HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2014 Final Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
4:00 PM
SPECIAL MEETING
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Kathy Smith,
Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson, and Mayor Jan Marx
PUBLIC HEARING
PH1. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE UP TO $8,305,000.00 PAR VALUE LEASE
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE LOS OSOS VALLEY
ROAD (LOVR)/HIGHWAY 101 OVERPASS - RESOLUTION (PADILLA – 30
MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of San Luis Obispo Public
Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds; the execution and delivery of a Continuing
Disclosure Certificate, a Site Lease and a Facility Lease; the preparation and distribution
of a Preliminary and Final Official Statement; and certain other actions in connection
therewith.”
AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, RECESS TO THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of September 16, 2014 Page 2
BUSINESS ITEM
B1. APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS’ DECISION DENYING BID
PROTESTS FILED BY JOHN MADONNA CONSTRUCTION, INC./SOUZA
CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND (IF FILED) CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY - CONTRACT AWARD FOR US 101/LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 99821 -
RESOLUTION (GRIGSBY/ ROWLAND/BENNECKE – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Public Works Director’s denial of a bi d
protest filed by John Madonna Construction – Souza Construction, Inc. for award of
the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project, Specification No. 99821.
2. Subject to determination of appeal, award a contract to Granite Construction of Santa
Barbara, California, in the amount of $16,571,129.84 for the US 101/LOVR
Interchange Project, Specification No. 99821.
3. Authorize the City Engineer to be responsible for construction contract change orders
for the US 101/LOVR Interchange Project in any amount with the limitation that the
sum total of all contract change orders not exceeds the contingency budget amount of
$1,250,000.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of September 16, 2014 Page 3
6:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Kathy Smith,
Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Ashbaugh
PRESENTATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION – ADULT LITERACY AWARENESS MONTH
Presentation of a Proclamation proclaiming September 2014 as “Adult Literacy Awareness
Month.”
B. PROCLAMATION – FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
Presentation of a Proclamation proclaiming October 5-11, 2014 as “Fire Prevention Week.”
C REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY RUNABOUT FARE INCREASE PROPOSAL
Presentation by Geoff Straw, Executive Director, regarding the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority’s proposed Runabout fare increase.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of September 16, 2014 Page 4
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
C1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate
C2. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2014 (MEJIA)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of August 19, 2014, as presented.
C3. MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR THE SNYDER BUILDING AT 774 MARSH
STREET – RESOLUTION (JOHNSON/OETZELL)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving an Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the
City of San Luis Obispo and owners of the Snyder Building at 774 Marsh Street
(CHCMA 88-14).”
C4. ADDITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE AT 1152
BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS
THE HISTORIC “CHARLES E. STRICKLAND HOUSE” – RESOLUTION
(JOHNSON/OETZELL)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adding the property at 1152 Buchon Street to the Master List of
Historic Resources as the ‘Charles E. Strickland House’ (CHC 51-13).”
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of September 16, 2014 Page 5
C5. PUBLIC ART DESIGN MODIFICATIONS FOR THE PORTOLA FOUNTAIN AT
THE INTERSECTION OF HIGUERA AND MARSH STREETS (STANWYCK/
MUDGETT)
Architectural Review Commission Recommendation
Approve the public art design modifications for the Portola Fountain project to be located
at the intersection of Higuera and Marsh Streets, Specification No. 90455.
C6. LIMITATION OF OUTDOOR IRRIGATION OF ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPING
OR TURF WITH POTABLE WATER TO THREE DAYS A WEEK – RESOLUTION
(MATTINGLY/MUNDS)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, implementing mandatory restrictions on the outdoor irrigation of
ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water.”
C7. AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGARDING CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL
PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2015-2017 – RESOLUTION (JOHNSON/
COREY)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving a Cooperation Agreement between the City and County of
San Luis Obispo to recognize joint participation in the Urban County Grant Program for
Fiscal Years 2015-2017.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PH2. APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT AT 779-787 HIGUERA STREET – RESOLUTION (GRIGSBY/
LYNCH/HANNULA – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Public Works Director’s decision to deny an
Encroachment Permit for sidewalk replacement at 779, 781, 785 and 787 Higuera Street
(Permit No. 140245).”
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of September 16, 2014 Page 6
PH3. LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT (LUCE):
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
RELATIVE TO AIR QUALITY, NOISE AND TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
IMPACTS; CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL AND BISHOP
KNOLLS FOCUS AREAS OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT;
AND CLOSE OUT OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLANNING
GRANT FOR THE LUCE UPDATE PROJECT – RESOLUTIONS (JOHNSON/
KAISER/LEVEILLE – 180 MINUTES)
Planning Commission Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, certifying the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared for the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Program
(Application #GPI/ER 15-12),” with findings of overriding consideration relative to
Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation/Circulation.
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving new policy language in the draft Land Use Element
related to the General Hospital Area (GPI 15-12).”
3. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving new policy language in the draft Land Use Element
related to the North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) Area (GPI 15-12).”
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting and certifying as accurate the Final Plan Report and
directing staff to submit the report to the Strategic Growth Council to close out Grant
3010-532 to discharge grant obligations for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE) Update (#GPI/ER 15-12).”
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit - 3 minutes.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council
Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual
information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any
matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code
Sec. 54954.2)
San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of September 16, 2014 Page 7
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for discussion of labor relation
objectives.
A subsequent Special Meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for discussion of the Land
Use and Circulation Element.
The next Regular Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon
request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any
person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should
direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781 -7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 . Agenda related writings or documents
provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with
questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781 -7100.
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Wayne Padilla, Finance and Information Technology Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF UP TO $8.305 MILLION PAR VALUE LEASE REVENUE
BONDS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
(LOVR) / HIGHWAY 101 OVERPASS
RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $8.305 MILLION
PAR VALUE LEASE REVENUE BONDS FOR THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
INTERCHANGE PROJECT AND APPROVING THE FORM OF DOCUMENTATION FOR
ITEMS RELATED TO THE FINANCING AND THE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ISSUE
THE DEBT
DISCUSSION
The City Council, in anticipation of the action of the San Luis Obispo Public Financing
Authority to consider and approve the issuance of lease revenue bonds to finance the LOVR
Interchange Project will consider a resolution that will allow the debt to be issued and provide
for the completion of documents and additional work tasks necessary to issue the debt. Staff has
worked with the City’s financial advisor PFM and bond counsel, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
to develop the documentation required to issue up to $8.305 million par value (the gross amount
of the bonds issued) lease revenue bonds.
Background
The City Council authorized the call for construction bids to construct the LOVR interchange
project improvements on June 10, 2014. Bids have been received and a separate agenda item
has been prepared for this Council meeting to allow the City Council to con sider staff’s request
to award the construction bid. Based on the bids received, the City Engineer has set the final
construction cost of the LOVR improvements remaining to be funded at $23,338,000. Of this
amount $16,000,000 will come from a state grant and $7.5 will come from the issuance of lease
revenue bonds if the City Council approves staff’s recommendations this evening. The excess
amount borrowed over the estimated construction cost will cover costs of issuance of the Bonds,
a reserve fund and a contingency in the event that construction costs exceed the estimate. If the
contingency amount is not used for this construction, it may be applied to eligible and priority
roadway projects.
As a part of the approval process, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and make
certain findings concerning the financing pursuant to Section 6586.5 of the Government Code, as
more particularly described in Section 1 of the attached Resolution.
9/16/14
PH-1
PH1-1
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $8.305 MILLION PAR VALUE LEASE REVENUE BONDS FOR
THE EXPANSION OF THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) / HIGHWAY 101 OVERPASS Page 2
Proposed Financing Structure and Documents
The proposed debt is based on a 30-year lease financing structure. When a lease revenue bond
transaction is created, a city-owned property is identified as the subject of the lease in order to
provide security for the debt transaction. Under the proposed financing the city would enter into
a lease agreement with the Public Financing Authority in order to lease to them and then lease
back from that entity, the property that is serving as the leased collateral for the debt. The
payments made by the City under this arrangement would fund the debt payments for the bonds
that have been issued under an assignment agreement created by the Public Financing Authority
that provides that the payments are being made for the benefit of the bondholders.
Under the financing plan proposed for the LOVR project, the par amount of the bonds is
currently estimated not to exceed $8.305 million. The breakout of this amount is shown below
(all amounts are estimates):
Project Funds $7,502,550
Cost of Issuance $ 200,000
Underwriter’s Discount $ 83,050
Debt Service Reserve $ 519,400
Total: $8,305,000
The final par amount of the debt will be determined once the bids from prospective underwriters
have been received and evaluated. The amounts shown are not to exceed amounts. The
estimated average annual debt service payments will be $517,000. Based on the most up-to-date
market and construction figures, this estimate is more than the financial forecast estimate of
$493,000 starting in 2015-16.
The documents provided for the proposed financing are described below. The documents are in
substantially final form but there may be technical changes required as the financing is finalized
and such changes will be reviewed by bond counsel and city staff to reflect the final financing
terms derived from the closing of this borrowing, within the parameters approved by the City
Council in the resolution.
Preliminary Official Statement – This serves as a form of prospectus for the debt and provides
information on the project, demographics for the City and information about the City’s finances
and ability to pay the debt.
Site Lease – As stated above, this type of financing requires the identification of one or more
General Fund properties having a combined value equal to the par amount of the debt and which
will serve as the collateral for the financing. The proposed Lease Agreement identifies the use of
the parking structure at 842 Palm along with the fire stations located at 1280 Laurel Lane and
1395 Madonna Road for this purpose. Staff is awaiting an appraisal for the land value of these
properties. If the total of the land and structure values for 842 Palm is sufficient to secure this
debt, no other property needs to be included and the Site Lease and Facility Lease documents
will be amended to reflect that change. Other structures owned by the City such as City Hall
have been encumbered in previous lease revenue financings and are not eligible for consideration
in this financing. The Site Lease, together with the Facility Lease described below, creates the
lease back arrangement between the City and the Public Financing Authority.
PH1-2
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $8.305 MILLION PAR VALUE LEASE REVENUE BONDS FOR
THE EXPANSION OF THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) / HIGHWAY 101 OVERPASS Page 3
Facility Lease – This document relates to the same property identified in the Site Lease and
establishes the City’s obligation to make payments under the lease equal to the annual debt
service payments on the lease revenue bonds. This document contains the payment terms
applicable to the City and various covenants necessary to provide security to the bondholders,
such as insurance requirements and a covenant to budget and appropriate the rent in each year.
Official Notice of Sale – This document establishes the terms and form of the bids to be
submitted by underwriters who wish to market and purchase the bonds from the City.
Continuing Disclosure Agreement – This document specifies the timing and content of annual
reports that will be provided by the City with regard to certain financial information and market
changes that may occur after the bonds are issued. The terms of this document are identified in
the Preliminary Official Statement.
Project Highlights
The project will correct operational deficiencies and improve safety at the southern entry to the
City at LOVR by widening LOVR to four lanes between the recently constructed Calle Joaquin
intersection and South Higuera Street. To accomplish this, a new two-lane bridge structure will
be constructed south of, and adjacent to, the existing overcrossing. The existing bridge will carry
the westbound traffic and the new bridge will carry eastbound traffic. An adjacent bridge
crossing of San Luis Obispo Creek will be widened to accommodate the four travel lanes. The
project will also include minimum 6-foot wide sidewalks over the freeway, 6.5-foot wide bike
lanes, and will improve the on and off-ramps. Sidewalks across the San Luis Obispo Creek
Bridge will be widened to allow additional area for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Bob
Jones Trail and future integration with the Trail segment south of LOVR.
The City is the project sponsor, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
serving in an oversight role since they are stewards of the State Highway System. All necessary
property acquisitions have been secured.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the debt issuance is approved along with the proposed form of documents the construction
fund proceeds of $7.5 million will be received by the City and disbursed to the contractor
working on the LOVR project. Any remaining construction proceeds not needed for the project
can be utilized on eligible and priority roadway projects. The annual debt service payments have
been programmed in the City’s budget and 5 Year Financial Forecast beginning in 2014 -15.
Since the debt is being issued after the start of the fiscal year the first year payment will be less
than the budget estimate of $250,000 while the annual payments starting in 2015-16 are
estimated to be $24,000 more than the amount included in the 5 Year Forecast. It is anticipated
that this difference may be offset by an increase in the amount transferred from the Traffic
Impact Fee program each year.
The City Council approved the future use of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) to finance at least ½ of
the cost of the annual debt service payments as TIF becomes available. Traffic Impact Fee
revenues are not pledged as a source of repayment for the bonds, however staff is working on an
update to the fee schedule for both TIF and LOVR traffic fees in order to ensure that future
charges to new development include the full cost of the debt service. The update is currently
PH1-3
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $8.305 MILLION PAR VALUE LEASE REVENUE BONDS FOR
THE EXPANSION OF THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) / HIGHWAY 101 OVERPASS Page 4
awaiting completion of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) process (currently
scheduled to conclude in October) to resolve potential land use changes that effect final impact
fee calculations for the two funds.
Changes to these funds will be geared towards reducing the overall General Fund obligation for
the debt. However, over the 30 year life of the debt, it is possible that the General Fund will have
paid more toward the cost of the debt service than the TIF program has been able to collect and
reimburse for the debt payment. After LUCE decisions are made staff will be amending impact
fee projections and return to Council with recommendations for change.
NEXT STEPS
If this item is approved and the Public Financing Authority also approves the issuance of the
proposed debt, staff will work with the financial advisor and bond counsel to sell the debt and
complete the documents shown above to represent the final terms of the sale. As indicated
above, if the value of the parking structure located at 842 Palm is adequate to allow that property
alone to serve as the leased location under this transaction, none of the fire stations identified
above will need to be encumbered for this financing.
ALTERNATIVE
Do not approve this financing transaction. This option is not recommended because the City
does not have the resources to finance the construction of the LOVR project without the issuance
of lease revenue bonds.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution authorizing bond issuance
COUNCIL READING FILE
1. Preliminary Official Statement
2. Site Lease
3. Facility Lease
4. Official Notice of Sale
PH1-4
OHSUSA:758876382.5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RESOLUTION NO. ___ 2014 SERIES
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEASE REVENUE
BONDS; THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A CONTINUING
DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE, A SITE LEASE AND A FACILITY LEASE;
THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY AND A
FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
____________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) proposes to finance the expansion
of the Los Osos Valley road interchange (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, in order to assist in financing the Project, it is proposed that the City lease
the real property located at 842 Palm Street, 1280 Laurel Lane and 1395 Madonna Road, San
Luis Obispo, and improvements thereon (the “Leased Property”) to the Authority pursuant to a
Site Lease (the “Site Lease”) and lease the Leased Property back from the Autho rity pursuant to
a Facility Lease (the “Facility Lease”);
WHEREAS, it is further proposed that the Authority issue its San Luis Obispo Public
Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$8,305,000 (the “Bonds”), pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
California Government Code (the “Code”), for the purpose of making a payment to the City
pursuant to the Site Lease to finance the Project, fund a debt service reserve account, if deemed
necessary, and pay costs of issuance;
WHEREAS, it is further proposed that the Authority issue the Bonds pursuant to a trust
agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) by and between the Authority and The Bank of New York
Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”);
WHEREAS, in order to take advantage of the bond issuance options under the Code to
achieve debt service savings for the Authority and maximize benefits to the City, the City
Council deems it necessary and desirable to authorize the sale of the Bonds by a competitive sale
to the lowest true interest cost bidder;
WHEREAS, the City heretofore held a public hearing on the proposed financing
following publication of the notice of the public hearing at least five days prior thereto in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City;
WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared an official statement relating to the Bonds (the
“Official Statement”) for use in preliminary form in connection with the marketing of the Bonds
to potential purchasers and for use in final form for distribution to the actual purchasers thereof;
PH1-5
2 OHSUSA:758876382.5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the City Council hereby so
finds and determines.
Section 2. In accordance with Section 6586.5 of the California Government Code,
the Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed financing of said proposed public
capital improvements will have one or more of the following public benefits to the citizens of the
City, and that such benefits will be significant:
(a) demonstrable savings in effective interest rate, bond preparation, bond
underwriting or bond issuance costs;
(b) significant reductions in effective user charges levied by the City;
(c) employment benefits from undertaking the proposed public capital improvements
in a timely fashion; and
(d) more efficient delivery of local agency services to residential and commercial
development.
Accordingly, the Council hereby approves the financing of the public capital
improvements proposed to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds.
Section 3. The Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority
in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,305,000 to finance the Project, including
reserve fund requirements if deemed necessary, costs of issuance and related fees and expenses;
provided, however that such Bonds shall be sold on or before December 31, 2014, and shall
mature no later than October 1, 2044. The Director of Finance and Information Technology of
the City is hereby directed to perform the duties imposed upon him by the provisions of the
financing documents, including the Trust Agreement, the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease, and
is hereby authorized to act as treasurer of the Authority and to hold the funds and accounts in
trust as a fiduciary for the owners of the Bonds as set forth in said documents.
Section 4. The City Council authorizes the sale of the Bonds through a competitive
sale to the lowest true interest cost bidder, subject to the terms and conditions of the Official
Notice of Sale describing the Bonds. The true interest cost of the Bonds shall not be in excess of
six percent (6%), and the Bonds shall otherwise conform to the limitations specified herein. The
proposed forms of the Official Notice of Sale and the Notice to Sell Bonds in substantially the
forms on file with the City Clerk are hereby approved. Public Financial Management, Inc., as
financial advisor (the “Financial Advisor”), is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be
delivered to prospective bidders for the Bonds copies of said Official Notice of Sale, in
substantially said form with such additions, corrections and revisions as may be determined to be
necessary or desirable by the Director of Finance and Information Technology of the City, the
City Manager, or their designees (each, an “Authorized Officer”), the Financial Advisor, or the
City’s bond counsel. The true interest cost limitations described in this Section, and the terms of
the Bonds described in Section 2, shall apply to such competitive sale.
PH1-6
3 OHSUSA:758876382.5
Section 5. The Site Lease, in substantially the form submitted to this meeting, is
hereby approved. Any Authorized Officer, each acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed,
for and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver the Site Lease in substantially said form,
with such changes therein as any Authorized Officer, with the advice of the City Attorney and
the City’s bond counsel, may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by
the execution and delivery thereof.
Section 6. The Facility Lease, in substantially the form submitted to this meeting, is
hereby approved. Any Authorized Officer, each acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed,
for and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver the Facility Lease in substantially said form,
with such changes therein as any Authorized Officer, with the advice of the City Attorney and
the City’s bond counsel, may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by
the execution and delivery thereof.
Section 7. The form of Continuing Disclosure Certificate presented at this meeting is
hereby approved. Any Authorized Officer, each acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed,
for and on behalf of the City to execute and deliver the Continuing Disclosure Certificate in
substantially the form presented at this meeting, with such changes therein as the officer
executing the same may, with the advice of the City Attorney and the City’s bond counsel,
require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery
thereof.
Section 8. The preliminary form of the Official Statement to be used in connection
with the offer and sale of the Bonds is hereby adopted and approved, and any Authorized
Officer, each acting alone, is hereby authorized to execute and deliver a certificate deeming the
preliminary form of the Official Statement (including, if applicable, as modified by any
amendment or supplement thereto) “final” within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to execute and deliver the same in final form, for
and on behalf of the Authority, with such changes therein as the officer executing the same, with
the advice of the City Attorney, may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively
evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof.
Section 9. The Financial Advisor is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be
supplied to prospective bidders for the Bonds copies of a preliminary Official Statement in such
form, and to supply the winning bidder of the Bonds with copies of a final Official Statement,
completed to include, among other things the interest rate or rates and final sale information.
Any of the Authorized Officers is hereby authorized and directed to execute a certificate
confirming that the preliminary Official Statement has been “deemed final” b y the City for
purposes of Rule 15c2-12.
Section 10. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents, including all
things and documents that may be necessary to provide insurance or other credit enhancement
with respect to the Bonds, which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate
the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds or related documents and otherwise to effectuate the
purposes of this resolution.
PH1-7
4 OHSUSA:758876382.5
Section 11. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
********************
PH1-8
5 OHSUSA:758876382.5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
APPROVED:
Mayor
[Seal]
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
PH1-9
OHSUSA:758876382.5
CITY CLERK’S CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of San Luis
Obispo (the “City”), certify that attached is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No.
_______, adopted September 16, 2014, during a meeting of the City Council of the City. Such
meeting was duly and legally held at the regular meeting place of the City Council. All of the
members of said council had due notice of such meeting and a majority thereof was present at
such meeting.
I have carefully compared the same with the original minutes of said meeting on file and
of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of such resolution
adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said resolution has not been amended,
modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect.
Dated:
By:
City Clerk
PH1-10
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kyle Rowland, Supervising Project Manager
Jason Bennecke, Consultant Project Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS’
DECISION DENYING BID PROTESTS FILED BY JOHN MADONNA
CONSTRUCTION, INC./ SOUZA CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND (IF FILED)
CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REGARDING THE LOS
OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT; AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE LOS OSOS
VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 99821
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Public Works Director’s denial of a bid protest
filed by John Madonna Construction – Souza Construction Inc. for award of the Los Osos
Valley Road Interchange Project, Specification 99821, to Granite Construction.
2. Award a contract to Granite Construction of Santa Barbara, California in the amount of
$16,572,129.84 for the US 101 / LOVR Interchange Project, Specification No. 99821.
3. Authorize City Engineer to be responsible for construction contract change orders (CCO’s)
for the US 101 / LOVR Interchange Project in any amount with the limitation that the sum
total of all CCO’s not exceed the contingency budget amount of $1,250,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
On June 10, 2014, the City Council authorized inviting bids for the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101
Interchange Improvements Project, Specification No. 99821 (Attachment 1). Advertisement of the
project began on July 5, 2014. The City has a responsibility to award this project within six
months of the construction allocation, per State requirements (Attachment 2). The California
Transportation Commission voted on June 25, 2014 to allocate a $16,000,000 grant towards the
LOVR/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project. Therefore, the City must award a contract by
December 25, 2014 to avoid loss of grant funding. The project is scheduled to complete
preliminary work this fall, with construction which impacts traffic, to start after the holiday
season.
Five sealed bids were publicly opened on August 12, 2014. The submitted bid documents were
evaluated based on three criteria: cost, responsiveness and responsibility. Initially, all bids were
reviewed for mathematical errors and ranked from the lowest to the highest cost bid. Granite
Construction (Granite) of Santa Barbara, CA was the lowest bidder with a proposal of
September 16, 2014
B1
B1-1
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Award Page 2
$16,572,129.84. This low bid is under the Engineer’s Estimate by approximately $398,000 or
2.35% (Attachment 3).
The lowest cost bid package was reviewed to verify that requested items of information were
complete, addenda acknowledged, and reference information included. Incomplete bids or bids
found to otherwise materially not to comply with the bidding instructions are cause for the bids
to be considered as “non-responsive.” If a bid is determined to be “non-responsive,” it is no
longer considered for award, and the next lowest bid document is reviewed. Granite’s bid
documents were determined to be responsive. After reviewing Granite’s bid for responsiveness,
their qualifications and references were reviewed to determine responsibility. Granite’s
experience and references indicate that Granite is qualified to perform the work contained within
the Contract.
The bidders were also responsible to provide work for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBEs), as a condition of the grant funding. Granite indicated in their bid documents that 3.2%
($535,560) of the total project cost would be performed by DBE firms. This exceeds the
minimum goal of 3% listed in the project specifications.
It is the Public Works Director’s recommendation that the contract be awarded to Granite
Construction based on the review of the bid submittal and the findings shown above.
Bid Protest - Madonna-Souza
Madonna-Souza Joint Venture (Madonna-Souza) submitted a bid protest on August 19, 2014
protesting the award to Granite for failure to comply with the Federal Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise rules and regulations (Attachment 4).
The protest revolves around a quote Granite submitted in their supporting DBE bid
documentation from Dragon Material Transport, Inc. (Dragon) dated August 11, 2014. The
quote indicates delivery fees for liquid asphalt tonnage from Greka Energy to Paso Robles and is
addressed to CalPortland Construction (CalPortland). Madonna-Souza claims there is no
evidence given of any contractual relation, or contact between CalPortland and Granite, or
between Dragon and Granite with respect to this project. Therefore, Madonna-Souza claims that
Granite cannot use these expenses as a contribution to Granite’s DBE goal.
Granite responded by indicating that CalPortland is a listed subcontractor supplying material on
this Contract and Dragon is committed to supply and haul asphalt oil for this project as
CalPortland’s supplier. Consequently, Dragon is a second-tier supplier. The asphalt oil will be
delivered to CalPortland’s facility in Paso Robles where the asphalt is produced. Additionally,
all DBE participation (including lower tier subcontractors and suppliers) counts toward the DBE
goal (Attachment 5). Therefore, bidders were required to identify on the DBE Commitment
Form all DBE firms participating in the project regardless of tier. Dragon is listed on this form,
Exhibit 15-G.
City staff contacted Dragon and spoke with the estimator, Ms. Summer Bradford. Ms. Bradford
confirmed that the oil was to be sold to CalPortland Construction for purposes of providing
asphalt concrete to Granite Construction, all of which is intended to be used for the US 101 /
B1-2
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Award Page 3
LOVR interchange project. She also confirmed the price and understood that Dragon is to be
counted as a second-tier DBE.
Furthermore, the DBE good faith effort submitted by Granite was determined to be satisfactory.
Therefore, hypothetically even if the Dragon DBE contribution was not utilized, the minimum
DBE good faith requirements would still be met with Granite’s submitted bid.
After reviewing the protest from Madonna-Souza, the response from Granite, and input from
City’s counsel, the Public Works Director denied the protest on September 2, 2014.
On September 4, 2014 the City Clerk received an appeal from Madonna-Souza of the denial of
the bid protest (Attachment 6). The appeal cited a lack of documentation that Granite had
obtained the DBE commitment at the time of bid, and had not shown a good faith effort to
include DBEs. These are similar issues raised in the original appeal, and responded to in the
denial letter. Staff is recommending denial of the appeal and award to Granite and currently
drafting a resolution that will be distributed via memo prior to the September 16th hearing
(Attachment 7).
Bid Protest - CalPortland Construction
CalPortland submitted a bid protest on August 19, 2014 protesting the apparent second low
bidder, Madonna-Souza (Attachment 6). The protest appears to indicate three “critical errors” in
the Madonna-Souza bid and suggests that the mentioned errors deem the bid nonresponsive
because of inconsistencies with the Specifications and not meeting the intent of the Bid Books.
Additionally, they requested that CalPortland be moved to the apparent second low bidder
position, pending any potential issue with the apparent low bidder, Granite.
The CalPortland protest of Madonna-Souza bid was denied by the Public Works Director on
September 2, 2014. No appeal has been received as of the time of this writing.
Revised Change Order Policy
Due the size and scope of this project, the current Contract Change Order (CCO) Policy used for
CIP projects may result in significant delays and expenditures for the City. The interchange
project is approximately 100 times larger than the typical CIP project performed by the City. A
larger number of construction employees and equipment will be idled during delays, and
individual changes will have more significant costs. Were the construction to be stopped each
time a change order over $25,000 was deemed necessary, costs incurred by idled manpower and
equipment could be significant. A proposed project-specific change order policy has been
drafted for Council approval (Attachment 9). Expertise from the project consultant and
construction team was used to identify appropriate thresholds. The revised policy is consistent
with other public agencies that have completed similar interchange projects.
The proposed policy authorizes the City Engineer to approve all CCO’s of any amount as long as
the running total of all approved CCO’s does not exceed the total authorized contingency amount
of $1,250,000. For CCO’s under $25,000, the Project Manager will have the authority to
approve them as necessary followed by notification to the City Engineer. If the sum of all
CCO’s reaches 75% of the total authorized contingency amount, staff will notify the City
B1-3
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Award Page 4
Manager and Finance Director to address any budget concerns. Any additional funding needs
will come before the Council for consideration and direction.
CONCURRENCES
The Finance Director and City Attorney were consulted regarding the project specific change
order policy and concur with the recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The financing needs of the project were presented at the June 10, 2014 City Council meeting.
This outlined all expenses to date, in addition to the expected costs throughout the construction
phase. Council directed staff to return with the following information once bids were opened:
1. Debt financing recommendations to provide up to $7.5 million in project funding to pay
the City’s remaining portion of the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange
Improvements Project costs, Specification No. 99821.
2. Any necessary impact fee program modifications that may be needed to fund project
costs.
This debt financing recommendation will be presented at a public hearing to be held on
September 16, 2014 which will occur during the regular City Council meeting ahead of this item.
A summary of the expected projected costs can be seen below.
2014-15
Construction:
City Contingency Amount 1,839,481$
Loan/bond Origination Fee 250,000$
Construction (includes Env. Mit)17,986,302$
Construction Management 3,189,025$
23,264,808$
Misc.
GF Reimbursement for ROW 74,000$
Total All Project Costs:23,338,808$
Project Components
Table 1 - Expected Project Costs through Construction Phase
Debt Financing Needs
Based upon these estimates and the final grant amount, the amount to be borrowed needs to
generate $7,500,000 to complete the project. (the par amount of the debt will be greater than this
amount). This amount is determined by subtracting the $16,000,000 grant amount from the FY
14-15 expenses of $23,338,808 and rounding up.
Total Costs- FY 2014-15: $23,338,808
Grant Amount: $16,000,000
Subtotal: $7,338,808
B1-4
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Award Page 5
Rounded: $7,500,000
The Finance Department and the City’s Financial Advisor have developed a complete debt
financing package for the project that will be presented ahead of this item at tonight’s meeting.
Bond Financing Effects on Contract Award
Staff is recommending the award of a contract to Granite this evening to meet state funding
requirements to award a bid within 60 days of the bid opening and with the understanding that
the bond financing transaction may require up to four weeks to complete.
In the unlikely event that the bond financing is not completed in a timely manner or is not
completed due to unforeseen market conditions, the construction contract can be terminated at
the convenience of the City. However, the City would be liable for those costs incurred up to
that point which would largely be related to the contractor’s mobilization and work effort to
secure documents and permits from various agencies.
ALTERNATIVES
Award a Contract to other than Granite Construction. Council may decide to award to the
next lowest responsive, responsible bidder, if it finds, in compliance with state law regarding
public bids, that the low bidder’s bid was materially non-responsive or that the low bidder does
not meet responsibility requirements for the project. A non-responsibility determination would
need to be based on findings and would entitle the low bidder to a responsibility hearing, which
would delay project award. This alternative is not recommended because staff believes that
Granite is the lowest responsive, responsible bidder pursuant to public contracts law.
Deny the award. Council may choose to deny or defer the approval of award for this project.
Staff does not recommend this option. The current award and start of construction schedule
allows the City to meet the grant deadline for award. It also allows some necessary soil settling
work to occur during the shopping season, so significant construction efforts can get underway in
January. Critical components of work have to be performed prior to June due to environmental
permit regulations. It is unlikely that bids will be significantly different should the Council opt
to reject bids and re-advertise, and bidders have incurred expenses already to prepare their bid.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Agenda Report Authorizing Advertisement - June 10, 2014
2. Caltrans LAPG Guidelines for STIP Projects
3. Bid Evaluation and Analysis Report
4. Madonna-Souza Bid Protest
5. DBE Participation Standards
6. Madonna-Souza Appeal
7. Resolution Denying the Madonna-Souza Appeal [To be distributed under separate action]
8. CalPortland Bid Protest
9. LOVR/US 101 Contract Change Order Policy
10. Agreement
B1-5
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Award Page 6
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-09-16\lovr interchange contract award (grigsby-rowland)\99821 car award lovr-101 to granite constr..docx
B1-6
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Tim Bochum, Deputy Public Works Director
Kyle Rowland, Engineering Inspector
SUBJECT: LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT UPDATE, SPECIFICATION NO. 99821
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the project plans and specifications, and the revised project budget for the Los Osos
Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project, Specification No. 99821.
2. Authorize the advertisement of the project pending issuance of the Federal authorization form
E-76.
3. Approve a contract amendment with Dokken Engineering (Encumbrance No. 40908) in the
amount of $228,860 to perform construction engineering (design support services) during the
construction phase of the Los Osos Valley Road/101 interchange project, Specification No.
99821.
4. Direct staff to return by October in order to:
a. Award of contract with the lowest responsible bidder following a selection process
conforming to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
b. Provide debt financing recommendations up to $7.5 million (estimated) in project
funding to pay the City’s remaining portion of the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101
Interchange Improvements Project costs, Specification No. 99821.
c. Apprise Council of any necessary impact fee program modifications that may be
needed to fund project costs.
5. Receive and file information about a proposal for reimbursements from available Traffic Impact
Fee cash balances to the General Fund equal to the full debt service cost in 2014-15 but no less
than one-half of the annual debt service expense for future years which is proposed as part of the
2013-15 Financial Plan Supplement.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This item presents information and recommendations to move the US 101/ Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) Interchange project to construction. It recommends Council approval of the bid package
for the project and to solicit bids for the project once State requirements for grant funding award
have been obtained. The report discusses project funding and budget issues and sets the stage to
return to Council by October 2014 for consideration of any final bid award, final debt financing
approval and recommendations for revisions to the City’s impact fee programs, if necessary to
address funding for the project. Lastly, the report foreshadows recommendations that will come
June 10, 2014
B1
Attachment 1 - 1
B1-7
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Update Page 2
forward in the 2013-15 Financial Plan Supplement regarding repayment for debt service costs that
will be secured by the General Fund but reimbursed by the Traffic Impact Fee accounts.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo has reached a major milestone in the completion of the US 101/LOVR
Interchange project – the Plans and Specifications (PS&E) for the project are now complete and
have been approved by Caltrans. This PS&E package has now been forwarded to the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) for approval at its June 25th meeting. At that meeting, the CTC
will appropriate the $16,000,000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) grant
previously approved by SLOCOG for this project. This authorization to proceed sets the start date
for reimbursable work on the project.
In addition, the City’s bid package for the project is complete and ready to advertise. The City can
proceed with advertising after CTC approval on June 25th, and issuance of the Federal E-76 Form,
(Authorization to Proceed). The E-76 is generally issued 1-2 weeks following CTC approval.
The City and Caltrans have been working to design and construct the Los Osos Valley Road / US
101 interchange project for many years . It is a very complex project due to its location next to the
confluence of San Luis Obispo (SLO) and Prefumo Creeks, and due to the geometrically unique
intersection of the freeway and LOVR.
Project Highlights
The project will correct operational deficiencies and improve safety at the southern entry to the City
at LOVR by widening LOVR to four lanes between the recently constructed Calle Joaquin
intersection and South Higuera Street. To accomplish this, a new two-lane bridge structure will be
constructed south of, and adjacent to, the existing overcrossing. The existing bridge will carry the
westbound traffic and the new bridge will carry eastbound traffic. An adjacent bridge crossing of
San Luis Obispo Creek will be widened to accommodate the four travel lanes. The project will also
include minimum 6-foot wide sidewalks over the freeway, 6.5-foot wide bike lanes, and will
improve the on and off-ramps. Sidewalks across the SLO Creek Bridge will be widened to allow
additional area for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Bob Jones Trail and future integration
with the Trail segment south of LOVR.
The City is the project sponsor, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) serving
in an oversight role since they are stewards of the State Highway System . All necessary property
acquisitions have been secured.
Project Management Services
In January 2014, the City entered into an agreement for Project Manager (PM) services with
Southstar Engineering. The PM has assisted the City with final plans and specifications review, and
project permitting. The PM also assisted with the development of the Request for Proposals (RFP)
for the Construction Management service discussed below. In addition, they will have a key role in
processing the project through advertising and awarding phases. During the construction phase, the
PM is responsible for keeping the City appraised of all activities on site, identifying potential
Attachment 1 - 2
B1-8
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Update Page 3
problems and solutions, and providing direct oversight of the construction inspection staff. They
will also maintain public outreach and information.
Construction Management Services
Due to the size and complexity of the project, Council authorized the advertisement for
Construction Management (CM) services at their April 1, 2014 meeting. The CM role in the project
will be the day-to-day inspection, materials testing, coordination with Caltrans and contractor staff,
and completion of required paperwork for the project. More specifically, some of these required
services will include: utility coordination, structure inspection, surveying, public outreach,
environmental monitoring, and material inspection and testing.
The City, in coordination with Caltrans, is currently evaluating submitted proposals for these
services and expects to enter into contract with a qualified firm in July in order to be ready for
construction to begin later this year.
Project Outreach
The project will impact local and regional traffic circulation in this busy area of the city.
Consequently, staff has been working with the PM and Caltrans to develop a significant public
outreach effort as part of the project. A website for the project has been developed
(www.LOVR101.org) for status updates and project information so that the public can get real time
information on the project including road closures.
In addition, a notification database has been created so that individuals and businesses can subscribe
to notices that will be sent out by the CM firm and contractor. The PM along with Staff are
currently analyzing the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter for better public access to
project information and noticing. The PM firm will be taking lead on most public contact during the
project including complaints and project inquiries.
Construction Engineering– Dokken Contract Amendment
As part of project construction, the design engineering firm – Dokken Engineering – will continue
with additional construction engineering services. In that capacity, Dokken will assist the CM and
PM firms with interpretation of the plan set, resolve construction inconsistencies, respond to
contractor requests for information or change order requests, project redesigns (if necessary) and
As-built submittals. These services are not part of the design services contract with Dokken. Staff
has worked with Dokken to prepare a scope of work and cost estimate for these services through the
end of construction in an amount not to exceed $229,000. Staff recommends Council authorize
amending these costs into the Dokken contract. Expenditures for these services will not occur until
construction commences later this year, and will only be used on an as needed basis.
Project Plans and Specifications
The project plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) were developed by the City’s consultant
design firm Dokken Engineering. This 100% PS&E package was submitted to Caltrans in May
2014 with anticipated approval by headquarters in June 2014. The CTC is expected to vote on the
$16,000,000 in grant funding at their June 25, 2014 meeting. Approval of this funding request will
release the E-76 - Authorization to Proceed from the Federal Highway Administration.
Construction advertisement can begin after issuance of the E-76.
Attachment 1 - 3
B1-9
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Update Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Improvements to the US 101/LOVR interchange have been in the planning and developmental
stages for at least twenty years. Phased improvements have been constructed with City oversight by
prior development. The first two phases of this three-phase project included the Calle Joaquin
relocation done by Costco, miscellaneous improvements done by the Irish Hills Development, and
prior sidewalk and bridge work.
This third phase of improvements has been delayed while the City obtained full State funding equal
to $16,000,000 to help deliver the required interchange improvements. With completion of the
plans, specification and permit process the City now has a fully refined engineer’s estimate on costs
necessary to complete the project.
This refined engineer’s estimate notes the project will cost $24,124,300 from this point to
completion. Highlights of this amount include:
a) $17,986,302 for the interchange construction work, landscaping and environmental
mitigation
b) $1,840,000 in contingency
c) $250,000 bond origination fee (this fee may ultimately be included in the bond repayment
amount – yet to be determined).
d) $4,048,500 for PM, CM and construction engineering services of which $859,500 has
already been allocated by previous Council.
As noted above, the total construction project cost from this point forward is $24,124,300. Based
upon prior Council actions, the total amount needed to move forward for FY 2014-15 is
$23,338,808. This includes $74,000 of reimbursement to the General Fund for prior Right of Way
assistance.
To date, approximately $4,135,660 has been spent on Phase III of the project. This amount, in
addition to the $74,000, brings the total cost of this final phase of the Interchange to $28,334,000 as
shown in Table 1.
A summary of the totals referred to above and noted below:
a) $23,338,808 is the amount needed in FY 14-15 to fund all anticipated construction related
costs not currently funded,
b) $24,124,283 is the total amount required to complete all work moving forward from the date
of this report – this includes some CM and PM services already funded,
c) $28,333,943 represents the total amount of the third and final phase (US 101/LOVR
Interchange), and,
d) $36,513,717 is the total project cost including the prior phases; some completed several
years ago.
Attachment 1 - 4
B1-10
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Update Page 5
To Date 2013-142014-15
Alrerady Incurred Costs:
Study (PSR)189,000$ 189,000$
Environmental & Studies 954,300$ 954,300$
Value Engineering 40,000$ 40,000$
Land Acquisition 250,000$ 250,000$
Design (PS&E)2,676,120$ -$ 2,676,120$
Legal 26,240$ 26,240$
Subtotal:4,135,660$ 4,135,660$
Misc.
GF Reimbursement for ROW 74,000$ 74,000$
Construction:
RE Services/Pre-Construction 100,000$ 100,000$
City Contingency Amount 1,839,481$ 1,839,481$
Loan/bond Origionation Fee 250,000$ 250,000$
Construction (includes Env. Mit)17,986,302$ 17,986,302$
Construction Management 759,475$ -$ 3,189,025$ 3,948,500$
759,475$ 100,000$ 23,264,808$ 24,124,283$
Total All Project Costs:4,895,135$ 100,000$ 23,338,808$ 28,333,943$
Project Components
Table 1 – Project Costs
This total Phase III amount of $28,333,943 is $549,293 (1.9%) higher than anticipated in the FY
2013-15 Financial Plan.
The above chart indicates the total “physical” construction cost of $17,986,302 and contingency of
$1,839,481 million is 70% of the total Phase III project costs of $28,338,808. The remaining 30% is
for Right of Way acquisition, design, coordination with Caltrans, permits, construction engineering
and construction management. While this amount is higher than the typical 20-25% in ‘soft costs’
for construction projects, it is consistent with similar projects involving state facilities, high traffic
locations, and projects intersecting streams and creeks.
Debt Financing Needs
Based upon these new estimates and the final grant amount, the local “borrowing” necessary to
complete the project will be about $7,500,000. This amount is determined by subtracting the
$16,000,000 from the FY 14-15 expenses of $23,338,808 and rounding up.
Total Costs- FY 2014-15: $23,338,808
Grant Amount: $16,000,000
Subtotal: $7,338,808
Rounded: $7,500,000
The Finance Department has worked with its Financial Advisor to obtain estimated debt service
costs for a borrowing this size. Interest rates are forecast to continue rising and the annual debt
service payments are estimated to be $482,000 over 30 years. This is approximately $57,000 more
than the amount anticipated when the 2013-15 Financial Plan was adopted. The General Fund will
Attachment 1 - 5
B1-11
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Update Page 6
be obligated to pay this amount annually and will be reimbursed when payments from the Citywide
TIF and LOVR Sub Area Impact Fee are collected. The project will return to Council with the
financing documents at the same time that the recommended bid award is brought back for
approval, which is anticipated to be October 2014.
Funding
The funding strategy for the interchange project was initially established as follows:
• An ultimate 50/50 split between local funds from the City and outside funding sources
(transportation grants)
• The local fund component would be:
o The Citywide TIF account
o The special LOVR Sub Area Impact fee established to better collect monies from
development in close proximity to the project
o And, when necessary, the General Fund or other source to help keep the project on
track.
Including all three phases of the project, total project costs are:
Status
Calle Joaquin Relocation (Phase I)7,945,775$ Complete
Misc. Sidewalk and Bridge Widening (Phase II)234,000$ Complete
Phase III - US 101/LOVR Interchange 28,333,942$ In Progress
Total Costs for All Phases 36,513,717$ Table 2 – Total Project Costs, All Phases
Impact Fees
Impact fees intended to be dedicated to this project are anticipated to fall short of the total project
cost of $36,513,717 by $1.4 million. It was anticipated the TIF and LOVR Subarea Fee would be
adjusted to compensate for any shortfall. It is premature to assume those fees need to be amended at
this point as several variables remain in motion including project costs, actual bids, the intensity of
development (potential LUCE changes), and other variables. Staff will return to council with
recommendations for fee amendments once these variables are clarified. Staff will assess the
appropriate timing of this work effort.
General Fund Reimbursement
The financing of the amount needed to complete the project construction will be an obligation of the
General Fund due to the fact that the credit markets do not find enough security in impact fee
programs because of the fluctuations that occur in the volume of annual fee collections. As a result,
TIF should be considered as a back-stop to the General Fund by providing a minimum amount of
support for the debt service expense when sufficient cash balances exist. Staff is recommending
that the 2013-15 Financial Plan Supplement show the TIF fund contribute an amount equal to the
full debt service payment for 2014-15. Staff also recommends at least one-half of the future debt
Attachment 1 - 6
B1-12
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project Update Page 7
service payments are made by impact fees in future years. The FY 14-15 amount is estimated at
$250,000.
Project Schedule
May 29th, 2014 Conduct Construction Management firm interviews
July 8 th , 2014 Award/execute Construction Management contract
June 25th, 2014 California Transportation Commission to vote on $16,000,000 grant
July, 2014 Federal authorization to proceed issued from FHWA - Form E-76
July-August, 2014 Construction advertisement period
October, 2014 Council authorization to proceed with necessary debt financing
October, 2014 Award construction contract
November, 2014 Start construction
Spring, 2016 End construction
The dates listed above are project based on the current project status and may change as the project
progresses.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Amendment to Agreement with Dokken Engineering
Council Reading File: Project #99821; Plans, Specification & estimates Bid Package
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-06-10\lovr interchange project update (grigsby-bochum)\99821 car lovr-101 project update.docx
Attachment 1 - 7
B1-13
Local Assistance Program Guidelines Chapter 23 Local Agency STIP Projects
Table of Contents i of ii
DLA-OB 13-09 October 31, 2013
CHAPTER 23 LOCAL AGENCY STATE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) PROJECTS
CONTENTS
SECTION/SUBJECT PAGE NUMBER
231 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................... 23-1
23.2 IMPACT OF SB 45 ON LOCAL GRANT PROCEDURES ................................................................................. 23-1
TIMELY USE OF FUNDS ........................................................................................................................... 23-1
COUNTY SHARE BALANCE AND ADJUSTMENTS .................................................................................... 23-4
23.3 PROCEDURES FOR LOCALLY ADMINISTERED PROJECTS ........................................................................ 23-9
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ALL PROJECTS ............................................................................................... 23-9
STARTING WORK BEFORE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS – SB 184 ........................................................... 23-12
23.4 PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL STIP PROJECT ALLOCATIONS ..................................................................... 23-13
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ....................................................................................................................... 23-13
REIMBURSEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 23-17
PROJECT COMPLETION ........................................................................................................................ 23-18
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON LOCAL STIP PROJECTS ........................................................................ 23-18
23.5 PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MONITORING (PPM) FUNDS ............................................................ 23-19
23.6 FEDERAL MATCH ...................................................................................................................................... 23-19
23.7 RIDESHARE PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................. 23-19
23.8 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................... 23-19
GOVERNMENT CODE 14529 (ADOPTED BY AB 872, AMENDED BY SB 184) ...................................... 23-19
MONTHLY STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD ............................................................ 23-20
23.9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 23-20
FLOW CHARTS
FLOWCHART/SUBJECT PAGE NUMBER
23-1 ALLOCATION PROCEDURES (LOCAL STIP PROJECTS) .......................................................................... 23-21
23-2 REIMBURSEMENT AND PROJECT COMPLETION ...................................................................................... 23-23
Attachment 2 - 1
B1-14
Chapter 23 Local Assistance Program Guidelines Local Agency STIP Projects
Table of Contents ii of ii
October 31, 2013 DLA-OB 13-09
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT/DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER
23-A AWARD INFORMATION FOR STIP PROJECTS ........................................................................................ 23-25
23-B REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION (LOCAL STIP PROJECTS) ................................................................ 23-27
23-C STATE-ONLY FINANCE LETTER (LOCAL STIP PROJECTS)... ................................................................ 23-33
23-D [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE] (USE LAPM EXHIBIT 3-O] .................................................................. 23-35
23-E CTC STATE-ONLY FUNDING POLICY ..................................................................................................... 23-37
23-F REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO STIP STATE-ONLY FUNDING POLICY ................................................. 23-39
23-G STIP PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST FORM ................................................................................. 23-41
23-H STIP PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST FUNDING INFORMATION ................................................... 23-42
23-I STIP PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST INSTRIUCTIONS ................................................................... 23-43
23-J PROJECT STUDY REPORT GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 23-51
23-K LOCAL ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT CERTIFICATION ................................................................ 23-59
23-L PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PMS) CERTIFICATION ............................................................... 23-61
23-M NOTICE OF SB 184 PROJECT START FOR LOCAL STIP PROJECTS ..................................................... 23-63
23-N FUNDING ALLOCATION CHECKLIST (LOCAL STIP PROJECTS) ........................................................... 23-65
23-O REQUEST FOR FUNDING ALLOCATION (LOCAL STIP PROJECTS) ....................................................... 23-71
Attachment 2 - 2
B1-15
Local Assistance Program Guidelines Chapter 23 Local Agency STIP Projects
Page 23-1
DLA-OB 13-09 October 31, 2013
CHAPTER 23 Local Agency State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) Projects
23.1 PURPOSE
Senate Bill 45 (SB 45), Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997, made major changes in the state’s
transportation programming process. The purpose of this chapter is to assist responsible
local agencies, regional planning agencies, the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) and Caltrans in the administration of local grant projects (all non-State Highway
projects) programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This
chapter also addresses the Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds,
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, and Rideshare projects.
Roadway projects programmed in the STIP that are 100 percent state funded and are off
the State Highway System will be developed according to the design standards of
Chapter 11 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). These projects may be
treated as federal-aid funded for the purpose of selecting the appropriate design standard.
STIP projects on the State Highway System and administered by local agencies are
processed by Project Management, not Local Assistance.
23.2 IMPACT OF SB 45 ON LOCAL GRANT PROCEDURES
The CTC STIP Guidelines, amended by the CTC on August 6, 2013, describe
programming procedures relative to the fund estimate and the project selection process.
The CTC STIP Guidelines may be accessed from the Internet at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/2014stip.htm
SB 45 enacted provisions regarding the timely use of funds for projects adopted into the
STIP. For local grant projects, no adjustment will be made to the county share balance
after the allocation for any amount not expended by the local agency. Also, time limits
are applied to the allocation of funds programmed in the STIP. These procedures address
the impact that the timely use of funds provision has on county share balances.
After a project is programmed in the STIP, three major steps in the administration of
local grant projects are impacted by SB 45—fund allocation, project reimbursement, and
project completion. Of these three steps, SB 45 had the most impact on the fund
allocation process. Local entities, regional planning agencies, the CTC, and Caltrans all
play an important role in this step. Procedures for project reimbursement and project
completion have not been changed except for the time limits placed on reimbursements in
the liquidation of the encumbered funds. Project implementation procedures (including
environmental, right of way acquisition, design standards, preparation of plans,
specifications and estimates [PS&E], and construction) were not changed by SB 45.
TIMELY USE OF FUNDS
The timely use of funds provisions enacted by SB 45 are intended to encourage local and
regional agencies to accurately program, monitor and deliver projects in a timely
manner. More accurate programming and delivery of projects enables the CTC to
manage transportation funding more effectively. The information below is also included
in Section 65 of the 2014 CTC STIP Guidelines.
Attachment 2 - 3
B1-16
Chapter 23 Local Assistance Program Guidelines Local Agency STIP Projects
Page 23-2
October 31, 2013 DLA-OB 13-09
There are several deadlines that must be met:
Allocation – project components must be allocated in the year in which
they are programmed.
Expenditure – project development expenditures for environmental
studies and permits, PS&E, or right of way must occur by the end of the
2nd fiscal year following allocation.
Award – construction contracts must be awarded within six months of
the construction allocation. Please notify Caltrans districts when
construction contracts are awarded. Notification is required within 60
days of contract award. Projects not awarded within four months are
required to be reported to the CTC on a monthly basis.
Completion – full project completion must occur within three years of
the construction award date and final invoice no later than 180 days after
contract acceptance.
Allocation
Funds that are programmed for all components of local grant projects or for Caltrans
construction and construction support costs are available for allocation only until the end
of the fiscal year identified in the STIP. Whenever programmed funds are not allocated
within this deadline, the project programming will be deleted from the STIP. The CTC
will not make the funds immediately available to the county share or interregional share
for reprogramming. The CTC will, however, adjust the share balance to restore the funds
in the next county share period; see section 23.3.1 for additional information.
Project Development and Right of Way
For funds allocated for local project development (environmental studies and permits,
PS&E) or right of way, costs must be incurred by the end of the second fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. For local grant projects, the
local agency must invoice Caltrans for these costs no later than 180 days after the end of
the last eligible fiscal year of expenditure.
Construction and Equipment Purchases
Funds allocated for construction or for purchase of equipment must be encumbered by
the award of a contract within six months of the date of the allocation of funds. From the
date of award of the contract, the local agency has up to 36 months to complete (accept)
the contract. At the time of fund allocation the CTC may extend the deadline for
completion of work (or purchase of equipment) and the liquidation of funds if necessary
to accommodate the proposed expenditure plan for the project. For local grant projects,
the local agency has 180 days after contract acceptance to make the final payment to the
contractor or vendor, prepare the final Report of Expenditure, and submit the final
invoice to Caltrans for reimbursement. Project completion (contract acceptance) is
defined as when all work identified in the project agreement (program supplemental
agreement) has been successfully completed and accepted by the officer or body
constituting the awarding authority of the local agency.
Per Resolution G-06-08, adopted by the CTC in June 2006, Caltrans is required to
provide monthly contract award status reports to the CTC on projects that have not been
awarded within four months of the date of the CTC’s allocation. Agencies should keep
the District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) informed of contract advertisement and
are required to inform them within 60 days of contract award. A standardized form has
been developed for submittal of award data (see Exhibit 23-A Award Information for
STIP Projects).
Attachment 2 - 4
B1-17
1
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
September 2, 2014
Mr. Daryl Grigsby
Director of Public Works
c/o Mr. Kyle Rowland
Supervising Project Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Bid Evaluation and Analysis Report – Los Osos Valley Road Interchange
Reconstruction (Project) – City Specification No. 99821 – Federal Project No.
Q101(258)-1
Dear Mr. Grisby and Mr. Rowland,
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc. has reviewed the bids submitted for the construction of the
referenced project and offers the following report for your reference and use.
The Project was advertised on July 5, 2014 in the local newspaper, on eBidBoard and BidSync. The
advertised bid opening date was August 12, 2014. A total of 5 sealed bids were received by the front
desk on August 12, 2014 at 2:00pm and were publically announced in Conference Room #1 of the
Public Works Administration Office located at 919 Palm Street in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Our review process consisted of the following:
1. Tabulate all bids received to check for math errors and confirm final ranking (Tabulation
Attached)
2. Check bid packages responsiveness for the low three bidders (Tabulation Attached)
3. Conduct a bid balance check for all bidders with focus on the three low bidders (Tabulation
Attached)
4. Check the A. M. Best ranking of bid bond providers for the low three bidders
5. Check the status of the contractor’s license for the low three bidders
Tabulation of All Bids Received and Math Check:
All bids received were entered by our staff into the attached spreadsheet. After bid closing, the
submitted bid from the apparent low bidder, Granite Construction Company (Granite), was reviewed
for mathematical errors and none were found. The bid package from apparent low bidder No. 2,
Madonna/Souza Joint Venture Partnership, was reviewed for mathematical errors and two were
found that increased the amount of bid from $17,458,924.75 to $17,461,924.75. The apparent low
bidder No. 3, CalPortland Construction, was reviewed for mathematical errors and none were found.
The bid package from apparent low bidder No. 4, Papich Construction Company, Inc., was reviewed
Attachment 3 - 1
B1-18
2
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
for mathematical errors and none were found. The bid package for apparent low bidder no. 5,
American Paving Company, was reviewed for mathematical errors and four were found that reduced
the amount of bid from $22,218,515.77 to $22,207,576.11. All bid amounts and unit prices for all
contractors were entered into an Excel spreadsheet that includes the Engineer’s estimate to confirm
the low bidder. In our review, math errors were found in two of the five submitted bids. Therefore,
the bidder’s initial rankings remained unchanged after the math check.
Responsiveness Assessment:
All items listed in the Notice Inviting Bids (NIB) for the Project are included in the attached Bid
Responsiveness Checklist. Following is our finding for each of the Three Low Bidders on the
Project:
Granite Construction Company (Granite), the Low Bidder – The bid package was checked for
responsiveness in accordance with the attached checklist. As shown in the tabulation, all required
items were included and were determined to be appropriate with the exception of the required
Federal Forms that must be provided within 4 business days of the bid opening. The required
Federal Forms were received prior to the deadline. Therefore the bid package for Granite
Construction Company is considered responsive.
Madonna/Souza JV Partnership (MSJV), the second low bidder – The bid package was checked
against the responsiveness checklist. All required items were included and were determined to be
appropriate with the exception of the required Federal Forms that must be provided within 4
business days of the bid opening. The required Federal Forms were received prior to the deadline.
Therefore, the bid received from Madonna/Souza JV Partnership is considered responsive.
CalPortland., the third low bidder – The bid package was checked against the responsiveness
checklist. All required items were included and were determined to be appropriate with the exception
of the required Federal Forms that must be provided within 4 business days of the bid opening. The
required Federal Forms were received prior to the deadline. Therefore, the bid received from
CalPortland is considered responsive.
Bid Balance Check - Process Overview:
The Bid tabulation attached provides the following:
1. Assessing Competition
2. A Bid Balance Check on all bidders with focus on the Low Bid in reference to the Second and
Third Low Bids
3. Comparison between the Low Bid and the Engineer’s Estimate
4. Comparison between the Low Bid and the Average Bid Item Prices for the three low bids
Overall, 4 of the 5 bids received were over the Engineer’s Estimate of $16,970,377. The only bid that
was less than the Engineer’s Estimate was from the apparent low bidder, Granite Construction
Company. After that the variation from the Engineers Estimate ranged from 2nd lowest bidder’s bid
of about 2.9% higher and 30.9% higher by American Paving Company, the highest bidder.
Assessing Competition:
In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration Guidelines on Preparing Engineer’s
Estimate, Bid Reviews and Evaluation, Section 5, Bid Analysis and Contract Award, competition is
Attachment 3 - 2
B1-19
3
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
considered excellent when there are six or more bids within 20 percent of the low bid, including the
low bid. As shown in the attached tabulation, four of the five bids considered are within 20 percent of
the low bid. The narrow range of bids is an indication that the project scope was uniformly
understood by bidders. Also, in accordance with the referenced guidelines, competition is
considered very good on this project.
Bid Balance Check (Granite)
In accordance with the referenced guidelines, an item is potentially unbalanced if the difference
between the Low Bidder’s unit price and the Engineer’s Estimate is greater than +50% or is less
than -75%. In addition to the referenced guidelines, Southstar followed the flow chart shown below in
checking the balance of bids.
Does bid deviate from
Engineers Estimate
< -75% or > +50%
Is bid
< -75% or > +50% of
lowest 3 bidders
average?
Does it involve a
significant $ value?YES YES
NO NO NO
YES
No further review No further review No further review
Document Evaluation
In following this flow chart for each bid item included in the apparent low bid package (Granite), the
attached tabulation shows 58 bid items that have exceeded one of the limits above in comparison to
the Engineer’s Estimate. Of the 58 items, nine (9) items also deviated from the average of the three
low bidders. Of these nine (9) items, four (4) also deviated by more than $25,000 from the average
of the three low bidders and warranted further review.
These Five Items Are:
Bid Item 3: Time Related Overhead (TRO) - This is paid based on 350 working days called out in
the specifications. Granite Construction Company (Granite) bid $5,000 per working day on this item
(total: $1,750,000), while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $1,900 per working day (total: $665,000)
and the average of the three low bidders is $2,638.33 per working day (total: $923,416). It appears
that Granite has overbid this item while maintaining their low bidder status. However, while the TRO
number may be high, it is fixed. Both the unit price and the number of days are fixed. This item will
be paid over the course of the Project and does not warrant concern since the contractor will be
required to complete the project within the contract required 350 days. No additional compensation
will be warranted once the specified work is completed per the Contract requirements.
Bid Item 27: Temporary Large Sediment Barrier - This is paid per linear foot (LF) with 3,934 LF
called out in the engineer’s quantity estimate. Granite bid $18 per LF on this item (total: $70,812),
while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $2.50 per LF (total: $9,835) and the average of the three low
bidders is $11.25 per LF (total: $44,257). It appears that Granite has overbid this item while
maintaining their low bidder status. This item cost will vary depending upon the type of material
used for sediment barrier. A coconut fiber sediment barrier is more effective and costly than a straw
sediment barrier. The cost of a coconut fiber barrier is closer to $18 per LF. However, the
Attachment 3 - 3
B1-20
4
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
Engineer’s Estimate of the required quantity appears to be accurate and the potential for bid item
quantity overrun is minimal. Therefore, this apparent overbid of this item by Granite should not be a
concern.
Bid Item 66: Bridge Removal (Portion) – Location A- This is a lump sum (LS) item paid. Granite
bid $50,000 for this item, while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $10,000 and the average of the three
low bidders is $24,183. It appears that Granite has overbid this item while maintaining their low
bidder status. However, this item will be paid as the work is completed on the Project. Also, being a
lump sum item does not warrant concern since they will be required to provide the requirements of
this item at this price. No additional compensation will be warranted once the specified work is
completed per the Contract requirements.
Bid Item 173: Chain Link Railing- This is paid per linear foot (LF) with 795 LF called out in the
engineer’s quantity estimate. Granite bid $80 per LF on this item (total: $63,600), while the
Engineer’s Estimate is only $16 per LF (total: $12,720) and the average of the three low bidders is
$44.33 per LF (total: $35,245). It appears that Granite has overbid this item while maintaining their
low bidder status. The Engineer’s Estimate of the required quantity appears to be accurate and the
potential for bid item quantity overrun is minimal. Therefore, this apparent overbid of this item by
Granite should not be a concern.
Bid Balance Check (MSJV)
In following the same flow chart and logic for each bid item included in the apparent 2nd lowest bid
package (MSJV), the attached tabulation shows 68 bid items that have exceeded one of the limits
above in comparison to the Engineer’s Estimate. Of the 68 items, nineteen items also deviated from
the average of the three low bidders. Of these nineteen items, six (6) also deviated by more than
$25,000 from the average of the three low bidders and warranted further review
Bid Item 2: Progress Schedule (CPM) - This is a lump sum (LS) item paid. MSJV bid $43,000 for
this item, while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $6,500 and the average of the three low bidders is
$18,967. It appears that MSJV has overbid this item while maintaining their 2nd lowest bidder status.
However, this item will be paid as the work is completed on the Project. Also, being a lump sum
item does not warrant concern since they will be required to provide the requirements of this item at
this price. No additional compensation will be warranted once the specified work is completed per
the Contract requirements.
Bid Item 19: Temporary Creek Diversion System – This item is paid per each diversion system
(EA) with a quantity of two (2) called out in the engineer’s quantity estimate. MSJV bid $91,000 EA
on this item (total: $182,000), while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $15,000 EA (total: $30,000) and
the average of the three low bidders is $54,667 EA (total: $109,333). It appears that MSJV has
overbid this item while maintaining their 2nd lowest bidder status. The Engineer’s Estimate of the
required quantity appears to be accurate and the potential for bid item quantity overrun is minimal.
Therefore, this apparent overbid of this item by MSJV should not be a concern.
Bid Item 121: Fractured Rib Texture – This item is paid per square foot (SF) with a quantity of
6,365 called out in the engineer’s quantity estimate. MSJV bid $16/SF on this item (total: $101,840),
while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $8/SF (total: $50,920) and the average of the three low bidders
is $10/SF (total: $63,650). It appears that MSJV has overbid this item while maintaining their 2nd
lowest bidder status. The Engineer’s Estimate of the required quantity appears to be accurate and
Attachment 3 - 4
B1-21
5
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
the potential for bid item quantity overrun is minimal. Therefore, this apparent overbid of this item by
MSJV should not be a concern.
Bid Item 149: Undersidewalk Drain – This item is paid per each drain (EA) with a quantity of 14
called out in the engineer’s quantity estimate. MSJV bid $4,000 EA on this item (total: $56,000),
while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $300 EA (total: $4,200) and the average of the three low
bidders is $2,558 EA (total: $35,816). It appears that MSJV has overbid this item while maintaining
their 2nd lowest bidder status. The Engineer’s Estimate of the required quantity appears to be
accurate and the potential for bid item quantity overrun is minimal. Therefore, this apparent overbid
of this item by MSJV should not be a concern.
Bid Item 158: Minor Concrete (Curb & Gutter) – This item is paid per cubic yard (CY) with a
quantity of 233 called out in the engineer’s quantity estimate. MSJV bid $1,020/CY on this item
(total: $237,660), while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $430/CY (total: $100,190) and the average of
the three low bidders is $636/CY (total: $148,188). It appears that MSJV has overbid this item while
maintaining their 2nd lowest bidder status. The Engineer’s Estimate of the required quantity appears
to be accurate and the potential for bid item quantity overrun is minimal. Therefore, this apparent
overbid of this item by MSJV should not be a concern.
Bid Item 208: Mobilization – This is a lump sum (LS) item paid. MSJV bid $128,000 for this item,
while the Engineer’s Estimate is considerably higher at $1,542,761 and the average of the three low
bidders is $723,897. Mobilization is typically about 10% of the overall bid amount, so it is not
immediately clear the reasoning behind this low item bid. Therefore, it appears that MSJV has
underbid this item. However, this item will be paid as the work is completed on the Project. Also,
being a lump sum item does not warrant concern since they will be required to provide the
requirements of this item at this relatively low price. No additional compensation will be warranted
once the specified work is completed per the Contract requirements.
Bid Balance Check (CalPortland)
In following the same flow chart and logic for each bid item included in the apparent 3rd lowest bid
package (CalPortland), the attached tabulation shows 54 bid items that have exceeded one of the
limits above in comparison to the Engineer’s Estimate. Of the 54 items, nine (9) items also deviated
from the average of the three low bidders. Of these nine (9) items, three (3) also deviated by more
than $25,000 from the average of the three low bidders and warranted further review
Bid Item 29: Street Sweeping - This is a lump sum (LS) item paid. CalPortland bid $226,000 for
this item, while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $32,000 and the average of the three low bidders is
$119,333. It appears that CalPortland has overbid this item while maintaining their 3rd lowest bidder
status. However, this item will be paid as the work is completed on the Project. Also, being a lump
sum item does not warrant concern since they will be required to provide the requirements of this
item at this price. No additional compensation will be warranted once the specified work is
completed per the Contract requirements.
Bid Item 71: Dust Control Plan - This is a lump sum (LS) item paid. CalPortland bid $132,000 for
this item, while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $1,400 and the average of the three low bidders is
$51,500. It appears that CalPortland has overbid this item while maintaining their 3rd lowest bidder
Attachment 3 - 5
B1-22
6
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
status. However, this item will be paid as the work is completed on the Project. Also, being a lump
sum item does not warrant concern since they will be required to provide the requirements of this
item at this price. No additional compensation will be warranted once the specified work is
completed per the Contract requirements.
Bid Item 77: Structure Backfill (Slurry Cement) - This is paid per cubic yard (CY) with 168 CY
called out in the engineer’s quantity estimate. CalPortland bid $558 per CY on this item (total:
$93,744), while the Engineer’s Estimate is only $150 per CY (total: $25,200) and the average of the
three low bidders is $336 per LF (total: $56,448). It appears that CalPortland has overbid this item
while maintaining their 3rd lowest bidder status. However, the Engineer’s Estimate of the required
quantity appears to be accurate and the potential for bid item quantity overrun is minimal.
Therefore, this apparent overbid of this item by CalPortland should not be a concern.
General Comparison of Bids
Contractor Name
Granite
Construction
Company
Madonna/Souza
JV Partnership CalPortland
Percent Variance from Engineer's Estimate -2.35% +2.90% +6.88%
Dollar Variance from Engineer's Estimate -$398,247.04 +$491,547.87 +$1,168,046.11
Percent Variance from Low Bid 00.00% 5.37% 9.45%
Dollar Variance from Low Bid $ - $ 889,794.91 $ 1,566,293.15
A.M. Best Ranking of Bid Bond Providers
The A. M. Best Ranking of Bid Bond Providers of the low three bidders was verified and all have met
or exceeded the requirements of the Contract Documents.
Contractor’s License Check
All Contractors’ licenses listed in the low three bids were verified with the Contractor State License
Board and no irregularities were found.
Bid Protests
Two bid protests were received prior to the deadline of 5:00pm on August 19, 2014. The first protest
was from the Madonna/Souza JV (MSJV) protesting the apparent low bidder #1 (Granite). The
second protest was from CalPortland protesting the apparent low bidder #2 (MSJV). Requests for
responses were sent from the City via email and hard copy to the relevant parties on August 20,
2014. Responses were received the same week.
Protest #1 - The following is a summary of the protest argument, summary response, and findings
for protest #1:
Protest argument: Granite failed to comply with the Federal DBE rules and regulations by
submitting a quote from Dragon Materials Transport, Inc. (Dragon) for “Buy & Haul Asphalt
Attachment 3 - 6
B1-23
7
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
Oil” addressed to CalPortland Construction (CalPortland). This quote is used as a $421,200
bid contributing to the 3% DBE goal set for the project, but there is no evidence given of any
contractual relation, or contact between CalPortland and Granite, or between Dragon and
Granite, with respect to this project. Exhibit 15-H fails to show that Granite contacted Dragon
prior to bidding. Additionally, the quote is for delivery to a Paso Robles location, and Granite
has no plant in Paso Robles. This failure to provide the necessary DBE documentation
results in the inability of Granite to show a good faith effort to meet the project DBE goals.
Summary response from Granite: CalPortland is supplying Granite with material for this
contract and Dragon is committed to supply and haul asphalt oil CalPortland for this contract
as Granite’s supplier. The asphalt oil will be delivered CalPortland’s facility in Paso Robles.
All DBE participation (including lower tier subcontractors and suppliers) counts toward the
DBE goal. (See Standard Specification Section 2-1.12B, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Goal; 49 CFR §26.55; see also Standard Specification Section 5-1.13B). Therefore, bidders
were required to identify on the DBE Commitment Form all DBE firms participating in the
project regardless of tier. (See Instructions- Local Agency Bidder DBE Commitment
(Construction Contracts)).
With respect to first tier subcontractors and suppliers, the DBE firm provides a quote directly
to the bidder, and for lower tier DBE subcontractors and suppliers, the quote will not be a
direct quote from the subject DBE to the bidder; but rather, such quote will necessarily be
directed to the relevant subcontractor/supplier. Here, Granite's first tier material supplier is
CalPortland and its second tier supplier/hauler (through CalPortland) is Dragon.
