HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2014 B3 Santa Rosa Skate Park
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
Melissa C. Mudgett, Recreation and Public Art Program Manager
SUBJECT: SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK PROJECT; SPECIFICATION NO. 90752
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Deny Pickard & Butters Construction, Inc.’s appeal of the City Engineer’s determination
that Pickard & Butters Construction, Inc. was not the lowest, responsible responsive
bidder.
2. Determine that ProWest Constructors of Wildomar, California is the lowest responsible
responsive bidder.
3. Award a contract to ProWest Constructors of Wildomar, California in the amount of
$1,700,000.00 (Base Bid plus all additive alternates) for the Santa Rosa Skate Park
Project, Specification No. 90752 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
4. Authorize the transfer of $100,000 from the project’s construction management phase to
the construction phase.
5. Appropriate Public Art funds totaling $273,600 ($260,800 Public Art Fund balance and
$12,800 Public Art completed projects) into the Santa Rosa Skate Park project budget,
Specification No. 90752, for public art.
6. Award a public art contract with Jed Joyce and John Jones in the amount of $240,000 for
the fabrication and installation of four (4) steel tree canopies and other artistic reliefs
throughout the Santa Rosa Skate Park facility, Specification No. 90752.
7. Authorize City Manager to amend the public art contract, in accordance with approved
fiscal policies, for public art lighting.
DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2006, members of the skate community attended the Council’s biannual goal setting and
expressed concerns about the condition of the City’s existing wooden skate park built in 1994. As a
result, the City Council identified skate park improvements as a Major City Goal for 2007-09. That
Goal resulted in a multi-year, planning, design and project approval process. As part of the current
2013-15 Financial Plan, Council approved a Major City Goal to construct the Santa Rosa Skate Park.
This action included an additional $1.2 million in Measure Y revenues in support of final
construction of the skate park and its amenities. Refer to the Council Report of January 7, 2014
(Attachment 1) and its attachments for detailed information regarding the project history, funding and
approvals.
On January 7, 2014 Council approved the plans and specifications for the Santa Rosa Skate Park
Project, Specification No. 90752, and authorized staff to advertise for bids. Eight bids were received
and opened on February 20, 2014 ranging from a low of $1,594,797 to a high of $2,071,800 for the
Meeting Date
Item Number 4/15/2014
B3 - 1
Santa Rosa Skate Park (90752) Page 2
total bid (base bid plus all additive alternates). Three bids were below the Engineer’s Estimate of
$1,826,000 for the total bid. The alternative bids included concrete tree bases for public art and
additional repair work for the adjacent parking lot. Refer to the Bid Summary (Attachment 2) for
more details.
Process to Determine Award Recommendation for Capital Improvement Projects
After sealed bids are publicly opened, Public Works staff evaluates the bid documents based on three
criteria: cost, responsiveness and responsibility. Initially, all bids are reviewed for mathematical errors
and ranked from the lowest to the highest cost bid. The lowest cost bid document is then reviewed for
responsiveness.
A bid must conform to the material terms of the bid package. A bid is responsive if it fulfills the
requirements of the bidding instructions. Staff reviews the lowest cost bid package to verify that
requested items of information are complete, addendums are acknowledged, and reference
information is included. Incomplete bids or bids found to otherwise not comply with the bidding
instructions are cause for the bids to be considered as “non-responsive.” If a bid is determined to be
“non-responsive,” the next lowest bid document is then reviewed.
Once the lowest responsive bid has been determined, staff then reviews the contractor’s
qualifications and references to determine if the contractor is responsible. The lowest cost bid that is
responsive and supplied by a responsible contractor is then recommended for project award.
The Notice to Bidders, Section 14 of the bid documents, state that the City reserves the right to reject
any bid based on non-responsiveness if a bidder fails to provide a bid that complies with all bidding
instructions. More specifically, the Notice to Bidders, Section 7 C) of the bid documents, state that
failure to provide reference projects as specified is cause to reject a bid as being non-responsive.
Bid Protests
If in a bidder’s opinion, a contract may be improperly awarded, bidders are given an opportunity to
protest contract award to another bidder. Two bid protests were received on this project. The first bid
protest is from the 2nd low bidder (ProWest) against the 1st low bidder (PBC) and the second is from
the 3rd low bidder (T. Simons) against the 2nd low bidder (ProWest). The Public Works Director
denied both bid protests. Bid Protest correspondence and the Public Work’s Director’s final
determinations can be found in Attachment 4.
Appeals
Municipal Code Chapter 1.20 allows for discretionary administrative decisions made by city officials
to be appealed to Council within 10 calendar days from the date of that decision. PBC filed a timely
appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to reject the bid because PBC had not provided the references
as specified in the bid documents. It is possible that the City could receive another appeal from T.
Simons contesting the Director’s denial of its bid protest against ProWest. In the event this second
appeal is received in a timely manner, Council will be alerted via Agenda Correspondence, in
advance of the meeting.
Rejection of Low Bid from Pickard & Butters Construction
Pickard & Butters Construction (PBC) submitted the lowest total bid. Pursuant to San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code section 3.24.210, the City may consider the experience of a bidder in determining
the responsibility of the bidder. The bid documents require the bidder to provide references from
three public works projects for a public agency completed within the last 5 years from bid opening
B3 - 2
Santa Rosa Skate Park (90752) Page 3
date. Based on the face of the bid itself, it appeared that PBC submitted references responsive to the
bid specifications.
However, a review of the bid proposal references and communications with the reference contacts
revealed that none of the three references provided by the bidder complied with the City’s
specifications. Staff found that two of the three referenced projects were not completed at time of bid
opening – the project for Buttonwillow Park District was 75% complete and the project for San
Lucas School District was substantially completed in August, but had not been finally completed due
to remaining punch list items. The third referenced project was for Salinas Valley Fair, which is a
private non-profit organization and not a public agency.
Great West Contractors Inc. v. Irvine Unified School District (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425 held that
if a public entity is going to reject a bid based on information obtained outside of the bid documents,
then the public entity must provide the opportunity for the bidder to respond to that information.
Consistent with applicable legal authority and the City’s process as set forth in the bid documents,
PBC was notified of staff’s findings and invited to attend a hearing with the City Engineer, during
which PBC was given an opportunity to provide more information in regards to the references. In
addition, PBC was asked to provide some clarification as to their qualifications and personnel. After
completion of the hearing, the City Engineer concluded that the bidder provided no information that
the references provided complied with the specification requirements. Therefore, the City Engineer
found that the bid submission was not responsive to the requirements of the bid invitation. The
finding was consistent with past practices. Correspondence with PBC and the City Engineer’s final
determination can be found in Attachment 3.
PBC submitted a timely appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to reject the bid (Attachment 8). In
sum, PBC argues that it has the requisite experience to perform the contract, and “Any irregularity or
insubstantial deviation, with these listed references are very minor in nature and did not give any
economic advantage or benefit to PBC.” The City may demand strict compliance with the bidding
specifications. Although a non-published case, in Vinciguerra v. City of San Luis Obispo, the Court
of Appeal specifically upheld the City’s practice of requiring strict compliance with bid
specifications that relate to references and rejecting bidders who failed to meet those specifications.
Here, the City Engineer found that PBC did not strictly comply with the bid specifications, and thus,
rejected the bid.
Furthermore, the City Engineer could not make the necessary findings to waive deviations from the
bid specifications. The City may waive an irregularity, but only if the irregularity: (1) does not affect
the amount of the bid; (2) does not give a bidder an advantage over others (e.g., give a bidder an
opportunity to avoid its obligation to perform by withdrawing its bid); (3) is not a potential vehicle
for favoritism; (4) will not influence potential bidders to refrain from bidding; or (5) does not affect
the ability to make bid comparisons. Ghilotti Constr. Co. v City of Richmond (1996) 45 CA4th 897.
Accepting the submitted references, none of which meet the terms of the bid package, allows PBC to
potentially complete work for which they do not have a proven track record of completion with
public agencies. The Appeal letter provides an extensive project list for Mark Butters; however,
there are no specifics as to the dates of the work, nor for the involvement of PBC. If PBC has
completed other projects that meet the requirements of the bid package, it is unknown why those
projects were not submitted as the required references. If PBC does not have the required references,
it will receive an advantage over other companies, which may have opted not to submit bids for that
reason. The City’s reference requirements and adherence to award practices protects the City and the B3 - 3
Santa Rosa Skate Park (90752) Page 4
staff from allegations of favoritism (e.g waiving irregularities that may have influenced bidding
choices for some contractors and not others.) The construction management staff at the City has
found enforcement of references requirements to be an important tool to provide quality contractors
to deliver important city projects. For these reasons, the City Engineer determined that PBC’s bid
should be rejected for failing to provide references as specified.
With PBC’s bid being rejected, the next lowest, responsive bid from a responsible bidder came from
ProWest, and thus, staff recommends that the contract should be awarded to ProWest.
Recommended Award including Bid Alternates
The bid documents for this project were prepared with several additive bid alternate items – four
alternate items for the Public Art “skate-able” concrete tree trunk bases and an alternate bid item to
reconstruct the remaining portion of the deteriorated ball field parking lot. The contractor’s total bid
of $1,700,000 is $126,000 lower than the Engineer’s estimated cost of $1,826,000 ($1,735,000 base
plus $91,000 for all bid alternates) and within the project construction budget as shown in the Fiscal
Impact section. Staff recommends awarding a construction contract to ProWest Constructors and
including all of the additive bid alternates (Attachment 5).
Public Art
The Public Art for this project is an integral component of the Santa Rosa Skate Park’s design. The
main “entrance” to the new multi-use plaza will feature the project’s principal public art components
(concrete and metal shade trees). Public art has also been incorporated into the overall facility design
and will include custom tiles on the upper edge of one of the skate bowls.
At its December 10, 2013 meeting, City Council conceptually approved the public art design,
Concrete Jungle, for the skate park project consisting of up to four concrete and steel shade tree
structures, artistic tiles on the edge of one of the bowls and other art stencils throughout the new
facility. (See Attachment 6 – December 10, 2013 Council Agenda Report). These 24-foot tall
concrete and metal “trees” will serve a dual purpose, both as a skating surface (concrete trunk) and as
shade structures (metal tree canopy) for the surrounding park.
The artists have incorporated the Architectural Review Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Commission recommendations and provided the City with a level of implementation to be
determined based upon the available public art funding. The project construction budget of
$2,200,000 was distinct from the public art project and did not include funding for the public art.
With the currently available public art funds, staff recommends a full level of public art
implementation which would include all four (4) 24-foot concrete and metal shade trees, custom tiles
encompassing the skating basin and streetscape art stencils throughout the skate park.
CONCURRENCES
1. The skate park Master Plan was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on January 7,
2009 and Council on January 20, 2009.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the skate park project and approved a use permit and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) on January 26, 2011.
3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed and approved the skate park project design on
March 7, 2011.
B3 - 4
Santa Rosa Skate Park (90752) Page 5
4. The Santa Rosa Skate Park public art project has received the following review and approvals of
its conceptual design, Concrete Jungle. The Parks and Recreation Committee (PRC) reviewed
and approved the skate park public art design at its November 6, 2013 meeting; the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) at its December 2, 2013 meeting, and the City Council reviewed and
gave its final public art design approval at its December 10, 2013 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
Skate Park
Funding for the Santa Rosa Skate Park construction is identified as part of the 2013-15 Financial
Plan, pages 3-358 through 3-369. The City Council approved an additional $1,226,300 in Measure Y
revenues to augment the $973,700 budget for a total project budget of $2,200,000 to support final
design, construction and construction management of the skate park project. Construction of this
skate park has been identified as a Major Council Goal and a Measure Y priority project.
The current available construction, construction management and public art budgets and estimated
costs for the construction of the Santa Rosa Skate Park project and public art are shown below.
Funding Summary Capital Budget Public Art Budget
Current Available Budgets:
Public Art Funds (balance as of April 1, 2015)$0 $260,800
Public Art Completed Projects $0 $12,800
Construction Phase:
Parkland Development Funds $916,029 $0
Tony Hawk Grant $25,000 $0
Fund Raising $29,000 $0
General Funds - Measure Y $953,300
Construction Management Phase
General Funds - Measure Y $200,000 $0
Total Available Budget $2,123,329 $273,600
Estimated Costs:
Construction Contract ProWest J. Joyce & J. Jones
Base Bid $1,517,000 $240,000
Bid Alternate - (4) Concrete Tree Trunk Bases $95,000 $0
Bid Alternate - Add'l Parking Lot Reconstruction $88,000 $0
Total Contract$1,700,000 $240,000
Materials Testing - PO Earth Systems $23,982 $0
Allowance for Special Inspection $15,000 $0
Estimated Public Art Lighting $0 $24,000
Miscellaneous $3,000 $0
Construction Management Allowance $100,000 $0
Total Estimated Costs $1,841,982 $264,000
15.3%4%
Available for Contingencies $281,347 $9,600
Total Estimated Costs $2,123,329 $273,600
Due to the age of Santa Rosa Park, the high possibility for encountering unknown underground
issues, and potential for conflicts, staff recommends transferring $100,000 of available construction
management phase funds to the construction phase. The remaining $100,000 should remain in the
B3 - 5
Santa Rosa Skate Park (90752) Page 6
construction management phase in the event additional outside inspection services are needed for this
project to supplement the in-house inspection staff.
Public Art
Funding for the Santa Rosa Skate Park public art was identified, but not appropriated, as part of the
2013-15 Financial Plan. In the long term planning for this development, the intent was to allow the
public art funding the necessary time to accumulate in support of this skate park public art project.
Currently, the Public Art fund has a fund balance of $260,800 which can be made available for the
Santa Rosa Skate Park public art project. The Public Art Fund completed capital projects account
balance of $31,300 may also be utilized to help support public art project costs.
All design, permitting and engineering costs of the metal tree canopies compose the “base price” of
$55,000 regardless of the total “trees” installed. Fabrication and installation of the metal tree
canopies has been estimated at an additional $46,250 per “tree”; for a total public art project cost of
$240,000.
The project scope and estimated public art cost of $240,000 is approximately 9% of the overall
construction project budget of $2.2 million. This level of proposed public art funding is consistent
with the City’s public art policy and guidelines.
Staff recommends Council appropriate a total of $273,600 in Public Art funds ($260,800 Public Art
Fund balance and $12,800 Public Art Completed Projects funding) into the Santa Rosa Skate Park
project budget for public art. The recommended project budget will support all public art costs,
public art contingency funding and include some funding for future lighting options. Staff further
recommends award of a public art contract with artists, Jed Joyce and John T. Jones, in the amount of
$240,000 for the design, fabrication and installation of four (4) steel tree canopies and other art
reliefs throughout the Santa Rosa Skate Park facility (Attachment 7 – Contract Agreement).
Lighting details will be included as a contract option with the artists, to be determined at a later date.
Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to amend the public art contract, in
accordance with approved fiscal policies, in support of future lighting options for the four (4) “trees”
when more is known about the ambient lighting needs of the skate park, the type of lighting, conduit
size and locations.
The recommended Public Art appropriation of $273,600 is sufficient to fund the artists’ contract for
design, fabrication and installation of the metal tree canopies including the contract option for future
lighting and contingency funding. Staff recommends allocating 4% of the public art fabrication and
installation budget in support of public art project contingencies.
ALTERNATIVE
Award a Contract to other than ProWest Constructors. Council may decide to award to another
contractor such as the Pickard & Butters Construction (Low Bidder) or T. Simons (third low-bidder).
In these cases, Council will need to overturn the rulings made by the City Engineer and/or the
Director of Public Works Director and make findings to support their decision.
Deny the award. Council may reject all bids and direct staff to re-advertise the project. Delay in the
award will push the project farther into the rainy season, and is unlikely to yield lower bids.
B3 - 6
Santa Rosa Skate Park (90752) Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Agenda Report, Jan. 7, 2014 –Approval to advertise
2. Bid Summary
3. PBC Correspondence and City Engineer’s determination
4. Bid Protests - Correspondence and Director’s determinations
5. Contract Agreement – Skatepark Construction, ProWest Constructors
6. Council Agenda Report, December 10, 2013 – Public Art design approval
7. Contract Agreement – Public Art , Jed Joyce and John T. Jones
8. PBC Appeal of City Engineer’s determination
9. Resolution – Award a Contract for Santa Rosa Skate Park
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-04-15\skate park construction award (grigsby-fraser)\ecouncil agenda report-90752-award v2.docx
B3 - 7
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By:Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK PROJECT; SPECIFICATION NO. 90752
RECOMMENDATION
Approve plans and specifications for the "Santa RosaSkate Park Project, Specification No. 90752,”
and authorize staff to advertise for construction bids.
DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2006, the skate community attended a Public Forum to express concerns about the
condition of the existing skate park, built in 1994. As a result, the City Council identified skate park
improvements as a Major City Goal. That Goal resulted inextensive design, planning and approval
processes. As part of the current 2013-15 Financial Plan, Council approved an additional $1.2
million in Measure Y revenues in support of final construction of the skate park and itsamenities.
The 2013-15 Financial Plan (Attachment 1) and Major City Goal (Attachment 2) contains detailed
information regarding the project history, funding and approvals.
The Skate Park project proposes to replace the existing 6,000 square foot modular skate park with a
larger in-ground 15,000 square foot facility which includes a series of runs, stairs, jumps and bowls.
The skateboard facility will be surrounded by pedestrian walkways, seat walls, and viewing areas, as
well as a small stage and amphitheater on the west side that can be used for award presentations,
ceremonies, and other cultural events. A plaza area with planters and seat wallswill separate the
existing hockey court from the skateboard park and is proposed for spectator viewing of both venues,
and can also be used for vendors during events. This project also includes re-grading a portion of the
adjacent parking lot and adding curb and gutter along the west edge to facilitate the drainage from the
below grade bowls. This work will also capture and redirect drainage from the existing ball field to
prevent it from entering the new facility.The drainage will be conveyed to a small detention basin in
the lawn area to the south of the hockey court.This area will allow for some infiltration and filtering
prior to the water being released to the City’s storm drain system.
The bid documents (available for review in the Council Reading File) have been prepared for the
skate park improvements and the project is ready for solicitation of bids.
IntegratedPublic Art
Since the project’s inception, Public Art has been anticipated for inclusion in this project. The
Architectural Review Commission,at its March 7, 2011 meeting,reviewed and approved the
Meeting Date
Item Number1/7/2014
C3 - 1
C3
Attachment 1
B3 - 8
conceptual design for the skate park with conditions that various elements of public art be
incorporated into the project’s design. Suggestions included replacing the proposed shade structure
at the stage with an artistic shade structure, providing areas for freestanding sculptures, adding art
tiles and other art forms to accent the skate park. To facilitate this requirement, Council authorized
funding for a public art consultant to work with the project designers to design a variety of art
elements to be incorporated into the project. On December 2, 2013, ARC reviewed and approved the
proposed public art for the skate park and forwarded their recommendation to Council.
At the December 10, 2013 meeting, Council conceptually approved the public art design for the skate
park project consisting of up to four concrete and steel shade tree structures, artistic tiles on the edge
of the bowls and other art reliefs throughout the new facility. (See Attachment 4 – 12/10/13 Council
Agenda Report.) The shade trees consist of “skate-able” concrete trunks with metal shade canopies.
The concrete tree trunks have been incorporated into the bid documents as additive bid alternates to
be constructed by the skate park contractor. The remaining art elements including the steel canopies
for the shade tree structures will be created and installed separately by the artists in coordination with
the skate park contractor.
Bid Alternates
The bid documents are set up with several additive bid alternate items – four alternate items for the
concrete tree trunk bases (as indicated above) and an alternate bid item to reconstruct the remaining
portion of the ball field parking lot. Using bid alternates is a useful tool which provides flexibility for
Council to make decisions based on real costs rather than estimates and assumptions. It allows
Council to award a contract including or omitting any of the bid alternate items, depending on the
outcome of the bids and the availability of funding. The Skate Park construction will require the
services of a specialty contractor, perhaps outside the local area. The need for a specialty contractor,
as well as our possible reliance on bidders outside the region, could impact the overall construction
bid environment.
The concrete tree trunks are included as alternates because the total available Public Art funding is
unknown at the time of this report preparation. Council will determine the levels of public art
implementation and funding at the time of construction award in Spring 2014. At that time, funding
available for the construction of the Public Art will be specifically identified and will include the
existing balance in the Public Art fund. This fund continues to receive funds from developer in-lieu
fees and occasional private donations. The estimated bid alternate cost per concrete tree trunk base is
$16,500 for a total of $66,000 to construct all four concrete bases. The total cost of all Public Art
elements, including four concrete tree trunk bases, steel tree structure canopies, lighting, artistic tiles
and other artistic streetscape elements is currently estimated at $339,100.
Additionally, a bid alternate is included to capture costs to reconstruct the remaining half of the ball
field parking lot. As part of the project, approximately half of the parking lot will be re-graded and
reconstructed to accommodate the new curb and gutter along the west boundary of the parking lot
leaving the remaining half as is. However, over the last few years that portion of the parking lot has
suffered increased deterioration. Reconstructing this remaining portion of the parking lot was not
originally part of the project scope or budget. However, if bids come in lower than expected and
funds are available this critical work could be added at same time the other half is rebuilt. A
recommendation will be brought forward at time of award based on the bid results and the
Attachment 1
B3 - 9
availability of project funding. The estimated cost to reconstruct the remaining portion of the parking
lot is $25,000.
CONCURRENCES
1. The skate park Master Plan was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on January 7,
2009 and Council on January 20, 2009.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and approved a use permit and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on January 26,
2011.
3. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed and approved the project design on March 7, 2011.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the Santa Rosa Skate Park construction is identified as part of the 2013-15 Financial
Plan, pages 3-358 through 3-369. City Council approved an additional $1,226,300 in Measure Y
revenues to augment the $973,080 of available funding for a total project budget of $2,199,380 to
support final design, construction and construction management of the skate park project. The total
project budget of $2,199,380 does not include public art funding.
As originally budgeted, Construction Management was anticipated to be largely provided by
consultant services. Based on projected workloads, Construction Management will now be primarily
performed by City staff; however, given the complexity and structural nature of the project,
specialized inspection services and substantial material testing are anticipated. As a result, some, but
not all, of the Construction Management funding can be reallocated to support construction.
The current budget appears to be sufficient to cover the cost of the project. If bids are below the
available budget, the remaining project funding can be used to award the bid alternate items,
including the Public Art concrete tree bases ($66,000) and the additional parking lot reconstruction
($25,000). A recommendation of how to use any available project balance will be made at time of
award.
The current available project budget and estimated costs for the construction of the Santa Rosa Skate
Park project are shown below.
Attachment 1
B3 - 10
Project Funding Summary
Available Design Phase Budget:
Parkland Development Funds $3,051
General Funds $73,000
Total Available Design Budget $76,051
Estimated Design Costs - During Construction:
RRM Encumbrance for Plan Preperation/Processing of State
Storm Water Permit $13,200
Allowance for Archtiectural/Construction Admin Support $60,000
Printing, Adv, Misc.$1,500
Total Estimated Design Costs $74,700
Available versus Estimated - Remaining or (Shortfall)$1,351
Current Available Construction Phase Budget:
Parkland Development Funds $970,029
General Funds $953,300
Total Available Construction Budget $1,923,329
Estimated Construction Costs:
Engineer's Estimate-Base Bid Only $1,735,000
Allowance for Materials Testing $25,000
Contingencies @ 10%$173,500
Total Estimated Construction Costs $1,933,500
Available versus Estimated - Remaining or (Shortfall)($10,171)
General Funds $200,000
Total Available Construction Management Budget $200,000
Estimated Construction Management Costs:
Allowance for Outside Inspection $100,000
Total Estimated Construction Management Costs $100,000
Available versus Estimated - Remaining or (Shortfall)$100,000
Remaining Project Balance/(Shortfall)$91,180
Estimated Bid Alternate Costs
Concrete Tree Trunk Bases $66,000
Additional Parking Lot Reconstruction $25,000
Total Estimated Bid Alternate Costs $91,000
Current Available Construction Management Budget:
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
Attachment 1
B3 - 11
2. Financial Plan
3. Major City Goal
4. Council Report, Dec 10, 2013 – Skate Park Public Art
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Plans and Specifications.
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-01-07\santa rosa skate park spec 90752 (grigsby-fraser)\ecouncil agenda report-90752.docx
Attachment 1
B3 - 12
Attachment 1
B3 - 13
Project Description
Constructing a new in-ground concrete skate park facility in Santa Rosa Park will cost $1,226,300 for construction and construction management in 2013-14.
The complete Master Plan project will cost $2,200,000, however project funding to date totals $973,700.
Maintenance/Replacement New project Fleet Replacement New Fleet Request
Council Goal / Measure Y Priority - List: Complete Construction of a Skate Park; Measure Y Priority
Need and Urgency
In 1994, community volunteers came together to construct San Luis Obispo’s first and only skate park at Santa Rosa Park. A small concrete pad was poured and
temporary wooden ramps were erected, with the hope that eventually funds would become available to construct a permanent skate park. Over the years, the
skateboarding area was furnished with ramps and obstacles built by City staff, the users and volunteers. The components were constructed of wood and
deteriorated quickly as a result of exposure to the outdoor elements and overuse by skate enthusiasts. The skate community attended the Public Forum in January
2006 to express concerns about the condition of the existing skate park. As a result, the City Council identified skate park improvements as a Major City Goal in
the 2007-09 Financial Plan and has since gone through the extensive design, planning and approval processes.
During 2007-08, staff conducted a needs assessment on the skate park facility. Through a series of community meetings, input was gathered on whether the City
should pursue replacing the existing equipment with modular steel skate ramps and obstacles or consider construction of a new permanent skate park facility.
Consensus was overwhelming for a permanent facility, which would have additional amenities to enhance expanded programs and entice special events and
competitions.
