HomeMy WebLinkAboutBatch 1 (complete)1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Monday, October 6, 2025 1:38 PM
To:Stewart, Erica A
Subject:Re: Termination of Contract
Thank you.
Brett
On Sunday, October 5, 2025 at 09:47:03 PM PDT, Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> wrote:
Dear Brett,
Thank you for sharing some of your concerns with the data and some good questions to ask. I have read your attorney’s
correspondence and have spoken with Whitney. I plan to read Christine’s responses tomorrow to be as ready as possible for our closed
session on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Erica
Erica A. Stewart
pronouns she/her/hers
Mayor
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E estewart@slocity.org
C 805.540.1154
slocity.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 3:37 PM
To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>
Subject: Termination of Contract
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you about the sudden termination of my parking meter collection contract with the City, which
had two years remaining. My attorney has sent formal correspondence to the City Attorney detailing the
legal issues, and I hope you will review it before the Closed Session on Tuesday. I urge you to question the
City Attorney about the significant financial and regulatory exposure the City now faces.
My primary concern, however, is the misleading justification provided by City Staff in their report, "Staff
Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services." The report is being used to support their decision to bring
collections "in-house," but it contains significant financial discrepancies, operational flaws, and questionable
data.
2
Here are the key points I ask you to consider:
1. Financial Discrepancies in the Staff Report
Claimed Savings are Unrealistic: The report claims a savings of approximately $61,000. However,
it fails to account for the true costs of an in-house operation.
Inflated "Coin Bag" Savings: A claimed $3,000 savings from coin bags is grossly miscalculated.
Based on current usage (16 bags/week at ~$1/bag), the actual annual cost is around $832, not
$3,000.
Unaccounted Labor Costs: If the City were to hire a new employee to cover this work (a position
that was reportedly requested but not approved), the cost would be an estimated $97,738. This would
immediately erase the claimed savings and result in a net loss for the City.
2. Operational Flaws and Unrealistic Expectations
Overburdened Staff: The report claims the current Parking Meter Repair Worker can absorb my
duties, which I estimate require at least 20 hours per week. This seems operationally unfeasible
without compromising their primary repair responsibilities.
No Backup Coverage: With only one employee responsible for both repairs and collections, there is
no plan for coverage during sick days, vacations, or training, creating a significant operational risk.
3. Flawed Data and Poor Future Planning
Inaccurate Consultant Data: The Parking Rate Study claims single-space meters can go 10 weeks
without being collected. With 33 years of experience doing this job, I can tell you this is completely
false. Many meters in high-traffic areas won't last a single week without filling up and jamming. The
consultant never spoke with me—the person with the most direct knowledge—likely because staff
intended to conceal their plans.
Hidden Costs of Meter Replacement: The plan to replace single-space meters with pay stations
fails to include the significant cost of removing the existing meter poles. The last time the City did this,
the low bid was over $150,000, and the project had serious issues.
Ignoring Public Preference: This plan also ignores public convenience. I speak with downtown
business owners and visitors every day, and the overwhelming sentiment is a preference for the
convenience of single-space meters over pay stations.
The staff report appears to be a justification built on flawed data and incomplete financial analysis to support
a predetermined decision. Before the Council accepts this plan, I urge you to ask staff for a true, fully-loaded
cost analysis of this transition and to explain why the data in their report is so contradictory to decades of on-
the-ground reality.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brett
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Sunday, October 5, 2025 3:38 PM
To:Stewart, Erica A
Subject:Termination of Contract
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you about the sudden termination of my parking meter collection contract with the City, which
had two years remaining. My attorney has sent formal correspondence to the City Attorney detailing the legal
issues, and I hope you will review it before the Closed Session on Tuesday. I urge you to question the City
Attorney about the significant financial and regulatory exposure the City now faces.
My primary concern, however, is the misleading justification provided by City Staff in their report, "Staff
Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services." The report is being used to support their decision to bring
collections "in-house," but it contains significant financial discrepancies, operational flaws, and questionable
data.
Here are the key points I ask you to consider:
1. Financial Discrepancies in the Staff Report
Claimed Savings are Unrealistic: The report claims a savings of approximately $61,000. However, it
fails to account for the true costs of an in-house operation.
Inflated "Coin Bag" Savings: A claimed $3,000 savings from coin bags is grossly miscalculated. Based on
current usage (16 bags/week at ~$1/bag), the actual annual cost is around $832, not $3,000.
Unaccounted Labor Costs: If the City were to hire a new employee to cover this work (a position that
was reportedly requested but not approved), the cost would be an estimated $97,738. This would
immediately erase the claimed savings and result in a net loss for the City.
2. Operational Flaws and Unrealistic Expectations
Overburdened Staff: The report claims the current Parking Meter Repair Worker can absorb my duties,
which I estimate require at least 20 hours per week. This seems operationally unfeasible without
compromising their primary repair responsibilities.
No Backup Coverage: With only one employee responsible for both repairs and collections, there is no
plan for coverage during sick days, vacations, or training, creating a significant operational risk.
3. Flawed Data and Poor Future Planning
Inaccurate Consultant Data: The Parking Rate Study claims single-space meters can go 10 weeks
without being collected. With 33 years of experience doing this job, I can tell you this is completely false.
Many meters in high-traffic areas won't last a single week without filling up and jamming. The consultant
never spoke with me—the person with the most direct knowledge—likely because staff intended to
conceal their plans.
Hidden Costs of Meter Replacement: The plan to replace single-space meters with pay stations fails to
include the significant cost of removing the existing meter poles. The last time the City did this, the low
bid was over $150,000, and the project had serious issues.
2
Ignoring Public Preference: This plan also ignores public convenience. I speak with downtown business
owners and visitors every day, and the overwhelming sentiment is a preference for the convenience of
single-space meters over pay stations.
The staff report appears to be a justification built on flawed data and incomplete financial analysis to support a
predetermined decision. Before the Council accepts this plan, I urge you to ask staff for a true, fully-loaded cost
analysis of this transition and to explain why the data in their report is so contradictory to decades of on-the-
ground reality.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brett
1
From:Francis, Emily
Sent:Sunday, October 5, 2025 3:56 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:Re: Termination of Contract
Brett,
Thank you for taking the time to provide additional information regarding your concerns. I appreciate your effort
in sharing your perspective and bringing these points to our attention.
Take care,
Emily
Emily Francis
pronouns she/her/hers
Council Member
Office of the City Council
990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E EFrancis@slocity.org
On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 3:38 PM, Brett Cross < > wrote:
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you about the sudden termination of my parking meter collection contract with the City, which
had two years remaining. My attorney has sent formal correspondence to the City Attorney detailing the legal
issues, and I hope you will review it before the Closed Session on Tuesday. I urge you to question the City
Attorney about the significant financial and regulatory exposure the City now faces.
My primary concern, however, is the misleading justification provided by City Staff in their report, "Staff
Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services." The report is being used to support their decision to bring
collections "in-house," but it contains significant financial discrepancies, operational flaws, and questionable
data.
Here are the key points I ask you to consider:
1. Financial Discrepancies in the Staff Report
Claimed Savings are Unrealistic: The report claims a savings of approximately $61,000. However, it
fails to account for the true costs of an in-house operation.
Inflated "Coin Bag" Savings: A claimed $3,000 savings from coin bags is grossly miscalculated. Based on
current usage (16 bags/week at ~$1/bag), the actual annual cost is around $832, not $3,000.
Unaccounted Labor Costs: If the City were to hire a new employee to cover this work (a position that
was reportedly requested but not approved), the cost would be an estimated $97,738. This would
immediately erase the claimed savings and result in a net loss for the City.
2
2. Operational Flaws and Unrealistic Expectations
Overburdened Staff: The report claims the current Parking Meter Repair Worker can absorb my duties,
which I estimate require at least 20 hours per week. This seems operationally unfeasible without
compromising their primary repair responsibilities.
No Backup Coverage: With only one employee responsible for both repairs and collections, there is no
plan for coverage during sick days, vacations, or training, creating a significant operational risk.
3. Flawed Data and Poor Future Planning
Inaccurate Consultant Data: The Parking Rate Study claims single-space meters can go 10 weeks
without being collected. With 33 years of experience doing this job, I can tell you this is completely false.
Many meters in high-traffic areas won't last a single week without filling up and jamming. The consultant
never spoke with me—the person with the most direct knowledge—likely because staff intended to
conceal their plans.
Hidden Costs of Meter Replacement: The plan to replace single-space meters with pay stations fails to
include the significant cost of removing the existing meter poles. The last time the City did this, the low
bid was over $150,000, and the project had serious issues.
Ignoring Public Preference: This plan also ignores public convenience. I speak with downtown business
owners and visitors every day, and the overwhelming sentiment is a preference for the convenience of
single-space meters over pay stations.
The staff report appears to be a justification built on flawed data and incomplete financial analysis to support a
predetermined decision. Before the Council accepts this plan, I urge you to ask staff for a true, fully-loaded cost
analysis of this transition and to explain why the data in their report is so contradictory to decades of on-the-
ground reality.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brett
1
From:Stewart, Erica A
Sent:Sunday, October 5, 2025 9:47 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:Re: Termination of Contract
Dear Brett,
Thank you for sharing some of your concerns with the data and some good questions to ask. I have read your
attorney’s correspondence and have spoken with Whitney. I plan to read Christine’s responses tomorrow to be
as ready as possible for our closed session on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Erica
Erica A. Stewart
pronouns she/her/hers
Mayor
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E estewart@slocity.org
C 805.540.1154
slocity.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 3:37 PM
To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>
Subject: Termination of Contract
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you about the sudden termination of my parking meter collection contract with the City, which
had two years remaining. My attorney has sent formal correspondence to the City Attorney detailing the legal
issues, and I hope you will review it before the Closed Session on Tuesday. I urge you to question the City
Attorney about the significant financial and regulatory exposure the City now faces.
My primary concern, however, is the misleading justification provided by City Staff in their report, "Staff
Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services." The report is being used to support their decision to bring
collections "in-house," but it contains significant financial discrepancies, operational flaws, and questionable
data.
Here are the key points I ask you to consider:
1. Financial Discrepancies in the Staff Report
2
Claimed Savings are Unrealistic: The report claims a savings of approximately $61,000. However, it
fails to account for the true costs of an in-house operation.
Inflated "Coin Bag" Savings: A claimed $3,000 savings from coin bags is grossly miscalculated. Based on
current usage (16 bags/week at ~$1/bag), the actual annual cost is around $832, not $3,000.
Unaccounted Labor Costs: If the City were to hire a new employee to cover this work (a position that
was reportedly requested but not approved), the cost would be an estimated $97,738. This would
immediately erase the claimed savings and result in a net loss for the City.
2. Operational Flaws and Unrealistic Expectations
Overburdened Staff: The report claims the current Parking Meter Repair Worker can absorb my duties,
which I estimate require at least 20 hours per week. This seems operationally unfeasible without
compromising their primary repair responsibilities.
No Backup Coverage: With only one employee responsible for both repairs and collections, there is no
plan for coverage during sick days, vacations, or training, creating a significant operational risk.
3. Flawed Data and Poor Future Planning
Inaccurate Consultant Data: The Parking Rate Study claims single-space meters can go 10 weeks
without being collected. With 33 years of experience doing this job, I can tell you this is completely false.
Many meters in high-traffic areas won't last a single week without filling up and jamming. The consultant
never spoke with me—the person with the most direct knowledge—likely because staff intended to
conceal their plans.
Hidden Costs of Meter Replacement: The plan to replace single-space meters with pay stations fails to
include the significant cost of removing the existing meter poles. The last time the City did this, the low
bid was over $150,000, and the project had serious issues.
Ignoring Public Preference: This plan also ignores public convenience. I speak with downtown business
owners and visitors every day, and the overwhelming sentiment is a preference for the convenience of
single-space meters over pay stations.
The staff report appears to be a justification built on flawed data and incomplete financial analysis to support a
predetermined decision. Before the Council accepts this plan, I urge you to ask staff for a true, fully-loaded cost
analysis of this transition and to explain why the data in their report is so contradictory to decades of on-the-
ground reality.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brett
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Sunday, October 5, 2025 3:31 PM
To:Stewart, Erica A
Subject:My personal thoughts about the contract termination
Dear Members of the City Council,
As some of you may know, I began collecting the City's parking meters nearly 33 years ago—now pay stations as well. That’s
longer than most of you have lived here, I’d wager. Over those decades, I’ve witnessed countless changes in our downtown and
community. Reflecting on the commitment I’ve shown to the City, I’m deeply disappointed by how the parking staff has chosen to
act.
I want to share a story—one of many—because I believe it’s important. Looking back, it feels almost absurd. My mother called to
say my father wasn’t doing well. He was 85, weighed just 119 pounds, and was in end-stage kidney failure with congestive heart
failure. When I arrived, he was unconscious on the couch. We debated whether to call an ambulance. He passed away there that
morning. I laid him down gently, placed a pillow under his head, and called his lifelong friend to let him know his best friend had
died. After the mortuary came to take my father, I went back to work. I picked up another route, worried the meters might overflow.
I still ask myself: What was I thinking?
Then, this past August, I was informed—on a Wednesday—that my contract would be terminated effective October 31st. I was
thanked for “20 years of service,” even though I’ve been doing this job for over 30. That oversight alone speaks volumes. Lea rning
later that this decision had been in the works for nearly a year, without any communication, is deeply troubling.
The deceit I experienced—showing up to work daily while staff quietly planned to end my contract—should give you pause.
Honesty, integrity, respect, and ethics are the foundation of any organization. The way this transition was handled by parking staff
reflects a serious lapse in all four.
According to the City Manager’s report, the decision to bring collections “in house” began in November of last year. One sentence
in particular reveals the intent to keep this process secret:
“FS Collections has not been involved in discussions about shifting this responsibility to City staff and is likely
unaware of the City’s intent to make this operational change.”
For nearly a year, City staff engaged in deliberate subterfuge. This behavior should not be acceptable to the City Council. I f not for
the emails you were made aware of, you might never have known what was occurring. That begs the question: What else is be ing
kept from you?
I urge you to reflect on this—not just for me, but for the integrity of the City itself.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
SLO Native
1
From:Jan Marx <
Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 6:20 AM
To:Brett Cross; Marx, Jan
Subject:Re: Contract Termination Notification
Attachments:Scanned Copy - Notice to Terminate Services.pdf
Thanks Brett. Please send this message to the whole council, not my personal email. I have to keep my personal
and council email accounts separate. You also can make a public comment before our closed session on
October 7.
Best wishes
Jan
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 1, 2025, at 9:03 PM, Brett Cross < > wrote:
Jan,
I just read the City Council meeting agenda regarding the potential litigation from the City's termination of my
contract.
The notice says that the contract was terminated for "convenience" that is wholly inaccurate. The termination
letter specifically says the contract is being terminated because we were on a month-to-month basis since 2020
completely ignoring the 2022 bid process which the City did not follow- see attorney letter for more detail.
Staff is not presenting the information accurately. It should be noted that the "convenience" clause was the only
issue that was not addressed in the complaint.
Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Donna King.
Pub lic Works
919 Palm Sheet. San tuis obispo CA93401'3218
805 78r 7200
August 18, 2025
Brett Cross
FSC Collections
1 21 7 fVariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Termination Notice for Meter Collection Contract Servies
To B rett Cross,
Thank you for your 20 years of service to the City of San Luis Obispo. Due to changing
technology and a decrease in cash payments, the City of San Luis Obispo has made
the decision to transition to in-house parking meter collections and will no longer
require a contractor to complete the work. The contract between City of San Luis
Obispo and FS Collections dated October 22,2014, expired June 30,2020. On July
1 , 2020, the contract was informally extended on a month-to-month basis. This notice
is the required notification to terminate the monthto-month agreement. Please
confirm receipt of this notice and termination of the contract effective October 31,
2025.
Thank you for providing services to the City of San Luis Obispo
Sincerely,
Donna King
Parking Program Manager
Public Works
1260 Chorro St, Ste B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
DKing@slocity.org
glzqlr:
iS la+kr ws
ar^rl s \3na A art
dl-t 'nftA lo b<-++
\^g 20tffiC-rou. on fu
1
From:King, Donna
Sent:Monday, September 29, 2025 3:16 PM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:Dietrick, Christine; Claims Administrator
Subject:RE: FS Collections Termination Notice
Attachments:Scanned Copy - Notice to Terminate Services.pdf
Hello Brett,
A copy of the termination notice is attached.