Consequently, Dragon's quote for this Contract was properly directed to CalPortland. As is
customary, Granite's supplier, CalPortland, provided Granite with Dragon's quote for
inclusion in Granite's DBE submittal to evidence Dragon's participation.
Findings: The Standard Specifications clearly identify that all DBE participation, including
lower tier subcontractors and suppliers, count toward the specified DBE goal. In this
situation, Dragon is a 2nd tier DBE supplier to Granite and therefore contributes to the overall
DBE goal. Granite has met the minimum DBE utilization goal of 3.0%.
Protest #2 - The following is a summary of the protest argument, summary response, and findings
for protest #2:
1. Protest argument #1: MSJV made critical errors on Bid Book p. 24 and p. 27. The bidder
shall list all subcontractors in accordance with Sections 2-1.054 and 2-1.33C of the Standard
Specifications, in addition to Public Contract Code Section 4100. The two referenced
subcontractor forms should match and any variance would be a breach of the referenced
provisions. MSJV lists entirely different subcontractors for the same portions of work, i.e. Bid
Book p. 24 lists Acacia Environmental for Erosion Control while p. 27 lists KCI Environmental
for the same portion of work. By having multiple subcontractors listed for the same work, this
is a violation of Public Contract Code Section 4104(2)(B)(b) that states “The prime contractor
shall list only one subcontractor for each portion as is defined by the prime contractor in his
or her bid.”
Summary response from MSJV: CalPortland misreads the purpose of Exhibit 12-B and the
“List of Subcontractors”. The purpose of the List of Subcontractors is to furnish certain
specified information with the contractor’s bid for any subcontractor that is to perform more
Attachment 3 - 7
B1-24
8
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
than 0.5% of the total base bid. The purpose of Public Contracts Code § 4100 et. Seq. is to
ensure that “bid shopping” will not occur in public contracting.
Exhibit 12-B is not required with the bid submission, and there is no merit to the claim that
Exhibit 12-B must match the Subcontractor List at the time of the bid submission. They are
for separate purposes.
The Subcontractor’s List submitted with the bid by MSJV listed only KCI f or the Erosion
Control, meeting the requirement for the Public Contract Code Section 4104(2)(B)(2) and the
purpose of the law.
Findings for Protest Argument #1: The MSJV bid included six subcontractors in the table of
Exhibit 12-B:
Firm Name Description of Work to be Performed
Acacia Environmental Erosion Control, hydroseed
Fitzgerald Formliners Cobblestone formliners
ACO Polymer Prod. Trench drain
Triumph Geosynthetics Filter fabric
Midstate Barrier, Inc. Guardrail & Crash Cushions
Underground Spec. Signals/Lighting
The instructions for completing this table clearly indicate that both DBE and non-DBE firms
are to be listed in this table. Specifically, the instructions are:
“The bidder shall list all subcontractors (both DBE and non-DBE) in
accordance with Section 2-1.054 of the Standard Specifications and per
Title 49, Section 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This listing is
required in addition to listing DBE Subcontractors elsewhere in the
proposal.”
Exhibit 12-B should include all subcontractors working for the MSJV contracting firm.
However, according to the completed List of Subcontractors form (p. 27) of the bid book,
MSJV lists ten (10) separate subcontractors:
Firm Name Description of Work to be
Performed
% Total of
Base Bid
KCI Environmental Erosion Control 1.98
Chrisp Co. Striping Pavement Markers 1.05
Silver Oak Construction Concrete 4.98
KRC Safety Co. CAS/Traffic Control 1.7
Harris Rebar Reinforcing Steel 4.9
TIPCO Engineering Drive Steel Piles 2.73
Dywidag Systems International Prestressing CIP Concrete 0.5
Underground Specialties Central Coast Electrical 3.92
Valley Fence Fencing 1.46
Advanced Geosolutions Wick Drains Not stated
Attachment 3 - 8
B1-25
9
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
This list of 10 subcontractors summarizes all subcontractors that have more than 0.5% of the
total base bid. Only one subcontractor matches the list provided in Exhibit 12-B
(Underground Specialties) and there are two different subcontractors listed for Erosion
Control.
Furthermore, MSJV includes 48 separate contractor firms on the detailed bidder’s list of
contractors (DBE and non-DBE) (p. 26). Acacia Environmental is listed on this particular
form for work proposed to be performed as: “Erosion control, hydroseed, fencing”, which
does not match with the description of work in Exhibit 12-B (no fencing).
Finally, MSJV lists 44 separate contractor firms on Part II of Exhibit 12-B. These are all firms
that provided a quote to MSJV, but were not selected to participate as subcontractors on this
project. The instructions for completing this form are:
“The bidder shall list all subcontractors who provided a quote or bid but
were not selected to participate as a subcontractor on this project. This is
required for compliance with Title 49, Section 26, of the Code of Federal
Regulations.”
Considering the numerous discrepancies contained on these lists of subcontractors, it is not
clear which subcontractors are being proposed for this project and what percentages each is
being used for. With this said, however, by referencing the 2006 Caltrans Standard
Specifications on Exhibit 12-B the instructions are outdated and as such are considered
ambiguous. This is not a valid reason to deem a bid nonresponsive. Furthermore, these
irregularities mentioned can be easily remedied if necessary and therefore the MSJV bid is
considered responsive.
2. Protest Argument #2: MSJV made critical errors on bid book p. 27 “List of Subcontractors”.
MSJV listed portions of the subcontracted work in words. Pursuant to Section 2-1.33C
subcontractor list of the bid book 2, page 18, it states the City’s intent of what information is
to be included on the “List of Subcontractors.” The Section reads: “On the Subcontractor
List, you must submit each subcontracted bid item number and corresponding percentage
with your bid. Failure to do so results in a nonresponsive bid.”
Summary response from MSJV: The City has typically identified this column in this manner
and on numerous prior bid documents accepted a written description as adequate for “item
number”. The City’s past bid documents are identical in nature to the Subcontractor List in
the bid documents for this project. The City has historically accepted this manner of
describing the work done by description on the Subcontractor List form.
Findings: It is preferred that the bidder follow the instructions on the form and state the bid
item number. However, it is acceptable to list the word description of the bid item in lieu of
the bid item number. Therefore, this issue does not make the bid nonresponsive.
3. Protest Argument #3: MSJV made an error on bid book p. 27, second page. MSJV did not
list a percentage of the total base bid for Advanced Geosolutions as required by Special
Provision Section 2-1.33C which states the bidder is required to list the subcontracted
percentage. Failure to do so results in a nonresponsive bid.
Attachment 3 - 9
B1-26
10
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
Summary response from MSJV: Advanced Geosolutions quote was less than 0.5%,
therefore no percentage of work was listed nor required.
Findings: The % total of the base bid was erroneously not stated. It is not clear why the firm
Advanced Geosolutions was listed on this form since, according to the quote provided by
MSJV, it had less than 0.5% of the base bid. This issue does not make the bid
nonresponsive.
Disadvantaged- Business Enterprise (DBE) Analysis
The deadline for contractors to submit their DBE packages was 4:00pm on the fourth business day
after award, or by Monday August 18, 2014. DBE packages were received in a timely fashion from
each of the three lowest bidders.
The minimum DBE utilization requirement for this Project was 3.0%. The following table illustrates
the proposed DBE utilizations for each of the three lowest bidders:
Firm Name Total Claimed DBE
Participation (%)
Total Claimed DBE
Participation ($)
Granite Construction 3.2% $535,560
MSJV 3.57% $622,889
CalPortland 3.1% $563,565
Granite – The six (6) DBE firms listed on Exhibit 15-G are all currently listed on the Caltrans website
as active and certified for their respective types of work proposed (see attachment). The
dollar amounts and percentages seem to be reasonable and consistent with the type of
work each subcontractor will be performing. Five of the six firms have dollar amounts under
0.5% of the bid amount, therefore these firms are not (and should not be) listed on Exhibit
12-B. The sixth firm (Dragon) is a 2nd tier DBE supplier, which is why it is not listed on
Exhibit 12-B. Finally, a substantial “good faith effort” appears to have been done in reaching
out to the DBE community in search of DBE firms to subcontract to. Multiple publications
were printed (both online and in the California Bid Register Daily paper) and a considerable
number of phone calls were made to DBE firms with the intention of obtaining bids.
MSJV - The three (3) DBE firms listed on Exhibit 15-G are all currently listed on the Caltrans website
as active and certified for their respective types of work proposed. The dollar amounts and
percentages seem to be reasonable and consistent with the type of work each
subcontractor will be performing. The first firm listed on p. 1 of 3, Rupert Construction
Supply, was tasked with providing 9 separate bid items totaling $320,987. Although MSJV
claims on Exhibit 15-H, Item A, to have published an advertisement, no evidence was found
in the DBE package to back up this claim. As stated in the instructions for completing this
form, copies of the advertisements or proofs of the publication are required. It appears that
an online company, BlueBook.com, was hired to send out email invitations to a number of
different subcontractors. This is sufficient for the solicitation requirement of the good faith
effort, but does not count for the publishing effort as stated in MSJV’s submittal. Phone calls
were made to eleven (11) different subcontractors, three of which are used and appear to
be included in the DBE package (Rupert, Triumph, and KRC Safety). It appears that MSJV
has made a “good faith effort” in reaching out to the DBE community in search of DBE firms
to subcontract to.
Attachment 3 - 10
B1-27
11
SOUTHSTAR
Engineering and Consulting Inc.
1700 Iowa Ave, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92507
(951) 342-3120
www.SouthStarEng.com
CalPortland – The two (2) DBE firms listed on Exhibit 15-G are both currently listed on the Caltrans
website as active and certified for their respective types of work proposed. The dollar
amounts and percentages seem to be reasonable and consistent with the type of work each
subcontractor will be performing. The first firm, KRC Safety, was tasked with providing 12
separate bid items totaling $142,365. As with Granite, CalPortland used Dragon Material
Transport as a 2nd tier DBE supplier, which is why it is not listed on Exhibit 12-B. It appears
that CalPortland has made a “good faith effort” in reaching out to the DBE community in
search of DBE firms to subcontract to. A publication was printed in the Compliance News
Daily Focus Journal on July 17, 2014. Invitations to bid were sent via fax to 35 firms on July
17, 2014. In addition, 14 emails were sent to DBE firms on August 1, 2014 soliciting bids.
Recommendation
In conclusion, based on the above analysis, Southstar Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
recommends the award of the Contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Granite
Construction Company Inc. for $16,572,129.81. If Granite is unable to enter into a Contract with the
City of San Luis Obispo, then the project should be awarded to the next lowest responsive and
responsible bidder, Madonna/Souza Joint Venture Partnership for $17,461,924.75.
This report and the attached documents are provided for your records and reference. If you need
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (909) 556-8852.
Sincerely,
Jason Bennecke, PE, MBA, PMP
Project Manager
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Attachment 3 - 11
B1-28
Bid Analysis
Tabulation, Math Error Check, Bid Balance, and Final Ranking
Attachment 3 - 12
B1-29
IT
E
M
NO
.
UN
I
T
Q
U
A
N
T
I
T
Y
P
R
I
C
E
AM
O
U
N
T
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
AM
O
U
N
T
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
AM
O
U
N
T
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
Lo
w
T
h
r
e
e
B
i
d
d
e
r
s
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
AM
O
U
N
T
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
L
o
w
Th
r
e
e
B
i
d
d
e
r
s
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
A
M
O
U
N
T
Percent Deviation from Engineer's EstimatePercent Deviation from Average of Low Three Bidders UNIT PRICE AMOUNTPercent Deviation from Engineer's EstimatePercent Deviation from Average of Low Three Bidders UNIT PRICE AMOUNTPercent Deviation from Engineer's EstimatePercent Deviation from Average of Low Three Bidders
1
0
7
0
0
3
0
LS
1
$
2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
3,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-9
.
0
9
%
-4
2
.
8
6
%
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-9
.
0
9
%
-4
2
.
8
6
%
$
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
6,500.00
$
195.45%85.71%$2,400.002,400.00$ 9.09%-31.43%$2,000.002,000.00$ -9.09%-42.86%
2
8
0
0
5
0
LS
1
$
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
6,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
8
,
9
6
6
.
6
7
18
,
9
6
6
.
6
7
$
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
3
.
0
8
%
-7
3
.
6
4
%
$4
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
43
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
56
1
.
5
4
%
12
6
.
7
1
%
$8
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
8,900.00
$
36.92%-53.08%$15,700.0015,700.00$ 141.54%-17.22%$5,000.005,000.00$ -23.08%-73.64%
3
9
0
1
0
0
W
D
A
Y
3
5
0
$
1
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
66
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
6
3
8
.
3
3
92
3
,
4
1
6
.
6
7
$
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
16
3
.
1
6
%
89
.
5
1
%
$1
,
0
6
5
.
0
0
37
2
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
-4
3
.
9
5
%
-5
9
.
6
3
%
$
1
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
647,500.00
$
-2.63%-29.88%$3,450.001,207,500.00$ 81.58%30.76%$5,500.001,925,000.00$ 189.47%108.46%
4
1
2
0
0
9
0
LS
1
$
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
8,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
4
,
2
6
6
.
6
7
34
,
2
6
6
.
6
7
$
$3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
27
5
.
0
0
%
-1
2
.
4
5
%
$3
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
33
7
.
5
0
%
2.
1
4
%
$
3
7
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
37,800.00
$
372.50%10.31%$30,500.0030,500.00$ 281.25%-10.99%$30,000.0030,000.00$ 275.00%-12.45%
5
1
2
0
1
0
0
LS
1
$
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
36
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
1
5
,
6
6
6
.
6
7
21
5
,
6
6
6
.
6
7
$
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-58
.
3
3
%
-3
0
.
4
5
%
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
30
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
6
.
6
7
%
39
.
1
0
%
$
1
9
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
197,000.00
$
-45.28%-8.66%$410,000.00410,000.00$ 13.89%90.11%$100,000.00100,000.00$ -72.22%-53.63%
6
1
2
0
1
4
9
SQ
F
T
3
8
6
1
$
3
.
0
0
11
,
5
8
3
.
0
0
$
$3
.
4
5
13
,
3
3
3
.
3
2
$
$4
.
0
0
15
,
4
4
4
.
0
0
$
33
.
3
3
%
15
.
8
3
%
$3
.
3
6
12
,
9
7
2
.
9
6
$
12
.
0
0
%
-2
.
7
0
%
$
3
.
0
0
11,583.00
$
0.00%-13.13%$3.0011,583.00$ 0.00%-13.13%$3.1011,969.10$ 3.33%-10.23%
7
1
2
0
1
5
9
LF
5
2
3
7
8
$
0
.
4
0
20
,
9
5
1
.
2
0
$
$0
.
4
9
25
,
4
9
0
.
6
3
$
$0
.
6
5
34
,
0
4
5
.
7
0
$
62
.
5
0
%
33
.
5
6
%
$0
.
5
6
29
,
3
3
1
.
6
8
$
40
.
0
0
%
15
.
0
7
%
$
0
.
2
5
13,094.50
$
-37.50%-48.63%$0.2513,094.50$ -37.50%-48.63%$0.3015,713.40$ -25.00%-38.36%
8
1
2
0
1
6
5
EA
3
1
5
$
3
7
.
0
0
11
,
6
5
5
.
0
0
$
$3
8
.
3
3
12
,
0
7
5
.
0
0
$
$4
5
.
0
0
14
,
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
21
.
6
2
%
17
.
3
9
%
$3
3
.
0
0
10
,
3
9
5
.
0
0
$
-1
0
.
8
1
%
-1
3
.
9
1
%
$
3
7
.
0
0
11,655.00
$
0.00%-3.48%$30.009,450.00$ -18.92%-21.74%$32.0010,080.00$ -13.51%-16.52%
9
1
2
0
3
0
0
EA
2
4
1
7
$
4
.
6
0
11
,
1
1
8
.
2
0
$
$4
.
0
8
9,
8
6
9
.
4
2
$
$4
.
0
0
9,
6
6
8
.
0
0
$
-1
3
.
0
4
%
-2
.
0
4
%
$4
.
5
0
10
,
8
7
6
.
5
0
$
-2
.
1
7
%
10
.
2
0
%
$
3
.
7
5
9,063.75
$
-18.48%-8.16%$3.708,942.90$ -19.57%-9.39%$4.109,909.70$ -10.87%0.41%
10
1
2
8
6
5
1
EA
6
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
5
,
6
6
6
.
6
7
94
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-8
0
.
0
0
%
-6
8
.
0
9
%
$1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
10
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
2
.
0
0
%
8.
5
1
%
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
150,000.00
$
0.00%59.57%$2,100.0012,600.00$ -91.60%-86.60%$20,000.00120,000.00$ -20.00%27.66%
11
1
2
9
0
0
0
LF
1
7
5
8
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
35
1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
.
1
7
23
1
,
4
7
0
.
0
0
$
$1
1
.
0
0
19
3
,
3
8
0
.
0
0
$
-4
5
.
0
0
%
-1
6
.
4
6
%
$1
4
.
0
0
24
6
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
$
-3
0
.
0
0
%
6.
3
3
%
$
1
4
.
5
0
254,910.00
$
-27.50%10.13%$14.00246,120.00$ -30.00%6.33%$13.50237,330.00$ -32.50%2.53%
12
1
2
9
1
0
0
EA
1
0
9
$
2
2
5
.
0
0
24
,
5
2
5
.
0
0
$
$1
5
1
.
0
7
16
,
4
6
6
.
2
7
$
$1
6
0
.
0
0
17
,
4
4
0
.
0
0
$
-2
8
.
8
9
%
5.
9
1
%
$1
5
1
.
2
0
16
,
4
8
0
.
8
0
$
-3
2
.
8
0
%
0.
0
9
%
$
1
4
2
.
0
0
15,478.00
$
-36.89%-6.00%$168.0018,312.00$ -25.33%11.21%$150.0016,350.00$ -33.33%-0.71%
13
1
2
9
1
1
3
A
EA
2
1
$
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
17
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
,
3
4
1
.
6
7
70
,
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
$3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
73
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-58
.
8
2
%
4.
7
4
%
$3
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
70
,
5
6
0
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
4
7
%
0.
5
5
%
$
3
,
1
6
5
.
0
0
66,465.00
$
-62.76%-5.29%$910.0019,110.00$ -89.29%-72.77%$3,000.0063,000.00$ -64.71%-10.22%
14
1
3
0
1
0
0
LS
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
4
,
5
3
3
.
3
3
34
,
5
3
3
.
3
3
$
$1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
5
.
0
0
%
-5
6
.
5
6
%
$1
8
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
18
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
-7
.
0
0
%
-4
6
.
1
4
%
$
7
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
70,000.00
$
250.00%102.70%$116,000.00116,000.00$ 480.00%235.91%$40,000.0040,000.00$ 100.00%15.83%
15
1
3
0
3
0
0
LS
1
$
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
8,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
2,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
1,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-8
1
.
2
5
%
-4
2
.
3
1
%
$1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
1,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-8
1
.
2
5
%
-4
2
.
3
1
%
$
4
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
4,800.00
$
-40.00%84.62%$2,800.002,800.00$ -65.00%7.69%$1,400.001,400.00$ -82.50%-46.15%
16
1
3
0
3
1
0
EA
7
0
$
5
0
0
.
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$4
1
6
.
6
7
29
,
1
6
6
.
6
7
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
20
.
0
0
%
$2
5
0
.
0
0
17
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-4
0
.
0
0
%
$
5
0
0
.
0
0
35,000.00
$
0.00%20.00%$525.0036,750.00$ 5.00%26.00%$250.0017,500.00$ -50.00%-40.00%
17
1
3
0
3
2
0
EA
3
3
$
1
,
0
7
4
.
0
0
35
,
4
4
2
.
0
0
$
$3
0
0
.
0
0
9,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
.
0
0
1,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
-9
5
.
3
4
%
-8
3
.
3
3
%
$3
5
0
.
0
0
11
,
5
5
0
.
0
0
$
-6
7
.
4
1
%
16
.
6
7
%
$
5
0
0
.
0
0
16,500.00
$
-53.45%66.67%$525.0017,325.00$ -51.12%75.00%$500.0016,500.00$ -53.45%66.67%
18
1
3
0
3
3
0
EA
2
$
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
6
1
3
.
3
3
3,
2
2
6
.
6
7
$
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
23
.
9
7
%
$8
4
0
.
0
0
1,
6
8
0
.
0
0
$
-5
8
.
0
0
%
-4
7
.
9
3
%
$
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4,000.00
$
0.00%23.97%$1,600.003,200.00$ -20.00%-0.83%$1,100.002,200.00$ -45.00%-31.82%
19
1
3
0
4
0
1
EA
2
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
4
,
6
6
6
.
6
7
10
9
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
$
$5
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
11
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
26
6
.
6
7
%
0.
6
1
%
$9
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
18
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
50
6
.
6
7
%
66
.
4
6
%
$1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
36,000.00
$
20.00%-67.07%$132,000.00264,000.00$ 780.00%141.46%$200,000.00400,000.00$ 1233.33%265.85%
20
13
0
4
0
2
EA
1
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
,
0
3
3
.
3
3
6,
0
3
3
.
3
3
$
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-66
.
6
7
%
-1
7
.
1
3
%
$5
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
5,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
6
.
0
0
%
-1
5
.
4
7
%
$
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
8,000.00
$
-46.67%32.60%$25,000.0025,000.00$ 66.67%314.36%$35,000.0035,000.00$ 133.33%480.11%
21
1
3
0
5
0
5
EA
4
7
$
6
5
0
.
0
0
30
,
5
5
0
.
0
0
$
$1
4
.
0
7
66
1
.
1
3
$
$2
0
.
0
0
94
0
.
0
0
$
-9
6
.
9
2
%
42
.
1
8
%
$1
1
.
2
0
52
6
.
4
0
$
-9
8
.
2
8
%
-2
0
.
3
8
%
$
1
1
.
0
0
517.00
$
-98.31%-21.80%$790.0037,130.00$ 21.54%5516.11%$10.00470.00$ -98.46%-28.91%
22
1
3
0
5
3
0
SQ
Y
D
9
2
9
0
2
$
1
.
5
0
13
9
,
3
5
3
.
0
0
$
$0
.
6
6
61
,
0
0
5
.
6
5
$
$0
.
6
2
57
,
5
9
9
.
2
4
$
-5
8
.
6
7
%
-5
.
5
8
%
$0
.
7
0
65
,
0
3
1
.
4
0
$
-5
3
.
3
3
%
6.
6
0
%
$
0
.
6
5
60,386.30
$
-56.67%-1.02%$0.6560,386.30$ -56.67%-1.02%$0.6055,741.20$ -60.00%-8.63%
23
1
3
0
5
8
0
LS
1
$
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
8,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
6,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
-9
3
.
7
5
%
-9
2
.
0
6
%
$1
2
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
57
.
5
0
%
10
0
.
0
0
%
$5
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
5,800.00
$
-27.50%-7.94%$850.00850.00$ -89.38%-86.51%$11,300.0011,300.00$ 41.25%79.37%
24
1
3
0
6
1
0
LF
6
4
7
$
6
.
2
5
4,
0
4
3
.
7
5
$
$3
.
6
7
2,
3
7
2
.
3
3
$
$4
.
0
0
2,
5
8
8
.
0
0
$
-3
6
.
0
0
%
9.
0
9
%
$4
.
0
0
2,
5
8
8
.
0
0
$
-3
6
.
0
0
%
9.
0
9
%
$
3
.
0
0
1,941.00
$
-52.00%-18.18%$3.502,264.50$ -44.00%-4.55%$8.005,176.00$ 28.00%118.18%
25
1
3
0
6
2
0
EA
1
7
$
3
5
0
.
0
0
5,
9
5
0
.
0
0
$
$2
6
0
.
0
0
4,
4
2
0
.
0
0
$
$9
0
.
0
0
1,
5
3
0
.
0
0
$
-7
4
.
2
9
%
-6
5
.
3
8
%
$3
4
0
.
0
0
5,
7
8
0
.
0
0
$
-2
.
8
6
%
30
.
7
7
%
$
3
5
0
.
0
0
5,950.00
$
0.00%34.62%$175.002,975.00$ -50.00%-32.69%$6.40108.80$ -98.17%-97.54%
26
1
3
0
6
4
0
LF
1
5
0
5
0
$
3
.
4
0
51
,
1
7
0
.
0
0
$
$3
.
6
7
55
,
1
8
3
.
3
3
$
$4
.
0
0
60
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
17
.
6
5
%
9.
0
9
%
$4
.
5
0
67
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
32
.
3
5
%
22
.
7
3
%
$
2
.
5
0
37,625.00
$
-26.47%-31.82%$2.7541,387.50$ -19.12%-25.00%$4.2063,210.00$ 23.53%14.55%
27
1
3
0
6
6
0
LF
3
9
3
4
$
2
.
5
0
9,
8
3
5
.
0
0
$
$1
1
.
2
5
44
,
2
5
7
.
5
0
$
$1
8
.
0
0
70
,
8
1
2
.
0
0
$
62
0
.
0
0
%
60
.
0
0
%
$1
1
.
2
5
44
,
2
5
7
.
5
0
$
35
0
.
0
0
%
0.
0
0
%
$4
.
5
0
17,703.00
$
80.00%-60.00%$5.5021,637.00$ 120.00%-51.11%$18.6073,172.40$ 644.00%65.33%
28
1
3
0
7
1
0
EA
3
$
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
7,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
,
8
3
3
.
3
3
11
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
10
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
.
0
0
%
-8
.
7
0
%
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
%
4.
3
5
%
$
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12,000.00
$
60.00%4.35%$2,200.006,600.00$ -12.00%-42.61%$3,820.0011,460.00$ 52.80%-0.35%
29
1
3
0
7
3
0
LS
1
$
3
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
32
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
1
9
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
11
9
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
$
$4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
45
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
.
6
3
%
-6
2
.
2
9
%
$8
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
87
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
17
1
.
8
8
%
-2
7
.
0
9
%
$
2
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
226,000.00
$
606.25%89.39%$16,000.0016,000.00$ -50.00%-86.59%$50,000.0050,000.00$ 56.25%-58.10%
30
1
3
0
9
0
0
LS
1
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
7,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
5
.
0
0
%
-3
7
.
5
0
%
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
-6
6
.
6
7
%
$
2
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
24,500.00
$
145.00%104.17%$19,000.0019,000.00$ 90.00%58.33%$17,300.0017,300.00$ 73.00%44.17%
31
1
4
1
0
0
0
LF
4
2
4
6
$
5
.
0
0
21
,
2
3
0
.
0
0
$
$3
.
4
2
14
,
5
0
7
.
1
7
$
$4
.
5
0
19
,
1
0
7
.
0
0
$
-1
0
.
0
0
%
31
.
7
1
%
$3
.
0
0
12
,
7
3
8
.
0
0
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-1
2
.
2
0
%
$
2
.
7
5
11,676.50
$
-45.00%-19.51%$2.259,553.50$ -55.00%-34.15%$2.108,916.60$ -58.00%-38.54%
32
1
5
0
2
0
4
LF
1
9
8
$
1
5
.
0
0
2,
9
7
0
.
0
0
$
$4
1
.
6
7
8,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
$4
5
.
0
0
8,
9
1
0
.
0
0
$
20
0
.
0
0
%
8.
0
0
%
$6
0
.
0
0
11
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
$
30
0
.
0
0
%
44
.
0
0
%
$
2
0
.
0
0
3,960.00
$
33.33%-52.00%$52.0010,296.00$ 246.67%24.80%$40.007,920.00$ 166.67%-4.00%
33
15
0
3
0
5
SQ
Y
D
1
3
1
4
$
5
.
0
0
6,
5
7
0
.
0
0
$
$6
.
9
8
9,
1
7
6
.
1
0
$
$1
0
.
0
0
13
,
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
43
.
2
0
%
$8
.
2
0
10
,
7
7
4
.
8
0
$
64
.
0
0
%
17
.
4
2
%
$
2
.
7
5
3,613.50
$
-45.00%-60.62%$24.5032,193.00$ 390.00%250.84%$4.405,781.60$ -12.00%-36.99%
34
1
5
0
6
0
5
LF
3
9
5
4
$
4
.
0
0
15
,
8
1
6
.
0
0
$
$2
.
8
3
11
,
2
0
3
.
0
0
$
$5
.
0
0
19
,
7
7
0
.
0
0
$
25
.
0
0
%
76
.
4
7
%
$2
.
0
0
7,
9
0
8
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-2
9
.
4
1
%
$
1
.
5
0
5,931.00
$
-62.50%-47.06%$1.505,931.00$ -62.50%-47.06%$5.3020,956.20$ 32.50%87.06%
35
1
5
0
6
2
0
EA
1
$
2
5
0
.
0
0
25
0
.
0
0
$
$3
4
7
.
3
3
34
7
.
3
3
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
43
.
9
5
%
$1
2
0
.
0
0
12
0
.
0
0
$
-5
2
.
0
0
%
-6
5
.
4
5
%
$
4
2
2
.
0
0
422.00
$
68.80%21.50%$400.00400.00$ 60.00%15.16%$600.00600.00$ 140.00%72.74%
36
1
5
0
6
6
2
LF
1
3
6
4
$
8
.
0
0
10
,
9
1
2
.
0
0
$
$1
1
.
4
2
15
,
5
7
2
.
3
3
$
$8
.
0
0
10
,
9
1
2
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-2
9
.
9
3
%
$2
2
.
0
0
30
,
0
0
8
.
0
0
$
17
5
.
0
0
%
92
.
7
0
%
$4
.
2
5
5,797.00
$
-46.88%-62.77%$4.005,456.00$ -50.00%-64.96%$11.5015,686.00$ 43.75%0.73%
37
1
5
0
6
7
0
LF
3
2
5
$
8
.
0
0
2,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
6
.
3
3
5,
3
0
8
.
3
3
$
$8
.
0
0
2,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-5
1
.
0
2
%
$3
4
.
0
0
11
,
0
5
0
.
0
0
$
32
5
.
0
0
%
10
8
.
1
6
%
$7
.
0
0
2,275.00
$
-12.50%-57.14%$7.002,275.00$ -12.50%-57.14%$20.006,500.00$ 150.00%22.45%
38
1
5
0
6
7
7
A
LF
3
4
7
$
1
0
.
0
0
3,
4
7
0
.
0
0
$
$9
.
3
3
3,
2
3
8
.
6
7
$
$4
.
0
0
1,
3
8
8
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
-5
7
.
1
4
%
$6
.
0
0
2,
0
8
2
.
0
0
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-3
5
.
7
1
%
$
1
8
.
0
0
6,246.00
$
80.00%92.86%$18.006,246.00$ 80.00%92.86%$52.0018,044.00$ 420.00%457.14%
39
1
5
0
7
1
4
LF
2
4
4
7
5
$
0
.
7
0
17
,
1
3
2
.
5
0
$
$0
.
4
5
11
,
0
9
5
.
3
3
$
$0
.
3
0
7,
3
4
2
.
5
0
$
-5
7
.
1
4
%
-3
3
.
8
2
%
$0
.
5
6
13
,
7
0
6
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
23
.
5
3
%
$
0
.
5
0
12,237.50
$
-28.57%10.29%$0.5012,237.50$ -28.57%10.29%$0.5012,237.50$ -28.57%10.29%
40
1
5
0
7
1
5
SQ
F
T
9
6
1
$
4
.
0
0
3,
8
4
4
.
0
0
$
$2
.
5
2
2,
4
1
8
.
5
2
$
$2
.
0
0
1,
9
2
2
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-2
0
.
5
3
%
$2
.
8
0
2,
6
9
0
.
8
0
$
-3
0
.
0
0
%
11
.
2
6
%
$
2
.
7
5
2,642.75
$
-31.25%9.27%$3.002,883.00$ -25.00%19.21%$4.003,844.00$ 0.00%58.94%
41
1
5
0
7
2
2
EA
1
8
7
0
$
4
.
2
5
7,
9
4
7
.
5
0
$
$1
.
0
3
1,
9
3
2
.
3
3
$
$1
.
0
0
1,
8
7
0
.
0
0
$
-7
6
.
4
7
%
-3
.
2
3
%
$1
.
1
0
2,
0
5
7
.
0
0
$
-7
4
.
1
2
%
6.
4
5
%
$
1
.
0
0
1,870.00
$
-76.47%-3.23%$1.001,870.00$ -76.47%-3.23%$1.703,179.00$ -60.00%64.52%
42
1
5
0
7
4
2
EA
1
7
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
1,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
$8
2
.
6
7
1,
4
0
5
.
3
3
$
$8
5
.
0
0
1,
4
4
5
.
0
0
$
-1
5
.
0
0
%
2.
8
2
%
$1
0
0
.
0
0
1,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
20
.
9
7
%
$
6
3
.
0
0
1,071.00
$
-37.00%-23.79%$89.001,513.00$ -11.00%7.66%$130.002,210.00$ 30.00%57.26%
43
1
5
0
8
0
6
LF
8
9
$
3
1
.
5
0
2,
8
0
3
.
5
0
$
$4
8
.
3
3
4,
3
0
1
.
6
7
$
$3
5
.
0
0
3,
1
1
5
.
0
0
$
11
.
1
1
%
-2
7
.
5
9
%
$5
6
.
0
0
4,
9
8
4
.
0
0
$
77
.
7
8
%
15
.
8
6
%
$
5
4
.
0
0
4,806.00
$
71.43%11.72%$160.0014,240.00$ 407.94%231.03%$53.004,717.00$ 68.25%9.66%
44
1
5
0
8
1
1
LF
3
1
5
$
7
5
.
0
0
23
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
$
$1
2
7
.
0
0
40
,
0
0
5
.
0
0
$
$1
5
0
.
0
0
47
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
18
.
1
1
%
$6
2
.
0
0
19
,
5
3
0
.
0
0
$
-1
7
.
3
3
%
-5
1
.
1
8
%
$
1
6
9
.
0
0
53,235.00
$
125.33%33.07%$197.0062,055.00$ 162.67%55.12%$39.0012,285.00$ -48.00%-69.29%
45
1
5
0
8
1
2
LF
1
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
$1
5
.
0
0
15
0
.
0
0
$
-7
0
.
0
0
%
-7
0
.
0
0
%
$1
1
5
.
0
0
1,
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
13
0
.
0
0
%
13
0
.
0
0
%
$2
0
.
0
0
200.00
$
-60.00%-60.00%$380.003,800.00$ 660.00%660.00%$237.002,370.00$ 374.00%374.00%
46
1
5
0
8
1
3
LF
1
7
$
5
5
.
0
0
93
5
.
0
0
$
$4
6
.
3
3
78
7
.
6
7
$
$1
5
.
0
0
25
5
.
0
0
$
-72
.
7
3
%
-6
7
.
6
3
%
$7
0
.
0
0
1,
1
9
0
.
0
0
$
27
.
2
7
%
51
.
0
8
%
$5
4
.
0
0
918.00
$
-1.82%16.55%$168.002,856.00$ 205.45%262.59%$139.002,363.00$ 152.73%200.00%
47
1
5
0
8
1
4
EA
2
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
6
5
.
0
0
73
0
.
0
0
$
$3
0
0
.
0
0
60
0
.
0
0
$
-7
0
.
0
0
%
-1
7
.
8
1
%
$4
8
0
.
0
0
96
0
.
0
0
$
-5
2
.
0
0
%
31
.
5
1
%
$
3
1
5
.
0
0
630.00
$
-68.50%-13.70%$1,300.002,600.00$ 30.00%256.16%$1,420.002,840.00$ 42.00%289.04%
48
1
5
0
8
2
0
EA
6
$
7
7
5
.
0
0
4,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
$8
2
6
.
6
7
4,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
3,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
5
.
4
8
%
-3
9
.
5
2
%
$1
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
6,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
41
.
9
4
%
33
.
0
6
%
$
8
8
0
.
0
0
5,280.00
$
13.55%6.45%$7,700.0046,200.00$ 893.55%831.45%$1,200.007,200.00$ 54.84%45.16%
49
1
5
0
8
2
1
EA
2
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
5,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
5
0
.
0
0
1,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
5
.
0
0
%
-8
0
.
3
6
%
$7
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
14
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
62
5
.
0
0
%
15
8
.
9
3
%
$6
0
0
.
0
0
1,200.00
$
-40.00%-78.57%$2,500.005,000.00$ 150.00%-10.71%$1,700.003,400.00$ 70.00%-39.29%
50
1
5
0
8
2
9
EA
1
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
6
1
3
.
3
3
1,
6
1
3
.
3
3
$
$3
0
0
.
0
0
30
0
.
0
0
$
-9
4
.
0
0
%
-8
1
.
4
0
%
$3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
3,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
0
.
0
0
%
11
6
.
9
4
%
$1
,
0
4
0
.
0
0
1,040.00
$
-79.20%-35.54%$2,100.002,100.00$ -58.00%30.17%$6,910.006,910.00$ 38.20%328.31%
51
1
5
0
8
5
7
SQ
F
T
1
2
7
4
9
$
3
.
0
0
38
,
2
4
7
.
0
0
$
$1
.
2
8
16
,
3
6
1
.
2
2
$
$1
.
0
0
12
,
7
4
9
.
0
0
$
-6
6
.
6
7
%
-2
2
.
0
8
%
$1
.
7
0
21
,
6
7
3
.
3
0
$
-4
3
.
3
3
%
32
.
4
7
%
$
1
.
1
5
14,661.35
$
-61.67%-10.39%$10.00127,490.00$ 233.33%679.22%$1.2015,298.80$ -60.00%-6.49%
52
1
5
2
3
2
0
EA
1
7
$
2
4
5
.
0
0
4,
1
6
5
.
0
0
$
$1
6
0
.
6
7
2,
7
3
1
.
3
3
$
$1
5
0
.
0
0
2,
5
5
0
.
0
0
$
-3
8
.
7
8
%
-6
.
6
4
%
$2
0
0
.
0
0
3,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
8
.
3
7
%
24
.
4
8
%
$
1
3
2
.
0
0
2,244.00
$
-46.12%-17.84%$157.002,669.00$ -35.92%-2.28%$260.004,420.00$ 6.12%61.83%
53
1
5
2
3
9
0
EA
5
0
$
2
4
5
.
0
0
12
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
$1
6
9
.
0
0
8,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
$1
7
5
.
0
0
8,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
-2
8
.
5
7
%
3.
5
5
%
$2
0
0
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
8
.
3
7
%
18
.
3
4
%
$
1
3
2
.
0
0
6,600.00
$
-46.12%-21.89%$184.009,200.00$ -24.90%8.88%$260.0013,000.00$ 6.12%53.85%
54
1
5
2
4
0
2
EA
6
$
3
8
0
.
0
0
2,
2
8
0
.
0
0
$
$5
7
5
.
0
0
3,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
$6
5
0
.
0
0
3,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
71
.
0
5
%
13
.
0
4
%
$7
0
0
.
0
0
4,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
84
.
2
1
%
21
.
7
4
%
$
3
7
5
.
0
0
2,250.00
$
-1.32%-34.78%$880.005,280.00$ 131.58%53.04%$800.004,800.00$ 110.53%39.13%
55
1
5
2
4
3
0
EA
1
$
1
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
1,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
7
8
3
.
3
3
2,
7
8
3
.
3
3
$
$3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
3,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
5
.
8
8
%
25
.
7
5
%
$3
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
3,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
22
.
1
6
%
$
1
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
1,450.00
$
-14.71%-47.90%$3,600.003,600.00$ 111.76%29.34%$2,400.002,400.00$ 41.18%-13.77%
56
1
5
2
4
3
8
EA
6
$
5
2
5
.
0
0
3,
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
$7
3
0
.
0
0
4,
3
8
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
3,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
.
7
6
%
-3
1
.
5
1
%
$8
4
0
.
0
0
5,
0
4
0
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
%
15
.
0
7
%
$
8
5
0
.
0
0
5,100.00
$
61.90%16.44%$3,000.0018,000.00$ 471.43%310.96%$600.003,600.00$ 14.29%-17.81%
57
1
5
2
4
4
0
EA
6
$
7
5
0
.
0
0
4,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
2
3
0
.
0
0
7,
3
8
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
16
6
.
6
7
%
62
.
6
0
%
$8
4
0
.
0
0
5,
0
4
0
.
0
0
$
12
.
0
0
%
-3
1
.
7
1
%
$
8
5
0
.
0
0
5,100.00
$
13.33%-30.89%$1,100.006,600.00$ 46.67%-10.57%$960.005,760.00$ 28.00%-21.95%
58
1
5
2
4
6
9
EA
2
$
7
5
0
.
0
0
1,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
4
5
.
6
7
1,
4
9
1
.
3
3
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
3
.
3
3
%
-3
2
.
9
5
%
$6
7
0
.
0
0
1,
3
4
0
.
0
0
$
-1
0
.
6
7
%
-1
0
.
1
5
%
$
1
,
0
6
7
.
0
0
2,134.00
$
42.27%43.09%$3,400.006,800.00$ 353.33%355.97%$1,200.002,400.00$ 60.00%60.93%
59
1
5
2
6
5
1
SF
87
8
$
3
.
0
0
2,
6
3
4
.
0
0
$
$3
.
5
0
3,
0
7
3
.
0
0
$
$2
.
0
0
1,
7
5
6
.
0
0
$
-33
.
3
3
%
-4
2
.
8
6
%
$4
.
5
0
3,
9
5
1
.
0
0
$
50
.
0
0
%
28
.
5
7
%
$
4
.
0
0
3,512.00
$
33.33%14.29%$3.002,634.00$ 0.00%-14.29%$2.001,756.00$ -33.33%-42.86%
60
1
5
3
1
0
3
SQ
Y
D
36
6
6
8
2.
7
5
$
10
0
,
8
3
7
.
0
0
$
$2
.
3
2
85
,
0
6
9
.
7
6
$
$2
.
2
0
80
,
6
6
9
.
6
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-5
.
1
7
%
$1
.
3
6
49
,
8
6
8
.
4
8
$
-5
0
.
5
5
%
-4
1
.
3
8
%
$
3
.
4
0
124,671.20
$
23.64%46.55%$1.8567,835.80$ -32.73%-20.26%$1.1040,334.80$ -60.00%-52.59%
61
1
5
3
2
1
2
LF
1
0
5
50
.
0
0
$
5,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
$3
3
.
6
7
3,
5
3
5
.
0
0
$
$2
0
.
0
0
2,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
-4
0
.
5
9
%
$3
6
.
0
0
3,
7
8
0
.
0
0
$
-2
8
.
0
0
%
6.
9
3
%
$
4
5
.
0
0
4,725.00
$
-10.00%33.66%$60.006,300.00$ 20.00%78.22%$21.002,205.00$ -58.00%-37.62%
62
1
5
3
2
1
5
LF
7
5
$
1
0
.
0
0
75
0
.
0
0
$
$1
7
.
3
3
1,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
.
0
0
45
0
.
0
0
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-6
5
.
3
8
%
$2
5
.
0
0
1,
8
7
5
.
0
0
$
15
0
.
0
0
%
44
.
2
3
%
$
2
1
.
0
0
1,575.00
$
110.00%21.15%$47.003,525.00$ 370.00%171.15%$12.00900.00$ 20.00%-30.77%
63
1
5
3
2
2
0
LF
4
6
.
0
0
20
.
0
0
$
92
0
.
0
0
$
$2
6
.
6
7
1,
2
2
6
.
6
7
$
$1
0
.
0
0
46
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-6
2
.
5
0
%
$4
0
.
0
0
1,
8
4
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
50
.
0
0
%
$
3
0
.
0
0
1,380.00
$
50.00%12.50%$154.007,084.00$ 670.00%477.50%$20.00920.00$ 0.00%-25.00%
64
1
5
3
2
4
1
LF
1
2
6
1
.
0
0
9.
0
0
$
11
,
3
4
9
.
0
0
$
$1
7
.
1
7
21
,
6
4
7
.
1
7
$
$7
.
5
0
9,
4
5
7
.
5
0
$
-1
6
.
6
7
%
-5
6
.
3
1
%
$1
5
.
0
0
18
,
9
1
5
.
0
0
$
66
.
6
7
%
-1
2
.
6
2
%
$
2
9
.
0
0
36,569.00
$
222.22%68.93%$13.0016,393.00$ 44.44%-24.27%$13.2016,645.20$ 46.67%-23.11%
65
1
5
5
2
3
1
CY
1
9
7
.
0
0
25
0
.
0
0
$
49
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
$1
9
4
.
0
0
38
,
2
1
8
.
0
0
$
$1
7
5
.
0
0
34
,
4
7
5
.
0
0
$
-3
0
.
0
0
%
-9
.
7
9
%
$1
9
6
.
0
0
38
,
6
1
2
.
0
0
$
-2
1
.
6
0
%
1.
0
3
%
$
2
1
1
.
0
0
41,567.00
$
-15.60%8.76%$443.0087,271.00$ 77.20%128.35%$154.0030,338.00$ -38.40%-20.62%
66
1
5
7
5
6
1
LS
1.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
4
,
1
8
3
.
3
3
24
,
1
8
3
.
3
3
$
$5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
0
.
0
0
%
10
6
.
7
5
%
$1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
%
-50
.
3
8
%
$
1
0
,
5
5
0
.
0
0
10,550.00
$
5.50%-56.37%$10,500.0010,500.00$ 5.00%-56.58%$18,000.0018,000.00$ 80.00%-25.57%
67
1
5
7
5
6
2
LS
1
.
0
0
1,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
1,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
9
,
6
0
8
.
3
3
39
,
6
0
8
.
3
3
$
$5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
6
6
.
6
7
%
26
.
2
4
%
$5
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
53
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
43
1
6
.
6
7
%
33
.
8
1
%
$
1
5
,
8
2
5
.
0
0
15,825.00
$
1218.75%-60.05%$15,700.0015,700.00$ 1208.33%-60.36%$13,000.0013,000.00$ 983.33%-67.18%
68
1
6
0
1
0
2
LS
1
.
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
9
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
13
9
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
$
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
0
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
2
9
%
$
1
5
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
15
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
21
4
.
0
0
%
12
.
6
8
%
$
1
3
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
136,000.00
$
172.00%-2.39%$132,000.00132,000.00$ 164.00%-5.26%$137,000.00137,000.00$ 174.00%-1.67%
69
1
7
0
1
0
1
LS
1
.
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
30
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
5
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
15
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
$
$1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-2
.
1
7
%
$2
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
28
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
.
6
7
%
82
.
6
1
%
$3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3,000.00
$
-90.00%-80.43%$49,000.0049,000.00$ 63.33%219.57%$20,000.0020,000.00$ -33.33%30.43%
70
1
9
0
1
0
1
CY
1
4
2
3
4
.
0
0
25
.
0
0
$
35
5
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
$
$3
8
.
7
5
55
1
,
5
6
7
.
5
0
$
$4
5
.
0
0
64
0
,
5
3
0
.
0
0
$
80
.
0
0
%
16
.
1
3
%
$2
5
.
0
0
35
5
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-3
5
.
4
8
%
$
4
6
.
2
5
658,322.50
$
85.00%19.35%$60.60862,580.40$ 142.40%56.39%$50.00711,700.00$ 100.00%29.03%
71
1
9
0
1
1
4
LS
1.
0
0
1,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
1,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
51
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
-6
4
.
2
9
%
-9
9
.
0
3
%
$2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
22
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
14
7
1
.
4
3
%
-5
7
.
2
8
%
$
1
3
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
132,000.00
$
9328.57%156.31%$1,600.001,600.00$ 14.29%-96.89%$400.00400.00$ -71.43%-99.22%
72
1
9
0
1
5
1
CY
2
1
9
9
.
0
0
40
.
0
0
$
87
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
$2
7
.
0
0
59
,
3
7
3
.
0
0
$
$2
9
.
0
0
63
,
7
7
1
.
0
0
$
-2
7
.
5
0
%
7.
4
1
%
$2
5
.
0
0
54
,
9
7
5
.
0
0
$
-3
7
.
5
0
%
-7
.
4
1
%
$
2
7
.
0
0
59,373.00
$
-32.50%0.00%$28.0061,572.00$ -30.00%3.70%$20.0043,980.00$ -50.00%-25.93%
72
A
1
9
0
1
8
5
CY
2
3
.
0
0
28
3
.
0
0
$
6,
5
0
9
.
0
0
$
$2
3
1
.
0
0
5,
3
1
3
.
0
0
$
$2
0
0
.
0
0
4,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
9
.
3
3
%
-1
3
.
4
2
%
$2
1
5
.
0
0
4,
9
4
5
.
0
0
$
-2
4
.
0
3
%
-6
.
9
3
%
$
2
7
8
.
0
0
6,394.00
$
-1.77%20.35%$190.004,370.00$ -32.86%-17.75%$512.6011,789.80$ 81.13%121.90%
73
1
9
2
0
0
3
CY
6
5
0
.
0
0
60
.
0
0
$
39
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$9
3
.
6
7
60
,
8
8
3
.
3
3
$
$1
2
0
.
0
0
78
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
28
.
1
1
%
$7
7
.
0
0
50
,
0
5
0
.
0
0
$
28
.
3
3
%
-1
7
.
7
9
%
$
8
4
.
0
0
54,600.00
$
40.00%-10.32%$84.0054,600.00$ 40.00%-10.32%$170.00110,500.00$ 183.33%81.49%
74
1
9
2
0
2
0
CY
1
8
9
4
.
0
0
17
5
.
0
0
$
33
1
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
$7
2
.
0
0
13
6
,
3
6
8
.
0
0
$
$3
5
.
0
0
66
,
2
9
0
.
0
0
$
-8
0
.
0
0
%
-5
1
.
3
9
%
$9
4
.
0
0
17
8
,
0
3
6
.
0
0
$
-4
6
.
2
9
%
30
.
5
6
%
$
8
7
.
0
0
164,778.00
$
-50.29%20.83%$86.00162,884.00$ -50.86%19.44%$150.00284,100.00$ -14.29%108.33%
75
1
9
2
0
3
7
CY
1
4
7
5
.
0
0
40
.
0
0
$
59
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$4
0
.
0
0
59
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
0
.
0
0
44
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
-2
5
.
0
0
%
-2
5
.
0
0
%
$5
0
.
0
0
73
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
25
.
0
0
%
25
.
0
0
%
$
4
0
.
0
0
59,000.00
$
0.00%0.00%$40.0059,000.00$ 0.00%0.00%$50.0073,750.00$ 25.00%25.00%
76
1
9
3
0
0
3
CY
1
6
6
3
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
12
4
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
$7
4
.
6
7
12
4
,
1
7
0
.
6
7
$
$7
0
.
0
0
11
6
,
4
1
0
.
0
0
$
-6.
6
7
%
-6
.
2
5
%
$6
2
.
0
0
10
3
,
1
0
6
.
0
0
$
-1
7
.
3
3
%
-1
6
.
9
6
%
$
9
2
.
0
0
152,996.00
$
22.67%23.21%$91.00151,333.00$ 21.33%21.88%$110.00182,930.00$ 46.67%47.32%
77
1
9
3
0
0
6
CY
1
6
8
.
0
0
15
0
.
0
0
$
25
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
3
6
.
0
0
56
,
4
4
8
.
0
0
$
$3
0
0
.
0
0
50
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
7
1
%
$1
5
0
.
0
0
25
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-5
5
.
3
6
%
$
5
5
8
.
0
0
93,744.00
$
272.00%66.07%$494.0082,992.00$ 229.33%47.02%$300.0050,400.00$ 100.00%-10.71%
78
1
9
3
0
1
3
CY
3
0
6
8
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
23
0
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
4
.
3
3
19
7
,
3
7
4
.
6
7
$
$5
5
.
0
0
16
8
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
$
-2
6
.
6
7
%
-1
4
.
5
1
%
$9
5
.
0
0
29
1
,
4
6
0
.
0
0
$
26
.
6
7
%
47
.
6
7
%
$
4
3
.
0
0
131,924.00
$
-42.67%-33.16%$40.00122,720.00$ -46.67%-37.82%$150.00460,200.00$ 100.00%133.16%
79
1
9
3
0
3
0
CY
5
5
3
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
$
55
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
.
5
0
27
,
9
2
6
.
5
0
$
$2
0
.
0
0
11
,
0
6
0
.
0
0
$
-8
0
.
0
0
%
-6
0
.
4
0
%
$5
2
.
5
0
29
,
0
3
2
.
5
0
$
-4
7
.
5
0
%
3.
9
6
%
$
7
9
.
0
0
43,687.00
$
-21.00%56.44%$10.005,530.00$ -90.00%-80.20%$59.0032,627.00$ -41.00%16.83%
79
A
1
9
3
0
4
0
A
CY
1
4
3
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
$
14
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
6
.
6
7
10
,
9
6
3
.
3
3
$
$6
0
.
0
0
8,
5
8
0
.
0
0
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-2
1
.
7
4
%
$1
1
5
.
0
0
16
,
4
4
5
.
0
0
$
15
.
0
0
%
50
.
0
0
%
$
5
5
.
0
0
7,865.00
$
-45.00%-28.26%$54.007,722.00$ -46.00%-29.57%$102.0014,586.00$ 2.00%33.04%
80
1
9
3
1
2
0
CY
8
0
8
.
0
0
80
.
0
0
$
64
,
6
4
0
.
0
0
$
$9
5
.
0
0
76
,
7
6
0
.
0
0
$
$9
0
.
0
0
72
,
7
2
0
.
0
0
$
12
.
5
0
%
-5
.
2
6
%
$1
0
2
.
0
0
82
,
4
1
6
.
0
0
$
27
.
5
0
%
7.
3
7
%
$
9
3
.
0
0
75,144.00
$
16.25%-2.11%$88.0071,104.00$ 10.00%-7.37%$119.0096,152.00$ 48.75%25.26%
81
1
9
8
0
1
0
CY
3
7
9
4
8
.
0
0
20
.
0
0
$
75
8
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
$1
8
.
8
3
71
4
,
6
8
7
.
3
3
$
$8
.
0
0
30
3
,
5
8
4
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
-5
7
.
5
2
%
$2
0
.
2
5
76
8
,
4
4
7
.
0
0
$
1.
2
5
%
7.
5
2
%
$
2
8
.
2
5
1,072,031.00
$
41.25%50.00%$23.25882,291.00$ 16.25%23.45%$45.001,707,660.00$ 125.00%138.94%
82
19
8
0
5
1
LS
1
.
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
25
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
5
,
6
3
3
.
3
3
15
,
6
3
3
.
3
3
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
27
.
9
3
%
$1
4
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
14
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
3
.
2
0
%
-9
.
1
7
%
$
1
2
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
12,700.00
$
-49.20%-18.76%$36,500.0036,500.00$ 46.00%133.48%$20,000.0020,000.00$ -20.00%27.93%
83
2
0
0
0
5
3
A
EA
2
.
0
0
1,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
3,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
2
8
.
3
3
1,
0
5
6
.
6
7
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
6
.
6
7
%
-5
.
3
6
%
$5
6
0
.
0
0
1,
1
2
0
.
0
0
$
-6
2
.
6
7
%
5.
9
9
%
$
5
2
5
.
0
0
1,050.00
$
-65.00%-0.63%$800.001,600.00$ -46.67%51.42%$1,500.003,000.00$ 0.00%183.91%
84
2
0
0
0
6
0
A
EA
6
6
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
4,
9
5
0
.
0
0
$
$2
9
.
0
0
1,
9
1
4
.
0
0
$
$3
0
.
0
0
1,
9
8
0
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
3.
4
5
%
$2
9
.
0
0
1,
9
1
4
.
0
0
$
-6
1
.
3
3
%
0.
0
0
%
$
2
8
.
0
0
1,848.00
$
-62.67%-3.45%$12.00792.00$ -84.00%-58.62%$26.001,716.00$ -65.33%-10.34%
85
2
0
6
5
5
5
LS
1
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
1
,
1
1
6
.
6
7
21
,
1
1
6
.
6
7
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
-5
.
2
9
%
$2
2
,
3
5
0
.
0
0
22
,
3
5
0
.
0
0
$
12
3
.
5
0
%
5.
8
4
%
$
2
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
21,000.00
$
110.00%-0.55%$8,400.008,400.00$ -16.00%-60.22%$20,000.0020,000.00$ 100.00%-5.29%
86
2
1
0
2
7
0
SQ
F
T
2
5
2
2
0
.
0
0
0.
8
0
$
20
,
1
7
6
.
0
0
$
$0
.
7
4
18
,
5
7
8
.
7
3
$
$0
.
7
0
17
,
6
5
4
.
0
0
$
-1
2
.
5
0
%
-4
.
9
8
%
$0
.
7
6
19
,
1
6
7
.
2
0
$
-5
.
0
0
%
3.
1
7
%
$
0
.
7
5
18,915.00
$
-6.25%1.81%$0.6015,132.00$ -25.00%-18.55%$0.7017,654.00$ -12.50%-4.98%
87
2
1
0
4
3
0
SQ
F
T
2
7
8
7
0
6
.
0
0
0.
1
0
$
27
,
8
7
0
.
6
0
$
$0
.
0
6
17
,
6
5
1
.
3
8
$
$0
.
0
6
16
,
7
2
2
.
3
6
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-5
.
2
6
%
$0
.
0
6
16
,
7
2
2
.
3
6
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-5
.
2
6
%
$
0
.
0
7
19,509.42
$
-30.00%10.53%$0.0822,296.48$ -20.00%26.32%$0.0616,722.36$ -40.00%-5.26%
88
2
1
0
6
0
0
CY
1
7
5
8
.
0
0
50
.
0
0
$
87
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
$4
0
.
8
3
71
,
7
8
5
.
0
0
$
$4
0
.
0
0
70
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
-20
.
0
0
%
-2
.
0
4
%
$4
2
.
5
0
74
,
7
1
5
.
0
0
$
-1
5
.
0
0
%
4.
0
8
%
$
4
0
.
0
0
70,320.00
$
-20.00%-2.04%$39.0068,562.00$ -22.00%-4.49%$38.0066,804.00$ -24.00%-6.94%
89
2
1
0
6
1
0
A
LF
6
4
8
9
.
0
0
0.
5
0
$
3,
2
4
4
.
5
0
$
$4
.
1
0
26
,
6
0
4
.
9
0
$
$4
.
0
0
25
,
9
5
6
.
0
0
$
70
0
.
0
0
%
-2
.
4
4
%
$4
.
3
0
27
,
9
0
2
.
7
0
$
76
0
.
0
0
%
4.
8
8
%
$
4
.
0
0
25,956.00
$
700.00%-2.44%$4.2527,578.25$ 750.00%3.66%$3.8024,658.20$ 660.00%-7.32%
90
2
1
0
6
3
0
SQ
F
T
8
0
1
0
8
.
0
0
0.
3
0
$
24
,
0
3
2
.
4
0
$
$0
.
0
3
2,
6
7
0
.
2
7
$
$0
.
0
3
2,
4
0
3
.
2
4
$
-9
0
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
0
0
%
$0
.
0
3
2,
4
0
3
.
2
4
$
-9
0
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
0
0
%
$
0
.
0
4
3,204.32
$
-86.67%20.00%$0.032,403.24$ -90.00%-10.00%$0.054,005.40$ -83.33%50.00%
91
2
6
0
2
0
3
CY
1
9
1
3
5
.
0
0
35
.
0
0
$
66
9
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
$4
3
.
7
2
83
6
,
5
1
8
.
4
2
$
$4
0
.
0
0
76
5
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
14
.
2
9
%
-8
.
5
0
%
$4
1
.
6
5
79
6
,
9
7
2
.
7
5
$
19
.
0
0
%
-4
.
7
3
%
$
4
9
.
5
0
947,182.50
$
41.43%13.23%$37.25712,778.75$ 6.43%-14.79%$42.00803,670.00$ 20.00%-3.93%
92
3
9
0
0
1
1
LS
1
.
0
0
4,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
4,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
,
0
7
8
.
3
3
7,
0
7
8
.
3
3
$
$3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
3
.
3
3
%
-5
7
.
6
2
%
$1
2
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
12
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
18
8
.
0
0
%
83
.
0
9
%
$5
,
2
7
5
.
0
0
5,275.00
$
17.22%-25.48%$6,400.006,400.00$ 42.22%-9.58%$10,000.0010,000.00$ 122.22%41.28%
93
3
9
0
1
3
2
TO
N
1
3
0
2
0
.
0
0
84
.
0
0
$
1,
0
9
3
,
6
8
0
.
0
0
$
$9
7
.
6
7
1,
2
7
1
,
6
2
0
.
0
0
$
$9
0
.
0
0
1,
1
7
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
7.
1
4
%
-7
.
8
5
%
$1
0
6
.
0
0
1,
3
8
0
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
$
26
.
1
9
%
8.
5
3
%
$
9
7
.
0
0
1,262,940.00
$
15.48%-0.68%$92.001,197,840.00$ 9.52%-5.80%$126.001,640,520.00$ 50.00%29.01%
94
3
9
0
1
3
7
TO
N
8
0
5
1
.
0
0
94
.
0
0
$
75
6
,
7
9
4
.
0
0
$
$1
3
3
.
3
3
1,
0
7
3
,
4
6
6
.
6
7
$
$1
1
2
.
0
0
90
1
,
7
1
2
.
0
0
$
19
.
1
5
%
-16
.
0
0
%
$1
5
1
.
0
0
1,
2
1
5
,
7
0
1
.
0
0
$
60
.
6
4
%
13
.
2
5
%
$
1
3
7
.
0
0
1,102,987.00
$
45.74%2.75%$162.001,304,262.00$ 72.34%21.50%$175.001,408,925.00$ 86.17%31.25%
95
3
9
3
0
0
3
SQ
Y
D
1
7
1
5
.
0
0
2.
5
0
$
4,
2
8
7
.
5
0
$
$4
.
8
0
8,
2
3
2
.
0
0
$
$3
.
0
0
5,
1
4
5
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
%
-3
7
.
5
0
%
$6
.
4
0
10
,
9
7
6
.
0
0
$
15
6
.
0
0
%
33
.
3
3
%
$
5
.
0
0
8,575.00
$
100.00%4.17%$6.5011,147.50$ 160.00%35.42%$3.506,002.50$ 40.00%-27.08%
96
3
9
4
0
5
3
ST
A
9
6
.
0
0
12
0
.
0
0
$
11
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$
$7
7
.
6
7
7,
4
5
6
.
0
0
$
$6
0
.
0
0
5,
7
6
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-2
2
.
7
5
%
$1
0
5
.
0
0
10
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
$
-1
2
.
5
0
%
35
.
1
9
%
$
6
8
.
0
0
6,528.00
$
-43.33%-12.45%$46.004,416.00$ -61.67%-40.77%$120.0011,520.00$ 0.00%54.51%
97
3
9
4
0
7
4
LF
1
0
0
.
0
0
6.
0
0
$
60
0
.
0
0
$
$2
4
.
3
3
2,
4
3
3
.
3
3
$
$7
.
0
0
70
0
.
0
0
$
16
.
6
7
%
-7
1
.
2
3
%
$6
0
.
0
0
6,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
90
0
.
0
0
%
14
6
.
5
8
%
$6
.
0
0
600.00
$
0.00%-75.34%$5.50550.00$ -8.33%-77.40%$6.00600.00$ 0.00%-75.34%
98
3
9
4
0
7
6
LF
6
3
7
.
0
0
6.
0
0
$
3,
8
2
2
.
0
0
$
$1
1
.
8
3
7,
5
3
7
.
8
3
$
$1
0
.
0
0
6,
3
7
0
.
0
0
$
66
.
6
7
%
-1
5
.
4
9
%
$1
9
.
5
0
12
,
4
2
1
.
5
0
$
22
5
.
0
0
%
64
.
7
9
%
$6
.
0
0
3,822.00
$
0.00%-49.30%$5.503,503.50$ -8.33%-53.52%$6.003,822.00$ 0.00%-49.30%
99
4
0
0
0
5
0
CY
3
0
5
.
0
0
27
5
.
0
0
$
83
,
8
7
5
.
0
0
$
$4
6
3
.
0
0
14
1
,
2
1
5
.
0
0
$
$4
6
0
.
0
0
14
0
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
67
.
2
7
%
-0
.
6
5
%
$5
6
7
.
0
0
17
2
,
9
3
5
.
0
0
$
10
6
.
1
8
%
22
.
4
6
%
$
3
6
2
.
0
0
110,410.00
$
31.64%-21.81%$624.00190,320.00$ 126.91%34.77%$470.00143,350.00$ 70.91%1.51%
10
0
40
1
0
5
0
CY
1
5
1
.
0
0
15
0
.
0
0
$
22
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
$4
3
3
.
3
3
65
,
4
3
3
.
3
3
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
75
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
23
3
.
3
3
%
15
.
3
8
%
$4
7
5
.
0
0
71
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
21
6
.
6
7
%
9.
6
2
%
$
3
2
5
.
0
0
49,075.00
$
116.67%-25.00%$863.00130,313.00$ 475.33%99.15%$500.0075,500.00$ 233.33%15.38%
10
1
4
9
0
5
0
3
LF
1
2
9
6
.
0
0
30
.
0
0
$
38
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
$
$3
2
.
6
7
42
,
3
3
6
.
0
0
$
$4
5
.
0
0
58
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
50
.
0
0
%
37
.
7
6
%
$2
8
.
0
0
36
,
2
8
8
.
0
0
$
-6
.
6
7
%
-1
4
.
2
9
%
$
2
5
.
0
0
32,400.00
$
-16.67%-23.47%$24.0031,104.00$ -20.00%-26.53%$40.0051,840.00$ 33.33%22.45%
10
2
4
9
0
5
0
5
EA
5
9
.
0
0
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
59
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
6
7
1
.
3
3
98
,
6
0
8
.
6
7
$
$1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
94
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
%
-4
.
2
7
%
$1
,
6
7
4
.
0
0
98
,
7
6
6
.
0
0
$
67
.
4
0
%
0.
1
6
%
$
1
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
102,660.00
$
74.00%4.11%$1,730.00102,070.00$ 73.00%3.51%$1,100.0064,900.00$ 10.00%-34.18%
10
3
4
9
0
5
0
8
LF
1
1
2
2
.
0
0
30
.
0
0
$
33
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
$4
0
.
1
7
45
,
0
6
7
.
0
0
$
$5
0
.
0
0
56
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
66
.
6
7
%
24
.
4
8
%
$3
6
.
5
0
40
,
9
5
3
.
0
0
$
21
.
6
7
%
-9
.
1
3
%
$
3
4
.
0
0
38,148.00
$
13.33%-15.35%$34.0038,148.00$ 13.33%-15.35%$46.0051,612.00$ 53.33%14.52%
10
4
4
9
0
5
0
9
EA
2
3
.
0
0
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
23
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
7
4
3
.
6
7
40
,
1
0
4
.
3
3
$
$1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
36
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
%
-8
.
2
4
%
$1
,
6
7
4
.
0
0
38
,
5
0
2
.
0
0
$
67
.
4
0
%
-4
.
0
0
%
$
1
,
9
5
7
.
0
0
45,011.00
$
95.70%12.23%$1,950.0044,850.00$ 95.00%11.83%$1,130.0025,990.00$ 13.00%-35.19%
10
5
4
9
0
5
1
3
LF
1
0
2
7
4
.
0
0
30
.
0
0
$
30
8
,
2
2
0
.
0
0
$
$3
0
.
3
3
31
1
,
6
4
4
.
6
7
$
$2
5
.
0
0
25
6
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
$
-16
.
6
7
%
-1
7
.
5
8
%
$3
5
.
0
0
35
9
,
5
9
0
.
0
0
$
16
.
6
7
%
15
.
3
8
%
$
3
1
.
0
0
318,494.00
$
3.33%2.20%$30.50313,357.00$ 1.67%0.55%$32.00328,768.00$ 6.67%5.49%
10
6
4
9
0
5
1
4
EA
2
5
6
.
0
0
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
25
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
2
5
6
.
6
7
32
1
,
7
0
6
.
6
7
$
$9
5
0
.
0
0
24
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
.
0
0
%
-2
4
.
4
0
%
$1
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
27
6
,
4
8
0
.
0
0
$
8.
0
0
%
-1
4
.
0
6
%
$
1
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
445,440.00
$
74.00%38.46%$1,730.00442,880.00$ 73.00%37.67%$1,090.00279,040.00$ 9.00%-13.26%
10
7
4
9
0
5
1
8
LF
2
0
4
4
.
0
0
30
.
0
0
$
61
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
$4
9
.
3
3
10
0
,
8
3
7
.
3
3
$
$5
5
.
0
0
11
2
,
4
2
0
.
0
0
$
83
.
3
3
%
11
.
4
9
%
$4
9
.
0
0
10
0
,
1
5
6
.
0
0
$
63
.
3
3
%
-0
.
6
8
%
$
4
4
.
0
0
89,936.00
$
46.67%-10.81%$43.0087,892.00$ 43.33%-12.84%$20.0040,880.00$ -33.33%-59.46%
10
8
4
9
0
5
1
9
EA
4
4
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
88
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
6
7
1
.
3
3
73
,
5
3
8
.
6
7
$
$1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
70
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-4
.
2
7
%
$1
,
6
7
4
.
0
0
73
,
6
5
6
.
0
0
$
-1
6
.
3
0
%
0.
1
6
%
$
1
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
76,560.00
$
-13.00%4.11%$1,730.0076,120.00$ -13.50%3.51%$1,110.0048,840.00$ -44.50%-33.59%
10
9
4
9
0
5
2
8
LF
6
1
5
.
0
0
50
.
0
0
$
30
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
$5
5
.
3
3
34
,
0
3
0
.
0
0
$
$5
5
.
0
0
33
,
8
2
5
.
0
0
$
10
.
0
0
%
-0
.
6
0
%
$5
9
.
0
0
36
,
2
8
5
.
0
0
$
18
.
0
0
%
6.
6
3
%
$
5
2
.
0
0
31,980.00
$
4.00%-6.02%$51.0031,365.00$ 2.00%-7.83%$31.0019,065.00$ -38.00%-43.98%
11
0
4
9
0
5
2
9
EA
1
6
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
32
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
6
7
1
.
3
3
26
,
7
4
1
.
3
3
$
$1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
25
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-4
.
