San Luis Obispo City Council
September 2, 2025

recommendations to SLO Transit. Staff asked participants during the workshop to rank the draft recommendations based on the effect of their ability to increase ridership. The results of the workshop helped re-prioritize the recommendations and were incorporated into the final report.

Annual Unmet Transit Needs Assessment
Every year the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) conducts an Unmet Transit Needs Assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure that any unmet transit needs that are found reasonable to meet are programmed before Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are expended for non-transit uses. SLO Transit is an eligible recipient of TDA funds and, therefore, is subject to the Unmet Transit Needs Assessment. SLO Transit promotes the public notices on its buses, on its website, and at meetings of the City’s Mass Transportation Committee. SLO Transit also receives a list of comments submitted by the public and provides SLOCOG responses to the comments.

K-12 Discount Pass Pilot Program
Based on feedback from parents of the local school district, SLO Transit recommended to its board the approval of a K-12 discount 15-Ride pass pilot program. On November 13, 2023, staff met with Laguna Middle School staff to discuss expanding K-12 fare and pass options. School staff forwarded SLO Transit contact information and the proposed student pass and fare options to the school’s Parent Teacher Association for review. In January 2024, City Council approved the pilot program and in February 2024 the new discount pass became available to the public.

In August 2024, staff attended Laguna Middle School’s orientation day to promote the new discount pass pilot program and to provide students and parents with information about our services. A banner was also installed across the street from the school advertising the new pilot program. In September 2024, staff attended Pacheco Elementary School’s Back to School Night for the same reason. On April 15, 2025, City Council approved formalization of the pilot program based on the utilization of the new pass option.

Other Outreach Efforts
Every year, the City participates in the National Public Works Week. The City and other municipal agencies in the county attend Downtown San Luis Obispo’s Farmers’ Market to highlight our respective programs and projects. SLO Transit staff attends the event and provides information to the public as well as answers questions about services and programs. Staff also regularly attends Cal Poly events throughout the year to engage with students, faculty, and staff.

VI: LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN
SLO Transit has developed its Language Assistance Plan (LAP) to address SLO Transit’s responsibilities as a recipient of federal funding. The LAP helps to identify reasonable steps for providing language assistance to persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) who wish to access transit services and programs. Persons with LEP are those who do not speak English as their primary language and have limited ability to read, write or understand English.

SLO Transit’s goal is to provide meaningful access for persons with LEP to all of its services, programs, and information. Efforts to effectively engage persons with LEP will ensure that they can equally contribute to and benefit from the development and improvement of SLO Transit’s services and programs.

SLO Transit will comply with the Safe Harbor Provision, which outlines circumstances that can provide a “safe harbor” for recipients regarding translation of written materials for LEP populations. The Safe Harbor Provision states that, if a recipient provides written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent or 1,000 persons, whichever is less, of the total population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered, then such action will be considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient’s written translation obligations. These safe harbor provisions apply to the translation of written documents only.

Four Factor Analysis
In order to ensure meaningful access to programs and activities, SLO Transit uses the information gathered from a Four Factor Analysis to determine the specific language services that are appropriate to provide. This analysis helps SLO Transit to determine if it communicates effectively with persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and informs language access planning. The Four Factor Analysis is local assessment that considers:

1. Factor 1 - The number or proportion of persons with LEP eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by SLO Transit

2. Factor 2 - The frequency with which persons with LEP come into contact with SLO Transit’s services and programs

3. Factor 3 - The nature and importance of SLO Transit’s services and programs in people’s lives

4. Factor 4 - The resources available to SLO Transit for LEP outreach, as well as the costs associated with that outreach
Factor 1 – The Number of Persons with LEP Eligible to be Served or Likely to be Encountered by SLO Transit
The first step in determining the appropriate components of a Language Assistance Plan is understanding the proportion of persons with LEP who may encounter SLO Transit’s services, their literacy skills in English, their native language, the location of their communities and neighborhoods and, more importantly, if any are underserved because of a language barrier.

SLO Transit evaluated the level of English literacy and to what degree people in its service area speak a language other than English and what those languages are. Data for this review is derived from the United States Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey. Refer to Table 3 for source details.

Table 3: Census Data Source Information
San Luis Obispo County Overview
SLO Transit’s service system encompasses an area of twenty-two square miles in the County of San Luis Obispo, California as shown in Figure 6. The primary languages in the county are English and Spanish. Of county residents aged five and older, six percent reported speaking English less than “very well”. Within the County of San Luis Obispo,

13.4 percent of residents speak Spanish at home. Residents who speak Spanish and reported speaking English less than “very well” make up 4.4 percent of the population.

Further detailed statistics can be found in Table 4 below.

Figure 6 - Location of the City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo (City) Overview
SLO Transit serves the City of San Luis Obispo and the adjacent university campus. The primary languages spoken in the City of San Luis Obispo are English and Spanish. The total population of the City is 48,039, and of residents aged five and older, three percent report speaking English less than “very well.”
Nearly 10 percent of the population of the City speaks Spanish and, of that number, two percent (911 residents) report speaking English less than “very well.” Following Spanish speakers, those who primarily speak languages other than English account for 6.7 percent of the population. These languages include “Other Indo-European languages,” “Asian and Pacific Islander languages,” and “Other languages” as outlined by the Census Bureau.

Criteria Figure
Table ID DP02
Survey/Program American Community Survey
Vintage 2023
Dataset ACSDP5Y2023
Product ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Files
GEOs California; San Luis Obispo County, California; San Luis Obispo City, California Web Address https://api.census.gov/data/2023/acs/acs5/profile

Table 4: Comparison of Language Spoken at Home
Language Spoken at Home
San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo (City)
Estimate Percent
of Total Estimate Percentof Total
Total Speak Only English 22,1301 82.1% 38,864 83.4%
Total Speak Language Other Than English 48,194 17.9% 7,760 16.6% Total Speak Spanish 36,081 13.4% 4,608 9.9%
Total Speak English Less Than “Very Well” 48,194 6.0% 1,404 3.0% Total Population (5 years and older) 269,495 46,624
Speak English Less Than “Very Well” – Detail (ACS Survey Language Categories) Speaks Spanish 11,847 4.4% 911 2.0%
Speaks Other Indo-European Languages 1,466 0.5% 165 0.4% Speaks Asian / Pacific Islander Languages 1,742 0.6% 291 0.6% Speaks Other Language 1,035 0.4% 37 0.1%
Factor 1 Summary of Findings
Based on the available population data for the SLO Transit service area and for the region in which SLO Transit operates, no single LEP language group meets or exceeds the DOT’s Safe Harbor provisions threshold of five percent or 1,000 persons (which is less) required to provide written translation of vital documents. However, SLO Transit is committed to translating all vital documents, including press releases and public notices, into Spanish.

