HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES WEEK
(HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
Presentation of a Proclamation to Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director, and Carrie
Mattingly, Utilities Director, declaring May 21-27, 2017 as "National Public Works and
Utilities Week."
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.
Packet Pg 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 16, 2017 Page 2
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.
2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
3. MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2017 AND APRIL 10, 2017 (GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of March 21, 2017 and April 10, 2017.
4. RAILROAD DISTRICT SIDEWALK ENGINEERING STANDARD
MODIFICATION (GRIGSBY/HORN)
Recommendation
1. Approve modifications to the Railroad District Sidewalk Engineering Standard 4150;
and
2. Approve a new Railroad District Tree Well Engineering Standard 8135.
5. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
DISCUSSIONS WITH AVILA RANCH, LLC (JOHNSON/L.JOHNSON)
Recommendation
1. Authorize staff to initiate discussions with Avila Ranch, LLC for a Development
Agreement; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Third Party Reimbursement
Agreement with Avila Ranch, LLC, as necessary, requiring Avila Ranch, LLC to
reimburse the City for the costs of any outside legal or technical consultants the City
may require to assist with the negotiation or review of the Avila Ranch appl ication for a
Development Agreement.
Packet Pg 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 16, 2017 Page 3
6. AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PEMS), SPECIFICATION NO. 91495 (GRIGSBY/LEE)
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to enter into contract with PassportParking, Inc. for the Parking
Enforcement Management System (PEMS), Specification No. 91495, for a five-year period.
7. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING ACCESS AND
REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM (PARCS), SPECIFICATION NO 91545
(GRIGSBY/LEE)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Parking Access and Revenue
Control System (PARCS), Specification No. 91545; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder within
authorized project budget, and
3. Authorize the City Attorney to approve modifications to the form of the contract with
the successful bidder.
8. FRIENDS OF LA LOMA ADOBE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(JOHNSON/HERMANN)
Recommendation
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Luis Obispo and the
Friends of La Loma Adobe for preliminary evaluation and restoration activities.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL
ORDINANCE FOR INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION
(MATTINGLY/HIX/METZ/NANCE – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Consider introduction of an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Chapter 13.08 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code creating a Sewer Lateral Inspection and Replacement Program” related to
maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement of private sewer laterals and determining
the ordinance modifications are exempt from environmental review pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Packet Pg 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 16, 2017 Page 4
10. NATURAL RESOURCES ROUNDTABLE VISION PLAN (JOHNSON/HILL – 45
MINUTES)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Natural Resources Roundtable, adopt a resolution entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving
“Saving Special Places Forever a Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo
Greenbelt.”
11. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY
AGENCY (MATTINGLY/FLOYD – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Rescind all prior approvals and appointments associated with the formation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency from the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting; and
2. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to become a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin for the area
that lies beneath and within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Luis
Obispo”; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve use of up to $200,000 of water fund working
capital for expenditures related to the formation and administration of a groundwater
sustainability agency and the development of a groundwater sustainability plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter to the California Department of Water
Resources notifying them of the City’s decision to become a Groundwater Sustainability
Agency as required by Water Code § 10723.8; and
5. Authorize the City’s Utilities Director to perform any acts necessary under the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in order to effectuate the purposes and acts
authorized herein; and
6. Once formed, appoint Council Member Pease and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the to the Groundwater Sustainability Commission.
Packet Pg 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 16, 2017 Page 5
12. CALL FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION AND TAKE OTHER RELATED ACTIONS TO
SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS ‘”AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-
DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING”’ (GALLAGHER – 10 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special All Mailed
Ballot Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, for the submission of
a proposed ordinance and requesting the Board of Supervisors to render services relating
to the conduct of the election.”
2. Provide direction regarding the City Council’s argument against the initiative; and
3. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City
measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis.”
4. Consider a resolution (Recommendation 3) appointing an ad-hoc subcommittee
consisting of two of its members to prepare and submit an argument against the measure
and rebuttal argument, if warranted; and
5. Appropriate funds from the undesignated General Fund Reserve up to $160,000, for
assistance from the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder to conduct this special
election.
13. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
(JOHNSON – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Discuss and provide direction for public comment on items not on the agenda.
14. APPOINTED OFFICIALS’ COMPENSATION (IRONS/SUTTER – 10 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending a contract of employment for City Attorney”; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute an amendment to the City Attorney’s contract of
employment which includes the right for City Attorney to cash out three weeks of
accrued vacation at the end of every fiscal year.
Packet Pg 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 16, 2017 Page 6
LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on 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)
NOTE: The Closed Session will take place in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, 93401
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL –EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Friends of
71 Palomar v. City Council of San Luis Obispo, et al.; San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case
No. 17CV-0259
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to hold a preliminary budget workshop.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Packet Pg 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda May 16, 2017 Page 7
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 alternat ive 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.
Packet Pg 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 8
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
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, March
21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
STUDY SESSION
1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Assistant City Manager Johnson and Community Development Director Codron provided an
in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council
questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council provided direction to staff to receive and file the Development
Agreements report.
Packet Pg 9
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Katie Lichtig, Christine Dietrick,
Nickole Sutter
Represented Employee
Organizations: None
Unrepresented Employees: Unrepresented Management Employees
RECESSED AT 4:55 P.M. TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2017 TO
BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
Packet Pg 10
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, March
21, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, 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 Andy Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for any Closed Session Items.
PRESENTATIONS
2. PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH
Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation to Michael Ginn, Red Cross Board
Member, proclaiming March 2017 as “American Red Cross Month.”
APPOINTMENTS
3. 2017 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
Public Comments:
Mladen Bandon, Atascadero, spoke in support of staff’s recommendation to appoint Scott
Mann to the Planning Commission.
---End of Public Comments---
Packet Pg 11
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 4
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to in accordance with the recommendations of
the Council Liaison Subcommittees make appointments to the City's Advisory Bodies
effective April 1, 2017 as set forth below and direct the City Clerk to continue to recruit for
any unfilled vacant positions.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Jana Colonbini, Cal Poly Student President, spoke regarding St. Patrick’s Day events and
provided a timeframe of student activities that occurred that day; she thanked staff for including
the student body comments into the Safety Enhancement Zone conversation.
Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need to make financial sustainability a
top priority.
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 11
and Item 13.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Item 12.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 10, 2017 AND
JANUARY 28, 2017
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of January 10, 2017 -
Closed Session and Joint City Council and Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight
Commission Special Meeting and January 28, 2017 - Community Forum.
6. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3066-PHASE 2, 3761 ORCUTT
ROAD (TR/ER SBDV-0067-2014)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10779 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Final Map for Tract
3066-Phase 2 (3761 Orcutt Road, SBDV-0067-2014)” and authorizing the Mayor to execute a
Subdivision Agreement and Biological Open Space Easement Agreement.
Packet Pg 12
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 5
7. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVER REPLACEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Award a contract and authorize a purchase order for Solutions II, Inc. in the amount
of $298,349 for the replacement and installation of the public safety computer-aided
dispatch and records management system, two servers, and five years of 24/7 support;
and
2. Waive formal bids and authorize use of Government Services Administration (GSA)
contract number GS-35F-0349S to sole source this project to Solutions II as allowed
under 3.24.060 E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Muncipal Code.
8. ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2353-1,
TRACT 2353-2, PRADO SEGMENT D, AND PRADO SEGMENT E (408 PRADO,
TR 120-13)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10780 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the public improvements,
certifying completion of the private improvements, and authorizing release of the securities
for Tract 2353-1, Tract 2353-2, Prado Road Segment D, and Prado Road Segment E
(408 Prado Road, TR 120-13).”
9. FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control for FY 2017-18 not to exceed $30,000; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10781 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing grant applications for funding
provided through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to increase
education and enforcement programs focusing on regulations retail alcohol outlets”
and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with the State if funding is
awarded; and
3. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related
documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments
upon the award of the grant.
Packet Pg 13
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 6
10. LAGUNA LAKE ADA TRAIL
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, approve plans and
specifications for the Laguna Lake ADA Trail, Specification No. 91388; and
2. Authorize staff to formally advertise for bids; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract including the Base Bid
and Additive Alternates within the project construction budget of $220,000.
11. AWARD OF AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Manager to execute a new contract for auditing
services to Glenn, Burdette, Phillips & Bryson, Certified Public Accountants (GBPB), for a
term two fiscal years, beginning with the current fiscal year, to complete the term
contemplated in the request for proposals (RFP) for such services.
12. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 RENTAL
HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
Item 12 pulled by Mayor Harmon for further discussion and consideration; she inquired on
the reimbursement options for fees previously charged for pending inspections.
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1632 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing Chapter 15.10 of the City
of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection.”
13. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT FINANCE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Contract with Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) in the amount of $65,970 to engage GFOA for
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system implementation.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
14. VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES ON A CITIZENS’
INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION” AND TO
ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-DISCRIMINATION IN
HOUSING”
City Clerk Gallagher provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
Packet Pg 14
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 7
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Receive, and accept the City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition; and
2. Direct staff to prepare a report analyzing its impact and present the report the City Council on
or before April 18, 2017.
By Council consensus, staff was directed to include in the report ways to mitigate any
adverse impacts identified in the report if the measure is adopted either via election or
council action
15. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK INC.) OF
THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TWO TREES
LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL
FINES
Vice Mayor Rivoire reported having previously met with the appellant Stalwork.
Council Member Gomez recused himself from the discussion due to a business and personal
relationship with the owner and appellant Stalwork.
Council Member Christianson reported having met with the appellant and discussing that the
appellant understands that the trees in question had not been approved for removal, that he
did understand that the process to remove the trees involved an appeal to the Council, that he
did remove them in direct disregard to the Tree Committees’ ruling and he did understand
that the Council would be very concerned about setting precedence if they were to not
impose the fines involved. In addition, he understood that not all property owners and
developers would not understand the nuances that he believes are involved here tonight.
Council Member Christianson stated her belief that all other information shared with her by
the appellant has been put on the record. She added to her ex-parte having visited the site.
Council Member Pease reported having previously met with the appellant Stalwork and
noted living just outside the location radius.
Mayor Harmon reported having met with the appellant Stalwork and noted belief that much
of their discussions have been entered into the public record; she noted having engaged in
conversations with staff members regarding the appeal.
Public Works Deputy Director Horn and City Arborist Combs provided an in-depth staff
report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Ben Kulick, appellant requested 8 minutes speaking time, he noted agreeing to everything in
the staff report; with use of a slide show he provided photos and drawings of the location in
Packet Pg 15
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 8
question to show the steep grade of the location; he stated that hazard mitigation was
excluded from consideration during the Tree Committees decision process; he noted belief
that the property owner was libel for and had an obligation to remove the hazard under
existing City Ordinance.
Jane Worthy, San Luis Obispo, speaking on behalf of the Tree Committee Advisory Body,
spoke regarding the original denial and consideration taken when making that decision, she
noted for tree #1, severe pruning was proposed as mitigation for hazard, she noted the
Committees work with staff to draft the existing ordinance.
Will Powers, speaking on behalf of Downtown San Luis Obispo noted he attends most Tree
Committee meetings and believes the contractor was told repeatedly that he could not
proceed on a permit without waiting 10 days; he spoke about “playing by the rules”.
Council and staff discussion ensued.
Ben Kulick, appellant, noted that the home owner has not currently requested a pool permit
and stated that after an on-site update from the tree company owner, the project manager
was unaware of the wait time to remove the tree.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 3-1 (PEASE NO, GOMEZ RECUSED) to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10782 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Tree Committee’s
decision to deny a tree removal request at 2466 Augusta Street and waiving and levying
civil penalties;” as amended to uphold appeal of tree removal denials as to tree #3,4, &
5 and allow removal with issuance of pool construction permit: and
2. Not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree No. 2 and
Tree No. 6; and
3. Levy civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1.
By consensus, Council directed staff to return at a future meeting with amended resolution
reflecting above action.
RECESS
Council recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:05 p.m., with all Council Members present.
16. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 RECYCLED WATER MASTER PLAN
Utilities Director Mattingly, Utilities Project Manager Metz, and Water Resource Program
Manager Boerman provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point
presentation and responded to Council questions.
Packet Pg 16
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 9
Public Comments:
Carol Florence, Principal Planner with Oasis Associates representing the Association of
Edna Valley Growers noted support for staff’s recommendation and the proposed Recycled
Water Master Plan and noted support for sustainable and wide use of water resources.
Jean-Pierre Wolff Ph.D., Edna Valley, noted the formation of water agencies, CIGNA
requirements and spoke in support of staff’s Master Plan recommendation.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10783 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the 2017 Recycled Water Master
Plan and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;” and
2. Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement for delivery of recycled water outside the city
limits consistent with the policies and findings identified in the General Plan.
STUDY SESSION
17. STUDY SESSION FOR OPEN SPACE HOURS OF USE EVALUATION
Assistant City Manager Derek Johnson and Natural Resources Manager Hill provided an in-
depth staff report with the use if a Power Point presentation and responded to Council
questions.
Public Comments:
Bill Killian, spoke in supports expanded hours of use for open space.
David Hamilton, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of expanded hours of use for open
space.
Connor Culhane spoke in support of expanded hours of use in some open space areas but not
all, and encourages alternatives to current rules.
Christie O’Hara spoke in support of expanded set hours of use for open space.
Kristin Horowitz spoke in support of expanded hours of use for open space.
Keith Godfrey, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of expanded hours of use for open space
in areas that do not impact homeowners.
Eric Langais, Los Osos, spoke in support of expanded hours of use for open space.
Packet Pg 17
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 10
Donette Dunaway, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of expanded hours of use for open
space.
Ray Fields, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of expanded hours of use in some open space
areas that do not impact homeowners.
Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of protecting the wildlife and not
expanding hours of use in open space areas.
Dr. Alexis Mourenza, San Luis Obispo supports protecting wildlife and not expanding hours
of use in open space areas.
Carolyn Huddleston, Templeton, representing ECOSLO supports protecting wildlife and not
expanding hours of use in open space areas.
Bill Waycott, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of expanded hours of use for open space.
Mary Ciesinski, spoke in support of protecting wildlife and resources by keeping the current
hours of use.
Dale Stoker, spoke in support of the current dawn to dusk Ordinance to protect habitat and
the environment.
John Ashbaugh, San Luis Obispo does not support expanded hours of use for open space.
Gary Felsman, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the impacts to humans if expanded hours of
use in open space areas is approved.
Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding reforesting as restoration to allow more use
by t he dominant species.
Greg Bettencourt, Cayucos, urged Council to provide staff the opportunity to come up with
alternatives to consider.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council provided direction and directed staff to:
1. Receive and file the staff-prepared report entitled “An Evaluation of Hours of Use for
City of San Luis Obispo Open Space;” and
2. Conduct a Study Session, receive public input and testimony regarding Open Space hours
of use regulations, and provide direction to staff.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Council Member Pease noted that May is bike month and asked Council to consider organized
multi modal support.
Packet Pg 18
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2017 Page 11
City Manager noted that on May 3rd, the City will host Bike Breakfast.
Mayor Harmon suggested a group ride to a Council meeting in May.
Council Member Rivoire reported attending LOVESLO Service Day and thanked community
that attended and organizers.
City Manager noted that PACE, Professional Association of City Employees participated with a
9-member team.
Mayor Harmon spoke regarding the new City bus unveiling and mentioned the conclusion to the
oil train conversation; she noted being on the CMC Advisory Committee and spoke about a
facility for accepting transgender folks and others in the community with struggles, she
suggested the City website calendar be updated on a more regular basis.
Council Member Gomez noted attending an IWMA meeting and spoke regarding a proposed
draft policy on the use of straws upon request only.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meetings scheduled for Tuesday,
April 4, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 19
3
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Monday, April 10, 2017
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Monday, April,
10, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Heather Goodwin,
Deputy City Clerk, and Monica Irons Human Resources Director, were present at
Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Ermina Karim, President/CEO of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, stated that she
was an active participant in the Chamber Dinner video and noted that she was also under
investigation; additionally, she commented on the City’s leadership specific to the City Manager
and Fire Chief.
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg 20
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 10, 2017 Page 2
CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Public Employees: City Manager, City Attorney
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Mary Egan, John Shannon, Monica Irons
Unrepresented employee: City Manager, City Attorney
C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Following the Closed Session, City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action
on any item, except that the discipline matter for Item C was continued to the afternoon session
at 1:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
conducting closed sessions.
A subsequent Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for
Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, to discuss zoning code updates.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
____________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 21
3
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Monday, April 10, 2017
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Monday, April,
10, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Heather Goodwin,
Deputy City Clerk, and Monica Irons Human Resources Director, were present at
Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg 22
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 10, 2017 Page 2
CONTINUED CLOSED SESSION ITEM FROM 4:00 PM
C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9
Name of case: San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owners Association, Stephen and
Janine Barasch, The Barasch Revocable Family Trust, Matthew and Jean Kokkonen, and The
Kokkonen Family Trust, and Kevin Rice vs. City of San Luis Obispo, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. 16CV-0493
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Public Employees: City Attorney
C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Mary Egan, John Shannon, Monica Irons
Unrepresented employee: City Attorney
D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Public Employees: City Manager
E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Mary Egan, John Shannon, Monica Irons
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Following the Closed Session, City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action
on the litigation matter, the performance evaluation matters or the conference with labor
negotiators:
Regarding earlier item C, 10:00 a.m. the Discipline/Dismissal/Release, item:
The Council voted 5-0 on a motion by Council Member Gomez, second by Council Member
Christianson to impose discipline on the City Manager related to the Chamber Dinner allegations
as follows: Written reprimand and reduction in pay equivalent to a three-day suspension; also on
a 5-0 vote motion by Council Member Pease, second by Vice Mayor Rivoire, the Council
authorized disclosure of its action and the City Manager consented to release of her otherwise
confidential notice of final discipline.
Packet Pg 23
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 10, 2017 Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for
Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, to discuss zoning code updates.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
____________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 24
3
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: David Athey, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: RAILROAD DISTRICT SIDEWALK ENGINEERING STANDARD
MODIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve modifications to the Railroad District Sidewalk Engineering Standard 4150; and
2. Approve a new Railroad District Tree Well Engineering Standard 8135.
DISCUSSION
This staff report requests the approval of modifications to Engineering Standard 4150 and
approval of new Engineering Standard 8135. Engineering Standard 4150 provides construction
details for Railroad District boardwalk sidewalk. The proposed Engineering Standard 4150
modifications substitute colored concrete pavers for the current wood boardwalk sidewalk. This
change was initiated to reduce ongoing maintenance requirements and risk of people tripping and
falling. The establishment of Engineering Standard 8135 is being proposed to establish a new
tree well standard for the board walk sidewalk. The new standard will bring railroad tree well
construction in line with the rest of the City. The proposed Engineering Standards are a result of
a year-long public review input process.
Background
The Railroad District sidewalk is one of three standard sidewalk designs within the City of San
Luis Obispo. The other two standard designs include the downtown mission style sidewalk and
regular sidewalk used throughout the City. The Railroad District Sidewalk Standard was
established in 1998 along with the Railroad District Design Plan. The boardwalk sidewalk
design is used to honor the historic and cultural roots that San Luis Obispo has with the railroad.
Once installed, the boardwalk sidewalk works well for a couple of years but then starts to require
excessive maintenance. Examples of required
maintenance include protruding screws and
warped, rotted, and splintered boards. A picture
showing typical boardwalk sidewalk maintenance
needs is shown to the right. Therefore, staff
initiated a public process to change the sidewalk
standard to eliminate the trip and fall hazards,
provide a context appropriate sidewalk, and reduce
long-term maintenance costs.
City staff started the public input process by
soliciting boardwalk sidewalk replacement ideas
Picture 1 – Existing Boardwalk Sidewalk
Packet Pg 25
4
from local design firms. A total of five different designs were submitted by local firms. The
ideas ranged from stamped concrete to concrete pavers. Each of the designs included elements
that would mimic boards or railroad track type elements. In addition, staff researched boardwalk
replacement ideas including using recycled plastic decking, stamped concrete that mimics the
look of wood, and hard woods such as Ipe as replacements. Staff visited Morro Bay to view both
recycled plastic boardwalk and stamped concrete sidewalk. With this information, staff
submitted a planning application to start the Boardwalk Standard Modification process.
Public Works and Community Development staff worked together to present several design
options to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Staff met with the Cultural Heritage Commission
on August 24, 2015, to present options for boardwalk replacement. The replacement options
included ideas ranging from brick and concrete pavers, stamped concrete, and wood
replacements. A matrix comparing the benefits and disadvantages of each was presented to the
Cultural Heritage Commission. Staff recommended the use of stamped concrete to maintain the
appearance of wood planking. Other interested parties including Railroad Museum
representatives spoke on the subject and supported the use of an alternative material. The
Cultural Heritage Commission ultimately recommended that staff investigate the use of pavers
rather than stamped concrete. In addition, the Cultural Heritage Commission requested that staff
meet with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum group to gather input on the proposed
substitute design.
Public Works staff met with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum Board on December 8, 2015,
to discuss the various options previously outlined at the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting.
The Museum Board was not in favor of stamped concrete solution as it was perceived as too
artificial for the historic district. The Railroad Museum Board also let staff know that while the
boardwalk was meant to mimic the historic sidewalk in the area, no record of a wood boardwalk
exists. After the Railroad Museum Board discussed the options, unanimous feedback was given
for providing an option that included using pavers rather than stamped concrete or a wood
substitute. In addition, the Railroad Museum Board also requested that the final paver design not
include elements that mimic train tracks (rails and ties) since they have plans to include those
elements in a sidewalk near the museum.
Staff subsequently prepared a supplement to the planning application that outlined Public Works
recommendation to substitute and investigate the use of pavers in lieu of the wood boardwalk.
Since pavers were being recommended to be the substitute material, staff explored paver options
that could be locally sourced, aesthetically pleasing, easily installed, and available in the long-
term. Staff contacted local vendors to explore options for paver materials. Three pavers were
ultimately chosen based on the four criteria. The selected material included one brick paver, and
two concrete pavers with different colors. Three colors were chosen and a test installation of the
three paver types was installed fronting 2098 Santa Barbara Avenue (Miner’s Hardware). A sign
was erected explaining the test and asked the public for input. In addition, pictures of the three
options were posted on Open City Government to solicit feedback from the public. The test and
request for input was also announced on Public Works’ Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor
websites. Pictures of the three options are shown below.
Packet Pg 26
4
Staff received approximately 45 direct email responses related to the test installation. Staff also
received nine statements from Open City Hall and had 45 separate visitors. The input from open
City Hall is equivalent to 27 minutes of public comment. The comments from both the test
installation and open City hall were just about evenly split between the wire cut red brick
(Picture 3) and railroad blend concrete paver (Picture 4), with the Railroad blend paver getting
more positive comments.
Each of the surfaces have similar roughness when installed per the manufacturer’s
recommendation and compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Based on Cultural Heritage Commission and public input the Boardwalk Engineering Standard
4150 (see Attachment A) was modified to include concrete pavers as in-lieu of a wood
boardwalk. Concrete pavers provide easy installation, low long-term maintenance cost, and local
availability. The concrete paver is proposed to be tumbled and installed flat side up in order to
provide a smooth, flat surface. The tumbled paver gives an aged appearance. Based on public
popularity the standard is proposed to use the “railroad blend” color (Picture 4, above).
Included with the revised boardwalk standard, a new Tree Well Standard for the boardwalk area
was developed. Currently, the City does not have an Engineering Standard for railroad district
tree wells, as trees can grow through an opening in the boardwalk that is periodically cut wider to
provide an area for the tree. The new standard includes the same tree grates that are currently
installed around the city. Staff decided to develop a new standard to show how the frame and
grate are integrated into the concrete pan under the pavers. The new Railroad District Tree Well
Engineering Standard 8135 is included as Attachment B.
CONCURRENCES
Staff sent the final draft standards to all known Railroad District landowners as a final follow-up.
Staff wanted to ensure that the landowners are aware of the proposed boardwalk change and new
tree well standard. Staff notified the landowners that comments were being sought on the new
standard and could be submitted by April 3rd. Staff has not received any comments as of April
10th. Community Development Department staff have reviewed and concur that the proposed
Boardwalk Sidewalk standard changes are in conformance with the Cultural Heritage
Packet Pg 27
4
Commission direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule
(Section 15061(b)(3)). It can be seen with certainty that adoption of Engineering Standards 4150
and 8135 could not have a significant effect on the environment. Specific projects that utilize
Engineering Standards 4150 and 8135 will be subject to CEQA at the time the project is filed.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate public or private fiscal impact that will result from this change. This
change does not require any landowner to install new or replace existing sidewalk. This change
will guide future development and allow the replacement of the existing wood boardwalk with
concrete pavers. The installation of this new sidewalk standard cost is roughly $125 per linear
foot more than the wood boardwalk; however, the extra cost will pay for itself over time from
reduced maintenance and public risk of tripping and falling. The current wood boardwalk
lifespan is five to ten years. The new sidewalk lifespan is estimated to last more than 50-years.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Choose a different paver material or color. Direct staff to investigate using a different
paver material or color. While it is possible to find other colors and paver materials, the
options provided are readily available from vendors within the City.
2. Reject staff’s proposed changes and keep the current wood boardwalk standard. Staff
does not recommend this course of action based on the high maintenance costs and
potential for trip and fall claims.
Attachments:
a - 4150 Rail Road Sidewalk Draft 04-13-2017
b - 8135 Rail Road Tree Well Draft 03-16-2017
Packet Pg 28
4
4"5' - 3 3 8"
(VERIFY 16 PAVERS PER ROW PRIOR TO POURING FORMS)
BRICK SIDEWALK
RAILROAD DISTRICT
4150
New (Replaces former Boardwalk)JDL DA 3-17
January 2016 (addendum)
REVISIONS BY APP DATE
STANDARD CURRENT AS OF:
SECTION A-A
PLAN
SECTION B-B
A A
4"
B
1
5
4"
R = 14"
SIDEWALK AND BASE
PER ENG. STD. 4110
1
6
SEE ENG. STD. 4030
1
2
3
4
5
4
1 1"2
21 3
3
GENERAL NOTES:
A. For use in Railroad District only.
B. See Engineering Standard 8135 for Tree Well in Railroad District.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
DRAINAGE: Trowel a 3 4" wide x 1" deep weep slot at 10' O.C. sloping toward the drain outlet. Install a 3 4" diameter PVC
drain pipe through curb face, aligned to bottom of troweled weep slots. Cover paver side of pipe with plastic window
screen mesh and attach with zip tie. Cover mesh with tape during installation and remove tape after forms are removed.
Pipe shall be cut flush with concrete.
BEDDING SAND: 1" min. (2" at weep slots) concrete bedding sand in compliance with ASTM C33 specifications.
PAVERS: Air Vol Block "Railroad Blend" tumbled concrete pavers or approved equal. Pavers shall be Type 1 and meet
ASTM C902 specifications. Brick is not an approved equal.
PATTERN: Pavers shall be installed in a standard "Running Bond" pattern. Cut pavers shall be no less than 2" long or
wide. Surface of paver shall be set flush with curbs.
COMPACTION: After pavers have been laid, sweep surface clean of any debris. ASTM C33 sand shall be swept into
joints. Tamp the pavers into bedding sand with a plate compactor and vibrate sand up into joints. Adjust speed of
compactor to run with high vibration, low amplitude, to avoid a jumping motion. Start at one edge of the sidewalk and
compact the perimeter. Compact remaining area in 4" - 6" overlapping passes. Repeat process, compacting in opposite
direction. Tamp pavers with at least two passes of the compactor at 90° angles to each other. Inspect and replace any
broken pavers.
PAVEMENT REMOVAL & REPAIR: See Engineering Standard 4110.6
1.5% SLOPE
(1% MIN., 2% MAX.)
6"
Packet Pg 29
4
Packet Pg 30
4
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
DISCUSSIONS WITH AVILA RANCH, LLC
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to initiate discussions with Avila Ranch, LLC for a Development Agreement;
and
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Third Party Reimbursement
Agreement with Avila Ranch, LLC, as necessary, requiring Avila Ranch, LLC to reimburse
the City for the costs of any outside legal or technical consultants the City may require to
assist with the negotiation or review of the Avila Ranch application for a Development
Agreement.
DISCUSSION
Background
Avila Ranch, LLC, has submitted a development plan proposal for a new, primarily residential
development with up to 720 dwelling units on a 150-acre site north of Buckley Road, located
within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) boundaries (Attachment 1). 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. The
development plan contains the specific development proposal for the site, including a land use
framework, design guidelines and concepts, circulation plan, and infrastructure plan. The project
as proposed is envisioned to implement the policies and development parameters as articulated in
the recent Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, other elements of the General
Plan, the AASP, and the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
Request for City Consideration of Development Agreement
Avila Ranch, LLC, has submitted a formal Development Agreement (DA) application. A DA
establishes certain development rights, but also commits the developer to construct or pay for
certain amenities for the City’s public benefit that are greater than the infrastructure and
mitigations that are required to facilitate the development. These are also known as “public
benefits” and can include but not be limited to public infrastructure and services such as road and
circulation improvements, bike facilities, endowments to support public services such as open
space, and/or other items of value.
There are significant infrastructure development needs associated with the development of the
Avila Ranch project. The area’s major infrastructure needs are likely to exceed available
resources and thus a DA is a mechanism to establish a reimbursement and fair share agreement .
Avila Ranch, LLC has requested the City consid er a DA to facilitate orderly development and
Packet Pg 31
5
implement necessary infrastructure while attaining specific public benefits that are to be
negotiated.
Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65865, cities are expressly authorized to enter
into DA’s and may adopt procedures by which to do so. The City has adopted such procedures,
which are set forth in Chapter 17.94 of the City’s Municipal Code. Per Section 17.94.060 of the
Municipal Code, staff brings forward the conceptual information regarding a possible DA that
has been provided by Avila Ranch, LLC. A City’s decision to enter into a DA is a legislative act
and agreements are subject to environmental review and General Plan consistency findings.
Thus, the requested action to authorize staff to initiate discussions is a very early step in the
process and the fully developed agreement will undergo comprehensive planning review, and a
Planning Commission recommendation, prior to returning to Council for consideration of a final
agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts of Council’s action to authorize staff to begin discussions with
Avila Ranch, LLC on a DA. The City will be reimbursed at full cost recovery for staff time and
materials associated with City review of a DA application.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff not to enter into discussions with Avila Ranch, LLC. Council could decline to
authorize staff to negotiate a DA based on Avila Ranch’s application. This alternative is not
recommended as entering negotiations does not represent any commitment by the City to
approve a DA. Moreover, a DA is a mechanism to memorialize commitments of the City and
the Developer and for the City to obtain extraordinary public benefits.
Attachments:
a - Vicinity Map
Packet Pg 32
5
Public Hearing Draft Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 12
Revised: February 22, 2017
Figure 3 Vicinity and Site
Packet Pg 33
5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 34
5
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Scott Lee, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PEMS), SPECIFICATION NO 91495
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into contract with PassportParking, Inc. for the Parking
Enforcement Management System (PEMS), Specification No. 91495, for a five- year period.
DISCUSSION
The City’s contract for parking citation processing was signed in May 2005 for a five-year
agreement with Phoenix Group, and the City extended the contract until June 30, 2014. Since
then the vendor has been working on a month-to-month basis. On December 1, 2015, the
Council approved an RFP for citation processing and directed staff to circulate for a new vendor.
That process was later suspended, and the project RFP was recirculated with language changes to
clarify and define deliverables in line with better industry systems and processing abilities that
were not addressed in the previous RFP language.
The RFP language has been revised and retitled Parking Enforcement Management System
(PEMS) to conform with industry terminology and was recirculated. The City received eight (8)
proposals for the RFP. A ranking committee was formed that reviewed all eight proposals and
created a short list of vendors (three) that were subsequently invited for in person interviews and
demonstrations. PassportParking, Inc. was ranked highest by the in-person interview panel in
delivering the needed services for citation processing management for the City.
Passport demonstrated superior service levels along with customizable reporting abilities that
will meet the City’s needs.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to award the contract and
enter into a new contract with PassportParking, Inc. for five (5) years, with two, 2-year options
available at the discretion of the city.
FISCAL IMPACT
Parking citation processing services are paid out of the Parking Program Contract Services
account. It is estimated that parking citation processing services will cost approximately $65,000
each year. There is currently $68,500 allocated in FY 16-17 and budgeted funding is proposed to
continue on an ongoing basis with the proposed amounts in the FY 17-19 Financial Plan for the
next two years. Net parking citations revenues for FY 2015-16 were $579,823.
Packet Pg 35
6
ALTERNATIVES
1. Evaluate the option of processing parking citations in-house. Staff recommends against
this alternative due to lack of staff resources, DMV credential obligations, Payment Card
Industry (PCI) compliance requirements and credentials, and database development and
collection follow-up services required. Due to this intense service and lack of staff
resources, a majority of California cities contract parking citation processing services to
an outside firm.
2. The City Council could continue on a month-to-month agreement with Phoenix Group.
This alternative is not recommended since it is a best practice to conduct a competitive
process to secure a new vendor which is consistent with State and City requirements.
Attachments:
a - 2016 Parking Citation Processing Services RFP - FINAL 08-09-2016
b - Proposed Passport Contract 03-30-2017
Packet Pg 36
6
Page 1
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Specification No. 91495
The City of San Luis Obispo is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors for a Parking
Enforcement and Management System, pursuant to Specification No. 91495. All proposals must
be received by the Finance Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA no later
than 3:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, September 15, 2016.
Proposals received after said date and time will not be considered. To guard against premature
opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Department in a sealed envelope
plainly marked with the proposer’s name, specification number, proposal title and due date of
proposal opening. Hard copied proposals shall be submitted along with the required forms
provided in the specification package and following instructions contained herein.
Proposals packages may be obtained at either:
The City’s website: www.SLOCity.org – Doing Business – Bids & Proposals Page; or a
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bids-proposals
Additional information may be obtained by contacting:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager, (805) 781-7234 or slee@slocity.org
Nicole Lawson, Supervising Administrative Assistant, (805) 781-7059 or nlawson@slocity.org
For Public Records requests see Section 1.13
Packet Pg 37
6
Page 2
Specification No. 91495
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 5
1.1. Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions ......................................................................... 5
1.2. Contract Term and Optional Extensions .......................................................................................... 5
1.3. Important Dates ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Proposal Submittal and Format ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Labeling ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.6. Insurance Certificate ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.7. Submittal of References ................................................................................................................... 6
1.8. Statement of Contract Disqualifications .......................................................................................... 6
1.9. Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals ............................................................................................... 6
1.10. Multiple Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.11. Procuring Agency/Personnel ............................................................................................................ 6
1.12. Inquiries and Clarifications ............................................................................................................... 6
1.13. Addenda ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1.14. Public Records .................................................................................................................................. 7
2. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................... 7
2.1. Proposal Retention and Award ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer ................................................................................... 7
2.3. Form of Agreement .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Insurance .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5. Business License and Tax .................................................................................................................. 8
2.6. Failure to Accept Contract ................................................................................................................ 8
2.7. Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings ....................................................................................... 8
2.8. Proposer’s Responsibility ................................................................................................................. 8
3. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE...................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Ability to Perform ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2. Laws to be Observed ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Payment of Taxes ............................................................................................................................. 8
Packet Pg 38
6
Page 3
3.4. Permits and Licenses ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.5. Safety Provisions .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.6. Public and Employee Safety ............................................................................................................. 9
3.7. Preservation of City Property ........................................................................................................... 9
3.8. Immigration Act of 1986 .................................................................................................................. 9
3.9. Proposer Non-Discrimination .......................................................................................................... 9
3.10. Work Delays ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.11. Payment Terms ................................................................................................................................ 9
3.12. Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.13. Audit ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.14. Interests of Proposer ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.15. Hold Harmless and Indemnification ............................................................................................... 10
3.16. Contract Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.17. Termination .................................................................................................................................... 10
4. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................. 11
4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2. Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.3. Background .................................................................................................................................... 12
4.4. Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.5. Functional and Technical Requirements ........................................................................................ 13
4.6. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.7. Selection Process ............................................................................................................................ 13
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS .............................................. 14
Chapter 1: Title Page ...................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2: Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3: Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 4: Project Manager ........................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 5: Organizational Experience ........................................................................................... 15
Chapter 6: Organizational Chart and Project Team ...................................................................... 15
Chapter 7: References ......................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 8: Customer Service and Technical Support ..................................................................... 16
Chapter 9: Sub Proposers ............................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 10: System Specifications ................................................................................................. 16
Packet Pg 39
6
Page 4
Chapter 11: Implementation .......................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 12: Risks ............................................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 13: Disclosure of Past Contract Failures and Litigation .................................................... 17
Chapter 14: Proposer’s Financial Stability Assurance .................................................................... 17
Chapter 15: Fee Proposal ............................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 16: Additional Required Forms ......................................................................................... 19
REQUIRED FORMS ................................................................................................ 20
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT ......................................................................................................... 20
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE ............................................................................................................ 21
FORM C: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 22
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 25
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM .............................................................................. 26
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE PRINTED PARKING CITATION ..................................................................... 39
APPENDIX D: CURRENT BAIL SCHEDULE ........................................................................................ 40
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CITATION CONTEST FORM ......................................................................... 43
APPENDIX F: CURRENT CITATION AGING REPORT ........................................................................ 44
APPENDIX G: FUNCTIONAL AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 45
Packet Pg 40
6
Page 5
1 NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors for a
Parking Enforcement and Management System. Vendors submitting proposals
(“Proposers”) are required to read this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) in its entirety and
follow the instructions contained herein and shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of
the RFP specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the Proposer
acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications.
1.2 Contract Term and Optional Extensions
The contract term shall be for a period of five (5) years (“initial term”). The City will have
the option of two (2) additional two-year renewal options at the sole discretion of the City.
1.3 Important Dates
Deliver proposals no later than the due date and time indicated below. The City will reject
late proposals:
Issue Date: August 11, 2016
Due Date: September 15, 2016
1.4 Proposal Submittal and Format
Each proposal must be submitted in hard copy form (i.e. printed) with a total of five (5)
copies provided in the order 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:
Finance Department
Attn: Lorraine Colleran
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
No FAX submittals will be accepted.
1.5 Labeling
All proposals must be clearly labeled:
Proposer’s Name and Address: ________________________
Specification # 91495
Title: Parking Enforcement and Management System
DUE: September 15, 2016
1.6 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.
Packet Pg 41
6
Page 6
The purpose of the submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Proposer’s
insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed below, endorsements are not
required until contract award. The insurance requirements are detailed in Section 2.4.
1.7 Submittal of References
Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the for m
provide in the RFP package as Form C.
1.8 Statement of Contract Disqualifications
Each Proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past government disqualifications on
the form provide in the RFP package as Form D.
1.9 Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals
Proposers may, without prejudice, withdraw proposals by requesting such withdrawal prior
to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Bid
Administrator for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be return ed to the
Proposer unopened. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers may
modify their proposal at any time prior to the due date and time of submission for
proposals.
1.10 Multiple Proposals
Multiple proposals from Proposers are NOT permitted.
1.11 Procuring Agency/ Personnel
The City of San Luis Obispo is the procuring agency:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7234
slee@SLOCity.org
The City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department administers the procurement function:
Lorraine Colleran (Bid Administrator)
Finance Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7435
LColleran@SLOCity.org
1.12 Inquiries and Clarifications
Proposers are to raise any questions they have about the RFP document without delay.
Direct any questions concerning due dates and/or actual submittals to the bid administrator
either by phone or in writing. Direct all technical questions, those concerning specifications
and/or scope of work, to the procuring agency, either by phone or in writing.
Furthermore, Proposers finding any significant ambiguity, error, conflict, discrepancy,
omission, or other deficiency in this RFP document shall immediately notify the procuring
agency and request clarification.