2
7
%
$1
,
6
7
4
.
0
0
26
,
7
8
4
.
0
0
$
-1
6
.
3
0
%
0.
1
6
%
$
1
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
27,840.00
$
-13.00%4.11%$1,730.0027,680.00$ -13.50%3.51%$1,150.0018,400.00$ -42.50%-31.19%
11
1
5
0
0
0
0
1
LS
1
.
0
0
11
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
11
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$9
0
,
4
5
5
.
3
3
90
,
4
5
5
.
3
3
$
$7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
75
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
1
.
8
2
%
-1
7
.
0
9
%
$
1
1
7
,
3
6
6
.
0
0
11
7
,
3
6
6
.
0
0
$
6.
7
0
%
29
.
7
5
%
$
7
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
79,000.00
$
-28.18%-12.66%$78,000.0078,000.00$ -29.09%-13.77%$100,000.00100,000.00$ -9.09%10.55%
11
2
5
1
0
0
5
0
CY
1
6
.
0
0
1,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
19
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
2
8
0
.
6
7
20
,
4
9
0
.
6
7
$
$8
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
-33
.
3
3
%
-3
7
.
5
3
%
$5
4
1
.
0
0
8,
6
5
6
.
0
0
$
-5
4
.
9
2
%
-5
7
.
7
6
%
$
2
,
5
0
1
.
0
0
40,016.00
$
108.42%95.29%$2,394.0038,304.00$ 99.50%86.93%$1,250.0020,000.00$ 4.17%-2.39%
11
3
5
1
0
0
5
1
CY
2
3
7
.
3
0
40
0
.
0
0
$
94
,
9
2
0
.
0
0
$
$5
7
9
.
3
3
13
7
,
4
7
5
.
8
0
$
$4
5
0
.
0
0
10
6
,
7
8
5
.
0
0
$
12
.
5
0
%
-2
2
.
3
2
%
$6
0
0
.
0
0
14
2
,
3
8
0
.
0
0
$
50
.
0
0
%
3.
5
7
%
$
6
8
8
.
0
0
163,262.40
$
72.00%18.76%$575.00136,447.50$ 43.75%-0.75%$800.00189,840.00$ 100.00%38.09%
11
4
5
1
0
0
5
3
CY
1
2
7
9
.
0
0
80
0
.
0
0
$
1,
0
2
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$9
9
5
.
6
7
1,
2
7
3
,
4
5
7
.
6
7
$
$8
0
0
.
0
0
1,
0
2
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-1
9
.
6
5
%
$1
,
1
4
4
.
0
0
1,
4
6
3
,
1
7
6
.
0
0
$
43
.
0
0
%
14
.
9
0
%
$
1
,
0
4
3
.
0
0
1,333,997.00
$
30.38%4.75%$937.001,198,423.00$ 17.13%-5.89%$1,000.001,279,000.00$ 25.00%0.44%
11
5
5
1
0
0
6
0
CY
1
0
9
1
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
54
5
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
8
8
.
0
0
64
1
,
5
0
8
.
0
0
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
54
5
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-1
4
.
9
7
%
$6
5
2
.
0
0
71
1
,
3
3
2
.
0
0
$
30
.
4
0
%
10
.
8
8
%
$
6
1
2
.
0
0
667,692.00
$
22.40%4.08%$500.00545,500.00$ 0.00%-14.97%$750.00818,250.00$ 50.00%27.55%
11
6
5
1
0
0
8
6
CY
9
5
.
0
0
60
0
.
0
0
$
57
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
2
7
.
3
3
69
,
0
9
6
.
6
7
$
$5
7
5
.
0
0
54
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
$
-4
.
1
7
%
-2
0
.
9
4
%
$7
9
2
.
0
0
75
,
2
4
0
.
0
0
$
32
.
0
0
%
8.
8
9
%
$
8
1
5
.
0
0
77,425.00
$
35.83%12.05%$700.0066,500.00$ 16.67%-3.76%$550.0052,250.00$ -8.33%-24.38%
11
7
5
1
0
0
9
1
CY
4
1
6
.
0
0
40
0
.
0
0
$
16
6
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
2
9
.
3
3
95
,
4
0
2
.
6
7
$
$2
0
0
.
0
0
83
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-1
2
.
7
9
%
$2
1
7
.
0
0
90
,
2
7
2
.
0
0
$
-4
5
.
7
5
%
-5
.
3
8
%
$
2
7
1
.
0
0
112,736.00
$
-32.25%18.17%$180.0074,880.00$ -55.00%-21.51%$325.00135,200.00$ -18.75%41.72%
11
8
5
1
0
0
9
3
CY
8
0
.
0
0
80
0
.
0
0
$
64
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
8
3
0
.
3
3
14
6
,
4
2
6
.
6
7
$
$1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
12
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
87
.
5
0
%
-1
8
.
0
5
%
$1
,
9
8
7
.
0
0
15
8
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
14
8
.
3
8
%
8.
5
6
%
$
2
,
0
0
4
.
0
0
160,320.00
$
150.50%9.49%$2,000.00160,000.00$ 150.00%9.27%$1,850.00148,000.00$ 131.25%1.07%
11
9
5
1
0
5
0
2
CY
7
3
1,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
87
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
3
5
0
.
6
7
17
1
,
5
9
8
.
6
7
$
$2
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
15
3
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
75
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
6
6
%
$2
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
18
9
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
11
6
.
6
7
%
10
.
6
1
%
$
2
,
3
5
2
.
0
0
171,696.00
$
96.00%0.06%$5,100.00372,300.00$ 325.00%116.96%$1,900.00138,700.00$ 58.33%-19.17%
12
0
5
1
0
5
2
6
CY
3
.
0
0
35
0
.
0
0
$
1,
0
5
0
.
0
0
$
$2
6
6
.
0
0
79
8
.
0
0
$
$2
0
0
.
0
0
60
0
.
0
0
$
-4
2
.
8
6
%
-2
4
.
8
1
%
$4
5
0
.
0
0
1,
3
5
0
.
0
0
$
28
.
5
7
%
69
.
1
7
%
$1
4
8
.
0
0
444.00
$
-57.71%-44.36%$200.00600.00$ -42.86%-24.81%$470.001,410.00$ 34.29%76.69%
12
1
5
1
1
0
3
4
SF
6
3
6
5
.
0
0
8.
0
0
$
50
,
9
2
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
.
0
0
63
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
$9
.
0
0
57
,
2
8
5
.
0
0
$
12
.
5
0
%
-1
0
.
0
0
%
$1
6
.
0
0
10
1
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
60
.
0
0
%
$5
.
0
0
31,825.00
$
-37.50%-50.00%$5.0031,825.00$ -37.50%-50.00%$14.0089,110.00$ 75.00%40.00%
12
2
5
1
1
0
3
5
SF
1
2
8
4
.
0
0
10
.
0
0
$
12
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
.
0
0
16
,
6
9
2
.
0
0
$
$6
.
0
0
7,
7
0
4
.
0
0
$
-4
0
.
0
0
%
-5
3
.
8
5
%
$3
0
.
0
0
38
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$
20
0
.
0
0
%
13
0
.
7
7
%
$3
.
0
0
3,852.00
$
-70.00%-76.92%$3.003,852.00$ -70.00%-76.92%$15.0019,260.00$ 50.00%15.38%
12
2
A
5
1
1
1
0
6
LF
1
9
5
.
0
0
40
.
0
0
$
7,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
7
.
3
0
7,
2
7
2
.
8
5
$
$2
0
.
0
0
3,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-4
6
.
3
8
%
$6
4
.
8
9
12
,
6
5
3
.
5
5
$
62
.
2
3
%
73
.
9
8
%
$2
7
.
0
0
5,265.00
$
-32.50%-27.61%$25.004,875.00$ -37.50%-32.97%$35.006,825.00$ -12.50%-6.16%
12
3
5
1
1
1
1
0
EA
2
0
7
.
0
0
55
.
0
0
$
11
,
3
8
5
.
0
0
$
$3
8
.
3
3
7,
9
3
5
.
0
0
$
$2
0
.
0
0
4,
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
-63
.
6
4
%
-4
7
.
8
3
%
$5
8
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
6
.
0
0
$
5.
4
5
%
51
.
3
0
%
$3
7
.
0
0
7,659.00
$
-32.73%-3.48%$38.007,866.00$ -30.91%-0.87%$40.008,280.00$ -27.27%4.35%
12
4
5
1
9
0
9
2
LF
8
1
.
0
0
20
0
.
0
0
$
16
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
0
6
.
0
0
16
,
6
8
6
.
0
0
$
$2
7
5
.
0
0
22
,
2
7
5
.
0
0
$
37
.
5
0
%
33
.
5
0
%
$2
1
1
.
0
0
17
,
0
9
1
.
0
0
$
5.
5
0
%
2.
4
3
%
$
1
3
2
.
0
0
10,692.00
$
-34.00%-35.92%$135.0010,935.00$ -32.50%-34.47%$185.0014,985.00$ -7.50%-10.19%
12
5
5
2
0
1
0
1
LB
6
7
2
0
.
0
0
1.
0
0
$
6,
7
2
0
.
0
0
$
$1
.
0
3
6,
8
9
9
.
2
0
$
$1
.
0
0
6,
7
2
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-2
.
6
0
%
$1
.
0
8
7,
2
5
7
.
6
0
$
8.
0
0
%
5.
1
9
%
$
1
.
0
0
6,720.00
$
0.00%-2.60%$1.006,720.00$ 0.00%-2.60%$1.258,400.00$ 25.00%21.75%
12
6
5
2
0
1
0
2
LB
4
3
3
0
1
4
.
0
0
1.
0
0
$
43
3
,
0
1
4
.
0
0
$
$1
.
3
6
58
8
,
8
9
9
.
0
4
$
$1
.
2
0
51
9
,
6
1
6
.
8
0
$
20
.
0
0
%
-1
1
.
7
6
%
$1
.
3
8
59
7
,
5
5
9
.
3
2
$
38
.
0
0
%
1.
4
7
%
$
1
.
5
0
649,521.00
$
50.00%10.29%$1.26545,597.64$ 26.00%-7.35%$1.15497,966.10$ 15.00%-15.44%
12
7
5
2
0
1
0
3
LB
2
0
3
5
7
9
.
0
0
1.
0
0
$
20
3
,
5
7
9
.
0
0
$
$1
.
4
8
30
1
,
9
7
5
.
5
2
$
$1
.
3
0
26
4
,
6
5
2
.
7
0
$
30
.
0
0
%
-1
2
.
3
6
%
$1
.
6
5
33
5
,
9
0
5
.
3
5
$
65
.
0
0
%
11
.
2
4
%
$
1
.
5
0
305,368.50
$
50.00%1.12%$1.50305,368.50$ 50.00%1.12%$1.35274,831.65$ 35.00%-8.99%
12
8
5
6
0
2
4
8
SQ
F
T
1
1
0
.
0
0
12
.
0
0
$
1,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
$2
0
.
8
3
2,
2
9
1
.
6
7
$
$2
1
.
0
0
2,
3
1
0
.
0
0
$
75
.
0
0
%
0.
8
0
%
$2
3
.
5
0
2,
5
8
5
.
0
0
$
95
.
8
3
%
12
.
8
0
%
$
1
8
.
0
0
1,980.00
$
50.00%-13.60%$22.002,420.00$ 83.33%5.60%$12.201,342.00$ 1.67%-41.44%
12
8
A
5
6
0
2
4
8
SQ
F
T
7
1
.
0
0
16
.
0
0
$
1,
1
3
6
.
0
0
$
$1
5
.
5
0
1,
1
0
0
.
5
0
$
$1
6
.
0
0
1,
1
3
6
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
3.
2
3
%
$1
7
.
5
0
1,
2
4
2
.
5
0
$
9.
3
8
%
12
.
9
0
%
$
1
3
.
0
0
923.00
$
-18.75%-16.13%$17.001,207.00$ 6.25%9.68%$17.501,242.50$ 9.38%12.90%
12
9
56
0
2
4
9
SQ
F
T
1
9
.
0
0
16
.
0
0
$
30
4
.
0
0
$
$1
7
.
0
0
32
3
.
0
0
$
$1
7
.
0
0
32
3
.
0
0
$
6.
2
5
%
0.
0
0
%
$1
9
.
0
0
36
1
.
0
0
$
18
.
7
5
%
11
.
7
6
%
$1
5
.
0
0
285.00
$
-6.25%-11.76%$20.00380.00$ 25.00%17.65%$14.30271.70$ -10.63%-15.88%
13
0
56
6
0
1
1
EA
1
0
.
0
0
26
0
.
0
0
$
2,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
5
5
.
6
7
2,
5
5
6
.
6
7
$
$2
5
0
.
0
0
2,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
.
8
5
%
-2
.
2
2
%
$2
8
0
.
0
0
2,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
7.
6
9
%
9.
5
2
%
$
2
3
7
.
0
0
2,370.00
$
-8.85%-7.30%$275.002,750.00$ 5.77%7.56%$260.002,600.00$ 0.00%1.69%
13
1
56
6
0
1
2
EA
4
.
0
0
65
0
.
0
0
$
2,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
2
0
.
3
3
2,
0
8
1
.
3
3
$
$5
5
0
.
0
0
2,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
5
.
3
8
%
5.
7
0
%
$6
1
6
.
0
0
2,
4
6
4
.
0
0
$
-5
.
2
3
%
18
.
3
9
%
$
3
9
5
.
0
0
1,580.00
$
-39.23%-24.09%$600.002,400.00$ -7.69%15.31%$530.002,120.00$ -18.46%1.86%
13
2
56
8
0
0
1
EA
8
.
0
0
14
0
.
0
0
$
1,
1
2
0
.
0
0
$
$1
4
1
.
0
0
1,
1
2
8
.
0
0
$
$1
0
0
.
0
0
80
0
.
0
0
$
-2
8
.
5
7
%
-2
9
.
0
8
%
$1
1
2
.
0
0
89
6
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-2
0
.
5
7
%
$
2
1
1
.
0
0
1,688.00
$
50.71%49.65%$100.00800.00$ -28.57%-29.08%$175.001,400.00$ 25.00%24.11%
13
3
60
0
0
0
1
LS
1
.
0
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
20
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$9
0
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
90
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-7
5
.
0
0
%
-4
4
.
5
7
%
$7
5
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
75
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
2
.
2
0
%
-1
6
.
1
9
%
$
1
4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
145,000.00
$
-27.50%60.75%$86,000.0086,000.00$ -57.00%-4.66%$70,000.0070,000.00$ -65.00%-22.39%
13
4
64
1
1
0
7
LF
2
1
.
0
0
95
.
0
0
$
1,
9
9
5
.
0
0
$
$9
3
.
3
3
1,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
0
.
0
0
2,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
5.
2
6
%
7.
1
4
%
$1
0
8
.
0
0
2,
2
6
8
.
0
0
$
13
.
6
8
%
15
.
7
1
%
$
7
2
.
0
0
1,512.00
$
-24.21%-22.86%$150.003,150.00$ 57.89%60.71%$290.006,090.00$ 205.26%210.71%
US
1
0
1
/
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
R
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Q1
0
1
(
2
5
8
)
-
1
-
(
E
A
0
5
-
0
H
7
3
0
4
)
-
C
I
T
Y
S
P
E
C
N
O
.
9
9
8
2
1
Bi
d
P
r
i
c
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,
M
a
t
h
C
h
e
c
k
an
d
B
i
d
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
s
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
h
e
c
k
Bi
d
O
p
e
n
i
n
g
D
a
t
e
:
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
2
,
2
0
1
4
Bi
d
d
e
r
'
s
Ra
n
k
(L
o
w
to
Hi
g
h
)
3
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
MA
D
O
N
N
A
/
S
O
U
Z
A
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
1
GR
A
N
I
T
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Av
e
r
a
g
e
I
t
e
m
P
r
i
c
e
fo
r
L
o
w
T
h
r
e
e
Bi
d
d
e
r
s
2
CA
L
-
P
O
R
T
L
A
N
D
4 PAPICH5AMERICAN PAVING
TR
A
F
F
I
C
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
I
N
G
(
P
A
I
N
T
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
T
R
I
P
E
(
P
A
I
N
T
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
E
R
PO
R
T
A
B
L
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
A
B
L
E
M
E
S
S
A
G
E
S
I
G
N
CH
A
N
N
E
L
I
Z
E
R
(
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
)
LE
A
D
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
P
L
A
N
PR
O
G
R
E
S
S
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
(
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
P
A
T
H
M
E
T
H
O
D
)
TI
M
E
R
E
L
A
T
E
D
O
V
E
R
H
E
A
D
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
A
R
E
A
S
I
G
N
S
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
MO
V
E
-
I
N
/
M
O
V
E
-
O
U
T
(
T
E
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
E
R
O
S
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
H
Y
D
R
A
U
L
I
C
M
U
L
C
H
(
B
O
N
D
E
D
F
I
B
E
R
M
A
T
R
I
X
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
E
K
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
C
R
A
S
H
C
U
S
H
I
O
N
M
O
D
U
L
E
PR
E
P
A
R
E
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
P
O
L
L
U
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
RA
I
N
E
V
E
N
T
A
C
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G
A
N
D
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
D
A
Y
JO
B
S
I
T
E
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
ST
R
E
E
T
S
W
E
E
P
I
N
G
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
S
H
O
U
T
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
F
E
N
C
E
(
T
Y
P
E
E
S
A
)
AB
A
N
D
O
N
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
ST
O
C
K
P
I
L
E
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
C
H
E
C
K
D
A
M
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
I
N
L
E
T
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
F
I
B
E
R
R
O
L
L
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
L
A
R
G
E
S
E
D
I
M
E
N
T
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
RE
M
O
V
E
P
I
P
E
(
2
4
"
)
RE
M
O
V
E
P
I
P
E
(
3
0
"
)
RE
M
O
V
E
D
O
W
N
D
R
A
I
N
RE
M
O
V
E
T
U
B
U
L
A
R
H
A
N
D
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
RE
M
O
V
E
T
H
E
R
M
O
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
T
R
I
P
E
RE
M
O
V
E
T
H
E
R
M
O
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
I
N
G
RE
M
O
V
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
E
R
RE
M
O
V
E
R
O
A
D
S
I
D
E
S
I
G
N
OB
L
I
T
E
R
A
T
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
I
N
G
RE
M
O
V
E
F
E
N
C
E
RE
M
O
V
E
G
A
T
E
RE
M
O
V
E
M
E
T
A
L
B
E
A
M
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
RE
M
O
V
E
T
H
R
I
E
B
E
A
M
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
CU
L
V
E
R
T
S
L
U
R
R
Y
-
C
E
M
E
N
T
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
BR
I
D
G
E
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
(
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
)
-
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
BR
I
D
G
E
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
(
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
)
-
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
B
IT
E
M
S
RE
M
O
V
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
)
RE
M
O
V
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
U
R
B
,
G
U
T
T
E
R
,
A
N
D
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
C
R
A
S
H
C
U
S
H
I
O
N
AD
J
U
S
T
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
C
O
V
E
R
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
PR
E
S
S
U
R
E
W
A
S
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
CO
L
D
P
L
A
N
E
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
RE
M
O
V
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
)
RE
M
O
V
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
U
R
B
A
N
D
G
U
T
T
E
R
)
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
R
O
A
D
S
I
D
E
S
I
G
N
AD
J
U
S
T
W
A
T
E
R
V
A
L
V
E
C
O
V
E
R
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
AD
J
U
S
T
I
N
L
E
T
AD
J
U
S
T
F
R
A
M
E
A
N
D
C
O
V
E
R
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
AD
J
U
S
T
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
T
O
G
R
A
D
E
RE
M
O
V
E
I
N
L
E
T
RE
M
O
V
E
H
E
A
D
W
A
L
L
RE
M
O
V
E
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
RE
M
O
V
E
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
I
N
G
RE
S
E
T
R
O
A
D
S
I
D
E
S
I
G
N
RE
M
O
V
E
P
I
P
E
(
1
8
"
)
RE
M
O
V
E
P
I
P
E
(
5
4
"
)
SH
O
U
L
D
E
R
B
A
C
K
I
N
G
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
B
R
I
D
G
E
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
T
Y
P
E
D
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
(R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
(
B
R
I
D
G
E
)
CL
E
A
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
G
R
U
B
B
I
N
G
DE
V
E
L
O
P
W
A
T
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
RO
A
D
W
A
Y
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
DU
S
T
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
P
L
A
N
CH
A
N
N
E
L
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
(
S
L
U
R
R
Y
C
E
M
E
N
T
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
(
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
)
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
WI
L
L
O
W
C
U
T
T
I
N
G
S
MO
D
I
F
Y
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
RO
L
L
E
D
E
R
O
S
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
(
N
E
T
T
I
N
G
T
Y
P
E
B
)
HY
D
R
O
S
E
E
D
CO
M
P
O
S
T
CR
U
S
H
E
D
R
O
C
K
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
CE
L
L
U
L
A
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
L
I
G
H
T
W
E
I
G
H
T
E
M
B
A
N
K
M
E
N
T
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
(CL
A
S
S
I
I
IM
P
O
R
T
E
D
B
O
R
R
O
W
EA
R
T
H
W
O
R
K
I
N
S
T
R
U
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
PR
U
N
E
T
R
E
E
RU
B
B
E
R
I
Z
E
D
H
O
T
M
I
X
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
(
G
A
P
G
R
A
D
E
D
)
SU
B
G
R
A
D
E
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
G
E
O
T
E
X
T
I
L
E
,
C
L
A
S
S
A
1
SH
O
U
L
D
E
R
R
U
M
B
L
E
S
T
R
I
P
(
H
M
A
,
G
R
O
U
N
D
-
I
N
I
N
D
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
)
PL
A
C
E
H
O
T
M
I
X
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
D
I
K
E
(
T
Y
P
E
C
)
PL
A
C
E
H
O
T
M
I
X
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
D
I
K
E
(
T
Y
P
E
E
)
CO
M
P
O
S
T
B
E
R
M
IN
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
CL
A
S
S
2
A
G
G
R
E
G
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
PR
E
P
A
V
I
N
G
I
N
E
R
T
I
A
L
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
R
HO
T
M
I
X
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
(
T
Y
P
E
A
)
DR
I
V
E
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
E
(
H
P
1
0
X
5
7
)
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
I
N
G
(
H
P
1
2
X
5
3
)
DR
I
V
E
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
E
(
H
P
1
2
X
5
3
)
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
I
N
G
(
H
P
1
2
X
7
4
)
DR
I
V
E
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
E
(
H
P
1
2
X
7
4
)
CO
N
T
I
N
U
O
U
S
L
Y
RE
I
N
F
O
R
C
E
D
C
O
NC
R
E
T
E
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
JO
I
N
T
E
D
P
L
A
I
N
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
I
N
G
(
H
P
1
0
X
4
2
)
DR
I
V
E
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
E
(
H
P
1
0
X
4
2
)
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
I
N
G
(
H
P
1
0
X
5
7
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
,
B
R
I
D
G
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
,
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
,
A
P
P
R
OA
C
H
S
L
A
B
(
T
Y
P
E
N
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
T
H
R
U
S
T
B
L
O
C
K
)
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
,
P
I
L
A
S
T
E
R
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
I
N
G
(
H
P
1
4
X
8
9
)
DR
I
V
E
S
T
E
E
L
P
I
L
E
(
H
P
1
4
X
8
9
)
PR
E
S
T
R
E
S
S
I
N
G
CA
S
T
I
N
P
L
A
C
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
,
B
R
I
D
G
E
F
O
O
T
I
N
G
DR
I
L
L
A
N
D
B
O
N
D
D
O
W
E
L
(
C
H
E
M
I
C
A
L
A
D
H
E
S
I
V
E
)
JO
I
N
T
S
E
A
L
A
S
S
E
M
B
L
Y
(
M
R
=
2
1
/
2
"
)
BA
R
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
C
I
N
G
S
T
E
E
L
BA
R
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
C
I
N
G
S
T
E
E
L
(
B
R
I
D
G
E
)
BA
R
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
C
I
N
G
S
T
E
E
L
(
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
)
FR
A
C
T
U
R
E
D
R
I
B
T
E
X
T
U
R
E
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
(
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
C
K
P
A
T
T
E
R
N
)
DR
I
L
L
A
N
D
B
O
N
D
D
O
W
E
L
IN
S
T
A
L
L
S
I
G
N
(
S
T
R
A
P
A
N
D
S
A
D
D
L
E
B
R
A
C
K
E
T
M
E
T
H
O
D
)
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
O
F
F
I
C
E
18
"
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
P
I
P
E
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
I
N
G
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
S
I
G
N
(
0
.
06
3
"
-
F
R
A
M
E
D
)
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
I
N
G
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
S
I
G
N
(
0
.
06
3
"
U
N
F
R
A
M
E
D
)
FU
R
N
I
S
H
S
I
N
G
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
S
I
G
N
(
0
.
08
0
"
-
U
N
F
R
A
M
E
D
)
RO
A
D
S
I
D
E
S
I
G
N
-
O
N
E
P
O
S
T
RO
A
D
S
I
D
E
S
I
G
N
-
T
W
O
P
O
S
T
Attachment 3 - 13 B1-30
US
1
0
1
/
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
R
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Q1
0
1
(
2
5
8
)
-
1
-
(
E
A
0
5
-
0
H
7
3
0
4
)
-
C
I
T
Y
S
P
E
C
N
O
.
9
9
8
2
1
Bi
d
P
r
i
c
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,
M
a
t
h
C
h
e
c
k
an
d
B
i
d
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
s
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
h
e
c
k
Bi
d
O
p
e
n
i
n
g
D
a
t
e
:
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
2
,
2
0
1
4
Bi
d
d
e
r
'
s
Ra
n
k
(L
o
w
to
Hi
g
h
)
3
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
MA
D
O
N
N
A
/
S
O
U
Z
A
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
1
GR
A
N
I
T
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Av
e
r
a
g
e
I
t
e
m
P
r
i
c
e
fo
r
L
o
w
T
h
r
e
e
Bi
d
d
e
r
s
2
CA
L
-
P
O
R
T
L
A
N
D
4 PAPICH5AMERICAN PAVING
13
5
64
1
1
1
3
LF
2
2
1
6
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
$
25
4
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
$
$9
9
.
6
7
22
0
,
8
6
1
.
3
3
$
$8
0
.
0
0
17
7
,
2
8
0
.
0
0
$
-3
0
.
4
3
%
-1
9
.
7
3
%
$8
7
.
0
0
19
2
,
7
9
2
.
0
0
$
-2
4
.
3
5
%
-1
2
.
7
1
%
$
1
3
2
.
0
0
292,512.00
$
14.78%32.44%$95.00210,520.00$ -17.39%-4.68%$142.00314,672.00$ 23.48%42.47%
13
6
65
0
0
1
4
LF
3
5
.
0
0
12
5
.
0
0
$
4,
3
7
5
.
0
0
$
$1
3
4
.
0
0
4,
6
9
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
0
.
0
0
4,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
4
5
%
$1
9
5
.
0
0
6,
8
2
5
.
0
0
$
56
.
0
0
%
45
.
5
2
%
$
8
7
.
0
0
3,045.00
$
-30.40%-35.07%$200.007,000.00$ 60.00%49.25%$90.003,150.00$ -28.00%-32.84%
13
7
65
0
0
2
6
LF
3
.
0
0
20
0
.
0
0
$
60
0
.
0
0
$
$3
7
2
.
6
7
1,
1
1
8
.
0
0
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
1,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
0
.
0
0
%
34
.
1
7
%
$4
0
0
.
0
0
1,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
.
0
0
%
7.
3
3
%
$
2
1
8
.
0
0
654.00
$
9.00%-41.50%$975.002,925.00$ 387.50%161.63%$150.00450.00$ -25.00%-59.75%
13
8
65
0
0
3
8
LF
2
8
6
.
0
0
40
0
.
0
0
$
11
4
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
2
2
.
6
7
92
,
2
8
2
.
6
7
$
$3
7
5
.
0
0
10
7
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
-6
.
2
5
%
16
.
2
2
%
$2
5
0
.
0
0
71
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
7
.
5
0
%
-2
2
.
5
2
%
$
3
4
3
.
0
0
98,098.00
$
-14.25%6.30%$350.00100,100.00$ -12.50%8.47%$380.00108,680.00$ -5.00%17.77%
13
9
67
4
3
5
2
LF
1
4
8
.
0
0
3,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
51
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
8
0
3
.
3
3
41
4
,
8
9
3
.
3
3
$
$1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
23
6
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
4
.
2
9
%
-4
2
.
9
3
%
$3
,
7
3
5
.
0
0
55
2
,
7
8
0
.
0
0
$
6.
7
1
%
33
.
2
3
%
$
3
,
0
7
5
.
0
0
455,100.00
$
-12.14%9.69%$3,000.00444,000.00$ -14.29%7.02%$2,700.00399,600.00$ -22.86%-3.69%
14
0
68
2
0
1
0
A
SF
2
2
7
9
.
0
0
0.
5
0
$
1,
1
3
9
.
5
0
$
$0
.
5
7
1,
2
9
1
.
4
3
$
$0
.
2
0
45
5
.
8
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
-6
4
.
7
1
%
$0
.
5
0
1,
1
3
9
.
5
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-1
1
.
7
6
%
$
1
.
0
0
2,279.00
$
100.00%76.47%$1.002,279.00$ 100.00%76.47%$1.002,279.00$ 100.00%76.47%
14
1
68
2
0
5
0
A
CY
6
8
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
5,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
$8
7
.
3
3
5,
9
3
8
.
6
7
$
$7
5
.
0
0
5,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-14
.
1
2
%
$7
0
.
0
0
4,
7
6
0
.
0
0
$
-6
.
6
7
%
-1
9
.
8
5
%
$
1
1
7
.
0
0
7,956.00
$
56.00%33.97%$79.005,372.00$ 5.33%-9.54%$80.005,440.00$ 6.67%-8.40%
14
2
68
5
2
0
0
LF
2
4
8
0
0
.
0
0
3.
0
0
$
74
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$4
.
0
8
10
1
,
2
6
6
.
6
7
$
$2
.
6
0
64
,
4
8
0
.
0
0
$
-1
3
.
3
3
%
-3
6
.
3
3
%
$4
.
6
5
11
5
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
55
.
0
0
%
13
.
8
8
%
$
5
.
0
0
124,000.00
$
66.67%22.45%$2.6064,480.00$ -13.33%-36.33%$4.20104,160.00$ 40.00%2.86%
14
3
70
0
6
1
7
EA
2
0
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
1,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$4
1
.
0
0
82
0
.
0
0
$
$6
5
.
0
0
1,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
3
.
3
3
%
58
.
5
4
%
$2
3
.
0
0
46
0
.
0
0
$
-6
9
.
3
3
%
-4
3
.
9
0
%
$
3
5
.
0
0
700.00
$
-53.33%-14.63%$80.001,600.00$ 6.67%95.12%$200.004,000.00$ 166.67%387.80%
14
4
70
3
2
3
3
LF
2
2
2
.
0
0
10
5
.
0
0
$
23
,
3
1
0
.
0
0
$
$9
5
.
3
3
21
,
1
6
4
.
0
0
$
$8
0
.
0
0
17
,
7
6
0
.
0
0
$
-2
3
.
8
1
%
-1
6
.
0
8
%
$9
6
.
0
0
21
,
3
1
2
.
0
0
$
-8
.
5
7
%
0.
7
0
%
$
1
1
0
.
0
0
24,420.00
$
4.76%15.38%$175.0038,850.00$ 66.67%83.57%$215.0047,730.00$ 104.76%125.52%
14
5
70
5
2
1
6
EA
1
.
0
0
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$3
,
9
1
6
.
6
7
3,
9
1
6
.
6
7
$
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
2.
1
3
%
$3
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
3,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
2
.
0
0
%
-0
.
4
3
%
$
3
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
3,850.00
$
-23.00%-1.70%$5,100.005,100.00$ 2.00%30.21%$4,900.004,900.00$ -2.00%25.11%
14
6
70
5
4
7
0
EA
4
.
0
0
1,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
9
6
.
3
3
2,
3
8
5
.
3
3
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-6
0
.
0
0
%
-1
6
.
1
5
%
$8
7
8
.
0
0
3,
5
1
2
.
0
0
$
-2
9
.
7
6
%
47
.
2
3
%
$
4
1
1
.
0
0
1,644.00
$
-67.12%-31.08%$650.002,600.00$ -48.00%9.00%$1,700.006,800.00$ 36.00%185.08%
14
7
70
5
4
7
1
EA
1
.
0
0
55
0
.
0
0
$
55
0
.
0
0
$
$8
6
9
.
0
0
86
9
.
0
0
$
$9
0
0
.
0
0
90
0
.
0
0
$
63
.
6
4
%
3.
5
7
%
$1
,
3
4
0
.
0
0
1,
3
4
0
.
0
0
$
14
3
.
6
4
%
54
.
2
0
%
$3
6
7
.
0
0
367.00
$
-33.27%-57.77%$1,400.001,400.00$ 154.55%61.10%$2,000.002,000.00$ 263.64%130.15%
14
8
70
9
5
2
3
A
EA
1
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
50
0
.
0
0
$
$5
7
6
.
6
7
57
6
.
6
7
$
$5
0
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-1
3
.
2
9
%
$7
0
0
.
0
0
70
0
.
0
0
$
40
.
0
0
%
21
.
3
9
%
$
5
3
0
.
0
0
530.00
$
6.00%-8.09%$900.00900.00$ 80.00%56.07%$2,400.002,400.00$ 380.00%316.18%
14
9
70
9
5
3
0
A
EA
1
4
.
0
0
30
0
.
0
0
$
4,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
5
5
8
.
3
3
35
,
8
1
6
.
6
7
$
$1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
22
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
43
3
.
3
3
%
-3
7
.
4
6
%
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
56
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
12
3
3
.
3
3
%
56
.
3
5
%
$2
,
0
7
5
.
0
0
29,050.00
$
591.67%-18.89%$7,100.0099,400.00$ 2266.67%177.52%$1,600.0022,400.00$ 433.33%-37.46%
15
0
72
0
1
1
8
CY
5
3
8
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
$
53
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
1
2
.
6
7
60
,
6
1
4
.
6
7
$
$1
0
0
.
0
0
53
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-1
1
.
2
4
%
$1
2
0
.
0
0
64
,
5
6
0
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
%
6.
5
1
%
$
1
1
8
.
0
0
63,484.00
$
18.00%4.73%$110.0059,180.00$ 10.00%-2.37%$160.0086,080.00$ 60.00%42.01%
15
1
72
1
0
1
5
CY
4
7
.
0
0
24
5
.
0
0
$
11
,
5
1
5
.
0
0
$
$1
0
4
.
3
3
4,
9
0
3
.
6
7
$
$9
5
.
0
0
4,
4
6
5
.
0
0
$
-6
1
.
2
2
%
-8
.
9
5
%
$1
2
0
.
0
0
5,
6
4
0
.
0
0
$
-5
1
.
0
2
%
15
.
0
2
%
$
9
8
.
0
0
4,606.00
$
-60.00%-6.07%$190.008,930.00$ -22.45%82.11%$190.008,930.00$ -22.45%82.11%
15
2
72
1
0
2
6
CY
1
9
3
.
0
0
22
0
.
0
0
$
42
,
4
6
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
4
.
6
7
20
,
2
0
0
.
6
7
$
$9
8
.
0
0
18
,
9
1
4
.
0
0
$
-5
5
.
4
5
%
-6
.
3
7
%
$1
0
8
.
0
0
20
,
8
4
4
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
9
1
%
3.
1
8
%
$
1
0
8
.
0
0
20,844.00
$
-50.91%3.18%$130.0025,090.00$ -40.91%24.20%$230.0044,390.00$ 4.55%119.75%
15
3
72
1
4
3
0
CY
3
9
.
0
0
1,
3
2
5
.
0
0
$
51
,
6
7
5
.
0
0
$
$6
1
2
.
0
0
23
,
8
6
8
.
0
0
$
$8
5
0
.
0
0
33
,
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
-3
5
.
8
5
%
38
.
8
9
%
$3
9
6
.
0
0
15
,
4
4
4
.
0
0
$
-7
0
.
1
1
%
-3
5
.
2
9
%
$
5
9
0
.
0
0
23,010.00
$
-55.47%-3.59%$525.0020,475.00$ -60.38%-14.22%$890.0034,710.00$ -32.83%45.42%
15
4
72
9
0
1
1
SQ
Y
D
4
6
9
.
0
0
1.
1
5
$
53
9
.
3
5
$
$3
.
4
7
1,
6
2
5
.
8
7
$
$5
.
0
0
2,
3
4
5
.
0
0
$
33
4
.
7
8
%
44
.
2
3
%
$3
.
7
0
1,
7
3
5
.
3
0
$
22
1
.
7
4
%
6.
7
3
%
$
1
.
7
0
797.30
$
47.83%-50.96%$5.002,345.00$ 334.78%44.23%$14.006,566.00$ 1117.39%303.85%
15
5
72
9
0
1
3
SQ
Y
D
3
3
2
0
.
0
0
9.
0
0
$
29
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
$
$2
.
0
8
6,
9
1
6
.
6
7
$
$3
.
0
0
9,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
-6
6
.
6
7
%
44
.
0
0
%
$2
.
2
5
7,
4
7
0
.
0
0
$
-7
5
.
0
0
%
8.
0
0
%
$
1
.
0
0
3,320.00
$
-88.89%-52.00%$2.006,640.00$ -77.78%-4.00%$3.009,960.00$ -66.67%44.00%
15
6
73
0
0
1
0
LF
1
1
6
8
.
0
0
50
.
0
0
$
58
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
8
.
5
0
33
,
2
8
8
.
0
0
$
$1
5
.
0
0
17
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$
-7
0
.
0
0
%
-4
7
.
3
7
%
$4
4
.
5
0
51
,
9
7
6
.
0
0
$
-1
1
.
0
0
%
56
.
1
4
%
$2
6
.
0
0
30,368.00
$
-48.00%-8.77%$215.00251,120.00$ 330.00%654.39%$11.4013,315.20$ -77.20%-60.00%
15
7
73
0
0
7
0
SF
5
7
2
.
0
0
40
.
0
0
$
22
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
$
$3
0
.
6
7
17
,
5
4
1
.
3
3
$
$2
2
.
0
0
12
,
5
8
4
.
0
0
$
-4
5
.
0
0
%
-2
8
.
2
6
%
$4
2
.
0
0
24
,
0
2
4
.
0
0
$
5.
0
0
%
36
.
9
6
%
$
2
8
.
0
0
16,016.00
$
-30.00%-8.70%$40.0022,880.00$ 0.00%30.43%$32.0018,304.00$ -20.00%4.35%
15
8
73
1
5
0
4
CY
2
3
3
.
0
0
43
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
,
1
9
0
.
0
0
$
$6
3
6
.
0
0
14
8
,
1
8
8
.
0
0
$
$3
2
5
.
0
0
75
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
-2
4
.
4
2
%
-4
8
.
9
0
%
$1
,
0
2
0
.
0
0
23
7
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
13
7
.
2
1
%
60
.
3
8
%
$5
6
3
.
0
0
131,179.00
$
30.93%-11.48%$750.00174,750.00$ 74.42%17.92%$370.0086,210.00$ -13.95%-41.82%
15
9
73
1
5
1
6
CY
4
2
.
0
0
60
0
.
0
0
$
25
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
7
9
.
0
0
28
,
5
1
8
.
0
0
$
$3
5
0
.
0
0
14
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
1
.
6
7
%
-4
8
.
4
5
%
$1
,
1
1
0
.
0
0
46
,
6
2
0
.
0
0
$
85
.
0
0
%
63
.
4
8
%
$5
7
7
.
0
0
24,234.00
$
-3.83%-15.02%$1,000.0042,000.00$ 66.67%47.28%$350.0014,700.00$ -41.67%-48.45%
16
0
73
1
5
1
9
SF
1
3
5
0
.
0
0
10
.
0
0
$
13
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
.
1
7
17
,
7
7
5
.
0
0
$
$2
.
5
0
3,
3
7
5
.
0
0
$
-7
5
.
0
0
%
-8
1
.
0
1
%
$1
9
.
0
0
25
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
90
.
0
0
%
44
.
3
0
%
$
1
8
.
0
0
24,300.00
$
80.00%36.71%$28.0037,800.00$ 180.00%112.66%$11.5015,525.00$ 15.00%-12.66%
16
1
73
1
5
2
1
CY
3
5
8
.
0
0
52
5
.
0
0
$
18
7
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
$
$4
9
3
.
3
3
17
6
,
6
1
3
.
3
3
$
$2
3
0
.
0
0
82
,
3
4
0
.
0
0
$
-5
6
.
1
9
%
-5
3
.
3
8
%
$7
0
0
.
0
0
25
0
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
33
.
3
3
%
41
.
8
9
%
$
5
5
0
.
0
0
196,900.00
$
4.76%11.49%$600.00214,800.00$ 14.29%21.62%$293.00104,894.00$ -44.19%-40.61%
16
2
73
1
5
3
0
CY
3
0
1
.
0
0
60
0
.
0
0
$
18
0
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
0
8
.
3
3
15
3
,
0
0
8
.
3
3
$
$3
0
0
.
0
0
90
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-4
0
.
9
8
%
$7
0
5
.
0
0
21
2
,
2
0
5
.
0
0
$
17
.
5
0
%
38
.
6
9
%
$
5
2
0
.
0
0
156,520.00
$
-13.33%2.30%$850.00255,850.00$ 41.67%67.21%$308.0092,708.00$ -48.67%-39.41%
16
3
73
1
6
2
3
CY
2
2
.
0
0
1,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
26
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
2
2
1
.
0
0
26
,
8
6
2
.
0
0
$
$8
0
0
.
0
0
17
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
3
.
3
3
%
-3
4
.
4
8
%
$1
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
29
,
0
4
0
.
0
0
$
10
.
0
0
%
8.
1
1
%
$
1
,
5
4
3
.
0
0
33,946.00
$
28.58%26.37%$1,100.0024,200.00$ -8.33%-9.91%$420.009,240.00$ -65.00%-65.60%
16
4
7
3
1
6
2
8
A
CY
1
3
.
0
0
30
0
.
0
0
$
3,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
1
7
.
6
7
9,
3
2
9
.
6
7
$
$7
0
0
.
0
0
9,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
13
3
.
3
3
%
-2.4
6
%
$8
0
0
.
0
0
10
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
16
6
.
6
7
%
11
.
4
7
%
$
6
5
3
.
0
0
8,489.00
$
117.67%-9.01%$580.007,540.00$ 93.33%-19.18%$640.008,320.00$ 113.33%-10.82%
16
5
75
0
0
0
1
LB
S
5
7
7
8
.
0
0
2.
0
0
$
11
,
5
5
6
.
0
0
$
$1
.
7
8
10
,
3
0
4
.
1
0
$
$2
.
0
0
11
,
5
5
6
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
12
.
1
5
%
$1
.
3
5
7,
8
0
0
.
3
0
$
-3
2
.
5
0
%
-2
4
.
3
0
%
$
2
.
0
0
11,556.00
$
0.00%12.15%$1.508,667.00$ -25.00%-15.89%$2.6015,022.80$ 30.00%45.79%
16
6
75
0
5
0
1
LB
2
1
1
0
.
0
0
4.
0
0
$
8,
4
4
0
.
0
0
$
$4
.
6
7
9,
8
4
6
.
6
7
$
$3
.
0
0
6,
3
3
0
.
0
0
$
-2
5
.
0
0
%
-3
5
.
7
1
%
$6
.
5
0
13
,
7
1
5
.
0
0
$
62
.
5
0
%
39
.
2
9
%
$
4
.
5
0
9,495.00
$
12.50%-3.57%$4.008,440.00$ 0.00%-14.29%$4.309,073.00$ 7.50%-7.86%
16
7
75
0
5
0
5
LB
7
8
4
0
.
0
0
5.
0
0
$
39
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
.
1
7
48
,
3
4
6
.
6
7
$
$5
.
0
0
39
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-1
8
.
9
2
%
$7
.
0
0
54
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
$
40
.
0
0
%
13
.
5
1
%
$
6
.
5
0
50,960.00
$
30.00%5.41%$7.0054,880.00$ 40.00%13.51%$6.3049,392.00$ 26.00%2.16%
16
8
80
0
1
0
4
A
LF
9
2
0
.
0
0
10
.
0
0
$
9,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
.
7
5
12
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
.
0
0
9,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-2
7
.
2
7
%
$1
6
.
2
5
14
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
$
62
.
5
0
%
18
.
1
8
%
$
1
5
.
0
0
13,800.00
$
50.00%9.09%$15.0013,800.00$ 50.00%9.09%$16.0014,720.00$ 60.00%16.36%
16
9
80
0
3
2
0
LF
4
2
0
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
$
9,
2
4
0
.
0
0
$
$1
4
.
4
7
6,
0
7
6
.
0
0
$
$1
5
.
0
0
6,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
1
.
8
2
%
3.
6
9
%
$1
4
.
4
0
6,
0
4
8
.
0
0
$
-3
4
.
5
5
%
-0
.
4
6
%
$
1
4
.
0
0
5,880.00
$
-36.36%-3.23%$14.005,880.00$ -36.36%-3.23%$18.007,560.00$ -18.18%24.42%
17
0
80
0
3
6
0
LF
3
6
7
4
.
0
0
27
.
0
0
$
99
,
1
9
8
.
0
0
$
$1
6
.
9
0
62
,
0
9
0
.
6
0
$
$1
8
.
0
0
66
,
1
3
2
.
0
0
$
-3
3
.
3
3
%
6.
5
1
%
$1
6
.
7
0
61
,
3
5
5
.
8
0
$
-38
.
1
5
%
-1
.
1
8
%
$
1
6
.
0
0
58,784.00
$
-40.74%-5.33%$15.0055,110.00$ -44.44%-11.24%$20.0073,480.00$ -25.93%18.34%
17
1
83
2
0
0
6
LF
9
5
4
.
0
0
30
.
0
0
$
28
,
6
2
0
.
0
0
$
$2
8
.
0
7
26
,
7
7
5
.
6
0
$
$3
2
.
0
0
30
,
5
2
8
.
0
0
$
6.
6
7
%
14
.
0
1
%
$2
7
.
2
0
25
,
9
4
8
.
8
0
$
-9
.
3
3
%
-3
.
0
9
%
$
2
5
.
0
0
23,850.00
$
-16.67%-10.93%$25.0023,850.00$ -16.67%-10.93%$54.0051,516.00$ 80.00%92.40%
17
2
83
2
0
7
0
SQ
Y
D
5
5
.
0
0
60
.
0
0
$
3,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
5
.
0
0
6,
8
7
5
.
0
0
$
$5
0
.
0
0
2,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
-1
6
.
6
7
%
-6
0
.
0
0
%
$2
4
5
.
0
0
13
,
4
7
5
.
0
0
$
30
8
.
3
3
%
96
.
0
0
%
$8
0
.
0
0
4,400.00
$
33.33%-36.00%$210.0011,550.00$ 250.00%68.00%$50.002,750.00$ -16.67%-60.00%
17
3
83
3
0
2
0
LF
7
9
5
.
0
0
16
.
0
0
$
12
,
7
2
0
.
0
0
$
$4
4
.
3
3
35
,
2
4
5
.
0
0
$
$8
0
.
0
0
63
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
0
.
0
0
%
80
.
4
5
%
$2
7
.
0
0
21
,
4
6
5
.
0
0
$
68
.
7
5
%
-3
9
.
1
0
%
$
2
6
.
0
0
20,670.00
$
62.50%-41.35%$25.0019,875.00$ 56.25%-43.61%$61.5048,892.50$ 284.38%38.72%
17
4
83
3
0
3
2
LF
4
1
8
.
0
0
90
.
0
0
$
37
,
6
2
0
.
0
0
$
$7
8
.
0
0
32
,
6
0
4
.
0
0
$
$9
6
.
0
0
40
,
1
2
8
.
0
0
$
6.
6
7
%
23
.
0
8
%
$7
1
.
0
0
29
,
6
7
8
.
0
0
$
-2
1
.
1
1
%
-8
.
9
7
%
$
6
7
.
0
0
28,006.00
$
-25.56%-14.10%$65.0027,170.00$ -27.78%-16.67%$100.0041,800.00$ 11.11%28.21%
17
5
83
3
0
9
1
LF
6
7
2
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
$
67
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
4
3
.
6
7
16
3
,
7
4
4
.
0
0
$
$2
8
5
.
0
0
19
1
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$
18
5
.
0
0
%
16
.
9
6
%
$2
3
0
.
0
0
15
4
,
5
6
0
.
0
0
$
13
0
.
0
0
%
-5
.
6
1
%
$
2
1
6
.
0
0
145,152.00
$
116.00%-11.35%$200.00134,400.00$ 100.00%-17.92%$230.00154,560.00$ 130.00%-5.61%
17
6
8
3
3
1
4
1
LF
3
8
0
.
0
0
11
8
.
0
0
$
44
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
$
$2
0
9
.
3
3
79
,
5
4
6
.
6
7
$
$2
0
0
.
0
0
76
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
69
.
4
9
%
-4.
4
6
%
$1
5
5
.
0
0
58
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
31
.
3
6
%
-2
5
.
9
6
%
$
2
7
3
.
0
0
103,740.00
$
131.36%30.41%$250.0095,000.00$ 111.86%19.43%$235.0089,300.00$ 99.15%12.26%
17
7
8
3
3
1
4
3
LF
6
6
2
.
0
0
60
0
.
0
0
$
39
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
4
3
.
6
7
16
1
,
3
0
7
.
3
3
$
$2
3
0
.
0
0
15
2
,
2
6
0
.
0
0
$
-6
1
.
6
7
%
-5
.
6
1
%
$2
1
3
.
0
0
14
1
,
0
0
6
.
0
0
$
-6
4
.
5
0
%
-1
2
.
5
9
%
$
2
8
8
.
0
0
190,656.00
$
-52.00%18.19%$275.00182,050.00$ -54.17%12.86%$250.00165,500.00$ -58.33%2.60%
17
8
8
3
3
1
4
8
LF
2
0
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
2
.
3
3
20
,
4
6
6
.
6
7
$
$5
5
.
0
0
11
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-8
9
.
0
0
%
-4
6
.
2
5
%
$1
3
7
.
0
0
27
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
-7
2
.
6
0
%
33
.
8
8
%
$
1
1
5
.
0
0
23,000.00
$
-77.00%12.38%$100.0020,000.00$ -80.00%-2.28%$60.0012,000.00$ -88.00%-41.37%
17
9
8
3
9
3
0
3
LF
3
4
4
.
0
0
35
.
0
0
$
12
,
0
4
0
.
0
0
$
$4
6
.
0
0
15
,
8
2
4
.
0
0
$
$5
6
.
0
0
19
,
2
6
4
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
%
21
.
7
4
%
$4
2
.
0
0
14
,
4
4
8
.
0
0
$
20
.
0
0
%
-8
.
7
0
%
$
4
0
.
0
0
13,760.00
$
14.29%-13.04%$40.0013,760.00$ 14.29%-13.04%$59.0020,296.00$ 68.57%28.26%
18
0
8
3
9
5
2
1
LF
8
8
.
0
0
15
.
0
0
$
1,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
$2
0
.
5
7
1,
8
0
9
.
8
7
$
$2
0
.
0
0
1,
7
6
0
.
0
0
$
33
.
3
3
%
-2
.
7
6
%
$2
1
.
7
0
1,
9
0
9
.
6
0
$
44
.
6
7
%
5.
5
1
%
$
2
0
.
0
0
1,760.00
$
33.33%-2.76%$20.001,760.00$ 33.33%-2.76%$60.005,280.00$ 300.00%191.73%
18
1
8
3
9
5
4
3
EA
4
.
0
0
3,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
14
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
$4
,
1
8
3
.
3
3
16
,
7
3
3
.
3
3
$
$4
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
16
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
16
.
6
7
%
0.
4
0
%
$4
,
3
5
0
.
0
0
17
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
20
.
8
3
%
3.
9
8
%
$
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
16,000.00
$
11.11%-4.38%$4,000.0016,000.00$ 11.11%-4.38%$4,100.0016,400.00$ 13.89%-1.99%
18
2
8
3
9
5
8
5
EA
1
0
.
0
0
2,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
24
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
7
5
3
.
3
3
27
,
5
3
3
.
3
3
$
$2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4.
1
7
%
-9.
2
0
%
$2
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
29
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
23
.
3
3
%
7.
5
1
%
$
2
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
28,000.00
$
16.67%1.69%$2,700.0027,000.00$ 12.50%-1.94%$2,400.0024,000.00$ 0.00%-12.83%
18
3
8
3
9
6
0
7
A
EA
2
.
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
6
,
7
9
3
.
3
3
33
,
5
8
6
.
6
7
$
$1
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
29
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
7
.
5
0
%
-1
3
.
6
6
%
$2
0
,
3
8
0
.
0
0
40
,
7
6
0
.
0
0
$
1.
9
0
%
21
.
3
6
%
$
1
5
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
31,000.00
$
-22.50%-7.70%$13,500.0027,000.00$ -32.50%-19.61%$30,000.0060,000.00$ 50.00%78.64%
18
4
8
3
9
7
2
0
LF
3
9
5
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
29
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
$
$1
2
7
.
0
0
50
,
1
6
5
.
0
0
$
$1
4
0
.
0
0
55
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
86
.
6
7
%
10
.
2
4
%
$1
1
3
.
0
0
44
,
6
3
5
.
0
0
$
50
.
6
7
%
-1
1
.
0
2
%
$
1
2
8
.
0
0
50,560.00
$
70.67%0.79%$115.0045,425.00$ 53.33%-9.45%$90.0035,550.00$ 20.00%-29.13%
18
5
8
3
9
7
2
1
LF
6
3
6
.
0
0
75
.
0
0
$
47
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
4
6
.
6
7
93
,
2
8
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
0
.
0
0
76
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
60
.
0
0
%
-1
8
.
1
8
%
$1
9
2
.
0
0
12
2
,
1
1
2
.
0
0
$
15
6
.
0
0
%
30
.
9
1
%
$
1
2
8
.
0
0
81,408.00
$
70.67%-12.73%$115.0073,140.00$ 53.33%-21.59%$95.0060,420.00$ 26.67%-35.23%
18
6
8
4
0
5
0
4
LF
4
1
9
6
3
.
0
0
0.
5
0
$
20
,
9
8
1
.
5
0
$
$0
.
4
9
20
,
5
6
1
.
8
7
$
$0
.
4
0
16
,
7
8
5
.
2
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-1
8
.
3
7
%
$0
.
6
7
28
,
1
1
5
.
2
1
$
34
.
0
0
%
36
.
7
3
%
$
0
.
4
0
16,785.20
$
-20.00%-18.37%$0.3012,588.90$ -40.00%-38.78%$0.4016,785.20$ -20.00%-18.37%
18
7
8
4
0
5
0
5
LF
6
0
6
7
.
0
0
0.
8
5
$
5,
1
5
6
.
9
5
$
$0
.
6
7
4,
0
4
4
.
6
7
$
$0
.
6
0
3,
6
4
0
.
2
0
$
-2
9
.
4
1
%
-1
0
.
0
0
%
$0
.
9
0
5,
4
6
0
.
3
0
$
5.
8
8
%
35
.
0
0
%
$
0
.
5
0
3,033.50
$
-41.18%-25.00%$0.503,033.50$ -41.18%-25.00%$0.704,246.90$ -17.65%5.00%
18
8
8
4
0
5
0
6
LF
4
6
4
4
.
0
0
1.
4
0
$
6,
5
0
1
.
6
0
$
$1
.
0
5
4,
8
7
6
.
2
0
$
$1
.
0
0
4,
6
4
4
.
0
0
$
-2
8
.
5
7
%
-4
.
7
6
%
$1
.
4
0
6,
5
0
1
.
6
0
$
0.
0
0
%
33
.
3
3
%
$
0
.
7
5
3,483.00
$
-46.43%-28.57%$0.753,483.00$ -46.43%-28.57%$1.004,644.00$ -28.57%-4.76%
18
9
8
4
0
5
1
5
SQ
F
T
4
7
6
3
.
0
0
3.
6
0
$
17
,
1
4
6
.
8
0
$
$4
.
2
0
20
,
0
0
4
.
6
0
$
$3
.
0
0
14
,
2
8
9
.
0
0
$
-1
6
.
6
7
%
-2
8
.
5
7
%
$5
.
6
0
26
,
6
7
2
.
8
0
$
55
.
5
6
%
33
.
3
3
%
$
4
.
0
0
19,052.00
$
11.11%-4.76%$4.0019,052.00$ 11.11%-4.76%$3.9018,575.70$ 8.33%-7.14%
19
0
8
5
0
1
0
1
EA
5
9
1
.
0
0
7.
0
0
$
4,
1
3
7
.
0
0
$
$2
.
7
0
1,
5
9
5
.
7
0
$
$1
.
5
0
88
6
.
5
0
$
-7
8
.
5
7
%
-4
4
.
4
4
%
$3
.
3
5
1,
9
7
9
.
8
5
$
-5
2
.
1
4
%
24
.
0
7
%
$
3
.
2
5
1,920.75
$
-53.57%20.37%$3.001,773.00$ -57.14%11.11%$5.203,073.20$ -25.71%92.59%
19
1
8
5
0
1
1
1
EA
1
1
0
3
.
0
0
7.
0
0
$
7,
7
2
1
.
0
0
$
$3
.
9
2
4,
3
2
0
.
0
8
$
$3
.
5
0
3,
8
6
0
.
5
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
6
4
%
$4
.
5
0
4,
9
6
3
.
5
0
$
-3
5
.
7
1
%
14
.
8
9
%
$
3
.
7
5
4,136.25
$
-46.43%-4.26%$3.503,860.50$ -50.00%-10.64%$4.705,184.10$ -32.86%20.00%
19
2
8
6
0
0
9
0
LS
1
.
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
20
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
3
0
3
.
3
3
2,
3
0
3
.
3
3
$
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-9
0
.
0
0
%
-1
3
.
1
7
%
$2
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
2,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
-8
6
.
0
0
%
21
.
5
6
%
$
2
,
1
1
0
.
0
0
2,110.00
$
-89.45%-8.39%$2,100.002,100.00$ -89.50%-8.83%$2,700.002,700.00$ -86.50%17.22%
19
3
8
6
0
1
5
0
LS
1
.
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
0
,
1
3
3
.
3
3
13
0
,
1
3
3
.
3
3
$
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
25
.
0
0
%
-3
.
9
4
%
$
1
3
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
13
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
37
.
0
0
%
5.
2
8
%
$
1
2
8
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
128,400.00
$
28.40%-1.33%$127,000.00127,000.00$ 27.00%-2.41%$124,000.00124,000.00$ 24.00%-4.71%
19
4
8
6
0
2
5
1
LS
1
.
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
6
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
13
6
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
13
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
3
.
3
3
%
-4
.
6
2
%
$
1
4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
14
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-3
.
3
3
%
6.
3
8
%
$
1
3
3
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
133,900.00
$
-10.73%-1.76%$133,000.00133,000.00$ -11.33%-2.42%$130,000.00130,000.00$ -13.33%-4.62%
19
5
8
6
0
2
5
2
LS
1
.
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
4
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
12
4
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-20
.
0
0
%
-3
.
8
5
%
$
1
3
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
13
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
2
.
0
0
%
5.
7
7
%
$
1
2
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
122,400.00
$
-18.40%-1.92%$121,000.00121,000.00$ -19.33%-3.04%$120,000.00120,000.00$ -20.00%-3.85%
19
6
8
6
0
4
0
2
LS
1
.
0
0
75
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
75
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
9
,
7
0
3
.
3
3
10
9
,
7
0
3
.
3
3
$
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
10
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
40
.
0
0
%
-4
.
2
9
%
$
1
1
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
11
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
55
.
3
3
%
6.
2
0
%
$
1
0
7
,
6
1
0
.
0
0
107,610.00
$
43.48%-1.91%$107,000.00107,000.00$ 42.67%-2.46%$100,000.00100,000.00$ 33.33%-8.85%
19
7
8
6
0
4
0
3
A
LS
1
.
0
0
75
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
75
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$8
0
,
4
0
8
.
3
3
80
,
4
0
8
.
3
3
$
$9
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
95
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
26
.
6
7
%
18
.
1
5
%
$7
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
72
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
.
0
0
%
-1
0
.
4
6
%
$
7
4
,
2
2
5
.
0
0
74,225.00
$
-1.03%-7.69%$83,000.0083,000.00$ 10.67%3.22%$85,000.0085,000.00$ 13.33%5.71%
19
8
8
6
0
4
1
5
LS
1
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
7,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-1
5
.
4
9
%
$9
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
9,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
2
.
5
0
%
30
.
9
9
%
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6,000.00
$
-50.00%-15.49%$6,000.006,000.00$ -50.00%-15.49%$6,000.006,000.00$ -50.00%-15.49%
19
9
8
6
0
7
0
5
LS
1
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
0
,
6
3
3
.
3
3
10
,
6
3
3
.
3
3
$
$1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0.
0
0
%
-5
.
9
6
%
$1
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
11
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
.
0
0
%
8.
1
5
%
$
1
0
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
10,400.00
$
4.00%-2.19%$10,300.0010,300.00$ 3.00%-3.13%$11,000.0011,000.00$ 10.00%3.45%
20
0
8
6
0
7
8
8
LF
1
1
6
0
.
0
0
25
.
0
0
$
29
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$6
.
1
0
7,
0
7
6
.
0
0
$
$6
.
0
0
6,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
-7
6
.
0
0
%
-1
.
6
4
%
$6
.
3
0
7,
3
0
8
.
0
0
$
-7
4
.
8
0
%
3.
2
8
%
$
6
.
0
0
6,960.00
$
-76.00%-1.64%$5.906,844.00$ -76.40%-3.28%$6.006,960.00$ -76.00%-1.64%
20
1
8
6
0
8
1
3
LS
1
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
5,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-5
0
.
0
0
%
-1
.
9
6
%
$5
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
5,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
-4
6
.
0
0
%
5.
8
8
%
$
4
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
4,900.00
$
-51.00%-3.92%$4,900.004,900.00$ -51.00%-3.92%$5,000.005,000.00$ -50.00%-1.96%
20
2
8
6
0
8
5
0
LS
1
.
0
0
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$7
8
6
.
6
7
78
6
.
6
7
$
$7
5
0
.
0
0
75
0
.
0
0
$
-85
.
0
0
%
-4
.
6
6
%
$8
3
0
.
0
0
83
0
.
0
0
$
-8
3
.
4
0
%
5.
5
1
%
$
7
8
0
.
0
0
780.00
$
-84.40%-0.85%$777.00777.00$ -84.46%-1.23%$800.00800.00$ -84.00%1.69%
20
3
8
6
0
9
9
1
LS
1
.
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
,
8
8
3
.
3
3
12
,
8
8
3
.
3
3
$
$1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-6
.
8
6
%
$1
4
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
14
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
-5
.
0
0
%
10
.
6
1
%
$
1
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
12,400.00
$
-17.33%-3.75%$12,280.0012,280.00$ -18.13%-4.68%$13,000.0013,000.00$ -13.33%0.91%
20
4
8
6
1
5
0
2
LS
1
.
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
10
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
2,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
$2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-7
8
.
0
0
%
-4
.
3
5
%
$2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
2,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
-7
5
.
0
0
%
8.
7
0
%
$
2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2,200.00
$
-78.00%-4.35%$2,200.002,200.00$ -78.00%-4.35%$2,000.002,000.00$ -80.00%-13.04%
20
5
8
6
1
5
0
6
LS
1
.
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
15
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
$1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-2
0
.
0
0
%
-4
.
0
0
%
$1
3
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
13
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
-1
2
.
6
7
%
4.
8
0
%
$
1
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
12,400.00
$
-17.33%-0.80%$12,200.0012,200.00$ -18.67%-2.40%$13,000.0013,000.00$ -13.33%4.00%
20
6
8
6
1
5
0
3
LS
1
.
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
50
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
$8
7
,
1
3
3
.
3
3
87
,
1
3
3
.
3
3
$
$8
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
83
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
66
.
0
0
%
-4
.
7
4
%
$9
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
93
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
86
.
0
0
%
6.
7
3
%
$
8
5
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
85,400.00
$
70.80%-1.99%$85,000.0085,000.00$ 70.00%-2.45%$90,000.0090,000.00$ 80.00%3.29%
20
7
8
6
9
0
3
5
EA
4
.
0
0
52
0
.
0
0
$
2,
0
8
0
.
0
0
$
$1
,
0
1
7
.
0
0
4,
0
6
8
.
0
0
$
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
8,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
28
4
.
6
2
%
96
.
6
6
%
$5
4
0
.
0
0
2,
1
6
0
.
0
0
$
3.
8
5
%
-46
.
9
0
%
$
5
1
1
.
0
0
2,044.00
$
-1.73%-49.75%$500.002,000.00$ -3.85%-50.84%$500.002,000.00$ -3.85%-50.84%
20
8
9
9
9
9
9
0
1,
5
4
2
,
7
6
1
.
5
4
$
72
3
,
8
9
6
.
6
7
$
1,
4
7
6
,
1
5
2
.
0
0
$
-4
.
3
2
%
10
3
.
9
2
%
12
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-9
1
.
7
0
%
-8
2
.
3
2
%
567,538.00
$
-63.21%-21.60%921,000.00$ -40.30%27.23%2,200,000.00$ 42.60%203.91%
16
,
9
7
0
,
3
7
7
$
Av
e
r
a
g
e
To
t
a
l
Bi
d
fo
r
Lo
w
Th
r
e
e
17
,
3
9
0
,
8
2
5
.
8
6
$
To
t
a
l
Bi
d
16
,
5
7
2
,
1
2
9
.
8
4
$
To
t
a
l
Bi
d
17
,
4
6
1
,
9
2
4
.
7
5
$
To
t
a
l
Bi
d
18
,
1
3
8
,
4
2
2
.
9
9
$
Total Bid19,329,139.16$ Total Bid22,207,576.11$
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
A
m
ou
n
t
:
$
1
7
,
45
8
,
9
2
4
.
7
5
Submitted Amount:$22,218,515.77 **$4353.30 in math errors on four bid items
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
-2
.
3
5
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
2.
9
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
6.
8
8
%
Percent Variance from Engineer's Estimate13.90%Percent Variance from Engineer's Estimate30.86%
Do
l
l
a
r
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
(3
9
8
,
2
4
7
.
0
4
)
$
Do
l
l
a
r
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
49
1
,
5
4
7
.
8
7
$
Do
l
l
a
r
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
1,
1
6
8
,
0
4
6
.
1
1
$
Dollar Variance from Engineer's Estimate2,358,762.28$ Dollar Variance from Engineer's Estimate5,237,199.23$
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
L
o
w
Bi
d
0.
0
0
%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
L
o
w
B
i
d
5.
3
7
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
L
o
w
Bi
d
9.
4
5
%
Percent Variance from Low Bid 16.64% Percent Variance from Low Bid 34.01%
Do
l
l
a
r
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
L
o
w
Bi
d
-
$
Do
l
l
a
r
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
L
o
w
B
i
d
88
9
,
7
9
4
.
9
1
$
Do
l
l
a
r
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
L
o
w
Bi
d
1,
5
6
6
,
2
9
3
.
1
5
$
Dollar Variance from Low Bid2,757,009.32$ Dollar Variance from Low Bid5,635,446.27$
=
N
o
M
a
t
h
E
r
r
o
r
s
F
o
u
n
d
=M
a
t
h
E
r
r
o
r
F
o
u
n
d
Bi
d
I
t
e
m
P
r
i
c
e
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
-
7
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Bi
d
I
t
e
m
P
r
i
c
e
i
s
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
+
5
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
TH
E
R
M
O
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
I
N
G
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
(
T
Y
P
E
2
6
A
M
O
D
)
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
(
T
Y
P
E
2
6
R
M
O
D
)
SI
N
G
L
E
T
H
R
I
E
B
E
A
M
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
(
S
T
E
E
L
P
O
S
T
)
CA
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
(
T
Y
P
E
W
B
-
3
1
)
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
F
L
A
R
E
D
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
C
R
A
S
H
C
U
S
H
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
(
T
Y
P
E
73
2
)
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
(
T
Y
P
E
73
2
A
)
4"
T
H
E
R
M
O
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
T
R
I
P
E
6"
T
H
E
R
M
O
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
T
R
I
P
E
8"
T
H
E
R
M
O
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
T
R
I
P
E
24
"
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
P
I
P
E
18
"
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
C
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
P
E
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
W
I
C
K
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
I
N
L
E
T
M
A
R
K
E
R
(
S
T
A
I
N
L
E
S
S
S
T
E
E
L
)
GR
A
T
E
D
L
I
N
E
D
R
A
I
N
54
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
F
L
A
R
E
D
E
N
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
24
"
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
F
L
A
R
E
D
E
N
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
36
"
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
C
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
P
E
54
"
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
C
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
P
E
36
'
X
2
1
'
5
"
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
T
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
A
R
C
H
(
0
.
24
9
"
T
H
I
C
K
)
IM
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
L
E
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
S
H
E
E
T
I
N
G
CL
A
S
S
3
P
E
R
M
E
A
B
L
E
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
RO
C
K
S
L
O
P
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
(
N
O
.