The City Council received the results of the Santa Rosa Skate Park Needs Assessment at its May 20, 2008 meeting and unanimously supported the idea of having a
“premier” skate park located in San Luis Obispo. Council provided direction to staff to move forward with a Master Plan for an in-ground concrete skate park,
work with the community on fundraising efforts, and encouraged staff to move forward with the project as quickly as possible. In addition, Council authorized the
purchase of modular steel equipment with a limited life span to replace the current wood structures to address existing safety concerns and serve as a stop-gap
measure until a permanent park could be constructed. Today, this remains a temporary fix on the road to the community’s longstanding dream to build a permanent
skate park.
Using the needs assessment as a guide, during 2008-09, a Master Plan was developed for the new skate park and presented to City Council in January 2009. The
Master Planned skate park is designed to be approximately 15,000 square feet and located in the area of the current skate park and adjacent grass area. An
entry/stage area was included in the skate park design to allow for passage to the facility and provide an entertainment and seating area for events. A planned plaza
between the skate park and roller hockey rink provides an area where vendors and groups could gather during large events. In all, approximately 30,000 square feet
was included in the Master Plan for the Skate Park and related amenities.
Attachment 1
B3 - 14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN -LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK
Santa Rosa Skate Park Project Review
Phase/Cost Review Date Approved
Study/$52,000
Community Forum January 10, 2007
Needs Assessment Workshop January 26, 2008
Needs Assessment Workshop March 1, 2008
Parks & Recreation Commission May 7, 2008
City Council Meeting May 20, 2008
Master Plan Workshop October 4, 2008
Master Plan Workshop November 8, 2008
Stakeholder Task Force November 17, 2008
Design/$178,600
Parks & Recreation Commission January 7, 2009
City Council Meeting January 20, 2009
Stakeholder Task Force February 23, 2009
Stakeholder Task Force June 23, 2009
Stakeholder Task Force March 20, 2010
Stakeholder Task Force June 21, 2010
Stakeholder Task Force January 24, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 2011
Architectural Review Committee March 21, 2011
Total 230,600
The Master Planned skate park develops and integrates four completely new outdoor recreational opportunities that will draw multiple generations together in a
revitalized common spaceserving the City’s most densely-populated neighborhood.A permanent in-ground skate park, an outdoor amphitheater, a low-impact
fitness pathand a streetscape plaza for spectator seating, farmers markets, craft fairs and other events have all been included in the design.These four elements
facilitate shared multi-generational use and connectivity with other existing park features –a playground, picnic areas, street hockey court, horseshoe pitand ball
fields. The main entrance to the new multi-use zone will feature a public art component and native landscaping. Public art will also be incorporated into the overall
facility design and showcase the cultural elements being introduced into the expansion design including skateboarding, outdoor entertainment, walking fitness and
community festivals.
After City Council approved the Santa Rosa Skate Park CIP for the 2009-11 budget cycle(Appendix B, Pages 3-290 through 3-293), it was expected that an
additional $791,700 would be acquired through fundraising and grants to complete the skate park project.Staff has worked tirelessly over the past three years, with
the support of stakeholders, to raise funds of over $54,000 (including theTony Hawk Foundation Grant for $25,000) and still the project is short by $737,600.
Santa Rosa Skate Park Approved Design
3-359
Attachment 1
B3 - 15
Hundreds of hours have been spent on grant applications (and accompanying site visits and presentations) as well as numerous community fundraising events and
outreach efforts. Although numerous grant applications have been submitted, including California’s Prop 84 grant, these efforts have not been fruitful. The project
cannot proceed to construction without additional funding allocations from the General Fund. The City demographically is not “underprivileged” or “urban”
enough to receive formerly existing state grant funds, as well as it does not meet most grant criteria for adding new park space/acreage. The project itself has not
appealed to potential donors (ranging from foundations to companies to community members). With each passing year, stakeholders and supporters are frustrated
and seeking clarity in the direction the City is headed with this project. If the direction continues that staff and/or community stakeholders must raise all remaining
funds, the estimated build date would be indiscernible.
Current state of the Santa Rosa Skate Park Project
This CIP is the continuation of a previously adopted, but not completed Major City Goal. Because of the financing strategy established with the 2009-11 CIP, the
design of Santa Rosa Skate Park Project as envisioned by the adopted Master Plan has progressed to 95% completion. A Use Permit was approved by the Planning
Commission in January of 2011. The project design was approved by the Architectural Review Committee in March 2011. The construction documents (plans and
specifications) were prepared and have been submitted to the Building Department for a building permit and are essentially complete pending one round of staff
review before being considered bid ready. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and permit will also need to be obtained prior to starting any grading
operations. From the needs assessment and Master Planning phase which began in 2008 through the current design and construction document phase, City Staff
and consultants have been working on this project for nearly five years at a cost of $230,000 for these phases ($52,000 for the needs assessment/Master Planning
efforts and $178,000 for design and bid document preparation). In addition to these expenditures, significant staff time has been given to seeing the project
through. Needless to say, considerable time and resources have been invested in this project to date.
Why is this project important to our community?
The need for a permanent skate park in the City of San Luis Obispo has been a dream for over half a decade. The planning process for the Santa Rosa Park has
already built significant social capital among community residents. The groundswell of support for the project spans generation, socioeconomic class, and ethnicity
to pursue a common goal of opening a new recreational hub in our city.
The Santa Rosa Skate Park is important to the community for several reasons. Most specifically, the park provides community value in five significant ways:
1. Social Benefits. The neighborhoods directly adjacent to Santa Rosa Park have the highest number of youth living in poverty in San Luis Obispo. These
and other low-income teens have severely limited opportunities to access free City-based outdoor recreation. After-school and summer programs offered
to youth do not extend past the age of 12, leaving kids aged 13 to 18 without designated places for recreation. Parks and Recreation and other local
organizations do offer athletic recreation programs for youth; all require fees to be paid for participation. Costs range between $20 and $500 per person
depending on the sport. This often leaves low-income youth without an opportunity to participate. Juvenile crime is a national crisis that is alive in San
Luis Obispo and is frequently attributed to disconnect from viable afterschool physical activities and recreation.
Additionally, the Santa Rosa Skate Park will provide a place for youth who aren’t attracted to traditional team sports a place to go and express themselves
in an individual and athletic manner. Getting youth, particularly at-risk youth, involved in a personal and esteem-building activity like skateboarding helps
build the confidence to do well in other aspects of their lives. At San Luis Obispo High School, less than a mile from the proposed project site, fewer than
Attachment 1
B3 - 16
half of the 1500 enrolled students are involved in traditional athletics (e.g. football, baseball, soccer, basketball, track, volleyball, and cross country). This
leaves approximately 900 students not involved in traditional sports and without many options for afterschool physical activity and recreation.
2. Health and Developmental Benefits. Skateboarding has been shown to be an excellent means for youth to stay physically active. Skateboarding is
physically active and requires, at times, great concentration. It encourages youth to spend time outdoors, test their endurance, sharpen their senses, and
develop their creativity. Skateboarding requires no coaches and suggests no standardized approach to riding a skate park. Skaters are free to ride in their
own way, to their own abilities, and encouraged to pursue their own style of skating. It is currently the third most popular recreational activity among
youth ages 6-18 years old. These are formative years in a youth’s life and developing a habitual desire for physical recreation is essential to a healthy
future. Many people who started in their teens still enjoy skateboarding well into their 50s. Furthermore, youth in low-income areas (like those
surrounding Santa Rosa Park) are particularly prone to health issues related to lack of exercise due to the expense of equipment and travel, or lack of
leisure time. For this area, the skate park will become an effective tool that teaches healthy, athletic living at an impressionable age.
3. Public Comfort and Safety Benefits. The 9.3-million skateboarders in America only have about 3,000 skate parks nationwide. That means the vast
majority of them are skating in the streets. The downtown core of San Luis Obispo has an ordinance that prohibits skateboarding. The building of a new
skate park facility will attract and retain the skateboarders, greatly reducing negative contact with law enforcement. Santa Rosa Skate Park will provide a
place for local youth to practice their tricks. This means that they’re not skating downtown or in areas where they are seen as a nuisance, a menace, or
causing damage. Over 75% of communities that have built skate parks in the last 10 years have confirmed a significant reduction in street skating
problems, such as damage to public and private property. A permanent in-ground skate park will reduce the amount of damage seen throughout the
community and limit the number of citations issued for illegal skateboarding. In addition to the direct health benefits, research even suggests that
skateboarding can help keep teens out of trouble. A 2006 study found that skateboarders are less likely to smoke cigarettes, engage in sexual intercourse,
and skip school. (“Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Patterns are Associated with Selected Adolescent Health Risk Behaviors,” PEDIATRICS,
Vol. 117 No. 4, April 2006)
4. Economic Benefits. Feedback from other municipalities with a skate park suggests a positive effect on businesses in the surrounding areas. The Santa
Rosa Skate Park is designed to draw people from near and far. Out of town visitors will likely stay in hotels, shop in local stores, eat in restaurants and
buy gas.
5. Community Development Benefits. The Santa Rosa Skate Park was designed with local skater input and involvement throughout the process--these
youth have developed a sense of ownership, pride, and community engagement. The very existence of the park is the result of their hard work and
interaction with the broader community. These previously disenfranchised skaters, who once ran from the police, have found themselves working side-by-
side with the city, and the community as a whole. It has been a transformational process for these youth. The Santa Rosa Skate Park project has allowed
the community to see the skate community for what they truly are: passionate, dedicated athletes that voluntarily seek out physical recreation. Without a
skate park, the skateboarders will continue to feel like pariahs who are repeatedly told to leave the area. The cumulative effects of this will instill a sense
of disconnection to their community.
Attachment 1
B3 - 17
Readiness to Build
Study complete or n/a
Equipment purchased or n/a
Property owned or property agreement in place n/a
Environmental approval and permits complete or n/a Environmental Approval is complete. Building Permit is pending. Water Quality/Storm Water
Permit still needs to be obtained prior to construction.
Specifications or construction documents complete n/a Construction Documents are 95% complete.
IT Steering Committee review n/a
Environmental Review and Permits Required
Environmental Review n/a
Building Permit n/a
Waterway Permits (Fish & Wildlife, Water Quality, Army Corps) n/a Water Quality (SWPP)
Railroad n/a
Operating Program Number and Title:
60100 Recreation Administration
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Continuing, ongoing or master account project - Specification No. 90752
Thus far, project expenditures include Needs, Assessment, Master Planning, Design and Construction Documents)
Budget to Date 2013-142014-152015-162016-172017-18 Total
Utilities $780 $800 $900$1,000$3,480
Maintenance materials $2,000$2,000$2,000$5,000$11,000
Contract Services $35,600$35,600$36,000$36,000$143,200
Total $0 $0$38,380$38,400$38,900$42,000$157,680
Ongoing Costs by Type
Detail of ongoing costs and alternatives to ongoing costs including return on investment information:
Based on published maintenance management standards/guidelines (Operational Guidelines for Grounds Management and Park Maintenance Standards.) It is
anticipated that this new facility will require an additional half-time maintenance worker to provide ongoing repairs and daily routine maintenance of the skate
Attachment 1
B3 - 18
park, plaza, amphitheater and landscaping. It is anticipated that approximately $2,000/year will be needed for materials and approximately $3,000 every 5 years for
repairs or replacement of sump pumps/controls.
Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years
Budget to Date 2013-142014-152015-162016-172017-18 Total
General Fund $1,226,300 $1,226,300
Parkland Development Fund $919,700 $919,700
Grant $25,000 $25,000
Fund Raising $29,000 $29,000
Total$973,700$1,226,300 $0 $0 $0 $0$2,200,000
Project Funding by Source
Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives
Alternate project is feasible or advantageous – Cost of alternative project:
It is at this critical 2013-15 Financial Plan venture, that the Parks and Recreation Department receive a firm direction on the future of the Santa Rosa Skate Park
project. With the assistance of Public Works and RRM Design four alternatives for the SLO Skate Park at Santa Rosa Park are listed and compared below. The
options are presented, in recommended alternative priority, based on feedback from the stakeholders, staff and design consultants. However, none of the presented
options are recommended as they do not reflect the features identified in the Needs Assessment. The Master Plan skate park reflects those desires, which include
features for the novice through the expert skateboarder. In selecting alternatives, the project will meet fewer needs of the users and be less appealing to the
community at large.
Attachment 1
B3 - 19
Value Engineering Options
Summary
CIP Proposed Budget
Full Project
Option A
Full Project, Less Site
Amenities
Option B
Street Course
Option C
Modular Equipment
INCLUDES • Entire Skate Park Area
(15,500 sf)
• Sports-Lighting
• Drainage Improvements
and Drainage Basin
• Minimal Site
Improvements
• At-Grade ”Street Course”
Skate Park Area Only
(7,200 sf)
• Reduced Sports-Lighting
• Drainage Improvements
and Drainage Basin
• Minimal
Site Improvements for
ADA Accessibility
• Additional
Square Footage to the
Current Concrete Slab
• Improved
Modular Equipment
ELIMINATES • Amphitheater
• Entry Feature
• Multi-Use Plaza/
Maintenance Vehicle
Access Paving
• Site Lighting
• Public Art features
• Below-Grade
Skate Features (Pools and
Snake Run)
• Amphitheater
• Entry Feature
• Multi-Use
Plaza/Maintenance Vehicle
Access Paving
• Sports Lighting Poles
• Site Lighting
• Public Art features
• Below-Grade
• Skate Features (Pools and
Snake Run)
• Amphitheater
• Entry Feature
• Multiuse
Plaza/Maintenance Vehicle
Access Paving
• Sports Lighting
• Site Lighting
• Drainage Improvements
and Drainage basin
• Public Art features
Construction 1 $1,739,000 $1,381,000 $745,000 $262,000
SW Plan/Permit $20,000 $20,000 20,000 0
Materials Testing $20,000 $15,000 10,000 $2,500
Misc., printing, etc. $3,000 $2,000 2,000 $500
Contingency (10% ±) $168,000 $132,000 $73,000 $25,000
Construction Costs $1,950,000 $1,550,000 $850,000 $290,000
Const. Management $200,000 $175,000 $150,000 $45,000
Const. Admin/Architect $50,000 $35,000 25,000 0
Const. Mgmt. Costs $250,000 $210,000 $175,000 $45,000
Redesign Fees 0 $50,000 $50,000 $15,000
Total $2,200,000 $1,810,000 $1,075,000 $350,000
Available Budget $973,700 $948,700 $948,700 $948,700
Budget Shortfall (or Balance
Remaining)
$1,226,300 $861,300 $126,300 ($-598,700)
1. Includes 4% escalation for 1 yr.
Attachment 1
B3 - 20
Staff recognizes four (4) levels of alternative options for the build:
1. Option A – Full Skate Park, Less Site Amenities: This option eliminates almost all site amenities designed in the approved Master Plan project.
o Lost Costs: $50,000 (Redesign), $25,000 (Tony Hawk Grant)
2. Option B – Street Course: The street course eliminates in-ground features and eliminates almost all site amenities in the approved Master Plan project.
o Lost Costs: $230,000 (Needs, Assessment, Master Planning, Design, Construction Documents), $25,000 (Tony Hawk Grant), $50,000 (Redesign)
3. Option C – Modular Equipment: A concrete slab skate area with modular equipment (steel/wood or concrete) eliminates all site amenities and skate
park features as designed in the approved Master Plan project, thus reducing opportunities for program expansion and community services.
o Lost Costs: $230,000 (Needs, Assessment, Master Planning, Design, Construction Documents), $25,000 (Tony Hawk Grant), $8,000 (Redesign)
4. Option D – No Improvements: Deny the Project and close down the current skate park. Denying the project is not recommended by staff. City Council
indicated strong support for a premier in-ground concrete skate park. Denying the project would disappoint a large and active skate community (children,
teens and adults) who would like to see a permanent facility constructed. Additionally, all City funds expended to date for this project ($230,000) would be
lost. If Council decides to deny the project, staff recommends that the current, temporary park be closed immediately. Staff believes strongly that the
temporary skate park does not support the Department’s mission to provide quality parks, open space, recreation, cultural and educational services,
essential to the enhancement and promotion of personal well-being and a sense of community. Without staff supervision and care for equipment, Parks,
Police and Parks and Recreation staff are constantly “putting out fires”. This has created an unsafe meeting place that is not in accordance with other Parks
and Parks and Recreation facilities.
Further Implications
Tony Hawk Grant: It also important to note, the $25,000 Tony Hawk Grant awarded to the skate park project (in which the City has been
granted an extension); will be retracted if the Council wishes to pursue Options A, B, C or D or set an indefinite date of construction.
Parkland Development Fees: Terminating construction of the skate park results in a return of $919,700 park in lieu funds to the Parkland
Development Fund.
Public Art: In 2009-11, City Council approved $30,000 in Public Art funds to be spent on the design and engineering of public art
elements for the Master Planned skate park. A contracted art consultant worked with City staff, the City’s Architectural Review
Committee, community stakeholders and the design consultants to design and create outdoor public art that marks the uniqueness of the
space. To date four concepts have completed the design and engineering phases: 1) Four customized shade-structures over the
amphitheater and park entrances 2) Glass tile enhancements (inside the skate zone) 3) Etching work inside the skate zone, and 4) A
customized drinking fountain/water feature at the park’s main entrance. If the Council chooses Options A or B, some of the public art
funds will be lost, if C or D is chosen all the public art funds will be lost as a result of the re-design.
Santa Rosa Park Drainage Issue: The proposed CIP as well as Option A and Option B include approximately $90,000 of construction
costs to provide drainage of the below grade pools and to remedy on-going drainage issue that has existed at the park since the year the
ball fields were constructed. The drainage of the below grade pools requires the water to be pumped to the surface and conveyed to a
drainage basin for percolation into the ground. Using the existing lawn area to the west of the skate park to percolate the skate park
drainage was not advisable as it is already saturated from the ball field drainage. Adding more drainage to the area would only exacerbate
the muddy conditions making it unusable for activities and/or destroying the lawn. The proposed solution to the drainage for the ball field
and skate park bowls includes re-grading of the parking lot to lower the westerly boundary and construction of curb and gutter along the
Attachment 1
B3 - 21
length of the lot to allow surface flows from the ball field and from the pumped basins to flow southerly to a new drain basin in a lawn
area south of the hockey court. This area is not used for activities and allowed for any overflow of the basin to reach an existing catch
basin at the corner of the park. The cost of resolving the drainage for the ball field and below ground bowls is approximately $90,000. This
drainage issue did not surface during the Master Planning phases and was not accounted for in the preliminary estimates. Although the
drainage would need to be addressed in the current CIP as well as option A, the drainage due to the ball field is still an ongoing issue and
should be addressed regardless of the construction of a skate facility. It is presumed a separate CIP will be submitted in the next Financial
Plan for this issue if the current CIP or Option A do not move forward. Looking at the projects as separate CIPs would reflect the
following reduction in overall costs:
o Skate Park CIP Carry Forward: $1,136,300
o Skate Park Option A: $746,300
o Skate Park Option B: $11,300
o Santa Rosa Park Drainage: $90,000
Project can be phased – Number of years for phasing:
Project Team
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering 120
Administration CIP Engineering 100
Inspection CIP Engineering 240 (assuming outside inspection)
Project Team Parks and Recreation, Public
Works – Parks Maintenance Staff
80
Location Map
Location maps, site plans or schematic designs should accompany the CIP request whenever this will improve overall understanding of the project. These should
be electronically integrated into the request.
Attachment 1
B3 - 22
Complete Master Plan Designed Project
Master Planned skate park facility in Santa Rosa Park will
cost $1,226,300 in 2013-14.
Attachment 1
B3 - 23
Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives (Images)
Option A: Skate Park less Site Amenities
New in-ground concrete skate park area, eliminating
designed amphitheater, entry feature, multi-up
plaza/maintenance vehicle access paving, some public art
features and site lighting, will cost $836,300 in 2013-14.
Attachment 1
B3 - 24
Option B: Street Course
A new “street course” skate park area (eliminating
below-grade skate features: pools and snake run,
amphitheater, entry feature, multi-use plaza/maintenance
vehicle access paving, sports lighting poles, most public
art features and site lighting) will cost $101,300 in 2013-
14.
Attachment 1
B3 - 25
GOAL STATEMENT
Complete construction of the skate park, utilizing a combination of public funds, donations, and grant funding
where possible.
OBJECTIVE
Construct the master planned and designed Santa Rosa Skate Park.
DISCUSSION
Why is this project important to our community?
A permanent skate park in the City of San Luis Obispo has been a dream for over half a decade and the resulting
planning process for the Santa Rosa Park has built significant social capital among community residents. The
groundswell of support for the project span generation, socioeconomic class, and ethnicity in pursuit of a common
goal of opening a new recreational hub in the City of San Luis Obispo.
The Santa Rosa Skate Park is important to the community for several reasons. Most specifically, the park provides
community value in five significant ways:
1. Social Benefits. The neighborhoods directly adjacent to Santa Rosa Park have the highest number of
youth living in poverty in San Luis Obispo. These and other low-income teens have severely limited
opportunities to access free City-based outdoor recreation. After-school and summer programs offered to
youth do not extend past the age of 12, leaving kids aged 13 to 18 without designated places for
recreation.
2. Health and Developmental Benefits.Skateboarding has been shown to be an excellent means for youth
to stay physically active as it provides physical activity and requires, at times, great concentration. It
encourages youth to spend time outdoors, test their endurance, sharpen their senses, and develop their
creativity. Skateboarding requires no coaches and suggests no standardized approach to riding a skate
park. It is currently the third most popular recreational activity among youth ages 6-18 years old.
3. Public Comfort and Safety Benefits. The 9.3million skateboarders in America only have about 3,000
skate parks nationwide. That means the vast majority of them are skating in the streets. The downtown
core of San Luis Obispo has an ordinance that prohibits skateboarding. The new skate park facility will
attract and retain the skateboarders, thus greatly reducing negative contact with law enforcement.
4. Economic Benefits. Feedback from other municipalities with a skate park suggests a positive effect on
businesses in the surrounding areas. The Santa Rosa Skate Park is designed to draw people from near and
far with out of town visitors likely staying in hotels, enjoying local dining and shopping.
5. Community Development Benefits. The Santa Rosa Skate Park was designed with local skater input
and involvement throughout the process--these youth have developed a sense of ownership, pride, and
community engagement. The very existence of the park is the result of their hard work and interaction
with the broader community.
Attachment 1
B3 - 26
History of the Santa Rosa Skate Park
In 1994, community volunteers came together to construct San Luis Obispo’s first and only skate park at Santa
Rosa Park. A small concrete pad was poured and temporary wooden ramps were erected, with the hope that in the
future sufficient funds would become available to construct a permanent skate park. Over the years, the
skateboarding area was furnished with ramps and obstacles built by City staff, the users, and volunteers. The
components were constructed of wood and deteriorated quickly as a result of exposure to the elements and
overuse by skate enthusiasts.
2007-09 Major City Goal and Development of a Master Plan for a Skate Park
The skate community attended the Council’s Goal Setting Public Forum in January 2006 to express concerns
about the condition of the existing skate park. As a result, the City Council identified skate park improvements as
a 2007-09 Major City Goal and has undertaken an extensive design, planning and project approval process.
During 2007-08, staff conducted a needs assessment on the skate park facility. Consensus was overwhelming for
a permanent facility with additional amenities to enhance expanded programs and encourage special events and
competitions.
The City Council received the results of the Santa Rosa Skate Park Needs Assessment at its May 20, 2008
meeting and unanimously supported the idea of having a “premier” skate park located in San Luis Obispo.
Council directed staff to move forward with a Master Plan for an in-ground concrete skate park, work on
fundraising efforts, and encouraged staff to move forward with the project as quickly as possible. In addition,
Council authorized the purchase of modular steel equipment with a limited life span to replace the deteriorating
wood structures, addressing safety concerns and serving as a stop-gap measure until a permanent park could be
constructed.
Using the needs assessment as a guide, a Master Plan was developed for the new skate park and presented to City
Council in January 2009. The Master Planned skate park is designed to be approximately 15,000 square feet and
includes the current skate park and adjacent grass area. An entry/stage area was incorporated into design to allow
for passage to the facility and provide an entertainment and seating area for events. A planned plaza between the
Skate Park and roller hockey rink provides an area for vendors and groups to gather during large events. In all, the
Master Plan for the Skate Park and related amenities encompasses approximately 30,000 square feet.
Development of the Santa Rosa Skate Park Plans and Summary of Public Involvement
Summary of Santa Rosa Skate Park Meeting (Study and Design Phases
Study
Community Forum January 10, 2007
Needs Assessment Workshop January 26, 2008
Needs Assessment Workshop March 1, 2008
Parks & Recreation Commission May 7, 2008
City Council Meeting May 20, 2008
Master Plan Workshop October 4, 2008
Master Plan Workshop November 8, 2008
Stakeholder Task Force November 17, 2008
Attachment 1
B3 - 27
Design
Parks & Recreation Commission January 7, 2009
City Council Meeting January 20, 2009
Stakeholder Task Force February 23, 2009
Stakeholder Task Force June 23, 2009
Stakeholder Task Force March 20, 2010
Stakeholder Task Force June 21, 2010
Stakeholder Task Force January 24, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 2011
Architectural Review Committee March 21, 2011
The Approved Design for the Santa Rosa Master Planned Skate Park
The approved Santa Rosa Skate Park design integrates four completely new outdoor recreational opportunities
that will draw multiple generations together in a revitalized common space serving the City’s most densely-
populated neighborhood. A permanent in-ground skate park, an outdoor amphitheater, a low-impact fitness path
and a streetscape plaza for spectator seating, farmers markets, craft fairs and other events have all been included
in the design. These four elements facilitate shared multi-generational use and connectivity with other existing
park features such as the playground, picnic areas, street hockey court, and horseshoe pit and ball fields. The main
entrance to the new multi-use zone will feature a Public Art component and native landscaping. Public Art has
also been incorporated into the overall facility design and showcases the cultural elements being introduced into
the design including skateboarding , BMX biking, rollerblading, outdoor entertainment, walking fitness and
community festivals.