Packet Pg 42
6
Page 7
1.13 Addenda
In the event it is necessary to provide additional clarification or revision to the RFP, the
City will post addenda to the City website and to EBIDBOARD.COM website. It is Proposer’s
sole responsibility to regularly monitor the websites for any such postings. Failure to
retrieve addenda and include their provisions may result in disqualification.
1.14 Public Records
Proposers are hereby notified that all information submitted in response to this RFP may
be made available for public inspection according to the Public Records Act of the State of
California and the California Constitution. Information qualifying as a “trade secret” –
defined in California Public Records Act of 2004 – may be held confidential. Proposers shall
seal separately and clearly identify all information they deem to be “trade secrets,” as
defined by the State of California Statutes. Do not duplicate or comingle information,
deemed confidential and sealed, elsewhere in your response.
The City cannot ensure that information will not be subject to release if a request is made
under applicable public records laws. The City cannot consider the following confidential:
a bid in its entirety, price bid information, or the entire contents of any resulting contract.
The City will not provide advanced notice to Proposers prior to release of any requested
record.
To the extent permitted by such laws, it is the intention of the City to withhold the contents
of proposals from public view – until such time as competitive or bargaining reasons no
longer require non-disclosure, in the City’s opinion. At that time, all proposals will be
available for review in accordance with such laws.
2 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
2.1 Proposal Retention and Award
The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 90 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.
2.2 Competency and Responsibility of Proposer
The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility,
professionally and/or financial stability, of Proposer. Proposer will provide, in a timely
manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
2.3 Form of Agreement
Proposers are responsible for reviewing this Form of Agreement prior to submission of their
proposal. The Form of Agreement shall serve as the basis for the contract resulting from
this RFP. The terms of this template contract shall become contractual obligations following
award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, the contract shall become contractual
obligations following award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, Proposers affirm their
willingness to enter into a contract containing these terms.
Packet Pg 43
6
Page 8
2.4 Insurance
Proposers shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in
Appendix B of these specifications within ten (10) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
2.5 Business License and Tax
The Proposer 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 tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
2.6 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.
2.7 Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings
Proposers may be asked to attend meetings, make oral presentations, inspect City locations
or make their facilities, or those of existing clients with similar operations, available for site
inspection as part of the RFP process. Such presentations, meetings, or site visits will be at
the Proposer’s expense.
2.8 Proposer’s Responsibility
Proposers shall examine this RFP and shall exercise their judgment as to the nature and
scope of the work required. No plea of ignorance concerning conditions or difficulties that
exist or may hereafter arise in the execution of the work under the resulting contract, as a
consequence of failure to make necessary examinations and investigations, shall be
accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Proposers to fu lfill the
requirements of the resulting contract.
3 CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
3.1 Ability to Perform
The Proposer 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 federal, state, county, city, and special
district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
3.2 Laws to be Observed
The Proposer shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with al l
applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
3.3 Payment of Taxes
The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Proposer is required
to pay.
Packet Pg 44
6
Page 9
3.4 Permits and Licenses
The Proposer shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices necessary.
3.5 Safety Provisions
The Proposer shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by
OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
3.6 Public and Employee Safety
Whenever the Proposer'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.
3.7 Preservation of City Property
The Proposer 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 Proposer's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Proposer's expense. The
facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Proposer began
work.
3.8 Immigration Act of 1986
The Proposer warrants on behalf of itself and all sub Proposers 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.
3.9 Proposer Non-Discrimination
In the performance of this work, the Proposer agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit
such sub Proposers as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons
because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion
of such persons.
3.10 Work Delays
Should the Proposer 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 Proposer. 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.
3.11 Payment Terms
Payments will be made consistent with the Agreement. The City's standard 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 Proposer (Net 30).
Packet Pg 45
6
Page 10
3.12 Inspection
The Proposer shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that
the services of the Proposer 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 Proposer
of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
3.13 Audit
The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Proposer in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Proposer.
3.14 Interests of Proposer
The Proposer 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 Proposer further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub Proposer or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Proposer 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 Proposer shall at all times be deemed
an independent Proposer and not an agent or employee of the City.
3.15 Hold Harmless and Indemnification
The Proposer 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, including injury to the Proposer'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 Proposer, 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 Proposer'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.
3.16 Contract Assignment
The Proposer 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.
3.17 Termination
If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Proposer is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Proposer in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Proposer a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Proposer 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 Proposer to said effect.
Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, respon sibilities, or rights
under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Proposer's surety shall
Packet Pg 46
6
Page 11
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 Proposer 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
Proposer as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any
other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Proposer shall be based solely
on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall work
scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to
permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Proposer
be entitled to receive any amount in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
4.1 Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors
(“Proposers”) for a Parking Enforcement and Management System (PEMS) to improve
operations through the use of a comprehensive parking management system that will
provide the latest enforcement technology, citation management, and payment
management. Additionally, this project includes professional services for product
implementation, warranty, user training, maintenance and support.
The City requires well-managed and financially sound Proposers with demonstrated skills
and technical ability, and high levels of customer service and satisfaction, to fulfill the
requirements outlined in this RFP. Proposers must have at least five years of experience
with municipalities and/or college institutions, and provide references demonstrating
relevant services were provided. Only those firms with verifiable experience in Parking
Enforcement and Management Systems will be considered during this proposal process.
4.2 Calendar of Events
Listed below are specific and estimated dates and times of RFP events, all of which are
subject to change. Proposers must complete events by specific dates as indicated unless
revised by the City. The City may or may not issue a formal notification for changes in
estimated dates and times.
Figure 4-2: Calendar of Events
Date Event
Friday, August 11, 2016 Issue date of RFP
Thursday September 15, 2016 3:30pm
PST
Proposals due
Packet Pg 47
6
Page 12
September – October 2016 Evaluation of proposals
October – November 2016 Interviews and Recommendations
November 2016 Negotiation and award contract
November - December 2016 Contract Routing to City Council
December 2016 Contract Award
January 2017 Contract begins
4.3 Background
The City of San Luis Parking Services Division, in conjunction with the Police Department, is
responsible for the oversight and management of parking enforcement operations, citation
management, payment management, and towing and impoundment of vehicles. The
Parking Enforcement and Management System will maintain all information related to
citations including tracking payments, late notices, and registration suspensions.
The City issues parking citations to vehicles in violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code and/or California Vehicle Code. The majority of these citations are issued using hand-
held devices and printers but some manual (hand written) citations are issued. Citations
are placed on the vehicle, and notices are mailed to the registered owner as determined
through Department of Motor Vehicle databases.
The Parking Services Division enforces all parking violations throughout the city, which
consists of metered enforcement, on-street and off-street parking violations, residential
parking area violations, impoundment of vehicles, and private property violations. Parking
enforcement operations occur 24/7/365. The current enforcement system consists of
handheld citation writers that interface with the vendor’s records management system.
There are approximately 1,500 on-street spaces controlled by stand-alone parking meters.
The City issues an average of 25,000 parking citations annually generating approximately
$800,000 in revenue. Payments for parking citations are accepted via U.S. mail, online, and
in person.
Residential permits are issued to those who reside within a specific residential district. The
City wishes to explore the use of a hosted (web or cloud based) Residential Parking Permit
program that allows residents to purchase permits on-line and print temporary parking
permits in the future until the permanent permit has been issued. Furthermore, the City is
interested in the PEMS system integrating the Residential Parking Permit program.
4.4 Objectives
The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the acquisition and
implementation of the solution:
o Provide an integrated and efficient system for Parking Enforcement operations.
o Provide functional, reliable, and “state of the art” handheld devices and printers.
o Provide customers with “easy to use” payment processes or options.
Packet Pg 48
6
Page 13
o Provide real-time citation information for City staff and customers.
o Provide decision-quality management reporting for business analysis, problem
resolution, overall efficiency, etc.
o Provide all these on a hosted or cloud based platform maintained and hosted by the
Proposer.
4.5 Functional and Technical Requirements
The requested Functional and Technical Requirements are further described in Appendix
G: Functional and Technical Requirements. These include the areas of: Parking
Enforcement, Handheld Devices, Citation Management, Payment and Billing
Management, Online (Web) and IVR Payments, Reports, Letters and Notifications and
Maintenance and Support.
Appendix G includes a list of the features the City is interested in obtaining in the PEMS
System. This list is not intended to be a complete or prioritized list, and may be amended
by the City without notice.
4.6 Scope of Work
The successful Proposer shall develop and maintain a detailed project plan that includes the
specific tasks listed below, maintain task completion status, and monitor actual against
projections. The project plan should address the following implementation and support
functions and include other tasks, as deemed necessary to ensure successful PEMS solution:
o Project Management
o Business Process Review and Gap Analysis
o Infrastructure/Hardware/Environment Installation & Configuration
o System Configuration
o Data Conversion
o Interface/Customization Development
o Acceptance Testing
o Final System Acceptance
o Training and Documentation
o Operations and Security
o System Software Warranty, Support and Maintenance
o Equipment Warranty, Support and Maintenance
This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for a fully outsourced or hosted Parking Enforcement and
Management system. The term of the Agreement shall be five (5) years with the City having
the option to renew for a minimum of two (2) additional two-year terms. Proposer shall
meet all requirements of the specifications contained herein, as well as all legislated
mandates by the State of California, California Vehicle Code, San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, and the City of San Luis Obispo. For any portion of this proposal that is performed by
Sub-Proposers, see Section 5 Chapter 9 (Required Submittals - Sub Proposers) of this
proposal. See attachments for a sample printed parking citation (appendix C) and citation
aging information (appendix F).
4.7 Selection Process
The City may shortlist up to four (4) Proposers based on the submitted proposals
and invite them to an interview process. In addition, the City may request that
Proposers demonstrate their product either as part of the interview process or
Packet Pg 49
6
Page 14
separately from it. The City, at its discretion, may make site visits to locations where
the Proposers systems are in use. The Proposers shall be evaluated on the following:
o Understanding of the work required by the City;
o Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal;
o Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work required by the City;
o Recent experience in successfully performing similar services;
o Proposed approach in completing the work;
o References;
o Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
project; and
o Presentation Interviews.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination
of the factors determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the
proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively se lected
Proposers, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or
method and amount of compensation. Once prospective Proposers have been evaluated
by the evaluation panel, negotiations shall begin. If negotiations are unsuccessfu l, talks with
that Proposer will be abandoned and negotiations will then commence with the next
qualified Proposer, and so on, until a final agreement has been reached and a contract
prepared. Staff will present their findings to the City Council, which, a t its discretion, will
award a contact.
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS
Proposing companies desiring to respond to this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall submit their
proposal in sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation and comparative analysis. The
City shall use the responses as the basis of its evaluation. The proposals should be as brief and
concise as possible without sacrificing clarity. Proposals containing irrelevant material or an
abundance of excessively vague language may be penalized in the screening process.
Arrange proposals to match the following outline. Respond to each and every question and/or
statement. In the context of this section “you” and “your” is the same as “Proposer” and
“Proposer’s”, respectively.
Chapter 1: Title Page
The title page shall contain at a minimum the name of the Proposer, RFP Title, and Due Date.
Chapter 2: Table of Contents
The Table of Contents outlines in sequential order the chapters of your proposal.
Chapter 3: Executive Summary – Description of Organization
Provide an executive summary introducing your firm. Limit your response to thre e pages. At a
minimum, include the following information:
Packet Pg 50
6
Page 15
o Briefly describe your firm’s organization and size (e.g. local, regional, national and
international) in relation to providing Parking Enforcement and Management Systems
similar to the services described in this RFP.
o Your experience including the number of years in business, and in the provision of Parking
Enforcement and Management Systems.
o The location of the office from which this engagement will be serviced and the range of
activities performed at that office.
o Include a brief summary of the factual, core aspects of your proposed services.
o Reaffirm required experience in providing systems and performing services similar to those
outlined in this RFP.
o Provide a positive commitment to provide systems and perform services in conformity with
the specifications listed in this solicitation.
Chapter 4: Project Manager
Identify the Project Manager you propose to assign to the engagement. Provide an in-depth
background on the experience of the Project Manager, including projects lead (cross reference
to Chapter 5: Organizational Experience and Chapter: 7 References). At least two of the projects
you reference in Chapters 5 and 7 should have been led by the project manager you are proposing
for the City. Limit your response to three pages plus resume. The City expects that the Project
Manager shall be available by telephone on all occasions for discussion with City staff, and shall
be locally available for meetings in person on short notice (one day).
Chapter 5: Organizational Experience
Provide a description of relevant organizational experience, especially in engagements of
similar size and scope that are currently being serviced or took place within the last five years,
from the same office that will serve the City. Describe briefly the nature of services provided
to each organization listed. Include a clear statement of your firm’s specific role in the
engagement. Limit your response to five pages.
Identify specific projects, dates and results. Include the following information:
o The client name, type of organization (i.e. private enterprise, municipality; state, county,
city, town, etc.), address, telephone number, email and a contact person.
o A brief description of the system provided and services performed.
o The contract period and duration. If the engagement is on-going include the start date of
service, percent of contract completed-to-date and estimated completion date.
o The name of your Project Manager overseeing the project.
o Describe any extra services added after contract execution.
The City may utilize additional sources of information about your qualifications.
Chapter 6: Organizational Chart and Project Team
Submit an organizational chart showing the name of the Project Manager, other key personnel,
and all supporting staff to be assigned to the project. The team should demonstrate capabilities,
experience, and qualifications sufficient to successfully perform the scope of work included in this
RFP. The City reserves the right to approve the final staffing plan.
Identify the key project team staff. Include the members’ qualifications, experience and training
that will benefit the project. Additionally, describe examples of past projects where the team
has successfully provided services similar to those requested in this RFP. Include applicable
Packet Pg 51
6
Page 16
projects in Chapter 5: Organizational Experience and Chapter 7: References. Limit your response
to three pages plus resumes.
Chapter 7: References
Provide three references from similar projects and clients. Limit your response to five pages. All
of your references shall be listed as engagements in Chapter 5: Organizational Experience. At
least two of the three references shall be municipalities and/or universities. For each reference,
provide a description of the software provided and services performed. Elaborate on the
information provided in Chapter 5: Organizational Experience, if necessary.
Chapter 8: Customer Service and Technical Support
Provide a description of the customer service features and technical support abilities of the
Proposer. Include any training and staff development that would benefit the City or its
customers. Any additional features that would be relevant can also be included here. (i.e. IVR
systems, websites, etc.)
Chapter 9: Sub Proposers (if any)
Identify any sub-Proposers that would be used. Give a detailed description of their involvement,
scope of work, background, and responsibilities. The price proposed shall include any and all work
to be done by sub-Proposers, and the City will only process claims and payments to the Proposer.
A list of sub-Proposers to be hired shall be submitted as a part of the proposal. Also disclose
whether or not the sub Proposer is a subsidiary or is financially tied to the Proposer in any other
manner. Use of sub-Proposer does not relieve the Proposer of overall responsibility. City reserves
the right to approve all proposed sub-Proposers.
Chapter 10: System Specifications
Submit a detailed description of your Parking Enforcement and Management System. Limit your
response to ten pages. At a minimum include:
o A narrative overview of your system and its functionality.
o A listing and brief description of all software included and hardware required.
o The benefits of your system and how it will meet and/or exceed the scope of services.
o Detail the new processes and workflows the City will need to adopt to use your
system.
o Describe any integration you have with other related products as well as the
customization possibilities with your system.
o Features exclusive to your system.
Chapter 11: Implementation
Submit an overview of your approach to implementation. Limit your response to ten
pages. At a minimum, include:
o A project schedule including phases, activities, tasks, training, milestones, decision points,
deliverables, etc.
o A description of how your project management will keep the implementation on schedule
and ensure the end result is a satisfactorily functioning system.
o Expected use of City resources including City hardware and assistance from City Staff.
o Information or data to be used or obtained from the City.
Packet Pg 52
6
Page 17
Chapter 12: Risks
Identify in detail any anticipated or potential concerns or risks in implementing your system; your
approach to resolving these concerns; and any special assistance required from the City. Limit
your response to two pages.
Chapter 13: Disclosure of Contract Failures and Litigation
Disclose any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, contract breaches, any civil or
criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves your firm or in which your firm has
been judged guilty or liable, or which may affect the performance of the services to be rendered
herein, in which your firm, any of its employees, sub-Proposers, or sub consultants is or has been
involved in within the last three (3) years.
Chapter 14: Proposer’s Financial Stability Assurance
o Provide a statement stating to the City that you are financially stable and have sufficient
financial resources to complete a project of this scope.
o Provide evidence of your financial stability and sufficient financial resources to complete a
project of this scope.
o Identify any anticipated changes of ownership or control of your company.
Chapter 15: Fee Proposal
Include detailed pricing information for Parking Enforcement and Management System as
described in this RFP.
Quote fees as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees for each relevant aspect of the Parking
Enforcement and Management System. The fee could be a one-time fee, fee per use, fee per
year, fee per contract period, fee per citation issued, percentage of revenue generated via
citations, etc.
Clearly explain your pricing model. The City will consider alternative pricing models. Also,
identify all other costs beyond the usage cost such as a fee for training, system maintenance, etc.
As noted above, prepare the fee proposal as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees:
o All Inclusive – Covers all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the Proposer including but
not limited to; travel, telephone, copying and other out-of-pocket expenses.
o Not To Exceed – The actual fees shall not exceed the amount specified in fee proposal.
o Fixed Fee – All prices, rates, fees and conditions outlined in the proposal shall remain
fixed and valid for the entire length of the contract and any/all renewals.
Provide exact fees - not a range. Take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and receive
answers to gain clarification. Furthermore, document any significant assumptions for arriving at
fee estimates. You are responsible for verifying the correctness of calculations in your fee
proposal.
Each of the following is a component of the fee proposal. Proposers shall provide a numerical fee
and narrative explanation for each component. Provide as much detail as possible in your
narrative responses.
o Software/Product Licenses – List separately the software/product or similar licenses
required and associated fees, whether ongoing or onetime. Describe your pricing scheme
for licenses (e.g. per user? Per machine? Etc.).
Packet Pg 53
6
Page 18
o Project Management – List the fees for time and resources used organizing, overseeing
and communicating about the project.
o Travel – List the fees for visits to the City for onsite training, planning, go-live, etc. List travel
fees as a not-to-exceed travel allowance.
o Design/Planning – List the fees for time spent working with the City in determining
workflows, analyzing processes, planning, envisioning how the system will work and
documenting the system. Also include the fees for determining the appropriate technical
architecture and infrastructure for the City.
o Equipment Fees – List the fees for hardware the City will need to purchase in order to
implement and maintain your solution.
o Customizations –These fees are for modifications and customizations, beyond basic
configuration, that Proposer can make to their system in order to fulfill City requirements.
o Interface Development – List the fee for interfacing to existing or outside systems identified
by the City.
o Data Conversion – The fee to move and convert historical data from the existing system
into your solution.
o Training – Provide the total fees for training and detail the number of hours and rate for
standard and additional training. List diffe rences, if any, in the hours or rates for training
different types of end-users (i.e. those that may only use one module of the system versus
those “power-users” that would learn each and every part of the system).
o Deployment (Installation) – Detail the fees of deploying the system including the testing
and user acceptance processes.
o Support and Maintenance – Present the fees of ongoing support and maintenance for your
system. If you offer different levels of support, price the level of support that you
recommend the City purchase. Furthermore, provide detailed fees for all levels of support
and maintenance you offer. Support and maintenance fees should start in Year 1, which is
the first 365 days after the system is live and accepted by the City.
If you propose support and maintenance fees during the implementation phase explain why
support and maintenance is necessary on a system that is not yet operating. The City will
only pay support and maintenance on the portions of the system that are satisfactorily
functioning, accepted and put into use by the City. Proposer shall continue to support all
the software and licenses they are proposing. The City requires Proposer to quote Support
and Maintenance for a minimum of the initial contract term (5) years. Proposer is
encouraged to quote Support and Maintenance fees beyond year five, for as many years as
they are willing to include in the contract.
o Upgrade Fees – If not included in Support and Maintenance provide the fees for future
upgrades. If upgrades of your software are bundled with the support and maintenance,
indicate so in the Support and Maintenance section. The term “upgrade” is used generically
here for any future improvement made to the system, major or minor. In your response be
sure to define, in detail, your usage of the terms; upgrade, update, version, enhancement,
patch, fix, etc., when describing fees and offerings. If you have different levels of support
and maintenance – some that do not include upgrades and others that do, provide the fees
for what you recommend the City purchase, but provide details for all options as an
additional narrative.
Packet Pg 54
6
Page 19
o Other Fees – Detail any and all other fees associated with your system. You must provide
line-item detail and descriptions. Be specific in matching fees with specific activity. If you
are proposing an alternate price model describe it in detail here.
o City Support – Provide the number of City staff and hours needed to support your
implementation. Detail the tasks they will be expected to perform.
o Ongoing Professional Services & Support – Please include the discounted hourly rate
for professional services and support. Include the different rate classes or titles as
appropriate.
The City reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the fee proposal
submitted. Therefore, the Proposer should submit the fee proposal on the most favorable terms
they can offer. However, this does not limit the City from negotiating with the selected Proposer.
Fees will be evaluated on both initial and ongoing fees. The financial evaluation will be based on
the total (life cycle) fee of ownership for the system over a period of up to ten (10) years, or
longer if determinable. The fees used will be those provided by Proposer and as established by
the City for hardware/software and system operations.
Configuration Adjustment: The City reserves the right to select and exclude any software for the
acquisition regardless of the configuration proposed. As part of the evaluation process, the City
may find it necessary to add or delete software or services from proposals to make equivalent
comparisons.
A finalization of the specifications and scope of services is expected as a part of final contract
negotiation or through a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) p rocess. By the BAFO the Proposer(s)
remaining in the process will have met with the City and or demonstrated their product giving
them the opportunity to obtain a complete understanding of all requirements.
Chapter 16: Additional Required Forms and/or Attachments
Include the following required forms and/or attachments to your Proposal. Forms are included
in the RFP.
o Form A – Signature Affidavit – A company representative with authority to bind the
Proposer to the City by contract shall sign the form, attesting the proposal has been
submitted in conformance to stated requirements.
o Form B – Vendor Profile – complete the information about your firm.
o Form C – References
o Form D – Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
o Form E – Cost Proposal Submittal Form
Packet Pg 55
6
Page 20
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT
Note: This form must be returned with your response.
In signing proposals, we certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any
agreement or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free
competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or
not to submit proposals, that proposals have been independently arrived at, without collusion
with any other Proposers, competitor or potential competitor; that proposals have not been
knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of proposals to any other Proposers or competitor;
that the above statement is accurate under penalty of perjury.
The undersigned, submitting this proposal, hereby agrees with all the terms, conditions, and
specifications required by the City in this Request for Proposal, declares that the attached
proposal and pricing are in conformity therewith, and attests to the truthfulness of al l
submissions in response to this solicitation.
Proposers shall provide the information requested below. Include the legal name of the
Proposer and signature of the person(s) legally authorized to bind the Proposers to a contract.
SIGNATURE AND DATE OF AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE
PRINT NAME: __________________________________________________
FIRM (PROPOSER) NAME: ________________________________________
Packet Pg 56
6
Page 21
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE
Company Information
Company Name (Proposer)
FEIN: (If FEIN is not applicable, SSN collected
upon award)
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Primary Individual Contact Information
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Packet Pg 57
6
Page 22
FORM C: REFERENCES
Describe fully three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide
the services included with the scope of the specifications. Two of the three shall have been in a
Municipal or University setting. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right
to contact 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
Packet Pg 58
6
Page 23
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
Packet Pg 59
6
Page 24
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
Packet Pg 60
6
Page 25
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Proposer 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 Representative of Proposer
___________________________________________
Print name of Authorized Representative of Proposer
Packet Pg 61
6
Page 26
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The City is requesting proposals for Parking Enforcement and Management System. Each
Proposer shall fill out the following cost proposal in it’s entirely. Cost proposals that are not
complete will not be accepted, and the submitted proposal will be deemed incomplete. If there
are any additional costs not included in this Cost Proposal, those costs must be identified on a
separate sheet of paper and included as stated in this Request for Proposal. On a separate
page, a detailed breakdown of the costs below as well as a detailed price list shall also be
provided.
Item Description- Citation Processing Total Cost Estimate
Five Year Term (2017-2021) $
First-Two Year Option Term (2022-2023) $
Second-Two Year Option Term (2024-2025) $
Item Description- Residential Parking Permit
Program (OPTIONAL)
Total Proposed Cost
Estimate
Five Year Term (2017-2021) $
First-Two Year Option Term (2022-2023) $
Second-Two Year Option Term (2024-2025) $
Packet Pg 62
6
Page 27
Appendix A: FORM OF AGREEMENT (SAMPLE)
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 Parking Enforcement and Management
System per Specification No. 91495.
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. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin within X calendar
days after contract execution and shall be completed within X calendar days thereafter.
3. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this
specification will be used by the City between [month/year] and [month/year].
4. 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.
5. 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.
Packet Pg 63
6
Page 28
6. 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.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
Packet Pg 64
6
Page 29
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
Packet Pg 65
6
Page 30
contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission,
percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
15. 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.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that
the Consultant is required to pay.
17. 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.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
Packet Pg 66
6
Page 31
Consultants are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in t he
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,
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.
24. 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.
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in
this proposal from other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall
be used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped
and signed by the Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to
provide documents addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using
Packet Pg 67
6
Page 32
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
1 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups
1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% 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
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
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.
29. 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 w ill 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
Packet Pg 68
6
Page 33
documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing by the
Consultant.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the
contract price is attendance by the Consultant at up to [number] 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.
33. 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.
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 $X. 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.
Progress payments shall be made on a monthly basis as invoiced by the Consultant for expenses
incurred with cumulative monthly payments not to exceed:
$ X (85%) Prior to submittal of 50% documents; and
$ X (95%) Prior to submittal of final documents; and
$ X (100%) Prior to completion of construction or as noted below
The 5% retention until completion of construction shall be released upon completion of design
if the City fails to authorize the advertising for construction within 2 months following the
acceptance of a complete final submittal by the Consultant.
Packet Pg 69
6
Page 34
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 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.” 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
has determined that DBE can reasonably be expected to compete for the sub-consulting
opportunities in this agreement and has established a DBE advisory percentage of X. 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,
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.
Packet Pg 70
6
Page 35
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: X
City of San Luis Obispo
919 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.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal Specification No. X 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
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 part y 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.
Packet Pg 71
6
Page 36
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
Packet Pg 72
6
Page 37
Appendix B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Proposer 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 Proposer, its agents, representatives, employees or
sub Proposers.
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. 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,
Packet Pg 73
6
Page 38
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.
Sub-consultants. Consultant shall include all sub-consultants as insured under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub-consultant. All
coverages for sub-consultants shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
Packet Pg 74
6
Page 39
Appendix C: SAMPLE PRINTED PARKING CITATION
Packet Pg 75
6
Page 40
Appendix D: CURRENT BAIL SCHEDULE
CODE &
SECTION
DESCRIPTION PENALTY LATE
FEE
ADDED
SLMC 10.12.050 INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE/AUTHORIZED OFFICER $93 $123
SLMC 10.14.030 OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES $58 $88
SLMC 10.14.090 UNAUTHORIZED PAINTING ON CURBS $58 $88
SLMC 10.34.020 OVERNIGHT CAMPING (10pm - 6 am) $100 $130
SLMC 10.36.020 STOPPING OR STANDING IN PARKWAYS PROHIBITED $33 $63
SLMC 10.36.030 STOP/STAND/PARK IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER $33 $63
SLMC 10.36.040 NO PARKING ZONE - PROHIBITED PARKING - Also Taxi
Zone (d)
$53 $83
SLMC 10.36.050 USE OF STREETS FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES
PROHIBITED
$23 $53
SLMC 10.36.070 REPAIRING OR GREASING VEHICLE ON PUBLIC STREET $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.080 WASHING OR POLISHING VEHICLES $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.090 PARKING ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.100 PARKING PROHIBITED ON NARROW STREETS $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.110 PARKING ON GRADES $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.120 UNLAWFUL PARKING - PEDDLERS, VENDORS $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.130 EMERGENCY PARKING SIGNS $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.140 LARGE/COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING NEAR
INTERSECTION
$23 $53
SLMC 10.36.150 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES $23 $53
SLMC 10.36.160 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF VEHICLE W/OPERATING
AIR/REFRIGERATION
$23 $53
SLMC 10.36.200 PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA $38 $68
SLMC 10.36.230 PERMITS - DISPLAY OF PERMITS $28 $58
SLMC 10.36.235 NO PERMIT LOT $33 $63
SLMC 10.40.010 TIMED PARKING 10 MINUTES TO 10 HOURS (Overtime
Parking)
$38 $68
SLMC 10.40.020 BACKING INTO PARKING SPACE PROHIBITED $28 $58
SLMC 10.40.040 PARKING PARALLEL ON ONE-WAY STREETS $21 $51
SLMC 10.40.050 DIAGONAL PARKING $21 $51
SLMC 10.40.060 PARKING SPACE MARKINGS $33 $63
SLMC 10.40.070 NO STOPPING ZONE $21 $51
SLMC 10.40.080 ALL NIGHT PARKING PROHIBITED (3-am) $38 $68
SLMC 10.44.020 CURB MARKING TO INDICATE NO STOPPING/PARKING
REGULATIONS.
$23 $53
SLMC 10.44.030 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN YELLOW
ZONE
$53 $83
SLMC 10.44.040 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN WHITE
ZONE
$33 $63
SLMC 10.44.050 STANDING IN ANY ALLEY $33 $63
SLMC 10.44.070 DISABLED PARKING $338 $368
SLMC 10.48.010 CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL DISTRICT $58 $88
Packet Pg 76
6
Page 41
SLMC 10.48.020 ADVERTISING VEHICLES $33 $63
SLMC 10.48.030 ANIMAL DRAWN VEHICLES $33 $63
SLMC 10.48.040 TRUCK ROUTES $88 $118
SLMC 10.48.050 COMM. VEHICLES PROHIBITED FROM USING CERTAIN
STREETS
$88 $118
SLMC 10.48.060 MAX. GROSS WT. LIMITS OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN
STREETS
$88 $118
SLMC 10.52.040 PARKING METERS - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES $23 $53
SLMC 10.52.050 UNLAWFUL TO PARK AFTER METER TIME HAS EXPIRED $33 $63
SLMC 10.52.060 UNLAWFUL TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND LIMIT $15 $45
SLMC 10.52.070 IMPROPER USE OF METER $15 $45
SLMC 10.52.080 PARKING METERS/STANDARDS - PROPER USE $15 $45
SLMC 10.52.110 MOTORCYCLE SPACES $15 $45
CVC 5204(a)* CURRENT TAB IMPROPERLY ATTACHED *25
CVC 21113(a) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-MOVING $116 $146
CVC 21113(b) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-PARKING $33 $63
CVC 21113 (c) DRIVEWAYS, PATHS, PARKING FACILITIES ON GROUNDS $33 $63
CVC 22500.1 STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: FIRE LANE $116 $146
CVC 22500(a) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: WITHIN
INTERSECTION
$33 $63
CVC 22500(b) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON A CROSSWALK $33 $63
CVC 22500(c) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: BETWEEN SAFETY
ZONE
$33 $63
CVC 22500(d) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: W/IN 15' FIREHOUSE
ENTRANCE
$33 $63
CVC 22500(e) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: PUBLIC/PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY
$33 $63
CVC 22500(f) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON SIDEWALK $33 $63
CVC 22500(g) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ALONG/OPPOSITE
OBSTRUCT
$33 $63
CVC 22500(h) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON ROADWAY SIDE
OF VEHICLE
$33 $63
CVC 22500(i) IMPROPER PARKING IN BUS ZONE $263 $293
CVC 22500(j) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: IN TUBE OR TUNNEL $33 $63
CVC 22500(k) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: UPON BRIDGE
EXCEPT AUTHORIZED VEHICLES
$33 $63
CVC 22500(l) IMPROPER PARKING IN WHEELCHAIR ACCESS $263 $293
CVC 22502(a) CURB PARKING $33 $63
CVC 22502(b) PARKING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC $33 $63
CVC 22502(c) CURB PARKING - WHEELS MORE THAN 18 INCHES
FROM CURB
$33 $63
CVC 22504(a) UNINCORPORATED AREA PARKING $33 $63
CVC 22505(a) PARKING ON STATE HIGHWAY WHERE SIGN POSTED $33 $63
CVC 22505(b) POSTED NO PARKING - STATE HIGHWAY $33 $63
CVC 22507 UNLAWFUL PARKING $33 $63
CVC 22507.8 (a) PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED $338 $368
CVC 22507.8 (b) PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED - OBSTRUCT/BLOCK $338 $368
CVC 22507.8(c)(1) PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED - ON LINES MARKED $338 $368
CVC22507.8 (c)(2) PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED - CROSSHATCHED
LINES
$338 $368
Packet Pg 77
6
Page 42
CVC 22510 PARKING IN SNOW REMOVAL AREAS $3 $33
CVC 22511.7 DISABLED ZONE $338 $368
CVC 22512 VEHICLE UNATTENDED $116 $146
CVC 22513 TOW CARS - PARKING ON FREEWAY $33 $63
CVC 22514 FIRE HYDRANTS $63 $93
CVC 22515(a) UNATTENDED VEHICLES - SET BRAKES/STOP MOTOR $33 $63
CVC 22515(b) UNATTENDED VEHICLES - SET
BRAKES/WHEELS/PREVENT MOVE
$33 $63
CVC 22516 LOCKED VEHICLE $116 $146
CVC 22517 OPENING AND CLOSING DOORS $116 $146
CVC 22520.5 VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY $116 $146
CVC 22520.5(a) VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY $116 $146
CVC 22521 ILLEGAL TO PARK ON RAILROAD TRACKS $33 $63
CVC 22522 PARKING NEAR SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMPS $288 $318
CVC 22523(a) VEHICLE ABANDONMENT- On Highway $283 $313
CVC 22523(b) VEHICLE ABANDONMENT $283 $313
CVC 22650 UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF UNATTENDED VEHICLE $116 $146
CVC 22651(b) VEHICLE PARKED/LEFT STANDING TO OBSTRUCT
TRAFFIC
$116 $146
CVC 40225* PROCESSING OTHER VIOLATIONS *$10
CVC 40226* FAILURE TO DISPLAY DISABLED PLACARD -
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
*$25
LATE PAYMENT PENALTY $30
*
All other fine amounts set by City Council pursuant to CVC 40203.5
Packet Pg 78
6
Page 43
Appendix E: SAMPLE CITATION CONTEST FORM
Packet Pg 79
6
Page 44
Appendix F: CURRENT CITATION AGING REPORT
Packet Pg 80
6
Page 45
Appendix G: FUNCTIONAL AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
It is the intent of the City to have incorporated, included or provided as many as possible of the
following functional and technical requirements in the Proposer’s solution provided herein. The
City reserves the right to remove, add or prioritize any and/or all requirements contained herein
without prior notice to Proposers. This list is not prioritized but only generally functionally
grouped together.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The Parking Enforcement and Management System should:
1. Adhere to all timelines required by the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
2. Maintain a record of all citations processed in the database. Such records shall contain at a
minimum, payment information and history, collection efforts, photos, vehicle registration
owner data, disposition, appeal history, outstanding collections record and any other
information necessary to create an audit trail. All records and data remain property of the
City and must be turned over by the Proposer to the City in a timely manner at the
termination or expiration of the Agreement.
3. Provide full integration with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) including
the ability to place registration holds and release s on-line on a daily basis with DMV
confirmation. The vehicle registration hold must be placed in accordance with the California
Vehicle Code and all other applicable laws. The timetable to establish a registration hold at
DMV should be at the discretion of the City. Releases should take place within 24 hours.
4. Be responsible for maintaining and gathering all necessary and correct motorist data required
for the citation processing and adjudication. Proposer shall have contract work with all other
states DMV’s to collect on any out-of-state citations issued. Similar processes for vehicle
registration holds and releases shall be in place and compliant with all Federal and State laws.
5. Provide the necessary postage, correspondence, and ability to track forms to meet all
applicable State and local laws regarding citation processing and adjudication. The City will
provide all manual and handheld computer citation forms, unless otherwise agreed.
6. Provide that all notices and letters include an interior envelope for return. The notices must
meet with all U.S. Postal Service requirements and are subject to approval by City of San Luis
Obispo.
7. Provide a method for citation payment by US Mail, phone (IVR) and via an online internet
based payment system. This online system shall comply with all applicable requirements for
security of personal information and shall be PCI Compliant. Payments should be accepted
at multiple city locations and thru Proposer who will then deposit funds into a City designated
account with deposit-only access for the Proposer.
8. Prepare and mail Partial Payment Notices to those who do not pay the full fine and applicable
penalty. The notice should indicate the amount that was paid and the remainder that is due.
9. Maintain a record of all open parking citations for a minimum period of five (5) years from
the date of issuance.
Packet Pg 81
6
Page 46
10. Provide to the City a monthly aging report with a “clean” month-end cut off. This report shall
include all citations regardless of their current status (i.e. current, DMV, collections, etc.).
11. Provide to the City a monthly report for all Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County fees
associated with the Courthouse Construction Fund, County General Fund, Immediate and
Critical Needs Account, State Court Facilities Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund, Equipment
Assessment, Registration Assessment and Handicapped parking violations, special collections
and bail increases in amounts specified in the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
12. Ensure all records and data will be readily available for inspection and audit by City of
designee.
13. Provide a system with sufficient security to restrict access only to authorized users. Proposer
will provide a description of such security measures in their proposal.
14. Ensure only authorized users at City have authority to void citations.
15. Ensure all appropriate City staff have unlimited access to online terminal inquiry and
transmission of data capacity.
16. Ensure the system provides a method for contesting citations in accordance with the City’s
citation review policy, and the ability to complete the contest form on-line. The system
capabilities should be described in detail including how the City would be alerted of pending
reviews, letters that are generated through this process, and any other applicable
information.
17. Proposer shall allow unlimited concurrent users to access the system. The Proposer must
provide password protection for each user and also be able to limit the capabilities and
functions per user.
18. Remote access for multiple City workstations must be availa ble using a standard PC.
Operating and or software costs must be included. Access to the database must be 100%
web based and require no additional or 3rd party software to operate.
19. The system must be capable of exporting all data in the system in a CSV o r similar City
approved format so that it may be uploaded to other software systems if desired by City.
Applications this may be required for include, but are not limited to, financial tracking,
additional reporting or collection methods and global system reporting.
20. A backup and recovery system must be provided for the database to include all information
in the system. At a minimum, the system should be backed up multiple times throughout
each day.
21. Proposer shall provide efficient, courteous, and professional service for all telephone calls
and correspondence. A toll-free telephone number shall be provided for the public to obtain
information, make inquiries, and make payments.
22. Customer service representatives shall be available to provide instructions and information
on general parking policies and procedures, to handle complaints, and how to pay or contest
citations. For complaints, a telephone response shall be provided within one (1) business
day.
Packet Pg 82
6
Page 47
HANDHELD DEVICE
1. Provide for ability to generate, modify, print and void citations and warnings from a handheld
device or mobile data computer.
2. Real time connectivity for bi-directional data transfers between handheld device and system
back-end via cellular or wireless connections.
3. Provide the ability to record color video to attach to citations
4. Provide the ability for voice recording to attach to citations
5. Provide the ability for handheld devices to automatically indicate when a vehicle is towable
based on scofflaw list
6. Provide the ability for handheld devices to upload or download by wired, docked or wireless
method.
