, experience, functional
responsibility and education for those types of employees or subcontractors who will
perform services shall be provided – See pages 8 to 11.
2. Maximum order: $500,000.
3. Minimum order: $100
4. Geographic coverage (delivery area): Domestic delivery is delivery within the 48
contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, and U.S. Territories. Domestic
delivery also includes a port or consolidation point, within the aforementioned areas, for orders
received from overseas activities.
Overseas delivery is delivery to points outside of the 48 contiguous states, Washington, DC,
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Territories.
The Geographic Scope of Contract will be domestic and overseas delivery.
5. Point of production: Germantown, Montgomery County, Maryland.
17.f
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 3
6. Discount from list prices or statement of net price. Prices are net prices.
7. Quantity discounts – None.
8. Prompt payment terms - 1/2% - 20 days from receipt of invoice or date of acceptance.
9a. Notification that Government purchase cards are accepted at or below the micro-
purchase threshold – Yes.
9b. Notification whether Government purchase cards are accepted or not accepted above
the micro-purchase threshold – Yes.
10. Foreign items – Not applicable.
11a. Time of delivery - To be negotiated with each authorized ordering activity.
11b. Expedited Delivery – Not Applicable.
11c. Overnight and 2-day delivery – Not Applicable.
11d. Urgent Requirements – Not Applicable.
12. F.O.B. point: DEST.
13a. Ordering address:
Planet Technologies, Inc
20400 Observation Drive, Suite 204
Germantown, MD 20876
13b. Ordering procedures: For supplies and services, the ordering procedures, information on
Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA’s) are found in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
8.405-3.
14. Payment address:
Planet Technologies, Inc
20400 Observation Drive, Suite 204
Germantown, MD 20876
15. Warranty provision – Workmanlike manner.
16. Export packing charges – Not Applicable.
17. Terms and conditions of Government purchase card acceptance (any thresholds above
the micro-purchase level) – No restrictions.
18. Terms and conditions of rental, maintenance, and repair – Not Applicable.
17.f
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 4
19. Terms and conditions of installation – Not Applicable.
20. Terms and conditions of repair parts indicating date of parts price lists and any
discounts from list prices – Not Applicable.
20a. Terms and conditions for any other services – see pages 5 to 9.
21. List of service and distribution points - – Not Applicable.
22. List of participating dealers – Not Applicable.
23. Preventive maintenance – Not Applicable.
24a. Special attributes such as environmental attributes (e.g., recycled content, energy
efficiency, and/or reduced pollutants) - – Not Applicable.
24b. If applicable, indicate that Section 508 compliance information is available on
Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) supplies and services and show where
full details can be found (e.g. contractor’s website or other location.) The EIT standards
can be found at: www.Section508.gov/ - – Not Applicable.
25. Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number – 013020685.
26. Notification regarding registration in System for Award Management (SAM)
database – Yes.
17.f
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 5
TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (SPECIAL ITEM NUMBER 132-51)
1. SCOPE
a. The prices, terms and conditions stated under Special Item Number 132-51 Information Technology
Professional Services apply exclusively to IT Services within the scope of this Information Technology
Schedule.
b. The Contractor shall provide services at the Contractor’s facility and/or at the ordering activity location,
as agreed to by the Contractor and the ordering activity.
2. PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES
a. Performance incentives may be agreed upon between the Contractor and the ordering activity on
individual fixed price orders or Blanket Purchase Agreements under this contract in accordance with this clause.
b. The ordering activity must establish a maximum performance incentive price for these services
and/or total solutions on individual orders or Blanket Purchase Agreements.
c. Incentives should be designed to relate results achieved by the contractor to specified targets. To the
maximum extent practicable, ordering activities shall consider establishing incentives where performance is
critical to the ordering activity’s mission and incentives are likely to motivate the contractor. Incentives shall be
based on objectively measurable tasks.
3. ORDER
a. Agencies may use written orders, EDI orders, blanket purchase agreements, individual purchase orders,
or task orders for ordering services under this contract. Blanket Purchase Agreements shall not extend beyond
the end of the contract period; all services and delivery shall be made and the contract terms and conditions
shall continue in effect until the completion of the order. Orders for tasks which extend beyond the fiscal year
for which funds are available shall include FAR 52.232-19 (Deviation – May 2003) Availability of Funds for
the Next Fiscal Year. The purchase order shall specify the availability of funds and the period for which funds
are available.
b. All task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. In the event of conflict between a
task order and the contract, the contract will take precedence.
4. PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES
a. The Contractor shall commence performance of services on the date agreed to by the Contractor and the
ordering activity.
b. The Contractor agrees to render services only during normal working hours, unless otherwise agreed
to by the Contractor and the ordering activity.
17.f
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 6
c. The ordering activity should include the criteria for satisfactory completion for each task in the Statement
of Work or Delivery Order. Services shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner.
d. Any Contractor travel required in the performance of IT Services must comply with the Federal Travel
Regulation or Joint Travel Regulations, as applicable, in effect on the date(s) the travel is performed. Established
Federal Government per diem rates will apply to all Contractor travel. Contractors cannot use GSA city pair
contracts.
5. STOP-WORK ORDER (FAR 52.242-15) (AUG 1989)
(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any time, by written order to the Contractor, require the Contractor to
stop all, or any part, of the work called for by this contract for a period of 90 days after the order is delivered to
the Contractor, and for any further period to which the parties may agree. The order shall be specifically
identified as a stop-work order issued under this clause. Upon receipt of the order, the Contractor shall
immediately comply with its terms and take all reasonable steps to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to
the work covered by the order during the period of work stoppage. Within a period of 90 days after a stop-work is
delivered to the Contractor, or within any extension of that period to which the parties shall have agreed, the
Contracting Officer shall either-
(1) Cancel the stop-work order; or
(2) Terminate the work covered by the order as provided in the Default, or the Termination for
Convenience of the Government, clause of this contract.
(b) If a stop-work order issued under this clause is canceled or the period of the order or any extension
thereof expires, the Contractor shall resume work. The Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in
the delivery schedule or contract price, or both, and the contract shall be modified, in writing, accordingly, if-
(1) The stop-work order results in an increase in the time required for, or in the Contractor's cost
properly allocable to, the performance of any part of this contract; and
(2) The Contractor asserts its right to the adjustment within 30 days after the end of the period of
work stoppage; provided, that, if the Contracting Officer decides the facts justify the action, the
Contracting Officer may receive and act upon the claim submitted at any time before final payment
under this contract.
(c) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for the
convenience of the Government, the Contracting Officer shall allow reasonable costs resulting from the stop-
work order in arriving at the termination settlement.
(d) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for default, the
Contracting Officer shall allow, by equitable adjustment or otherwise, reasonable costs resulting from the stop-
work order.
17.f
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 7
6. INSPECTION OF SERVICES
The Inspection of Services–Fixed Price (AUG 1996) (Deviation – May 2003) clause at FAR 52.246-4 applies to
firm-fixed price orders placed under this contract. The Inspection–Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour (JAN
1986) (Deviation – May 2003) clause at FAR 52.246-6 applies to time-and-materials and labor-hour orders placed
under this contract.
7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR
The Contractor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations (Federal, State, City, or otherwise) covering
work of this character. If the end product of a task order is software, then FAR 52.227-14 (Deviation – May
2003) Rights in Data – General, may apply.
8. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORDERING ACTIVITY
Subject to security regulations, the ordering activity shall permit Contractor access to all facilities necessary to
perform the requisite IT Services.
9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
All IT Services performed by the Contractor under the terms of this contract shall be as an independent
Contractor, and not as an agent or employee of the ordering activity.
10. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
a. Definitions.
“Contractor” means the person, firm, unincorporated association, joint venture, partnership, or corporation that is
a party to this contract.
“Contractor and its affiliates” and “Contractor or its affiliates” refers to the Contractor, its chief executives,
directors, officers, subsidiaries, affiliates, subcontractors at any tier, and consultants and any joint venture
involving the Contractor, any entity into or with which the Contractor subsequently merges or affiliates, or any
other successor or assignee of the Contractor.
An “Organizational conflict of interest” exists when the nature of the work to be performed under a proposed
ordering activity contract, without some restriction on ordering activities by the Contractor and its affiliates,
may either (i) result in an unfair competitive advantage to the Contractor or its affiliates or (ii) impair the
Contractor’s or its affiliates’ objectivity in performing contract work.
17.f
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 8
b. To avoid an organizational or financial conflict of interest and to avoid prejudicing the best interests of
the ordering activity, ordering activities may place restrictions on the Contractors, its affiliates, chief executives,
directors, subsidiaries and subcontractors at any tier when placing orders against schedule contracts. Such
restrictions shall be consistent with FAR 9.505 and shall be designed to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate
organizational conflicts of interest that might otherwise exist in situations related to individual orders placed
against the schedule contract. Examples of situations, which may require restrictions, are provided at FAR 9.508.
11. INVOICES
The Contractor, upon completion of the work ordered, shall submit invoices for IT services. Progress payments
may be authorized by the ordering activity on individual orders if appropriate. Progress payments shall be
based upon completion of defined milestones or interim products. Invoices shall be submitted monthly for
recurring services performed during the preceding month.
12. PAYMENTS
For firm-fixed price orders the ordering activity shall pay the Contractor, upon submission of proper invoices or
vouchers, the prices stipulated in this contract for service rendered and accepted. Progress payments shall be
made only when authorized by the order. For time-and-materials orders, the Payments under Time-and-Materials
and Labor-Hour Contracts at FAR 52.232-7 (DEC 2002), (Alternate II – Feb 2002) (Deviation – May 2003)
applies to time-and-materials orders placed under this contract. For labor-hour orders, the Payment under Time-
and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts at FAR 52.232-7 (DEC 2002), (Alternate II – Feb 2002) (Deviation –
May 2003)) applies to labor-hour orders placed under this contract. 52.216-31(Feb 2007) Time-and-
Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Commercial Item Acquisition As prescribed in 16.601(e)(3),
insert the following provision:
(a) The Government contemplates award of a Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hour type of contract
resulting from this solicitation.
(b) The offeror must specify fixed hourly rates in its offer that include wages, overhead, general and
administrative expenses, and profit. The offeror must specify whether the fixed hourly rate for each
labor category applies to labor performed by—
(1) The offeror;
(2) Subcontractors; and/or
(3) Divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control.
13. RESUMES
Resumes shall be provided to the GSA Contracting Officer or the user ordering activity upon request.
14. INCIDENTAL SUPPORT COSTS
Incidental support costs are available outside the scope of this contract. The costs will be negotiated
separately with the ordering activity in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the FAR.
17.f
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 9
15. APPROVAL OF SUBCONTRACTS
The ordering activity may require that the Contractor receive, from the ordering activity's Contracting Officer,
written consent before placing any subcontract for furnishing any of the work called for in a task order.
The ordering activity may require that the Contractor receive, from the ordering activity's Contracting Officer,
written consent before placing any subcontract for furnishing any of the work called for in a task order.
16. DESCRIPTION OF IT SERVICES AND PRICING
SR. ANALYST
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: Three years of experience in ADP system analysis and programming and
utilizing major concepts of application programming on large-scale database management systems. Experience
with the development of block diagrams and logic flow charts.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Under general supervision of the Senior Software Engineer, develops
and/or maintains operating systems communications software, database packages, compilers, assemblers, and
utility programs. Modifies existing and creates special purpose software and ensure systems efficiency and
integrity. Analyzes systems requirements and design specifications. Develops block diagrams and logic flow
charts. Translates detailed design into computer software. Tests, debugs, and refines the computer software to
produce the required product. Prepares required documentation, including project plans, software program and
user documentation. Enhances software to reduce operating time or improve efficiency. Provides technical
direction to less experienced programmers.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor’s degree.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: Ten years of experience in complete IT engineering project development from
inception to deployment, with a demonstrated ability to provide guidance and direction in IT engineering tasks of a
technical nature. The Program Director shall also have demonstrated capability in the overall management of multi-
task contracts of this type and/or Complexity, including but not limited to Sharepoint, CRM, IA.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Interfaces with government management personnel, contract managers,
and customer agency representatives. Responsible for formulating and enforcing work standards, assigning
contractor schedules, reviewing work quality, communicating policies, purposes, and goals of the organization to
subordinates.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor’s degree.
17.f
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 10
TECHNICIAN
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: One to three years demonstrated performance or internship in related technology.
Experienced in topic such networks, integration and systems design and implementation.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Works to support the Microsoft Project manager to ensure development,
analysis or deployment remains on schedule and in line with the current capabilities and future directions of
Microsoft products. Technician (Project Support). Designs and writes code as required for selected customer
systems; directly involved in the hands-on implementation of customer systems. Provide Technical Writing and
Documentation support.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT –INTERMEDIATE
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: (3) Three years related experience in technical and specialization applications and
skilled in engineering large, complex projects.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Provides technical knowledge and skill in using specialized computer
applications. Experienced in the computer operational environment and using high-level functional systems analysis,
design, integration, documentation, and implementation on complex problems which require in-depth knowledge of
the subject matter. Applies principles, methods and knowledge of the functional area and in the process uses
advanced mathematical principles and methods to arrive at practical, innovative solutions.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor's Degree.
INFORMATION ASSURANCE –INTERMEDIATE
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: (3) Three of demonstrated performance in computer information security or
information assurance. Must have experience in security administration and policy development.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Responsible for establishing information security/assurance requirements
for all applications, systems, and networks based upon the analysis of user, policy, regulatory, and resource
demands. Coordinates with the customer organization to establish and define programs, resources, and risks.
Provides guidance and direction to other professionals, acts in a consulting and/or advisory capacity, coordinates
resolution of highly complex problems and tasks.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor's Degree.
17.f
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 11
INFORMATION ASSURANCE –JOURNEYMAN
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: (1) One year of related experience in information assurance or related information
security.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Responsible for identifying, developing, and tracking system- wide
information security solutions. This individual will perform functions such as requirements analysis, verification,
and validation testing based upon the analysis of user, policy, regulatory, and resource demands.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor's Degree.
TECHNICIAN III
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: (5) Five plus years demonstrated performance in related technology. Experienced in
topic such complex networks, cross- platform integration and large-scale, complex systems design and
implementation. This individual will have been trained in product futures, and relevant Certified Training associated
with Microsoft's products.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Works to support the Microsoft Project manager to ensure development,
analysis or deployment remains on schedule and in line with the current capabilities and future directions of
Microsoft products.
MINIMUM EDUCATION:Bachelor's Degree.
TECHNICIAN II
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: (3) Three years demonstrated performance in related technology. Experienced in topic
such complex networks, cross- platform integration and large-scale, complex systems design and implementation.
This individual will have been trained in product futures, and relevant Certified Training associated with Microsoft's
products.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Works to support the MicrosoftProject manager to ensure development,
analysis or deployment remains on schedule and in line with the current capabilities and future directions of
Microsoft products. Technician II (Project Support). Assists in delivering technical presentations to customer staff.
Designs and write code as required for selected customer systems. Develops documentation on selected customer
systems and objectives. Directly involved in the hands-on implementation of customer systems. Works with MCS &
customer staff personnel to support technical strategy and control objectives.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor's Degree.
17.f
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Planet Technologies, Inc GS-35F-0360J Pg 12
TECHNICIAN I
GENERAL EXPERIENCE: (1) One years demonstrated performance or internship in related technology.
Experienced in topic such complex networks, cross- platform integration and large-scale, complex systems design
and implementation. This individual will have been trained in product futures, and relevant Certified Training
associated with Microsoft's products.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES: Works to support the Microsoft Project manager to ensure development,
analysis or deployment remains on schedule and in line with the current capabilities and future directions of
Microsoft products.
MINIMUM EDUCATION: Bachelor's Degree.
Labor Category
GSA Rates
(Off-Site Rates - Ordering Activity)
Sr. Analyst $95.72
Project Director $125.00
Technician $134.76
Subject Matter Expert – Intermediate $202.92
Information Assurance – Intermediate $172.29
Information Assurance – Journeyman $143.58
Technician III $258.44
Technician II $191.44
Technician I $172.29
17.f
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment17.f: f - Planet GSA Contract (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
QUOTE Date:
5/20/2016
Planet Technologies, Inc.
20400 Observation Drive,
Suite 107
Germantown, MD 20876
(631) 269-6140
ccobb@go-
planet.com; ar@go-
planet.com
To
Payment Terms: Net 30
GSA # GS-35F-0360J
Attention: Miguel Guardado
City of San Luis Obispo
Qty Item # Description Unit Price Line Total
1 CACSL01
Exchange Online Cutover Migration
· Discovery, Planning, and Design
· AD/Exchange Remediation
· Tenant Provisioning and Configuration
· Identity Synchronization Deployment (AADConnect)
· Exchange 2016 Server for User Management
· Migration Environment Configuration
· Email Migration: POC, Pilot, and Prod (2 calendar
weeks)
· Includes one on-site trip
$45,000 $45,000
Subtotal $45,000
Sales Tax $0
Total $45,000
Quotation prepared by: Clayton P. Cobb
To accept this quotation, sign here and return: _____________________________________________
Thank you for your business!