This is the rendering of the approved Santa Rosa Skate Park. The upper right hand corner shows the existing horse shoe area and the left side of the
drawing shows the Hampian Hockey Rink.
Current status of the Santa Rosa Skate Park Project
The City’s 2009-11 Financial Plan budgeted $1,098,300 from the Parkland Development Fund for the Skate Park
and expected that an additional $373,300 would be acquired through fundraising and grants to complete the skate
park project. This was in addition to $135,000 that were previsouly allocated to study and equipment acquisition.
Staff has worked tirelessly over the past three years, with the support of stakeholders, to fundraise over $54,000
(including the Tony Hawk Foundation Grant for $25,000), but the project remained underfunded. Hundreds of
hours have been spent on grant applications and accompanying site visits and presentations. Although numerous
grant applications have been submitted, including California’s Prop 84 grant, these efforts have not been fruitful.
It is staff’s opinion that the project cannot proceed to construction without additional funding allocations from the
City. The City demographically is not “underprivileged” or “urban” enough to receive existing state grant funds,
and does not meet most grant criteria for adding new park space/acreage.
Attachment 1
B3 - 28
At this time, the plans and specifications for the Santa Rosa Skate Park Project have progressed to 98%
completion. A Use Permit was approved by the City’s Planning Commission in January of 2011. The project
design was approved by the Architectural Review Committee in March 2011. The construction documents were
prepared and have been submitted to the Building Department for a building permit and are pending one final
round of staff review before being considered bid ready. From the needs assessment and Master Planning phase
which began in 2008 through the current design and construction document phase, City staff and consultants have
been working on this project for nearly five years at a cost of $260,000. ($52,000 for the needs assessment/Master
Planning efforts, $178,000 for design and bid document preparation and $30,000 for public art design and
engineering).
WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS
The Primary Constraint is funding availablity to construct this Project
The Santa Rosa Skate Park Project has received all discretionary approvals needed from the City and the only
constraint is funding. To assist in that decision three alternatives are presented below for Council’s consideration
and direction. If Council modifies the Master Planned Project and reduces its scope, redesign will be needed.
Even with a redesign staff believes that starting construction on this project is feasible during the 2013-15
Financial Plan Period.
Recommended Project: Designed Master Planned Santa Rosa Skate Park
As designed, the Santa Rosa Skate Park meets the
needs and features identified in the Master Plan. It
includes features which address varying levels of
expertise from novice to expert. It has both bowls
and urban style areas. It was designed with
significant input and feedback from the
skateboarding community and is responsive to
their needs. This project would include the entire
skate park area of 15,500 square feet, sports
lighting, drainage improvements and a drainage
basin to improve conditions overall at Santa Rosa
Park as well as an amphitheater, entry features,
multi-use plaza, site lighting, and integrated Public
Art (funded by the Public Art program). An
additional $1,226,300 would be required from the General Fund to construct the approved Santa Rosa Skate Park.
Alternative 1: Santa Rosa Skate Park less
Site Amenities
This project would include the entire skate
park area of 15,500 square feet, sports
lighting, drainage improvements and a
drainage basin. It would not have any of the
additional cultural amenities (amphitheater,
entry features, multi-use plaza and
integrated public art). It is estimated that an
additional $861,300 from the General Fund
would be required to construct this project.
Attachment 1
B3 - 29
However, the following “lost costs” would be associated with this alternative: $50,000 (Redesign), $25,000 (Tony
Hawk Grant), $15,000 (Public Art money).
Alternative 2: Santa Rosa Park Street Course Skate Park
With this alternative design only the at-grade
“street course” skate park area would be
constructed for a total of about 7,200 square
feet of skating area. There would be reduced
sports lighting, however basic site
improvements would be constructed for
accessibility purposes. This design does not
include any of the below grade skate features
(pools and snake run that were key
components of the Master Plan from input
received through the needs assessment and
community input process). It does not
include any of the cultural amenities or the
Public Art component. It is estimated that
$126,300 in additional funds would be
needed to construct this reduced project as
an alternative. The “lost costs” associated
with this alternative include: $50,000 (Redesign), $25,000 (Tony Hawk Grant), $20,000 (Public Art money),
$230,000 (Needs, Assessment, Master Planning, Design, Construction Documents).
Cost Summary
Existing Funding: To date the approved Santa Rosa Skate Park project has existing funds totaling $973,700.
These funds include the Tony Hawk Grant and donations, as well as previously encumbered Parkland
Development Funds.
The following table outlines the cost comparison of the three project alternatives.
Santa Rosa Skate Park Alternative Project Cost Comparison
Recommended Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Construction $1,739,000 $1,381,000 $745,000
SW Plan/Permit $20,000 $20,000 20,000
Materials Testing $20,000 $15,000 10,000
Misc., printing, etc. $3,000 $2,000 2,000
Contingency (10% ±) $168,000 $132,000 $73,000
Construction Costs $1,950,000 $1,550,000 $850,000
Const. Management $200,000 $175,000 $150,000
Const. Admin/Architect $50,000 $35,000 $25,000
Const. Mgmt. Costs $250,000 $210,000 $175,000
Redesign Fees 0 $50,000 $50,000
Total $2,200,000 $1,810,000 $1,075,000
Funds to Date $973,700 $948,700 $948,700
Funds Needed $1,226,300 $861,300 $126,300
Future maintenance funding support is anticipated upon completion of construction. Support needs include site
cleaning, pumping equipment, and specialized landscape care. Cost estimates for maintenance range between
Attachment 1
B3 - 30
$6,000 and $37,000 depending upon the final project scope. This funding will be considered in the 2015-17
Financial Plan process.
STAKEHOLDERS
External to the organization stakeholders include the existing and future skateboarding community (youth and
adult), neighbors adjacent to and nearby Santa Rosa Park, businesses in the Santa Rosa Park neighborhood, local
hoteliers (who may see skateboarding enthusiast tourists) and visitors from outside of the City.
Internal stakeholders for this project include the lead Department of Parks and Recreation including the Parks and
Recreation Commission supported by Public Works Engineering, Inspection, and Parks Maintenance as well as
the Police Department from an enforcement standpoint.
ACTION PLAN
Below is a proposed Action Plan based on the approval of the recommended project. If Council were to pursue an
alternate project, some design work would need to occur and would add to the time of completion of project.
Task Date
1. Submit Application for Storm Water Permit Sept 2013
2. Receive Building and Storm Water Permits Dec 2013
3. Issue Plans and Specifications for Construction Feb 2014
4. Award Construction Contract
5. Groundbreaking
April 2014
Spring 2014
6. Start Construction June 2014
7. Complete Construction Dec 2014
8. Identify and Request Maintenance Resources Dec 2014
9. Open Santa Rosa Skate Park Jan 2015
10. Maintain and Operate the Santa Rosa Skate Park Ongoing
KEY WORK PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS
Staff has assumed that the Tony Hawk Foundation will pull the funding if an alternative project is pursued. The
grant was awarded on the assumption that construction would be for the Master Planned Project and the reduced
projects may not meet the criteria of the grant. As noted above the Action Plan presented is for the construction of
the designed, Master Planned Project; additional steps focused on redesign, public outreach, and stakeholder
engagement and advisory body review would most likely need to be taken with any alternative project.
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
The Parks and Recreation Department is the lead department in advocating for this goal. Public Works will of
course serve as the integral department for the construction of this project. Public Works CIP Engineering Staff
Attachment 1
B3 - 31
will serve as the project managers of the project as well as administrators. They will also be involved in the
construction management and inspection. Upon completion of the project Parks and Recreation would program
the use of this new facility while Public Works Parks Maintenance would maintain it.
FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
As previously discussed funds have been assembled to construct the Santa Rosa Master Planned Skate Park. To
date that total is $973,700. This represents Parkland Fees, the Tony Hawk Grant, and Donations. A Capital
Improvement Project to complete this project has been submitted with an additional $1,226,300 needed to
complete construction and accomplish this goal. This Major City Goal will be achieved in part with Measure Y
funding.
Cost Summary
2013-142014-152013-142014-15
Current Funding 973,700
Santa Rosa Skate Park 1,226,300
Total $02,200,000 $0
Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
Funding Sources
2013-142014-15
Parkland Fees, Tony Hawk Grant, Donations 973,700
General Fund 1,226,300
Total $2,200,000 $0
Capital Improvement Plan
GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL
Additional General Fund Revenue could occur upon completion of this Skate Park if it becomes a destination for
the skateboarding community. It is expected that competitions and the amenities of the premier skate park would
draw in skaters traveling throughout California and perhaps the country. Additionally the designed project as well
as the amenities could generate rental fees for activities such as private parties, special events, Farmers Markets or
“street fairs” and concerts.
OUTCOME - FINAL WORK PRODUCT
A completed Santa Rosa Skate Park would bring a conclusion to a multi-year effort including several Major City
Goals to construct a permanent skate park for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Attachment 1
B3 - 32
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SLO SKATE PARK PUBLIC ART DESIGN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, conceptually approve the public art
design, “Concrete Jungle”, for the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) Skate Park located at Santa Rosa
Park.
DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2006, the skate community attended a Public Forum to express concerns about the
condition of the existing skate park (built in 1994). As a result, the City Council identified skate
park improvements as a Major City Goal and has since gone through the extensive design, planning
and approval processes. In the 2013-15 Financial Plan, Council approved an additional $1.2 million
in Measure Y revenues in support of final construction of the skate park. The final skate park
design develops and integrates four completely new outdoor recreational opportunities that will
draw multiple generations together in a revitalized common space serving the City’s most densely
populated neighborhood. A permanent in-ground skate park, an outdoor amphitheater, a low-impact
fitness path and a streetscape plaza for spectator seating, farmers markets, craft fairs and other
events have all been included in the design. These four elements facilitate shared multi-generational
use and connectivity with other existing park features – a playground, picnic areas, street hockey
court, horseshoe pit and ball fields.
Public Art
This project has differed from other public art projects in that the design for the artwork has been
integrated into the actual project itself. For the City, this will be the first time that project
construction and installation of public art components will occur simultaneously. The main
“entrance” to the new multi-use zone will feature the principal public art components (concrete and
metal shade trees) and landscaping. Public art has also been incorporated into the overall facility
design to showcase the cultural elements being introduced into the expansion design including
skateboarding, outdoor entertainment, walking fitness and community festivals.
On March 7, 2011, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved the
conceptual design of the SLO Skate Park located at Santa Rosa Park with conditions for additional
public art elements. In particular, the ARC discussed the need for the design of freestanding
sculptures, artistic shade structures, and art tiles to be used to accent the concrete skate surface.
After consulting with the RRM design team on how to satisfy the ARC’s condition, the use of an
artist as a public art design consultant surfaced as the best approach. On May 17, 2011, the City
Council authorized funding for a public art design consultant to design a variety of artistic elements
Meeting Date
Item Number
12/10 /2013
Attachment 1
B3 - 33
SLO Skate Park Public Art Design Page 2
to be integrated into the construction documents for the SLO Skate Park project. The redesigned
artistic elements are now complete and with the funding approved for the construction of the SLO
Skatepark it is now timely for Council to review and conceptually approve the final public art
design.
Concrete Jungle
The SLO Skate Park public art project design, Concrete Jungle, includes four (4) concrete and steel
shade trees. Three “trees” are proposed to be at the skate park “entrance” and one across the park
on the north end. This fourth “tree” was recommended by the ARC in place of a living tree, thereby
eliminating concerns for tree maintenance and damage to the surrounding concrete caused by
uprooting. These 30-foot tall concrete and metal “trees” will serve a dual purpose, both as a skating
surface (concrete trunk) and as shade structures (metal tree canopy) for the surrounding park. The
project also includes the lighting of the four “trees”, artistic tiles on the edge of the bowl basin,
concrete art reliefs throughout the park, and landscaping in the park entrance planter boxes.
The artists have incorporated the ARC’s recommendations and provided the City with four funding
options based upon the desired scope of work and available public art funding.
Going Green
The artists and City staff have worked collaboratively to incorporate “green” aspects into the
facility and public art by use of recycled materials where possible. The public art media and
materials are appropriate for the City’s moderate climate, are low in maintenance needs, safe,
durable and fade resistant. Staff will continue to pursue solar lighting options for the project where
feasible.
CONCURRENCES
The Parks and Recreation Committee (PRC) has reviewed the SLO Skate Park public art design at
its November 6, 2013 meeting. The PRC approved the public art design with a phased-in
recommendation should the project be dependent upon available funding. The PRC recommended
several implementation options for the Council to consider at time of project award should funding
be limited.
The ARC will be meeting on December 2, 2013 to review and conceptually approve the redesigned
SLO Skate Park public art. Meeting minutes discussing the ARC’s recommendations for the public
art project will be included following this report and provided as a Council correspondence.
Public Works staff, Parks and Recreation staff, the artists and design consultant staff continue to
meet regularly to discuss the project and to coordinate project construction schedules, funding and
public art implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the SLO Skate Park construction has been identified as part of the 2013-15 Financial
Plan, pages 3-358 through 3-369. City Council approved an additional $1.2 million in Measure Y
revenues, to augment the $973,700 available funding, in support of final construction of the skate
park. The total project budget of $2,200,000 does not included public art funding. The approval of
Attachment 1
B3 - 34
SLO Skate Park Public Art Design Page 3
the Skate Park Public Art design does not have an immediate fiscal impact. Council will determine
the levels of public art implementation and funding at the time of construction award in Spring
2014. At that time funding available for the construction of the Public Art will be specifically
identified and will include the existing balance in the Public Art fund which continues to receive
funds from developer in-lieu fees and occasional private donations.
The artists have incorporated the ARC’s recommendations and provided with the City with level of
implementation to be determined based upon the available public art funding. All design,
permitting, inspection and lighting costs compose the “base price” of $71,100 regardless of the total
numbers of “trees” installed. Fabrication and installation has been estimated at an additional
$67,000 per “tree.” The project scope and estimated public art costs range from 6% to 15% of the
overall construction project costs of $2.2 million. This level of proposed public art funding is
consistent with the City’s public art policy and guidelines.
Project ScopeEstimated Cost Public Art %
1 tree $ 138,100 6%
2 trees $ 205,100 9%
3 trees $ 272,100 12%
4 trees* $ 339,100 15%
Estimated Public Art Costs "Concrete Jungle"
*Project scope as recommended by PRC and ARC
ALTERNATIVE
Deny Public Art Design. The City Council could choose not to approve the SLO Skate Park public
art design, “Concrete Jungle”, as presented and direct staff to return to Council with alternatives for
a redesigned the public art project. Staff does not recommend this option as the public art project is
consistent with the City’s public art program and satisfies the ARC’s conditions for additional
artistic elements. Additionally, the public art project is consistent with the procedural criteria for
the selection and placement of public art as set forth in the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
The proposed “Concrete Jungle” tree design has received concurrence from the design consultant
providing the structural analysis, and from both the PRC and ARC. Delays in the approval of the
public art design may have an impact on project construction as bid specifications currently
incorporate the construction of the concrete tree trunk bases of the Public Art, as part of the Skate
Park construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2013-15 Financial Plan
2. Major City Goal
3. Skate Park Public Art Schematic and Maquette
4. Skate Park Vicinity Map
5. Skate Park Public Art Renderings
6. Meeting Minutes, PRC 11/6/13 and ARC 12/2/13
t:\council agenda reports\2013\2013-12-10\slo skate park public art design (stanwyck-mudgett)\ecar slo skate park public art design.docx
Attachment 1
B3 - 35
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
:
B
I
D
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
S
H
E
E
T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
k
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Sp
e
c
.
N
o
.
:
90
7
5
2
Bi
d
O
p
e
n
i
20
-
F
e
b
-
1
4
Co
n
t
a
c
t
:
Br
i
d
g
e
t
F
r
a
s
e
r
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
l
l
o
w
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
:
Aw
a
r
d
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
b
o
n
d
s
/
i
n
s
:
P
r
e
-
j
o
b
:
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Pi
c
k
a
r
d
&
B
u
t
t
e
r
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
W
e
s
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
I
n
c
T
.
S
i
m
o
n
s
C
o
,
I
n
c
.
GeoCon Skateparks
BI
D
I
T
E
M
&
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
At
a
s
c
a
d
e
r
o
,
C
A
Wi
l
d
o
m
a
r
,
C
A
Ni
p
o
m
o
,
C
A
UN
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
UNITTOTAL
No
.
IT
E
M
UN
I
T
Q
U
A
NPR
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
PRICEPRICE
Ba
s
e
B
i
d
1
Sk
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
L
S
1
9
6
3
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
6
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5
1
7
2
7
8
.
0
0
$
5
1
7
,
2
7
8
.
0
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
9
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
1
4
4
4
8
.
0
0
$
6
1
4
,
4
4
8
.
0
0
7
7
7
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
7
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
Si
t
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L
S
1
7
7
2
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
7
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
5
2
9
8
2
.
5
7
$
9
5
2
,
9
8
2
.
5
7
9
1
9
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
1
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
9
6
9
0
6
.
2
5
$
9
9
6
,
9
0
6
.
2
5
9
5
9
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
5
9
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
7
3
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
4
7
0
,
2
6
0
.
5
7
$1
,
5
1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1,611,354.25$1,737,000.00
Ad
d
i
t
i
v
e
B
i
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
A1
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
1
L
S
1
1
6
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
9
9
3
.
3
6
$
2
4
,
9
9
3
.
3
6
2
4
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
5
4
5
5
.
4
2
$
2
5
,
4
5
5
.
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
A2
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
2
L
S
1
1
6
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
9
9
3
.
3
6
$
2
4
,
9
9
3
.
3
6
2
4
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
8
8
2
.
7
4
$
2
4
,
8
8
2
.
7
4
2
2
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
A3
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
3
L
S
1
1
6
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
9
9
3
.
3
6
$
2
4
,
9
9
3
.
3
6
2
3
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
8
8
2
.
7
4
$
2
4
,
8
8
2
.
7
4
2
2
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
A4
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
4
L
S
1
1
6
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
9
9
3
.
3
6
$
2
4
,
9
9
3
.
3
6
2
3
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
8
8
2
.
7
4
$
2
4
,
8
8
2
.
7
4
2
2
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
A5
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Im
pro
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
LS
1
2
5
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
4
5
6
3
.
6
5
$
2
4
,
5
6
3
.
6
5
8
8
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
4
5
4
.
5
0
$
1
0
,
4
5
4
.
5
0
2
2
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$9
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
4
,
5
3
7
.
0
9
$
1
8
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$110,558.14$110,000.00
$1
,
8
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
5
9
4
,
7
9
7
.
6
6
$1
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1,721,912.39$1,847,000.00
L
i
s
t
e
d
S
u
b
s
A
p
o
d
a
c
a
P
a
v
i
n
g
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
k
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
s
F
a
r
g
e
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
California Skateparks
Go
l
d
e
n
S
t
a
t
e
S
e
a
l
i
n
g
&
S
t
r
i
p
i
n
gMJ
R
o
s
s
MJ
R
o
s
s
Michael Bray Const
Bu
t
c
h
P
o
p
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
R
W
S
c
o
t
t
Si
l
v
e
r
O
a
k
AH Ratterree
No
r
t
h
C
o
a
s
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
P
o
s
t
e
Ma
r
k
S
c
h
w
i
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
JR Spenser Const.
Ac
e
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
A
H
R
a
t
t
e
r
r
e
e
Gr
i
n
d
l
i
n
e
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
k
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
P
r
o
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
Gr
i
n
d
l
i
n
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
n
i
a
P
r
o
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
A
p
o
d
a
c
a
p
a
v
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
C
o
a
s
t
W
e
l
d
i
i
n
g
A
c
e
A.
H
.
R
a
t
t
e
r
r
e
e
TO
T
A
L
ATTACHMENT 2 B3 - 36
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
:
B
I
D
S
U
M
M
A
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
k
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Co
n
t
a
c
t
:
Br
i
d
g
e
t
F
r
a
s
e
r
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
l
l
o
w
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
:
Aw
a
r
d
:
BI
D
I
T
E
M
&
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
No
.
I
T
E
M
U
N
I
T
Q
U
A
N
Ba
s
e
B
i
d
1
Sk
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
L
S
1
2
Si
t
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L
S
1
Ad
d
i
t
i
v
e
B
i
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
A1
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
1
L
S
1
A2
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
2
L
S
1
A3
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
3
L
S
1
A4
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
T
r
e
e
T
r
u
n
k
#
4
L
S
1
A5
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Im
pro
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
LS
1
TO
T
A
L
Ne
w
t
o
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
k
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
s
Th
e
J
.
F
.
W
i
l
l
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
I
n
c
.
R
.
B
u
r
k
e
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
SL
O
,
C
A
UN
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
PR
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
PR
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
PR
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
78
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
8
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
8
4
5
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
7
5
6
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
5
6
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
4
6
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
98
6
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
5
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
9
4
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
4
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
7
8
5
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
8
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
7
6
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
7
9
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
8
5
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1,931,000.00
23
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
1
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
3
4
1
7
1
.
0
0
$
3
4
,
1
7
1
.
0
0
2
7
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
23
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
1
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
3
3
5
3
1
.
0
0
$
3
3
,
5
3
1
.
0
0
2
7
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
23
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
3
5
3
1
.
0
0
$
3
3
,
5
3
1
.
0
0
2
7
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
23
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
3
5
3
1
.
0
0
$
3
3
,
5
3
1
.
0
0
2
7
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
14
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
9
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
9
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
1
8
4
9
2
.
0
0
$
1
8
,
4
9
2
.
0
0
3
0
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$1
5
3
,
2
5
6
.
0
0
$140,800.00
$1
,
8
7
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
8
9
9
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$2
,
0
0
4
,
2
5
6
.
0
0
$2,071,800.00
Gr
i
n
d
l
i
n
e
S
k
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
A
H
R
a
t
t
r
r
e
e
SE
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
i
n
d
l
i
n
e
Co
l
e
F
a
r
m
s
Ac
e
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
To
s
t
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
&
P
a
v
i
n
g
A
c
e
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
Sp
e
n
s
c
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
To
s
t
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
&
P
a
v
i
n
g
G
r
i
n
d
l
i
n
e
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
AH
R
a
t
t
e
r
r
e
e
MB
S
GF
G
a
r
c
i
a
&
S
o
n
s
AH
R
a
t
t
e
r
r
e
e
Ap
o
d
a
c
a
Ne
w
t
o
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
e
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
Fe
n
c
e
F
a
c
t
o
r
y
ATTACHMENT 2 B3 - 37
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401‐3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
March 17, 2014
Pickard & Butters Construction, Inc.
7070 Morro Rd Suite C
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attn: Mark A. Butters
Fax: (805) 462‐1746
Email:mark@pandbconstruction.com
Certified Mail
Subject: Santa Rosa Skate Park, Specification No. 90752
Dear Mr. Butters,
The City is obligated to award a contract for the Santa Rosa Skate Park project to the lowest responsive
bid submitted by a responsible contractor. A determination of responsiveness is made based on
whether or not a bid complies with all bidding instructions. A determination of responsibility, per
Municipal Code 3.24.210, is based on criteria such as:
“the character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder,”
as well as:
“the ability of the bidder to perform the contract, or provide the supplies, equipment or services
within the time specified without delay or interference.”
The City has reviewed and contacted the references provided by Pickard & Butters Construction
included in the bid document. The information and feedback received is as follows:
Reference Project One: Buttonwillow Park project
Brett Dawson, construction manager for the project, indicated that the project was approximately 75%
complete and expected completion in approximately 30 days. Work was progressing satisfactorily.
Reference Project Two: Salinas Valley Fair ‐ New Building and Restroom project
Sarah Cummings no longer works as CEO Salinas Valley Fair. Staff was able to contact her at her new
place of employment. Ms. Cummings indicated that the project was completed in May of 2013 and the
contractor did a good job. She indicated that the project was completed for a private non‐profit and
prevailing wage was not required.
Reference Project Three: San Lucas Elementary School Renovation project
Nicole Hester, Principal and Superintendent, indicated that the project was not yet completed as the
contractor was working on punch list items. Work was not completed within the (60 day) deadline of
August 2013. Last payment to contractor was in October. They are still holding retention and as well as
money for several Stop Notices received until all work is complete. Nicole Hester indicated that the
workmanship was satisfactory, but disappointed that the project has taken so long to complete.
The Santa Rosa Skate Park project bid document instructions require the bidder to provide references
for three projects completed for a Public Agency and completed within the last 5 years. Information
provided by reference indicated that two of the projects submitted are not complete. Additionally, one
project appears to be significantly behind schedule and one project provided was not completed for a
Public Agency.
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 38
Bid Protest
The City received your response to the bid protest from ProWest. In regards to the allegation by the
protester that you are self‐performing portions of the skate park work, the response provided indicated
that all of the skate park work will be performed by the subcontractor, Grindline. However, the question
still remains as to the apparent discrepancy between your bid price for the skate park and the higher
quote that the protester received from Grindline for the same work.
The subcontractor list provided with Pickard and Butters Construction bid documents does not indicate
a subcontractor for concrete work, landscaping or irrigation. The City would like clarification as to who
will be performing this work. Additionally, we would like to know who will be installing the drainlines,
manhole, and sump pump work.
Responsibility Hearing
The City Engineer requests that you appear at a responsibility hearing to provide information regarding
the issues above, and explain why you believe the City should find you the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder. Please be prepared to answer to following questions:
1. Please provide clarification on reference projects and why they comply with bidder’s
instructions.
2. Who is performing the concrete work for the skate park?
3. Who is performing the shotcrete work for the skate park?
4. Will Grindline be responsible for all of the skate park work as described in Section 7 B) of the
Notice to Bidders per Addendum No. 1?