Donna King, PTMP
Parking Program Manager
Public Works
1260 Chorro St, Ste B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E DKing@slocity.org
T 805.781.7234
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 4:23 PM
To: King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>
Subject: FS Collections Termination Notice
Donna,
I've misplaced the termination notice that you gave me. I put it somewhere where I wouldn't lose it and have done exactly that.
Can you send me a copy via email.
Thank you.
Brett Cross
Partner FS Collecitons
Pub lic Works
919 Palm Sheet. San tuis obispo CA93401'3218
805 78r 7200
August 18, 2025
Brett Cross
FSC Collections
1 21 7 fVariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Termination Notice for Meter Collection Contract Servies
To B rett Cross,
Thank you for your 20 years of service to the City of San Luis Obispo. Due to changing
technology and a decrease in cash payments, the City of San Luis Obispo has made
the decision to transition to in-house parking meter collections and will no longer
require a contractor to complete the work. The contract between City of San Luis
Obispo and FS Collections dated October 22,2014, expired June 30,2020. On July
1 , 2020, the contract was informally extended on a month-to-month basis. This notice
is the required notification to terminate the monthto-month agreement. Please
confirm receipt of this notice and termination of the contract effective October 31,
2025.
Thank you for providing services to the City of San Luis Obispo
Sincerely,
Donna King
Parking Program Manager
Public Works
1260 Chorro St, Ste B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
DKing@slocity.org
glzqlr:
iS la+kr ws
ar^rl s \3na A art
dl-t 'nftA lo b<-++
\^g 20tffiC-rou. on fu
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:29 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT - ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND
GOWN
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I don't know if some of you are familiar with the concept of Radical Honesty that was coined by psychologist Brad Blanton in his
best selling book by the same name in 1996. The premise is that practicing complete transparency frees individuals from self-
imposed suffering caused by lies, half-truths, and social pretenses. Now, there are drawbacks, as I believe his children didn't
speak to him for years. However, being honest in most cases is probably something that we should all strive for.
Now having said that. I think it's time to tell the residents in the Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights neighborhoods that there is
no rescue mission coming to save them like in the movie "The Martian" starring Matt Damon and a few other folks. They are on
their own.
The City apparently isn't going to hire another code enforcement officer, even on a contract employee basis, to investigate the
illegal (Yes, I said illegal. More on that later) satellite fraternity and sorority houses in the R-1 and R-2 zones. They are illegal
because that use is not allowed in those zones. It's the definition of illegal- "Not according to or authorized by law".
I don't think staff is recommending that Community Service Officers write citations for Party Noise violations. I don't think staff is
recommending elimination of properties that are placed on the "Premise List" after some self-reported complete turnover in
occupants. You might want to ask staff about San Diego's Community Assisted Party Program (CAPP) which aims to
curb nuisance behavior at chronic party houses.
And you're certainly not seeking legal means to compel Cal Poly to provide AB 524 addresses. The Campus-
Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act.
So where does that leave residents in these neighborhoods? And don't think these issues, especially with illegal satellite fraternity
and sorority houses isn't going to spread to other neighborhoods either.
So let's talk a little about F3 in the staff report.
"F3. The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part
due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This
inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost
unlivable for most residents."
There's a response about the word, "Illegal". I've already talked about that. But you know what isn't addressed? The last
sentence. "This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these
areas almost unlivable for most residents."
What are you, as the Mayor and Council members, going to do about the unlivability (I made that word up) for most residents in
these areas?
You focus on that and come up with solutions.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:33 PM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT - ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND
GOWN
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for
tonight’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:29 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT - ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I don't know if some of you are familiar with the concept of Radical Honesty that was coined by psychologist Brad Blanton in his
best selling book by the same name in 1996. The premise is that practicing complete transparency frees individuals from self-
imposed suffering caused by lies, half-truths, and social pretenses. Now, there are drawbacks, as I believe his children didn't
speak to him for years. However, being honest in most cases is probably something that we should all strive for.
Now having said that. I think it's time to tell the residents in the Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights neighborhoods that there is
no rescue mission coming to save them like in the movie "The Martian" starring Matt Damon and a few other folks. They are on
their own.
The City apparently isn't going to hire another code enforcement officer, even on a contract employee basis, to investigate the
illegal (Yes, I said illegal. More on that later) satellite fraternity and sorority houses in the R-1 and R-2 zones. They are illegal
because that use is not allowed in those zones. It's the definition of illegal- "Not according to or authorized by law".
I don't think staff is recommending that Community Service Officers write citations for Party Noise violations. I don't think staff is
recommending elimination of properties that are placed on the "Premise List" after some self-reported complete turnover in
occupants. You might want to ask staff about San Diego's Community Assisted Party Program (CAPP) which aims to
curb nuisance behavior at chronic party houses.
2
And you're certainly not seeking legal means to compel Cal Poly to provide AB 524 addresses. The Campus-
Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act.
So where does that leave residents in these neighborhoods? And don't think these issues, especially with illegal satellite fraternity
and sorority houses isn't going to spread to other neighborhoods either.
So let's talk a little about F3 in the staff report.
"F3. The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part
due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This
inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost
unlivable for most residents."
There's a response about the word, "Illegal". I've already talked about that. But you know what isn't addressed? The last
sentence. "This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these
areas almost unlivable for most residents."
What are you, as the Mayor and Council members, going to do about the unlivability (I made that word up) for most residents in
these areas?
You focus on that and come up with solutions.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Friday, September 5, 2025 7:12 PM
To:Marx, Jan
Subject:Re: Contract Termination of FS Collections
Thank you. The bidding process and rejection of bids can be found in The was no bid rejection hearing in
California Code, Public Contract Code - PCC § 21501 The City did not
follow the provisions of the code
California Code, Public Contract Code - PCC § 22038
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
(a) In its discretion, the public agency may reject any bids presented, if the agency, prior to
rejecting all bids and declaring that the project can be more economically performed by
employees of the agency, furnishes a written notice to an apparent low bidder. The notice shall
inform the bidder of the agency's intention to reject the bid and shall be mailed at least two
business days prior to the hearing at which the agency intends to reject the bid. If after the first
invitation of bids all bids are rejected, after reevaluating its cost estimates of the project, the
public agency shall have the option of either of the following:
(1) Abandoning the project or readvertising for bids in the manner described by this article.
(2) By passage of a resolution by a four-fifths vote of its governing body declaring that the
project can be performed more economically by the employees of the public agency, may have
the project done by force account without further complying with this article.
(b) If a contract is awarded, it shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. If two or more
bids are the same and the lowest, the public agency may accept the one it chooses.
(c) If no bids are received through the formal or informal procedure, the project may be
performed by the employees of the public agency by force account, or negotiated contract
without further complying with this article.
On Friday, September 5, 2025 at 12:00:55 PM PDT, Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> wrote:
Hello Brett,
Here are the documents produced by city staff.
Jan
2
From: King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:33 AM
To: Rice, Jennifer <jrice@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Contract Termination of FS Collections
BCC: SLO City Council
Thank you all for reviewing the background information for FS Collections. I have included all the attachments for the
original document Jennifer shared as well as the RFP that was published in 2022 and the proposal response from FS
Collections. Please let me know if I missed anything or you need any additional information.
Thank you,
Donna King, PTMP
Parking Program Manager
Public Works
1260 Chorro St, Ste B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E DKing@slocity.org
T 805.781.7234
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Rice, Jennifer <jrice@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 7:08 PM
Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org>; King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>
Subject: Contract Termination of FS Collections
BCC: SLO City Council
Hello City Council Members,
3
I wanted to provide additional background regarding the recent contract termination notice issued to FS Collections
(where Brett Cross is an employee).
In November 2024, the City’s Technology Roadmap recommended evaluating the option of bringing parking meter
coin collection in-house. The analysis showed that both single-space meters and multi-space pay stations fill with
coins very slowly nowadays due to the prevalence of credit cards, meaning contracted coin collection schedules are
not aligned with actual need. The current contract with FS Collections also charges a flat fee regardless of the amount
collected, making it inefficient as cash payments decline. On August 1, 2025 staff’s recommendation was approved to
bring coin-collection in-house as part of the Parking Meter Technician job duties.
FS Collections has provided coin collection services since 2005. The most recent formal agreement expired in June
2020, after which services continued on a month-to-month basis. Although an RFP was issued in 2022, it was never
awarded due to staffing transitions. Since then, staff evaluated the service model and recommended shifting
collections in-house. This transition aligns with budget reduction strategies as this change is expected to save
approximately $61,500 per year.
On August 1, 2025, staff was authorized to issue a 60-day termination notice to FS Collections, effective October 31,
2025. The reason for termination is solely the City’s decision to transition the work in-house as a cost savings
measure. A 60-day notice was issued to FS Collections, rather than the required 30-day notice due to the longevity of
the services provided.
It should be noted that the steps outlined in the approved City Manager Report (attached) regarding the responsibility
of Parking and Human Resources staff to update the Parking Meter Technician job description and fulfill meet and
confer obligations with SLOCEA were completed as part of this action.
On August 19, Donna King met with Brett Cross in person to provide the notice and thank him for his contributions. On
August 21, Brett emailed staff including the City Attorney’s Office expressing his belief that he was in the third year of
a five-year agreement from the 2022 RFP. Neither Donna King nor myself were in the Mobility Division during this time
in 2022 and we have been unable to find any records of the communications during that time. However, on September
3, the City Attorney’s Office responded to this issue and concluded that staff acted appropriately in issuing the notice
of termination, given the expiration of the agreement.
More information is included in the attached dated August 1, 2025.
Please reach out to me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
4
Jennifer Rice, PTP, AICP
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy Director of Mobility Services
Public Works
Mobility Services
1260 Chorro, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E jrice@slocity.org
T 805.781.7058
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
1
From:Marx, Jan
Sent:Friday, September 5, 2025 12:00 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:FW: Contract Termination of FS Collections
Attachments:E - Extension Dated July 2020.pdf; A - Revised Meter Repair Worker Job Description.pdf; B -
Agreement Dated Oct 2014.pdf; C - Draft Notice to Terminate Services.docx; D - Extension
Dated March 2018.pdf; RFP Coin Collection.pdf; FS Collections Proposal combined.pdf; 8.1.25 -
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services.pdf
Hello Brett,
Here are the documents produced by city staff.
Jan
From: King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:33 AM
To: Rice, Jennifer <jrice@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Contract Termination of FS Collections
BCC: SLO City Council
Thank you all for reviewing the background information for FS Collections. I have included all the attachments for the
original document Jennifer shared as well as the RFP that was published in 2022 and the proposal response from FS
Collections. Please let me know if I missed anything or you need any additional information.
Thank you,
Donna King, PTMP
Parking Program Manager
Public Works
1260 Chorro St, Ste B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E DKing@slocity.org
T 805.781.7234
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Rice, Jennifer <jrice@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 7:08 PM
Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org>; King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>
Subject: Contract Termination of FS Collections
BCC: SLO City Council
Hello City Council Members,
2
I wanted to provide additional background regarding the recent contract termination notice issued to FS Collections
(where Brett Cross is an employee).
In November 2024, the City’s Technology Roadmap recommended evaluating the option of bringing parking meter
coin collection in-house. The analysis showed that both single-space meters and multi-space pay stations fill with
coins very slowly nowadays due to the prevalence of credit cards, meaning contracted coin collection schedules are
not aligned with actual need. The current contract with FS Collections also charges a flat fee regardless of the amount
collected, making it inefficient as cash payments decline. On August 1, 2025 staff’s recommendation was approved to
bring coin-collection in-house as part of the Parking Meter Technician job duties.
FS Collections has provided coin collection services since 2005. The most recent formal agreement expired in June
2020, after which services continued on a month-to-month basis. Although an RFP was issued in 2022, it was never
awarded due to staffing transitions. Since then, staff evaluated the service model and recommended shifting
collections in-house. This transition aligns with budget reduction strategies as this change is expected to save
approximately $61,500 per year.
On August 1, 2025, staff was authorized to issue a 60-day termination notice to FS Collections, effective October 31,
2025. The reason for termination is solely the City’s decision to transition the work in-house as a cost savings
measure. A 60-day notice was issued to FS Collections, rather than the required 30-day notice due to the longevity of
the services provided.
It should be noted that the steps outlined in the approved City Manager Report (attached) regarding the responsibility
of Parking and Human Resources staff to update the Parking Meter Technician job description and fulfill meet and
confer obligations with SLOCEA were completed as part of this action.
On August 19, Donna King met with Brett Cross in person to provide the notice and thank him for his contributions. On
August 21, Brett emailed staff including the City Attorney’s Office expressing his belief that he was in the third year of
a five-year agreement from the 2022 RFP. Neither Donna King nor myself were in the Mobility Division during this time
in 2022 and we have been unable to find any records of the communications during that time. However, on September
3, the City Attorney’s Office responded to this issue and concluded that staff acted appropriately in issuing the notice
of termination, given the expiration of the agreement.
More information is included in the attached dated August 1, 2025.
Please reach out to me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Rice, PTP, AICP
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy Director of Mobility Services
Public Works
Mobility Services
1260 Chorro, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E jrice@slocity.org
T 805.781.7058
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
City of San Luis Obispo, City Manager Report
Fully approved in Escribe on 8.1.25
Title: Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Director, Interim Public Works Director
Prepared By: Donna King, Parking Program Manager
Other Reviewers or Contributors:
Approver Date Reviewed
PW Deputy Director – Mobility
Services
7/9/2025
PW Analyst 7/10/2025
CMR Type and Workflow 3 - Staffing Modifications : CM Approval with HR:
See Table 1 here for details. You will select the above workflow when you initiate the report routing.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to update the Parking Meter Repair Worker job description to include
duties related to meter coin collection.
2. Authorize the Parking Program Manager to provide 60-day notice to terminate coin
collection contract services with FS Collections.
POLICY CONTEXT
California Vehicle Code (CVC) § 22508 requires that local authorities accept physical
payment at parking meters and pay stations – essentially requiring the acceptance of
cash or coin. As such, collection procedures must be established to manage the
collection of cash/coin.
The 2024 Parking Rate Study includes the Technology Recommendation to replace the
single-space meters at the 10-hour on-street spaces to maintain continuity for the paid
parking experience. Further recommended in the 2024 Downtown Parking Technology
Roadmap Report, “since most of the 10-hour on-street spaces are generally occupied
by permit holders who do not use the single-space meters, installing pay stations
instead will introduce cost savings on single-space meter fees.” In addition, the
Technology Roadmap Report recommends, “that the City conducts an additional
assessment to re-evaluate the current operating procedures [for revenue collection] to
build more efficient revenue collection and reconciliation process”.
Goal 2.B.2. of the Access and Parking Management Plan recommends reducing the
number of 10-hour parking meter spaces and converting them to short-term parking
spaces to increase turnover of parking spaces and usage of the parking garages
consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. As this recommendation is implemented, it
is planned to continue to replace single space meters with multi-space pay stations.
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services Page 2
Section 12.A. (Contracting for Services) of the Fiscal Policies included in the 2025-27
Financial Plan states that “in evaluating the costs of private sector contracts compared
with in‐house performance of the service, indirect, direct, and contract administration
costs of the City will be identified and considered.” Evaluations of these costs as they
pertain to managing and operating in-house coin collection are included within this
report.
Per the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo
(Resolution No. 6620), the City has a responsibility to meet and confer with represented
groups when there are impacts to wages, hours, and/or terms and conditions of
employment for their members. The Parking Meter Repair Worker is represented by the
San Luis Obispo City Employees’ Association (SLOCEA). Updating this job description
will prompt a meet and confer.
The City Manager executed the most recent contract with FS Collections October 22,
2014. Although there is no formal contract in place currently, staff is requesting City
Manager authorization for the Parking Program Manager to issue a 60-day written
notice to formally terminate services with FS Collections.
DISCUSSION
Background
Since the start of the City’s paid parking program, coin collection for on-street parking
meters has been handled by a contracted vendor. At that time, Downtown was equipped
with single-space meters that only accepted coins. Over the past decade, the City has
modernized its parking system to support additional payment options. This includes
upgrading single-space meters to accept credit cards, replacing many of them with multi-
space pay stations, and offering payment through mobile apps. As a result, the use of
cash has declined significantly. Currently, only about 8% of all parking transactions are
made using cash or coins.
As single-space meters continue to be replaced with multi-space pay stations—aligning
with the recommendations of the Access and Parking Management Plan, the 2024
Parking Rate Study, the 2024 Downtown Parking Technology Roadmap, and the 2025–27
Financial Plan—staff expects the use of cash and coins to decline even further.