Factor 2 – Frequency with which LEP Persons Come into Contact with SLO Transit’s Services and Programs
To determine the frequency of contract between persons with LEP and SLO Transit services, SLO Transit deployed a variety of surveys to employees, riders, and community partners. The survey results and a summary of findings for each survey is presented in this section.

SLO Transit Employee Survey
SLO Transit conducted internal surveys of employees including drivers, dispatch, road supervisors, and management staff. The intent of the survey was to determine what language skills already exist among SLO Transit employees and the number and nature of encounters with riders or other community members with LEP.

The first question asked employees if they could communicate in a language other than English, and if so, what language(s). Although varying degrees of fluency were indicated, six of the 17 respondents can speak one or more languages other than English. Of the six who indicated they spoke a language other than English, two spoke Spanish, one spoke German, and one spoke Mandarin. The remaining two respondents did not indicate which language they spoke other than English.

The survey also asked if, in the previous month, whether employees encountered customers who were unable to communicate in English and, if so, the frequency to which they heard one of ten languages. All respondents reported encountering riders with LEP speaking a language other than English between “rarely” to “daily”. The most common

non-English language encountered was Spanish followed by Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin) as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 - How Often Have You Encountered Riders With Limited English Proficiency Speaking The Following Language?
Not At All Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Often Daily
Spanish 5 3 2 1 3 3
French 16 0 1 0 0 0
Tagalog 15 0 1 1 0 0
Japanese 16 1 0 0 0 0
Chinese
(Cantonese, Mandarin) 14 0 3 0 0 0
Italian 17 0 0 0 0 0
Portuguese 15 0 1 1 0 0
German 15 1 0 1 0 0
Persian 16 0 0 1 0 0
Hindi 17 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Languages 0 0 1 0 0 0
The next survey question asked what type of needs and/or requests for assistance employees had received from riders with LEP. The most types of needs and/or request for service include information on routes and directions (50 percent) followed by information on bus times (39 percent), translation assistance (22 percent), and ADA information (six percent).

Employee Survey Findings
The information obtained through this survey indicates about one-third of SLO Transit staff members that responded to the survey speak one or more languages other than English, many of which speak Spanish. Additionally, riders that speak Spanish are among the most frequently encountered LEP populations. The survey also revealed that riders with LEP most often requested information about bus routes and directions to points of interest in the community.

Community Partners Survey
SLO Transit also surveyed community partners, listed in Attachment D, to assess the extent to which they come into contact with LEP populations, the types of services they offer to LEP persons, challenges with serving persons with LEP, and frequency of requests from LEP persons to translate/interpret transit information. Questions and consolidated responses are provided below.

Of the 13 community partners contacted, only four completed the survey. Of the four respondents, three indicated that up to 25 percent of the individuals served by their organization are persons with LEP. The fourth organization indicated that between 50 percent and 75 percent of individuals served are persons with LEP. All of the respondents indicated that Spanish is the most commonly spoken language, aside from English, amongst persons with LEP served by their organization. No other languages were indicated.

When asked about the type of services their organization provides to persons with LEP, all of the respondents indicated that interpretation (in-person and remote) services are provided. When asked about the frequency of requests to translate and/or interpret transit-related information, two organizations indicated ‘very often’, one indicated ‘somewhat often’, and one indicated ‘not often at all’. Lastly, when asked about challenges faced by their organization when serving persons with LEP, three respondents indicated ‘lack of bilingual staff’ and one indicated ‘limited access to interpreters’.

Community Partner Survey Findings
Though the number of responses was low, relevant and actionable information can be surmised from the data. Spanish is the most common language spoken by persons with LEP served by the respondent organizations. In-person and remote translation services are offered by all respondents and several of them often get requests to translate transitrelated information. Lastly, lack of bilingual staff and/or limited access to interpreters is a challenge for all respondents.

Transit Rider Survey
A survey of transit riders was conducted between May 12-16, 2025, to determine how well do current riders read and speak English, language(s) other than English spoken at home, encounters with SLO Transit staff, how they get information about SLO Transit services, and why they ride the bus. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish and was available in print and digitally via QR Code. Attachment E includes a copy of the survey form. A total of 111 riders completed the survey: 105 in English and 6 in Spanish.

Below are the questions and consolidated responses.

Table 6: English Proficiency of SLO Transit Riders Surveyed How well do you read English How well do you speak English Total Percent Total Percent
Very Well 103 94% 102 92%
Somewhat Well 5 5% 4 4%
Not Very Well 2 2% 5 5%
Of the riders surveyed, 103 of the respondents (94 percent) indicated that they read English “very well” and 102 (92 percent) of the respondents indicated that they speak English “very well” as shown in Table 6. Of the riders surveyed, 33 percent said they spoke a language other than English at home. Of respondents who provided what language they spoke at home, 73 percent indicated Spanish. Table 7 shows the languages other than English spoken at home.

Table 7: Language other than English spoken at home
Language No. of Respondents
Spanish 16
Hindi 1
Russian 2
Chinese 1
Japanese 1

Language No. of Respondents
Filipino 1
Riders were asked if they have called SLO Transit dispatch for assistance, and if so, how easy it was to communicate with staff. Though the original intent of the question was to assess ease of communication with dispatch staff, it was interpreted by riders to mean communication with staff in general. Of the riders surveyed, 90 percent indicated that they communicate with staff “very well” as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - How Well Were You Able to Communicate with Staff? Riders were asked where they get information about SLO Transit services. Of the riders surveyed, the most common responses were internet (54 percent), ask bus drivers (28 percent), and from friends, family, and coworkers (17 percent) as shown in Figure 8. Of the respondents, 28 (25 percent) indicated that they get information from more than one source.

Figure 8 - Where Do You Get Information About SLO Transit Services? 90%
6%
4%
Very Well Somewhat Well Not very well
28%
11%
17%
54%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Ask Bus Drivers Call dispatch From Friends,
family,
coworkers
Internet (google) SLO Transit App

Lastly, riders were asked an open-ended question about why they ride the bus. The responses were categorized into the following themes:
• Not owning a car
• Transportation option for those with medical conditions • Affordability
• Environmental reasons
• Convenient and no-cost for Cal Poly students
Transit Rider Survey Findings
Based on the transit rider survey, Limited English Proficiency is not a barrier to SLO Transit’s services. Within SLO Transit’s service area, three percent of residents speak English less than “very well” and based on the rider surveys, five percent of respondents reported speaking English “not very well” and two percent reported reading English “not very well”. This indicates that SLO Transit is likely serving residents with Limited English Proficiency at a rate that is more than representative of the population it serves.