5. Who is performing the concrete work for the site work?
6. If it is Pickard and Butters Construction is performing the concrete work, do you employ a
concrete foreman and crew that is experienced with this type of concrete work – curved steps,
stairs, stage, planters?
7. Can you explain the low bid for the skate park bid item ($517K) vs. the Grindline quote received
by ProWest ($605K)? Will you provide us the quote(s) from Grindline?
8. Who is installing the drainlines, sump pump and manhole work?
9. Who is performing the irrigation and landscaping?
Your responsibility hearing with the City Engineer is scheduled for:
1:15 PM, Friday, March 21, 2014
Public Works Department
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo
Failure to attend and satisfactorily provide information to address these issues is cause to reject the
bid provided by Pickard and Butters Construction for the Santa Rosa Skate Park project.
Sincerely,
BARBARA LYNCH
CITY ENGINEER
Bridget O. Fraser
Project Manager/ Sr. Civil Engineer
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 39
tDtfo
Pickard & Butters Construction Inc
3t2U14
Barbaru Lynch
City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo
Re: Skate Park
Ms. Lynch:
I have several general comments for your consideration prior to addressing your specific
concems:
o ProWest protest was Substantiated with a statement that they had contacted Grindline
after the bid. ProWest did not contact Grindline after the bid, per Matt Flueggge, chief
operations officer, (206) 612-340Lo The difference between the base bid for PBC and ProWest is $46,739.43 dollars which
equates to approximately a3Yo spread. That is certainly a reasonable, responsible anrj
acceptable bid spread.
o The skate park subcontractor is responsible for over 35-40% of the scope of work for
entire project.
o PBC recognizes the importance of this project but we do not believe that the technical
complexity of the project is extreme. Furthermore, there are very few subcontractors to
coordinate.
o The Prime Contractor's qualifications are to show public works experience of similar
size. PBC listed three projects of similar size and scope and I included a list of all the
public works projects that I have been involved with as a contra,ctor, project manager and
Department of the State Architect Inspector of Record. The list of Public Works piojects
is extensive: I also referred the City to our website, which has more information in.tuOing
references and recommendations from numerous and various public agencies.
Response to questions:
1. A. Buttonwillow Park: This project is a 12 acre park with similar scope of work, i.e.,
demolition, extensive grading, new pavement at parking lot and streei, substantial
concrete structures and electrical. PBC is self-performing the landscaping and irrigation
and underground utilities. Per Brett Dawson the project will be compieted within 50 duyu,
which makes the completion date approximately 3 weeks ahead of schedule, not
including addition time granted for change orders and weather delays. See attached NTp.
70lO Morro Rd. Ste. C At.ascadero, Ca . 93422(80s) 462-9789 (8Os) 462-]-746 Faxlicense #Sge755 A&B
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 40
B. Salinas Valley Fair: This project is a hybrid with the structure located on public
properly; the plans, specifications and contract administration including code
enforcement were the responsibility the California Fair Services Authority (CFSA), a
state Agency. See attached business card. The project was funded by private
organization. PBC self-performed all the concrete, framing, drywall, landscapin g and
painting on this project.
C. San Lucas: While we are disappointed with the response from Nicole Hester, .we are
not surprised. PBC has a much different perspective of this project:o San Lucas Elementary School District is classified as a "financial hardship
District," and is totally dependent on the State for funding. The entire District is
one buildingthat dates back to the 1920's and several portable buildings. They are
eligible for flinding on projects about every 10 years. They have very littlo
experience with construction projects.
o PBC was the lowest responsible bidder on this project. However, the bid
substantially exceeded the budget.. PBC offered to value engineer the project and spent several weeks reviewing
specifications and conferring with all the subcontractors. We submitted a list of
recommendations, deductions and modifications-at no cost to the District.. The contract was awarded and a deductive change ordel of $47,204 dollars vras
signed. The project was still over the budget, but the owner was unwilling to
delete items, so they funded a porlion of the cost with maintenance funds.o This entire value engineering and board approval proceris took about 5 wereks.
That was 5 weeks out of the construction timeline in the original bid
documentation. That left 68 days to complete the work prior to the start of school.o The project was completed 68 days, a punch list was generated and the owner
took beneficial occupancy of the building and project. T'he punch list did take a
long time to complete as work was limited to after hours and weekend wc,rk.
There were several light fixtures that were special orders and the mast for thr:
handicap lift up to the stage had to be reordered.. The building dates back to the 1920's there were no as-built drawings. The
building had extensive asbestos containing materials anrC lead paint. At the time of
awatd, the owner had not secured an IOR, testing 1ab or a company to monitor the
hazardous materials removal. The owner had not applied for the necessary pelrmits
with the air quality control board.. The owner issued PBC a change order to provide a company to monitor tlie air
quality dr.rring the hazardous material removal. PBC has not been paid for that
change order, in fact, PBC has not been on over $57,000 dollars of change ordersi.o There is a stop notice on this project from Valley Carports. PBC has not been paid
for this scope of work, see application 6, line item 22 anrd COR 15.o This project did not have one subcontractor performing the majority or even a
substantial porlion of the project. There were numerous subcontractors and trades
to coordinate and schedule.
o The project had substantial concrete including long ADA ramps, curved stairs and
planter boxes. PBC self-performed the concrete.
7070 Morro Rd. Ste. C Atascadero, Ca. 93422(80s) 462-9789 (80s)462-L746 Fa.xl-icense #588755 A&B
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 41
2. Grindline
3. Grindline
4. Yes
5. PBC
6. Yes
7. PBC negotiated with Grindline and received a lower number than ProWest. See #4 above.
8. Butch Pope
9. PBC
PBC has meet all the requirements of the bid documents. PBC is the lowest responsible bidder
for the skate park project and we look forward to working with you on this project.
Regards
Mark Butters
7O1O Morro Rd. Ste. C Atascadero, Cd. 93422(80s) 462-9i89 (8os)462-L'746 Fax
license #588755 A&B
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 42
Ptf0
Pickard & Butters Construction Inc
121511,3
Nicole Hirikman
Godwin Oslfeso
Chris Vicerlsio
RE: San Lucas Elementat.y
Nicole, Godwirr & Chris:
e been seqt to NTD for approval, attached is the
is $ 1 1,908.67, which equals
ge for any project but
I early 1900s. One reason :it
ditional costs on this project that would havebeen pa,ssed; on to the owner under different circumstances,
I um-submitting a billing for this project with each CoR noted as a change order. I have or4ereclout the final State inspection for the wheel chair lift and exfect that to nalpen ro-"iim* the endof next week which will complete all the pun
submitting afinal bilting for all the retention.
however,ller the public code 7107 (C) (1) the o
August, 20113 and retention can be paid after 60
Regards
Mark Butters
7070 Morro Rd. Ste.(B0s) 462-9189
license
I
IC Atascader!, Ca.
(B0s) 462rL146
#s88755 A&B
93422
Fax
\
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 43
Change Ordgr Log
Project:
Updated:
4MouNr pArErssuEp srArus DArEApp
^iHF8)J")ONTRACT $ 1 1109.571 ,00 $ r ,109,571 ,00
1 $ (47,204.001 6t$12013
coR f ti A7.204.00'Dedur:t2s 1,00s.24 8/1/201 3 8t612013 $ 1,s09.24 Framrt end f^rm ^^h^r^+^ ^,.-hcoR f ?$ (400 001 ut6t2013 F
coR #4 xeuse ot extsttng conduits 1 ,103.75 818t2013 iorizontal blindscoR #5 $D p llalarr /\Ac,
coR #6 $ 7,347,15 10t31t2013 P
coR #7 $ 193101 "t0t31t2013 P
tgSl
Kniqhtl's CarpentinoCOR *B $ 1,s52 95 10t31t2013 F Knighl;'s CarperrtinoCOR f I $ 3,244,27 10131t2013 Door lvood trimcoR #10 $ 6,977,48 1'v20t20t3 P
coR #11 $ 20,716,72 11121t20 3 p Electric Work for 3 phasecoR #12 $ r,994.62 11t21t20 .)P f)nnr Qar
COR *13 $ s3s,93 1112512013 P 3oncngte Void
Added curb
cc|R $14 v 2,221.54 11t2st2013 P
coR *15 $ 1,606 50 11t2512013 F Added rain gutters
Flush 'y'Vater Lines16$ 2,039.00 12l5t2Ap p
coR #17 $ 6.320.11 12r5t2013 Y Mobile Modular$ 1,121.479.87 *$ 1,064,276.24
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 44
$:FOP tsAYn/{ENT NOT.NC$ - F{JF{.XC Sr BRIVATE Wr'EG.{$' No?'{cE To wariffir8{,s coNsr'TRUCT'rGN FUN-es
OfVner Of pUbliC E#itV; san r,ucas schoot Dlsrricr.
PO 3az 3J"0, San Lucas, fla -qi3g4
Funds Hr:lder:
(iI othrr thro own*r)
Dirnct Contractor:
Same as above
Pickard & BuEter.s fonsfrucLicn, Inc
?07n Marro Roacl SrriEe C, Atascadero, Ca ss;eZ
Claifnant Vall_ey Carpox.tE, pO Box 1499, Tu]ere, Ca 932?E
is a./an subcontYactor (none/addrcss) WILO
(4Utsot:fi dc(ar, rupplior, etc.)has fumished iabor. niatcr{aj.servicr$s, 0r equipment as follows:
fur the iob ot .Er.rn r,uDe,$ El"$rnBntary $illrool ModejrnlraDiDn
i{ai kvFy c$v€r,$/shade dtrrrccures
986?5 San BeniB() St:, *jan L\:raE,cA 98954
Fickard & ButEi!r6 ConsbTuci:ion, l_nc ?070 l,lorrc Rd luihe'e. .d.Lascxclero,
fioir<tezuription)t0 or for the following party;
Ce 93422
(lJama/sddres$),
Total vaiue of the whole amount of lahor
The vaiuc of the
ClaimAntNafne: v;rlley ca)iporr.s
{md rnaleria.ls agrsed to be filrnjslred.is: $
labor and materia?s p:'ovidnd to dafe is: $
Claimant hns i:een paid the surn of: $
22,4r I .00
22 , 43A ,0n
And there is due, or,ving an,$ unpaid the sum 6fi g zr,,r:o . orr
nside luncls tn.sa$sff.tfis cloim with i court cos{s effl reasonable costs 'flaw. so notifred rtret"otaima,rf J"ioir'oo lc lien agairr* ary constructinn fundsin yo
Claimant Acldr*ss:P0 Folt 1+99, Tul^are, Ca 93275
March 6, 2014
Tr;j{y JorrBsi. Off,ice Munageu
TffifNantrlTfrIs
YSKJfiCA:['TOI{I t or egsflt of the r:laitnant ol'thc fbr*going titop Paymeflt Notice; I have reads c he sime is true offi own knorvledge.I declare uder punaify of perj € .61rJ pou ct.ExecUtpdOn: March 6, 20.14
Sigrature:
Nane/Titlel
CaliJlomia
J, Luhe sisk tR Cr ()F {). E.sEtrvlflLA F{rQAv[r (f lvn,
(o) l$y pr..lono:ly detivoring copres to
declar$ (hatj ssrvr:d copies of the above $'r'op pAyNffNT No,fICE (checrc appmpriate hox):
{naDe and title o{person scrvcd}
(uddress) on tl-a^\ ^l-_-+ luus,l, dr --_ (tirne)
(b) HEy Registereci or Certifierl j\4ail, Express Nrf.lil or Ove,Tisht. Deliven,bv m cvnre(s <c\u-, *Fy
^eglsrereo 0r uenrrted rMail, Exprgss lvt.lil or Ove,rright. Delivcry b1, m cxpress servicc coffiEr addrcsso,iJ tu each of tlx, partids dt tire
addtess sbo.*n obove on F'lalt{:lr 6, t014 r,Lrfa\
-
(c) HBy leaving the notice and rnailing a copy in the n:anner prnvide d irr secliDfl 41i.20 ot the doiii'umia code <lf civil Frncedure for se.rtiice ofl,'i,rrunons and Conrplaint in a Civil Aciion. rrr'4w vr urs r'u
I decl'aro under 0enalp ofpeq'ury under thr: iaw.s ofths stale ofCalilbtnia dtal the forsgoi1lg i, ftie dnd
sis,ead ?5,!??,.\Y"! ::3' r,,fia&friuu1,cari1irmi8,* j1ill6, r0_1a -fi,t. :e
VlAK]N$
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 45
-EE;;vcPdbt[@xoat L.' F:(I) Frv€^nfit 'YFn >Qb!V'F7vNo>!sloo
oEqELO
d6ilt cOi,o
2*o
oa>P<6OE5It.O
-rs!u_ obH!0,gdi=
P6OE E.{4P >r;
ir .4 9r ii
ir ESi:
J-Oif,r\ O c !:
!- > = h!/<( m F .E'ti
'b,C)ooq)Eoa
'b
oo
$
6
!)
o
o
0o
q
'sa
oo
q)
E
o
$
oE
{tr.o
3
g).o)N.oXao)a-
3
e\
o
a
cl
p
o
.0rt
b
ti0
o
I
E0!
.o
o
aq
OJ
os{
E0:
c
EY
oIo
5
m
<.o
j€
t
O
-t
:l
JI
_l
oo+
N
t'-v@
oq
<tq
+
o.
v
I
CD
,,
:)
sc'l
o)
q
efr
{'
C.)oo.
t\
|r)D
t\
N
rj
!O
th
)-v
:t
;l
Y
.U:l
Y
:)
.u
ia
E
aI
'5
o
;
o)
L
GEq.t$oc>ooF,a
69
-E
E
I
o
e
ao
6
o
v))s
6L q)
e
o
o
')
'n
IJ
{.
E
JJ7
@o)
CON
@@
oE!tr >'6 (rE tLl
;2i
5 H:-t.l.ol
cri r
r.lJtrtrtLuFzlo=q);
'E
o
E
a
o
E0
Fco
.2
o
15
fo
co
0c
ocs
Ic0
Elooo
6
s
q
o
O
z
ii
f
o-
o
z
tD@
LI(Dl
_ol
ol
olol
o
$o
<ol
I
I
ke
E -> 'ii.o
o c 65
#,i ; e
IP()
0)
J]
t:()
ir
U)
t:
(u
t\|{)-
O)
a:
rl\i(o
I cci
q
'i-
f.-q
O)f..\t
N-i
l.-(o
oit\{:
N-
qs,
0)€E;0oc0tr(!.g,9cE0E
=0
fU
CJt
o0
oo€
,c
6N
E
O
Eo
e
(!
c
o
3
d)
.a
0)ooco
Fz
IJJ
E
0-
uoIIalll
o
lJ-
t
IJJo
at,fo
IJJ
v,
0-
o
U)
IJJ
il
coNEc)nnrOcEE:i_c>o.HE9=Eeittr c.Y i,pg5:cY>o'-o:co ti,Y *P6E Hs:91-E X.P 5{FE9oh9xx r tut.b;ia:F q5Eoi pn
0 $F <€c >k;=.oU: P:P E
q F +€;d b p
:€ ^o 6'
H.YSO
,pF5 4F<-9 dR.^aqu:0;
t a.-g I ",.9r#;ibboF=:;:AEFE 5
d)5 dp.s o*18 e H $t.E6fiE E\l-N,9c -:IJEE} Af 888; 8
(o
c)
:
ao
4)
co
o
:
i
I
I
i
a
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Iouttr
Ftr
IJJo
Fzfo
E
uJ(,
z
IJJ
v.
oz
ol
iJ
=I
2ztr
o
IJJoz
J
o
o;
rJ)
o
rn
c
()
C)F!ZEuJ3E8>E<Po-Et2o=^|J.ez4o:
F,E<;oi;
o-E-TLPU< Ff(/, dE
EP.s
PfiEoE64.4 cdFgF.=E<gsL'qFo <*5
ll:lll
llll+lo ,.r,663t
E 3*E iJIE trS
8 EilE140
: ol: IIJ d)
5 A$
.Q <+tr ll.t 6cre
E t+,ool
Gi
0)
0)
!^
v) (l)q9ts ab'E q c-o
BF'Ht +-^;icf(sX/x (U tr|f)*Y EF or-Xho5.S
F'r 9oJ
8a- t s ss,^ eLL N-,E " E'=
:,slS f 5 iiq|E :6 0.
'o19. : g.E
(',.oF
]TfrlioEii+oii:eIcfi.
i€ rPfloeo;
lE o oU E
lF e fi H
i6
=
E.5
iaSE€u
IE g : E=
iEsF-E
1c.i ai s d
I
E
g,
o
tr
zoo
=Itoj
5'E €b#E g68€soU'd("'S=p \vv aOoF ;<\lN(f)(Ore
ui,' L+F,;i
^- -.1, qYoz h
f;oQ *Y U I.Lo-o.o 2Lul(r O<o_o_ o
,o
(It
.NE E:;6 ,v #:P>68 ;i,jE€3+ E ie
fi$sE'q
=
j:
Llutcur;d6-(Pir N ([ rsi EFLJiiigo9Vto.;
=ipjtrdi!'
"v,Fmfi*r'9fi
Fo
.N
Eo
o
tiEU).-6
E.jda^o
E1OJ
6 tE ,X-CAcC) V O/\^.,A iO;Fi
-Vl^Jrldh <x'=q] x.=< v.x@": Y..--a\ F f, - <L *y-J- >6|v() -
3Sg BEs6 3Aai >E>6 F-
e,F.F PFFiP 5
atu0_LLUJzuJ
z
uJ
E
o-
uoII
IIJF
o
lJ.
trE
l,tJo
oz
zo
F
of
o.
TL
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 46
qq88 88 88ERR"q FF ES=.JJ J =;,inP?a oo-y--.,,sl -1 oo83BNOc)r{) -iASFdN uoof"oq/^qJ-r ,...rshgtO- -jJ s
(l
(i()v\trO
s
r
O
ON
@
s^
NN
s
o-
o
d
ss
oooo
tf)-N(r)
s
O
O
tr)N
sOa-
ci
rt
s
ooo
ON
s
r
o
N.tr
ro
t-
Cf)
s
r
o
;eS
OOrr
oooooo
o^ o_
rl{)
sos
C)
c)
c\
co
;<;s
ooFci
oo
r (f)
!tt.99o
flE E
EEE(J<
oO
oci
s-
N
oo,$'sf
t\'-
ii q€q8 38 8r3
R Ffrfr3 33 R*
FFf,F3ii$3$
EE88 3388!':9oo ocici N{)QOo -6-sc'r-qq,f) -6o6OOCf)- --:'/i;6" :"',ph
QQoo ocrooqqqo 5565>Qoo ddciAiLoOoo ;-;<65"."N.8 E333P9o- -()rr,f_F (r)
(l(l
r>(t)fo(i
t\
cr)
f\
oo
Fa
J
0-
od>
@EAF
OPofb =8* tAc;oE)o z x'--e od 9'J u?.i6: >o.2R d=$
oEDtr
otr E
EE E T,: c, A Y,,=I; H (JX
pEeS 6*
,fl8 Ed di
gEs$gF
6;
5fi
Ol
=Gc" HiErtr,E'H, Sd,ggg
=.EE*g EEFf E
=
s
ozo
dzo
O
u
IJJz
IJJo
I
ozo656
o,l
UJ
111
<:
o_
u,:,
s:-'
r'
U,Ir N c) \r (),(o f._ oo ", = = S p S p g F p p R;l N R N R R N Sl
(Y) C.)-r|f)F HP<x; i H.,r(oft'lrl Ad)<^
-IAF-.v-z.tsd
Ct <*
F. :l<: Jci +
d: <
<:
(o
N
E
.N
EoEo .$>63
:-€Et f;<cbdo
OCU;
qd5 q
i€:
.Fmfi
F
I,JJ
tn
u
UJrozo
fz
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 47
FiHE qEF{ilqq qqsEEee$E Er-.3$EE u$gRFololr)OI..NgEoEii,tEPV H EEEEEHEEEEEssssoooooooo
rFTF
sstoc)
+
IJJ
+o
u.l
o
o
s(!aI
;oz
€
Eoo
o
oo
tt
C)
c)
CL
oo
oooL
IL
egEq888 8s888
THBHPEE ERHilEt''jPBN.9!: -cocos- trj
qeq 88BsQoo oci<-i ee9a dddouurqJcO@@@Nr oloioot
;
rf)\l:
1l'-r
9-ox'aEo
n-.9+? aoF o.-P<
q888883 383313
EEHHPgEi FRFNE<v)PRNorrrr.. Jc"t@1r(o
333 8388eea cjcidc;tsE-ri 3933Nr Orololoi
c
sr
F_eq 3E8E3qEi 888313HHH SHHHPFH FqFNii;;;" ;ii313 l}8"-. 3S3$FrCDrr
383 3EHE FNro,
fla
*EflEEtr;gx3E
eglgg
.Do.9 i,riEi=E.Jd.(o'-o.oi Ia li
'l'Ees *E dmi:F LlJr
lgsfigs r i4
6o(nC IJJ1o r6f u,!l'l = -F*fi il
t.i ES 6iI l o;orootF 6*EE 66EFclII O
IJJtr:lFI3*od 'trr UIA
= 2sft .E i,hE 5E EFs-EF di
gEtEsi
ul
<(
al
0)
-J
5(tr-
F-
R 3 u S 3,$ 3 E h 3 g s v s $ s s s $ g r? 3 6 E S iS E E
PP'.,R4Elirod*;l
AEq=rr x'4*t
=aft8F
T
(.
ct!1
]z
z
c,
F
(v)
o
.E
o
.N
E
o)
o .stE63
E€3
f;Esaacu;ir N N (tr
i'ii 9(/) Ii -i rn -"1x-v!
V 6g EL@oA
uJ
IJJIazo
F
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 48
I ocDG(!otr qee 8E 8 889A9 ooj '(l) -d!!il9 NS N roF.t!,{)F (r)o) o) F\r o(f)(o@(oo.rf,f;E3sQ'-o E EEEE
d\ ix ;\
o(fo
O\ d\ooQOC)ooc)s
o
I
oo
(oNF
c"t
@
c$$s:-5E85
oooooooocjocjoooooc)ootooN'ricoa)Nr
Oro
ti
o(3o
ci r:i cjO(J1r)l{) r]c rf)oorDVr\Tr
Eggsi
tu E
c)
c)
E
oo
I
.o
B
It0
4)
A.
o,
o
@
(f)
F-
It
9-ox'a'86
a-,9+
- -OOE O.Ye<
ee8 ee 888 3 8888E"AH. HH HHB H SEEH*o..l oo .iiO+ .i ;lo,i,"t;- r F s $ r = F N +'-
@
00ol
(o
o)It-
od
C\,1l'-
c.t
00
ooEO
o(d,.tr >oo
qEq ee E 88-i -i -i ;;HHH 3E B 88q lf)^ o- r.O- o)_ ro o |ocqocq <cloo od rd+iFrr="
m
l(
Fo
o
CL
oo
o)o
(9z
ddt
=i1('dE
cto(\o2c tr'
3 sE ;9
EEe"F5
v
uJ(9
ILa.Jst-ot-m
U>
Eg h E E 8 618 E 3 E E b 3 E R E N P il P E M8 E il E S
3P.,*RE:g' :d-oo-gprodoSi k!7<n!F< - 6 a\
-z6Ery-i1 -=ul 6;6k"8
".EO u6*f In:[ ildt<I
C)u
E
,N
16 birr r- !Hq Sa$6E E€E6i $$s
:-rt_ACA
E PH EE g
-rF=-irni
=zA.-i:!
iEx,Fffi.FOFok
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 49
vroo)
cf)
O)
d
(,E)G,=.Eotr,iFEFqE iqFqqqEEsE E€8EgfifiF EPtEEBeaes RsFr(\NN -rN=3-*n*= FRi tf)lod$@o{'bsoor
oo
t-
O)dlo
-r
CO\f
t-
T HEo#EnsQ,-o >R>RS>€h;a::oooo
-rfr
s ssI 88 HgE$HEESle88
e 9#s I
',5E€6
888888 qEEqqEEqqs sssg**,g* sRgag:a*gg sa
I
$e sai
u.,l
Ig
o
o
IJx
o
B
oo
oT
Ic
o
9-o^'E'*o
i.9+
E -es
g<
ll.
HEHFEq EeEEeeqEBs 88881388
sRflp..pp- RRiqAE"E"E.Reg gEEsiiae
qJ qr {) - * N R R P' ; P R (r) () (r),r;,r, co ni
m
ro
r>fo(5
)
oEO'
ofits>on
8888888
$EEEHEHc")rl^lcororooc.j
)(
IYi3Et!rd
ffsEp g t
!iil:tEgE
O
ry
IJJo{
Jo
o
oz
oa9riou9IJJ
=u.l 6tA(o :=NIJzaI.9OE5Edtr
(Dq
t\
rri
rJ.)
t-^
!o
LUo
CL
U)
d
v
H
@
x
.o
=o
o
E
Lo
u,
4lo
(Ee I BEsBsEEhBsFFppFppFFgE:H
oIcf,oz-
uJ-
E.