17.g
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment17.g: g - Planet Migration and Configuration Quote (1372 : Microsoft Office 365 Upgrade)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy S. Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Steve Schmidt, IT Manager
Brigitte Elke, Business Manager
Isaac Shuck, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor
SUBJECT: CONTROL SYSTEMS FLEET EXPANSION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91458
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Finance Director to expand the City Fleet by two vehicles; and
2. Authorize the Finance Director to execute a purchase order to Toyota of San Luis Obispo in
the amount of $67,178.06 for the purchase of two 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 pickups.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Utilities and Information Technology Departments have been working together for the past
two years to create two new Control Systems positions in the City. These two new positions will
be funded by the Utilities Department but will be managed by Information Technology. The
new employees will be greatly involved with the design, installation, testing, and maintenance of
all the Utilities Department’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and telemetry
hardware and software for all water distribution and wastewater facilities. The mission critical
and highly technical nature of these systems requires employees with specialized skills and
experience to assure continued uninterrupted services to the City. With the addition of these two
employees, the Utilities Department will need two new vehicles.
The need for crew cab, 4 x 4 pickups was identified for the following reasons:
Frequent need to take more than two technicians to remote mountaintop sites.
Travel to SCADA and Telemetry training for more than two technicians.
Oftentimes, more than two technicians are required for technical equipment installations.
Roads to most water tank and mountaintop repeater sites are not maintained and require a
4 x 4 vehicle.
Technicians need the additional space in the cab to transport critical and very fragile
SCADA and telemetry equipment.
18
Packet Pg. 529
Cooperative Purchase versus Local Purchase
Staff recommends a purchase award to Toyota of San Luis Obispo in the amount of $67,178.06
for two 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 pickups.
Pursuant to City purchasing guidelines, staff explored use of a multi-year cooperative purchasing
agreement with the State of California Contract No. 1-16-23-20 C, to purchase two Toyota pickups.
This resulted in a quote in the amount of $68,556.54 through its approved dealer, Freeway Toyota,
for pickups that met City specifications. Per City purchasing guidelines, staff contacted the local
dealer, Toyota of San Luis Obispo, for comparative pricing and received a quote in the amount of
$67,178.06.
CONCURRENCES
IT and Utilities management concur with the vehicle recommendation made in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for these vehicles will be split between the Water and Sewer Fund Completed Projects
accounts. The current balance in the Water Fund Completed Projects account is $115,657 and the
current balance in the Sewer Fund Completed Projects account is $43,063.
ALTERNATIVES
Defer Purchase.
The City Council could choose to deny the Fleet expansion and purchase of two new pickups.
Staff does not recommend this option as each technician will need access by vehicle to both local
and remote City facilities to perform their jobs.
Attachments:
18.a a - Toyota of SLO Quote - 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4
Vehicle Costs
Base Vehicle Cost $30,986.00
Doc Fee $80.00
Tire Fee $8.75
License Filing Fee $29.00
Sales Tax $2,485.28
Total Vehicle Cost $33,589.03
Total Vehicle Cost (Qty 2)$67,178.06
18
Packet Pg. 530
18.a
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment18.a: a - Toyota of SLO Quote - 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 (1377 : Control Systems Fleet Expansion)
18.a
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment18.a: a - Toyota of SLO Quote - 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 (1377 : Control Systems Fleet Expansion)
18.a
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment18.a: a - Toyota of SLO Quote - 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 (1377 : Control Systems Fleet Expansion)
18.a
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment18.a: a - Toyota of SLO Quote - 2016 Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 (1377 : Control Systems Fleet Expansion)
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Ron Combs, City Arborist
SUBJECT: URBAN FOREST CONTRACT SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve Request for Proposal for "Urban Forestry Contract Services;" and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for proposals; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with the selected contractor in an amount
not-to-exceed the authorized budget.
DISCUSSION
The City’s small but versatile Urban Forest maintenance crew does a good job keeping up with
service requests and special programs. However, in order to keep up with the large workload of
block by block street tree and park tree pruning, the City has used a service contract. The
contract services augment staff work to complete pruning in advance of large paving operations,
and, in general, perform tree pruning to maintain the trees, enhance public safety, and reduce
liability for the City.
The Council also has for consideration, as part of the 2016-17 Supplemental Budget, a Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) request to accomplish some larger scale Urban Forest work. If
approved, the Urban Forest contract would be used to accomplish the CIP work, allowing for
streamlined project delivery.
The most recent contract was awarded in August 2012 and will expire at the end of June 2016.
This Request for Proposals will provide an opportunity for other companies to compete for
providing these services.
Schedule and Selection Process
Proposals will be reviewed to determine if companies can provide a full range of services needed
and have references indicating quality service and responsiveness. Additional information may
be requested where more than one company appears to be very qualified to complete the work.
Once proposers have been ranked based on references, knowledge, and experience, proposed
costs will be reviewed to determine the best overall value for the City and provide a
recommendation for award.
19
Packet Pg. 535
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed 2016-2017 Financial Plan provides $48,900 annually for contract tree trimming.
This level of funding would normally provide for the City Manager to approve the advertising of
the proposal. Council approval of the RFP, instead of City Manager approval, is being requested
to account for potential CIP project work over the duration of the contract. This process ensures
spending remains in compliance with the City’s Purchasing Policy limits for CIP project work
and possible emergency response efforts. The proposed CIP project for the 2016-17 budget, if
approved, will provide an additional $215,000 for Urban Forest projects through the Local
Revenue Measure.
The tree maintenance services contract will specify prices for various types and sizes of trees.
Each year the Arborist will order tree maintenance services for specific trees to complete needed
work. If CIP project work is approved, the City Arborist will oversee completion of the project
work through the contract. This contract can also be used under emergency situations to augment
City forces.
ALTERNATIVE
Deny, or reduce work scope. The Council may choose to deny authorization for the Request for
Proposal. Staff does not recommend this alternative as this would result in a reduced frequency
of pruning, possibly increasing the City’s risk of liability for damage caused by failed trees.
Attachments:
19.a a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP
19
Packet Pg. 536
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Notice Requesting Proposals for
URBAN FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES
Specification No. 50220-2016
June 2016
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for Tree Maintenance Services
pursuant to Specification No. 50220-2016. All proposals must be received by the Public Works
Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on July 7, 2016.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening,
each proposal shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly
marked with the proposal title, specification number, Contractor name, and time and date of
the proposal opening. Proposals must be submitted using the forms provided in the
specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals page
Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above address
Mail a request to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the above address
Requests must include the RFP title and specification number.
Project Detail Information
Project detail information may be obtained by contacting Ron Combs at (805) 781-7023.
19.a
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 2 of 26
Specification No. 50220-2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK .................................................................................................................. 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 4
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................ 4
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................. 5
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................ 6
PROPOSAL CONTENT .......................................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACTOR SELECTION .................................................. 6
Proposal Review and Award Schedule ................................................................................ 7
FORM OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 8
SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................... 17
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS .................................................................................................... 20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... 20
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................. 20
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 21
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS .................................................... 23
CONTRACT COST PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 24
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Operation & Maintenance Contracts ........................................... 25
19.a
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 3 of 26
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City of San Luis Obispo is soliciting proposals from qualified firms to provide annual services for
tree pruning maintenance, removal and stump grinding, and replacement of trees as needed within
the City’s Urban Forest. The City has approximately 20,000 street and park trees that comprise its
regularly maintained Urban Forest. The work load is greater than the City’s single Urban Forest crew
can accomplish.
The City wishes to supplement the Urban Forestry Program with contract services to accomplish the
work necessary to maintain the Urban Forest. The work consists primarily of tree pruning, tree
removal, stump grinding, chipping and associated traffic control and clean up. The City may also
occasionally need arborist reports, consultation on trees, assistance with inventory, tree planting,
new tree care, and emergency services.
The purpose of this contract is to provide the City of San Luis Obispo with the best possible tree care
to maintain the City’s urban forest at a level expected by the City’s residents, City council, City staff
and visitors, at reasonable costs. The selected firm will work closely with the City Arborist and other
City staff to ensure the most appropriate care and maintenance of the City’s Urban Forest wi th
sensitivity to the City of San Luis Obispo, its residents and visitors. The work may also include one-
time project work to address Urban Forest needs.
It is the intent of the City to award an on-call service contract to the selected firm. The City shall
reserve the right to reject any proposal for noncompliance with contract requirements and
provisions, or to not award a contract because of unforeseen circumstances or if it is determined to
be in the best interest of the City. This contract will be awarded based on demonstrated ability and
performance providing similar services at a fair and reasonable cost. This contract may, or may not,
be awarded to the lowest bidder. The City Council will approve as part of the adopted Financial Plan
an annual budget for contract services in the Tree Program and any one time project funding. The
City does not guarantee a specific amount of work and the quantity of work may increase or decrease
depending on the annual needs of the Urban Forest program and adopted proj ect work by the City
Council. The City may also contract at the same time with other firms to complete similar work.
Maintenance work is outlined in detail in Agreement Exhibit A, “Scope of Work” of this specification.
19.a
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 4 of 26
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue
of its proposal submittal, the Contractor 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 enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the
Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the
proposal title, specification number, name of Con tractor, 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 Con tractor’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 F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references
on the form provided in the RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any
past government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Contractor may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Public
Works Department for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the
Contractor unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than
that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened
and declared publicly. Contractors or their representatives are invited to be present at the
opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to
make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when
specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -
proposal to a Contractor submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such
19.a
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 5 of 26
Contractor, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to
other Contractors submitting proposals.
8. 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 wil l
be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be
expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. 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 quali fied by specific
limitations. See the "Special Terms and Conditions" in Section C of these specifications for
proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Contractor. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Contractors. Contractors will
provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a
decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Contractor to whom award is made shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at
the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and
incorporated in these specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverage
and amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after
notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license
and tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's
business license and tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. If the Contractor to whom the award is made fails to enter into the
contract the award will be annulled and an award may be made to the next highest ranked
Contractor with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every
stipulation as if it were the party to whom th e first award was made.
19.a
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 6 of 26
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
e. Standard billing rates by work item for Contractor and sub-contractors
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing similar services
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to the project in performing similar services
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work
d. Certifications or training of the individuals who would be assigned to this work, including any
sub-contractors
e. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project
or disqualified from proposing on a project
f. Detailed list of services available
g. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision
3. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Ch arts and
other short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. 2 copies of the proposal must be submitted.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACTOR SELECTION
4. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the
responsiveness, qualifications and understanding of the Contractor relative to these specification
requirements. Where one proposal is rated consistently higher than the others, the con tractor
may be selected as the top ranked Contractor for purposes of contract negotiation. Alternatively,
a group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 five propos als) may be selected for follow-
up for additional clarifying information, before a final top ranke d Contractor is determined.
5. Contractor Selection and Compensation
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for
completing the work as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria described
above; results of background and reference checks; and proposed compensation. Pending labor
actions may be grounds to disqualify proposals.
19.a
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 7 of 26
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFP .......................................................... 06/18/16
Receive proposals ............................................ 07/07/16
Complete proposal evaluation ........................ 07/14/16
Finalize staff recommendation ........................ 07/18/16
Award contract ................................................ 07/29/16
Execute contract .............................................. 08/12/16
Start work ........................................................ 08/15/16
19.a
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 8 of 26
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, 2016]
by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2016 the City of San Luis Obispo requested proposals for Tree
Maintenance Services per Specification No. 50220-2016.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by
City for said services.
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 b e from August 1, 2016 to August 30, 2019 or until
termination of the contract in accordance with this agreement .
2. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an
additional 3 years.
3. Compensation Adjustment. Original contract prices shall remain in effect through June 30, 2017.
During the term of the agreement, beginning July 1, 2017, contract prices may be increased by a
percentage equal to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the previous year to March in the year of adjustment.
4. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses all capital and other equipment,
labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in
compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
The Contractor's employees shall be competent and qualified to perform the specified work and
shall perform the specified work in an orderly manner. If the City's representative advises the
Contractor that an employee is incompetent, unqualified, or disorderly, the Contractor shall
remove that employee from the specified work for the duration of the contract. The Contractor
shall not bring to the specified work locations any pets, children, or persons not employed under
the contract.
5. Contractor Identification. All staff employed in the work shall wear a shirt or jacket clearly
identifying the Contractor’s company.
19.a
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 9 of 26
6. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted
without written authorization by the City.
7. 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.
8. Scope of Work and Levels of Service. The Contractor shall furnish services for the Urban Forest
as specified in Exhibit A.
The City may periodically request additional unspecified work, such as emergency response to
downed trees. For this work, the City shall pay the Contractor an amount equal to the employee
hours used multiplied by the accepted labor rate, equipment and material costs as shown in
Exhibit B.
9. Work Hours. The Contractor shall perform maintenance work on weekdays (Monday through
Friday) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Contractor shall not perform any of the
specified work outside of these work hours without the previous written consent from the City’s
Contract Manager. The Downtown Area work shall be completed no later than 12 noon. Work
hours will be restricted on arterial streets to avoid high traffic volume times.
10. Emergency Response. The Contractor shall be available to provide an initial response to
emergency calls from the Contract Manager or his authorized designee. The Contractor shall
secure the area initially and work with the Contract Manager to develop the workscope and
timeline.
11. Work Schedule and Submittals. At the beginning of each month the Contractor shall submit to
the City a proposed schedule showing the sites and tasks to be completed during the upcoming
month. Contractor shall submit the work and Tree Maintenance forms weekly, at the end of
every work week in which the Contractor performed work, to the Corporation Yard office, 25
Prado Road.
When submitting an invoice for work completed during a month, the Contractor shall include with
the invoice a copy of the schedule showing the actual dates when work was completed. Failure to
provide an adequate schedule or to complete and submit the weekly tree maintenance forms will
result in a forfeiture of 10% of the total monthly payment due.
12. Materials. The Contractor shall not use any material for the specified work without the City's
prior written approval of that material. The Contractor shall provide the Contract Manager 3
working days of advance notice of planting to examine plant material prior to placement .
13. Inspection and Corrections. The Contractor shall furnish the City with every reasonable
opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of th e 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
19.a
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 10 of 26
work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. The
City Contract Manager shall be sole judge of the adequacy of the Contractor’s maintenance.
The Contractor shall make itself available to the City’s Contract Manager at least once a month to
inspect locations where work was scheduled for completion that month. The City's Contract
Manager will periodically inspect work locations and document any deficiencies in writing. Any
deficiencies will be reported to the Contractor before the end of the third week of the month for
correction.
If the Contractor does not correct a documented deficiency by the end of the month, it shall
forfeit 20% of the cost of the work performed where the deficiency occurred. If the deficiency is
not corrected within the next month, 100% of the of the cost of the work where the deficiency
occurred will be forfeited. The City will deduct such forfeiture from its next payment.
14. 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 termination 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
completed.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the work, 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.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, City reserves the right to terminate this
agreement without cause and for any reason wh atsoever upon thirty (30) days prior written
notice.
15. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and
regulations as well as performance of the contract, the Contractor and sub-contractors shall
maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the
19.a
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 11 of 26
performance of the contract, including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract.
Materials shall be made available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the
contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under the contract.
Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all
records. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
16. Release of Reports and Information. The Contractor shall not issue any news release or public
relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under
this contract without prior review of the conten ts thereof by the City and receipt of the City’s
written permission.
17. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, or
any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as
part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such
additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of
duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense.
18. Conflict of Interest. The Contractor shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship
with the City that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City
project. The Contractor shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the
outcome of this contract.
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
sub-contractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that
no one who has or will have any financial interes t 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.
19. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration . The Contractor warrants that this contract
was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either
promised or paid to any City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall
have the right in its discretion; to terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the
value of the work actually performed; to deduct from the contract price; or otherwise recover the
full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
20. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Contractor warrants by execution of this contract that
no person or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon
an agreement or understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee,
excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies
maintained by the Contractor for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this
warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability; pay only for the value of
the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract pric e or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage,
or contingent fee.
19.a
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 12 of 26
21. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. 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. This
includes compliance with prevailing wage rates and their payment in accordance with California
Labor Code.
22. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
23. Permits, Licenses, and Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain current, all permits,
licenses, and specified insurance, and pay all charges and fees, and file all notices as they pertain
to the completion of the Contractor’s work. The Contractor shall be a properly licensed contractor
with the State of California and have a ISA Certified Arborist on staff .
24. Traffic Control. The Contractor shall furnish all traffic control delineation required in order to
perform the specified work. Traffic control delineation shall comply with all local, state, and
federal regulations. The Contractor shall not close street lanes wit hout the City's previous written
consent. Contractor shall provide proper traffic control at all times for vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian travel.
25. Encroachment Permits. When specified work must be completed on state highways, such as
those on Santa Rosa Street, the Contractor shall obtain and pay for any encroachment permits
which may be required from the State of California Department of Transportation. The cost of
State Encroachment Permits required for the work, will be reimbursed by the City.
For any work within the City’s public Right-of-Way, the Contract is responsible to obtain a no cost
encroachment permit from the City.
26. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all
claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property,
19.a
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 13 of 26
including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are
connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor,
and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all
expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's
duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the
established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees.
30. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-contractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
31. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the
Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -Contractors as it may employ, to
engage in discrimination in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal
law.
32. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. In
preparing its proposal, the Contractor and all sub-contractors named in its proposal shall bear
sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions
in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining th e project site.
Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law,
any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of Contractor to inquire prior to proposal
submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against
the Contractor. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the
Contractor, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have
known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Contractor or sub-
contractors to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal
submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of
the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be
liable for costs incurred by the successful Contractor to achieve the project’s objective or
standard beyond the amounts provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or
alleged ambiguity or defect in the specifications, or an y other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall
immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all sub-contractors shall continue to
perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or
trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional
compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written
notice within 1 working day of Contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the
plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
19.a
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 14 of 26
33. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this
proposal from other contractors during the contract term.
34. Contractor Endorsement. Technical reports shall be signed by the Contractor where required.
35. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and t itle to
all reports and documents produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in the
City and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Contractor
shall furnish the City all necessary copies of data needed to comp lete the review and approval
process.
The Contractor is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the
modification, or misuse by the City of the information and data provided by the Contractor under
this agreement. Further, the Contractor is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of,
or connected with any use by City of the work products except such use as may be authorized in
writing by the Contractor.
36. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by work
type. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and miscellaneous charges and any sub -
contractor invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
37. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall
receive therefore compensation for individual site work in accordance with the prices included in
Exhibit B.
38. 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).
39. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising
under this contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee
consisting of the City’s Project Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider
written or verbal information submitted by the Contractor. Not later than thirty days after
completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans, specifications and estimate, the
Contractor may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or disputes, other than
audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code .
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not
disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not la ter than 30
days after issuance of the final audit report, the Contractor may request a review by the City’s
Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review must be submitted in
writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the Contractor
from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
19.a
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 15 of 26
40. Agreement Parties.
City: Ron Combs / Contract Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
25 Prado Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor: Name / Contract Manager
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by
registered or certified mail addressed as shown above.
41. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal Specification No. 50220-2016 and
Contractor's proposal dated July 7, 2016, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this
Agreement.
42. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement sh all
be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Engineer. If, at any time during
the project, the Contractor is directed to do work by persons other than the City ’s Contract
Manager and the Contractor believes that the work is outside of the scope of the original
contract, the Contractor shall inform the Contract Manager immediately. If the Contract Manager
and Contractor both agree that the work is outside of the original scope and is necessary to the
successful completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on
Contractor's hourly billing rates or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the
Contractor. Any extra work performed by Contractor without prior written approval from the
City’s Contract Manager shall be at Contractor's own expense.
43. 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. 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, the said specification
and incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual
executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
19.a
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 16 of 26
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: CONTRACTOR:
Name of Company
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
[Name of CAO/President]
Its: CAO / President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
19.a
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 17 of 26
Exhibit A to Agreement
SCOPE OF WORK
All tree pruning shall comply with the American National Standard Institute, ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and
ANSI Z133.1, Safety Requirements for Tree Pruning, Trimming, Repair or Removal. Tree care shall be consistent
with the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices.
1. Overall Description of Primary Work
a. Furnish all labor, materials, equipment, and incidental items required to lawfully perform the
tree maintenance tasks described in this section within areas assigned by the City
representative.
b. Comply fully with this specification.
2. Street and Sidewalk Clearances
a. Elevate trees where necessary to provide the following vertical clearances:
(1) Eight feet over residential sidewalks
(2) Twelve feet over residential streets
(3) Ten feet over commercial sidewalks
(4) Fourteen feet over commercial streets
3. Broadleaf and Conifer Trees
a. Remove all dead wood.
b. Lighten heavy branches to conform to the tree’s natural character.
c. Remove undesirable, weak, or crossing branches.
d. Remove suckers and water sprouts.
e. Remove stubs, broken branches, split branches, abnormal growth, mistletoe, vines, and other
parasitic vegetation.
f. Make all cuts at the branch collar.
g. Remove large or heavy branches with the three-cut method: under cut, over cut & finish cut.
h. Balance the tree as appropriate for the species health and vigor.
i. Follow the directions of the Urban Forest Supervisor/City Arborist or designee who shall have
the discretion to change or modify specifications to suit special situations.
4. Palm Trees
a. Remove all dead fronds.
b. Remove all seed pods and seed pod husks.
c. Remove all abnormal growth from the base of the tree trunk.
d. Elevate green or live fronds to 90 degrees.
e. Trim the base of the palm bead to form a “pineapple” effect.
f. Remove any nicked or partially cut fronds.
5. Quality and Care
a. Do not use hooks, climbers, gaffs, or other climbing equipment that may penetrate the bark of the
tree.
b. Observe good arboricultural practices as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture Best Management Practices.
c. Ensure that all employees on site are ISA Certified Tree Workers or have equivalent or higher
ISA certification. Specialized work assignments may require the presence of a Certified
Arborist during the work.
d. Ensure that pruning will not disturb the nesting seasons of birds.
e. All work shall be reviewed in advance by an ISA Certified Arborist in conjunction with the City
19.a
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 18 of 26
Arborist.
6. Safety
a. Comply with Cal-OSHA and ANSI standards for safe working practices.
b. Place and maintain all devices required to safely close a traffic lane when necessary.
c. Place and maintain traffic control in accordance with current City standards and MUTCD
guidelines.
d. Contract is required to obtain a blanket encroachment permit with the City Public Works
Department. Traffic control plans for work on arterial and collector streets are required to be
reviewed and approved in advance of the work. Traffic Control plans are to be submitted a
minimum of 5 days in advance of the work at the Public Works permit counter at 919 Palm.
7. Cleanup
a. Remove all equipment, materials, and debris from the worksite at the end of each workday.
Work includes sweeping of debris to prevent it from entering stormdrain inlets.
b. Where working over a stormdrain inlet, cover inlet to prevent debris entry until work is complete.
c. Dump all wood and clean chips (except palm fronds) at a specified location within the City
Corporation Yard.
d. Dispose of all other debris in accordance with City, State and Federal laws.
8. Notification of Scheduled Work
a. Post streets 48 hours before work starts when parking must be restricted.
b. Call City of San Luis Obispo Police Department to verify “No Parking “ signs are posted to allow
towing.
9. Maintenance
a. Provide regular watering throughout the year, based on weather, to maintain newly planted trees
in a healthy condition.
b. Provide minor structural pruning to newly planted trees
c. Maintenance duration is typically 3 years unless otherwise directed by the Arborist
10. Documentation of Work
a. Complete Tree Maintenance form furnished by City of San Luis Obispo for all work performed.
References
ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 Pruning: Tree Care Operations - Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant
Maintenance - Standard Practices (revision and redesignation of ANSI A300-1995, includes
supplements). American National Standards Institute, Washington, DC.
ANSI Z133.1–2006. Standards for Arboricultural Operations: Safety Requirements. American National
Standards Institute, Washington, DC.
Best Management Practices: Tree Pruning. 2002. Gilman, E. and S. Lilly. International Society of
Arboriculture. Champaign, Il.
19.a
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 19 of 26
Tree Maintenance Form Work Date: ______________________________
Draw on attached map the following symbols: X Remove Tree - How many trees were removed?_____ O Add Tree - How many trees were added?_____
Street Address Species DSH (in) Condition Work Type* Worker(s) Time Spent Comments
*Work Type: Regular Prune, Partial Prune – Clearance/ Disease / Limb / Hazard, Remove Fallen Tree, Remove Stump, Root Prune, Plant Tree, Spray
19.a
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 20 of 26
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 50220-2016
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
19.a
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 21 of 26
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications
under the present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if
required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional
information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
19.a
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 22 of 26
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
19.a
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 23 of 26
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Contractor 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 viola tion 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 the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to
declare?
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 Contractor Representative
19.a
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 24 of 26
Exhibit B to Agreement
CONTRACT COST PROPOSAL
The Cost Proposal should be separated from the remainder of the proposal and submitted in a
separate sealed envelope.
Description: Size: Unit: Unit Price:
1. Full Trim Broadleaf / Conifer Tree 3-6” dsh Per tree
2. 6-12” dsh Per tree
3. 12-18” dsh Per tree
4. 18-24” dsh Per tree
5. 24-30” dsh Per tree
6. 30-36” dsh Per tree
7. 36-42” dsh Per tree
8. Over 42” dsh Per tree
9. Washington Palm Tree Trimming Any Per tree
10. Date Palm Tree Trimming Any Per tree
11. Tree Removal n/a Per inch dia.
12. Stump Removal n/a Per inch dia.
13. Furnish & Plant Tree - #15 Per tree
14. Per City Engineering Standards 24” box Per tree
15. 36” box Per tree
16. Maintenance (newly planted tree watering
& minor pruning) (Expected number of
trees: 10-40)
#5 to 48” box Per tree –
monthly Unit
Price
17. Root Pruning n/a Per linear foot
18. GPS Tree Inventory n/a Per site
19. Three Person Crew with Equipment –
Regular time
n/a Per hour
20. Three Person Crew with Equipment –
Overtime
n/a Per hour
21. Certified Arborist n/a Per hour
22. Minimum for emergency response n/a Hours
Additional items or charges:
19.a
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 25 of 26
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Operation & Maintenance Contracts
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 broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
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.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $2,000,000 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.
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 following provisions:
1. 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, official, employees, agents or
volunteers.
2. 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 with it.
3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
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's liability.
19.a
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Urban Forestry Contract Services – 2016 Request for Proposals Page 26 of 26
5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less
than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing required
coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage are also required
by this clause. 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 work commences.
Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish
separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject
to all of the requirements stated herein.
19.a
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment19.a: a - Urban Forestry Contract Services RFP (1363 : Urban Forest Contract)
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUED USE OF ON-CALL LIST FOR LEGAL
SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Attorney’s continued use of the current on-call list for contract legal
support; and
2. Authorize the City Attorney to review and accept cost of living increase proposals from
firms and attorneys on the current on-call list for contract legal support.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the City Council meeting on July 2, 2013, Council authorized a Request for
Qualifications for Legal Services (Attachment A) “to create a list of law firms or attorneys in a
variety of practice areas for work that the City may need during the 2013 -2015 financial plan.”
Law firms and attorneys that submitted proposals before the RFQ deadline of December 30,
2013, were reviewed and an on-call list (Attachment B) was created based on subject matter
expertise. On June 16, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance 1618 which updated the City’s
Purchasing Policies and Procedures of its Financial Manual to declare that “[o]n-call consultant
lists shall be renewed at least every five years by a new RFQ process.” (SLMC § 3.24.070(C))
Current Request
The current on-call list was established in March 2014. Though the 2013 RFQ only
contemplated use of the list through the 2013-2015 financial plan, the response to the RFQ was
robust and the number of very highly qualified legal services providers far exceeded the
anticipated City need. The City Attorney has found the current list established in March of 2014
more than sufficient to address the City’s legal services needs and the City Attorney recommends
extending the current list through March 30, 2019. Pursuant to Section 3.24.070, a new RFQ
would be issued prior to the expiration of the extension of the current list.
FISCAL IMPACT
No change would occur in the source of funding for contract legal support. Funds would be
sought when needed from within the budgets of the City Attorney’s Office or departments
20
Packet Pg. 563
related to each legal matter and approved consistent with otherwise applicable contracting
authority. The cost-of-living-increase proposals to be sought from those firms and attorneys on
the current on-call list were contemplated in the template agreement from the 2013 RFQ:
“3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The
term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional year.
During this extended period, labor rates may be increased to reflect increased
labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City
is notified of the increases in advance.” (Pg. 10, Attachment A)
Allowing for this form of increase is a necessary step to retention of a qualified on-call list.
Extended inclusion on the current on-call list would be offered to those currently included firms
and practitioners willing to extend the terms of their original proposals, subject to agreed upon
annual cost increases. The fee structure proposed by each law firm or attorney accepted to the
on-call list has been copied to the Council Reading File for reference and those firms would be
contacted regarding extension of services through 2019.
ALTERNATIVES
Direct the City Attorney’s Office to cease use of the current on-call list and to issue a new
request for qualifications to develop an updated on-call list. During the interim period, the City
Attorney would utilize otherwise applicable purchasing protocols to procure legal services,
whereby the City Attorney would obtain quotes from at least three legal services providers each
time a need for legal services arises, as opposed to selecting from a pre-determined list. This
alternative is not recommended because it can cause delays in retaining legal counsel that can
adversely impact the City’s ability to meet inflexible litigation deadlines and because the City
received numerous high quality proposals, which included a broad cross section of qualified
municipal law practitioners in a variety of practice areas throughout the state. The proposals
submitted in response to the 2013 RFQ detailed areas of particular legal expertise and provided
additional guarantees of fee stability that proposing firms otherwise would not be obligated to
honor. As a practical matter, requiring successive project by project quotes will not necessarily
result in the use of different or lower priced legal services, as legal services are a specialized
professional service, generally dictating a “best quality” selection process, which is best
determined by a proven track record of performance, client responsiveness, cost effectiveness
and understanding of City objectives and environment.
Attachments:
20.a a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02
20.b b - 2014 On-Call List
20.c c - Council Reading File - Fee Proposals and Acceptance Letters from 2013 RFQ
20
Packet Pg. 564
FROM: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Andrea S. Visveshwara, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications for Legal Services
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with the selected law firms and/or
attorneys.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Request for Qualifications for Legal Services is to create a list of law firms or
attorneys in a variety of practice areas for work that the City may need during the 2013-2015
financial plan period. Typically, the City retains outside counsel in three different situations: 1) in
matters that require specialized expertise; 2) in matters that present conflict of interest issues; and 3)
in matters that exceed the capacity of the City Attorney’s Office, including significant litigation
matters not covered by the City’s joint powers insurance authority. Often, the need for outside
counsel arises on short notice, and there is no time to do a formal request for proposal.
Furthermore, whether a formal request for proposal would be necessary is not always readily
apparent. Generally, under the Financial Management Manual, the City should issue a formal
request for proposal if the expenditure to the consultant is expected to exceed $25,000. With legal
services, what may begin as a small issue, advising on a discrete matter, may become a larger issue
if litigation arises out of that matter.
The City has recognized the benefit of pre-selecting consultants so that their services can be more-
readily utilized. For example, the Public Works Department has found maintaining a list of
prequalified consultants to provide services on an on-call basis for various areas of specialized work
has proven to be effective in providing consultant availability to staff. Here, the City Attorney’s
Office is proposing a similar arrangement. The RFQ solicits submissions from interested law firms
or attorneys stating their qualifications. After evaluating the submittal packages received, the City
Attorney will select the top law firms and/or attorneys based on their demonstrated ability to
provide high quality legal services, effectiveness in communicating with the City Attorney’s Office,
and capability to serve as co-counsel with the City Attorney’s Office in matters determined by the
City. Once the selected law firms or attorneys have entered into an agreement with the City, staff
will be able to use their services for individual projects as needed, without going through individual
RFQs or RFPs for each project.
As is current practice, the oversight of the law firms or attorneys will be handled by the City
Attorney’s Office. The law firms or attorneys will operate under the conditions of the agreement
included in the RFQ. Individual projects will be scoped with the City department most involved and
the consultant. Specific cases or matters will be assigned either through a subsequent City Manager
Meeting Date
Item NumberJuly 2, 2013
C7 - 1
20.a
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
RFQ for Legal Services – On Call Outside Counsel Page 2
award if the anticipated cost is less than $25,000 or by Council if the anticipated cost exceeds
25,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
The RFQ, in and of itself, does not obligate any funds or commit the City to utilize any of the firms
or attorneys placed on the list. Fiscal impact for scope of representation, including identifying the
funds that will pay for the legal services, will be discussed at the time the City Attorney’s Office
requests a contract award either from the Council or the City Manager, depending upon the
anticipated cost of services and consistent with the City’s purchasing policies and rules.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the RFQ release. The City Council could decline issuing the RFQ, which means
that the City Attorney’s Office will request Council authorization to issue an RFP for a specific case
or matter if time allows, or continue to solicit qualified counsel and request Council authorization
for retention on a case by case basis, for matters exceeding $25,000. For matters with an
anticipated cost of $25,000 or less, the City Attorney’s Office will continue to seek the three
informal bids, as outlined in the Financial Management Manual. The benefit of the RFQ is that the
City may become aware of a broader spectrum of law firms or attorneys providing certain services,
thereby increasing the City’s choices and maximizing the potential to obtain the highest quality and
most cost effective representation.
ATTACHMENT
Request for Qualifications for Legal Services – On-Call Outside Legal Counsel
chstore4\team\council agenda reports\2013\2013-07-02\rfp - outside legal counsel (dietrick-visveshwara)\ecar - 2013 advertise.docx
C7 - 2
20.a
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Notice Requesting Qualifications for Legal Services
On-Call Outside Counsel
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals for outside counsel legal services in a variety of different
areas. All proposals must be postmarked or received by City Attorney’s Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401 by December 30, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
Proposals will be opened and reviewed as they are received. Each proposal shall be submitted to the City
Attorney’s Office in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title and law firm . Proposals shall be
submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals page
Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above address
Mail a request to the City of San Luis Obispo City Attorney’s Office at the above address
Fax a request to the City of San Luis Obispo at 805-781-7109 – include company name, street address, phone,
fax, email and the name of the contact person.
Requests must include the RFQ title.
A list of firms and attorneys that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Project Detail Information
Project detail information may be obtained by contacting the City Attorney’s Office at (805) 781-7140.
Rev 11.20.12 BL
C7 - 3
20.a
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 2 of 16
Specification No. X
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 4
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................................................ 4
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION .............................................................................. 6
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 8
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 12
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 12
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 13
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 15
C7 - 4
20.a
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 3 of 16
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City Attorney’s Office is responsible for providing all legal services for the City of San Luis Obispo and its
advisory bodies. In addition, the City Attorney serves as the City Prosecutor. The City Attorney’s Office consists of
the City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney and Paralegal. The City retains outside counsel in three different
situations: 1) in matters that require specialized expertise; 2) in matters that present conflict of interest issues; and
3) in matters that exceed the capacity of the City Attorney’s Office.