Finally, of residents reporting which language they spoke other than English at home, 73 percent reported speaking Spanish. This indicates that, while not required, SLO Transit’s practice of translating vital documents into Spanish is a benefit to both riders and nonriders of the service area.

Factor 3: The Nature and Importance of SLO Transit’s Services and Programs in People’s Lives
Access to SLO Transit’s services and programs is critical to the lives of many in SLO Transit’s service area. Many depend on SLO Transit’s fixed route services for access to jobs and to essential community services like schools, shopping, and medical appointments. As part of the public outreach for the Short-Range Transit Plan (2025) update, 70 percent of riders surveyed indicated they use the bus three or more times a week for various purposes including university (47 percent), work (19 percent), and medical or social services (8 percent).

Because of the essential nature of the services and the importance of these programs in the lives of many of the region’s residents, there is a need to ensure that language is not a barrier to access. The City will continue to translate vital documents into Spanish and offer interpreters and translations services where possible. The City also partners with a variety of community organizations to support historically underserved and underrepresented groups to ensure equitable access to public services.

Factor 4: The Resources Available to SLO Transit for LEP Outreach and the Associated Costs
The City has a Bilingual Certification Examination program which assesses City employees’ Spanish speaking and writing skills. Depending upon the results of the examination, employees will be certified for oral and/or written Spanish speaking translation services. All City departments and programs can utilize these certified bilingual employees for free translation services. Certified employees are compensated for this

service as negotiated through their respective Memorandum of Understanding. SLO Transit utilizes certified bilingual employees to translate vital documents into Spanish.

SLO Transit’s annual budget includes costs of printing services, digital and print advertising, and for public outreach opportunities. These activities include production of English and Spanish documents and notifications. The City’s website, including SLO Transit information, can be translated into multiple languages, as shown in Figure 9, powered by Google Translate.

Figure 9 - City Website Translation Options
VII: Four Factor Analysis Findings
A quick summary of the Four-Factor Analysis findings shows the importance of language assistance to members of the SLO Transit community who do not speak English very well, and the City’s and SLO Transit’s commitment to provide that assistance. • Factor 1 found that three percent of the City’s population speaks English less than “very well”; this SLO Transit’s LEP population. Even though no language is spoken by more than five percent or 1,000 people within the service area, per the Department of Transportation’s “safe harbor” provision threshold, SLO Transit is committed to translating all vital documents into Spanish. • Factor 2 found that persons with LEP frequently use SLO Transit services and often interact with SLO Transit employees. Only four percent of transit riders surveyed reported communicating with staff “not very well.” Riders most common source of information is the internet followed by asking bus drivers. • Factor 3 found that both English speaking and persons with LEP rely on SLO Transit services to access essential services like jobs, school, medical appointments, and for recreation. The City has an extensive community

partnership network that assist with distributing information and gathering feedback on transit services.
• Factor 4 found that resources are available and within budget for SLO Transit to continue translating vital documents and to publish notifications in English and in Spanish.

Oversight
Oversight includes monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the Language Assistance Plan and the Public Participation Plan. SLO Transit have a responsibility to improve community engagement to ensure compliance with SLO Transit’s Title VI Plan, Public Participation Plan, Language Assistance Plan, and other community outreach efforts. Monitoring of the Language Assistance Plan will include:
• On a triennial basis, SLO Transit will review regional census data for changing patterns of LEP populations
• Ongoing collaboration with regional and community partners • Ongoing review of translation requests at SLO Transit’s website and other material • Post-Event Assessments (PEA)
Post-Event Assessments
Following service changes, fare increases and planning projects, staff will assess the effectiveness of public involvement against the goals established in this plan. This assessment will ask the questions:

1. Did the public know there was an opportunity to participate?

2. Was the purpose of the participation clearly presented to the public?

3. Did the public have access to appropriate resources and information to allow for meaningful participation?

4. Did the decision making process allow for consideration and incorporation of public input?

5. Were there complaints about the public engagement process?

6. Were the public engagement efforts cost effective?

7. What additional methods could have been employed to improve the process?

8. Should the Public Participation Plan or Language Assistance Plan be amended? Training Employees
The purchased transportation contractor retains the existing staff from the incumbent transit contractor if a new contractor is awarded the contract. Currently, dispatch and customer service staff are bilingual and/or have bilingual staff readily available. The purchased transportation contractor utilizes translation applications (i.e. Google Translate) to assist in communication with customers with LEP if bilingual staff is unavailable.

Translation of Vital Documents
It is existing practice of SLO Transit to translate the vital documents listed in Table 8 into Spanish.

Table 8 - SLO Transit Vital Documents
Document Type Translation Status
Civil Rights complaint forms Done
Fare and service change announcements (Rider alerts) On-going Legal notices On-going
Printed media (Rider’s Guide, route brochures) Done
Passenger Code of Conduct policy Done
General promotional materials On-going
Website Done
VIII: Decision Making Bodies
The City encourages all residents, minorities, women, and persons with disabilities who live in the City to serve on committees and boards.

Mass Transportation Committee (Non-Elected Members)
The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) assists with the ongoing program of public transit in the City and on Cal Poly’s campus. The MTC provides recommendations and input to the Council regarding routes, schedules, capital projects, fares, marketing, and additional services. The MTC meets in-person the second Wednesday of every other month at 2:30 p.m. at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

The MTC has seven members, consisting of one Cal Poly designated employee, one Cal Poly student representative designated by Associated Students, Inc. (ASI), one senior citizen, one person from the business community, one person with technical transportation planning experience, one persons from disabled community, one member at-large, and one student. Racial and ethnic make-up of the committee members is shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9 - Racial and Ethnic Make-up of the Mass Transportation Committee White /
Caucasian
Hispanic
/ Latino
Black /
African
American
Arab
American
/ Middle
Eastern /
North
African
Asian /
Asian
American
/ South
Asian
American
Indian /
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian
/ Other
Pacific
Islander
Indigenous
(Not Lised)
Two
or
More
Prefer
Not to
Answer
5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IX: Service Standards and Policies
SLO Transit’s Short-Range Transit Plan, adopted on April 15, 2025, outlines service standards, policies, and performance measures to monitor service performance for the next five-year period (Table 4 on pages 29-30). SLO Transit is also required to set service policies for the distribution of transit amenities for each mode and vehicle assignment (pages 97-98). The plan includes the following service standards and policies relevant to the Title VI Program Plan.
• Vehicle Load
• Vehicle Headway (Frequency)
• On-time Performance (Schedule Adherence)
• Service Availability
• Vehicle Assignment Policy
• Transit Amenity Policy
The City of San Luis Obispo Transit currently has an active fleet of seventeen (17) buses1 that are used for the City of San Luis Obispo fixed-route transit service. Only eleven (11) of these buses are used at peak periods of service. This does not trigger the threshold of additional service standards which transit providers that operate 50 or more fixed-route vehicles in peak service must include as part of their Title VI Program.