0-
U)I
H
=Ot
ga
oE
o
(t
@()
f-.(o
co
rJ)
1.,sl-Ft.l**rl>oH
.l?FF
'.ol9 f; -
ptE t"1,'
l.
u|FE
6li E
=IFH;
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 50
O) gQ Q tO r F- \it Cq O O CO () -I c?q@NoooOF._oFctdt+E HENpHgEN:8FHJo(ooN$Ootoo(oo)N(f) vNqE iessHR iHAp NSS;eSiS888888EEEEEE$$g$Es
r
q qEEN$NEES88=
3 FqH{FE$fiNHsmFF..rF(Y)(OOrN-N(o
(fvo(fNO+oid(]oc)(\ o) \+
l-riv
EE 888HE FE3
rO $ o).-:co
f.-
@
l.-\
c\
-
qEqNSNEEsrBE
h=NSt-o!'oj-doi:IP!{):II-Fo)CONOCO('l sr- Lrl- ol or- t_- o rl N o of--s,(v)rOOr' OirjOiN
oroOF.
o cf)
\f,e
o$oc!+oiooc\ o)rj-s
qE ;338
H.E FHElf)$ 'o)-CO
-N
Eq e5ENlFSEE8883s p"3E.$iip$n$$iR"
ovON+oiOOe{ o)tj-Ir
88 EssAE FgELo v icr, -i c"tirN
f\
CO
(t)t\
"i:
c{'i
N
+
0)tt
o
0)sl
Gt
O
*;i r$fr$$fr
8ii trttts
s*s$ssss
N00:sl ltt
oolt !tooooE' CD
or!oo
a
tr,H*s***
5$+g$$H66ddd
=HHPPH665656
u,o
oottrt!
oootroIIxtr
J C')
.=';G,=
9A
?z
IJJ
E
IJJ
ou€gbxEVxFJ4lo Rh.= uJ5E sEm 2:; 3
EE
=
too
Yuo
3I
tr
IJJ
I
Cj)zo
@
o
()
UJ
1t'l
o_
U)
Js
l-,
co
ESti s3Eh3B?--=---Fr\-rr
FNNFNFFFF$Fc.l v v: ccl r^-'co orrrrrFFrFr--Fe
v()
o)
cf)o)
(J
U,
N()
;o
U)
(r)(f);rLOh.lrO5dTXiO<rlF(Orii -i ^iAoF
4pU
= llJ .i
;ta-
=9
F
=O
a'tll
z'
z-.
F
=
(o
U)
'-
c)
c0
o
U)
rot-(o(.)|o
.E
(It
.N
Eou
E
o,c
C)
U)
o
G
=oo
-o[t
ox.
o_
z
tr
o
J_n
n
t--
F
UJul
ozoF
fz
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 51
Extended Warranty proposal
2 JOHN DEERE 41OJ BACKHOE LOADER
Date : March 11,2014
Informatlon Plan Description Price
Deductible
List $ 0.00
JOHN DEERE Apptication
rype fllod^lo$=o=* coverase
41OJ LOADER
enCX-HbE - ' TotatMonths
US TotalHours
only through sulhorlzod John osere Deslers for John D€6re Products,and may be purchssed at any tim€ bsfora tns proftcrs sbndard warranty,or
Extended Warranty proposal prepared for:I have been offered this extended warranty and
Customer Name - Please print fl IACCEPTthe Extended Warranty
n I DECLINE the Extended Warranty
at any equiprnent listed
ter expenses due to
original basic warranty
Customer Signature
Note : This is not a contract. For specific Extended warranty coverage terms and conelitions, please refer to tfieactual Extended warranty cohtract tor rnoie into-imiiiiin i"n-d ir,e terms, conditions and timitations of theagreement.
labor for co failDeere Basic iod.John Deere strv
verage as inr
What Extended Warranty is not :Extended lso do inance or high wear items,or insuran,ce.related ris erturn , etc. lt doesr not cover ross of inconnedurins or See t ,errenieo lvJ"iity -dgfi,-rn"dnilTJii',J
complete I and ti oerine i'rigia;.'
Features/Benefits:
I Extended Warranty includes the following features and benefits under the program :o Pays for parts and labor costs incurred on failed covered components (less any appilicable deductibles),1 Does not require pre-approval before repairs are made by the authorized John Deere dealership,o Payments are reimbursed directly to the dealership with no prepayment required by,the contract holder.
Confidential
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 52
l-lo P19;tFolCo)lxstxhlSotbEto -ta>hi56G YE
ij
C)
UJI:l:()
oa
l.elSrls El!4 Et.q Ftx. elrX'EIrilE6lEslq ot'b trtg€tRb,o-.o<o
EU'
stsr0)56
9S
RO,Ep
RaGcFO
6:h.E
'vxOh
6€38s=
sh.
og
FtuloFz3o
E
ouJtrFx.UJ()Fzlo=0)c.k
E()
E
oo.I
D0
q
{)
.9
o
IEo
Oc
oc0
pc0
E
laoo
Og
oO
05cccc-(l(!.E.9tq)€
fi):o
O
BftoE
a0!0
a
E
Io
0Eto
=
ffit(lltml
| (rt uJl
lslpllnlo-lIrol@lt(otrnltot Il-llttl||l||lttlItltttttl
, @6
fruJ
E
o-
tr
lr
U'
uJ
(J
E
tr
IJJoofo
llJ <o F trr
E g a9
8JE3uJ f <J (JO
F- od oi
IIlo($G,0gJ€oE!1.c)7go
3a
E
0n:
6n
c'6'qEoao!oECoco([e
0)
p
o
CJ
aL
o
c
!0
s
tico
E)()
oi
z
uJ
E
o-
TL
+z
-A U'
>6
EOo>zE
L
c)
(Do
0)o
b
(o
,0)
0)
P
(l)
t-()
ilo
t:
(U
0)J)
D
1')
U)
.ijo
lo
q0
f
0Y
o
a
'0
f
co
<.9TC+o
Ev.
FO
M.Fzo
O
cr)YNo(!l.'lEq)sd!OEEi f i-c > oEEHrEe6t6 hE 6FP'H'=XrPi,RIe-o.g € sXrl dF.l9-C.E OF --o:oboE6HPo9(!([-FtrE66hb gOEo;9HqqE;
;EoE: PE E@EXO0 > u!
-"{ 5 E
=p^odl:^cyo
]fi .Y (o !
E)\,"O
nE e ;E<'d;d qi F.9
B >N QtJoH5nr
OF:Fits d! Ftbb'iF=9iEn'3d J Er.o
O'; A; PlX!qlrH(
:h.glEi
-E; b b IFNOOb
bti!
!c([
oE
6
o
c
qJo
c)
o
a
l--TFl
I tel
I tF-lI l:lI tqlll-lttl||t||l
t_r__lV' U,
itilJI*iiiuJa(,5tEi r
E EE.
6 Et.ti lrl oJ
: o;-: IIJ (/i
E&flP <!t,,-r llJ ciC rC
E f,+.oo
<r;
^r$
*ovt (1)'cO E 66fil :.oS-F^o6 jiF Hf;;5 -q.Q f;
=,xE fi: >E OEr ild
".q,Ei liu 5:*: i5a 6 o ts)or'. e-,^ *tL O
9lH o,H o,s.F
EK t5 ftSi;
== tE :t6 0.sF le:lsE
H,d d E
d
Oq
Nq.
O)o-
t\
@
6o
-
N.q
Ns-
N
I
t--
@
o)t*.q
N.l
to
og
E
0);€ZE
IJJ BE3>E<p
tr?o=-LXz6o:tr:<;o ,";
EE-o-P6< FfiU) iigAFl;
9#'sO E6
(.@c
X,EEF*q
=P.=r-r+Fo <*d
ii"i' ?li urliaFliN<li + oli + e
li 9 oi., '= IJJ
o -F
t6H;lEo od
lE'o olr! F uJ
16=EBa 6
l$b o=
inE:
IE6F
l..i "; +
i
I
I
I
I
III
III
EJo
o
tr
zoo
=o
tro
(O
:l
aa
-q(o
1l)
:l
-)
")
ll
_l
"/)
ii
ij
{
ai
<::it:
t)
IJ
:l
t-
IJ'll
T-
_)
oI\r
(o.
I\$@
c
!
t\s
I
f--(o
N
()
ni
t'..
d)c)
O).
vtt-q
N
tr)-
o,ro
@
U'
'5
0)
E
o
o
o..:+oruca=o)vtr>
F,O
(uc69
o
E
,-
o
I
N
6
aJ
-o
ts
0)
o
o
'n
IJ
z4
E
J
!7
ooU)6 F-(ooilF
o
F
tFz
, ({)>(oo4ortrNoAl'-sr
{+ ;^zX9o>
9"98dEci0- r.! 0,<(I(L
.F
$
,NC+h o--X 9c>E*x 533eA65 c cDE€3r E isiEz()oal:(BEdHrS{l
ut c ui+ E 6,(gOO(tri:EFLJ:[:Yls;r
.FmtsEisii
F
UJ-)
tn
(Jol
,g !''i c)
ociFL.o+iEii,- clvurii slI- <T.
o
F
.. !t6nqvoFo<xMX
zo
\J:O6>P
^fitoaPlJ- o-
a
=
oa
.3<
5oauioru
JfJJ
OGoa
M
uJz
=
r
utr110_LLuJzuJ0_
c
,N
c)
E
o
(/)
ao
=(5
U)
E
U.
r
t-z
z
IJJ
E
o-toIt
l,U
III
F
tr,ulo
oz
zo
F
o
=o-
o-
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 53
$g H
;ebsooE"$EEHs
o
ssOOoo
qqqs 88 8r3EEE"E E$ EHpKRu EN, $x
qsqq 8888t3hp9e qooojcjai"E-FiH- 3ggs8
99c)- -jddFJd
:-" r r(v)N
f-
Cao^t-corir
3ef,HFi3$3$
eqqe
EEEH
- tO l.O f-rtF(f)
EEEEl'-OOO
3"4R"8
OO(9r
F (Y)
()
t\(r)ot\(v)tf,
sqqq 138 83EEgE iJ.$ E€PRKE gN RS
qeqs 88888hERH EgEHE
99m- -.I): |r)F.dr rO)N
t\
COo
t'J
cf)\l
o
9
6
5
^od>
OEotro9b g.T
* dc1r,Y oEt
'ei u) z xrile 9d$i He
U)
IJI
=,.,ioIzso
!=t!O
tro
EFJ5 FpH (JXr.P 68.^RP O=#
='= r (! tEEd 3==
5 s = PPg E ;:E:E$#
=#g
oo
EpiHiu:o
ExEe
IEE5Z c, o*
EE"EI
=E5Faootr
azo
dzoo
tr
uJz
IJJ(,
I
ozIo
o
o,l
ut
o.
U,t
-l
tEF N c') $ |.o io N oo o,
= = s P S p g tr- oo o) Q r-FrrNO
(Y)ooerlJ)b 69aA"\N?-F(O-r0
=#FA
f
o-L
urLlel
f,zz
tr
(o
o
N
€$
,N
-co
O .\fE6E
E€E
=FBg6acui
E8 U:pi
,Fmfi
z
tr
:
0-
UJ
IJJ-Q
=
Fz
lrJ
I
Ost-
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 54
ee;eSbs8888H$iebssoooo
sos
FFEFq qqEE[JqHqgE 8RH*ii3No9! ;o;<o+o
EFq qqqs 88E"H.H FFHH HFNr otooiol ;.i
FFFFq qEqE[i
EHqEE ERHNi3EN.oS: --:.n.osr.n
oooocqqc 66EFEE R8ao" oo^ 0o_ oo_ to tno)o)oo) cq(v)
888cjociooc)otoro
c.i 'j
8E 88888EE ERfi$gPI -joos-c'i
EqqE BBBs
H"H"EH HHBHo)o,o,o, (nc4gN
OOC)ooc)ooc)o(o|r)
c.i -
[|E E-IO F
fri ! g
4' ; g
;E * g
sE$FF$
o!
"gbx't:IJJ :
ll
CD E)
E'E
Gr!o- 6-
$u)4UJE6frztrEI ^E#f_HF,6,e.gEgEgEfi
=: >o or-i r\ an ,\ ,r/
-o
OG
GO
=sd df -EEO({
T,'gEg
EE**{ro},
EEEE
o
tr49oo6e
-Sl I
€^e g
+EE
3E€
IulItr:)FIo
E
od
Ex,
lrJr
I
oz
9
U)
d
c.)
IJJ
1n
o_aJ
FoF
@
a
R I E u s s E E hi B E e s $ $ $ s s + s s I E fi-BE E
cr) (f)erlf)X'r'O567Nq3F(Otli A aixarLuAir
' '_u**rF9n 7\
F
=t
fr'u(t
f
z:
z.
F
(o
Ce
s
o)
o)
oo(J
G
@
o'.
co
$a
r{)t-
(f)()
.o
oN.E
Lo
o
U)
tt(It
(!
U)
IOtu
t
z
tr
Of
o-
F
F
lrJ
UJ
ozo
=z
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 55
S
oH EH
X
==R6tsssoo
8Eq I 88888BB 3 qoqs6"6"fi" H ggggPSS P BNg'
OO
acio00|f) o)(o@
oooooo
-i-i-looc)otnc)
CqO(f)
o
(oNl.-
c.t
F
@
sF$$BF$FF
qeq I
EHF. Hc"locY) (i
Eq Eqq I 38t38nF. H.Hn f; EgisH(o@ PS: g dNi[;
ocJc)ooc)ooc)ooc)oLr)o(f)ocf)
(9zE-rilff
cioNOzttr
x Frfl 3
2
IJJ
=o-
:lo
IJJ
.,b 2Ee tE5E E
5EE 6*
**# eE
Fsfi * g
zo
FofuF
@zoo
J
oowEO-.Eo oE* "iEfl zF- arRr *,.--x+ 5ii 6
E()
E
,9
r- E:2 rJJ6g ,9EE Ha.
SEini 3E$ztiio€o c:<:arv_oi'F=
=#tECl-ut5
v
UJ
c)
o.
U)
a
|-.
ctl
ql
h 3 ts E6 s E S SiEbEER E N ffi S S P N: P R I E S 3$
\t
O)
Coo)
oa
PPnR4Er(Orii .i -i>FZ
ALJF
<Y-Vr
= Ill /i\-OTI:eqF
FT
tr
all.r
m
f,zz
F-
@
ov
.9
o
.N
L
o)oo
=66a9Etd
ac,OGg (/):|{)t\E(o
_(-u (ovJ t)
9clitu
gv
9i\
F
F
IJJ
IJJE
U'z
Fzoo
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 56
HEofiE*
eqq8888 8888138EEEERSg sEFEFEs3F;;sRi ;833il3
EEA888 888
RASE^EE RRR-aNro.rrrr' -*N
EEEeq888 8888138
R_EEeg"Rqs $EEsiiBNRRStfiPR ..,dn'oroo
I 33E RRq) -Ni
qEqEs
88S88N000)oo
- (f) N rt;!o
qqqEeqqEss 8888138
RsR-8"eEE^RAS $EEEHE- ^ N R R =
t F P R oo 'rt.o ''ciro o
a
d)
vlo
mtt
G
.E ol
A*H
F 8rfidfi
ao
f
EDc
o
i<
IY
Ei3E:Ea.F'= lY 0 .v,
'? i[,g b-E uEtE,E :ztL
*E ia H{.=f:=>>rJ-< (]OO
EtF
=€
a!.EO
=(Uc: ()- O
= 'c rrt iEd q,:8
!,efi$5E>--F:srtttF9,- ai - =l='= o Eeii66
IIJo
H
d
=o
oz
oeFo,
IJJ
lrJ
,l
@.N:
ZtIa
)rIr
888888
RF$EEEJ*Nrtirtrrt
'=
t=;.f tr o=-'EEElrArr\(v)'s: oJlnEeO 9t-z s,@e=*F>F66q
^,V
c CA
+t\rt)rri
ro(f,
ttr)
LUt^
fl
(.t)
<(-
F.()
F-
a3t38538P=s
-!-rrr-t-r-
3EbEEts5$EsEst hsEFSpp
PS'.,X.r.Ovx"Ar(ori i -i ,j-{)-z
<i,nJ!/in:
'zLM;\6-F?*tiIH F
T
u
A
Cr
F.
Ir
b
lo
so,
co
uioo
=oa
a
,-
ctl
oa
ror\(o
(f)
ro
o
GN'-
oo
oo
oa
U>oo
o
FO
LrJ-ot
0-
z
tr
O
J
(r
F
IJJ
tu
ozo
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 57
ssOOoo
S:So()sss
OOFT
sss888ts<a;R>R8E
PEENSNEE;$138
SSfX{5(o!.o--<oor
s"B"ri_Nh-r-E"E[XE8NFr'(r)@O- Ctt_p.1N
9x €'s$ oi ci c.jREEP
l\rg
EE i888FE iB88t/-e-,FOOlr) V :oli jo.i
,-N
f.-
oiF.
v_
NI
q FsqN$NSE:[rB8i FEg*F53fi$g$
N
o
\t-o
ryf\g
Eq 888HE FgEtrl \t .of -: s;.i_ N
f.-(o
ot.v
FN
-'
EEEN$NSB;f,88hXlXSl'@voj'jccjojs"6t"3"Nb^EEEt$gg
F s e (Y) (O O - C.l ,j(lic\l
$Otr)NON
o'i ci o.joooO)tf,r
$c)
ryt.\i-
Eq 88sQP ocicjqH P88|r)$ oijsliFN
F-(o
oit\\t
NI
c)\l$@
F!itrF+* +h tt it
Ll.trLooooEH'I1Eoooo
$PoB'8,qct:cGN'OGFtsF-
(Jg'CJ(J
$l
:$l
(l)ttLo
o
CDco
*s$sf;
$rtrr
FEEEErt tt ,\ ,t ,rvvtJvtJ
p
lJl -or+
5E
H5.E', : t,.3 SF6 -o*5
u,o
Go
tl
(!
o
oto
oII
taE
.so
o
oFz
uJ
E
IJJ
otr
0-HEo;
ED=9:ou
- IJJ4r Ih.= uJ5E $Eo zFb IErF o5E =6{ 6
-9troo
vtro
FT
u
IIJ
a
(")
zoa
tr
LUo
LL
OD
-J
F-oF-
a
F$$$$Fii FE3NKRE--l-FTSilNFSr-Fo,rtsr(osro(o
frFr
ffrr
s
o)
co
O)
O
-oa
(o (y)--tO^\ ,lr ORA;F(OA;Hod*!, r- ztiAor-
=i^FU;i EH,*dc)<*E
<: J g(-)+ F:r* Io.\t!AF<,r
ft
(o
o
(o
IEo
,N
E
0)
o
=6OQ6E
-Cc0)
acooq(n
t\!@_t (v)vJ ro
z
=
(J
=0-(L
F
IJJ
IIJIozoF
Fz
uJ
T
F{
ATTACHMENT 3 B3 - 58
A.AI A
NOTICE TO PROCEED
October 30,2013
Pickard & Butters Construction. Inc.
7070 Morro Road, Suite C
Atascadero, CA93422
Attention:Mark Butters
Subject: 12 Acr_e Buttonwillow park project
Specification No. BRPD 13_1
110 S. Montclair - Suite 104, BPhone 661 -896-9884 661 -836-9761
Brett Dawson
Resident Engineer
Marie Parsons, General Manager, Buttonwillow Recreation and parks Distr.ictConstruction File
water Resoutce EngineeringrDrainage studies arld Design' sewer 0esign.Pump station Design.FEMA Studles.ptan and Map checkina s€rvices.Municioal consultino
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 59
E9S =9=F-c@a\o6@@@.i;.!E- dsjilF
=cO@@OPCn\.=NNNBX - oocj R.:O--FJ:
"r=ooo€
o;x=.:ao
QEAj EnPp aFEH P
EAT ts
> c.Y :AFN
=-
dr.er
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 60
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 61
ATTACHMENT 3
B3 - 62
BI
D
P
R
O
T
E
S
T
#
1
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
B3
-
6
3
919 Palm Street ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 27, 2014
Pickard & Butters Construction, Inc Fax: (805) 462-1746
7070 Morro Rd Suite C Email:mark@pandbconstruction.com
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attn: Mark A. Butters
Subject: Santa Rosa Skate Park, Specification No. 90752 – Bid Protest
Dear Mr. Butters,
On February 20, 2014, bids were opened for the above referenced project. Pickard & Butters
Construction is the apparent low bidder. Please be advised that a bid protest against Pickard
& Butters was received from ProWest Constructors, the 2nd low bidder. The bid protest is
provided as an attachment to this letter.
Please review the attached letter and provide a written response no later than 5:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, March 4, 2014. Deliver your response to:
Public Works Department
Attn: Bridget Fraser
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Or by emailing to bfraser@slocity.org. This information will be used in compliance with
section 14 and 15 of the notice to bidders.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bridget Fraser at (805) 781-
7192 or bfraser@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
BARBARA LYNCH
CITY ENGINEER
Bridget O. Fraser
Project Manager/ Sr. Civil Engineer
Attachment - ProWest Bid Protest
BID PROTEST # 1
ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 64
tDtf(l
Pickard & Butters Construction Iuc
February 4,2014
Ms. Bridget O. Fraser
Project Manager/Sr. Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo, Ca
RE: Response to bid protest
Ms. Fraser:
In response to the three items constituting the bid protest from Prowest:
A valid bid bond was submitted with the bid documents. The bond was signed by the Surety and
the signatures notarized and the corporate seal affixed. The bid bond was signed by Mark Butters
and the corporate seal affixed. The absence of a notarial acknowledgement for Mark Butters'
signature does not invalidate the bid bond nor did PBC gain any advantage in the bidding process
with this minor deviation.
PBC listed Grindline for all the scope of work for the skate park structure improvements,
including the concrete tree trunks of bid alternates 1-4. Gridline is performing all the scope of
work for the skate park structure improvements including the concrete tree trunks of bid
alternates 1-4.
Addendum 1 changed the language for rl.he Prime Contractor's qualifications, which subsequently
allowed local contractors from the Central Coast to participate in this project. It should be noted
that approximately 40Yo of the work in rlhis project is performed by the Skate Park Structure
Contractor.
PBC was incorporated February 2I,1990. Both Jeff Pickard and Mark Butters have been Cieneral
Contractors & General Engineering Contractors since 1983 and have successfully completed
numerous and various public works projects. The three projects listed had all the required
components noted in addendum 1. San Lucas Elementary had all the components and a very
short drnation, 1.2 million in 68 days. Along with the three projects listed, I also provided a list
of other public works projects completed. The Atascadero Transit Center included the removal,
grading and replacement of base & asphalt at Capistrano Street from Hwy 41 to Lewis Street.
The Pismo Beach Police Station was a new building with a substantial retaining wall. Stough
Canyon Nature Preserve included 126,A00 cubic yards of import, 14ft curved retaining walls,
bridges and a 25 ft debris retaining wall. The Prime Desefi Woodland Preserve was one of, if not
the first straw bale commercial building (museum) in Califomia. This project included over 3
miles of graded trails with bridges spanning ravines & gullies.
1010 Morro Rd. Ste. C Atascadero, Ca. 93422(805) 462-9189 (805) 462-71 46 Faxlicense #588755 A&B
BID PROTEST # 1
ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 65
For more information on projects and pictures, please visit our website:
www. pandbconstruction. com.
PBC is the lowest responsible bidder for this project and we look forward to working with the
City Council and Engineer on this project.
Regards
,-/rh"rr*e446
Mark Butters
10'70 Morro Rd. Ste. C Atascadero, Cd . 93422
( B 05 ) 462-91 89 ( 8 05 ) 462-Ij 46 Faxficense #588755 A&B
BID PROTEST # 1
ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 66
tDtfo
Pickard & Butters Construction Inc
3t2U14
Barbaru Lynch
City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo
Re: Skate Park
Ms. Lynch:
I have several general comments for your consideration prior to addressing your specific
concems:
o ProWest protest was Substantiated with a statement that they had contacted Grindline
after the bid. ProWest did not contact Grindline after the bid, per Matt Flueggge, chief
operations officer, (206) 612-340Lo The difference between the base bid for PBC and ProWest is $46,739.43 dollars which
equates to approximately a3Yo spread. That is certainly a reasonable, responsible anrj
acceptable bid spread.
o The skate park subcontractor is responsible for over 35-40% of the scope of work for
entire project.
o PBC recognizes the importance of this project but we do not believe that the technical
complexity of the project is extreme. Furthermore, there are very few subcontractors to
coordinate.
o The Prime Contractor's qualifications are to show public works experience of similar
size. PBC listed three projects of similar size and scope and I included a list of all the
public works projects that I have been involved with as a contra,ctor, project manager and
Department of the State Architect Inspector of Record. The list of Public Works piojects
is extensive: I also referred the City to our website, which has more information in.tuOing
references and recommendations from numerous and various public agencies.
Response to questions:
1. A. Buttonwillow Park: This project is a 12 acre park with similar scope of work, i.e.,
demolition, extensive grading, new pavement at parking lot and streei, substantial
concrete structures and electrical. PBC is self-performing the landscaping and irrigation
and underground utilities. Per Brett Dawson the project will be compieted within 50 duyu,
which makes the completion date approximately 3 weeks ahead of schedule, not
including addition time granted for change orders and weather delays. See attached NTp.
70lO Morro Rd. Ste. C At.ascadero, Ca . 93422(80s) 462-9789 (8Os) 462-]-746 Faxlicense #Sge755 A&B
BID PROTEST # 1
ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 67
B. Salinas Valley Fair: This project is a hybrid with the structure located on public
properly; the plans, specifications and contract administration including code
enforcement were the responsibility the California Fair Services Authority (CFSA), a
state Agency. See attached business card. The project was funded by private
organization. PBC self-performed all the concrete, framing, drywall, landscapin g and
painting on this project.
C. San Lucas: While we are disappointed with the response from Nicole Hester, .we are
not surprised. PBC has a much different perspective of this project:o San Lucas Elementary School District is classified as a "financial hardship
District," and is totally dependent on the State for funding. The entire District is
one buildingthat dates back to the 1920's and several portable buildings. They are
eligible for flinding on projects about every 10 years. They have very littlo
experience with construction projects.
o PBC was the lowest responsible bidder on this project. However, the bid
substantially exceeded the budget.. PBC offered to value engineer the project and spent several weeks reviewing
specifications and conferring with all the subcontractors. We submitted a list of
recommendations, deductions and modifications-at no cost to the District.. The contract was awarded and a deductive change ordel of $47,204 dollars vras
signed. The project was still over the budget, but the owner was unwilling to
delete items, so they funded a porlion of the cost with maintenance funds.o This entire value engineering and board approval proceris took about 5 wereks.