1
,
M
E
T
H
O
D
B
)
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
L
I
N
I
N
G
)
RO
C
K
S
L
O
P
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
A
B
R
I
C
(
C
L
A
S
S
8
)
FI
L
T
E
R
F
A
B
R
I
C
(
C
L
A
S
S
A
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
U
R
B
)
18
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
F
L
A
R
E
D
E
N
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
FI
L
T
E
R
I
N
S
E
R
T
UN
D
E
R
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
D
R
A
I
N
RO
C
K
S
L
O
P
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
(
2
T
,
M
E
T
H
O
D
A
)
RO
C
K
S
L
O
P
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
(
L
I
G
H
T
,
M
E
T
H
O
D
B
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
T
E
X
T
U
R
E
D
P
A
V
I
N
G
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
U
R
B
R
A
M
P
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
)
MI
S
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
O
U
S
I
R
O
N
A
N
D
S
T
E
E
L
MI
S
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
O
U
S
M
E
T
A
L
(
B
R
I
D
G
E
)
CU
R
B
R
A
M
P
D
E
T
E
C
T
A
B
L
E
W
A
R
N
I
N
G
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
C
U
R
B
A
N
D
G
U
T
T
E
R
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
S
T
A
M
P
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
)
MI
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
(
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
)
VE
G
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
(
M
I
N
O
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
)
CH
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
TU
B
U
L
A
R
H
A
N
D
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
OR
N
A
M
E
N
T
A
L
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
(
T
Y
P
E
2
6
A
)
BR
I
D
G
E
D
E
C
K
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
F
E
N
C
E
(
T
Y
P
E
C
L
-
6
,
W
I
T
H
S
I
L
T
S
C
R
E
E
N
)
CH
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
(
T
Y
P
E
C
L
-
4
)
CH
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
(
T
Y
P
E
C
L
-
6
)
MI
D
W
E
S
T
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
(
S
T
E
E
L
P
O
S
T
)
SI
G
N
A
L
A
N
D
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
(
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
)
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
(
C
I
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
BR
I
D
G
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
SI
G
N
A
L
I
N
T
E
R
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
E
R
(
N
O
N
-
R
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
V
E
)
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
M
A
R
K
E
R
(
R
E
T
R
O
R
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
V
E
)
MA
I
N
T
A
I
N
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
D
U
R
I
N
G
SI
G
N
A
L
A
N
D
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
(
T
E
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
)
SI
G
N
A
L
A
N
D
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
(
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
1
)
MO
D
I
F
Y
S
I
G
N
A
L
(
C
I
T
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
)
MO
D
I
F
Y
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
NO
.
5
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
MO
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
4"
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
(
T
Y
P
E
3
)
MO
D
I
F
Y
M
I
C
R
O
W
A
V
E
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
D
E
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
MO
D
I
F
Y
W
I
R
E
L
E
S
S
D
A
T
A
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
MO
D
I
F
Y
C
L
O
S
E
D
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
T
E
L
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
MO
D
I
F
Y
S
I
G
N
A
L
(
C
I
T
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
1
)
Attachment 3 - 14 B1-31
Responsiveness Matrix
For Apparent Low Bidders:
Granite
Madonna/Souza JV Partnership
CalPortland
Attachment 3 - 15
B1-32
1 - GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY
2 - MADONNA/SOUZA JV
PARTNERSHIP 3 - CALPORTLAND
1 Bidder's Proposal w/ Signature (p. 35)Yes Yes, but with math errors.Yes
2 Addenda 1-4 Acknowledgment (p. 35)Yes Yes Yes
3
Bidder's Bond at 10% of the base bid
(cashier's check, p. 36)Yes Yes Yes
4 Contractor's Classification/License (p. 21)Yes Yes Yes
5 Bidder Acknowledgements (p. 21)Yes Yes Yes
6 Qualifications (p. 22)Yes Yes Yes
7 EEO Certification (p. 23)Yes Yes Yes
8 Exhibit 12-B - Bidders List of
Subcontractors (DBE and non-DBE)Yes Submitted, but with
errors.Yes
9 City Bidders List of Subcontractors (p. 26)Yes Yes Yes
10
List of Subcontractors (For determining
30% minimum prime work, p. 27)Yes Yes Yes
11
Public Contract Code Statement and
Questionnaire (p. 28-29)Yes Yes Yes
12 Debarment Certification (p. 31)Yes Yes Yes
13 Non-Collusion Affidavit (included)Yes Yes Yes
14
Exhibits 15-G, 15-H, 17-O, 17-F (DBE &
Good Faith forms)Yes Yes, but with errors.Yes
Three Low BiddersResponsiveness Evaluation
Items
US 101 / LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Q101(258) - 1 - (EA 05-0H7304) - CITY SPEC NO. 99821
Bid Responsiveness Checklist
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Attachment 3 - 16
B1-33
Bid Protest Denial Letter to JMC-Souza
September 2, 2014
Attachment 4 - 1
B1-34
Attachment 4 - 2
B1-35
Attachment 4 - 3
B1-36
Follow Up Letter From Attorney Weaver
August 26, 2014
Attachment 4 - 4
B1-37
Attachment 4 - 5
B1-38
Attachment 4 - 6
B1-39
Attachment 4 - 7
B1-40
Attachment 4 - 8
B1-41
Response from Granite to Bid Protest
August 20, 2014
Attachment 4 - 9
B1-42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
0
B1
-
4
3
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
1
B1
-
4
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
2
B1
-
4
5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
3
B1
-
4
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
4
B1
-
4
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
5
B1
-
4
8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
6
B1
-
4
9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
7
B1
-
5
0
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
8
B1
-
5
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
9
B1
-
5
2
Notification Letter to Granite
August 19, 2014
Attachment 4 - 20
B1-53
August 19, 2014
Granite Construction Company Fax: (805) 967-1431
Attn: Mr. Bruce McGowan Email:brian.larinan@gcinc.com
VP Central California Region
PO Box 6744
Santa Barbara CA 93160
Subject: US 101 / LOVR Project, Specification No. 99821 – Bid Protest
Dear Mr. Larinan,
On August 12, 2014, bids were opened for the above referenced project. Granite
Construction Company (Granite) is the apparent low bidder. Please be advised that a bid
protest against Granite was received from the Madonna/Souza Joint Venture Partnership,
the 2nd low bidder. The bid protest is provided as an attachment to this letter.
Please review the attached letter and provide a written response no later than 3:00 p.m.,
Friday, August 22, 2014. Deliver your response to:
Public Works Department
Attn: Jason Bennecke
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The response can also be emailed to me at: jbennecke@slocity.org. This information will be
used in compliance with the Notice to Bidders.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (909) 556-8852.
Sincerely,
Jason Bennecke, PE, MBA, PMP
Project Manager
Attachment – Madonna/Souza JV Bid Protest, August 19, 2014
Attachment 4 - 21
B1-54
Bid Protest from Madonna/Souza Joint Venture
August 19, 2014
Attachment 4 - 22
B1-55
Attachment 4 - 23
B1-56
Attachment 4 - 24
B1-57
Attachment 4 - 25
B1-58
Attachment 4 - 26
B1-59
City of San Luis Obispo
06/28/2014 8
Take necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that DBEs have opportunity to participate in the Contract
(49 CFR 26).
2-1.12B Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal
2-1.12B(1) General
Section 2-1.12B applies if a DBE goal is shown on the Notice to Bidders.
To ensure equal participation of DBEs provided in 49 CFR 26.5, the Department shows a goal for DBEs.
Make work available to DBEs and select work parts consistent with available DBE subcontractors and
suppliers.
Meet the DBE goal shown on the Notice to Bidders or demonstrate that you made adequate good faith
efforts to meet this goal.
You are responsible to verify that the at the bid opening date the DBE firm is certified as DBE by the CA
Unified Certification Program.
All DBE participation will count toward the Department's federally-mandated statewide overall DBE goal.
Credit for materials or supplies you purchase from DBEs counts toward the goal in the following manner:
1. 100 percent if the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer.
2. 60 percent if the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE regular dealer.
3. Only fees, commissions, and charges for assistance in the procurement and delivery of materials or
supplies, if they are obtained from a DBE that is neither a manufacturer nor regular dealer. 49 CFR
26.55 defines "manufacturer" and "regular dealer."
You receive credit toward the goal if you employ a DBE trucking company that performs a commercially
useful function as defined in 49 CFR 26.55(d)(1)–(4), (6).
2-1.12B(2) DBE Commitment Submittal
Submit DBE information under section 2-1.33.
Bidders other than the apparent low bidder, the 2nd low bidder, and the 3rd low bidder are not required to
submit the DBE commitment form unless the Department requests it. If the Department requests a DBE
commitment form from you, submit the completed form within 4 business days of the request.
Submit written confirmation from each DBE shown on the form stating that it will be participating in the
Contract. Include confirmation with the DBE commitment form. A copy of a DBE's quote will serve as
written confirmation that the DBE will be participating in the Contract.
2-1.12B(3) Good Faith Efforts Submittal
If you have not met the DBE goal, complete and submit the Good Faith Efforts Documentation under
section 2-1.33 showing that you made adequate good faith efforts to meet the goal. Only good faith
efforts directed toward obtaining participation by DBEs are considered.
If your DBE commitment form shows that you have met the DBE goal or if you are required to submit the
DBE commitment form, you must submit good faith efforts documentation within the specified time to
protect your eligibility for award of the contract in the event the Department finds that the DBE goal has
not been met.
The Department may consider DBE commitments of the 2nd and 3rd bidders in determining whether the
low bidder made good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal.
2-1.13–2-1.14 RESERVED
2-1.15 DISABLED VETERAN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES
2-1.15A General
Section 2-1.15 applies to a non-federal-aid contract.
Take necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that DVBEs have opportunity to participate in the
Contract.
2-1.12B Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal
2-1.12B(1) General
Section 2-1.12B applies if a DBE goal is shown on the Notice to Bidders.
To ensure equal participation of DBEs provided in 49 CFR 26.5, the Department shows a goal for DBEs.
Make work available to DBEs and select work parts consistent with available DBE subcontractors and
suppliers.
Meet the DBE goal shown on the Notice to Bidders or demonstrate that you made adequate good faith g
efforts to meet this goal.
You are responsible to verify that the at the bid opening date the DBE firm is certified as DBE by the CA py
Unified Certification Program.
All DBE participation will count toward the Department's federally-mandated statewide overall DBE goal.
Credit for materials or supplies you purchase from DBEs counts toward the goal in the following manner:
1. 100 percent if the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer.ppp
2. 60 percent if the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE regular dealer.pppg
3. Only fees, commissions, and charges for assistance in the procurement and delivery of materials or y,,g py
supplies, if they are obtained from a DBE that is neither a manufacturer nor regular dealer. 49 CFRppy
26.55 defines "manufacturer" and "regular dealer."
You receive credit toward the goal if you employ a DBE trucking company that performs a commerciallygypy
useful function as defined in 49 CFR 26.55(d)(1)–(4), (6).
Attachment 5 - 1
B1-60
SECTION 5 CONTROL OF WORK
If you assign the right to receive Contract payments, the Department accepts the assignment upon the
Engineer's receipt of a notice. Assigned payments remain subject to deductions and withholds described
in the Contract. The Department may use withheld payments for work completion whether payments are
assigned or not.
5-1.13 SUBCONTRACTING
5-1.13A General
No subcontract releases you from the Contract or relieves you of your responsibility for a subcontractor's
work.
Before subcontracted work starts, submit a Subcontracting Request form.
Do not use a debarred contractor. For a list of debarred contractors, go to the Department of Industrial
Relations' Web site.
If you violate Pub Cont Code § 4100 et seq., the Department may exercise the remedies provided under
Pub Cont Code § 4110. The Department may refer the violation to the Contractors State License Board
as provided under Pub Cont Code § 4111.
Except for a building-construction non-federal-aid contract, perform work equaling at least 30 percent of
the value of the original total bid with your employees and with equipment you own or rent, with or without
operators.
Each subcontract must comply with the Contract.
The Department encourages you to include a dispute resolution process in each subcontract.
Each subcontractor must have an active and valid State contractor's license with a classification
appropriate for the work to be performed (Bus & Prof Code § 7000 et seq.).
Submit copies of subcontracts upon request.
Upon request, immediately remove and do not again use a subcontractor who fails to prosecute the work
satisfactorily.
5-1.13B Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
5-1.13B(1) General
Section 5-1.13B applies to a federal-aid contract.
Use each DBE subcontractor as listed on the Subcontractor List form and the Caltrans Bidder - DBE
Information form unless you receive authorization for a substitution.
Notify the Engineer of any changes to your anticipated DBE participation. Submit this notification before
starting the affected work.
Maintain records including:
1. Name and business address of each 1st-tier subcontractor
2. Name and business address of each DBE subcontractor, DBE vendor, and DBE trucking company,
regardless of tier
3. Date of payment and total amount paid to each business
If you are a DBE contractor, include the date of work performed by your own forces and the
corresponding value of the work.
Before the 15th day of each month, submit a Monthly DBE Trucking Verification form.
If a DBE subcontractor is decertified before completing subcontracted work, the subcontractor must notify
you in writing of the decertification date. If a subcontractor becomes a certified DBE before completing
subcontracted work, the subcontractor must notify you in writing of the certification date. Submit the
notifications. On work completion, complete a Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Certification
Status Change form. Submit the form within 90 days of Contract acceptance.
36
5-1.13B Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
5-1.13B(1) General
Section 5-1.13B applies to a federal-aid contract.
Use each DBE subcontractor as listed on the Subcontractor List form and thet Caltrans Bidder - DBE
Information form unless you receive authorization for a substitution.
Notify the Engineer of any changes to your anticipated DBE participation. Submit this notification beforeygy
starting the affected work.
Maintain records including:
1.Name and business address of each 1st-tier subcontractor
2.Name and business address of each DBE subcontractor, DBE vendor, and DBE trucking company,
regardless of tier g
3.Date of payment and total amount paid to each business
If you are a DBE contractor, include the date of work performed by your own forces and the fy
corresponding value of the work.
Before the 15th day of each month, submit a Monthly DBE Trucking Verification form.
If a DBE subcontractor is decertified before completing subcontracted work, the subcontractor must notifypg,
you in writing of the decertification date. If a subcontractor becomes a certified DBE before completing yg p
subcontracted work, the subcontractor must notify you in writing of the certification date. Submit the yyg
notifications. On work completion, complete a Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Certificationp,p g
Status Change form. Submit the form within 90 days of Contract acceptance.
Attachment 5 - 2
B1-61
SECTION 5 CONTROL OF WORK
Upon work completion, complete a Final Report – Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors form. Submit it within 90 days of Contract acceptance. The Department
withholds $10,000 until the form is submitted. The Department releases the withhold upon submission of
the completed form.
5-1.13B(2) Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
Section 5-1.13(B)(2) applies if a UDBE goal is shown on the Notice to Bidders.
UDBEs must perform work or supply materials as listed in the Caltrans Bidder - UDBE - Commitment
form.
Do not terminate a UDBE listed subcontractor for convenience and perform the work with your own forces
or obtain materials from other sources without written authorization from the Department.
The Department authorizes a request to use other forces or sources of materials if it shows any of the
following justifications:
1. Listed UDBE fails or refuses to execute a written contract based on the plans and specifications for
the project.
2. You stipulated that a bond is a condition of executing the subcontract and the listed UDBE fails to
meet your bond requirements.
3. Work requires a contractors license and the listed UDBE does not have a valid license under
Contractors License Law.
4. Listed UDBE fails or refuses to perform the work or furnish the listed materials.
5. Listed UDBE's work is unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the Contract.
6. Listed UDBE delays or disrupts the progress of the work.
7. Listed UDBE becomes bankrupt or insolvent.
If a listed UDBE is terminated, you must make good faith efforts to find another UDBE to substitute for the
original UDBE. The substitute UDBE must perform at least the same amount of work as the original
UDBE under the Contract to the extent needed to meet the UDBE goal.
The substitute UDBE must be certified as a DBE at the time of request for substitution.
Unless the Department authorizes (1) a request to use other forces or sources of materials or (2) a good
faith effort for a substitution of a terminated UDBE, the Department does not pay for work listed on the
Caltrans Bidder - UDBE - Commitment form unless it is performed or supplied by the listed UDBE or an
authorized substitute.
5-1.13C Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises
Section 5-1.13C applies to a non-federal-aid contract.
Use each DVBE as shown on the Certified DVBE Summary form unless you receive authorization for a
substitution.
The requirement that DVBEs be certified by the bid opening date does not apply to DVBE substitutions
after Contract award.
Maintain records of subcontracts made with DVBEs. Include in the records:
1. Name and business address of each business
2. Total amount paid to each business
For the purpose of determining compliance with Pub Cont Code § 10115 et seq.:
1. Upon Contract completion, complete and submit Final Report - Utilization of Disabled Veteran
Business Enterprises (DVBE) State Funded Projects Only form.
2. Upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, permit access to its premises for the
purposes of:
2.1. Interviewing employees.
2.2. Inspecting and copying books, records, accounts and other material that may be relevant to a
matter under investigation.
37
Upon work completion, complete a Final Report – Utilization of Disadvantaged Busineiiss Enterprises ppp p g p
(DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors form. Submit it within 90 days of Contract acceptance. The Department (),y pp
withholds $10,000 until the form is submitted. The Department releases the withhold upon submission of
the completed form.
Attachment 5 - 3
B1-62
Attachment 6 - 1
B1-63
Attachment 6 - 2
B1-64
Resolution Denying the Madonna-Souza Appeal
To be distributed under separate action when available.
B1-65
Bid Protest Denial Letter to CalPortland
September 2, 2014
Attachment 8 - 1
B1-66
Attachment 8 - 2
B1-67
Attachment 8 - 3
B1-68
Attachment 8 - 4
B1-69
Response from Madonna/Souza JV to Bid Protest
August 21, 2014
Attachment 8 - 5
B1-70
Attachment 8 - 6
B1-71
Attachment 8 - 7
B1-72
Attachment 8 - 8
B1-73
Attachment 8 - 9
B1-74
Attachment 8 - 10
B1-75
Attachment 8 - 11
B1-76
Attachment 8 - 12
B1-77
Attachment 8 - 13
B1-78
Attachment 8 - 14
B1-79
Attachment 8 - 15
B1-80
Attachment 8 - 16
B1-81
Attachment 8 - 17
B1
-
8
2
Attachment 8 - 18
B1
-
8
3
Attachment 8 - 19
B1
-
8
4
Attachment 8 - 20
B1-85
Attachment 8 - 21
B1-86
Attachment 8 - 22
B1-87
Attachment 8 - 23
B1-88
Attachment 8 - 24
B1-89
Attachment 8 - 25
B1-90
Notification Letter to Madonna/Souza JV
August 20, 2014
Attachment 8 - 26
B1-91
August 20, 2014
Madonna/Souza Joint Venture Fax: (805) 543-7754
Attn: Mr. John Madonna Email: John@jmadonna.com
Joint Venturer
PO Box 5310
San Luis Obispo CA 93403
Subject: US 101 / LOVR Project, Specification No. 99821 – Bid Protest
Dear Mr. Madonna,
On August 12, 2014, bids were opened for the above referenced project. Granite
Construction Company (Granite) is the apparent low bidder. Madonna/Souza Joint Venture
(MSJV) is the apparent 2nd low bidder. Please be advised that a bid protest against MSJV
was received from CalPortland, the apparent 3rd low bidder. The bid protest is provided as
an attachment to this letter.
Please review the attached letter and provide a written response no later than 3:00 p.m.,
Friday, August 22, 2014. Deliver your response to:
Public Works Department
Attn: Jason Bennecke
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The response can also be emailed to me at: jbennecke@slocity.org. This information will be
used in compliance with the Notice to Bidders.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (909) 556-8852.
Sincerely,
Jason Bennecke, PE, MBA, PMP
Project Manager
Attachment – CalPortland Protest, August 19, 2014
Attachment 8 - 27
B1-92
Bid Protest from CalPortland
August 19, 2014
Attachment 8 - 28
B1-93
Attachment 8 - 29
B1-94
Attachment 8 - 30
B1-95
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE LOS OSOS
VALLEY ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Financial Management Manual - Section 225 - Revised for Referenced Project
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
OVERVIEW
When the City awards a construction contract, the need for contract change orders (CCO’s) is not
unusual. CCO’s are required whenever the scope of work changes from that in the original contract
or an unknown condition of the site requires a change in the scope of work. Usually a contingency
amount is established when the project budget is finalized upon contract award to accommodate
limited CCO’s. The purpose of this policy is to establish limits of authority for approving
construction project CCO’s.
GOALS
1. Ensure appropriate authority and accountability in the approval of change orders.
2. Minimize the time needed to approve a CCO in order to avoid project delays.
3. Establish a system under which the organizational level at which approval is given is
commensurate with the size of CCO and size of project.
4. Eliminate the potential for approval of a CCO when contingency funds are insufficient.
POLICIES
Conditions for Approval of CCO's by Staff
1. Sufficient contingency funds are budgeted and available in order for the Public Works Director or
City Manager (approved designees) City Engineer to approve a CCO.
2. The nature of work in the CCO is not significantly different from that in the contract.
3. Authorization limits are based on an individual CCO amount, not the or aggregate amount of all
CCO’s where noted.
4. Authorization limits apply to CCO’s for increases in contract amounts only.
5. When the aggregate amount of CCO’s reaches 75% of the contingency, the awarding authority
City Manager and Finance Director shall be informed of the status of the project and the
sufficiency of funding to complete the project.
6. Work will not be broken up into multiple CCO’s in order to circumvent this policy.
B1-96
7. All CCO's must be in writing and approved by the appropriate contract parties consistent with the
authorized limits established in this policy.
8. A copy of each approved CCO will be transmitted promptly to the Finance Division.
9. The City Manager may grant approval of CCO's in excess of $100,000 under the following
circumstances (all three factors must be present):
a. Immediate approval of the CCO is necessary to avoid delay.
b. The CCO is an integral and mandatory component of the project.
c. The costs associated with delay of the project would be excessive.
The Project Manager City Engineer is responsible for carrying out this policy.
10. The City Manager is also authorized to approve CCO’s in excess of $100,000 related to Job
Order Contract Task Orders.
Authorization Limits
1. Public Works Director/Approved Designee Project Manager - Not to exceed $25,000
2. City Manager -Not to exceed $100,000 Engineer - None on individual CCO’s, with cumulative
approved CCO total, limited to approved project budget
3. City Council - Greater than contract or $100,000* approved project budget
* See circumstances above where the City Manager may approve CCO’s in excess of $100,000.
Originally Approved by the Council on August 3, 1993; Revised by the Council on April 15, 2003
Approved by the Council on September 16, 2014 for the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange
Improvements Project, Specification 99821, Exclusively.
B1-97
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
FORM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this ______ day of ___________, 2014, by and between the City of San
Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter
called the Owner) and Granite Construction Inc. (hereinafter called the Contractor).
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed,
shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility
and transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Contract No. 05-0H7304
Federal Aid Project No. Q101(258)-1
Specification No. 99821
in strict compliance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by
the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work
performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or
its authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the
faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract
Documents, the contract prices as follows:
Item
No.
Item Description Unit of
Measure
Estimated
Quantity
Unit Price Item Total
1 LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
2 PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH METHOD) LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
3 TIME RELATED OVERHEAD WDAY 350 $5,000.00 $1,750,000.00
4 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
5 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
6 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING (PAINT) SQFT 3861 $4.00 $15,444.00
7 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC STRIPE (PAINT) LF 52378 $0.65 $34,045.70
8 CHANNELIZER (SURFACE MOUNTED) EA 315 $45.00 $14,175.00
9 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKER EA 2417 $4.00 $9,668.00
10 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EA 6 $5,000.00 $30,000.00
11 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K) LF 17580 $11.00 $193,380.00
Attachment 10 - 1
B1-98
12 TEMPORARY CRASH CUSHION MODULE EA 109 $160.00 $17,440.00
13 TEMPORARY ALTERNATIVE CRASH CUSHION EA 21 $3,500.00 $73,500.00
14 JOB SITE MANAGEMENT LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
15 PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN
LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
16 RAIN EVENT ACTION PLAN EA 70 $500.00 $35,000.00
17 STORM WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DAY EA 33 $50.00 $1,650.00
18 STORM WATER ANNUAL REPORT EA 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00
19 TEMPORARY CREEK DIVERSION SYSTEM EA 2 $55,000.00 $110,000.00
20 TEMPORARY CREEK CROSSING EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
21 MOVE-IN/MOVE-OUT (TEMPORARY EROSION
CONTROL)
EA 47 $20.00 $940.00
22 TEMPORARY HYDRAULIC MULCH (BONDED
FIBER MATRIX)
SQYD 92902 $0.62 $57,599.24
23 STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT PLAN LS 1 $500.00 $500.00
24 TEMPORARY CHECK DAM LF 647 $4.00 $2,588.00
25 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION EA 17 $90.00 $1,530.00
26 TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL LF 15050 $4.00 $60,200.00
27 TEMPORARY LARGE SEDIMENT BARRIER LF 3934 $18.00 $70,812.00
28 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA 3 $3,500.00 $10,500.00
29 STREET SWEEPING LS 1 $45,000.00 $45,000.00
30 TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
31 TEMPORARY FENCE (TYPE ESA) LF 4246 $4.50 $19,107.00
32 ABANDON CULVERT LF 198 $45.00 $8,910.00
33 OBLITERATE SURFACING SQYD 1314 $10.00 $13,140.00
34 REMOVE FENCE LF 3954 $5.00 $19,770.00
35 REMOVE GATE EA 1 $500.00 $500.00
36 REMOVE METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING LF 1364 $8.00 $10,912.00
37 REMOVE THRIE BEAM BARRIER LF 325 $8.00 $2,600.00
38 REMOVE TUBULAR HAND RAILING LF 347 $4.00 $1,388.00
39 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 24475 $0.30 $7,342.50
40 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT
MARKING
SQFT 961 $2.00 $1,922.00
41 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKER EA 1870 $1.00 $1,870.00
42 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN EA 17 $85.00 $1,445.00
43 REMOVE PIPE (18") LF 89 $35.00 $3,115.00
44 REMOVE PIPE (54") LF 315 $150.00 $47,250.00
45 REMOVE PIPE (24") LF 10 $15.00 $150.00
46 REMOVE PIPE (30") LF 17 $15.00 $255.00
47 REMOVE DOWNDRAIN EA 2 $300.00 $600.00
48 REMOVE INLET EA 6 $500.00 $3,000.00
49 REMOVE HEADWALL EA 2 $550.00 $1,100.00
50 REMOVE MONITORING STATION EA 1 $300.00 $300.00
51 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING SQFT 12749 $1.00 $12,749.00
Attachment 10 - 2
B1-99
52 RESET ROADSIDE SIGN EA 17 $150.00 $2,550.00
53 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN EA 50 $175.00 $8,750.00
54 ADJUST WATER VALVE COVER TO GRADE EA 6 $650.00 $3,900.00
55 ADJUST INLET EA 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
56 ADJUST FRAME AND COVER TO GRADE EA 6 $500.00 $3,000.00
57 ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE EA 6 $2,000.00 $12,000.00
58 ADJUST UTILITY COVER TO GRADE EA 2 $500.00 $1,000.00
59 PRESSURE WASH EXISTING BARRIER SF 878 $2.00 $1,756.00
60 COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD 36668 $2.20 $80,669.60
61 REMOVE CONCRETE (DRIVEWAY) LF 105 $20.00 $2,100.00
62 REMOVE CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) LF 75 $6.00 $450.00
63 REMOVE CONCRETE (CHANNEL) LF 46 $10.00 $460.00
64 REMOVE CONCRETE(CURB, GUTTER, AND
SIDEWALK)
LF 1261 $7.50 $9,457.50
65 CULVERT SLURRY-CEMENT BACKFILL CY 197 $175.00 $34,475.00
66 BRIDGE REMOVAL (PORTION) - LOCATION A LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
67 BRIDGE REMOVAL (PORTION) - LOCATION B LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
68 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $125,000.00 $125,000.00
69 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
70 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 14234 $45.00 $640,530.00
71 DUST CONTROL PLAN LS 1 $500.00 $500.00
72 CHANNEL EXCAVATION CY 2199 $29.00 $63,771.00
72A SHOULDER BACKING CY 23 $200.00 $4,600.00
73 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 650 $120.00 $78,000.00
74 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (TYPE D) CY 1894 $35.00 $66,290.00
75 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (RETAINING WALL) CY 1475 $30.00 $44,250.00
76 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 1663 $70.00 $116,410.00
77 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (SLURRY CEMENT) CY 168 $300.00 $50,400.00
78 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (RETAINING WALL) CY 3068 $55.00 $168,740.00
79 PERVIOUS BACKFILL MATERIAL CY 553 $20.00 $11,060.00
79A CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL MATERIAL CY 143 $60.00 $8,580.00
80 CELLULAR CONCRETE LIGHTWEIGHT
EMBANKMENT MATERIAL (CLASS III)
CY 808 $90.00 $72,720.00
81 IMPORTED BORROW CY 37948 $8.00 $303,584.00
82 EARTHWORK INSTRUMENTATION LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
83 PRUNE TREE EA 2 $500.00 $1,000.00
84 WILLOW CUTTINGS EA 66 $30.00 $1,980.00
85 MODIFY IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
86 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT (NETTING
TYPE B)
SQFT 25220 $0.70 $17,654.00
87 HYDROSEED SQFT 278706 $0.06 $16,722.36
88 COMPOST CY 1758 $40.00 $70,320.00
89 COMPOST BERM LF 6489 $4.00 $25,956.00
Attachment 10 - 3
B1-100
90 INCORPORATE MATERIAL SQFT 80108 $0.03 $2,403.24
91 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE CY 19135 $40.00 $765,400.00
92 PREPAVING INERTIAL PROFILER LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
93 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) TON 13020 $90.00 $1,171,800.00
94 RUBBERIZED HOT MIX ASPHALT (GAP GRADED) TON 8051 $112.00 $901,712.00
95 SUBGRADE ENHANCEMENT GEOTEXTILE, CLASS
A1
SQYD 1715 $3.00 $5,145.00
96 SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIP (HMA, GROUND-IN
INDENTATIONS)
STA 96 $60.00 $5,760.00
97 PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE (TYPE C) LF 100 $7.00 $700.00
98 PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE (TYPE E) LF 637 $10.00 $6,370.00
99 CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
CY 305 $460.00 $140,300.00
100 JOINTED PLAIN CONCRETE PAVEMENT CY 151 $500.00 $75,500.00
101 FURNISH STEEL PILING (HP 10 X 42) LF 1296 $45.00 $58,320.00
102 DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP 10 X 42) EA 59 $1,600.00 $94,400.00
103 FURNISH STEEL PILING (HP 10 X 57) LF 1122 $50.00 $56,100.00
104 DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP 10 X 57) EA 23 $1,600.00 $36,800.00
105 FURNISH STEEL PILING (HP 12 X 53) LF 10274 $25.00 $256,850.00
106 DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP 12 X 53) EA 256 $950.00 $243,200.00
107 FURNISH STEEL PILING (HP 12 X 74) LF 2044 $55.00 $112,420.00
108 DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP 12 X 74) EA 44 $1,600.00 $70,400.00
109 FURNISH STEEL PILING (HP 14 X 89) LF 615 $55.00 $33,825.00
110 DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP 14 X 89) EA 16 $1,600.00 $25,600.00
111 PRESTRESSING CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
112 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CY 16 $800.00 $12,800.00
113 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 237.3 $450.00 $106,785.00
114 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 1279 $800.00 $1,023,200.00
115 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, RETAINING WALL CY 1091 $500.00 $545,500.00
116 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB (TYPE
N)
CY 95 $575.00 $54,625.00
117 STRUCTURE CONCRETE (THRUST BLOCK) CY 416 $200.00 $83,200.00
118 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, PILASTER CY 80 $1,500.00 $120,000.00
119 MINOR CONCRETE (MINOR STRUCTURE) CY 73 $2,100.00 $153,300.00
120 MINOR CONCRETE (BACKFILL) CY 3 $200.00 $600.00
121 FRACTURED RIB TEXTURE SF 6365 $9.00 $57,285.00
122 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT(RIVER ROCK
PATTERN)
SF 1284 $6.00 $7,704.00
122A DRILL AND BOND DOWEL LF 195 $20.00 $3,900.00
123 DRILL AND BOND DOWEL (CHEMICAL ADHESIVE) EA 207 $20.00 $4,140.00
124 JOINT SEAL ASSEMBLY (MR=2 1/2") LF 81 $275.00 $22,275.00
125 BAR REINFORCING STEEL LB 6720 $1.00 $6,720.00
126 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 433014 $1.20 $519,616.80
127 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (RETAINING WALL) LB 203579 $1.30 $264,652.70
128 FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN
(0.063"-UNFRAMED)
SQFT 110 $21.00 $2,310.00
Attachment 10 - 4
B1-101
128A FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN
(0.063" UNFRAMED)
SQFT 71 $16.00 $1,136.00
129 FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN
(0.080"-UNFRAMED)
SQFT 19 $17.00 $323.00
130 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST EA 10 $250.00 $2,500.00
131 ROADSIDE SIGN - TWO POST EA 4 $550.00 $2,200.00
132 INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET
METHOD)
EA 8 $100.00 $800.00
133 RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
134 18" PLASTIC PIPE LF 21 $100.00 $2,100.00
135 24" PLASTIC PIPE LF 2216 $80.00 $177,280.00
136 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 35 $120.00 $4,200.00
137 36" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 3 $500.00 $1,500.00
138 54" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 286 $375.00 $107,250.00
139 36'X21'5" STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE ARCH
(0.249" THICK)
LF 148 $1,600.00 $236,800.00
140 IMPERMEABLE PLASTIC SHEETING SF 2279 $0.20 $455.80
141 CLASS 3 PERMEABLE MATERIAL CY 68 $75.00 $5,100.00
142 DRAINAGE WICK LF 24800 $2.60 $64,480.00
143 DRAINAGE INLET MARKER (STAINLESS STEEL) EA 20 $65.00 $1,300.00
144 GRATED LINE DRAIN LF 222 $80.00 $17,760.00
145 54" CONCRETE FLARED END SECTION EA 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
146 24" PLASTIC FLARED END SECTION EA 4 $500.00 $2,000.00
147 18" CONCRETE FLARED END SECTION EA 1 $900.00 $900.00
148 FILTER INSERT EA 1 $500.00 $500.00
149 UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN EA 14 $1,600.00 $22,400.00
150 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (2T, METHOD A) CY 538 $100.00 $53,800.00
151 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (LIGHT, METHOD B) CY 47 $95.00 $4,465.00
152 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (NO. 1, METHOD B) CY 193 $98.00 $18,914.00
153 CONCRETE (CHANNEL LINING) CY 39 $850.00 $33,150.00
154 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION FABRIC (CLASS 8) SQYD 469 $5.00 $2,345.00
155 FILTER FABRIC (CLASS A) SQYD 3320 $3.00 $9,960.00
156 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) LF 1168 $15.00 $17,520.00
157 CURB RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SF 572 $22.00 $12,584.00
158 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) CY 233 $325.00 $75,725.00
159 MINOR CONCRETE (DRIVEWAY) CY 42 $350.00 $14,700.00
160 MINOR CONCRETE (STAMPED CONCRETE) SF 1350 $2.50 $3,375.00
161 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) CY 358 $230.00 $82,340.00
162 MINOR CONCRETE (TEXTURED PAVING) CY 301 $300.00 $90,300.00
163 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 22 $800.00 $17,600.00
164 MINOR CONCRETE (PERVIOUS) CY 13 $700.00 $9,100.00
165 MISCELLANEOUS IRON AND STEEL LBS 5778 $2.00 $11,556.00
166 MISCELLANEOUS METAL (BRIDGE) LB 2110 $3.00 $6,330.00
167 BRIDGE DECK DRAINAGE SYSTEM LB 7840 $5.00 $39,200.00
Attachment 10 - 5
B1-102
168 TEMPORARY FENCE (TYPE CL-6, WITH SILT
SCREEN)
LF 920 $10.00 $9,200.00
169 CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYPE CL-4) LF 420 $15.00 $6,300.00
170 CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYPE CL-6) LF 3674 $18.00 $66,132.00
171 MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM (STEEL POST) LF 954 $32.00 $30,528.00
172 VEGETATION CONTROL (MINOR CONCRETE) SQYD 55 $50.00 $2,750.00
173 CHAIN LINK RAILING LF 795 $80.00 $63,600.00
174 CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7) LF 418 $96.00 $40,128.00
175 ORNAMENTAL RAILING LF 672 $285.00 $191,520.00
176 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 26A) LF 380 $200.00 $76,000.00
177 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 26A MOD) LF 662 $230.00 $152,260.00
178 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 26R MOD) LF 200 $55.00 $11,000.00
179 SINGLE THRIE BEAM BARRIER (STEEL POST) LF 344 $56.00 $19,264.00
180 CABLE RAILING LF 88 $20.00 $1,760.00
181 TRANSITION RAILING (TYPE WB-31) EA 4 $4,200.00 $16,800.00
182 ALTERNATIVE FLARED TERMINAL SYSTEM EA 10 $2,500.00 $25,000.00
183 ALTERNATIVE CRASH CUSHION SYSTEM EA 2 $14,500.00 $29,000.00
184 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 732) LF 395 $140.00 $55,300.00
185 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 732A) LF 636 $120.00 $76,320.00
186 4" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 41963 $0.40 $16,785.20
187 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 6067 $0.60 $3,640.20
188 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 4644 $1.00 $4,644.00
189 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SQFT 4763 $3.00 $14,289.00
190 PAVEMENT MARKER (NON-REFLECTIVE) EA 591 $1.50 $886.50
191 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETRO REFLECTIVE) EA 1103 $3.50 $3,860.50
192 MAINTAIN EXISTING TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM ELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
193 SIGNAL AND LIGHTING (TEMPORARY) LS 1 $125,000.00 $125,000.00
194 SIGNAL AND LIGHTING (LOCATION 1) LS 1 $130,000.00 $130,000.00
195 SIGNAL AND LIGHTING (LOCATION 2) LS 1 $120,000.00 $120,000.00
196 LIGHTING (CITY STREET) LS 1 $105,000.00 $105,000.00
197 BRIDGE LIGHTING LS 1 $95,000.00 $95,000.00
198 TEMPORARY LIGHTING LS 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
199 SIGNAL INTERCONNECT LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
200 4" CONDUIT (TYPE 3) LF 1160 $6.00 $6,960.00
201 MODIFY MICROWAVE VEHICLE DETECTION
SYSTEM
LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
202 MODIFY WIRELESS DATA COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM
LS 1 $750.00 $750.00
203 MODIFY CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
204 MODIFY SIGNAL (CITY LOCATION 1) LS 1 $2,200.00 $2,200.00
205 MODIFY SIGNAL (CITY LOCATION 2) LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
206 MODIFY LIGHTING LS 1 $83,000.00 $83,000.00
207 NO. 5 PULL BOX EA 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00
Attachment 10 - 6
B1-103
208 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $1,476,152.00 $1,476,152.00
Bid
Total
$16,572,129.84
BID TOTAL: $16,572,129.84
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in compliance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the
documents made a part of this Contract.
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the
Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the
performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and
conclusive.
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following
documents, all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, and if not attached, as if hereto
attached:
1. Notice to Bidders and information for bidders.
2. Standard Specifications, Engineering Standards, Special Provisions, and any Addenda.
2. Accepted Bid.
4. Public Contract code Section 10285.1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Declaration.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds.
9. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV, CONFLICTS: It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should
there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this
instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid
conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date
first above written.
ATTEST CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
City Clerk Jan Howell Marx, City Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
By:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
James H. Roberts, President
Attachment 10 - 7
B1-104
1
FHWA-1273 -- Revised May 1, 2012
REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS
FEDERAL-AID CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
I. General
II. Nondiscrimination
III. Nonsegregated Facilities
IV. Davis-Bacon and Related Act Provisions
V. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
Provisions
VI. Subletting or Assigning the Contract
VII. Safety: Accident Prevention
VIII. False Statements Concerning Highway Projects
IX. Implementation of Clean Air Act and Federal Water
Pollution Control Act
X. Compliance with Governmentwide Suspension and
Debarment Requirements
XI. Certification Regarding Use of Contract Funds for
Lobbying
ATTACHMENTS
A. Employment and Materials Preference for Appalachian
Development Highway System or Appalachian Local Access
Road Contracts (included in Appalachian contracts only)
I. GENERAL
1. Form FHWA-1273 must be physically incorporated in each
construction contract funded under Title 23 (excluding
emergency contracts solely intended for debris removal). The
contractor (or subcontractor) must insert this form in each
subcontract and further require its inclusion in all lower tier
subcontracts (excluding purchase orders, rental agreements
and other agreements for supplies or services).
The applicable requirements of Form FHWA-1273 are
incorporated by reference for work done under any purchase
order, rental agreement or agreement for other services. The
prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any
subcontractor, lower-tier subcontractor or service provider.
Form FHWA-1273 must be included in all Federal-aid design-
build contracts, in all subcontracts and in lower tier
subcontracts (excluding subcontracts for design services,
purchase orders, rental agreements and other agreements for
supplies or services). The design-builder shall be responsible
for compliance by any subcontractor, lower-tier subcontractor
or service provider.
Contracting agencies may reference Form FHWA-1273 in bid
proposal or request for proposal documents, however, the
Form FHWA-1273 must be physically incorporated (not
referenced) in all contracts, subcontracts and lower-tier
subcontracts (excluding purchase orders, rental agreements
and other agreements for supplies or services related to a
construction contract).
2. Subject to the applicability criteria noted in the following
sections, these contract provisions shall apply to all work
performed on the contract by the contractor's own organization
and with the assistance of workers under the contractor's
immediate superintendence and to all work performed on the
contract by piecework, station work, or by subcontract.
3. A breach of any of the stipulations contained in these
Required Contract Provisions may be sufficient grounds for
withholding of progress payments, withholding of final
payment, termination of the contract, suspension / debarment
or any other action determined to be appropriate by the
contracting agency and FHWA.
4. Selection of Labor: During the performance of this contract,
the contractor shall not use convict labor for any purpose
within the limits of a construction project on a Federal-aid
highway unless it is labor performed by convicts who are on
parole, supervised release, or probation. The term Federal-aid
highway does not include roadways functionally classified as
local roads or rural minor collectors.
II. NONDISCRIMINATION
The provisions of this section related to 23 CFR Part 230 are
applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all
related construction subcontracts of $10,000 or more. The
provisions of 23 CFR Part 230 are not applicable to material
supply, engineering, or architectural service contracts.
In addition, the contractor and all subcontractors must comply
with the following policies: Executive Order 11246, 41 CFR 60,
29 CFR 1625-1627, Title 23 USC Section 140, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 USC 794), Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and related
regulations including 49 CFR Parts 21, 26 and 27; and 23 CFR
Parts 200, 230, and 633.
The contractor and all subcontractors must comply with: the
requirements of the Equal Opportunity Clause in 41 CFR 60-
1.4(b) and, for all construction contracts exceeding $10,000,
the Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Construction Contract Specifications in 41 CFR 60-4.3.
Note: The U.S. Department of Labor has exclusive authority to
determine compliance with Executive Order 11246 and the
policies of the Secretary of Labor including 41 CFR 60, and 29
CFR 1625-1627. The contracting agency and the FHWA have
the authority and the responsibility to ensure compliance with
Title 23 USC Section 140, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 USC 794), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and related regulations including 49 CFR
Parts 21, 26 and 27; and 23 CFR Parts 200, 230, and 633.
The following provision is adopted from 23 CFR 230, Appendix
A, with appropriate revisions to conform to the U.S.
Department of Labor (US DOL) and FHWA requirements.
1. Equal Employment Opportunity: Equal employment
opportunity (EEO) requirements not to discriminate and to take
affirmative action to assure equal opportunity as set forth
under laws, executive orders, rules, regulations (28 CFR 35,
29 CFR 1630, 29 CFR 1625-1627, 41 CFR 60 and 49 CFR 27)
and orders of the Secretary of Labor as modified by the
provisions prescribed herein, and imposed pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 140 shall constitute the EEO and specific affirmative
action standards for the contractor's project activities under
Attachment 10 - 8
B1-105
2
this contract. The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) set forth under 28 CFR
35 and 29 CFR 1630 are incorporated by reference in this
contract. In the execution of this contract, the contractor
agrees to comply with the following minimum specific
requirement activities of EEO:
a. The contractor will work with the contracting agency and
the Federal Government to ensure that it has made every
good faith effort to provide equal opportunity with respect to all
of its terms and conditions of employment and in their review
of activities under the contract.
b. The contractor will accept as its operating policy the
following statement:
"It is the policy of this Company to assure that applicants
are employed, and that employees are treated during
employment, without regard to their race, religion, sex, color,
national origin, age or disability. Such action shall include:
employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or
recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or
other forms of compensation; and selection for training,
including apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship, and/or on-the-
job training."
2. EEO Officer: The contractor will designate and make
known to the contracting officers an EEO Officer who will have
the responsibility for and must be capable of effectively
administering and promoting an active EEO program and who
must be assigned adequate authority and responsibility to do
so.
3. Dissemination of Policy: All members of the contractor's
staff who are authorized to hire, supervise, promote, and
discharge employees, or who recommend such action, or who
are substantially involved in such action, will be made fully
cognizant of, and will implement, the contractor's EEO policy
and contractual responsibilities to provide EEO in each grade
and classification of employment. To ensure that the above
agreement will be met, the following actions will be taken as a
minimum:
a. Periodic meetings of supervisory and personnel office
employees will be conducted before the start of work and then
not less often than once every six months, at which time the
contractor's EEO policy and its implementation will be
reviewed and explained. The meetings will be conducted by
the EEO Officer.
b. All new supervisory or personnel office employees will be
given a thorough indoctrination by the EEO Officer, covering
all major aspects of the contractor's EEO obligations within
thirty days following their reporting for duty with the contractor.
c. All personnel who are engaged in direct recruitment for
the project will be instructed by the EEO Officer in the
contractor's procedures for locating and hiring minorities and
women.
d. Notices and posters setting forth the contractor's EEO
policy will be placed in areas readily accessible to employees,
applicants for employment and potential employees.
e. The contractor's EEO policy and the procedures to
implement such policy will be brought to the attention of
employees by means of meetings, employee handbooks, or
other appropriate means.
4. Recruitment: When advertising for employees, the
contractor will include in all advertisements for employees the
notation: "An Equal Opportunity Employer." All such
advertisements will be placed in publications having a large
circulation among minorities and women in the area from
which the project work force would normally be derived.
a. The contractor will, unless precluded by a valid
bargaining agreement, conduct systematic and direct
recruitment through public and private employee referral
sources likely to yield qualified minorities and women. To
meet this requirement, the contractor will identify sources of
potential minority group employees, and establish with such
identified sources procedures whereby minority and women
applicants may be referred to the contractor for employment
consideration.
b. In the event the contractor has a valid bargaining
agreement providing for exclusive hiring hall referrals, the
contractor is expected to observe the provisions of that
agreement to the extent that the system meets the contractor's
compliance with EEO contract provisions. Where
implementation of such an agreement has the effect of
discriminating against minorities or women, or obligates the
contractor to do the same, such implementation violates
Federal nondiscrimination provisions.
c. The contractor will encourage its present employees to
refer minorities and women as applicants for employment.
Information and procedures with regard to referring such
applicants will be discussed with employees.
5. Personnel Actions: Wages, working conditions, and
employee benefits shall be established and administered, and
personnel actions of every type, including hiring, upgrading,
promotion, transfer, demotion, layoff, and termination, shall be
taken without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age or disability. The following procedures shall be
followed:
a. The contractor will conduct periodic inspections of project
sites to insure that working conditions and employee facilities
do not indicate discriminatory treatment of project site
personnel.
b. The contractor will periodically evaluate the spread of
wages paid within each classification to determine any
evidence of discriminatory wage practices.
c. The contractor will periodically review selected personnel
actions in depth to determine whether there is evidence of
discrimination. Where evidence is found, the contractor will
promptly take corrective action. If the review indicates that the
discrimination may extend beyond the actions reviewed, such
corrective action shall include all affected persons.
d. The contractor will promptly investigate all complaints of
alleged discrimination made to the contractor in connection
with its obligations under this contract, will attempt to resolve
such complaints, and will take appropriate corrective action
within a reasonable time. If the investigation indicates that the
discrimination may affect persons other than the complainant,
such corrective action shall include such other persons. Upon
completion of each investigation, the contractor will inform
every complainant of all of their avenues of appeal.
6. Training and Promotion:
a. The contractor will assist in locating, qualifying, and
increasing the skills of minorities and women who are
Attachment 10 - 9
B1-106
3
applicants for employment or current employees. Such efforts
should be aimed at developing full journey level status
employees in the type of trade or job classification involved.
b. Consistent with the contractor's work force requirements
and as permissible under Federal and State regulations, the
contractor shall make full use of training programs, i.e.,
apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs for the
geographical area of contract performance. In the event a
special provision for training is provided under this contract,
this subparagraph will be superseded as indicated in the
special provision. The contracting agency may reserve
training positions for persons who receive welfare assistance
in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 140(a).
c. The contractor will advise employees and applicants for
employment of available training programs and entrance
requirements for each.
d. The contractor will periodically review the training and
promotion potential of employees who are minorities and
women and will encourage eligible employees to apply for
such training and promotion.
7. Unions: If the contractor relies in whole or in part upon
unions as a source of employees, the contractor will use good
faith efforts to obtain the cooperation of such unions to
increase opportunities for minorities and women. Actions by
the contractor, either directly or through a contractor's
association acting as agent, will include the procedures set
forth below:
a. The contractor will use good faith efforts to develop, in
cooperation with the unions, joint training programs aimed
toward qualifying more minorities and women for membership
in the unions and increasing the skills of minorities and women
so that they may qualify for higher paying employment.
b. The contractor will use good faith efforts to incorporate an
EEO clause into each union agreement to the end that such
union will be contractually bound to refer applicants without
regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or
disability.
c. The contractor is to obtain information as to the referral
practices and policies of the labor union except that to the
extent such information is within the exclusive possession of
the labor union and such labor union refuses to furnish such
information to the contractor, the contractor shall so certify to
the contracting agency and shall set forth what efforts have
been made to obtain such information.
d. In the event the union is unable to provide the contractor
with a reasonable flow of referrals within the time limit set forth
in the collective bargaining agreement, the contractor will,
through independent recruitment efforts, fill the employment
vacancies without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age or disability; making full efforts to obtain qualified
and/or qualifiable minorities and women. The failure of a union
to provide sufficient referrals (even though it is obligated to
provide exclusive referrals under the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement) does not relieve the contractor from the
requirements of this paragraph. In the event the union referral
practice prevents the contractor from meeting the obligations
pursuant to Executive Order 11246, as amended, and these
special provisions, such contractor shall immediately notify the
contracting agency.
8. Reasonable Accommodation for Applicants /
Employees with Disabilities: The contractor must be familiar
with the requirements for and comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and all rules and regulations established there
under. Employers must provide reasonable accommodation in
all employment activities unless to do so would cause an
undue hardship.
9. Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials
and Leasing of Equipment: The contractor shall not
discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age or disability in the selection and retention
of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and
leases of equipment. The contractor shall take all necessary
and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the
administration of this contract.
a. The contractor shall notify all potential subcontractors and
suppliers and lessors of their EEO obligations under this
contract.
b. The contractor will use good faith efforts to ensure
subcontractor compliance with their EEO obligations.
10. Assurance Required by 49 CFR 26.13(b):
a. The requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 and the State
DOT’s U.S. DOT-approved DBE program are incorporated by
reference.
b. The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the
performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out
applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and
administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the
contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach
of this contract, which may result in the termination of this
contract or such other remedy as the contracting agency
deems appropriate.
11. Records and Reports: The contractor shall keep such
records as necessary to document compliance with the EEO
requirements. Such records shall be retained for a period of
three years following the date of the final payment to the
contractor for all contract work and shall be available at
reasonable times and places for inspection by authorized
representatives of the contracting agency and the FHWA.
a. The records kept by the contractor shall document the
following:
(1) The number and work hours of minority and non-
minority group members and women employed in each work
classification on the project;
(2) The progress and efforts being made in cooperation
with unions, when applicable, to increase employment
opportunities for minorities and women; and
(3) The progress and efforts being made in locating, hiring,
training, qualifying, and upgrading minorities and women;
b. The contractors and subcontractors will submit an annual
report to the contracting agency each July for the duration of
the project, indicating the number of minority, women, and
non-minority group employees currently engaged in each work
classification required by the contract work. This information is
to be reported on Form FHWA-1391. The staffing data should
represent the project work force on board in all or any part of
the last payroll period preceding the end of July. If on-the-job
training is being required by special provision, the contractor
Attachment 10 - 10
B1-107
4
will be required to collect and report training data. The
employment data should reflect the work force on board during
all or any part of the last payroll period preceding the end of
July.
III. NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction
contracts and to all related construction subcontracts of
$10,000 or more.
The contractor must ensure that facilities provided for
employees are provided in such a manner that segregation on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin cannot
result. The contractor may neither require such segregated
use by written or oral policies nor tolerate such use by
employee custom. The contractor's obligation extends further
to ensure that its employees are not assigned to perform their
services at any location, under the contractor's control, where
the facilities are segregated. The term "facilities" includes
waiting rooms, work areas, restaurants and other eating areas,
time clocks, restrooms, washrooms, locker rooms, and other
storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains,
recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing
provided for employees. The contractor shall provide separate
or single-user restrooms and necessary dressing or sleeping
areas to assure privacy between sexes.
IV. DAVIS-BACON AND RELATED ACT PROVISIONS
This section is applicable to all Federal-aid construction
projects exceeding $2,000 and to all related subcontracts and
lower-tier subcontracts (regardless of subcontract size). The
requirements apply to all projects located within the right-of-
way of a roadway that is functionally classified as Federal-aid
highway. This excludes roadways functionally classified as
local roads or rural minor collectors, which are exempt.
Contracting agencies may elect to apply these requirements to
other projects.
The following provisions are from the U.S. Department of
Labor regulations in 29 CFR 5.5 “Contract provisions and
related matters” with minor revisions to conform to the FHWA-
1273 format and FHWA program requirements.
1. Minimum wages
a. All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon
the site of the work, will be paid unconditionally and not less
often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or
rebate on any account (except such payroll deductions as are
permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor
under the Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3)), the full amount of
wages and bona fide fringe benefits (or cash equivalents
thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less
than those contained in the wage determination of the
Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may
be alleged to exist between the contractor and such laborers
and mechanics.
Contributions made or costs reasonably anticipated for bona
fide fringe benefits under section 1(b)(2) of the Davis-Bacon
Act on behalf of laborers or mechanics are considered wages
paid to such laborers or mechanics, subject to the provisions
of paragraph 1.d. of this section; also, regular contributions
made or costs incurred for more than a weekly period (but not
less often than quarterly) under plans, funds, or programs
which cover the particular weekly period, are deemed to be
constructively made or incurred during such weekly period.
Such laborers and mechanics shall be paid the appropriate
wage rate and fringe benefits on the wage determination for
the classification of work actually performed, without regard to
skill, except as provided in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(4). Laborers or
mechanics performing work in more than one classification
may be compensated at the rate specified for each
classification for the time actually worked therein: Provided,
That the employer's payroll records accurately set forth the
time spent in each classification in which work is performed.
The wage determination (including any additional classification
and wage rates conformed under paragraph 1.b. of this
section) and the Davis-Bacon poster (WH–1321) shall be
posted at all times by the contractor and its subcontractors at
the site of the work in a prominent and accessible place where
it can be easily seen by the workers.
b. (1) The contracting officer shall require that any class of
laborers or mechanics, including helpers, which is not listed in
the wage determination and which is to be employed under the
contract shall be classified in conformance with the wage
determination. The contracting officer shall approve an
additional classification and wage rate and fringe benefits
therefore only when the following criteria have been met:
(i) The work to be performed by the classification
requested is not performed by a classification in the wage
determination; and
(ii) The classification is utilized in the area by the
construction industry; and
(iii) The proposed wage rate, including any bona fide
fringe benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to the
wage rates contained in the wage determination.
(2) If the contractor and the laborers and mechanics to be
employed in the classification (if known), or their
representatives, and the contracting officer agree on the
classification and wage rate (including the amount
designated for fringe benefits where appropriate), a report of
the action taken shall be sent by the contracting officer to the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment
Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, DC 20210. The Administrator, or an authorized
representative, will approve, modify, or disapprove every
additional classification action within 30 days of receipt and
so advise the contracting officer or will notify the contracting
officer within the 30-day period that additional time is
necessary.
(3) In the event the contractor, the laborers or mechanics
to be employed in the classification or their representatives,
and the contracting officer do not agree on the proposed
classification and wage rate (including the amount
designated for fringe benefits, where appropriate), the
contracting officer shall refer the questions, including the
views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the
contracting officer, to the Wage and Hour Administrator for
determination. The Wage and Hour Administrator, or an
authorized representative, will issue a determination within
30 days of receipt and so advise the contracting officer or
Attachment 10 - 11
B1-108
5
will notify the contracting officer within the 30-day period that
additional time is necessary.
(4) The wage rate (including fringe benefits where
appropriate) determined pursuant to paragraphs 1.b.(2) or
1.b.(3) of this section, shall be paid to all workers performing
work in the classification under this contract from the first
day on which work is performed in the classification.
c. Whenever the minimum wage rate prescribed in the
contract for a class of laborers or mechanics includes a fringe
benefit which is not expressed as an hourly rate, the contractor
shall either pay the benefit as stated in the wage determination
or shall pay another bona fide fringe benefit or an hourly cash
equivalent thereof.
d. If the contractor does not make payments to a trustee or
other third person, the contractor may consider as part of the
wages of any laborer or mechanic the amount of any costs
reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits
under a plan or program, Provided, That the Secretary of
Labor has found, upon the written request of the contractor,
that the applicable standards of the Davis-Bacon Act have
been met. The Secretary of Labor may require the contractor
to set aside in a separate account assets for the meeting of
obligations under the plan or program.
2. Withholding
The contracting agency shall upon its own action or upon
written request of an authorized representative of the
Department of Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld from
the contractor under this contract, or any other Federal
contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally-
assisted contract subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements, which is held by the same prime contractor, so
much of the accrued payments or advances as may be
considered necessary to pay laborers and mechanics,
including apprentices, trainees, and helpers, employed by the
contractor or any subcontractor the full amount of wages
required by the contract. In the event of failure to pay any
laborer or mechanic, including any apprentice, trainee, or
helper, employed or working on the site of the work, all or part
of the wages required by the contract, the contracting agency
may, after written notice to the contractor, take such action as
may be necessary to cause the suspension of any further
payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such violations
have ceased.
3. Payrolls and basic records
a. Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be
maintained by the contractor during the course of the work and
preserved for a period of three years thereafter for all laborers
and mechanics working at the site of the work. Such records
shall contain the name, address, and social security number of
each such worker, his or her correct classification, hourly rates
of wages paid (including rates of contributions or costs
anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or cash equivalents
thereof of the types described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the
Davis-Bacon Act), daily and weekly number of hours worked,
deductions made and actual wages paid. Whenever the
Secretary of Labor has found under 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(iv) that
the wages of any laborer or mechanic include the amount of
any costs reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a
plan or program described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Davis-
Bacon Act, the contractor shall maintain records which show
that the commitment to provide such benefits is enforceable,
that the plan or program is financially responsible, and that the
plan or program has been communicated in writing to the
laborers or mechanics affected, and records which show the
costs anticipated or the actual cost incurred in providing such
benefits. Contractors employing apprentices or trainees under
approved programs shall maintain written evidence of the
registration of apprenticeship programs and certification of
trainee programs, the registration of the apprentices and
trainees, and the ratios and wage rates prescribed in the
applicable programs.
b. (1) The contractor shall submit weekly for each week in
which any contract work is performed a copy of all payrolls to
the contracting agency. The payrolls submitted shall set out
accurately and completely all of the information required to be
maintained under 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(i), except that full social
security numbers and home addresses shall not be included
on weekly transmittals. Instead the payrolls shall only need to
include an individually identifying number for each employee (
e.g. , the last four digits of the employee's social security
number). The required weekly payroll information may be
submitted in any form desired. Optional Form WH–347 is
available for this purpose from the Wage and Hour Division
Web site at http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/forms/wh347instr.htm
or its successor site. The prime contractor is responsible for
the submission of copies of payrolls by all subcontractors.
Contractors and subcontractors shall maintain the full social
security number and current address of each covered worker,
and shall provide them upon request to the contracting agency
for transmission to the State DOT, the FHWA or the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of Labor for purposes of an
investigation or audit of compliance with prevailing wage
requirements. It is not a violation of this section for a prime
contractor to require a subcontractor to provide addresses and
social security numbers to the prime contractor for its own
records, without weekly submission to the contracting agency..
(2) Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a
“Statement of Compliance,” signed by the contractor or
subcontractor or his or her agent who pays or supervises the
payment of the persons employed under the contract and shall
certify the following:
(i) That the payroll for the payroll period contains the
information required to be provided under §5.5 (a)(3)(ii) of
Regulations, 29 CFR part 5, the appropriate information is
being maintained under §5.5 (a)(3)(i) of Regulations, 29
CFR part 5, and that such information is correct and
complete;
(ii) That each laborer or mechanic (including each
helper, apprentice, and trainee) employed on the contract
during the payroll period has been paid the full weekly
wages earned, without rebate, either directly or indirectly,
and that no deductions have been made either directly or
indirectly from the full wages earned, other than
permissible deductions as set forth in Regulations, 29 CFR
part 3;
(iii) That each laborer or mechanic has been paid not
less than the applicable wage rates and fringe benefits or
cash equivalents for the classification of work performed,
as specified in the applicable wage determination
incorporated into the contract.
Attachment 10 - 12
B1-109
6
(3) The weekly submission of a properly executed
certification set forth on the reverse side of Optional Form
WH–347 shall satisfy the requirement for submission of the
“Statement of Compliance” required by paragraph 3.b.(2) of
this section.
(4) The falsification of any of the above certifications may
subject the contractor or subcontractor to civil or criminal
prosecution under section 1001 of title 18 and section 231 of
title 31 of the United States Code.
c. The contractor or subcontractor shall make the records
required under paragraph 3.a. of this section available for
inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized
representatives of the contracting agency, the State DOT, the
FHWA, or the Department of Labor, and shall permit such
representatives to interview employees during working hours
on the job. If the contractor or subcontractor fails to submit the
required records or to make them available, the FHWA may,
after written notice to the contractor, the contracting agency or
the State DOT, take such action as may be necessary to
cause the suspension of any further payment, advance, or
guarantee of funds. Furthermore, failure to submit the required
records upon request or to make such records available may
be grounds for debarment action pursuant to 29 CFR 5.12.
4. Apprentices and trainees
a. Apprentices (programs of the USDOL).
Apprentices will be permitted to work at less than the
predetermined rate for the work they performed when they are
employed pursuant to and individually registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services, or with
a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office, or if a
person is employed in his or her first 90 days of probationary
employment as an apprentice in such an apprenticeship
program, who is not individually registered in the program, but
who has been certified by the Office of Apprenticeship
Training, Employer and Labor Services or a State
Apprenticeship Agency (where appropriate) to be eligible for
probationary employment as an apprentice.
The allowable ratio of apprentices to journeymen on the job
site in any craft classification shall not be greater than the ratio
permitted to the contractor as to the entire work force under
the registered program. Any worker listed on a payroll at an
apprentice wage rate, who is not registered or otherwise
employed as stated above, shall be paid not less than the
applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the
classification of work actually performed. In addition, any
apprentice performing work on the job site in excess of the
ratio permitted under the registered program shall be paid not
less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination
for the work actually performed. Where a contractor is
performing construction on a project in a locality other than
that in which its program is registered, the ratios and wage
rates (expressed in percentages of the journeyman's hourly
rate) specified in the contractor's or subcontractor's registered
program shall be observed.
Every apprentice must be paid at not less than the rate
specified in the registered program for the apprentice's level of
progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeymen hourly
rate specified in the applicable wage determination.
Apprentices shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with
the provisions of the apprenticeship program. If the
apprenticeship program does not specify fringe benefits,
apprentices must be paid the full amount of fringe benefits
listed on the wage determination for the applicable
classification. If the Administrator determines that a different
practice prevails for the applicable apprentice classification,
fringes shall be paid in accordance with that determination.
In the event the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer
and Labor Services, or a State Apprenticeship Agency
recognized by the Office, withdraws approval of an
apprenticeship program, the contractor will no longer be
permitted to utilize apprentices at less than the applicable
predetermined rate for the work performed until an acceptable
program is approved.
b. Trainees (programs of the USDOL).
Except as provided in 29 CFR 5.16, trainees will not be
permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate for the
work performed unless they are employed pursuant to and
individually registered in a program which has received prior
approval, evidenced by formal certification by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.
The ratio of trainees to journeymen on the job site shall not be
greater than permitted under the plan approved by the
Employment and Training Administration.
Every trainee must be paid at not less than the rate specified
in the approved program for the trainee's level of progress,
expressed as a percentage of the journeyman hourly rate
specified in the applicable wage determination. Trainees shall
be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the
trainee program. If the trainee program does not mention
fringe benefits, trainees shall be paid the full amount of fringe
benefits listed on the wage determination unless the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division determines that
there is an apprenticeship program associated with the
corresponding journeyman wage rate on the wage
determination which provides for less than full fringe benefits
for apprentices. Any employee listed on the payroll at a trainee
rate who is not registered and participating in a training plan
approved by the Employment and Training Administration shall
be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage
determination for the classification of work actually performed.
In addition, any trainee performing work on the job site in
excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program
shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the
wage determination for the work actually performed.
In the event the Employment and Training Administration
withdraws approval of a training program, the contractor will no
longer be permitted to utilize trainees at less than the
applicable predetermined rate for the work performed until an
acceptable program is approved.
c. Equal employment opportunity. The utilization of
apprentices, trainees and journeymen under this part shall be
in conformity with the equal employment opportunity
requirements of Executive Order 11246, as amended, and 29
CFR part 30.
Attachment 10 - 13
B1-110
7
d. Apprentices and Trainees (programs of the U.S. DOT).
Apprentices and trainees working under apprenticeship and
skill training programs which have been certified by the
Secretary of Transportation as promoting EEO in connection
with Federal-aid highway construction programs are not
subject to the requirements of paragraph 4 of this Section IV.
The straight time hourly wage rates for apprentices and
trainees under such programs will be established by the
particular programs. The ratio of apprentices and trainees to
journeymen shall not be greater than permitted by the terms of
the particular program.
5. Compliance with Copeland Act requirements. The
contractor shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR part
3, which are incorporated by reference in this contract.
6. Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor shall insert
Form FHWA-1273 in any subcontracts and also require the
subcontractors to include Form FHWA-1273 in any lower tier
subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for the
compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor
with all the contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5.
7. Contract termination: debarment. A breach of the
contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5 may be grounds for termination
of the contract, and for debarment as a contractor and a
subcontractor as provided in 29 CFR 5.12.
8. Compliance with Davis-Bacon and Related Act
requirements. All rulings and interpretations of the Davis-
Bacon and Related Acts contained in 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5
are herein incorporated by reference in this contract.
9. Disputes concerning labor standards. Disputes arising
out of the labor standards provisions of this contract shall not
be subject to the general disputes clause of this contract. Such
disputes shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures
of the Department of Labor set forth in 29 CFR parts 5, 6, and
7. Disputes within the meaning of this clause include disputes
between the contractor (or any of its subcontractors) and the
contracting agency, the U.S. Department of Labor, or the
employees or their representatives.
10. Certification of eligibility.
a. By entering into this contract, the contractor certifies that
neither it (nor he or she) nor any person or firm who has an
interest in the contractor's firm is a person or firm ineligible to
be awarded Government contracts by virtue of section 3(a) of
the Davis-Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).
b. No part of this contract shall be subcontracted to any person
or firm ineligible for award of a Government contract by virtue
of section 3(a) of the Davis-Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).
c. The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the
U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
V. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY
STANDARDS ACT
The following clauses apply to any Federal-aid construction
contract in an amount in excess of $100,000 and subject to the
overtime provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act. These clauses shall be inserted in addition to
the clauses required by 29 CFR 5.5(a) or 29 CFR 4.6. As
used in this paragraph, the terms laborers and mechanics
include watchmen and guards.
1. Overtime requirements. No contractor or subcontractor
contracting for any part of the contract work which may require
or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall
require or permit any such laborer or mechanic in any
workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to
work in excess of forty hours in such workweek unless such
laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours in such workweek.
2. Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated
damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth
in paragraph (1.) of this section, the contractor and any
subcontractor responsible therefor shall be liable for the
unpaid wages. In addition, such contractor and subcontractor
shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work done
under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such
District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such
liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each
individual laborer or mechanic, including watchmen and
guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in
paragraph (1.) of this section, in the sum of $10 for each
calendar day on which such individual was required or
permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty
hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the
clause set forth in paragraph (1.) of this section.
3. Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages.
The FHWA or the contacting agency shall upon its own action
or upon written request of an authorized representative of the
Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld, from
any moneys payable on account of work performed by the
contractor or subcontractor under any such contract or any
other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any
other federally-assisted contract subject to the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act, which is held by the same
prime contractor, such sums as may be determined to be
necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such contractor or
subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as
provided in the clause set forth in paragraph (2.) of this
section.
4. Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor shall insert
in any subcontracts the clauses set forth in paragraph (1.)
through (4.) of this section and also a clause requiring the
subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier
subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for
compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor
with the clauses set forth in paragraphs (1.) through (4.) of this
section.
Attachment 10 - 14
B1-111
8
VI. SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING THE CONTRACT
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction
contracts on the National Highway System.
1. The contractor shall perform with its own organization
contract work amounting to not less than 30 percent (or a
greater percentage if specified elsewhere in the contract) of
the total original contract price, excluding any specialty items
designated by the contracting agency. Specialty items may be
performed by subcontract and the amount of any such
specialty items performed may be deducted from the total
original contract price before computing the amount of work
required to be performed by the contractor's own organization
(23 CFR 635.116).
a. The term “perform work with its own organization” refers
to workers employed or leased by the prime contractor, and
equipment owned or rented by the prime contractor, with or
without operators. Such term does not include employees or
equipment of a subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor,
agents of the prime contractor, or any other assignees. The
term may include payments for the costs of hiring leased
employees from an employee leasing firm meeting all relevant
Federal and State regulatory requirements. Leased
employees may only be included in this term if the prime
contractor meets all of the following conditions:
(1) the prime contractor maintains control over the
supervision of the day-to-day activities of the leased
employees;
(2) the prime contractor remains responsible for the quality
of the work of the leased employees;
(3) the prime contractor retains all power to accept or
exclude individual employees from work on the project; and
(4) the prime contractor remains ultimately responsible for
the payment of predetermined minimum wages, the
submission of payrolls, statements of compliance and all
other Federal regulatory requirements.
b. "Specialty Items" shall be construed to be limited to work
that requires highly specialized knowledge, abilities, or
equipment not ordinarily available in the type of contracting
organizations qualified and expected to bid or propose on the
contract as a whole and in general are to be limited to minor
components of the overall contract.