In November 2024, the Technology Roadmap included a recommendation to evaluate the
option of bringing coin collection in-house. After working closely with Dixon Resources
Unlimited, the consultant who developed the roadmap, they recommended that the City
revise the Parking Meter Repair Worker job description to include coin collection
responsibilities.
This recommendation was based on several key considerations. First, staff analyzed all
meter coin revenue collected in 2024 and the first quarter of 2025. On average, each of
the 635 single-space meters collected about $6 in coins per week, and each meter has a
capacity of approximately $60. For the 65 multi-space pay stations, the average weekly
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services Page 3
coin revenue was about $20, with each station able to hold around $250 in coins. Based
on these figures, it would take roughly 10 weeks for a single-space meter to reach full
capacity and about 12 weeks for a pay station to do the same.
Second, the current contract charges a flat fee based on how often collections occur, not
on the amount of coin collected. As a result, even as cash payments decrease, the City
continues to pay the same rate for the service. Bringing this function in-house would give
the City greater control over collections, improve efficiency, and create the opportunity to
address equipment maintenance during collections, something that is not typically
included in contracted coin collection services.
During early planning for the 2025–27 Financial Plan, staff considered submitting a
Significant Operating Budget Change (SOBC) request for an additional Parking Meter
Repair Worker position that would formally include these duties. While the SOBC was not
ultimately recommended, staff continued to explore whether existing staff could take on
the work by updating the job description. Doing so would provide both operational
improvements and cost savings for the Parking Program.
To move forward with this change, two actions need to be taken: update the Parking Meter
Repair Worker job description and terminate the existing vendor contract for coin collection
services.
Staffing Changes: Meter Repair Worker Job Description Update
The Meter Repair Worker is a position in the Public Works Department and is represented
by SLOCEA. It is currently filled with a single full-time employee.
The proposed updates to the job description (Attachment A) include the following:
Job Summary (addition to summary description)
• Expected to be 25% of work activity until all single space meters are replaced and
then reduced to less than 10% of work activity.
• Perform field collection of cash parking payments and transport to secure location.
Example of duties (addition to duties)
• Collect cash parking payments from a parking meter following a specific process.
• Transport collected payments in a secure manner to a City facility.
• Follow identified routes for collections, maintaining the designated schedule.
• Maintain a high level of safety and security during collection activity.
• Follow all City policies and procedures for collections, key control, security, safety,
and storage.
Before a final offer is issued the following is required (addition to requirements)
• City to complete a criminal background check
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services Page 4
Minor clerical/descriptive edits are also included consistent with other City job descriptions.
The recommended edits to the job description do not have any implications to the job
class or compensation. As mentioned above, coin collection is expected to make up about
25% of the Parking Meter Repair Worker’s responsibilities, and that amount will drop to
less than 10% once all single-space meters are replaced. All single-space meters are
scheduled to be replaced by the end of 2027. To evaluate the impact of adding this duty,
staff reviewed the Parking Meter Repair Worker’s current workload.
Staff do not anticipate any negative impacts from bringing coin collection in-house for
several key reasons. First, the new technology being implemented, such as upgraded
garage gate systems and modern pay stations, requires significantly less maintenance.
These systems also have built-in alerts that notify staff of mechanical or technical issues,
as well as when cash boxes are nearing capacity. This allows collections to be scheduled
during routine inspections and maintenance, improving efficiency and reducing costs.
Second, some of the responsibilities of the Parking Meter Repair Worker overlap with
those of the Parking Maintenance Worker. If the job description is updated as proposed,
staff can adjust and redistribute duties to better align with current operational needs. This
will make room for the added coin collection tasks without requiring any additional job
description changes or having negative impacts to the incumbents workload. Finally, as
the City continues phasing out single-space meters, the overall need for coin collection will
continue to decline, further minimizing the long-term impact on staff workload.
The Public Works and Human Resources Departments have been collaborating on this
item since December 2024 in preparation for the previously mentioned potential SOBC. If
the City Manager approves the current recommendation, Parking and HR staff will initiate
a meet and confer process with SLOCEA to address the impacts of the change in duties
and any related workload concerns. Once the City has fulfilled its meet and confer
obligations, the changes will be implemented.
During initial conversations with existing affected staff, including the current incumbent in
the Parking Meter Repair Worker position and the Maintenance Worker positions, there is
support for this change. It is intended that the updated job duties would be in effect
following necessary conferring with SLOCEA and sufficient notice provided to the existing
staff.
FS Collections Contract Termination
The City’s current vendor for parking meter coin collection, FS Collections, has been
providing services since 2005. In 2014, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
coin collection services, which led to another agreement with FS Collections that was
signed on October 22, 2014 (Attachment B). The agreement was extended as allowed
under its original terms and ultimately expired in June 2020. Since then, FS Collections
has continued providing services on a month-to-month basis without a formal contract.
Initially, staff planned to enter into a new agreement following the release of a Request for
Proposals (RFP). However, due to staff turnover within the Parking Program, although an
RFP was issued in September 2022, it was not awarded.
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services Page 5
Since that time, staff have been reviewing overall parking operations and assessing
whether coin collection should continue to be outsourced or brought in-house. Based on
this evaluation, staff now recommends shifting to an internal model for coin collection.
Although there is no current contract in place, staff recommends that the City Manager
authorize the Parking Program Manager to issue a 60-day written notice to FS Collections
to formally terminate services once the job description update is completed (see draft
notice as Attachment C). The reason for termination is solely the City’s decision to
transition the work in-house. Staff recommend providing 60-day notice rather than the
required 30-day notice due to the longevity of the services provided by FS Collections.
FS Collections has not been involved in discussions about shifting this responsibility to
City staff and is likely unaware of the City’s intent to make this operational change.
Next Steps
Following City Manager approval of the updated job description, Parking and HR staff will
fulfill meet and confer obligations with SLOCEA.
Additionally, the Parking Program Manager will give formal notice to FS Collections
terminating the contract services for coin collection.
CONCURRENCES
The Human Resources Department has reviewed and concurs with this recommendation.
PRIOR ACTION
October 2014 – Following a public Request for Proposals process, the City entered into
an Agreement with FS Collections October 22, 2024, for parking meter coin collection
services with a contract term until June 30, 2018, with an option to extend until June 30,
2020.
March 2018 – Parking Program Manager issued a letter to FS Collection extending the
service term to June 30, 2020. (Attachment D)
July 2020 – Parking Program Manager issued a letter to FS Collection extending services
on a month-to-month basis, effective July 1, 2020. This appears to have been an informal
action taken by the manager at the time, with no record of formal approval by the City
Manager or City Council. As a result, the vendor is currently providing services without
an active contract, but operations continue under the terms outlined in the original
October 2014 agreement. (Attachment E)
February 2023 – Council approved the Access and Parking Management Plan
establishing 35 new strategies that align with the City’s Downtown Concept Plan, Active
Transportation Plan, and Mobility Specific Plan.
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services Page 6
May 2024 – Council approved the Parking Rate Study which resulted in reduced parking
rates and implementation of technology recommendations including converting single-
space meters to multi-space pay stations.
November 2024 – Council approved the Downtown Parking Technology Roadmap report
and approved updates to the downtown parking technology including converting single-
space meters to multi-space pay stations.
FISCAL IMPACT
Was this reviewed and approved by the department fiscal officer?
Yes ☒ No ☐
Is there an ongoing fiscal impact to the recommendation or request (direct or indirect)?
Yes ☒ No ☐
Staff have carefully reviewed the direct, indirect, and administrative impacts of bringing
coin collection in-house and are confident this change will reduce overall operating costs
for the Parking Fund, with an estimated annual savings of $61,500.
Currently, the Parking Fund allocates $63,000 annually for coin collection operations. This
includes $60,000 for contracted services with FS Collections and approximately $3,000
for equipment and supplies provided to the vendor—primarily coin bags. Since in-house
collections would occur less frequently, fewer coin bags would be needed, further
reducing supply costs.
Administrative responsibilities related to meter collections will remain unchanged. By
transitioning to in-house collection, staff estimate an annual operating cost of just $1,500,
resulting in net savings of approximately $61,500 per year.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Manager could decide not to approve the update to the Parking Meter
Repair Worker job description, essentially continuing the reliance on contract
services for coin collection. The current coin collection contract has expired, and
issuing a new Request for Proposals (RFP) would be required to establish a new
agreement. Depending on the bids received, a new contract could increase the
Parking Program’s operating costs. It is standard industry practice for vendors to
charge based on time spent collecting, rather than the amount of revenue collected.
However, with the ongoing decline and variability in cash payments, it would be
challenging to define a consistent and accurate collection schedule for a long-term
contract. If the City continues to contract out these services, the agreement would
likely require frequent amendments to adjust for fluctuating collection needs.
2. The City Manager could require longer notice prior to termination of the
existing month-to-month agreement. The current coin collection contract has
expired and the cost of continuing the contract is approximately $5,000 per month.
Staff Approach for Parking Meter Collection Services Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
A. Revised Meter Repair Worker Job Description
B. FS Collections Agreement Dated October 22, 2014
C. Draft Notice to Terminate Services with FS Collections
D. March 2018 letter to FS Collection extending the service term to June 30, 2020
E. July 2020 letter to FS Collection extending services on a month-to-month basis,
effective July 1, 2020
Parking Meter Coin Collections Services City of San Luis Obispo
Bid ID: 2209-001
FS Collections
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-235-0430
On behalf of John Girard and myself as partners in FS Collections we appreciate the opportunity to again
submit a bid to the City of San Luis Obispo for the Parking Meter Coin Collection contract.
Both John and I have provided parking meter coin collection services for the city for about the past 25
years. A lot has changed over those years. Lot 6 which was the Court St. lot was developed as a major
retail project as were Lots 11 and 13. Lot 2 is now a hotel. I think the City may have still be using the old
“wind up” meters. With the new pay stations and license plate reader vehicles plus the proposed new IPS
M5 meters the city has come a long way from the days of the wind up meters.
As the city has adapted so have our collection schedules, routes and frequencies. With the addition of the
pay stations routes B and G were eliminated and combined with existing routes. The change in rates and
hours of enforcement has changed the need for additional collections in some areas that were collected
once a week to twice per week to avoid meters jamming do to filling up. It will be interesting to see what
changes to collection frequencies may be necessary with the next rate increase. It’s important to have a
contractor in place that can recognize necessary changes and the flexibility to do so.
Before I get too far along with discussing the specific bid proposal, especially the schedule and frequency,
John and I want to share more of our commitment not only to providing a high level of service to city’s
parking department but a high level of service to the community
Both John and I are lifelong residents of San Luis Obispo. John grew up on Verde Dr and had a home on
Benton Way in San Luis Obispo. He now lives out on Tiffany Ranch Rd. I grew up in the Laguna Lake
neighborhood where I still live. We are both proud and lucky to make San Luis Obispo our home and I
believe that is reflected in our role as ambassadors for the City when we are out in public collecting the
meters or the pay stations.
We do our best to provide tourists and residents alike with parking information, directions to points of
interest (the Mission and Gum Alley are pretty high on the list), where’s the best place for breakfast, and
“how do you do the pay station”.
John and I are also concerned about our downtown and we both are in the habit of picking up litter and
reporting any graffiti on the meters along with other issues that need attention while we are out collecting
meters or pay stations.
A little discussion about the pay stations and why I’m guessing you may be wonder why is it more to
collect those and do they really need to be collected twice a week. The simple answer is they take a lot
longer and have ‘issues” that really necessitates them being collected twice a week. Plus I should mention
that users quite frequently need help using the machines. I like to say we’ve become like concierge
service too. It can take some time to help the public enter their license plate and help them get their credit
card read.
The Pay Stations are “clunky” and they are spread out all over the downtown and basically they take a
long time to collect. The average time to consider for each collection is 5 minutes per station. It doesn’t
always take that long but with 3 locks and coins jamming in the chute that leads to the coin box along
with coins that somehow spill outside the coin box it can take a long time to collect each one if you have
to unjam the Pay Station or scoop out the coins that are piled up inside. And it’s those jams in the coin
chute leading to the coin box and the tendency for the coins to spill out into the bottom of the pay station
that makes it important to get to them twice per week. If you reduce the frequency you’ll invariably see
many stations that are not accepting coins because they are jammed. That will create additional
maintenance call outs along with a frustrated public.
The meter collection schedule and frequency is currently what is being done. It’s the minimum necessary
to keep the meters from filling up and becoming jammed and inoperable. The increase in hours of
payment from 9AM-6PM to 9AM-9PM really changed the pattern of meter usage. Some 10 hour meters
near the core which would have only been collected once a week now have to be done twice a week or
will fill up. That’s why in the proposal you’ll see references “High Use”. Some of those are 10 hour
meters which are collected twice now. It will be interesting to see what if any changes need to be made
with the new IPS M5 meters which take credit cards along with a substantial rate increase in 2023.
John and I look forward to a continued relationship with the City’s Parking Department as the Parking
Meter and Pay Station Collections contractor.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross Partner FS Collections
‘
Parking Meter and Parking Payment Center Coin Collections Services
FS Collections
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-235-0430
Proposed Collection Schedule
Mondays Tuesday’s Wednesday’s Thursday’s
Pay Stations 55 Zone E 52 Zone C 151 Pay Stations 55
Zone H Meters 58 Zone F 115 Zone A 52 Zone H Meters 58
Zone E (High Use) 101 Lot 9 19 Zone E (High Use) 55
Lot 4 10 Lot 14 44 Zone F (High Use) 61
Zone F (High Use) 92 Lot 15 6 Lot 4 4
Total Pay Stations Total Pay Stations
55 55
Total Meters Total Meters Total Meters Total Meters
261 236 203 178
Weekly Totals
Pay Stations 110
On Street Meters 878
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection Services
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for Parking Meter and Parking Payment Center
Coin Collection Services.
All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be
required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-
web/vendor/register/Login.xhtml).
All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of Finance at or before October 5, 2022,
when they will be opened electronically via BidSync.
The preferred method for bid submission is electronic via BidSync. However, if you wish to submit a paper
copy, please submit it in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at
www.BidSync.com. Please contact Gavin Hussey, with any questions.
For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Budget………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
C. General Terms and Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
D. Special Terms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
E. Proposal Content………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
F. Insurance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
G. Proposal Submittal Form………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Exhibit A - Form of Agreement
1
A. SCOPE OF WORK
The City is requesting proposals for parking meter collection services located on streets and in parking lots.
1. Collection Procedure. In performing this work, the collection contractor shall adhere to the following
procedure:
a. Meter and payment center collections begin at the Parking Services Office located at 1260 Chorro
Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo.
b. Contractor will pick up the keys required to open the meters and payment centers to be collected
that day.
c. Contract will sign for receipt of the keys picked up.
d. Contractor will pick up the appropriate cart and collection canister required for the street zone(s)
and/or parking lot(s) to be collected. (The collection canisters may be different; some zones/lots
may have sealed or open coin cans.)
e. Contractor will begin the walking route for the appropriate street zone or parking lot to be
collected.
f. For each parking meter or payment center to be collected, Contractor will adhere to the following
procedure:
1) Unlock and open the coin can compartment or vault.
2) Remove the coin can and empty it into the collection canister.
3) Replace the coin can in its compartment or vault.
4) Lock the coin can compartment or vault.
5) If observable meter or payment center repairs are required, record them on a parking meter
repair form.
6) Note any vandalism or theft on a parking meter repair form.
g. Contractor will return to the Parking Services Office when the zone and/or lot collection is
completed.
h. Contractor will remove the collection canister from the collection cart in the presence of a City
employee.
i. Contractor will record the date, time, location, initials and the number of bags to be filled on a
collection slip. Contractor will attach the collection slip to the collection canister and move the
canister to the designated storage area in the presence of a City employee.
j. Go back to Step d. if continuing collections.
k. When all scheduled meter collections have been completed for the day, Contractor will unlock
all collection canisters in the presence of a City employee.
l. Contractor will remove the collection bags from inside the collection canisters and place the coin
into sealable coin bags labeled with the appropriate zone and/or lot number. This procedure is
done in the weighing/collection room with a City employee monitoring and sealing the coin bags.