The City requests detailed information regarding the qualifications of attorneys or law firms interested in providing
legal services to the City to establish a list of qualified attorneys or law firms from which outside counsel may be
selected. The goal is to establish a list of qualified firms and individuals in a variety of practice areas for work that
the City may need during the 2013-2015 financial plan timeframe . The City is interested in retaining a diverse
group of firms/individuals who will provide high-quality legal services and who are dedicated to containing legal
costs.
Selection of outside counsel for all matters is based on the quality of their work, commitment to controlling costs,
adherence to budgets and effectiveness in communicating with the City. In addition to the on-call contract, selected
attorneys or firms will be required to enter into a Scope of Service/Retention Agreement for each specific matter,
which shall include a written work plan or case handling plan, a capped “not to exceed” amount and the names of
the individuals in the law firm assigned to work on the matter and their hourly rate.
Placement on a list of qualified firms does not guarantee that the firm or attorney will be retained to provide
services. Outside legal services will be used on an as-needed, case by case, or matter by matter basis. Specific
assignments may include investigating, advising, negotiating, reviewing and/or drafting documents (transactional
and litigation), and representation in court, administrative hearings and alternative dispute resolution proceedings
involving one or more of the following areas:
1. Administrative Law
2. Appellate Proceedings
3. Affordable Housing Development
4. Code Enforcement
5. Conflict Counsel
6. Constitutional Law
7. Criminal procedure
8. Elections Law
9. Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation
10. Employment Issues and Litigation – Labor and Employment, Pension and Benefits Programs
11. Engineering, Design Professional and Construction Contracting Issues and Litigation
12. Environmental Issues and Litigation, Federal and State Regulatory Issues, Endangered Species, Clear Air
and Clean Water Acts
13. Financial Services –, Infrastructure, Financing , Fees (Community Facility Districts, Assessment Districts,
etc.) and taxation
14. General civil litigation
15. General Municipal Services
16. Land Use issues and litigation, including California Environmental Quality Act and litigation and wireless
communications land use regulatory issues
17. Real Property
18. Water Rights
C7 - 5
20.a
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 4 of 16
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By
virtue of its proposal submittal, the Consultant 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
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the City Attorney’s Office, City of San Luis
Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 and received by December 30, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.. Each
proposal submittal shall include one electronic copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD
or flash drive. The proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, and name of
Consultant. 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 Consultant’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 F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications or terminations of engagement based on performance on the form provided in the
RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Attorney for its withdrawal, in
which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications and Proposals" will be
considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited
to be present at the opening of the 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.
8. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and
discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. 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
C7 - 6
20.a
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 5 of 16
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.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within five (5) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in Section F of these specifications as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
14. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
Consultant) 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 Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
C7 - 7
20.a
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 6 of 16
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Identify each of the practice areas listed in the Description of Work section that the attorney or firm desires
to be considered for in this RFQ process
b. Experience of your firm in performing assignments in the proposed practice areas
c. Experience of the staff to be assigned to the project in the proposed practice areas
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be performing services
e. Experience in having a co-counsel relationship with in-house counsel
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Any other information that would assist us in making this award decision
3. Fee Structure
a. Provide information on the hourly rates for all staff that would be necessary to render services
b. Provide a list of expenses that the attorneys or law firms propose to bill in addition to legal fees and the
basis for such expenses
c. If rates are to be adjusted during the course of representation, the method for such adjustment should be
described
d. Provide alternatives to hourly billing, including fixed price representation.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other short form
approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. 3 copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. 1 pdf format electronic copy must be submitted on CD.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be evaluated by the City Attorney’s Office as they are received and contract award process as
follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/ Candidate Selection
The City will develop a list of firms based upon the responses to this RFQ. Responses will be evaluated by the
City Attorney’s Office. Price will not be the controlling factor in selecting firms for the list, but price will be a
factor in making work assignments. A firm is not entitled to be placed on the list or entitled to work solely on the
basis of submission of a low price quotation. The City Attorney will evaluate the responses based on the
proposal content, and any further information that may be requested for clarification.
C7 - 8
20.a
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 7 of 16
Once the list is established, specific firms and individual attorneys may be selected from the list for execution.
6. Consultant Selection and Compensation
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the
workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria described above; results of
background and reference checks; results from any further information; and proposed compensation. Execution of
the contract does not guarantee that any case or matter or number of cases or matters will be assigned to outside
counsel. The decision to retain outside counsel will be that of the City on a case by case basis or matter by matter
basis. Contracts will remain in effect until June 30, 2015, unless they are terminated before expiration by providing
written notice, or unless they are renewed or extended. Fee structures should take this time period into account.
The City reserves the right to enter into agreements for legal services with persons or firms who do not respond.
The City further reserves the right to waive responses to any part of this request if, in its sole judgment, it
determines that it is in the best interests of the City to do so. The City may require any Respondent to participate in
negotiations and to submit such other information or documentation as it may deem necessary as conditions of
awarding a contract. The City reserves the right to vary or waive requirements for different Respondents as shall fit
the City’s needs for a particular type of engagement or area of representation.
C7 - 9
20.a
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 8 of 16
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2013, requested qualifications and proposals for legal counsel
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
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, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between _____ and June 30, 2015. ]
3. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified
of the increases in advance. []
4. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant 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 Consultant 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 Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant 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 Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
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 Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not feasible due to funding
shortages or unforeseen circumstances, the City reserves the right to terminate the contract. Consultant will be
paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
C7 - 10
20.a
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 9 of 16
5. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses licenses and qualifications necessary to carry
out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
6. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
7. Contract Assignment. The Consultant 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.
8. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant 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 Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
9. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this engagement., The Consultant 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 Consultant further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such an interest shall be employed. The
Consultant 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
Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant and not an employee of the City.
10. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
11. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
12. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant 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. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
13. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
14. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
15. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
C7 - 11
20.a
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 10 of 16
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work
hereunder.
16. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
17. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
18. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
Consultant Invoices and Payment. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by
project work phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of
hours billed and miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting
detail. For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a
project by project basis. Hourly rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. 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 Consultant (Net 30).
19. Agreement Parties.
City: City Attorney’s Office
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant: X
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
20. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal Specification No. 99821.950-2013 and Consultant's
proposal dated X, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
21. 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 Attorney.
Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons other
than the City Attorney and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the original contract,
the Consultant shall inform the City Attorney immediately. If the City Attorney and Consultant both agree that
the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful completion of the project, then a fee
will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates or a lump sum price agreed upon
between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by Consultant without prior written approval
from the City Attorney shall be at Consultant's own expense.
22. 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. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents.
23. Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this
agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such
party.
C7 - 12
20.a
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 11 of 16
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: CONSULTANT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
C7 - 13
20.a
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 12 of 16
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 99821.950-2013
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email: Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative: Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
C7 - 14
20.a
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 13 of 16
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant 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 submitting a proposal 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 the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? 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 Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts with public entities performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City
reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's
qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
C7 - 15
20.a
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 14 of 16
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
C7 - 16
20.a
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 15 of 16
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993
or CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
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. Malpractice/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 Consultant 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 following provisions:
1. 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 Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant'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
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant'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's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant 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 work
commences.
C7 - 17
20.a
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
Title Page 16 of 16
Section F
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. 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 Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or
volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant'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
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant'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's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 (thirty) days'
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant 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 work
commences.
C7 - 18
20.a
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment20.a: a - CAR.RFQ for Legal Services.2013 07 02 (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal Services)
1
Firm Administrative LawAppellate ProceedingsAffordable Housing Code EnforcementConflict CounselConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureElections LawEminent Domain & Employment Issues & PW - Engineering, Environmental Issues & Finances Services - General Civil LitigationGeneral Municipal Land Use Issues & Real PropertyWater RightsAdamski Moroski Madden
Cumberland & Green -------------1 ----
Aleshire Wynder -1 --------1 --1 ----
Alvarez Glasman & Colvin ---1 1 -1 ------1 --1
Atkinson Andelson Loya
Ruud Romo --1 ------1 1 --1 ----
Atkinson Farasyn --------------1 1 -1
Best Best & Krieger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck -----------------1
Burke Williams & Sorensen 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Carmel Naccasha ---1 --1 -------1 1 1 -
20.b
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment20.b: b - 2014 On-Call List (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal
2
Firm Administrative LawAppellate ProceedingsAffordable Housing Code EnforcementConflict CounselConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureElections LawEminent Domain & Employment Issues & PW - Engineering, Environmental Issues & Finances Services - General Civil LitigationGeneral Municipal Land Use Issues & Real PropertyWater RightsColantuono & Levin -1 ----------1 1 1 1 --
Densmore, Stephen ----------1 -------
Farley Law Firm --------------1 -1 -
Goldfarb Lipman -1 1 -------------1 -
Green deBortnowsky
Quintanilla * firm dissolved
2015 1 -1 1 1 ---1 ---1 1 1 1 1 1
Hall Hieatt -------------1 ----
Hanley & Fleischman 1 --1 -----1 ----1 ---
Hanson Bridgett -1 ---1 -1 --1 1 -1 ----
Jackson Lewis ---------1 --------
Jarvis Fay Doporto &
Gibson -1 --------1 -1 1 1 1 --
Jenkins & Hogan 1 --1 1 1 1 1 ---1 -1 1 1 --
20.b
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment20.b: b - 2014 On-Call List (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal
3
Firm Administrative LawAppellate ProceedingsAffordable Housing Code EnforcementConflict CounselConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureElections LawEminent Domain & Employment Issues & PW - Engineering, Environmental Issues & Finances Services - General Civil LitigationGeneral Municipal Land Use Issues & Real PropertyWater RightsJones & Mayer 1 1 -1 1 1 1 --1 ---1 1 ---
Kane Ballmer & Berkman --1 -------------1 -
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith 1 1 -1 1 1 --1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore ---------1 --------
Lozano Smith -1 ---1 --1 1 1 --1 1 -1 -
Meyers Nave 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Montoy Law Corp 1 --1 -1 -1 -1 1 ---1 1 1 -
Moscone Emblidge Sater &
Otis -1 --1 1 --1 -1 --1 1 1 --
Nossaman --------1 --1 -1 -1 -1
Price Postel & Parma --------1 --------1
Renne Sloan Holtzman
Sakai 1 1 -----1 -1 ---1 ----
Richards Watson Gershon 1 1 --1 ---1 ---1 -1 1 1 1
20.b
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment20.b: b - 2014 On-Call List (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal
4
Firm Administrative LawAppellate ProceedingsAffordable Housing Code EnforcementConflict CounselConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureElections LawEminent Domain & Employment Issues & PW - Engineering, Environmental Issues & Finances Services - General Civil LitigationGeneral Municipal Land Use Issues & Real PropertyWater RightsRutan & Tucker 1 1 1 -1 1 --1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Shute Mihaly Weinberg 1 1 --1 1 -1 1 --1 --1 1 --
Silver & Wright ---1 --------------
Woodruff Spradlin & Smart --------1 --1 ------
Zappia Law Firm -1 -------1 --------
Total 13 16 8 12 11 12 6 8 12 13 12 9 9 19 20 16 13 12
20.b
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment20.b: b - 2014 On-Call List (1375 : Request for Continued Use of On-Call List for Legal
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director, Water
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager
Mychal Boerman, Interim Utilities Services Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a resolution approving policy and text amendments to the General Plan, Chapter 8,
Water and Wastewater Management Element, and
2. Adopt a resolution approving the 2015 update to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Urban Water
Management Plan.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City prepares an Urban Water Management Plan every five years as required by the State of
California Urban Water Management Planning Act. The preparation of the 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan is unique in that it has taken place during unprecedented drought conditions
statewide. The plan presented to the City Council was updated in accordance with State
requirements. Changes are proposed to the City’s existing Water Shortage Contingency Plan
which has not been updated since 2000. Water shortage contingency planning allows for the City
to be prepared for and respond to water shortages such as a drought or a catastrophic supply
interruption such as a break in a transmission pipeline. To provide more time to respond to water
shortages, a six-staged demand management response is proposed to replace the current three-
staged water rationing plan triggered when the City’s water supply has less than three years
remaining.
The City’s guiding water policy document for water planning purposes is the Water and
Wastewater Management Element of the General Plan (WWME). The WWME was first adopted
on June 29, 2004 and last updated on July 6, 2010. Amendments are proposed to provide current
information and for consistency with the proposed 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
DISCUSSION
Urban Water Management Plan
The State of California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) requires every urban water
21
Packet Pg. 587
supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying
more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually (the City meets both criteria), to prepare and adopt
an Urban Water Management Plan every five years.
The City Council adopted the City’s first Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in November
1994. Subsequent updates have been submitted to the state in 2000, 2005, and 2010. For this
update, the state legislature extended the filing deadline for the 2015 Plan to July 1, 2016. By
adopting a compliant UWMP, the City will remain eligible for State Water Resources Control
Board and Department of Water Resources grants, low interest loans, and other assistance for
both water and wastewater projects.
The City’s 2015 update addresses changes to the Water Code since 2010 including narratives
describing water demand management, a plan to quantify water loss, use of standardized tables,
and other requirements. The required sections and corresponding chapter in the City’s UWMP
are described below.
Required Urban Water Management Plan
Sections
City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Chapter
Introduction and overview Chapter 1, Introduction
Plan preparation Chapter 1, Introduction
System description Chapter 2, Service Area and Water System Description
Water use Chapter 3, Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
Baselines and targets Chapter 3, Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
System supplies Chapter 4, Water Sources and Chapter 5, Recycled W ater
Water supply reliability Chapter 6, Water Supply Reliability
Water shortage contingency planning Chapter 8, Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Demand management measures Chapter 7, Water Conservation & Demand Management Measures
Adoption, submittal, and implementation Notices of Public Hearings will be included in an Appendix. UWMP
will be submitted electronically following City Council Approval.
Every five years, as part of its UWMP, the City prepares a comprehensive twenty‐year look
ahead and compares estimates of water supply against estimates of water demand. The UWMP
uses population projections for the General Plan update completed in 2014 as the basis for these
projections.
The preparation of the 2015 UWMP is unique in that it has taken place during unprecedented
drought conditions statewide. The City is proposing changes to the City’s existing Water
Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which is Chapter 8 of the UWMP. Water shortage
contingency planning allows for the City to be prepared for and respond to water shortages such
as a drought or a catastrophic supply interruption such as a break in a transmission pipeline. The
WSCP describes the City’s use of a water projection model to test hypothetical and actual water
demand scenarios (including varying climate change scenarios), to analyze current water storage
at each reservoir and to predict how long the City’s water supplies would be available.
In the WSCP, the City is proposing six stages of action with a “Monitoring” stage in place to
monitor compliance with Senate Bill X7-7 requirements (20 percent reduction by year 2020) and
demonstrate the City’s continuance of a strong water conservation ethic. The proposed “Watch”
and “Warning” water shortage stages are triggered when the City’s available water supplies are
21
Packet Pg. 588
reduced to less than five years and less than four years, respectively. With the proposed update,
per capita water allotments have been reduced to reflect the efficiency of plumbing fixtures. A
Water Offset Program is included in the potential actions associated with the “Warning” stage
which will be further defined with the preparation of an implementing ordinance later this year.
With the adoption of the proposed WSCP, the City will always be in one of the six water
shortage stages, as shown in Table 1. The City’s water projection model currently identifies a
water supply of greater than five years corresponding to the Monitor stage. However, mandatory
conservation measures remain in place under the drought response plan previously adopted by
Council in June 2015.
On May 9, 2016, the Governor issued an Executive Order that directs the State Water Resources
Control Board to adjust and extend its emergency water conservation regulations through the end
of January 2017 in recognition of the differing water supply conditions for many communities.
Staff will be analyzing the effects of the Order on the City’s drought response plan and returning
in the Fall 2016 with more fully fleshed-out recommendations related to the WSCP.
21
Packet Pg. 589
Table 1. Water Shortage Response Stages
STAGE WATER SUPPLY
STATUS CITY ACTIONS
PER CAPITA
GOAL
(GPCD)
Monitor
5+ years of
available water
supply
City maintains conservation messaging at levels that ensure
compliance with SB X7-7 maximum of 117 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd).
117
Watch
< 5 years of
available water
supply
City increases conservation messaging. City examines
available alternative water sources (groundwater, Nacimiento
full allocation, etc.) and takes action based on current
circumstances to meet demand. City may implement
mandatory conservation measures to meet per capita reduction
target.
107
Warning
< 4 years of
available water
supply
City implements mandatory conservation measures including
outdoor irrigation restrictions (examples: 3 or 2 days a week
watering and only serving water upon request at restaurants)
and consider a Water Offset Program for new connections.
95
Severe
< 3 years of
available water
supply
City implements Water Allotment Program. Water Offset
Program for new connections may be increased. Additional
outdoor irrigation restrictions may be added (such as no spray
irrigation).
90
Extreme
< 2 years of
available water
supply
City continues to implement a Water Allotment Program with
reduced levels. Water Offset Program for new connections may
be increased. Outdoor irrigation may be prohibited for all uses.
Cessation of all new connections may be considered.