2. The contract amount upon which the requirements set forth
in paragraph (1) of Section VI is computed includes the cost of
material and manufactured products which are to be
purchased or produced by the contractor under the contract
provisions.
3. The contractor shall furnish (a) a competent superintendent
or supervisor who is employed by the firm, has full authority to
direct performance of the work in accordance with the contract
requirements, and is in charge of all construction operations
(regardless of who performs the work) and (b) such other of its
own organizational resources (supervision, management, and
engineering services) as the contracting officer determines is
necessary to assure the performance of the contract.
4. No portion of the contract shall be sublet, assigned or
otherwise disposed of except with the written consent of the
contracting officer, or authorized representative, and such
consent when given shall not be construed to relieve the
contractor of any responsibility for the fulfillment of the
contract. Written consent will be given only after the
contracting agency has assured that each subcontract is
evidenced in writing and that it contains all pertinent provisions
and requirements of the prime contract.
5. The 30% self-performance requirement of paragraph (1) is
not applicable to design-build contracts; however, contracting
agencies may establish their own self-performance
requirements.
VII. SAFETY: ACCIDENT PREVENTION
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid
construction contracts and to all related subcontracts.
1. In the performance of this contract the contractor shall
comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws
governing safety, health, and sanitation (23 CFR 635). The
contractor shall provide all safeguards, safety devices and
protective equipment and take any other needed actions as it
determines, or as the contracting officer may determine, to be
reasonably necessary to protect the life and health of
employees on the job and the safety of the public and to
protect property in connection with the performance of the
work covered by the contract.
2. It is a condition of this contract, and shall be made a
condition of each subcontract, which the contractor enters into
pursuant to this contract, that the contractor and any
subcontractor shall not permit any employee, in performance
of the contract, to work in surroundings or under conditions
which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous to his/her
health or safety, as determined under construction safety and
health standards (29 CFR 1926) promulgated by the Secretary
of Labor, in accordance with Section 107 of the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704).
3. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.3, it is a condition of this contract
that the Secretary of Labor or authorized representative
thereof, shall have right of entry to any site of contract
performance to inspect or investigate the matter of compliance
with the construction safety and health standards and to carry
out the duties of the Secretary under Section 107 of the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C.3704).
VIII. FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY
PROJECTS
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid
construction contracts and to all related subcontracts.
In order to assure high quality and durable construction in
conformity with approved plans and specifications and a high
degree of reliability on statements and representations made
by engineers, contractors, suppliers, and workers on Federal-
aid highway projects, it is essential that all persons concerned
with the project perform their functions as carefully, thoroughly,
and honestly as possible. Willful falsification, distortion, or
misrepresentation with respect to any facts related to the
project is a violation of Federal law. To prevent any
misunderstanding regarding the seriousness of these and
similar acts, Form FHWA-1022 shall be posted on each
Federal-aid highway project (23 CFR 635) in one or more
places where it is readily available to all persons concerned
with the project:
18 U.S.C. 1020 reads as follows:
Attachment 10 - 15
B1-112
9
"Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United
States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a
person, association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any
false statement, false representation, or false report as to the
character, quality, quantity, or cost of the material used or to
be used, or the quantity or quality of the work performed or to
be performed, or the cost thereof in connection with the
submission of plans, maps, specifications, contracts, or costs
of construction on any highway or related project submitted for
approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false
representation, false report or false claim with respect to the
character, quality, quantity, or cost of any work performed or to
be performed, or materials furnished or to be furnished, in
connection with the construction of any highway or related
project approved by the Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false
representation as to material fact in any statement, certificate,
or report submitted pursuant to provisions of the Federal-aid
Roads Act approved July 1, 1916, (39 Stat. 355), as amended
and supplemented;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years or both."
IX. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLEAN AIR ACT AND FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction
contracts and to all related subcontracts.
By submission of this bid/proposal or the execution of this
contract, or subcontract, as appropriate, the bidder, proposer,
Federal-aid construction contractor, or subcontractor, as
appropriate, will be deemed to have stipulated as follows:
1. That any person who is or will be utilized in the
performance of this contract is not prohibited from receiving an
award due to a violation of Section 508 of the Clean Water Act
or Section 306 of the Clean Air Act.
2. That the contractor agrees to include or cause to be
included the requirements of paragraph (1) of this Section X in
every subcontract, and further agrees to take such action as
the contracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing
such requirements.
X. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT,
SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY
EXCLUSION
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction
contracts, design-build contracts, subcontracts, lower-tier
subcontracts, purchase orders, lease agreements, consultant
contracts or any other covered transaction requiring FHWA
approval or that is estimated to cost $25,000 or more – as
defined in 2 CFR Parts 180 and 1200.
1. Instructions for Certification – First Tier Participants:
a. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective
first tier participant is providing the certification set out below.
b. The inability of a person to provide the certification set out
below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this
covered transaction. The prospective first tier participant shall
submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification
set out below. The certification or explanation will be
considered in connection with the department or agency's
determination whether to enter into this transaction. However,
failure of the prospective first tier participant to furnish a
certification or an explanation shall disqualify such a person
from participation in this transaction.
c. The certification in this clause is a material representation
of fact upon which reliance was placed when the contracting
agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later
determined that the prospective participant knowingly rendered
an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies
available to the Federal Government, the contracting agency
may terminate this transaction for cause of default.
d. The prospective first tier participant shall provide
immediate written notice to the contracting agency to whom
this proposal is submitted if any time the prospective first tier
participant learns that its certification was erroneous when
submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed
circumstances.
e. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred,"
"suspended," "ineligible," "participant," "person," "principal,"
and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, are defined
in 2 CFR Parts 180 and 1200. “First Tier Covered
Transactions” refers to any covered transaction between a
grantee or subgrantee of Federal funds and a participant (such
as the prime or general contract). “Lower Tier Covered
Transactions” refers to any covered transaction under a First
Tier Covered Transaction (such as subcontracts). “First Tier
Participant” refers to the participant who has entered into a
covered transaction with a grantee or subgrantee of Federal
funds (such as the prime or general contractor). “Lower Tier
Participant” refers any participant who has entered into a
covered transaction with a First Tier Participant or other Lower
Tier Participants (such as subcontractors and suppliers).
f. The prospective first tier participant agrees by submitting
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier
covered transaction with a person who is debarred,
suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by
the department or agency entering into this transaction.
g. The prospective first tier participant further agrees by
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled
"Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility
and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions,"
provided by the department or contracting agency, entering
into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower
tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier
covered transactions exceeding the $25,000 threshold.
h. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered
transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it
knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is
responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended,
debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered
transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as
the eligibility of any lower tier prospective participants, each
participant may, but is not required to, check the Excluded
Parties List System website (https://www.epls.gov/), which is
compiled by the General Services Administration.
Attachment 10 - 16
B1-113
10
i. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
require the establishment of a system of records in order to
render in good faith the certification required by this clause.
The knowledge and information of the prospective participant
is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by
a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
j. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph (f) of
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a
person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to
other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause
or default.
* * * * *
2. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion – First Tier
Participants:
a. The prospective first tier participant certifies to the best of
its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
(1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participating in covered transactions by any Federal
department or agency;
(2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this
proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered
against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in
connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing
a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under
a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust
statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving stolen property;
(3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or
local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in
paragraph (a)(2) of this certification; and
(4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this
application/proposal had one or more public transactions
(Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default.
b. Where the prospective participant is unable to certify to
any of the statements in this certification, such prospective
participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
2. Instructions for Certification - Lower Tier Participants:
(Applicable to all subcontracts, purchase orders and other
lower tier transactions requiring prior FHWA approval or
estimated to cost $25,000 or more - 2 CFR Parts 180 and
1200)
a. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective
lower tier is providing the certification set out below.
b. The certification in this clause is a material representation
of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction
was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective
lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous
certification, in addition to other remedies available to the
Federal Government, the department, or agency with which
this transaction originated may pursue available remedies,
including suspension and/or debarment.
c. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide
immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is
submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant
learns that its certification was erroneous by reason of
changed circumstances.
d. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred,"
"suspended," "ineligible," "participant," "person," "principal,"
and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, are defined
in 2 CFR Parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to
which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a
copy of those regulations. “First Tier Covered Transactions”
refers to any covered transaction between a grantee or
subgrantee of Federal funds and a participant (such as the
prime or general contract). “Lower Tier Covered Transactions”
refers to any covered transaction under a First Tier Covered
Transaction (such as subcontracts). “First Tier Participant”
refers to the participant who has entered into a covered
transaction with a grantee or subgrantee of Federal funds
(such as the prime or general contractor). “Lower Tier
Participant” refers any participant who has entered into a
covered transaction with a First Tier Participant or other Lower
Tier Participants (such as subcontractors and suppliers).
e. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by
submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered
transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into
any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is
debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless
authorized by the department or agency with which this
transaction originated.
f. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by
submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled
"Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility
and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction,"
without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and
in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions exceeding
the $25,000 threshold.
g. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered
transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it
knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is
responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended,
debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered
transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as
the eligibility of any lower tier prospective participants, each
participant may, but is not required to, check the Excluded
Parties List System website (https://www.epls.gov/), which is
compiled by the General Services Administration.
h. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
require establishment of a system of records in order to render
in good faith the certification required by this clause. The
knowledge and information of participant is not required to
exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person
in the ordinary course of business dealings.
i. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph e of
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a
person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to
other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
Attachment 10 - 17
B1-114
11
department or agency with which this transaction originated
may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or
debarment.
* * * * *
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier
Participants:
1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by
submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in
covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.
2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this
proposal.
* * * * *
XI. CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF CONTRACT
FUNDS FOR LOBBYING
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction
contracts and to all related subcontracts which exceed
$100,000 (49 CFR 20).
1. The prospective participant certifies, by signing and
submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her
knowledge and belief, that:
a. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of
any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any
Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement,
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement.
b. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have
been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
2. This certification is a material representation of fact upon
which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or
entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite
for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 31
U.S.C. 1352. Any person who fails to file the required
certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than
$10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
3. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting its
bid or proposal that the participant shall require that the
language of this certification be included in all lower tier
subcontracts, which exceed $100,000 and that all such
recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Attachment 10 - 18
B1-115
12
ATTACHMENT A - EMPLOYMENT AND MATERIALS
PREFERENCE FOR APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY SYSTEM OR APPALACHIAN LOCAL ACCESS
ROAD CONTRACTS
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid projects funded
under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.
1. During the performance of this contract, the contractor
undertaking to do work which is, or reasonably may be, done
as on-site work, shall give preference to qualified persons who
regularly reside in the labor area as designated by the DOL
wherein the contract work is situated, or the subregion, or the
Appalachian counties of the State wherein the contract work is
situated, except:
a. To the extent that qualified persons regularly residing in
the area are not available.
b. For the reasonable needs of the contractor to employ
supervisory or specially experienced personnel necessary to
assure an efficient execution of the contract work.
c. For the obligation of the contractor to offer employment to
present or former employees as the result of a lawful collective
bargaining contract, provided that the number of nonresident
persons employed under this subparagraph (1c) shall not
exceed 20 percent of the total number of employees employed
by the contractor on the contract work, except as provided in
subparagraph (4) below.
2. The contractor shall place a job order with the State
Employment Service indicating (a) the classifications of the
laborers, mechanics and other employees required to perform
the contract work, (b) the number of employees required in
each classification, (c) the date on which the participant
estimates such employees will be required, and (d) any other
pertinent information required by the State Employment
Service to complete the job order form. The job order may be
placed with the State Employment Service in writing or by
telephone. If during the course of the contract work, the
information submitted by the contractor in the original job order
is substantially modified, the participant shall promptly notify
the State Employment Service.
3. The contractor shall give full consideration to all qualified
job applicants referred to him by the State Employment
Service. The contractor is not required to grant employment to
any job applicants who, in his opinion, are not qualified to
perform the classification of work required.
4. If, within one week following the placing of a job order by
the contractor with the State Employment Service, the State
Employment Service is unable to refer any qualified job
applicants to the contractor, or less than the number
requested, the State Employment Service will forward a
certificate to the contractor indicating the unavailability of
applicants. Such certificate shall be made a part of the
contractor's permanent project records. Upon receipt of this
certificate, the contractor may employ persons who do not
normally reside in the labor area to fill positions covered by the
certificate, notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (1c)
above.
5. The provisions of 23 CFR 633.207(e) allow the
contracting agency to provide a contractual preference for the
use of mineral resource materials native to the Appalachian
region.
6. The contractor shall include the provisions of Sections 1
through 4 of this Attachment A in every subcontract for work
which is, or reasonably may be, done as on-site work.
Attachment 10 - 19
B1-116
179 Cross Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-4472 Fax (805) 781-1291
www.slorta.org
The Regional Transit Authority is a Joint Powers Agency serving residents and visitors of:
Arroyo Grande Atascadero Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo and The County of San Luis Obispo
September 15, 2014
Re: Proposal to Increase Runabout Fares
Dear Runabout Rider:
At its September 10th meeting, the RTA Board of Directors asked me to conduct a series of public outreach
meetings to obtain input on RTA’s proposal to increase fares on the Runabout service. It is never an easy
decision to consider raising fares, especially on a program that serves so many of our vulnerable
community members. However, since the previous $0.25 Runabout fare increase in 2010, the Runabout
service levels have increased 57% and the annual cost to provide Runabout service is now equal to that
required to operate the fixed-route services – even though RTA’s fixed-route service carries roughly 15
times the passengers that Runabout carries. I have attached a Fact Sheet that provides more details about
why RTA is considering a new increased Runabout fare structure.
I encourage you to contact me to tell us how this Runabout fare increase proposal would impact you. I
welcome written testimony mailed to the address above or emails to info@slorta.org. I would also
welcome you to attend one of the public workshops listed below and to talk to us in person:
Grover Beach Ramona Garden Park community center on October 14 th
Atascadero City Hall (Room 106) on October 15th
San Luis Obispo Library Community Room on October 16th
We will conduct all three of these workshops from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM. At those meetings, we will review
large-print Fare Tables that list each and every possible Runabout fare in the county – both the Current
Fare Table and the proposed New Fare Table. Our RTA reservationists (541-2544) can also help you to
determine the new fares that we would charge under this proposal for trips that you often take. Finally,
the RTA Board of Directors will consider testimony at a Public Hearing on November 5 th in the SLO County
Board of Supervisors Chambers. Our proposal is for the new fares to be effective on February 1, 2015.
I would appreciate your support to share more equitably in the cost to provide Runabout services so that
together we can contribute to ensuring its long-term success in our region.
Sincerely,
Geoff Straw
RTA Executive Director
Agenda 09/16/14
Presentation C
PRESENTATION C - 1
179 Cross Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-4472 Fax (805) 781-1291
www.slorta.org
The Regional Transit Authority is a Joint Powers Agency serving residents and visitors of:
Arroyo Grande Atascadero Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo and The County of San Luis Obispo
Proposal to Increase Runabout Fares
FACT SHEET:
1. Demand for Runabout is increasing dramatically & current revenues cannot accommodate it.
2. Runabout service levels have doubled in last seven years.
3. RTA fixed-route carries 760,000 passengers & Runabout carries 44,000. Annual costs equal.
4. Average public subsidy for each fixed-route trip is less than $4. Runabout cost is $60 per trip.
5. Both RTA fixed-route and Runabout services will need to be cut if we do nothing.
6. Federal law permits Runabout to charge twice the fixed-route cash fare.
7. Current Runabout fares lower than allowed, and in some cases lower than fixed-route fares.
8. Runabout fares last raised in 2010. This fare increase would be effective February 1, 2015.
9. Proposal is to increase Runabout fares to be twice the fixed-route fare; cap at $10 per trip.
PRESENTATION C - 2
Examples of most frequently used Runabout trips & resulting new fares:
Rank Origin Destination
Current
Runabout
Fare
Twice
Fixed
Route
Fare
Net Fare
Increase
%
Increase
1San Luis ObispoSan Luis Obispo$2.25$2.50$0.25111.1%
2AtascaderoPaso Robles $3.25$4.00$0.75123.1%
3Paso RoblesAtascadero $3.25$4.00$0.75123.1%
4San Luis ObispoLos Osos $3.75$5.00$1.25133.3%
5Paso RoblesPaso Robles $2.25$3.00$0.75133.3%
6Los OsosSan Luis Obispo$3.75$5.00$1.25133.3%
7Cuesta AreaSan Luis Obispo$2.75$4.00$1.25145.5%
8San Luis ObispoCuesta Area $2.75$4.00$1.25145.5%
9TempletonPaso Robles $2.75$3.00$0.25109.1%
10 Morro BaySan Luis Obispo$3.25$5.00$1.75153.8%
11 San Luis ObispoMorro Bay $3.25$5.00$1.75153.8%
12 Paso RoblesTempleton $2.75$3.00$0.25109.1%
13 San Luis ObispoGrover Beach $3.25$6.50$3.25200.0%
14 AtascaderoAtascadero $2.25$3.00$0.75133.3%
PRESENTATION C - 3
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2014 ITEM: C2
MINUTES
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Special Meeting – 4:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
August 19, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Kathy Smith, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson, and Mayor Jan Marx
Council Member
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Michael
Codron, Assistant City Manager, and Anthony Mejia, City Clerk, were
present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded
to questions as indicated in the minutes.
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
SS1. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S 2014 BENCHMARK COMPENSATION REPORT
Human Resources Director Irons, Human Resources Analyst Sutter, and
Geoffrey Rothman, Principal Consultant with Renne, Sloan, Holtzman, and
Sakai, narrated a presentation entitled “2014 Benchmark Compensation Study”
and responded to Council inquires.
Charlene Rosales, representing the Chamber of Commerce, expressed gratitude
that the Chamber was involved with the subject compensation study process,
noting that the Chamber hopes to assist in future opportunities to gather private
sector information; spoke on the importance of providing City services while
balancing fiscal sustainability and market competitiveness.
C2 - 1
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 2
Jeffery Specht, San Luis Obispo, questioned whether the subject compensation
study was conducted with the best interests of residents in consideration.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, asserted that median employee compensation
is exponentially higher than area median income; opined that the City’s benefit
package is highly competitive with the private sector; voiced concern that private
sector data was overly generalized and the subject study should have been more
regionally focused.
Mike Clark, San Luis Obispo, noted that the subject compensation study is
information that will assist in the labor negotiation process; urged Council to act
responsibly with taxpayer money during the upcoming labor negotiation process.
In response to public inquiry, Human Resources Director Irons and Mr. Rothman
advised that this is the second compensation study conducted by the City;
explained the criteria for selecting benchmark cities.
Council discussion ensued relative to the selection of benchmark cities, including
whether the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department and Paso Robles
Police Department should have been included. Human Resources Director Irons
explained that the police officers and firefighters associations’ memorandum of
understanding designated the comparative benchmark cities.
In response to Council inquiries, Human Resources Director Irons explained that
administrative leave practices varies by bargaining unit and more information will
be provided during the negotiation process; noted that the San Luis Obispo area
median income includes the student population and the study does not attempt to
weigh particular demographic factors; advised that the City does conduct exit
interviews, pointing out that employees typically do stay in municipal government.
Council discussion ensued relative to whether future studies should include
comparative information such as total land area, number of applicants for
benchmark positions, percentage of total budget for staffing, and segregation of
the student population from median area income.
The City Council received and filed the City of San Luis Obispo’s 2014
Benchmark Compensation Report.
RECESS
Council recessed at 5:30 p.m.
C2 - 2
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
August 19, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INTRODUCTIONS
A. NEW DIRECTOR OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY LIBRARIES –
CHRISTOPHER BARNICKEL
Mayor Marx introduced Christopher Barnickel as the new Director of San Luis
Obispo County libraries.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Debbie Farwell, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns related to homelessness and the
possibility that that the Land Use and Circulation Element may spur development;
opined that a proposed hotel development near the Monday Club will have negative
impacts to the neighborhood and residents should be provided with early public
notification.
Paul Bonjour, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns that dead fish in Laguna Lake are
coming ashore and degrading the water quality; pointed out that homeless are camping
in the brush and leaving trash near the lake; urged Council to take action to improve
conditions at the lake.
Rob Davidson, representing the Friends of Laguna Lake, expressed gratitude to the
Council for approving the Laguna Lake Reserve Conservation Plan and urged Council
to take action to dredge the lake.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, addressed the importance of transparency and
integrity in elections; suggested that ballots be hand counted.
City Manager Lichtig advised that staff will contact Mr. Bonjour related to his concerns
about maintenance at Laguna Lake.
C2 - 3
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 4
CONSENT AGENDA
Gordon Mullin, San Luis Obispo, opined that the proposed leadership program (Item
C8) should be voluntary for employees, partially conducted during off-hours, and
employees should pay approximately 50% of the program costs; questioned whether
taxpayers will receive the full value of the costs to conduct the program.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the contracting of meter
reading services (Item C10), noting that current employees often report minor leaks or
emerging problems; urged Council to retain meter reading operations in house.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Calendar Items C1 thru C11.
Council Member Carpenter registered a no vote on Item C3 and Council Members
Carpenter and Smith registered no votes for Item C8.
C1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and
ordinances as appropriate.
C2. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 17, JULY 1, AND JULY 15,
2014
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council
meeting of June 17, July 1, and July 15, 2014, as amended.
C3. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR EVENTS PROMOTION OUTREACH
SERVICES FROM PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE –
SPECIFICATION NO. 91305
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER VOTING
NO), to:
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal Specification No. 91305 for
Events Promotion Outreach Services.
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for Events Promotion
Outreach Services based on the recommendation by the Promotional
Coordinating Committee.
C2 - 4
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 5
C4. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO FURNISH UNIFORM AND LINEN
SERVICES – SPECIFICATION NO. 91304
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve the “Request for Proposals to Furnish Uniform and Linen Services,
Specification No. 91304.”
2. Authorize staff to distribute the Request for Proposals.
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement if the contract price is
within the available annual budget of $74,200 for uniform services.
C5. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS _FOR PARK FACILITIES JANITORIAL
SERVICES – SPECIFICATION NO. 50200-2014J
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve Request for Proposals for "Park Facilities Janitorial Services.”
2. Authorize staff to advertise for proposals.
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the agreement for services if the annual
total is within the available annual budget of $87,200 for park restroom
janitorial services.
4. Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to amend or extend the
agreement for services in accordance with its terms and within the available
annual budget.
C6. COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL ACCOUNTS – RESOLUTION
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Rescind Resolution No. 10540 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis
Obispo County Assessor to assess amounts due on delinquent solid waste
collection and disposal accounts as liens against the properties.”
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10548 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis
Obispo County Auditor to assess amounts due on delinquent solid waste
collection and disposal accounts as liens against the properties pursuant to
California Government Code Section 25828, ET SEQ,” which reflects text
changes requested by the County Auditor’s Office.
C2 - 5
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 6
C7. COLLECTION OF FEES FOR 2014-15 FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES - RESOLUTION
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Rescind Resolution No. 10528 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing collection of
fees for 2014-15 Fire and Life Safety Inspections of Multi-Dwelling properties
containing three or more dwelling units on the secured property tax roll.”
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10549 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis
Obispo County Auditor to collect fees for 2014-15 Fire and Life Safety
Inspections of Multi-Dwelling properties containing three or more dwelling
units on the secured property tax roll pursuant to California Government Code
Section 54988, ET SEQ,” which reflects text changes required by the County
Auditor’s Office.
C8. EMPLOYEE AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT
WITH CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVENESS (COE)
In response to public and Council inquiries, Human Resources Director Irons
advised that a determination whether the program will be voluntary has yet to be
made and the courses will likely occur during normal work hours; noted that the
program is designed to be experiential, particularly for supervisors and
management training sessions, thereby maximizing learning retention.
Council Member Ashbaugh noted for the record that his support is based on the
understanding that the program will improve staff’s leadership skills and
management capabilities as well as enhance the retention of employees and
assist in succession planning; requested that staff provide a memo update on the
program in one year.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCIL MEMBERS CARPENTER AND
SMITH VOTING NO), to:
1. Authorize the issuance of a purchase order to the COE in the amount of
$170,000.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a sole source agreement with the COE
not to exceed $170,000 to provide a “one-stop” comprehensive employee and
leadership development and core competency program for the City of San
Luis Obispo.
C2 - 6
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 7
C9. SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS - CONTRACT AMENDMENT
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to approve amendment to existing City contract
with Software Solutions for testing and training services on Tyler/EnerGov
software in the amount of $31,300.
C10. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONTRACT WATER METER READING –
SPECIFICATION NO. 91315
In response to public and Council inquiry, Utilities Director Mattingly advised that
the issuance of the subject Request for Proposals will allow the City to explore
whether contracting meter reading services would be beneficial to the City;
explained that recommendations and alternatives will be vetted by staff and in
consultation with the City’s employee association.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize staff to advertise a Request for
Proposals for contract meter reading in order to resolve irregular billing period
lengths and dates during the Winter Water Use billing cycle.
C11. AMEND SCOPE OF WORK WITH JOHNSON AVIATION TO PROVIDE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCESS AND HEARINGS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE
AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE (LUCE)
In response to Council inquiry, Community Development Director Johnson
advised that approximately one-third of the cost for the Airport Land Use Plan
has been paid by developer deposits, noting that this process ensures that the
City is directing the scope of work and is provided with objective information.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the Community Development
Director to increase the scope of work and execute a contract amendment, using
an amount not to exceed $44,900 from unspent contract services budget in the
Community Development Department from Fiscal Year 2013-14, for Johnson
Aviation to continue providing technical assistance during the update of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE), and to support the City in its effort to work
with the Airport Land Use Commission on its plans to update the Airport Land
Use Plan (ALUP).
C2 - 7
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 8
BUSINESS ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
B1. GRANT FUNDING FOR PISMO PRESERVE ACQUISITION
Assistant City Manager Codron and Natural Resources Manager Hill narrated a
presentation entitled “Pismo Preserve” and responded to Council inquires.
Kaila Dettman, Executive Director of the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
County, urged Council to support the acquisition of the Pismo Preserve; spoke
on the unique coastal views, oak woodlands, and possibility of an all-inclusive
park for passive recreation; stated that the project has captivated to community
and is a legacy project; advised that the Land Conservancy has identified nearly
$12 million, but is seeking the final $500,000 necessary to acquire the property,
requested that the City contribute $100,000 towards the purchase of the Pismo
Preserve.
The following individuals spoke in support of the City providing funding for the
acquisition of the Pismo Preserve:
Daniel Bohlman, Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Penny Rappa, Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Doug Tait, Morro Coast Audubon Society
Kara Woodruff, Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Landis Woodruff and Cypris
Bruce Severance, Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Jose Esparza, Nipomo High School Conservation Club
Jensen Severance, President of Nipomo High School Conservation Club
Jenna Clift, Nipomo High School Conservation Club
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo
Gordon Mullin, San Luis Obispo
Herb Kandel, Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
C2 - 8
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 9
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, opined that the acquisition of the Pismo
Preserve is a commendable project; questioned whether the subject project is
the best use of Measure Y funds; suggested that the City identify an alternative
funding source to contribute towards the Pismo Preserve.
Kevin Rice, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern that the subject project will set a
negative precedent of spending City funds on open space outside city limits;
questioned whether the subject property has any development potential and
whether there is a nexus of utilizing City funds for this project; questioned the
propriety of Mr. Hill authoring the Council Agenda Report, due to his previous
position as Executive Director of the Land Conservancy.
Council discussion ensued relative to the appropriate amount the City should
contribute towards the acquisition of the Pismo Preserve; whether the City should
limit its use of City funds to open space acquisition and maintenance within City
limits. It was noted that Council directed staff to bring forward a report relative to
allocating funding for the acquisition of the Pismo Preserve.
In response to Council inquiry, Finance and Information Technology Director
Padilla advised that the City has excess General Funds Reserves (above the
20% policy level reserve) that can be applied towards the acquisition of the
Pismo Preserve.
Mayor Marx noted for the record that the City will utilize excess General Fund
Reserve monies towards the acquisition of the Pismo Preserve.
Following discussion, MOTION BY MAYOR MARX, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER), to:
1. Authorize a grant of $75,000 of General Fund Reserve towards the
acquisition of real property known as the Pismo Preserve.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10550 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a grant
agreement with the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County,”
authorizing the Mayor to execute a Grant Agreement with The Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo.
RECESS
Council recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m., with all Council Members
present.
C2 - 9
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 10
PH2. EXCHANGE OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 5307 FUNDS WITH
THE REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR CONGESTION MITIGATION
AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MONEY FOR THREE BUS REPLACEMENTS IN
FY 2015
Public Works Deputy Director Bochum and Transit Manager Anguiano narrated a
presentation entitled “5307 Exchange for CMAQ Money” and responded to
Council inquires.
Mayor Marx opened and closed the Public Hearing, there being no one desiring
to speak on this item.
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SMITH, CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. As recommended by the Central Area Programming Committee:
a. Adopt revisions to the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) Program of Projects.
b. Adopt approval of the Fiscal Year 2014-15 FTA Program of Projects allowing
the exchange of previously awarded capital funding ($202,000) and new
capital funding ($442,000) to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) in
exchange for $1,125,000 in new CMAQ transit funding for the replacement
of three buses for SLO Transit.
2. Approve the appropriation of $495,700 for the purchase of a third bus in
2014-15 and the amendment of the 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan by
shifting this amount out of the 2015-16 Fiscal Year program.
3. Approve the use of $329,700 in State Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds for local match purposes to acquire the CMAQ Funding.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 10551 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the filing of a
revision to the 2013-14 Federal Capital Assistance Grant Application, filing of
part of the FY 2014-15 Capital Assistance Grant Application and Congestion
and Air Quality Mitigation (CMAQ) Application with the Federal Transit
Administration.”
C2 - 10
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 11
PH3. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 13.07 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION – ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION
Utilities Director Mattingly and Utilities Services Manager narrated a presentation
entitled “Revisions to Chapter 13.07” and responded to Council inquires.
Mayor Marx opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, questioned, and received clarification, that it
is unknown whether additional water conservation will result in a need for a water
rate increase and that the proposed regulations apply to residential and
commercial properties.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, suggested that geoengineering is the cause of
the draught and other damaging meteorological systems.
There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Council discussed the proposed public outreach plan and the need to ensure the
current water supply conditions are communicated to residents.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER CARPENTER VOTING
NO), to:
1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1607 (2014 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting temporary mandatory
restrictions on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable
water.”
2. Authorize the transfer of $30,000 from Water fund working capital to fund an
educational and public outreach plan related to the City’s emergency drought
regulations.
REORDERING OF THE AGENDA
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY MAYOR MARX, CARRIED
5-0, to reorder the agenda to enable Council Communications to be considered at this
time.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
In response to Council inquiry, City Manager Lichtig advised that staff will assemble a
team to assess the situation at Laguna Lake and administratively address the concerns
and to report back via memo.
C2 - 11
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 12
REORDERING OF THE AGENDA
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to reorder the agenda to enable Item PH4 to be
considered after Item B6.
B5. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPEALS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS
City Attorney Dietrick and Legal Fellow Rosen narrated a presentation entitled
“Consideration of Proposed Changes to Chapter 1.24 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code” and responded to Council inquires.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, opined that the proposed administrative
appeal process is complex and recommended that the City implement a single
level of appeal by hearing officer.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, opined that neighborhood groups do not
need to be consulted relative to the development of the City’s appeal program.
In response to Council inquiry, Legal Fellow Rosen explained the importance of
developing a complete administrative records as well as ensuring due process
for an appellant.
Council discussion ensued relative to: 1) whether the Council should be the final
level of appeal for administrative citations; and 2) whether the inclusion of
Council would politicize administrative citation appeals.
MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCILMEMBERS CARPENTER AND SMITH
VOTING NO), to direct staff to move forward with the proposed amendments to
Chapter 1.24 Titled “Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures” to establish a
two tier administrative citation appeals review process.
B6. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING COOPERATIVE
PURCHASING PROCEDURES
Public Works Director Grigsby, Deputy Director Public Works Bochum and
Interim Fleet Supervisor Smith narrated a presentation entitled “Municipal Code
Amendment Regarding Cooperative Purchasing Procedures” and responded to
Council inquires.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER SMITH, CARRIED 5-0, to introduce Ordinance No. 1608 (2014 Series)
entitled “An Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending
Section 3.24.060 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding cooperative
purchasing.”
C2 - 12
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 13
PH4. INITIAL STEPS TO CONSIDER OVERRULE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE
DRAFT LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE AND
IMPLEMENTING ZONING REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
City Attorney Dietrick explained that it has been determined that Council
Members Ashbaugh and Carpenter have real property conflicts of interest in
relation to the Land Use Circulation and Element (LUCE) Update Special
Planning Areas Bishop Knolls and General Hospital, respectively; noted that
formal advice is pending whether Council Member Smith has a conflict of interest
because she owns property within the proposed Airport Land Use Overlay Zone;
advised that she has requested formal advice from the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) as to whether Council Members Ashbaugh and Carpenter
may participate in tonight’s considerations as their conflicts of interest do not
specifically related to the Airport Land Use Plan, but no advice has been received
in time for tonight’s discussion; informed Council Members Ashbaugh, Carpenter
and Smith that they must make a determination if they feel there is a reasonably
foreseeable material financial impact on their real property interests and if so,
should recuse themselves.
Council Member Carpenter advised that he is recusing himself from tonight’s
deliberations due to the potential financial risk to himself and the potential risk to
the process related to this issue.
Council Member Smith advised that she is recusing herself from tonight’s
deliberations because she believes she does have a real property conflict of
interest as her property is within the Airport Land Use Plan and will recuse
herself from tonight’s deliberations.
Council Member Ashbaugh advised that he does not believe that he has a
reasonably foreseeable material financial impact and will be participating in
tonight’s deliberations. City Attorney Dietrick advised that neither Council
Member Ashbaugh’s conclusion as to his potential conflict of interest, nor any
advice received from the City Attorney, protect Council Member Ashbaugh from
potential FPPC enforcement.
Council Members Carpenter and Smith left the Chambers at 9:44 p.m.
Community Development Director Johnson, Contract Planner Kaiser, and Nick
Johnson, Aviation Consultant, narrated a presentation and responded to Council
inquires.
C2 - 13
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 14
Mayor Marx opened the Public Hearing.
Stephen Peck, representing Avila Ranch, conveyed support for the Council to file
its intent to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission’s determination relative to
the LUCE; opined that the City has conducted a thorough analysis and the new
Airport Land Use Plan will ensure the highest and best use for the area
properties.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the benefits of noise bundling along
Tank Farm Road; suggested that the City and Airport Land Use Commission
continue to negotiate to find a compromise solution.
Rosemary Wilvert, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern regarding the development
of San Luis Ranch, opining that the development would be inconsistent with the
ALUC safety regulations; recommended that responsible agencies meet and
develop solutions that ensure public safety.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, opined that a functional airport will
boost tourism and travel; urged Council to not proceed with the overruling of the
ALUC and to work with interested agencies to develop a compromise.
Charlene Rosales, representing the Chamber of Commerce, voiced support for
moving forward with the Airport Land Use Plan; asserted that the ALUC has been
unwilling to work with the City to find compromise solutions; pointed out that the
Airport Land Use Plan is an opportunity to accommodate business growth and
meet housing needs.
Marshall Ochylski, representing San Luis Ranch, noted that the Airport Land Use
Plan is based on objective data and addresses public safety and noise issues;
voiced concern that the ALUC has not cooperated with the City to develop
compromised solutions.
There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND
BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 3-0 (COUNCIL MEMBERS
CARPENTER AND SMITH ABSTAINING), to:
1. Review the County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) determination
that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and implementing
zoning regulations are inconsistent with the County Airport Land Use Plan.
(Council action continued on next page)
C2 - 14
City Council Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2014 Page 15
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, directing staff to file with
the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and
Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics) draft findings that the proposed Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update is consistent with the purposes set
forth in Public Utilities Code 21670 and that the City therefore intends to
overrule the ALUC’s determination that the LUCE is inconsistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).”
LIAISON REPORTS
Council liaison reports were received from Council Member Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor
Christianson, and Mayor Marx.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California to
consider Closed Session matters.
A Special Meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers and the Regular meeting will commence at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/14
C2 - 15
Page intentionally left
blank.
C2 - 16
September 16, 2014
C3
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR THE SNYDER BUILDING
AT 774 MARSH STREET
(APPLICATION CHCMA 88-14)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 8), entering into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract with
the owner of the Synder Building at 774 Marsh Street, under the terms described in the contract.
SITE DATA
Applicant Matt Quaglino
Zoning Downtown Commercial (C-D)
Historical Preservation (H)
General Plan General Retail
Site Area 2,400 sq. ft.
Site Description The site is developed with a
mixed-use building containing 3
office suites and 4 apartment
dwellings.
Historic District Downtown Historic District
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Matt Quaglino has submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act contract with
the City for the improvement and preservation of the Snyder Building (774 Marsh Street), a
Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, in exchange for property tax
relief.
The Snyder Building
The Snyder Building is located on a rectangular 2,400 square foot parcel at the northeast corner
of Marsh and Garden Streets, and occupies the entire parcel. There is 60 feet of street frontage
along Marsh and 40 feet along Garden. The site is within the Downtown Commercial (C-D)
Zone and within the Downtown Historic District. The applicant has provided a description of the
subject building (Attachment 2) with details about its historical background and current
C3 - 1
Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract for the Snyder Building
(CHCMA 88-14: 774 Marsh St) Page 2
condition. The building is a two-story
commercial building in a Mission Revival style,
constructed in 1922 by Dr. G. A. Snyder, a
dentist. Originally, three office suites and a
residential apartment occupied the ground floor,
and three apartments were on the upper floor.
Dr. Fred Mugler, a prominent orthopedic
surgeon and founder of a nursing school at the
San Luis Sanitarium, was an early and notable
occupant of the building.
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
enables California cities to enter into contracts
with owners of historical property to provide
them with tax relief in exchange for an agreement to actively participate in the restoration and
maintenance of historical resources. A Mills Act contract is effective for an initial 10-year
period, and then is automatically extended annually for an additional year. After the initial term,
either the City or the owner may, by written notice, decide not to renew the contract. During the
effective term of the contract, the property owner must improve or rehabilitate the property,
maintain the property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and provide
visibility of the historical resource from the public right-of-way.
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s
goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that significant
historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE §3.3). Participation in the Mills Act
Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of
historic properties (COSE §3.6.2). Currently there are 50 properties participating in the program,
and this is the only such request being considered so far this year.
Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the terms of the proposed Mills Act Contract at a
public hearing on July 28, 2014. The Committee, by unanimous vote, recommended that the
Council approve the contract. The staff report and the resolution adopted by the Committee are
attached to this report (Attachments 4 and 5).
DISCUSSION
Proposed Contract
The City and the property owner will enter into a contract that is prepared using standard
language suggested by the California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation (Attachment 7).
At its core is an agreement made by the property owners to “undertake and complete, at their
expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements” described in an improvement plan.
Figure 1: The Snyder Building (Marsh St. elevation)
C3 - 2
Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract for the Snyder Building
(CHCMA 88-14: 774 Marsh St) Page 3
Improvement Plan
The intent of the program is to encourage rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of
properties that are historic resources, so a property owner participating in the program receives
tax relief that is, in part, dependent upon the cost of planned improvements that are related those
purposes. The applicant has provided an outline of the improvements proposed to be undertaken
(Attachment 3) with an estimate of their costs. These improvements are estimated to cost about
$335,000.
Savings from the tax relief provided under the contract are an incentive to undertake
improvements and maintenance related to the historic character of the property. These
improvements are reviewed for consistency with applicable historical preservation standards and
guidelines through the construction permitting process. The City periodically reviews properties
that are subject to Mills Act Contracts to confirm that preservation efforts are in compliance with
City standards and policies.
Estimated Tax Relief
It is estimated that the property owner may
realize a total tax savings of about $15,830 over
the initial period of the contract (about 5% of the
total cost of the improvements). This estimate
was prepared by comparing the amount of tax
that would normally be collected, using the
current assessed value of the property, to the
amount that might be collected under the terms
of a Mills Act Contract. A summary of the
estimate is provided here, and details about the
assumptions behind the estimate are provided in
Attachment 6. Actual costs and values are
calculated by the County Assessor after the
contract is agreed.
Under a Mills Act Contract, the value of the
property is assessed using a “capitalization of
income” method described in the California
Revenue and Taxation Code. By this method,
the value of the property is determined in large
part by the income that it is anticipated to
generate. This “Restricted Value” may be
significantly lower than the current assessed value of the property, resulting in tax savings to the
property owner. This tax relief is the financial incentive that is to be invested in rehabilitation,
restoration, and maintenance of historic resources. The schedule of proposed improvements is
shown in Attachment 4.
Annual Income and Costs
Effective Gross Income 79,800.00$
Maintenance Costs (19,950.00)$
Net Operating Income 59,850.00$
Valuation
Current Assessed Value 905,412.00$
Restricted Value 747,751.12$
Difference in Valuation 157,660.88$
Tax Relief
Tax Difference (Annually)1,582.92$
Total Tax Relief (Initial Term)15,829.15$
Owner Investment
Total Owner Investment 318,786.85$
Owner Share of Improvements 95%
Fiscal Impact Summary
Table 1: Estimated Tax Relief
C3 - 3
Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract for the Snyder Building
(CHCMA 88-14: 774 Marsh St) Page 4
CONCLUSION
Participation in the Mills Act Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the
maintenance and restoration of historic properties. An estimate of the tax savings that the owner
of the Snyder Building might realize under this contract concludes that the cost of this incentive
is likely to be a small portion of the total investment that the property owner proposes to make in
the rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of this building, a Master List Historic Resource.
The modest incentive provided is a reasonable means to further the City’s historical preservation
goals and policies.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed in this report, entering into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract with the
owner of the Snyder Building may result in reduced property tax revenues. By the estimate
prepared for this report, the property owner may realize a total tax savings of about $15,830 over
the initial 10-year period of the contract. The City typically receives about 15% of the property
tax revenue collected by the County Assessor. Under that assumption, the fiscal impact of
entering into this contract is about $ 2,375 for the initial 10-year period of the contract.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of this request to a future date for additional analysis or research; or
2. Do not enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract with the property owner. This
alternative is not recommended. The contract provides a tax relief incentive that is a tool for
achieving the City’s goals for historical preservation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Description of the Snyder Building
3. List of Proposed Improvements
4. Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda Report (July 28, 2014)
5. Cultural Heritage Committee Resolution (Adopted July 28, 2014)
6. Fiscal Impact Estimate Assumptions
7. Draft Contract
8. Draft City Council Resolution
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-16\Mills Act request 774 Marsh (Johnson-Oetzell)\CouncilAgendaReport.docx
C3 - 4
O
O
C-D
C-D
C-D-H C-D-H
O
C-D C-D
C-D-H
O
C-D
C-D
PF-H
C-D-H C-D-H
O
C-D
C-D-H
C-D-H
O
C-D-S-H
O-H
MARSH
G
A
R
D
E
N
B
R
O
A
D
PACIF
I
C
C
H
O
R
R
O
HIGUE
R
A
VICINITY MAP File No. 88-14774 Marsh St.¯
ATTACHMENT 1
C3 - 5
ATTACHMENT 2
C3 - 6
C3 - 7
May 1, 2014
To: Phil Dunsmore, City of San Luis Obispo, Planning Department
From: Matt Quaglino
Re: Proposed list of Mills Act Improvements for 774 Marsh Street
1. Replace windows with period appropriate window styles. $46,900
2. Repair and Paint the exterior of the building. $34,800
3. Replace the roof system. $19,000
4. Repair and paint all interior walls. $22,300
5. Replace existing carpet in the common lobbies with a period appropriate flooring finish. $6,500
6. Paint all interior walls and wood work. (See 4 above)
7. Repair or replace kitchen cabinets as necessary. $21,374
8. Repair electrical and mechanical as required. $58,700
9. Re-install the ground floor residential unit that had been converted to commercial. $14,500
10. Replace modern lighting fixtures with period appropriate fixtures. $8,400
11. Install tile at kitchens and bathrooms to replace missing or damaged tile. $9,700
12. Repair or replace existing heating systems. (See 8 above)
13. Refinish hardwood flooring in residential units. $7,900
14. Install period appropriate window coverings. $6,785
15. Fabricate and install the original trim that surrounded the building Marsh Street entry. $6,507
16. Fabricate and install the detail that was located on the lower side of the small balcony over the
entry door. (See 15 above)
17. Remove the rear wood stairs and expose the original windows. 6,300
18. Install an ADA compliant restroom on the ground floor to serve the commercial uses. $10,300
19. Install code compliant handrails at the entry stairs. $4,200
20. Rework existing fire sprinkler system to minimize the impact of the exposed piping. $5,850
21. Install tile over entry door: $1,800
22. Install flooring in commercial offices: $14,800
23. Miscellaneous and contingency: $28,000
Total: $334,616.00
ATTACHMENT 3
C3 - 8
Meeting Date: June 28, 2014
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a draft Mills Act contract for the Snyder Building
ADDRESS: 774 Marsh St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: CHCMA 88-14 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Cultural Heritage Committee
Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that
the City Council enter into a Mills Act Historic
Preservation contract for the Snyder Building
(774 Marsh Street), under the terms described in
the draft contract (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Matt Quaglino has submitted an
application to enter into a Mills Act contract with
the City for the improvement and preservation of
the Snyder Building (774 Marsh Street), in
exchange for property tax relief. The Snyder
Building is a Master List Resource in the Cit’s
Inventory of Historic Resources. The Committee
shall review the draft terms of the contract and
provide a recommendation to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
Cultural Heritage Goals
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s
goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that significant
historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE §3.3). Participation in the Mills Act
Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of
historic properties (COSE §3.6.2).
The Snyder Building
The applicant has provided a description of the subject building with details about its historical
background and current condition. It is located on a rectangular 2,400 square foot parcel at the
northeast corner of Marsh and Garden Streets, and occupies the entire parcel. There is 60 feet of
street frontage along Marsh and 40 feet along Garden. The site is within the Downtown
Commercial (C-D) Zone, a Historic Preservation (H) Zone, and within the Downtown Historic
District.
CHC2 - 1
ATTACHMENT 4
C3 - 9
CHCMA 88-14 (774 Marsh St)
Page 2
The building is a two-story commercial building in a Mission Revival style, constructed in 1922
by Dr. G. A. Snyder, a dentist. Originally, 3 office suites and a residential apartment occupied
the ground floor, and three apartments were on the upper floor. Dr. Fred Mugler, a prominent
orthopedic surgeon and founder of a nursing school at the San Luis Sanitarium, was an early and
notable occupant of the building.
Also of note is the “Sawyer style” of construction
used to build this structure. As discussed in the
applicant’s building description (Attachment 4),
this was an innovative method of construction,
patented by Frank M. Sawyer, a Los Angeles
architect. The method involved the use of pre-cast
concrete slabs spaced to form insulating spaces
between the slabs, in which steel rebar was placed
and grouted, forming a lightweight, structurally
sound assembly.
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program enables California cities to enter into contracts
with owners of historical property to provide them with tax relief in exchange for an agreement
to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of historical resources. A Mills Act
contract is effective for an initial 10 year period, and then is automatically extended annually for
an additional year. After the initial term, either the City or the owner may, by written notice,
decide not to renew the contract. During the effective term of the contract, the property owner
must improve or rehabilitate the property, maintain the property consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards, and provide visibility of the historical resource from the public right-of-
way.
EVALUATION
Contract: The City and the property owner will enter into a contract that is prepared using
standard language suggested by the California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation
(Attachment 3). At its core is an agreement made by the property owners to “undertake an d
complete, at their expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements” described in an
improvement plan.
Improvement Plan: The intent of the program is to encourage rehabilitation, restoration, and
maintenance of properties that are historic resources, so a property owner participating in the
program receives tax relief that is, in part, dependent upon the cost of planned improvements that
are related those purposes. The applicant has provided an outline of the improvements proposed
to be undertaken (Attachment 5) with an estimate of their costs. These improvements are
estimated to cost about $335,000.
Savings from the tax relief provided under the contract are an incentive to undertake
improvements and maintenance related to the historic character of the property. These
CHC2 - 2C3 - 10
CHCMA 88-14 (774 Marsh St)
Page 3
improvements are reviewed for consistency with applicable historical preservation standards and
guidelines through the construction permitting process. The City periodically reviews properties
that are subject to Mills Act Contracts to confirm that preservation efforts are in compliance with
City standards and policies.
Fiscal Impact: The tax relief provided to the property owner is a financial incentive that is to be
invested in rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of historic resources. As such, the amount
of tax relief should not exceed the cost of planned improvements. Once the subject property
enters into a Mills Act contract, the value of the property is assessed by a “capitalization of
income” method, in a manner described in the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Under
this method, a property’s value is determined in large part by the income that it is anticipated to
generate. The resulting assessed value can result in considerable tax savings to the property
owner.
A rough estimate has been prepared comparing
the amount of tax that would be collected under
this method to the amount that would normally be
expected using the current assessed value of the
property. The difference between the two
represents an estimate of tax savings that the
property owner might expect through
participation in the Mills Act Program. This
savings should be comparable to the cost of the
planned improvements. Tax savings in excess of
improvement costs would indicate forfeiture of
tax revenue by the City without a corresponding
benefit to historic preservation efforts. A
summary of the estimate is provided here, and
details about the assumptions behind this estimate
are provided in Attachment 6.
The estimate indicates that the owner may realize
a total tax savings of about $15,830 over the
initial period of the contract, which is about 5%
of the total cost of the improvements. It is based
on the property’s current value, as most recently assessed by the San Luis Obispo County
Assessor. Actual costs and values are calculated after the contract is agreed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a Mills Act contract with a property owner is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is not a project as defined by §15378 of the
CEQA Guidelines. The contract provides tax relief for historical preservation efforts, but does
not involve approval or commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially
significant physical impact on the environment.
Annual Income and Costs
Effective Gross Income 79,800.00$
Maintenance Costs (19,950.00)$
Net Operating Income59,850.00$
Valuation
Current Assessed Value 905,412.00$
Restricted Value 747,751.12$
Difference in Valuation157,660.88$
Tax Relief
Tax Difference (Annually)1,582.92$
Total Tax Relief (Initial Term)15,829.15$
Owner Investment
Total Owner Investment 318,786.85$
Owner Share of Improvements 95%
Fiscal Impact Summary
CHC2 - 3C3 - 11
CHCMA 88-14 (774 Marsh St)
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft Cultural Heritage Committee Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the
City Council enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation contract with the owner of the property
at 774 Marsh Street, under the terms described in the draft contract (Attachment 3).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Find that the fiscal impact of providing tax relief to the property owner exceeds the benefit of
the historical preservation efforts likely to be undertaken on the property, and recommend
that the City Council does not enter into a Mills Act Contract with the property owner.
2. Review the improvement plan and fiscal impact estimate and continue consideration of the
application to a future date to allow time to collect additional information that may help in
forming a recommendation to the City Council regarding participation of this property in the
Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Draft Mills Act Contract
4. Building Description
5. Improvement Plan
6. Fiscal Impact Assumptions
CHC2 - 4C3 - 12
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A HISTORIC PROPERTY
PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR THE MASTER LIST SNYDER BUILDING
LOCATED AT 774 MARSH STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series),
establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic
preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic
resources through financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this property
as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the City’s
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City and owners, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this
agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that
character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs
and/or improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California
Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and
to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et. seq. of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 indicates the City will participate
in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage
maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
2. The Snyder Building, located at 774 Marsh Street, has been recognized as a historic asset
in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property. As such,
maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in
policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The above actions do not constitute a project, as
defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from
environmental review.
ATTACHMENT 5
C3 - 13
Resolution No.XXXX-14
774 Marsh St
Page 2
Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application CHCMA
88-14, allowing the City to enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement.
On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of July, 2014.
_____________________________
Phil Dunsmore, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
C3 - 14
CHCMA 88-14 (774 Marsh St)
July 28, 2014
Fiscal Impact Assumptions
Planned Improvements $ 334,616.00
Monthly Income and Losses
Monthly Rent
$
7,000.00
Vacancy, Collection, Loss Rate 5%
Vacancy, Collection, Loss
$
(350.00)
Effective Gross Income (Monthly)
$
6,650.00
Monthly Maintenance Costs
Maintenance Cost Factor 25% (a)
Operations, Insurance, & General Maintenance
$
1,662.50 (b)
Total Monthly Maintenance Costs
$
1,662.50
(a) as portion of Effective Gross Income
(b) Effective Gross Income * Maintenance Cost Factor
Capitalization Rate Components
Interest Rate 4.000% (c)
Risk Rate 2.000% (c)
Property Tax Rate 1.004% (d)
Amortization Rate 1.000% (e)
Total Capitalization Rate 8.004%
(c) Statutory
(d) Actual
(e) 50 yr remaining life; 50:50 ratio of property:improvement value
ATTACHMENT 6
C3 - 15
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING
LOCATED AT 774 MARSH STREET, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2014, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“City”), and Matthew Quaglino (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred to
as the “parties.”
Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owner, their heirs, or assigns hereby
agree to undertake and complete, at their expense, the preservation, maintenance, and
improvements measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.
Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and
commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years
thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term
will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280
through 50290 and in Section 3, below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter
referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the
initial term of this agreement unless written notice of nonrenewal is served as
provided herein.
b. If the Owner or the City desires in any year not to renew the agreement, the
Owner or the City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the agreement on
the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least
ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the
Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall
automatically be added to the term of the agreement as provided herein.
c. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time
prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owner of nonrenewal.
d. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of nonrenewal in
any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then
remaining.
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Owner agrees to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate
the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general
ATTACHMENT 7
C3 - 16
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 2
architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of
windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are
integral to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials,
coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the
appearance of the building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director or his designee.
b. The building’s interior closely relates to the property’s eligibility as a qualified
historic property. The Owner agrees to allow pre-arranged tours on a limited
basis, to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee.
c. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City
regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office
of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling
shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and
mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural
ornamentation to the greatest extent possible.
d. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes
to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major
landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement,
repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit.
The Owner agrees to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to
changing the building’s use or commencing construction work.
e. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be
used for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
f. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic
building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed
above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs,
doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or
furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or
vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature
adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized
historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
g. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County
Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of
Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owners’
compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
C3 - 17
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 3
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish any and all
information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance
with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth
in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines
that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has
allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the
standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the
Owner has failed to preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner
specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of
failure of the Owner to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as
specified above, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as
set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12
½% of the full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to
any restriction imposed with this agreement.
b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council
determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the
agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government
Code Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as
referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the
terms of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel
the agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice of violation to the
Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this
agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter;
or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the
breach or default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty
(30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced
within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by
the Owner); then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the
terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically
enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this agreement,
apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by
the owners or apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not
enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are
not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations
C3 - 18
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 4
governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that
there is a breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any
breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any
other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under.
c. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding
arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.
Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic building
located at 774 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessors Parcel Number 002-426-
008, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and
Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set
forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding
upon the Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every
contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic
property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and
accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement
regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract,
deed, or other instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the
address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later
specified by the parties hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owner: Matthew Quaglino
643 Grove Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Section 10. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors,
or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be
considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
b. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials,
officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims
for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owner, or from
those of their contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting
C3 - 19
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 5
on the Owner’s behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of the historic property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall
defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and
employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or
alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner’s activities in connection
with the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which
are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers,
agents, or employees.
c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by
reason of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not
the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other
documents for the historic property.
d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained
in this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons
acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law
or in any manner whatsoever.
e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained
herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing
party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by
the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be
unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent
preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions,
or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of
the State of California.
Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a
written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into
this agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County
Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to
the Owner; however the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of
executing, recording, and administering the historical property contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have executed this agreement on the day
and year written above.
C3 - 20
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 6
OWNER
____________________________________ ______________________________
Matthew Quaglino Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ ______________________________
Mayor Jan Marx Date
ATTEST:
______________________________
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
C3 - 21
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE SNYDER BUILDING
LOCATED AT 774 MARSH STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
1. Owner shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its
character-defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation
Contract with the City of San Luis Obispo for property located at 774 Marsh Street.
Character-defining features shall include, but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers,
trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors and windows, window
screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface treatments.
2. Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term of
this contract but in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes
or repairs shall be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
Replace windows with period appropriate window styles
Repair and Paint the exterior of the building
Replace the roof system
Repair and paint all interior walls
Replace existing carpet in the common lobbies with a period appropriate flooring finish
Paint all interior walls and wood work
Repair or replace kitchen cabinets as necessary
Repair electrical and mechanical as required
Re-install the ground floor residential unit that had been converted to commercial
Replace modern lighting fixtures with period appropriate fixtures
Install tile at kitchens and bathrooms to replace missing or damaged tile
Repair or replace existing heating systems
Refinish hardwood flooring in residential units
Install period appropriate window coverings
Fabricate and install the original trim that surrounded the building Marsh Street entry
Fabricate and install the detail that was located on the lower side of the small balcony
over the entry door
Remove the rear wood stairs and expose the original windows
Install an ADA compliant restroom on the ground floor to serve the commercial uses
Install code compliant handrails at the entry stairs
Rework existing fire sprinkler system to minimize the impact of the exposed piping
Install tile over entry door
Install flooring in commercial offices
C3 - 22
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 8
OWNER
____________________________________ ______________________________
Matthew Quaglino Date
C3 - 23
Historic Preservation Agreement
774 Marsh Street
Page 9
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On ________________, before me _________________________________________ ,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, ____________________________________________________ ,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _____________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me,__________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _____________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
C3 - 24
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND OWNERS OF THE SNYDER
BUILDING AT 774 MARSH STREET (CHCMA 88-14)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California
Government Code Section 50280 et seq. (known as "the Mills Act") to enter into contracts with the
owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and
rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No . 9136 (2000 Series),
establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic
preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic
resources through financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the owners possess fee title in and to that certain qualified real property,
together with associated structures and improvements thereon, located on Assessor's Parcel
Number 002-426-008, located at 774 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401, also
described as the Snyder Building, (hereinafter referred to as the "historic property") ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this
property as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the
City's Historic Preservation Ordinance ; and
WHEREAS, the City and owners, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this
agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that
character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs
and/or improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California
Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec . 50280 et seq., and to
qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1 .9, Sec . 439 et. seq. of the Revenue
and Taxation Code; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Meeting Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on June 23, 2014, and recommended that the Council add the property located at
1152 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 16th, 2014, for the purpose of considering the owner’s request to enter into a Historic
Preservation Agreement with the City for rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of the
historic property; and
ATTACHMENT 8
C3 - 25
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Cultural Heritage Committee's
recommendation, documentation for the property on file in the Community Development
Department, public testimony, the staff report, and the City's Historical Preservation Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 indicates the City will participate
in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage
maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
2. The Snyder Building, located at 774 Marsh Street, has been recognized as a historic asset
in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property. As such,
maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in
policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
SECTION 2. Historic Preservation Agreement Approved . The City Council hereby
approves the "Historic Preservation Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the
Owner of the Historic Property Located at 774 Marsh Street", and entered into between the City
and owner, Matthew Quaglino.
SECTION 3. Mayor Authorized to Sign Agreement for City. The City Council hereby
authorizes the Mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo.
SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 3. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the
parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of ______________________ , seconded by ______________________ ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ____ day of ____________________ 2014.
C3 - 26
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 3
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
C3 - 27
Page intentionally left
blank.
C3 - 28
September 16, 2014
C4
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO ADD THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE AT
1152 BUCHON TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS
THE HISTORIC “CHARLES E. STRICKLAND HOUSE”
(APPLICATION CHC 51-14)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 5), adding the contributing historic residence at 1152 Buchon to
the Master List of Historic Resources, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Ann Robinson
Zoning Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
Historical Preservation (H)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 7,000 sq ft
Site Description The site is developed with the
main residence fronting Buchon
Street and an accessory garage
and studio at the rear of the lot.
Historic District Located within the Old Town
Historic District
DISCUSSION
Background
The property owner has submitted an application requesting the contributing historic residence at
1152 Buchon Street be added to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. The residence was
constructed in 1905 1 by Charles E. Strickland, a craftsman and contractor, and builder of three of
the homes on the Master List of Historic Properties. Bertrando & Bertrando Research
Consultants (“Bertrando Report”) prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation report that
recommends adding this house to the Master List of Historic Resources as the “Charles E.
Strickland House”.
1 Bertrando Report, page 6
C4 - 1
Request to add a contributing historic residence to the Master List of Historic Resources
(CHC 51-14: 1152 Buchon Street) Page 2
The property is located in a Medium-Density Residential (R-2-H) Zone and is within the Old
Town Historic District. Nearly every house along the street front in this block is on the List of
Contributing Historic Resources. The neighboring house to the west, at 1144 Buchon was
classified as a Master List Resource in December, 2013.
Architectural and Historical Background
As discussed in the Bertrando report
(page 14), this home is an eclectic and
unique example of a turn-of-the century
owner-built residence. Its style exhibits
features of the Neoclassic Rowhouse
style popular in the City during the early
20th Century. Its plan is simple and
square, one and a half stories on a raised
foundation, with a symmetrical façade
framing a central recessed porch reached
by a substantial and solid set of concrete
entry stairs. Decoration is subdued, with
simple door and window surrounds,
square support posts, Fleur-de-Lys gable
trim, and notched corner windows.
However, the distinctive roofline and exterior finish set this particular residence apart from the
typical Rowhouse or Bungalow. A set of intersecting Dutch gables reinforces its symmetrical
form. The ridges of the gables project slightly, which in concert with a gently flattening roof
slope provides a subtly dynamic transition downward to the flared soffits that ring the house.
These lively elements are brought together and grounded by the plaster exterior finish to form an
attractive, appealing, and eclectic design.
Remodeling completed in 2012 extended a small 1920’s addition at the rear of the house to
accommodate a kitchen, and a gable was added to the addition’s roof, echoing the gables on the
house roof. With the remodeling project a garage and guest house, designed to be architecturally
Figure 2: Gable decoration and curved soffits
Figure 1: 1152 Buchon Street; Charles E. Strickland House
C4 - 2
Request to add a contributing historic residence to the Master List of Historic Resources
(CHC 51-14: 1152 Buchon Street) Page 3
compatible with the residence, were constructed at the rear of the property. These additions are
mostly out of public view from the street and do not detract from the integrity of the primary
building’s identity.
The residence was recognized in 1987 as a building contributing to the historical character of the
newly-established Old Town historic district. At that time, the house was covered with wood
shiplap siding and had an enclosed porch with an awning over the entry stairs. Recent work
restored the important character-defining features, particularly the porch and stairway. The
original plaster walls were found under the wood siding and the remodel included the
replacement of the exterior finish. Since the original plaster was somewhat deteriorated and no
longer weatherproof, it needed to be removed and replaced with a new plaster finish. It was
likely that the original plaster failed early in the residence’s life, therefore requiring the wood
clad exterior to be installed over the early plaster.
Previous Review
On June 23, 2014, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the request to add the residence to
the Master List of Historic Resources. Staff evaluated the property against the criteria set forth in
the Historic Preservation for placement on the Master List. The Committee found the home to be
eligible for designation as a Master List Historic Resource due to its rare style, eclectic design,
and retention of historic integrity. By unanimous vote they adopted a resolution recommending
that the City Council add the property to Master List as the “Charles E. Strickland House”. The
staff report and the adopted resolution are attached to this report (Attachments 2 and 3).
Eligibility for Listing
Master List Resources are the most unique and important resources and properties in terms of
age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or
events in the City’s past. A resource must be at least 50 years old and exhibit a high level of
historical integrity in order to be eligible for designation as a Master List Resource. The resource
must also meet one or more criteria related to architecture, history, or integrity, outlined in
§14.01.070 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. This residence satisfies the Architectural
Criteria and Integrity criteria for historic resource listing, as discussed below.
Architectural Criteria (§14.01.070 A)
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
Style: A building may satisfy architectural criteria related to style. Of the available criteria, the
following is the most appropriate measure by which to evaluate the style of this residence:
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
those styles are put together.
The style of the house represents an early-20th Century departure from a more decorative
Victorian style, in a transitional period before Neoclassic and Craftsman influences gained a
C4 - 3
Request to add a contributing historic residence to the Master List of Historic Resources
(CHC 51-14: 1152 Buchon Street) Page 4
strong influence. In addition, it is an eclectic and unique result of the deliberate stylistic choices
made by its builder, who was also its first owner and occupant.
Design: Architectural criteria related to design describe the architectural concept of a structure
and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. They also reflect how
well a style or combination of styles are expressed, through compatibility and detailing of
elements. The design of this residence clearly satisfies these criteria, evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details, and
craftsmanship […];
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders […].
The residence is clearly attractive and aesthetically appealing due to the successful blending of
lively, yet restrained, stylistic and decorative elements. The roofline, notched corner windows,
curved soffits, and plaster siding are interesting, eclectic details that Charles Strickland, a
carpenter, craftsman, and contractor, selected for this unique residence, and these details were
executed with a high level of craftsmanship.
Integrity (§14.01.070 C)
The residence satisfies criteria related to integrity:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and
whether or not the original foundation has been
changed;
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained
enough of its historic character or appearance to be
recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the
reasons for its significance;
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
The house is at least 50 years old and has largely retained its historical integrity. The Bertrando
Report cites the San Luis Obispo Tribune as the source of a news article mentioning the
construction of the house in 1905, and the house appears on the July, 1909 Sanborn Map. On that
map, the distinctive plaster siding is noted: “PLAST’D OUTSIDE”.
The house occupies its original site and the extent of its original foundation. An addition from
the 1920’s, at the rear of the residence, was extended for a kitchen. A small portion of the
addition is visible at the east side of the property, but as it gently echoes the soffit and gable
features of the original portion of the residence, it does not impair recognition of the house as an
historic resource.
Figure 3: 1909 Sanborn Map
House labeled “PLAST’D OUTSIDE”
C4 - 4
Request to add a contributing historic residence to the Master List of Historic Resources
(CHC 51-14: 1152 Buchon Street) Page 5
Windows enclosing the porch were removed, and
the walls of the house were restored to an earlier
lath and plaster. The removal of the porch
enclosure and wood siding, along with some
small restorative changes like replacement of
gable decoration, has restored the house’s
original design, materials, and workmanship.
These are the architectural elements that give the
house its historic feeling, make it recognizable as
a significant historic resource, and satisfy the
criteria that qualify it for designation as a Master
List Resource.
CONCLUSION
This home is a unique example of a turn-of-the century owner-built residence, representing a
transition away from highly decorative Victorian styles toward simpler, less ornate, features of
the Neoclassic Rowhouse style that had yet to take hold. It is a very early form of a plaster
exterior residence, constructed at a time when other residences were clad in wood. Additionally,
the exterior treatment with curved soffits make this a unique example, different from other
residences of this era.2 Its distinctive roofline and siding lend it an eclectic character, and its
current owners, Louis and Ann Robinson have restored the integrity of these features. As a
result, it satisfies the architectural criteria related to style and design, and the criteria related to
integrity, that are described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and eligible for designation
as a Master List Resource.
2 The Bertrando Report identifies only one other house known to employ curved soffits: the Master-Listed Regan
Home located at 1306 Chorro Street
Figure 4: Addition, seen from east side of property
Figure 5: Porch – before (enclosed) and after (restored)
C4 - 5
Request to add a contributing historic residence to the Master List of Historic Resources
(CHC 51-14: 1152 Buchon Street) Page 6
FISCAL IMPACT
Adding the property to the Master List will have no fiscal impact on the City.
Owners of Master List properties are eligible, however, to enter into a Mills Act Historic
Preservation Contract with the City. Such a contract would provide the property owner with tax
relief in exchange for an agreement to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of
an historic resource. The tax relief would reduce the tax revenue received by the City,
constituting a fiscal impact to the City. Such an agreement would require Council approval, and
the fiscal impact would be reviewed and estimated at that time.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of this request to a future date for additional analysis or research; or
2. Deny the request to add the residence at 1152 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic
Resources. This alternative is not recommended. The property meets the eligibility criteria
for designation as a Master List Resource.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda Report (June 23, 2014)
3. Cultural Heritage Committee Resolution (Adopted June 23, 2014)
4. Excerpt from Minutes of the June 23, 2014 CHC Hearing
5. Draft City Council Resolution
Council Reading File: Historic Resource Evaluation (Bertrando & Bertrando, March 2013)
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-16\Master List Request 1152 Buchon (Johnson-Oetzell)\CouncilAgendaReport.docx
C4 - 6
R-3
R-2-H
R-2-H
O
R-2-H
R-2R-2-H
R-3
PF
R-2
R-3-HR-2-H
R-2
R-2
PISMO
BUCH
O
N
T
O
R
O
ISLAY
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
VICINITY MAP File No. 51-141152 Buchon St.¯
ATTACHMENT 1
C4 - 7
Meeting Date: June 23, 2014
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a request to designate the contributing historic residence at 1152 Buchon
to the Master List of Historic Resources.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1152 Buchon Street BY: Walter Oetzell
Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: CHC 51-14 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CHC forward a recommendation to the City Council supporting the
addition of the property to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources.
BACKGROUND
The property owner has submitted an
application requesting the contributing
historic residence at 1152 Buchon Street
be added to the City’s Master List of
Historic Resources. Bertrando &
Bertrando Research Consultants
(“Bertrando Report”) prepared a Historic
Resource Evaluation report that
recommends adding this house to the
Master List of Historic Resources as the
Charles E. Strickland House.
DISCUSSION
Site Description: The property is located in a Medium-Density Residential (R-2-H) Zone and is
within the Old Town Historic District. The residence was constructed in 19051 on a lot
measuring just over 7,000 square feet in area. Nearly every house along the street front in this
block is on the List of Contributing Historic Resources. The neighboring house to the west, at
1144 Buchon was classified as a Master List Resource in December, 2013.
Architectural Description: As discussed in the Bertrando report (page 14), this home is an
eclectic and unique example of a turn-of-the century owner-built residence. Its style exhibits
features of the Neoclassic Rowhouse style popular in the City during the early 20 th Century. Its
plan is simple and square, one and a half stories on a raised foundation, with a symmetrical
façade framing a central recessed porch reached by a substantial and solid set of concrete entry
stairs. Decoration is subdued, with simple door and window surrounds, square support posts,
Fleur-de-Lys gable trim, and notched corner windows.
1 Bertrando Report, page 6
Figure 1: 1152 Buchon Street; Charles E. Strickland House
CHC2 - 1
ATTACHMENT 2
C4 - 8
CHC 51-13 (1152 Buchon St)
Page 2
However, the distinctive roofline and exterior finish set this particular residence apart from the
typical Rowhouse or Bungalow. A set of intersecting Dutch gables reinforces its symmetrical
form. The ridges of the gables project slightly, which in concert with a gently flattening roof
slope provides a subtly dynamic transition downward to the flared soffits that ring the house.
These lively elements are brought together and grounded by the plaster exterior finish to form an
attractive, appealing, and eclectic design.
Remodeling completed in 2012 extended a small 1920’s addition at the rear of the house to
accommodate a kitchen, and a gable was added to the addition’s roof, echoing the gables on the
house roof. With the remodeling project a garage and guest house, designed to be architecturally
compatible with the residence, were constructed at the rear of the property. These additions are
mostly out of public view from the street and do not detract from the integrity of the primary
building’s identity.
The residence was recognized in 1987 as a building contributing to the historical character of the
newly-established Old Town historic district. At that time, the house was covered with wood
shiplap siding and had an enclosed porch with an awning over the entry stairs. Recent work
restored the porch and stairway, important character-defining features. The original plaster walls
were found under the wood siding and the remodel included the replacement of the exterior
finish. Since the original plaster was somewhat deteriorated and no longer weatherproof, it
needed to be removed and replaced with a new plaster finish. It was likely that the original
plaster failed early in the residence’s life, therefore requiring the wood clad exterior to be
installed over the early plaster.
EVALUATION
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC §14.01.060), will determine if the property meets eligibility criteria for placement on
the Master List and, if it is eligible, forward a recommendation to the City Council, who will take
action on the application. Master List Resources are the most unique and important resources and
properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with
important persons or events in the City’s past. A resource must be at least 50 years old and
Figure 2: Gable decoration and curved soffits
CHC2 - 2C4 - 9
CHC 51-13 (1152 Buchon St)
Page 3
exhibit a high level of historical integrity in order to be eligible for designation as a Master List
Resource. The resource must also satisfy criteria related to architecture, history, or integrity.
The following evaluation highlights the significance criteria. Most notably, this residence is
unique for its architecture in terms of its style and design. In particular it is a very early form of a
plaster exterior residence, constructed at a time when other residences were clad in wood.
Additionally, the exterior treatment with curved soffits make this a unique example, different
from other residences of this era. The Bertrando Report identifies only one other house known to
employ curved soffits: the Master-Listed Regan Home located at 1306 Chorro Street.
Architectural Criteria (§14.01.070 A)
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
Style: A building may satisfy architectural criteria related to style. Of the available criteria, the
following is the most appropriate measure by which to evaluate the style of this residence:
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
those styles are put together.
The style of the house represents an early-20th Century departure from a more decorative
Victorian style, in a transitional period before Neoclassic and Craftsman influences gained a
strong influence. In addition, it is an eclectic and unique result of the deliberate stylistic choices
made by its builder, who was also its first owner and occupant.
Design: Architectural criteria related to design describe the architectural concept of a structure
and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. They also reflect how
well a style or combination of styles are expressed, through compatibility and detailing of
elements. The design of this residence clearly satisfies these criteria, evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details, and
craftsmanship […];
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders […].
The residence is clearly attractive and aesthetically appealing due to the successful blending of
lively, yet restrained, stylistic and decorative elements. The roofline, notched corner windows,
curved soffits, and plaster siding are interesting, eclectic details that Charles Strickland, a
carpenter, craftsman, and contractor, selected for this unique residence, and these details were
executed with a high level of craftsmanship.
Architect: The architect of this house is not definitively known. The builder is of the house is
identified as Charles E. Strickland, from Michigan, by way of Kansas, who worked under
notable architects (such as E. H. Weeks) and was involved in the construction of several
significant homes during his time in San Luis Obispo. But, as the architect is not known, it
cannot be determined whether the house meets architectural criteria related to the architect.
CHC2 - 3C4 - 10
CHC 51-13 (1152 Buchon St)
Page 4
Historic Criteria (§14.01.070 B)
Person, Event, Context: A portion of Mission land granted to Miguel Marquez in 1844 was
eventually inherited by Pierre Dallidet through his wife Maria Asencion Salazar. Formerly part
of farm and vineyard acreage, the La Vina Homestead Tract was laid out in 1903 under the
direction of the Commercial Bank and sold for residential development. Charles E. Strickland, a
craftsman and contractor, and builder of three of the homes on the Master List of Historic
Properties, constructed the subject residence for himself in approximately 1905 on Lot 18 of the
tract. The Stricklands later moved to San Jose, and the home has since hosted a variety of owners
and occupants. Louis and Ann Robinson purchased the property in 2009.
As discussed in the Bertrando Report, the home was built and
occupied by industrious, interesting people, many of whom were
highly successful and involved in their community. Criteria
associated with historic persons, however, require satisfaction of
a very high level of significance, fame, or outstanding
contributions to warrant listing of structures associated with them.
No landmark, famous, or first-of-its kind events are known to
have occurred at the residence, nor did its function as a residence
represent a unique, important, interesting contribution to the City.
Likewise it does not satisfy historic criteria solely on the basis of
its association with early 20th Century residential development in
the City.
Integrity (§14.01.070 C)
The residence satisfies criteria related to integrity:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and whether or not the original
foundation has been changed;
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its
significance;
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
The house is at least 50 years old and has largely retained its historical integrity. The Bertrando
Report cites the San Luis Obispo Tribune as the source of a news article mentioning the
construction of the house in 1905, and the house appears on the July, 1909 Sanborn Map. On that
map, the distinctive plaster siding is noted: “PLAST’D OUTSIDE”.
The house occupies its original site and the extent of its original foundation. An addition from
the 1920’s, at the rear of the residence, was extended for a kitchen. A small portion of the
addition is visible at the east side of the property, but as it gently echoes the soffit and gable
features of the original portion of the residence, it does not impair recognition of the house as an
historic resource.
Figure 3: 1909 Sanborn Map
House labeled “PLAST’D OUTSIDE”
CHC2 - 4C4 - 11
CHC 51-13 (1152 Buchon St)
Page 5
Windows enclosing the porch were removed,
and the walls of the house were restored to an
earlier lath and plaster. The removal of the
porch enclosure and wood siding, along with
some small restorative changes like replacement
of gable decoration, has restored the house’s
original design, materials, and workmanship.
These are the architectural elements that give
the house its historic feeling, make it
recognizable as a significant historic resource,
and satisfy the criteria that qualify it for
designation as a Master List Resource.
SUMMARY
This home is a unique example of a turn-of-the century owner-built residence, representing a
transition away from highly decorative Victorian styles toward simpler, less ornate, features of
the Neoclassic Rowhouse style that had yet to take hold. Its distinctive roofline and siding lend it
an eclectic character, and its current owners, Louis and Ann Robinson have restored the integrity
of these features. As a result, it satisfies the architectural criteria related to style and design, and
the criteria related to integrity, that are described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Committee finds the home at 1152 Buchon to be eligible for
designation as a Master List Resource due to its rare style, eclectic design, and retention of
historic integrity, and that the Committee forwards a recommendation to the City Council that
they designate the home as a Master List Historic Resource.
Figure 4: Addition, seen from east side of property
Figure 5: Porch – before (enclosed) and after (restored)
CHC2 - 5C4 - 12
CHC 51-13 (1152 Buchon St)
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
1. Find that the property does not satisfy eligibility criteria for designation as a Master List
Resource and recommend to the City Council that it not be added to the Master List of
Historic Resources.
2. Review and consider the Historic Resource Evaluation and continue the item to provide
additional time for collecting additional information that may be useful in determining
whether the property is eligible for designation as a Master List Resource.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Historic Resource Evaluation
3. Draft Resolution
CHC2 - 6C4 - 13
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADD THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1152 BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
CHC 51-14
WHEREAS, applicant Ann Robinson, on March 19, 2014, submitted an
application to add their property to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Meeting Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on June 23, 2014, for the purpose of considering adding
property located at 1152 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee
makes the following findings:
Findings
1. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it
satisfies more than one of the evaluation criteria for historic resource listing
described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, exhibits a high level of
historic integrity, and is more than 50 years old.
2. The house satisfies evaluation criteria for historic resources listing, related to
architectural style and design (§14.01.070 A). It is a rare and unique example
of an early 20th Century owner-built residence that exhibits a transitional style,
away from the ornate decoration of Victorian styles and toward a more simple
and restrained style that would later be employed in the Neoclassical and
Craftsman styles. Its eclectic detailing and craftsmanship is notably attractive
and aesthetically appealing.
3. The house exhibits a high level of historic integrity, and satisfies evaluation
criteria for historic resources listing related to historic integrity (§14.01.070 C).
ATTACHMENT 3
C4 - 14
Resolution No. XXX-14
Page 2
The structure occupies its original site and the extent of its original foundation.
Its historic character and appearance have been maintained, and materials
and workmanship retained, as expressed by decorated Dutch gables, flared
soffits, plaster siding, notched corner windows, and a centered, recessed
front porch. Only one addition to the house has been constructed, at the rear
of the structure. Only a small portion of the addition is visible, from the east
side of the property, and this portion echoes the historic character of the
original residence.
4. The house is more than 50 years old. A news article printed in the San Luis
Obispo Tribune on March 10, 1905 notes the beginning of the construction of
the residence. The residence is depicted on a Sanborn Map prepared in
1909, with the note “PLAST’D OUTSIDE”, indicating that the house originally had
plaster exterior siding, which is a rare and unique feature for this era.
5. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is the designation of a historical
resource, an action taken to assure the protection of the environment, as
described in §15308 of the CEQA Guidelines (Actions by Regulatory
Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
Section 2. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend the
City Council add the property located at 1156 Buchon Street to the Master List of
Historic Resources as the historic “Charles E. Strickland House”.
On motion by Committee Member , seconded by Committee Member ,
and on the following roll call vote
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23 rd day of June, 2014.
_____________________________
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
C4 - 15
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 23, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Hugh Platt, Patti
Taylor, Victoria Wood, and Chair Bob Pavlik
Absent: Vice-Chair Jaime Hill
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner
Walter Oetzell, Planning Technician Kyle Bell, and Recording Secretary
Diane Clement
[…]
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
[…]
2. 1152 Buchon Street. CHC 51-14; Request to add a Contributing property to the
Master List of Historic Resources; R-2-H zone; Ann Robinson, applicant. (Walter
Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending the CHC forward a
recommendation to the City Council supporting the addition of the property to the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bob Vessely, SLO, stated he looked at the siding and that the plaster was the original
material. He noted the concept in city planning referred to as “gift to the street” and
stated that the work the owners did was courageous and more than a gift to the street.
Dean Miller, SLO, stated that the two corner windows on the front elevation magically
light up the rooms inside and are the most impressive features of this house and should
be seen by everyone.
Lou Robinson, SLO, owner of the house, invited everyone to knock on his door and
come inside to see what has been done.
Stew Jenkins, SLO, stated he watched the rehabilitation of this house by the Robinsons.
He noted that the previous houses they have renovated show that they do everything
right and this house will last for generations.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Member Brajkovich stated that this is a great restoration job and supports the
recommendation.
ATTACHMENT 4
C4 - 16
Extract from CHC Minutes
June 23, 2014
Page 2
Mr. Robinson noted that people love the mailbox which is a replica of the house.
Member Wood stated that, when a property is added to the Master List of Historic
Resources, it gets added almost automatically to the Mills Act Preservation Program
and that she does not think the City wants or can support the continuing expansion of
the Mills Act Preservation Program, because it is a huge tax burden.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the City encourages the program but that Staff is
taking a much closer look at properties and providing a much more detailed financial
report. He noted that the State and the County also encourage additions to the Mills Act
Preservation Program. He stated that the State has noted that the City might be
discouraging the addition of properties because it has one of the highest Mills Act fees
in the State.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Platt, seconded by Committee Member Taylor, to
forward a recommendation to the City Council supporting the addition of the property to
the City’s Master List of Historic Resources.
AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Pavlik, Platt, and Taylor
NOES: Committee Member Wood
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jaime Hill
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
[…]
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on July 28, 2014
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
C4 - 17
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING THE PROPERTY AT 1152 BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES AS THE "CHARLES E. STRICKLAND HOUSE"
(CHC 51-13)
WHEREAS, applicant Ann Robinson, on March 19, 2014, submitted an application to
add her property to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Meeting Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on June 23, 2014, and recommended that the Council add the property located at
1152 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 16th, 2014, for the purpose of considering the addition of the property located at 1152
Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the
Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of interested parties, and
the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The house is eligible for the Master List of Historic Resources because it satisfies
more than one of the evaluation criteria for historic resource listing described in the
Historic Preservation Ordinance, exhibits a high level of historic integrity, and is
more than 50 years old.
2. The house satisfies evaluation criteria for historic resources listing, related to
architectural style and design (§14.01.070 A). It is a rare and unique example of an
early 20th Century owner-built residence that exhibits a transitional style, away from
the ornate decoration of Victorian styles and toward a more simple and restrained
style that would later be employed in the Neoclassical and Craftsman styles. Its
eclectic detailing and craftsmanship is notably attractive and aesthetically appealing.
3. The house exhibits a high level of historic integrity, and satisfies evaluation criteria
for historic resources listing related to historic integrity (§14.01.070 C). The structure
occupies its original site and the extent of its original foundation. Its historic character
and appearance have been maintained, and materials and workmanship retained, as
C4 - 18
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 2
expressed by decorated Dutch gables, flared soffits, plaster siding, notched corner
windows, and a centered, recessed front porch. Only one addition to the house has
been constructed, at the rear of the structure. Only a small portion of the addition is
visible, from the east side of the property, and this portion echoes the historic
character of the original residence.
4. The house is more than 50 years old. A news article printed in the San Luis Obispo
Tribune on March 10, 1905 notes the beginning of the construction of the residence.
The residence is depicted on a Sanborn Map prepared in 1909, with the note
“PLAST’D OUTSIDE”, indicating that the house originally had plaster exterior
siding, which is a rare and unique feature for this era.
5. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is the designation of a historical resource,
an action taken to assure the protection of the environment, as described in §15308 of
the CEQA Guidelines (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the
Environment).
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby add
the property located at 1152 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as the
historic “Charles E. Strickland House”.
SECTION 3.. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), as it is the designation of a historical resource, an action taken to assure the protection
of the environment, as described in §15308 of the CEQA Guidelines (Actions by Regulatory
Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 20xx.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
C4 - 19
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series)
Page 3
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
C4 - 20
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks and Recreation
Melissa C. Mudgett, Recreation and Public Art Program Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNED PUBLIC ART
LOCATED AT THE PORTOLA FOUNTAIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF
HIGUERA AND MARSH STREETS, SPECIFICATION NO. 90455
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission, approve the public art design
modifications for the Portola Fountain project to be located at the intersection of Higuera and
Marsh Streets, Specification No. 90455.
DISCUSSION
Background
In August 1967, the San Luis Obispo Monday Club (a non-profit civic organization with a long
history of community service) built the Portola Fountain as part of a City beautification project.
While appropriate at the time, the fountain has since become dated in design, minimized by the
amount of activity surrounding it, and now functions as a gateway to the City (as shown in the
Downtown Concept Plan) making it a prime candidate and location for a substantial piece of
public art. A vicinity map is provided as Attachment 1. For almost a decade now, the fountain
basin has been in need of significant repairs and no longer functions as a water fountain.
A request for qualifications (RFQ) for a public art project at the fountain was released in October
2008. In 2009, an Art Jury reviewed over 150 proposals and recommended a single public art
design for this location, titled “Qishi-Souhi”. This public art piece, a 36-foot tall kinetic
sculpture, was to be located within the fountain basin. The conceptual art design was supported
by the Architectural Review Commission at its May 17, 2010 meeting (Attachment 2). On June
2, 2010, the City Council approved the public art design and awarded a contract to the artists
(Jeffrey Laudensager and Deane Sabeck) in the amount of $125,000 (Attachment 3).
Since 2010 the project design has been subject to the City’s building and planning review
process to ensure conformity with building code and satisfy various safety requirements. This
location has also received various intersection improvements during this time which have
resulted in additional safety concerns due to the new pedestrian walkway and increased public
access to the site. In response to the current environment and in an effort to meet City building
conditions, the artists have proposed public art design modifications for the project as discussed
in further detail in the report.
Sept. 16, 2014
C5
C5 - 1
Public Art Design Modifications, Higuera/Marsh St, Specification No. 90455 Page 2
EVALUATION
Intersection Modifications
The Capital Improvement Project for Mid-Higuera Widening was approved as part of the
approved 2009-11 Financial Plan. In 2011 to 2012, various intersection improvements were
constructed at the intersection of Marsh and Higuera streets to add sidewalks across the island
where the fountain is located, construct curb ramps, update the traffic signals and reconstruct the
street surfacing.
Figure 1 below is intended to provide examples of pre and post construction improvements
which have added an accessible pedestrian walkway around the Portola fountain base (proposed
placement of the art piece) now allowing for safe and accessible intersection crossing. These
intersection improvements, while needed, have increased the need for safety measures in the
public art piece to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicle clearance from the art piece while the
kinetic pieces are in motion.
Figure 1: Intersection Improvements
Pre-Construction (October 2011) Post Construction (2014)
Proposed Public Art Modifications
The original public art design was a 36-foot tall kinetic sculpture with three dynamic moving
pieces, each ranging from 16 to 17 feet long. The kinetic sculpture was to sit on top of a dichroic
glass sculpture in which the water from the fountain would undulate over, falling into the water
basin below.
C5 - 2
Public Art Design Modifications, Higuera/Marsh St, Specification No. 90455 Page 3
City team representatives from the Parks and Recreation public art program and Community
Development Review staff continue to work collaboratively with the artists to address various
project conditions and recommend enhancements to the public art piece that are consistent with
site conditions. In response to public safety concerns, the artist has proposed minor modifications
to the overall piece size, shape of the kinetic pieces, enhancements to the structural base which
provide for pedestrian and vehicle safety enhancements as well as to improve the aesthetics of
the piece given the changes to the site.
Due to an advanced state of deterioration of the fountain basin, it no longer functions as a viable
water fountain. In addition, staff does not recommend undertaking the costly repairs needed to
make the fountain fully waterproof to support a fountain function. Given the current prolonged
drought in the State of California and the City’s longstanding water conservation efforts, a water
fountain at our gateway is not an environmental or fiscally sustainable endeavor. With water
conservation an upmost priority for our community, higher than anticipated repair costs and
ongoing water and maintenance costs, both staff and the artists are recommending elimination of
the water feature component for this project. The fountain basin will instead be filled in with dirt
and low-maintenance, drought tolerant plants will be planted around the base of the art piece.
Consistent with the City’s Public Art Policy criteria, the project modifications have been
proposed in response to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) 2010 evaluation of the
proposal (Attachment 2), specifically addressing ARC Conditions 3, 5 and 8 which express
concerns about the projects’ massive scale (height), pedestrian/vehicular safety and the structural
base. As proposed, the project remains consistent with the public art guidelines. The four
proposed project modifications and potential benefits are listed below;
Proposed Modification Benefit
•Reduced Cost of Repairs
•Compliant with Water Conservation Efforts
•Reduced Cost of Water/Ongoing Maintenance
Elimination of Glass/Water Feature
Response to Water Conservation
•Compliant with California Building Code (CBC)
•Improved Pedestrian, Vehicle Safety and Traffic Flow due
to lessoned impact (overarching) on lanes of travel
Modified Structural Base
Response to ARC Condition 8
•Compliant with California Building Code (CBC)
•Improved Pedestrian, Vehicle Safety and Traffic Flow due
to lessoned impact (overarching) on lanes of travel
Decrease in Scale (Height) to 30 ft.
Response to ARC Condition 3
•Improved Pedestrian, Vehicle Safety and Traffic Flow due
to lessoned impact (overarching) on lanes of travel
•Visual Aesthetic Improvements to Site
Modified (Decreased) Scale of
Kinetic Pieces to 7-9 feet &
Rounded Shape
Response to ARC Condition 3 & 5
C5 - 3
Public Art Design Modifications, Higuera/Marsh St, Specification No. 90455 Page 4
A rendering comparison of the proposed project modifications is provided in Figure 2. The
modified public art design has been renamed “Olas Portola”; meaning waves. Further design
details have been provided as Attachment 4.
Figure 2 - Comparison
Public Art Guidelines
Proposed public art pieces must receive Advisory Body review and input to ensure compliance
with approved historical criteria and public art guidelines. On August 4, 2014, staff presented to
the ARC the proposed design modifications as consistent with the City’s Public Art Policy
supported by ARC’s original evaluation. The ARC concurred with staff’s conclusions that the
proposed modifications are justified and consistent with the City’s Public Art Policy criteria,
thereby recommending City Council approval of the project modifications (Attachment 5).
Figure 3 below details the City’s public art process and timeline from the beginning of the
original public art design approval in 2009 through to a final installation and dedication of the
project anticipated in 2015.
C5 - 4
Public Art Design Modifications, Higuera/Marsh St, Specification No. 90455 Page 5
Figure 3 – Public Art Timeline
CONCURRENCES
These proposed public art modifications for Olas Portola has received the review and
concurrence of the ARC advisory body. These modifications have also received the mutual
support and concurrence of the Community Development and Public Works Departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with Council’s approval of proposed public art modifications
as presented. Funding in the amount of $125,000 was approved as part of the 2009-11 Financial
Plan. Currently $62,500 remains in the project account which is sufficient to support completion
of this project.
ALTERNATIVE
Deny project design modifications. The City Council could choose to deny the proposed
project modifications and direct staff to proceed with the project as originally designed. Staff
does not recommend this option as the original design does not meet all of the safety conditions
as set forth by the ARC and the Building and Planning Departments.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Vicinity Map
2) ARC Agenda Report & Conditions May 17, 2010
3) Council Agenda Report June 2, 2010
4) Olas Portola Design Modifications
5) ARC Meeting Minutes August 4, 2014
g:\everyone\public art\current projects\marsh@higuera fountain - quishi soushi\reports\council\approval of design modifications\ecar portola fountain public art design mods 90455.docx
Art Jury
& ARC Review
2009-2010
Council Approval & Award of Contract
2010
Building & Planning Reviews
2011-2013
Proposed Modifications to Meet Conditions
2014
Council Approval of Proposed Modifications
2014
Building & Planning Reviews
Permitting
Fabrication
2014-15
Installation of Public Art
2015
C5 - 5
C5 - 6
C5 - 7
C5 - 8
C5 - 9
C5 - 10
C5 - 11
C5 - 12
C5 - 13
C5 - 14
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Shannon Bates, Public Art Coordinator
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART FOR THE PORTOLA FOUNTAIN
RECOMMENDATION
1. As recommended by the Public Art Jury and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC),
approve the public art piece entitled QUISHI / SHOUSHI for the Portola Fountain at the
intersection of Marsh and Higuera streets.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the artist for $125,000 for
completion of the project.
DISCUSSION
Background
In August of 1967, the San Luis Obispo Monday Club (a non-profit civic organization with a
long history of community service) began discussions regarding the club's participation in a City
beautification project and in October 1967 the club agreed to spearhead the project to create a
fountain at the entrance to the City (Marsh and Higuera Streets intersection). The fountain later
became the Monday Club’s civic project for the year. With $900, preliminary plans, some
donated plants and lots of donated labor (over 200 off-duty hours donated by City of SLO
firefighters), the Monday Club, in collaboration with the City of San Luis Obispo successfully
completed the fountain beautification project for this major City gateway.
While appropriate at the time, the fountain has since become dated in design and minimized by
the amount of activity surrounding it, making it a prime candidate and location for a substantial
piece of public art. As such, it was first identified for the City’s public art program in 2003-05
Financial Plan and allocated $40,000. It soon became apparent that additional funding was
needed in order to acquire an art piece that was adequate for the site (as well as continuing to
function as a water feature). As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council approved specific
projects for public art funding and one of these projects was to increase the funding for the
Portola Fountain public art project. An additional $90,000 was allocated bringing the total
available for this project to $130,000. In October, 2008 a request for qualifications (RFQ) was
released, resulting in the selection of a piece of artwork by a public art jury
Public Art Jury Review
One hundred fifty-three (153) artists responded to the RFQ. A public art jury consisting of
Thomas Brajkovich (Architect), Jed Joyce (Artist), Ali Semon (Frame Works), Jack Beisek (Arts
Council member), Nancy Hillenburg (Monday Club) and John Dokulil (artist) convened on
C5 - 15
Approval of Public Art for the Portola Fountain Page 2
several occasions to review the artists’ qualifications. The jury eventually invited six artists to
present a proposal in front of the jury. To evaluate each proposal the jury used the following
Guidelines for Public Art (see Attachment 2 for Guidelines):
1. Artistic excellence.
2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the environment.
3. Relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the building.
4. Appropriateness of materials relative to structural and surface integrity, protection against
theft, vandalism, public safety and weathering.
5. Ease of maintenance.
6. Appropriateness of proposed method of installation of artwork, and safety and structural
factors involved in installation.
After presentations by each of the artists and much discussion/deliberation; the jury unanimously
selected the piece QUISHI / SHOUSHI by San Diego artist Jeffrey Laundenslager. The jury felt
the piece: “made a substantial statement”, “added a unique piece to the City’s public art
collection”, and “had a broad appeal.”
Project Description
QUISHI / SHOUSHI is a 35-foot tall kinetic sculpture that expresses simplicity, complexity and
the power of nature. The movement of the wind becomes visible through the elegant motion of
sculptural forms that while appearing massive, “dance” in the wind with a weightless elegance.
Each of the three kinetic elements, ranging from 16 to 17 feet long, will sit on top of a dichroic
glass sculpture in which the water from the fountain will undulate over, falling into the water
basin below.
With regard to construction materials, the sculpture will be constructed using stainless steel and
titanium as well as a kiln cast glass (dichroic glass) for the water feature. An engineered footing
will anchor the piece to the inside of the existing fountain basin. Lighting will consist of LED
lights inside the glass sculpture as well as lights positioned to illuminate the kinetic elements at
night (see Attachment 3 for photos of proposed artwork).
ARC Review
On May 17, 2010, artist Jeffrey Laudenslager, presented QUISHI / SHOUSHI to the ARC for
discussion and approval. Using the Guidelines for Public Art, the ARC found that the artwork
meets the criteria for public art and recommended its approval to the City Council (see
Attachment 4 for ARC Resolution).
CONCURRENCES
The Public Art Jury, and the ARC reviewed QUISHI / SHOUSHI and recommends that the piece
be approved for the Portola Fountain at the intersection of Marsh and Higuera streets.
C5 - 16
Approval of Public Art for the Portola Fountain Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
$130,000.00 is available for this project. $125,000 has been allocated for the art piece, with the
remaining funds held in reserve for finalist’s stipends, the identification plaque and the
dedication ceremony. The following table outlines the funding sources for the recommended
project:
Project Funding In-Lieu 2003-05 GF 2007-09 GF Project Total
Portola Fountain $42,000 $40,000 $48,000 $130,000
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could reject the piece and direct staff to reissue the RFQ. This is not recommended
based upon the concurrences identified above.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Guidelines for Public Art
3. Photos of proposed artwork
4. ARC Resolution
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks & Recreation CAR\Public Art\Portola Fountain CAR.doc
C5 - 17
C5 - 18
C5 - 19
C5 - 20
C5 - 21
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
August 4, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy
Nemcik, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle
McCovey-Good
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Supervising
Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Parks and Recreation Public Art Manager
Melissa Mudgett, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The Consent Item for 163 Suburban Road
was the first item considered.
MINUTES:
The minutes of July 21, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
CONSENT ITEM:
1. 163 Suburban Road. ARC 39-14; Adopt a resolution approving two industrial
buildings for a brewery and for manufacturing and storage uses, each with a
caretaker residence; M-SP zone; Earthwood Lane Properties, LLC, applicant.
(Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution approving the construction of two new industrial buildings with
caretaker dwellings.
On motion by Commr. Curtis, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to adopt the Resolution as
presented with one amendment: delete the last sentence in Section 2, Public Works,
Condition #8: “The accessible path between buildings shall not rely on the accessible
parking space loading zone.”
C5 - 22
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 2
AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Andreen, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, Root, and
Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
INFORMATIONAL UPDATE:
1. Staff update on proposed modification to planned public art at the Portola Fountain
located at Higuera and Marsh Street intersection. (Melissa Mudgett)
Commr. Root recused himself for this item.
Commr Wynn stated that the base looks different and asked if it is a different metal.
Public Art Manager Mudgett stated it is a less reflective finish than the original piece.
Commr. Wynn requested that the material and finish be clarified by the artist.
The Commissioners agreed with the staff’s conclusion that the previous findings made
by the ARC with the earlier review of the project were not affected by the changes, and
that the project would not require further review by the ARC.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2207 San Luis Drive. ARCMI 77-14; Review of a new single-family residence on
a sensitive site; R-1-S zone; Mr. and Mrs. Mark A. Anelli, applicants. (Walter
Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending continued
consideration of the application to a future date with direction on potential design
changes that would make the project more consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines.
Applicant Mark Anelli, stated that a precedent has been set for two-story, flat-roofed
contemporary homes in this neighborhood. He noted that a home will be built on the
west side of his home so his house will not block the view of the hillside in the future.
He described a diagonal wire line trellis system that will cover one large wall which will
be seen only from the very end of the cul-de-sac.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
C5 - 23
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 3
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Andreen compared the west elevation of the house with the Mission wall facing
Chorro and decided that there is a peacefulness to having one unarticulated element
when the design is dramatic. She commended the design and stated that it is
compatible with the new Spanish style home in this neighborhood.
Commr. Wynn stated that the wall on the “west side” of the residence is a bit massive,
but that the design fits the envelope, has good order and symmetry, and will not block
the view of the steep hillside. He added that the one wall of concern will be covered
with plants and the other wall will have another home adjacent to it. He suggested that
the proposed green screen on the east wall is fine but should be more “orthogonal”,
consistent with the rest of the elements of the house. He noted that the Commission
needs a better understanding of the locations of specific colors and textures and where
they terminate.
Commr. Nemcik stated that more variation in the gray colors would bring the mass
down.
Commr. Root stated that he sees an opportunity to create an asymmetric square to the
left of the doors on the largest field of the house. He agreed that the green screen
should be horizontal and vertical, not diamond shapes.
Commr. McCovey-Good suggested adding to the resolution a requirement that there be
more variation in the grays to help reduce the massing.
Commr. Wynn agreed that a decrease in massing could occur by modifying the color
palette and that this could be handled at the staff level.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested a new Condition 1 stating that the applicant shall submit
revised elevations with specific callouts on the colors and where they terminate their
edges. She added that the other Conditions would remain in the resolution.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On a motion by Commr. Nemcik, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to approve the
resolution with the following new Condition #1: “The applicant shall submit revised
elevations showing colors and materials, and their logical termination points to th e
approval of the Community Development Director. An updated colors and material
board shall also be submitted with consideration for a more varied color palette.”
AYES: Commrs. Nemcik, Ehdaie, Andreen, Curtis, McCovey-Good, Root, and
Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
C5 - 24
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 4
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
2. 1327 Osos Street. ARC 96-13; Review of plans for a mixed-use project with nine
(9) condominium units and 8,000-square feet of office space in the Old Town
Historic District, including a request for an approximately 30% parking reduction
through a shared parking reduction and automobile trip reduction program; R-3-H
zone; Mission Medical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Ricci presented the staff report, recommending continuation of the
project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. She noted that
letters were received from Allan Cooper who stated he is supportive of the staff position,
and from Joseph Abrams, a member of Save Our Downtown, who recommended denial
of the project. She stated that letters were submitted at this meeting from Stewart
Jenkins and Diane Jenkins who included paper copies of her PowerPoint presentation.
Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associations, pointed out that the scale model
has been expanded to include the immediate neighbors.
Jonathan Watts, Architect, Cunningham Group, stated that the project is pedestrian-
oriented, has more bike parking than required, and is focused on the future. He stated
that the shared parking, which will have no assigned spaces, will allow others to park
when the residents are away during the day.
Principal Planner Florence stated that the applicant will work with SLO Regional
Rideshare to satisfy concerns about parking, and showers, a car pool space and
bicycles will be provided.
Architect Watts stated that the roof decks are important living spaces and that second
floors always overlook ground floors, even in single-family home neighborhoods. He
added that the decks are not enormous and have not used the entire roof. He stated
that contrast is needed to avoid demeaning the church by mimicking its design but it is
important to maintain the rhythm of the street. He noted that the roof height is
consistent with the height of the church and that the width of the building features and
spaces fronting the street match the elements of the church, thereby keeping the
rhythm. He added that the gable in Condition 4 is not in keeping with updated
Craftsman style and the solid wall next to the door adds privacy for that residence.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Diane Jenkins, SLO, neighbor to the project, stated that Morro Street is known as
Bicycle Boulevard. She pointed out that most of the buildings on the applicant’s
presentation board are not in Old Town, which is a quaint area that harkens back to
simpler times with its many Victorian homes, and where even the nonconforming
structures, except one apartment building on Morro Street, are similar in design. She
stated that this project is a wrong fit for this neighborhood but that she loves infill and
supported the 2009 design because it was more alive and did not feel as big. She
C5 - 25
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 5
added that the Morro Street entrance for this design is just a stairwell and most of the
living is on top of the roof, isolated from the neighborhood. She stated that when you
get to Old Town, you expect to see an old town.
Stewart Jenkins, SLO, stated that he wished the applicant had started with contacting
neighbors to discuss a plan that would fit the neighborhood. He also pointed out that
many of the homes pictured on the applicant’s board are not in Old Town. He referred
to Thomas Jefferson who made buildings look large inside but small outside. He added
that the 2009 project design provided for human activity on the ground level and noted
that when you walk around Old Town, there are some residences with living units over
garages but they are all at the back of the properties, which gives a feel of community to
the neighborhood that this plan does not do. He described the Rio Bravo Apartments
as having an old, classical rhythm, and the church as being like a Mozart symphony, but
stated that this project design is a thrust plate of cliffs and a dead zone of parking which
does not match Morro Street or Osos Street and does not have a classical rhythm. He
supported denial of the project and sending it back to the drawing board.
Pete Peterson, SLO, stated that lack of parking has always been a problem which
results in parking in driveways and on the street. He added that for the building next
door, this project will make a bad parking problem worse. He noted that the 30%
reduction is enough and losing eight more spaces is bad. He stated that the design for
the Osos Street side is untenable. He noted that, on the Morro Street side, umbrellas,
etc., placed on the fourth-story decks will push the height up to forty feet or more. He
suggested that the design would be somewhat better if stepped back and if the siding
from one street wrapped to the other street.
Senior Planner Ricci noted that the reduction of eight parking spaces is not in addition
to the 30% reduction.
James Lopes, SLO, Save Our Downtown, pointed out that the Cultural Heritage
Committee concluded that the current design does not meet the Guidelines. He agreed
with the CHC recommendation to deny the project but noted that it is preferable if the
Commission can work with the applicant on a redesign, especially on the Osos Street
frontage. He stated he would like the office building to have more building frontage
rather than parking frontage. He suggested that the garage entrance be reduced by
half and made one way since there is another entrance. He also suggested moving the
transformer. He stated that, overall the design is boxy, out of character with its historic
context, and out of scale with the apartment building and the eave lines on the church.
He added that it is a stretch to say it is consistent with the roof line of the church’s main
sanctuary. He opposed the contemporary design and noted that in urban design, you
normally look at multiple buildings in the neighborhood, not just one (in this case, the
church) and that the design should be contextually referenced with any use of modern
style being light and not like the box shape, which stands out as overwhelming,
especially to the apartment building and the street. He stated he is willing to see a
continuance and, if there is an eight space parking deficiency, then the office building
should be reduced by 2400 square feet.
C5 - 26
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 6
David Drake, SLO, stated that the City will have many more buildings of contemporary
design if this is approved. He added that the massing is about getting money out of the
building. He agreed that the design is not musical but is a disruption on both streets.
He suggested that the Osos Street ground level be more approachable and that there
be less verticality on Morro. He supported denying the project.
Rachael Drake, SLO, stated that she does not see any changes to the Osos side design
as discussed at the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. She noted that the original
design was more in the context of the neighborhood, and that the orange pop out looks
like a VCR. She added that the church totally vanishes.
Brian Starr, SLO, stated that the Guidelines caution against mimicry. He noted he
prefers a design in contrast to the church, allowing it to remain iconic. He supported the
design and added that it is consistent with what is nearby but different in style.
Marianne Bernstein, SLO, supported not mimicking the church and stated she is excited
about the project and the colors which will bring vibrancy to the downtown. She added
that she is disappointed that the red was removed from the color palette.
Alice Davis, SLO, stated that the orange box, which looks like a cage, will become the
focal point and detract from the church’s beauty. She noted that streets are not just
made of structural things, but that buildings have personality and evoke feelings. She
added that the many details of the church are very calming and not busy. She
described the new Morro Street entrance as looking very uptown and classy but noted
that the color of the awning does not fit with all the other colors on buildings and
awnings and that together form a beautiful string of pearls.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Curtis noted that there were several comments from the public about parking.
He asked if the Commission has any discretion on parking.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that the ARC is charged with acting on requested parking
reductions. She noted that the Planning Commission did not act on parking because
they thought the design might change further and was best handled by the ARC at final
design review.
In response to a comment by Commr. Wynn, the architect stated that this will be an
office building, not a medical building, and that the applicant is willing to restrict the use.
Commr. Curtis stated that it makes more sense to have two spaces set aside for car
pool drivers rather than allocate a space to accommodate a shared on-site auto.
C5 - 27
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 7
Commr. Root noted that in the not too distance future, fewer people will own vehicles
and there is a need to encourage shared vehicles in project design.
Commr. McCovey-Good concurred with Commr. Root’s statement.
Commr. Wynn noted that the overall massing has changed from the original 2008-09
design which had roughly 2½ stories of living space over underground parking. He
added that the half-story living space is now open deck living space over the top of
three full stories which is a detriment to the scale of the project. He noted that important
buildings have usually been sited on corners, not mid-block, and they are bigger with a
significant presence to them. He added that the main floor of the church was lifted up to
emphasize its importance. He noted that this building, equally tall, starts at grade level.
He added that the Railroad Square project works contextually and is consistent with the
Guidelines which he does not see with this project because it is so disparate in style,
with organizing lines of rhythm hard to find. He stated that ultimately this project comes
down to the idea of life on the street mentioned by several public speakers which seems
to be lost here. He added that he did not want to repeat the mistake of l etting Apple
close off a portion of a block on Morro which created a dead zone.
Commr. Ehdaie stated that this is a great design on a difficult parcel and that, in terms
of massing and architectural style, it is fine not to have the same pattern as the church.
She added that she feels the design can be improved and that she cares about the
living space, especially on Morro Street because it is a cozy, friendly street. She stated
that underground parking would help with vibrancy and friendliness. She noted that it is
very important to use high quality materials on the awnings so the color does not fade
and become an eyesore, and the same is true for all the detailing, including light
fixtures.
Commr. Curtis stated that it is unfortunate that the underground parking was eliminated
as it would help reduce overall massing, and improve life at the street level and
compatibility with neighbors. He noted that the residential design has improved,
especially on Morro Street, but some refinement is still needed. He stated that he
agrees the roof decks add to the appearance of bulk and mass and they need to be
pulled back a bit which would also reduce intrusion into the privacy of surrounding lots.
He agreed that it is better to differentiate general architectural style from an historic
structure so as not to detract from it. He stated that he likes the façade facing the
church because it is more austere and focuses attention on the detailed nuances of the
church. He agreed that the orange box on Osos Street is too dominating and stated he
does not see any value in having the breezeway which, if eliminated on the upper level,
would make the design a little more compatible. He supported the ground level office
use and the window pattern because it adds to the rhythm that is consistent with the
church. He stated that he does not see any advantage to having the higher portions,
mainly being parapet, on Osos at the corner toward the church. He stated that some
simplification would be advantageous.
C5 - 28
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 8
Commr. Andreen stated that she is comfortable with the statements made by Commr.
Curtis and that she likes the design more and more as she understands it better, but
she does not see justification for the orange box. She suggested a more vertical
element in that area which would be more harmonious and in balance with the church.
She noted that she understands why Diane and Stew Jenkins are upset but she hopes
that may change in time. She stated that this project will move the City toward the
future of car sharing and use of bikes. She applauded the architects for an excellent
design and stated she liked what Commr. Wynn said.
Commr. Root suggested extending the roof overhangs on Morro Street and stated that
he likes the idea of the fenced yard and changing the decks to have more respect for
neighbors. He stated he is wrestling with the Osos side and observed that the church is
not symmetrical but the elements of each mass are symmetrical and rhythmic, which is
also true of this project but maybe has not been played up enough. He added that he
likes the tall windows with the steel surround and Commr. Curtis’s idea of moving the
massing of the third level inward to create more symmetry. He stated that he is not so
concerned with the massing but that harmony and rhythm are important. He suggested
playing up the entry on Morro Street by recessing it a little.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that the recommendation would be to continue to a date
uncertain with the following noted: 1) parking has general support as presented in
Condition 24 with a 10% shared reduction and a trip reduction plan which justifies
having eight fewer parking spaces; 2) in Condition 4 remove a and b but keep c and d;
3) provide larger roof overhangs and create a different entry statement by recessing the
door and/or providing a yard space; 4) simplify the Osos Street elevation, playing up
some elements and remove the orange box.
Commr. Wynn stated that there could be an alternative that reduces the square footage.
Commr. Ehdaie suggested consideration for underground parking but the other
Commissioners noted that it is too expensive and is what stopped the previous project.
Commr. Root suggested adding to Condition 4.d to “further reduce size or alter location
and take into consideration privacy.”
Commr. Wynn stated that it is critical to consider life on the street and that it is of
concern, having the parking and transformer so prominent. He added that the first level
does not have the sense he is used to seeing in the City.
Commr. Ehdaie stated that she has seen projects with the garages on the first level on
Marsh Street and in the Railroad District, and she approves of the design and does not
think there is any alternative.
Commr. Curtis summarized his suggestions by noting that some transition is needed by
the building on Osos, that the brown element should be moved more toward the church,
C5 - 29
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 9
the breezeway should be eliminated on the upper floor, something should be changed
about transitioning from two to three stories, and the orange box is a problem.
He suggested simplifying the elevation on Osos Street. He added that it is not a large
building so it is best not to have too much variation.
Commr. Wynn noted that the affordable unit is half the size of other units and separated
from everything else. He asked the architects to consider adding a little more to that
unit and think more about a sense of inclusion.
Commr. Curtis added that the outdoor space for that unit should be a little more usable.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested stating “provide more parity with the design of the
affordable unit.”
Commr. Wynn commended the architects on the model but noted that this project is
missing respect for the pedestrian level which the church shows with its setback. He
added that even the apartment building on the corner shows this respect but that this
project has been pushed to the maximum without that respect. He stated that it worries
him that the project was denied by the CHC. He stated that he knows he is on the
opposite side of saying that this massing is appropriate for continuing and he wants to
reduce the overall mass so it would not be necessary to reduce parking.
Commr. Ehdaie stated that she sees the concern about the massing, but noted that this
project is close to Mitchell Park and the residents can use open spaces nearby. She
added that maximizing the envelope provides more housing and retail for the City.
Commr. Wynn stated he agrees about the residents using open spaces nearby but is
concerned about those walking by.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested this statement: “Building elevations shall be fully
dimensioned and show compliance with side yard setback requirements.”
On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to continue this meeting
past 9:00 p.m.
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Ehdaie, Andreen, Curtis, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and
Root
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
C5 - 30
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 10
On a motion by Commr. Curtis, seconded by Commr. Root to continue the project to a
date uncertain with the following directional items:
1. Parking as provided in the project was generally supported by the ARC. The ARC
agreed to the condition that the applicant shall submit a revised Transportation
Demand Management Plan to the approval of the Public Works and Community
Development Directors that includes supportable programs that will reduce vehicle
trips to the site.
2. Modify the Morro Street elevation of the project as follows:
a. Further refine the design of the roof decks to create a more seamless transition
from gable forms; and
b. Look at alternative locations for, or further reduce the sizes of, the roof decks to
take into consideration privacy and overlook to adjacent neighbors.
c. Provide larger roof overhangs to the gable end; and
d. Explore the idea of creating a yard area and more of a recess for the entry.
3. Modify the Osos Street elevations of the project as follows:
a. Simplify the design;
b. Play up the building entry;
c. Look at more offsets of the third floor on the apartment side to better transition
the building mass;
d. Consider the elimination of the wood box on the left-hand side; and
e. Provide less of a visual gap in the third floor level.
4. Building elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show compliance with side yard
setback requirements.
5. Provide more parity for the affordable housing unit in terms of its design and
associated amenities.
6. Look at ways to reduce the visual prominence of the PG&E transformer in the Osos
street yard.
AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Root, Andreen, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and
Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast by Senior Planner Ricici:
August 18, 2014: Relocation of business at 313 South Street to a site on Broad
Street, Digital West, and review of standard conditions.
September 8, 2014: Appeal filed on Johnson Avenue project by Robert
Mueller, conceptual review on Wells Fargo building across from CVS; proposal
on Caudill for four residential and four work/live units.
C5 - 31
Draft ARC Minutes
August 4, 2014
Page 11
September 15, 2014: proposal to further develop Miner’s south parking lot;
hotel next to Pappy McGregor’s; revised design of 460 Marsh Street; and nine
units on Rockview.
4. Commission:
a. Commr. Wynn will be absent from the August 18, 2014, meeting.
b. Commrs. Curtis and Nemcik absent from all September meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
C5 - 32
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Ron Munds, Utilities Services Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION LIMITING OUTDOOR IRRIGATION OF ORNAMENTAL
LANDSCAPING OR TURF WITH POTABLE WATER TO THREE DAYS A
WEEK
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution implementing San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 13.07.030(B)
limiting outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscape or turf with potable water to three days a
week.
DISCUSSION
Background
On July 15, 2014, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”)
adopted emergency drought regulations (the “Emergency Regulations”; Attachment 1) that must
be implemented by all urban water suppliers who have over 3,000 water connections regardless
of that community’s water supply situation. Water purveyors who do not implement the
mandatory requirements face up to $10,000 per day in fines and other penalties. The Emergency
Regulations are effective as of July 29, 2014 and stay in effect for 270 days but can be rescinded,
extended or amended based on drought conditions.
Section 865(b)(1) of the Emergency Regulations require each water purveyor to implement
restrictions on outdoor irrigation as set forth in the agency’s water shortage contingency plan.
Specifically, Section 856 (b)(1) states as follows:
To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier shall implement all
requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that
imposes mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or
turf with potable water.
Notwithstanding the City’s good position regarding its water supply, the Emergency Regulations
specifically mandate that the City implement mandatory outdoor water restrictions and water waste
prohibitions or face fines up to $10,000 a day and access to state grants and loans for any project
financing the City may wish to pursue through state funding.
Outdoor Irrigation Watering Restriction Summary
On September 2, 2014, the City Council adopted an Ordinance which amended Chapter 13.07 to
comply with the Emergency Regulations. In order to comply with the Emergency Regulations, it is
recommended the City Council implement the restrictions set forth in San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code Section 13.07.030(B) which limit the outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscape and turf to no
more than three-days pursuant to the following schedule:
Sept. 16, 2014
C6
C6 - 1
Outdoor Irrigation Restrictions Page 2
THREE-DAY A WEEK SCHEDULE
Even numbered addresses:
Sunday, Tuesdays and Thursdays
Odd numbered addresses:
Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays
Institutional customers such as the school district, City parks and Caltrans will be limited to three-
day a week watering but will be able to select the three days based on operational needs and/or the
activities scheduled for these types of facilities. Institutional customers will be required to submit to
the Utilities Department the three days they have selected for each facility if different from the
assigned day based on address.
Exceptions may be made by the Utilities Director for:
• Recently installed landscapes during the time it takes to establish the new plant material.
• New landscapes which act as erosion control.
• New residential or commercial landscapes installed as condition of a City planning or
building approval for the time it takes to establish the new plant material.
It is important to note that the restrictions do not apply to customers who irrigate with non-potable
water (i.e. recycled water or gray water systems).
Enforcement of the Regulations
The Utilities Department’s Utilities Services section will be primarily responsible for enforcing
the outdoor irrigation restrictions and water waste prohibitions. The City’s Administrative
Citation procedure will be used to enforce the City’s water conservation regulations which
include warnings prior to issuance of a citation.
The public will be able to report water waste issues either by telephone (a hotline number has
been established) or via an online form. Both options will be promoted as part of the public
outreach efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. As part of the adoption of the
ordinance restricting outdoor irrigation, the City Council approved a public outreach plan and
supporting budget of $30,000 which includes contingencies. Existing staffing will provide the
public outreach support and enforcement activities.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could choose to modify the outdoor watering restrictions by lowering
the number of days water customers can irrigate. The Emergency Regulations suggest
two days a week restrictions (for agencies without a water shortage contingency plan) but
given the City’s current water supply situation and the fact the community has already
C6 - 2
Outdoor Irrigation Restrictions Page 3
reduced its water use significantly, staff believes this would place undue hardship on the
community and possibly result in the loss of some landscape.
2. The City Council could choose to modify the outdoor watering restrictions by increasing
the number of days water customers can irrigate because the City is not currently
experiencing a water supply emergency. Increasing the number of irrigation days could
be interpreted by the State Water Board that the City is conducting “business as usual”
which could result in enforcement action.
3. The City Council could modify the three day a week watering schedule.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution limiting outdoor irrigation
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-16\Reso Implementing Emergency Drought Regs
(Mattingly-Munds)
C6 - 3
Attachment 1
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IMPLEMENTING
MANDATORY RESTRICTIONS ON THE OUTDOOR IRRIGATION OF
ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPES OR TURF WITH POTABLE WATER
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted
California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), title 23, sections 863, 864 and 865 (the “Emergency
Regulations”), which require, among other things, that urban water suppliers implement all
requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that imposes
mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water;
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is an urban water supplier subject to
the Emergency Regulations;
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014 the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted an
ordinance amending Chapter 13.07 of the City’s Municipal Code in order to comply with the
Emergency Regulations; and
WHEREAS, by this Resolution, the City intends on implementing all requirements and
actions within its Water Shortage Contingency Plan restricting the use of potable water for the
outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby implements Section 13.07.030(B) of the Municipal Code
and hereby limits the outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscape or turf with potable water to
three days a week in accordance with the following schedule:
• Even numbered addresses - Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday
• Odd numbered addresses - Monday, Wednesday and Friday
SECTION 2. Effective Date and Term. The effective date of this Resolution is October 2, 2014.
This Resolution shall remain in effect until and shall automatically expire on April 25, 2015
unless the State Water Board extends or rescinds the Emergency Regulations in which case this
Resolution shall be so extended or shall so terminate so that the restrictions on outdoor irrigation
set forth in Section 1 above run concurrently with the life of the Emergency Regulations.
Upon motion of Council Member __________________, seconded by Council Member
__________________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
C6 - 4
Resolution No. ----- (2014 Series) Page 2
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
C6 - 5
Page intentionally left
blank.
C6 - 6
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGARDING CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL
PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2015-2017
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Cooperation Agreement with the County of
San Luis Obispo for participation in the Urban County federal grant program for fiscal years
2015-2017.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2014, the City Council approved a Cooperation Agreement between the City and
County for participation in the San Luis Obispo Urban County for fiscal years 2015-17
(Attachment 1). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has reviewed
the agreement and determined that it must be amended to include language required by the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2014, Public Law 113-76. Staff is bringing forward an amendment to the Cooperation
Agreement that includes HUD’s recommended language outlined below for Council
consideration (Attachment 2):
The City may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of CDBG
funds to another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local
government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives
CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or non-Federal
considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the
Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule
(Section 15061(b)(3)). The project is an amendment to the Cooperation Agreement between the
City and County for joint participation in administering the CDBG grant program for fiscal years
2015-2017. Each grant request approved for funding will be subject to CEQA at the time the
project is filed. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed Cooperation Agreement will have
no significant effect on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
HUD’s proposed amendment to the 2015-2017 Cooperation Agreement will have no financial
effect on the City.
9/16/2014
C7
C7 - 1
2015-2017 Amendment to Cooperation Agreement with County Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 10533 (2014 Series)
2. Amendment to 2015-2017 Cooperation Agreement
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-16\2015-17 Amendment to Cooperation Agreement with County (JohnsonCorey)\C5 - 2015-17
Amendment to CDBG Cooperation Agreement with County.docx
C7 - 2
Attachment 1
C7 - 3
Attachment 1
C7 - 4
Attachment 1
C7 - 5
Attachment 1
C7 - 6
Attachment 1
C7 - 7
Attachment 1
C7 - 8
Attachment 1
C7 - 9
Attachment 1
C7 - 10
Attachment 1
C7 - 11
Attachment 1
C7 - 12
Attachment 1
C7 - 13
Attachment 1
C7 - 14
Attachment 1
C7 - 15
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO
A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION
IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, THE
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, THE EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM, AND THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PERSONS WITH AIDS PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2015 THROUGH
2017
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of __ ,
2014, by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, a political subdivision of
the State of California, hereinafter called “County”; and the City of San Luis
Obispo, a municipal corporation and Charter City of the State of California,
located in the County of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter called “City”; jointly referred
to as “Parties.”
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, in 1974, the U.S. Congress enacted and the President signed
a law entitled, The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, herein
called the “Act”. Said Act is omnibus legislation relating to federal involvement in
a wide range of housing and community development activities and contains
eight separate titles; and
WHEREAS, Title I of the Act is entitled “Community Development” and
governs programs for housing and community development within metropolitan
cities and urban counties or communities by providing financial assistance
annually for area-wide plans and for housing, public services and public works
programs; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program,
the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the Emergency Solutions
Grant (ESG) Program, and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program are consolidated under Title I of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has requested of the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to as
“HUD”, that the County be designated as an “urban county”; and
WHEREAS, the County needs to requalify as an urban county and will be
eligible to receive CDBG funds provided that the County’s entitled cities defer
their entitlement to the County to enable both the County and the entitlement
cities to jointly participate in the program; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to participate jointly with the County in said
program; and
Attachment 2
C7 - 16
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the County and City entered into a
Cooperation Agreement (the Original Cooperation Agreement) in order for the
County to requalify as an urban county and submitted said cooperation
agreement to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
and
WHEREAS, HUD reviewed said Original Cooperation Agreement and
determined that it must be amended to include additional language required by
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related agencies
Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law 113-76.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, recitals and other
provisions hereof, the Parties agree as follows:
1. The section entitled “SECTION IV. Use of Program Funds” of the
Original Cooperation Agreement is hereby amended to add a new section “I” that
reads as follows:
I. The City may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion
of CDBG funds to another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of
general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that
directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any
other funds, credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use
such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the Act.
2. All other provisions of the Original Cooperation Agreement not specifically
amended herein remain in full force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment Number 1
to the Cooperation Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officer
thereunder duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereunto affixed, all as
of the day first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
____________________, Deputy County Counsel
Date:
Attachment 2
C7 - 17
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors
Date:
ATTEST:
Julie Rodewald, County Clerk
Date:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Jan Marx, Mayor
Date:
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
Date:
Attachment 2
C7 - 18
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Date:
Attachment 2
C7 - 19
Page intentionally left
blank.
C7 - 20
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DENIAL TO REMOVE SIDEWALK – 779 HIGUERA
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the City’s Community Development and Public Works
directors to deny an encroachment permit for the removal of public sidewalk at 779 Higuera.
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan, the Council approved several downtown improvement
projects. In an action of June 15, 2010, the Council approved consolidation of the downtown
projects into a single improvement project. The scope of the project was the reconstruction of
sidewalk along Higuera Street between Morro and Garden streets, the upgrading of sidewalk
fixtures, and the installation of pedestrian street lights and tree lighting conduits. In preparation
for the project, property owners and businesses, along with the Downtown Association, were
provided several notices of the upcoming project along with contact information for the Project
Manager, Bridget Fraser. The purpose of the outreach was two-fold, to provide notice of the
work, and to encourage contact with the Project Manager of any known issues that may impact
the project.
Work commenced on the City’s project in early 2012. During the course of the project, sidewalk
was removed in front of 779 Higuera Street. The City’s construction inspector arrived one
morning to find the entry way of 779 Higuera Street had been removed with the abutting
sidewalk. The inspector was informed by a representative of the City’s project contractor, that
the building owner representative had approached them and requested the removal.
The removal of the building entrance prompted a series of written exchanges and a meeting of
City staff from Community Development, Public Works, and the City Attorney, and the property
owner and her legal and architectural representatives, to discuss an issue of non-compliance for
access at the building entrance, and the City’s responsibility for that issue. The property owner
represented that they were of the understanding that the City was going to change the sidewalk
grades to correct the access issue that had resulted during the building retrofit and that the City
had caused the issue with their project. City staff was unaware that any such understanding
existed and no documentation was found for such an understanding. The City also agreed to
research the project construction to determine if an access issue had been created by the
construction.
Sept 16, 2014
PH2
PH2 - 1
Appeal for Sidewalk Removal Page 2
Attachments 1 through 6 include a timeline of events, the City’s response to issues raised by the
applicant’s representatives, internal memos, and other relevant background information for the
Council’s consideration.
Significant research was made into the situation to determine whether the City had worsened the
access situation through its sidewalk project. A post-construction site survey was completed to
verify actual construction grades. The as-built survey was completed by the surveyor who
provided the original topographic survey used for the City’s project design.
Using the original survey, which captures the preconstruction grades, and comparing it to the as-
built survey, which captures the post construction grades, it was found that all of the post
construction back of sidewalk grades were equal to or higher than the preconstruction grades.
The exceptions were in front of 779 and 781 Higuera Street, which were found to be .02’
(slightly less than ¼”) lower than the original sidewalk, within normal construction tolerance for
concrete work.
The top of curb elevations, except for one area, ranged from 0” difference up to .23’ (2 ¾”)
higher along the top of curb. One area near a tree well was lower than the existing. This was part
of the design to take out a high spot in the curb line resulting from root displacement. In all
cases, except for the area near the tree well, the resulting cross slopes were found by the surveyor
to be less steep than the pre-existing condition. (Original cross-slopes ranged from 2.4% to
2.78%. New cross-slopes range from 1.2% to 2.2%.) The survey confirmed the sidewalk
construction did not create or aggravate the pre-existing access issue. Other than a localized
area, the new sidewalk was found to be higher than the original sidewalk and at a less steep slope
than before sidewalk replacement occurred, thus improving the access issue.
The City was able to clarify for the owner’s attorney that the owner and her architect did not take
advantage of opportunities, provided through noticing during the design phase, to make contact
with the City’s Project Manager to coordinate efforts. Staff also clarified that the City did not
create or aggravate access issues into the building, and that there is every indication that the
entry aprons had not been constructed correctly with the owner’s seismic retrofit project.
Appeal
The owner is currently proposing to reconstruct the sidewalk in front of the building to address
the access issues for their building (Attachment 7). A number of concerns were relayed to the
owner’s attorney by the City, via Attachment 8, with the key ones being:
The proposed sidewalk reconstruction plans have not shown that they will correct the
access issue without creating problems within the right-of-way
The removal of the sidewalk will create a disruption to the downtown, additional to the
one already endured to construct the sidewalk in the first place.
Upon receipt of the City’s denial of the request to reconstruct the sidewalk, the owner filed an
appeal and the matter was calendared for Council consideration (Attachments 9 and 10).
The crux of the matter is, assuming the owner is able to show that reconstruction of the sidewalk
will correct access issues for the building, does the Council agree:
PH2 - 2
Appeal for Sidewalk Removal Page 3
The public right-of-way is the appropriate place for these corrections to be addressed; and
A second disruption of this area of the downtown is warranted.
The Council may want to consider that the sidewalk cannot be guaranteed to retain correct slopes
as tree roots overtime will cause displacements. The City may, unwittingly, be taking on
responsibility for private access compliance by permitting the work. Also worthy of
consideration is the upcoming planned disruption of the downtown for the second phase of the
improvement project which will remove and replace sidewalk from Garden Street to Broad
Street, currently scheduled to start work in early 2015. The recommendation is to keep
responsibility for building access with the building owner, on-site. It appears the access issue
was created, or overlooked during the seismic retrofit project and is not a failure of any kind on
the part of the City.
CONCURRENCES
Public Works and Community Development have been involved in the discussions with the
property owner and her representatives from the original contact after the entry removal during
construction, and concur with the recommendation for the property owner to pursue on-site work
to improve access.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no specific fiscal impacts resulting from a Council decision, unless the property owner
pursues legal action to either receive compensation from the City for not allowing the sidewalk
removal, or to reimburse the property owners for expenses associated with reconstructing the
sidewalk. There is no way to know at this time if the owner is considering further action.
ALTERNATIVES
Uphold the appeal. The Council could determine that it is in the public interest to allow the
property owner to remove and reconstruct the sidewalk to new grades to address building
accessibility. New grades would still need to comply with the City’s standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2007-2012 Timeline prepared by the City’s Project Manager
2. March 13, 2012 Letter from the owner’s architect – with comments from the City’s Project
Manager incorporated
3. March 14, 2012 Memo to the File from the City’s Project Manager
4. June 14, 2012 Letter from the owner’s attorney – with comments from the City’s Project
Manager incorporated
5. June 19, 2012 Email from the City’s Building Official
6. June 30, 2012 Letter from the owner’s attorney – with comments from the City’s Project
Manager incorporated
7. June 25, 2014 Letter from the owner’s attorney requesting a formal decision
8. July 24, 2014 Letter from the City Attorney
PH2 - 3
Appeal for Sidewalk Removal Page 4
9. August 4, 2014 Letter from the owner’s attorney appealing the City’s decision
10. August 15, 2014 Letter from the City Attorney
11. Resolution
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-09-16\appeal of denial of encroachment maytag bld 779 higuera (grigsby-lynch-hannula)\report - 779 higuera appeal.docx
PH2 - 4
Timeline of Events
Regarding the Sidewalk at 779‐787 Higuera
Prepared by Bridget Fraser
11/14/07: Encroachment permit issued to Dennis Noble to install a new sewer lateral to serve
779‐781 Higuera. This permit work may have triggered the requirement for some sidewalk
replacement. Permit finaled 11/21/07.
Sept 7, 2009‐ Jeff Bague, Project Architect, (email) says conversations began with Hal Hannula
(Engineering Development Review) regarding the sidewalks and that they were considering
replacing the sidewalk in front of the building. (Hal recalls that these conversations were very
general in nature regarding sidewalk replacement – when required, when not required, etc.
There was no conversation that he recalls about grade or compliance issues at this specific
address.) The question regarding any proposed work required in the City’s right‐of–way was
formally raised during the plan review with the architects response noted and limits of work
shown on the approved building plans.
12/2/2009‐ Owner submits for building permit for URM upgrade and facade.
12/3/09 thru 4/2/2010 ‐ Building permit plan check comments: ‐ 2 plan checks by both Building
Dept (Bob Arnet) and Public Works (Ken Chacon) and 3 by Fire Dept.
During this plan review period the Building Dept staff do not recall any conversations regarding
the landings and need for grade changes in order to make them comply.
12/29/2009‐ Ken Chacon plan check comment “show any proposed sidewalk modifications on
plans.” Resubmittal note indicates a reference to note 12 on sheet T1 which indicates a section
of sidewalk replaced in fr ont of 785 with a note that curbs remain and sidewalk grades remain.
There is no indication of sidewalk work in front of 779/781 or grade changes of any kind.
4/2/2010 Plans were approved and Building Permit was issued 4/5/2010
4/15/10: Encroachment permit issued to Chamblin‐Landes for pedestrian protection (barricade)
& construction staging at 785‐787 in the public right‐of‐way. Permit finaled 9/18/10.
Date Unknown – Some time after permit was approved on 4/2/2010 ‐ Hal remembers trying
to work with owner’s contractor to do whole frontage rather than just the piece meal sections
shown on th e approved plan. This conversation was focused around aesthetics and did not
involve issues concerning slopes and grades in the City’s right of way. This deal never came to
anything. Hal’s recollection is that the contractor provided the City with a cost to do the whole
frontage and asked if the City would participate in costs. The contractor said that if there was no
City participation in cost then the owner would likely just do the trench repair which they were
on the hook for. This is captured in an email dated 7/9/2010 between Marty Landes of
Chamblin‐ Landes, building ow n ers contractor. Hal said that the Public Works Director was not
supportive of participating in the cost. Emails occurring on 8/5/2010 between Hall, Ken and the
contractor go on to discuss the in lieu fee for 80 sf of sidewalk that the contractor/owner was
going to pay for the sidewalk tr ench repair that they were responsible for. The City accepted
their in lieu fee for 80 square feet. This is equivalent to about an 8’ wide piece of sidewalk or
two trenches. The City received a check for $2,862 on 8/26/2010.
Attachment 1 - 1
PH2 - 5
DATE Unknown ‐ Electronic date on file is 4/27/2010 ‐ Sometime during this same period in last
paragraph, the architect emailed a drawing (electronic copy found in the Public Works address
file is dated 4/27/2010) with a couple of handwritten grades on it. This was not any kind of
approved drawing and was likely on l y submitted due to the possibility that they might decide to
redo the whole sidewalk frontage as part of their upgrade. It is also incomplete. When it was
determined that the owner’s contractor was not going to replace the whole sidewalk then this
issue was dropped and Hal did nothing fu r ther with the architect’s sketches. Hal does not
remember ever indicating or suggesting that the City would incorporate these new grades into
the City’s downtown sidewalk project plans.
The sketch shows a couple of existing and proposed grades changes to the top of curb in front of
Location 4 (785) an d Location 3 (787). Nothing noted in front of Location 1 & 2 (779/781). It
indicates a 1 1/2” grade change at the curb in front of location 4 and 1” change at curb in front
of location 3. This implies the architect was thinking of raising the curbs in these locations to
lessen the slope of the sidewalk. It’s not clear if he was suggesting any kind of grade change at
the back of walk/apron since no existing and proposed grades where indicated on the drawing.
In retrospect, the actual grade changes at these two curb locations ended up be ing 1 1/8” and 1
1/2”, respectively which is slightly more than what he shows on his sketch. In other words our
project resulted in the sidewalk slopes been even less steep and it essentially met his “design.”
This sketch is the only indication that we have that the architect was thi nking the grades needed
to be changed in front of his project. And after all was said and done, the City actually DID raise
the curbs to slightly more than he is indicating.
6/29/10: Encroachment permit issued to Yungman Const for construction staging in the public
right‐of‐way for a crane lift related to the URM work. Permit finaled 7/1/10.
7/9/2010 Ken (City) received email form Contractor (Marty Landes of Chamblin‐Landes)
regarding a price for sidewalk replacement across entire frontage (779‐787) and inquired if the
City would participate in the costs. He indicated that if the City couldn’t contribute to some of
the costs, then the owner would likely just do the patch back (just fix the trenches that they are
obligated to do).
7/12/10: Encroachment permit issued to Quaglino for construction staging for roof repairs.
Permit finaled 8/13/10.
7/21/10: Encroachment permit issue to D‐Kal to install a fire service lateral from the existing
stub into the building. This permit work, at least in part, triggered the requirement for sidewalk
replacement. D‐Kal was a sub‐contractor to Noble and not Chamblin ‐Landes. Permit finaled
8/30/10.
8/5/2010 – Hal received email from contractor whi ch provides a cost for 80 SF of sidewalk
replacement that they would have been on the hook for due to the new fire line and gas line
trenches. And indicated the owner would provide this amount back to the city for Mission Style
sidewalk (we would then replace the sidewalk with the City project) Again this payment was only
for the patch back of the trenches. Their proposed cost was $2,311. Ken responded back that
same day indicating the adjusted cost should be $2,862 which includes the cost of water meter
boxes that we would also have to pay for on their behalf.
Attachment 1 - 2
PH2 - 6
8/26/2010 – Per memo in file, City received a check for $2,862.00 for the 80 square feet of
sidewalk and meter boxes as indicated in Ken’s email above. Check was entered in to
FinancePlus with a transaction date of 9/7/2010.
10/7/2010 ‐ Encroachment permit issued to the general contractor, Chamblin‐Landes for
construction staging/barricade construction at 779. Although our conversation about the
sidewalk requirement was with Chamblin ‐Landes, an encroachment permit for sidewalk
replacement was never issued to Chamblin‐Landes. Permit finaled 12/30/10.
Sometime during construction of 10/2010 and final of 11/2011 ‐ Owner poured existing
landings back to match existing ba ck of sidewalk grades. (The as‐built survey confirms that the 3
landings at 779/781 and 785 were installed steeper than 2%. The only landing that complied
was at 787.)
11/9/2011‐ Building Permit was finaled. Throughout the construction the building inspector
does not recall having any conversations with architect regarding grades or work expected to be
done by City on City’s future project. There is no documentation that landing grades were
verified.
9/2010‐9/2011 Beautification project was designed ‐ City sidewalk project was designed to
match existing grades at the existing landings. (There is no record of anyone contacting the
City’s project manager during the design period about redesigning or raising grades to
accommodate new landings for the owner.)
March 1 or 2, 2012 ‐ Bridget received a phone message from someone regarding work on
Higuera (It might have been Shragge but not sure because she couldn’t hear the name clearly)
Bridget returned call and left message but received no follow up call from caller. She did not
know what the call was about.
3/5/2012 ‐ Contractor demolished Phase 4 which included the City sidewalk in front of 779/781
store. Contractor also demolished the concrete landing at the store front. Th is was the first time
that City Inspector, Mark Williams, was informed that the City’s contractor, JMC, was
approached by the building owner to redo their landings at the same time that the City was
replacing the sidewalk in front. (We do not know what the terms of the agreement between
JMC and the owner were or what they were hired to do.)
Date unknown ‐ Probably daytime of 3/5/12 after demo. Mark Williams, City Inspector,
alerted the building department that building owner hired our contractor to redo their landings
and indicated it was a possible compliance issue as they had no permit. Mark was told by Dave
Fogg, Building Inspector, that the installation of the store landings needed a Bldg. Permit for this
work. There was no permit applied for, or issued to, the owner indicating that their landings
were going to be redone or that showed that grade changes and redesign of the sidewalk that
were needed.
3/6/2012 ‐ The sidewalk in Phase 4 was re‐poured in front of 779/781 store and up to store wall
that separates 781 and 785. The top of curb at this joint was poured lower than existing by .05’
(slightly less than 5/8”) and .01’ (1/8”) lower than the design grade. This is the only area where
designed top of curb was lower than existing in order to remove a hump in the curbline. Refer to
Attachment 1 - 3
PH2 - 7
profile to see where it is lower around STA 5+75. This edge is indicated in Bague’s photos of his
letter dated 3/13/11 and applies to this one general area not the whole project.
Date unknown ‐ Sometime on or after 3/6/2012 after the Phase 4 sidewalk was poured ‐
Bague called Mark Williams an d said that the grades were set too low at 779/781. Mark told him
that JMC (who was also Bague contractor) set the back of walk at the same grades. Mark said at
no point did Bague indicate that he expected the City to raise the back of walk grades to
facilitate new landings. Mark indicated that he did not have anything to do with landings and
Bague needed to get a building permit for that work.
3/12 ‐ 3/13/2012, JMC continued with demolition and re‐pouring Phase 5 sidewalk which
includes the next sections north in front of 785 and 787 stores. Contractor did not remove the
building landings at these stores. The back of sidewalk was poured to match the existing
landings per City plan.
3/12/2012 ‐ Call from Bague to Bridget. Bague said City poured sidewalks lower than they used
to be. Bridget told him to send pictures, evidence to support that claim.
3/13/2012 ‐ Email and letter sent to Bridget from Bague stating that new sidewalk was poured
too low.
3/14/2012 ‐ Bldg, PW staff met to discuss claims and reviewed site.
3/15/2012 ‐ Project Engineer(Bridget) and Project Inspector (Mark) talked with City’s contractor
and concrete subcontractor. According to JMC and JMC’s concrete subcontractor, Silver Oak,
they poured back the City sidewalk at the back of walk at the 779/781 location to the original
back of sidewalk grades.
During this same site visit, Mark W and Bridget used a smart level to measure the landings. The
existing landing at location 4 (787) was compliant at 1.8%, existing landing at location 3 (785)
was found to be 5%. The landings at 779/781 could not be determined because it was torn out
by JMC and just had a temporary wood strips but it appeared to be significantly more than 2%.
3/15/2012 ‐ Bridget prepared memo to file of analysis of existing situation and Bague claims.
Evidence did not support that the City poured curbs or back of walk significantly lower. ¼”
(which is construction tolerance) at most at the 779/781 landing. ¼’ in lower would not make
much difference in their ability to comply.
3/19/2012‐Tim, Building Official, met with Bague and discussed how the he could resolve their
landing issue through a hard ship case request and provided suggestions/ideas on how they
could provide compliant landings.
6/14/2012 ‐ Letter received from Shragge requesting sidewalk replacement
6/19/2012 ‐ Tim responded via email – indicated his meeting with Bague, options for the
landings, and that landings are subject to building permit
6/30/2012 ‐ Letter received from Shragge requesting the City remedy the situation.
Attachment 1 - 4
PH2 - 8
7/2/2012 ‐ Email received from Dennis Law requesting a meeting.
7/2/2012 ‐ Tim Girvin, Building Official, replied back to Dennis Law referring to PW and
indicating that permits are needed when they eventually do the landings
7/23/2012 – Hal, Mark, Bridget met with City Attorney – she requested that we complete
timeline, confer with Building Dep’t to get their facts, and order as‐built survey.
8/7/2012 ‐ City received as‐built survey of grades in front of 777‐ 787 Higuera. And‐as built
grades on all 4 landings. In all cases except one the new top of curb matched or was higher (up
to .16’ to 2”) than the original top of curb grades. The one lower area was in front of tree well
and was designed to be lower than existing to take out a hump. Refer to profile. The back of
sidewalk grade at the demoed landing at Location 1 and 2 (779/781) was found to be .02’
(slightly less than ¼”) lower than existing point on the original survey. All other grades along the
back of sidewalk either matched or where higher than existing grades. As built survey also
indicates that cross slopes along frontage taken at the 20’ station sections ranged from 1.2% to
2.2%. Original slopes ranged from 2.3% to 3.4% at these same sections.
Attachment 1 - 5
PH2 - 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
Attn: Ms. Bridget Fraser
13 March 2012
Re: Sidewalks Renovation at 779-787 Higuera Street
Bridget,
Per our discussion yesterday morning I am providing the photos that were taken at the site on the 8th of March.
I would also like to reiterate our discussion about the history of the sidewalk/entry. Back in September of 2009 I had
lengthy discussions regarding the very subject with Hal Hannula. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Hal does
not recall nor have record of specific Sept 2009 conversation. These were just general conversations regarding
sidewalk removals and requirements for grades if they remove, etc.] On the 7th of September 2009 I explained that
we were considering replacing the sidewalk in front of the building but that I was concerned about the cross slopes.
The existing curbs ranged from just over 6 inches to almost 8 inches and the cross slopes were over 2%. My initial
question was concerning whether we would have to comply with the ADA requirements for a 2% cross slope across
the sidewalk since the existing sidewalk was over the accepted slope amount. Hal indicated at that time that we
would have to comply with the cross slope requirement. He indicated that we might be able to raise the curb height a
little to try to accommodate the entries but I explained that even if we maxed it out we would still be far below the
building entries. I then explained that we would be changing some of the vaults at the front of the building and
would have to do some saw cutting and patching. Hal indicated that minor sidewalk repair could be done to match
the existing slopes and that if we left the sidewalk as existing we could provide ADA accessible entries from that
sidewalk. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - What bothers me here is that he says he had these issues with
ADA compliance with the aprons and sidewalk yet if you look at the building plans that he submitted 3 months later
in Dec of 2009 and were approved April 2, 2010, there are no notes indicating any grade changes to curbs or to a
section of sidewalk that they were supposed to replace, no grades called out for landings and no work at all on the
sidewalk on locations 1 & 2 where there seems to be the most problem with compliance.]
We went to great lengths to comply with the ADA entries. The front of the building at 787 Higuera was lowered and
a level landing provided at both sides of the entry as required. A section of the floor was then sloped at less than 5%
to meet the existing floor level. At 785-779 level landings were provided at both sides of the door and the entire
floor at the front of the lease space was removed and sloped at less than 5% to meet the existing floor elevations. I
am only including this information to show that we made significant efforts to make the building comply with all the
accessibility requirements. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - He says they went to great lengths to comply
with the ADA entries yet the as-built survey shows that only location 4 entry complied (2.11%). Landing 3 was
found to be 5.25%; landing 2 -3.5% and landing 1 - 4.5%. In addition, the approved building plans do show interior
work to lower the floors at location 4 as he states above and some on location 3 but no work is shown to be done at
all on locations 1 and 2. There is also no work shown on the plans indicating that sidewalk work was needed in
order to raise grades outside in order to create compliant aprons.]
Upon completion of the project the building was inspected and received a final. I have spoken with the building
inspector and he agrees that the entries were in complete compliance at the time of final. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - As-built survey shows that only the landing at location 1 complied. There for the statement is
incorrect.]
In the included photos you can clearly see that the new
sidewalk does not match the existing sidewalk. The curb was
lowered and as can be expected the sidewalk itself is lower.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Per the as-built
survey this area was the only place that the curb was lower
than existing. It was designed this way to take out a “hump”
in the curb line. All other curb tops were designed to be
higher.] I spoke with the foreman for Madonna Construction
and he indicated that Mark Williams instructed him to
comply with the 2% cross slope requirement. That further
exacerbated the problem since the existing sidewalk was over
the allowed amount. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
Attachment 2 - 1
PH2 - 10
The sidewalk at this location, pre or post construction, was not over the 2% cross slope. This photo was taken at the
construction joint between Phases 4 and 5 at approximately station 5+75. At this point the new top of curb elevation
was designed to be lower than existing to take out a hump. Refer to the profile. This is the only area (near a tree that
likely raised the sidewalk) where the existing top of curb was lower. Pre and post cross slopes at this location were
1.97% and 1.81% both less than the 2%] I took photos of the existing sidewalk and how the cast stone bases were
set right on top of the sidewalk. In the photos of the new sidewalk you can see that the cast stone bases are now
sitting above the new sidewalk to varying degrees. Since we were right at the complying level landing slope
any change in elevation from the existing would put us out of compliance. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - Hard to say since this shows only one section and doesn’t show the gap. We have a preconstruction
video but it is hard to tell if the base was placed on top of the sidewalk or not.]
The first photo is of the new curb in front of 781 and 779 Higuera. A straight board was placed on the existing curb
and projected out over the new curb. You can see that there is a substantial difference. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - Per the as-built this
difference is around .05’ or 5/8” and this was
part of the design to take out a hump. See
profile. All other areas were raised.]
The next two photos are showing the
difference in elevation between the existing
sidewalk and the new sidewalk. These were
taken at about the middle of the sidewalk.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - The
new sidewalk in this area was straight graded
from the back of walk to the top of curb to
take out a flat spot likely raised due to tree
roots. That is what you are seeing in this
picture. The resulting slope is 1.81% which is
under the 2%. He argues that the whole
sidewalk was lowered everywhere based on
this one photo. This section of sidewalk as
already stated, is the one area on this frontage that was designed to be lowered a little to take out a hump in the curb.
See profile around 5+75.]
You can see that there is no way that the new sidewalk will
meet our existing aprons at the same elevation. [RESPONSE
BY BRIDGET FRASER - He doesn’t show that at the back of
walk the elevations matched the existing sidewalk. The as-built
elevations indicate that they do indeed match which means we
met the existing elevations and did not lower the sidewalk at
the back of walk. Again this is only one spot. He is basing his
assumption that the whole sidewalk frontage was lower and
that is not the case.]
This photo shows the southern corner of the entry apron
for 781 and 779 Higuera. You can clearly see the change
in color from the old bottom of the base and the new
colored concrete. The wood element is where the apron
starts and I have put a scale showing that there is at least
a 5/8” difference in elevation. That color demarcation
shows how the existing sidewalk warped up at the entry.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - It is not clear
what he is saying is the color demarcation. The white spots
are probably just concrete dust or paste from sawcutting
that would have splattered on the wall and filled in the
concrete voids. It does not indicate that the existing old
sidewalk was at this level. As-built elevation doesn’t
support this. The as-built survey indicates that a spot about
Attachment 2 - 2
PH2 - 11
2’ to the left of this photo in front of the apron is .02’ lower than the original sidewalk elevation or a little less than
¼”. That doesn’t support his claim of 5/8. Also if this landing was actually compliant as he states, the sidewalk
would have to have been at least an inch higher at this point to have a 2% landing. If this was the case then the
warping of the sidewalk to the south to match the tile frontage about 2.5-3’ away would be more evident in
preconstruction photos that we have.]
This photo shows the existing sidewalk at the
northern corner of the lease space at 785 Higuera.
That cast stone is sitting directly on the concrete.
This shows how they dealt with the case base at
the
The next photo shows the corner of the lease
space at 781 Higuera after the new sidewalk was
installed. The cast stone is above the sidewalk
and as it moves to the south the gap begins to
grow. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
Again this only shows this one spot, and doesn’t
really prove anything. Construction tolerance is
¼.]
I hope this provides a clearer picture of the conditions that are present in front of our building. If you have any
questions please feel free to contact me. I have been out at jobsites lately so the best phone number you can reach
me at is 805.801.8011.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bague
Project Architect
Attachment 2 - 3
PH2 - 12
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
MEMORANDUM
March 14, 2012
To: Project File – 90979A Downtown Maintenance/Beautification Project
From: Bridget Fraser, Sr. Civil Engr./Project Manager
Subject: 77-787 Higuera – landings & sidewalk
On March 13, 2012, I received the attached document from Jeff Bague. He argues that the
City poured the new sidewalk too low in front of 779/781 Higuera and now his new landings
cannot be built to comply with the 2% slope required per code for ADA. His document shows
pictures that indicate the sidewalk was poured lower than the adjacent existing curb. The
pictures are shown at a joint at the north end of the 781 store along the wall that separates
781 from 785 to the north. There is no measurement on his photo but it looks like the new
curb is about an 1” lower than the existing top of curb. He also shows that there is this same
differential between the new and the existing sidewalks at the midpoint of the sidewalk (half
way between the back of walk and the top of curb). He does not continue along this joint to
show a photo at the back of walk. From these photos Mr. Bague suggests that the whole
sidewalk would have been lowered this same 1” in order to get the crossfall of 2%. I showed
these photos to Mark Williams, the City’s inspector, and he confirmed that the curb at this
one point was set 1” lower than in existing and this was an error but that the sidewalk
matched grades at the back of walk as required per plan. This was confirmed by the
concrete subcontractor that did the work.
A review of the project topo shows an existing elevation of 203.59 at the back of walk at this
joint, 203.57 at 7 feet off the back of wall and 203.43 at the curb 11.5 feet from back of wall.
The slope calculates out to 2.08% using the existing back of wall elevation of 203.59 and an
elevation of 203.35 (existing top of curb 203.43 minus 1”) With this in mind there doesn’t
appear to be a reason for the contractor to not follow the design to match the existing back
of walk grades. Using the existing grades and a new 2% slope the mid point differential
between the new and old sidewalks is around 1.4”. This is supported by the photo that Mr.
Bague has presented.
At the back of walk along the frontage of these two store fronts (781/779) the building is
faced with a concrete stone base. There is a lip that projects out at the base of the stone
facing. The subcontractor indicated that the existing sidewalk matched the top of this
projecting lip and used this lip to set the grades for the new sidewalk. The subcontractor
explained that he used this lip on both the north and south edges of the landing to set the
new sidewalk grades. (The contractor could not use the actual landing to set grades
because the existing landing was removed at this store front as a side agreement made
between the contractor and the building owner.) We have a pre-construction video taken by
Mark Williams along this store front. A review of this video appears to show the lip at the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Attachment 3 - 1
PH2 - 13
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
bottom of the base at the same elevation as the existing sidewalk which supports the
inspectors and the subcontractors claim that the existing sidewalk matched the grade of the
top of the projecting lip at the bottom of the stone base.
A field review indicates that the sidewalk elevations substantially match the top of this lip
along this base - there are some locations where it appears the sidewalk elevation is around
¼” lower than the lip but this does not support his argument that the sidewalk was poured
significantly lower. At this same field review we set a level at the doorway at the outside
edge of the threshold then measured horizontally out perpendicular to the doorway a
distance of 24”. The new sidewalk was approximately 1 3/8” lower than the doorway. If the
existing landing was originally poured at 2%, then the grade at the 24” location would only
be .48” (1/2”) lower. If this was the case then the new sidewalk would have had to be poured
nearly 1” lower than what previously existed before.
A comparison of what exists today to the video taken prior to construction does not support
this claim. Also, the contractor matched the tile entry at Hands Gallery at the southerly
border of the 779 store at the back of the walk. This point is around 7’ from the southerly
landing. There doesn’t appear to be much grade change in old photos along these frontage
to support the claim that the existing sidewalk was 1” higher than the new sidewalk.
Link to video:
T:\Public Works\Bague-779-787 Higuera Lanidngs\00004.MTS What appears to be a lip
along the bottom of the base can be seen starting around 50 sec through 55 sec.
The following photos were taken on 3/15/2012 to document the existing landing slopes at
785 and 787 Higuera. These landings were not removed by the contractor and the new
sidewalk was poured to match the edge of the existing landings.
This picture below was taken on the south side of the entry at 787 Higuera (Amnesia)
showing that the southerly part of the landing is around 3.1%
Attachment 3 - 2
PH2 - 14
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
At this same location we removed the carpet at this location and shot the center of the
landing in front of the doors and found the slope to be 1.9%
The next picture is the landing at 785 Higuera (Hep Kat) taken at the center of the landing in
front of the door. The slope was found to be 5.1%
.
Attachment 3 - 3
PH2 - 15
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
The picture below is at the northerly edge of 781 and shows the new sidewalk poured to the
projecting lip at base of the concrete facing.
At northerly edge of landing at 779/781 Higuera. Sidewalk poured to lip
Attachment 3 - 4
PH2 - 16
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
Same at the southerly edge of the landing at 779/781. Sidewalk poured to lip.
Looks like the existing landing concrete was cut below relief edge of the concrete facing.
Attachment 3 - 5
PH2 - 17
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
Below are pictures at the southerly boundary of 779 Higuera were the sidewalk matched the
existing tile at Hands Gallery. The lip of the stone base shows at the left of the picture and it
looks to be substantially the same grade as the tile at Hands.
Attachment 3 - 6
PH2 - 18
June 14, 2012
Mr. Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Girvin,
As you know we have been attempting to resolve sidewalk issues related to Beverly
Maytag's building at 787, 785, 781 and 779 Higuera Street. The City's reconstruction of the
sidewalk at this location altered the relative grade and slope of the sidewalk causing ADA
compliance issues with three of the four building entrances (779, 781, and 785).
During our recent seismic retrofit work we spent significant time and resources
coordinating with the City to ensure our ADA compliance. As a part of this work, our architect
(Jeff Bague) and contractor (Marty Landes) had lengthy conversations with Hal Hannula to
coordinate work so that both the sidewalk and the building entrances would be compatible and
ADA compliant upon completion of the new Mission-style sidewalk. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - This is a much different version of the conversation than what Hal says.
Hal says there were conversations about getting them to consider doing their whole frontage
rather than just a piece meal that they were on the hook for. It was centered on aesthetics and it
was not centered on coordinating work with the City project to take care of their grade issues at
the back of walk. Their approved building plans show they were not dealing with any grade
issues in the right of way at all. There are no notes on the plans indicating that landings would
need to be replaced with the city project and that grades would need to be addressed.]
We even offered to perform the City's sidewalk reconstruction work during the building
renovation to ensure uniformity and constancy between our two projects. We in fact paid an in-
lieu fee to the city for a portion of the new sidewalk. The City, however, choose to reconstruct its
sidewalks independently of Ms. Maytag’s building and project. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - Again this completely contradicts what Hal said happened. Hal tried to talk them into
doing sidewalk replacement ahead a time. When the City could not share the cost with them they
chose to pay the in-lieu fee instead for an 80 sf of trench repair. Again their approved building
Attachment 4 - 1
PH2 - 19
2
plans showed no indication of grade changes in the City sidewalk and no work at all in landings
at 779/781.] As soon as we learned that the City would take responsibility, we worked with
various City employees [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - We have no idea who they
worked with. They should have been in contract with the project engineer/designer if they needed
the City to adjust grades] and your contractor (Madonna) to ensure a coordinated effort with the
construction of the new sidewalk. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - We have no control
over the agreement made between Madonna and them. Mark Williams first heard about it at 3AM
on the morning that we demolished the sidewalk at 779/781 and where Madonna also demolished
the landing. There was no building permit and no approved plan for new compliant landings.
Mark was not aware of any arrangement to adjust our project grades to facilitate them being able
to make a compliant landing. He thought they were only removing the concrete landing in order
to install a more aesthetic tile entry.]
When the first section of sidewalk was poured on March 6, 2012 (reaching the 781- 779
entrances) we discovered that the height and slope were not done to our recommendation
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - we have no idea what their recommendation was other
than a handwritten sketch with 2 grade changes on it. However as built survey indicates that we
did meet or exceed their “recommendation” if that sketch was indeed their recommendation.
Again, they did not have a permit or an approved drawing of any kind showing new grades. They
did not work with Bridget Fraser the Project engineer/designer, at any time during the design or
construction to provide “recommended” grades] and therefore created a material ADA
compliance issue due to the manner in which the sidewalk was poured. The sidewalk adjacent to
the 781-779 entry is 1/2” lower than the existing aprons, which only exacerbated our problem.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Since the existing aprons were demolished by Madonna
without a permit, it is hard to say if this statement is correct. Our As-built survey indicates the
area is in front of the 779/781 landing is .02’ lower than what existed prior to the demo. This is a
little less than ¼”] Further, the new sidewalk is 1/2” -3/4” lower than the existing sidewalk at the
transition from new to old and the existing curb has been lowered as well. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - I have no idea what he means by the “transition.” Throughout the whole
frontage, the new curbs either matched the existing elevation or were raised (up to 2” or more)
except for one area that was lowered to remove a hump. See profile. The back of walks matched
existing grades and landings except at the area discussed above that was found to be a little less
than a ¼” lower than existing.] These modifications in grade and slope have changed our building
entrance transitions so that they cannot be ADA compliant without costly and disruptive interior
ramps . [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - The only way to make their landings compliant
would be for the City to have raised the back of the sidewalk at their landings. The existing
landings that they installed were not compliant as shown on the as-builts. What we did or didn’t
do at the curb has no impact on what they do at their landings. If the architect had coordinated
with the project engineer it might, or might not, have been possible to raise the back of walk to
accommodate their non-compliant situation. Again no one made contact with the project
engineer. Furthermore Tim Girvin (email of June 19th) has already spent time with Bague to help
resolve the issue of the non-compliant landings and suggested ways to comply.]
Mr. Tim Girvin Page 2 June 14, 2012
Attachment 4 - 2
PH2 - 20
3
We immediately made the City and the contractor aware of this situation/problem.
[[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Again, no contact made with project engineer. Not sure
who they “immediately” contacted. Contractor did not bring up the need to adjust the back of
walk grades to the project engineer or inspector.] Rather than address the situation, matters were
then made worse two weeks later when the City chose to proceed without addressing the sloping
problem and the contractor poured the second section of the sidewalk which then made it
impossible for the entrance at 785 Higuera Street to become ADA compliant without interior
ramping. The entrance at 787 appears to be compliant. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
Again if they had a sloping problem with their landings it was not brought to the attention of the
project engineer. This type of coordination should have been brought up during the design phase
as well as through a building permit process.]
To correct this situation will require the replacement of the new sidewalk with one that is
compatible with the relevant building entrances. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - I don’t
believe it is the City’s responsibility to adjust our sidewalks to take care of their non-compliant
issues for the building. Additionally, Girvin has already given Bague ideas on how they can
comply without removing sidewalks or significant interior work.] We are asking the City to
replace the sidewalk and correct this situation. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - This
problem was not created by the City. This problem was created by the building owner not
coordinating their issue with the project engineer. Also, they had no building permit or plans
indicating the need for new higher grades at the back of walk. This would have helped flag the
situation and provide coordination between the two projects. If I had known we might have been
able to accommodate them. They keep saying they coordinated with all these City folks but who
were they?] Doing so will require close coordination. We would like to schedule a meeting for
this purpose. Please contact me as soon as you are able.
Sincerely yours,
Harmon M. Shragge, Jr.
Property Manager
CC B. Maytag
J. Bague
M. Landes
D. Law Esq.
Attachment 4 - 3
PH2 - 21
1
Lynch, Barbara
From:Girvin, Tim
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:18 AM
To:'Harmon Shragge'
Cc:Johnson, Derek; Walter, Jay; Lynch, Barbara; Fraser, Bridget; Horn, Matt; Ellery, Mark;
Armet, Robert; Cruce, Greg
Subject:RE: 779-781 Higuera Street
Mr. Schragge,
I met with Mr. Bague after the sidewalk was installed and discussed options for replacing the landings in front of the
building in question. I had been alerted to the issue because ADA upgrade work is subject to a permit and there are
provisions in the California Building Code to allow fo r va riances. I proposed a scenario in which code requirements could
be met with precise design and installation of the landings, or one or more of the landings could provide improved
features that may not meet the practical standards, yet be in compliance with the prescriptive code requirements due to
circumstances known as a hardship. The Building Division will be available to follow‐up on whatever scope of work is
proposed, but keep in mind that, in this case, obtaining proper permits is a requirement of the building code and the
City expects coordination of effort between right of way im provements and private property permitting to achieve code
compliance.
Based on the request stated in your letter I have referred this request to the Public Works Department for follow‐
up. Please refer any future correspondence related to public improvements to Jay Walter, Public Works Director or
Barbara Lynch, City Engineer. I have included them in this update so you should have their email contacts for future
reference.
I will state again, feel free to work with Building Division staff when proposing replacement of the landings, my staff or I
will help coordinate code complying ADA upgrades.
Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From: Harmon Shragge [mailto:harmon@shragge.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Girvin, Tim
Subject: 779-781 Higuera Street
Hi Tim,
Attached is a letter concerning the sidewalk in front of the above building.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Harmon
Attachment 5
PH2 - 22
June 30, 2012
Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Tim,
Thank you for your email of June 19, 2012 regarding the sidewalk issue at the Maytag
building. We have always maintained an excellent relationship with the various City Departments
and representatives. During the seismic upgrade of our building both the Planning and Building
officials that we worked with were efficient, pleasant and professional. This is why I am just a bit
confused because up until now, all parties have always acted in good faith.
Upon completion of our seismic upgrade we understood that the entrances to the units at
779, 781 and 785 Higuera were not in compliance with ADA. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - This is in direct conflict with Bague letter were he states they were all in compliance
at time of building final.] We worked with various City officials [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - who? And when?] and together concluded that when the new sidewalk was to be
poured, most if not all our sloping/ADA issues could be addressed by raising the curb by ½ inch
and simply connecting the raised curb and sidewalk to our upgraded landings. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - Hal has a different version of this. There was no agreement, no plans no
written correspondence that we can find that suggests that the City was going to design our
sidewalks to take care of their compliance problem.] I understand that this solution in some form
was utilized across the street to great success. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - He is
referring to the sidewalks in front of the Namen building. We did not do anything other than tie
our sidewalks into the existing landings and designed our sidewalks to get as close to 2% cross
fall as possible. We did the exact same thing at the Maytag building and throughout the project.
There was no special coordination at the Namen Bldg. So I’m not really sure what he is trying to
say. We handled the design of our sidewalks that same on the entire downtown project.]
Attachment 6 - 1
PH2 - 23
2
Jeff Bague and our contractor continued this discussion both with the City [RESPONSE
BY BRIDGET FRASER - who? No one remembers being contracted by Bague until it was after
the fact] and with the City’s contractor prior the pouring of the new sidewalk. Imagine our
dismay when the first section of the sidewalk was poured with a lower curb and steeper slopes.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - The as-built survey shows it was not poured lower or at
steeper slopes except for the areas already discussed previously.] Even after additional
discussions with the City’s contractor, the second section of sidewalk was poured, again with a
lower curb and steeper slopes than existed originally. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
This is incorrect. As-built indicates top of curbs were raised (except at one point) and slopes were
much less steep. Contractor told Mark they were not going to get involved. Again no one at the
City was aware that they wanted the City to raise grades for them. We matched their existing
apron grades.]
While we appreciate the City’s willingness to work with us to remedy the issue, we
believe there would not have been an issue had the City either not poured the sidewalk lower than
it was before, or listened to our representatives when they told the City’s contractor after the first
pour that it was too low. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Again the sidewalk was not
poured lower (except for one point) or steeper. Also who did their representative talk to and
when?]
In light of the foregoing, and the fact that it is our understanding that the sidewalk across
the street was poured correctly, we believe the City should remedy the issue rather than requiring
us to do so. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - I don’t know what the sidewalk across the
street has to do with their non-compliant landings. As far as I know the City did not do anything
more than meet the existing aprons and meet the 2% slopes like we did on the entire project.
Again, I’m not clear what he is trying to imply.]
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Harmon M. Shragge, Jr.
Property Manager
CC B. Maytag
J. Bague
M. Landes
D. Law Esq.
Attachment 6 - 2
PH2 - 24
Attachment 7 - 1
PH2 - 25
Attachment 7 - 2
PH2 - 26
Attachment 7 - 3
PH2 - 27
Attachment 7 - 4
PH2 - 28
Attachment 7 - 5
PH2 - 29
Attachment 8 - 1
PH2 - 30
Attachment 8 - 2
PH2 - 31
Attachment 9 - 1
PH2 - 32
Attachment 9 - 2
PH2 - 33
Attachment 9 - 3
PH2 - 34
Attachment 9 - 4
PH2 - 35
Attachment 9 - 5
PH2 - 36
Attachment 9 - 6
PH2 - 37
Attachment 9 - 7
PH2 - 38
STYE
If
I - City Attorney's Officei; pj
990 Palm Street.San Luis Obispo.CA 93401-3249
dots `ice 805.7817140
sincity org
August 15, 2014
Dennis Law
Andre Morris and Buttery
P.O. Box 730
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RE: 779 Higuera Street Permit Appeal — Appeal to Final Decision
Permit No. 140245)
Dear Mr. Law,
The City of San Luis Obispo is in receipt of the appeal you filed on behalf of your
client, Beverly Maytag, regarding the above referenced matter.
The underlying decisionyou are appealing relates to workwithin the public right-of-
way pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code ("SLOMC") Chapter 12.04; it is not a
Title 17 decision. The correct appellate body for this matter is the San Luis Obispo City
Council as described in my July 24, 2014 letter to you.' A hearing date of September 16,
2014 has been tentatively scheduled. The City Council meets in the San Luis Obispo
Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San LuisObispostarting at 6:00 p.m. A staff
report will be preparedand will be available prior to the hearing date.
Please let me know as soon as possible if this hearing date conflicts with your or
yourclient's schedules. Thank you.
Sin 'ely,
n An olabehere
Assistant City Attorney
Cc: Daryl Grigsby, PublicWorks Director
Derek Johnson, Planning Director
Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer
HalHannula, Supervising Civil Engineer
See SLOMC Section 12.04.060.
Attachment 10PH2 - 39
Attachment 11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO
DENY AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AT 779,
781, 785 AND 787 HIGUERA STREET (PERMIT NO. 140245)
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2014, an application (Permit No. 140245; the “Application”)
was filed with the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) to allow, among other things, the
replacement of sidewalk within the City’s right-of-way located at 779-787 Higuera Street, San
Luis Obispo, California (the Property”); and
WHEREAS, during plan check for the Application, the following comments were noted
in regards to the applicant’s request to encroach into the City’s right-of-way in front of the
Property: “[p]roject plans shall be revised…without replacing the existing…sidewalk” and
“Public Works will not allow the street sidewalk to be replaced.”; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the applicant’s representative submitted a letter with the
City requesting a final decision on the Application as to whether the City would allow the
applicant to replace the sidewalk in front of the Property; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2014, the City rendered a final decision and denied the
Applicant’s request for an encroachment permit to reconstruct the City’s sidewalks in front of the
Property. The City’s July 24, 2014 denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014, the applicant appealed the City’s July 24, 2014 denial of
the encroachment permit pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.20.20;
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the
Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
considering the appeal of City staff’s decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, oral and written
testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. That the applicant seeks to encroach within the City’s public right-of-way pursuant to
Chapter 12.04 of the City’s Municipal Code;
PH2 - 40
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 11
Page 2
b. That San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.04.060 authorizes the City Engineer to
approve, conditionally approve or reject an encroachment permit application;
c. That the City’s downtown area is a critical component to the City’s identity and economic
health and well-being;
d. That between September 2010 to September 2011, the City designed a downtown
beautification project (the “Beautification Project”) which included the replacement of
the sidewalk in front of the Property;
e. That on March 5, 2012, as part of the Beautification Project, the City demolished the City
sidewalk in front of 779 and 781 Higuera Street;
f. That on or about March 5, 2012, the City discovered unpermitted work at the Property,
namely that the store landings at 779 and 781 Higuera Street were being replaced without
a building permit;
g. That on March 6, 2012, the City’s contractor poured the sidewalk in front of 779 and 781
Higuera up to the store wall that separates 781 and 785 Higuera Street;
h. That between March 12-13, 2012, the City’s contractor demolished and poured the
sidewalk in front of 785 and 787 Higuera Street;
i. That based on pre and post construction surveys, the back portion of the City’s sidewalk
that was replaced in front of the Property as part of the Beautification Project was equal to
or higher than the pre-construction grade with the exception of the portion in front of 779
and 781 Higuera Street, which was poured .02” lower than the original sidewalk and that
such deviation is within normal construction tolerances for concrete work;
j. That the Beautification Project, namely the replacement of the City’s sidewalk on Higuera
Street between Morro Street and Garden Street, did not create or otherwise contribute to
any non-compliance issues for the Property with regard to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”);
k. That the applicant/ owner of the Property has alternate solutions available which are
exclusively within the Property, which do not adversely affect the City’s right-of-way;
l. That the plans reviewed by City staff thus far, do not adequately demonstrate that removal
and replacement of the City’s sidewalk in front of the Property will actually bring the
Property into compliance with the ADA; that the plans also do not include adequate
engineering detail, survey and analysis to show the ultimate sidewalk section and code
compliance for the public right-of-way and private landings; that the plans further do not
include certain fixed planes such as custom tree grates and utility vaults; and that the
proposed sidewalk design from the applicant indicate potential incompatibility between
the curb and parked cars;
PH2 - 41
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 11
Page 3
m. That removal and replacement of the sidewalk in front of the Property will cause
unnecessary additional disruption to the City’s downtown community and will severely
impact pedestrian traffic and parking;
n. That replacement of the sidewalk in front of the Property will unnecessarily disrupt
important community events within this area (i.e. Farmers Market) as the power pedestals
within this portion of Higuera Street would be inoperable during construction and the
sidewalk closed; and
o. That the sidewalk in front of the Property is nearly brand new and was part of a
comprehensive downtown beautification project and that replacement of only a portion of
the sidewalk will likely result in inconsistent coloring and texture between the different
portions of the sidewalk.
SECTION 2. Action: That for the foregoing reasons enumerated above, the City Council
hereby denies the appeal filed by Beverley Maytag and upholds the decision of the Public Works
Director denying an encroachment permit to replace the sidewalk located within the City’s right-
of-way between 779-787 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PH2 - 42
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 11
Page 4
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 43
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH2 - 44
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
Brian Leveille, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ACTIONS RELATING TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATE PROJECT (LUCE) INCLUDING: CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND
ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (SOC) RELATIVE
TO AIR QUALITY, NOISE, & TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION IMPACTS; CONSIDERATION OF
THE GENERAL HOSPITAL AND BISHOP KNOLL FOCUS AREAS OF CHAPTER 8 OF
THE LAND USE ELEMENT; AND, ACTION TO CLOSE OUT THE SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES PLANNING GRANT FOR THE LUCE UPDATE PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt resolutions to:
1. Certify the FEIR (Attachment 3) with findings of overriding considerations relative to Air
Quality, Noise, and Transportation/Circulation; and
2. Adopt policy language for the General Hospital focus are of the Land Use Element
(Attachment 4); and.
3. Adopt policy language for the Bishop Knoll focus area of the Land Use Element
(Attachment 5) [the order of items 2 and 3 are subject to a random selection process]
B. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 7) to close out the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant
for the LUCE Update Project.
REPORT- IN- BRIEF
The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) closed on July 28,
2014. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential impacts of the community’s growth as envisioned
in both the policy and program changes as well as through the areas of physical changes
identified in the opportunity sites. The Draft EIR was made publically available for comment and
was circulated to the appropriate public agencies for review and comment. Responses to
comments on the Draft EIR have been completed and refinements have been made based on
agency comments which are incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report which is
now ready for certification. An executive summary of the FEIR has been attached (Attachment
1) to the staff report and the full document is available on the LUCE project web site
at www.slo2035.com, or for review at the Community Development Department, 919 Palm
Street, or the City-County Library at 995 Palm Street.
The FEIR determined that there are significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of Air
Quality (long term), Noise (short term), and Traffic and Circulation (long term roadway
performance, intersections, and freeways). Staff is recommending the Council adopt overriding
considerations for these impacts in accordance with findings that the benefits of the project
(objectives of LUCE update project) outweigh the potential for environmental impacts. Other
Sept. 16, 2014
PH3
PH3 - 1
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 2
potential impacts were identified but will be less than significant through implementation of
existing policies and programs and new policies and updates included in the LUCE update
project. Those areas include Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (short term), Cultural
Resources, and Public Services. These impacts are similar to those that would occur with the No
Project alternative.
Council is also being referred two of the focus areas in Chapter 8 of the draft Land Use Element,
Bishop Knoll and General Hospital, for which Council members have potential conflicts so
decisions can be resolved and remaining focus areas can be acted on by the full Council in
subsequent hearings. Remaining Chapter 8 focus areas are scheduled for the September 30th City
Council meeting along with Airport related General Plan policies and implementing Airport
Overlay Zone Regulations.
The LUCE update project was funded in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth
Council. The grant contract requires City Council approval of the final close out report in order
to discharge the grant obligations and to request reimbursement of any remaining grant-funded
work.
DISCUSSION
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
The Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 and comments were due on July 28, 2014. The
City received 25 responses to the EIR, eight from agencies and 17 from individuals. In
addition, the Draft EIR was reviewed by the City’s advisory bodies:
July 1, 2014 Joint study session by Planning Commission and City Council
July 9, 2014 Mass Transportation Committee
July 17, 2014 Bicycle Advisory Committee
July 21, 2014 Architectural Review Commission
July 22, 1014 Parks and Recreation Commission
July 28, 2014 Cultural Heritage Committee
Most comment letters provided input regarding policy discussions and/or observations
regarding current circulation operational issues versus input regarding environmental impacts
(FEIR Appendix A-1 and additional detail in Attachment 2 to this staff report). Some letters
requested project level evaluation for individual development sites, however, the more general
nature of the LUCE update project and the associated programmatic level of environmental
evaluation do not address this detailed and specific review. Responses have been provided to
comments within the Final EIR which was released on September 3, 2014.
The Final EIR was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2014. The
recommendation and input from the Commission will be transmitted in an agenda
correspondence prior to the Council meeting.
The FEIR includes mitigations for identified Class 1 impacts (those that remain significant with
mitigation) and Class 2 impacts (those that can be mitigated to less than significant level). No
mitigations are required for Class 3 impacts, which are considered to be less than significant.
The Executive Summary of the FEIR is included as Attachment 1.
PH3 - 2
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 3
The FEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic and
Circulation with the LUCE update.
1. Class 1 Impacts
Class 1 Impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. These impacts are those that
cannot be reduced to below significance thresholds even with the implementation of mitigation
measures. The FEIR identifies Class 1 impacts in three categories: Air Quality, Noise, and
Traffic and Circulation. In addition, one impact identified as Class 1 in the Draft EIR, Land
Use, has been determined to not remain a Class 1 impact after consideration of technical
information and lack of persuasive comments provided by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
and the Airport Land Use Commission during the public review of the DEIR. Each category is
briefly discussed below.
Air Quality
These impacts are related to long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors
associated with development under the LUCE update. This is primarily due to assumptions
contained in the Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) Clean Air Plan that assigns growth
rates and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to the area for the 1995-2015 time period. The EIR
refers to both the population growth rate and the VMT assumed in the Plan to determine
whether the LUCE is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Differences between the Plan and the
LUCE update were identified as a significant impact because the VMT modeled with the
LUCE exceeds the growth anticipated in the APCD plan. Therefore, long term air quality
impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. This situation will most likely be remedied
with the update of the Clean Air Plan, but until that time, the FEIR finds Class 1 impacts
remain.
Noise
The FEIR identified that construction noise associated with development supported by the
LUCE update will exceed applicable standards in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance from
temporary use of construction equipment. Despite existing policies and regulations, these short
term noise impacts are not able to be mitigated to less than significant levels.
Traffic and Circulation
The FEIR identifies three areas where circulation impacts are considered significant and
unavoidable. Impacts to certain roadway segments and intersections were identified where
levels of service drop below acceptable minimum performance levels identified in the
Circulation Element. Finally, impacts to the US 101 freeway are identified in several segments
that pass through the City. While impacts are difficult to isolate to the LUCE update, growth in
the City will contribute to travel/trips on this facility. Caltrans is studying the possibility of
widening US 101 from 4 to 6 lanes in various locations, but no final decisions have been made
whether that will occur and when. Mitigations are included to continue City support of Caltrans
and SLOCOG efforts to address demand on Highway 101. Despite this effort, the impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
The current Circulation Element includes a full interchange at Prado Road and Highway 101
and includes a vehicular bridge to extend Bishop Street over the railroad tracks to connect to
Santa Barbara/South Street. The FEIR studied the effects of changing the planned full
PH3 - 3
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 4
interchange at Prado Rd. to an overpass only, and studied the elimination of the planned
overpass at Bishop Street. Several significant impacts associated with both of these changes
were identified and therefore these two pieces of infrastructure were retained in the proposed
project as necessary to address circulation needs and avoid significant impacts.
Land Use no longer a Class 1 impact
One impact that had been identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unavoidable was the
inconsistency of the LUCE update with the County Airport Land Use Plan. After thorough
evaluation, and lack of persuasive evidence submitted by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
or Airport Land Use Commission (the latter received after the public comment period had
closed) in response to the Draft EIR, the potential impact was re-characterized as a Class 3
impact. The evaluation centered on whether changes associated with the LUCE update would
result in adverse physical environmental effects associated with the inconsistency with the
Airport Land Use Plan. Although policy inconsistencies continue to exist, neither Caltrans
Aeronautics nor the Airport Land Use Commission provided information that would lead to a
conclusion that the policy inconsistency results in a physical impact. The emphasis in both
letters was focused on the process of overrule and state code requirements for purview and
action. As such, this impact which had previously been identified as Class 1 has been modified
and reduced to a Class 3 (less than significant) impact.
2. Class 2 Impacts
Class 2 impacts are those that can be mitigated to less than significant levels. There were three
of these impacts identified: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, and Cultural Resources. The
policy mitigation to address potential impacts to Agricultural Resources includes minor word
changes to Land Use Element policy 1.7.1 to change the word “should” to “shall” in two
places. Implementation of APCD recommended construction measures is identified as a
mitigation for short term Air Quality impacts. Finally, modification of language (“should” to
“shall”) in three Conservation and Open Space policies has been identified as mitigation for
potential impacts to cultural resources.
3. EIR Circulation Analysis
In January, 2014, the City Council identified several options for study as part of the circulation
analysis to understand how various infrastructure changes would affect local and city-wide
circulation. These included running the circulation model with variations on circulation
infrastructure such as:
Bishop Street overpass versus no Bishop Street overpass;
Prado overpass versus interchange;
Laurel Lane overpass versus no overpass
Calle Joaquin extension to Froom Ranch/Dalidio Drive versus no connection
Buckley by-pass from S. Higuera to Los Osos Valley Road versus no by-pass
Additional connection between Tank Farm and Buckley Road versus no connection
Vachell Lane connection to Los Osos Valley Road versus no through connection
This analysis was conducted by modeling the maximum potential arrangement of circulation
options and then testing the sensitivity of variations independently. This sensitivity assessment
has been included as part of the technical studies in Appendix N of the EIR. Based on the
PH3 - 4
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 5
sensitivity analysis results, several circulation options were rejected due to significant impacts
or failing to deliver an adequate benefit. The remaining options have been compiled into the
proposed project and are summarized below:
• Add Grade Separated Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing at Boysen & Santa Rosa
• Add Broad St. Ramp Closure and Upgrade of Hwy 1 & 101
• Convert Marsh & Higuera to Two Way (Santa Rosa to California Blvd.)
• Locate Transit Center in Vicinity of Santa Rosa & Higuera
• Extend Mission Plaza
• Extend Victoria Ave. to Emily
• Add Broad St. Corridor Circulation Improvements
• Add New Collector between Tank Farm & Buckley
• Develop Policy to review realignment of Chorro, Boysen, & Broad with development
• Develop Policy to review realignment of Bianchi Ln. & Pismo St. with development
• Develop Policy to review realignment of Madonna Rd. to Bridge St. with development
In some cases, only localized improvements in circulation were realized and discussion of cost
and impacts associated with that particular infrastructure lead to a recommendation to not
include that improvement as part of the proposed project. In other instances, significant
circulation impacts would result without inclusion of the facility and hence it was included into
the proposed project. For several of the potential options, direction is included in the land use
policies to consider and define the optimal circulation improvements that may be appropriate
and desirable at the time the surrounding land use development is reviewed.
4. EIR Alternatives:
Feasible alternatives were offered for consideration included a maximum infrastructure
circulation alternative, a reduced development alternative, and the CEQA-required no project
alternative.
No Project alternative
This alternative would result in no changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan. Minor reductions in impacts to aesthetics, air quality (due to fewer residences),
biological resources, cultural resources, and geologic resources would result. However,
beneficial aspects of the LUCE update project would not occur in the No Project alternative.
The No Project alternative would not include sustainable community policies, healthy city
policies, and multi-modal circulation policies that have the potential to reduce VMT and
provide a walkable community – all of which assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
reduce obesity, and assist in more sustainable practices. Other minor reductions could be found
in impacts related to hazards, hydrology, public services, and utilities. The no project
alternative does result in minor increase in impact due to traffic congestion.
Reduced Development alternative
This alternative included assumptions that the proposed specific plan areas would provide the
minimum number of residential units which results in reductions of approximately 20% of
development capacity. In addition, the non-residential portions of these opportunity areas were
reduced to the minimum development range which would result in nearly 50% reduction in
some areas. The alternative would not reduce development associated with existing specific
PH3 - 5
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 6
plans, planned and approved projects or other vacant land in the city. This alternative resulted
in minor impact reductions in the categories of aesthetics, air quality, biological, cultural,
geologic, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology, land use, noise, transportation, and
utilities resources. It had similar impacts to the project description for agricultural, population,
and recreation impacts.
Maximum Circulation Improvements alternative
This alternative included the proposed project and some of the circulation options that were
rejected due to impacts or failure to deliver substantial benefits. This alternative resulted in
impacts to aesthetics, geology, hazards, hydrology, land use, population, public services,
recreation and utilities. Minor increases to impacts resulted in categories of agricultural,
biological, cultural, and noise categories. Very slight decreases were seen in categories of
greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and transportation. Based solely on the slight difference
in Vehicle Miles Traveled calculations this was considered the environmentally superior
alternative due to the minor reductions in impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emission.
Staff does not recommend this alternative as the “proposed project” because the < 0.1%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is not persuasive when compared to the potential
impacts to aesthetics, agriculture, and biological resources.
5. Other Input
Input in the form of comments offered during the EIR comment period that are not related to
potential environmental effects but rather relate to policy content or direction were presented to
the Planning Commission in a matrix (Attachment 2) sorted by element and chapter and will be
considered by the Planning Commission as they review the chapters of the elements and
formulate a recommendation to Council.
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
When changes or alterations have been incorporated into a project in order to avoid or lessen
significant environmental effects, CEQA requires adoption of a program for reporting and
monitoring those changes (§15091d). This requirement is reflected in a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP identifies each Class 1 and Class 2 impact, and
lists the associated mitigation measure(s), the body responsible to implement each measure, and
the timing of when it will be monitored. The LUCE update FEIR identifies both physical
infrastructure and minor policy edits as mitigations for potential impacts. Since the
Environmental Impact Report is programmatic in nature, future development may have
additional mitigations that are identified when specific projects are proposed and further
evaluated. Minor policy edits that were identified as mitigations will be updated as part of the
adoption of the final LUCE update. Infrastructure changes identified as mitigations will be
addressed as part of future development review and project construction or may be included in
future fee programs. The MMRP is included as part of the resolution to certify the FEIR
(Attachment 3).
7. Statement of Overriding Considerations
An EIR does not represent a decision but rather is an informational tool to assist decision-
makers’ understanding of the potential environmental effects of proposed changes. As such,
PH3 - 6
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 7
CEQA contains provisions for the decision-making agency to consider and “balance, as
applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide
or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.”1 This may include
approving a project despite knowing that it has the potential to generate significant adverse
environmental effects. In order to approve the project, findings that document the
consideration and balancing of influences are included in a statement of overriding
considerations. The LUCE update will need to be accompanied by a statement of overriding
considerations. A draft of this statement is included for Council review as part of the
Resolution in Attachment 3 and lists the outweighing benefits associated with the LUCE update
including provision of new residential development, increase of per capita parkland, policies to
support well-planned neighborhoods and complete streets that have the potential to reduce
vehicle trips, provision of new employment opportunities, and continued preservation of open
space due to the focus on infill development. An update of Planning Commission review of
the statement of overriding considerations will be provided at the Council meeting, or if
changes are proposed, through an agenda correspondence.
LUCE Focus Areas
Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element includes policy statements to guide the development or
redevelopment of identified “Special Focus Areas”. The focus areas include larger sites which
will require the completion and approval of Specific Plans and General Plan amendments (Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, etc.), and other focus areas designed as “Special Planning Areas”.
Special Planning Area policies include guidance on intended uses, design, and key
considerations for each site given its particular circumstances. In order to enable the greatest
participation by Council members, two particular areas addressed in Chapter 8 of the Land Use
Element have been pulled out for separate action: General Hospital and Bishop Knoll. The draft
language from the Land Use Element for these special planning areas is shown in legislative
draft format below (underlining for new text and strike-out for deleted text). The proposed
policy direction for these two areas is new and hence all of the text is underlined. Updates from
the Planning Commission consideration of these areas will be provided at the hearing or via
agenda correspondence. The Council should review and take action on each planning area
separately via resolution (Attachments 4 and 5) so that Council members may rejoin the full
Council once the area that poses a potential conflict is resolved.
1. General Hospital
The General Hospital area is addressed in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element and has a new
policy to guide future development for this special focus area.
8.3.3.5 General Hospital Site: The General Hospital site includes County-owned
property including the old hospital building (which is planned to remain as an
office / treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands behind the hospital
building that are inside the City’s Urban Reserve line will be designated as Public
(for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low Density and
Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential
care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent
1 CA Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15093
PH3 - 7
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 8
areas. The remaining site outside the City’s Urban Reserve line will remain as
Open Space. The City shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space
outside of the urban reserve line as part of any development proposal. The
undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will
remain designated for Public uses.
2. Bishop Knoll
The north side of Foothill on the western limits of the City is known as the “Bishop Knoll”
property. Guidance regarding future development in this area is shown in two places in the Land
Use Element: existing Policy 1.12.7 B in Chapter 1 Annexations, and a new paragraph in
Chapter 8 Special Focus Area policies. No changes to policy 1.12.7B are proposed - the existing
language is recommended to be carried forward to work in concert with the new language in
Chapter 8. Both sections are shown below.
1.12.7B Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill property, and
the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be
clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site
and creek area preserved as open space.
8.3.3.14 North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll): Future development of this area
shall address open space requirements under 1.12.7 and open space buffers in
accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element policy 8.3.2. This area
shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and
resource protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing
neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and
residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development
shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation
connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive as feasible. Density shall be
limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance.
Strategic Growth Council Grant Closeout
The City was fortunate to receive a Strategic Growth Council (SGC) grant in the amount of
$880,000 to partially fund the LUCE update effort. This funding has augmented City resources
with consultant assistance to support the LUCE update and associated outreach efforts to engage
the community in the update process. The grant contract (Attachment 6) requires the City
Council to adopt the final report for submittal to the state in order to receive final reimbursement
for eligible LUCE expenses, including the outstanding 15% of grant funds that have been held
back from all previous reimbursement requests. This submittal must be postmarked by
September 26, 2014 and will include the reimbursement request, copies of the grant funded
products (the Draft LUCE and associated documents including the FEIR) and a final report that
documents the process as well as progress toward grant-defined outcomes. Attachment 7
contains the resolution that authorizes staff to submit the final report and close out the grant. The
final report itself will be provided as an agenda correspondence.
PH3 - 8
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 9
Closing out the grant does not affect the Planning Commission and City Council review of the
draft LUCE. The required deliverables specified draft versions of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements due to timing concerns that the update process may not have been fully completed
within the grant-mandated timeframe. Since draft elements have been developed and an EIR to
support their consideration has been developed, the City has met its grant performance
requirement. Taking action to closing out the grant does not prevent the Commission or Council
from making edits to the draft elements.
CONCLUSION
The LUCE update has been in process for nearly three years and has involved thousands of hours
of volunteer and advisory body consideration. Taking action to certify the FEIR and to resolve
two areas of potential conflict will allow the full Council to participate in review and discussion
of the revised elements.
CONCURRENCES
The LUCE and DEIR were reviewed by all City departments and were distributed to various
California agencies for comment and made available for public review and comment. Agency
comments, public and advisory body comments were addressed in the FEIR as discussed in this
report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The LUCE Update was made possible by a Sustainable Communities grant in the amount of
$880,000 provided by the State of California Strategic Growth Council. Funding for the grant is
from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). General Funds in the amount of $467,500 were added
to the grant to fund the environmental review and additional support to address Public Works
and Fire Department staffing impacts.
In order to satisfy the grant requirements, copies of the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements
and the associated FEIR will be submitted to the State Department of Conservation along with a
final status report and invoice for funds. Staff recommends the Council adopt and certify as
accurate the final report for submission to the State.
ALTERNATIVES
General Alternatives
1. Continue the discussion of Bishop Knoll and/or General Hospital policies with direction
to staff on changes or additional information in order to take an action at a future hearing.
If additional action or direction is needed for these areas, the Council may adopt a
resolution to certify the FEIR while providing direction to staff on items to bring back to
Council.
2. Consider a reduced development scenario as suggested by the FEIR. This would reduce
allowed development including much-needed areas for housing. In addition, a reduction
in development could reduce the amount of funding available to support required
PH3 - 9
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Page 10
infrastructure, making it challenging to address circulation needs in the upcoming 20
years. This alternative is not recommended.
ATTACHMENTS
1. FEIR Executive Summary
2. Matrix of policy comments received during the EIR public comment period
3. Resolution to certify the Final EIR with a statement of overriding considerations and a
mitigation monitoring program
4. Resolution approving Land Use Element policy language update for General Hospital
5. Resolution approving Land Use Element policy language update for Bishop Knoll
6. Strategic Growth Council grant contract
7. Resolution adopting and certifying final report for Strategic Growth Council grant
closeout.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Final Environmental Impact Report
\\chstore6\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-16\LUCE Update (Johnson-Kaiser)\CAR (LUCE Update)FEIR, Graant Close-out.docx
PH3 - 10
ES
Executive Summary
Final EIR Page ES‐1
The purpose of this Final EIR (FEIR) is twofold. First, this document provides copies of the comment letters made on the
LUCE Update and EIR and provides written responses to all environmental issues raised in these comments on the Draft
EIR (see Public Resources Code, Section 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088(c)). Second, this document is
designed to function as the Final EIR for the Proposed Project, and as such has been designed to meet the content
requirements of a Final Program EIR as specified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See Public
Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines [California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15000 et
seq.].
This Final EIR comprises four chapters that meet the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines, as outlined above. The
four chapters that make up this Final EIR are as follows:
“Executive Summary” provides a brief project description and presents a summary table of the Proposed
Project’s environmental effects.
Chapter 1, “Introduction” provides a brief overview of the Proposed Project, environmental compliance activities
conducted to date, and outlines the contents and organization of the Final EIR
Chapter 2, “Response to Comments” provides a list of commenters and a copy of written comments (coded for
reference) received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, and provides the City’s response to each
comment received.
Chapter 3, “Minor Edits to Draft Program EIR” includes any corrections and/or additions to the Draft EIR text as a
result of comments made on the Draft EIR. These changes to the draft EIR are indicated by revision marks
(underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text).
Chapter 4, “Report Preparation” provides a list of the individuals involved in the preparation of the final EIR.
In reference to Section 15132(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project has been
incorporated by reference into this Final EIR. A copy of the Draft EIR is on file at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. A copy can also be viewed by visiting the LUCE
Update web site at (www.slo2035.com).
The following section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed LUCE Update, alternatives considered in this EIR,
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of
significance of project impacts after mitigation.
Please note that where changes to the Draft EIR Executive Summary text resulted from the responses discussed in
Section 2.0 (Response to Comments) or edits shown in Section 3.0 (Minor Edits to the Draft Program EIR), those changes
are presented in the text of the Final EIR Executive Summary below as shown by underlining new text (e.g., new text) and
striking out text to be deleted (e.g., deleted text).
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 11
Page ES‐2 Final EIR
ES-1 Project Description
The LUCE Update Project (the “Project” or “proposed Update Project”) provides proposed changes to the City’s existing
Land Use Element and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (last updated in 1994). It is the intent of the proposed
Project to establish and implement a refined set of goals, policies, and programs for regulating development in the city,
guiding the land use decision‐making process, balance population growth with infrastructure availability, and provide a
true multimodal transportation system that will guide the community over the next 20 years.
The LUCE Update reflects extensive efforts and input from community surveys, workshops and open houses, advisory
bodies, the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF‐LUCE), City staff, consultants, the Planning
Commission, and City Council. Based on direction from the City Council that the Update Project primarily address infill
opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need to update existing policy direction to reflect current values and
requirements, the LUCE Update focuses on updated policy language and several areas of the City where “physical” land
use changes are proposed. The proposed physical land use changes would apply only to specified areas that over the next
20 years may have the potential to accommodate changes in the land use type or intensity or are in need of circulation
and infrastructure improvements. From a policy aspect, the LUCE Update proposes changes to existing policy and
program language, and new policies and programs where needed to enhance the two Elements or cover items not
previously addressed. The policies and programs included in the LUCE Update are intended to:
Address notable policy gaps that have been identified over time in the existing LUCE;
Provide new policy direction to address issues raised during the proposed Project’s public participation process;
Respond to changes in state law;
Address topics or items that the City committed to addressing as part of the Sustainable Communities grant that
provided funding for the Update Project; and
Address inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Airport Land Use Plan for San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.
The Land Use Element Update proposes to “preserve and enhance” existing conditions in most areas of the city. The
physical changes proposed by the Land Use Element Update are for the most part limited to changes in land use type or
intensity in specific areas. These changes include proposed mixed use redevelopment of some sites, the infill of
underutilized locations, and four sites that will require modified or new specific plans to addresses development
parameters such as the location and types of land uses, infrastructure needs, and designs to address environmental
constraints. These four sites include: Potential modification of the Margarita Area Specific Plan to allow increased
residential densities; and new specific plans for the San Luis Ranch (formerly known as the Dalidio site), the Madonna
property at Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), and the Avila Ranch. Policy direction was also refined relative to a set of
“Special Planning Areas” (Section 8.3.3 in the proposed Land Use Element Update) throughout the City. This policy
guidance provides statements regarding the City’s expectations for these sites of new development, redevelopment, and
infill opportunities.
The following table lists each of the original 19 proposed “physical alternative” locations, identifies the sites dropped from
further consideration, the sites where no physical changes are proposed, and describes the type of development that
could occur at the proposed development sites. Throughout the Land Use Element Update process the 19 proposed
“physical alternative” sites were identified by the letters A through S (see Figure ES‐1).
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 12
Final EIR Page ES‐3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
o
£¤101£¤1
South St
E
d
n
a
R
d
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
£¤101
£¤1
O
r
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alley
R
d
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Ave
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
Califo
rnia
Blvd
Higue
r
a
S
t
!A
!B
!D
!C
!M
!N
!O
!L !K
!J
!I
!E
!F
!G
!H
!P
!Q
!R
!S
Margarita
H
W
Y
1
E
D
N
A
R
D
HW
Y
1
0
1
KERN AVE
BUCKLEY RD
ON
T
A
R
I
O
R
D
A
L
T
E
G
R
E
S
S
O
C
O
N
N
O
R
W
A
Y
HIGUE
R
A
S
T
FOOT
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
JE
S
P
E
R
S
E
N
R
D
S
E
E
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
C
A
S
T
I
L
L
O
R
D
DA
V
E
N
P
O
R
T
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
LOS
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
GRE
Y
S
T
O
N
E
P
L
O
L
D
1
0
1
DRIVEWAY
V
I
A
C
A
R
T
A
VA
C
H
E
L
L
L
N
O
R
C
U
T
T
R
D
HO
O
V
E
R
R
D
MO
N
T
E
R
D
L
E
W
I
S
L
N
EVANS RD
TANK FARM RD
L
O
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
S
R
D
SEQU
O
I
A
D
R
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
MIOSSI
R
D
H
U
M
B
O
L
T
A
V
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
A
V
E
CA
B
A
L
L
E
R
O
S
A
V
E
PERIMETER
S
T
TUO
L
U
M
N
E
A
V
E
PUM
A
C
T
ME
L
L
O
L
N
ALT EGRESS
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
HW
Y
1
0
1
HW
Y
1
0
1
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
UNN
A
M
E
D
S
T
101
S
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
101 N
BUCKLEY
ORCUTT RD
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
TANK FARM RD
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
C
H
O
R
R
O
S
T
MADON
N
A
R
D
MILL
S
T
PISM
O
S
T
MARS
H
S
T
HIGHLAND
D
R
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
S
T
FOOTHILL BLVD
HIGH ST
ISLA
Y
S
T
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
W
B
L
V
D
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
T
O
R
O
S
T
PEA
C
H
S
T
ELK
S
L
N
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
S
T
ELLA
S
T
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
L
N
POL
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
O
C
E
A
N
A
I
R
E
C
T
MEISSNER
HIL
L
S
T
FULLE
R
R
D
AIRPORT
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
P
L
D
A
L
I
D
I
O
LIZZIE
S
T
C
A
S
A
S
T
VI
A
L
A
G
U
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
B
A
L
B
O
A
S
T
KENDAL
L
10
1
N
O
F
F
NA
S
E
L
L
A
L
N
K
L
A
M
A
T
H
101
S
O
N
OJAI
IRONBARK ST
LA
W
T
O
N
A
V
E
H
E
L
E
N
A
S
T
BOND ST
ISABELLA
W
A
Y
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
CE
N
T
E
R
S
T
HARMONY
RAMONA DR
CRAIG WAY
VIA LA PA
Z
10
1
N
O
F
F
101
N
BR
O
A
D
S
T
Figure ES-1-
Legend
LUCE SOI Area
Area of Potential
Land Use Change
Specific Plan Area
Preserve and Enhance
!
!!
!
City Limits
Water Body
Highway
Major Road
Streets
Railroad
o Airport
Source: City of Sanu Luis Obispo, 2012
0 10.5
Miles
Land Use Options Considered
!A
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 13
Page ES‐4 Final EIR
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
A Nativity Church Site
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
B Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area
Consider mixed use for the area on both sides
of Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa.
Consider both horizontal and vertical mixed
use. Emphasis on retail and housing. Policies
to support consideration of parking and height
changes to facilitate mixed use.
80 183 ‐1,184 ‐3
C Pacheco Elementary Site
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
D Diocese Site near Bressi Pl. & Broad St.
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
E Upper Monterey Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
F Downtown Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
G Mid‐Higuera Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
H Caltrans Site
Mixed use to include tourist commercial,
office and some residential. Site may be
appropriate to review height limit changes to
accommodate desired development.
Consider more public open space uses to
serve as gateway and uses compatible with
conference facilities.
53 121 101,943 185
I General Hospital Site
Residential development on the site behind
existing structure within the existing Urban
Reserve Line. Outside the Urban Reserve Line,
retain the current designation of Open Space.
Policies should support flexibility so that a
range of residential uses can be considered
(i.e. residential care, adjunct to transitional
care use, other residential uses consistent
with area) within the residential land use
designations.
41 94 48,788 89
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 14
Final EIR Page ES‐5
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
J Broad Street Area
Incorporate physical alternative described in
South Broad Street Area Plan endorsed on
September 17, 2013 by City Council (Council
Resolution 10460).
589 1,349 229,068 416
K Sunset Drive‐In/Prado Road Site
Consideration of mixed use. Develop policies
to address appropriate mix of uses. Policy
discussion should address historic nature of
Sunset Drive in and ensure the site is able to
accommodate Homeless Services center.
Provide bike connections as called for in
bicycle transportation plan.
0 0 483,668 879
L San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area
Consideration of a mix of uses with a
substantial open space/agriculture
component. Residential uses to be consistent
with applicable airport policies.
500 1,145 470,000 855
M Pacific Beach Site
Policy development to support consideration
of Commercial Retail/mixed use fronting LOVR
and Froom Ranch and park to serve
neighborhood.
38 87 ‐37,352 ‐68
N Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area
Consideration of mixed use in the context
with the Dalidio property and the City's
agricultural parcel and focus on connectivity
to the neighborhoods to the north. Develop
policies to address appropriate mix of uses.
0 0 200,066 364
O Madonna Specific Plan Area
Future development to consider viewsheds,
hillside and open space protection, height
limits, wetland protection, access to other
connections, historic farm buildings, mixed
use to accommodate workforce housing, and
neighborhood commercial type uses.
115 263 336,170 611
P LOVR Creekside Area
Consideration of medium high density
residential infill housing with open space.
159 364 0 0
Q Margarita Specific Plan
Policy to support consideration of changes to
the previously approved Specific Plan to allow
increased density on eastern portion of
specific plan site.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 15
Page ES‐6 Final EIR
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
R Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. Site
Consideration of a mix of commercial uses
with limited residential on upper floors.
Commercial uses should serve the
surrounding businesses and bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity must be addressed.
41 94 135,906 247
S Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Consider a mix of residential densities,
connections to shops to the north, connection
to S. Higuera and a mix of uses. Respect
creek/wildlife corridor.
700 1,603 25,000 45
Source: Matrix Design Group, 2014; Mintier Harnish, 2014
The policy and program updates proposed in the Airport Chapter of the Land Use Element reflect airport safety, noise,
height and overflight considerations consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. Policies, programs, and
Zoning Code implementation have been drafted to create an Airport Overlay Zone to codify airport compatibility criteria
for areas subject to airport influence consistent with the requirements of Cal. Pub. Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq,
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport
land use compatibility planning. These include allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity
limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to flight, noise
insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, nonconforming uses and reconstruction, and the process for
airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City.
The Circulation Element Update describes how the City plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials
within San Luis Obispo with connections to other areas in San Luis Obispo County and beyond. The Circulation Element
Update recognizes the implications of land use policy on all modes of movement, and establishes policies, standards, and
implementation measures that work with the Land Use Element to address both existing and potential circulation
opportunities and deficiencies. But beyond addressing changes in land use, the Circulation Element Update also looks at
the circulation system of the community as a whole. Introducing the concept of “complete streets”, the update looks to
integrate and enhance all types of circulation in order to create a more comprehensive and functional circulation system.
The proposed Circulation Element provides policy language to address a variety of circulation‐related issues, including:
traffic reduction; transit; encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic management; future street network changes;
truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; and scenic
roadways. A new section added to the Circulation Element addresses multi‐modal transportation, or the development
and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
As part of the LUCE Update, a comprehensive list of circulation improvements to be considered (called the “project
description”) was reviewed and approved for further analysis by the City Council. This list also included variations of
those improvements. Appendix N provides the sensitivity analysis performed on those individual variations. The results
of this sensitivity analysis were then used by the City to determine which variations would be included as part of the
Proposed Project presented in the EIR. From this analysis, the City identified 17 circulation improvements to include in
the Proposed Project. These are listed on the following table.The table below lists the 17 proposed “physical alternative”
street network modifications identified by the Circulation Element Update public participation and Element preparation
process.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 16
Final EIR Page ES‐7
Site Number Site Description
1 Boysen Ave. and Santa Rosa St.
Consideration of separated crossing for bikes/pedestrians of Santa Rosa at Boysen. Consider all vehicular
alternatives for Boysen intersection at SR 1 including full closure, access restrictions, and retaining its current
configuration.
2 Realign Chorro St., Boysen Ave., and Board St.
Consideration of realignment of Chorro and Broad and Boysen.
3 Potential Ramp Closures at Highway 101 and State Route 1
Consideration of ramp closures and consolidated SR1/Highway 101 interchange including the need for a
signage/way‐finding program.
4 Broad St. and Highway 101 Ramp Closures
Consideration of ramp closures at Broad with the addition of bike and pedestrian overpass.
5 Convert Marsh St. and Higuera St. to Two‐way
(Santa Rosa St. to California Blvd.)
Consideration of two way vehicular circulation of Marsh and Higuera between Santa Rosa and California.
6 Transit Center Location on Santa Rosa St. and Higuera St.
Consideration of site/block of Higuera/Santa Rosa/Monterey for the transit center location and consider use
of both public and private property. Consider ideas from student projects and the Downtown Concept Plan.
7 Mission Plaza “Dog Leg”
Consideration of several design alternatives with varying degrees of streets affected. Analyze full closure of
roadways. Develop policy direction regarding desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment for the
area.
8 Realign Bianchi Ln. and Pismo St.
Consideration of realignment of street intersection (Pismo to Bianchi).
9 Realign Madonna Rd. to Bridge St Instead of Higuera St.
Consider appropriate connection from Madonna to S. Higuera associated with redevelopment of Caltrans site.
Potential to realign Madonna to connect with Bridge Street may better address some pedestrian and bike
connections.
10 Bishop St. Extension
Evaluate elimination of Bishop Street bridge over railroad tracks and consider reducing the width of Johnson
Ave.
11 Victoria Ave. Connection to Emily St.
Consideration of Victoria connection to Emily.
12 Broad St. – Consolidate Access
Consideration of Broad Street consolidation of access points.
13 Orcutt Rd. Overpass
Keep facility as part of Circulation Element. Do not consider removing facility due to concerns about
increasing rail traffic.
14 Froom Rd. Connection to Oceanaire Neighborhood
Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity only.
15 Prado Rd. Interchange vs. Overpass
Evaluate both interchange and overpass
16 North‐South Connection between Tank Farm Rd. and Buckley Rd.
Consideration creating a north‐south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley for future connectivity.
17 LOVR Bypass
Consider (Buckley to Higuera connection and Higuera to LOVR behind Los Verdes ‐ 101 bypass.
Source: Matrix Design Group, 2014; Mintier Harnish, 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 17
Page ES‐8 Final EIR
ES-2 Project Objectives
Land Use Element Update
For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the objectives of the Land Use Element Update are to:
1. Respond to changed conditions in San Luis Obispo.
2. Incorporate sustainable practices and policies into the Land Use Element.
3. Respond to new State planning requirements.
4. Engage the community in a reaffirmation of the community’s vision and goals for the City’s future.
5. Provide residential infill opportunities.
6. Maintain a healthy and attractive natural environment within a compact urban form.
Circulation Element Update
For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the objectives of the Circulation Element Update are to:
1. Encourage better transportation habits.
2. Promote alternative forms of transportation.
3. Manage traffic by limiting population growth and economic development to the rates and levels stipulated by the
Land Use Element.
4. Support environmentally sound technological advancement.
5. Support a shift in modes of transportation.
6. Establish and maintain livable street corridors.
7. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that supports and balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
ES.3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table EXES‐1, at the end of this section, contains a detailed listing of the environmental impacts of the proposed project,
proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by classes: Class I impacts are defined as
significant, unavoidable adverse impacts, which require a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be
feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Class III impacts are adverse, but less than the identified significance thresholds.
ES.4 Alternatives
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
“an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
As stated above, the development on an EIR is to include consideration of a “reasonable range” of alternatives to foster
informed decision‐making and public participation.
CEQA requires the EIR to identify feasible alternatives to the proposed project that will avoid, or at least lessen, significant
impacts associated with the project. CEQA defines “feasible” as follows:
“‘Feasible’ means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.”
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 18
Final EIR Page ES‐9
Three alternatives to the LUCE Update project have been evaluated in this EIR. Each alternative is described below.
No Project Alternative: This alternative evaluates environmental conditions that would result if the proposed LUCE
Update Project were not implemented and future development in the City was implemented consistent with the land use
and policy requirements of the existing 1994 Land Use Element and Circulation Elements.
Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative evaluates environmental conditions that would result if the
development capacity proposed by the Land Use Element Update were reduced by approximately 20 percent.
Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative: This alternative evaluates the environmental conditions that would
result if three additional modifications were added to the proposed LUCE Update. These modifications include the re‐
introduction of two circulation improvements that were removed from the EIR traffic modeling (the “Vachel Lane
Realignment” and “Calle Joaquin Connector to Dalidio Drive” improvements) and a revised version of the “Buckley Road
to Los Osos Valley Road Connection” improvement. The three additional street network changes added to the Maximum
Circulation Improvements Alternative were options identified during the preliminary public review of potential street
system changes but were not included in the proposed Circulation Element traffic modeling.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative: Buildout of the No Project Alternative would generally reduce the environmental
impacts that would have the potential to occur if buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo was conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the existing 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements of the general plan. Implementation of the
No Project Alternative, however, would not implement the beneficial policy revisions proposed by the LUCE Update.
Based on the potential for the No Project Alternative to reduce environmental impacts when compared to the impacts of
the proposed Project, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project alternative, however, would
not implement any of the proposed projects’ objectives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that “if the
environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives.”
The Reduced Development Alternative would generally have reduced or similar environmental impacts when compared
to the impacts of the proposed project. The Reduced Development Alternative, however, would not implement the
environmental objectives of the proposed LUCE Update. A reduction in development in the proposed specific plan areas
would be inconsistent with the objective to protect the environment within a compact urban form because developing
the specific plan areas at densities that are substantially less than their capacity could promote additional development in
other areas, such as unincorporated areas adjacent to the city. A reduction in development in the proposed special
planning areas would have the potential to reduce environmental impacts, however decreased development those areas
would not fully achieve the Land Use Element Update objective of promoting infill development. Reduced residential and
non‐residential density could be inconsistent with the implementation of State‐mandated planning requirements, such as
the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 375. This bill provides a mechanism for more sustainable and efficiently‐planned
transportation infrastructure, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved compatibility with land uses. A
substantial reduction in future development density may impede the attainment of requirements to provide
transportation‐oriented development, would not respond to this State planning requirement, and would be inconsistent
with the Land Use Element objective of incorporating sustainable practices into the Land Use Element.
The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would provide three street system modifications not included in the
proposed Circulation Element Update impact analysis. This alternative would generally result in environmental impacts
that are similar to the proposed Project, but would have fewer air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and traffic impacts
due to more free –flowing traffic circulation conditions. This alternative would also have the potential to result in
increased cultural resource and noise impacts along portions of one of the alternative roadway system projects; however,
it is likely that those impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of appropriate
design and other mitigation measures. The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would result in substantial
and area‐wide environmental benefits and would not impede the implementation of proposed Land Use and Circulation
Element Update objectives. As stipulated under CEQA Guidelines §§15126.6(e), an EIR must evaluate the environmental
effects of project (or plan) alternatives, compare these effects to those of the proposed project, and identify the
environmentally superior alternative. Based on the reasons discussed above,Therefore, the Maximum Circulation
Improvements Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project that fulfills the
basic objectives of the proposed LUCE Update.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 19
Page ES‐10 Final EIR
ES.5 Incorporation of Studies, Reports and Other Documents
This EIR contains references to studies, reports and other documents that were used as a basis for, or a source of,
information summarized in the body of the EIR. These documents are incorporated by reference in this EIR in accordance
with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. Where a study, report or document is briefly cited or referred to for
convenience in the body of this EIR, the reader should consult the “References and Preparers” section of this document
for the full citation. It is important to note that the bulk of the references used for this EIR are pulled forward from
Appendix D, Background Report (Volume III of this EIR).
ES.6 Areas of Public Controversy
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15123(b)(2), this EIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues to be
resolved which are known to the City of San Luis Obispo or were raised during the scoping process. No areas of
substantial controversy were raised in response to the Notice of Preparation that was circulated Thursday, December 5,
2013 with a required comment period originally set to end on Friday, January 10, 2014, but extended by the City until
Friday, January 24, 2014. However, the City received comments letters identifying a number of issues of concern in
response to the NOP and the public scoping meeting held in association with the regularly scheduled Planning
Commission on Wednesday, January 8, 2014.
As a result of the publishing of the NOP and the City’s outreach to the public and regulatory agencies, the City received
valuable input on the contents of the proposed EIR (please refer to Appendix E, Volume IV, of this EIR for a copy of all NOP
comments received and associated responses). This includes:
Regulatory Agency Comments
APCD: General comments concerning the responsibility for future development under the LUCE Update to ensure the
proper construction and operational permits are received prior to development, and the necessary environmental
information is provided that will be needed for the APCD to make determinations on impacts resulting from potential
future development.
CalTrans: General comments concerning the responsibility to work with the Airport Land Use Commission on the
development of the LUCE Update, and the requirements to provide adequate environmental analysis for future projects
within the Airport Land Use Plan area.
ALUC: Comments concerning project consistency with the ALUP, recommendations for environmental issue areas that
should be addressed through the EIR process, a needs assessment for residential growth, and analysis of a limited growth
EIR alternative.
Other Agencies/Offices
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce: Comments concerning a need to focus on the City’s jobs/housing balance and
recommendations for land use amendments to specific areas in the city related to increased residential development
opportunities. This includes general comments regarding the need for increased housing. No comments on the nature of
the environmental impact analysis.
Public Comments
General comments include area‐specific concerns regarding various environmental issues effecting current city residents
and a general concern over the existing state of the city’s environmental resources. General concern about circulation
changes to the South Broad Street Area and concern regarding including impacts related to diverting collector traffic onto
residential streets. Comments also include a request for a complete impact assessment of a future extension of Prado
Road and an assessment of impacts relating to the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Redevelopment project as well as
the potential Johnson Avenue development project on SLCUSD property. Comments also include general
recommendations on development within the identified Specific Plan Areas.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 20
Final EIR Page ES‐11
Table ES‐1. Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After
Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Class I: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Air Quality
Impact AQ‐2 (Long‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve operation
of development projects that
generate long‐term emissions of
criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors. Implementation of
the LUCE Update would not
result in the exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial
sources of local carbon
monoxide concentrations, odors,
or TACs. However, with regards
to criteria air pollutants and
precursors implementation of
the LUCE Update would not be
consistent with the assumptions
contained in the most recent
version of the APCD’s Clean Air
Plan even with the incorporation
of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies.
Thus, long‐term air quality
impacts are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
With regards to criteria air pollutants and
precursors implementation of the LUCE Update
would not be consistent with the assumptions
contained in the most recent version of the APCD’s
Clean Air Plan even with the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City
policies. Thus, long‐term air quality impacts are
considered Class I, significant and unavoidable.
APCD states that a Class 1 can be determined from
a qualitative analysis.
Significant and unavoidable.
Land Use
Impact LU‐1
The proposed LUCE Update
would have the potential to
conflict with an applicable land
use plan of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. With the
implementation of proposed
LUCE Update policies, potential
land use conflict impacts are
considered to be a Class I,
significant and unavoidable
impact.
No mitigation measures have been identified to
reduce potential inconsistencies with the existing
ALUP to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project has the
potential to be found inconsistent
with the existing ALUP by the
Airport Land Use Commission.
While physical environmental
impacts of safety and noise have
not been identified for the LUCE
update from existing or future
airport operations as described in
the adopted Airport Master Plan,
development envisioned in the
proposed Project presents a
conflict with the ALUP.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 21
Page ES‐12 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Noise
Impact N‐1
Short‐Term Construction Noise
Levels. Implementation of
development projects under the
proposed LUCE Update would
involve construction that could
generate noise levels that exceed
applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the
City’s Noise Control Ordinance
and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise
levels primarily from the use of
heavy‐duty construction
equipment (see thresholds a and
c). Even with the incorporation
of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies,
short‐term construction noise
levels are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Enforcement of the Noise Element and noise
control ordinance with respect to the existing
practice that accommodates infill construction
activity during the currently allowed hours of 7 AM
to 7 PM would reduce impacts to the extent
feasible.
With the implementation of
feasible construction noise
reduction measures and
exemptions, construction activities
could still exceed applicable
standards especially if activities are
near existing receptors and/or
occur during the nighttime. Thus,
short‐term construction noise
levels are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Traffic And Circulation
Impact CIR‐1
Development and street network
changes under the LUCE Update
will cause roadways currently
operating at LOS D or better to
deteriorate to LOS E or F, in
downtown San Luis Obispo,
roadways operating at LOS E or
better will deteriorate to LOS F,
or will add additional traffic to
roadways operating at LOS E
(outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown). This is considered a
Class I, significant and
unavoidable impact.
As future development under the LUCE Update is
proposed, the City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and the
policies/programs listed above. However, with the
incorporation of the Proposed Project, adherence
to proposed and existing City policies and programs
discussed above, and continued support of
Caltrans’, and SLOCOG’s and SLORTA’s efforts to
address demand on US 101 in the vicinity of San
Luis Obispo, these mitigation measures would not
mitigate the impacts and widening to 6‐lanes is not
feasible.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies would not fully
mitigate the impact, so the impact
would remain potentially
significant and unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐2
Development and street network
changes under the LUCE Update
will cause intersections currently
operating at LOS D or better to
deteriorate to LOS E or F, in
downtown San Luis Obispo,
intersections operating at LOS E
or better will deteriorate to LOS
The following mitigation measures would be
options to mitigate impacts for these intersections
to meet the LOS standard. It should be noted that
installing a signal to mitigate an LOS impact would
be contingent on the intersection meeting signal
warrants per the MUTCD under future year
conditions. However, the decision to install a traffic
signal should not be based solely upon a single
warrant. Delay, congestion, driver confusion, future
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies and reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate would reduce
potential impacts to a less than
significant level. However, many of
the proposed mitigations are
infeasible due to right‐of‐way or
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 22
Final EIR Page ES‐13
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
F, or will add additional traffic to
intersections operating at LOS E
(outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown). Impact is considered
to be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
land use or other evidence for right of way
assignment beyond that provided by stop controls
must be demonstrated. The City will adhere to
Caltrans’ process for intersection control
evaluation.
CIR‐1. Grand & Slack (#8)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐2. California & Taft (#12)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐3. Grand & US 101 SB on‐ramp (#13)
Install dedicated WB right‐turn lane.
CIR‐4. San Luis & California (#55)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐5. Higuera & Tank Farm (#85)
Add NB right‐turn lane, WB dual right‐turn lanes,
two‐way left‐turn lane on Tank Farm between
Higuera and Long.
CIR‐6. Broad & High (#89)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐7 Broad & Rockview (#94)
Install downstream signal at Broad & Capitolio.
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐8. Broad & Capitolio (#95)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐9. Johnson & Orcutt (#96)
Install roundabout.
CIR‐10. Broad & Tank Farm (#98)
Establish time‐of‐day timing plans.
Add SB dual left‐turn lane, NB dedicated right‐turn
lane and WB dedicated right‐turn lane.
Augment Bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐11. Broad & Airport (#102)
Install TWLTL north of intersection.
Augment Bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
funding constraints. Therefore, the
impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 23
Page ES‐14 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact CIR‐3
Development under the LUCE
Update will increase traffic on
freeway facilities. Impact is
considered to be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
As future development under the LUCE Update is
proposed, the City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and the
policies/programs listed above. However, with the
incorporation of the Proposed Project, adherence
to proposed and existing City policies and programs
discussed above, and continued support of
Caltrans’ and, SLOCOG’s and SLORTA’s efforts to
address demand on US 101 in the vicinity of San
Luis Obispo, these mitigation measures would not
mitigate the impacts and widening to 6‐lanes is not
feasible.
Given that there are no feasible
mitigation measures under the
City’s purview apart from
implementation of the Proposed
Project policies and programs, or
no enforceable plan or program
that is sufficiently tied to the actual
mitigation of the traffic impacts at
issue, this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Table ES‐2. Summary of Significant but Mitigable Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Class II: Significant but Mitigable Impacts
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG‐2
Future development in
accordance with the LUCE Update
could occur on prime farmland,
unique farmland, and/or
farmland of statewide
importance. Buildout within the
City Limits would result in Class II,
significant but mitigable impacts
to agricultural conversion.
In order to ensure that prime farmland is
protected upon implementation of the
proposed LUCE Update, the following LUCE
Update policy edits shall be required:
AG‐1 1.7.1 Open Space Protection
Within the City's planning area and outside the
urban reserve line, undeveloped land should be
kept open. Prime agricultural land, productive
agricultural land, and potentially productive
agricultural land should/shall be protected for
farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat,
and undeveloped prime agricultural land
should/shall be permanently protected as open
space.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies and reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate would reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 24
Final EIR Page ES‐15
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Air Quality
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve
construction of development
projects that generate short‐term
emissions of criteria air pollutants
and ozone precursors. Emissions
from individual construction
projects could exceed APCD’s
project‐level significance
thresholds. Thus,
implementation of the LUCE
Update could result in
construction‐generated emissions
that violate or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation,
contribute a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
criteria air pollutants for which
the region is designated as non‐
attainment, and/or expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Adherence to relevant policies
and implementation of APCD‐
recommended project‐specific
mitigation measures would
reduce potential short‐term
impacts to a less‐than‐significant
level. Thus, construction‐
generated air quality impacts are
considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
APCD specifies construction mitigation
measures designed to reduce emissions of ROG,
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 (both fugitive and
exhaust). These include standard mitigation
measures, best available control technology
(BACT), and construction activity management
plan (CAMP) and off‐site mitigation for
construction equipment emissions; along with
short and expanded lists for fugitive dust
emissions.
The City shall ensure the implementation of the
most current APCD‐recommended construction
mitigation measures to reduce construction‐
generated emissions to less‐significant levels as
defined by APCD.
Individual development would be
required to undergo separate
environmental review, which may
result in specific impacts that require
project specific mitigation consistent
with the most current APCD‐
recommended construction
mitigation measures. As stated in
APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, if
estimated construction emissions are
expected to exceed either of the
APCD Quarterly Tier 2 thresholds of
significance after the standard and
BACT measures are accounted for,
then an APCD approved CAMP and
off‐site mitigation would need to be
implemented to reduce air quality
impacts to a less‐than‐significant
level. In addition, all fugitive dust
sources shall be managed to ensure
adequate control below 20% opacity
as identified by Rule 401, for which
compliance is required by law.
Adherence to relevant policies and
implementation of APCD‐
recommended project‐specific
mitigation measures would reduce
potential impacts to a less‐than‐
significant level. Thus, construction‐
generated air quality impacts are
considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 25
Page ES‐16 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Impact CR‐1
Development allowed by the
LUCE update could cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or
eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the
California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of
historic resources. This impact is
considered to be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update
could adversely affect historical resources. In
order to better facilitate the protection of the
city’s historical resources and reduce potential
impacts to less than significant levels, the
following changes to the City’s General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element
policies/programs shall be required:
CR‐1 3.3.2 Demolitions
Historically or architecturally significant
buildings should shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance,
unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat
to health and safety and other means to
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable
levels are infeasible.
CR‐2 3.3.5
Historic districts and neighborhoods. In
evaluating new public or private development,
the City should shall identify and protect
neighborhoods or districts having historical
character due to the collective effect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
CR‐3 3.5.10 Southern Pacific Water Tower
The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and
adjoining City‐owned land should shall be
maintained as open space or parkland.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies, reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate, and incorporation of the
required policy/program language
changes will reduce potential impacts
to a less than significant level.
Public Services
Impact PS‐1
Buildout of the proposed Land
Use Element would increase the
demand for fire protection
services by increasing population
and the number of structures in
the city. This is a Class II,
potentially significant but
mitigable impact.
The following policy shall be added to the
proposed Land Use Element prior to adoption:
PS‐1 New Policy
Development should shall be approved only
when adequate fire suppression services and
facilities are available or will be made available
concurrent with development, considering the
setting, type, intensity, and form of the
proposed development.
Implementation of the proposed
mitigation measure and Land Use
Element policy would require the
development of a new fire station in
the southern portion of the city prior
to or in conjunction with the
development of the Avila Ranch
Specific Plan. The construction and
operation of a new fire station would
be required to comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, City
development review policies and
requirements, and may be subject to
the implementation of additional
mitigation measures identified by a
project‐specific environmental
review. With the implementation of
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 26
Final EIR Page ES‐17
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
the proposed mitigation measure and
existing development review
requirements, the proposed Land Use
Element Update would result in less
than significant adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or altered facilities needed to
achieve consistency with the City’s
fire response standard.
Table ES‐3. Less Than Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Class III: Less Than Significant Impacts
Aesthetics
Impact AES‐1
Development under the LUCE Update would introduce new
development along viewing corridors and scenic roadways,
including state scenic highways, in the San Luis Obispo area. This
could have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an
identified visual resource or scenic vista from a public viewing
area. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies, potential impacts to such views
are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact AES‐2
The LUCE Update emphasizes both reuse of existing urbanized
lands, infill development on vacant parcels, and new
development on vacant parcels near urban areas. The
development of such areas could degrade the existing visual
character and its surroundings. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update and existing City policies and programs,
potential impacts related to existing visual character changes are
considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact AES‐3
Proposed development in accordance with the LUCE Update
would introduce new sources of light and glare. However,
adherence to policies included in the Zoning Ordinance and
Community Design Guidelines would reduce potential impacts to
a Class III, less than significant, level.
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 27
Page ES‐18 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG‐1
The LUCE Update could alter the existing land use and zoning on
sites throughout the city and may result in incompatibilities with
adjacent urban and agricultural uses. However, the General Plan
reduces land use conflicts through policies and plan review.
Therefore, impacts that would occur from development would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required Less than significant.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO‐1
Development under the LUCE Update has potential to impact
common habitat types including non‐native annual grasslands
and disturbed/ruderal areas that provide habitat for common
wildlife and plant species. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing governing policies,
potential impacts to these common habitats are considered Class
III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact BIO‐2
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact four Natural Communities of Special Concern present
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea including Serpentine
Bunchgrass, Northern Interior Cypress Stand, Central Maritime
Chaparral, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh. With the
incorporation of the proposed and existing City policies, and the
requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential
impacts to sensitive habitats are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant
Impact BIO‐3
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has the potential
to impact special‐status plant species within the LUCE SOI
Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and
existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status plant
species are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact BIO‐4
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact special‐status wildlife species within the LUCE SOI
Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and
existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status wildlife
species are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 28
Final EIR Page ES‐19
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact BIO‐5
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact common wildlife species and species of local concern
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of
the proposed and existing City policies, and the requirements of
regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to common
and species of local concern are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Cultural Resources
Impact CR‐2
Development facilitated by Land Use and Circulation Element
Update could adversely affect identified and previously
unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources. This
includes potential disturbance of human remains. General Plan
policies would ensure that such impacts are addressed on a case‐
by‐case basis. Impacts would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO‐1
New development under the LUCE Update could be susceptible to
impacts from future seismic events, creating the potential for
structural damage or health and safety risks. However,
compliance with required building codes and implementation of
General Plan polices would result in a Class III, less than
significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐2
Future seismic events could result in liquefaction of soils near San
Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek and other low‐lying areas.
Development in these areas could be subject to liquefaction
hazards. The compliance of future development projects with the
California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan policies would
result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
None required.
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 29
Page ES‐20 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact GEO‐3
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur on soils
that have the potential to present natural hazards (expansive
soils, erosive soils, and differential settlement) to structures and
roadways. Development could also result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature. However, compliance of future development
projects with the California Building Code and adopted General
Plan policies would ensure that resulting impacts are Class III, less
than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐4
Steep slopes outside of the existing city limits present potential
on‐ or off‐site landslide hazards. In addition to human safety
impacts, a landslide has the potential to damage or destroy
structures, roadways and other improvements as well as to
deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and
erosion, including loss of topsoil. The compliance of future
development projects with the California Building Code (CBC) and
General Plan policies would result in Class III, less than significant
impacts.
None required. Less than significant.
Global Climate Change
Impact GCC‐1
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could result in an
increase in GHG emissions due to short‐term construction and
long‐term operational activities associated with new housing and
commercial development, resulting in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the impact of global climate change.
However, because the proposed LUCE Update would be
consistent with the City’s CAP and incorporates applicable CAP
policies and programs that would reduce GHG emissions, this
impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ‐1
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur near
known hazardous material users or result in construction in areas
with existing hazardous materials. Implementation of the LUCE
Update could expose individuals to health risks due to
soil/groundwater contamination or emission of hazardous
materials into the air and could impact an adopted emergency
response/evacuation plan. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies,
potential impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐2
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update could
introduce incompatible residential and commercial land uses into
safety zones established through the Airport Land Use Plan and
may result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
these areas. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 30
Final EIR Page ES‐21
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact HAZ‐3
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update would
introduce residential land uses into areas designated as having a
Moderate or High Wildland Fire Hazard, introducing the potential
to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss and/or
injury. However, compliance with existing policies and state and
local regulations would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than
significant level.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could introduce
sensitive receptors to additional hazards related to exposure to
radiation, electromagnetic fields and hazardous trees. With the
incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing
City policies, potential impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐5
Development under the proposed LUCE Update could potentially
introduce sensitive receptors to areas in direct proximity to
hazardous materials transportation corridors including the Union
Pacific Railroad and Highway 101 and could potentially create a
public safety hazard. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ‐1
New development under the LUCE Update within the 100‐year
flood plain could be subject to flooding and have the potential to
impede or redirect flood flows. However, with implementation of
General Plan policies and adherence to the City’s Floodplain
Management Regulation impacts related to flooding would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐2
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to
increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the city. This
could result in a decrease in percolation to the Groundwater
Basin, the alteration of drainage patterns and increases in the
volume of surface runoff. Compliance with the City’s Stormwater
Management Plan (SWMP) would reduce impacts to a Class III,
less than significant level.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐3
Point and non‐point sources of contamination could affect water
quality in San Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek as well as other
surface waters and groundwater in the city. However,
compliance with existing regulations and implementation of
General Plan policies and the City’s Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP) would result in Class III, less than significant
impacts.
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 31
Page ES‐22 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact HWQ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems,
resulting in increased stormwater runoff and has the potential to
result in the need for additional stormwater infrastructure.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP), and State regulatory requirements, would reduce
impacts to a Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Land Use
Impact LU‐1
Aspects of the proposed LUCE Update would conflict with the
airport land use plan. However, with the implementation of
proposed LUCE Update policies, potential land use conflict
impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation measures are
required because impacts
would be less than significant.
The proposed Project
includes policies and
programs that would
ensure the orderly
expansion of the airport
and provide adequate
protection for safety and
noise. Impacts would be
less than significant
without mitigation..
Impact LU‐2
The proposed LUCE Update would have the potential to result in
land use conflicts between existing and proposed land uses. With
the implementation of proposed LUCE Update policies, potential
land use conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Land Use Element Update would result in conflicts
with applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans. With the implementation of proposed LUCE
Update policies, potential plan and policy conflict impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Circulation Element Update identifies future
roadway improvements that would have the potential to result in
a significant impact if the improvements would physically divide
an established community. This impact is considered Class III, less
than significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Noise
Impact N‐2
Long‐Term Roadway and Railroad Traffic Noise Levels
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update would increase
traffic volumes and associated noise levels along major
transportation routes. In some instances, traffic‐related noise
increases could be more than 3 dB, the level typically audible to
the human ear and; therefore, considered a substantial increase
in noise.
New development associated with the proposed LUCE Update
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 32
Final EIR Page ES‐23
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
could also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in close
proximity to transportation noise sources such as the railroad,
with potential to exceed the land use compatibility and
transportation noise exposure standards in the existing Noise
Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element contains
policies and programs that would address and mitigate potential
site‐specific impacts for individual projects in the future, this
impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐3
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Stationary Sources.
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could increase
stationary source noise levels from new development. New
development associated with the proposed LUCE Update could
also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in close
proximity to these source types, with potential to exceed the land
use compatibility and stationary noise exposure standards in the
existing Noise Element. However, because the City’s Noise
Element contains policies and programs that would address and
mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for individual projects in
the future, this impact would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact N‐4
Airport Noise Exposure. Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update would result in the designation of noise‐sensitive land
uses located within or near the 55 dBA and 60 dBA noise contours
of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
This could result in exposure of people to excessive noise levels.
However, with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies that address airport noise compatibility and consistency
with the adopted ALUP, this impact would be considered Class III,
less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact N‐5
Exposure to Excessive Vibration Levels. Implementation of the
proposed LUCE Update could increase exposure to vibration
levels. However, because the City’s ordinance contains and that
these sources (existing and proposed) would be anticipated to be
minor, this impact would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Population and Housing
Impact PH‐1
The LUCE Update would not result in residential unit
development or associated population growth that exceeds an
adopted average annual growth rate threshold. Potential
population and housing impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 33
Page ES‐24 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact PH‐2
The LUCE Update would not result in a substantial displacement
of residents or existing housing units. This impact is considered
Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Public Services
Impact PS‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would
increase the demand for police protection services by increasing
population and development in the city. This is a Class III, less
than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact PS‐3
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would
increase enrollment in public schools by increasing the population
of the city. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 34
Final EIR Page ES‐25
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Recreation
Impact REC‐1
Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update would increase the
population of the city and would facilitate the development of
additional parkland. Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update
would result in a small increase in total per capita parkland in the
city when compared to existing conditions. Although the LUCE
Update would not comply with the City’s per capita parkland
standard, this would not result in a physical effect. Therefore the
LUCE Update would result in a Class III, less than significant
environmental impact related to the increased use of existing
park and recreation facilities.
The proposed LUCE Update
would result in less than
significant recreation‐related
environmental impacts and
no mitigation measures are
required. Although the LUCE
Update would result in less
than significant
environmental impacts
related to the provision of
parkland in the city, the
existing condition where the
City’s per capita parkland
standard is not achieved
would continue to exist. The
City’s per capita parkland
ratio goal is intended to meet
the community’s desire for
increased recreational
opportunities, and is not
considered to be a policy
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
Therefore the identified
inconsistency is not
considered to be a significant
environmental impact and no
mitigation is required.
Recommendations to address
the City’s goals for meeting
the per capita parkland ratio
include, but are not limited
to, the following additions to
the Parks and Recreation
Element:
Development may be
required to fund or dedicate
parkland greater than what is
required through the Quimby
Act in order to meet the
community’s needs and goals
for parkland.
The City shall pursue a gift of
Cuesta Park from the County
to the City as part of the City’s
parkland system.
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 35
Page ES‐26 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact REC‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element would potentially
provide up to 52.4 acres of new park facilities in the city. The
construction and use of the proposed parks would have the
potential to result in significant environmental impacts. This is
considered a Class III impact, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact CIR‐4
Development under the LUCE Update may increase traffic
volumes or traffic speed in designated neighborhood traffic
management areas. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than
significant.
As future development under
the LUCE Update is proposed,
the City will be required to
ensure consistency with the
General Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐5
Development under the LUCE Update may encourage increased
heavy vehicle traffic on non‐designated truck routes. Impact is
considered to be Class III, less than significant.
As development under the
LUCE Update is proposed, the
City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General
Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐6
Development under the LUCE Update will cause increased activity
at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that may lead to
changes in traffic volumes or traffic patterns that result in
deteriorated safety conditions. Impact is considered to be Class
III, less than significant.
As development under the
LUCE Update is proposed, the
City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General
Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐7
Development and street network changes and adoption of the
policies and programs under the LUCE Update would not conflict
with adopted policies that are supportive of increased active
transportation. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than
significant.
The LUCE Update significantly
strengthens the City’s policies
on active transportation
which will lead to reduced
traffic congestion and a
healthier population.
Therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐8
Development and adoption of the policies and programs under
the LUCE Update would not conflict with adopted policies that
are supportive of increased transit ridership and provision of
services. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than significant.
As future development under
the LUCE Update is proposed,
the City will be required to
ensure consistency with the
General Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 36
Final EIR Page ES‐27
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact USS‐1
New development that could occur as a result of the proposed
LUCE Update would increase existing water demand. This is a
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact USS‐2
New development that could occur as a result of the LUCE Update
would generate wastewater flows that exceed the existing
capacity of the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. This is a
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact USS‐3
New development that could be facilitated by the LUCE Update
would require the construction of new water and wastewater
infrastructure or the replacement of existing infrastructure. The
construction or replacement of infrastructure has the potential to
result in significant environmental effects. This is a Class III, less
than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact USS‐4
New development that could be facilitated by the LUCE Update
would increase the demand for solid waste disposal at county
landfills. Potential new development would also comply with
applicable regulations related to the management of solid waste.
As such, solid waste disposal impacts of the LUCE Update are
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 37
Page ES‐28 Final EIR
Please see the next page.
ATTACHMENT 1
PH3 - 38
1
Land Use Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-1 Cal Poly Chapter
1 (LUE) 1.12.3
Rationale for
annexation of Cal Poly
should be stated.
New policy 1.12.3 directs the City to
analyze the costs/benefits to annexing
Cal Poly. No changes proposed by
staff.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P12-4 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.7
Comment
recommended adding
"protect in kind" or
"create in kind habitat
off site"
Not recommended for addition to this
policy which directs residential
developments to preserve and
incorporate natural features.
P12-5 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE)
2.2.9
G(b)
Comment
recommended adding
"healthy and native" to
policy that directs new
development to
maintain mature trees
on site.
Not recommended for addition to this
policy. The policy already has
provisions for "feasibility" that would
address concerns about restoration
projects and non-native trees.
P13-
15 Lopes Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.9
Concern that criteria
defining “compatible
development” may
encourage increased
density and zone
changes in
neighborhoods.
Recommend policy updates as follows:
2.2.9 Compatible Development…..All
multifamily development and large
group-living facilities shall be
compatible with any nearby, lower
density development. Compatibility
for all development shall be evaluated
using the following criteria:...H.
Housing Diversity. A mix of housing
types, and a range of density within a
neighborhood an area is generally
desirable (see also Policy 2.1.6)
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 39
2
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-5 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE) 3.5.7.8
Wants additional
language to reflect OS
areas are acquired and
maintained for use of
residents and tourism
programs are not to
include national
marketing of City OS
areas.
The areas impacted by overuse are
popular areas for both tourists and
residents and should be addressed by
specific actions to address each
situation. Survey currently underway
to develop profile of open space users
to better understand demographics.
No change to program proposed.
P2-6 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE)
3.5.7.1
2
Requests removing
specific reference to
Economic
Development Strategic
Plan (EDSP)
EDSP went through public process (4
workshops and hearings) and
incorporates city policies for
development’s responsibility to bear
cost of facilities and services required
to serve it. Removing specific
reference to EDSP in this program will
not remove Council direction to
implement it.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-7 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.5
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for rainwater
percolation from roof-
hardscape areas.
P2-8 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.6
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for project
designs that minimize
drainage
concentrations.
P2-9 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.5.1
Request to restore
deleted language
specifying approaches
to flood protection.
Not recommended to specify
particular approaches that may no
longer meet FEMA or Stormwater
regulations. Broader policy language
to support flood plain standards is
appropriate.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 40
3
Policy input
Land Use Element Chapter 8
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-2 Cal Poly Chapter
8 (LUE)
8.3.3.1
3
CalFire /Cal Poly site
shows up in Cal Poly
Master Plan as
designated for Faculty
and Staff housing.
Update Plan to show
this designation.
Update policy to state, "The Cal Poly
Master Plan currently designates this
area for Faculty and Staff housing.
The City shall collaborate….."
A6-7 SLOCOG Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.8
Executive summary
mentions need to
reflect Homeless
Center use of
Prado/Sunset Drive-in
Site but doesn’t
mention RTA new
facility at this location.
Policy 8.3.3.8 includes reference to
both Homeless Services center and
transportation agency use. Staff
recommends retaining Office
designation for this portion of the site
to ensure LUCE update does not
create non-conforming use.
P2-10 Sierra Club Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.6
Delete provision for
meeting a portion of
open space
requirement off-site
Task Force generated this concept and
it was carried through PC and CC.
P16-
13
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.4
San Luis Ranch should
be retained for
agriculture.
Policy in LUCE provides for
development consistent with current
policy direction to retain 50% open
space/ag.
P16-
16
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.1
Need access for
pedestrians and bikes
across Santa Rosa
This circulation alternative is part of
the LUCE but wasn’t explicit in the
land use policy direction for this site.
Recommend clarifying policy
direction:
“Redevelopment plans shall include
consideration of improving the
existing complex intersections of
Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability
of modifying Boysen at and through
the property on the northeast corner
of the area, and enhancement of
pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa
Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus.”
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 41
4
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy # Input Policy Response
P2-11 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7D
Request to expand
policy supporting grey
water systems to
include a builder
incentive program to
build new homes with
an onsite water
recycling system
included.
In 2009 the state amended the grey
water regulations to make it easier to
install a “simple” system which uses
washing machine water only and
doesn’t require a permit to install. A
full home recycling grey water system
is supposed to be designed to match
the output of the house which
includes the number of occupants and
size of the landscape and it is illegal to
store grey water. Therefore, while a
house may be plumbed to be grey
water-ready, it could not actually have
an installed system until all the
variables are known. Recommend
policy be updated to state, “Utilize
plumbing fixtures that conserve or
reuse water such as low flow faucets
or grey water systems, and encourage
new homes to be constructed to be
grey water ready.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE)
No
specific
policies
Add electric vehicle
charging stations to
residential
developments.
Add incentives to
development that
incorporate features
that off-set
operational energy
use.
Incorporate
requirements for
buildings to be solar-
ready.
Add these as examples to draft
programs:
“Incentive Program: The City shall
consider the feasibility of providing
incentives for new and renovated
projects that incorporate sustainable
design features such as constructing
new buildings that are solar ready, or
off-setting significant operational
energy use through use of solar water
heating, photovoltaic systems,
geothermal or wind energy systems.”
“Building Code Update: The City shall
regularly review and update its
building code and ordinances to
identify revisions to promote energy
efficient building design and
construction practices, for example by
including requirements for electric
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 42
5
vehicle charging stations for new
residential developments.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7 G
Add “trees” in
addition to building
elements to address
Solar Shade Act.
Public Resources Code contains
provisions that restrict height of
vegetation on properties adjoining
properties with solar collectors. Prior
notice is required and local ordinance
may modify or opt not to apply PRC
code. If Commission is interested in
including this concept, staff
recommends adding a new program in
Chapter 9 that directs the City to
explore local conditions to support the
Solar Shade Act as reflected in PRC
25980-25986.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 43
6
Circulation Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-12 Sierra Club Chapter
1 (CE) 1.9 1A Request to expand
language in objective.
Support updated language for
objective 1.9: A.
“The City will continue to support the
use and development of compressed
natural gas and biodiesel fueling
stations, EV recharging stations, and
other alternative fuel stations in the
San Luis Obispo area.”
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-3 Cal Poly Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.4 Request to expand
language.
Support updated language, “The City
shall continue to work with Cal Poly,
Cuesta College and other…..”
P2-13 Sierra Club Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.3
Request to restore text
requiring mandatory
trip reduction.
Per SB 437 (Lewis), the language was
removed because it is inconsistent
with current State law (code 40717.9
in Health and Safety regulations).
Replacement text emphasizes
commuter benefit options instead.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
26 SLOCOG Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.3
Request to edit
language regarding
seniors and persons
with disabilities.
Staff supports. See PH6-6 below for
language.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 44
7
P2-14 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.6
Request to restore
bullet point directing
frequency of transit
service to compare
favorably to use of
private vehicle.
If Commission wishes to retain
direction regarding transit service
frequency, staff recommends:
“The frequency of City transit service
will not pose a barrier to this mode
choice.”
PH6-
6
Mass Transit
Committee
Chapter
3 (CE)
3.0.3,
3.0.4,
3.1.4
Requests for updated
language.
Supported by staff:
3.03 The City shall continue to support
paratransit service for the elderly and
disabled persons provided seniors and
persons with disabilities by public and
private transportation providers.
3.0.4 Campus Service. The City shall
continue to work with Cal Poly to
maintain and expand the free fare
subsidy program"....
3.1.4 The City shall coordinate with
the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the
cost effectiveness of benefits and
drawbacks of coordinated and
consolidated service.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 4
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-1
and
P15-5
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
4 (CE) 4.1.6
Concern that bikeways
and pedestrian paths in
railroad rights of way
are not compatible due
to security problems
and potential to block
adjacent properties’
access to be served by
rail.
No change to policy or program is
proposed.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-15 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (CE) 6.0.5 Remove text that
references “fair share”
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 45
8
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-16 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.0.1
Request to remove
reference to "fair
share" and include
language "as mitigation
for the impacts of
development".
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
P2-17 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.1.6
Request to add
reference to “complete
streets” model.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. This policy addresses
appearance of streets and roads.
Addition of complete streets model,
which is addressing mode share of
right-of-way, is covered in policy 6.0.1.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 12
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-7
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
12 (CE) 12.1.3
Request to remove
policy regarding idling
trains.
No changes to policy are
recommended. Commenter response
to GHG emissions but rails to note the
noise concerns to surrounding
neighborhoods which is main focus of
policy.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 14
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-18 Sierra Club Chapter
14 (CE) New
Request to add new
policy:
14.0.4 Unbundled
parking: The City shall
Schools are superior agencies and City
cannot set policy for them. General
intent of unbundled parking is
accomplished through downtown
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 46
9
introduce unbundled
parking, congestion
pricing, shared parking,
fair price policies,
positive transportation
demand management
(TDM) and the other
components of an
Intelligent Parking
program for schools
and government
buildings with the goal
of creating a Request
for Proposal process
for full
implementation.
parking in-lieu districts and in zoning
provisions that allow for parking
modifications for projects that include
car-sharing, employer-paid transit
passes, off-peak work hours and/or
trip reduction plans.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 15
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
28 SLOCOG Chapter
15 (CE) 15.0.5
Request to remove
reference to US 101
Aesthetic study
Revise D to read, "Actively
participating in the development and
periodic updates of the Caltrans US
101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo
County.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 16
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-2
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
16 (CE) 16.0.2
Request to specifically
address freight mobility
as a benefit to regional
congestion.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. Policy 16.0.2 encourages
programs that reduce dependence on
single occupant vehicles and
encourages use of alternative modes
without listing them. Rail is an
alternative mode.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 47
10
P2-20 Sierra Club Chapter
16 (CE) 16.1.2
Request to remove
reference to “fair
share”.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH3 - 48
Resolution No. XXXX-14 Attachment 3
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PREPARED FOR THE LAND
USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE PROGRAM
(APPLICATION #GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September
10, 2014, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR prepared for the LUCE Update Program; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR for the
LUCE Update Program; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by
law; and
WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45-day comment period that
closed on July 29, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR responded to 25 comment letters offered during the comment period
and found no new impacts or mitigation measures were identified; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR and mitigation
monitoring program prepared for the project at a public hearing held on September 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, at the September 10, 2014 hearing, the Planning Commission duly considered all
evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on September 16, 2014 to review and consider the Final EIR
and mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project and to consider all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff and by the
Planning Commission, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings
in addition to the CEQA findings detailed in Exhibit A:
Findings
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
PH3 - 49
Resolution No. XXXX-14 Attachment 3
Page 2
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. For each potentially significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Agricultural
Resources, Cultural Resources and Public Services, the approved mitigation measures contained
in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the
project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project.
4. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Traffic and Circulation, and Noise sections of
the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all the
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the City Council finds that the
adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding considerations
for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. Mitigation strategies identified in the Final EIR and policies and programs contained in
the LUCE update that require compact transit-oriented infill development and improved
multi-modal circulation will help to reduce emissions to the extent feasible.
b. The project will result in increased housing capacity to link housing to employment
opportunities, resulting in reduced commuter trips and therefore reduced vehicle miles
traveled. This will help to reduce emissions in the long term.
c. The LUCE Update includes policies and programs that will improve internal circulation
within the City, such as north-south streets connecting Buckley and Tank Farm Roads,
the connection of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street and the Prado Road east to west
connection over US 101. This will also reduce vehicle miles traveled and will have air
quality benefits in the long term.
d. Policies and programs contained in the LUCE promote transit-oriented development,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, complete streets other incentives that will reduce
the City’s reliance on the automobile. The will also have long-term air quality benefits.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby certify the Final EIR for the project with
findings and mitigation measures as described in attached Exhibit A.
Upon motion by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____________ day of ____________ , 2014.
___________________________
ANTHONY MEJIA, MMC
City Clerk
PH3 - 50
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FINDINGS OF MITIGATION AND
ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
LUCE UPDATE PROJECT
I. Environmental Determination
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2013121019) for the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update in determining to carry out the proposed amendments to the General
Plan. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR; responses to comments on the Draft EIR; a list of persons
and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and technical appendices.
The City Council has received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final
EIR, as well as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating
agencies, the public and other agencies and organizations.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information
in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these Findings pursuant to,
and in accordance with, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, as follows:
II. Summary Project Description
The LUCE Update Project (the “Project” or “proposed Update Project”) provides proposed changes to the
City’s existing Land Use Element and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (last updated in 1994). It
is the intent of the proposed Project to establish and implement a refined set of goals, policies, and
programs for regulating development in the city, guiding the land use decision‐making process, balance
population growth with infrastructure availability, and provide a true multimodal transportation system
that will guide the community over the next 20 years.
The LUCE Update reflects extensive efforts and input from community surveys, workshops and open
houses, advisory bodies, the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF‐LUCE),
City staff, consultants, the Planning Commission, and City Council. Based on direction from the City
Council that the Update Project primarily address infill opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need
to update existing policy direction to reflect current values and requirements, the LUCE Update focuses
on updated policy language and several areas of the City where “physical” land use changes are proposed.
The proposed physical land use changes would apply only to specified areas that over the next 20 years
may have the potential to accommodate changes in the land use type or intensity or are in need of
circulation and infrastructure improvements. From a policy aspect, the LUCE Update proposes changes to
existing policy and program language, and new policies and programs where needed to enhance the two
Elements or cover items not previously addressed. The policies and programs included in the LUCE
Update are intended to:
• Address notable policy gaps that have been identified over time in the existing LUCE;
• Provide new policy direction to address issues raised during the proposed Project’s public
participation process;
• Respond to changes in state law;
PH3 - 51
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 2
• Address topics or items that the City committed to addressing as part of the Sustainable
Communities grant that provided funding for the Update Project; and
• Address inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Airport Land Use Plan for San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport.
The Land Use Element Update proposes to “preserve and enhance” existing conditions in most areas of
the city. The physical changes proposed by the Land Use Element Update are for the most part limited to
changes in land use type or intensity in specific areas. These changes include proposed mixed use
redevelopment of some sites, the infill of underutilized locations, and four sites that will require modified
or new specific plans to addresses development parameters such as the location and types of land uses,
infrastructure needs, and designs to address environmental constraints. These four sites include: Potential
modification of the Margarita Area Specific Plan to allow increased residential densities; and new specific
plans for the San Luis Ranch (formerly known as the Dalidio site), the Madonna property at Los Osos
Valley Road (LOVR), and the Avila Ranch. Policy direction was also refined relative to a set of “Special
Planning Areas” (Section 8.3.3 in the proposed Land Use Element Update) throughout the City. This
policy guidance provides statements regarding the City’s expectations for these sites of new development,
redevelopment, and infill opportunities.
The policy and program updates proposed in the Airport Chapter of the Land Use Element reflect airport
safety, noise, height and overflight considerations consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics
Act. Policies, programs, and Zoning Code implementation have been drafted to create an Airport Overlay
Zone to codify airport compatibility criteria for areas subject to airport influence consistent with the
requirements of Cal. Pub. Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq, the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility
planning. These include allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity
limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to
flight, noise insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, nonconforming uses and
reconstruction, and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City.
The Circulation Element Update describes how the City plans to provide for the transportation of people
and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to other areas in San Luis Obispo County and
beyond. The Circulation Element Update recognizes the implications of land use policy on all modes of
movement, and establishes policies, standards, and implementation measures that work with the Land Use
Element to address both existing and potential circulation opportunities and deficiencies. But beyond
addressing changes in land use, the Circulation Element Update also looks at the circulation system of the
community as a whole. Introducing the concept of “complete streets”, the update looks to integrate and
enhance all types of circulation in order to create a more comprehensive and functional circulation
system.
The proposed Circulation Element provides policy language to address a variety of circulation‐related
issues, including: traffic reduction; transit; encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic
management; future street network changes; truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in
commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; and scenic roadways. A new section added to the
Circulation Element addresses multi‐modal transportation, or the development and maintenance of a
circulation system that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
As part of the LUCE Update, a comprehensive list of circulation improvements to be considered (called
the “project description”) was reviewed and approved for further analysis by the City Council. This list
also included variations of those improvements. Appendix N of the EIR provides the sensitivity analysis
PH3 - 52
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 3
performed on those individual variations. The results of this sensitivity analysis were then used by the
City to determine which variations would be included as part of the Proposed Project presented in the
EIR. From this analysis, the City identified 17 circulation improvements to include in the Proposed
Project.
III. The Record
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091 (b) requires that the City's findings be
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Lead Agency's record consists of the
following, which are located at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo,
California:
• Documentary and oral evidence, testimony, and staff comments and responses received and
reviewed by the Lead Agency during informational workshops, public review, and the public
hearings on the project.
• The LUCE Update Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I, II, III, IV
and V.
IV. The September 2014 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the
LUCE Update
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo makes the following findings with respect to the
September 2014 Final Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE Update program SCH #201312019:
A. The City has considered the information contained in the September 2014 Final Programmatic EIR
for the LUCE Update, the public comments and responses previously submitted, and the public
comments and information presented at the public hearings.
B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the LUCE Update may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
C. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final
EIR:
1. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and the policies and programs contained
within the LUCE Update, the City Council finds and determines that changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact, the adverse
environmental effects related to long-term operational air quality and transportation and
circulation impacts, and temporary noise impacts associated with construction activity, are
significant effects which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is approved
and implemented;
3. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in substantial or
potentially substantial adverse changes in the environment as a result of the LUCE Update
program.
PH3 - 53
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 4
D. The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
1. All significant effects (except operational related air quality and cumulative transportation
impacts and temporary noise impacts associated with construction activities) that can be
feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened;
2. The LUCE policies and programs incorporate adequate measures to preclude significant
effects in the following categories: aesthetics; agricultural resources; biological resources;
cultural resources; geological resources; global climate change; hazards; hydrology and water
quality; land use; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; and utilities and
services.
3. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, specific
environmental, economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR;
4. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, the remaining
unavoidable significant environmental effects of the LUCE program are outweighed and
overridden by the benefits of the project as described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
5. Should the LUCE program have the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts that
are not anticipated or addressed by the September 2014 Final EIR, subsequent environmental
review shall be required in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a).
V. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prior to approving a project or program for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified
and for which findings were made that one or more significant impacts would result because mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the EIR are infeasible, CEQA requires that the Lead Agency find
that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project or program
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. This must be a written finding stating the agency’s
specific reasons supporting its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The
requirements for a Statement of Overriding Considerations are established in Section 15093 of the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and in the CEQA statute in Section 21081 of the Public
Resources Code.
The Program EIR for the LUCE Update identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of
the program:
1. Implementation of the LUCE Update would involve operation of development projects that
generate long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Implementation
of the LUCE Update would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
sources of local carbon monoxide concentrations, odors, or TACs. However, with regards to
criteria air pollutants and precursors implementation of the LUCE Update would not be
consistent with the assumptions contained in the most recent version of the APCD’s Clean
Air Plan even with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City
policies.
PH3 - 54
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 5
2. Implementation of development projects under the proposed LUCE Update would involve
construction that could generate noise levels that exceed applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise levels primarily from the use of heavy-duty construction
equipment.
3. Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause roadways
currently operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis
Obispo, roadways operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add
additional traffic to roadways operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in downtown).
4. Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause intersections
currently operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis
Obispo, intersections operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add
additional traffic to intersections operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown).
5. Development under the LUCE Update will increase traffic on freeway facilities.
For projects or programs which would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided,
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency balance the benefits of these projects against the unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits of these
projects/programs outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such projects or programs,
the Lead Agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the
agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects caused by the
project. This statement is provided below.
Required Findings
The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these measures will
significantly lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not fully avoid these impacts.
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has incorporated portions
of these alternatives into the project in order to reduce impacts. The City has determined that none of
these alternatives, taken as a whole, is both environmentally superior and more feasible than the project.
Alternative 1 (No Project): The No Project Alternative compares the environmental impacts of the
proposed LUCE Update to the impacts that would result if the project were not approved and future
development in the city occurred in accordance with the land use and policy requirements of the existing
1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements. Buildout of the existing Land Use Element would result in
fewer dwelling units when compared to the proposed LUCE Update, however, buildout of the existing
Land Use Element would result in an increase of non-residential uses when compared to the proposed
Land Use Element. Under the No Project Alternative, several new street network changes and circulation
system modifications identified by the Circulation Element Update would not be implemented. In
addition, policies and programs intended to reduce vehicle trips; and to enhance transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian circulation would also not be implemented. As such, impacts would be generally greater with
implementation of the No Project Alternative.
PH3 - 55
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 6
Alternative 2 (Reduced Development Alternative): This alternative evaluates environmental conditions
that would result if the residential and non-residential development capacity of the proposed Land Use
Element Update were to be reduced. This alternative would only reduce development identified by the
Land Use Update related to the proposed specific and area plans, and special planning areas. The
Reduced Development Alternative would not reduce planned development associated with existing
specific plans, planned and approved projects, or other vacant land in the city. The Reduced
Development Alternative would generally have reduced or similar environmental impacts when compared
to the impacts of the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Alternative, however, would not
implement the environmental objectives of the proposed Land Use Element Update and has the potential
to leave the city unable to meet capacity for future regional housing needs allocations. A reduction in
development in the proposed specific plan areas would be inconsistent with the objective to protect the
environment within a compact urban form because developing the specific plan areas at densities that are
substantially less than their capacity could promote additional development in other areas, such as
unincorporated areas adjacent to the city.
Alternative 3 (Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative): This alternative would provide three
street system modifications not included in the proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Update
proposed project. This alternative would generally result in environmental impacts that are similar to the
proposed Project, but would have slightly reduced air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and traffic
impacts. Considering the slight reduction in vehicle miles traveled and the associated slight reduction in
air emissions (a Class 1 impact) this alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior
alternative. This alternative would also have the potential to result in increased cultural resource,
biological resource and noise impacts along portions of the alternative roadway system projects; however,
it is likely that those impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of
appropriate design and other mitigation measures. The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative
would result in area-wide environmental benefits associated with reductions in air emissions and
improved traffic conditions, and would not impede the implementation of proposed Land Use and
Circulation Element Update objectives. Therefore, the Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative
would be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project that fulfills the basic objectives
of the proposed LUCE Update.
In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of the
proposed LUCE Update against its unavoidable environmental risks. For the reasons specified below, the
City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable environmental
risks:
1. Provision of new Residential and Commercial Uses. The implementation of the LUCE Update
will include new residential development to meet the City's housing needs and that designates
sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips and provide for
the convenience of area residents.
2. Open Space and Natural Resource Protection: Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update would result in the continued preservation of open space within the City's planning area
and outside the urban reserve line. Policies in the LUCE Update direct protection of undeveloped
land, prime agricultural land, productive agricultural land, and potentially productive agricultural
land. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land will be
permanently protected as open space.
PH3 - 56
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 7
3. Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities. Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update would
result in an incremental increase in total per capita parkland in the city when compared to existing
conditions.
4. Well-Planned Neighborhood Would Reduce Vehicle Trips: The LUCE Update would result
in new residential development opportunities intended to meet the City's housing needs and
designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips and
provide for the convenience of city residents. The proposed Circulation Element provides policy
language to address a variety of circulation-related issues, including: traffic reduction; transit;
encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic management; future street network changes;
truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in commercial areas and residential
neighborhoods; and scenic roadways. A new section added to the Circulation Element addresses
multi-modal transportation, supporting the development and maintenance of a circulation system
that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
5. Provision of New Jobs: The project would create new construction-related and permanent jobs
in the city. Increases in planned commercial development would provide new jobs that are
needed to support a household within the city.
6. Implementation of the General Plan: The LUCE Update contains policies and standards that
will facilitate appropriate development of land, protection of open space, improved citywide
circulation, and provision of adequate public facilities.
Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed
by these considerable benefits.
IMPACT ANALYSIS: Four categories of impacts are identified:
Class I. Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class
I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding
consideration that "... specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR..."
Class II. Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
measures identified in this EIR and the project description. When approving a project with Class
IT impacts, the decision-makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project
have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Class III. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
Class IV. Beneficial impacts.
VI. Potential Environmental Effects Which Are Not Significant or Beneficial
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are not considered significant.
PH3 - 57
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 8
Impact AES‐1
Development under the LUCE Update would introduce new development along viewing corridors and
scenic roadways, including state scenic highways, in the San Luis Obispo area. This could have a
substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an identified visual resource or scenic vista from a public
viewing area. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies,
potential impacts to such views are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact AES‐2
The LUCE Update emphasizes both reuse of existing urbanized lands, infill development on vacant
parcels, and new development on vacant parcels near urban areas. The development of such areas could
degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE
Update and existing City policies and programs, potential impacts related to existing visual character
changes are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact AES‐3
Proposed development in accordance with the LUCE Update would introduce new sources of light and
glare. However, adherence to policies included in the Zoning Ordinance and Community Design
Guidelines would reduce potential impacts to a Class III, less than significant, level.
Impact AG‐1
The LUCE Update could alter the existing land use and zoning on sites throughout the city and may result
in incompatibilities with adjacent urban and agricultural uses. However, the General Plan reduces land
use conflicts through policies and plan review. Therefore, impacts that would occur from development
would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐1
Development under the LUCE Update has potential to impact common habitat types including non‐native
annual grasslands and disturbed/ruderal areas that provide habitat for common wildlife and plant species.
With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing governing policies, potential
impacts to these common habitats are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐2
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to impact four Natural Communities of
Special Concern present within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea including Serpentine Bunchgrass,
Northern Interior Cypress Stand, Central Maritime Chaparral, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh.
With the incorporation of the proposed and existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to sensitive habitats are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐3
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has the potential to impact special‐status plant species
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and existing City
policies, and the requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status
plant species are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐4
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to impact special‐status wildlife species
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and existing City
PH3 - 58
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 9
policies, and the requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status
wildlife species are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐5
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to impact common wildlife species and
species of local concern within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed
and existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to
common and species of local concern are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact CR‐2
Development facilitated by Land Use and Circulation Element Update could adversely affect identified
and previously unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources. This includes potential
disturbance of human remains. General Plan policies would ensure that such impacts are addressed on a
caseby‐case basis. Impacts would be considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact GEO‐1
New development under the LUCE Update could be susceptible to impacts from future seismic events,
creating the potential for structural damage or health and safety risks. However, compliance with required
building codes and implementation of General Plan polices would result in a Class III, less than
significant impact.
Impact GEO‐2
Future seismic events could result in liquefaction of soils near San Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek
and other low‐lying areas. Development in these areas could be subject to liquefaction hazards. The
compliance of future development projects with the California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan
policies would result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
Impact GEO‐3
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur on soils that have the potential to present
natural hazards (expansive soils, erosive soils, and differential settlement) to structures and roadways.
Development could also result in the loss of a unique geologic feature. However, compliance of future
development projects with the California Building Code and adopted General Plan policies would ensure
that resulting impacts are Class III, less than significant.
Impact GEO‐4
Steep slopes outside of the existing city limits present potential on‐ or off‐site landslide hazards. In
addition to human safety impacts, a landslide has the potential to damage or destroy structures, roadways
and other improvements as well as to deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and
erosion, including loss of topsoil. The compliance of future development projects with the California
Building Code (CBC) and
General Plan policies would result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
Impact GCC‐1
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could result in an increase in GHG emissions due to short‐
term construction and long‐term operational activities associated with new housing and commercial
development, resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact of global climate
change. However, because the proposed LUCE Update would be consistent with the City’s CAP and
incorporates applicable CAP policies and programs that would reduce GHG emissions, this impact would
be considered Class III, less than significant.
PH3 - 59
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 10
Impact HAZ‐1
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur near known hazardous material users or result
in construction in areas with existing hazardous materials. Implementation of the LUCE Update could
expose individuals to health risks due to soil/groundwater contamination or emission of hazardous
materials into the air and could impact an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan. With the
incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies, potential impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐2
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update could introduce incompatible residential and
commercial land uses into safety zones established through the Airport Land Use Plan and may result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in these areas. Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact HAZ‐3
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update would introduce residential land uses into areas
designated as having a Moderate or High Wildland Fire Hazard, introducing the potential to expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss and/or injury. However, compliance with existing policies
and state and
local regulations would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant level.
Impact HAZ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could introduce sensitive receptors to additional hazards
related to exposure to radiation, electromagnetic fields and hazardous trees. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies, potential impacts are considered Class III,
less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐5
Development under the proposed LUCE Update could potentially introduce sensitive receptors to areas in
direct proximity to hazardous materials transportation corridors including the Union Pacific Railroad and
Highway 101 and could potentially create a public safety hazard. This is a Class III, less than significant
impact.
Impact HWQ‐1
New development under the LUCE Update within the 100‐year flood plain could be subject to flooding
and have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. However, with implementation of General Plan
policies and adherence to the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation impacts related to flooding
would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐2
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to increase the amount of impervious
surfaces within the city. This could result in a decrease in percolation to the Groundwater Basin, the
alteration of drainage patterns and increases in the volume of surface runoff. Compliance with the City’s
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant level.
Impact HWQ‐3
Point and non‐point sources of contamination could affect water quality in San Luis Obispo Creek,
Prefumo Creek as well as other surface waters and groundwater in the city. However, compliance with
PH3 - 60
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 11
existing regulations and implementation of General Plan policies and the City’s Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP) would result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
Impact HWQ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, resulting in increased
stormwater runoff and has the potential to result in the need for additional stormwater infrastructure.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and State regulatory requirements,
would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant.
Impact LU-1
Aspects of the LUCE update would conflict with the airport land use plan. However, implementation of
LUCE policies and programs would ensure that land use conflicts are less than significant.
Impact LU‐2
The proposed LUCE Update would have the potential to result in land use conflicts between existing and
proposed land uses. With the implementation of proposed LUCE Update policies, potential land use
conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Land Use Element Update would result in conflicts with applicable habitat conservation
plans or natural community conservation plans. With the implementation of proposed LUCE Update
policies, potential plan and policy conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Circulation Element Update identifies future roadway improvements that would have the
potential to result in a significant impact if the improvements would physically divide an established
community. This impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐2
Long‐Term Roadway and Railroad Traffic Noise Levels Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update
would increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels along major transportation routes. In some
instances, traffic‐related noise increases could be more than 3 dB, the level typically audible to the human
ear and; therefore, considered a substantial increase in noise.
New development associated with the proposed LUCE Update could also result in the siting of new
sensitive receptors in close proximity to transportation noise sources such as the railroad, with potential to
exceed the land use compatibility and transportation noise exposure standards in the existing Noise
Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element contains policies and programs that would address
and mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for individual projects in the future, this impact would be
considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐3
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Stationary Sources. Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update could increase stationary source noise levels from new development. New development
associated with the proposed LUCE Update could also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in
close proximity to these source types, with potential to exceed the land use compatibility and stationary
noise exposure standards in the existing Noise Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element
PH3 - 61
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 12
contains policies and programs that would address and mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for
individual projects in the future, this impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐4
Airport Noise Exposure. Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update would result in the designation of
noise‐sensitive land uses located within or near the 55 dBA and 60 dBA noise contours of the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. This could result in exposure of people to excessive
noise levels. However, with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies that address airport
noise compatibility and consistency with the adopted ALUP, this impact would be considered Class III,
less than significant.
Impact N‐5
Exposure to Excessive Vibration Levels. Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could increase
exposure to vibration levels. However, because the City’s ordinance contains and that these sources
(existing and proposed) would be anticipated to be minor, this impact would be considered Class III, less
than significant.
Impact PH‐1
The LUCE Update would not result in residential unit development or associated population growth that
exceeds an adopted average annual growth rate threshold. Potential population and housing impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact PH‐2
The LUCE Update would not result in a substantial displacement of residents or existing housing units.
This impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact PS‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would increase the demand for police protection
services by increasing population and development in the city. This is a Class III, less than significant
impact.
Impact PS‐3
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would increase enrollment in public schools by
increasing the population of the city. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
VII. Potential Significant Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
The City Council has concluded that the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Section XI.) will result in substantial mitigation of the following effects and that these effects
are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Impact AG‐2
Future development in accordance with the LUCE Update could occur on prime farmland, unique
farmland, and/or farmland of statewide importance. Buildout within the City Limits would result in Class
II, significant but mitigable impacts to agricultural conversion.
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE construction of development projects that generate short‐term emissions of
criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Emissions from individual construction projects could exceed
PH3 - 62
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 13
APCD’s project‐level significance thresholds. Thus, implementation of the LUCE Update could result in
construction‐generated emissions that violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which
the region is designated as nonattainment, and/or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Adherence to relevant policies and implementation of APCD recommended project‐
specific mitigation measures would reduce potential short‐term impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.
Thus, construction generated air quality impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
Impact CR‐1
Development allowed by the LUCE update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources. This impact
is considered to be Class II, significant but mitigable.
Impact PS‐1
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element would increase the demand for fire protection services by
increasing population and the number of structures in the city. This is a Class II, potentially significant
but mitigable impact.
VIII. Potential Significant Unavoidable Effects for Which Sufficient Mitigation is not Feasible
Impact AQ‐2 (Long‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE Update would involve operation of development projects that generate
long‐term emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Implementation of the LUCE Update
would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial sources of local carbon monoxide
concentrations, odors, or TACs. However, with regards to criteria air pollutants and precursors
implementation of the LUCE Update would not be consistent with the assumptions contained in the most
recent version of the APCD’s Clean Air Plan even with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies. Thus, long‐term air quality impacts are considered Class I, significant
and unavoidable.
Impact N‐1
Short‐Term Construction Noise Levels. Implementation of development projects under the proposed
LUCE Update would involve construction that could generate noise levels that exceed applicable
standards for mobile construction equipment in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance and result in
temporary substantial increases in noise levels primarily from the use of heavy‐duty construction
equipment (see thresholds a and c). Even with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies
and existing City policies, short‐term construction noise levels are considered Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐1
Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause roadways currently
operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis Obispo, roadways
operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add additional traffic to roadways
operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in downtown). This is considered a Class I, significant
and unavoidable impact.
Impact CIR‐2
PH3 - 63
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS Exhibit A
2014 LUCE Update
Page 14
Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause intersections currently
operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis Obispo, intersections
operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add additional traffic to intersections
operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in downtown). Impact is considered to be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐3
Development under the LUCE Update will increase traffic on freeway facilities. Impact is considered to
be Class I, significant and unavoidable.
IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency is making findings
required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(l), codified as Section 21081(a) of the Public
Resources Code, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
proposed project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City Council hereby finds and accepts that the Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program for the LUCE
Update attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference meets the requirements of Section 21081.6
of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures
intended to mitigate potential environmental effects.
PH3 - 64
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING NEW POLICY LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT
RELATED TO THE GENERAL HOSPITAL AREA
(GPI 15-12)
WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of
$880,000 to update the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City
of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and
Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, six
community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 34 Task Force meetings, eight advisory body
meetings, ten Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a
community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended a new policy to
guide future development for the General Hospital area and has incorporated said direction in a
paragraph in Chapter 8, Special Focus Areas, of the Land Use Element based upon input from
the community and the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning
Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that provisions in Chapters 1 and 8 of the Draft Land Use Element that apply to the
General Hospital area presented at the hearing on September 16, 2014 as amended by Council
shall be approved as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update.
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. Adjustments to the Land Use Element recognize existing public uses on the property and
accommodate a mix of residential densities and residential types in the area behind (east
of) General Hospital, while matching land use designations for land adjacent to adjoining
residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed policies support obtaining open space dedication for property outside of the
Urban Reserve Line as part of any development project proposed on County-owned land.
PH3 - 65
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 4
Page 2
Section 2. Action. The City Council hereby amends the policies related to the General
Hospital area shown in Attachment A in the Draft Land Use Element as modified by City
Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing
this Resolution.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED: Council member Ashbaugh
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH3 - 66
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 4
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
8.3.3 Special Planning Areas
General Hospital Site
The General Hospital site includes County-owned property including the old hospital building
(which is planned to remain as an office/treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands
behind the hospital building that are inside the City’s Urban Reserve line will be designated as
Public (for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low Density and Medium
Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential care, transitional care use,
and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas.
The remaining site outside the City’s Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The City
shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban reserve line as
part of any development proposal.
The undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will remain
designated for Public uses.
PH3 - 67
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING NEW POLICY LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT
RELATED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL (BISHOP KNOLL) AREA
(GPI 15-12)
WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of
$880,000 to update the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City
of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and
Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, six
community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 34 Task Force meetings, eight advisory body
meetings, ten Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a
community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended a new policy to
guide future development for the Bishop Knoll area and has incorporated said direction in a
paragraph in Chapter 8, Special Focus Areas, of the Land Use Element based upon input from
the community and the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended retention and
minor update of existing policy which will apply to future development for the Bishop Knoll
area that directs open space acquisition as part of annexation requests in Chapter 1 of the Land
Use Element, based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning
Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that provisions in Chapters 1 and 8 of the Draft Land Use Element that apply to the
Bishop Knoll area presented at the hearing on September 16, 2014 as amended by Council shall
be approved as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update.
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. New policies in Chapter 8 of the Land Use plan provide direction to for future
development to address the open space requirements in Policy 8.3.2 of the Conservation
and Open Space Element, and to address hillside protection, circulation and transition to
PH3 - 68
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
Page 2
existing neighborhoods;
2. New policies in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element for the Bishop Knoll area direct
dedication of a public parking lot and trail access as part of future development to meet
the needs of the community.
Section 2. Action. The City Council hereby amends the policies related to the North
Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) shown in Attachment A in the Draft Land Use Element as
modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City
Clerk referencing this Resolution.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED: Council member Ashbaugh
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH3 - 69
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
1.12.7B Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill
property, and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be
clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area
preserved as open space.
8.3.3 Special Planning Areas
North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll)
Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under 1.12.7 and open
space buffers in accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element policy 8.3.2. This area
shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource
protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside
should be dedicated as Open Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to
Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation
connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive as feasible. Density shall be limited to 7
units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance.
PH3 - 70
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 71
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 72
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 73
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 74
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 75
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 76
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 77
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 78
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 79
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 80
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 81
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 82
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 83
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 84
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 85
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 86
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 87
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 88
ATTACHMENT 6
PH
3
-
89
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 90
ATTACHMENT 6
PH
3
-
91
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 92
ATTACHMENT 6
PH
3
-
93
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 94
ATTACHMENT 6
PH
3
-
95
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 96
ATTACHMENT 6
PH
3
-
97
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 98
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 99
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 100
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 101
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 102
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 103
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 104
ATTACHMENT 6 PH3 - 105
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 106
ATTACHMENT 6
PH3 - 107
Resolution No. (2014 series) Attachment 7
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING AS ACCURATE
THE FINAL PLAN REPORT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT THE
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL TO CLOSE OUT GRANT
3010-532 TO DISCHARGE GRANT OBLIGATIONS FOR THE LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS (LUCE) UPDATE
(#GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the
Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 16, 2014, for
the purpose of considering discharge of grant obligations under the Strategic Growth Council Grant 2010-
532 that supported the LUCE update; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was to consider the final grant report and direct staff to forward
the final grant report, final reimbursement request, and Draft copies of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements and Final EIR to the Strategic Growth Council to satisfy provisions of the grant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Council grant funds were instrumental in providing the
resources necessary to augment City staff to conduct the LUCE update and engage the community; and
WHEREAS, the tasks, milestones and deliverables have been accomplished within the grant-
mandated timeframe and budget; and
WHEREAS, the work upon which the draft LUCE is based was funded in part through a grant
awarded by the Strategic Growth Council, however the statements and conclusions in the draft LUCE
reflect the input of the community, the TF-LUCE, the advisory bodies, the Planning Commission, and the
City Council and are not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of
Conservation or its employees; nor does the Strategic Growth Council or the Department of Conservation
make any warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the
LUCE update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the
applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council certifies and finds that the final grant report included
as Exhibit A is accurate.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby direct staff to transmit the final grant
report, final reimbursement request, draft Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, and
Final Environmental Impact Report to the Strategic Growth Council to discharge grant obligations and
close out Grant 3010-532.
PH3 - 108
Resolution No. (2014 series) Attachment 7
Page 2
Upon motion by , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____________ day of ____________ , 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH3 - 109
City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Exhibit A
SGC Grant 3010-532
Page 1
TO BE PROVIDED AS AN AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
PH3 - 110