Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2001, 4B - REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT CC council Mvv,io D�Apfil3,2001 1 acEnaa nEpont 1�H� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO' FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works VIA: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Prepared By: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager SUBJECT: REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the revised plans and specifications for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project, Specification No. 99684. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award the contract if the lowest responsible.bid is within the September 2000 project construction budget. 3. Approve the additional public art for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project. DISCUSSION Project Desien Changes On July 18, 2000, the City Council rejected all construction bids for the Marsh Street Garage expansion project and directed staff to return with a revised project. This action was bused on the fact that the low bid for the project was 70% over the original $5.4 trillion budget. Following this Council directive, the project architect completed a revised conceptual desi,yn for the garage expansion that would meet the objective of reducing the overall cost of the project. On September 28, 2000, the City Council considered the architect's design revisions for the garage expansion and approved the following changes: • Elimination of the pedestrian bridge and gazebo • Elimination of the second floor bathrooms • Elimination of the mid-span stairwell and relocation of the elevator to Morro Street • Revision of the exterior finish • Addition of two public bathrooms on the ground floors with Morro Street access in lieu of the previously approved Morro Street offices • Addition of a mid-block traffic signal on Marsh Street to assist pedestrian flow • Elimination of the "blue" light safety system and television security system conduit These changes resulted in a revised construction estimate of$7,104,000 and the Council adopted a new budget that included the construction amount and a 10% contingency. The Council directed that plans and specifications be revised accordingly. 48- 1 Council Agenda Report—MSS Garage Construction Plans and Specifications Page 2 At that same meeting, staff presented its own work which involved a detailed look at the existing project and ideas of merit that, if implemented, could also reduce cost. This work, commonly known as value engineering, specifically looked for methods of construction that, if specificied differently, could result in lower costs. Two of the potential cost savings measures discussed included the possible use of shear wall design in place of bearing frame construction and other construction technique alternatives. The Council further directed staff to continue to look for additional cost savings throughout the project wherever possible and implement as many as possible to make sure the construction budget was well below the $7,104,000 amount. Preferably, the Council asked that a project be delivered that was estimated at approximately $6,500,000 to allow more ability to meet the $7,104,000 target. Following this directive, staff and the design team worked to produce a final design that has incorporated all of the Council-approved changes as well as "value engineering" structural modifications to further reduce the project cost. As identified previously, key additional value engineering savings were achieved by changing the structural design from a moment frame to shear wall structural building, and utilizing less expensive concrete throughout the new facility. A less labor-intensive exterior finish (machine vs. hand applied) is also now included in the revised plans. Given the magnitude of these changes, the revised project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The architectural refinements (window opening size, arches, etc.) recommended by the ARC and discussed at the appeal of the ARC's findings, have also been included in the final design. These changes include the new ARC requirements of a designated pedestrian walkway on the ground floor level and the addition of bulb outs at the western and southern sides of the Marsh and Morro Street intersection. With costs savings from the above mentioned items staff has recommended that the "blue" light safety system and television security system conduit system now be included as a bid alternate to provide additional safety and address concerns regarding the change to shear walls and the elevator/stairwell relocation. Finally, the plans also include Council's directive of December 2000, which directed staff to provide for bid alternates for elimination of the ground floor level office spaces if bids results for their construction are extremely high. This option is provided as an additional cost savings measure. The result is a final project design and cost estimate that maintains the overall functionality of the garage, still maintains aesthetic appeal, but most important, is below the City's revised informal requested goal cost estimate