Contractor will place an empty collection bag into each collection canister and lock the canister
in the presence of the City employee.
m. The City employee shall complete a receipt of uncounted sealed coin bags on a form furnished
by Garda.
n. Contractor shall place all sealed coin bags inside the City’s safe in the presence of the City
employee.
o. Contractor shall return the keys required for the meters and payment centers collected that day.
p. A City employee shall sign for receipt of the returned keys in a logbook maintained by the City.
q. Contractor will turn in meter repair forms to the meter repair shop.
2
2. Collection Schedule. Parking meters and payment centers to be collected are organized into street
zones and parking lots, which are shown on the map at the end of this section. The Contractor shall perform
the specified work according to the following schedule. The City may change this schedule at any time but
shall give the Contractor at least seven calendar days’ notice of the change. The Contractor shall not deviate
from this schedule without prior written permission from the City. The Contractor sha ll not perform the
specified work on any holiday observed by the City without prior written permission from the City.
Note: The number of collections is only an estimate and is subject to change.
Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays Fridays
Zone D Upper Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Lower
Zone G Zone E Zone G Zone D Upper Zone G
Zone B Zone H Zone F Zone Part B
Lot 2 Zone D Lower Lot 9 Zone Part H
Lot 4 Lot 14 Lot 3 Lot 2
Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 15 Lot 4
Lot 3 Lot 10
Lot 11
(±439
Collections)
(±499 Collections) (±469 Collections) (±433 Collections) (±450 Collections)
Donation Meters (7±) **
**Donation Meters. In an effort to redirect money given to panhandlers, these recycled parking meters
encourage Downtown patrons to give to local programs that are working to improve conditions for those
in need. United Way of San Luis Obispo County is the fiscal agent for downtown donatio n meters in
partnership with the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association.
These 7 donation meters may be collected by Contractor while servicing the City meters without an
additional cost or Contractor will submit a separate invoice to the United Way San Luis Obispo for their
time based on the same fee schedule as that used in setting the fees for the other meter collections. The
money collected will be bagged separately from the City’s collections and picked up by the United Way
of San Luis Obispo.
3. Collection Hours. The Contractor shall perform the specified work only on weekdays (Monday through
Friday). Suggested start time for collection is 8:00 a.m. and will continue until the collections scheduled
for that day are completed. Collections must be completed for the assigned day and the coin bagged no
later than 4:00 p.m. The collection/bagging room is not available between the hours of noon – 1:30 p.m.
for bagging of coin. Coin bagging is subject to the availability of staff.
Due to various meetings and or special events, the collection and/or bagging of coin may have to be
postponed and/or rescheduled. Contractor will be given advance notice whenever possible of any
schedule changes. Contractor may have additional zones/lots to collect in addition to the regularly
scheduled collections due to office closures and other circumstances. These additional collections must
be made and bagged no later than 4:00 p.m. the same day as collected. No changes to the regular
collection hours will be made by the Contractor without prior written permission from the City.
4. Collection Equipment. The City shall furnish two collection carts, eight lockable collection canisters, and
one coin bag holder. The Contractor shall be responsible for any periodic maintenance required on this
equipment and for any routine repair to the equipment that costs less than one hundred dollars ($100).
3
City will maintain tires, tubes and canning mechanisms. The City shall provide locks and keys fo r the
collection canisters.
5. Qualifications of Collection Workers. Contractor will provide a list of collection workers for approval by
the City on the proposal form. Contractor will inform the City of any changes in collection workers prior
to their start of work. Collection workers shall be competent and qualified to perform the specified work.
Collection workers will have worked in a cash handling environment. No collection worker shall perform
any of the specified work without (a) passing a background security check conducted by the City; (b) a
credit check conducted by the City; and (c) receiving written permission from the City to perform the
specified work. Each collection worker shall be able to comfortably lift a collection canister weighing up
to 140 pounds. A cash bond of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) will be required for the contract. All
collection workers shall meet all of the contract qualifications and requirements.
6. Conduct of Collection Workers. Collection workers shall perform the specified work in an orderly
manner and shall avoid even the appearance of impropriety in any form. If the City representative
advises the Contractor that a collection worker is incompetent, unqualified, or disorderly, the Contractor
shall remove that collection worker from the specified work for the duration of the agreement. While
performing the specified work, a collection worker shall not bring to the work locations any pets, any
children, or any persons not employed under the agreement. Contractor and collection workers are not
authorized to discuss confidential information that is learned in the course and scope of the performance
of this contract with private third parties or the press without prior written authorization of the City.
7. Uniforms for Collection Workers. While performing the specified work collection workers shall wear
simple but distinctive uniforms which have been approved in advance by the City and which shall clearly
identify the collection workers as representatives of the City. Uniforms shall be neat, clean and kept in
good appearance at all times. The City shall furnish official City of San Luis Obispo uniform patches that
must be affixed to the uniforms. The Contractor shall furnish all required uniforms, footwear, headgear,
jackets, or inclement weather gear.
8. Providing for Vacations, Illnesses, or Other Absences of Collection Workers. The Contractor shall
maintain a staff of at least two (2) fully qualified collection workers in order to continue performing the
specified work when a collection worker takes time off for vacation, illness, or other absence. The
Contractor shall list at least two proposed collection workers on the proposal form.
9. Responsibility for Loss or Damage of City Property. The Contractor shall be responsible for City property
while it is in the Contractor’s custody. The Contractor shall replace or repair City property, including
specifically coin revenue and collection equipment, lost or damaged as a result of the Contractor’s actions
or negligence. The Contractor shall not be responsible for loss or damage caused by theft and vandalism
by third parties, unless the theft or damage results from the Contractor’s negligence.
In the event the Contractor fails to perform the required collections on any scheduled day, the Contractor
shall be liable for all lost revenue because of their negligence. This amount shall not exceed the average
daily amount collected on that scheduled day.
4
B. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall
meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue of its proposal
submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications
and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be
submitted electronically via BidSync. However, if you can’t submit electronic please send your bid copy in a
sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA,
93401. To guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title,
project number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder’s insurance coverage during
proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract
award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities indicated
and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the
Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s)
must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any bidder for any item are not
in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal
total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to
the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its
withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened. No proposal received after
the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the “Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals”
will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Bidders or their represent atives are
invited to be present at the opening of the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to
make or file, or to be interested as the primary submitter in more than one proposal, except an alternative
proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -
proposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder, is not
thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders submitting
proposals.
5
7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged but will be permitted.
However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
8. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60
days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities
in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other,
except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the “special terms and
conditions” in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
9. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide, in a timely
manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
10. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written
contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award. The contract shall be made in
the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
11. The City’s contract terms and conditions that [Contractor/Consultant] will be expected to execute and
be bound by are attached hereto as Exhibit A
6
D. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and
Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible,
responsive proposer.
Phase 1 – Proposal Review
The review committee will review the general proposal forms submitted (Information about the
Proposing Firm, References, Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications, and Insurance
Certificate). Three to five proposing firms will be selected for follow-up interviews based on a)
quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal b) competence and qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work and c) recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
Phase 2 – Interviews and Contractor Selection
Selected firms will be interviewed by the review committee. The purposes of this interview will be
to a) evaluate communication and interpersonal skills and b) clarify and resolve any questions and
issues about the proposal. Based on results of the interviews, the review committee will rank the
proposing firms.
Phase 3 – Evaluation of Price and Award of Contract
After selecting the top-ranked firms, the review committee will open all the submitted price
proposals from the selected firms.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors
as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing
them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to
further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
2. Sales Tax Reimbursement.
For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore,
for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is
allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the
City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
3. Labor Actions.
In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award
(or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right
to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the
next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare
it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
4. Failure to Accept Contract.
The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into
the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the
special terms and conditions if a proposer’s bond or security is required; and an award may be made
to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the
7
party to whom the first award was made.
5.Contract Term.
The services identified in this specification will be used by the City for five (5) years. The prices quoted
for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by
the proposer in its proposal.
6.Compensation Adjustment.
Original contract prices shall remain in effect through June 30, 2024. Beginning on July 1, 2024,
contract prices shall be increased by a percentage equal to the percentage increase in the U.S.
Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the previous year to March in the
year of adjustment.
7.Supplemental Purchases
Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during
the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these
supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts
offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a
standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price
structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis
should be provided with the proposal submittal.
8.Contractor Invoices
The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with the name of the contract and
associated purchase order number with itemized detail by work category. Invoices should be
received within 15 days of the completion of the invoiced work period.
9.Non-Exclusive Contract.
The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well
as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term.
10.Unrestrictive Brand Names.
Any manufacturer’s names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications
are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not
intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the
quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed,
supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets
or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any
proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this
determination.
11.Delivery.
Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this
RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful
proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City.
12.Change in Work.
The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity
of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for
that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to
negotiation with the Contractor.
8
13.Submittal of References.
Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the
RFP package.
14.Statement of Contract Disqualifications.
Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract
disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
9
C.PROPOSAL CONTENT
1.Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a.Proposal submittal summary.
b.Certificate of insurance.
c.References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services.
Qualifications
d.Experience of your firm and those of sub-consultants in performing work and projects relevant to the
Scope of Services outlined and described in the request.
e.Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub -consultants,
with their corollary experience highlighted and specific roles in this project clearly described.
f.Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants.
g.Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm or sub-consultant has been removed
from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
h.Detailed description of your approach to completing the work.
i.Detailed schedule by task and sub-task for completing the work.
j.Estimated hours for your staff in performing each phase and task of the work, including sub-
consultants, so we can clearly see who will be doing what work, and how much time it will take.
k.Detailed budget by task and sub-task for completing the work.
l.Services or data to be provided by the City.
m.Services and deliverables provided by the Consultant(s).
n.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
o.Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may impact cost or scope.
Requested Changes to Terms and Conditions
p.The City desires to begin work soon after selecting the preferred Consultant Team and expects the
Consultant to execute the City’s contract and all of the terms therein, as set forth in Exhibit A. To expedite
the contracting process, each submittal shall include requested redlined changes to terms and conditions, if
necessary. Please be advised that Consultant’s requested changes to the City’s terms and conditions will be
considered by City staff when scoring and determining the competency and responsibility of the bidder.
Proposal Length
q.Proposal length should only be as long as required to be responsive to the RFP, including attachments
and supplemental materials.
2.Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and
evaluated on the following criteria:
a.Understanding of the work required by the City.
b.Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
10
c.Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the
work required by the City.
d.Recent team experience in successfully performing similar services.
e.Creativity of the proposed approach in completing the work.
f.Value
g.Writing skills.
h.References.
i.Background and experience of the specific individuals managing and assigned to this project.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as
determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further
with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the
proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
3.Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for
proposal review and contract award:
a.Issue RFP
b.Receive proposals
c.Complete proposal evaluations
d.Conduct finalist interviews and finalize recommendation
e.Execute contract
f.Start work
9/13/2022
10/13/2022
by 10/21/2022
10/24-28/2022 By
11/4/2022
By 11/4/2022
4.Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or
in possession of the Contractor 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.
5.Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
be the property of the City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor
without the prior written approval of the City.
6.Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited
quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such
additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of
such copies at the Contractor's direct expense.
7.Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide:
a.One electronic submission - digital-ready original .pdf of all final documents. If you wish to file a paper
copy, please submit in sealed envelope to the address provided in the RFP.
b.Corresponding computer files compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless
otherwise directed by the project manager:
Word Processing: MS Word
Spreadsheets: MS Excel
Desktop Publishing: InDesign
11
Virtual Models: Sketch Up
Digital Maps: Geodatabase shape files in State Plan Coordinate System as
specified by City GIS staff
c.City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary,
the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
8.Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must
provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternative and discuss under what
circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).
9.Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price
is attendance by the Contractor at meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations.
Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing work-scope tasks.
10.Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate
and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Bidders are cautioned to
undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the
accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal,
the bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation
errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have
been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although
the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent
ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so
inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder. An ambiguity or defect
shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, assuming reasonable skill, ability and
diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore,
failure of the bidder or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities
prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal
of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful bidder to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts
provided there for in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately
notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of
whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not
a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the
hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts
giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
13
F. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Insurance Requirements – Standard Professional Services
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1
(any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit of $2,000,000.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
13
3.The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made
or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4.Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given
to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no
less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and
automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be
signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences.
14
G: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined [__________] which is hereby made a
part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing
firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
BID ITEM:
Total Base Price
Sales tax []
Other
TOTAL $
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within _______ calendar days after contract execution and written
authorization to proceed.
q Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
15
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: .
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the
services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves
the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's
qualifications.
Reference No. 1:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
16
Reference No. 3
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
17
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it,
has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state,
or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason,
including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product
quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
◼Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes q No q
◼If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative
18
EXHIBIT A : FORM OF AGREEMENT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on _____________[day,
date, year] by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
City, and [Contractor’s Name], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for [______________], per Project No. [xxxx] (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for
the Project;
WHEREAS, [_________]
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, for
five (5) years.
2.INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. [Title of City’s RFP/RFQ/IFB] and Contractor's proposal dated
[date] is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement and attached as Exhibit A. To
the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work and the
City’s terms and conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically
agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties.
3.CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay, and
Contractor shall receive therefore compensation [_______].
4.CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with
City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications.
5.AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager.
6.COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated
herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated
19
herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or
representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid
by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Name
Dept.
Address
Consultant Name
Title
Address
Address
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that everyone
executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
By:_____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President
20
EXHIBIT A [CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL]
21
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business
license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the
City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
2. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and
complete the work hereunder in compliance with all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
3. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
4. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
5. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and give all notices necessary.
6. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
7. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor’s operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish,
erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take
such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public
and employees.
8. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or
damaged resulting from the Contractor’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor’s
expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor
began work.
9. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all
22
subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the
United State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall
be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
10. Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not
engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in
employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
11. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire,
earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to
federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion
may, at the City’s sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the
Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion
date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that
may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to
the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
12. Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Contractor
(Net 30).
13. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements
and intentions of this contract. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the
City’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its
obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
14. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment
to Contractor.
15. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall
not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The
Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an
officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work
hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or
employee of the City.
16. Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by
23
law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers,
and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities,
obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation
(“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations
under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City’s active or
passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct
of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a
defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of
defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a
“construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall apply in
place of paragraph A. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil
Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its
elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any
and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable
legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or
Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted
by Consultant, except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or
willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit,
or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City
Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope of
Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used in Civil
Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest extent
permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8)
Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers,
employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims, damages, injuries,
losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and expert witness fees arising
out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant,
except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be
conclusively deemed to be the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless
adequately corrected by Consultant. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action,
lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s
option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in
defense of such claims. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant
24
under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the
previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to
bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding
unpaid defense costs.
(d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Consultant’s work or work product by any indemnified
party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Consultant’s indemnification or defense obligations. This
Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this
Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance.
17. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or
business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
18. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or
no reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this
Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf products,
a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase price; (b) for custom
products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components work in progress and any
finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement. For termination of any services
pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability will be the lesser of a reasonable price for the services
rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services reflected on this Agreement. Upon
termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless otherwise directed, cease work and follow the
City’s directions as to work in progress and finished goods.
19. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day
notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the
notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately
by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties,
obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the
Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any
manner waived by the terminations thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City’s Notice of Termination, minus
any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such breach. “Reasonable value”
includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or
completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in
-25-
the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or
provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the work-in-
progress in completing the overall work scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of
the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete
accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the
compensation quoted in its proposal.
1
From:Symens, Sadie
Sent:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:08 PM
To:
Cc:King, Donna; Rice, Jennifer
Subject:Termination of Parking Meter Coin Collection Services
Mr. Cross,
The City received your email dated August 21, 2025, regarding the FS Collections Notification of Contract
Termination. We have reviewed all relevant records and have concluded that your contract expired in June of 2020, at
which point it was extended on a month-to-month basis effective July 1, 2020. The City did not execute a contract with
FS Collections in response to the proposal submitted in 2022. As you have been previously noticed, the agreement for
month-to-month services has been terminated by City staff, effective October 31, 2025.
We sincerely appreciate your years of service to the City.
Thank you,
Sadie Symens
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Attorney
Sadie Symens
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
E ssymens@slocity.org
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the
designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege
and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with
publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent
responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent
error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone
else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US
IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you.
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Wednesday, August 27, 2025 9:19 AM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT (ROUND &
ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN)
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission
public archive for tonight’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 9:21 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT (ROUND & ROUND WITH
TOWN & GOWN)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The impacts from illegal fraternity "satellite" houses in the R-1and R-2 zones, especially in the neighborhoods adjacent
to Cal Poly are causing serious detrimental impacts to the residents in those neighborhoods.