That was 5 weeks out of the construction timeline in the original bid
documentation. That left 68 days to complete the work prior to the start of school.o The project was completed 68 days, a punch list was generated and the owner
took beneficial occupancy of the building and project. T'he punch list did take a
long time to complete as work was limited to after hours and weekend wc,rk.
There were several light fixtures that were special orders and the mast for thr:
handicap lift up to the stage had to be reordered.. The building dates back to the 1920's there were no as-built drawings. The
building had extensive asbestos containing materials anrC lead paint. At the time of
awatd, the owner had not secured an IOR, testing 1ab or a company to monitor the
hazardous materials removal. The owner had not applied for the necessary pelrmits
with the air quality control board.. The owner issued PBC a change order to provide a company to monitor tlie air
quality dr.rring the hazardous material removal. PBC has not been paid for that
change order, in fact, PBC has not been on over $57,000 dollars of change ordersi.o There is a stop notice on this project from Valley Carports. PBC has not been paid
for this scope of work, see application 6, line item 22 anrd COR 15.o This project did not have one subcontractor performing the majority or even a
substantial porlion of the project. There were numerous subcontractors and trades
to coordinate and schedule.
o The project had substantial concrete including long ADA ramps, curved stairs and
planter boxes. PBC self-performed the concrete.
7070 Morro Rd. Ste. C Atascadero, Ca. 93422(80s) 462-9789 (80s)462-L746 Fa.xl-icense #588755 A&B
BID PROTEST # 1
ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 68
2. Grindline
3. Grindline
4. Yes
5. PBC
6. Yes
7. PBC negotiated with Grindline and received a lower number than ProWest. See #4 above.
8. Butch Pope
9. PBC
PBC has meet all the requirements of the bid documents. PBC is the lowest responsible bidder
for the skate park project and we look forward to working with you on this project.
Regards
Mark Butters
7O1O Morro Rd. Ste. C Atascadero, Cd. 93422(80s) 462-9i89 (8os)462-L'746 Fax
license #588755 A&B
BID PROTEST # 1
ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 69
BID PROTEST#1 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 70
BID PROTEST#1 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 71
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
March 17, 2014
ProWest Constructors
22710 Palomar Street
Wildomar, CA 92595
Attn: Randy Craig, President
Fax: (951) 678‐1083
Email: reifsteck@prowestpcm.com
Certified Mail
Subject: Santa Rosa Skate Park, Specification No. 90752 – Bid Protest
Dear Mr. Craig,
On February 20, 2014, bids were opened for the above referenced project. ProWest
Constructors is the 2nd low bidder. Be advised that a bid protest against ProWest
Constructors was received from T. Simmons, the 3rd low bidder, on February 25, 2014. The
bid protest is provided as an attachment to this letter.
Please review the attached bid protest letter and provide a written response no later than:
5:00 p.m., Thursday, March 20, 2014.
Deliver your response to:
Public Works Department
Attn: Bridget Fraser
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Or email to bfraser@slocity.org. This information will be used in compliance with Sections
14 and 15 of the Notice to Bidders.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bridget Fraser at (805) 781‐
7192 or bfraser@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
Bridget O. Fraser
Project Manager/ Sr. Civil Engineer
Attachment – T. Simmons Bid Protest
BID PROTEST #2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 72
BID PROTEST #2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 73
BID PROTEST #2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 74
BID PROTEST #2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 75
February 27, 2014
Ms. Bridget Fraser
Project Manager/Senior Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street, SLO 93401
Re: Wormhoudt Incorporated Consulting Services
Dear Ms. Fraser,
I have written this letter to provide clarification of my employee status with California
Skateparks. I am currently employed as a Landscape Architect for California Skateparks. This is
relevant for you and the City of San Luis Obispo because California Skateparks has bid the
construction of the Santa Rosa Skate Park project designed by Wormhoudt Incorporated. I
specifically made a point to share this information early on in the project and want to take this
opportunity to provide some additional information regarding this matter.
I am the President and sole owner of Wormhoudt Incorporated, a full service design firm
specializing in municipal action sports park developments. Wormhoudt Incorporated provides
design development, construction documentation and construction support services for the
various projects we work on.
Wormhoudt Incorporated does not provide California Skateparks or any other prospective
bidders with project information of any type other than that allowed by the designated bidding
protocol. In addition, the specialty contractor qualification requirements contained within our
specifications are industry standard and we do not modify the requirements for California
Skateparks or any other prospective bidders.
I am extremely careful to ensure there is no conflict of interest between Wormhoudt
Incorporated and California Skateparks as a matter of integrity and pride for each company and
quality of services for our clients.
I am available to discuss this matter further with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Zachary Wormhoudt
Principal Landscape Architect
BID PROTEST #2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 76
BI
D
P
R
O
T
E
S
T
#
2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
B3
-
7
7
BI
D
P
R
O
T
E
S
T
#
2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
B3
-
7
8
BI
D
P
R
O
T
E
S
T
#
2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
B3
-
7
9
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
March 20, 2014
ProWest Constructors
22710 Palomar Street
Wildomar, CA 92595
Attn: Randy Craig, President
Fax: (951) 678‐1083
Email: reifsteck@prowestpcm.com
Certified Mail
Subject: Santa Rosa Skate Park, Specification No. 90752 – Bid Protest/Conflict of Interest
Dear Mr. Craig,
Thank you for your response dated March 19, 2014 in regards to the Bid Protest by T. Simmons. In
order for the City to make a determination as to whether there is a conflict of interest, the City is
requesting answers to the following questions:
1. Is Zach Wormhoudt an officer or director of California Skateparks?
2. Does Zach Wormhoudt have any ownership interest in California Skateparks?
3. Did Zach Wormhoudt participate in preparation of the bid or quotes for California
Skateparks for this project?
Please have a managing officer of California Skateparks provide written answers to the previous
questions. Each question must be answered with either a “Yes” or “No”. Additional written
narrative may be provided if further clarification is required, or if ProWest is aware of legal findings
addressing this issue which they wish to share with the City. Please provide this information as
soon as possible but no later than:
5:00 p.m., Monday, March 24, 2014.
Deliver your response to:
Public Works Department
Attn: Bridget Fraser
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
or
email: bfraser@slocity.org.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bridget Fraser at (805) 781‐7192 or
bfraser@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
Bridget O. Fraser
Project Manager/ Sr. Civil Engineer
BID PROTEST #2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 80
BI
D
P
R
O
T
E
S
T
#
2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
B3
-
8
1
BI
D
P
R
O
T
E
S
T
#
2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
B3
-
8
2
BID PROTEST#2 ATTACHMENT 4
B3 - 83
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 2014, by and between the City
of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California,
hereinafter called the Owner, and ProWest PCM Inc. (DBA ProWest Constructors), hereinafter
called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be
performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable
equipment, and all utility and transportation services required to complete all the work of
construction of
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK
SPECIFICATION NO. 90752
in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefore, including any and all Addenda,
adopted by the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said
work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of
the Owner or its authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration
for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in
the Contract Documents, the contract prices as follows:
Item
No.
Item Total
(in figures)
1. Skate Park Structure (Lump Sum) $ 598,000.00
2. Site Improvements (Lump Sum) $ 919,000.00
A1 Concrete Tree Trunk #1 (Lump Sum) $ 24,000.00
A2. Concrete Tree Trunk #2 (Lump Sum) $ 24,000.00
A3. Concrete Tree Trunk #3 (Lump Sum) $ 23,500.00
A4. Concrete Tree Trunk #4 (Lump Sum) $ 23,500.00
A5. Additional Parking Lot Improvements (Lump Sum) $ 88,000.00
CONTRACT TOTAL $ 1,700,000.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject to the provisions
embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract:
ATTACHMENT 5
B3 - 84
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which
the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor,
during the performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its
decision shall be final, and conclusive.
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The full, complete and
exclusive contract between the parties hereto shall consist of the following identified documents
(the "Contract Documents") all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, if not
attached, as if hereto attached: Notice to Bidders, Instructions to Bidders, Information Available
to Bidders, Proposal Form, Listing of Subcontractors, Non-Collusion Declaration, Bidder's
Bond, this Agreement, Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention,
Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Insurance Requirements, Guarantee of Work, Release,
General Conditions, Specifications, City’s Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards,
any addenda, and any change orders, field orders or directives issued pursuant to and in
accordance with this Agreement, Attachment 1 Contractor’s Certification Concerning Labor
Standards and Prevailing Wage Requirements, Attachment 2 - Federal Wage Determination.
ARTICLE IV, CONFLICTS: It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto
that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of
said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an
acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.
ARTICLE V, BINDING AGREEMENT; ASSIGNMENT: Contractor, by execution of this
Agreement and the other Contract Documents, understands them, and agrees to be bound by their
terms and conditions. The Contract Documents shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding
upon the Contractor and the Owner and their respective successors and assigns.
ARTICLE VI, SEVERABILITY: If any provision of the Contract Documents shall be held
invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or
render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year
and date first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
City Clerk Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
By:
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney ProWest Constructors
Randy Craig, President
ATTACHMENT 5
B3 - 85
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF SLO SKATE PARK PUBLIC ART DESIGN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission,conceptually approve the public art
design, “Concrete Jungle”, for the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) Skate Park located at Santa Rosa
Park.
DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2006, the skate community attended a Public Forum to express concerns about the
condition of the existing skate park (built in 1994). As a result, the City Council identified skate
park improvements as a Major City Goal and has since gone through the extensive design, planning
and approval processes. In the 2013-15 Financial Plan, Council approved an additional $1.2 million
in Measure Y revenues in support of final construction of the skate park. The final skate park
design develops and integrates four completely new outdoor recreational opportunities that will
draw multiple generations together in a revitalized common space serving the City’s most densely
populated neighborhood. A permanent in-ground skate park, an outdoor amphitheater, a low-impact
fitness path and a streetscape plaza for spectator seating, farmers markets, craft fairs and other
events have all been included in the design. These four elements facilitate shared multi-generational
use and connectivity with other existing park features –a playground, picnic areas, street hockey
court, horseshoe pit and ball fields.
Public Art
This project has differed from other public art projects in that the design for the artwork has been
integrated into the actual project itself. For the City, this will be the first time that project
construction and installation of public art components will occur simultaneously. The main
“entrance” to the new multi-use zone will feature the principal public art components (concrete and
metal shade trees) and landscaping. Public art has also been incorporated into the overall facility
design to showcase the cultural elements being introduced into the expansion design including
skateboarding, outdoor entertainment, walking fitness and community festivals.
On March 7, 2011, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved the
conceptual design of the SLO Skate Park located at Santa Rosa Park with conditions for additional
public art elements. In particular, the ARC discussed the need for the design of freestanding
sculptures, artistic shade structures, and art tiles to be used to accent the concrete skate surface.
After consulting with the RRM design team on how to satisfy the ARC’s condition, the use of an
artist as a public art design consultant surfaced as the best approach. On May 17, 2011, the City
Council authorized funding for a public art design consultant to design a variety of artistic elements
Meeting Date
Item Number12/10 /2013
C11 - 1
C11
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 86
SLO Skate Park Public Art Design Page 2
to be integrated into the construction documents for the SLO Skate Park project. The redesigned
artistic elements are now complete and with the funding approved for the construction of the SLO
Skatepark it is now timely for Council to review and conceptually approve the final public art
design.
Concrete Jungle
The SLO Skate Park public art project design, Concrete Jungle, includes four (4) concrete and steel
shade trees. Three “trees” are proposed to be at the skate park “entrance” and one across the park
on the north end. This fourth “tree” was recommended by the ARC in place of a living tree, thereby
eliminating concerns for tree maintenance and damage to the surrounding concrete caused by
uprooting. These 30-foot tall concrete and metal “trees” will serve a dual purpose, both as a skating
surface (concrete trunk) and as shade structures (metal tree canopy) for the surrounding park. The
project also includes the lighting of the four “trees”, artistic tiles on the edge of the bowl basin,
concrete art reliefs throughout the park, and landscaping in the park entrance planter boxes.
The artists have incorporated the ARC’s recommendations and provided the City with four funding
options based upon the desired scope of work and available public art funding.
Going Green
The artists and City staff have worked collaboratively to incorporate “green” aspects into the
facility and public art by use of recycled materials where possible. The public art media and
materials are appropriate for the City’s moderate climate, are low in maintenance needs, safe,
durable and fade resistant. Staff will continue to pursue solar lighting options for the project where
feasible.
CONCURRENCES
The Parks and Recreation Committee (PRC) has reviewed the SLO Skate Park public art design at
its November 6, 2013 meeting. The PRC approved the public art design with a phased-in
recommendation should the project be dependent upon available funding. The PRC recommended
several implementation options for the Council to consider at time of project award should funding
be limited.
The ARC will be meeting on December 2, 2013 to review and conceptually approve the redesigned
SLO Skate Park public art. Meeting minutes discussing the ARC’s recommendations for the public
art project will be included following this report and provided as a Council correspondence.
Public Works staff, Parks and Recreation staff, the artists and design consultant staff continue to
meet regularly to discuss the project and to coordinate project construction schedules, funding and
public art implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the SLO Skate Park construction has been identified as part of the 2013-15 Financial
Plan, pages 3-358 through 3-369. City Council approved an additional $1.2 million in Measure Y
revenues, to augment the $973,700 available funding, in support of final construction of the skate
park. The total project budget of $2,200,000 does not included public art funding. The approval of
C11 - 2
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 87
SLO Skate Park Public Art Design Page 3
the Skate Park Public Art design does not have an immediate fiscal impact. Council will determine
the levels of public art implementation and funding at the time of construction award in Spring
2014. At that time funding available for the construction of the Public Art will be specifically
identified and will include the existing balance in the Public Art fund which continues to receive
funds from developer in-lieu fees and occasional private donations.
The artists have incorporated the ARC’s recommendations and provided with the City with level of
implementation to be determined based upon the available public art funding. All design,
permitting, inspection and lighting costs compose the “base price” of $71,100 regardless of the total
numbers of “trees” installed. Fabrication and installation has been estimated at an additional
$67,000 per “tree.” The project scope and estimated public art costs range from 6% to 15% of the
overall construction project costs of $2.2 million. This level of proposed public art funding is
consistent with the City’s public art policy and guidelines.
Project Scope Estimated Cost Public Art %
1 tree $ 138,100 6%
2 trees $ 205,100 9%
3 trees $ 272,100 12%
4 trees* $ 339,100 15%
Estimated Public Art Costs "Concrete Jungle"
*Project scope as recommended by PRC and ARC
ALTERNATIVE
Deny Public Art Design. The City Council could choose not to approve the SLO Skate Park public
art design, “Concrete Jungle”, as presented and direct staff to return to Council with alternatives for
a redesigned the public art project. Staff does not recommend this option as the public art project is
consistent with the City’s public art program and satisfies the ARC’s conditions for additional
artistic elements. Additionally, the public art project is consistent with the procedural criteria for
the selection and placement of public art as set forth in the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
The proposed “Concrete Jungle” tree design has received concurrence from the design consultant
providing the structural analysis, and from both the PRC and ARC. Delays in the approval of the
public art design may have an impact on project construction as bid specifications currently
incorporate the construction of the concrete tree trunk bases of the Public Art, as part of the Skate
Park construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2013-15 Financial Plan
2. Major City Goal
3. Skate Park Public Art Schematic and Maquette
4. Skate Park Vicinity Map
5. Skate Park Public Art Renderings
6. Meeting Minutes, PRC 11/6/13 and ARC 12/2/13
t:\council agenda reports\2013\2013-12-10\slo skate park public art design (stanwyck-mudgett)\ecar slo skate park public art design.docx
C11 - 3
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 88
C11 - 23ATTACHMENT 6 B3 - 89
C11 - 24ATTACHMENT 6 B3 - 90
C11 - 25ATTACHMENT 6 B3 - 91
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 92
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 93
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 94
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 95
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 96
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 97
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 98
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 99
C11 - 34
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 100
C11 - 35
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 101
1-1
Parks and Recreation Commission
DRAFT MINUTES
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, November 6, 2013, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Steve Davis, Craig Kincaid, Jeff Whitener, Susan Updegrove,
Ron Regier and Michael Parolini
ABSENT: David Hensinger
COUNCIL: Carlyn Christianson
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Phil Dunsmore and Marti Reynolds
Public Comment
Carlyn Christianson, Council Member, thanked the department for their work on the SESLOC lease
project which was approved by Council on November 5.
Adam Stowe, San Luis Obispo Blues Baseball, gave an update on future tournament plans for summer
2014 and the status of the Blues Baseball team.
1. Consideration of Minutes
MOTION: (Updegrove/Kincaid) Approve the October 2, 2013 minutes as amended.
Approved: 6 yes: 0 no: 1 absent (Hensinger)
2. Public Art Program Review and Consideration of Skate Park Art - Mudgett
Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett gave a presentation to the Commissioners reviewing the
Public Art Program with an overview of current projects before updating on the upcoming
construction of the SLO Skate Park Public Art project. Details on the marketing campaign,
available funding and timelines were shared. Mudgett introduced the project artists, Jed Joyce and
John Jones who shared examples of the project’s Word Art and pre-fabricated tiles as well as
information on material properties of Cor-Ten steel.
Commissioners addressed questions to Mudgett and visiting artists Joyce and Jones and discussed
shade, reflected heat, lighting options and safety considerations and then speculated on the need and
positioning of a fourth “concrete jungle” full tree structure. Mudgett discussed how total available
funding may impact the full scope of the Public Art project. Commissioner Kincaid suggested
building the base for the fourth tree (should funds be limited) to avoid the costs of retrofitting
should funding be made available at a later date. Commissioner Parolini suggested that, if only
three of the four trees were approved based upon available funding, that two trees be located at the
“entry” and one tree at the rear of the park (as opposed to all three trees at the “entrance”).
C11 - 36
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 102
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – November 6, 2013
Page 2 of 4
1-2
Chair Davis opened Public Comment.
Gary Havas, San Luis Obispo, discussed with artists corrosion resistant properties of Cor-Ten
steel, the inclusion of lighting protection into art form and consideration of solar lighting.
D. Scott, San Luis Obispo, inquired about other cities that have Skate Parks and research done on
potential problems. Director Stanwyck gave information on the relationship that has been built with
the skateboard community, potential programs to encourage non-typical users such as female
skateboarders, plans to address graffiti.
MOTION: (Whitener/Regier). Recommend Council conceptually approve the proposed Skate Park
Public Art “Concrete Jungle” under the condition that if there is only funding for three trees, one of
the tree structures be placed in the rear of the park and that installation of concrete tree trunk bases
for all four structures be included to allow for a potential addition of a tree canopy in the future.
Approved: 6 yes: 0 no: 1 absent (Hensinger)
3. Airport Area Land Use Zoning Review as it relates to the Chevron Project – Dunsmore
Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore gave a presentation to the Commissioners reviewing the Airport Area
Land Use and the Chevron Project. He asked that the Commissioners consider the revised land use
plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to include a Public Facility zone and identification
of future public facility uses. Potential for sports field area in future would go before the
Commission and amendments would be made to 4.2.4 of the AASP to accommodate potential
future components. Dunsmore addressed comments and questions the Commissioners brought up at
the June 5 meeting such as parking, road link with Class I pathway and questions on wind patterns
in relation to the flower mound hill. He explained although a recreation facility is not required by
the project nor are parkland impact fees, the potential for a needs assessment exists in the future for
public facility uses. Anticipates final EIR to go before Commissioners in March 2014.
Commissioners entered into discussion regarding project, questions of future development if not
under Chevron ownership, safety zones, next steps, Tank Farm road changes, potential need for
additional fire station, management if annexed to City in future, wetland remediation, future use as
a boardwalk through significant historical site.
Chair Davis opened for Public Comment.
Bill Almas, Chevron Representative, positive about what benefits the property can provide the
community, 15-acres unsuitable for development that seems to be a good place for a recreational
field and 250-acres open space. Chevron’s part is to donate the land, Cal Ripkin would have to
supply funding to develop and maintain fields.
John Spatafore, San Luis Obispo, was part of community group involved in the building/planning
of Damon Garcia sports fields, inquired about plans to link the fields together. Urged to continue
vision of what could work well there, found better to do one activity per site (such as soccer).
Encourages higher number of fields for youth sports organizations.
C11 - 37
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 103
ATTACHMENT 6
Architectural Review Commission
Meting Minutes
12/2/13
TBD
C11 - 38
ATTACHMENT 6
B3 - 104
Contract No. draft
1
AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION OF PUBLIC ART WORK
THIS AGREEMENT was made and entered into this ____ day of __________,
2014, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a charter city and municipal
corporation (hereinafter the “City”), and Jed Joyce and John T. Jones (hereinafter
referred to as “Artists”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2011, the Architectural Review Commission
reviewed and approval the conceptual design on the Santa Rosa Skate Park
public art with conditions for additional public art elements; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the City Council authorized funding for a
public art design consultant to design a variety of artistic elements to be
integrated into the construction documents for the Santa Rosa Skate Park
project; and
WHEREAS, the Artists were selected by a review panel (comprised of
RRM Design Consultants, City Staff, a member of ArtsObispo Arts Council and
members of the public including a youth skater; and
WHEREAS, the Artists’ proposal was reviewed and approved by the
Public Art Jury, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Architectural
Review Commission in accordance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 17.98; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the City Council approved of the
Artists’ proposal recommended by the Public Art Jury, Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Architectural Review Commission; and
B3 - 105
Contract No. draft
2
WHEREAS, the Artists are recognized professional Artists, and the City
acknowledges sufficient familiarity with the style and quality of the Artists’ work,
and;
WHEREAS, the City desires the Artists to create an original work of art
entitled “Concrete Jungle” for Santa Rosa Skate Park located at 1050 Oak
Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The Artists’ concept design (Attached as
Exhibit A), has been reviewed and approved by the City, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Artists, for the consideration and
under the conditions hereinafter set forth, agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES
1-1 GENERAL
(a) The Artists shall perform all services and furnish all supplies,
materials, Artists and agent travel, and equipment as necessary for the
design, execution, fabrication, transportation, and installation of the Work
at the Site, and in accordance with the terms in this Agreement.
1-2 REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL
(a) The Artists or designee shall prepare and submit to the City artwork
Specifications and technical structural drawings of the Work in elevation
and plans for the metal tree limbs (canopy shade structures) prior to the
installation and in compliance with appropriate codes.
B3 - 106
Contract No. draft
3
(b) The Artists or designee shall prepare and submit to the City a
proposal of artwork, containing the following items, which shall be
hereinafter referred to as the “Proposal” (Attached as Exhibit B).
i. One copy of a written description of the Work which includes
the following information:
Professional resumes;
References;
Artist Statement (Approach to project);
Graphic renderings;
Estimated project budget;
Work plan and Production Schedule;
Proposed list of subcontractors (those known to date);
Other information about the Work as may be
reasonably required by the City in order to certify the
compliance of the Work with applicable statutes and
ordinances. Said exhibits will become the property of
the City upon submission by the Artists. Upon
request by Artists, the City shall promptly furnish all
available exhibits in connection with said submission
at the Artists’ expense.
(c) Upon approval by the City Council and written direction to move
forward, the Artists shall commence with fabrication, transportation, and
installation of the Work at the Site.
(d) The City may require the Artists to make such revisions to the
proposed Work as are necessary for the Work to comply with applicable
statutes, ordinances, or regulations governing the project.
(e) The City may require revisions of the Work for practical (non-
aesthetic) reasons.
(f) The Artists fee may be equitably adjusted for any increase or
decrease in the Artists’ cost of, or time required for, performance of any
B3 - 107
Contract No. draft
4
revisions pursuant to this Section 1-2. Any claim of the Artists for
adjustment under this paragraph must be presented to the City in writing
within thirty (30) days after the date of the revision by the Artists.
(g) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Artists’ revisions, pursuant
to this Section 1-2, the City shall notify the Artists of its approval or
disapproval of such revisions. The City may require the Artists to submit
additional revisions until such revisions are accepted by the City.
Revisions made and accepted by the City pursuant to this Section 1-2
become a part of the final design, technical specifications and fabrication
and installation schedule of the Work, which shall be attached to this
Agreement as a revised “Exhibit B”.
1-3 EXECUTION OF THE WORK
(a) Pursuant to Section 1-2 above, the Artists shall commence
fabrication of the Work, in accordance with such schedules. Although the
schedule may be amended by written agreement between the City and the
Artists, it is agreed that the Artists shall perform all of the obligations under
this contract on or before December 31, 2014.
(b) The City shall have the right to review the Work at reasonable times
during the fabrication. The Artists shall submit to the Public Art Manager
in writing monthly progress reports.
(c) The Artists shall complete the fabrication and installation of the
Work in substantial conformity with the approved Proposal.
B3 - 108
Contract No. draft
5
(d) The Artists shall present to the City, in writing, for further review,
any “significant changes” in the scope, design, color, size, material, or
texture of the Work not permitted by or not in substantial conformity with
the Proposal. A “significant change” is defined as, but not limited to:
i. Any material change in the scope, design, color, size,
material, texture, or location of the Work on the Site;
ii. Any material change in the Work that affects installation,
scheduling, site preparation, or maintenance for the Work; or
iii. Any change in the concept of the Work as represented in the
accepted proposal.
(e) If changes reviewed by the City are not approved, the Artists will
not resume the Work nor resume the payment schedule until changes to
the Work are reviewed and approved by the City.
1-4 DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION
(a) Prior to commencement of work at the Site, the Artists shall notify
the City of schedules seven (7) days in advance of installation, or site
work, to allow for coordination with contractor and other Public Works or
Parks and Recreation personnel responsible for maintaining and operating
the site.