85
Critical < 1 year of available
water supply
City continues to implement a Water Allotment Program at
further reduced levels (minimum for public health and safety).
Outdoor irrigation prohibited for all uses. Water Offset
Program to cease and no new connections permitted.
75
Amendments to the General Plan, Water and Wastewater Element
The City’s General Plan includes a Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME)
because of the vital role of these resources and the far-reaching impacts of water policies on
community growth and character. The WWME was last updated in 2010. The WWME provided
in Attachment A is in legislative draft format to best illustrate proposed additions and deletions
to existing goals, policies, programs and background information. The amendment is proposed
for consistency with the proposed 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and to update out of date
information.
Descriptions under the headings below summarize the proposed changes. The table of contents,
figures, and tables will be updated and all references will be corrected in the final version.
21
Packet Pg. 590
3.1 Water Management
Multi-Source Water Supply and Water Resource Availability
In March 2016, the City Council elected to participate in the full allocation of San Luis Obispo
County’s water supply from Nacimiento Reservoir. The City participated with Nacimiento Water
Project partners increasing the City’s contractual supply from Nacimiento Reservoir to 5,482
acre feet per year (afy). This increases the City’s overall water resource availability to 12,109
acre feet annually as shown in WWME Table 1. The table was also updated to include recycled
water delivered in 2015.
As shown in the proposed update of WWME Table 2, the average daily and monthly influent
flows to the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility have decreased since the 2010 WWME
which reported the average flow as 4.596 mgd (a 2009 figure) to 2.74 mgd in 2015 reducing
annual recycled water availability.
Consistent with the multi-source concept, the City obtains water from five sources, including
groundwater. The City stopped utilizing the Pacific Beach well in April 2015 due to new
regulatory requirements. While the City does not currently utilize potable water from wells, this
remains a viable option for future use and proposes the following policy language:
A 3.2.3 Groundwater
Due to limitations for the use of the groundwater resources, the The City will continue to
use groundwater for domestic purposes when available., but will not consider this source
of supply as part of its water resource availability.
Siltation
The City completed a bathymetric and volumetric study at Whale Rock Reservoir in 2013. The
purpose of the study was to determine the level of siltation that has occurred in the reservoir since
the dam’s completion in 1961. The study concluded that sedimentation has reduced reservoir
capacity by 4.2 percent in 52 years. As the Safe Annual Yield accounts for past siltation losses
and was updated based on the 2013 bathymetric study at Whale Rock, staff recommends deleting
policy A 4.2 on Accounting for Past Siltation which states:
The City shall account for siltation losses that have occurred to date (2010) in the safe
annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs.
Future siltation would continue to be accounted for per Policy A 4.2.2. The proposed policy
language is as follows:
The City will account for estimated safe annual yield losses at Salinas and Whale Rock
Reservoirs through for the next 50 years (2060) by deducting 500 acre feet of available
water supplies to account for these future losses. The siltation rate will be updated as
information becomes available from subsequent siltation analyses.
Water Supply Accounting and Demand Projections
A change to the factor used in water supply accounting and demand projections is proposed.
21
Packet Pg. 591
Consistent with Policy A 5.2.1 (Water Use Rate), the calculation uses a 10-year running average
of gallons per capita per day (gpcd). This water use rate (gpcd) includes all existing water
demand (residential, commercial, institutional, landscaping, water used for firefighting, and
water loss within the water distribution system) in the City for the year divided by the City’s
population. The current rate is 114.4 gpcd, down from 123.2 gpcd in 2009, as cited in the 2010
WWME.
Using the per capita potable water use rate allowed by SB X7-7 (117 gpcd) is a more
conservative approach as the 10-year average will be influenced by drought years where the City
can experience a significant reduction in potable water demand, such as 2015 when the City
reduced its per capita usage to 92 gpcd under the statewide drought declaration. The proposed
policy language is as follows:
A 5.2.1 Water Use Rate
The City will calculate utilize the per capita water use rate based on a ten-year running
average of the City’s actual per capita water use allowed by SB X7-7 for projecting
future potable water demand established as 117 gallons per capita per day.
Water Conservation
The proposed update to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan in the 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan proposes implementation of mandatory water conservation measures when the
City’s water supplies are projected to last five years or less. This change from the current three
year or less plan allows for more time to incrementally implement water shortage response
strategies. The proposed policy language is as follows:
A 6.2.2 Short-term Water Shortages
Mandatory water conservation measures as described in the City’s Water Shortage
Contingency Plan will be implemented when the City's water supplies are projected to
last three less than five years.
Recycled Water
The edits to this section propose to eliminate details from the WWME that are provided annually
in the Water Resource Status Report, such as annual recycled water usage in WWME Table 5.
The proposed goal and program language is as follows:
Goal A 7.1.1
Maximize Utilize recycled water for all approved purposes non-potable purposes,
thereby offsetting the use of potable water.
Program A 7.3.5.
Continue to explore potable reuse consistent with statewide regulations.
Due to the proposed language for Goal A 7.1.1, Goal A 7.1.2 is proposed to be deleted.
21
Packet Pg. 592
3.2 Wastewater Management
As the community’s response to the drought has reduced indoor water demand, it has
correspondingly reduced wastewater flows. The proposed text amendments to this section of the
WWME include updating wastewater flow information to 2015 flows, and updating references to
the City’s treatment plant at 35 Prado Road from Water Reclamation Facility to Water Resource
Recovery Facility here and throughout the WWME. Figure 4, October Dry Weather Flows to the
Water Reclamation Facility in Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) is proposed to be deleted.
The design phase for the upgrade of the Water Resource Recovery Facility is underway in 2016
with completion anticipated in 2020. The upgrade will enable the City to consider potab le reuse
in addition to non-potable uses of recycled water. The proposed goal and policy language is as
follows:
Goal B 3.1.2
A high-quality, dependable recycled water supply that meets an increasing portion of the
City’s non-potable demand. Maximize recycled water production.
Policy B 3.2.2 Recycled Water Production
The City will produce high-quality, dependable recycled water, suitable for a wide range
of non-potable uses.
A Study Session was held with the Planning Commission on April 27, 2016 and a public hearing
was held on May 25, 2016 related to proposed General Plan Amendment for the Water and
Wastewater Management Element. The Commission approved Resolution No. PC-1006-16
recommending the City Council approve the proposed policy and text amendments to the
General Plan, Chapter 8, Water and Wastewater Management Element (see Attachment B).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Water and Wastewater Management Element
and the Urban Water Management Plan are exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the General Rule
Exemption.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department concurs with the proposed staff recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed policy and text amendments to the General Plan, Chapter 8, Water and Wastewater
Management Element and the adoption of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan does not
directly create additional fiscal impacts for the Water Fund. Any project or program that would
stem from the information contained in the Plan would be brought back to the City Council for
approval as appropriate.
21
Packet Pg. 593
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose to not adopt the Urban Water Management Plan. This alternative
is not recommended as it is a regulatory requirement and allows the City to remain eligible for
State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Water Resources grants, low interest
loans, and other assistance for both water and wastewater projects.
Attachments:
21.a a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8
21.b b - PC Reso on WWME (GENP-3215-2016 WWME)
21.c c - WWME Resolution 2016
21.d d - UWMP Resolution 2016
21.e e - Council Reading File - Urban Water Management Plan and WWME
Amendments Compiled CC Draft UWMP
21.f f - Council Reading File - Urban Water Management Plan & WWME Amedments
Compiled CC Appendices
21
Packet Pg. 594
Chapter 8
WATER AND WASTEWATER
Adopted: February 24, 1987
City Council Draft, June 2016
Last Revised: July 6, 2010
(Council Resolution No. 10197, 2010)
21.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-2
Please see the next page.
21.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-3
CHAPTER 8 WATER AND WASTEWATER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 8-5
A. WATER MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 8-6
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 8-6
A 1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8-6
A 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 8-6
MULTI-SOURCE WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................................................................. 8-7
A 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8-7
A 2.1 Goal ........................................................................................................................................................ 8-9
A 2.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................... 8-9
A 2.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-10
Water Resource Availability ..................................................................................................................................... 8-11
A 3.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-11
A 3.1 Goal ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-15
A 3.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-15
A 3.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-15
SILTATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 8-16
A 4.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-16
A 4.1 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-18
A 4.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-18
A 4.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-18
WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING AND DEMAND PROJECTION ............................................................................ 8-19
A 5.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-19
A 5.1 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-21
A 5.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-21
A 5.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-22
WATER CONSERVATION ......................................................................................................................................... 8-23
A 6.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-23
A 6.1 Goal ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-24
A 6.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-24
A 6.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-24
RECYCLED WATER ................................................................................................................................................... 8-25
A 7.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-25
A 7.1 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-27
A 7.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-27
A 7.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-27
B. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 8-28
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 8-28
B 1.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-28
B 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 8-28
WASTEWATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................. 8-29
B 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-29
B 2.1 Goal ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-30
B 2.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-30
B 2.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-30
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8-31
B 3.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-31
B 3.1 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-31
B 3.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-31
B 3.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-31
21.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-4
COLLECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................................................................... 8-32
B 4.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 8-32
B 4.1 Goal ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-34
B 4.2 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 8-34
B 4.3 Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 8-34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Multi Source Water Supply .................................................................................................................. 8-8
Figure 2 Per Capita Water Use, 1985-2009 .................................................................................................... 8-20
Figure 3 Water Reuse Master Plan Area and Distribution System ................................................................. 8-26
Figure 4 October Dry-Weather Flows to the Water Reclamation Facility in Million Gallons per Day (MGD) . 8-29
Figure 5 Inflow and Infiltration Illustrated ......................................................................................................... 8-33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City Water Resource Availability ....................................................................................................... 8-11
Table 2. Annual Recycled Water Availability based on Influent Flow ............................................................. 8-14
Table 3. Whale Rock Reservoir Capacity Change
Table 4. Reservoir Storage Capacity
Table 3. Population and Water Use ................................................................................................................. 8-20
Table 45. 2010 Water Supply Accounting ......................................................................................................... 8-21
Table 5. Annual Recycled Water Usage.......................................................................................................... 8-27
Table 6. Highest Average Daily Flows to the Water Reclamation Facility, 2001 to 2009 ............................... 8-32
21.a
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-5
INTRODUCTION
The City's General Plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. It reflects
consensus and compromise among a wide diversity of citizens' preferences, within a framework set by State law. The
General Plan contains elements that address various topics.
The City decided to adopt an element addressing water resources and wastewater services because of the vital role of
these resources and the far-reaching impacts of water policies on community growth and character. This element
translates the Land Use Element's capacity for development into potential demand for water supply and wastewater
services. This element outlines how the City plans to provide adequate water and wastewater services for its citizens,
consistent with the goals and policies of other General Plan elements.
Before adopting or revising any General Plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council must hold public
hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper and on the City’s website to let citizens know about the
hearings at least ten days before they are held. Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens
understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before the hearings are held.
Anyone may suggest or apply for amendments to General Plan elements.
21.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-6
A. WATER MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
A 1.0 Background
The original Water and Wastewater Management Element was adopted in 1987 around the time the City
experienced its most severe drought period which lasted from 1986 to 1991. During this point in time mandatory
water use restrictions were instituted and restrictions on new development were imposed. Following this period,
the City pursued additional water supplies to meet the existing water needs of the community, as well as to fulfill
the goals of the General Plan. The policies in the Water Management section of the Element were written in a
manner to address the water scarcity issues the City was facing. With the addition of the Nacimiento Water
Project to the City’s water portfolio, the City has an adequate water supply to serve the community’s existing and
future water needs as defined by the General Plan. The 2010 revisions to the Water and Wastewater
Management Element reflect the change in the water supply situation.
The 2016 revisions to the Water and Wastewater Management Element are proposed to include a larger
contractual water supply from Nacimiento Reservoir, to update the daily per capita water use assumption used in
water supply accounting, and to reflect information from the Whale Rock Reservoir Bathymetric Survey and
Volumetric Study completed in 2013.
A 1.1 Purpose
The Water Management section of the Element includes goals, policies, and programs related to water supply,
demand, and other emerging issues.
21.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-7
MULTI-SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
A 2.0 Background
The City is the sole water purveyor within the city limits. This allows the City to maintain uniformity of water
service and distribution standards, and to be consistent in developing and implementing water policy. As the sole
water purveyor, the City maintains control over water quality, distribution, and service to users of the system, as
well as ensuring consistency with the City's General Plan policies and goals.
The Water Element of the General Plan, adopted in 1987, identified multiple water projects to meet projected
short and long-term water demand. Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that
may not be available during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. There is usually greater
reliability and flexibility if sources are of different types (such as surface water and groundwater) and if the
sources of one type are in different locations (such as reservoirs in different watersheds). In November of 1990,
the Council affirmed the multi-source concept.
Consistent with the multi-source concept, the City obtains water from five sources: Salinas Reservoir (Santa
Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water from the City’s Water Reclamation
Resource Recovery Facility (WRF), and groundwater. See Figure 1.
Salinas Reservoir
The Salinas Dam was built in 1941 by the War Department to supply water to Camp San Luis Obispo and,
secondarily, to meet the water needs of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake)
captures water from a 112 square mile watershed and can store up to 23,843 acre-feet. In 1947, the Salinas Dam
and delivery system was transferred from the regular Army to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the late
40s or early 50s, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has operated this
water supply for the City under a lease from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water from the reservoir is
pumped through the Cuesta Tunnel (a one-mile long tunnel through the mountains of the Cuesta Ridge) after
which it flows by gravity to the City’s Water Treatment Plant on Stenner Creek Road.
Whale Rock Reservoir
The Whale Rock Reservoir is a 40,662 acre-foot reservoir created by the construction of an earthen dam on Old
Creek near the town of Cayucos. The dam was designed and constructed by the State Department of Water
Resources in 1961 to provide water to the City of San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly State University, and the California
Men’s Colony. The Whale Rock Dam captures water from a 20.3 square mile watershed and water is delivered to
the three agencies through 17.6 miles of 30-inch pipeline and two pumping stations. The City of San Luis Obispo
owns 55.05 percent of the water storage rights at the reservoir. The remaining water storage rights are divided
between the two State agencies with Cal Poly owning 33.71 percent and the California Men’s Colony owning
11.24 percent.
Nacimiento Reservoir
The Nacimiento Reservoir provides flood protection and is a source of supply for groundwater recharge for the
Salinas Valley. It is owned and operated by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Since 1959, the San
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has had an entitlement to 17,500 acre-feet per
year (AFY) of water from the reservoir for use in San Luis Obispo County. Approximately 1,750 AFY have been
designated for uses around the lake, leaving 15,750 AFY for allocation to other areas within the County of San
Luis Obispo.
21.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-8
Figure 3 Multi Source Water Supply
21.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-9
The County began construction in 2007 on a 45-mile pipeline project to deliver water from the Nacimiento
Reservoir to five participating agencies and cities. The City has a contractual entitlement to 3,380 5,482 AFY of
water from the project.
Recycled Water
Recycled water is highly treated wastewater approved for reuse by the California Department of Public Health for
a variety of applications, including landscape irrigation and construction dust control. Completed in 2006, the
Water Reuse Project created the first new source of water for the City since 1961 following construction of Whale
Rock Dam. The Project resulted in improvements at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Reclamation Facility and
an initial eight miles of distribution pipeline. The City’s first delivery of recycled water took place in 2006. The City
estimates demand exists for approximately 1,000 acre feet of recycled water for landscape irrigation and other
approved uses. Additional information is provided on recycled water in subsections A 3.0, A 7.0, and B 3.0 of this
Element.
Groundwater
The groundwater basin beneath the City is relatively small and recharges very quickly following normal rainfall
periods. The groundwater basin also lowers relatively quickly during periods of below-average rainfall. Extensive
use of groundwater sustained the City through most of the drought of 1986-1991. However, tThe City’s two
largest producing wells, the Auto Parkway and Denny’s (Calle Joaquin) wells, were shut down in 1992 and 1993
when elevated nitrate levels were detected. The City stopped utilizing the Pacific Beach well in April 2015. Due to
new regulatory requirements, using the groundwater would require additional costly treatment before the water
could be used. Additionally, portions of the groundwater basin are contaminated with a chemical solvent
(tetrachloroethylene) which would require treatment facilities to remove. While the City does not currently
utilize potable water from wells, this remains a viable option for future use. Private wells are in use in the City,
such as the well operated by San Luis Coastal Unified School District at San Luis Obispo High School.
The City operatesd one well for domestic potable water use that produces approximately 11 acre-feet per month
or approximately two-percent of the City’s total water use. The City also maintains a non-potable well at the
City’s Corporation Yard that is available for non-potable purposes by permit. for use by contractors for
construction activities such as dust control and soil compaction. The City’s Laguna Lake Golf Course also has two
wells that meet a portion of the irrigation demand for the course. The remainder of the irrigation demand for the
golf course is met using recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Reclamation Facility.
A 2.1 Goal
Ensure a long-term, reliable water supply to meet both current and future water demand associated with
development envisioned by the General Plan.
A 2.2 Policies
A 2.2.1 Multi-Source Water Supply
The City shall utilize multiple water resources to meet its water supply needs.
A 2.2.2 Water Service within the City
A. The City will be the only purveyor of water within the City.
B. Appropriate use of privately-owned wells is allowed on individual parcels. The use of the water from
a well shall only be utilized on the parcel on which it is situated.