7. Handhelds shall have color screens and backlit displays.
8. Provide for ability for each user to log in with unique user ID and password
9. Ability to capture 3 color photos that automatically attach to citation
10. Provide the ability for handhelds to display all citation or warning data entered and to edit or
modify fields without disruption to the entry process.
11. Provide ability for handheld device to operate by touch screen, push button keypad, and/or
stylus.
12. Provide the ability to store citation information on the handheld in the event that wireless
communication is unavailable and automatically transmit when communications become
available.
13. Provide the ability for data entry screens on handheld devices to utilize configurable drop
down choices for field selections where appropriate.
14. The handheld device should provide full RMI/EMI shielding and immunity.
15. Provide for an active battery life of at least 8 hours usage (for both 1 and 2 piece devices).
16. The handheld unit should have a non-proprietary battery.
17. Provide the ability for battery to be easily interchangeable in the field (no tools necessary).
18. Provide the ability to view all previously issued citations or warnings on same plate number
from handheld device.
19. Provide the ability to create a citation record based off a handwritten citation.
20. Provide the ability to include more than one fine per citation
Manage Citations
1. Provide the ability to create and modify a citation record, including but not limited to,
citation#, license plate and/or VIN#, L/P type, vehicle make/model/year, police case# (as
applicable), date issued, statute#, violation description, violation location, registered
owner(s) information (complete address, D/L('s), date(s) of birth.,), vehicle owner(s)/
Packet Pg 83
6
Page 48
customer contact information (e-mail address, phone#), status, resolution/disposition,
payments, court information, impounds (if applicable), etc.
2. Provide an audit feature that records changes made and logs the user who made any change
to any citation record.
3. Provide the ability to attach emails, copy of documents generated, pictures or other
documentation files to the citation record.
4. Provide the ability to place individual citations on "hold" status to prevent citation from
accruing late fees, generating notices or initiating suspension action.
5. Provide the ability to update, track and manage citations contested via the internal review
process, including but not limited to, review request and response dates, review status,
reviewer identification, denial and dismissal/void codes.
6. Provide the ability to create a citation data file, to be sent for remote printing of Late Notices,
based on citation field(s) and matching criteria.
Payment Billing Management
1. Provide the ability to apply, display, label, and itemize fees, including but not limited to,
original fine amount, 1st late fee, 2nd late fee, suspension fee, NSF fee, tow fee, etc.
2. Capable of recording or tracking payment channel (online, mail, or counter payment)
3. Provide the ability to set up, process, track and reconcile payments.
4. Provide ability to record payments of individual citations, including but not limited to
payment date, payment type, payment amount, partial payments, check# ( as applicable).
Online Payments
1. Ability to accept interactive voice response (IVR) payments for citations.
2. Ability to send customer receipt via email.
3. Ability to void same day credit card payment (prior to settlement).
4. Ability to accept following: MasterCard, Discover, AMEX and VISA credit cards and
debit/check cards, ATM card payments.
5. Ability to allow customers to pay by credit card, debit/check card, ATM card, checking and
savings via website.
6. Ability to charge the customer a convenience fee for online payments.
7. Ability to offer customers online payment options 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week, 365
days a year, except for pre-scheduled planned maintenance required to keep the system
functional and temporary shutdowns requested by the City.
8. Ability for customers to pay for multiple citations in one transaction.
9. Ability to consolidate payments from different payment sources (e.g. banks, credit unions,
credit card, debit/check card companies, etc.) so that City will only receive one Remittance
and one Memo data file daily and one wire transfer daily.
Packet Pg 84
6
Page 49
10. Ability to prove compliance with all regulations and laws pertaining to the use of web
payment services.
11. Ability to generate standard and Ad-Hoc Reports from any PC or workstation.
12. Provide ability to produce Citation Reports with various sorting options to include but not
limited to issue date or date range, issue time or time range, citation number or number
range, unpaid citations, citations issued by officer ID, citations issued b y location, citations
issued by violation, citation status, statute#, license plate, VIN#, owner name, etc.
13. Provide the ability to produce Enforcement Officer Summary reports with various sorting
options to include but not limited to officer name, officer ID, shift, day of week, and citation
count or violation.
14. Provide ability to produce daily financial reports.
15. Provide the ability to produce Voided Citations or Warnings reports with various sorting
options to include but not limited to enforcement officer and void reason.
16. Ability to provide daily and monthly Summary and Detail Analysis Reporting of customer
payments activity.
17. Provide the ability to define and configure dashboard reporting
18. Provide the ability to export report data to Excel, CSV, etc.
19. Daily deposits in the City’s required format and to the bank specified by the City.
Maintenance & Support & Other
1. Provide the ability to produce documentation regarding downtime for the application and
handheld software such as maintenance, upgrades, etc.
2. Proposer shall provide a comprehensive suite of standard financial and operational
management reports that are parameter driven and may be sent to City on a regular basis in
PDF and Excel formats, or can be prepared by City staff directly from the system. System shall
also allow Ad Hoc reporting in the same formats. City shall have the ability to access all
reports remotely. Proposer agrees to provide any and all reports requested by City in the
format requested and at no cost to City.
3. All software updates and upgrades will be included. The City will receive any upgrades and
updates within 3 months of release.
4. Proposer shall provide all equipment necessary to perform the services in this RFP. The cost
for any additional equipment or supplies not included above will be reimbursed by the City
only with prior written approval. These items may include but are not limited to upgraded
equipment purchases, general supplies, citation paper, envelopes, and any other items
required to perform services related to this RFP.
Packet Pg 85
6
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on March 31, 2017,
by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City,
and PASSPORTPARKING, INC., hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2016, City requested proposals for a Parking Enforcement and
Management System per Specification No. 91495 .
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which was accepted by City
for parking citation management software and related 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 (the
“Effective Date”) and entered, as first written above, until five (5) years from the launch of the Contractor’s
citation management software (the “Initial Term”), provided, however, that the parties ma y extend this
Agreement by mutual consent for up to two (2) additional twenty-four (24) month extension periods (each
an “Extension Term”).
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91495 and Contractor's
proposal dated September 15, 2016, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. In the
event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement, Attachment A, City Specification No. 91495 and
Contractor’s proposal dated September 15, 2016, those documents will be interpreted in the following order
of ascending priority.
a) City Specification No. 91495
b) Contractor’s proposal dated September 15, 2016
c) This Agreement
d) Attachment A
Packet Pg 86
6
3. PARTIES OBLIGATIONS. Attachment A hereto sets for the obligations of the Parties
under this Agreement.
4. 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 Council or duly authorized
agent of the City.
5. 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.
6. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor 1300 South Mint Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
7. 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.
[signature page follows]
Packet Pg 87
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ___________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg 88
6
ATTACHMENT A
SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SERVICE AGREEMENT
The following terms, including the terms and conditions found in all Exhibits (the
“Agreement”), represent the full understanding of PassportParking, Inc. (“Passport”) and the
Party named below (“Provider” and with Passport, the “parties” and each individually a “Party”).
In exchange for the mutual covenants herein and other good and valuable consideration, the
Parties agree and intend to be bound as follows:
I. GENERAL TERMS
Effective Date: March 31, 2017
Launch Delays:
If Provider fails to launch the CMP within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date above,
Provider will pay a monthly platform fee to Passport equal to the lesser of $1,500.00 or
any applicable monthly fee per platform for which the launch has been delayed beyond
ninety (90) days from the Effective Date.
Services:
Passport will provide services (the “Services”) and license all software, including all web
and mobile applications and related documentation, (the “Software”) necessary for
Provider to operate:
a citation management platform (“CMP”) which allows Provider’s parking
enforcement officers in any or all parking facilities owned or managed by Provider
Packet Pg 89
6
(the “Premises”) the ability to issue parking citations that may be paid online
through Passport’s payment portal;
Governing State Law: California
Termination:
Either Party may terminate this Agreement for convenience by providing thirty-days
written notice to the non-terminating Party.
II. CITATION MANAGEMENT PLATFORM TERMS
Equipment:
a) Provider must purchase a sufficient number of Android-based handheld devices for each
parking enforcement officer to have access to one device while conducting parking
enforcement activities
b) Provider must maintain at its sole cost one wireless data plan for each Android device
c) Provider must possess at least one Bluetooth-enabled printer per Android device
described above
d) In addition to the unit costs per Bluetooth-enabled printer above, Provider will be
responsible for paying all shipping costs and printer paper costs
e) If Provider orders custom printer paper through Passport, Provider will be responsible for
paying the costs of creating, printing, and shipping such custom paper plus a 12%
service fee to Passport. Passport is unable to provide estimated costs until specifi c details
of Provider’s order have been confirmed due to the variable costs of its 3rd party.
Packet Pg 90
6
Collections Support (Passport will Provide the Selected Services):
o Passport will provide an online payment portal through which parking violators may pay
outstanding parking citations
o After a mutually agreed number of days following the issuance of a citation, but in no
event less than twenty-one (21) days after citation issuance, Passport will automatically
generate and send an initial letter to each parking citation owner for which Passport has
necessary state licensure authorization to perform a driver record lookup informing such
parking violator that they have an outstanding parking citation and that the citation
amount has increased. In the ordinary course, it is expected that the initial letter will be
delivered on the twenty-first (21st) day following citation issuance.
o Passport will send a second letter after a mutually agreed number of days after issuance
for each applicable unpaid citation owner, which shall in no event be less than ten (10)
days after sending the initial letter. By way of example, in the ordinary course, it is
expected that the second letter will be mailed on or about the thirty-fifth (35th) day after
citation issuance and no later than on or about the forty-fifth (45th) day after citation
issuance. Ctation fees will escalate upon mailing of the second letter (the “Escalated
Collections Commencement Date”) and this marks the beginning of “Escalated
Collections” for the purposes of Section III FEES.
o If authorized by the relevant driver licensure bureau, where a citation remains unpaid
after thirty days after Passport has sent the letter described in subsection b) above,
Passport will submit the relevant information to a collections agency approved by
Provider to initiate a formal hard collections process
State Licensure Authorizations:
Passport will provide a list of states in which Passport has the authority to do driver r ecord
lookups upon request by Provider .
Packet Pg 91
6
III. FEES
Initial Term Monthly Fixed CMP Software License Fee: $3,000.00
Extension Term Monthly Fixed CMP Software License Fee: $2,000.00
CMP Service and License Fee Per Ticket Paid Online After Escalated
Collections Have Begun:
15% of Escalated
Citation Amount
CMP Online Payment Convenience Fee (PAID BY CITATION HOLDER): $3.00
Cost Per Notification Letter Sent by Passport: $1.25
Escalated Collections:
Escalated Collections will begin on the Escalated Collections Commencement Date set forth in
the preceding section.
Monthly Minimum:
If the total fees payable to Passport, calculated according to the fees above, as a result of
Provider’s use of the CMP during any month are less than the monthly minimum fees, then in
addition to such fees, the Provider will pay the difference between the amount actually
collected (“Paid”) and the monthly minimum CMP fees (“Minimum”) as follows:
Additional Amount Payable to Passport = Minimum - Paid
Merchant Processing Costs:
Provider will be responsible for paying all merchant processing costs, including, without
limitation, settlement fees, payment gateway fees, chargeback fees, and interchange
reimbursement fees.
Merchant of Record for Transactions:
Passport X Provider
Passport Merchant Processing Rate Per Transaction: N/A
Payment Gateway Provider: Passport X Other
Passport Gateway Fee Per Transaction: N/A
Packet Pg 92
6
EXHIBIT A
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT
SERVICE LEVELS
PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE HOSTING FOR
THE SOFTWARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL
LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. PASSPORT’S
SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE OBLIGATION IN THE
EVENT OF AN ERROR OR INTERRUPTION OF THE
SOFTWARE IS TO USE PASSPORT’S BEST
EFFORTS TO RESTORE OR REPAIR THE
SOFTWARE AS QUICKLY AS PRACTICABLE.
SYSTEM UPTIME
PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE THE
SOFTWARE WITH UPTIME OF AT LEAST NINETY-
NINE PERCENT (99%) CALCULATED OVER A
ROLLING SIX-MONTH PERIOD (“UPTIME
GUARANTEE”). FOR ANY MONTH DURING
WHICH SYSTEM UPTIME DROPS BELOW THE
UPTIME GUARANTEE, PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE
A BILLING CREDIT IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO:
THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A)
THE LOWEST UPTIME REACHED AT ANY POINT
DURING THE MONTH (CALCULATED ON A
ROLLING SIX MONTH PERIOD) AND B) THE
UPTIME GUARANTEE MULTIPLIED BY THE
TOTAL FEES PAYABLE TO PASSPORT FOR SUCH
MONTH. FOR EXAMPLE, IF DURING A GIVEN
MONTH THE SOFTWARE UPTIME FELL AS LOW
AS NINETY-FIVE PERCENT (95%) AND DURING
THAT MONTH, THE FEES PAYABLE TO
PASSPORT WERE ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00), PASSPORT WOULD ISSUE A BILLING
CREDIT OF FOUR DOLLARS ($4.00). FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS AGREEMENT, UPTIME IS
DEFINED AS ANY PERIOD OF TIME DURING
WHICH END USERS OF THE SOFTWARE CAN USE
THE SOFTWARE TO PAY FOR PARKING, PAY FOR
MOBILE TICKETS, OR ISSUE PARKING
CITATIONS, AS APPLICABLE.
DATA OWNERSHIP
ALL DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED
TO PASSPORT BY PROVIDER WILL BE OWNED
EXCLUSIVELY BY PROVIDER, AND PASSPORT
HEREBY ACQUIRES AN IRREVOCABLE, NON-
EXCLUSIVE, NON-TRANSFERRABLE, AND NON-
SUBLEASEABLE LICENSE TO USE SUCH DATA
ONLY AS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE
SERVICES SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT
DURING THE TERM. ALL DATA CREATED BY
END USERS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR USE
OF THE SOFTWARE (“END USER DATA”) WILL BE
LICENSED TO PASSPORT ON THE TERMS SET
FORTH IN PASSPORT’S END-USER PRIVACY
POLICY, AND PROVIDER WILL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO ACCESS AND USE END USER DATA DURING
THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT ONLY AS
NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES SET
FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT DURING THE TERM.
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION OF
THIS AGREEMENT, PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE A
MACHINE READABLE COPY OF END USER DATA
TO PROVIDER AS NECESSARY TO INFORM
USERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
OFFERED TO A SUBSEQUENT REPLACEMENT
VENDOR.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
(a) PROVIDER HEREBY ACQUIRES A
REVOCABLE, NON-EXCLUSIVE,
NON -ASSIGNABLE, NON-
TRANSFERRABLE, AND NON-
SUBLEASEABLE RIGHT AND
LICENSE TO USE AND ACCESS THE
SOFTWARE FOR ITS INTERNAL
BUSINESS PURPOSES. ALL
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
TRADE NAMES, SOURCE CODE,
TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS,
PATENTS, AND TRADE SECRETS,
NOT EXPLICITLY GRANTED TO
PROVIDER IN THIS AGREEMENT
ARE RESERVED TO PASSPORT.
(b) PROVIDER WILL NOT, DIRECTLY,
INDIRECTLY, ALONE,
OR WITH ANOTHER PARTY, (I)
COPY, DISASSEMBLE, REVERSE
ENGINEER, OR DECOMPILE THE
SOFTWARE OR ANY SUBPART
THEREOF; (II) MODIFY, CREATE
Packet Pg 93
6
DERIVATIVE WORKS BASED UPON,
OR TRANSLATE THE SOFTWARE OR
SOURCE CODE; (III) TRANSFER OR
OTHERWISE GRANT ANY RIGHTS IN
THE SOFTWARE OR SOURCE CODE
IN ANY FORM TO ANY OTHER
PARTY; (IV) ATTEMPT TO DO ANY
OF THE FOREGOING OR CAUSE OR
PERMIT ANY THIRD PARTY TO DO
OR ATTEMPT TO DO ANY OF THE
FOREGOING, EXCEPT AS
EXPRESSLY PERMITTED
HEREUNDER.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
PROVIDER WILL FIELD ALL SUPPORT
CALLS AND EMAILS FROM END-USERS.
PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE SECOND TIER
TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO END USERS WHERE
PROVIDER’S SUPPORT REPRESENTATIVE IS
UNABLE TO PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY
RESOLUTION TO AN END-USER SUPPORT
INQUIRY AND REQUIRES ESCALATED
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FROM PASSPORT. IN THIS
CAPACITY AS PROVIDER’S ESCALATED
TECHNICAL SUPPORT RESOURCE, P ASSPORT
WILL PROVIDE LIVE TELEPHONE SUPPORT
MONDAY-FRIDAY FROM 6AM -4PM PST.
PASSPORT WILL ALSO PROVIDE EMAIL
SUPPORT. ALL EMAIL SUPPORT INQUIRIES WILL
BE ANSWERED WITHIN TWO (2) HOURS DURING
BUSINESS HOURS AND TWENTY-FOUR (24)
HOURS DURING NON-BUSINESS HOURS. THESE
HOURS APPLY ON ALL PASSPORT HOLIDAYS.
CUSTOM DESIGN REVISION FEES
FOR ANY CUSTOM DESIGN OR CONTENT
ALTERATION SERVICES REQUESTED BY
PROVIDER, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
CUSTOMIZED SIGNAGE, CUSTOMIZED DECALS,
CUSTOMIZED LOGOS, CUSTOMIZED WEBSITE
CONTENT, CUSTOMIZED NOTIFICATION LETTER
LANGUAGE, CUSTOMIZED PARKING CITATION
LANGUAGE, OR ANY CUSTOM DESIGN WITHIN
THE SOFTWARE PLATFORM, PASSPORT WILL
PROVIDE A PROOF OF CONCEPT DESIGN. FOR NO
ADDITIONAL FEE, PASSPORT WILL ALSO
PROVIDE ONE REVISED VERSION OF THAT
INITIAL PROOF OF CONCEPT BASED ON
PROVIDER’S INPUT. PROVIDER WILL PAY A ONE
THOUSAND DOLLAR ($1,000.00) FEE PER PROOF
OF CONCEPT REVISION FOR EACH REQUESTED
REVISION THEREAFTER. AFTER PROVIDER’S
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROOF OF CONCEPT,
PASSPORT WILL CREATE A FINAL DESIGN
DRAFT. FOR NO ADDITIONAL FEE, PASSPORT
WILL ALSO PROVIDE ONE REVISED VERSION OF
THAT FINAL DESIGN DRAFT BASED ON
PROVIDER’S INPUT. PROVIDER WILL PAY A ONE
THOUSAND DOLLAR ($1,000.00) FEE PER FINAL
DESIGN REVISION THEREAFTER. THE FEES IN
THIS SECTION WILL NOT NEGATE THE
APPLICABILITY OF ANY OTHER FEE PAYABLE
FOR CUSTOM DESIGN SERVICES, INCLUDING
ANY PRIVATE LABEL FEES, CUSTOM
DEVELOPMENT FEES, OR CUSTOM SIGNAGE
FEES.
TRANSLATION SERVICES
IF PROVIDER REQUESTS THAT
PASSPORT PROVIDE A VERSION OF ANY
MOBILE APPLICATION OR MOBILE WEB
APPLICATION INCLUDED IN THE SOFTWARE IN
ANY LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH,
PROVIDER WILL PAY A ONE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLAR FEE ($1,500.00) FOR
PASSPORT TO PERFORM OR SUBCONTRACT THE
NECESSARY TRANSLATION SERVICES.
PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE AN INITIAL VERSION
OF ALL TRANSLATED TEXT. FOR NO
ADDITIONAL FEE, PASSPORT WILL ALSO
PROVIDE ONE REVISED VERSION OF SUCH
TRANSLATION BASED ON PROVIDER’S INPUT.
PROVIDER WILL PAY A ONE THOUSAND
DOLLAR ($1,000.00) FEE PER REVISION FOR
EACH REQUESTED REVISION THEREAFTER.
WALLET SERVICES
PROVIDER MAY ELECT TO PROVIDE
PARKING CUSTOMERS WITH A VIRTUAL
WALLET (A “WALLET PROGRAM”). WITH A
WALLET PROGRAM, PARKING CUSTOMERS
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PREPAY FUNDS INTO
A WALLET ACCOUNT FOR THE PAYMENT OF
FUTURE PARKING FEES AND/OR TRANSIT
TICKET FARES.
MARKETING SERVICES
THE MARKETING AND PUBLIC
RELATIONS SERVICES AND MATERIALS, IF ANY,
PROVIDED BY PASSPORT AND ANY OPTIONAL
MARKETING SERVICES, INCLUDING
ASSOCIATED FEES, CAN BE FOUND IN EXHIBIT
C OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE MARKETING
SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY PROVIDER AT
PROVIDER’S SOLE COST, IF ANY, CAN BE FOUND
IN EXHIBIT D.
PUBLIC RELATIONS COOPERATION
THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE THAT
EACH PARTY WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DISCUSS AND DISPLAY QUALITATIVE
INFORMATION REGARDING THE PARTIES’
RELATIONSHIP. THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE
THAT PRIOR TO ANY DISCLOSURE OF ANY
QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION REGARDING
THE PARTIES’ RELATIONSHIP, THE
UTILIZATION OF THE SOFTWARE, OR ANY
Packet Pg 94
6
OTHER ELEMENT OF THE PARTIES’
RELATIONSHIP, THE DISCLOSING PARTY MUST
OBTAIN THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE
NON-DISCLOSING PARTY, EXCEPT WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INFORMATION THAT MUST BE
DISCLOSED BY LAW, INCLUDING ANY OPEN
RECORDS LAW, OPEN MEETINGS LAW, OR ANY
OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE LAW
APPLICABLE TO PROVIDER, IN WHICH CASE
PROVIDER NEED NOT OBTAIN THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF PASSPORT AS TO THE
DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION ONLY.
PAYMENT GATEWAY
PROVIDER MUST SUPPLY A PAYMENT
GATEWAY FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL FEES BY
END USERS, AND PROVIDER WILL BEAR ALL
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING SUCH
PAYMENT GATEWAY, INCLUDING ALL PER
TRANSACTION COSTS. PASSPORT CAN PROVIDE
SUCH GATEWAY SERVICES TO PROVIDER.
EXHIBIT B CONTAINS A LIST OF PAYMENT
GATEWAYS SUPPORTED BY PASSPORT. FOR
ALL OTHER PAYMENT GATEWAYS, PASSPORT
WILL CHARGE A TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY
DOLLAR ($250.00) PER DEVELOPMENT HOUR
NECESSARY TO PERFORM NECESSARY
INTEGRATIONS.
REFUNDS AND DISCOUNTS
PASSPORT AGREES TO FOREGO OR
RETURN, AS APPLICABLE, ITS PER
TRANSACTION FEES FOR ANY REFUND
GRANTED BY PROVIDER. PROVIDER WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR REIMBURSING PASSPORT
FOR ALL MERCHANT PROCESSING FEES,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION PAYMENT
GATEWAY FEES, SETTLEMENT FEES, AND
INTERCHANGE REIMBURSEMENT FEES, IF ANY,
INCURRED BY PASSPORT FOR ALL
TRANSACTIONS, INCLUDING REFUNDED
TRANSACTIONS.
INVOICING
PASSPORT WILL SEND MONTHLY
INVOICES TO PROVIDER BY THE TENTH DAY OF
EACH MONTH FOR ALL FEES PAYABLE TO
PASSPORT THAT ACCRUED DURING THE
PRECEDING MONTH. IF PROVIDER FAILS TO
REMIT PAYMENT ACCORDING TO SUCH
INVOICES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER
PROVIDER RECEIVES THE INVOICE, PASSPORT
WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND
PROVIDER’S ACCESS TO THE SOFTWARE.
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
IF PASSPORT PLANS TO PERFORM ANY
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE DURING BUSINESS
HOURS, PASSPORT WILL PROVIDE NOTICE TO
PROVIDER AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS
IN ADVANCE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF
SUCH SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE. FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, “BUSINESS HOURS”
MEANS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN
9 AM EASTERN TIME AND 5 PM EASTERN TIME.
PRODUCT UPDATES
ANY SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS OR
MODIFICATIONS MADE BY PASSPORT TO THE
SOFTWARE PLATFORM WILL BE PROMPTLY
PROVIDED TO PROVIDER AT NO ADDITIONAL
CHARGE AND WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE
SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
THE PROVIDER MAY REQUEST NEW FEATURES
OR FUNCTIONALITY TO BE BUILT INTO THE
SYSTEM, AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT PASSPORT
PLANS TO INCORPORATE SUCH REQUESTED
NEW FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY INTO THE
SOFTWARE, PASSPORT WILL DEVELOP SUCH
FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY AT NO COST
TO THE PROVIDER. IF THE PROVIDER DESIRES
TO EXPEDITE SUCH DEVELOPMENT, PASSPORT
MAY, AT ITS SOLE DISCRETION, CHARGE
PROVIDER AN EXPEDITE FEE OF TWO HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($200.00) PER DEVELOPMENT HOUR
NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE REQUESTED
FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY. IF THE
PROVIDER’S REQUESTED FEATURES OR
FUNCTIONALITY ARE CREATED FOR THE
PROVIDER’S USE AND PASSPORT DOES NOT
PLAN TO INCORPORATE SUCH REQUESTED
FEATURES INTO THE SOFTWARE, PASSPORT
MAY, AT ITS SOLE DISCRETION, CHARGE
PROVIDER CUSTOM DEVELOPMENT FEE OF
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($250.00)
PER HOUR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH
FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY. IN ADDITION
OR IN LIEU OF THE FEES SET FORTH IN THIS
SECTION, PASSPORT MAY ESTABLISH A
MONTHLY SOFTWARE LICENSE OR
MAINTENANCE FEE TO BE MUTUALLY AGREED
BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE ADDITION OF ANY
FEES, INCLUDING EXPEDITE FEES, SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT FEES, SOFTWARE
MAINTENANCE FEES, OR SOFTWARE LICENSE
FEES WILL BE SET FORTH IN A WRITTEN
ADDENDUM TO THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE
PARTIES MUST EXECUTE AND MUST CONTAIN
AT LEAST THE SCOPE OF THE WORK TO BE
PERFORMED BY PASSPORT AND THE FEES
ASSOCIATED THEREWITH. ANY ONE-TIME FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH ANY REQUESTED WORK
MUST BE PAID IN ADVANCE OF PASSPORT
BEGINNING SUCH WORK.
THE PARTIES AGREE THAT PROVIDER
MAY REQUEST A CHANGE TO THE SOFTWARE
THAT INVOLVES THE ADDITION OF
Packet Pg 95
6
FUNCTIONALITY ALREADY AVAILABLE AS A
COMPONENT OF ANOTHER PRODUCT WITHIN
PASSPORT’S GENERAL TECHNOLOGY
PLATFORM, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION
CITATION MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, AND
IN THE EVENT THAT PASSPORT RECEIVES SUCH
A REQUEST FROM PROVIDER, PASSPORT WILL
PROVIDE AN ADDENDUM HERETO INCLUDING
THE INCREASE IN FEES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
ADDITION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL
FUNCTIONALITY AND ANY APPLICABLE
SERVICE OR LEGAL TERMS. PROVIDER AGREES
THAT IT HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH A
REQUEST AND EXECUTE SUCH ADDENDUM
WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FURTHER
COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
PIGGYBACK PROCUREMENTS
PROVIDER WILL ALLOW ANY PUBLIC
AGENCY LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES TO
PURCHASE, AND PASSPORT TO OFFER TO THOSE
PUBLIC AGENCIES, A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
MOBILE PAY PROGRAM AT THE SAME PRICE
AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AGREED
UPON IN THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER
COMPETITIVE BIDDING, TO THE EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW. EACH PUBLIC AGENCY
WILL EXECUTE ITS OWN CONTRACT WITH
PASSPORT FOR ITS REQUIREMENTS, FUNDING
SUCH SERVICE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDING
SOURCES. PROVIDER SHALL NOT INCUR ANY
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CONNECTION
WITH PASSPORT’S CONTRACTING WITH SUCH
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR SUCH SERVICES.
CAPACITY
PROVIDER REPRESENTS AND
WARRANTS THAT IT HAS OBTAINED OR WILL
OBTAIN ALL LICENSES AND AUTHORIZATIONS
NECESSARY TO LICENSE THE SOFTWARE.
PROVIDER FURTHER REPRESENTS AND
WARRANTS THAT THE SIGNER OF THIS
DOCUMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO BIND
PROVIDER TO THE TERMS HEREIN.
CONFIDENTIALITY.
PROVIDER AND PASSPORT AGREE TO
TREAT ALL INFORMATION FURNISHED, OR TO
BE FURNISHED, BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
OTHER PARTY AND INFORMATION ANALYSES,
SUMMARIES AND OTHER WORK PRODUCT
DERIVED FROM SUCH INFORMATION
(COLLECTIVELY, THE “INFORMATION”) IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
SECTION AND TO TAKE, OR ABSTAIN FROM
TAKING, ALL ACTIONS SET FORTH HEREIN. THE
INFORMATION WILL BE USED SOLELY IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CONSUMMATION OF
THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN PASSPORT AND
PROVIDER AND PROVIDER’S USE AND
OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE, AND WILL BE
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL BY THE PROVIDER AND
PASSPORT AND EACH PARTY’S OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES,
AGENTS AND ADVISORS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT
(a) ANY OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY
BE DISCLOSED TO OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES,
REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND
ADVISORS WHO NEED TO KNOW
SUCH INFORMATION TO EXECUTE
THIS AGREEMENT AND/OR
EFFECTIVELY USE THE SOFTWARE
(SO LONG AS SUCH PERSONS ONLY
USE OR DISCLOSE SUCH
INFORMATION IN THE MANNER
PERMITTED IN THIS SECTION), AND
(b) SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE
DISCLOSED TO THE EXTENT
REQUIRED BY LAW, INCLUDING
ANY OPEN RECORDS LAW, OPEN
MEETINGS LAW, OR ANY OTHER
LOCAL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE LAW
APPLICABLE TO PROVIDER, AND
(c) UPON THE REQUEST OF PROVIDER
OR PASSPORT, THE OTHER PARTY
WILL DESTROY OR RETURN TO
PASSPORT ALL MATERIAL
CONTAINING OR REFLECTING THE
INFORMATION, TO THE EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW.
FORCE MAJEURE
NEITHER PASSPORT NOR PROVIDER
WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DELAY OR
OMISSION IN PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES
UNDER THIS AGREEMENT CAUSED BY CAUSES
BEYOND THEIR REASONABLE CONTROL,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ACTS OF
GOD, ACTS OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY, FIRES,
NATURAL DISASTERS, WARS, OR RIOTS (EACH A
“FORCE MAJEURE EVENT”).
EFFECT OF TERMINATION
IN THE EVENT THAT THIS AGREEMENT
IS TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY AS SET
FORTH ABOVE, PROVIDER WILL PAY ALL FEES
ESTABLISHED ABOVE FOR SERVICES
RENDERED BY PASSPORT PRIOR TO
TERMINATION.
DISCLAIMER
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO
PROVIDER BY PASSPORT “AS IS” AND WITH
Packet Pg 96
6
ALL FAULTS. PROVIDER ACKNOWLEDGES
AND AGREES THAT PASSPORT BEARS NO
LIABILITY FOR ANY ERROR, OMISSION,
DEFECT, DEFICIENCY, OR NONCONFORMITY
WITHIN THE SOFTWARE EXCEPT AS
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
OTHER THAN AS SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH
HEREIN, NEITHER OF THE PARTIES MAKES
ANY REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, OR
GUARANTEES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF
CONDITION, MERCHANTABILITY, OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR
USE, WITH RESPECT TO, ARISING OUT OF, OR
IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE AND
RELATED SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
SEVERABILITY.
WHENEVER POSSIBLE, EACH
PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE
INTERPRETED AND CONSTRUED TO BE VALID
UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, BUT IF ANY
PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT IS FOUND TO
VIOLATE APPLICABLE LAW, THE VIOLATING
PROVISION WILL BE INEFFECTIVE ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT VIOLATES THE LAW, WITHOUT
INVALIDATING THE REMAINDER OF THE
SECTION CONTAINING THE VIOLATING
PROVISION OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OR
SECTIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
ASSIGNMENT
THIS AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS
PROVISIONS WILL BE BINDING UPON AND
INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNEES. NEITHER PASSPORT NOR PROVIDER
MAY ASSIGN ANY RIGHTS, INTERESTS, OR
OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER WITHOUT PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OTHER PARTY,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PASSPORT MAY,
WITHOUT SUCH WRITTEN CONSENT, ASSIGN
THIS AGREEMENT AND ITS RIGHTS AND
DELEGATE ITS OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OR SALE OF
ALL OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF ITS ASSETS OR
BUSINESS RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT, OR
IN THE EVENT OF ITS MERGER,
CONSOLIDATION, CHANGE IN CONTROL OR
SIMILAR TRANSACTION. ANY PERMITTED
ASSIGNEE SHALL ASSUME ALL ASSIGNED
OBLIGATIONS OF ITS ASSIGNOR UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT. ANY PURPORTED ASSIGNMENT IN
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE VOID
AND OF NO EFFECT.
CONTRACTUAL SILENCE
IF THE AGREEMENT FAILS TO ADDRESS
A CONDITION, OBLIGATION, BENEFIT, OR
OTHER TERM NECESSARY TO SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PARTIES OR RESOLVE A DISAGREEMENT OR
CONFLICT REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION
OR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE
PARTIES AGREE TO REASONABLY COOPERATE
TO DRAFT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE
AMENDMENT THAT CLARIFIES THE DUTIES,
RIGHTS, AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES
UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
AMENDMENTS
THE PARTIES MAY NOT AMEND OR
MODIFY THIS AGREEMENT EXCEPT BY A
WRITTEN INSTRUMENT EXECUTED BY THE
PARTIES (AN “AMENDMENT”).
CURRENCY
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE
AGREEMENT, ALL FEES AND OTHER
MONETARY AMOUNTS ARE IN UNITED STATES
DOLLARS.
WHERE ANY MONETARY AMOUNT IN
THE CONTRACT IS EXPLICITLY STATED IN A
CURRENCY OTHER THAN UNITED STATES
DOLLARS, THE EXCHANGE RATE WILL BE
FIXED AT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE
PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
RESERVE FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE (THE
“INITIAL EXCHANGE RATE”). IN THE EVENT
THAT THE APPLICABLE EXCHANGE RATE
PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
RESERVE FOR ANY DAY DURING THE TERM
(THE “CURRENT INTEREST RATE”) DEVIATES BY
MORE THAN TEN PERCENT (10%) FROM THE
INITIAL EXCHANGE RATE, THE PARTIES AGREE
THAT THE INITIAL RATE WILL BE ADJUSTED BY
FIVE PERCENTAGE TOWARDS THE CURRENT
INTEREST RATE. THE EXCHANGE RATE UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT AFTER SUCH ADJUSTMENT
(THE “ADJUSTED RATE”) WILL REMAIN IN
EFFECT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CURRENT
INTEREST RATE AND THE ADJUSTED INTEREST
RATE DIFFER BY MORE THAN TEN PERCENT
(10%), IN WHICH CASE THE ADJUSTED RATE
WILL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO THE
PROCESS SET FORTH ABOVE FOR ADJUSTING
THE INITIAL EXCHANGE RATE.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
PASSPORT IS AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR AND NOT AN AGENT OR
EMPLOYEE OF PROVIDER. NO AGENCY,
PARTNERSHIP, FRANCHISE, JOINT VENTURE, OR
Packet Pg 97
6
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS
BETWEEN PASSPORT AND PROVIDER.
PASSPORT’S EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS WILL
NOT BE EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS OF PROVIDER.
PASSPORT SHALL BE FULLY AND SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUPERVISION,
CONTROL, PERFORMANCE, COMPENSATION,
BENEFITS (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
ALL FORMS OF INSURANCE) WITHHOLDINGS,
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL OF ITS
EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS. PROVIDER WILL
NOT BE RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR ANY
WITHHOLDING TAXES OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO
STATE WORKER’S COMPENSATION,
UNEMPLOYMENT OR OTHER FUNDS OR
PROGRAMS.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
IN NO EVENT WILL PASSPORT OR
PROVIDER BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR
ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST SAVINGS, OR
INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF
PROVIDER USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE
PRODUCT OR THE BREACH OF THIS
AGREEMENT, EVEN IF PASSPORT HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES.
INDEMNIFICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL
LIABILITY
TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED
BY LAW, PASSPORT SHALL INDEMNIFY,
PROTECT, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS
PROVIDER 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, WHICH ARISE OUT OF THE
NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESS NESS, OR WILLFUL
MISCONDUCT OF THE PASSPORT, PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE PASSPORT’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 OR FROM
THE ESTABLISHED NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL
MISCONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY.
NOTICES
ALL NOTICES, CONSENTS, AND
COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRED HEREUNDER
SHALL BE GIVEN IN WRITING AND DELIVERED
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL OR MAIL, SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE GIVEN UPON RECEIPT THEREOF,
AND SHALL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS BELOW:
PASSPORT
1300 S. MINT STREET
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
EMAIL: JASON.IDILBI@PASSPORTINC.COM
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT REPRESENTS THE
FULL AND COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PARTIES AND SUPERSEDES ANY AND ALL
PRIOR AGREEMENTS.
Packet Pg 98
6
EXHIBIT B
SUPPORTED PAYMENT GATEWAYS
1. Authorize.net
2. Converge
• Elavon Gateway Product
3. FirstData Direct Connect
4. Internet Secure
5. Moneris
6. Point and Pay
Packet Pg 99
6
EXHIBIT C
MARKETING SERVICES PROVIDED BY PASSPORT
N/A
Packet Pg 100
6
EXHIBIT D
MARKETING SERVICES PROVIDED BY PROVIDER
N/A
Packet Pg 101
6
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 102
6
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Scott Lee, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING ACCESS AND
REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM (PARCS), SPECIFICATION NO 91545
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Parking Access and Revenue
Control System (PARCS), Specification No. 91545; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder within
authorized project budget, and
3. Authorize the City Attorney to approve modifications to the form of the contract with the
successful bidder.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this project is to replace the outdated and unsupported Parking Access and
Revenue Control System (PARCS) in the three existing parking structures. The current
equipment in the structures dates to a 1999 major upgrade project completed as part of the Y2K
concerns for digital technology. The system is now antiquated and no longer supported by the
manufacturer that has gone out of business.
Replacement of the PARCS system with new equipment will reduce the amount of time
necessary for maintenance and increase staff ability to proactively resolve issues in the parking
system. This will result in a higher level of service, better reporting of occupancy/vacancy,
telemetry with 3rd party application sources and revenue control. The three existing structures
are expected to have over one million vehicles entering and exiting each year, and must have a
reliable system to maximize customer experience and staff and system performance.
Council has previously approved an allocation of $113,000 for the parking structure equipment
upgrade. When allocated, most of the existing equipment at the 842 Palm Street parking
structure and the 871 Marsh Street parking structure was already beyond the typical 10 -year life
span for structure equipment. The plan was to purchase replacement equipment through the
manufacturer of the existing equipment - Federal APD. In 2014, the vendor shut down
production and no longer offers equipment for sale or support.
Staff has been researching different PARCS equipment, manufacturers, technology and
gathering rough estimates for new hardware and software components and systems. A full
system (hardware, software and install ation) replacement, as opposed to an upgrade, will cost
well above the previously approved $113,000. It is essential for Parking Services to upgrade
this equipment to continue to offer a high-level of customer service and state -of-the-art systems
Packet Pg 103
7
to meet the current and future demands of parking. A new PARCS system is estimated at
$763,000; an additional $650,000 beyond the existing budget. As part of the FY17 -19 Financial
Plan, staff has submitted a CIP request for the additional funds requested in this p roposal.
However, before the project can move forward a qualified vendor and PARCS system must be
determined and designs for the project completed. Thus, an RFP for these purposes is proposed.