of$6.5 million. Pre-Bid Preparation In order to cultivate a more competitive bid climate for the project, the City's construction management consultant and design team have been proactively soliciting prospective construction contractors for the project (Attachment 1). Based upon their work to date, there is a strong indication that multiple bids (5 to 6 or more) may be received based on the current construction climate and economic environment. In addition to normal bidding procedures, the `t' � Council Agenda Report—MSS Garage Construction Plans and Specifications Page 3 bid documents will be made available via an on-line bid document system to encourage more bidders. Further efforts to induce prospective bidders will include an initial free set of plans and specifications along with a City hosted pre-bid lunch meeting to educate bidders about the specifics of the project. Finally, in order to insure that the revised cost estimate "accurately" reflects what is depicted on the plans and specifications, the project has gone through an extensive plan check and cost estimate process. The plans have gone through two rounds of plan checking by the Building Divisions' contract plan checking firm, and one complete review by our construction management firm. Additionally, two cost estimators have independently reviewed the revised project. Given this level of review, the design team and construction management consultant both concur that the revised plans are accurate and the new cost estimate is a very reliable figure. As a result of this extra pre-bid preparation and additional scrutiny that the project has undergone, the plans and specifications are now ready for advertising for formal construction bids. With tonight's approval of the plans and specifications the construction phase will progress as follows: Table 1 —Project Construction Schedule Advertise for bids Aril 4 Pre-bid meeting Aril 24 Bid close May 17 Pre-construction June 15 meeting Start construction July 9 Public Art As part of the Council-approved $1.5 million increase for the project in March 2000, an additional public art piece was approved for the garage expansion. The $15,000 budget (1% of increase per existing public art policy) was intended as a separate public art piece in addition to the previously approved mural at the corner of Pacific and Morro Streets. The additional artwork has gone through the City's extensive public art approval process including ARC approval. The recommended artwork is actually three separate pieces of similar metal sculpture (Attachment 2) with one piece located at the stairwell entrance on Morro Street and the remaining two pieces on each side of the new exit lane onto Pacific Street (Attachments 3, 3a). The artist will be available at tonight's meeting to discuss the artwork in more detail if Council has any questions. FISCAL IMPACT The revised engineer's estimate for the project is $5,942,000 for construction. This estimate meets the Council's direction and is below the informal Council goal of$6,500,000 and thus well below the approved project construction budget of $7,104,000. However, given the results of the previous bid and Council's earlier direction to allow plenty of discretion, staff is not recommending decreasing the previous Council approved project construction budget. Council Agenda Report—MSS Garage Construction Plans and Specifications Page 4 As with previous reports on the project, sufficient revenues exist to make all debt payments necessary (see Attachment 4). With the latest construction bid estimate and a changing bid climate, we are hopeful that bids will come in well under the total amount budgeted and as a result a lower bond will needed and therefore lower debt financing cost will result. The following table summarizes the revised project costs and funding sources compared with the previous budget and shows the potential savings should bids come in less than the budget: Table 2 - Project Cost Summary Proposed Budget Variance. Design $612,250 $597,500 $14,750 Construction $5,942,000 $7,104,000 ($1,162,000) Contingency (10%)$594,100 (10%)$710,400 ($116,300) Fees&Other $125,000 $125,000 0 Construction $6,661,100 $7,814,400 ($1,278,300) Subtotal: Construction $497,100 $497,100 $0.00 Management Contract(previous Council action) Total _ $7,770,450 $9,034,000 -($1,263,550)- Table ($1,263,550)_Table 3 - Funding Sources Proposed Budget Variance Debt Financing $6,588,350 $7,851,900 ($1,263,550) Woricing Capital $1,182,100 $1,182,100 0 Total _ $7.770,450 $9,034,000__ __($1,263,550) An alternative funding strategy still being pursued that is the state loan program (California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program) that funds infrastructure projects, which includes public parking garages. Based on the previous project scope, a pre-application was submitted to Sacramento and received approval to proceed with a formal loan application for the revised garage expansion. If the loan proves to be successful, the final approval for the loan would be expected by late 2001 and may reduce City cost even further. ALTERNATIVES Approve the project with revisions. Because the approval of the garage