21.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-10
A 2.3 Programs
A 2.3.1 Work cooperatively on regional water issues and water resource planning (Water Resource Advisory
Committee, Whale Rock Commission, etc.).
A 2.3.2 Participate with the County of San Luis Obispo in the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan process.
A 2.3.3 Participate with other appropriate agencies in controlling invasive species which could impact the City’s
water supplies (i.e. quagga mussels).
A 2.3.4 Work with appropriate agencies to minimize water quality impacts from new development and other
activities in the watersheds of the City’s water supplies.
A 2.3.5 Continue to work with the County of San Luis Obispo on the operation and maintenance of Salinas Reservoir
and Nacimiento Water Project.
A 2.3.6 Complete sanitary surveys for the Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs every five years.
21.a
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-11
Water Resource Availability
A 3.0 Background
As described in Section A 2.0, the City has five water resources to meet current and future City water demand:
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water from the
City’s Water Resource Recovery Reclamation Facility, and groundwater. In order to ensure water supply
reliability, the City must determine the amount of water available from these water resources on an annual basis.
The method to determine the available yield from each resource varies based on water right, contractual
agreement, or the amount of water actually supplied.
For Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs the term “safe annual yield” is used to define the annual amount of water
available from these two resources. The two reservoirs are operated in a coordinated manner to increase the
available water. In contrast, the “dependable yield” from Nacimiento Reservoir is the contractual amount of
water to which the City has rights. Since Nacimiento Reservoir is operated as a water supply project for Monterey
County, the concept of safe annual yield is not used for the City’s contractual water supply from this source. For
recycled water, the annual amount delivered is counted in the water availability calculation. Though groundwater
is part of the City’s water portfolio, due to the limitations on its use, the City will does not consider this supply in
estimating available water resources to meet community needs at this time.
Another issue the City must address is the potential impact of climate change on the City’s water resources.
Climate change could have a significant impact on future water availability in the form of droughts or increased
siltation in reservoirs as a result of wildland fires which could affect the safe annual yield of the City’s reservoirs.
As research on the topic continues, the City will monitor the potential for long-term impacts to its water supply
resources.
The following sections provide more detail about each water resource. Table 1 is a summary of the City’s
available water resources.
Table 1. City Water Resource Availability
Water Resource 2010 2016 Annual Availability
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and
Whale Rock Reservoir 6,940 AF Safe Annual Yield
Nacimiento Reservoir 3,380 AF
5,482 Contractual Limit
Recycled Water 130 187 AF 200915 Annual Usage
Siltation to 2060 (500 AF) Policy A 4.2.2
TOTAL 9,950 12,109 AF
Note: The quantity of recycled water included as part of the City’s available water resources identified above, is the actual prior year’s recycled
water usage (200915), per Policy A 7.2.2.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010 2016.
21.a
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-12
Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs
For Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs the term “safe annual yield” is used to define the quantity of water which
can be withdrawn every year, under critical drought conditions. The safe annual yield available from Salinas and
Whale Rock Reservoirs is estimated by simulating the operation of these two water supply sources over a
historical period to determine the maximum level of demand that could be met during the most severe drought
for which records are available. The two reservoirs are operated in a coordinated manner to maximize the
available water from these sources. Salinas Reservoir fills and spills every two to three years due to its larger
drainage area and more favorable runoff characteristics, yet has higher evaporation rates. Whale Rock Reservoir
fills much less frequently. The combined yield from the two reservoirs can be maximized by utilizing water from
Salinas as the City’s primary source, and using Whale Rock as a backup source during periods when Salinas is
below minimum pool or unable to meet all of the demand. This approach increases the long-term water supply
from these two sources.
Safe annual yield analyses of water supply sources are based on rainfall, evaporation, and stream flow
experienced during a historical period. The City’s safe annual yield analysis utilizes data from 1943 through 1991
including drought periods in 1946-51, 1959-61, 1976-77, and 1986-91. Although future conditions are unlikely to
occur in the precise sequence and magnitudes as have occurred historically, this technique provides a
conservative estimate of the future water supply capability of the existing sources, since the long-term historical
record is considered a good indicator of future conditions.
In 1988, the City contracted with the engineering firm of Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc., to prepare a detailed analysis
of the City's water supplies and create a computer model to determine safe annual yield, based on coordinated
operation of the two reservoirs. The report Coordinated Operations Study for Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs
was completed in 1989. Key assumptions used in the 1988 model were that the "controlling drought period" was
from 1946 to 1951 and that the City only used Whale Rock Reservoir when Salinas was below minimum pool or
could not meet the City’s monthly demand. The study also assumed a minimum pool at Salinas and Whale Rock
of 400 and 500 acre-feet respectively. The minimum pool at each lake is the amount of water that must be left in
the lake for fishery and habitat resources. The current minimum pool established for each lake is 2,000 acre feet.
The study estimated the City’s total safe annual yield from the two reservoirs to be 9,080 acre-feet per year. This
amount was never adopted by Council since the study period was only to 1988 and the City was then in a drought
period of unknown length.
In 1991, staff updated the computer model to examine the impact of the 1986-1991 drought on safe annual yield
and revise the assumptions on the amount of water used from Whale Rock Reservoir each year to more
accurately reflect the way the City actually used that resource. The analysis determined that the 1986-91 drought
was the critical drought of record for the two reservoirs. These revised assumptions resulted in a reduction in the
safe annual yield estimate.
The City’s safe annual yield for 2010, from the coordinated operation of Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs is
6,940 acre feet. This includes reductions due to siltation at both reservoirs to the year 2010. Future losses due to
siltation are addressed in Section 4.0 of this Element.
21.a
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-13
Nacimiento Reservoir
The “dependable yield” from Nacimiento Reservoir is the contractual amount of water that the City has rights to
from Nacimiento Reservoir. This amount is 5,482 3,380 acre-feet per year. The San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (County) has held an entitlement to 17,500 acre-feet of water from
Nacimiento Lake since 1959. Since that time, a small portion has been dedicated for uses in the immediate areas
around the Lake. Several times in the past, the County has evaluated opportunities for utilizing water to meet
identified needs throughout the County. In the early 1990’s, the City was facing dire drought conditions and
dwindling water supplies and was considering building an emergency water supply project on its own to provide a
new water source. The City requested the County allocate 3,000 acre feet to the City on a permanent basis. While
the County denied this request, this triggered the initiation of investigations on a county-wide basis for separate
contracts for use of the available water from Nacimiento Reservoir.
Engineering studies, environmental impact reports, dependable yield analyses, and preliminary design reports
were undertaken in an effort to meet the various water needs within the County. In 2004, the County requested
interested agencies to approve the contractual agreements for participation in the Nacimiento Project. The four
initial project participants included the cities of San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles, the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company, and the Templeton Community Services District. All of these agencies executed participation
agreements with San Luis Obispo County for entitlements of water which totaled 9,630 acre feet. Since 2004, the
County Service Area 10A, which serves the southern portion of Cayucos, has become a project participant (25
AFY). In addition, 1,750 acre-feet was reserved for uses around the lake.
On June 29, 2004, the City Council authorized participation in the Nacimiento Water Project for the delivery of
3,380 acre-feet of water. This amount is considered to be the City’s dependable yield from this water source and
will be utilized to meet existing and future water demands based on analyses prepared during the Nacimiento
Project planning process (“Nacimiento Reservoir Reliability as a Water Source for San Luis Obispo County”, Boyle
Engineering Corporation, October 2002).
In March 2016, the City Council approved the addition of 2,102 acre feet per year from Nacimiento Reservoir to
the City’s secondary water supply. Secondary water supplies are used to meet short-term losses to the City’s
water supply due to events such as drought, pipeline maintenance, and repair of infrastructure. With uncertainty
of future climatic conditions, regulation and aging infrastructure, the additional supply of Nacimiento water to
the City’s portfolio reduces pressure on use of water supplies in the Whale Rock and Salinas reservoirs. It would
serve to extend these stored supplies during critical water shortage periods.
Recycled Water
With an average influent flow of just under 4.6 2.74 million gallons per day (2009) in 2015, the City’s Water
Resource Recovery Reclamation Facility produces over 5,100 3,000 acre-feet of disinfected tertiary-treated
effluent per year. A minimum of 1,807 acre-feet is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek annually to provide
satisfactory habitat and flow volume for fish species (steelhead trout) within the San Luis Obispo Creek
environment. The balance makes up the City’s available recycled water resource (See Table 2) which is available
for approved uses including:
Landscape and golf course irrigation
Wetlands, wildlife habitat, stream augmentation
Groundwater recharge
Toilet flushing
Vehicle washing
21.a
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-14
Surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards
Landscape impoundments
Industrial cooling processes
Food crop irrigation
Table 2. Annual Recycled Water Availability based on Influent Flow
Average Influent Flow to
WRF (MGD)
Treated
Effluent
Produced
(AFY)
Minimum
Average Daily
Creek Release
(MGD)1
Minimum
Annual Creek
Release (AFY)
Average Daily
Recycled Water
Availability (MGD)
Annual Recycled
Water Availability
(AFY)
2009 Avg. Flow 4.596 5,148 1.6129 1,807 2.9831 3,341
Flow at WRF
Capacity 5.20 5,825 1.6129 1,807 3.5871 4,018
Flow at General
Plan Buildout 2 5.80 6,497 1.6129 1,807 4.1871 4,690
Notes:
1. As a condition of approval of the City's Water Reuse Project by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2005, the City is required to
maintain a minimum average daily release, year-round, of treated effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek at a rate of 2.5 cubic feet per second
(cfs), or 1.6129 million gallons per day (mgd) to provide satisfactory habitat and flow volume for anadromous fish species (steelhead
trout) within the San Luis Obispo Creek environment. This totals a minimum of 1,807 acre feet per year. The City monitors the release of
effluent through an effluent meter at the WRF and a stream gauge in San Luis Obispo Creek.
2. Master planning for the expansion of the WRF to accommodate General Plan buildout is underway in 2010. When the WRF is expanded in
the future it will have an estimated treatment capacity of 5.8 mgd.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010.
Average Influent Flow
to WRF (MGD)
Treated
Effluent
Produced
(AFY)
Minimum Average
Daily Creek
Release (MGD)1
Minimum
Annual Creek
Release (AFY)
Average Daily
Recycled Water
Availability (MGD)
Annual Recycled
Water Availability
(AFY) 1
2015 Average
Flow 2.74 3,066 1.6129 1,807 1.13 1,259
Future Flow at
WRRF Design
Capacity
5.4 5,966 1.6129 1,807 3.79 4,159
NOTES:
1. 2015 data was derived from WRRF average monthly influent data. Future annual recycled water volume is based on the design capacity
of the WRRF of 5.4 mgd in the design phase in 2016.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2016.
At this time (2010), the City assumes that irrigation will continue to be the primary use of recycled water. Based
on a market assessment, potential customer surveys, and water demand estimates for the Margarita, Airport,
and Orcutt Specific Plan areas the City estimates that demand will exist for approximately 1,000 acre-feet of
recycled water annually. Irrigation demand is seasonal, with approximately 60 percent of recycled water
deliveries occurring over a three-month period (June through August).
21.a
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-15
The design phase for the upgrade of the WRRF is underway in 2016 to accommodate General Plan buildout and
maximize recycled water production. The upgrade will enable the City to consider potable reuse in the future.
Additional background information on recycled water, as well as applicable goals, policies and programs, is
provided in subsection A 7.0 of the Water Section and subsection B 3.0 of the Wastewater Management Section.
A 3.1 Goal
Manage the City’s water resources to meet the current and future water demand requirements associated with
development envisioned by the General Plan.
A 3.2 Policies
A 3.2.1 Basis for Planning
The City will plan for future development through the Land Use Element taking into consideration available
water resources from the Salinas, Whale Rock, and Nacimiento Reservoirs and recycled water.
A 3.2.2 Coordinated Operation
The City will coordinate the operation of the Salinas, Whale Rock, and Nacimiento Reservoirs to maximize
available water resources.
A 3.2.3 Groundwater
Due to limitations for the use of the groundwater resources, the The City will continue to use groundwater
for domestic purposes when available., but will not consider this source of supply as part of its water
resource availability.
A 3.3 Programs
A 3.3.1 An update on the water resource availability will be presented to the City Council as part of an annual Water
Resources Status Report.
A 3.3.2 The City will update the safe annual yield computer model for Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs following
severe drought periods to determine if any changes are necessary to the safe annual yield amount.
A 3.3.3 The City will monitor ongoing research on the potential for long-term impacts associated with climate change
to water supply resources.
21.a
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-16
SILTATION
A 4.0 Background
Siltation at reservoirs is a natural occurrence that can reduce the storage capacity over long periods. The
reduction of available storage reduces the safe annual yield of the reservoirs. Siltation at reservoirs varies
depending on factors such as rainfall intensity and watershed management practices. Numerous studies and
reports addressing siltation at Salinas Reservoir have been completed, but no studies have been done for Whale
Rock Reservoir. The Whale Rock Reservoir Bathymetric Survey and Volumetric Study was completed in May 2013.
During the drought period ending in 1991, water at Salinas Reservoir fell to record low levels. Recognizing the
unique opportunity presented by the low water level, the County of San Luis Obispo contracted with a local
engineering consultant to provide an aerial survey of the lake and prepare revised storage capacity information.
Early studies indicated average annual siltation rates from 23 acre-feet per year to 34 acre-feet per year. The
study done by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1975 estimated that the siltation rate was approximately 82 acre-feet
per year. The 1990 analysis conducted by the County of San Luis Obispo indicates that the siltation rate is on the
order of 40 acre-feet per year.
It should be noted that siltation impacts to the reservoirs are a long-term impact to the resources and should be
considered in the City’s long range plans for adequate water resources. At an annual siltation rate of 40 AFY at
each reservoir, it would take approximately 530 years to fill up the Salinas Reservoir and 960 years to fill up
Whale Rock Reservoir. Siltation does not occur uniformly over time but the situation should continue to be
monitored into the future.
The City has recognized the need to evaluate the siltation rates at Whale Rock Reservoir and has identified
funding in fiscal year 2011-12 to conduct the study. Since no information is available to indicate what rate of
siltation is occurring at the Whale Rock Reservoir at this point, it is assumed for planning purposes that the
annual average rate of siltation is similar to Salinas Reservoir.
The purpose of the 2013 bathymetric survey and volumetric study at Whale Rock Reservoir was to determine the
level of siltation that has occurred in the reservoir since the dam’s completion in 1961. The study concluded that
sedimentation has reduced reservoir capacity by 4.2 percent in 52 years as shown in Table 3 and 4.
Table 3. Whale Rock Reservoir Capacity Change
1961 Capacity: 40,662 Acre-Ft @ Spillway ELV 216.0 NGVD29
2013 Capacity: 38,967 Acre-Ft @ Spillway ELV 218.3 NAVD88
Capacity Loss due to
Siltation: 1,695 Acre-Ft
Difference in Years: 52 Years
Siltation Rate: 32.6 Acre-Ft/Year
Percentage Capacity Loss: 4.2%
Source: Whale Rock Reservoir Bathymetric Survey and Volumetric Study, 2013.
21.a
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-17
Table 4. Reservoir Storage Capacity
Agency %
Entitlement
Original
Storage
Capacity
(AF)
Revised
Storage
Capacity
(AF)
Difference
(AF)
Revised Total
Available
Water * (AF)
City of San
Luis Obispo 55.05 22,384 21,451 933 20,350
Cal Poly 33.71 13,707 13,136 571 12,462
CMC 11.24 4,570 4,380 191 4,155
Total 100 % 40,662 AF 38,967 AF 1,695 AF 36,967 AF
Source: Whale Rock Reservoir Bathymetric Survey and Volumetric Study, 2013.
*Total Available Water is agency share of reservoir storage capacity minus agency proportional share of
minimum pool requirements.
The safe annual yield from the two reservoirs will be continually reduced as a result of siltation. The City’s
computer model can be is used to calculate the reduction in safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock
reservoirs to-date, which is reflected in the safe annual yield amount in Section A 3.0 which accounts for
estimated siltation losses to 2010.
Since the storage capacity for Salinas Reservoir was last estimated in 1990, the annual loss of 40 acre-feet per
year can be applied from that date. However, since siltation at Whale Rock Reservoir has never been factored
into the total available water storage, the loss of 40 acre-feet per year would apply to the period since the
reservoir was constructed in 1961.
The estimated loss in storage capacity for Salinas Reservoir between 1990 and 2010 is 800 acre-feet. The
estimated loss at Whale Rock Reservoir between 1961 and 20103 is was 1,960 1,695 acre-feet. Based on these
reduced storage capacities, the computer model was used to estimate the safe annual yield from the combined
operation of the two reservoirs. With an estimated loss of 40 acre-feet per year at each reservoir, the total safe
annual yield from the two reservoirs is estimated to be reduced by 10 acre-feet per year.
21.a
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-18
A 4.1 Goals
A 4.1.1 Accurately account for siltation in the Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs.
A 4.1.2 Recognize and account for future projected water losses due to siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock
Reservoirs.
A 4.2 Policies
A 4.2.1 Accounting for Past Siltation
The City shall account for siltation losses that have occurred to date (2010) in the safe annual yield from
Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs.
A 4.2.2 Accounting for Future Siltation
The City will account for estimated safe annual yield losses at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs for the next
50 years ( through 2060) by deducting 500 acre feet of available water supplies to account for these future
losses. The siltation rate will be updated as information becomes available from subsequent siltation
analyses.