(b) The Artists shall be responsible for all expenses, labor, insurances
and permits.
(c) The Artists shall work with the City staff (Community Development
B3 - 109
Contract No. draft
6
Department) to apply and receive an Encroachment Permit. A no-fee
Encroachment Permit shall be issued to the licensed contractor
responsible for the construction and staging, herein referred to as
“permittee”.
(d) A Traffic control plan, if determined by the City as needed during
The public art project installation shall be provided by the Artists in
accordance with adopted City Engineering Standards. A Temporary
Traffic Control Application is provided as attached Exhibit C.
(e) Prior to delivery/installation of the Work, Liability Insurance shall be
provided by the permittee with the City listed as additionally insured in
accordance with City standards.
(f) Prior to delivery/installation of the Work, the Artists shall notify the
City’s Public Art Manager in writing when fabrication of the Work is 100%
completed and the Artists is ready for delivery of the Work to the Site.
This notification represents “Midpoint of Agreement”. Upon notification
and review of “midpoint”, payment may be release upon determination by
the Public Art Manager.
(g) The Artists shall provide for completion of the Work in compliance
with appropriate codes and the approved schedule.
1-5 POST INSTALLATION
(a) Within thirty (30) days after the installation of the Work, the Artists
shall furnish the City with the following documentation of the Work as
installed:
B3 - 110
Contract No. draft
7
i. One set of digital photographs of the completed Works, one
taken from each of three different viewpoints; All four (4)
concrete and metal trees, custom basin tiles, various street-
scape paintings/designs;
ii. The City shall have the right to duplicate and distribute for
any noncommercial purpose the artwork documentation
supplied by the Artists under this Agreement;
iii. The Artists shall be available at such time or times as may
be agreed between City and Artists to attend any
inauguration or dedication ceremonies relating to the transfer
of The Work to the City. The City shall use its best efforts to
arrange for publicity for the completed work in such art
publications and otherwise as may be determined between
the City and the Artists as soon as is practical following
installation.
(b) Upon post completion of this project and request for final
acceptance, the Artists shall provide the City with written instructions for
appropriate maintenance and preservation of the Work as described in the
Maintenance and Conservation Form (Attached as Exhibit D).
1-6 FINAL ACCEPTANCE
(a) The Artists shall advise the City’s Public Art Manager in writing
when all services required under this Agreement have been completed in
substantial conformity with this Agreement.
B3 - 111
Contract No. draft
8
(b) Within thirty (30) days following Artists’ notification, the City shall
notify the Artists in writing of the final acceptance (or non-acceptance) of
the Work.
(c) Final acceptance shall be effective as of the earlier of the following
dates:
i. The date of the City’s notice of final acceptance; or
ii. The 30th day after the Artists has sent written notice to the
City required under Section 1-6(a) unless the City, upon
receipt of such 30-day notice and prior to the expiration of
the 30-day period, gives the Artists written notice specifying
and describing the services, which have not been
completed.
1-7 RISK OF LOSS
The risk of loss or damage to the Work shall be borne by the Artists until final
acceptance, and the Artists shall take such measures as are necessary to protect
the Work from loss or damages until final acceptance.
1-8 INDEMNITY
Upon final acceptance of the Work, the Artists shall indemnify and hold the City
and its elected officials, employees, and/or agents harmless from any and all
claims or liabilities then existing or arising thereafter from the Artists’ negligence
or willful misconduct in connection with the Work.
B3 - 112
Contract No. draft
9
1-9 TITLE, ASSIGNMENT OF ROYALTY RIGHTS, AND WAIVER
(a) Title to the Work shall pass to the City upon final acceptance. The
Artists hereby assigns the right to collect any royalty payment provided by
Civil Code section 986(a) to the City and to the City’s assigns.
(b) Except as expressly provided below, the City shall not intentionally
damage, alter, modify, or change the Work without the prior written
consent of the Artists.
(c) The Artists acknowledges and agrees that the City may require the
Site for purposes other than the display of the Work. The City agrees that
it will notify the Artists of any proposed alteration of the Site that would
require the removal or relocation of the Work or affect the intended
character and appearance of the Work and will consult with the Artists in
the planning and execution of any such removal, relocation, or alteration
and will make a reasonable effort to maintain the integrity of the Work.
(d) The Artists acknowledges and agrees that the City retains the right
to relocate or remove the Work from public display for any reason, at the
sole discretion of the City. Reasons for removing the Work from public
display shall include, but not be limited to: hazards to public health, safety
or welfare; unsightly or deteriorated conditions of the Work; or the need to
access, repair and maintain public facilities.
(e) Except as provided above, the Artists expressly waives, for himself
and his successors in interest, to the greatest extent allowed by law, any
B3 - 113
Contract No. draft
10
rights he or she may have under California Civil Code sections 986, 987,
988 and 989.
ARTICLE 2: COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
2-1 AGREEMENT AMOUNT AND PAYMENT
(a) The City shall pay the Artists an amount not to exceed $240,000,
which will constitute full compensation and payment for all services to be
performed under this Agreement including execution, fabrication,
insurance, permits, materials, Artists and/or agent travel, transportation,
and installation. This contract amount excludes project lighting and
lighting costs. Payments shall be made in accordance with Schedule as
outlined below.
Commencement of Agreement/Fabrication
Forty five percent (45%) ($108,000) of the payment upon execution
of Agreement.
Midpoint of Agreement
Forty five percent (45%) ($108,000) of the payment upon
completion of 50% of the total project work (mid-point) as
determined by the Public Art Manager. The Artists shall submit to
the Public Art Manager reports in accordance with the schedule
required by Section 1-3(b). In addition to progress reports, the
Artists shall notify the City’s Public Art Manager in writing when
fabrication of the Work is completed and the Artists is ready for
delivery of the Work to the Site.
B3 - 114
Contract No. draft
11
Final Acceptance
Ten percent (10%) ($24,000) of the payment upon completion of all
outstanding work and review and acceptance of Work by the City.
Artists shall submit in writing to the City’s Public Art Manager when
all services required under this Agreement have been completed in
substantial conformity with this Agreement. The Artists’ final
submittal to the City shall include the Maintenance and
Conservation Form (provided as Exhibit D). The City has thirty (30)
days following Artists’ notification to respond in writing of the final
acceptance (or non-acceptance) of the Work and release final
payment.
(b) Lighting options, specifications and details for the art project (trees)
will be included as a contract option; to be determined at a later date. The
City Manager can amend the public art contract, in accordance with
approved fiscal policies, in support of future lighting options for the four (4)
“trees” when more is known about the ambient lighting needs of the skate
park, the type of lighting, conduit size and locations. The public art
contract can be amended in support of future lighting options for the four
(4) “trees”. Any project lighting shall be in accordance with Architectural
Review Commission recommendations and with City "Night Sky
Ordinances" to ensure proper lighting for public viewing, but not glaring or
light spillage which can create traffic conflicts.
B3 - 115
Contract No. draft
12
(c) All payments shall be issued within thirty (30) days of written
requests for payment submitted to the Public Art Manager.
2-2 ARTISTS’ EXPENSES
The Artists shall be the responsible party for all mailing or shipping
charges on submissions to the City, and the costs of all travel by the
Artists and the Artists’ agents and employees necessary for the proper
performance of the services required under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3: WARRANTIES
3-1 WARRANTIES OF TITLE
The Artists represents and warrants that:
(a) The Work is solely the result of Artistic effort of the Artists;
(b) Except as otherwise disclosed in writing to the City, the Work is
unique and original and does not infringe upon any copyright;
(c) That the Work, or a duplicate thereof, has not been accepted for
sale elsewhere; and
(d) The Work is free and clear of any liens or claims from any source
whatsoever.
3-2 WARRANTIES OF QUALITY AND CONDITION
The Artists represents and warrants that:
(a) The execution and fabrication of the Work will be performed in a
professional manner (expert, qualified, skilled);
(b) The Work, as fabricated and installed, will be free from defects in
material (except such defects as are normally present and unavoidable in
B3 - 116
Contract No. draft
13
natural materials and outlined in Proposal) and workmanship, including
any defects or qualities which cause or accelerate deterioration of the
Work; and
(c) Reasonable maintenance of the Work will not require procedures
substantially in excess of those described in the maintenance
recommendations by the Artists to the City;
(d) The warranties described in this Section 3-2 shall survive for a
period of one (1) year after final acceptance of the Work. The City shall
give notice to the Artists of any observed breach with reasonable
promptness. The Artists shall, at the instruction of the City, and at no cost
to the City, cure reasonably and promptly the breach of any such warranty
which is curable by the Artists and which cure is consistent with
professional standards, including for example, cure by means of repair or
refabrication of the Work as determined by the City.
3-3 WARRANTIES OF WORK
The Artists represents and warrants that:
(a) The Work will not substantially vary or deviate from the City approved
Work without the prior written consent of the City.
(b) The Work will not include any hidden, subliminal or camouflaged
messages or statements of any kind or nature.
ARTICLE 4: INSURANCE
4-1 GENERAL
B3 - 117
Contract No. draft
14
Before commencement of any work at the site, the Artists shall apply
for and must receive approval for an Encroachment Permit from the
Community Development Department. The permit requires execution
of a Hold Harmless Agreement and an Agreement to provide
insurance for the duration of the work performed. The insurance
specifications required in a standard Encroachment Permit include
general liability insurance with a $1,000,000 combined single limit, and an
endorsement adding the City, its agents, officers, and employees as
additional insured. If the Artist is using a vehicle for delivery and
installation, automobile liability insurance is required and, if the Artists
have additional workers directly employed, Workers Compensation
insurance is required at the statutory limits. The Encroachment Permit
application (attached as Exhibit E) provides additional details. The
Artists shall not commence work under this Contract until the Artists has
secured all insurance required under this section, and provided written
proof to the City, nor shall the Artists allow any subcontractor to
commence work on any subcontract until all similar insurance required of
the subcontractor has been obtained and submitted to the City in writing.
ARTICLE 5: COPYRIGHT
5-1 Copyright in the Work and related design, drawings, sketches, and models
will be owned by the Artists until acceptance of the Artists’ Work by the
City pursuant to Section 1-6 hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Artists agrees not to make use of such copyright in the Work for any
B3 - 118
Contract No. draft
15
purpose other than the performance by the Artists of the Artists’
obligations under this Artwork Agreement, without the written consent of
the City. Upon acceptance of the Artists’ Work pursuant to Section 1–6
hereof, copyright in the Work will be owned jointly by the City and the
Artists and no further use of the copyright will be made by the Artists or
the City without the written consent of the other, which consent will not be
unreasonably withheld.
5-2 The Artists certifies that the Artwork is a unique work of art especially
designed for the City, and shall not duplicate or reproduce the Work nor
shall the Artists permit others to do so except with the written permission
of the City.
5-3 The City has the right to reproduce and distribute in printed form and on
commercial documents and or brochures or any other literature of the City
describing or dealing with its real estate holdings, photographs, realistic
renderings, videotapes, or films of the Work. Such reproductions and use
of the images of the Work for promotional purposes shall not constitute a
breach of copyright and no royalty shall be due and payable by the City to
the Artists for such use.
5-4 CREDIT TO THE ARTISTS
All reproductions of the Work by the City shall contain a credit to the
Artists.
5-5 CREDIT TO THE CITY
B3 - 119
Contract No. draft
16
The Artists shall use his best effort to give a credit in any public showing
under the Artists’ control of illustrations of the Work as follows: “An
original work owned and commissioned by the City of San Luis Obispo,
California.”
ARTICLE 6: ARTISTS’ RIGHTS
6-1 MAINTENANCE
The City shall reasonably protect and maintain the Work against the
ravages of time, vandalism, and the elements, in accordance with the
instructions of the Artists provided under Section 1-5(b) Maintenance and
Conservation of Public Art.
6-2 ARTISTS REPRODUCTION RIGHTS
Pursuant to Article 5, Section 5-1, the City agrees that the Artists shall
have the right to reproduce and distribute in printed form and on non-
commercial educational materials and brochures advertising or promoting
the Artists and the Artists’ career, two-dimensional images such as
photos, slides or realistic renderings, video tapes, or films of the Work as
installed and formally accepted by the City. Such reproductions and use
of the images of the Work for promotional and educational purposes shall
be deemed to not constitute a breach of copyright in any way and no
royalty fee shall be due and payable to the Artists for such use. Such
reproduction and images of the Work for publicity, promotion, and
educational purposes shall, to the extent reasonably possible and
appropriate, give reference to the City of San Luis Obispo.
B3 - 120
Contract No. draft
17
ARTICLE 7: ARTISTS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Artists shall perform all work under this Agreement as an independent
contractor and not as an agent or employee of the City. The Artists shall not be
supervised by any employee or official of the City nor shall the Artists exercise
supervision over any employee or official of the City. The City alerts the Artists to
the provisions of the Labor Code §1771, which may require the payment of
prevailing wages.
ARTICLE 8: ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND SUBCONTRACTING
Neither the City nor the Artists shall assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement without prior written consent of the other. The Artists may
subcontract portions of the services to be provided hereunder at the Artists’
expense provided that said subcontracting shall not affect the design,
appearance or visual quality of the Work and shall be carried out under the
personal supervision of the Artists, and in accordance with all applicable laws.
ARTICLE 9: TERMINATION
If either party to this Agreement shall willfully or negligently fail to fulfill, in a timely
or proper manner, or otherwise violate any of the covenants or agreements
material to this Agreement, then the other party shall thereupon have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the defaulting party of its
intent to terminate, specifying the grounds for termination. The defaulting party
shall have ten (10) days after receipt of the notice to cure the default. In the
event of default by the Artists, all finished and unfinished drawings, sketches,
photographs, and other products prepared and submitted or prepared for
B3 - 121
Contract No. draft
18
submission by the Artists under this Agreement shall, at the City’s option,
become City property. This, however, shall not relieve the Artists of liability to the
City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement
by the Artists. In addition to all other remedies, the City may reasonably withhold
payments to the Artists until such time as the exact amount of damages due the
City from the Artists is determined.
ARTICLE 10: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
The Contract Administrator for this Agreement shall be the Public Art Manager of
the City of San Luis Obispo as defined in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
section 17.98.020 D, or his or her designee.
ARTICLE 11: NONDISCRIMINATION
In carrying out the performance of the services designated, the Artists shall not
discriminate as to race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, the
presence of any physical, mental or sensory handicap, or any other basis
prohibited by applicable law.
ARTICLE 12: COMPLIANCE
The Artists shall be required to comply with all federal and state laws and City
statutes, ordinances, and regulations applicable to the performance of the Artists’
services under this Agreement, including but not limited to, Chapter 17.98 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
ARTICLE 13: ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This writing embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the
parties hereto, and there are no other agreements or understandings, oral or
B3 - 122
Contract No. draft
19
written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein
and superseded hereby.
ARTICLE 14: MODIFICATION
No alteration, change, amendment, or modification of the term of this Agreement
shall be valid, unless made in writing and signed by both parties hereto and
approved by appropriate action of the City.
ARTICLE 15: WAIVER
No waiver of performance by either party shall be construed as or operate as a
waiver of any subsequent default of any terms, covenants, or conditions in this
Agreement. The payment or acceptance of fees for any period after a default
shall not be deemed a waiver of any right nor an acceptance of performance.
ARTICLE 16: GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement, regardless of where executed or performed, shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
ARTICLE 17: HEIRS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the City
and of the Artists and of their respective heirs, personal representatives,
successors, and permitted assigns.
ARTICLE 18: NOTICES
All notices, requests, demands, and other communications which are required or
permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed to have been duly given upon delivery and receipt thereof, as the case
B3 - 123
Contract No. draft
20
may be, if delivered personally or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage-prepaid as follows:
B3 - 124
Contract No. draft
21
City:
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Department
Melissa C. Mudgett, Public Art Manager
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Artists:
Jed Joyce
PO Box 1164
Templeton, CA 93465
John T. Jones
1640 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ARTICLE 19: ATTORNEY’S FEES
Should any action or proceeding be brought to enforce the terms of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs.
B3 - 125
Contract No. draft
22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed by respective authorized officers or representatives as of the day
and year set forth on page one of this Agreement.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:________________________ By:__________________________
Anthony Mejia, CITY CLERK Jan Howell-Marx, MAYOR
ARTIST:
_____________________________
Jed Joyce
ARTIST:
_____________________________
John T. Jones
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, CITY ATTORNEY
B3 - 126
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
K
A
T
E
P
A
R
K
|
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
JOHN T. JONES & JED JOYCE 1
Ju
l
y
7
t
h
,
2
0
1
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
R
T
W
O
R
K
S
ATTACHMENT 7 B3 - 127
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
K
A
T
E
P
A
R
K
|
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
JOHN T. JONES & JED JOYCE 2
Ju
l
y
7
t
h
,
2
0
1
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
R
T
W
O
R
K
S
SHA
D
E
TR
E
E
S
-
T
W
O
V
I
E
W
S
ATTACHMENT 7 B3 - 128
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
K
A
T
E
P
A
R
K
|
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
JOHN T. JONES & JED JOYCE 4
Ju
l
y
7
t
h
,
2
0
1
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
R
T
W
O
R
K
S
PO
O
L
T
I
L
E
SK
A
T
E
T
R
A
C
K
S
R
E
L
I
E
F
S
ATTACHMENT 7 B3 - 130
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK | City of San Luis Obispo
CONCRETE JUNGLE
A Public Art Installation
By
JOHN T. JONES JED JOYCE
1640 Higuera Street PO Box 1164
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Templeton, CA 93465
805-541-8290 805-835-9853
4jonses@att.net jedjoyce@charter.net
www.plyart.net www.jedjoyce.com
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 131
Résumé
Jed Joyce Phone: 805-835-9853
PO Box 1164 Email: jedjoyce@charter.net
Templeton, CA 93465 Web: www.jedjoyce.com
Education
1990-1992 California State University Hayward, Hayward, CA
1983-1984 San Francisco Art Institute, San Francisco, CA
Experience
1985-Present Owner, Jed Joyce Design & Construction, Templeton, CA
General contracting and architectural design services, including all phases
of construction, plan preparation and coordination for residential and
commercial projects in San Luis Obispo County and the San Francisco
Bay Area.
2011 Public Art Consultant for Santa Rosa Skate Park, San Luis Obispo, CA
2003-2005 Co-owner, Compact Gallery, San Luis Obispo, CA
Art Exhibits
Solo Shows
2004 “Suburban Landscapes”
Compact Gallery, San Luis Obispo, CA
Group Shows
2012 “The View From Here”
Phantom Project Gallery, Paso Robles, CA
2005 “Alms for compact”
Compact Gallery, San Luis Obispo, CA
2005 “The Splintergroup presents: recent works and
collaborations by Jed Joyce and John Jones”
969 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
1994 The Decorator’s Showcase
The Gibbs Mansion, San Francisco, CA
1993 “Excess Baggage”
The Cigar Store, San Francisco, CA
1991 Student Art Show
Cal State Hayward, Hayward, CA
1985 “So that’s Art?”
Jamaica You Salon, San Luis Obispo, CA
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 132
Public Art
2010 “Box Art – Downtown SLO”
Utility Box #3, Marsh & Chorro Streets
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
“Levitating Cube (of Swiss)”
2008 “Art in Public Places”
San Luis County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
“Stylus” Sculpture (Commissioned by SLO County)
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 133
Resume for John T. Jones
Public Art
December 2007 “Stylus” twenty-one foot tall metal sculpture located on the County Government
Center, 1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
Solo Exhibitions
December 2010-March 2011 Vina Robles Gallery, Paso Robles, CA
October 2009-present Recent Works, Chop Bar, Jack London Square, Oakland, CA
January-March 2008 Recent Works, Monterey Street Wine, San Luis Obispo, CA
April-May 2006 Woodcut Prints, Design Within Reach, Berkeley, CA
April-May 2006 Recent Works, The Last Laugh Coffeehouse, San Francisco, CA
April-May 2001 The Product Owns Me, Sunfire Gallery, Cambria, CA
March-May 1998 Surrealestate Development, Big Sky Café, San Luis Obispo, CA
March-April 1997 Beware the Eyes of March, Corbett Canyon Winery, San Luis Obispo,
CA
October-November 1991 Word to the Mother Fakir, Big Music, San Luis Obispo, CA
Group Exhibitions
December 2005 Alms for Compact, Compact Gallery, San Luis Obispo, CA
October 2005 Recent Works & Collaborations, 969 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
September 1985 Collaborations with Jed Joyce, Jamaica You, San Luis Obispo, CA
Commissions
December 2011 City of San luis Obispo, designed public art and shade structure for the
San Luis Obispo skate park
December 2010 Vina Robles Artist Circle wine label, hand printed limited edition woodcut
January 2010 Pilgrim wine label, woodcut, Matthias and Sina Gubler-Mohr
August 2008 Tiki Sculpture, Marc Tamo
November 2007 The Carnies album cover, woodcut, Trapper Shannon
June 1993 Trees of Mystery Album Cover
Awards
October 1996 Boo Boo’s T-Shirt Logo Design Contest, San Luis Obispo, CA
May 1996 Extremities Magazine Cover Art, Issue #2
1640 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Home Phone: 541-8290
Email: 4joneses@att.net
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 134
Exhibit B
REFERENCES
Describe fully the last two contracts performed by you, which demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the
project. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to cont act each of the references listed for
additional information regarding your qualifications.
Reference #1
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Address
(Street, City, State, and Zip
Code)
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Date Completed
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Pamela Mitchell
805-781-5022
pmitchell@co.slo.ca.us
New County Government Center
1055 Monterey Street, Suite D-250
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
$58,500.00
Fabricated and installed a powder-coated steel
sculpture (Stylus) on the exterior of the SLO
County Board of Supervisor’s building.
12/29/2007
Project outcome was successful (see photo).
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 135
REFERENCES
Describe fully the last two contracts performed by you, which demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the
project. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each o f the references listed for
additional information regarding your qualifications.
Reference #2
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Address
(Street, City, State, and Zip Code)
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Date Completed
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Address
(Street, City, State, and Zip Code)
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Date Completed
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Dan & Renae Patchett
805-467-3419
drpatch@wildblue.net
N/A
$12,000.00
Provided architectural design and plans for a 3320 Sq. Ft.
Victorian-style residence (with wrap-around porch and
turret) and a 1352 Sq. Ft. attached garage.
2004
Project outcome was successful.
Exhibit B
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 136
Exhibit B
REFERENCES
Describe fully the last two contracts performed by you, which demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the
project. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to cont act each of the references listed for
additional information regarding your qualifications.
Reference #1
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Address
(Street, City, State, and Zip
Code)
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Date Completed
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Hans R. Michel
805-227-4812
h.michel@vinarobles.com
3700 Mills Rd., Paso Robles, CA 93446
$3,000.00
Commissioned wine label for Vina Robles Winery. Hand
carved and printed three color limited edition prints, signed
and numbered for 200 magnum bottles, 6 1/2" x 3 1/4".
Some of my more recent relief works are on display in the
tasting room and the Vina Robles Gallery.
December, 2010
The Magnum release party coincided with a tree decorating
event for the Vina Robles Wine Club Members, whom I was
introduced to and gave a speech to, in regards to my label
design and process. I was asked to put additional autographs on
the bottles by some who had purchased the magnums. the retail
price for a magnum was $75, $65 for club members.
REFERENCES
Describe fully the last two contracts performed by you, which demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the project. Attach additional pages
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 137
REFERENCES
Describe fully the last two contracts performed by you, which demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the
project. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each o f the references listed for
additional information regarding your qualifications.
Reference #2
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Address
(Street, City, State, and Zip Code)
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Date Completed
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Address
(Street, City, State, and Zip Code)
Nature, location and medium of
art project installation
Contract Amount
Date Completed
Project Outcome
Contact Name
Kristina Myers
805-474-6114
kristinamyers@charter.net
See Below
I worked part time at $13.50 per hour for about a year.
Hired in February 2009 as a member of the art crew, in a brand new,
undecorated Trader Joe's Store, located in Santa Maria. I was given
assignments to delineate or attract and or guide customers to a certain
section or product. I created many large, three dimensional works,
primarily out of foam, coated and painted, which then had to be safely
attached to the existing structure.
N/A
Fun and unique relief sculptures adorn the Trader
Joe's in Santa Maria.
Exhibit B
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 138
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK | City of San Luis Obispo
ARTISTS’ APPROACH
JOHN T. JONES & JED JOYCE
CONCRETE JUNGLE
Our proposal is called CONCRETE JUNGLE; a place of concrete, steel, grittiness, and action. It
will be comprised of three different artistic elements: shade tree sculptures, skate track
concrete reliefs, and tile works.
The overarching design concept is based on skater vernacular. Words will be used as images
(with meaning intact or altered) in all of the work’s components and be dispersed throughout
the skate park.
The shade tree sculptures will be 20-25 feet in height and will be located on each side of the
stage and in the circular planter area. Their shape is derived from three basic motions of
skateboarding: the line, the circle, and the curve. The tree trunks will be upwardly curved
concrete forms that echo the wave wall beyond. They will provide places to sit or lean against
and can be skated on, too. The branches will be made from bolted steel I-beams left in a
natural unpainted state. They will support canopies of polished steel rings of varying sizes with
galvanized sheet metal shades, stenciled and cut with skating terms. The shade canopies will
cast shadows of the stenciled words upon the ground, reminiscent of dappled light through
leaves. The trees are representative of individual and group identity. One tree grows strong
among many in a forest.
The design of the concrete reliefs is based on the skateboard. Two parallel lines represent
wheel tracks and between them will be alternating capsule and circle shapes representing the
skateboard and wheels. The two shapes will contain stenciled word patterns. The skate tracks
will be impressed into the concrete on vertical surfaces throughout the skate park.