is under the sole discretionary purview of the Council, the Council may choose to direct staff to revise the project if it so desires. Any changes, depending upon the degree of change from the proposed project, would increase design and possibly construction costs as well as delay the project even further. Council Agenda Report—MSS Garage Construction Plans and Specifications Page 5 Deny the project. The impact that this option would have on the Downtown parking deficit has been fully discussed in several prior Council actions and will not be elaborated upon here. However, Council members have asked staff for new information, specifically: What "sunk costs" will be lost, both in terms of hard costs and staff-time,if the project is terminated now? With regard to hard costs, as indicated in Attachment 5, over$2,300,000 either has been spent or encumbered on the project since its inception in 1995. Although the bulk of the encumbered money (approximately $500,000) will be recovered if the project goes no further, all other costs, including over $1,000,000 invested in land and $700,000 in design and environmental work will be lost. Regarding staff-time, determining this investment with precision is not possible. There have simply been too many staff members, too many diverse tasks, and too many years involved with the project to precisely total the hours. We can say with confidence that staff, Council, and advisory body members have collectively invested many thousands of hours in this endeavor. For example, each of tonight's garage related agenda reports required numerous internal meetings, coordination with outside parties, report writing, companion document preparation, multiple layers of report review and revision, legal advertisement, agenda report duplication, pre- meeting preparation, the meeting itself, and tomorrow's meeting follow-up. Including tonight's actions, the project has been through this process 21 times for City Council meetings alone. However, public actions by the Council or advisory bodies are only the "tip of the iceberg". Attachment 6 provides our best inventory of departments, staff positions, and general duties involved in bringing the project to this point. While we have not attempted to re-create the work- hours invested and office supply and material costs, staff conservatively estimates the investment at about $450,000 (and likely more) over the six years of work on this project. There has also been another cost — less obvious perhaps, but no less significant: The "opportunity cost" associated with not completing other tasks and priorities because of work on this project, especially in the Public Works Department,. When all of the above factors are taken into consideration, coupled with current and future parking demand for existing and planned projects within the downtown area, staff would recommend against abandoning the Marsh Street Garage expansion project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1----Construction Management Outreach Efforts Attachment 2----Public Art Photo Attachment 3----Public Art Site Location (Morro Street) Attachment 3a---Public Art Site Location (Pacific Street) Attachment 4----Parking Fund Working Capital Forecast Attachment 5----To Date Project Cost Summary Attachment 6----Staff Time Breakdown for Project Council File---Plans and Specifications 1:CAR/Parking Issues/Carmssconswctionplansv12001 , Attacbment 1 ' l March 7, 2001 Mr. Keith Opalewski Manager Parking Services City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: City of San Luis Obispo Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project Status of Bidder Outreach Program The intent of this letter is to update the City with Harris &Associates'efforts to establish contact with prospective bidders, and determine their interest and availability in bidding the project. To date, our efforts have included developing a list of approximately 10 to 15 qualified parking structure contractors in California..We have made telephone and e-mail contact with several of the prospective bidders as listed below. We have invited the contractors to bid the project and answered general questions.To date, the following contractors have verbally indicated their interest in bidding the project: 1. ARB, Irvine(contact: Dave Hawley) 2. Maino Construction, San.Luis Obispo (contact:Tom Maino) 3. Madonna Construction, San Luis Obispo(contact: Clint Pearce) 4. McCarthy Construction, Newport Beach (contact:Al Carroll) 5. Bomel Construction,Anaheim Hills (contact: Derral McGinnis) 6. Arciero Brothers Construction, Tustin (contact: Michael Krussman) 7. DJM Construction, Cerritos (contact: Ed Shumate) 8. Nick Pokrajac Construction, Templeton (contact: Nick Pokrajac) In the coming days, Harris intends to send a letter each of our prospective bidders to provide information about the project. Harris will offer contractors their 1 s`set of did documents free of charge.A draft of our letter to the contractors is attached for the City's review. Please provide us your comments. Harris will monitor the status of these prospective bidders through the bid period and advise the City. of their status. Harris will assist in establishing the bid opening date based on the schedule of other project bids. So far, of the bidders we have contacted, none have indicated a conflict with the target bid dates of May 15', 16'",or 17'". Please be assured that Harris intends to maintain close contact with prospective bidders through the bid period and continue to advise the City of their status. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 805-658-2062. Very truly yours, HARRIS &ASSOCIATES Stephen Mimiaga, P.E. Project Manager cc: Fred Sweeney(PMSM) Jim Guerrero (Hams) Q 4U -6 1111 1 � r > � t t S f r� { yy t / GGVV t 7 �-� Attachment 3 I 70 > m m O < m fm- m /�W D -_� z T. N v i V I T r � D I r O 1 � � D is Jn O I m 70 o I— N D 70_ z r C - N m C5 rn o I DI: rn X " .. 1 D Z " 4S �1 Attachment 3-1 O < j M(J) o � O Q M rn M Z O > N) LZ I I I I I I I � I " u- I � I I I I © 70 o ,, a :T- .70.770 � o i , I •� I I • I I I � I :r• ' rn x 4AB �9 Attachment 4 y Z F W y q C1 $ y 5 po O .ti : CT : o ° cn a Fr °; m ° ?; w (D 0 ` �• -� R 06 ^ •cn yam /���y CCD ,�Di c�"o..�00 < H co l< (ro 00 C O N Z 00 N $2, = 0 N y rn 5. 2 � SCD � co � C (C 0' m m 0 0 •, 7 rn 8' t'! y co ''C•S md n• ° m Co K CD CD y y rfo tiCD mQA N C y co CL GQ a c 3 N 3 Q °� ? N A N A Ot to � N A `-• N J A r• ^, � to N W N W O Ct CA t-1 l W W N to v to (D ao t0 A \0 C �l w A V 1 O O N t!i N `••+ J A --j V 0 N Q` A N lA � m � �O w a .-• w w O A �O i.+ �O W to O� 4 A -.4 ..� A oo ^ (D O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C 0 H O O O O O Cl O O O = 000000000 N N W to 00 -.1 ,--• N �+ v t.A N C, 00 N O Ol N A N 00 A v O1 to 00 O et A .P: o-a 00 W 0o N %0 N w b O A .-. ll W A -j O O N t0 O N to O U O VLA to N O •- A 'O 00 !.n w �o i.+ O :+ �c 00 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 b '+ 0 C 0 OO O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O 0 Co 0 0 .N.. N i N �4 I° 00 O .1 N A N 00 A �' v J F+ t0 O, Q\ 0 • O W 00 N S W 00 \O O A b LI) w v b A A Ot N T V tr A tr U O v N b b o m N N 00 i.+ tJ1 Ot C A N i•• O 0o O 1O O \O S O LA 0 7 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (D N •-• �-• N N N tl- to N N C ►• -4 •--• A •--• •--• W 00 A N 1 N NW A. W 00 A -.3 to W N �O tr W b U Vo IO W ?. r O N 00 r O O to LA to \O InV AyDOOO iooON O T O\ a J O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q al _ N N •-• N �• NN N U ut N0 �+ 00 A �-• �-• W 00 A N W W N W W e\ 00 00 O LA %0 N tD U b t0 b tD O . O, c� „t0 N V A N NW O A A Lh to ( .+ \D U v w to Q\ L w Ot O CT �D O to C 'O W A O O coo O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 'O O O O O O O O O O W ro N N N th to w 0 N V A «-• .+ A %0 LA A A W �c t0 Ut 00 to .-• & to tO N � to lO O W A0 .� W W O1 F+ 00 O t d O 00 00 O �o tJi to to W W r LA O\ � Z A O i+ r O O N O A 0 0 0 � 0o N N W G. O O O O O O O O O 0 C 0 C C 0 0 C 0 C O - 0 C 0 C O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A N N N N N to to w 0 N �c to .•• A t0 In N tr to A 00 00 00 00 to to J to O N t0 In tD O tD VA O O O W O J Ot N O A A O A to to to to V] .-• O O t0 t0 a VI OD Ot C O Ot A O �A O O O in Oo O J ? O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coo 0 = = OOOO = 000000000 N N N to N A O N O to .- .- A O to N H tr to ON d N 00 to tD O to O N b t.A Z .-. O to O ao 0o O '40 01 A N O N O O b to to to v r ILA A A �DN O OC -4O D �o N tr0 D\ O O O C O O O O O O O O O -O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 �8 -1D CAttachment 5 MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION COSTS Land Costs Spent Encumbered Recoverable $450,000 860 Pacific-Former Rec Office $350,000 USPO Parking lot $243,000 Mission Medical Lot $50,000 $12,800 Parable Parking Lot Parcel* * 400 sq. ft. at $32 $1,093,000 $0.00 $12,800 EIR and Site Prep $78,000 Environmental Review $15,000 Archeological Work $10,000 Soils Testing $13,000 Survey Work $116,000 $0.00 $0.00 Design Costs $6,000 $3,000 $0.00 Plan Check Fees $10,000 $42,000 $40,000 Public Art(2°d pending) $611,500 $0.00 Architect/Engineer $627,500 $45,000 $40,000 Construction Management $36,000 $293,000 $285,000 Construction Man./Inspector $142,000 $142,000 Construction Admin-Archit. $1,000 $14,000 $14,000 Archeological Monitor $10,000 $10,000 Materials Testing $37,000 $459,000 $451,000 $19873,500 $504000 $503,800** $2,377,500 Total Expenses and Encumbrances To date ** Recoverable amount if project is not bid and current contracts are terminated without additional expenditures 40 -// Attachment 6 STAFF INVESTMENT IN MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION The Marsh Street Garage Expansion began the planning process in 1995. The following is a list of the departments that have been involved in the project from the beginning to the current evolvement of the project. ADMINISTRATION CAO: Oversee project, problem solving, report review, Council member briefings and City Council action follow-up. ACAO: Problem solving, and report review. Assistant to CAO: Coordination of two public art approval processes involving two outside community art juries. Professional Assistant: Provide clerical support for the public art portion of the project. CITY CLERK City Clerk/Assistants: Preparation of agenda, including copying and distribution