Staff expects that the replacement of the PARCS system will b etter and fully integrate all
existing and proposed structures, provide better tracking and reporting features, and provide
more features and a higher level of customer service to all who utilize the structures for parking
within the City of SLO, and for those who operate and maintain the structures.
NEXT STEPS
Solicitation for proposals will be done by publicizing the RFP in various parking industry
periodicals and websites, in addition to local notification required by the City’s Municipal and
Public Resource Codes.
The RFP is scheduled to be released to the public upon approval by Council. After proposals are
received and accepted by the City in July 2017, a team of City staff and outside professionals
will review each proposal for conformity and “best value”. The top ranked firm(s) will be
invited to formal interviews to highlight their capabilities, provide demonstrations of their
products and services and to make recommendations to staff about the specific configuration and
equipment necessary to meet the city’s needs now and in the future. Negotiations will then begin
with the top ranked firm. The new contract will become effective and work will begin shortly
after approval and award.
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently the authorized project budget is $113,000. An additional funding for this project in the
amount of $650,000 is pending Council approval as part of the 2017-19 City Manager proposed
Financial Plan, which will be brought to Council in June, 2017. The project is proposed to be
funded by Parking Fund. The anticipated annual cost for the support and maintenance of the
new system is somewhat offset by the reduced maintenance necessary as the existing system
experiences intermittent failures.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may choose to not approve the RFP for the PARCS replacement
and instruct Staff to continue to maintain the existing equipment and seek other alternatives. The
Parking Manager and staff do not recommend this alternative as currently this option is not really
viable for the City as the existing equipment is no longer supported and should be replaced to
reduce ongoing maintenance costs and to provide state-of-the-art equipment for the customers
using the city’s parking structures.
Attachments:
a - 2017 Parking Access Revenue Control System RFP - FINAL DRAFT 04-26-2017
Packet Pg 104
7
Page 1 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
PARKING ACCESS REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM (PARCS)
Specification No. 91545
The City of San Luis Obispo is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors for a Parking Access and
Revenue Control System, pursuant to Specification No. 91545. All proposals must be received by
the Finance Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA no later than 3:30 p.m.
Pacific Daylight Time, July 20, 2017.
Proposals received after said date and time will not be considered. To guard against premature
opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Department in a sealed envelope
plainly marked with the proposer’s name, specification number, proposal title and due date of
proposal opening. Hard copied proposals shall be submitted along with the required forms
provided in the specification package and following instructions contained herein.
Proposals packages may be obtained at either:
The City’s website: www.SLOCity.org – Doing Business – Bids & Proposals Page; or a
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bids-proposals
Additional information may be obtained by contacting:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager, (805) 781-7234 or slee@slocity.org
Nicole Lawson, Supervising Administrative Assistant, (805) 781-7059 or nlawson@slocity.org
For Public Records requests see Section 1.14
Packet Pg 105
7
Page 2 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Specification No. 91545
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 5
1.1. Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions ......................................................................... 5
1.2. Contract Term and Optional Extensions .......................................................................................... 5
1.3. Important Dates ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Proposal Submittal and Format ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Labeling ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.6. Insurance Certificate ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.7. Submittal of References ................................................................................................................... 6
1.8. Statement of Contract Disqualifications .......................................................................................... 6
1.9. Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals ............................................................................................... 6
1.10. Multiple Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.11. Procuring Agency/Personnel ............................................................................................................ 6
1.12. Inquiries and Clarifications ............................................................................................................... 6
1.13. Addenda ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1.14. Public Records .................................................................................................................................. 7
2. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................... 7
2.1. Proposal Retention and Award ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer ................................................................................... 7
2.3. Form of Agreement .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Insurance .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5. Business License and Tax .................................................................................................................. 8
2.6. Failure to Accept Contract ................................................................................................................ 8
2.7. Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings ....................................................................................... 8
2.8. Proposer’s Responsibility ................................................................................................................. 8
3. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE...................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Ability to Perform ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2. Laws to be Observed ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Payment of Taxes ............................................................................................................................. 9
Packet Pg 106
7
Page 3 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
3.4. Permits and Licenses ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.5. Safety Provisions .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.6. Public and Employee Safety ............................................................................................................. 9
3.7. Preservation of City Property ........................................................................................................... 9
3.8. Immigration Act of 1986 .................................................................................................................. 9
3.9. Proposer Non-Discrimination .......................................................................................................... 9
3.10. Work Delays ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.11. Payment Terms .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.12. Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.13. Audit ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.14. Interests of Proposer ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.15. Hold Harmless and Indemnification ............................................................................................... 10
3.16. Contract Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.17. Termination .................................................................................................................................... 10
4. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................. 11
4.1. List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.2. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 12
4.3. Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................... 13
4.4. Background .................................................................................................................................... 13
4.5. Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 13
4.6. Functional and Technical Requirements ........................................................................................ 14
4.7. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.8. Selection Process ............................................................................................................................ 14
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS .............................................. 15
Chapter 1: Title Page ...................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 4: Project Manager ........................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 5: Organizational Experience ........................................................................................... 16
Chapter 6: Organizational Chart and Project Team ...................................................................... 16
Chapter 7: References ......................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 8: Customer Service and Technical Support ..................................................................... 17
Chapter 9: Sub Proposers ............................................................................................................... 17
Packet Pg 107
7
Page 4 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Chapter 10: System Specifications ................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 11: Implementation .......................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 12: Risks ............................................................................................................................ 18
Chapter 13: Disclosure of Past Contract Failures and Litigation .................................................... 18
Chapter 14: Proposer’s Financial Stability Assurance .................................................................... 18
Chapter 15: Fee Proposal ............................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 16: Additional Required Forms ......................................................................................... 20
REQUIRED FORMS ................................................................................................ 21
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT ......................................................................................................... 21
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE ............................................................................................................ 22
FORM C: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 23
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 26
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM .............................................................................. 27
FORM F: OPTIONAL COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM ............................................................. 28
FORM G: INTENT TO RESPOND ...................................................................................................... 29
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX C: PARKING STRUCTURE INFORMATION ...................................................................... 34
APPENDIX D: FUNCTIONAL AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 35
Packet Pg 108
7
Page 5 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
1 NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors for a
Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS). Vendors submitting proposals
(“Proposers”) are required to read this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) in its entirety and
follow the instructions contained herein and shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of
the RFP specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the Proposer
acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications.
1.2 Contract Term and Optional Extensions
This shall be a Contract for Purchase of Services (Appendix A) for the purchase, installation,
implementation, training, configuration, and services related to the implementation, with
an end date coinciding with completion and acceptance of the implementation services. A
separate Contract for Purchase of Services for the future maintenance and support services,
which may be annual and renewable of for a set number of years will be required.
1.3 Important Dates
Deliver proposals no later than the due date and time indicated below. The City will reject
late proposals:
Issue Date: May 19, 2017
Intent to respond Date: June 15, 2017
Due Date: July 20, 2017, 3:30PM, PDT
1.4 Proposal Submittal and Format
Each proposal must be submitted in hard copy form (i.e. printed) with a total of five (5)
copies provided in the order 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:
Finance Department
Attn: Lorraine Colleran
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
No FAX submittals will be accepted.
1.5 Labeling
All proposals must be clearly labeled:
Proposer’s Name and Address: ________________________
Specification # 91545
Title: Parking Access and Revenue Control System
DUE: July 20, 2017, 3:30pm, PDT
1.6 Insurance Certificate
Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
A. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
Packet Pg 109
7
Page 6 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
B. Scope of coverage and limits.
C. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of the submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Proposer’s
insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed below, endorsements are not
required until contract award. The insurance requirements are detailed in Section 2.4.
1.7 Submittal of References
Each proposer shall submit a minimum of three (3) references on the form provide in the
RFP package as Form C.
1.8 Statement of Contract Disqualifications
Each Proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past government disqualifications on
the form provide in the RFP package as Form D.
1.9 Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals
Proposers may, without prejudice, withdraw proposals by requesting such withdrawal prior
to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Bid
Administrator for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the
Proposer unopened. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers may
modify their proposal at any time prior to the due date and time of submission for
proposals.
1.10 Multiple Proposals
Multiple proposals from Proposers are NOT permitted.
1.11 Procuring Agency/ Personnel
The City of San Luis Obispo is the procuring agency:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7234
slee@SLOCity.org
The City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department administers the procurement function:
Lorraine Colleran (Bid Administrator)
Finance Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7435
LColleran@SLOCity.org
1.12 Inquiries and Clarifications
Proposers are to raise any questions they have about the RFP document without delay.
Direct any questions concerning due dates and/or actual submittals to the bid administrator
either by phone or in writing. Direct all technical questions, those concerning specifications
and/or scope of work, to the procuring agency, either by phone or in writing.
Packet Pg 110
7
Page 7 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Furthermore, Proposers finding any significant ambiguity, error, conflict, discrepancy,
omission, or other deficiency in this RFP document shall immediately notify the procuring
agency and request clarification.
1.13 Addenda
In the event it is necessary to provide additional clarification or revision to the RFP, the
City will post addenda to the City website and to EBIDBOARD.COM website. It is Proposer’s
sole responsibility to regularly monitor the websites for any such postings. Failure to
retrieve addenda and include their provisions may result in disqualification.
1.14 Public Records
Proposers are hereby notified that all information submitted in response to this RFP may
be made available for public inspection according to the Public Records Act of the State of
California and the California Constitution. Information qualifying as a “trade secret” –
defined in California Public Records Act of 2004 – may be held confidential. Proposers shall
seal separately and clearly identify all information they deem to be “trade secrets,” as
defined by the State of California Statutes. Do not duplicate or comingle information,
deemed confidential and sealed, elsewhere in your response.
The City cannot ensure that information will not be subject to release if a request is made
under applicable public records laws. The City cannot consider the following confidential:
a bid in its entirety, price bid information, or the entire contents of any resulting contract.
The City will not provide advanced notice to Proposers prior to release of any requested
record.
To the extent permitted by such laws, it is the intention of the City to withhold the contents
of proposals from public view – until such time as competitive or bargaining reasons no
longer require non-disclosure, in the City’s opinion. At that time, all proposal s will be
available for review in accordance with such laws.
2 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
2.1 Proposal Retention and Award
The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 180 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.
2.2 Competency and Responsibility of Proposer
The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility,
professionally and/or financial stability, of Proposer. Proposer will provide, in a timely
manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
2.3 Form of Agreement
Proposers are responsible for reviewing this Form of Agreement prior to submission of their
proposal. The Form of Agreement shall serve as the basis for the contract resulting from
this RFP. The terms of this template contract shall become contractual obligations following
award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, the contract shall become contractual
Packet Pg 111
7
Page 8 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
obligations following award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, Proposers affirm their
willingness to enter into a contract containing these terms.
2.4 Insurance
Proposers shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in
Appendix B of these specifications within ten (10) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
2.5 Business License and Tax
The Proposer 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 tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
2.6 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.
2.7 Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings
Proposers may be asked to attend meetings, make oral presentations, inspect City locations
or make their facilities, or those of existing clients with similar operations, available for site
inspection as part of the RFP process. Such presentations, meetings, or site visits will be at
the Proposer’s expense.
2.8 Proposer’s Responsibility
Proposers shall examine this RFP and shall exercise their judgment as to the nature and
scope of the work required. No plea of ignorance concerning conditions or difficulties that
exist or may hereafter arise in the execution of the work under the r esulting contract, as a
consequence of failure to make necessary examinations and investigations, shall be
accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Proposers to fulfill the
requirements of the resulting contract.
3 CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
3.1 Ability to Perform
The Proposer 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 federal, state, county, city, and special
district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
3.2 Laws to be Observed
The Proposer shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all
applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Lu is Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
Packet Pg 112
7
Page 9 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
3.3 Payment of Taxes
The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Proposer is required
to pay.
3.4 Permits and Licenses
The Proposer shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices necessary.
3.5 Safety Provisions
The Proposer shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by
OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
3.6 Public and Employee Safety
Whenever the Proposer'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.
3.7 Preservation of City Property
The Proposer 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 Proposer's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Proposer's expense. The
facilities shall be replaced or restored to a conditio n as good as when the Proposer began
work.
3.8 Immigration Act of 1986
The Proposer warrants on behalf of itself and all sub Proposers 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.
3.9 Proposer Non-Discrimination
In the performance of this work, the Proposer agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit
such sub Proposers as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons
because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion
of such persons.
3.10 Work Delays
Should the Proposer 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 Proposer. 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.
Packet Pg 113
7
Page 10 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
3.11 Payment Terms
Payments will be made consistent with the Agreement. The City's standard 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 Proposer (Net 30).
3.12 Inspection
The Proposer shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that
the services of the Proposer 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 Proposer
of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
3.13 Audit
The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Proposer in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Proposer.
3.14 Interests of Proposer
The Proposer 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 Proposer further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub Proposer or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Proposer 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 Proposer shall at all times be deemed
an independent Proposer and not an agent or employee of the City.
3.15 Hold Harmless and Indemnification
The Proposer 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, including injury to the Proposer'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 Proposer, 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 Proposer'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.
3.16 Contract Assignment
The Proposer 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 i ndividual or business
entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
3.17 Termination
If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Proposer is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Proposer in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Proposer a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
Packet Pg 114
7
Page 11 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
If the Proposer 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 Proposer 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 Proposer'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 Proposer 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
Proposer as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any
other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Proposer shall be based solely
on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall work
scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to
permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Proposer
be entitled to receive any amount in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
4.1 List of abbreviations
1. ACS Access Control System
2. APM Automated Payment Machine
3. CMS Central Management System
4. EMV Europay, MasterCard and Visa (including "chip cards")
5. ENS Entrance Station
6. EXS Exit Station
7. GUI Graphical User Interface
8. NEMA National Electrical Manufacturing Association
9. PAE Pay-At-Exit
10. PARCS Parking Access and Revenue Control System
11. PCI Payment Card Industry (Data Security Methodology)
12. POF Pay-On-Foot
13. POS Point-of-Sale Terminal
14. RCS Revenue Control System
15. RFID Radio‐frequency identification (RFID)
16. TD Ticket Dispenser/Entry Terminal
17. UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
Packet Pg 115
7
Page 12 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
4.2 Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors
(“Proposers”) for a Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS). The Proposer
must perform an analysis of the existing Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS) at
each of the City’s three public parking structures. These three structures provide a total of 1,177
stalls with a planned fourth facility estimated to add an additional 400 stalls to the inventory. The
Proposer shall consider all the information contained in this RFP and propose a full replacement
PARCS system for each of the structures but centrally managed and controlled. This proposal shall
include the design, fabrication, delivery and installation as well as provision of material, labor,
equipment, services and training necessary to furnish and install a fully integrated on-line, real-time,
Parking Access and Revenue Control System that shall function in the manner described herein.
Figure 4.1 Parking Structure Locations
The City requires well-managed and financially sound Proposers with demonstrated skills,
technical ability, and high levels of customer service and satisfaction, to fulfill the
requirements outlined in this RFP. Proposers must have at least five years of experience
with municipalities and/or college institutions, and provide references demonstrating
relevant services were provided. Only those firms with verifiable experience in PARCS will
be considered during this proposal process.
Packet Pg 116
7
Page 13 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
4.3 Calendar of Events
Listed below are specific and estimated dates and times of RFP events, all of which are
subject to change. Proposers must complete events by specific dates as indicated unless
revised by the City. The City may or may not issue a formal notification for changes in
estimated dates and times.
Figure 4-2: Calendar of Events
Date Event
Friday, May 19, 2017 Issue date of RFP
Thursday June 15, 2017 Intent to respond due (form G)
Thursday July 20, 2017 3:30pm PST Proposals due
July –September 2017 Evaluation of proposals
September – November 2017 Interviews and Recommendations
November-December 2017 Negotiation and award contract
December 2017 Contract Routing to City Council
December 2017 Contract Award
January 2018
Contract begins
4.4 Background
The City of San Luis Parking Services Division operates three parking structures, which
comprise approximately forty percent (40%) of all the public parking spaces in the
downtown area. This division also is responsible for the oversight and management of all
public parking lots and on-street metered spaces. The Parking Access Revenue Control
System will maintain all information related to the Parking Structures including tracking
vehicle counts and occupancy levels.
The City’s three existing Parking Structures have approximately one-million vehicles
entering and exiting each year. Payments for parking patrons are accepted in person or via
monthly prox card or use of validation coupon or token.
4.5 Objectives
The objective of this RFP is to contract with a qualified proposer to review and analyze the
current structure parking system design and operational needs of each location, then to
design an integrated, efficient, functional and reliable “state of the art” PARCS system that
will centrally manage the entire operation and allow for the addition of any future structures.
The Proposer will be responsible
1. the removal and disposal of the existing PARCS at each location
Packet Pg 117
7
Page 14 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
2. Installation and testing of new PARCS equipment at each existing parking structure
3. Provide onsite training to Parking Services staff on the system as well as provide on -
going support.
The new PARCS system should meet the existing and future parking needs of multiple
customer groups including but not limited to:
1. Transient (hourly) parkers
2. Monthly parkers
3. Event attendees; and
4. Overnight parkers.
The PARCS system should allow for changes in rates, hours when rates apply, and for multiple
methods of payment.
4.6 Functional and Technical Requirements
The requested Functional and Technical Requirements are further described in Appendix
D: Functional and Technical Requirements.
Appendix D includes a list of the features the City is interested in obtaining in the PARCS
System. This list is not intended to be a complete or prioritized list, and may be amended
by the City without notice.
4.7 Scope of Work
The successful Proposer shall develop and maintain a detailed project plan that includes the
specific tasks listed below, maintain task completion status, and monitor actual against
projections. The project plan should address the following implementation and support
functions and include other tasks, as deemed necessary to ensure successful Payment
Access Revenue Control System solution:
o Project Management
o Business Process Review and Gap Analysis
o Infrastructure/Hardware/Environment Installation & Configuration
o System Configuration
o Data Conversion
o Interface/Customization Development
o Acceptance Testing
o Final System Acceptance
o Training and Documentation
o Operations and Security
o System Software Warranty, Support and Maintenance
o Equipment Warranty, Support and Maintenance
Proposer shall meet all requirements of the specifications contained herein, as well as all
legislated mandates by the State of California, California Vehicle Code, San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, and the City of San Luis Obispo. For any portion of this proposal that is
performed by Sub-Proposers, see Section 5, Chapter 9 (Required Submittals - Sub
Proposers) of this proposal.
4.8 Selection Process
The City may shortlist up to four (4) Proposers based on the submitted proposals
and invite them to an interview process. In addition, the City may request that
Packet Pg 118
7
Page 15 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Proposers demonstrate their product either as part of the interview process or
separately from it. The City, at its discretion, may make site visits to locations where
the Proposers systems are in use. The Proposers shall be evaluated on the following:
o Understanding of the work required by the City;
o Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal;
o Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work required by the City;
o Recent experience in successfully performing similar services;
o Proposed approach in completing the work;
o References;
o Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
project; and
o Presentation Interviews.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination
of the factors determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the
proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected
Proposers, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or
method and amount of compensation. Once prospective Proposers have been evaluated
by the evaluation panel, negotiations shall begin. If negotiations are unsuccessful, talks
with that Proposer will be abandoned and negotiations will then commence with the next
qualified Proposer, and so on, until a final agreement has been reached and a contract
prepared. Staff will present their findings to the City Council, which, at its discretion, will
award a contact.
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS
Proposing companies desiring to respond to this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall submit their
proposal in sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation and comparative analysis. The
City shall use the responses as the basis of its evaluation. The proposals should be as brief and
concise as possible without sacrificing clarity. Proposals containing irrelevant material or an
abundance of excessively vague language may be penalized in the screening process.
Arrange proposals to match the following outline. Respond to each and every question and/or
statement. In the context of this section “you” and “your” is the same as “Proposer” and
“Proposer’s”, respectively.
Chapter 1: Title Page
The title page shall contain at a minimum the name of the Proposer, RFP Title, and Due Date.
Chapter 2: Table of Contents
The Table of Contents outlines in sequential order the chapters of your proposal.
Chapter 3: Executive Summary – Description of Organization
Provide an executive summary introducing your firm. Limit your response to thre e pages. At a
minimum, include the following information:
Packet Pg 119
7
Page 16 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
o Briefly describe your firm’s organization and size (e.g. local, regional, national and
international) in relation to providing Parking Access Revenue Control Systems (PARCS)
similar to the services described in this RFP.
o Your experience including the number of years in business, and in the provision of Parking
Access Revenue Control Systems.
o The location of the office from which this engagement will be serviced and the range of
activities performed at that office.
o Include a brief summary of the factual, core aspects of your proposed services.
o Reaffirm required experience in providing systems and performing services similar to those
outlined in this RFP.
o Provide a positive commitment to provide systems and perform services in conformity with
the specifications listed in this solicitation.
Chapter 4: Project Manager
Identify the Project Manager you propose to assign to the engagement. Provide an in-depth
background on the experience of the Project Manager, including projects lead (cross reference
to Chapter 5: Organizational Experience and Chapter: 7 References). At least two of the projects
you reference in Chapters 5 and 7 should have been led by the project manager you are proposing
for the City. Limit your response to three pages plus resume. The City expects that the Project
Manager shall be available by telephone on all occasions for discussion with City staff, and shall
be locally available for meetings in person on short notice (one day).
Chapter 5: Organizational Experience
Provide a description of relevant organizational experience, especially in engagements of
similar size and scope that are currently being serviced or took place within the last five years,
from the same office that will serve the City. Describe briefly the nature of services provided
to each organization listed. Include a clear statement of your firm’s specific role in the
engagement. Limit your response to five pages.
Identify specific projects, dates and results. Include the following information:
o The client name, type of organization (i.e. private enterprise, municipality; state, county,
city, town, etc.), address, telephone number, email and a contact person.
o A brief description of the system provided and services performed.
o The contract period and duration. If the engagement is on-going include the start date of
service, percent of contract completed-to-date and estimated completion date.
o The name of your Project Manager overseeing the project.
o Describe any extra services added after contract execution.
The City may utilize additional sources of information about your qualifications.
Chapter 6: Organizational Chart and Project Team
Submit an organizational chart showing the name of the Project Manager, other key personnel,
and all supporting staff to be assigned to the project. The team should demonstrate capabilities,
experience, and qualifications sufficient to successfully perform the scope of work included in this
RFP. The City reserves the right to approve the final staffing plan.
Identify the key project team staff. Include the members’ qualifications, experience and training
that will benefit the project. Additionally, describe examples of past projects where the team
has successfully provided services similar to those requested in this RFP. Include applicable
Packet Pg 120
7
Page 17 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
projects in Chapter 5: Organizational Experience and Chapter 7: References. Limit your response
to three pages plus resumes.
Chapter 7: References
Provide three references from similar projects and clients. Limit your response to five pages. All
of your references shall be listed as engagements in Chapter 5: Organizational Experience. At
least two of the three references shall be municipalities and/or universities. For each reference,
provide a description of the software provided and services performed. Elaborate on the
information provided in Chapter 5: Organizational Experience, if necessary.
Chapter 8: Customer Service and Technical Support
Provide a description of the customer service features and technical support abilities of the
Proposer. Include any training and staff development that would benefit the City or its
customers. Any additional features that would be relevant can also be included here. (i.e. IVR
systems, websites, etc.)
Chapter 9: Sub Proposers (if any)
Identify any sub-Proposers that would be used. Give a detailed description of their involvement,
scope of work, background, and responsibilities. The price proposed shall include any and all work
to be done by sub-Proposers, and the City will only process claims and payments to the Proposer.
A list of sub-Proposers to be hired shall be submitted as a part of the proposal. Also disclose
whether or not the sub Proposer is a subsidiary or is financially tied to the Proposer in any other
manner. Use of sub-Proposer does not relieve the Proposer of overall responsibility. City reserves
the right to approve all proposed sub-Proposers.
Chapter 10: System Specifications
Submit a detailed description of your Parking Enforcement and Management System. Limit your
response to ten pages. At a minimum include:
o A narrative overview of your system and its functionality.
o A listing and brief description of all software included and hardware required.
o The benefits of your system and how it will meet and/or exceed the scope of services.
o Detail the new processes and workflows the City will need to adopt to use your
system.
o Describe any integration you have with other related products as well as the
customization possibilities with your system.
o Features exclusive to your system.
Chapter 11: Implementation
Submit an overview of your approach to implementation. Limit your response to ten
pages. At a minimum, include:
o A project schedule including phases, activities, tasks, training, milestones, decision points,
deliverables, etc.
o A description of how your project management will keep the implementation on schedule
and ensure the end result is a satisfactorily functioning system.
o Expected use of City resources including City hardware and assistance from City Staff.
o Information or data to be used or obtained from the City.
Packet Pg 121
7
Page 18 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Chapter 12: Risks
Identify in detail any anticipated or potential concerns or risks in implementing your system; your
approach to resolving these concerns; and any special assistance required from the City. Limit
your response to two pages.
Chapter 13: Disclosure of Contract Failures and Litigation
Disclose any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, contract breaches, any civil or
criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves your firm or in which your firm has
been judged guilty or liable, or which may affect the performance of the services to be rendered
herein, in which your firm, any of its employees, sub-Proposers, or sub consultants is or has been
involved in within the last three (3) years.
Chapter 14: Proposer’s Financial Stability Assurance
o Provide a statement stating to the City that you are financially stable and have sufficient
financial resources to complete a project of this scope.
o Provide evidence of your financial stability and sufficient financial resources to complete a
project of this scope.
o Identify any anticipated changes of ownership or control of your company.
Chapter 15: Fee Proposal
Include detailed pricing information for Parking Access Revenue Control System as described in
this RFP.
Quote fees as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees for each relevant aspect of the Parking
Access Revenue Control System. The fee could be a one-time fee, fee per use, fee per year, fee
per contract period, fee per citation issued, percentage of revenue generated via citations, etc.
Clearly explain your pricing model. The City will consider alternative pricing models. Also,
identify all other costs beyond the usage cost such as a fee for training, system maintenance, etc.
As noted above, prepare the fee proposal as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees:
o All Inclusive – Covers all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the Proposer including but
not limited to; travel, telephone, copying and other out-of-pocket expenses.
o Not-To-Exceed – The actual fees shall not exceed the amount specified in fee proposal.
o Fixed Fee – All prices, rates, fees and conditions outlined in the proposal shall remain
fixed and valid for the entire length of the contract and any/all renewals.
Provide exact fees - not a range. Take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and receive
answers to gain clarification. Furthermore, document any significant assumptions for arriving at
fee estimates. You are responsible for verifying the correctness of calculations in your fee
proposal.
Each of the following is a component of the fee proposal. Proposers shall provide a numerical fee
and narrative explanation for each component. Provide as much detail as possible in your
narrative responses.
o Software/Product Licenses – List separately the software/product or similar licenses
required and associated fees, whether ongoing or onetime. Describe your pricing scheme
for licenses (e.g. per user? Per machine? Etc.).
Packet Pg 122
7
Page 19 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
o Project Management – List the fees for time and resources used organizing, overseeing
and communicating about the project.
o Travel – List the fees for visits to the City for onsite training, planning, go-live, etc. List travel
fees as a not-to-exceed travel allowance.
o Design/Planning – List the fees for time spent working with the City in determining
workflows, analyzing processes, planning, envisioning how the system will work and
documenting the system. Also include the fees for determining the appropriate technical
architecture and infrastructure for the City.
o Equipment Fees – List the fees for hardware the City will need to purchase in order to
implement and maintain your solution.
o Customizations –These fees are for modifications and customizations, beyond basic
configuration, that Proposer can make to their system in order to fulfill City requirements.
o Interface Development – List the fee for interfacing to existing or outside systems identified
by the City.
o Data Conversion – The fee to move and convert historical data from the exis ting system
into your solution.
o Training – Provide the total fees for training and detail the number of hours and rate for
standard and additional training. List differences, if any, in the hours or rates for training
different types of end-users (i.e. those that may only use one module of the system versus
those “power-users” that would learn each and every part of the system).
o Deployment (Installation) – Detail the fees of deploying the system including the testing
and user acceptance processes.
o Support and Maintenance – Present the fees of ongoing support and maintenance for your
system. If you offer different levels of support, price the level of support that you
recommend the City purchase. Furthermore, provide detailed fees for all levels of support
and maintenance you offer. Support and maintenance fees should start in Year 1, which is
the first 365 days after the system is live and accepted by the City.
If you propose support and maintenance fees during the implementation phase explain why
support and maintenance is necessary on a system that is not yet operating. The City will
only pay support and maintenance on the portions of the system that are satisfactorily
functioning, accepted and put into use by the City. Proposer shall continue to support a ll
the software and licenses they are proposing. The City requires Proposer to quote Support
and Maintenance for a minimum of five (5) years. Proposer is encouraged to quote Support
and Maintenance fees beyond year five, for as many years as they are willing to include in
the contract.
o Upgrade Fees – If not included in Support and Maintenance provide the fees for future
upgrades. If upgrades of your software are bundled with the support and maintenance ,
indicate so in the Support and Maintenance section. The term “upgrade” is used generically
here for any future improvement made to the system, major or minor. In your response be
sure to define, in detail, your usage of the terms; upgrade, update, version, enhancement,
patch, fix, etc., when describing fees and offerings. If you have different levels of support
and maintenance – some that do not include upgrades and others that do, provide the fees
for what you recommend the City purchase, but provide details for all options as an
additional narrative.
Packet Pg 123
7
Page 20 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
o Other Fees – Detail any and all other fees associated with your system. You must provide
line-item detail and descriptions. Be specific in matching fees with specific activity. If you
are proposing an alternate price model describe it in detail here.
o City Support – Provide the number of City staff and hours needed to support your
implementation. Detail the tasks they will be expected to perform.
o Ongoing Professional Services & Support – Please include the discounted hourly rate
for professional services and support. Include the different rate classes or titles as
appropriate.
The City reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the fee proposal
submitted. Therefore, the Proposer should submit the fee proposal on the most favorable terms
they can offer. However, this does not limit the City from negotiating with the selected Proposer.
Fees will be evaluated on both initial and ongoing fees. The financial evaluation will be based on
the total (life cycle) fee of ownership for the system over a period of up to ten (10) years, or
longer if determinable. The fees used will be those provided by Proposer and as established by
the City for hardware/software and system operations.
Configuration Adjustment: The City reserves the right to select and exclude any software for the
acquisition regardless of the configuration proposed. As part of the evaluation process, the City
may find it necessary to add or delete software or services from proposals to make equivalent
comparisons.
A finalization of the specifications and scope of services is expected as a part of final contract
negotiation or through a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) process. By the BAFO the Proposer(s)
remaining in the process will have met with the City and or demonstrated their product g iving
them the opportunity to obtain a complete understanding of all requirements.
Chapter 16: Additional Required Forms and/or Attachments
Include the following required forms and/or attachments to your Proposal. Forms are included
in the RFP.
o Form A – Signature Affidavit – A company representative with authority to bind the
Proposer to the City by contract shall sign the form, attesting the proposal has been
submitted in conformance to stated requirements.
o Form B – Vendor Profile – complete the information about your firm.
o Form C – References
o Form D – Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
o Form E – Cost Proposal Submittal Form
o Form F – Optional Cost Proposal Submittal Form
o Form G – Intent to Respond
Packet Pg 124
7
Page 21 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT
Note: This form must be returned with your response.
In signing proposals, we certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any
agreement or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free
competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or
not to submit proposals, that proposals have been independently arrived at, without collusion
with any other Proposers, competitor or potential competitor; that proposals have not been
knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of proposals to any other Proposers or competitor;
that the above statement is accurate under penalty of perjury.
The undersigned, submitting this proposal, hereby agrees with all the terms, conditions, and
specifications required by the City in this Request for Proposal, declares that the attached
proposal and pricing are in conformity therewith, and attests to the truthfulness of all
submissions in response to this solicitation.
Proposers shall provide the information requested below. Include the legal name of the
Proposer and signature of the person(s) legally authorized to bind the Proposers to a contract.
SIGNATURE AND DATE OF AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE
PRINT NAME: __________________________________________________
FIRM (PROPOSER) NAME: ________________________________________
Packet Pg 125
7
Page 22 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE
Company Information
Company Name (Proposer)
FEIN: (If FEIN is not applicable, SSN collected
upon award)
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Primary Individual Contact Information
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Packet Pg 126
7
Page 23 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM C: REFERENCES
Describe fully three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide
the services included with the scope of the specifications. Two of the three shall have been in a
Municipal or University setting. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right
to contact 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
Packet Pg 127
7
Page 24 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
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
Packet Pg 128
7
Page 25 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
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
Packet Pg 129
7
Page 26 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Proposer 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, p roject
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 Representative of Proposer
___________________________________________
Print name of Authorized Representative of Proposer
Packet Pg 130
7
Page 27 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The City is requesting proposals for a Parking Access Revenue Control System (PARCS). Each
Proposer shall fill out the following cost proposal in it’s entirely. Cost proposals that are not
complete will not be accepted, and the submitted proposal will be deemed incomplete. If there
are any additional costs not included in this Cost Proposal, those costs must be identified on a
separate sheet of paper and included as stated in this Request for Proposal. On a separate
page, a detailed breakdown of the costs below as well as a detailed price list shall also be
provided.
Example Fee Table for Cost Proposal Submittal
Time Period
Category Pre Go-Live
Post Go-Live
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Software/Product
Licenses $ $ $ $ $ $
Project Management
Travel
Design/Planning
Equipment/Hardware
Spare Components
Customizations
Interface Development
Data Conversion
Training
Deployment
(Installation)
Construction
Support & Maintenance
Upgrade Fees
Alternatives
Other Fees
Total Fee $ $ $ $ $ $
As noted above, prepare the fee proposal as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees:
All inclusive – Covers all direct and indirect necessary expenses included but not
limited to: travel, telephone, copying, and other out-of-pocket expenses
Not-to-exceed – The actual fees shall not exceed the amount specified in Fee
Proposal
Fixed Fee – All prices, rates, fees, and conditions outlined in the proposal shall
remain fixed and valid for the entire length of the contract and any/all renewals.
Packet Pg 131
7
Page 28 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM F: OPTIONAL COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
As part of the Parking Access Revenue Control System (PARCS), some spare or additional
equipment or services may be added by the City. By inclusion of Form F, City is not required to
purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any hardware, software, training, or other services
specified in this section.
Complete table with per unit costs/fees:
Entrance Station EA $
Parking Gate EA
Pay-On-Foot Station EA
Exit Station EA
Point-of-Sale Terminal EA
Validator Device EA
LED Open/Full Traffic Control Sign EA
Proximity Card Reader EA
Loops and Detectors EA
Intercom EA
Software/Product License EA
Other 1 (specify): EA
Other 2 (specify): EA
Other 3 (specify): EA
Packet Pg 132
7
Page 29 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
FORM G: INTENT TO RESPOND
Note: Please return the form indicating whether you intend to submit a proposal.
Please complete and then return this form via email:
NO LATER THAN: Thursday June 15, 2017
ATTN: Parking Services – PARCS RESPONSE
Email: ParkingInfo@SLOCity.org
Company Name: ______________________________________________________
Contact Name: ______________________________________________________
Contact Title: ______________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Contact telephone: ______________________________________________________
Contact Email: ______________________________________________________
Main telephone: ______________________________________________________
Fax: ______________________________________________________
Mark ONLY one of the following:
We DO PLAN to respond and submit a proposal to this RFP
We DO NOT plan to respond to this RFP
Packet Pg 133
7
Page 30 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Appendix A: FORM OF AGREEMENT (SAMPLE)
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto.
No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shal l any such oral agreement, understanding,
or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid
by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
1. 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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ___________________________________
City Attorney
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [date],
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 [date], City requested proposals for a Parking Access and
Revenue Control System (PARCS) per Specification No. 91545.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which
was accepted by City for said [supplies, equipment, services, project, whatever].
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 [supplies, equipment, services,
project, whatever].
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91545 and
Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing [supplies, equipment, services, project,
whatever] as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor
compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00].
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to
do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council [or other official]
of the City.
2.
Packet Pg 134
7
Page 31 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings
specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties
hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or
representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
8. 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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ___________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg 135
7
Page 32 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Appendix B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Proposer 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 Proposer, its agents, representatives, employees or
sub Proposers.
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. 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 o wned, 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,
Packet Pg 136
7
Page 33 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
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 coverag e on its
behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.
Sub-consultants. Consultant shall include all sub-consultants as insured under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub-consultant. All
coverages for sub-consultants shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
Packet Pg 137
7
Page 34 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Appendix C: Parking Structure Information
Structure Location 842 Palm Street Parking
Structure
919 Palm Street Parking
Structure 871 March Street Parking Structure
Hours of Operation 8:00am to 7:00pm Mon - Wed 8:00am to 7:30pm Mon thru
Wed 8:00am to 10:30pm Mon thru Wed
8:00am to 11:00pm Thurs
thru Sat
8:00am to 11:00pm Thurs thru
Sat 8:00am to 11:30pm Thurs thru Sat
1:00pm to 6:00pm Sunday 1:00pm to 6:30pm Sunday 1:00pm to 6:30pm Sunday
Opened 1988 2006 1990 (Expansion opened in 2002)
Square Footage 130,000 98,000 plus 16,000 retail space 110,00 sqft, 15,000 retail, 4,000
office
Number of Spaces 413 242 (192) for public use 252 (Expansion 268) total 520
Number of Levels 4 4 public, 1 office, 1 employee
parking 4
Number of Stair
Wells 3 2 3
Number of
Elevators 0 2 2
Type of Elevator N/A Hydraulic Hydraulic
Equipment
Manufacturer Federal APD Federal APD Federal APD
Lane Equipment Barcode SST-Magstripe Barcode
Gate Manufacturer G-90 CD Series Barrier Gate G-90 CD Series Barrier Gate G-90 CD Series Barrier Gate
No. of Gates 2 in 2 out (1 Reversible) 2 in 2 out (1 reversible) 2 in 3 out
No. of Card Readers 2 in 2 out (1 Reversible) 2 in 2 out (1 reversible) 2 in 3 out
Type of Card Reader HID-Max Prox 12" x 12" HID-Max Prox 12" x 12" HID Max Prox 12" x 12"
No. of Tickets
Issued Per Year 300,000 200,000 400,000
No. of Full Signs 2 2 1
Proxcard Type HID Part #1326LMSMV HID Part #1326LMSMV HID Part #136LMSMV
Ticket Spitter
Information TD-249 TD-249 TD-249
Exit Ticket Spitter
Information N/A SST Exit Verifier Model #ML-
3000 N/A
Cash Register Auditor Powerpad Fee
Computer
Auditor PowerPad Fee
Computer Auditor PowerPad fee Computer
Interface Program ScanNet Central Mgnt System ScanNet Central Mgnt System ScanNet Central Mgnt System
Packet Pg 138
7
Page 35 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
Appendix D: FUNCTIONAL AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
It is the intent of the City to have incorporated, included or provided as many as possible of the
following functional and technical requirements in the Proposer’s solution provided herein. The
City reserves the right to remove, add or prioritize any and/or all requirements contained herein
without prior notice to Proposers. This list is not prioritized but only generally functionally
grouped together.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The system shall be a gated PARCS with the following subsystems:
1. Central Management System (CMS): CMS shall be a network consisting of server, task or
subsystem computers, and workstations that provide on-line monitoring and control of all
PARCS devices. Through information generated by the system reports, complete CMS shall be
capable of:
a. Correlating Revenue Control System (RCS) and Access Control System (ACS) entries and
exits with vehicles present;
b. Reconciling time parked with revenue generated;
c. Providing independent and consolidated occupancy and activity counts for RCS and ACS
systems; and
d. Monitoring of all lane equipment.