A 4.3 Programs
A 4.3.1 Work cooperatively with other agencies and/or watershed management groups, including the County of San
Luis Obispo and Resource Conservation Districts, implementing best management practices (BMPs) to reduce
erosion and subsequent siltation consistent with other City watershed management goals and water quality
objectives included in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
A 4.3.2 Continue public education and outreach to property owners in the watersheds above the reservoirs to
encourage practices that reduce erosion and other practices that could impact siltation or water quality in
the reservoirs.
A 4.3.3 Consider periodic siltation studies at each reservoir to evaluate and document the impacts associated with
siltation.
A 4.3.4 An update on siltation at the City’s reservoirs will be provided to the City Council as part of the annual Water
Resources Status Report.
21.a
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-19
WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING AND DEMAND PROJECTION
A 5.0 Background
The City is located in a Mediterranean climate that is prone to drought. As a result, the City has experienced
serious water supply deficits. In 1991, during an extended drought, the community was within 18 months of
running out of water in Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. In fact, Salinas Reservoir was below minimum pool
and was not available to the City toward the end of this drought period. In 1996, citizens voted to incorporate
Section 909 into the City’s Charter identifying a water reliability reserve. In an effort to reduce the impacts of
drought on the community, the City Council has enacted numerous water policies to strengthen its water
resources portfolio. The City will account for water supplies necessary to meet three specific community needs:1)
primary water supply, 2) reliability reserve, and 3) secondary water supply.
1. Primary water supply is the amount needed to meet the General Plan build-out of the City. The quantity of
water needed for the City’s primary water supply needs is calculated using a ten-year average of actual
per-capita water use and the City’s build-out population.
2. Reliability reserve provides a buffer for future unforeseen or unpredictable long-term impacts to the City’s
available water resources such as loss of yield from an existing water supply source and impacts due to
climate change.
3. Secondary water supply is the amount needed to meet peak water demand periods or short-term loss of
City water supply sources. The City’s secondary water supply is identified as any water supply resources
above those needed to meet the primary water supply and reliability reserve.
In order to support growth projections and other goals of the General Plan, the City must project how much
water will be needed to serve residents, businesses, and other users. This can be done by using different
methods, all of which involve assumptions about future usage rates and the numbers and types of users expected
in the future. There will always be some uncertainty in estimating development capacity (such as the number of
dwellings or residents) as well as the usage per customer type (such as acre-feet per dwelling or per resident).
The estimating method must use reasonable assumptions, based on experience, to assure an adequate level of
water supply while not overstating demands.
As shown in Figure 2, the City’s historical per capita usage water use has ranged from a high of 182 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) in 1987 to a low of 86 gpcd in 1991 (during mandatory water rationing). To project the City’s
primary water supply and reliability reserve into the future, an average per capita water use rate will be used,
moderated by the use of the ten-year running average to normalize weather events. In 2010, the ten-year
average is 123.2 gpcd as shown in Table 3, Population and Water Use the City will use 117 gpcd which is the
maximum allowed per capita water use under Senate Bill X7-7. This water use rate is used with the City’s build-
out population and current population to project the primary water supply and reliability reserve. The City’s
remaining water resources make up secondary water supply, as shown in Table 4.
21.a
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-20
Figure 4 Per Capita Water Use, 1985-2009
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010.
Table 5. Population and Water Use
Year City of San Luis Obispo Population 1 Total Water Use
(acre feet) 2 Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) 2
2000 44,179 6,121 124
2001 44,347 5,886 118
2002 44,482 6,032 121
2003 44,357 5,968 120
2004 44,298 6,239 126
2005 44,687 6,098 122
2006 44,559 5,999 120
2007 44,433 6,488 130
2008 44,579 6,375 128
2009 44,829 6,157 123
Ten-year Average: 123.2
Sources:
1. State of CA, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark.
Sacramento, CA, May 2010.
2. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010.
177 181 182 175
117
89 86
98 103 106
121 125
133
124 130 124 121 120 126 122
130 128 123118120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
YearGallons/Capita/Day21.a
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-21
Table 6. 2010 Water Supply Accounting
Proposed Water Supply Accounting and Demand Projections
(City Buildout Population * 117 gpcd * 365
days) / 325,851 gallons =
Primary Water Supply
+
20% of Current City
Population * 117 gpcd * 365
days) / 325,851 gallons =
Reliability Reserve
+
All Remaining Supplies
Secondary Water Supply
= Annual
Availability
Total1 Primary Water Supply2 Reliability Reserve3 Secondary Water Supply4
9,950 acre-feet 7,894 acre-feet 1,241 acre-feet 816 acre-feet
Notes:
1. The “Total” water supply for 2010 is identified in Table 1. It includes safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs, contractual
limit from Nacimiento Reservoir, annual recycled water usage for 20092015, and deducts siltation losses at Salinas and Whale Rock
Reservoirs to 2060.
2. Primary Water Supply was is calculated using the City’s buildout population (57,200, per Land Use Element, Table 2, Anticipated City
Population Growth, 2006) and the water use rate of 123.2 117 gallons per capita per day (a ten-year running average of the City’s actual
per capita water use), per policy A 5.2.2.
3. Reliability Reserve was calculated using the City’s 2010 population (44,948, per CA Dept. of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, CA, May 2010) and 20 percent of the water use rate of 123.2 117
gallons per capita per day (a ten-year running average of the City’s actual per capita water use), per policy A 5.2.3.
4. Secondary Water Supply includes the remaining water resources available in 2010, identified in Table 1, per policy A 5.2.4.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 20106.
A 5.1 Goals
A 5.1.1 Identify and meet the City’s multi- source water supply needs.
A 5.1.2 Accurately forecast future water demand for planning purposes.
A 5.2 Policies
A 5.2.1 Water Use Rate
The City will calculate utilize the per capita water use rate based on a ten-year running average of the City’s
actual per capita water use allowed by Senate Bill X7-7 for projecting future potable water demand
established as 117 gallons per capita per day.
A 5.2.2 Primary Water Supply
The City shall establish the amount of water needed for General Plan build-out using the water use rate
established in Policy A 5.2.1 multiplied by the projected General Plan build-out population identified in the
Land Use Element.
A 5.2.3 Reliability Reserve
The City will establish a reliability reserve that is 20-percent of the water use rate established in Policy A 5.2.1
multiplied by the current population. The water supply designated as the reliability reserve may not be used
to serve future development.
21.a
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-22
A 5.2.4 Secondary Water Supply
After accounting for primary water supply and a reliability reserve, any remaining water supplies shall be
utilized for meeting short-term water supply shortages or peak water demands.
A 5.2.5 Paying for Water for New Development
New development shall pay its proportionate or “fair share” for water supplies, expanded treatment and
distribution system capacity and upgrades.
A 5.3 Programs
A 5.3.1 An update on water supply accounting and demand projections will be presented to the City Council as part
of the annual Water Resources Status Report.
A 5.3.2 The City will conduct periodic updates to water development impact fees.
A 5.3.3 Prepare and update the Urban Water Management Plan every five years as required by the State.
A 5.3.4 Analyze and prepare water supply assessments for large new developments in accordance with State law.
A 5.3.5 Analyze the impacts of water efficiency programs and services to reduce overall water demand within the
City
21.a
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-23
WATER CONSERVATION
A 6.0 Background
Water conservation was first referenced as a part of the City's water management policy in 1973. In 1985, the
City adopted the Annual Water Operational Plan policy establishing water conservation as a means of extending
water supplies during projected water shortages. Since 1985, many technological and philosophical changes have
occurred which are proving water conservation to be both a short-term corrective measure for immediate water
supply shortages and a long-term solution to water supply reliability.
Because of the experience during the drought of 1986 to 1991, the City developed a Water Shortage Contingency
Plan (Plan) to deal with immediate, short-term water shortages. The Plan is designed to require mandatory
actions when there is a projected three five year supply of water remaining from available water resources. The
Plan uses a combination of water allocations based on customer classification and water use surcharges for
exceeding the allocation as a means to decrease water use during critical water shortages. For instance,
residential customers are given a water allocation based on the average water use for multi- or single-family
households having three occupants. If there are more residents, additional water may be allocated with sufficient
proof. Commercial customers are allocated water either by a reduction based on their historical water use or by
the average water use by business type. Surcharges for exceeding a water allocation results in their bill either
doubling or tripling depending on the actual amount of water used. The Plan is also a required component of the
City’s Urban Water Management Plan which is updated every five years per State Water Code.
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, Senate Bill X7-7 (SB X7-7), was incorporated into the California Water Code
in 2009. The legislation directs urban water suppliers to adopt one of four methods to determine their urban
water use target. The method selected by the City corresponds to the Central Coast hydrologic region. The
Central Coast region’s 2020 target of 117 gallons per capita per day is the lowest in the state.
The City also recognizes the importance of long-term water efficiency by supporting programs that will enhance
water supply reliability and comply with any current and/or future state mandates in water use reductions. In
2009, Senate Bill X7-7 was passed requiring water agencies to reduce per capita water use by 20 percent by the
year 2020. There are three options (with a fourth being developed) on how to determine the year 2020 target for
the City. Using the methodology which best corresponds to the City’s situation and recognizes the City’s past
investment in conservation, the City’s target per capita water use would be 117 gpcd which is an additional five
percent reduction from 2010 per capita water use.
In terms of water supply reliability the City was one of the original signatories to the Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation (MOU) and has actively pursued the implementation of the
water efficiency best management practices (BMPs) prescribed in the MOU. The MOU was a negotiated
agreement between water purveyors statewide and environmental organizations on how best to utilize the
State’s water resources by incorporating conservation into their water management practices.
The BMPs have been developed over the years by water purveyors, environmental groups, and industry
stakeholders. They represent the best available water conservation practices based on research and experience
and include:
Water conservation pricing and rate structures
Technical assistance for water customers
Incentives for indoor and outdoor water saving technologies
Public information and outreach
Water audits
21.a
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-24
Additionally, the City has adopted the Ahwahnee Principles as part of the General Plan’s Conservation and Open
Space Element (COSE). The water conservation components of the principles align with both the indoor and
outdoor water conservation BMPs.
In the future, the City will reevaluate and update its water conservation efforts in response to changing water
demand, supplies, technology, and economic conditions.
A 6.1 Goal
The efficient use of the City’s water resources to protect both short- and long-term water supply reliability.
A 6.2 Policies
A 6.2.1 Long-term Water Efficiency
The City will implement water-efficiency programs which are consistent with accepted best management
practices and comply with any State-mandated water use reductions.
A 6.2.2 Short-term Water Shortages
Mandatory water conservation measures as described in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be
implemented when the City's water supplies are projected to last three five years or less.
A 6.3 Programs
A 6.3.1 Work cooperatively with other San Luis Obispo County water agencies to identify cooperative water
efficiency measures that can be implemented in each jurisdiction.
A 6.3.2 Participate in State and regional water conservation efforts and research and development opportunities.
A 6.3.3 Implement the Water Shortage Contingency Plan as required.
21.a
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-25
RECYCLED WATER
A 7.0 Background
Water recycling was envisioned as part of the City’s overall water supply strategy since the 1980’s. In 1994, the
City completed a major capital improvement project at the Water Resource Recovery Reclamation Facility that
included addition of tertiary treatment and other unit processes required to meet stringent effluent quality limits
intended to protect and enhance the receiving waters of San Luis Obispo Creek. While a municipal water reuse
program was envisioned at the time of this upgrade, the City did not receive regulatory approvals for diversion of
treated effluent for off-site landscape irrigation and other approved uses until 2002.
The City’s 2004 Water Reuse Master Plan identifies the areas of the City to be served with recycled water (See
Figure 3, Water Reuse Master Plan Area and Distribution System), as well as potential customers and anticipated
future recycled water demand.
The City completed construction of the Water Reuse Project in 2006 which included:
A diversion structure and modulating control valve to split the effluent flow between the recycled water
tank and San Luis Obispo Creek.
A new 220,000-gallon chlorine contact tank to meet recycled water disinfection requirements which differ
from those for discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek.
A new 600,000 gallon buried concrete recycled water storage tank to provide the storage necessary for
operation of the distribution system.
A pump station to deliver recycled water into the distribution system. It included two 40-horsepower and
three 120-horsepower variable speed pumps and was designed to accommodate two additional 120
horsepower pumps for a future capacity expansion.
The Water Reuse Project also included the initial eight miles of the recycled water distribution system with two
main branches, as described below:
West Branch: The west branch extends west from the WRF under Highway 101, then along Calle Joaquin to
Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) to near the westerly city limits on LOVR. There is a secondary branch which
extends from LOVR along Madonna Road to Laguna Lake Park.
East Branch: The east branch begins at the WRF and follows Prado Road easterly to the city limits, then
along existing easements to Broad Street, thence southerly along Broad to Tank Farm Road, then easterly
to the terminus at Islay Hills Park.
Recycled water deliveries began in October 2006. In 2009, recycled water was delivered to 17 sites with total
usage over 130 acre feet per year (See Table 5). Additional sites continue to be connected to the recycled water
distribution system through retrofits of existing irrigation systems as well as the irrigation systems associated
with new development in the area. In the future, recycled water will be delivered to development in the Airport,
Margarita, and Orcutt specific plan areas and is being considered with development proposals for the Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna on LOVR specific plans. Recycled water will be used for the irrigation of
parks, streetscape, and median landscaping, common area (homeowners association) landscaping, and
landscaping in commercial centers, industrial areas, and business parks.
21.a
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-26
Figure 2 Water Reuse Master Plan Area and Distribution System
21.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-27
Table 7. Annual Recycled Water Usage
Calendar
Year
Annual Recycled
Water Usage
(in acre-feet)
Number of Sites
Using Recycled Water
2006 7.69 1 1
2007 62.36 10
2008 95.75 11
2009 137.36 2 17
Notes:
1. Partial year data reported, October through December 2006.
2. The City initiated a Construction Water Permit Program (CWPP) on July 1, 2009. Recycled water usage associated with the CWPP is included
with annual recycled water usage.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010.
A 7.1 Goals
A 7.1.1 MaximizeUtilize recycled water for all approved purposes non-potable purposes, thereby offsetting the use
of potable water.
A 7.1.2 Maximize the use of the City’s available recycled water supply for approved uses.
A 7.2 Policies
A 7.2.1 Recycled Water Supply
The City will make available recycled water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law
and to supply new non-potable uses.
A 7.2.2 Accounting for Recycled Water
The City will add total recycled water usage from the prior year to the City’s water resource availability on an
annual basis.
A 7.3 Programs
A 7.3.1 Expand the recycled water distribution system to serve customers in the Water Reuse Master Plan area.
A 7.3.2 Review development proposals for projects within the Water Reuse Master Plan area to ensure recycled
water is utilized for appropriate uses.
A 7.3.3 Annual recycled water usage will be presented to the City Council as part of the annual Water Resources
Status Report and will be added to the City’s water resource availability per policy A 3.2.1.
A 7.3.4 Consider the potential to deliver available recycled water supplies to customers outside the city limits,
including analysis of policy issues, technical concerns, and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent
with the General Plan.
A 7.3.5 Continue to explore potable reuse consistent with statewide regulations.
21.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-28
B. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
B 1.0 Background
The Wastewater Management section was first incorporated into the Water and Wastewater Management
Element of the General Plan in 1987. The City owns and operates, under regulatory permits, a wastewater
collection system and a water reclamation resource recovery facility that produces recycled water. In order to
adequately maintain the systems, meet the needs of the community, and meet increasingly stringent regulations
the City implements infrastructure replacement and upgrade projects at the Water Reclamation Resource
Recovery Facility (WRF) and throughout the wastewater collection system. It also has a pretreatment program.
The 2016 revisions include updated data related to the City’s wastewater flows.
B 1.1 Purpose
This section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element establishes goals, policies, and programs to
ensure provision of adequate sanitary sewer infrastructure and wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate
existing and future development in order to protect public health, human safety, and the environment.
21.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-29
WASTEWATER SERVICE
B 2.0 Background
The City is the sole provider of wastewater service within the City. The service provides collection and treatment
for residential, commercial, and industrial users on properties within the city limits. In 2010, the number of
service connections is estimated to be 14,400. Through agreement, the City also provides service to the San Luis
Obispo campus of California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport.
The collection system is primarily a gravity flow system. Where gravity flow is not feasible due to the topography,
wastewater lift stations and pressurized force mains are used to move wastewater to the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Reclamation Facility (WRF) on Prado Road. Sewer pipelines measure from six inches to 48 inches in
diameter.
As shown in Figure 4, dry-weather flow to the WRRF over the past nine years has ranged from 4.08 mgd to 5.12
mgd during October. In 2010, tThe WRRF is designed for an average dry-weather flow of 5.12 million gallons per
day (mgd). Instantaneous peak flows exceeding 20 mgd are not uncommon during storm events due to
infiltration and inflow into the wastewater collection system, discussed further in subsection B 4.0. As the City
grows to its build-out population outlined in the Land Use Element, the average dry-weather flow of wastewater
is expected to reach 5.84 mgd. In 20106, master planning for the expansion of the WRRF to accommodate
General Plan buildout is underway. When the WRRF is expanded in the future it will have an estimated a
treatment capacity of 5.84 mgd.
Figure 4 October Dry-Weather Flows to the Water Reclamation Facility in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YearMillion Gallons per Day Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, Water Reclamation Facility, Influent Flow Data for October 2001-2009. The City utilizes
October data to ensure the consideration of the City’s student population when forecasting future dry-weather flows.