of the agenda reports related to the project. Legal notices and special public notice. Council minutes on project related actions. Processing and filing of project documents (e.g. resolutions, consultant agreements,property transaction documents). PUBLIC WORKS Director of Public Works: Overall responsibility for project coordination ranging from Council presentation_s to work load delegation and final approval for all aspects of the project. Deputy Director of Public Works: Transportation.Division manager overseeing day-to -day aspects of the project and assist the Director for decision making responsibilities for facets of the project. Parking Manager: Lead staff person for liaison with consultants (EIR, Survey, Archeological, Design and Construction Management and community organizations (Downtown Association). Coordination of day-to-day progress of the project. City Engineer: Assist with design and environmental review of the project. Traffic Engineer: Assist with design and EIR review of traffic and circulation aspects of the overall project. 46 "1a Principal Transportation Planner: Assist with review of design, environmental, and the preparation for consultants for project. Engineering Technician: Assist with bid document preparation. Engineering Assistant: Assist with plan check of the plans and specifications. Administrative Analyst: Assist with financial planning and report preparation for the project. Administrative Assistants (3): Provide all aspects of clerical support for the project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CDD Director: Oversight of all CDD staff work on the garage. Development Review Manager: Coordination of Permit/Appeal process. Project Planner: Coordinate Public Works staff.analysis-,prepare reports for ARC and appeals to Council Associate Planner: Coordinate EIR and consultant staff reports. Chief Building Official: Oversight of plan site consultant and city staff, including key code interpretations and deliberations on a difficult project. Plans Examiner: Checking plans for compliance with all building and planning codes. Building Permit Coordinator: Coordination and processing of permit submittals. CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney: Extremely involved in reviewing planning, zoning, environmental, bidding, and appeal issues. Assistant City Attorney: Assisted City Attorney in above activities and supported Planning Commission. FIRE Fire Dept. Plan Checker: Fire plan checks and site review. X13 43 V FINANCE Director of Finance: Extensive time spent in reviewing financing and revenue plans; advising on procurement strategies; working with our Financial Advisor on funding options. Revenue Manager: Assisted the Director of Finance in the above activities and prepared the State infrastructure loan application. COUNCIL/ADVISORY BODY ACTIONS City Council: 21 Planning Commission: 2 ARC: 3 CHC: 1 MEETING AGENDA JOHN O. DUNN ,�.�DATE `�_3-� ITEM # 1036 Trevor Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805)541-3641 email: johnodunn@aol.com April 3, 2001 Lgr=QaVak� DD DIA ❑ FIN DIM Mayor Allen Settle and San Luis Obispo Council Members ❑ FLBSS HIEF City of San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �yy DIR � POLICE CHF 13 REC DIR ❑ UnL DIM Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members: HR DIM Through no fault of my own, I have been heavily involved in City otSan Luis Obispo parking issues for the past fourteen years. During that time the City built the Palm and Marsh-Chorro parking garages and the Palm-Nipomo parking lot. What is important to keep in mind is that the downtown of today is bigger, stronger, and healthier and attracts more people than the downtown of the seventies and eighties. However, during that same time we have seen an explosion of commercial growth in Santa Maria, Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, and, to a lesser degree, in our own Madonna Road area. The question comes down to this: Are we going to "rest on our laurels" in regard to the downtown, which would mean that this area would eventually be overtaken and overwhelmed by commercial development elsewhere, or are we going to cast our vote on the side of continued expansion and strengthening, with the growth in the downtown rather than in another City or in an outlying area. I believe the City's General plan is clear on this choice. What is often overlooked in a short-term financial analysis of parking structures is that the financing period is thirty-plus years, whereas the life of the structure itself, built right, could be seventy-five plus years, which means that it spends at least the second half of its life making much needed revenue for the City. Lastly, as a fan and user and consumer of the downtown, it is obvious to me and most everyone else, that the parking demand exceeds the parking supply. Study after study has shown that. Several polls, including the City's own, have shown that the lack of an adequate parking supply is a major concern of the majority of our cit¢ens. If the Copeland Project proceeds, and I strongly hope that it does, then the present situation is going to become even worse. Please do what is right for the downtown and the larger community and build the Marsh Street garage expansion. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere y, RECEIVED John unn APR 0 3 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL "'FETING AGENDA _ ATE �`.3'D/ ITEM #._..� C L POLY California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Office of the President (805) 756.6000 • Fax(805) 756-1129 March 30, 2001NCIL El CDD DIR pp ❑ FIN DIR The Honorable Allen Settle ❑ FIRE CHIEF Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo � 01 FACR LEAK/O I ❑ PW DIR I13 CLERK/ORIG 01 POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street ❑ DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR SanHyoufor Obi , CA 93401-3249 ❑ ❑ LITIL DIR ❑ ❑ HR DIR Dealf//_ our letter to the CSU Board of Trustees regarding Cal Poly's new Master Plan. We are particularly appreciative of the City's support for our efforts to expand student housing on campus and to build housing for faculty and staff. Cal Poly owns two parcels of land on the west side of Highway 1. While currently outside its city limits, San Luis Obispo's General Plan designates this land for residential use. Cal Poly's Master Plan calls for constructing housing for faculty and staff on these two sites. This housing is needed urgently to recruit and retain new faculty and staff. Cal Poly will retain ownership of the land and limit occupancy to Cal Poly employees and their families. Cal Poly would like to establish a new residential community that is compatible with City planning policies. To that end, I have asked staff from the Cal Poly Foundation,Administration and Finance, and the Provost's Office to work with the City to develop a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the processes,policies, and service standards applicable to these sites—including the possibility of annexation. In addition, consistent with the communication and consultation principles in the Master Plan, we are seeking input from the neighbors. We have scheduled an informational meeting on April 11, from 7—9 p.m. at Bishop's Peak Elementary School. We hope that all interested individuals will attend in order to learn about our initial analysis,to share their ideas,and to suggest issues that should be addressed during site development and environmental review. Depending on the level of interest,we will schedule additional meetings as well. We look forward to working together with the City on this common issue to expand the supply of affordable housing in our community. tenJ. y, Baker RECEIVED President APR 0 3 2001 cc: Robert Griffin,Cal Poly Foundation SLO CITY COUNCIL Robert Kitamura,Facilities Planning Linda Dalton, Provost's Office Frank Lebens,Administration and Finance The CallfctNa S=Vritvmfty-Bakersfield Channel Islands-Chico• Domingue:Hills- Fresno• Fullerton -Hayward-Humboldt•Long Beach• Los Angeles-Maritime Academy- Monterey Bay- Northridge- Pomona -Sacramento-San Bernardino-San Diego- San Francisco- San Jose.- San Luis Obispo- San Marcos • Sonoma • Sranislaus CAL POLY S A N L U I S O B [ S P O PLEASE JOIN US at a TWO PARCELS OF LAND TWO STEPS FORWARD IN NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REDUCING HOUSING IMPACT to learn about plans for the • Cal Poly owns two parcels of CAL POLY FACULTY/STAFF HOUSING PROJECT undeveloped land at the northwest corner of Highland Drive and State Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Highway 1 in San Luis Obispo. 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. • While currently outside the city Bishop's Peak Elementary School limits,policies in the City's General Multipurpose Room Plan suggest this land for general 451 Jaycee Drive residential use. San Luis Obispo,California • Aware of its impact on the local housing market,the Cal Poly Foundation has been investigating FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT the feasibility of offering a housing Leslie Anne program for faculty and staff. Project Information Coordinator • The Cal Poly Master Plan and Final 805-756-6806 Environmental Impact Report was lane@calpoly.edu approved in March 2001 by the California State University 1 ai \ Board of Trustees.As a guide for ri approximately the next 20 years,a central feature of the plan includes provision for faculty and staff tw x' MON ° ex P housing on these two parcels of land. viPcf `�rPOiF --_asxoP__1` ANACA • Cal Poly's Master Plan also MinAsaL j provides for communication with �Vp `p0 t t�°E l \ City and County officials,as well as poi"o ` li , ; � 1 H: meetings with area neighbors early � ?� '� �, �_w.DREEx _ c in the project planning and design I y � MDNiL phase. MARLENE •,�^w4E�M�;'�, !ryL p OlY `1 3g . DALY • To be informed about the faculty ��' Mfr �°R1T , 1 i and staff housing plans,initial land P[L MUR =I Icy- yO DMnLMoun J./FL-- use analysis,and how the projectLO 8 RREN M&A_.will be compatible with adjacent W 3 ``— EBmN + Pa 1 mna vw'"S' E neighborhoods,please attend the NNA � txy "yb Nv�� CRAIG PMuRc .A q meeting.Your input is important 1�b ` _-iaRRDRD InDI to us. 9�t\� o2iI =i PoDTHILL.BLVD p� California Polytechnic State University • SITES FOR CAL POLY FACULTY/STAFF HOUSING PROJECT