HomeMy WebLinkAboutWilldan Engineering 6.26.13cltyo[sân luls ontspo
Community Development Department. glg Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on 26, June, 20l3,by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and V/illdan
Engineering, hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City wants to have plan review services performed related to the MindBody project.
WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to perform this type of service and has submitted a proposal to do so
which has been accepted by City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
l. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,
as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay
and Consultant shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed $14,000.
4. CONSULTAIIT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to provide services as set
forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to the contract
performance terms as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specihcally incorporated herein shall be of
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
aL\
Paqe 2Agreement
Agreement Page 3
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:Willdan Engineering
Attn: Roxanne Hughes
374 Poli St., Suite 101
Ventura, CA 93001-2605
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that
each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
IN V/ITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF SAN L A Municipal Corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM Consultant: V/illdan
By:
City Attorney
City
By:
CityCity
2.
Exhibit B
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE TERMS
10
Business Tax. Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate
prior to execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134'
Ability to Perform. Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts,
all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete
the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district
laws, ordinances, and regulations.
Laws to be Observed. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that
Consultant is required to pay.
Permits and Licenses. Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and give all notices necessary.
Safety Provisions. Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
Public and Employee Safety. Whenever Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to
the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect
and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take
such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the
public and employees.
Preservation of City Property. Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged as a result of Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at Consultant's
expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the
Consultant began work.
Immigration Act of 1986. Consultant wanants on behalf of itself and all sub-Consultants
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws
shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder'
Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, Consultant agrees that it will
not engage in, nor permit such sub-Consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination ín
employment of persons because of age, Íace, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
Work Delays. Should Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes,
fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time
of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon
by the City and the Consultant.
J
4
5
6.
7
B
9
11
Exhibit B: Contract Performance Terms Page B-2
I2
13.
14.
15
16.
t7
18
Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the services provided by Consultant (Net 30).
Inspection. Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain
that the services of Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and
intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials fumished, if any, shall be subject to
the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of
any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Consultant in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Consultant.
Interests of Consultant. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest direct or indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub-Consultant or person having such an interest shall be employed.
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this
work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance
of the work hereunder, Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant and not
an agent or employee of the City.
Ilold Harmless and Indemnification. Consultant øgrees to defend, indemnìfy, protect ønd
hold the City and íts agents, officers and employees harmless from and øgainst any and all
cløims asserted or liability established for damages or ínjuries to any person or properq),
ìncluding injury to Consultønt's employees, øgents or officers which arise from or are
connected wìth or are caused or cløimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of Consultant,
and its agents, officers or employees, in perþrming the work or services hereín, and øll
expenses of ínvestigating and defending against same; provided, however, thut Consultant's
duty to ìndemnify ønd hold harmless shall not ínclude any claìms or liability arísíng from the
estøblished sole negligence or wíllful misconduct of the City, its ngents, officers or employees.
Year 2000 Compliance. The Consultant warrants that the goods or services provided to the City,
including those provided through subConsultants, are "Year 2000 compliant." For the purpose of
this contract, "Year 2000 compliant" means that goods or services provided to the City will
continue to fully function, fault-free, before, at and after the Year 2000, without intemrption or
human intervention; and if applicable, any data outside of the date range 1990-1999, including
leap years, will be correctly processed in any level of computer hardware or software, including,
but not limited to, microcode, firmware, application programs, files and data bases. This
warranty supersedes all warranty disclaimers or limitations, and all limitations on liability,
otherwise provided by the Consultant.
Upon recluest by the City, the Consultant will provide the City with a description of its Year 2000
compliance strategy, or statement of why this is not relevant to contract performance.
Contract Assignment. Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the
conttact, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or
business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
Termination. If during the term of the contract, the City determines that Consultant is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notiff Consultant in
\9.
20.
Exhibit B: Contract Performance Terms Page B-3
2l
writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice must give Consultant a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in
the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract
immediately by written notice to Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have
any further duties, obligations, responsibilities or rights under the contract.
In said event, Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from
the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such
breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone
or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement
payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by
Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in
completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a
fulI and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall Consultant be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal'
Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, informatioî, da|a, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications
shall be the property of City, and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by
Consultant without the prior written approval of the City.
Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection
with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees
or sub-Consultants.
22.
a.Mínimum scope of insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence
form CG 0001).
Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. llBT) covering
Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and
Employer's Liability Insurance.
Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to Consultant's
profession.
b. Minimum limíts of insurflnce. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
General Liability: $1,000,000 per occuffence for bodily injury, personal injury
and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a
general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply
a
a
a
a
cffy oF
sân Luls ontspo
CITY MANAGER REPORT
Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved
City Administration K. Lichtig
Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date RevÍewed
City Attorney jcd 7n0
Finance & Information Technology WP 7n8/13
Public Works drg 7/12
April Il,2013
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Retention of outside counsel for Eminent Domain
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the retention of attomey Michael Yoshiba and execute a retainer agreement with the law
firm of Richards Watson Gershon to advise City Staff on eminent domain issues related to property
acquisition for the LOVR/ US -101 Interchange project.
DISCUSSION
Public Works and the City Attorney's Office published a Council Agenda Report for the July 16,
2013, City Council meeting, which proposes to adopt a resolution of necãssity to u.q.rir" u
Temporary Construction Easement (TCE), which is necessary to facilitate construction of the
LOVR US-101 Interchange Project. The TCE is being sought from properry owned by Bp V/est
Coast Products, LLC, who in turn leases the property to the franchisèe o*nãr, BNB Gas & Mart.
The City must have possession of the TCE area by February 2014, based on the current project
timeline to obtain right of way certification from Cal Trans. To meet that deadline, the City
either needs to obtain a written purchase and sale agreement from the property now or begin thê
eminent domain process. The eminent domain process, which includes uãopiitrg a resoluiion of
necessity, filing a complaint in eminent and moving the Court for an ordei of possession takes
several months because of noticing and hearing requirements.
On January 22, 2013, in a properly noticed closed session for real property negotiations, the
Council provided parameters to staff under which it would consider purchasing the TCE from
BP. Accordingly, through its right of way agent, Hamner, Jewell & Associates, the City
presented an offer to acquire the TCE to BP on February 6,2013. Initially, Bp indicated the
offer would be acceptable, but needed to do their due diligence before acòeptance.
Unfortunately, two intervening events occurred before its acceptance. First, Bp entered into
escrow to sell the subject property to the franchisee owner. BP indicated that they anticipated
Retention of Outside Counsel Page 2
they could still grant the TCE before closing escrow' How mg
the government-code offer, left BP to go to another BP sub k
ovei decided to simply not deal with the gover tent offer,
Although Hamner Jèwell ,& Associates has attempted to ascertain the date on which the parties
may clãse escrow, based on their conversations with BP, BP originally thought the close date
would be July 1, but that did not happen.
The close of escrow between BP and the franchisee owner is completely outside the control of
the City. If the City were to wait for the close of escrow with the franchisee owner, and
negotiáted sale with the franchisee owner was not reached, the City would not be able to obtain
un"order of possession for the TCE areaby February 2014, risking Project funding and Project
completion.
Because the property is important to the project and because of the potential complexities
involved with the reiationsÎrip of the franchisee and the current owner, the City Attorney felt it
was important to have experf counsel engaged to review the documents being presented to
Council in advance of the hearing on the resolution of necessity. The city Attorney engaged
Richards Watson Gershon for initial document review under department head authority.
However, if any complexities arise related to the transfer of the property, it will be important to
have counsel familiai with the documents ready to act quickly in the event Council adopts the
resolution of necessity and such services may exceed department head pwchasing authority'
Thus, staff is requesting City Manager authority to enter into an agreement for engagement for
full representation in this matter.