21.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-30
B 2.1 Goal
Adequate wastewater collection and treatment service to meet the long-term needs of the City.
B 2.2 Policies
B 2.2.1 Service Outside the City Limits
To receive City wastewater service, property must be annexed to the City. The City Council may authorize
exceptions to this policy provided it is found to be consistent with the General Plan.
B 2.2.2 Service Capacity
The City's wastewater collection system and Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility shall support
population and related service demands consistent with the General Plan.
B 2.2.3 Wastewater Service for New Development
New development shall pay its proportionate or “fair share” of expanded treatment and collection system
capacity and upgrades. New development will only be permitted if adequate capacity is available within the
wastewater collection system and/or Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility.
B 2.2.4 City as Exclusive Provider
The City will be the only provider of public wastewater treatment within the City (but on-site pretreatment of
wastewater to meet City Standards may be required).
B 2.3 Programs
B 2.3.1 Expand capacity in the City’s collection system and Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility in support
of projected wastewater flows.
B 2.3.2 Evaluate the potential for the wastewater flows of a proposed project to exceed the capacity of collection
and treatment systems.
B 2.3.3 The City will conduct periodic updates to its wastewater development impact fees.
21.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-31
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
B 3.0 Background
The Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility (WRF) processes wastewater in accordance with standards set
by the State's Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB issues a permit to the City under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), setting standards for the discharge of treated
wastewater. The standards are to protect beneficial uses of the receiving water (San Luis Obispo Creek) including
recreation, agricultural supply, and fish and wildlife habitat.
The Water Resource Recovery Facility WRF removes solids, reduces the amount of nutrients, and eliminates
bacteria in the treated wastewater which is then discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek. Solids are separated and
treated, to create biosolids. Biosolids are beneficially reused as compost, and/or soil amendment. As described in
Section A 7.0, the Water Resource Recovery Facility WRF has been producing tertiary treated recycled water for
delivery to water customers in the City since 2006.
The design phase for the upgrade of the Water Resource Recovery Facility is underway in 2016 with completion
anticipated in 2020. The upgrade will enable the City to consider potable reuse, part of a One Water concept, in
the future.
B 3.1 Goals
B 3.1.1 Wastewater treatment that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements and ensures the protection of public
health and the environment.
B 3.1.2 A high-quality, dependable recycled water supply that meets an increasing portion of the City’s non-potable
demand. Maximize recycled water production.
B 3.2 Policies
B 3.2.1 Treating Wastewater
The City will treat all wastewater in compliance with approved discharge permits.
B 3.2.2 Recycled Water Production
The City will produce high-quality, dependable recycled water, suitable for a wide range of non-potable uses.
B 3.2.3 Beneficial Use
The City will pursue treatment and disposal methods which provide for further beneficial use of wastewater
and biosolids.
B 3.3 Programs
B 3.3.1 Prepare and implement Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility master plan consistent with
regulatory requirements.
B 3.3.2 Work cooperatively on regional water quality issues.
21.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-32
COLLECTION SYSTEM
B 4.0 Background
The first sanitary sewers were built in San Luis Obispo in the late 1800s. Today portions of the collection system
are over 100 years old. It includes nine lift stations, approximately 135 miles of gravity sewer line and three miles
of force main. Approximately 2,900 manholes provide access to the collection system. The sewer lines are made
of a variety of materials, including terra cotta salt-glazed pipe, vitrified clay pipe (VCP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
and asbestos concrete.
The City’s wastewater collection system requires maintenance to ensure uninterrupted flows and minimize
sanitary sewer overflows. Area and preventive maintenance programs are regularly evaluated to ensure their
effectiveness. The City also utilizes video inspection to prioritize problem areas for replacement, maintenance,
assess overall mainline conditions, conduct inflow and infiltration evaluations, and assess new construction.
The City issues discharge permits to and conducts inspections of facilities that have the potential to discharge
pollutants in concentrations that could pose a threat to worker safety, the wastewater collection system, and/or
the Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility. Through its Pretreatment Program, the City also implements
programs to target constituents of special concern.
Like most cities in California, San Luis Obispo has separate sewer and storm drain systems. This means each
system of pipes in the ground is designed to accommodate either sewer or stormwater flows. One set of pipes
takes sanitary waste to the Water Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility while a second set carries stormwater
runoff from street drains directly into bioswales, detention basins, or creeks.
The City’s wastewater collection system and the WRF have long experienced problems associated with wet
weather infiltration and inflow (I & I). Inflow is water that enters the collection system at points of direct
connection (non-soil) such as around manhole covers or through illegal connection of roof drains, downspouts, or
landscape drains. Infiltration is water that flows through the ground into the collection system usually through
cracks in public sewer mains and/or private sewer laterals (See Figure 5). I & I overloads the collection system
during heavy rains and can result in sanitary sewer overflows. During periods of significant rain events, the Water
Reclamation Resource Recovery Facility WRF can become hydraulically overwhelmed (as mentioned previously,
instantaneous peak flows exceeding 20 mgd are not uncommon during storm events) increasing the chance of
effluent violations and the release of partially treated wastewater to San Luis Obispo Creek. Table 6 includes data
on the highest average daily flows experienced at the Water Resource Recovery Facility WRF during rain events
over a nine-year period.
Table 8. Highest Average Daily Flows to the Water Reclamation Facility, 20016 to 200915
Average Daily Flows 1 Year
15.41 mgd 2001 (March)
7.84 mgd 2002 (December)
9.96 mgd 2003 (March)
16.81 mgd 2004 (December)
15.95 mgd 2005 (January)
19.75 mgd 2006 (April)
7.24 mgd 2007(December)
9.83 mgd 2008 (January)
11.67 mgd 2009 (October)
13.51 mgd 2010 (December)
13.23 mgd 2011 (March
21.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-33
7.10 mgd 2012 (January)
5.17 mgd 2013 (January)
5.12 mgd 2014 (March)
5.24 mgd 2015 (February)
Note:
1. Instantaneous peak flows are higher.
2. August dry weather flow to the WRF from 2001 to 2009 ranged from 3.44 mgd to 4.23 mgd.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010.
Figure 3 Inflow and Infiltration Illustrated
21.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Chapter 8
Page 8-34
B 4.1 Goal
Collect and convey all wastewater under safe and sanitary conditions to the Water Reclamation Resource
Recovery Facility.
B 4.2 Policies
B 4.2.1 Collection System Maintenance
The City will manage the collection system to ensure that the proper level of maintenance is provided and
that the flow in sanitary sewers does not exceed design capacity.
B 4.2.2 Infiltration and Inflow
The City will minimize stormwater and groundwater infiltration and inflow into the sewer system.
B 4.3 Programs
B 4.3.1 Investigate and carry out cost-effective methods for reducing infiltration and inflow into the wastewater
collection system.
B 4.3.2 Develop education and outreach materials to increase public awareness of problems associated with
excessive infiltration and inflow (I & I) into the wastewater collection system and the City’s efforts to reduce
I & I.
B 4.3.3 Support the retrofit of commercial and residential sewer laterals to reduce infiltration and inflow into the
wastewater collection system.
B 4.3.4 Update the Sewer System Management Plan to maintain its applicability.
B 4.3.5 Maintain, and revise as necessary, master plans for the extension of wastewater services to developing areas
of the City and to ensure orderly replacement of aged infrastructure.
B 4.3.6 Review development proposals to ensure new development does not adversely impact existing infrastructure
and that necessary infrastructure will be in place to support the development.
B 4.3.7 Provide a Pretreatment Program pursuant to the Clean Water Act to ensure that all discharge requirements
are met.
21.a
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Water and Wastewater Element
Page 8-35
Please see the next page.
21.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment21.a: a - Leg Draft 2016 WWME Update Chapter 8 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
21.b
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment21.b: b - PC Reso on WWME (GENP-3215-2016 WWME) (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
21.b
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment21.b: b - PC Reso on WWME (GENP-3215-2016 WWME) (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER
AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN (GENP-3215-2016)
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the City of San Luis
Obispo City General Plan was first adopted on June 29, 2004 and last updated on July 6, 2010;
and
WHEREAS, a periodic update of the Water and Wastewater Management Element is
necessary for the information to remain current; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has prepared an updated 2016 Water and
Wastewater Management Element to address current information and for consistency with the
2015 Urban Water Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 Water and Wastewater Management Element was evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant and is exempt consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the General Rule Exemption; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, held a hearing on May 25, 2016 and
recommended the City Council adopt the amendments to the General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element as shown in the Draft Water and Wastewater Management
Element.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The City Council, after considering the 2016 Water and
Wastewater Management Element, environmental determination, staff recommendations, public
testimony and correspondence, and reports thereon, finds that proposed modifications to the
Water and Wastewater Management Element is consistent with the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby determines that the
2016 Water and Wastewater Management Element is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the General Rule
Exemption.
SECTION 3. Approval of the 2016 Water and Wastewater Management Element. The
City Council hereby adopts the amendments to the 2016 Water and Wastewater Management
Element, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
21.c
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment21.c: c - WWME Resolution 2016 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim 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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
21.c
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment21.c: c - WWME Resolution 2016 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2016 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE REVISED URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 797 during the 1983-1984
Regular Session, and as amended subsequently, which mandates that every supplier providing
water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre
feet of water annually, prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the City is an urban supplier of water providing water to approximately
15,000 customers; and
WHEREAS, the Plan shall be periodically reviewed at least once every five years, and
that the City shall make any amendments or changes to its plan which are indicated by the
review; and
WHEREAS, the Plan must be adopted, after public review and hearing, and filed with the
California Department of Water Resources within thirty days of adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City has therefore prepared for public review a draft Urban Water
Management Plan, and a properly noticed public hearing regarding the Plan was held by the City
Council on June 14, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that the Urban Water Management Plan, consisting of text with tables, figures and appendices
presented to the Council on June 14, 2016, on file in the City Clerk’s Office, is hereby adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Utilities Director is hereby directed to distribute
the Urban Water Management Plan to the California State Library, the County of San Luis
Obispo and make available for public review as prescribed by state law.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
21.d
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment21.d: d - UWMP Resolution 2016 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim 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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
21.d
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment21.d: d - UWMP Resolution 2016 (1373 : Urban Water Management Plan)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 6/14/2016
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Derek Johnson, Interim Finance & IT Director and Assistant City Manager
Shelly Stanwyck, Parks & Recreation Director
Xenia Bradford, Budget Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF 2016-2017 GANN LIMIT AND 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) establishing the City’s appropriation limit for 2016-17
in compliance with Article XIII B of the State Constitution, Gann Spending Limitation
Initiative; and
2. Receive and discuss the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplemental Budget Report, including
Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives progress report and the Five Year
Forecast update; and
3. Adopt resolution (Attachment B) approving the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and
2016-17 Budget.
DISCUSSION
Three actions are requested to be taken by Council with this agenda item.
1. Adopt the 2016-17 Appropriations Limit. The 1st recommended action is to adopt an
appropriations limit (“Limit”) under Article XIII B of the California Constitution as
amended, which the City is required to adopt each year. As a result of the City’s
appropriations subject to the Limit being well below the calculated Limit for 2016 -17, no
adjustments are required to be made to the proposed expenditures contained within the
2016-17 Preliminary Budget.
Appropriations Limit $66,451,524
Estimated Appropriations Subject to Limit $49,397,217
Favorable Variance $17,054,306
22
Packet Pg. 636
2. Receive the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement. The second action is to receive and
file a report that covers the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year period on progress made on Major
City Goals and Other Important Objectives. This information is contained in Section B
of the 2016-2017 Supplemental Budget.
3. Adopt the 2016-17 Budget. The last action for Council is to adopt the 2016-2017
Budget Supplement. Consistent with the City’s two year approach to the budgetary
process, the 2016-17 Budget presented for formal Council adoption at this time has been
prepared using the 2015-17 Financial Plan as its primary foundation. It also incorporates
the analysis presented to Council as part of the 2015-16 Mid-Year review on February
16, 2016; and other budget changes approved by the Council since the adoption of the
2015-17 Financial Plan. The 2016-2017 Supplemental Budget includes Significant
Operating Program Changes (SOPCs) that require the allocation of one time and ongoing
resources. An overview of these SOPC’s is provided in the City Manager’s Budget
Message with the full details of each SOPC found in Section D of the 2016-2017
Supplemental Budget.
Alternatives
1. It is not recommended that the Council adjust the Gann Limit calculation as the
formula is prescribed by statute and was prepared in accordance with the State
Department of Finance’s guidance. This calculation is audited as part of the
City’s annual financial statements. The City Council can amend the proposed
2016-2017 Budget. Direction should be provided to Staff to amend the budget
within identified revenues to maintain the integrity and positive financial outlook
in the 5-Year Financial Forecast.
2. Not adopt the 2016-2017 Budget or take action on the Gann Limit. This is not
recommended as budget appropriations are required by the City’s Charter and are
necessary to continue to operate the City. Appropriations are subject t o the Gann
Limit and hence its adoption is also required.
Attachments:
22.a a - Resolution - Adopting the City's Appropriations Limit for 2016-17
22.b b - Resolution - Approval of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and 2016-17
Budget Adoption
22.c c - 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement Proposed 2016-17 Budget
22
Packet Pg. 637
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FOR 2016-17
WHEREAS, the voters approved the Gann Spending-Limitation Initiative on November
6, 1979 and Proposition 111 on June 5, 1990, which establish and define annual appropriation
limits on state and local government agencies; and
WHEREAS, regulations require that the governing body of each local agency establish
its appropriations limit and annual adjustment factors by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the required calculations to determine the City’s appropriations limit, and
estimated appropriations subject to limitation for 2016-17, have been performed by the Finance
& Information Technology Department are available for public review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby adopts the City’s appropriations limit and annual adjustment factors for 2016 -17
as follows:
Appropriations Limit 15-16 $62,534,500
Increase in Non-Residential Assessed Valuation
Due to New Construction
5.63%
Population Factor: County Population Growth 0.60%
Compound Percentage Factor (multiplicative not
additive)
1.063%
Appropriations Limit 2016-17 $66,451,524
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
22.a
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment22.a: a - Resolution - Adopting the City's Appropriations Limit for 2016-17 (1364 : 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and 2016-17
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
22.a
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment22.a: a - Resolution - Adopting the City's Appropriations Limit for 2016-17 (1364 : 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and 2016-17
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN
SUPPLEMENT, ADOPTING THE 2016-17 BUDGET, AND AMENDING
THE FUND BALANCE AND RESERVE POLICY (C)
WHEREAS, THE Council adopted the 2015-17 Financial Plan on June 23, 2015, which
established comprehensive financial and policy guidelines for fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17;
and
WHEREAS, the 2015-17 Financial Plan included appropriations for fiscal year 2015-16;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed proposed changes to the 2015-17 Financial
Plan to be effective for fiscal year 2016-17 after holding noticed public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the 2015-17 Financial Plan includes budget and fiscal policies that provide
direction on Financial Plan Objectives, Financial Report, Budget Administration, General
Revenue Management, User Fee Cost Recovery Goals, Enterprise Fund Fees and Rates, Revenue
Distribution, Investments, Appropriations Limitation, Fund Balance and Reserves, Capital
Improvement Management, Capital Financing and Debt Management, Human Resource
Management, Productivity, and Contracting For Services; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness and Transparency
Initiative Significant Operating Program Change in the 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement
appropriates fund for the purchase of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system to replace
the City’s finance and accounting system and to provide additional functionality to increase
productivity and efficiency of City services; and
WHEREAS, the ERP system will be purchased over three fiscal years as a Software-as-a
Service (SaaS), meaning it does not fall within the definition of a Capital Improvement Project as
defined under budget and fiscal policies which allows for carryover for three years after budget
adoption; and
WHEREAS, amending Fund Balances and Reserves Policy (C) will allow for the
carryover of appropriated funding for the ERP system for the duration of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager submitted the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and
the 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement to the City Council for their review and consideration at
a duly noticed meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
22.b
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment22.b: b - Resolution - Approval of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and 2016-17 Budget Adoption (1364 : 2015-17 Financial
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. That the Budget and Fiscal Policy, Fund Balance and Reserve Policy (C), is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows “Information Technology (IT) Replacement
Fund. The City will establish an IT Replacement Fund for the General Fun to provide
for the timely replacement of information technology, both hardware and software,
with an individual replacement cost of $25,000 or more. During the 2015-17
Financial Plan period, the City will establish and maintain a minimum fund balance in
this fund equal to $400,000 for the emergency replacement of equipment that is
damaged beyond repair and not covered under the City’s property insurance program.
Interest earnings and the proceeds from the sale of surplus equipment as well as any
related damage and insurance recoveries will be credited to the fund. Funds
appropriated for the Enterprise Resource Planning system in the 2016 -17 Financial
Plan Supplement may be carried over for the duration of the project. “
3. That the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and the 2016-17 Financial Plan
Supplement is hereby adopted.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Lee Price, MMC
Interim 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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
22.b
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment22.b: b - Resolution - Approval of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and 2016-17 Budget Adoption (1364 : 2015-17 Financial
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
R ______
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
22.b
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment22.b: b - Resolution - Approval of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement and 2016-17 Budget Adoption (1364 : 2015-17 Financial
Page intentionally left
blank.