Vehicle Load
Vehicle load is expressed as the ratio of passengers to the total number of seats on a vehicle. SLO Transit sets a standard load factor of 1.25 during peak times and 1.0 for offpeak times for bus capacity. When capacity exceeds 125 percent for any route, it is SLO Transit’s intention of alleviating overcrowding by dispensing additional supplemental service. Table 10 shows peak and off-peak standard load factor for each vehicle type within its revenue fleet.

Table 10 - Vehicle Load by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type Seated
Capacity
Standing
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Peak
Load
Off-Peak
Load
Gillig 30’ 28 14 42 1.25 1.0
Gillig 35’ 32 16 48 1.25 1.0
Gillig 40’ 40 20 60 1.25 1.0
Proterra 35’ 29 15 44 1.25 1.0
1 Fourteen heavy-duty buses, one double-decker bus, one cutaway bus, and one replica trolley

Vehicle Type Seated
Capacity
Standing
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Peak
Load
Off-Peak
Load
New Flyer 35’ 32 16 48 1.25 1.0
Dennis 40’
(Double-Decker) 86 43 129 1.25 1.0
El Dorado 28’
(Cutaway) 28 14 42 1.25 1.0
Vehicle Headway (Frequency)
Vehicle headway is the amount of time between two buses traveling in the same direction on a given route. SLO Transit buses are scheduled with 20-, 45- and 60-minute headways depending upon individual route demand and period of operations. As a standard, SLO Transit operates 60-minute headways, at a minimum, throughout the year, Table 11 outlines the headways during different periods of operations.

Table 11 - Headways by Period of Operation (in Minutes) Service Weekday Weekday
Evening
Saturday
Peak
Saturday
Off Peak
Sunday
Peak
Sunday
Off Peak
Route
Level 20-60 45-60 45-60 45-60 45-60 45-60
On-Time Performance
Among the most important service standard for riders is on-time performance or adherence to published schedules. A vehicle is considered on-time if it departs a time point no more than five minutes after as shown on the route schedule. Buses are not allowed to depart earlier than the scheduled time points. SLO Transit’s on-time performance objective is 95 percent or greater.

Service Availability – Access to the Bus
SLO Transit’s standard for service is availability is that 90 percent of residents in the service area live within a quarter of a mile walk of a bus route. Consideration is given to new markets as demand warrants and as resources become available.

Vehicle Assignment Policy
Buses are assigned to certain routes based on ridership as well as maneuverability.

Routes with higher demand are assigned larger buses (i.e. 35-foot and 40-foot) to accommodate higher passenger loads. Certain routes serve older residential areas with narrow rights-of-way which may require use of smaller, more maneuverable buses (i.e. 30-foot).

Transit Amenity Policy
SLO Transit serves 166 individual stops in the service area – many located and installed more than 30 years ago. Of these stops, 50 have shelters and 111 have benches. Solar lights are installed at 23 stops and electronic, real-time schedule signs are installed at 3 stops. Almost all the SLO Transit bus stops have an information kiosk (96 percent).

Various stops are shared with the regional transit operator – San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority.

All bus stops should have, at a minimum, a sign denoting the route(s) that serve it and information kiosks for the posting of route schedules and/or rider alerts. The recently adopted Short-Range Transit Plan includes a proposed measure to install solar lighting at 100 percent of bus stops. A bench will be installed at bus stops with ten or more combined daily boardings and a shelter and a bench will be installed at bus stops with 20 or more combined daily boardings. Boardings at individual stops that are shared between multiple routes will be added together to estimate daily boardings for the purpose of determining whether a threshold has been met. There is no threshold for installation of trash receptables and are instead evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Maintenance requests for existing stops and new bus shelter requests can be made by contacting SLO Transit through email at [email protected] or via the City’s mobile application Ask SLO. When the annual maintenance and/or repair costs to any amenity are greater than the value or cost of the structure, SLO Transit reserves the right to permanently remove the amenity.

Monitoring Service Standards
Table 12 lists the schedule and methodology used for the on-going monitoring and measurement of service standards and policies.

Table 12 - Service Standards and Policies Monitoring
Service Standard/Policy Sample Schedule Methodology
Vehicle Load All routes bi-annually NTD survey data and staff observations
Vehicle Headways Assessed annually (as part of
service planning)
Service review
On-Time Performance Assessed monthly Ride checks
Service Accessibility Assessed annually (as part of
service planning)
Service review
Vehicle Assignment Policy Assessed annually Service review X: Program Specific Requirements
Sub-recipient Assistance and Monitoring
A subrecipient is an entity that receives federal funds from another state or local government agency to carry out part of a federal program. SLO Transit does not have subrecipients nor does it have subrecipient oversight responsibilities.

Title VI Equity Analysis
SLO Transit has not constructed a facility since the last Title VI program update and, therefore, has not undergone a Title VI Equity Analysis. An equity analysis is a review conducted to determine whether a policy, program, or project fairly serves all populations,

especially those that are historically underserved or disadvantaged, such as persons of low-income and persons of Limited English Proficiency.

When SLO Transit considers and/or plans to construct a new maintenance facility, transit hub, and/or operations center, the City will conduct an equity analysis to maintain full compliance with FTA’s Title VI regulations.

Demographic Data Collection and Reporting
SLO Transit operates fewer than 50 buses in peak service and is therefore not required to collect or report on demographic and service profile nor ridership and travel patterns for this plan update.

Transit Service Monitoring
SLO Transit operates fewer than 50 buses in peak service and is therefore not required to monitor the performance of its transit service for this plan update.

Service and Fare Equity Analysis
SLO Transit operates fewer than 50 buses in peak service and is therefore not required to evaluate service and fare equity changes for this plan update.

XI: Attachments
The following pages are attachments to SLO Transit’s Title VI Program.