It's exceptionally concerning that the staff report indicates that the City is unable to remedy the impacts. "Extending
staff hours or increasing the number of staff available to address fraternity and sorority enforcement would represent a
significant increase in ongoing costs to the public at a time when the City is forecasting future budget deficits.
Alternatively, redirection or adjustment of existing staff toward this effort would result in decreased service levels
and/or delays in addressing other community response workload."
The neighborhood is becoming unlivable. There is one particular family that was forced to leave because of the noise
from parties that I won't forget. The family bought a house next to the wife's father to be near him as he was getting
up in age. He had lived in that home for over 50 years. That was the house the daughter grew up in. They had to sell
both homes and move the father who had lived in his home forever to a new home next to them in a home they
purchased in the 5 cities area. That is the consequences of the partying.
2
The commission needs to make a bold statement that the city is going to make sure there are personnel necessary to
address the illegal "satellite" fraternity houses operating in the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, especially adjacent to the
campus.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Tuesday, August 26, 2025 9:21 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT (ROUND & ROUND
WITH TOWN & GOWN)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The impacts from illegal fraternity "satellite" houses in the R-1and R-2 zones, especially in the neighborhoods adjacent to Cal
Poly are causing serious detrimental impacts to the residents in those neighborhoods.
It's excepƟonally concerning that the staff report indicates that the City is unable to remedy the impacts. "Extending staff hours
or increasing the number of staff available to address fraternity and sorority enforcement would represent a significant increase
in ongoing costs to the public at a Ɵme when the City is forecasƟng future budget deficits. AlternaƟvely, redirecƟon or
adjustment of exisƟng staff toward this effort would result in decreased service levels and/or delays in addressing other
community response workload."
The neighborhood is becoming unlivable. There is one parƟcular family that was forced to leave because of the noise from
parƟes that I won't forget. The family bought a house next to the wife's father to be near him as he was geƫng up in age. He
had lived in that home for over 50 years. That was the house the daughter grew up in. They had to sell both homes and move
the father who had lived in his home forever to a new home next to them in a home they purchased in the 5 ciƟes area. That is
the consequences of the partying.
The commission needs to make a bold statement that the city is going to make sure there are personnel necessary to address th e
illegal "satellite" fraternity houses operaƟng in the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, especially adjacent to the campus.
Sincerely,
BreƩ Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:19 PM
To:Rice, Jennifer; Dietrick, Christine; McDonald, Whitney; Fuchs, Alex; King, Donna
Subject:FS Collections Notification of Contract Termination
Attachments:Parking Meter Coin Collections Services City of San Luis Obispo cover letter.docx;
Parking_Meter_and_Parking_Payment_Center_Coin_Collections_Services.docx; Packet_for_Bid_
2209-001.pdf; Scan_0019 (1).pdf; Scan_0021.pdf
Dear Sir or Madam,
On Wednesday August 20th I, as a partner of FS CollecƟons, was informed by Donna King- Parking Program Manager that the
contract with FS CollecƟons was being terminated on October 31 of this year.
The leƩer indicates the contract was "informally" extended on a month to month basis on July 1, 2020.
However, on September 13, 2022 the City adverƟsed for SolicitaƟon 2209-001 NoƟce RequesƟng Proposals / QualificaƟons for
Parking Meter Coin CollecƟon. The bid end date was October 13, 2022. FS CollecƟons submiƩed a proposal dated October 4,
2022 within the deadline outlined in the bid packet.
The bid was received, and the bid was not rejected. The bid packet outlines the City's obligaƟons for review and execuƟon of the
contract which was November 4, 2022. I was informed that the contract signatures were going to be signed by the City. Why
they were not signed in a Ɵmely maƩer and in accordance with the contract is unknown.
FS CollecƟons was never informed that the City did not intend to formalize the contract. My understanding was that due to the
total 5 year contract costs exceeding city policy limits the contract needed to be adopted by the City Council. And we assumed
that staff would prepare a report to the City Council for acƟon. At some point I became aware that City parking staff were going
to prepare a report to the City Administrator to recognize FS CollecƟons as a "Sole Source Provider" therefore only needing
signing by the City Administrator and City AƩorney to effectuate the contract. Apparently this approach was being considered
due to the Finance Department puƫng pressure on the Parking Department to finalize the contract. My understanding is that
finance needed the contract to be signed in order to disperse funds. I hadn't heard anything beyond that.
If we had known that the City was going to now "claim" that because the City hadn't finalized the contract that it was only an
extension of a previous month to month agreement and could be terminated at basically at any point we would have insisted the
contract be signed as outlined in the bid documents. We were being generous, maybe too generous, in not having the contract
finalized on November 4th, 2022 in order to give the City Ɵme to figure out what was needed to have the contract signed. I'll
admit that we should not have been so lenient towards the City.
The City should have signed the contract but for whatever reasons waited and waited. That's not FS CollecƟons fault. And now
to say, "well you were really only working month to month" is rather disingenuous and it's not the right way to do business. It
really isn't. Given that it was FS CollecƟons accommodaƟng the City and the fact there is only 2 more years leŌ on the contract.
It would have been beƩer so just have said we're going to do our own collecƟons in the single space meters as they are removed
and are replaced with pay staƟons or we'd like to hear what you propose.
Apparently, the decision to bring coin collecƟons "in house" is being driven by the replacement of the single space parking
meters to pay staƟons and the anƟcipated reducƟon in coins. That's certainly true however FS CollecƟons believe that given the
bid submiƩal and indicaƟons from various staff since the bid was received and not rejected it is sƟll subject to the terms and
condiƟons. Accordingly, we believe the contract sƟll should be in effect for approximately 2 more years.
2
If City staff would like to discuss the collecƟon of newly installed pay staƟons in the current single space zones we would be
happy to discuss that. However, the contract submiƩal included already exisƟng pay staƟons. If the City wishes to collect any
newly installed pay staƟons in single space meter zones that is your decision.
Sincerely,
BreƩ Cross
Partner FS CollecƟon
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA
93405
Parking Meter and Parking Payment Center Coin Collections Services
FS Collections
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-235-0430
Proposed Collection Schedule
Mondays Tuesday’s Wednesday’s Thursday’s
Pay Stations 55 Zone E 52 Zone C 151 Pay Stations 55
Zone H Meters 58 Zone F 115 Zone A 52 Zone H Meters 58
Zone E (High Use) 101 Lot 9 19 Zone E (High Use) 55
Lot 4 10 Lot 14 44 Zone F (High Use) 61
Zone F (High Use) 92 Lot 15 6 Lot 4 4
Total Pay Stations Total Pay Stations
55 55
Total Meters Total Meters Total Meters Total Meters
261 236 203 178
Weekly Totals
Pay Stations 110
On Street Meters 878
Parking Meter Coin Collections Services City of San Luis Obispo
Bid ID: 2209-001
FS Collections
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-235-0430
On behalf of John Girard and myself as partners in FS Collections we appreciate the opportunity to again
submit a bid to the City of San Luis Obispo for the Parking Meter Coin Collection contract.
Both John and I have provided parking meter coin collection services for the city for about the past 25
years. A lot has changed over those years. Lot 6 which was the Court St. lot was developed as a major
retail project as were Lots 11 and 13. Lot 2 is now a hotel. I think the City may have still be using the old
“wind up” meters. With the new pay stations and license plate reader vehicles plus the proposed new IPS
M5 meters the city has come a long way from the days of the wind up meters.
As the city has adapted so have our collection schedules, routes and frequencies. With the addition of the
pay stations routes B and G were eliminated and combined with existing routes. The change in rates and
hours of enforcement has changed the need for additional collections in some areas that were collected
once a week to twice per week to avoid meters jamming do to filling up. It will be interesting to see what
changes to collection frequencies may be necessary with the next rate increase. It’s important to have a
contractor in place that can recognize necessary changes and the flexibility to do so.
Before I get too far along with discussing the specific bid proposal, especially the schedule and frequency,
John and I want to share more of our commitment not only to providing a high level of service to city’s
parking department but a high level of service to the community
Both John and I are lifelong residents of San Luis Obispo. John grew up on Verde Dr and had a home on
Benton Way in San Luis Obispo. He now lives out on Tiffany Ranch Rd. I grew up in the Laguna Lake
neighborhood where I still live. We are both proud and lucky to make San Luis Obispo our home and I
believe that is reflected in our role as ambassadors for the City when we are out in public collecting the
meters or the pay stations.
We do our best to provide tourists and residents alike with parking information, directions to points of
interest (the Mission and Gum Alley are pretty high on the list), where’s the best place for breakfast, and
“how do you do the pay station”.
John and I are also concerned about our downtown and we both are in the habit of picking up litter and
reporting any graffiti on the meters along with other issues that need attention while we are out collecting
meters or pay stations.
A little discussion about the pay stations and why I’m guessing you may be wonder why is it more to
collect those and do they really need to be collected twice a week. The simple answer is they take a lot
longer and have ‘issues” that really necessitates them being collected twice a week. Plus I should mention
that users quite frequently need help using the machines. I like to say we’ve become like concierge
service too. It can take some time to help the public enter their license plate and help them get their credit
card read.
The Pay Stations are “clunky” and they are spread out all over the downtown and basically they take a
long time to collect. The average time to consider for each collection is 5 minutes per station. It doesn’t
always take that long but with 3 locks and coins jamming in the chute that leads to the coin box along
with coins that somehow spill outside the coin box it can take a long time to collect each one if you have
to unjam the Pay Station or scoop out the coins that are piled up inside. And it’s those jams in the coin
chute leading to the coin box and the tendency for the coins to spill out into the bottom of the pay station
that makes it important to get to them twice per week. If you reduce the frequency you’ll invariably see
many stations that are not accepting coins because they are jammed. That will create additional
maintenance call outs along with a frustrated public.
The meter collection schedule and frequency is currently what is being done. It’s the minimum necessary
to keep the meters from filling up and becoming jammed and inoperable. The increase in hours of
payment from 9AM-6PM to 9AM-9PM really changed the pattern of meter usage. Some 10 hour meters
near the core which would have only been collected once a week now have to be done twice a week or
will fill up. That’s why in the proposal you’ll see references “High Use”. Some of those are 10 hour
meters which are collected twice now. It will be interesting to see what if any changes need to be made
with the new IPS M5 meters which take credit cards along with a substantial rate increase in 2023.
John and I look forward to a continued relationship with the City’s Parking Department as the Parking
Meter and Pay Station Collections contractor.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross Partner FS Collections
‘
Solicitation 2209-001
Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking
Meter Coin Collection S
Bid Designation: Public
City of San Luis Obispo
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 1
Bid 2209-001
Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection S
Bid Number 2209-001
Bid Title Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection S
Bid Start Date Sep 13, 2022 9:59:11 AM PDT
Bid End Date Oct 13, 2022 3:00:00 PM PDT
Question &
Answer End Date Oct 6, 2022 5:00:00 PM PDT
Bid Contact Daniel Clancy
dclancy@slocity.org
Contract Duration 5 years
Contract Renewal Not Applicable
Prices Good for 30 days
Bid Comments Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection Services
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for Parking Meter and Parking Payment Center Coin
Collection Services.
All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be
required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-
web/vendor/register/Login.xhtml).
All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of Finance at or before October 5, 2022, when
they will be opened electronically via BidSync.
The preferred method for bid submission is electronic via BidSync. However, if you wish to submit a paper copy,
please submit it in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at
www.BidSync.com. Please contact Gavin Hussey, with any questions.
For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.
Item Response Form
Item 2209-001-01-01 - Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection S
Quantity 1 each
Unit Price
Delivery Location City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Qty 1
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 2
Expected Expenditure $1.00
Description
Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection Services.
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for Parking Meter and Parking Payment Center Coin Collection Services.
All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be required to complete a free
registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-web/vendor/register/Login.xhtml).
All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of Finance at or before October 5, 2022, when they will be opened electronically
via BidSync.
The preferred method for bid submission is electronic via BidSync. However, if you wish to submit a paper copy, please submit it in a sealed
envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at www.BidSync.com. Please contact Gavin
Hussey, with any questions.
For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 3
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for Parking Meter Coin Collection Services
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for Parking Meter and Parking Payment Center
Coin Collection Services.
All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be
required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-
web/vendor/register/Login.xhtml).
All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of Finance at or before October 5, 2022,
when they will be opened electronically via BidSync.
The preferred method for bid submission is electronic via BidSync. However, if you wish to submit a paper
copy, please submit it in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at
www.BidSync.com. Please contact Gavin Hussey, with any questions.
For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Budget………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
C. General Terms and Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
D. Special Terms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
E. Proposal Content………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
F. Insurance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
G. Proposal Submittal Form………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Exhibit A - Form of Agreement
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 5
1
A. SCOPE OF WORK
The City is requesting proposals for parking meter collection services located on streets and in parking lots.
1. Collection Procedure. In performing this work, the collection contractor shall adhere to the following
procedure:
a. Meter and payment center collections begin at the Parking Services Office located at 1260 Chorro
Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo.
b. Contractor will pick up the keys required to open the meters and payment centers to be collected
that day.
c. Contract will sign for receipt of the keys picked up.
d. Contractor will pick up the appropriate cart and collection canister required for the street zone(s)
and/or parking lot(s) to be collected. (The collection canisters may be different; some zones/lots
may have sealed or open coin cans.)
e. Contractor will begin the walking route for the appropriate street zone or parking lot to be
collected.
f. For each parking meter or payment center to be collected, Contractor will adhere to the following
procedure:
1) Unlock and open the coin can compartment or vault.
2) Remove the coin can and empty it into the collection canister.
3) Replace the coin can in its compartment or vault.
4) Lock the coin can compartment or vault.
5) If observable meter or payment center repairs are required, record them on a parking meter
repair form.
6) Note any vandalism or theft on a parking meter repair form.
g. Contractor will return to the Parking Services Office when the zone and/or lot collection is
completed.
h. Contractor will remove the collection canister from the collection cart in the presence of a City
employee.
i. Contractor will record the date, time, location, initials and the number of bags to be filled on a
collection slip. Contractor will attach the collection slip to the collection canister and move the
canister to the designated storage area in the presence of a City employee.
j. Go back to Step d. if continuing collections.
k. When all scheduled meter collections have been completed for the day, Contractor will unlock
all collection canisters in the presence of a City employee.
l. Contractor will remove the collection bags from inside the collection canisters and place the coin
into sealable coin bags labeled with the appropriate zone and/or lot number. This procedure is
done in the weighing/collection room with a City employee monitoring and sealing the coin bags.
Contractor will place an empty collection bag into each collection canister and lock the canister
in the presence of the City employee.
m. The City employee shall complete a receipt of uncounted sealed coin bags on a form furnished
by Garda.
n. Contractor shall place all sealed coin bags inside the City’s safe in the presence of the City
employee.
o. Contractor shall return the keys required for the meters and payment centers collected that day.
p. A City employee shall sign for receipt of the returned keys in a logbook maintained by the City.
q. Contractor will turn in meter repair forms to the meter repair shop.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 6
2
2. Collection Schedule. Parking meters and payment centers to be collected are organized into street
zones and parking lots, which are shown on the map at the end of this section. The Contractor shall perform
the specified work according to the following schedule. The City may change this schedule at any time but
shall give the Contractor at least seven calendar days’ notice of the change. The Contractor shall not deviate
from this schedule without prior written permission from the City. The Contractor sha ll not perform the
specified work on any holiday observed by the City without prior written permission from the City.
Note: The number of collections is only an estimate and is subject to change.
Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays Fridays
Zone D Upper Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Lower
Zone G Zone E Zone G Zone D Upper Zone G
Zone B Zone H Zone F Zone Part B
Lot 2 Zone D Lower Lot 9 Zone Part H
Lot 4 Lot 14 Lot 3 Lot 2
Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 15 Lot 4
Lot 3 Lot 10
Lot 11
(±439
Collections)
(±499 Collections) (±469 Collections) (±433 Collections) (±450 Collections)
Donation Meters (7±) **
**Donation Meters. In an effort to redirect money given to panhandlers, these recycled parking meters
encourage Downtown patrons to give to local programs that are working to improve conditions for those
in need. United Way of San Luis Obispo County is the fiscal agent for downtown donatio n meters in
partnership with the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association.