2. Revenue Control System (RCS): For parkers who pay for parking on each visit, an RCS in a pay-
on-foot (POF) and pay-at-exit (PAE) configuration shall be deployed.
3. Access Control System (ACS): For regular parkers who will either prepay or prearrange for
payment of contract and/or monthly parking, an ACS using proximity reader technology shall be
provided as specified herein. Payment shall be made either through automatic credit card
charge or through manual payment. These parkers shall bypass ticket/cash payment system.
4. Primary components of the integrated system shall include:
a. CMS, including all required hardware and software.
b. RCS consisting of entrance stations, exit stations, automated payment machines and
machine-readable fee computers.
c. ACS consisting of proximity card, local controllers and central computer with software
and associated peripherals.
d. Barcode Reader System as follows:
i. At entrance stations and exit stations to accommodate on-line reservation
program utilizing barcode passes.
ii. At automated payment machines, entrance stations, exit stations and machine
readable fee computers to apply barcode validations to patron tickets.
e. A mass validator as specified herein.
f. Parking barrier gates for gated control points.
5. Additional components and accessories include:
a. Loop detectors
b. Fee displays
c. Initial supply of operating stock items
Packet Pg 139
7
Page 36 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
d. Spare components and parts
e. Machine readable validation devices (off-line validators)
f. Dynamic message signs
g. Telephone dialer intercoms
6. Base system Configuration:
a. System shall consist of all lane equipment as indicated on the construction documents.
Documents for a total of three (3) facilities are to be included.
b. Remote gate up control for all lanes shall be via CMS computer
c. Each structure shall be a separate parking zone for occupancy and count purposes.
7. Central Management System Server and Software:
a. Central management system server(s), ACS controllers, and related task/subsystem
controllers shall be furnished and installed in the Server Rooms located at the Marsh
Street Structure.
b. CMS Server(s) to be rack mounted pm server racks provided by City of SLO.
c. All necessary PARCS CMS software shall be provided including but not limited to
Revenue Control, Access Control, Credit Card Software, Count, Database, Application,
PCI and any and all software necessary to provide a fully operation PARCS with full PCI
compliance.
d. The server and/or workstation computers will be used for system administration,
programming and consolidation of data.
e. Final location of servers is to be coordinated with City of SLO.
8. System Workstations:
a. System workstations to be provided at the Parking Services Office located at 1260 Chorro
Street. Final location within office to be coordinated with the City of SLO.
9. Remote Workstations:
a. Provide software to allow users to use their existing desktop computers or laptops to
access the system server via a web browser application and an existing network.
b. Workstations connected via a web browser or network shall have all the functionality of
a regular workstation connected to the PARCS network.
c. Provide license/software for five (5) remote locations at locations to be determined by
the City of SLO.
10. System Architecture:
a. System architecture shall be similar to existing as illustrated herein. System shall include
automatic fail-over capacity.
11. Parking Management Office:
a. Software and other accessories shall be furnished in the Parking Services Office.
b. Location in the Parking Services Office shall be coordinated and selected by the City of
SLO.
12. Electronic On-Line Validation System:
a. System shall incorporate an electronic on-line validation system as specified herein.
Packet Pg 140
7
Page 37 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
13. System Expansion:
a. System shall be designed to be expandable to include any and all of the following:
i. Minimum of ten (10) facilities including surface parking lots and structures.
ii. Integrated parking guidance by facility of individual parking stall
iii. Additional APM locations
iv. ACS utilizing an automatic vehicle identification reader technology
v. ACS utilizing long range proximity card technology
vi. Each APM, ENX, EXS and fee computer shall be expandable to accept credit card
chip, pin payment, phone payment and other additional payment technologies.
14. Other:
a. New loops to be provided at all lanes to facilitate new equipment operations. A total of
two (2) loops per lane shall be included with bids. Contractor shall specify additional loops
with bid, if required. Existing loops are not to be reused. Cut, wire and seal all new loops.
b. Provide barrier gates with straight or articulating gate arms, as required in sufficient
length to prevent vehicles from exiting when in the closed position.
c. All ENS’s, EXS’s, APM’s and Fee Computers to be equipped with barcode readers.
d. All ENS’s, EXS’s and APM’s to be equipped with voice over IP intercom units. Intercom
system shall ring at the Parking Services Office and/or locations at times as programmed
by the City of SLO.
e. Bidder to provide on faceplate of each ENS, EXS and APM adjacent to intercom push
button to identify location of patrons. Number format to be determined by the City of
SLO.
f. Bidder to reuse existing or provide new protective bollards as determined by City of SLO
to protect all equipment.
Proposer shall provide all equipment necessary to perform the services in this RFP. The cost
for any additional equipment or supplies not included above will be reimbursed by the City
only with prior written approval. These items may include but are not limited to upgraded
equipment purchases, general supplies, and any other items required to perform services
related to this RFP.
WORK SHALL INCLUDE:
1. The design, fabrication, delivery and installation of all new PARCS equipment as
described herein. All equipment shall comply with all applicable codes and standards
including State and Americans with Disabilities Act.
2. Bidder shall include all required power conditioners in bid amount if PARCS system or
any component thereof requires power differing from that currently existing at eac h
site.
Packet Pg 141
7
Page 38 PARCS RFP – specification no. 91545
3. Provide information to the City of SLO about type, and location of high speed data
communications lines needed for credit card processing system within three weeks
after notice to proceed. The City of SLO to provide high speed communication lines
from system server locations to each facility.
4. Remove from site all existing parking equipment and coordinate disposal with the City
of SLO.
5. Replace all device control and communications wiring in existing conduit to existing
lanes and provide all additional communications wiring required for manufacturers
system architecture and design. Bidder shall include all communications wiring and
any additional power wiring and conduit required by Bidder’s system in bid amount.
6. Bidder will work with the City of SLO IT department to verify and identify available
fiber to be used.
7. Terminate and connect all communications and power cabling. Install all Bidder
supplied equipment and the interconnection with and City of SLO supplied
equipment. Furnish and install all network and internet connection devices,
electronics, and equipment for communications network.
8. All conduit added to existing islands or paving shall be cut into concrete or asphalt and
patched.
Packet Pg 142
7
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: FRIENDS OF LA LOMA ADOBE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Luis Obispo and the
Friends of La Loma Adobe for preliminary evaluation and restoration activities.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1998, the City Council approved a Community Partnership and Foundation Policy provided
guidelines by which the City would support the activities of an organization in the community.
The City currently has many community partnerships with organizations such as the History
Center, Museum of Art and the Railroad Museum.
This item would establish a new community partnership with Friends of La Loma Adobe
(FLLA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the ultimate goal being the preservation and restoration of
the La Loma Adobe. La Loma Adobe is a two-story structure located at 1590 Lizzie Street. The
exact date of original construction is unknown, but is estimated to be between 1780 and 1840. It
is the only two-story adobe in the City and one of only a few such adobes remaining in the State.
Consequently, it has significant architectural and historical value.
The property was deeded to the City in 1995 by the Bowden family and the City purchased
additional land to the east of the house which preserved the site associated with the adobe. The
structure has been vacant for over fifty years. Major stabilization efforts (funded by the City)
were completed in 2011 and basic maintenance and security continues today, but these
approaches are insufficient to preserve the adobe in the long term. In 2013, the City Council
adopted the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, which included La Loma
Adobe within the boundary of the Reserve due to the relationship between the structure and its
surrounding landscape.
City staff have been in on-going conversations with community groups regarding the adobe for
several years. Recently, FLLA formed with the specific purpose of preserving and restoring the
adobe. Staff has been working for over a year with that group to develop a partnership agreement
to further the goals of both parties relative to the adobe and property. The culmination of that
work has been the development of the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) included as
Attachment A.
Packet Pg 143
8
Memorandum of Understanding
The MOU establishes a formal relationship with the FLLA and City and provides general
requirements and responsibilities for each group relative to the adobe including:
1. Written progress reports from FLLA to the City on responsibilities outlined in the
agreement.
2. FLLA shall develop a project website and brochure, identify preliminary project cost
estimates for stabilization and protection of the adobe, produce a concept plan for the
grounds and meet with neighbors to seek comments and support for plan.
3. FLLA shall initiate a membership campaign to produce volunteers and docents to support
City efforts to maintain and enhance the landscaping and adobe.
4. City shall apply its Open Space Maintenance Plan (2015) and Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan (2013) policies and maintenance procedures to the Property,
including landscape maintenance, non-native tree removal, drainage improvements for
the entire property and especially the adobe, trailhead trash cans, signage, parking
surfaces and their drainage, and any and all other improvements called for in the
Conservation Plan as resources allow and subject to the discretion of the City.
5. City shall undertake an evaluation to further assess the historical significance of the
property in order to determine its potential for future applications for listing on the
California Register and/or National Register of Historic Places.
The scope of the agreement is limited, but serves as a starting point for working together with the
FLLA. The MOU does not set forth a plan for the full restoration and activation of the adobe as
neither the FLLA nor the City have identified resources to accomplish that at this point. Any
expansion of the scope would require a separate or amended agreement at which point the City
Council may re-evaluate the project and partnership.
It should also be noted that a portion of the property which includes the adobe is on neighboring
private property for which the City has an easement for specific purposes. All activities
contemplated within the MOU are consistent with easement provisions.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department and Historic Resource Officer, as well as the Natural
Resources Manager, concur with this recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The act of approving this MOU is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378
(Definitions – Project).
Packet Pg 144
8
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Funding may be
provided by the City from existing open space maintenance funds for site improvements,
trailhead, or parking facilities associated with access to Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve in
accordance with the adopted Conservation Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the MOU. The City Council should provide specific direction on what parts of the
MOU should be modified.
2. Do not approve the MOU. This is not recommended as there are no other groups currently
interested in La Loma Adobe and very limited existing City resources to support its preservation
and restoration.
Attachments:
a - Revised LaLoma Agreement 2.7.17
Packet Pg 145
8
DRAFT
1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND FRIENDS OF LA LOMA
ADOBE REGARDING THE LA LOMA ADOBE AND PROPERTY AT 1590
LIZZIE STREET
This Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___ day
of ______ 2017 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a
municipal corporation and charter city (herein referred to as “City”) and Friends of La
Loma Adobe, a California Non-profit Public Benefit Corporation (herein referred to as
“FLLA”). City and FLLA are sometimes referred to herein as “the Parties.”
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City is the legal owner of certain real property located at 1590 Lizzie
Street in the City of San Luis Obispo, APN: 002-352-022 and 002-352-021 (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Property is improved with a historical building known as the
La Loma de Nopalera Adobe (the “Adobe”). The Adobe and surrounding side yard is
partially located on the adjacent property located at 1580 Lizzie Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, APN: 002-352-014 (the “Adjacent Property”). The Parties acknowledge that
the City has the right to use a portion of the Adjacent Property pursuant to the terms,
conditions and intent of an Easement Grant Deed dated April 24, 1987 and recorded on
May 1, 1987 in the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County as Document No. 30052
(the “Easement Deed”);
WHEREAS, the Property lies within the boundaries of the Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve. The Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan states that the City
shall protect, restore, and further research the important historic and cultural resources
within the Reserve, most particularly the Adobe. Further, the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the General Plan states that City will preserve and, as resources permit,
rehabilitate City-owned historic adobes and other historic structures by aggressively
seeking grants, donations, private-sector participation or other techniques that help fund
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. FLLA supports and wishes to cooperate with these City
preservation, rehabilitation responsibilities and goals; and
WHEREAS, the City is considering preparing an application for the Adobe to be
nominated for listing in the National Registry of Historic Places and the Adobe has a
special historical heritage in that it is a unique, limited and diminishing resource, and a
prime means of encouraging knowledge and enjoyment of California and local history; and
WHEREAS, FLLA has proposed to: (1) plan the landscaping of the grounds of the
Property and (2) develop plans to complete stabilization of the Adobe and (3) eventually
Packet Pg 146
8
DRAFT
2
restore the historic Adobe recognizing its individual qualities and the way in which it
contributes to the City’s heritage; and
WHEREAS, City recognizes that the individual members of the FLLA have a unique
understanding of the various issues surrounding the protection, restoration and future
operation of the historic Adobe and through this MOA, the Parties wish to work together
toward the attainment of mutual goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises,
and agreements herein set forth, City and FLAA hereby agree as follows:
TERMS
1. Recognition of Mutual Benefit. It is in the interest of the City to explore
opportunities for partnership in the preservation and rehabilitation of the Adobe. The City
and FLLA have aligned goals in this regard and this agreement may serve as a first step for
future agreements and a broader scope relative to the FLLA and the Adobe. This
agreement, however, is non-exclusive.
2. Access to the Property. Pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof, the City
hereby consents to FLLA, and its members, guests and invitees, accessing the Property for
the purposes outlined herein. Such access shall be compliant with any reasonable
instructions given by the City. Prior to any individuals accessing the Property, such
individuals shall execute a waiver and release of all claims in a form provided by City. Any
activities on the property shall be in conformance with the City’s Easement Deed for the
Adjacent Property.
3. Restoration and Maintenance of the Adobe. FLLA and City recognize that both
Parties desire the Adobe to be restored in a staged approach to its original condition for the
selected period of prime historical significance. To this end, subject to the terms and
conditions herein, FLLA agrees, to contribute to the resources needed (as described in
section 4) for the first stage of the project pursuant to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines, City rules and regulations and any State and Federal laws regarding the
construction, maintenance, and repair of historically significant structures.
4. Use of the Property. FLLA agrees to participate in the first stage of restoring the
Adobe by providing resources, expertise and volunteer support pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement. City recognizes that FLLA also desires to restore the exterior and interior
of the Adobe such that FLLA could, with all appropriate permits and approvals, operate
the Adobe as an accessory Early California History Interpretative Center (herein referred
to as “Interpretative Center”) as identified in the approved Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan. City and FLLA recognize that the ability to use the Adobe as
an Interpretative Center may conflict with the Easement Deed. City supports a subsequent
agreement with FLLA to accommodate restoration of the exterior and interior including
use as an Interpretive Center at a later date provided: that the lot configuration of the
Property be modified to expressly allow for the use of the Adobe encroaching onto the
Packet Pg 147
8
DRAFT
3
Adjacent Property as an Interpretive Center; and any impacts to the residential
neighborhood associated with use of the Adobe and Property as an Interpretive Center have
been evaluated and/or mitigated.
The schedule for restoration, maintenance, and repair shall be divided into stages. The first
stage shall consist of grounds restoration and a preliminary evaluation of rehabilitation of
the Adobe. Additional stages may include exterior and interior restoration, but would be
subject to subsequent agreements.
Stage I Grounds Restoration and Preliminary Evaluation
a. Within one year after this Agreement is signed: FLLA will submit a progress report
to the City Council.
b. By December 31 of each year: FLLA shall submit an annual report to the City
Manager or their designee that describes the actions that FLLA undertook during
the previous calendar year and actions that FLLA plans to take in the upcoming
calendar year related to the Adobe.
c. By December 31, 2017: FLLA shall develop a project website and brochure,
identify preliminary project cost estimates for stabilization and protection of the
Adobe, produce a Concept plan and meet with neighbors to seek comments and
support for plan. The Concept plan shall be developed in concert with planned
improvements (e.g. parking, signage) for the adjoining open space trailhead
identified in the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan.
d. By December 31, 2018: FLLA shall initiate a membership campaign to produce
volunteers and docents to support City efforts to maintain and enhance the
landscaping and Adobe.
i. FLLA may donate to the City funds raised for the Adobe and grounds in
conjunction with Chapter 14.01.130 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
regarding the Historic and Cultural Resource Preservation Fund. All funds
would be accepted and appropriated by the Council.
e. City shall repair and replace as needed any equipment installed or improvements
constructed by the City as resources allow and subject to the discretion of the City.
City shall apply Open Space Maintenance Plan and Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan policies and maintenance procedures to Property,
including landscape maintenance, non-native tree removal, drainage improvements
for the entire property and especially the Adobe, trailhead trash cans, signage,
parking surfaces and their drainage, and any and all other improvements called for
in the Conservation plan, subject to consultation with FLLA and in conformity to
the approved Concept Plan (4c) as resources allow and subject to the discretion of
the City.
Packet Pg 148
8
DRAFT
4
f. City shall undertake an evaluation to further assess the historical significance of the
property in order to determine its potential for future applications for listing on the
California Register and/or National Register of Historic Places.
5. Termination of Agreement by City. Either party may terminate this MOU for
any reason whatsoever upon written 90-day notification off such termination.
6. Relationship of Parties. FLLA shall be considered an independent organization and
not an agent, officer or employee of the City. FLLA officers, members, affiliates,
volunteers, employees and independent contractors shall not be considered agents, officers
or employees of the City.
7. Proof of Insurance. FLLA agrees to provide proof of insurance in accordance
with the requirements established in Exhibit “A”.
8. Damage or Destruction. City is responsible under Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan for providing storm runoff protection, as resources permit, to
Property with special attention to Adobe throughout the period of this MOU. If any
improvements on the Property constructed by FLLA suffer any damage or destruction,
FLLA shall promptly repair and restore the Adobe to the condition that existed immediately
prior to such damage or destruction.
9. Compliance with Laws. FLLA shall comply with all applicable statutes,
ordinances, or regulations now or hereafter adopted by any federal, state or county
governmental entity, and with all ordinances, regulations, policies and guidelines now or
hereafter adopted by the City.
10. Indemnification. The FLLA shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City,
its officers, agents, and employees against:
a. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against the City, its officers,
agents or employees by reason of any injury or death of any person or corporation
caused by any act or omission of FLLA under this MOU or of FLLA’s employees
or agents.
b. Any and all damage to or destruction of the property of the City, its officers, agents,
or employees, occupied or used by or in the care, custody, or control of FLLA, or
in proximity to the site of the FLLA work, caused by any act or omission of FLLA
under this MOU.
c. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against the City, its officers,
agents, or employees by reason of any injur y to or death of or damage suffered or
sustained by an employee or agent of FLLA under this MOU, however caused,
excepting, any such claims or demands which are the result of the sole active
negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, or employees.
Packet Pg 149
8
DRAFT
5
d. Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of
any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit, when said violation
of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit is due to an act
or omission on the part of FLLA.
e. FLLA, at its own costs, expense, and risk shall defend any and all suits, actions, or
other legal proceedings that may be brought against or for employees on any such
claim or demand of such third persons, or to enforce any such penalty, and pay and
satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered against the City, including
attorney’s fees and costs, its officers, agents or employees in any such suit, action,
or other legal proceeding, when same were due to an act or omission of FLLA.
11. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument, binding on each signatory thereto.
ATTEST CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Date Heidi Harmon
Mayor
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FRIENDS OF LA LOMA ADOBE
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Date [Name of President]
President
Date
Packet Pg 150
8
DRAFT
6
EXHIBIT “A”
FLLA shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as
Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence,
for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual
liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract”
language will not be accepted. The City of San Luis Obispo, its officers, officials, agents,
employees, and volunteers shall be added as additional insureds on the policy.
Packet Pg 151
8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 152
8
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Utilities Deputy Director, Wastewater
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
Bud Nance, Wastewater Collection System Supervisor
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL ORDINANCE FOR
INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION
RECOMMENDATION
Consider introduction of an Ordinance amending Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code related to
maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement of private sewer laterals (Attachment A) and
determining the ordinance modifications are exempt from environmental review pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Background
Inflow and infiltration (I/I) results from rainwater entering structurally deficient private sewer
laterals, public sewer mains, and illegal connections. Effective I/I reduction is necessary to
eliminate overflows and pipe surcharging, reduce the amount of I/I flow to the Water Resource
Recovery Facility, and free up pipe capacity to serve development planned under the City’s
General Plan. Achieving success will require both public and private investment.
In July 2016, the City signed a settlement agreement with California River Watch related to
alleged Clean Water Act violations (Attachment B). As part of that settlement agreement, the
City agreed to consider an ordinance adopting certain “Supplemental Environmental Projects”
which include a: (1) a lateral inspection and repair program whereby private sewer laterals are
inspected, repaired and/or replaced based on certain triggering events; and (2) a voluntary private
lateral replacement rebate program.1 The settlement agreement does not mandate the adoption of
either of those programs. At an April 4, 2017, Study Session, the City Council provided direction
to staff on a private sewer lateral program, a wastewater flow offset program focused on capacity
constrained areas, a rebate program and cost recovery related to permit fees associated with a
private sewer lateral program. Council also generally supported an accelerated I/I reduction
approach. The City’s first step will be to consider a private sewer lateral ordinance. Staff will
return to Council with the wastewater flow offset and rebate program.
Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance
Staff prepared a Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance that identifies private sewer lateral
maintenance requirements and events requiring private sewer lateral inspection, repair, and
1 The Settlement Agreement had a 1 year time period for the Council to consider the adoption of a lateral inspection
and repair program. The rebate program has no such time period but staff in tends on bringing back that program on
July 18, 2017.
Packet Pg 153
9
replacement (Attachment A). The draft Ordinance includes the provisions required under the
settlement agreement with California River Watch in the following sections:
1. Purpose
2. Repair Requirements
3. Ownership, Maintenance, and Repair
4. Rebate Programs
5. Triggering Events
6. Fees
7. Inspection Requirements
8. Appeals
As discussed at the Study Session, the cost to have a plumbing contractor inspect a p rivate sewer
lateral is approximately $250. The cost for full replacement of a lateral, including City permit fees, is
approximately $8,000.
Consistent with the settlement agreement, the triggering events identified in the draft Ordinance
for sewer lateral inspection, repair, and replacement include private sewer overflows, application
for a building permit, and change in ownership of real property. Based on research of similar
private sewer lateral ordinances in California and questions raised by the public, staff is
recommending the Ordinance include provisions specific to subdivisions of improved property
(addressed in 13.08.395.C.1.e) and private sewer laterals serving multiple properties (addressed
in 13.08.600 and 13.08.610) to clarify inspection requirements under these property ownership
arrangements. Staff is also recommending requirements for inspection, repair, and replacement
for private sewer laterals where I/I is identified during smoke testing or during closed-circuit
television (CCTV) sewer main inspections (addressed in 13.08.395.C.1.f). These investigations
are conducted by City staff where I/I is most severe. Addressing I/I sources identified during
smoke testing and CCTV inspections can reduce or eliminate the likelihood of sanitary sewer
overflows.
The settlement agreement did not dictate a schedule for implementation of the Private Sewer
Lateral Ordinance. Staff proposes the following implementation schedule:
Public Engagement and Education: July 1 through December 31, 2017
Ordinance Effective Date: January 1, 2018
Staff met with local representatives of the real estate community about the inspection, repair
and/or replacement on “transfer of ownership” triggering event. As expressed to the City Council
at the April 4, 2017 study session, the Realtors were concerned with completing the required
inspection, repair, and replacement within the tight timeframe of a real estate transaction. Based
on this feedback, the Council may want to consider deleting language in the draft ordinance to
require only an inspection of a private sewer lateral for this triggering event and disclosure of the
condition of the lateral as part of the transaction. The language which would need to be deleted
or modified is highlighted in yellow.
Rebate Program
Consistent with the settlement agreement, funding for a voluntary private sewer lateral rebate
Packet Pg 154
9
Figure 1: Toilet Retrofit Status Viewer
Available at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/conservation/toilet-retrofit-information
program will be proposed for the City Council’s consideration with the 2017-19 Financial Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan. Funding is identified as I/I reduction in the wastewater collection
system improvements capital improvement plan request. Staff will return with a program to offer
rebates citywide to those required to repair or replace sewer laterals under the new Private Sewer
Lateral Ordinance as well as anyone voluntarily replacing one ahead of Ordinance
implementation. Through staff’s outreach efforts rebates have been identified by stakeholders as
critical to a successful lateral program. It is anticipated that the recommended amount of each
rebate will be $1,000 which represents an approximately 12.5 percent of the average cost for
replacement of a private sewer lateral.
The proposed Private Sewer Lateral
Ordinance will help the City make
incremental progress toward I/I
reduction. Information collected
from recent permitted sewer lateral
replacements and future private
sewer lateral inspections, repairs and
replacements will be added to a
public portal website used for the
City’s Toilet Retrofit Status Viewer
shown in Figure 1.
The Status Viewer, available at the
City’s website, is utilized by the
community to determine if a
property has been retrofitted with
low flow toilets and can be modified
to include private sewer lateral
information. Staff believes that
private sewer lateral information can
be added to this existing database
within a few months.
Next Steps
The voluntary private lateral inspection rebate program and wastewater flow offset fee for
capacity-constrained areas are scheduled for Council’s consideration on July 18, 2017. The
proposed program and fee would encompass Council’s direction from the April 4, 2017 study
session and will propose a modified permit review process and fee for the replacement of
laterals.
The accelerated I/I reduction program that the Council generally supported at t he April 4, 2017
study session will require additional time to conduct meaningful outreach and discussion. Ideas
regarding focused inspection, repair and/or replacement are in the primary phases, with a phased
implementation approach being considered. If the Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance is approved,
additional inspection data will be available to inform the development of an accelerated program.
Packet Pg 155
9
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), pursuant to the statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the
CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), under sections 15302 (Replacement or
reconstruction of existing structures), 15307 and 15308 (actions to protect natural resources and
the environment of the CEQA Guidelines) and because it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment
(CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff responsible for the implementation of the proposed Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance are in
the Wastewater Division of the Utilities Department with assistance from staff in Utilities
Administration, Utilities Services, and the Development Review and Building & Safety divisions
of the Community Development Department. No additional funding is proposed at this time to
support program implementation.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Consideration of Private Sewer Lateral Inspection Only upon Transfer of Owners hip.
Council could consider introduction of an ordinance that requires sewer lateral inspection
only upon transfer of ownership, which excludes the requirement of repair and replacement.
2. Provide Additional Direction to Staff. The Council could choose not to introduce the
ordinance at this time and provide direction to staff on how to proceed with I/I reduction.
Considering the extent of the recent sanitary sewer overflows related to I/I, this alternative is
not recommended.
Attachments:
a - Sewer Lateral Ordinance
b - Settlement Agreement with California River Watch
Packet Pg 156
9
O ______
ORDINANCE NO _______ (2017 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A SEWER LATERAL
INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City owns, operates, and maintains a sanitary sewer system with over 140
miles of pipeline and provides wastewater collection services to properties within the City limits
as well as Cal Poly and San Luis Obispo County Airport; and
WHEREAS, a system of private sewer laterals, estimated to equal an additional 156 miles
of pipeline, is owned and maintained by property owners; and
WHEREAS, the City must provide capacity assurance consistent with its adopted Sewer
System Management Plan and Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration
Study in March 2012 that included sanitary sewer flow monitoring, rainfall monitoring, and inflow
and infiltration analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal
Strategy on January 19, 2016 which identified areas with capacity constraints and surcharging in
the wastewater collection system during peak wet weather events; and
WHEREAS, the City has experienced sanitary sewer overflows which have been
identified as a major threat to public health and water quality because of the pathogens, toxic
pollutants and nutrients they contain and have been a focus of State Water Quality Regulators over
the past several years; and
WHEREAS, private sewer laterals contribute significant inflow and infiltration
contributing to capacity constraints, surcharging, and overflows in the wastewater collection
system during peak wet weather events; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan supports development and redevelopment of sites
that will accommodate the community’s future growth in areas with capacity constraints in the
wastewater collection system; and
WHEREAS, replacement of private sewer laterals will reduce inflow and infiltration and
provide feasible mitigation to project impacts associated with increased wastewater flow.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Packet Pg 157
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
O ______
SECTION 1: Environmental Review. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the statute (Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et
seq.), including without limitation under sections 15307 and 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines
(actions to protect natural resources and the environment) and because it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the
environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
SECTION 2: Section 13.08.390 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Article IX. Sewer Connection
13.08.390 Drainage below curb and below main sewer level.
D. Maintenance of House Sewer Connections. Maintenance of House Sewer Connections shall
comply with Section 13.08.395.B. The property owner will be responsible for all construction,
maintenance, improvements and repairs of the sewer lateral including all house connections,
industrial sewers, private sewage disposal systems and appurtenances thereto, now existing or
hereafter constructed. Laterals shall be maintained by the owner of the property in a safe and
sanitary condition; and all devices or safeguards which are required for the operation thereof shall
be maintained in a good working order. If a property owner fails to maintain the abovementioned
wastewater facilities in a safe and sanitary condition, the director may order and require
termination of water service to the parcel and all structures connected to the sewer outlet subject
to these conditions. The water service shall not be reinstated until the maintenance or installation
of appropriate wastewater disposal facilities has been approved by the director. (Ord. 1598 § 1
(part), 2014)
SECTION 3: Sections 13.08.395 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby added
as set forth below.
Section 13.08.395. Private Sewer Laterals
A. Purpose.
Inflow and infiltration (I/I) is a serious problem for the city in that during rain events, a significant
amount of water is introduced into the city’s wastewater collection system from breaches in the
public and private sewer pipeline system. Studies have shown that private sewer laterals are a
significant source of I/I for the city. The city has determined that it is in the interest of the public’s
health, safety and welfare to address I/I contributed by private sewer laterals and, as such, it is a
city priority to require the inspection and repair of private sewer laterals.
B. Ownership, Maintenance, and Repair.
1. The entire lateral, from the building connection to and including the “wye” connection or
other-tie-in to the City owned sewer main, shall fall within the owner’s responsibility for
installation, maintenance, repair, and replacement.
Packet Pg 158
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
O ______
2. Each property owner shall be responsible for maintaining their private sewer lateral in
compliance with this section.
3. Private sewer laterals shall be free of displaced joints, breaks, offsets, structural defects,
damage, open joints, missing portions of pipe, root intrusion, cracks, leaks, sediment
deposits or any other similar conditions, defects or obstructions likely to cause or contribute
to blockage of the private sewer lateral or the public sewer.
4. Private sewer laterals shall be equipped with cleanouts.
5. Private sewer laterals shall not be constructed, either in whole or in part, of “Orangeburg
pipe.”
6. As described in section 13.08.030.A, it is unlawful for any individual to connect the
following to a private sewer lateral: storm drains, roof drains, pool drains, or other non-
sewage pipes or drains.
C. Inspection, Repair and/or Replacement of Existing Private Sewer Laterals.
1. Except as set forth in Section 13.08.395.C.2, after January 1, 2018, all private sewer
laterals connected to the city’s sewer system shall be inspected per Section 13.08.395.F
at the property owner's sole expense , when any of the following events occur:
a. Whenever a private sewer lateral has overflowed twice within a two-year timeframe.
b. Upon submittal of a building permit for the addition of an additional bedroom,
bathroom, or kitchen in a residential structure or the addition of non-residential space
or an additional plumbing fixture unit in non-residential structures.
c. A change of the use of the structure from: (1) residential to nonresidential use; (2) to a
nonresidential use that will result in a higher flow than the previous nonresidential use;
or (3) to a nonresidential use where the structure served has been vacant or unoccupied
for more than three (3) years.
d. Change in size of the water meter serving the property.
e. Whenever property located in the city and containing one or more structures which are
served by a private sewer lateral or laterals is subdivided. The inspection shall occur
prior to recordation of the final map.
f. Within thirty (30) days of notification by the city that “smoke testing” or closed-circuit
television (CCTV) sewer main inspection indicates the presence of I/I from private
property.
g. Upon any change in ownership of real property within the city, which shall be
implemented as follows:
Packet Pg 159
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
O ______
i. “Change in ownership” shall have the meaning set forth in Revenue and Taxation
Code sections 60 and 61. A change in ownership shall not include those transactions
as set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 62.
ii. Before close of escrow for any change in ownership of real property within the city,
the seller(s) of such property shall disclose to the buyer(s) the results of the
inspection as set forth in Section 13.08.395.F.
iii. Repairs shall be made pursuant to Section 13.08.395.G.
2. Exceptions. An inspection required pursuant to Sections 13.08.395.C.1.a through
13.08.395.C.1.g shall not be required in the following circumstances:
a. Prior Replacement of Lateral. If the owner(s) (or the owner’s predecessor-in-interest)
has originally installed or has replaced the private sewer lateral within the twenty (20)
years prior to the date the inspection would otherwise be required.
b. Prior Inspection of a Lateral. If the owner(s) (or the owner’s predecessor-in-interest)
has either completed an inspection of the sewer lateral in accordance with the
inspection requirements of Section 13.08.395.F.
c. The private sewer lateral is located within a common interest development which is
regulated under Section 13.08.395.D.
The owner shall bear the burden of proving that the inspection requirements of Sections
13.08.395.C.1 do not apply. The owner shall provide proof of any prior replacement, inspection
or repair of a private sewer lateral in the form of a validly issued permit or other documentation
that ensures such prior replacement, repair or inspection of a private sewer lateral occurred
pursuant to the exceptions above. The form and content of the document or proof must be
deemed sufficient by the city’s Utilities Director.
D. Private Sewer Laterals on Common Interest Developments.
1. Private sewer laterals located within a common interest development shall be inspected
pursuant to the requirements of Section 13.08.395.F as follows:
a. By January 1, 2023, and once every twenty (20) years thereafter.
b. Whenever a private sewer lateral within the common interest development has
overflowed twice within a two-year timeframe.
c. Upon a change in size of the water meter serving the property.
2. For purposes of this Section 13.08.395, the term “common interest development” shall
include any community apartment project, condominium project, planned development or
stock cooperative.
Packet Pg 160
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5
O ______
3. Exceptions. An inspection required pursuant to Sections 13.08.395.D.1 shall not be
required in the following circumstances:
a. Prior Replacement of Lateral. If the private sewer lateral was installed or replaced
within the twenty (20) years prior to the date the inspection would otherwise be
required.
b. Prior Inspection or Repair of a Lateral. If the private sewer lateral was inspected in
accordance with the inspection requirements of Section 13.08.395.F within the five (5)
years prior to the date the inspection would otherwise be required.
E. Inspection of Shared Private Sewer Laterals.
Each property owner served by a shared private sewer lateral shall be responsible for compliance
with Section 13.08.395.B and shall be subject to the inspection, repair, and replacement
requirements identified in 13.08.395.C. For purposes of this Section 13.08.395.E, a “shared private
sewer lateral” shall mean laterals serving more than one property that are not part of a common
interest development.
F. Inspection Requirements.
1. Property owners must submit documentation of the sewer lateral inspection. Testing may
be accomplished by either a water ex-filtration test, an air test, or closed circuit video
recording observation. If a closed-circuit video recording observation is selected as the
method of inspection then the video shall meet the following requirements:
a. Shall be in digital format.
b. Shall be in color (black and white or otherwise unclear video will not be accepted).
c. Shall show the address of the lateral.
d. Shall show the date the video was taken.
e. Shall inspect the entire lateral from the house connection to the City owned sewer main.
f. Shall have a running foot or time marker clearly visible on the screen.
g. Where joints are present, shall briefly stop the camera at each to clearly indicate their
integrity.
h. Shall have the telephone number for the point of contact for the company providing the
inspection.
i. A map shall be provided with the video inspection to clearly show the lateral location
including the cleanout or access point at the house connection used to insert the camera
into the lateral and the wye connection to the City-owned sewer main.
Packet Pg 161
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6
O ______
2. The lateral inspection and lateral inspection report shall be prepared and signed by a
licensed plumber or contractor with a current state license who shall declare that the report
is true and correct. At a minimum, the inspection report shall include the information in
Exhibit A:
EXHIBIT A: PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL INSPECTION REPORT
Property Address (or Addresses):
Inspection Date: Inspection Method:
Company Name/Point of Contact:
Phone Number/Email Address:
Lateral Length (in feet): Lateral Material:
Installation date (if known): Lateral Age:
Does lateral meet City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 13.08.395.B criteria? Yes No
If no, describe deficiencies:
Signature: License # of Plumber/Contractor:
3. A licensed plumber or contractor who prepares a false lateral inspection report shall be
subject to punishment under Article XII of this Chapter in addition to any other legal
remedies or punishment provided by law.
4. Verification. The City reserves the right to verify the sewer lateral inspection results
prior to being accepted.
G. Sewer Lateral Repair or Replacement Requirements.
Upon receipt of the private sewer lateral inspection report pursuant to this Chapter, within seven
(7) business days, the city shall review the private sewer lateral inspection and lateral inspection
report to verify the plumber/contractor findings and provide the owner with a determination on
whether the lateral meets the criteria described in Section 13.08.395.B. If the private sewer lateral
is not in compliance with Section 13.08.395.B, then it shall be repaired or replaced in order to
conform to such standards. For purposes of Section 13.08.395.C.1.g, the repair or replacement of
the sewer lateral shall be completed prior to any change in ownership of any real property.
Packet Pg 162
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7
O ______
H. Punishment for Violation of this Chapter.
Failure to comply with the requirements of this Article shall be punishable pursuant to the remedies
identified in Article XII of this Chapter. No building permits or other discretionary approvals shall
be issued for a property with a sewer lateral that is determined to be not in compliance with Section
13.08.395.B until the private sewer lateral is brought into compliance with city standards.
I. Rebate Programs.
The city may establish by resolution one or more programs to assist owners with the repair or
replacement of private sewer laterals.
J. Fees.
The City Council may from time to time establish, by resolution, fees for issuing permits,
reviewing inspection reports and other activities of the city performed pursuant to this chapter.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations. It
is the city' s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration
of 30 days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the
Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall
be available to any member of the public.
INTRODUCED on the_______ day of _____, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the______ day of______, 2017, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 163
9
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8
O ______
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 ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 164
9
Packet Pg 165
9
Packet Pg 166
9
Packet Pg 167
9
Packet Pg 168
9
Packet Pg 169
9
Packet Pg 170
9
Packet Pg 171
9
Packet Pg 172
9
Packet Pg 173
9
Packet Pg 174
9
Packet Pg 175
9
Packet Pg 176
9
Packet Pg 177
9
Packet Pg 178
9
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: NATURAL RESOURCES ROUNDTABLE VISION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by consensus of the Natural Resources Roundtable, approve a resolution
(Attachment A) adopting Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain
the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
Background
For the 2015-17 Financial Plan period, the City Council identified “Open Space Preservation” as
a Major City Goal. This provided the opportunity to establish and convene a short-term, ad-hoc
committee: “The Natural Resources Roundtable: the 20th Anniversary Proceedings of the San
Luis Obispo Greenbelt.”
Fifteen individuals agreed to serve on the Natural Resources Roundtable, representing
environmental and conservation non-profit organizations, trail groups, academia and city
advisory bodies, San Luis Obispo County staff, and at-large members of the community. Over
the course of six meetings in 2016, the Natural Resources Roundtable had the opportunity to
engage in meaningful dialogue about a variety of topics pertinent to the Greenbelt Protection
Program (see Attachment C, Meeting Notes). Saving Special Places Forever is intended to
reflect and provide a comprehensive summary of the major outcomes of the 20th Anniversary
Proceedings and represents the culmination of this work effort.
Prior Council Direction
The City Council previously directed staff to undertake renewed outreach efforts with the
environmental and conservation community. Additionally, the Council directed staff to prepare
a strategy for ascertaining the appropriate resources (e.g. staffing and program structure,
facilities and equipment, maintenance funding levels, etc.) for effective long-term stewardship of
natural resource values and passive recreational amenities in existence now and that are planned
for the future.
This has been accomplished through the Council’s adoption of the City of San Luis Obispo 2015
Open Space Maintenance Plan, the Natural Resources Roundtable process, and with the
recommended action of this Council Agenda Report. The City Council has also directed staff to
explore the formation of an Open Space Committee (see Attachment D, Council Minutes of July
7, 2015, page 7), and this was discussed and supported by the Natural Resources Roundtable.