If the Council adopts the Resolution of Necessity, the City will need to commence an eminent
domain action in superior court as soon as possible and move for an order of possession. Such
litigation exceeds thi current capacity and expertise of the City Attorney's Office' The City's
Financial Management Manual recommends formal requests for proposals for matters that
exceed $25,000- However, there is not suffrcient time to do a formal RFP or to rely upon the
RFe that the Council approved for Outside Counsel legal services at the July 2,2013 meeting'
Reqiesting informal requests for proposa fficient for matters
under $ZS,OOO, and here, all firms with w inquired indicated
proposed budgets to file the complaint and obtai under $25'000'
Based on the proposals and follow up inquires of the proposing firms, the City Attorney selected
Michael yoshiba of the firm Richards v/àtson Gershon to represent the city. Although the city
may consider price, for special services the determining factor is whether the person or entity has
the special skiil, not neceìsarily price. (Gov. Code, $ 53060) Mr' Yoshiba's articulated analysis
of the case was extremely thorôugh and anticip u ed a detailed review of the pre-condemnation
record, as well as contingencies that could complicate the case. The primary reason for the
selection was Mr. Yoshiba's extensive experience with Cal Trans and as a right of way agent
(see attached bio) and his signif,rcant experience in g1s station acquisitions specifically related to
interchange projects and involving franchisees. Additionally, that experience includes the
following projects:
l. Shell gas station andcar wash for SR 101 interchange project at Kanan Road, Los
Angeles County - Stipulation for Judgment. This case involved a temporary construction
Retention of Outside Gounsel Page 3
easement, apartial take of a fee interest, and claims for access impairment, site circulation
impairment, and bonus value of leasehold interest, a franchise agreement damage claim, and a
claim for loss of business goodwill;
2. Chevron gas station for SR 101 interchange project at Kanan Road, Los Angeles
County - Stipulation for Judgment. This case also involved a temporary construction easement,
apartial take of a fee interest, claims for access impairment, site circulation impairment, and
bonus value of leasehold interest, a franchise agreement damage claim, and a claim for loss of
business goodwill;
3. Mobil gas station for I-5 interchange project at Brookhurst Avenue, Orange County -
Five day Bench trial-judgment at statutory offer. This case involved a temporary construction
easement, apafüal take of a fee interest, claims for access impairment and site circulation
impairment, and a loss of business goodwill claim;
4. ARCO gas station for I-10 interchange project, Los Angeles County - Stipulation for
Judgment. This case involved a temporary construction easement, a partial take of a fee interest,
claims for access impairment and site circulation impairment, and a claim for loss of business
goodwill;
5. Chevron gas station for airport safety project at Bob Hope Airport on Hollywood
Way, Los Angeles County - Stipulation for Judgment. This case involved a full take of a fee
interest, site remediation and liability issues, and a claim for loss of business goodwill;
6. ARCO gas station for redevelopment project on Alondra Boulevard in Los Angeles
County - Stipulation for Judgment. This case involved a full take of a fee interest, and site
contamination and remediation liability issues.
The summary of proposing firms is as follows:
Attorney/Firm Location Other Staff Proposed Budget for
Complaint
Todd Amspoker
Price, Postel & Parma, LLP
Benjamin Stock
Burke Williams & Sorenson
Michael Yoshiba
Richards Watson Gershon
James P. Gilpin
Best, Best & Krieger LLP
Hourly
Rate
S¡rs/nr. None identified S4,500-55,ooo*Santa
Barba ra
Oakland 5275/hr Associate SZaO/hr
Paralegal $IaO/hr
Los
Angeles
Szso/rrr Other Attorneys
$zso/hr
Paralegal SfSO/nr
Szso/nr
Paralegal S2OO/hr
S+ooo (but advised
would be less if staff
took certain steps)
Ss,ooo-Sz,ooo
San
Diego
S3oo/hr S15,ooo
Retention of Outside Counsel Page 4
*All estimates include file and appraisal review, complaint
preparation, lis pendens, application for pre-judgment
possession, and deposit of probable compensation.
CONCURRENCES
Public Works concurs in the recommendation to retain outside counsel.
FISCAL IMPACT
LOVR Interchange Improvements has been an on-going capital improvement project for the past
decade. Funding for the LOVR Interchange project has been a combination of general fund,
transportation impact fees, grants and developer contributions. Project funding has been
identified in the subsequent Financial Plans as indicated below;
2003-05 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 164-167
2005-07 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 147-150
2007-09 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-191 to 3-200
2009-11 Financial Plan, Appendix B, Pages 3-169 to 3-172
20lI-13 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-133 to 3-136
2013-15 Financial Plan, pages 3-253 to 3-255
Currently, there is $1,098,825.50 available in the project account to support the requests for
retention of counsel for eminent domain litigation, continued services of right-of-way agents to
assist with property negotiations and provide the probable compensation payment as required by
the State oi Culifor.ria for eminent domain. Expenditures related to eminent domain litigation
will be billed directly to the capital project account for land acquisition processes
ALTERNATIVES
None. Advising on the eminent domain issues exceeds the current capacity of the City
Attorney's Offrce, and the Office lacks the necessafy support services if the matter goes into
litigation.