These 7 donation meters may be collected by Contractor while servicing the City meters without an
additional cost or Contractor will submit a separate invoice to the United Way San Luis Obispo for their
time based on the same fee schedule as that used in setting the fees for the other meter collections. The
money collected will be bagged separately from the City’s collections and picked up by the United Way
of San Luis Obispo.
3. Collection Hours. The Contractor shall perform the specified work only on weekdays (Monday through
Friday). Suggested start time for collection is 8:00 a.m. and will continue until the collections scheduled
for that day are completed. Collections must be completed for the assigned day and the coin bagged no
later than 4:00 p.m. The collection/bagging room is not available between the hours of noon – 1:30 p.m.
for bagging of coin. Coin bagging is subject to the availability of staff.
Due to various meetings and or special events, the collection and/or bagging of coin may have to be
postponed and/or rescheduled. Contractor will be given advance notice whenever possible of any
schedule changes. Contractor may have additional zones/lots to collect in addition to the regularly
scheduled collections due to office closures and other circumstances. These additional collections must
be made and bagged no later than 4:00 p.m. the same day as collected. No changes to the regular
collection hours will be made by the Contractor without prior written permission from the City.
4. Collection Equipment. The City shall furnish two collection carts, eight lockable collection canisters, and
one coin bag holder. The Contractor shall be responsible for any periodic maintenance required on this
equipment and for any routine repair to the equipment that costs less than one hundred dollars ($100).
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 7
3
City will maintain tires, tubes and canning mechanisms. The City shall provide locks and keys fo r the
collection canisters.
5. Qualifications of Collection Workers. Contractor will provide a list of collection workers for approval by
the City on the proposal form. Contractor will inform the City of any changes in collection workers prior
to their start of work. Collection workers shall be competent and qualified to perform the specified work.
Collection workers will have worked in a cash handling environment. No collection worker shall perform
any of the specified work without (a) passing a background security check conducted by the City; (b) a
credit check conducted by the City; and (c) receiving written permission from the City to perform the
specified work. Each collection worker shall be able to comfortably lift a collection canister weighing up
to 140 pounds. A cash bond of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) will be required for the contract. All
collection workers shall meet all of the contract qualifications and requirements.
6. Conduct of Collection Workers. Collection workers shall perform the specified work in an orderly
manner and shall avoid even the appearance of impropriety in any form. If the City representative
advises the Contractor that a collection worker is incompetent, unqualified, or disorderly, the Contractor
shall remove that collection worker from the specified work for the duration of the agreement. While
performing the specified work, a collection worker shall not bring to the work locations any pets, any
children, or any persons not employed under the agreement. Contractor and collection workers are not
authorized to discuss confidential information that is learned in the course and scope of the performance
of this contract with private third parties or the press without prior written authorization of the City.
7. Uniforms for Collection Workers. While performing the specified work collection workers shall wear
simple but distinctive uniforms which have been approved in advance by the City and which shall clearly
identify the collection workers as representatives of the City. Uniforms shall be neat, clean and kept in
good appearance at all times. The City shall furnish official City of San Luis Obispo uniform patches that
must be affixed to the uniforms. The Contractor shall furnish all required uniforms, footwear, headgear,
jackets, or inclement weather gear.
8. Providing for Vacations, Illnesses, or Other Absences of Collection Workers. The Contractor shall
maintain a staff of at least two (2) fully qualified collection workers in order to continue performing the
specified work when a collection worker takes time off for vacation, illness, or other absence. The
Contractor shall list at least two proposed collection workers on the proposal form.
9. Responsibility for Loss or Damage of City Property. The Contractor shall be responsible for City property
while it is in the Contractor’s custody. The Contractor shall replace or repair City property, including
specifically coin revenue and collection equipment, lost or damaged as a result of the Contractor’s actions
or negligence. The Contractor shall not be responsible for loss or damage caused by theft and vandalism
by third parties, unless the theft or damage results from the Contractor’s negligence.
In the event the Contractor fails to perform the required collections on any scheduled day, the Contractor
shall be liable for all lost revenue because of their negligence. This amount shall not exceed the average
daily amount collected on that scheduled day.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 8
4
B. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall
meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue of its proposal
submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications
and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be
submitted electronically via BidSync. However, if you can’t submit electronic please send your bid copy in a
sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA,
93401. To guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title,
project number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder’s insurance coverage during
proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract
award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities indicated
and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the
Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s)
must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any bidder for any item are not
in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal
total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to
the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its
withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened. No proposal received after
the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the “Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals”
will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Bidders or their represent atives are
invited to be present at the opening of the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to
make or file, or to be interested as the primary submitter in more than one proposal, except an alternative
proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -
proposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder, is not
thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders submitting
proposals.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 9
5
7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged but will be permitted.
However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
8. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60
days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities
in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other,
except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the “special terms and
conditions” in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
9. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide, in a timely
manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
10. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written
contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award. The contract shall be made in
the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
11. The City’s contract terms and conditions that [Contractor/Consultant] will be expected to execute and
be bound by are attached hereto as Exhibit A
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 10
6
D. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and
Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible,
responsive proposer.
Phase 1 – Proposal Review
The review committee will review the general proposal forms submitted (Information about the
Proposing Firm, References, Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications, and Insurance
Certificate). Three to five proposing firms will be selected for follow-up interviews based on a)
quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal b) competence and qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work and c) recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
Phase 2 – Interviews and Contractor Selection
Selected firms will be interviewed by the review committee. The purposes of this interview will be
to a) evaluate communication and interpersonal skills and b) clarify and resolve any questions and
issues about the proposal. Based on results of the interviews, the review committee will rank the
proposing firms.
Phase 3 – Evaluation of Price and Award of Contract
After selecting the top-ranked firms, the review committee will open all the submitted price
proposals from the selected firms.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors
as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing
them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to
further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
2. Sales Tax Reimbursement.
For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore,
for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is
allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the
City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
3. Labor Actions.
In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award
(or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right
to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the
next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare
it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
4. Failure to Accept Contract.
The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into
the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the
special terms and conditions if a proposer’s bond or security is required; and an award may be made
to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 11
7
party to whom the first award was made.
5.Contract Term.
The services identified in this specification will be used by the City for five (5) years. The prices quoted
for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by
the proposer in its proposal.
6.Compensation Adjustment.
Original contract prices shall remain in effect through June 30, 2024. Beginning on July 1, 2024,
contract prices shall be increased by a percentage equal to the percentage increase in the U.S.
Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the previous year to March in the
year of adjustment.
7.Supplemental Purchases
Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during
the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these
supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts
offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a
standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price
structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis
should be provided with the proposal submittal.
8.Contractor Invoices
The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with the name of the contract and
associated purchase order number with itemized detail by work category. Invoices should be
received within 15 days of the completion of the invoiced work period.
9.Non-Exclusive Contract.
The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well
as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term.
10.Unrestrictive Brand Names.
Any manufacturer’s names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications
are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not
intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the
quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed,
supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets
or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any
proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this
determination.
11.Delivery.
Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this
RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful
proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City.
12.Change in Work.
The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity
of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for
that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to
negotiation with the Contractor.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 12
8
13.Submittal of References.
Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the
RFP package.
14.Statement of Contract Disqualifications.
Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract
disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 13
9
C.PROPOSAL CONTENT
1.Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a.Proposal submittal summary.
b.Certificate of insurance.
c.References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services.
Qualifications
d.Experience of your firm and those of sub-consultants in performing work and projects relevant to the
Scope of Services outlined and described in the request.
e.Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub -consultants,
with their corollary experience highlighted and specific roles in this project clearly described.
f.Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants.
g.Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm or sub-consultant has been removed
from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
h.Detailed description of your approach to completing the work.
i.Detailed schedule by task and sub-task for completing the work.
j.Estimated hours for your staff in performing each phase and task of the work, including sub-
consultants, so we can clearly see who will be doing what work, and how much time it will take.
k.Detailed budget by task and sub-task for completing the work.
l.Services or data to be provided by the City.
m.Services and deliverables provided by the Consultant(s).
n.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
o.Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may impact cost or scope.
Requested Changes to Terms and Conditions
p.The City desires to begin work soon after selecting the preferred Consultant Team and expects the
Consultant to execute the City’s contract and all of the terms therein, as set forth in Exhibit A. To expedite
the contracting process, each submittal shall include requested redlined changes to terms and conditions, if
necessary. Please be advised that Consultant’s requested changes to the City’s terms and conditions will be
considered by City staff when scoring and determining the competency and responsibility of the bidder.
Proposal Length
q.Proposal length should only be as long as required to be responsive to the RFP, including attachments
and supplemental materials.
2.Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and
evaluated on the following criteria:
a.Understanding of the work required by the City.
b.Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 14
10
c.Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the
work required by the City.
d.Recent team experience in successfully performing similar services.
e.Creativity of the proposed approach in completing the work.
f.Value
g.Writing skills.
h.References.
i.Background and experience of the specific individuals managing and assigned to this project.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as
determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further
with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the
proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
3.Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for
proposal review and contract award:
a.Issue RFP
b.Receive proposals
c.Complete proposal evaluations
d.Conduct finalist interviews and finalize recommendation
e.Execute contract
f.Start work
9/13/2022
10/13/2022
by 10/21/2022
10/24-28/2022 By
11/4/2022
By 11/4/2022
4.Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or
in possession of the Contractor 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.
5.Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
be the property of the City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor
without the prior written approval of the City.
6.Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited
quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such
additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of
such copies at the Contractor's direct expense.
7.Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide:
a.One electronic submission - digital-ready original .pdf of all final documents. If you wish to file a paper
copy, please submit in sealed envelope to the address provided in the RFP.
b.Corresponding computer files compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless
otherwise directed by the project manager:
Word Processing: MS Word
Spreadsheets: MS Excel
Desktop Publishing: InDesign
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 15
11
Virtual Models: Sketch Up
Digital Maps: Geodatabase shape files in State Plan Coordinate System as
specified by City GIS staff
c.City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary,
the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
8.Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must
provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternative and discuss under what
circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).
9.Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price
is attendance by the Contractor at meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations.
Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing work-scope tasks.
10.Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate
and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Bidders are cautioned to
undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the
accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal,
the bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation
errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have
been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although
the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent
ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so
inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder. An ambiguity or defect
shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, assuming reasonable skill, ability and
diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore,
failure of the bidder or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities
prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal
of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for
costs incurred by the successful bidder to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts
provided there for in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately
notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of
whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not
a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the
hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts
giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 16
13
F. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Insurance Requirements – Standard Professional Services
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1
(any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit of $2,000,000.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 17
13
3.The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made
or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4.Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given
to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no
less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and
automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be
signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 18
14
G: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined [__________] which is hereby made a
part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing
firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
BID ITEM:
Total Base Price
Sales tax []
Other
TOTAL $
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within _______ calendar days after contract execution and written
authorization to proceed.
q Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 19
15
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: .
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the
services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves
the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's
qualifications.
Reference No. 1:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 20
16
Reference No. 3
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 21
17
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it,
has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state,
or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason,
including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product
quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
◼Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes q No q
◼If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 22
18
EXHIBIT A : FORM OF AGREEMENT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on _____________[day,
date, year] by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
City, and [Contractor’s Name], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for [______________], per Project No. [xxxx] (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for
the Project;
WHEREAS, [_________]
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, for
five (5) years.
2.INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. [Title of City’s RFP/RFQ/IFB] and Contractor's proposal dated
[date] is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement and attached as Exhibit A. To
the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work and the
City’s terms and conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically
agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties.
3.CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay, and
Contractor shall receive therefore compensation [_______].
4.CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with
City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications.
5.AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager.
6.COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated
herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 23
19
herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or
representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid
by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Name
Dept.
Address
Consultant Name
Title
Address
Address
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that everyone
executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
By:_____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 24
20
EXHIBIT A [CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL]
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 25
21
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business
license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the
City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
2. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and
complete the work hereunder in compliance with all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
3. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
4. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
5. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and give all notices necessary.
6. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to
safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
7. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor’s operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish,
erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take
such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public
and employees.
8. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or
damaged resulting from the Contractor’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor’s
expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor
began work.
9. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 26
22
subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the
United State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall
be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
10. Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not
engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in
employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
11. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire,
earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to
federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion
may, at the City’s sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the
Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion
date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that
may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to
the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
12. Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Contractor
(Net 30).
13. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements
and intentions of this contract. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the
City’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its
obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
14. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment
to Contractor.
15. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall
not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The
Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an
officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work
hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or
employee of the City.
16. Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 27
23
law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers,
and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities,
obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation
(“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations
under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City’s active or
passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct
of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a
defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of
defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a
“construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall apply in
place of paragraph A. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil
Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its
elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any
and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable
legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or
Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted
by Consultant, except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or
willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit,
or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City
Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope of
Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used in Civil
Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest extent
permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8)
Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers,
employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims, damages, injuries,
losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and expert witness fees arising
out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant,
except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be
conclusively deemed to be the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless
adequately corrected by Consultant. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action,
lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s
option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in
defense of such claims. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 28
24
under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the
previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to
bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding
unpaid defense costs.
(d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Consultant’s work or work product by any indemnified
party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Consultant’s indemnification or defense obligations. This
Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this
Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance.
17. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or
business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
18. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or
no reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this
Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf products,
a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase price; (b) for custom
products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components work in progress and any
finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement. For termination of any services
pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability will be the lesser of a reasonable price for the services
rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services reflected on this Agreement. Upon
termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless otherwise directed, cease work and follow the
City’s directions as to work in progress and finished goods.
19. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day
notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the
notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately
by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties,
obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the
Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any
manner waived by the terminations thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City’s Notice of Termination, minus
any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such breach. “Reasonable value”
includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or
completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 29
-25-
the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or
provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the work-in-
progress in completing the overall work scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of
the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete
accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the
compensation quoted in its proposal.
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 30
Question and Answers for Bid #2209-001 - Notice Requesting Proposals / Qualifications for
Parking Meter Coin Collection S
Overall Bid Questions
There are no questions associated with this bid.
Question Deadline: Oct 6, 2022 5:00:00 PM PDT
Bid 2209-001City of San Luis Obispo
9/13/2022 11:01 AM p. 31
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 2:36 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:APPOINT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO COLLABORATE WITH STAFF TO
PREPARE RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT “ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN”
Dear City Council members,
I'm not even sure how to address not only the current staff report or the City's response the Grand Jury report. All I can say is that
I'm disappointed. Oh, and I get it. People or in this case the City doesn't like to be criticized, and the first instinct is to get
defensive. And I understand that the Community Development Department has tried to deal with the Satellite Fraternities but just
don't have the staff to effectively get a handle on it. Plus, Cal Poly is actively obstructing them in identifying those satellite
fraternities.
However, I think I could also use the term " Factual Inconsistencies" in both the City's response to the Grand Jury report and the
current staff report. Just as an example- the current staff report mentions the City's Social Host ordinance. How many citations
have been written under that section? The current report makes it appear as though this ordinance has effectively reduced the
number of parties in which underage drinking is occurring. It hasn't. You know why? Because I don't think the City has written
any of them.
You know what is missing? Any discussion about the Grand Jury recommendations. Maybe that will come after the Ad Hoc
committee is appointed. I certainly hope that the committee will hold meetings with residents in the Alta Vista neighborhood along
with other interested groups- such as Residents for Quality Neighborhoods.
The neighborhoods adjacent to Cal Poly are, in a way, unlivable. That doesn't mean people aren't living there, but means that the
noise from continuous noisy parties has made living there really difficult. Residents are being forced out of their homes. They are
having to sell their houses and move away. That's unacceptable. You've got to understand that. You have to right? I shouldn't
even have to make that a question. So what are you going to do?
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 3:20 PM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: APPOINT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO COLLABORATE WITH STAFF
TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT “ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN &
GOWN”
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the
upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 2:36 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: APPOINT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO COLLABORATE WITH STAFF TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO
GRAND JURY REPORT “ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN”
Dear City Council members,
I'm not even sure how to address not only the current staff report or the City's response the Grand Jury report. All I can say is that
I'm disappointed. Oh, and I get it. People or in this case the City doesn't like to be criticized, and the first instinct is to get
defensive. And I understand that the Community Development Department has tried to deal with the Satellite Fraternities but just
don't have the staff to effectively get a handle on it. Plus, Cal Poly is actively obstructing them in identifying those satellite
fraternities.