Vision Plan
It is the intent of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San
Packet Pg 179
10
Luis Obispo Greenbelt to be an aspirational document by articulating high-level, thematic vision
statements that can be achieved over the course of the next 20 years with continued City Council
and community support. These are: 1) Complete the Greenbelt; 2) Protect, Restore, and Enhance
Greenbelt Natural Resources; 3) Foster a Culture of Stewardship; 4) The Greenbelt is Relevant
and Accessible; and, 5) The Greenbelt is Sustainable. In addition to input received through the
Natural Resources Roundtable, these themes are responsive to current trends in the l arger
conservation community that suggest the importance of increasing the pace, quality, and
permanence of land conservation efforts, while also attending to growing threats from the effects
of climate change and ensuring that future generations among a changing California
demographic continue to support conservation initiatives and programs.
CONCURRENCES
The Natural Resources Roundtable met on April 24, 2017 to review and comment on a draft
version of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis
Obispo Greenbelt and they have provided their recommendation to the City Council by
consensus to adopt the plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San
Luis Obispo Greenbelt is not considered a Project under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as defined in Public Resources Code §21065 and CEQA Guidelines §15378(a).
The proposed document is a non-regulatory vision plan that does not have a legally binding
effect on later activities; rather, consistency and implementation of the plan is encouraged, but
not required. Further, the actions contemplated therein are Categorically Exempt under CEQA
Guidelines §15307 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources;
§15313 – Acquisitions of Land for Wildlife Conservation Purposes; and, §15317 – Open Space
Contracts or Easements.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San
Luis Obispo Greenbelt does not have a fiscal impact in and of itself. It will, however, provide
priorities and guidance for future funding requests presented to the City Council and other
funding partners.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council’s alternatives could include the following:
1. Continue the item if more information is necessary.
2. Request clarification or revisions to the plan.
3. Deny the staff recommendation, although this is not suggested as the plan represents the
Packet Pg 180
10
consensus of the Natural Resources Roundtable.
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Saving Special Places Forever - City Council Draft
c - Natural Resources Roundtable Meeting Notes - Combined
d - Council Minutes 07-07-2015
Packet Pg 181
10
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING “SAVING SPECIAL PLACES
FOREVER: A VISION PLAN TO COMPLETE AND SUSTAIN THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO GREENBELT”
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands and cultural resources acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages fourteen Open Space properties
totaling approximately 3,850 acres, as well Open Space or Conservation Easements totaling
approximately 3,400 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Natural Resources Roundtable and the general public have commented
upon Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis
Obispo Greenbelt as part of a Council-directed process, and staff has considered and
incorporated those comments where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Adopt Saving Special Places Forever. The City Council hereby adopts
Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo
Greenbelt, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, based on the
following findings:
a. Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis
Obispo Greenbelt is consistent with and will be implemented in accordance with the
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan, including
numerous goals and policies relating to the acquisition, oversight and management of
City open space areas, such as Goals and Policies 8.1 that calls for the City to:
“Secure and maintain a healthy and attractive Greenbelt around the urban area,
comprised of diverse and connected natural habitats, and productive agricultural land
that reflects the City’s watershed and topographic boundaries.”
b. Implementation of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and
Sustain the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt will further COSE Policy 8.2.1: “The City
will preserve as open space or agriculture the undeveloped and agricultural land
outside the urban reserved line, including the designated Greenbelt… and will
encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do likewise.”
c. Implementation of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and
Sustain the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt will also further COSE Goal 8.2.2: “Within
the urban area, the City will secure and maintain a diverse network of open land
Packet Pg 182
10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
encompassing particularly valuable natural and agricultural resources, connected
with the landscape around the urban area…”
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of
Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo
Greenbelt is not considered a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
defined in Public Resources Code §21065 and CEQA Guidelines §15378(a). The document is a
non-regulatory vision plan that does not have a legally binding effect on later activities; rather,
consistency and implementation of the plan is encouraged, but not required. Further, the actions
contemplated therein are Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15307 – Actions by
Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources; §15313 – Acquisitions of Land for
Wildlife Conservation Purposes; and, §15317 – Open Space Contracts or Easements.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg 183
10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 184
10
Saving Special Places ForeverA Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo GreenbeltCity of San Luis ObispoNatural Resources Protection Program990 Palm StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Packet Pg 18510
Saving Special Places Forever | 1Our Lord’s Candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei) at Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve. Photo by Judith Hildinger.Packet Pg 18610
Saving Special Places Forever | 2Natural Resources Roundtable Members:Greg BettencourtDaniel BohlmanMary CiesinskiAndrew ChristieKaila DettmanGary FelsmanTrevor KeithMarc LeaSteven MarxEric MeyerClint PearceBilly RiggsMatt RitterCarla SaundersBill WaycottStaff Members:Katie LichtigDerek JohnsonGarret OlsonMichael CodronShelly StanwyckDoug CarscadenFreddy OtteRobert HillSaving Special Places ForeverA Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo GreenbeltPrepared for:Heidi Harmon, MayorDan Rivoire, Vice-MayorCarlyn Christianson, City CouncilAaron Gomez, City CouncilAndy Pease, City CouncilPrepared by:The Natural Resources Protection ProgramOn Behalf of:The Natural Resources RoundtableSpring 2017Packet Pg 18710
Saving Special Places Forever | 3Spring wildflowers at Johnson Ranch Open Space. Staff Photo.Packet Pg 18810
Saving Special Places Forever | 4Greenbelt History:1961 – City’s first General Plan is adopted1973 – Open Space Element added to the City’s General Plan1993 – Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) is established1994 – Open Space Element Update1995 –A Vision for Sustainability in San Luis Obispo and Saving Special Placesreports published1995 – 1996 - Natural Resources Protection Program and Ranger Service are established1998 – Open Space Ordinance adopted 2002 –Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo is published2004 –Saving Special Places report updated2006 – Conservation and Open Space Element Update2016 – Natural Resources Roundtable: The 20thAnniversary Proceedings of the San Luis Obispo GreenbeltIntroductionThe City of San Luis Obispo has established a proud land conservation and natural resources protection legacy over the course of the past 20 years through its Greenbelt Protection Program. Currently, the City of San Luis Obispo has acquired approximately 3,850 acres of open space lands comprised of fourteen major properties held in open space reserve, natural reserve, agricultural reserve, or ecological reserve status. The primary purposes for these open space acquisitions is the protection of natural resources. Where appropriate and compatible with natural resource protection, these properties, collectively, also feature a trail network of both single-use trails and multi-use trails totaling over 50 miles. Open Space and Conservation Easements permanently protect another 3,400 acres of scenic hillsides, riparian habitat, and working agricultural landscapes. The Natural Resources Protection Program works in close collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department’s Ranger Service to form the “Open Space Team” in order to implement land acquisition projects, conservation planning, long-term stewardship, proper maintenance, and appropriate public use of the City’s Open Space network within the Greenbelt.Natural Resources RoundtableFor the 2015-17 Financial Plan period, the City Council identified “Open Space Preservation” as a Major City Goal. This provided the opportunity to establish and convene a short-term, ad-hoc committee: “The Natural Resources Roundtable: the 20thAnniversary Proceedings of the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt.” Fifteen individuals agreed to serve on the Natural Resources Roundtable, representing environmental and conservation non-profit organizations, trail groups, academia and city advisory bodies, San Luis Obispo County staff, and at-large members of the community. Over the course of six meetings in 2016, the Natural Resources Roundtable had the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue about a variety of topics pertinent to the Greenbelt Protection Program. This document reflects the major outcomes of the 20thAnniversary Proceedings.What’s in the Vision Plan?It is the intent of Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt to be an aspirational document by articulating high-level, thematic vision statements that can be achieved over the course of the next 20 years with continued City Council and community support. These are found on the following pages: 1.) Complete the Greenbelt; 2.) Protect, Restore, and Enhance Greenbelt Natural Resources; 3.) Foster a Culture of Stewardship; 4.) The Greenbelt is Relevant and Accessible; and, 5.) The Greenbelt is Sustainable. Saving Special Places Foreveris not intended to be a management plan or day-to-day operating plan, nor should it be construed as being policy-setting or regulatory in nature. Rather, it is intended to provide implementation guidance that is consistent with other documents such as the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan (2006), Open Space Maintenance Plan (2015), Open Space Regulations (1998), and various property specific Conservation Plans that can be found by contacting Natural Resources Program staff or by visiting the City’s website.Packet Pg 18910
Saving Special Places Forever | 5Map of the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt as of Spring 2017. Staff cartography.Packet Pg 19010
Saving Special Places Forever | 6Greenbelt Facts:Total Greenbelt Area = 54,400 acresCity of San Luis Obispo Greenbelt properties = 3,850 acresCity of San Luis Obispo Open Space or Conservation Easements = 3,400 acresPublic Lands (e.g. Cal Poly lands, U.S. Forest Service / Santa Lucia Wilderness, Camp San Luis Obispo, Bureau of Land Mgmt.) = 9,500 acresWilliamson Act Contracts = 15,000 acresOther Conservation and Open Space lands (Land Conservancy, SLO County) = 1,350 acresAbout 33,000 acres, or 60%, of the Greenbelt enjoys some level and duration of conservation protection80% of City of San Luis Obispo Greenbelt properties are designated for habitat protection, with the remaining area being trail, active management, cultural / historic, and agriculture designationsIndicatorsThe City Council and community continue to support and prioritize land conservation projects within the Greenbelt.The Natural Resources Program maintains a portfolio of active and future prospects for land conservation projects.The Landowner’s Forum continues to meet annually as a means for the conservation community and Greenbelt landowners to build trust, explore opportunities, share experiences, and address areas of mutual concern.Successful OutcomesCuesta Canyon and Stenner Canyon – land acquisitions and conservation easements protect a major wildlife migration corridor and the headwaters of San Luis Obispo Creek and Stenner Creek, while also providing connectivity to the Los Padres National Forest and Santa Lucia Wilderness.Irish Hills Backcountry – conservation easements securing intact working ranches will protect important migration corridors into and out of the Irish Hills, as well as the headwaters of Prefumo and Froom Creeks.The Morros – safeguarding these iconic volcanic peaks and their rich natural resources through a variety of conservation tools will retain a vital component of San Luis Obispo’s unique sense of place and our natural and cultural heritage.High School Hill – key land acquisitions will complete a larger mosaic of existing protected lands, including natural springs and headwaters of local streams, as well as scenic view protection.Prime Farmland and Working Landscapes – proactive acquisitions and conservation easement initiatives will protect working farms and ranches in Los Osos Valley, O’Connor Valley, East and West Edna Valley, as well as along the South Higuera corridor.San Luis Obispo Creek and Urban Open Space – strategic acquisition of smaller sites, particularly along San Luis Obispo Creek, will help complete the Bob Jones Trail, while providing increased natural resource protection and positive behavior around these sensitive areas. Such linkages also provide the ability to walk between downtown, various historic / cultural sites, and City Open Space locations.Vision Statement: Complete the GreenbeltImportant land, water, and diverse natural resource conservation values are protected by proactive land conservation efforts in priority areas of the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt over the course of the next 20 years. Packet Pg 19110
Saving Special Places Forever | 7Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) above Laguna Lake Natural Reserve. Photo by Halden Petersen, Terra Verde Environmental.Packet Pg 19210
Saving Special Places Forever | 8IndicatorsThe City maintains active dialogue and partnerships with non-profit organizations and the academic community, as well as State and Federal wildlife agencies (e.g. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries).The City maintains current inventories of plants and animals found within the Greenbelt, and engages in regularsurvey and monitoring of special status, rare, threatened, or endangered species and habitats. The City and its partners are active in prioritizing, planning, developing, and implementing restoration and enhancement projects for those plants and animals in need of attention.Successful OutcomesMonitoring shows that wildlife corridors are open and intact, especially key linkages within and between the Greenbelt and the Los Padres National Forest and the larger Irish Hills ecosystems.Recovery actions published by wildlife agencies are implemented and monitoring shows success, resulting in stable populations or down-listing of threatened and endangered species found within the Greenbelt.The integrity of watershed functions and riparian systems are maintained and improved, resulting in increased habitat value and reduced water quality impairments and less frequent flooding events. The common native species remain dominant by reducing current levels and new proliferations of invasive species.Active human-caused threats to sensitive plant and animal receptors are addressed and ameliorated.Conservation plans and restoration activities are closely aligned and coordinated with San Luis Obispo Creek watershed plans and the City’s Stormwater Resource Plan, with the result being a holistic, “one water” approach.Vision Statement: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Greenbelt Natural ResourcesThe outstanding aquatic, avian, botanical, and terrestrial wildlife natural resources found within the Greenbelt are protected, and those plants and animals requiring special efforts to restore or enhance habitat conditions receive priority attention and resources to ensure their long-term survival and recovery using best available science and practices.Packet Pg 19310
Saving Special Places Forever | 9The Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve or “City Farm”. Photo by Central Coast Grown.Packet Pg 19410
Saving Special Places Forever | 10Greenbelt Partners:Americorps CaliforniaCalifornia Conservation CorpsCalifornia Native Plant Society – Central Coast ChapterCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis ObispoCentral Coast Concerned Mountain BikersCentral Coast GrownCentral Coast Salmon EnhancementCivicSparkCoastal San Luis Resource Conservation DistrictNeighbors of Open SpaceThe Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo and SLO StewardsThe Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo CountyThe Santa Lucia Fly Fishers ClubThe Sierra Club – Santa Lucia ChapterWatershed Stewards ProgramIndicatorsThe City maintains active partnerships with an array of community groups, non-profit organizations, academic and educational institutions. Environmental education, natural and cultural history, and “citizen science” programming is available and prioritized.Docent and Ranger-led outings and volunteer work days are continued, expanded, and are available on a regular basis to accommodate differing fitness levels, skills, and interests. Information about natural resource values and appropriate public use of the City’s Greenbelt Open Space areas in a manner consistent with applicable policy documents, is readily available in a variety of forms and media.Successful OutcomesThe City’s partnerships are mutually beneficial with the result being more individuals participating in the stewardship and protection of the Greenbelt. Opportunities to participate in educational forums and settings are available to all age groups and walks of life –from grade school kids, to college students, to anyone interested in life-long learning.An Environmental Education Center / Ranger Station is created and serves as a hub for Junior Ranger Camp, for special research projects, and to provide interpretive opportunities to the general public.Neighborhood groups are playing an active and meaningful role in advising the City about stewardship needs through reporting and feedback, resulting in action to improve conditions. Negative behaviors and the need for enforcement of violations of the City’s Open Space Regulations (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code chapter 12.22) are reduced, as voluntary compliance and appropriate use and behavior increases.Measurable increases can be observed in the number of individuals participating in Docent or Ranger-led outings, work days, and other stewardship activities. Vision Statement: Foster a Culture of StewardshipThe importance of land, water, and diverse natural resource conservation values are taught, understood, appreciated, and, therefore, protected by local citizens, visitors, and organizations as a way of life and through direct stewardship and educational activities. Packet Pg 19510
Saving Special Places Forever | 11Bishop Peak viewed from Cerro San Luis Obispo. Photo by Brittany App.Packet Pg 19610
Saving Special Places Forever | 12Greenbelt Use:62% of Open Space users are from the City of SLO, 31% are from other communities in the County, 7% are from elsewhere.49% of Open Space users have a college degree and 30% have a graduate degree.37% of Open Space user households make over $100,000 per year, 27% make $50-100,000 per year, 18% make less than $50,000 per year.84% of Open Space users are white, with a variety of other groups comprising the remaining 16%.Johnson Ranch, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis, and Irish Hills receive 90% of all Open Space use. These sites each likely see over 150,000 visits per year.40% of Open Space users visit multiple times per week.68% drive, 12% walk, and 8% bike to Open Space.Source: San Luis Obispo Open Space Survey(Riggs et. al., 2015).IndicatorsConservation plans and new policy documents are products of inclusive and participatory planning practices, and are conducted consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual (2015).All user groups and demographics feel comfortable and welcome participating in plans and programs, as well as in their Greenbelt Open Space outdoor experiences.A culture of shared use and mutual respect is strong and expected on all trails in the Greenbelt. Both single-use and multi-use trails of varying length and difficulty are available at numerous Greenbelt locations.Successful OutcomesThe Greenbelt remains well-supported over the long-term, socially, politically, and financially, because it continues to be relevant and accessible to both current and future generations.Barriers to participation in planning, programming, and Open Space use are addressed, ameliorated, and reduced. This includes increased transit and mobility options for getting to Open Space, increased awareness and confidence among new Open Space users, and Open Space trailhead proximity within walking distance to all San Luis Obispo neighborhoods. The City and its partners effectively address, survey, manage, and reduce passive recreational use impacts so that they do not significantly degrade or impair native plants and vegetation, wildlife, and the surrounding environment. This includes regional trail connectivity that spreads out use away from overly-impacted trails and trailheads. New programs are developed that cultivate new, diverse, and younger audiences interested in outdoor opportunities within the Greenbelt that are responsive to changing demographics and future trends.Total trips to Greenbelt Open Space locations match the multi-modal transportation objectives set forth in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan (2014): 50% by motor vehicle, 20% by bike, 12% by transit, and 18% by walking, carpooling, or other forms. Vision Statement: The Greenbelt is Relevant and AccessibleGreenbelt lands are protected and projects are shaped by inclusive and participatory planning, provide equitable and responsible access, and are relevant and important to all citizens.Packet Pg 19710
Saving Special Places Forever | 13The San Luis Obispo Greenbelt from Stenner Springs Natural Reserve. Photo by Brittany App.Packet Pg 19810
Saving Special Places Forever | 14The Greenbelt is Climate Ready:Native perennial grasses, chaparral vegetation, trees and forests help to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.Functioning watersheds and riparian systems are less prone to flooding, especially when flood plains are protected and restored. Numerous natural springs are protected within the Greenbelt that provide critical summer stream flow during drought times.Healthy ecosystems are less prone to catastrophic wildfire and other natural hazards, and are more resistant and resilient to pollution, disease, and invasive species.Agricultural conservation projects and partnerships at City Farm and elsewhere demonstrate sustainable farming practices and soil conservation, and are a model for local food systems, community building, and connecting with the land. IndicatorsThere is continued support for the City’s local revenue measure and any future general or specific revenue enhancement measures, as well as local, state, federal, and private funding initiatives and measures, that can provide financial resources for land acquisition, management, and stewardship of the Greenbelt and its natural resource values.The Natural Resources Protection Program and Ranger Service are more closely aligned and integrated to provide a holistic and enduring Greenbelt Protection Program.Important decisions effecting the Greenbelt are supported by scientific and technical advisers and trusted community leaders through the formation of an Open Space Committee that advises the City Council.Successful OutcomesEach of the Vision Statement goals described in this document function together to provide social, economic, and environmental sustainability to the Greenbelt Protection Program and to the City and surrounding region as a whole.The City has fostered a stewardship ethic within our local culture and has secured the necessary resources and institutions to sustain the Greenbelt in perpetuity for the benefit of future generations of plants, animals, and people.The Greenbelt is refugia to many plants and animals in the face of climate change; healthy ecological systems are providing resiliency to disease, drought, catastrophic wildfires, predation, pollution, and invasive species.The Greenbelt is playing an important role in protecting the City and its residents from the effects of climate change including flooding events, prolonged drought, and catastrophic wildfire, while modeling sustainable food productionand helping build community and connections with the land.The Greenbelt continues to retain the unique sense of place and character that defines San Luis Obispo, ensuring a thriving and healthy community for the future.Vision Statement: The Greenbelt is SustainableThe Greenbelt and natural resource protection efforts are supported by appropriate staffing, funding, and institutions to ensure perpetual management and stewardship activities, while a healthy, functioning Greenbelt system also provides climate change adaptation and resilience benefits to the City and surrounding region as a whole. Packet Pg 19910
Saving Special Places Forever: A Vision Plan to Complete and Sustain the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt Cover: Coast Live Oak at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. Photo by Doug Bush.Above: Laguna Lake and Irish Hills Natural Reserves from Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve. Photo by Brittany App.www.slocity.org.Packet Pg 20010
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Natural Resources Roundtable, Meeting No. 1
January 26, 2016 • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Meeting at: San Luis Obispo Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa Street
Prepared by: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Distribution List
Roundtable Members – Greg Bettencourt, Kaila Dettman, Mary Ciesinski, Andrew Christie
(absent), Gary Felsman, Trevor Keith, Marc Lea, Steven Marx, Eric Meyer, Clint Pearce,
William Riggs, Matt Ritter, Carla Saunders, Bill Waycott
Staff – Doug Carscaden, Michael Codron, Bob Hill, Derek Johnson, Katie Lichtig, Chief
Garret Olson, Freddy Otte, Shelly Stanwyck
Agenda Items and Notes
1. Introductions and Background:
a. Member and staff introductions
b. Natural Resources Roundtable
purpose and guidelines
c. Expected outcomes and
deliverables
Notes:
Roundtable members and staff introduced themselves;
Bob Hill referred to the member binders that were
distributed containing the Project Plan, Guidelines, and
reference materials that are not available on-line; Bob
Hill described the Roundtable timeframe for meetings
and their content, as well as the expectation for a final
vision plan to be presented to City Council as part of
the Open Space Major City Goal work plan for 2015-
17.
2. The San Luis Obispo Greenbelt:
a. History
b. Policy framework
c. Accomplishments
d. Program structure
Notes:
Bob Hill narrated a powerpoint slide show of the San
Luis Obispo Greenbelt detailing program history,
properties protected, expenditures and results,
mapping, and an overview of each City-owned open
space property.
3. Public Testimony:
a. Former community members,
task force members, and staff
with program history
Notes:
Neil Havlik described his role as the prior Natural
Resources Manager, indicating that the program can
go in new directions to broaden its appeal, and
responding that the Ahearn and Morganti properties
are “the ones that got away” during his tenure.
Ray Belknap described his role as the former
Executive Director of the Land Conservancy of SLO at
the time the Greenbelt was being formed, the role of
mapping and place names to describe unique places
Meeting Notes
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg 201
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
and landscapes and make spiritual connections to
land, and made a strong pitch that “sense of place”
should be a central criteria for priority setting.
Penny Rappa described her role as a former City
Council member when the Greenbelt was being
formed, and suggested that an Open Space
Committee should be formed to advise the City
Council on open space matters.
Kurt Kupper described his role as Chair of the
Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) in the early
1990s and stated that we have a strong platform to go
forward, and that furthering relationships with Cal Poly
can enhance the program.
Ken Haggard provided testimony to the Roundtable
regarding his recollections of the EQTF and how
important it is to “think in scale” (in the architect’s
sense).
Richard Schmidt was also in attendance and provided
brief remarks related to the Barbara Seymour book
Portrait of a Place that was passed around the room.
4. Roundtable Dialogue:
a. Why did you agree to join the
Roundtable?
b. Why are you passionate about
City Open Space protection?
c. What are your hopes and
dreams for the Natural
Resources Roundtable?
Notes :
Roundtable members each provided remarks
pertaining to the Greenbelt Program; common threads
included:
a. Strong “sense of place” in San Luis Obispo and
responsibility to take care of the land
b. Connecting kids to nature and providing for
future generations; providing outdoor
classrooms
c. The City’s historic commitment to the Greenbelt
Program on both a policy level (General Plan,
Open Space Ordinance, etc.) and a funding
level.
d. Concern for urban sprawl and preventing SLO
from becoming indistinguishable from the next
city.
e. Citizen engagement and the difference that can
be made by individuals supporting local
conservation efforts; the significant
conservation outcomes that can be achieved
through long-term (20 year) planning
f. The spiritual, uplifting value of mountains and
natural landscape surroundings
Packet Pg 202
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Natural Resources Roundtable, Meeting No. 2
February 23, 2016 • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Meeting at: San Luis Obispo Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa Street
Prepared by: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Distribution List
Roundtable Members – Greg Bettencourt, Kaila Dettman or Daniel Bohlman (absent
w/notice), Mary Ciesinski, Andrew Christie, Gary Felsman, Trevor Keith (absent w/notice),
Marc Lea, Steven Marx, Eric Meyer, Clint Pearce, William Riggs (absent w/notice), Matt
Ritter, Carla Saunders, Bill Waycott
Regular Staff – Doug Carscaden, Bob Hill, Freddy Otte
Attendees – Jon Hall, Land Conservancy of SLO; Seth Souza, SLO Stewards; Kurt Kupper
Agenda
1. Brief Updates and Meeting Notes
a. Members and Staff
b. Meeting Notes of Jan. 26th
Notes:
Roundtable members each shared a
memorable wildlife encounter from City open
space or the surrounding area.
The meeting notes of Jan. 26th were
accepted as presented.
2. Biological Resources of the San
Luis Obispo Greenbelt
a. Overview
b. Policy framework
c. Aquatic Resources
d. Rare Plants and Trees
e. Small Mammals and Birds
f. Large Mammals and Wildlife
Migration Corridors
Notes:
Bob Hill and Freddy Otte narrated a powerpoint
presentation of various biological resources
found in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt, and
facilitated Roundtable discussion.
Meeting Notes
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg 203
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3. Roundtable Dialogue
Notes:
Matt Ritter passed out an up-to-date, never-
before-distributed, comprehensive list of rare
plants that have been documented in City Open
Space, as compiled by Dr. Ritter and Dr. David
Keil, Professor Emeritus.
Gary Felsman noted that a map set clearly
showing City limits, Sphere of Influence, Urban
Reserve line, the Greenbelt boundary, and
relationship to other cities would be useful to the
Roundtable. Follow up: staff will provide a
“conservation atlas” that is a series of maps
showing the above noted geographic boundaries,
in addition to conservation mapping that has
been previously distributed, as part of this
project.
Matt Ritter, Marc Lea, and Jon Hall noted the
City’s nascent invasive species management
program and the priority of its implementation
given invasive species threats to wildland and
biological resources, together with educational
efforts in collaboration with the California Invasive
Plant Council, CNPS, and the SLO County Weed
Management Area.
Steven Marx brought up the topic of better
integrating the urban and natural areas of San
Luis Obispo by completing the Bob Jones City-to-
Sea Trail as a means of educations and
addressing the proliferation of transients living in
the creek and the various social and
environmental challenges associated. General
discussion ensued about concepts of “Urban
Open Space”. [Note: this is supported by
Conservation and Open Space Element Goal
8.2.2 “Open Space with the Urban Area”].
Eric Meyer inquired if Open Space Acquisition
funds could be used for urban creek area
acquisitions. Staff responded yes, but that City
Council sets priorities and approves transactions.
Carla Saunders expressed concern for
expanding trails in creek areas, as well as for
expenditures of acquisition monies and the use of
Ranger Service time interacting with transients.
Greg Bettencourt apprised the Roundtable of the
positive changes that have been seen at Pogonip
Open Space in the City of Santa Cruz due to the
installation of a new trail next to an area with a
Packet Pg 204
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
long-standing, intractable population of transients
and drug use.
Matt Ritter mentioned the importance of engaging
residents and viewing them as partners in “citizen
science” to help better inform management
decisions.
Kurt Kupper brought up that better mapping of
regional connections and wildlife corridors is
important. [Note: by separate email, Dr. John
Perrine, Professor of Biological Sciences,
indicated that wildlife corridors between the Irish
Hills and Los Padres Nat’l Forest are extremely
important in a regional context]
Eric Meyer stated that the Perozzi Ranch should
be a conservation priority for the Greenbelt.
Gary Felsman, Mary Ciesinski, and Seth Souza
all mentioned the importance of education as a
program priority.
4. Meeting Schedule Adjustments for
March and June
Notes:
This topic was not addressed at the meeting.
[Note: meeting dates were changed subsequently
by email as follows:
March 22 change to March 29
June 28 change to June 23].
Packet Pg 205
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Natural Resources Roundtable, Meeting No. 3 – Agricultural Resources
March 29, 2016 • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Meeting at: City Hall, 990 Palm Street
Prepared by: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Distribution List
Roundtable Members – Greg Bettencourt, Kaila Dettman or Daniel Bohlman, Mary
Ciesinski, Andrew Christie, Gary Felsman, Trevor Keith, Marc Lea, Steven Marx, Eric
Meyer, Clint Pearce, William Riggs, Matt Ritter, Carla Saunders, Bill Waycott
Staff – Doug Carscaden, Bob Hill, Freddy Otte, Shelly Stanwyck, Chief Garret Olson
Guest Speakers – Nicki Anderson, Rob Rutherford, Aaron Lazonoff
Attendees – Mayor Jan Marx; Connor Culhane, Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers
Agenda
1. Brief Updates and Meeting Notes
a. Members and Staff
b. Meeting Notes of Feb 23rd.
Notes:
Brief introductions
Bob Hill provided an overview of agricultural
resources and management objectives in the
SLO Greenbelt. A map of prime farmland in SLO
County prepared by the California Farmland
Mapping & Monitoring Program was distributed,
and a map of the “Conservation Continuum” was
hung on the wall.
Carla Saunders provided hard copies of pertinent
sections of the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the City’s General Plan and Open
Space Regulations to all Roundtable members.
The meeting notes of Feb 23rd were
accepted as presented.
2. Overview of City Farm and
Possibilities for Sustainable
Farming in San Luis Obispo
Notes:
Nicki Anderson, Farm Manager at Central Coast
Grown / City Farm, narrated a powerpoint
presentation.
Meeting Notes
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg 206
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3. Conservation Grazing Notes:
Rob Rutherford, Cal Poly Professor Emeritus and
owner of Whole Options LLC, narrated a
powerpoint presentation.
4. Contemporary grazing practices
on Cal Poly ranchlands
Notes:
Aaron Lazonoff, Cal Poly Range Manager,
narrated a powerpoint presentation.
5. The Land Conservancy of SLO
County’s Lower SLO Creek
agriculture operations and Los
Osos Valley conservation
easement activity
Speaker:
Kaila Dettman, Executive Director of The Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County,
narrated a powerpoint presentation.
6. Roundtable Dialogue
Notes:
Bob Hill noted the agricultural fringe and
ecological relationships discussed in the first
presentation, referred to the “Conservation
Continuum” graphic that was shown, and noted
that the origins of greenbelts (e.g. Howard’s
Garden Cities of Tomorrow) first intended to
provide a food source to the City within the
greenbelt.
Eric Meyer inquired about the potential for
gaining soil conservation carbon credits as a
means of financially assisting project objectives.
Bob Hill responded that he is closely watching
this emerging opportunity, noting the existence of
cap and trade in California, the Climate Action
Reserve, and the sequestration protocols that are
being developed for agricultural operations.
Matt Ritter inquired of Rob Rutherford and Aaron
Lazonoff about the impacts of grazing on oak re-
generation and age-class diversity, noting the
“oak problem”. Dialogue ensued with both
positive results and negative results described
from other areas and experiences.
Packet Pg 207
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Gary Felsman discussed how agriculture is
another important way of linking people to open
space resources beyond just recreation. He also
noted, however, that grazing can negatively
impact trails under wet conditions.
Carla Saunders referred to Appendix C of the
Conservation and Open Space Element and its
description of primary, secondary, and tertiary
management objectives for City open space,
noting that natural resources protection is the
City’s established primary management
objective.
Bill Waycott inquired if the City is serious about
protecting prime agricultural lands (beyond
development project mitigation activity). Bob Hill
responded affirmatively (the Brughelli Ranch
conservation easement is one example),
although noting that there are relatively few prime
farmland parcels in the Greenbelt and that prime
farmland is typically considerably more expensive
than grazing land or natural resource land.
Packet Pg 208
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Natural Resources Roundtable, Meeting No. 4 – Trails & Passive Recreation
April 26, 2016 • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Meeting at: San Luis Obispo Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa Street
Prepared by: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Attendance
Roundtable Members – Greg Bettencourt, Kaila Dettman, Mary Ciesinski, Andrew
Christie, Gary Felsman, Marc Lea, Steven Marx, Eric Meyer, Clint Pearce, William Riggs,
Matt Ritter, Carla Saunders, Bill Waycott
Staff – Doug Carscaden, Bob Hill, Freddy Otte, Shelly Stanwyck
Attendees – Connor Culhane, Seth Souza, Kurt Kupper
Agenda
1. Brief Updates and Meeting
Notes
a. Members and Staff
b. Meeting Notes of March 29th.
Notes:
Brief introductions.
Bob Hill provided the following:
a. trail maps of each City open space property
for review over the table
b. hard copies of a spreadsheet of open
space land use designations and allowed
public access uses by property
c. two news articles pertaining to multi-use
trails were distributed by email prior to the
meeting as discussion starters: “Fun hogs
and the future of conservation” (Jackson
Hole News and Guide, 2014) and “Is the
birthplace of mountain biking destined to
become the worst place for mountain
biking?” (Peninsula Press, 2016)
Carla Saunders provided hard copies of prior
letters and notes submitted to Planning
Commission and City Council pertaining to
recreational use from neighbors of Bishop Peak
Natural Reserve.
The meeting notes of March 29th were
accepted as presented.
Meeting Notes
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg 209
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
2. Overview of the SLO Stewards
Docent Program
Notes:
Mary Ciesinski narrated a powerpoint presentation.
Roundtable questions and dialogue ensued:
a. Gary Felsman asked if there is a
possibility to create a mountain biking
SLO Steward docent to assist with
teaching trail etiquette for bikers?
(response: potentially in the future)
b. Carla Saunders inquired if there are limits
to group size for docent-led hikes?
(response: not now, but potentially in the
future)
c. Barriers to entry for new trail users were
discussed including:
i. fear / understanding of nature
ii. financial resources necessary for
access (time, proximity, transit
options)
3. Sustainable Trails &
Roundtable Discussion
Notes:
Greg Bettencourt provided a narrative overview of
the history and current activities of Central Coast
Concerned Mountain Bikers (“CCCMB”):
a. Formed to work collaboratively with land
managers to protect multi-use access
b. Started out working at Montana de Oro,
U.S. Forest Service, and County Parks;
City partnership came later
c. Early work focused on trail maintenance,
which led to trail repair and re-routes, which
led to developing skills in routing and
constructing new trails
d. CCCMB trail work benefits all trail users,
not just mountain bikers, including
numerous cases of working on single-use
hiking only trails
e. Funding partnerships with San Luis Open
Space and Trails Foundation (SLOPOST)
f. CCCMB also provides trail etiquette
education; bike bells program (cost =
~$3,500/year); bike skills program
Ranger Doug Carscaden narrated a powerpoint
presentation along with discussion about the City’s
trail construction and trail maintenance work:
a. Trail work is only a part of what Ranger Packet Pg 210
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Service does (in addition to after school
and Jr. Ranger programming, routine
monitoring & maintenance, open space
patrol and enforcement, interface with
transient populations, etc.)
b. Regular “Wednesday” volunteers are
dedicated and highly skilled
c. New trail construction is carefully
considered, starting with the Conservation
Plan / CEQA process, lengthy in-the-field
route planning, and taking the time to
“know the land”
d. Contemporary trail construction follows
elevation contours, maintains grades of
10% or less, and uses “rolling dips” and
“grade reversals” to minimize erosion;
maintains vegetation buffers to minimize
scenic impacts; and maintains “line of sight”
to minimize user conflicts
e. Older, legacy trails created from historic
jeep trails etc. often-times are problematic
in terms of erosion due to excessive grade
and poor construction
(Review Note: at this time the presentation
blended into Roundtable Discussion until the end
of the meeting)
Carla Saunders brought to the attention of the
group an American Hiking Society (“AHS”) position
statement on mountain biking & trail use (see:
http://www.americanhiking.org/advocacy/mountain-
bike-position-statement/) noting that “Where there
are multi-purpose trail systems or corridors,
American Hiking supports the development and
stewardship of parallel stretches of foot-only trails
within those systems to avoid the loss of hiker use
because of substantial user conflict” (2013). AHS’
three main design and management criteria when
evaluating proposals for multi-use trails include
safety, environmental protection, and “the
experience of hiking”.
Greg Bettencourt stated that sharing trails is a
fundamental part of our local culture.
Connor Culhane noted that the Cal Poly
Wheelmen also provide trail etiquette education.
Packet Pg 211
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
He also provided location examples such Phoenix,
Austin (Texas), and Vancouver (British Columbia)
where trail user conflicts have been minimized and
largely avoided through trail system design.
Eric Meyer suggested that one way to determine
what SLO trail users really want would be to do
some outreach and a survey.
Billy Riggs responded that this type of work has
been recently completed with the
City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space
Maintenance Plan (Riggs et al., 2015). Bob Hill
added that open space land management
decisions are not necessarily democratic or
equitable (in a social sense); rather, decisions are
based on natural resources protection priorities.
Kurt Kupper recalled a prior experience of really
fast mountain bikers creating a scary trail hiking
experience, but also noted that on a recent outing
at Johnson Ranch Open Space everyone was
well-behaved and respectful.
Greg Bettencourt explained that regional trail
connectivity (e.g. from City Open Space to USFS,
Cal Poly, County Parks etc.) is a high priority for
multi-use trail systems because longer distances
provide a higher quality experience for bikers,
while also diffusing impacts. Billy Riggs and Matt
Ritter responded that providing more area as a
means of spreading impacts out doesn’t
necessarily always hold true based on academic
planning literature.
Andrew Christie inquired as to how City staff
determines if a trail is to be single use or multi-
use? Bob Hill responded that this is done through
the Conservation Plan/CEQA process in
accordance with existing policy framework.
Bill Waycott illustrated that on any given day he
may be a trail hiker, a trail runner, or a trail
mountain biker, and that each experience is vastly
different and pursued for different reasons.
Marc Lea encouraged the Roundtable to avoid
generalizations and value judgments about user
types / groups and appropriate trail uses.
Packet Pg 212
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Billy Riggs noted that it is of concern that the land
conservation and trail community spends too much
time “splitting hairs” about recreational use, while
potentially losing sight of our larger conservation
goals and the maintenance of Greenbelt integrity,
citing a recent controversial land use decision.
Shelly Stanwyck summarized what she felt were
the major themes of the evening’s discussion as
follows:
a. there is a definitive education theme
b. there is a culture of shared use and
stewardship in San Luis Obispo
c. there are multiple valid passive
recreational uses for open space that can
sometimes co-exist, and sometimes
should be kept separate for environmental
protection, user safety, or user experience
reasons.
4. Next steps During the course of the Roundtable Discussion,
above, Kurt Kupper inquired as to the next steps
for the Roundtable and how the process will be
wrapped up. Bob Hill responded that meeting no.
5 will be a Landowner’s Forum (in association with
targeted landowner outreach) that will help
ascertain owners that are interested or potentially
interested in participating in the Greenbelt
Protection Program over the course of the next 20
years. Following meeting no. 5, a comprehensive
memo will be distributed to the Roundtable that
summarizes the major themes of the Roundtable
proceedings, as well as identifies prospective land
conservation projects and sustainable program
initiatives for discussion and prioritization at
meeting no. 6. There is also a potential for a
meeting no. 7 in July if necessary (the Senior
Center space is already reserved for July 26th).
Following the Roundtable proceedings, Natural
Resources staff will prepare a report and vision
plan tentatively titled, Saving Special Places III:
Towards a Sustainable Greenbelt that will be
distributed first to the Roundtable in winter 2016-
17 for its review, followed by advisory body and
City Council review and consideration of approval
by the end of June 2017.
Packet Pg 213
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Natural Resources Roundtable, Meeting No. 5 – Landowner’s Forum
May 24, 2016 • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Meeting at: San Luis Obispo Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa Street
Prepared by: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Attendance
Roundtable Members – Greg Bettencourt, Kaila Dettman, Mary Ciesinski, Gary Felsman,
Trevor Keith, Marc Lea, Steven Marx, Eric Meyer, Clint Pearce, Matt Ritter, Carla
Saunders, Bill Waycott
Staff – Doug Carscaden, Michael Codron, Bob Hill, Freddy Otte, Shelly Stanwyck
Attendees – Connor Culhane
Landowners – Gabriel Miossi and Kathy Henderson (Miossi Brothers La Cuesta Ranch);
Sandy Ahearn and Mark Rhomberg (Ahearn Ranch); Herb Filipponi (Filipponi Ranch); Tim
Perozzi (Perozzi Ranch); Chuck Kirshner and Tom Kirshner (Stenner Creek Ranch); John
Madonna (John Madonna Ranch); Roy and Dolly Garcia and Heidi Brees (Garcia Ranch);
John Wallace (O’Connor Way Farms); Eleanor Truocchio (Lone Valley Ranch).