Attachment A – Resolution No. XXXXX (2025 Series)

PLACEHOLDER FOR RESOLUTION

Title VI Complaint Form
City of San Luis Obispo Transit – SLO Transit
Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________ City: ______________________________________________ State: ____________ Zip Code: ______________ Home Telephone No: ( ) ______________________ | Work Telephone No: ( )___________________ Email Address: ________________________________
Are you Filing this complaint on your own behalf? Yes No If answering YES, please supply the name and relationship of the person for whom you are complaining:

Name: ____________________________________Relationship: __________________________________ Please explain why you have filed for a third party:
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Please confirm that you have obtained the permission of the aggrieved party if you are filing on behalf of a third party: Yes No
What do you believe is the reason for your discrimination?: Race Color National Origin Date of Alleged Incident: ______________________________ Explain as clearly as possible what happened and how you believe you were discriminated against. Indicate who was involved. Be sure to include the names and contact information of any witnesses. If more space is needed, please use the back of the form.

Attachment B - Title VI Complaint Procedures Forms

Have you filed this complaint with any other federal, state, or local agency; or with any federal or state court?
Yes No
If yes, check all that apply:

Federal agency Federal Court State Agency State Court Local Agency Please provide information about a contact person at the agency/court where the complaint was filed:

Name: ________________________________________ Agency:_____________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone Number: _________________________________
Please sign below. You may attach any written materials or other information that you think is relevant to your complaint.

Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _______________________________ Please mail this form to:

City of San Luis Obispo
Mobility Services Business
Manager
Mobility Services
1260 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)781-7121
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The City of San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) respects civil rights and operates its programs and services without regard to race, color or national origin. SLO Transit is committed to complying with Tile VI requirements in all of its programs and services.

Any person who believes he/she has been subjected to discrimination in the delivery of or access to public transportation origin, may file a complaint with SLO Transit. Such complaint must be filed in writing with SLO Transit no later than 180 days after the alleged discrimination. A letter of acknowledging receipt of complaint will be mailed within 30 days.

For more information on the Title VI transit obligations and how to file a complaint, please contact SLO Transit: City of San Luis Obispo Mobility Services Business Manager, Mobility Services Dept, 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

TÍTULO VI FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIÓN
City of San Luis Obispo Transit – SLO Transit
Nombre: __________________________________________________________________________________ Domicilio:_________________________________________________________________________________ Ciudad: _____________________________________ Estado: ____________ Código postal: ______________ Número de teléfono de casa: ( ) __________________ | Número de Trabajo: ( )____________________ Correo electrónico: ________________________________
¿Está presentando esta queja en su propio nombre? Si No Si responde SÍ, proporcione el nombre y la relación de la persona por la que presenta la queja:

Nombre: ______________________________________ Relación: ___________________________________ Por favor explique por qué ha presentado la solicitud para un tercero:
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Por favor, confirme que ha obtenido el permiso de la parte afectada si está presentando la solicitud en nombre de un tercero: Si No
¿Cuál cree usted que es el motivo de su discriminación?: Raza Color Origin nacional ¿Cuál fue la fecha de la supuesta discriminación?: ______________________________ Explique con la mayor claridad posible qué sucedió y cómo cree que fue discriminado. Indique quiénes estuvieron involucrados. Asegúrese de incluir los nombres y la información de contacto de los testigos. Si necesita más espacio, utilice el reverso del formulario.

¿Ha presentado la queja ante cualquier otra agencia federal, estatal o local, o ante cualquier agencia federal o la corte estatal?
Si No
En caso afirmativo, marque todo lo que corresponda:

Agencia Federal Corte federal Tribunal Estatal Agencia del estado Agencia local Proporcione información sobre una persona de contacto en la agencia / tribunal donde se presentó la queja archivado:

Nombre:_____________________________________ Agencia:_____________________________________ Habla a: __________________________________________________________________________________ Teléfono: _________________________________
Firme a continuación. Puede adjuntar cualquier material escrito u otra información que considere relevante para su queja.

Firma: ____________________________________________ Fecha: _______________________________ Por favor envíe este
formulario a:

City of San Luis Obispo
Mobility Services Business
Manager
Mobility Services
1260 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)781-7121
El Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 establece: “Ninguna persona en los Estados Unidos, por motivos de raza, color u origen nacional, será excluida de participar, se le negarán los beneficios ni será objeto de discriminación en ningún programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.”
El Servicio de Tránsito de la Ciudad de San Luis Obispo (SLO Transit) respeta los derechos civiles y opera sus programas y servicios sin importar la raza, el color ni el origen nacional. SLO Transit se compromete a cumplir con los requisitos del Título VI en todos sus programas y servicios.

Cualquier persona que considere haber sido objeto de discriminación en la prestación o el acceso al transporte público puede presentar una queja ante SLO Transit. Dicha queja debe presentarse por escrito a SLO Transit a más tardar 180 días después de la presunta discriminación. Se enviará por correo una carta de acuse de recibo de la queja dentro de los 30 días.

Para obtener más información sobre las obligaciones de tránsito del Título VI y cómo presentar una queja, comuníquese con SLO Transit: Gerente comercial de Servicios de Movilidad de la ciudad de San Luis Obispo, Departamento de servicios de movilidad, 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Acknowledgement Letter for Receipt of Complaint
[enter date]
[first name][last name]
[address 1]
[address 2]
[City], [state] [zip]
Dear [salutation & last name]:

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your complaint against San Luis Obispo Transit alleging _____________________________________________________________________________.

An investigation will begin shortly. If you have additional information you wish to convey or questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office by telephoning _____ ___________ or write to me at this address. s
Sincerely,
Mobility Services Business Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
1260 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7121
[email protected]

Carta de acuse de recibo de la queja
[Ingresar fecha]
[Nombre][Apellido]
[Dirección 1]
[Dirección 2]
[Ciudad], [Estado] [Código postal]
Estimado/a [Saludo y apellido]:

Esta carta es para acusar recibo de su queja contra San Luis Obispo Transit, alegando _____________________________________________________________________________.

En breve se iniciará una investigación. Si tiene información adicional o preguntas sobre este asunto, no dude en comunicarse con esta oficina llamando al _____ ___________ o escríbame a esta dirección.

Atentamente,
Mobility Services Business Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
1260 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7121
[email protected]

City of San Luis Obispo Transit – SLO Transit
Service Reduction
&
Fare Increase Policy
I. Purpose
49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307(d)(1)(I) provides that urban grant recipient shall have:
“a locally developed process to solicit and consider
public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a
major reduction of transportation.”
The City of San Luis Obispo’s fixed-route SLO Transit system is a recipient of Federal Transit funding and therefore must establish an acceptable public meeting procedure with respect to fare increase and major service reductions as required by Federal law.