\\chstore4\Team\City Manager Reports\City Attorney9013\CMR.Retention of Outside Counsel docx (Press F9 to update)
-il cffiy ot
sån lurs ontspo
CITY MANAGER REPORT
Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved
City Administration Michael Codron June 28,2013
Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed
CityAttorney AV 6t26/13
Finance & lnformation Technology WP 6t26/13
ll4.ay 30,2013
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
Derek Johnson, Director
Joseph Lease, Chief Building Official
Use of 20lI-12 FY General Canyover and Ventures and
Contingency Funds.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the use and transfer of 20Il-I2 FY General Carryover for the Community
Development Department in the amount of $15,100 to the Building & Safety Division's
operating budget for consultant services to provide plan review for the MindBody project.
2. Approve the use and transfer of $1,900 of 2012-13 FY Ventures and Contingencies to the
Building & Safety Division's operating budget for consultant seryices to provide plan
review for the MindBody project.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Building & Safety Division is responsible for building construction plan review and building
permit issuance as part of the City's development review process. The development review
process involves a number of other City departments/divisions, including Planning, Public
Works, Utilities, Fire and Administration.
A cument backlog of 18 building plan check applications curently exists due to an influx of
project submittals and temporary staffing shortages. The recent retirement of the Assistant
Building Official, who spent approximately 80Yo of his time serving customers at the counter and
performing plan reviews and a recent medical leave by the Division's sole Plans Examiner has
resulted in the backlog. As a result, it is not be possible to maintain the Building Division's
standard turn-around time of 4-8 weeks (dependent on project complexity) until the vacant
position is filled.
Garryover for Plan Gheck Gontract Services Page2
The major development project, MindBody, has recently been approved by the City Council and
is expected to be submitted for building permits within the next 30 days. The proposed project
calls for 64,022 square feet of office/commercial space, a 123,600 squale foot parking structure,
and transportation improvements to the area. Based upon cuffent workload and staffing
resources, the permit review turn-around time is not feasible and therefor staff is requesting the
use of consultant services for plan review. Staff has recently used consultant services to expedite
the plan review process for the SESLOC project and is proposing to use the same consultant,
Willdan Associates, for the MindBody project. Willdan Associates was chosen because they
provided the most favorable quote as part of the approved City Manager report for providing on-
call plan check services to the Building & Safety Division. The table below summarizes the
original quotes as identified in the City Manager Report.
Staff intends to present a request for proposals to the City Council for approval to solicit
qualified vendors to provide plan check consultant services sometime in August. As an interim
step, the recommendation is to approve a contract with Willdan Engineering for plan review
services to expedite the MindBody project.
Willdan Associates has provided a proposal for plan review of the MindBody project at a cost of
$14,000. Staff is recommending the encumbrance of $18,900 which is $4,900 more than the
proposal, to pay for any unexpected review costs associated with the project. Staff continues to
recognize the benefit of having on-call consultants so that resources are avallable during peak
demand periods to insure the timely delivery of services to customers.
FISCAL IMPACT
The use of consultant services to provide plan check services to the Building & Safety Division
forthe MindBodyproject will cost approximately $17,000 in FY 2072-13. Currently, there is
$15,100 available in the Community Development General Carryover to partially support this
request. Staff is also requesting the use of $1,900 from Ventures and Contingencies to pay for
the remaining consultant costs associated with the MindBody project.
Vendor o//o
Fee
of PC No. Reviews
included
Hourly Rate Turn-around
Time
Servicing
Office*
E-Plan
Review
Available?
4Leaf 60o/"Initial plus 2
rechecks
$85 non-
struct.
$110
structural
10 days initial
5 days recheck
Pleasanton Yes
Ca Code
Check
70%Initial plus 1
recheck
$ 105 10 days initial
5 day recheck
15 days
complex
oroiects
Atascadero Yes
CSG
Consultants
6s%Initial plus 2
rechecks
$75 non-
struct.