Notes
1. Brief Updates and Meeting Notes
a. Members and Staff
b. Meeting Notes of April 26th.
Notes:
Brief introductions.
Carla Saunders requested that the meeting notes
be edited to state that Shelly Stanwyck’s
summary of major themes (p. 4) were her
summary, and not necessarily reflective of the
entire Roundtable.
The meeting notes of April 26th were
accepted with the above change noted.
2. Presentation Notes:
Bob Hill narrated a powerpoint presentation and
discussed:
a. Greenbelt Landownership Patterns
b. The Conservation “Toolbox”
c. Methods for Protecting the Family Ranch
d. Examples of three different Greenbelt
conservation projects.
Meeting Notes
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg 214
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
3. Landowner’s Forum Notes:
Landowners introduced themselves and their
family ranches.
Common themes that were discussed included:
a. City upkeep and maintenance of existing
open space properties (both positive and
negative comments)
b. property and estate taxes
c. invasive species
d. transient encampments
e. trespassing hikers and Cal Poly students,
esp. during WOW week.
f. dumping
g. insurance
h. rural road upkeep and patrol
i. income producing opportunities
j. water availability
k. interest in how land conservation
transactions actually work
l. interest in learning more about estate
planning and tax strategies
Clint Pearce suggested that it would be a good
idea to continue the Landowner’s Forum in the
future with meetings taking place from time to
time in order to continue to discuss issues such
as those stated above.
Clint Pearce also highlighted that perhaps there
is another category of land ownership
conservation status, noting that many long-
standing family ranches are in stable land tenure
where there is no imminent threat of sale,
development, subdivision, etc.
Packet Pg 215
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Natural Resources Roundtable, Meeting No. 6 – Major Themes and Priorities
June 23, 2016 • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Meeting at: San Luis Obispo Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa Street
Prepared by: Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Attendance
Roundtable Members – Greg Bettencourt, Daniel Bohlman, Mary Ciesinski, Steven Marx,
Eric Meyer, Billy Riggs, Matt Ritter, Carla Saunders, Bill Waycott
Staff –Bob Hill, Freddy Otte, Max McGuire
Attendees – Connor Culhane
Notes
1. Brief Updates and Meeting Notes
a. Members and Staff
b. Meeting Notes of May 24th.
Notes:
Brief updates.
The meeting notes of May 24th were accepted.
2. Presentation and Discussion Notes:
Bob Hill provided a memorandum regarding
major themes and potential priorities in advance
of the meeting and narrated a brief powerpoint
presentation that discussed:
a. Land Conservation Priorities
b. Land Stewardship and Enhancement
Priorities
c. Future staffing, program initiatives,
funding strategies, and sustainability
measures.
Carla Saunders provided copies of letters sent to
City Council from neighbors of Bishop Peak
highlighting ongoing overuse and lack of
enforcement issues.
Steven Marx and Eric Meyer responded to the
meeting notes of 5/24 and re-iterated the success
of the Landowner’s Forum and desire to continue
it into the future, noting the value of peer-to-peer
dialogue, especially between landowners that are
considering conservation options and those that
have already done it.
Meeting Notes
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg 216
10
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Billy Riggs discussed the importance of capturing
a broad cross section of the community in open
space plans and programs.
Carla Saunders noted the need for increased
education and outreach about natural resource
protection, and Steven Marx elaborated by
describing the education efforts underway with
Pacific Beach High School students and with
grade school kids in the Learning Among the
Oaks program.
It was further noted by Carla Saunders that
outreach should not be confused with large
events and gatherings, and Eric Meyer warned to
be careful of tourism backlash.
There was discussion about future trends and
threats; Freddy Otte mentioned conducting
research about climate change impacts to natural
resources and advancing “citizen science”
initiatives, and Daniel Bohlman indicated that
collecting data is only valuable if you do
something about what you learn from that data;
other trends such as the fairly recent advent of
electric powered bikes in open space came up as
an example of something the City will have to
manage (review note: there was not interest or
support for allowing electric bikes).
The topic of forming a separate Open Space
Committee was discussed and was supported by
consensus. Roundtable members in attendance
felt there was substantial value in staff and the
City Council benefitting from technical expertise
and individuals experienced in topics pertinent to
natural resources management and
conservation. There was some brief discussion
about the possibility of the Parks and Recreation
Committee adding an open space review
function, but it was ultimately agreed that these
are different topics requiring different skill sets
and experience.
Eric Meyer discussed the importance of looking
at the Greenbelt through a regional “lens” that
takes into account land use trends and future
pressures outside of City jurisdiction.
Future funding and staffing levels were discussed
as being most important to program success, but
meeting time did not allow a robust discussion on
funding strategies.
Packet Pg 217
10
Council Minutes
I, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Regular and Special Meetings of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, July 7,
2015 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
John Ashbaugh, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Michael Codron,
Assistant City Manager; and Anthony Mejia, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
BUSINESS ITEM
B1. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT — FACILITIES PLAN
AND DESIGN ENGINEERING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Utilities Director Mattingly, Utilities Deputy Director Hix, and Jeff Szytel, of Water
Systems Consulting, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Water Resource
Recovery Facility Project" and responded to Council inquiries.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER, SECOND
BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5 -0, to:
1. Adopt the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Facilities Plan.
2. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals for design engineering services for
the WRRF Project.
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a design engineering consultant services
agreement if the selected proposal does not exceed $6.3 million.
RECESS
Council recessed at 4:39 p.m. Packet Pg 218
10
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of July 7 2015 Pave 7
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, questioned whether the trail at Bishop Peak was ADA
compliant; encouraged visitors to access the trails through the Madonna trailhead, noting
that the primary access to Bishop Peak is located in the neighborhoods; stated that the
trail should be extended to the Bishop Peak summit.
Joanne Ruggles, San Luis Obispo, spoke about owning a home that runs along the trail at
Bishop Peak; opined that the mountain should not be scarred with new trails where it
would be visible from afar; stressed the importance of enforcing trail regulations.
There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
During the course of discussion, Council directed staff to explore the formation of an
open space committee to provide advice on matters of open space acquisition and/or
maintenance.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4 -0 (VICE MAYOR ASHBAUGH
RECUSED), to adopt Resolution No. 10646 (2015 Series entitled "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Bishop Peak
Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and adoption of a Negative Declaration."
RECESS
Council recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m., with all Council Members present.
PH2. REVIEW OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 35 COMMERCIAL
LOT'S WITHIN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ALONG TANK FARM
ROAD INCLUDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION)_- RESOLUTION
Individual members of Council announced they had no ex -parte communications with
representatives of the subject property.
Community Development Director Johnson, Senior Planner Dunsmore, and
Transportation Operations Manager Hudson narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled
250 Tank Farm Road, A Commercial Subdivision Proposing 35 Lots" and responded to
Council inquiries.
Mayor Marx opened the public hearing.
Cocker Ellsworth, Applicant, Arroyo Grande, spoke on the history of purchasing and
planning for the development of the subject property; noted that the lots can be easily
merged together if necessary. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Ellsworth advised that
the remnant lot will likely be merged with the Chevron property.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, pointed out that the lot sizes are appropriate for start-
up businesses; opined that the lot sizes should be more diverse in size.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, urged Council to approve the proposed project,
noting that it will allow businesses to purchase property that meets their needs.
Packet Pg 219
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 220
10
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared by: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director - Water
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Rescind all prior approvals and appointments associated with the formation of a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency from the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting; and
2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment E) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to become a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin for
the area that lies beneath and within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Luis
Obispo” (Attachment E); and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve use of up to $200,000 of water fund working capital
for expenditures related to the formation and administration of a groundwater sustainability
agency and the development of a groundwater sustainability plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter to the California Department of Water
Resources notifying them of the City’s decision to become a Groundwater Sustainability
Agency as required by Water Code § 10723.8; and
5. Authorize the City’s Utilities Director to perform any acts necessary under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act in order to effectuate the purposes and acts authorized herein;
and
6. Once formed, appoint Council Member Pease and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the to the Groundwater Sustainability Commission.
DISCUSSION
Background
On March 2, 2017, in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA),
the City Council approved and authorized the Mayor to execute a Joint Powers Agreement with
the County of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of forming the San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. That staff report is included as
Attachment A. Earlier that same day, the County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors took
action to amend certain sections of its adopted SGMA policy related to funding. The Board held
another public hearing on April 4, 2017 to re-consider that action. At this meeting, the Board
maintained the March 7 policy change.
The Board’s policy change directs the use of County General Fund money to develop
Packet Pg 221
11
groundwater sustainability plans in areas of the County not covered by another Groundwater
Sustainability Agency. The Board stated it would not raise fees to support the development of the
plans. The Board’s prior SGMA policy stated that it would not fund the development of
groundwater sustainability plans through its General Fund. This action effectively removed the
ability for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency to
fund itself through basin user fees as required in the Joint Powers Agreement. In short, the Joint
Powers Agreement is no longer a viable option for the City and it is recommended the City
Council rescind all prior approvals and appointments associated with the action taken on that
item.
The recommended alternative path forward (Alternative 1 from the City’s March 7, 2017 staff
report) is for the City to form its own Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) over its
jurisdictional boundaries. The City as the GSA will work in a coordinated approach with the
County (who will form its own Groundwater Sustainability Agency over its portion of the San
Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin) to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
that covers the entire San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. See Attachment B for map of
proposed GSAs.
Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the deadline to form a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency is June 30, 2017.
Continuing Efforts / Next Steps
The San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin “eligible entities” as shown in Attachment C,
(City, County, Golden State Water Company, Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company-East, Varian
Ranch Mutual Water Company, and Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company) are all ba ck
at the table working collaboratively to comply with SGMA requirements. A draft governance
structure of a coordinated approach to managing the groundwater basin is attached (Attachment
D). The proposed structure includes a Groundwater Sustainability Commission which is an
advisory body to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. The Commission consists of
one City Council Member, one County Supervisor and a representative of each of the water
companies identified above. The structure is subject to change.
The City, County, and eligible entities are required by SGMA to work together to create
Groundwater Sustainability Plans. A draft memorandum of agreement among the parties is under
review. City and County staff are working to develop an appropriate cost sharing and decision-
making approach to Groundwater Sustainability Plan development by the separate Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies.
Should the Council approve the formation of the City of San Luis Obispo Groundwater
Sustainability Agency, the full program (coordinated approach with the County GSA) will be
presented to City Council for its consideration as soon as feasible. Meeting the statutory deadline
to form the City GSA is the focus of this report.
It should be noted that the County’s modified policy is limited to the development of the
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. It is unclear what funding the County will deem appropriate for
plan implementation. The City and County have the option in the future to form a Joint Powers
Packet Pg 222
11
entity, as originally envisioned, should circumstances justify that approach. SGMA requires the
Groundwater Sustainability Plan to be developed by January 31, 2022.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency is not s ubject to
CEQA. Preparation of the appropriate environmental findings at this stage is premature given
that the process is still in its early stages and adequate information is not available to inform any
required analysis as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(b).
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs and efforts associated with SGMA compliance to-date have been borne by the County with
in-kind support and stakeholder outreach by the City, Golden State Water Company, Edna
Valley Growers Mutual Water Company, Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, and Edna
Ranch - East Mutual Water Company.
With the City as the GSA, City staff will incur additional responsibilities related to the
administration of this program. In addition, the City must coordinate efforts with the County of
San Luis Obispo GSA to create a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
Costs associated with the administration and operation of the City of San Luis Obispo
Groundwater Sustainability Agency are estimated at $150,000 annually; however, because this is
a cost estimate, authority to use up to $200,000 of working capital is requested. Ultimately how
the Agency will be administered and funded has yet to be determined. At this time, funding
through water fund working capital is being recommended. The use of fund balance has been
taken into consideration of the fund review and the fund is projected to maintain working capital
above 20% of the operating expenditures policy reserve.
Long-term costs for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin GSAs to impl ement the
GSP and manage the entire basin in coordination with one another are unknown at this time. The
methodology for collection of funds and share apportionment among the basin’s entities is also
unknown at this time. The County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors has not made its
intent clear as to how GSP implementation will be paid for in its countywide GSAs. This funding
hurdle will need to be resolved in the future.
Efforts to minimize costs associated with the GSA include exploration of partnerships with other
GSAs in the County to share resources, continue in-kind services where applicable, and pursue
grants. The County has already secured funding of $150,000 towards a basin characterization
study for the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - a needed work effort for creation of a
GSP.
ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to SGMA, if any portion of the basin is not covered by a GSA, the County is presumed
to be the GSA for that area. If the County does not take on this role, then the State will intervene
Packet Pg 223
11
until it can turn basin management back to a local entity. Activities could include groundwater
extraction reporting by basin users, development of Interim Plan(s) and related studies and
CEQA compliance as applicable, collection of fees, and issuance of cease and desist orders if
necessary to handle violations. The State’s clear intention is local groundwater issues should be
governed by local entities.
1. Council could choose not to form a GSA. Doing so would cede authority to the County;
its GSA would be the only agency with the designated authorities and jurisdiction over
the groundwater basin. The City would have an advisory position comparable to the other
eligible entities in the basin. During the creation of the groundwater sustainability plan,
there would be some cost to the City (likely under $20,000) in order to have influence on
the Groundwater Sustainability Commission shown in the draft governance structure
(Attachment C).
With this alternative, the County would bear the cost of administering and operating the
new GSA and creating a groundwater sustainability plan for the entire San Luis Obispo
Valley Groundwater Basin. While current County policy direction on this issue is not
clear, at some future point, the GSA would have authority to enact fees and charges over
the basin in order to bring it into sustainability.
Attachments:
a - 3/7/2017 Council Agenda Report - SGMA
b - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - GSA Concept
c - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - Eligible Entities
d - SLOVGB New Governance Structure
e - Resolution forming GSA
Packet Pg 224
11
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared by: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director – Water
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo
to form the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency”
(Attachment B); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve minor modifications to the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement; and
3. Authorize the use of up to $200,000 of Water fund balance as the City’s portion of initial
operating capital for fiscal year 2017/18 for the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (subject
to reimbursement from the Groundwater Sustainability Agency); and
4. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to take certain actions relative to the formation of
the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
5. Appoint one representative from City Council and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwat er
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of groundwater use. The majority of
groundwater basins across the State have not been sustainably managed. With increased focus
due to the drought, the Governor signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which went into effect January 1, 2015. SGMA requires the formation of
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage groundwater basins.
The Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is recommended to be formed by a Joint Powers
Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo. Other entities
utilizing groundwater would be represented on the GSA. The deadline for formation of a GSA is
June 30, 2017.
Funding for this effort will be shared proportionally by all entities until a permanent funding
source can be secured.
DISCUSSION
Background
Groundwater has played a significant role in the City’s historical water use and is an integral part
Packet Pg 225
11
of its One-Water future, in which water from all sources are used conjunctively to achieve the
greatest beneficial use. While the City relies more on surface water in average rain years,
groundwater is a vital part of the community’s multisource water supply. For example, the
drought that began in 1986 resulted in a significant decrease in surface water supplies and a
corresponding need for increased groundwater use. In 1990, at the height of that drought,
groundwater accounted for about 50 percent of the water supplied. As part of the 2016-17
Financial Plan supplement, Council authorized the expansion of the existing groundwater
program, including the rehabilitation of an existing well, as part of an overall water resiliency
strategy. As the City contemplates the best path towards potable reuse of highly treated
wastewater, the viable option of indirect potable reuse is directly tied to injection and extraction
of groundwater from the basin. For these reasons, it is important for the City to be actively
involved in the management of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (“SLO Basin”).
According to the California Department of Water Resources, thirty million Californians rely on
groundwater for a portion of their drinking water. Groundwater provides about 40 percent of the
State’s total water supply which, depending on wet or dry years, serves as a critical buffer
against drought and climate change. Currently, in the few regions where groundwater is
managed, it is done so by local and regional agencies, some of which sustainably manage their
resources. Other regions do not manage their basin or do not do so sustainably, resulting in
problems such as groundwater overdraft, land subsidence, wells going dry, and deteriorated
water quality.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Multiple years of drought combined with a lack of uniform standards for groundwater
management led to the Governor signing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which took effect January 1, 2015. This legislation requires the creation of new
institutions and adoption of planning documents, and grants the institutions the authorities and
resources to implement such requirements. SGMA includes enforcement tools to carry out
effective local sustainable groundwater management through the formation of Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and development and implementation of a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP).
GSAs, and their respective GSPs, are required to ensure groundwater basins are managed
sustainably within 20 years of GSP adoption. Though the term “sustainability” is not specifically
defined in SGMA, the GSP must mitigate or avoid undesirable results, which are defined in the
California Water Code as one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions
occurring throughout a groundwater basin:
(1) Chronic lowering of groundwater levels,
(2) Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage,
(3) Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion,
(4) Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality,
(5) Significant and unreasonable land subsidence, and
(6) Depletions of interconnected surface water that has significant and unreasonable
adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
Packet Pg 226
11
In order to communicate the condition of the various groundwater basins in the State, the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) became responsible for prioritizing the
State’s groundwater basins. DWR designated 127 basins statewide as high and medium priority.
Six of these priority basins are located in whole or in part in San Luis Obispo County, including
the medium priority SLO Basin (Figure 1), the groundwater basin the City of San Luis Obispo
overlies.
Figure 1. Outline of San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin with overlying ent ities. Areas in blue represent the
service area of domestic water purveyors. Areas in yellow represent lands covered by Edna Valley Growers
Mutual Water Company, which provides agricultural water. All areas not shaded are represented by the
County of San Luis Obispo.
SGMA Requirements for GSA Formation
When SGMA was adopted, it became part of the California Water Code and Government Code.
Pursuant to the applicable section of this Code, an eligible local agency or combination of local
agencies (e.g. counties, cities, community services districts) overlying a groundwater basin may
decide to become a GSA for that basin. GSAs can be formed under a joint powers agreement, a
memorandum of agreement, or other legal agreement. Mutual water companies and water
corporations regulated by the Public Utilities Commission are also eligible to participate on a
GSA through a Participation Agreement (Attachment A). Pursuant to SGMA, the GSA must be
formed by June 30, 2017.
Collaborative Development of San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin GSA Agreement
Implementation of SGMA will involve local and State agencies, various water companies, and
concerned landowners. While SGMA specifies which agencies are eligible to participate on a
GSA, stakeholder outreach, coordination efforts, and the practical realities of preparing a GSP all
Packet Pg 227
11
benefit from the involvement of the entire community.
Under the leadership of San Luis Obispo County, eligible entities in the SLO Basin 1) County of
San Luis Obispo, 2) Golden State Water Company, 3) Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company-East,
Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, 4) Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company and the
5) City of San Luis Obispo) have met to collaboratively develop the governance and funding
strategies defined in the attached Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) (Attachment A).
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
The proposed GSA will be a separate legal entity formed pursuant to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act (“JEPA”), Government Code sections 6500 et seq. Under JEPA, two or more public
agencies can come together to form a separate legal entity in order to provide certain services or
regulatory functions. In regards to the GSA, the City and County will execute the JPA in order to
form the GSA as required under SGMA. Although only the City and County will sign the JPA,
the GSA will be comprised of a five-member board of directors which includes representatives
from the City, the County and the three eligible entities noted above.
SGMA allows a GSA to be formed via a JPA or a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)
executed between all eligible entities overlying the basin. The consensus among the City and
County staff and representatives from the other entities is to form a JPA rather than execute
MOUs. The primary reasons for this recommendation is efficiency, focus and effectiveness.
With an MOU, the GSA will largely depend on City and County resources to develop and
implement the GSP and to manage the day to day operations of the agency. The City and County
obviously have differing priorities and fluctuating resources. In addition, with an MOA, both the
City and the County would need to take action on items relative to the operation of the GSA;
with a JPA, a single board with representatives from the City and County could make such
approval.
Below are some of the more significant components of the proposed JPA:
Five-member Board of Directors with representatives from the City, County, Public
Utilities Commission Water Company, and two mutual water companies overlying the
SLO Basin. The City and County will each appoint their own representative and an
alternate. Because the other entities are within the unincorporated area, the County will
appoint a representative for each company based on a recommendation from each
company.
The GSA will share the common powers of the City and County and will also have the
authorities and enforcement capabilities set forth in SGMA. As discussed in more detail
below, the GSA will have no land use authority.
Supermajority approval of the Board is required for approval of the annual budget,
levying assessments, taxes and fees, issuance of indebtedness, any stipulation to resolve
litigation regarding groundwater rights or groundwater management. Unanimous
approval is required for the adoption of the GSP or any amendments thereto. It should be
noted that through the JPA development process, there was some disagreement whether
Packet Pg 228
11
any decisions should be unanimous.
The creation of a stakeholder advisory committee and technical advisory committee.
Initial contributions in the total amount of $500,000 for fiscal year 2017/18 in order to
cover the initial operating costs of the GSA. The City’s share is approximately $149,000
which is subject to reimbursement by the GSA once funding sources are secured. Any
subsequent contributions, beyond the amount requested in the attached Resolution, would
need the approval of the City and other contributing parties.
The JPA can be terminated by the City or the County upon ninety days prior written
notice.
The City and abovenamed entities held stakeholder forums in Fall/Winter 2016 to receive input
on governance strategies. Presenters at the meetings gave an overview of SGMA and detailed
how the community could be involved and have their interests heard during GSA formation and
creation of the GSP.
The importance of including stakeholder representation in the GSA decision-making process is
addressed through the formation of stakeholder and technical advisory committees through
development and implementation of the basin’s GSP. Figure 2 shows the proposed approach of
the governance structure for GSA formation.
Figure 2: Proposed Groundwater Sustainability Agency Structure
Once a GSA is formed, the City and County will each appoint a representative and alternate to
the governing board. Representatives for the Agricultural Mutual Water Company Group,
Domestic Mutual Water Company Group, and PUC Regulated Water Company Group will come
from nominations by their respective group with final appointment by the Count y Board of
Supervisors. This appointment process by the Board of Supervisors is required so as to not cede
governmental powers to a non-elected body. The rationale for the County Board of Supervisors
appointing the three entity representatives is the fact that those areas all lie within the
Packet Pg 229
11
unincorporated area. Appointment terms are for four terms and the Board meeting are subject to
the Brown Act.
Relationship Between SGMA & Land Use Authorities
In accordance with SGMA, the GSA will function and exercise authorities as an independent
entity. One required action of the GSA will be creation of a GSP, which may result in the
regulation of groundwater extraction in a basin to ensure sustainability. Although the GSA will
not have any specific land use authority over the basin, SGMA does provide certain policy
statements and amends various provisions of the Government Code related to Planning and
Zoning Law. Specifically, the State Legislature declared that
“…it is vital that there be close coordination and consultation between California’s water
supply or management agencies and California’s land use approval agencies to ensure that
proper water supply and management occurs to accommodate projects that will result in
increased demands on water supplies or impact water resource management.”
Once the GSP is created, the GSA must review and report on any substantial amendments
proposed to the City’s General Plan for its effect on the GSP. This process is similar to the
referral provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which is commonly
performed for any substantial modification to the City’s General Plan. Unlike CEQA, SGMA
does not have a conformity finding requirement or overrule type of process. Instead, the
amendments to the Government Code require coordination and information gathering between
the Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the City before a General Plan may be substantially
modified. The City and the County retain full control of its land use authority.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution to form a JPA is not subject to CEQA. Preparation of an
environmental impact report or negative declaration would be too early in the process to provide
meaningful information for environmental assessment, as described in State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15004(b). Approval of the GSP is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Water
Code section 10728.6. Actions to implement the GSP are subject to environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with SGMA compliance can be separated into three stages. The first stage
involves the preparation of the JPA document, outreach efforts, and GSA formation. Associated
costs and efforts to-date have been made by County staff with in-kind support and stakeholder
outreach by the 1) City, 2) Golden State Water Company, 3) Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water
Company, 4) Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, and 5) Edna Ranch - East Mutual Water
Company.
Costs associated with the second stage of the process have been reduced to a minimum and are
solely for administration of the newly formed GSA until a long-term funding solution can be
secured. This interim time-frame is expected to last through the second quarter of 2018 and
carries an estimated total expenditure of $500,000. This estimate includes legal fees for the first
Packet Pg 230
11
fiscal year and an estimated $219,000 in annual operating and administration costs.
Of this initial amount, $250,000 is designated for the creation of a long-term funding mechanism
for continued expenses associated with administration of the GSA, creation of the GSP, and
future management of the basin (third funding phase). If this future independent funding is not
secured, per the Water Code, a GSA may withdraw from managing the basin by notifying DWR
in writing.
The City’s proportional share of this $500,000 is currently established at $149,948. This amount
was based on a variety of factors including population, water consumption and service area with
differing weights attached to each category. Staff is requesting a not-to-exceed amount of
$200,000 to allow the Utilities Department to make any necessary subsequent contributions
which may be needed. It is also anticipated that these initial funds will be re-paid to the entities
upon formation of a long-term funding mechanism. These initial funds are available in the Water
Fund from fund balance.
Long-term costs for the GSA to implement the GSP and manage the basin are unknowable at this
time. The methodology for collection of funds and share apportionment among the basin’s
entities are also unknown at this time and will need to be one of the initial work efforts of the
newly formed GSA. Efforts to lower costs include exploration of partnerships with other GSAs
in the County to minimize expenses through shared resources, continuation of in-kind services
where applicable, and pursuance of grants. The County has already secured funding of $150,000
towards a basin characterization study – a needed work effort for creation of a GSP.
Figure 3: GSA Formation Flowchart
Packet Pg 231
11
ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to SGMA, if any portion of the basin is not covered by a GSA, the County is presumed
to be the GSA for that area. If the County does not take on this role, then the State will intervene
until it can turn basin management back to a local entity. Activities could include groundwater
extraction reporting by basin users, development of Interim Plan(s) and related studies and
CEQA compliance as applicable, collection of fees, and issuance of cease and desist orders if
necessary to handle violations. The State’s clear intention is local groundwater issues should be
governed by local entities. As shown above, the ability for ongoing local control will require a
secured funding source.
1. Council could choose to form an independent GSA, isolated to those areas of the San Luis
Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin under the jurisdiction of the City. This is known as the
‘coordinated’ approach. The recommendation before City Council is known as the
‘collaborative’ approach. Regardless of the approach chosen, all areas of the entire groundwater
basin would still need to be covered by a GSA by the June 30, 2017 deadline. Selecting this
strategy would likely result in increased management complications and expenditures as
creation of a GSP and all future management would still require collaboration with other entities
in the basin.
2. Council could choose not to participate in the formation of a JPA with the County. If the City
still chose to participate in the GSA, not participating in the JPA would cede authorities (such as
appointments to the GSA) to the County; they would be the only agency with the designated
authorities and jurisdiction over the basin.
3. Council could choose to not participate in the GSA. As the GSA will prepare the GSP, which
will dictate groundwater use in the basin, including the portion the City overlies, this alternative
would result in the City having a diminished voice in basin management decisions.
4. Council could choose to appoint both the representative and alternative representative from
City Council to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The selection of the Utilities Director to serve as
the alternative representative was recommended as a consistent resource for the elected
official during the initial stages of SGMA and in particular, during the creation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Actions taken by the GSA will likely have significant
impacts on the City’s current and future water portfolio.
Attachments:
a - JPA Agreement Part Agreement
b - Resolution for SGMA
Packet Pg 232
11
£¤101
GSA 2
GSA 1
Edna RanchMutual WaterCompany- East
GoldenState WaterCompany- Edna
Varian RanchMutual WaterCompany
San LuisObispo WaterDepartment
|ÿ1
|ÿ1
|ÿ227
Conceptual ModelGSA 1 - County of SanLuis Obispo
GSA 2 - City of SanLuis Obispo
Local Agencies &Mutual Water Co.
DWR - Bulletin 118 SanLuis Obispo Valley
Department of WaterResources (DWR) -Bulletin 118Groundwater Basins
DWR Bulletin 118 - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin - Conceptual GSA Model
³
0 1.5 30.75
Miles
Date Printed: 4/6/2017
Packet Pg 233
11
County Of San LuisObispo as a GSA
£¤101
Edna RanchMutual WaterCompany - East
GoldenState WaterCompany - Edna
Varian RanchMutual WaterCompany
San LuisObispo WaterDepartment
City of San LuisObispo as a GSA
Edna ValleyGrowers MutualWater Company
|ÿ1
|ÿ1
|ÿ227
DWR - Bulletin 118San Luis Obispo Valley
Department of WaterResources (DWR) -Other Bulletin 118Groundwater Basins
County of San LuisObispo Service Area
GSAs
City of San LuisObispo Coverage Area
County of San LuisObispo Coverage Area
Other Eligible Entities
Edna Ranch MutualWater Company - East
Golden State WaterCompany - Edna
Varian Ranch MutualWater Company
Edna Valley GrowersMutual WaterCompany
DWR Bulletin 118 - San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
³
0 1.5 30.75
Miles
Date Printed: 4/17/2017
Packet Pg 234
11
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO www.slocounty.ca.gov
SLO
County
GSA 1
Advisory
CommitteeStaffof
GSAs
San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Governance Structure
SLO City
GSA 2
County of SLO
City of SLO
VR&ER MWC
GS WC
EVG MWC
Groundwater
Sustainability
Commission
Decision-Maker Decision-Maker
MOA
Packet Pg 235
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BECOME A
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FOR THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN FOR THE AREA THAT LIES
BENEATH AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WHEREAS, in 2014 the California Legislature and the Governor passed into law the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for local management of groundwater
resources in California through the formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and
through preparation and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs); and
WHEREAS, the City overlies a portion of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
(SLOVGB), which is subject to SGMA, and thus one or more GSAs must be formed for the
SLOVGB by June 30, 2017, or the SLOVGB may be subject to regulation by the State Water
Resources Control Board; and
WHEREAS, the City is a “local agency” as that term is defined by SGMA, and as such is
authorized to form a GSA to manage groundwater resources in the SLOVGB and within the City’s
jurisdictional boundaries in accordance with SGMA and other applicable laws and authorities; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to form a GSA to manage groundwater resources in the
SLOVGB beneath and within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City intends that its GSA will work cooperatively with the other GSAs
that have formed or will be formed in the SLOVGB to prepare one or more GSPs by January 31,
2022, so that groundwater resources in the SLOVGB will be properly managed and sustainable in
accordance with the provisions of SGMA; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that the City form this GSA because SGMA grants GSAs
substantial additional powers and authorities to ensure sustainable groundwater management.
Acting as the GSA within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries will, among other things, confirm
the City’s role as the local groundwater management agency, ensure access to SGMA authorities,
and preserve access to grant funding and other opportunities that may be available to GSAs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of SGMA, the City held a public hearing on this
date after publication of notice pursuant to California Government Code section 6066 to consider
adoption of this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Packet Pg 236
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R _____
SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. The City of San Luis Obispo hereby elects to become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act over the
portion of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin which lies under and within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to submit a notice of this
Resolution along with all other required information to the California Department of Water
Resources in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
SECTION 4. The City Groundwater Sustainability Agency shall consider the interests of
all beneficial uses and users of the groundwater within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
and will develop an outreach program for all such stakeholders. The City Groundwater
Sustainability Agency will continue to coordinate with other local agencies and stakeholders that
overlie the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin in order to manage groundwater resources.
SECTION 5. The City Groundwater Sustainability Agency shall establish and maintain a
list of persons interested in receiving notices regarding the City’s involvement in the preparation
of one or more Groundwater Sustainability Plans in the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin, where any person may request in writing to be placed on the City’s list of interested persons.
SECTION 6. Resolution Number 10777 (2017 Series) is hereby repealed.
Packet Pg 237
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R _____
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 Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 238
11
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CALL FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION AND TAKE OTHER RELATED
ACTIONS TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS ‘”AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL
CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW
CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING”’
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) calling for, and giving notice of a Special All Mailed
Ballot Municipal Election on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 for the submission of a proposed
Ordinance to the qualified voters of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding ‘”An Initiative
to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Entitled “Rental
Housing Inspection” and to Adopt New Chapter 15.10 Entitled “Non-Discrimination in
Housing” and requesting the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors render services to
conduct an August 22, 2017 Special All Mailed Ballot Election; and
2. Provide direction regarding the City Council’s argument against the initiative; and
3. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment D) setting priorities for filing written arguments
regarding a proposed initiative and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial
analysis; and
4. Consider a Resolution (Attachment D) appointing an ad-hoc subcommittee consisting of
two of its members to prepare and submit an argument against the measure and rebuttal
argument, if warranted; and
5. Appropriate funds from the undesignated General Fund Reserve up to $160,000, for
assistance from the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder to conduct this special
election.
DISCUSSION
Background
On August 30, 2016, proponents Stewart D. Jenkins, Daniel J. Knight and Daniel L. Carpenter
filed a Notice of Intention to Circulate a Petition, together with a request for preparation of the
ballot title and summary by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney prepared the ballot title to read, ‘“An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to adopt new Chapter
15.10 entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing”’.
Packet Pg 239
12
On February 16, 2017, proponents of ‘”An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of The San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to Adopt New Chapter 15.10
Entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing”’ submitted a signed petition for filing with the City
Clerk’s office. Pursuant to the California Elections Code 9211 and 9115, the petition was
examined for signature verification using the random sample method by the San Luis Obispo
County Clerk-Recorder. After prima facie review, the petition appeared to exceed the minimum
requirement of 3,918 signatures, or fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s 26,122 registered voters
(per the County Elections official’s last report of registration to the Secretary of State).
On February 16, 2017, a Special City Council workshop was held to discuss the rental housing
inspection program at which time, Council directed staff to return with an ordinance repealing
the existing Rental Housing Inspection Program ordinance, Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code.
On March 7, 2017, at the regular meeting of the City Council, after a public hearing, the City
Council voted unanimously to introduce an Ordinance repealing Chapter 15.10 Rental Housing
Inspection Program of Title 15 of the Municipal Code.
On March 13, 2017, the City Clerk determined that the initiative petition met the following
criteria: 1) the petition was timely filed; 2) the petition contained the requisite number of valid
signatures; and 3) the format of the petition substantially complies with the technical
requirements of the California Elections Code, was sufficient and qualified to be submitted to the
voters at a special municipal election.
On March 21, 2017, at the regular meeting of the City Council, the City Council unanimously
adopted Ordinance No. 1632, to Repeal Chapter 15.10 Rental Housing Inspection Program of
Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 1632 became effective on April 20, 2017.
On March 21, 2017, the Council approved the City Clerks Certificate of Sufficiency and
pursuant to Section 9212 of California Elections Code, requested a report of the impacts of the
proposed initiative be presented no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the
legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.
On April 18, 2017, City staff provided the report of the impacts of the proposed initiative as
previously directed by the City Council at which time the Council had the option to: (1) adopt
the Ordinance without alteration; or (2) immediately order a special election, to be held pursuant
to California Elections Code Section 1405(a), at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be
submitted to a vote of the voters of the city.
Council unanimously voted to place the measure on the ballot and immediately directed the City
Clerk to prepare the necessary documents and return to Council at its May 16 meeting with an
item to call for an All Mailed Ballot Special Election pursuant to California Elections Code
Section 1405(a).
Packet Pg 240
12
Historical Background Regarding the Conduct of Elections
Ordinance 1559 (2011 Series), (Attachment E), to this report enables the Council, by resolution,
to call a mailed ballot election for the purpose of considering Charter amendment or repeal
measures on dates established under the Elections Code or any other date specified by Council
resolution.
The City Clerk’s office has sufficient resources to manage the day-to-day support of Council and
other advisory board committees and related business. The City’s practice has been to contract
with the County of San Luis Obispo to conduct both regular and special municipal elections
because the City Clerk's office does not have the capacity in-house to conduct an election
without the assistance of an Elections contractor. Tasks involved in conducting an election
include, in part:
1) Locating vendors qualified and prepared to print approximately 30,000 sample ballot
pamphlets, various types of envelopes (return, provisional ballot, outgoing absentee voter),
absentee voter instructions, and the ballots themselves (requiring a vendor certified by the
Secretary of State's office).
2) Obtaining and affixing approximately 30,000 address labels.
3) Issuance of replacement ballots.
4) Checking signatures on absentee ballot applications and absentee ballot envelopes on ballot
envelopes for an all mailed ballot election.
5) Process Conditional Voter Registrations.
6) Provide voter assistance by phone or in person.
7) Secure storage of all election material for 6 months as required by the Elections Code.
The County Registrar of Voters office has advised the City Clerk that it will be able to assist in
the conduct of a special election for the City of San Luis Obispo in August 2017.
In order to call this special election, the City Council should adopt a Resolution (Attachment A)
calling for, and giving notice of a Special All Mailed Ballot Municipal Election on Tuesday,
August 22, 2017 for the submission of a proposed Ordinance to the qualified voters of the City of
San Luis Obispo regarding ‘”An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of The San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to Adopt New Chapter 15.10 Entitled
“Non-Discrimination in Housing”’ and requesting the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors
render services to conduct an August 22, 2017 Special All Mailed Ballot Election.
Impartial Analysis and Primary Ballot Arguments
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council may direct the City Clerk to provide a
copy of the proposed measure to the City Attorney for the purpose of preparing an impartial
analysis not exceeding 500 words for publication in the voters’ sample ballot. Consistent with
City practice, staff recommends that the Council provide this direction so that an impartial
analysis may be prepared. The impartial analysis shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later
than Tuesday, May 30, 2017. The 10-day public examination period for the impartial analysis
would be May 31st through June 9th. The attached resolution (Attachment D) directs the City
Packet Pg 241
12
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis.
Elections Code Section 9282 establishes a 300-word limit for primary ballot arguments and
priorities for selecting those arguments. Based on dates established by State law, primary ballot
arguments would have to be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May
30, 2017. The public 10-day examination period for these arguments would be from May 31st
through June 9th. The attached resolution (Attachment D) sets the priorities for selecting those
arguments.
While public resources generally cannot be used for advocacy for or against a ballot measure, the
Elections Code does expressly authorize the City Council to “submit an argument against the
ordinance.” The primary options to prepare arguments for or against (the proponents of the
initiative have first priority on crafting the arguments in favor) are as follows:
Appoint an ad-hoc committee consisting of one to up to five its members to draft and submit the
ballot argument. Those appointed members will be considered the authors of the argument and
their names will appear as such in the sample ballot.
If Council appoints a majority of its members (3-5 members) then a time and place for
discussion and drafting of the argument must be held in an open meeting pursuant to the
Brown Act. If Council chooses this option, staff suggests for Council to choose a Special
Meeting date or dates and time at tonight’s meeting to add to its calendar. The argument
must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 30, 2017
If Council appoints 1-2 of its members to draft the argument, staff recommends that they
are appointed to draft and submit the argument on behalf of the legislative body. All five
members could be listed, but the authority to sign the argument and draft and finalize the
argument could be delegated to the ad hoc committee, which would not have to conduct
it’s business exclusively in open meetings and would have greater flexibility in meeting
to draft the argument. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9283, no more than five
signatures shall appear with any argument submitted. This approach would not require
that the time and place for drafting arguments be open to the public and any argument
once submitted to the City Clerk would be available for public inspection and review.
Another variation of this option is the Council could appoint one or two members of the
City Council to draft the argument on behalf of the legislative body and the draft could
then be reviewed by the Council as a whole at a duly noticed special meeting before the
deadline.