II. Definitions
a. Major Service Reduction:
i. An indefinite reduction of more than 15 percent of daily revenue miles or hours; or
ii. A number of indefinite service reductions in any given fiscal year that add up to more than 15 percent of daily revenue miles or hours.
b. Fare Increase:
i. Any increase to a fare price per unit of service.
c. Emergency Service Change:
i. Service change that is to be in effect for fewer than thirty (30) days; and ii. Service change does not meet the criteria of Section II.A.

Examples of emergency service changes include, but are not limited to; those due to power failure, severe weather, major construction, reconstruction, and improvement projects.

III. Procedure
Attachment C - Major Service Reduction and Fare Increase Policy

a. If a Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase is determined to be necessary by SLO Transit staff, a recommendation and supporting materials will be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo City Council (Council) for consideration. b. If the Council determines that a Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase may be necessary based on staff’s recommendation and supporting documentation, staff will schedule and advertise a no less than two public meetings to be conducted in accordance with City’s most recently adopted Public Engagement Manual. One said meeting will be held during typical work day hours (before 5 p.m.) and the other after work day hours (after 5 p.m.). At a minimum, public notices for public meetings will be posted at or electronically sent to the following locations, in both English and Spanish:
i. City Hall (990 Palm St.)
ii. Transit Center
iii. On board fixed-route vehicles
iv. County/City Public Library
v. Local Access TV Channel 21
vi. SLO Transit website with email link for comments
vii. City of San Luis Obispo website with email link for comments viii. Social Media (e.g. Facebook)
ix. Paid and legal notices in local print periodicals
x. Press Releases to local media outlets
c. A public meeting on the Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase will be held in a convenient, accessible and diverse location.
i. The location selected will be along bus routes whenever possible; ii. The public meeting will be held under the supervision of SLO Transit Manager;
iii. The public comments will be recorded and filed; and iv. The public meeting may be held at a regular Mass Transit Advisory Committee meeting.
v. Spanish speaking assistance availability
d. After the public meeting is closed, staff will give a recommendation for consideration by the Council
e. If Council adopts a plan for a Major Service Reduction or Fare Increase, the SLO Transit Manager shall be authorized and directed to implement the action according to the approved transit schedule. The schedule shall provide a minimum of 45 (calendar) days public notice of the service or fare changes prior to their implementation.

IV. Exemptions
The following criteria establish certain instances which are exempt from the requirement to solicit public comment:
a. Standard seasonal variations;
b. Special Events (e.g. marathon, triathlon, etc.)
c. Changes imposed and under the control of private organizations (e.g. CalPoly) d. An Emergency Service Change;
e. Experimental service changes for a period of 180 days or less, unless the changes extend beyond 180 days and meet the criteria of a Major Service Reduction as defined in Section II.A;
f. Any fare, ticket or pass rate changes that do not result in increased fares per unit of service;
g. Increases in service; or
h. Decreases in fares.

Attachment D – Community Partners List
Below is a list of the community partners that were contacted to complete a survey as part of the Four Factor Analysis.
• People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH)
• Community Action Partnership of SLO (CAPSLO)
• Housing Authority of SLO (HASLO)
• County of San Luis Obispo Public Health
• Cal Poly Transportation & Parking Department
• Transitions Mental Health Association (THMA)
• Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GALA)
• Race Matters
• San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
• San Luis Coastal Unified School District
o SLO High School Leadership
o Laguna Middle School Leadership
o Bishops Peak Principal
o CL Smith Principal
o Hawthorne Elementary Principal
o Los Ranchos Elementary Principal
o Sinsheimer Elementary Principal
o Teach Elementary Principal
• Cal Poly University Office of Diversity and Inclusion • Ride-On Transportation
• San Luis Obispo County Access for All (Pathpoint)

San Luis Obispo Transit
1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7012
www.slotransit.org
TITLE VI PROGRAM UPDATE – RIDER SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION) We want your feedback to improve services for riders with limited English. This short survey helps us better support all riders. Your answers are confidential. Thank you!

1. How well do you read English?
a. Very well
b. Somewhat well
c. Not very well

2. How well do you speak English?
a. Very well
b. Somewhat well
c. Not very well

3. Do you speak a language(s) other than English at home? a. No
b. Yes, I speak __________________________

4. Have you called SLO Transit Dispatch for assistance? a. Yes
b. No

5. If yes, how well were you able to communicate with staff? a. Very well
b. Somewhat well
c. Not very well

6. How do you get information about SLO Transit services? a. Ask bus drivers
b. Call dispatch
c. From friends, families, co-workers
d. Internet (Google)
e. Other: _____________________________________

7. Why do you ride the bus?
Attachment E - Transit Rider Survey Form

City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle San Luis Obispo Transit 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7012
www.slotransit.org
ENCUESTA DEL TÍTULO VI – ACCESO AL IDIOMA
Queremos conocer su opinión para mejorar los servicios para personas con dominio limitado del inglés. Esta breve encuesta nos ayuda a brindar mejor apoyo a todos los pasajeros. Sus respuestas son confidenciales. Hay ayuda disponible en su idioma si la necesita. ¡Gracias!

1. ¿Qué nivel de inglés tiene?
a. Muy bien
b. Algo bien
c. No muy bien

2. ¿Habla bien inglés?
a. Muy bien
b. Algo bien
c. No muy bien

3. ¿Habla en casa otro(s) idioma(s) distinto(s) del inglés? a. No
b. Sí, hablo ____________________________

4. ¿Ha llamado a SLO Transit Dispatch para pedir ayuda? a. Sí
b. No

5. En caso afirmativo, ¿cómo de bien pudo comunicarse con el personal? a. Muy bien
b. Algo bien
c. No muy bien

6. ¿Cómo obtiene información sobre los servicios de SLO Transit? a. Pregunte a los conductores
b. Llama a la central
c. De amigos, familiares, compañeros de trabajo
d. Internet (Google)
e. Otros: ________________________________

7. ¿Por qué viaja en autobús?