Symbolically, they represent the shade trees’ roots.
The ceramic tile for the coped edge of the pools will be approximately four inches square. They
will feature the stenciled names of pool-related skate stunts superimposed over the diagonal
bars of caution tape.
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 139
FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES
There are three fundamental objectives that we want to achieve with this project. The first is
to incorporate skateboard culture as a design element; its unique history and colorful language,
as well as its spirit of DIY individualism. The second goal is to create a transition space between
the park and the skating area. This will be achieved by combining the disparate qualities of the
soft-edged park landscaping with the hard-edged skate park concrete and introducing the
element of height. The third objective is to create a work of art that is complimentary to the
surrounding environment yet has its own sense of identity and purpose; an artistic statement
that works within the established narrative and independently of it.
ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY
We look forward to sharing our ideas with the community at large and its representatives.
Authenticity is important to our work and we will seek guidance from the skate community to
help us keep it real.
MATERIALS
The materials proposed for use, as mentioned above, should be more than adequate to meet
the requirements of durability, longevity, and weather resistance. Since the artwork is integral
with the skate park we don’t anticipate an increase in vandalism directly attributable to it.
Climbing shouldn’t be an issue either, as the I-beams are nearly vertical and the canopies are
located quite high up. We strived to employ materials that require very little maintenance,
such as concrete, raw steel and galvanized sheet metal.
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 140
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 141
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 142
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 143
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 144
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK | City of San Luis Obispo
CONCRETE JUNGLE
A Public Art Installation
Estimated Project Budget
PROJECT BUDGET
Estimated
Project
Budget
Design 46,000$
*Insurance & permitting 6,000$
*Shade Tree Architectural Plans 15,000$
*Concrete Jungle Technical Drawings 15,000$
*Structural Eng Calcs (Bob Vesseley)10,000$
Construction 194,000$
*Manufactured pool Tile (pre-manuf) *Per page CP-1.1 "contractor shall install tile provided by artists"2,500$
*Concrete Art (painted signs)6,500$
*Fabrication & Install ($46,250 per tree)185,000$
*Lighting (Materials and Installation) (3 lights per tree, $2,500 each x 12 branches) - To Be Awarded at a Later Date
Through Contract Amendment when Ambient Lighting Needs Are Known.
*Concrete/Steel Materials and pour for tree trunk bases ($25K each trunk x 4 trees = $100,000) Awarded through
Construction Contract.-$
Construction Inspection -$
*Bob Vesseley (Estimated $6,000) Awarded Through Construction Contract.-$
TOTAL Public Art PROJECT BUDGET 240,000$
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 145
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK | City of San Luis Obispo
CONCRETE JUNGLE
JOHN T. JONES & JED JOYCE
PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
APRIL: Sign Contract
MAY: Prepare Architectural & Structural Plans
Plans Approved by The City
JUNE-JULY: Fabricate & Install Shade Trees
Supply Pool Tile to Skate Park Contractor
AUGUST: Fabricate Street Sign Stencils
SEPTEMBER: Paint Street Elements
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 146
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK | City of San Luis Obispo
CONCRETE JUNGLE
JOHN T. JONES & JED JOYCE
PRELIMINARY LIST OF CONTRACTOR’S
Steel Fabrication: Jeff Thies
Thiessen Design
200-G Suburban Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-547-1947
info@thiessendesign.com
Electrical: Dave Nichols
Dave Nichols Electric
PO Box 158
San Miguel, CA 93451
805-550-6190
dnicholselect@gmail.com
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 147
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 148
City of San Luis Obispo
PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE RECORD
Artist: ___________________________________________________________
Title of Work: ___________________________________________________________
Project Address: ___________________________________________________________
City Job or File No.: ___________________________________________________________
PART I - FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION INFORMATION
MATERIALS
1. Material(s) used (be specific; include also source or manufacturer, life expectancy of material
according to manufacturer; attach manufacturer's technical data sheets, if available):
2. Material finish (e.g., natural, paint color and type, glaze, patina, sealer, fire retardant, etc.; be
specific; include also brand or manufacturer):
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 149
Public Art Maintenance Record
Page - 2 -
3. Materials used in the presentation of the artwork (e.g., composition of base or backing, framing,
type of hanging fixtures, etc.):
FABRICATION
1. Fabricator:
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
2. Fabrication technique or method (attach diagrams or drawings, if necessary):
INSTALLATION
1. Installation executed by:
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 150
Public Art Maintenance Record
Page - 3 -
2. Installation method (attach plans showing footing and/or key installation details):
EXTERNAL FACTORS
1. Describe physical positioning of the artwork (e.g., measured distances from relative objects or
points in the environment):
2. Describe existing environmental factors which may affect the condition of the artwork and any
precautionary measures (e.g., direct sunlight, extremes of annual rain, temperature, air
moisture or dryness, acidity of rainfall, flooding, wind, erosion, vibrations, air pollutants,
vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic; animal interaction --bird droppings, potential for nesting,
burrowing; human interaction with artwork--touching, sitting, climbing, vandalism):
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 151
Public Art Maintenance Record
Page - 4 -
DESIRED APPEARANCE
1. Describe the desired appearance in specific terms including the physical qualities such as
matte rather than glossy luster; color of patina etc., for which the agency should strive in order
to maintain the artist's intent. Describe what may be acceptable alterations in form surface,
texture and coloration as related to natural aging of materials. Include drawings or
photographs which show the condition of the artwork upon installation:
2. If the work is site-specific, describe in detail the particular relationship of the work to its site,
including any significant physical aspects of the site, which, if altered, would significantly alter
the artist's intended meaning and/or appearance for the work (attach drawings as appropriate):
PACKING AND SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please explain how the art should be packed and shipped should the artwork ever need to be
transported (be specific, attach diagrams if necessary):
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 152
Public Art Maintenance Record
Page - 5 -
PART II - CONSERVATION INSTRUCTIONS
The Artist should provide detailed instructions regarding the methods and frequency of maintenance
for the artwork as follows (attach additional information as appropriate):
1. Routine maintenance (e.g., removal of dust, dirt; maintenance of protective surfaces;
tightening, adjusting, oiling; trimming of plant materials, etc.):
2. Cyclic maintenance (less frequent and more extensive preventive measures, e.g., disassembly
and inspection; reapplication of protective sealers; repainting; cleaning of textiles, etc.):
3. Who should be considered competent to perform cyclic maintenance? Describe any special
training, materials, tools, or procedures required.
4. Who should be considered competent to perform significant repairs?
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 153
Public Art Maintenance Record
Page - 6 -
5. Describe any special training, materials, tools, or procedures required for refitting, replacing, or
reconstructing portions of the artwork damaged by vandalism, accidents, disasters, or
weathering:
Maintenance Record Approved and Accepted:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Name Date
ARTIST
Name Date
Attachments
Please list:
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 154
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 155
G:Reference-Library\Forms-Templates\DevRevForms\Inspections and Management\Encroachment Permit Checklist
City of San Luis Obispo Contact for Permit Information:
Matt LaFreniere
805-781-7015 or mlafreni@slocity.org
Encroachment Permit Checklist:
This checklist was created as a guide to help applicants with submittals. Additional information may be required prior to permit approval.
Contractor Information:
• Company Name/Contractor Name
• Mailing address of business
• Names of persons authorized to sign for
permits
• Phone number of business
• Cell phone numbers
• Fax
• Email
• Contractors State License Number
Insurance: The City of San Luis Obispo requires a certificate of liability insurance with at least $1 million
in general liability coverage AND a CG 2012 additional insured endorsement attached to it.
Please email a current liability insurance certificate to Matt LaFreniere, mlafreni@slocity.org, with a CG 2012
additional insured endorsement attached. The CG 2012 (or an approved equivalent) is required and names the
City of San Luis Obispo as additionally insured under your policy. An example form is available online
at: http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/documents/cg2012.pdf. Please provide this example form to your
insurance provider so the endorsement can be issued under your policy.
Contractors State License: A valid Contractors State License is required. The contractor must be licensed
for the type of work to be performed.
City Business License: A current City business license must be maintained. For information on obtaining a
City business license, please visit: http://www.slocity.org/finance/businesstax.asp.
Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plan: Please submit the following form with your traffic and/or pedestrian
control plan: http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/documents/trafficcontrolapp.pdf. Traffic and pedestrian
control plans are generally reviewed within five working days of their submittal date.
Construction Plans: These include building plans, engineering plans, miscellaneous project plans, public
improvement plans, and subdivision plans. Necessary construction plans must be submitted and approved prior
to permit issuance.
Engineering Standards: Encroachment permit work must conform to City Engineering Standards and
Standard Specifications, unless alternate plans are approved. Applicants should reference specific standards in
their plan submittals, as they apply.
Engineering Standards: http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/std-index.asp
Standard Specifications: http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/stds/slostdspecs.pdf
Night Work Permit: Work between the hours of 7:00pm and 7:00am is called “night work.” A separate
permit must be obtained through the Community Development Department if night work is necessary. Please
contact the Planning Division at 805-781-7170 to apply for a night work permit. To allow adequate time for
processing, please submit night work applications at least four weeks prior to the proposed start date of the
work. Night work applications require a separate fee.
Payment of Encroachment Permit Fees: Please reference the current fee schedule:
http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/documents/engfee.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 156
Encroachment Permit General Provisions
1. Authority: Each Encroachment Permit is issued in accordance with theCity of San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code, Title 12.
2. Revocation: These General Provisions, and any Encroachment Permit issued hereunder,
are revocable or subject to modification or abrogation at any time, without prejudice,
however, to prior rights, including those evidenced by joint use agreements, franchise
rights, reserved rights, or any other agreements for operating purposes in the public right -
of-way.
3. Responsible Party: No party other than the named permittee or their agent is
authorized to work under any permit.
4. Acceptance of Provisions: It is understood and agreed by the permittee that the doing
of any work under this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions of this permit
and all attachments.
5. Notice Prior to Starting Work: Before starting work under the Encroachment Permit,
the permittee shall notify the designated City representative two (2) working days prior to
initial start of work. When work has been interrupted for more than five (5) working days,
an additional 24-hour notification is required before restarting work unless a pre-arranged
agreement has been made with the City’s representative.Unless otherwise specified, all
work shall be performed on weekdays and during normal working hours (7AM - 5PM) of the
City Inspector.
6. Standards of Construction: All work performed within the public right-of-way shall
conform to recognized standards of construction and the current City of San Luis Obispo
Engineering Standards, Standard Specifications, City Policies and CALTRANS Manual of
Traffic Controls (for Construction and Maintenance Work Zon es).
7. Inspection and Approval by the City: All work shall be subject to monitoring,
inspection, and approval by the City. All inspection requests must be received, by the
inspector, at least 4 hours prior to inspection.The permittee shall request a final inspection
and acceptance of the work.
8. Keep Permit on the Work Site: The Encroachment Permit or a copy thereof shall be
kept at the site of the work and must be shown to any representative of the City or any law
enforcement officer on demand. Work shall be suspended if permit is not at job site as
provided.
9. Conflicting Permits: If a prior encroachment conflicts with the proposed work, the new
permittee must arrange for any necessary removal or relocation with the prior permittee.
Any such removal or relocation will be at no expense to the City.
10. Permits From Other Agencies: The party or parties to whom a permit is issued shall,
whenever required by law, secure the written authorization for any work that must be
approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of the State of California, CAL -OSHA, or
any other public agency having jurisdiction. Failure to comply with the law, as noted above,
will invalidate the City’s permit.
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 157
11. Provisions for Pedestrians: Where facilities exist, a minimum sidewalk and bike path
width of four feet (4’) shall be maintained at all times for safe passage through the work
area. At no time shall pedestrians be diverted onto a portion of the street used for vehicular
traffic. At locations where adjacent alternate walkways cannot be provided, appropriate
signs and barricades shall be installed at the limits of construction and in advance of the
closure at the nearest crosswalk or intersection to divert pedestrians across the street.
12. Protection of Traffic: Adequate provisions shall be made for the protection of the
traveling public. Warning signs, lights and safety devices and other measures required for
the public safety, shall conform to the requirements of CALTRANS’ Manual of Traffic
Controls. Traffic control for day or nighttime lane closures shall be in compliance
with Caltrans Standard Plans for Traffic Control Systems. Nothing in the permit is intended,
as to third parties, to impose on permittee any duty, or standard of care, greater than or
different than the duty or standard of care imposed by law.
13. Minimum Interference with Traffic: All work shall be planned and carried out so that
there will be the least possible inconvenience to the traveling public. The permittee is
authorized to place properly attired flagger(s) to stop and warn conventional highway
traffic. Traffic shall not be unreasonably delayed. Flagging procedures shall be in compliance
withCALTRANS’ Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zo nes.
14. Storage of Equipment and Materials: The permittee shall delineate/cone off any
obstacle, material stored, or equipment parked adjacent to the lane, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. Utilities are subject to the provisions of Section 22512 of the California
Vehicle Code (CVC).
15. Care of Drainage: If the work contemplated in any Encroachment Permit shall
interfere with the established drainage, ample provisions shall be made by the permittee to
provide for it as may be directed by the City Engineer.
16. Making Repairs: In every case, the permittee shall be responsible for restoring to its
former condition as nearly as may be possible any portion of the public right -of-way
facilities which has been excavated or otherwise disturbed by permittee. The permittee shall
maintain, for one year, all portions of the public right -of-way disturbed and/or placed under
any permit. If the highway is not restored as herein provided for, or if the City elects to
make repairs, permittee agrees to bear the cost thereof.
17. Clean Up Right-of-Way: Upon completion of the work, all brush, timber, scraps,
material, etc. shall be entirely removed and the right -of-way shall be left in as presentable a
condition as existed before work started.
18. Cost of Work: Unless otherwise stated on the permit or other separate written
agreement, all costs incurred for work within the public right -of-way pursuant to this
Encroachment Permit shall be borne by the permittee, and permittee hereby waives all
claims for indemnification or contribution from the City for such work.
19. Submit Plan: For installation of all underground facilities, and all surface work or other
activity of consequence, the permittee shall furnish three (3) sets of plans showing location
and construction or other activity.
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 158
20. Bonding: This permit shall not be effective for any purpose unless, and until the
permittee files with the City a surety bond when required by the City Engineer in the form
and amount required by the City’s Municipal Code. A bond is not ordinarily required of any
public corporation or publicly or privately-owned utility but will be required of any utility that
fails to meet any obligation arising out of the work permitted or done under an
Encroachment Permit or fails to maintain its plant, work, or facilities. The said bond shall
remain in force for a period of one (1) year after acceptance of the work by the City (See
M.C. Section 12.04.050).
21. Maintenance of the Public Right-of-Way: The permittee agrees, by acceptance of a
permit, to properly maintain any encroachment. This will require inspection and repair of
any damage to City facilities resulting from the encroachment.
22. Responsibility for Damage: The City of San Luis Obispo and all officers and
employees thereof, including but not limited to the Director of Public Works and the City
Engineer, shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner, for injury to or death of
any person, including but not limited to the permittee, persons employed by the permittee,
persons acting in behalf of the permittee, or for damage to property from any cause. The
permittee shall be responsible for any liability imposed by law and for injuries to or death of
any person, including but not limited to the permittee, persons employed by t he permittee,
persons acting in behalf of the permittee, or damage to property arising out of work or
other activity permitted and done by the permittee under a permit, or arising out of the
failure on the permittee’s part to perform his obligations under any permit in respect to
maintenance or any other obligations, or resulting from defects or obstructions, or from any
cause whatsoever during the progress of the work, or other activity, or at any subsequent
time work or other activity is being performed under the obligations provided by and
contemplated by the permit.
The permittee shall indemnify and save harmless the City of San Luis Obispo and all officers
and employees thereof, including but not limited to the Director of Public Works and the City
Engineer, from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or
on account of injuries to or death of any person, including but not limited to the permittee,
persons employed by the permittee, persons acting in behalf of the permittee and the
public, or damage to property resulting from the performance of work or other activity
under the permit, or arising out of the failure on the permittee’s part to perform his
obligations under any permit in respect to maintenance or any other obligations, or resulting
from defects or obstructions, or from any cause whatsoever during the progress of the
work, or other activity or at any subsequent time work or other activity is being performed
under the obligations provided by and contemplated by the permit, except as otherwise
provided by statute. The duty of the permittee to indemnify and save harmless includes the
duties to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the Civil Code. The permittee waives any
and all rights to any type of expressed or implied indemnity against the City, its officers or
employees. It is the intent of the parties that the permittee will indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its officers and employees from any and all claims, suits or actions as set
forth above regardless of the existence or degree of fault or negligence, whether active or
passive, primary or secondary, on the part of the City, the permittee, persons employed by
the permittee, or persons acting in behalf of the permittee.
23. No Precedent Established: This permit is issued with the understanding that any
particular action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent: (1) on the question
of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment to be erected within the
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 159
public right-of-way; or (2) as to any utility of the acceptability of any such permits as to any
other or future situation.
24. Archaeological: The permittee shall cease work in the vicinity of any archaeological
resources that are revealed. The City Engineer shall be notified immediately. A qualified
archaeologist, retained by the permittee, will evaluate the situation and make
recommendations to the City Engineer concerning the continuation of the work.
25. Future Moving of Installations: It is understood that whenever City construction,
reconstruction or maintenance work in the public right -of-way requires the installation to be
moved, adjusted or relocated, the permittee, at his sole expense, upon request of the City,
shall comply with said request.
ATTACHMENT 7
B3 - 160
Attachment 8
B3 - 161
Attachment 8
B3 - 162
Attachment 8
B3 - 163
Attachment 8
B3 - 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
B3
-
1
6
5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
B3
-
1
6
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
B3
-
1
6
7
Attachment 8
B3 - 168
Attachment 8
B3 - 169
Attachment 8
B3 - 170
Attachment 8
B3 - 171
Attachment 8
B3 - 172
Attachment 8
B3 - 173
Attachment 8
B3 - 174
Attachment 8
B3 - 175
Attachment 8
B3 - 176
Attachment 8
B3 - 177
Attachment 8
B3 - 178
Attachment 8
B3 - 179
Attachment 8
B3 - 180
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AWARDING THE
CONTRACT FOR SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO.
90752
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2014, the City Council authorized bids for the Santa Rosa
Skate Park Project, Specification No. 90752 (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project’s bidding instructions required bidders to have Public Works
experience constructing projects of similar size for a public agency, and to provide references for
three Public Works projects for a Public Agency completed as the prime contractor, which
included grading and earthwork, concrete work, metal work and asphalt work with all projects
completed with the last five years from the project’s bid opening date; and
WHEREAS, bids were opened on February 20, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Pickard and Butters Construction, Inc. (“PBC”) was the apparent low
bidder, ProWest was the apparent second low bidder, and T. Simons was the apparent third low
bidder; and
WHEREAS, ProWest filed a bid protest against PBC, which the Public Works Director
denied, and ProWest did not file an appeal of said protest determination; and
WHEREAS, T. Simons filed a bid protest against ProWest, which the Public Works
Director denied, and T. Simons did not file an appeal of said protest; and
WHEREAS, upon review of PBC’s references and follow-up communications with the
reference contacts City staff found that two of the three projects were not completed at time of
bid opening and the third project was not for a public agency, and thus, were not responsive to
the bid specifications; and
WHEREAS, Public Works notified PBC of the City’s findings that PBC’s references
were not responsive to the bid specifications and invited PBC to attend a hearing with the City
Engineer on March 21, 2014, wherein PBC was given an opportunity to provide clarification on
the three referenced projects and to offer information demonstrating that the projects referenced
complied with the bid specifications; and
WHEREAS, after said hearing, the City Engineer concluded that the three referenced
projects did not meet the requirements of the bid specifications and determined that the bid
submission was not responsive to the bid invitation; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2014, the City Engineer notified PBC of the determination;
and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2014, PBC submitted a timely appeal to the City Engineer’s
determination.
WHEREAS, based on review and follow up with ProWest’s references, the City
Engineer has determined that ProWest is the lowest responsive responsible bidder.
ATTACHMENT 9
B3 - 181
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appeal submitted
by PBC protesting the finding that PBC did not submit the lowest responsive bid from a
responsible bidder, , staff recommendations and reports thereon, public testimony, and the
foregoing recitals, incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, makes the following
findings:
a. PBC did not submit a responsive bid because it failed to provide the references as
required by the bid specifications, or in the alternative, pursuant to Section 3.24.210
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, PBC lacks the requisite experience, and thus,
is not responsible.
b. ProWest submitted the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council awards the contract for the Santa Rosa Skate
Park Project, Specification No. 90752 to ProWest Constructors of Wildomar, California in
the amount of $1,700,000.00 (Base Bid plus all additive alternates) and authorizes the Mayor
to execute the agreement.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 9
B3 - 182
Kremke, Kate ! MAY -1 9, 2014
i
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 9:47 PM
To: Kremke, Kate; Goodwin, Heather
Subject: Fwd: skate park cost
Council Correspondence
AGENDA
Begin forwarded message: CORRESPONDENCE
Date 4 -15-1 Item#
From: Pam <pracouillat @charter.net>
Date: May 10, 2014 at 9:15:46 PM EDT
To: "Ashbaugh, John" <iashbaug @slocity.org >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpent @slocity.org >, "Christianson,
Carlyn" <cchristi @slocity.org >, "Codron, Michael" <mcodron @slocity.orQ >, "Dietrick, Christine"
<cdietric @slocity.org >, "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtig @slocity.org >, "Marx, Jan" <jmarx @slocity.org >, "Smith,
Kathy" <ksmith @slocity.org >, " Mejia, Anthony" <ameiia @slocity.org>
Subject: skate park cost
Dear City Council Members,
Two plus million dollars for a skate park - really? Isn't that excessive during these times of budget
constraint? Please reconsider spending 2.2million dollars on a skate park. I feel certain that a decent
skate park can be constructed for far less money. And it seems appropriate that those who really want a
new skate park to start collecting donations privately.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Pam Racouillat
o CILMSU' This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
W fro#
1fi Y 97
Q
Parks & Recreation
1341 Niporno Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3934
805.781.7300
Am i,; y.l
Date: April 15, 2014
To: City Council
Via: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
From: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks & Recreation Director
Melissa C. Mudgett, Recreation & Public Art Manager
Subject: Santa Rosa Skate Park Council Correspondence
V �E
A R 15 2014
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date-1/151/,q Item# �3=
In response to a Council Member's questions regarding the public art component of B -3 see the
following below:
1. Where are the four trees to be located?
A schematic site plan is attached and identifies the four (4) proposed tree locations. The artists,
Engineers, Advisory Bodies and City staff have worked together to identify suitable tree locations
within the site and incorporate these locations into the design and construction plans for the
project and they were reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on
November 6, 2013 and by the Architectural Review Commission at its December 2, 2013 meeting
and by Council on December 10, 2013.
2. Will the steel tree canopies to be reviewed and approved by an engineer with the appropriate
qualifications?
All public art is to be designed in accordance with City Specifications and Engineering Standards.
Structural engineering analysis and plans have been provided and approved for the concrete "tree
bases ". The same analysis is required for the tops of the "trees" (tree limbs /shade canopies).
Section 1 -2 (a) and (d) of the Agreement for Commission of Public Artwork specifies that the artists
shall prepare specifications and technical structural drawings in elevation and plans for the metal
tree limbs (canopy shade structures) rp for to the installation and in compliance with appropriate
codes. Section 1 -4 (c), (d) and (e) of the Agreement details delivery and installation requirements.
The artists will be required to obtain proper permitting, insurances and traffic control plans in
accordance with adopted City Engineering Standards prior to delivery and installation of the
artwork.
3. Are the "Concrete Art (painted signs)" in the Estimated Project Budget on p. 63 -145 with a cost
of $6,500.
Yes and these art stencils will mimic standard streetscape and pedestrian walkway signs. The
recommended thermoplastic traffic paint is used for traffic line marking of highways, streets, roads
and crosswalks. This type of paint has excellent color retention, offers Ultra - Violet (UV) stability
and is extremely durable.
4. Please provide more details regarding the pool tiles.
The pre- manufactured industrial ceramic tiles have real photo imagery of actual recycled
skateboard decks collected through i Ride i Recycle. Each screen image is individual. Each tile
measures 3" x 6 ", is UVA protected and waterproof and are made for industrial and outdoor uses.
The tiles will be placed around the perimeter of the skate bowl. The intent is to mimic the look and
feel of a swimming pool coping. This design element was a part of the prior project approval.
5. Is a 10% retention enough to assure that we are going to get a completed art project and why
is the lighting a contract amendment?
Payment schedules of 45% upon execution of agreement, 45% at mid -point and 10% upon final
acceptance is standard for public art commissions. The payment at mid -point provides critical
funding needed for site installation of artwork. Prior to approval of any payment, the artists agree
to submit to the City progress reports of work completed to -date. All payments will be subject to
review and acceptance of work by the City. Public art lighting has been excluded from the artists
agreement until more is known about the ambient lighting needs of the skate park. The skate park
facility is designed to have perimeter skate park facility lighting during operating hours (dusk to
10:00pm) of the park to accommodate evening users of the park.
T-
------------- - - - -- -: A ---------- - - - - -- - - - -- _p
I I _
k
¢ a �
I w F
1 a I I z
I Im
li
I
II Iv
I
I
1 1'
1 I
I 1 I
1 _
I j
I �
i : �• "�
` rr
_ - —°_---- _------ _-------- --------
-.- _,..' •� "� 1•f Yy >! 1
YCLL /
f
CCF 1 S
- I 1
n ,r 1
1 ` }
� 1
I —nl
_ r 1
I
o /
o
ro I
f.j
+j.
C) i i SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK
n g pIN � city of
v �� ;1 rrmc r:,t I:;r� rou •
[speoplc,.. ° san lugs OBIS PO
CONSTRUCTION PLAN .����u -
o CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION `"