HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1995, C-9B - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING STANDARDS. III'ullNll�lllll�plAl�l`I "J T MEETING GATE:
In��l cio san �..us oBispo May 2 1995
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBERC9B
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Morris D. Witbeck, Engineering Assistant 7 !?
SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority for Approval of Engineering Standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution delegating authority to the City Engineer for approval of "minor" changes and
revisions to the City Engineering Standards.
DISCUSSION:
The City's Engineering Standards are standard drawings that depict design and construction features
for use in City projects and private development. Staff reviews the Engineering Standards that are
used during plan preparation, and during reviews of construction projects. Occasionally it is found
that changes or revisions to the standards are warranted for various reasons. It is important that the
City Council approve all standards used in these projects, either(1) directly, or (2) indirectly through
delegation of authority. The act of Council approval allows the City protection, under the law, from
future claims of damage that may be attributed to the use of these standards. The legal term for.
this protection is 'Design and Plan Immunity."
The traditional method of updating the Engineering Standards was to republish the Standards, with
changes and revisions, and present the Standards to the Council for approval. This process does not
allow timely implementation of what sometimes are minor but important changes. A minor but
important change may be the callout for a fitting that is no longer available because a manufacturer
has upgraded some detail or description. Another example of a change that must be made and
should be automatic is one that is mandated by State or Federal legislation and must be
implemented by a certain date.
Staff proposes to streamline the process by asking the City Council to adopt the attached resolution
delegating the authority to the City Engineer for approving changes and revisions to the Engineering
Standards, but only to a limited extent as outlined below.
This proposal would retain the necessity for Council approval for those changes and revisions that
have a significant potential for affecting:
1. Safety
2. Liability
3. Sensitive issues such as bicycles, creeks, visual impacts, etc.
Additionally, all completely new standards would be presented to the Council for approval.
This proposal would allow the City Engineer to approve only those changes and revisions that have
a minor potential for affecting the above-mentioned issues. The following are the kinds of changes
and revisions that would be typical of those with "minor" potential:
�un� � ��p��u►� �I city 0� SM tuts 051sp0
di;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1. Corrections:
(a) Typographical errors, omissions, etc.
(b) Maintaining consistency with other standards and policies.
(c) Eliminating unneeded repetition.
2. Improvements in:
(a) Design, end product.
(b) Economy, cost savings.
(c) Efficiency (functions better or easier to construct).
3. Mandated changes by:
(a) State or Federal laws.
(b) Implementation of previous Council decisions and policy.
4. Changes in materials:
(a) Adding acceptable alternatives.
(b) Eliminating inferior materials.
(c) Upgrading to newer, advanced materials.
5. Expanding definitions for clarification.
This proposal would necessitate documentation of the chain of approval for each change or revision
approved by the City Engineer. The Engineering Division has been documenting changes like this
for the last four years.
Additionally, should any question arise pertaining to a change or revision to a City Engineering
Standard that was approved by the City Engineer, Chapter 1.20.020 of the Municipal Code provides
an appeal process whereby any person may challenge staff decisions. The Council makes the final
decision in that process.
Finally, staff would propose a yearly report be prepared for the Council summarizing any and all
such"minor"additions,deletions or corrections to the Engineering Standards. As mentioned earlier,
Council will periodically update the Standards to incorporate more significant changes.
CONCURRENCE:
Staff has consulted with, and has the concurrence of, the City Attorney's office with this proposal,
as it is presented herein.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No dollar cost, but this proposal will result in efficiency for Staff and the ability for staff to respond
quickly to changes in the construction industry,which should result in better bids and better projects.
Attachment: Resolution
"mw,ftwegam"
by
L'-9,8
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING MINOR CHANGES
AND REVISIONS TO THE CITY ENGINEERING STANDARDS
TO THE CITY ENGINEER
WHEREAS, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is
responsible for periodically updating the Engineering Standards, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Standards are necessary to ensure that
Public Works facilities are designed and constructed to minimum
acceptable standards to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
public, and
WHEREAS, legally adopted Engineering Standards are necessary to
provide "design and plan immunity", thereby protecting the City from
possible liability, and
WHEREAS, it has been a function of the City Council to periodically
approve changes and revisions to the Engineering Standards, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to implement these changes and revisions in
a timely manner,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Engineer to approve minor changes and
revisions to the City Engineering Standards, said "minor" changes and
revisions having a minor potential for affecting:
a. Safety
b. Liability
C. Sensitive issues such as bicycles, creeks, visual impacts,
etc.
L'�IB-3
and, said "minor" changes and revisions typically involving the
following:
1) Corrections:
a. Typographical errors, omissions, etc.
b. Maintaining consistency with other standards and
policies.
C. Eliminating unneeded repetition.
2) Improvements in:
a. Design, end product.
b. Economy, cost savings.
C. Efficiency (functions better or easier to
construct) .
3) Mandated changes by:
a. State or Federal laws.
b. Implementation of previous Council decisions and
policy.
4) Changes in materials:
a. Adding acceptable alternatives.
b. Eliminating inferior materials.
C. Upgrading to newer, advanced materials.
5) Expanding definitions for clarification.
2. Retains the sole authority to approve changes and revisions
that have a "significant" potential for affecting:
1) Safety
2) Liability
3) Sensitive issues
as well as all completely new standards.
3. Authorizes the Public Works Department to prepare and maintain
a supply for distribution of all changes and revisions to the Engineering
Standards so approved by the City Engineer.
On motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
the following Resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
IT A
mdwl/stds-res
/1-9I�yr