Council also may elect not to submit a primary ballot argument. In that case, pursuant to
Elections Code Section 9287 the following in order named, may submit an argument:
1. Bona fide associations of citizens.
2. Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
Staff recommends that the Council discuss and provide direction about the preparation and
submission of ballot argument and rebuttal argument if warranted. A draft resolution has been
Packet Pg 242
12
provided, which assumes that the Council will appoint a subcommittee consisting of two of its
members to prepare and submit a ballot argument and rebuttal argument, if warranted. This
resolution can easily be changed or disregarded if the council decides to go in a different
direction.
Rebuttals
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285 (b) the author or majority of the authors of an argument
relating to a city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or authorize in writing any
person or persons to prepare, submit or sign the rebuttal argument.
On July 1, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 10544 (2014 Series) (Attachment F)
adopting provisions for rebuttal arguments. Pursuant to Section 9285(b) of the Elections Code,
no further action is required to enable the submittal of rebuttal arguments. However, if the
Council designates a subcommittee to draft its primary argument, the Council may wish to
provide input to the subcommittee as to whether the subcommittee should draft the rebuttal or
whether the Council is comfortable with the subcommittee designating another person or group
to submit a rebuttal. If no express direction is given to the subcommittee, the Elections Code
leaves that decision to the discretion of the drafters of the primary argument.
Public Review Period and Deadlines
Election Code Section 9295 provides that the Election Official shall allow a 10 -calendar day
public examination period immediately following the filing deadline for submission of specified
official election materials (i.e., arguments, rebuttals, analyses). During that 10-calendar day
period, any voter of the City or the Election Official may seek court action to require any or all
such materials be amended or deleted.
Education and Outreach by the City
In accordance with State law, public resources may not be used for ballot measure campaign
activities. Public resources may be used, however, for informational activities. The rules against
the use of public resources for campaign activities apply once a measure has qualitied for the
ballot. A plain-language pamphlet about ballot measure activities and the use of public resources,
published by the California Institute of Local Government (ILG) which is affiliated with the
California League of Cities, is attached as (Attachment H). This pamphlet includes do’s, don’ts
and best practices related to this topic. Unless directed to disengage from this matter, staff
intends to follow the rules about appropriate use of agency resources to provide objective and
fact-based educational materials and conduct outreach in response to inquiries. For the City
Council’s information, additional detailed information about “Ballot Measures and Public
Agencies can be found on the ILG website at http://www.ca-ilg.org/document/three-explanatory-
resources-ballot-measure-activities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of San Luis Obispo’s practice is to contract with the County Clerk-Recorder for
Packet Pg 243
12
assistance in the conduct of its municipal elections. The City Clerk has received an estimate in
the amount of $158,770 (Attachment G) for the County to conduct an All Mailed Ballot Special
Election. In order for this to happen the Council must appropriate funds from the undesignated
General Fund Reserve up to $160,000, for assistance in the conduct of a special election.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council may elect to choose an alternative election date other on Tuesday, Au gust 22
between the dates of August 12 and August 27 not including Fridays, Saturdays or
Sundays.
2 Council may elect not to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for
publication in the voters’ sample ballot.
3. Council may elect not to submit an argument opposing this local ballot measure.
4. Council or its subcommittee may elect to authorize in writing any person or persons to
prepare, submit or sign rebuttal argument, if warranted.
Attachments:
a - RHIP Calling for Election Resolution
b - Exhibit A to Resolution - Proponents Text of Ordinance
c - Exhibit B to Resolution - County Board of Supervisors Quote
d - RHIP Arguments and Attorney Analysis Resolution
e - Ordinance 1559 (2011 Series) All Mailed Ballot Elections
f - Resolution 10544 (2014 Series) Setting Rebuttals
g - County Board of Supervisors Special Election Quote/Services
h - ILG Activities & Public Resources Guide
Packet Pg 244
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____________(2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE
HOLDING OF A SPECIAL ALL MAILED BALLOT MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2017, FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO RENDER SERVICES RELATING TO
THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute a petition has been filed with the
legislative body of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, signed by more than 15% (percent) of
the number of registered voters of the city to submit a proposed ordinance relating to “An Initiative
to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled “Rental Housing
Inspection” and to adopt new Chapter 15.10 entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing”; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder examined the records of
registration; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has ascertained that the petition is signed by the requisite
number of voters, and has so certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after receiving an impacts report pursuant to Elections Code
voted not to adopt the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed
ordinance to the voters; and
WHEREAS, notice is hereby given that a special all mailed ballot municipal election will
be held in the City of San Luis Obispo on August 22, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City requires assistance for the proper conduct of the special election and
desires to request services of the San Luis Obispo County Elections Official to conduct said special
election.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California
relating to charter cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, a Special All Mailed Ballot Municipal Election for the
purpose of voting on a citizen initiative to be placed on the ballot in the following form:
Packet Pg 245
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
Shall an ordinance be adopted to replace Chapter 15.10 of
the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, which was
previously entitled “Rental Housing Inspection”, but was
repealed by the City Council on April 20, 2017, with new
Chapter 15.10 to be entitled “Non-Discrimination in
Housing”’?
YES
NO
SECTION 2. That the text of the ordinance submitted to the voters is (attached as
Exhibit A.)
SECTION 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%+1)
of the votes cast.
SECTION 4. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as
required by law.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and
furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election by all
mailed ballot.
SECTION 6. That the polls shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. of the day of the
election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same
day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code § 10242, except as provided in
§ 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 7. That pursuant to section 10002 of the Elections Code of the State of
California, the City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of the County to permit the County
Elections Official, to render specified services, (attached as Exhibit B), to the City of San Luis
Obispo relating to the conduct for the holding of a special election on Tuesday, August 22, 2017,
and said Board is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the special election and certify the
results of the canvass of the returns of the special election to the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, which shall thereupon declare the results thereof.
SECTION 8. That pursuant to the applicable provisions of the City Charter and
Ordinance No. 1559 (2011 Series) of the City of San Luis Obispo, said special election shall be
held and conducted by all mailed ballot, and shall be conducted pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division
4 commencing with Section 4100 of the California Elections Code only insofar as required by law,
and only where not inconsistent with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo and Ordinance
No. 1559 ( 2011 Series).
SECTION 9. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the
work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill pursuant to section
51350 of the Government Code.
Packet Pg 246
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 10. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this
resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Elections Official of the County of San Luis
Obispo.
SECTION 11. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and
the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 12. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
Upon motion of ____________________ seconded by________________ and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _________day of ____________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 247
12
Packet Pg 248
12
Packet Pg 249
12
Packet Pg 250
12
Packet Pg 251
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN
ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS.
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, on August 22, 2017, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
“An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Entitled “Rental
Housing Inspection” And to Adopt New Chapter 15.10 Entitled “Non-Discrimination In
Housing”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes the following member(s) of its body
________________________ (Council Member Against)
________________________ (Council Member Against)
to file a written argument not exceeding 300 words regarding the City measure as specified above,
accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance
with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California. The
arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after
which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.; and
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes members of the City Council identified in
this Resolution to file a written argument on behalf of the entire City Council Against City measure
not exceeding 300 words, accompanied by the printed names and signatures of the authors
submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State
of California. The arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by
the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the
City Clerk.
The arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s)
of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the
organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the
author of the argument. The arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be
Filed By Author(s) of Argument; and
SECTION 2. That the city council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure
to the city attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney are affected.
Packet Pg 252
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017Series) Page 2
R ______
a. The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure not exceeding 500
words showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the
measure. If the measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the city
attorney, the city clerk shall prepare the impartial analysis.
b. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on
the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing
body of the city.
c. In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter
information portion of the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately
below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point type, the following: “The above
statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure __. If you desire a copy of
the ordinance or measure, please call the election official’s office at (insert phone
number) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”
d. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of
primary arguments.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
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 Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 253
12
Resolution No. _____ (2017Series) Page 3
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 254
12
ORDINANCE NO. 1559 (2011 Series )
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RELATING TO TH E
CONDUCT OF MAILED BALLOT ELECTION S
WHEREAS,pursuant to the authority granted under Section 301 of the City Charter, th e
City Council desires to provide procedures for conducting special municipal elections for an y
purpose by mailed ballot .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo that any special municipal election may be conducted as an all-mail ballot election i n
accordance with the provisions of Sections 1 through 11 of this ordinance .
SECTION 1 .Scope of Mailed Ballot Elections . Any special municipal electio n
specified herein may be held as a mailed ballot election for any purpose .
SECTION 2 . Any mailed ballot election may be conducted, and the votes thereo f
canvassed, and the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined, a s
herein provided ; and in all particulars not prescribed by this ordinance, said elections shall b e
held as provided by the general laws of the State of California for the holding of municipa l
elections in the City . The Elections Official is hereby authorized and directed to take all action s
necessary to conduct said special elections as provided herein and as required by law .
SECTION 3 .Dates for Special Municipal Elections . The date for any mailed ballo t
special municipal election shall either be on a date set by the California Elections Code section s
1000, 1001, or 1500, or on any other date set by resolution of the City Council .
SECTION 4 .Drop-off Centers . The Elections Official, or his or her designe e
(hereinafter "Elections Official"), shall establish the official ballot drop-off centers . The officia l
drop-off centers shall be open during normal business hours 29 days before Election Day o n
weekdays (excluding holidays) and on Election Day from 7 :00 a .m . to 8 :00 p .m., and at tha t
time, shall be closed .
SECTION 5 .Provision of Ballot Materials . The Elections Official shall provide to eac h
registered voter appropriate supplies necessary for the use and return of the ballot by mail .
A.Each ballot mailed by the Elections Official shall be accompanied by a ballo t
pamphlet and instructions for return of the ballot, including the location of the official ballo t
drop-off centers for the special election, and the date and time by which such ballot must b e
received at the official ballot drop-off centers to be counted for the election .
B.Each ballot mailed by the Elections Official shall be accompanied by an officia l
return envelope .
C.The return envelope shall bear the following information, to be printed thereon b y
the Elections Official or provided by the voter, as appropriate :
0 1559
Packet Pg 255
12
Ordinance No . 1559 (2011 Series )
Page 2
1.A notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by th e
canvassing board .
2.A warning plainly printed that voting more than once constitutes a crime .
3.A declaration of the voter, under penalty of perjury, that he or she resides within th e
precinct in which he or she is voting and is the person whose name appears on th e
envelope .
4.The residence address of the voter as shown on the affidavit of registration .
5. The signature of the voter .
6. The date of signing .
7.If the ballot will be returned in person by someone other than the voter, the voter's
handwritten designation of that person by name, and a declaration signed by the voter ,
under penalty of perjury, that said adult person has been authorized by the voter to retur n
the ballot .
D.The Elections Official shall not commence to mail the ballot and electio n
materials prior to the 29th day before the election, and shall complete the mailing no later tha n
the 10th day prior to the election .
E.The failure of any registered voter to receive an official ballot shall not invalidat e
any election conducted pursuant to this Chapter .
SECTION 6 .Return of Ballots .
A.Ballots may be returned by regular, certified or registered United States mail ,
overnight commercial carrier or in person . Ballots returned in person may be returned to th e
official drop-off centers . The Elections Official may include a notice to voters to the effect tha t
they are permitted to return the voted ballot by regular, certified, or registered United States mai l
or overnight commercial carrier .
B.All ballots shall be delivered, by mail to the Elections Official or in person by th e
voter or other authorized person to the official ballot drop-off centers no later than 8 :00 p .m . on
the date of the special election . Any ballot received by the Elections Official by mail or at th e
official ballot drop-off centers after 8 :00 p .m . on the date of the Special Election shall not b e
accepted or counted . However, if at the time of the announcement that the poll is closed ther e
are any voters inside the official ballot drop-off centers who have not been able to deposit thei r
official ballot envelope with the election officials there, the election officials shall continue t o
accept envelopes from such voters until all have had the opportunity to deliver their ballots .
Packet Pg 256
12
Ordinance No . 1559 (2011 Series )
Page 3
C.Any ballot returned in person shall be returned by the voter who was authorized to
cast the ballot or by an adult person designated and authorized, in said voter's own handwriting ,
in the appropriate place provided by the Elections Official on the outside of the return envelope .
Any person who shall deliver any other voter's ballot to the official ballot drop-off
centers shall, at the time of such delivery, personally sign, in the presence of the Election s
Official or a Deputy Elections Official, a declaration under penalty of perjury relating to suc h
designation, authorization and delivery on a form to be furnished by the Elections Official .
D.The Elections Official shall establish appropriate procedures for verifying th e
signature and residence address of each voter casting a mailed ballot . Upon receipt at th e
Elections Official's office, the Elections Official or a Deputy Elections Official shall compare th e
signature on each envelope with that appearing on the affidavit of registration of such voter and ,
if determined to be the same, deposit the ballot, still in the official return envelope, in a ballo t
container in the Elections Official's office . If the ballot is rejected on the basis of such
comparison, the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted, and the caus e
of rejection shall be noted on the face of the envelope . A variance between the signatures cause d
by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, shall not invalidate the ballot .
No ballot shall be removed from its envelope until the time for processing . No ballot shall b e
rejected on the basis of this subsection after the envelope has been opened .
SECTION 7 . Official Ballot Drop-off Centers . The Elections Official shall establish th e
appropriate procedures and furnish the necessary staffing to ensure the secrecy and adequat e
security of ballots returned to the officially designated ballot drop-off centers .
SECTION 8 .Absent Voter .
A.No application need be made by any voter for an absentee ballot for this specia l
election conducted entirely by mail and, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, th e
provisions of Division 3 (Section 3000 et seq .) of the Elections Code of the State of Californi a
shall not apply to this special election ; provided, however that any voter who has qualified as a
permanent absentee voter under the Elections Code shall receive and return a ballot in th e
manner provided herein for all other voters . The return of the mailed ballot conforming in al l
particulars to the requirements of this ordinance shall be accepted as an absentee ballot on behal f
of any voter who is absent from the City on the date of the election .
B.Any registered voter who will be absent from the City prior to the mail-ballo t
election to and including the date of the election may file a written application with the Cit y
Clerk to receive an absentee mailed ballot at an address other than the voter's residence . The
application shall be filed following the adoption of the resolution calling the mailed ballo t
election and on or before the seventh day prior to the election . The application shall show th e
voter's place of residence and the address to which the ballot should be mailed, and state that th e
voter will be unable to receive and return the mailed ballot by the election date, and shall b e
signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. No voter who requests an absentee mail ballot
shall be required to return or surrender a duplicate mailed ballot sent to the voter's residence .
Packet Pg 257
12
Ordinance No . 1559 (2011 Series )
Page 4
SECTION 9 .Provisional Ballots . Any registered voter who has not already cast his o r
her vote may obtain a ballot at the official drop-off centers . The drop-off centers shall provid e
the necessary materials to enable voters to cast their votes in person, in accordance with th e
provisional ballot provisions of the Elections Code .
SECTION 10 .Processing of Ballots . Notwithstanding any provision in the Californi a
Elections Code, the Elections Official may commence processing the ballots no earlier than th e
seventh working day prior to the election . However, the Elections Official shall not release an y
results until 8 :00 p .m. on the day of the special election .
SECTION 11 .Effective Date . This ordinance, being an ordinance calling, ordering an d
relating to an election, shall take effect immediately from and after its adoption .
SECTION 12 .If any part of this ordinance is held by a court of competent jurisdictio n
to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the ordinance shall remain in full forc e
and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated .
SECTION 13 .A summary of this ordinance approved by the City Attorney shall b e
published at least once in a newspaper of the City of San Luis Obispo at least three (3) day s
before its adoption .
INTRODUCED on the 15th day of March 2011,AND FINALLY ADOPTED by th e
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, on the 5th day of April, 2011, on the following vote :
AYES :
Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, Vice Mayor Ashbaug h
and Mayor Mar x
NOES :
None
ABSENT : None
ATTEST :
d,-
Elaina Can o
City Clerk
hereby certify that this document is a tru e
-)riginal of Ordinance No ./;c-59 ,',,)anre was published pursuant
to C'al Section 602 .
Date
Clerk
Packet Pg 258
12
Packet Pg 259
12
Packet Pg 260
12
Packet Pg 261
12
Packet Pg 262
12
Packet Pg 263
12
Packet Pg 26412
Packet Pg 26512
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 266
12
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide direction for public comment on items not on the agenda.
DISCUSSION
Background
Public comment at City Council meetings is one of the many ways that the community engages
elected officials about the publics’ business. Written letters, emails, individual meetings, open
houses, workshops, and other forums offer many ways that the community may choose to engage
with elected officials.
Over the years, the volume of public comment for matters not on the agenda has increased and often
significantly exceeds the allocated fifteen minute s. At times public comment on non-agendized
matters has approached or exceeded the time allocated for public participation and Council action on
items that are on the agenda. When this happens, Council and staff hear frustrations from members
of the public regarding hearing important items on the agenda much later in the night than expected
and some individuals going home due to the lateness of hearing on the item on which they wanted to
speak. Councilmembers also have heard expressed concerns about such delays resulting in late
evening discussions on complex matters and diminished quality of Council discussion and
deliberation.
During the Council Member retreat on March 28, 2017, there was Council discussion leading to
consensus to further discuss how to achieve better balance and consistently and fairly implement the
long standing1 published standard of allotting 15 minutes of non-agenda public comment at the
beginning of Council Meetings. The agenda states that public comment for items not on the agen da
is 15 minutes at the beginning of each regular Council meeting. The specific language on the agenda
states:
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.
1 The City Council agenda at least early as 1988 allotted 15 minutes for public comment.
Packet Pg 267
13
The essence of Council’s discussion was how to balance the strong desire for public participation on
emerging issues and advocacy for the Council to consider future agenda discussion of issues with the
desire to respect the time and commitment of public members who attend a Council hearing to
provide input and be heard on a specific matter that does appear on the Council’s agenda.
Several options were discussed by the City Council with a discussion about the process to follow if
the total number of speaker’s cards was projected to exceed the allotted 15 minutes. The Council
discussed a variety of different options:
Allow everyone a full 3 minutes, but limit pre -agenda public comment for items not on the
agenda to 15 minutes; provide continued opportunity for public comment on matters not on
the agenda at the end of the meeting, following completion of public discussion and Council
action on matters that do appear on the agenda;
As above, but increase the total time allocated at the beginning of the meeting to allow for
more speakers (amount of time to be determined by the Council);
Any time there are more than five speakers, reduce individual speaker time to two minutes;
Any time there are more than eight speakers, reduce individual speaker time to one minute to
fit the maximum time allotted to discussion of items not on the agenda; or
Other options generated as part of the dialogue on this matter.
Council provided staff some direction that the amount of time should not be less than 1 minute and
any speaker cards received after that assessment could be accommodated during a continued public
comment period after Council action on agendized items. Council also discussed ways to encourage
greater efficiency by encouraging speakers on the same topic to speak collectively.
Council Meeting
During the May 2, 2017 City Council meeting, the Council agreed to agendize an item to allow for a
discussion and agree on the specific protocols for balancing out general public comment and public
comment for agendized items.
Council Policies and Procedures
An extract of Council Policies and Procedures Manual Policy 1.3.7 that addresses public comment is
included as Attachment A to this report. Once the Council agrees on the protocol it wishes to
implement the Council Policies and Procedures Manual will be updated to be consistent with this
direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There is no environmental review for this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no substantial fiscal impacts associated with this item. The only minimal impacts that
might be achieved is a small decrease in overtime paid to staff who must attend council meetings for
an item on the agenda which are heard later in the evening due to extended public comment on items
not on the agenda. As noted, this impact is minor.
Packet Pg 268
13
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council make no changes to their current practice for public comment during regular City
Council meetings.
Attachments:
a - Public Comment-Policies and Procedures Manual
Packet Pg 269
13
&RXQFLO3ROLFLHV 3URFHGXUHV0DQXDO$GRSWHG 3DJH
1.3.7 PUBLIC COMMENT :ULWWHQDQG2UDO
0HPEHUV RI WKH SXEOLF PD\ DGGUHVV WKH &LW\ &RXQFLO LQ D YDULHW\ RI ZD\V :ULWWHQ
FRPPHQWV RQ DJHQGD LWHPV DUH HQFRXUDJHG $V D FRXUWHV\ WR WKH &RXQFLO FLWL]HQV DUH
HQFRXUDJHGWRSUHVHQWZULWWHQFRPPHQWVDWOHDVWRQHGD\SULRUWRWKHPHHWLQJ7KLVSURYLGHV
WKH &RXQFLO ZLWK D JUHDWHU RSSRUWXQLW\ WR UHYLHZ DQG FRQVLGHU LVVXHV DQGRU FRQFHUQV
H[SUHVVHGLQZULWWHQFRPPXQLFDWLRQVSULRUWRDPHHWLQJ:ULWWHQFRPPHQWVUHFHLYHGEHIRUH
DWRUGXULQJD&RXQFLOPHHWLQJDUHLQFOXGHGLQWKHSXEOLFUHFRUGDQGSRVWHGWRWKH&LW\¶V
ZHEVLWH *&§ $JHQGD&RUUHVSRQGHQFHLQJHQHUDODUHFRUUHVSRQGHQFHDQG
RWKHU GRFXPHQWV IURP WKH SXEOLFWKH &LW\ &RXQFLO DQG &LW\ VWDII UHJDUGLQJ &RXQFLO
DJHQGD LWHPV UHFHLYHGafter WKH DJHQGD SDFNHWV KDYH EHHQ GLVWULEXWHG $JHQGD
&RUUHVSRQGHQFHVPD\WDNHWKHIROORZLQJIRUP OHWWHUVDQGHPDLOVIURPFLWL]HQV PHPRV
RI FODULILFDWLRQ RU UHYLVLRQ IURP &LW\ VWDII OLDLVRQ UHSRUWV IURP WKH &LW\ &RXQFLO
FRPPXQLFDWLRQLWHPVIURP&LW\&RXQFLO ODWHUHOHDVHRUDGGHGRQDJHQGDUHSRUWV
$Q$JHQGD&RUUHVSRQGHQFHLVGDWHVWDPSHG$JHQGD&RUUHVSRQGHQFHVDUHGLVWULEXWHGE\
WKH&LW\&OHUNDQGPDGHDYDLODEOHIRUSXEOLFUHYLHZDVWKH\DUHUHFHLYHG
7KH0D\RUZLOOLQYLWHFRPPHQWVIURPWKHSXEOLFLQVXSSRUWRIRULQRSSRVLWLRQWRVSHFLILF
DJHQGDLWHPVIROORZLQJWKHVWDIIUHSRUW2UDOFRPPXQLFDWLRQVRQPDWWHUVWKDWDUHQRWRQWKH
DJHQGD PD\ EH SURYLGHG GXULQJ WKH3XEOLF &RPPHQW SHULRG DW WKHEHJLQQLQJ RI HYHU\
UHJXODUPHHWLQJ
7KHIROORZLQJDUHJXLGHOLQHVIRUSURYLGLQJRUDOSXEOLFFRPPHQWV
,PPHGLDWHO\SULRUWRVFKHGXOHGSXEOLFKHDULQJVPHPEHUVRIWKHSXEOLF
PD\DGGUHVVWKH&LW\&RXQFLORQLWHPVWKDWDUHQRWRQWKHSULQWHGDJHQGD
RU LWHPV RQ WKH &RQVHQW $JHQGD $ WLPH OLPLW RI WKUHH PLQXWHV LV
SURYLGHG$VSHDNHUPD\QRW\LHOGWLPHWRDQRWKHUVSHDNHU$VSHDNHUVOLS
VKRXOGEHILOHGZLWKWKH&LW\&OHUNEXWLVQRWUHTXLUHGLQRUGHUWRVSHDN
3XUVXDQWWRWKH%URZQ$FWDFWLRQPD\QRWEHWDNHQRQLVVXHVQRWOLVWHGRQ
WKHDJHQGD6WDIIPD\EHDVNHGWRIROORZXSRQVXFKLWHPV
,QGLYLGXDOVGHVLULQJWRVSHDNRQDQLWHPRQWKHDJHQGDVKDOO
$GGUHVVWKH&RXQFLOIURPWKHSRGLXPDIWHUJLYLQJQDPHDQG
FLW\RIUHVLGHQFH6SHDNHUVVKDOOGLUHFWWKHLUFRPPHQWVWR
WKH&RXQFLOQRWWKHDXGLHQFH
&RPPHQW RQ WKH VSHFLILF PDWWHU EHIRUH WKH &RXQFLO ZLWK
UHDVRQVIRUWKHSRVLWLRQWDNHQ
Packet Pg 270
13
&RXQFLO3ROLFLHV 3URFHGXUHV0DQXDO$GRSWHG 3DJH
/LPLWFRPPHQWVWRWKUHH PLQXWHVXQWLORWKHUVKDYHKDG
RSSRUWXQLW\ WR DGGUHVV WKH &RXQFLO 7KH 3UHVLGLQJ 2IILFHU
ZLWKWKHFRQVHQVXVRI&RXQFLO0HPEHUVDIWHUDOORWKHUVKDYH
VSRNHQPD\DOORZDGGLWLRQDOEULHIFRPPHQWIURPVSHDNHUV
ZKRKDYHDOUHDG\FRPPHQWHGRQWKHVDPHDJHQGDLWHP$
VSHDNHUPD\QRW\LHOGWKHLUWLPHWRDQRWKHUVSHDNHU
6KDOOUHJLVWHUDV0XQLFLSDO$GYRFDWHVLIWKH\DUHWHVWLI\LQJ
DVSDLGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVDVGHILQHGLQWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH
DQGVKDOOSUHIDFHWKHLUFRPPHQWVE\LGHQWLI\LQJ
WKHPVHOYHVDVPXQLFLSDODGYRFDWHV
6KDOO DYRLG SHUVRQDO DWWDFNV DEXVLYH ODQJXDJH RU RWKHU
GLVUXSWLYHEHKDYLRU
$SSOLFDQWV RU DSSOLFDQW UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RU DSSHOODQWV GHVLULQJ WR VSHDN
VKDOO
6XEPLWVSHDNHUVOLSVWRWKH&LW\&OHUN
6KDOOEHSHUPLWWHGWRVSHDNILUVWGXULQJWKHSXEOLFFRPPHQW
SRUWLRQ RI WKH SXEOLF KHDULQJ IRU QRW PRUH WKDQ WHQ
PLQXWHV
$GGUHVVWKH&RXQFLOIURPWKHSRGLXPDIWHUJLYLQJWKHLUQDPH
DQG DGGUHVV DQGRU WKH QDPH DQG DGGUHVV RI WKH
DSSOLFDQWDSSHOODQW WKH\ DUH UHSUHVHQWLQJ ,I WKH
DSSOLFDQWDSSHOODQW¶V UHSUHVHQWDWLYH LV D SDLG PXQLFLSDO
DGYRFDWHWKH\VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK6HFWLRQDERYH
$IWHUWKHFRPPHQWSHULRGRUSXEOLFKHDULQJLVFORVHGQRPHPEHURIWKH
SXEOLF VKDOO EH SHUPLWWHG WR DGGUHVV WKH &RXQFLO RU WKH VWDII IURP WKH
DXGLHQFHH[FHSWDWWKHGLVFUHWLRQRIWKH3UHVLGLQJ2IILFHU
Packet Pg 271
13
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 272
13
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Mayor Heidi Harmon
Prepared By: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources
Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst II
SUBJECT: APPOINTED OFFICIALS’ COMPENSATION
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the City
Attorney’s contract of employment which includes the right for City Attorney to cash out three
weeks of accrued vacation at the end of every fiscal year.
Background
In 1999 Council began following a structured process to annually evaluate the job performance
of its two appointed officials, the City Manager and City Attorney. The process is facilitated by
a consultant who collects input on the appointed officials’ performance in the areas of Council –
City Manager or Council-City Attorney relationship, legal advocacy (City Attorney only),
leadership, community relations, financial management (City Manager only), and progress to
major goals. The consultant summarizes input for Council from the appointed officials’ direct
reports and peers. The consultant then interviews each Council member and drafts the
performance evaluation documents prior to meeting with Council as a whole to finalize. Council
also reviews and approves goals for each appointed official during this annual process.
Appointed Officials’ goals are linked to Major City Goals established by Council as part of the
City’s comprehensive financial planning process. The overall process takes approximately eight
to twelve weeks to complete and provides appointed officials with comprehensive constructive
feedback and Council approved goals against which the next year’s performance is evaluated.
2017 Compensation Considerations
Council met with the consultant in closed session on April 10, 2017 to discuss the appointed
officials’ performance. Council concluded that the appointed officials had met or exceeded
performance expectation and accomplished the 2016-17 goals provided by Council. The City
Manager did not request any modifications to her employment contract. The Council
unanimously approved to amend the City Attorney’s contract authorizing up to three weeks of
vacation to be cashed out at the end of every fiscal year at the City Attorney’s request. The City
experienced unanticipated legal issues this last year, which required the City Attorney’s
attention. These demands resulted in an inability of the City Attorney to take accrued vacation.
While Council expressed their desire for the City Attorney to take accrued vacation, they were
open to allowing the cash out option to recognize the City Attorney’s commitment to the City
and the workload issues resulting in the accrual of unused vacation time.
Packet Pg 273
14
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact. Vacation cash outs are not pensionable and increasing the amount of
accrued vacation the City Attorney may cash out will potentially reduce the City’s liability, as no
salary increase is requested and, thus, vacation cashed out at the City Attorney’s current rate of
pay may be lower than if it occurred later in the City Attorney’s career.
Attachments:
a - City Attorney Resolution
b - City Attorney Employment Contract - Legislative Draft
Packet Pg 274
14
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
FOR CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2010 the City Council approved a contract of employment
appointing Christine Dietrick to the position of City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted performance evaluations of this appointed
official on April 10, 2017, in accordance with th e Appointed Officials’ Performance Process as
modified in December of 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the
amended contract of employment attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the City Attorney
annually.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 16th day of May, 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Pg 275
14
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
_____________________________________
Jon Ansolabehere
Assistant 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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 276
14
1
AMENDED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK
CITY ATTORNEY
THIS CONTRACT is amended this 169th day of May, 20175 by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, State of Californiaa municipal
corporation and charter city (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), and J.
CHRISTINE DIETRICK, a contract employee (hereinafter referred to as
"CHRISTINE DIETRICK”);
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Charter Section 701 provides that the SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY COUNCIL (hereinafter referred to as “COUNCIL”) is responsible for the
appointment and removal of the CITY ATTORNEY, and
WHEREAS, the COUNCIL, on behalf of the CITY acknowledges and
accepts the responsibility for supervision of the CITY ATTORNEY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNCIL is desirous of appointing a CITY ATTORNEY
and wishes to set the terms and conditions of said employment; and
WHEREAS, CHRISTINE DIETRICK desires to accept thecontinue in her
position of CITY ATTORNEY consistent with certain terms and conditions of said
employment, as set forth in this CONTRACT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
Section 1. Effective Date.
A. The appointment of CHRISTINE DIETRICK is effective January 1,
2010.
B. Nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere
with the right of the COUNCIL to terminate the services of CHRISTINE
DIETRICK at any time, subject only to San Luis Obispo CITY Charter Section
709 and the provisions set forth in Section 12 of this Contract.
C. Nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere
with the right of CHRISTINE DIETRICK to resign at any time from her position
with the CITY, subject only to the provision set forth in Section 13 of this
Contract.
Packet Pg 277
14
2
Section 2. Duties and Salary.
A. CITY agrees to employ CHRISTINE DIETRICK as full-time CITY
ATTORNEY of the City to perform the functions and duties specified in the
Charter and Municipal Code and to perform such other legally permissible and
proper duties and functions as the COUNCIL may from time to time assign.
B. COUNCIL agrees to pay CHRISTINE DIETRICK, for her services
rendered pursuant hereto, an annual base salary of $194,84487,256 payable in
installments at the same time as the other management employees of the CITY
are paid. In addition, COUNCIL agrees to increase said base salary by the cost -
of-living adjustment approved by the COUNCIL for all CITY management
employees under any successor the Management Compensation Resolutions
(Resolution No. 10036 (2008 Series) and any successors.
C. Notwithstanding Section 2(B), CHRISTINE DIETRICK agrees that
she will not receive any across the board salary increases (e.g. “cost of living”
increases) from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013 pursuant to the
Reduction in Management Compensation Resolution, Resolution No. 3015 (2011
Series).
Section 3. Benefits.
In addition to the salary set forth in Section 2 of this CONTRACT,
CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall be entitled to a car allowance of $250 per month, a
City contribution of 3.5% of salary to a 401(a) supplemental retirement plan ,
ability to cash out up to three weeks’ vacation at the end of each fiscal year, upon
CHRISTINE DIETRICK’S request, and the same benefits as those offered by the
CITY to the CITY ATTORNEY, in accordance with the Management
Compensation Resolution, Resolution No. 10785 (2017 Series). Reduction in
Management Compensation Resolution, Resolution No. 10315 (2011 Series) and
all other benefits afforded Management Employees not in conflict with this
Employment Contract pursuant to the Management Compensation Resolution,
Resolution No. 10488 (2014 Series).
Section 4. Performance Evaluation.
A. By April 30, 2010, COUNCIL and CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall
establish mutually agreeable written goals, performance objectives, and priorities
for the performance period ending March 30, 2011. Further, Council shall
conduct an “interim” evaluation by October 29, 2010. An annual formal Council
evaluation will be conducted in March of 2011 in accordance with the City ’s
Appointed Official Evaluation Process. Consistent with the schedule outlined
above, based on the Appointed Officials Evaluation Process, and subject to
performance as assessed by the COUNCIL, the CITY ATTORNEY compensation
Packet Pg 278
14
3
shall be reviewed by COUNCIL in April 2011 consistent with the Management
Pay-for-Performance System in place at that time.
B. Each calendar year thereafter, COUNCIL shall review and evaluate
the performance and compensation of CHRISTINE DIETRICK in accordance
with the adopted Appointed Officials Evaluation Process, best management
practices, and informed by comparison agency data.
Section 5. Outside Activities, Conduct and Behavior.
A. CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall not engage in teaching, consulting or
other non-CITY connected business without the prior approval of COUNCIL.
B. CHRISTINE DIETRICK shall comply with all local and state
requirements regarding conflicts-of-interest.
Section 6. Dues and Subscriptions.
COUNCIL agrees to budget for and to pay for professional dues and
subscriptions of CHRISTINE DIETRICK necessary for her continuation and full
participation in national, regional, state, and local associations, and organizations
necessary and desirable for her continued professional participation, growth, and
advancement, and for the good of the CITY.
Section 7. Professional Development.
A. COUNCIL hereby agrees to budget for and to pay for travel and
subsistence expenses of CHRISTINE DIETRICK for professional and official
travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the professional
development of CHRISTINE DIETRICK and to adequately pursue necessary
official functions for the CITY, including but not limited to the League of California
Cities Annual Conference, League of California Cities City Attorneys Department
Conference, and such other national, regional, state, and local governmental
organizations, groups and/or committees.
B. COUNCIL also agrees to budget for and to pay for travel and
subsistence expenses of CHRISTINE DIETRICK for short courses, institutes,
and seminars that are necessary for her professional development and for the
good of the CITY.
C. Other professional development may be agreed upon from time to
time between the COUNCIL and CHRISTINE DIETRICK.
Section 8. General Expenses.
Packet Pg 279
14
4
COUNCIL recognizes that certain expenses of a non -personal and job-
affiliated nature are incurred by the CITY ATTORNEY, and hereby agrees to
authorize the Finance Director to reimburse or to pay said general and
reasonable expenses, consistent with CITY policies, upon receipt of duly
executed expense or petty cash vouchers, receipts, statements or personal
affidavits.
Section 9. Indemnification.
In addition to that required under state and local law, CITY shall defend,
save harmless, and indemnify CHRISTINE DIETRICK against any claims,
demands, causes of actions, losses, damages, expenses (including but not
limited to attorney’s fees as may be authorized against public entities or officers
consistent with state law) or liability of any kind whether stated in or arising from
tort, professional liability or any other legal action or equitable theory, whether
groundless or otherwise arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the
performance of CHRISTINE DIETRICK’S duties as CITY ATTORNEY to the
fullest extent permitted by law. CITY may compromise and settle any such claim
or suit, and shall pay the amount of any settlement or judgment rendered
thereon.
Section 10. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment.
The COUNCIL, in consultation with CHRISTINE DIETRICK, shall fix any
such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to
time, relating to the performance of CHRISTINE DIETRICK, provided such terms
and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provi sions of this
CONTRACT, the CITY Charter or any other law.
Section 11. No Reduction of Pay and/or Benefits.
COUNCIL shall not at any time during the term of this CONTRACT,
reduce the salary, compensation or other financial benefits of CHRISTINE
DIETRICK, except to the degree of such a reduction across-the-board for all
employees of the CITY or CHRISTINE DIETRICK provides written consent to the
reduction. Notwithstanding the above, CHRISTINE DIETRICK expressly agrees
to the reduction of compensation, salary, and financial benefits as set forth in the
Reduction in Management Compensation Resolution (Resolution No. 10315
(2011 Series).
Section 12. Termination and Severance Pay.
A. In the event CHRISTINE DIETRICK’S employment is terminated by the
COUNCIL, or she resigns at the request of a majority of the COUNCIL during
such time that she is otherwise willing and able to perform the duties of CITY
ATTORNEY, the COUNCIL agrees to pay her a lump sum cash payment equal
Packet Pg 280
14
5
to nine (9) months compensation (salary and all appointed officials fringe
benefits). Additionally, CITY shall extend to CHRISTINE DIETRICK the right to
continue and purchase at her expense health insurance pursuant to the terms
and condition of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
(COBRA) or any successor legal requirement. CHRISTINE DIETRICK is the
CITY ATTORNEY for the purposes of the benefits under the California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority of which the CITY is a member. Any associated
severance benefit as a result of termination shall be in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority’s Memorandum
of Liability Coverage in effect at the time of termination.
B. In the event that CHRISTINE DIETRICK is terminated for “good cause”
the COUNCIL shall have no obligation to pay the lump sum severance payment
mentioned above. For the purpose of this CONTRACT, “good cause” shall mean
any of the following:
(1) Malfeasance, dishonesty for personal gain, willful violation of law,
corrupt misconduct, or conviction of any felony.
(2) Conviction of a misdemeanor arising directly out of CHRISTINE
DIETRICK’s duties pursuant to this Agreement.
(3) Willful abandonment of duties outlined in this Agreement.
“Good cause” shall not mean a mere loss of support or confidence by a
majority of the COUNCIL.
C. Any termination of employment shall be done consistent with limitations
established in the City Charter Section 709. Additionally, the CITY shall provide a
minimum of 30 days prior written notice to CHRISTINE DIETRICK of the intent to
terminate this Agreement.
Section 13. Resignation.
In the event CHRISTINE DIETRICK voluntarily resigns her position with
the CITY, she shall give the COUNCIL at least two (2) months advance written
notice.
Section 14. General Provisions.
A. The text herein shall constitute the entire CONTRACT between the
parties.
B. This CONTRACT shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the heirs at law and executors of the parties.
C. It is the intent of the COUNCIL that this CONTRACT and the
appointment of CHRISTINE DIETRICK as CITY ATTORNEY are in accordance
Packet Pg 281
14
6
with the requirements and provisions of the Charter. Wherever possible, the
provisions of this CONTRACT shall be construed in a manner consistent with the
Charter. If any provision of this CONTRACT conflicts with the Charter, the
Charter shall control.
D. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this
CONTRACT is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of
this CONTRACT, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be
affected, and shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and EMPLOYEE have executed this
Contract on the day and year first set forth above.
_____________________________ _______________
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK DATE
_____________________________ ________________
JAN MARXHEIDI HARMON, MAYOR DATE
ATTEST:
____________________________ ________________
ANTHONY MEJIACARRIE GALLAGHER DATE
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
JON ANSOLABEHERE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Packet Pg 282
14