However, I think I could also use the term " Factual Inconsistencies" in both the City's response to the Grand Jury report and the
current staff report. Just as an example- the current staff report mentions the City's Social Host ordinance. How many citations
have been written under that section? The current report makes it appear as though this ordinance has effectively reduced the
number of parties in which underage drinking is occurring. It hasn't. You know why? Because I don't think the City has written
any of them.
You know what is missing? Any discussion about the Grand Jury recommendations. Maybe that will come after the Ad Hoc
committee is appointed. I certainly hope that the committee will hold meetings with residents in the Alta Vista neighborhood along
with other interested groups- such as Residents for Quality Neighborhoods.
2
The neighborhoods adjacent to Cal Poly are, in a way, unlivable. That doesn't mean people aren't living there, but means that the
noise from continuous noisy parties has made living there really difficult. Residents are being forced out of their homes. T hey are
having to sell their houses and move away. That's unacceptable. You've got to understand that. You have to right? I shouldn't
even have to make that a question. So what are you going to do?
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 9:10 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:SUBJECT: RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (USE-0334- 2025) FOR A
FRATERNITY.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The question before you this evening is the same question that has been before you recently--and that
question is how do you "condition" a permit for a fraternity that make it possible to make the finding
that the proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity.
Fraternity uses are unlike any typical residential use. Which the following excerpts from the1967
California Court of Appeals case aptly point out.
[Civ. No. 31524. Second Dist., Div. One. Nov. 8, 1967.]
CITY OF LONG BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA LAMBDA CHAPTER OF SIGMA ALPHA
EPSILON FRATERNITY et al., Defendants and Appellants.
[10] Appellants mistakenly proceed upon the theory that a fraternity house is identical to a boarding
house or a lodging house merely because the members of the fraternity eat and sleep at the fraternity
house, and that eating and sleeping are incidents of a residential use, and, therefore, by prohibiting
fraternities from an R-4 zone, fraternity members are being prohibited from exercising a residential
use of property. The facts of life dictate that there is a vast difference between a boarding house or
lodging house and a fraternity house. It was appropriately said in Pettis v. Alpha Alpha Chapter of Phi
Beta Pi, 115 Neb. 525 [213 N.W. 835, 837-838]: "..
"And ... speaking of college students generally, the court observes that it is a matter of common
knowledge and well established that groups of students are for the most part exuberant, boisterous,
and hilarious, and that they do not ordinarily keep regular hours and are addicted to the use and
abuse of vibrant and sonorous musical instruments."
"The city council apparently was fully aware that college spirit contemplates frequent gatherings with
attendant boisterous [255 Cal. App. 2d 797] conduct on occasions. The "rush parties," the dances, the
rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present in a fraternity house and frequently
absent in a boarding house, a lodging house or an apartment."
The difficulty that the commission and staff is having is how to come up with a set of conditions given
the unique qualities and characteristics of a college fraternity.
Condition No. 2 requires the Planning Commission to re-evaluate the Use Permit if the fraternity
receives three (3) citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition that (a)
are not contested or are upheld on appeal, and (b) the conduct for which the citations were issued
2
resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding
neighborhood. "
I'm concerned with the language regarding allowing up to 3 noise citations possibly in a 12 month
period. Since the wording groups in all citations. The Noise violations need to be kept separate. The
adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood
appears to require that something more that just the violation of a law of permit condition is
required. Any noise citation should be reviewed based on the nature of the noise citation- number of
attendees, impact to surrounding neighbors, and the type of noise including the time of day. A review
of the Use Permit should occur based on the severity.
Condition No. 13 of U 36-09 should remain in force with the new conditions. "13. The use permit shall
be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints are received by
the City. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify conditions of
approval or revoke the use permit." I'm not sure why this prior condition should be removed.
Lastly, the elephant in the room is alcohol. Sororities have a no alcohol policy from the National
Panhellenic Conference.
'The National Panhellenic Conference mandates in its “Policies and Best Practices”
document that Panhellenic funds cannot be spent on “alcoholic beverages for any purpose.”
Fraternities face no such regulation from the North-American Interfraternity Conference."
A condition should be added that prohibits any alcohol and drug use at any " “Sanctioned event”" as
defined in Assembly Bill No. 524 that is required to be registered with the university.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Wednesday, June 25, 2025 8:20 AM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: SUBJECT: RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (USE-0334- 2025) FOR A
FRATERNITY.
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission
public archive for tonight’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 9:10 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: SUBJECT: RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (USE-0334- 2025) FOR A FRATERNITY.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The question before you this evening is the same question that has been before you recently--and that
question is how do you "condition" a permit for a fraternity that make it possible to make the finding
that the proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity.
Fraternity uses are unlike any typical residential use. Which the following excerpts from the1967
California Court of Appeals case aptly point out.
[Civ. No. 31524. Second Dist., Div. One. Nov. 8, 1967.]
CITY OF LONG BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA LAMBDA CHAPTER OF SIGMA ALPHA
EPSILON FRATERNITY et al., Defendants and Appellants.
2
[10] Appellants mistakenly proceed upon the theory that a fraternity house is identical to a boarding
house or a lodging house merely because the members of the fraternity eat and sleep at the fraternity
house, and that eating and sleeping are incidents of a residential use, and, therefore, by prohibiting
fraternities from an R-4 zone, fraternity members are being prohibited from exercising a residential
use of property. The facts of life dictate that there is a vast difference between a boarding house or
lodging house and a fraternity house. It was appropriately said in Pettis v. Alpha Alpha Chapter of Phi
Beta Pi, 115 Neb. 525 [213 N.W. 835, 837-838]: "..
"And ... speaking of college students generally, the court observes that it is a matter of common
knowledge and well established that groups of students are for the most part exuberant, boisterous,
and hilarious, and that they do not ordinarily keep regular hours and are addicted to the use and
abuse of vibrant and sonorous musical instruments."
"The city council apparently was fully aware that college spirit contemplates frequent gatherings with
attendant boisterous [255 Cal. App. 2d 797] conduct on occasions. The "rush parties," the dances, the
rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present in a fraternity house and frequently
absent in a boarding house, a lodging house or an apartment."
The difficulty that the commission and staff is having is how to come up with a set of conditions given
the unique qualities and characteristics of a college fraternity.
Condition No. 2 requires the Planning Commission to re-evaluate the Use Permit if the fraternity
receives three (3) citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition that (a)
are not contested or are upheld on appeal, and (b) the conduct for which the citations were issued
resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding
neighborhood. "
I'm concerned with the language regarding allowing up to 3 noise citations possibly in a 12 month
period. Since the wording groups in all citations. The Noise violations need to be kept separate. The
adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood
appears to require that something more that just the violation of a law of permit condition is
required. Any noise citation should be reviewed based on the nature of the noise citation- number of
attendees, impact to surrounding neighbors, and the type of noise including the time of day. A review
of the Use Permit should occur based on the severity.
Condition No. 13 of U 36-09 should remain in force with the new conditions. "13. The use permit shall
be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints are received by
the City. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify conditions of
approval or revoke the use permit." I'm not sure why this prior condition should be removed.
Lastly, the elephant in the room is alcohol. Sororities have a no alcohol policy from the National
Panhellenic Conference.
'The National Panhellenic Conference mandates in its “Policies and Best Practices”
document that Panhellenic funds cannot be spent on “alcoholic beverages for any purpose.”
Fraternities face no such regulation from the North-American Interfraternity Conference."
3
A condition should be added that prohibits any alcohol and drug use at any " “Sanctioned event”" as
defined in Assembly Bill No. 524 that is required to be registered with the university.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 1:21 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY.
Dear Planning Commission,
Please consider these comments to apply to both Conditional Use Permits before your Commission this evening.
As part ot the application the Commission is being asked to approve certain findings including Finding 6. "6. As conditioned, the
establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the project will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in
the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the use,....." Will the conditions actually meet this standard and can you make this finding?
Condition #2 "
2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as soon as practical if conduct on the permitted
premises results in three (3) citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition"
The allowable number of citations prior to review is excessive and is not consistent with the finding #6, whereas the use wil l not be
detrimental to persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use. Additionally, are what process is in place to ensure
violations are made known to the Community Development Department.
Any 1 violation of the City's Noise ordinance should require the Fraternity to acknowledge and sign a declaration that they
understand the City's Noise Ordinance A second violation in a 12 month period will result in Planning Commission review.
The Conditions of Approval allow "
4. Routine meetings and gatherings for the fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 54 people" Who is responsible for ensuring
this condition is followed. What city department or departments will be ensuring this condition is being followed? How many
members are there in this fraternity?
It also doesn't appear there is a limit on the number of special events, "except as otherwise approved by the Community
Development Director for special events." There should be an acknowledgement that numerous special events can have an
impact on surrounding residents. Especially cumulative impacts from "special events" approved at other fraternities or sororities..
A limit of Special Events should be considered.
Lastly, it's a concern that residents who sent in correspondence who live in the area don't feel safe due to possible retaliation and
decided to keep their information limited. That is a real issue that the commission needs to acknowledge.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo.
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 1:55 PM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY.
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission
public archive for tonight’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY.
Dear Planning Commission,
Please consider these comments to apply to both Conditional Use Permits before your Commission this evening.
As part ot the application the Commission is being asked to approve certain findings including Finding 6. "6. As conditioned, the
establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the project will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applie d in
the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the use,....." Will the conditions actually meet this standard and can you make this finding?
Condition #2 "
2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as soon as practical if conduct on the permitted
premises results in three (3) citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition"
The allowable number of citations prior to review is excessive and is not consistent with the finding #6, whereas the use wil l not be
detrimental to persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use. Additionally, are what process is in place to ensure
violations are made known to the Community Development Department.
Any 1 violation of the City's Noise ordinance should require the Fraternity to acknowledge and sign a declaration that they
understand the City's Noise Ordinance A second violation in a 12 month period will result in Planning Commission review.
2
The Conditions of Approval allow "
4. Routine meetings and gatherings for the fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 54 people" Who is responsible for ensuring
this condition is followed. What city department or departments will be ensuring this condition is being followed? How many
members are there in this fraternity?
It also doesn't appear there is a limit on the number of special events, "except as otherwise approved by the Community
Development Director for special events." There should be an acknowledgement that numerous special events can have an
impact on surrounding residents. Especially cumulative impacts from "special events" approved at other fraternities or sororities..
A limit of Special Events should be considered.
Lastly, it's a concern that residents who sent in correspondence who live in the area don't feel safe due to possible retaliation and
decided to keep their information limited. That is a real issue that the commission needs to acknowledge.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo.
1
From:Shoresman, Michelle
Sent:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:56 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:Re: REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND
ANNEXATION TO FACILITATE BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, AT 12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
Hi Brett.
Thanks for your comments. I want to let you know that we are very early in the process for this potential
development. There have only been three applications for annexation, rezoning and general plan amendments.
There is no development yet…only preliminary plans enough to file the applications I mentioned. This is
unusual…we don’t usually get to weigh in, as a council this early. But the developer and staff thought it was a
good idea given all the special circumstances with the annexation and request for upzoning. There will still be
lots of chances for public input, a full EIR process, traffic and financial impact studies as well as hearings at
several advisory bodies. So, not to worry. Nothing is a “done deal” yet, nor is anything official “approved.”
Thanks for your feedback though and for participating in this process.
Michelle
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:36:26 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND ANNEXATION TO FACILITATE
BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AT 12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council members,
I've got a lot of comments about this proposed project. Number one is where was the community input on these parcels and this
project in particular before, what has surely been a lot of planning and building design including configuration had taken place.
Now the community is having to react to the developer proposal. This is not how "planning" is supposed to work.. Unfortunately
this process, when it comes to annexations and development proposals has become the default process in our community.
There should be a Specific Plan created for this area prior to any annexation. I'm not going to get into all the details of a Specific
Plan but one of the major goals of a Specific Plan is, "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the public,
including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific
plan."
I recommend that the City develop a Specific Plan for this area that is consistent with the public's vision.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:36 AM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND ANNEXATION
TO FACILITATE BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AT
12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council members,
I've got a lot of comments about this proposed project. Number one is where was the community input on these parcels and this
project in particular before, what has surely been a lot of planning and building design including configuration had taken place.
Now the community is having to react to the developer proposal. This is not how "planning" is supposed to work.. Unfortunately
this process, when it comes to annexations and development proposals has become the default process in our community.
There should be a Specific Plan created for this area prior to any annexation. I'm not going to get into all the details of a Specific
Plan but one of the major goals of a Specific Plan is, "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the
public, including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the
specific plan."
I recommend that the City develop a Specific Plan for this area that is consistent with the public's vision.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:40 AM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND
ANNEXATION TO FACILITATE BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, AT 12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for
tonight’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:36 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND ANNEXATION TO FACILITATE
BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AT 12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council members,
I've got a lot of comments about this proposed project. Number one is where was the community input on these parcels and this
project in particular before, what has surely been a lot of planning and building design including configuration had taken place.
Now the community is having to react to the developer proposal. This is not how "planning" is supposed to work.. Unfortunately
this process, when it comes to annexations and development proposals has become the default process in our community.
There should be a Specific Plan created for this area prior to any annexation. I'm not going to get into all the details of a Specific
Plan but one of the major goals of a Specific Plan is, "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the public,
including residents of the planning area, to participate in defining the vision, needs, and priorities of the specific
plan."
2
I recommend that the City develop a Specific Plan for this area that is consistent with the public's vision.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Friday, March 14, 2025 10:48 AM
To:Mickel, Fred; McDonald, Whitney
Subject:Fw: Satellite and Main Fraternity and Sorority House in R-1/R-2
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Brett Cross < >
To: Walker Kathie < >; Sandra Rowley < >; Carolyn Smith
< >; Carolyn Smith <ke6hng@att.net>; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Karen Adler
< ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Paul Allen <
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 at 10:45:56 AM PDT
Subject: Satellite and Main Fraternity and Sorority House in R-1/R-2
At yesterday's SCLC meeting I asked if there would be implications if a fraternity or sorority held an event at their "houses" since
Fraternity and Sorority Life was not allowing any events to be registered this weekend.
The answer was yes---Except for the fact that Fraternity and Sorority Life wasn't going out in neighborhoods to check. It was up to
the City or residents to "turn in" the fraternity or sorority that held a party.
That would work if it weren't for the fact that Cal Poly won't give the City, especially the police department, the addresses of the
fraternity and sorority houses that are in the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
So if there are parties held during this weekend it's up to "us" to turn them in to Cal Poly. Except Cal Poly won't provide the
addresses You see where I'm going here with this.
Unfortunately I wasn't quick enough on my feet to point this out to the Fraternity and Sorority Life representative.
Hopefully what addresses have been verified by Community Development have been given to the police department so a
confirmed location that hold an event/party are being sent to Fraternity and Sorority Life for review.
Brett Cross RQN
SCLC Representative
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:50 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:7B US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear City Council members,
I think it's probably time to come to the realization that the Prado Rd overpass as a envisioned isn't financially feasible. The cost
estimates have been wildly off since inception of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Cost estimates began at around $28 million,
hence the cost sharing amount determined for San Luis Ranch, hence the $9.8 million. Which was approximately 1/3 the total
project cost.
Costs then escalated to between $32 and $34 million. Then a estimate of $42 or $43 million was revealed in a staff report
subsequent to final approval of the San Luis Ranch Specific plan. It should be noted that the proportion that San Luis Ranch was
obligated to contribute has not changed with cost estimates. Although I'm not sure where the staff report is getting the $24 Million
figure
Estimates then increased to around $100 million and now are anticipated to be around $149 million, with City's portion of $109
million? I'm not even sure what the number is actually. Not that it really matters because the City in no way has that money
available.
I don't how the City believes it can pay for this project. I don't think its very probable. One of my concerns is what happens if the
City uses the $9.8 million of developer funds for Plans or is it $24 million?, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and then it
becomes even more obvious the project cannot be funded through grants or other local tax methods( saile tax increase, property
tax increase or other methods). So will this require the city to reimburse the developer those funds that were paid. Now you've
spent $9.8 million and will you then be required to basically refund those monies..
I guess I should ask how much has been spent already on this project and where did those funds originate from?