$85 structural
l0 days initial
5 days recheck
Santa Ana Yes
Willdan
Engineering
5s%Initial plus 2
rechecks
$ 130 <$7m 8-10
days>$7m 10-15
days
5 days recheck
Ventura Yes
Garryover for Plan Gheck Gontract Services Page 3
Current
Balance Proposed Change
CDD 2011-12 General Carryover 40100-799 15,100 (15,100)
Ventures & Contingencies 26t00-7303 1,977 77 (l,900)
Engineering & Plan Check 40700-7231 8,792 25,792 17,000
Total 25,869 25,969
Costs Br 'l'ype
Físcal
ATTACHMENTS
Willdan Associates Proposal
Bud set Amendment Request
Encumbrance -
.Willdan
Associates
\\chstore4\Tearn\City Manager Repofts\Conrmunity DevelopmentVOl3\General Canyover Request - Building Coutmct Services\eCM Report -
Request fol General Canyover for Building Contract Selices.docx
1
2
aJ
4
Exhibit A
WILLDAN I
Engineering I
ertending
your
reaçh
June 17,2013
Mr, Joseph Lease, CBO
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Proposal to Provide Plan Review Services
lllind Body Project
Dear Mr. Lease:
Per your request, Willdan Engineering is pleased to present this proposal to provide plan review
servíces to the Gity of San Luis Obispo for the Mínd Body project. Our Scope of Work is as
follows:
SCOPE 0f SERVICES
Willdan Engineering will examine building plans for compliance with the 2001 version of the
California Building Code, Califomia Residential Code, Green Building Standards Code California
Mechanical Code, Califomia Plumbing Code, Califomia Electrical Code, and the Accessibility,
Noise and Energy Conservation requirements as mandated by State Tille 24 and all applicable
Ordinances. Our approach to the plan check proæss includes attention to code requirements as
well as an overview of the application package for olher applicable requirements such as approvals
from other local agencies and districts. Willdan's plans examiners are ICC certifred plans
examíners, licensed architects, and registered engineers. All plan review willcomply with the Cig's
directíves, codes and policies.
Plan check wilt include a review of any or all of lhe following design elements:
Architectural
Fire/Life-safety
Plumbing
Mechanical
Structural
ResidentÍal
Electrical
Energy Conservation Regulations fiitle 24)
Disabled Access Regulations (C.B.C. -T-241
Green Buílding Standards
Our plan check staff will schedule meetings during work hours to. discuss and clarify plan check
issues with designers and contractors. Resolutions of code issues may also be accomplished by
telephone, or meetings priorio resubmitting corrected plans and documents.
Willdan staff will either pick up the plans from the City, or have them ovemighted to our office at no
cost to the Ciiy. All plans will be returned to the City either by messenger or overnight delivery at
no cost to the City.
Engineeríng and Planning I Energy Ëfficiency and Sustainabiiity I FinancÍal and ËconomÍc Consulting I National Preparedneç and lnteroperability
90s.386.0200 | 800,789.7517 | ia,r; 909.888.5107 I 650 E, Hospitality Lane, Suite 250, San Bernardlno, OA 92408-3317 j www,willdan.com
Exhibit A
ELECÏRONIC PLAN REVIEW
Willdan has the ability fo provide plan review services electronicafly, at no additional cost to the
City or applicants. No additional computer software or hardware is required, only an lnternet
connectíon is necessary. Services are provided at the request of the applicant or the agency we
serve. Submittals are acæpted in PDF format. Willdan will review plans and can lransmit the
electronic redlined plans back to the applicant or designer as directed, electronically along with the
plan review comment sheet.
This service allows for collaboration between the City, designer and plans examiner to facilitate a
complete understanding of plan review comments and can reduce shipping, printing and tíme for
plan review processing for the applicant. Below is an example of a redlined plan as reviewed in
electronic format.
TURNAROUND SCHFDULE
This schedule is applicable for all iypes of constructÍon and can be adjusted to serve the City in the
most efficient manner. Expedited plan check will be provided at the request of the Gity.
All residential and non-residential with
a valuation less than $7 million Eight - ten working days Five working days
All residential and non-residential with
a valuation more than $7 million Ten - fifteen working days Five working days
Page 12
June 17,2013 ILLDAN I
Engineeríng I
Exhibit A
FEE SGHEDULE
Willdan proposes to provide plan review serv¡ces for a percentage of the fees coilected by the City
and/or for an hourly rate as follows:
For this particular project, Willdan's structural-only fee for the parking structure is $6,162.00. The
full plan check fee for the building is $7,838.00 for a total plan check fee of $'14,000.00.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposal to the City of San Luis Obispo. Please feel
free to contact me if you need any additional information. We look forward to providing these
services to the City.
Sincerely,
WlloRH EruerHrrnrue
Ronald L. Espalin, PE
Director of Building and Safety
909.386.0204
Page l3
June 17, 2013
PLAN REVIEW TYPE PERCENT OF FEÊ HOURLY RATE
Structural Only Plan Review Thirty percent (30%)$r30
Remodels and Tenant lmprovements
.iJ jl:f-r.:t;:jr',ij-1--..::Ill:f.!i--i,i,-¡I ..:*1 ..|'.''...:;.,.1, .:.':.N/A
I