The City's best bet at this point is to adopt staff's alternative #1
1. Deny award of PS&E Contract. Direct Staff to investigate reduced scale overpass Concept. Instead of proceeding with PS&E
for the current interchange design, Council could instead direct staff not to award the PS&E contract at this time, and to instead
explore lower-cost design alternatives that differ significantly from the current scope. Examples of this could include: Bicycle and
Pedestrian Only Overcrossing – propose an overcrossing over Highway 101 without any vehicle lanes
The City's second best bet is to complete the Southbound 101 off and on ramps at the Los Osos Valley Road interchange as
originally proposed but due to cost wasn't completed and Calle Joaquin. road configuration with a through street to Prado/Dalidio
Dr. That can't be more than what has been collected in Traffic Impact fees from both San Luis Ranch and other projects that have
paid Traffic Impact Fees.
Obligating the residents of this community for a project that basically moves vehicles around in different direction that just pushes
the eventual gridlock to a different intersection doesn't make a lot of sense due to fact the Dalidio Dr. just T's into Madonna
Rd. That really doesn't help much. And now with the developer asking for a significant land use change from Retail/Commercial
to residential the traffic volumes are likely to be significantly less.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
2
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:01 PM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: 7B US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for
tonight’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:50 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 7B US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND
ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear City Council members,
I think it's probably time to come to the realization that the Prado Rd overpass as a envisioned isn't financially feasible. The cost
estimates have been wildly off since inception of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Cost estimates began at around $28 million,
hence the cost sharing amount determined for San Luis Ranch, hence the $9.8 million. Which was approximately 1/3 the total
project cost.
Costs then escalated to between $32 and $34 million. Then a estimate of $42 or $43 million was revealed in a staff report
subsequent to final approval of the San Luis Ranch Specific plan. It should be noted that the proportion that San Luis Ranch was
obligated to contribute has not changed with cost estimates. Although I'm not sure where the staff report is getting the $24 Million
figure
Estimates then increased to around $100 million and now are anticipated to be around $149 million, with City's portion of $109
million? I'm not even sure what the number is actually. Not that it really matters because the City in no way has that money
available.
2
I don't how the City believes it can pay for this project. I don't think its very probable. One of my concerns is what happens if the
City uses the $9.8 million of developer funds for Plans or is it $24 million?, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and then it
becomes even more obvious the project cannot be funded through grants or other local tax methods( saile tax increase, property
tax increase or other methods). So will this require the city to reimburse the developer those funds that were paid. Now you've
spent $9.8 million and will you then be required to basically refund those monies..
I guess I should ask how much has been spent already on this project and where did those funds originate from?
The City's best bet at this point is to adopt staff's alternative #1
1. Deny award of PS&E Contract. Direct Staff to investigate reduced scale overpass Concept. Instead of proceeding with PS&E
for the current interchange design, Council could instead direct staff not to award the PS&E contract at this time, and to instead
explore lower-cost design alternatives that differ significantly from the current scope. Examples of this could include: Bicycle and
Pedestrian Only Overcrossing – propose an overcrossing over Highway 101 without any vehicle lanes
The City's second best bet is to complete the Southbound 101 off and on ramps at the Los Osos Valley Road interchange as
originally proposed but due to cost wasn't completed and Calle Joaquin. road configuration with a through street to Prado/Dalidio
Dr. That can't be more than what has been collected in Traffic Impact fees from both San Luis Ranch and other projects that have
paid Traffic Impact Fees.
Obligating the residents of this community for a project that basically moves vehicles around in different direction that just pushes
the eventual gridlock to a different intersection doesn't make a lot of sense due to fact the Dalidio Dr. just T's into Madonna
Rd. That really doesn't help much. And now with the developer asking for a significant land use change from Retail/Commercial
to residential the traffic volumes are likely to be significantly less.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
Virus-free.www.avg.com
1
From:Shoresman, Michelle
Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:43 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:RE: 7B US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN
Hi Brett.
Thanks for weighing in on this important topic. I am sure there will be robust conversation tonight.
Michelle
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:50 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 7B US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND
ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear City Council members,
I think it's probably time to come to the realization that the Prado Rd overpass as a envisioned isn't financially feasible. The cost
estimates have been wildly off since inception of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Cost estimates began at around $28 million,
hence the cost sharing amount determined for San Luis Ranch, hence the $9.8 million. Which was approximately 1/3 the total
project cost.
Costs then escalated to between $32 and $34 million. Then a estimate of $42 or $43 million was revealed in a staff report
subsequent to final approval of the San Luis Ranch Specific plan. It should be noted that the proportion that San Luis Ranch was
obligated to contribute has not changed with cost estimates. Although I'm not sure where the staff report is getting the $24 Million
figure
Estimates then increased to around $100 million and now are anticipated to be around $149 million, with City's portion of $109
million? I'm not even sure what the number is actually. Not that it really matters because the City in no way has that money
available.
I don't how the City believes it can pay for this project. I don't think its very probable. One of my concerns is what happens if the
City uses the $9.8 million of developer funds for Plans or is it $24 million?, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and then it
becomes even more obvious the project cannot be funded through grants or other local tax methods( saile tax increase, property
tax increase or other methods). So will this require the city to reimburse the developer those funds that were paid. Now you've
spent $9.8 million and will you then be required to basically refund those monies..
I guess I should ask how much has been spent already on this project and where did those funds originate from?
The City's best bet at this point is to adopt staff's alternative #1
1. Deny award of PS&E Contract. Direct Staff to investigate reduced scale overpass Concept. Instead of proceeding with PS&E
for the current interchange design, Council could instead direct staff not to award the PS&E contract at this time, and to instead
explore lower-cost design alternatives that differ significantly from the current scope. Examples of this could include: Bicycle and
Pedestrian Only Overcrossing – propose an overcrossing over Highway 101 without any vehicle lanes
The City's second best bet is to complete the Southbound 101 off and on ramps at the Los Osos Valley Road interchange as
originally proposed but due to cost wasn't completed and Calle Joaquin. road configuration with a through street to Prado/Dalidio
Dr. That can't be more than what has been collected in Traffic Impact fees from both San Luis Ranch and other projects that have
paid Traffic Impact Fees.
2
Obligating the residents of this community for a project that basically moves vehicles around in different direction that just pushes
the eventual gridlock to a different intersection doesn't make a lot of sense due to fact the Dalidio Dr. just T's into Madonna
Rd. That really doesn't help much. And now with the developer asking for a significant land use change from Retail/Commercial
to residential the traffic volumes are likely to be significantly less.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
Virus-free.www.avg.com
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Friday, February 14, 2025 5:15 PM
To:Carolyn Smith; Eugene Jud; 'Calvin and Rosemary Wilvert'; Bill Wilson; Sandra Rowley; Christine
Mulholland; Allan Cooper; Dave Congalton; Marx, Jan; cc mc lean; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre
Subject:Re: 7.b US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN CONTRACT February 18, 2025
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
I wrote this back to Carolyn that’s there’s no way to make this project happen
The city would be better off to take what funding they have available and finish the south bound on and off
ramp design for Los Osos rd overpass
Brett
On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 04:25:01 PM PST, Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote:
Dear All -
Still fired up after all of these years! The most recent cost states $150 million.
Oh my!
Hope you are all well!
Love,
Mila
From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 4:19 PM
To: emailcouncil@slocity.org <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: 7.b US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND
ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN CONTRACT February 18, 2025
February 14, 2025
Mayor Stewart and City Council Members
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 7.b US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE AND AWARD OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND
ESTIMATES (PS&E) DESIGN CONTRACT February 18, 2025
2
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
This letter is to comment on the Prado Road interchange and overpass set to be heard at the City Council meeting on
Tuesday, February 18, 2025.
My sentiments about the Prado Road overpass and extension have not changed over the years due to the fact there
has never been a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the entirety of this road from Madonna to
Broad Street. I also doubt that the interchange and road will fit in the place that it was originally slated for.
Concerns remain about the southbound on-ramp to Highway 101 at Madonna Road merging with a southbound exit
at Prado Road. In addition, Prado Road was accepted into the LUCE document in 2015 as a “four-lane truck highway”
with bike lanes and a pedestrian path. The road was to be from Madonna Road to Broad Street.
Back then, and now, I continue to maintain that “Prado Road” with its proposed magnitude does not fit. These
comments are due to my past research and communication about this endeavor with City staff and Caltrans for over
two decades.
If one takes a tape measure and physically goes along the proposed course of Prado Road, one can see what my
concerns are.
The basic math is as follows:
Four lanes for cars and trucks: 4 lanes x 12 feet 48 feet
Turn lane: 12 feet
Bike paths: 2 lanes x 6 feet 12 feet
Sidewalks: 2 sidewalks x 6 feet 12 feet
Total: 84 feet
If we, as a City, are going forward with the construction of a Prado Road Interchange and the Prado Road, it is critical
that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of Prado Road be done from Broad Street to Madonna
Road.
Currently, the construction of Prado Road is being “piecemealed” or “segmented” which, in my research, is not
legal and is in violation of CEQA guidelines. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Prado Road as an East-West connector has been on the San Luis Obispo City Plan since 1960. There has never been a
comprehensive Environmental Impact Report(EIR) of Prado Road analyzing the cumulative impacts, the cost, and the
feasibility of it. Our City staff will say that Prado Road has been adequately “studied” over the years.
Now is the time for facts, figures, costs, and a timeline to be exposed for transparency so that the benefits or
detriments of these projects will be revealed.
It is my opinion that both the North-South impacts and the East-West impacts must be addressed together by
Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo.
A comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) involving all of the stakeholders including the residents of the
developments should be conducted before one more hour is spent on the design of the interchange and overpass.
During the LUCE process in 2015, I attended a majority of the meetings. Many of the residential units approved via
the LUCE Master Plan have been built, without the approved traffic infrastructure to support them. Fees were paid by
developers so that they could develop their properties before the traffic infrastructure was created.
3
This leads to another question, where are those fees now and how much is in the account for Prado Road?
Again, “Prado Road” is in the General Plan as a “four-lane truck highway” however, when portions of Prado Road
have been built by developers, they have been allowed to build roads that are more narrow, as in the Serra Meadows
new home development on the East side of Highway 101 and the other section of “Prado Road,” on the west side of
Highway 101 now known as “Dalidio Drive.”
In addition, the part that is near and dear to my heart is the land that was purchased for the Damon Garcia Sports
Fields. I have the documents to remind everyone that 24 acres were purchased for $2 million dollars for
"recreation" - not a road. There has never been an EIR conducted for putting a road at that location. Ever. The land
was purchased for "recreation". The Army Corps of Engineers supported the construction of the Damon-Garcia
Sports Fields for "recreation" - not the construction of the road - at that location due to that very fact.
City residents legally deserve the remaining seven acres adjacent to the sports fields to be used for recreation.
There are multiple possible uses for that land including a bike lane, play yard, or even possibly a pickleball court.
Also, identified Native American artifacts are adjacent to that land.
Additionally, the proposed intersection of a future Prado Road at Broad Street has long been a concern of mine.
Having a four-lane truck highway adjacent to the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields will create environmental hazards for
sports enthusiasts and add an additional stop light at Prado Road along Broad Street.
The late Mayor Dave Romero and I, as well as other concerned citizens including Eugene Jud and the late Jamie Lopes,
long advocated for the fact that that the “extension of Prado Road” should go south to Santa Fe Road at a widened
Tank Farm Road to protect the integrity of the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields and to benefit traffic circulation.
Citizens should not bear any cost for this interchange. Originally, during City planning discussions for the last 20 years,
City employees and developers stated that the developers of Serra Meadows, Avila Ranch, Righetti Ranch, and San
Luis Ranch homes would be contributing a substantial portion of the needed funds.
The most recent reports make it appear that the cost for this interchange and overpass will be passed on to the
residents of San Luis Obispo.
Be logical. Please delay any additional approval of this project and demand that a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Report of Prado Road from Madonna Road to Broad Street be executed.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to a response to my concerns.
Cordially,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
1
From:Brett Cross < >
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2025 12:01 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members,
So I was looking at the agenda bulletin board out in front of City Hall last week and I was wondering to myself, "wasn't the police
department going to give an update on St. Fratty's day planning?"
I knew that there was going to be a presentation because there had been discussion at SCLC at one of meetings. But I couldn't
find it. There was an item about March Safety Enhancement Zone response planning with Cal Poly presenting as well.
I'm assuming that is the St. Fratty's Day plan. I don't know because I can open the item. Or maybe there isn't a staff report.
Anyway, the description of the item doesn't do a very good job at informing the public what the item is actually about. I don't
know how items are described and if there are some principles are policies regarding agenda items are worded but certainly in
this case I don't think anyone taking a cursory look at the item would have any idea what it about.
Sincerely,
,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
1
From:Shoresman, Michelle
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2025 10:07 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:RE: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
Hi Brett,
I also just learned that the full presentation will be published as agenda correspondence tomorrow, so that should
provide more clarity for anyone that wants it.
Thank you,
Michelle
From: Shoresman, Michelle
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 8:03 PM
To: Brett Cross < >
Subject: RE: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
Thanks Brett, for your question. There is no staff report because it is a presentation. Those don’t have staff reports
because they are just information, not an item that we are providing feedback or direction on.
I appreciate that maybe the description posted in the agenda is not as descriptive as you might have liked. I was pretty
clear what it was about when I saw it, but I can appreciate that it might not have been to everyone. I am confident that
you will help spread the word as to the intent of the presentation, which, to my understanding will cover all the issues
we have been discussing at SCLC, and before.
Thanks for the suggestion for the future.
Michelle
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:01 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members,
So I was looking at the agenda bulletin board out in front of City Hall last week and I was wondering to myself, "wasn't the police
department going to give an update on St. Fratty's day planning?"
I knew that there was going to be a presentation because there had been discussion at SCLC at one of meetings. But I couldn't
find it. There was an item about March Safety Enhancement Zone response planning with Cal Poly presenting as well.
I'm assuming that is the St. Fratty's Day plan. I don't know because I can open the item. Or maybe there isn't a staff report.
Anyway, the description of the item doesn't do a very good job at informing the public what the item is actually about. I don't
know how items are described and if there are some principles are policies regarding agenda items are worded but certainly in
this case I don't think anyone taking a cursory look at the item would have any idea what it about.
Sincerely,
2
,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
Virus-free.www.avg.com
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2025 1:59 PM
To:Brett Cross
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
Hi Brett,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for
tomorrow’s meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:01 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members,
So I was looking at the agenda bulletin board out in front of City Hall last week and I was wondering to myself, "wasn't the police
department going to give an update on St. Fratty's day planning?"
I knew that there was going to be a presentation because there had been discussion at SCLC at one of meetings. But I couldn't
find it. There was an item about March Safety Enhancement Zone response planning with Cal Poly presenting as well.
I'm assuming that is the St. Fratty's Day plan. I don't know because I can open the item. Or maybe there isn't a staff report.
Anyway, the description of the item doesn't do a very good job at informing the public what the item is actually about. I don't
know how items are described and if there are some principles are policies regarding agenda items are worded but certainly in
this case I don't think anyone taking a cursory look at the item would have any idea what it about.
Sincerely,
,
2
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
Virus-free.www.avg.com
1
From:Shoresman, Michelle
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2025 8:03 PM
To:Brett Cross
Subject:RE: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
Thanks Brett, for your question. There is no staff report because it is a presentation. Those don’t have staff reports
because they are just information, not an item that we are providing feedback or direction on.
I appreciate that maybe the description posted in the agenda is not as descriptive as you might have liked. I was pretty
clear what it was about when I saw it, but I can appreciate that it might not have been to everyone. I am confident that
you will help spread the word as to the intent of the presentation, which, to my understanding will cover all the issues
we have been discussing at SCLC, and before.
Thanks for the suggestion for the future.
Michelle
From: Brett Cross < >
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:01 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: St. Fratty's Day and St. Patrick's Day Presentations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members,
So I was looking at the agenda bulletin board out in front of City Hall last week and I was wondering to myself, "wasn't the police
department going to give an update on St. Fratty's day planning?"
I knew that there was going to be a presentation because there had been discussion at SCLC at one of meetings. But I couldn't
find it. There was an item about March Safety Enhancement Zone response planning with Cal Poly presenting as well.
I'm assuming that is the St. Fratty's Day plan. I don't know because I can open the item. Or maybe there isn't a staff report.
Anyway, the description of the item doesn't do a very good job at informing the public what the item is actually about. I don't
know how items are described and if there are some principles are policies regarding agenda items are worded but certainly in
this case I don't think anyone taking a cursory look at the item would have any idea what it about.
Sincerely,
,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
Virus-free.www.avg.com