Title VI Program for the
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department
Final Draft: 07, 29, 2025
Prepared by:

City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: (805) 781-7200
www.slocity.org

I: Non-Discrimination Policy Statement ___________________________________________ 1 II: Non-Discriminatory Legislation ________________________________________________ 2 III: Organization Staffing and Responsibilities ______________________________________ 3 Title VI Coordinator _______________________________________________________________________ 3 Title VI Specialist _________________________________________________________________________ 3 Title VI Liaison ___________________________________________________________________________ 3 IV: Title VI Complaint Procedures ________________________________________________ 4 Post-Submittal Actions ______________________________________________________________ 5 Title VI Investigations, Complaints, and Lawsuits _______________________________________________ 6 Title VI Program Information _______________________________________________________________ 6 Public Works Website _____________________________________________________________________ 7 Social Media Network _____________________________________________________________________ 7 Public Notices ___________________________________________________________________________ 7 Community Outreach Conducted by the Department____________________________________________ 8 VI: Language Assistance Plan ___________________________________________________ 8 Limited English Proficiency _________________________________________________________________ 9 Title VI Information Dissemination___________________________________________________________ 9 VII: Data Collection and Analysis________________________________________________ 10 Title VI Assurances and Provisions __________________________________________________________ 10 Review and Remedial Action ______________________________________________________________ 10 Environmental Justice ____________________________________________________________________ 11 IX: Staff Training_____________________________________________________________ 11 X: Annual Work Plan _________________________________________________________ 11 Appendix___________________________________________________________________ 13 A. Limited English Proficiency Plan ___________________________________________________ 13 B. Notice to Public _________________________________________________________________ 17 C. Complaint Form_________________________________________________________________ 18 D. Community Partners_____________________________________________________________ 22 E. US DOT Title VI Assurances A-E ____________________________________________________ 23 APPENDIX A ____________________________________________________________________________ 23 APPENDIX B ____________________________________________________________________________ 24 APPENDIX C ____________________________________________________________________________ 25 APPENDIX D ____________________________________________________________________________ 26 APPENDIX E ____________________________________________________________________________ 27

1 I: Non-Discrimination Policy Statement
The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) Public Works Department is committed to ensuring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discriminatory authorities, such that no person shall be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of any program or activity conducted by the City of SLO Public Works Department on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other category protected by State or Federal law.

Further, no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the City of SLO Public Works Department, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other category protected by State or Federal law.

Title VI compliance is a condition of receipt of federal funds. The Title VI Coordinator is authorized to ensure compliance with this policy, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000d and related statutes, and the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) pt. 200 and 49 CFR pt. 21.
_________________________________ _____________________ Matt Pennon Date
DEI Manager
City of San Luis Obispo

2 II: Non-Discriminatory Legislation
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination, under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (as implemented through 23 CFR 200.9 and 49 CFR 21).

Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (Section 324, Title 23 U.S.C.) – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Section 6101-6107, Title 42 U.S.C.) – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of age by recipients and sub-recipients or Federal financial assistance.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 200-209) – Clarifies that the original intent of Congress in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was to apply the non-discrimination statutes to all programs and activities of Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients, contractors and vendors, whether all such programs are federally assisted or not.

Executive Order 12898 (issued February 11, 1994) – Addresses Environmental Justice regarding minority and low-income populations and requires agencies to develop strategies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs on minority and low-income populations; promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment; and provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and an opportunity for public participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.

Executive Order 13166 (issued August 16, 2000) – Addresses improved access to services for persons with limited English proficiency. Agencies are directed to evaluate services provided and implement a system that ensures that Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons are able to meaningfully access the services provided consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the local agency. Agencies are directed to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to program, services and information to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries free of charge.

3 III: Organization Staffing and Responsibilities
The City of SLO’s Title VI program is built to work toward the ultimate goal of assuring full compliance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes. To accomplish this, the City has designated the Title VI Coordinator, along with other roles, to be responsible for the overall program implementation of and compliance with Title VI. The roles and responsibilities are as follows:

Title VI Coordinator
• Ensures that the City’s Title VI program is up to date with all requirements set forth by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and any other applicable jurisdictions. • Maintains open line of communication with City Manager, City Council, and other City leadership positions to facilitate the Title VI Program. • Directs all staff to coordinate and attend trainings. • Promptly processes and resolves Title VI complaints.
• Ensures Title VI reviews of the City’s Federal-aid program areas, including preand post-grant reviews for compliance with Title VI requirements. • Provides an annual report of Title VI activity goals, including an annual review of the Title VI Program Plan.
• Creates and distributes Title VI information for public dissemination.

Title VI Specialist
• Ensures applicable staff are present for Title VI trainings and diligently following Title VI procedures.
• Prepares and coordinates Title VI Plan and Annual Report submission. • Ensures that Title VI Assurances have been incorporated into all Federal-aid Contracts and Agreements.
• Ensures the collection of statistical data (race, color, national origin, sex, etc.) of participants in and beneficiaries of the City’s Federal-aid programs, activities, and services.
• Analyzes data collected to determine effectiveness of outreach methods to avoid group exclusion and encourage group participation.
• Develops complaint procedures, complaint log, and ensures that all applicable staff are properly trained in the complaint reporting procedures. • Develops Title VI information for public dissemination.

Title VI Liaison
• Attends trainings as to maintain knowledge of current Title VI requirements. • Reports complaints through complaint procedure listed as part of the City’s Title VI Implementation Plan.
• Incorporates required Title VI language into relevant contracts and agreements.

4 Figure 1 – Title VI Organization Chart
IV: Title VI Complaint Procedures
Any person who believes that they have been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin may file a Title VI complaint with Public Works by completing and submitting a Title VI Complaint Form (Appendix C). Complaints must be filed no more than 180 days after the alleged incident occurred and must include complete information, including the complainant’s contact information, details of the alleged discrimination, and the complainant’s signature.

English and Spanish versions of the Title VI complaint form is available on SLO Public Work’s webpage Accessibility & Civil Rights | City of San Luis Obispo, CA. Physical copies can also be obtained in person at the Public Works Office located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.

5 Once the form is obtained, complainants can follow the steps below to complete and submit the form.

1. Complete the Complaint Form. If a customer needs assistance in completing the form, then they may contact Public Works at 805-781-7200 for assistance.

2. Sign the Complaint Form. Customers are required to sign the Complaint Form.

3. Submit the Complaint Form. Civil rights complaints should be filed immediately.

However, SLO Public Works will investigate complaints up to 180 days after the alleged incident. Customers should submit their complaints to:

City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Title VI Coordinator
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Alternatively, customers may also submit their complaints directly to the FHWA’s Office of Civil Rights or Caltrans Office of Civil Rights using the following address:

Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Civil Rights
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
8th Floor E81-104
Washington, DC 20590
California Department of Transportation
Office of Civil Rights
Attention: Title VI Program Branch
1823 14th Street, MS 79
Sacramento, CA 95811
Post-Submittal Actions
The following post-submittal actions are taken to ensure complaints are thoroughly investigated and that the complainant is informed of the results of the investigation.

1. Acknowledgement. Complaints will be recorded and assigned a complaint number. SLO Public Works will review the complaint to determine if there was a Title VI violation(s). Staff will send an acknowledgement letter for receipt of complaint informing the customer that their complaint was received and that SLO Public Works will investigate.

2. Investigation. SLO Public Works has up to ninety (90) days to investigate the complaint. If more information is needed to resolve the case, then SLO Public Works may contact the complainant. The complainant has ten (10) days from the date of contact to send the requested information to the investigator assigned to the case.

6 If the investigator is not contacted by the complainant or does not receive the additional information within ten (10) days, then SLO Public Works can administratively close the case. The case can also be administratively closed if the complainant no longer wishes to pursue their case.

3. Decision. After the investigator reviews the complaint, one of the following letters will be issued to the complainant: a closure letter or a Letter of Finding (LOF). A closure letter summarizes the allegations and states that there was not a Title VI violation and that the case will be closed. A LOF summarizes the allegations and the interviews regarding the alleged incident, and explains whether any disciplinary action, additional training of the staff member, or other action will occur.

4. Appeal. If the complainant wishes to appeal the decision, then they have ten (10) days after the date of the closure letter or the LOF to do so.

Title VI Investigations, Complaints, and Lawsuits
SLO Public Works maintains a list of public Title VI investigations, complaints, and lawsuits filed since the time of the last Title VI program submission which alleges discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. This list includes the date that the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint was filed; a summary of the allegation(s); the status of the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint; and actions taken by SLO Public Works in response, or findings related to the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint. Public Works does not have any investigations, complaints, or lawsuits with regards to Civil Rights Violations at this time.

V: Public Outreach and Information Resources
The purpose of public participation is to help ensure that the residents of the City of San Luis Obispo are kept informed and involved in Public Works' various programs, projects and activities. Public Works is committed to ensuring it serves the residents in the City of San Luis Obispo by delivering efficient, responsive, and cost-effective public works services that protect and enhance the safety, health, and quality of life in the City of San Luis Obispo. Public Works values public participation and encourages involvement by the community.

Following are the outreach strategies that will be implemented by Public Works in an effort to reach the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo and provide equal access to up-todate information and promote an active channel of communication.

Title VI Program Information
The Title VI Plan, Public Notice (see Appendix B), Non-discrimination Title VI Policy Statement, Complaint Process, Complaint Forms (see Appendix C) and Title VI Brochure are posted on Public Works' website. Public Works' Title VI Policy Statement shall be included in bid specification posting for federally funded projects, included by reference of the Presidential Executive Order Number 11246 as amended by Executive Order (1) 75 and as approved by Department of Labor Relations (41 CFR Part 61) construction and consultant contracts and the Public Notice shall be posted at the front counter of the Public Works main office, and all Public Works public access facilities.

7 Public Works Website
Public Works maintains a well-organized website that is accessible to the public. The website provides information regarding the different divisions and services within Public Works; news and events; online services; down­loadable materials; Board meeting calendar and agenda; reports; citizen brochures; City road closures; updates on projects and programs; City of San Luis Obispo Title VI Plan – 2025; information regarding public transportation; City of San Luis Obispo's Capital Improvement Plan; Policies and Program information, etc. Public Works provides language translation on its website.

Social Media Network
Public Works has a social media network presence on X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to support our public outreach efforts. We use this media forum to disseminate information to the public on events, programs, news releases, media advisories, construction project information, informational videos, new services, etc. The consumer, via their computing device, can choose their desired language which enables an individual with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) equal access to information, allowing Public Works to continue promoting a culture of dialogue between the public and Public Works.

Public Notices
Public Works will post public notices to the City’s website that will provide contact information, translation capabilities and resources for translation services if language assistance is required. This will be done in accordance with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual, which can be found at PEN Manual Templates | City of San Luis Obispo, CA.

Guided by the principles of Inform, Consult, and Collaborate (See Figure 1); SLO Public Works provides clear information, actively seeks feedback, and partners with the public in identifying and evaluating alternatives.

8 Figure 2 - Action Plan Matrix
To support equitable participation, SLO Public Works maintains relationships with a network of nonprofits, businesses, and community organizations, particularly those serving underrepresented groups. Follow-up with participants helps close the feedback loop, and an engagement toolbox supports accessible, effective outreach.

Community Outreach Conducted by the Department
SLO Public Works staff regularly engage with the community to provide information, answer questions, and build awareness around current and upcoming infrastructure projects. Outreach efforts include participation in events such as the Downtown San Luis Obispo Farmers’ Market “Public Works Week”, where staff highlight major initiatives and gather input from the public. Staff also hold community workshops to gather public input on specific project designs such as active transportation and public park projects.

VI: Language Assistance Plan
SLO Public Works has developed its Language Assistance Plan (LAP) to address SLO Public Works’ responsibilities as a recipient of federal funding. The LAP helps to identify reasonable steps for providing language assistance to persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) who wish to access services and programs. Persons with LEP are those who do not speak English as their primary language and have limited ability to read, write or understand English.

9 Table 1: Comparison of Language Spoken at Home in San Luis Obispo Language Spoken
Group
Population
Estimate
Group’s
Percentage
of
Population
Estimate
Portion of Group
that Speaks
English Very Well
Portion of Group
that Does Not
Speak English
Very Well
English Only 38,864 83.4% 38,864 (100%) 0 (0%)
Spanish 4,608 9.9% 3,697 (80.2%) 911 (19.8%)
Other Indo-European Languages 1,362 2.9% 1,197 (87.9%) 165 (12.1%) Asian/Pacific Island Languages 1,395 3.0% 1,104 (79.1%) 291 (20.9%) Other Languages 395 0.8% 358 (90.6%) 37 (9.4%)
Total Population Above 5 Years 46,624 45,220 (97%) 1,404 (3%) Source: US Census: American Community Survey 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimate https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1601?q=San+Luis+Obispo+city,+California+language Limited English Proficiency
A Limited English Proficiency (LEP) person is a person that does not speak English as a primary language and has a limited ability to read, write, or comprehend English. Per Executive Order 13166, agencies which receive Federal funding must examine their federally funded services and develop and implement processes that will allow LEP persons to meaningfully access said services. Executive Order 13166 also requires that agencies receiving Federal funding must establish guidance for providing meaningful access to LEPs, prepare a plan to overcome language barriers in federally funded programs and activities, and ensure that stakeholders have adequate opportunity to provide input.

As shown in Table 1 above, 3.0% of residents in the City of San Luis Obispo are considered LEP persons, with the majority of those LEP persons primarily speaking Spanish (9.9% of the community). As outlined in the City’s LEP Plan (Appendix A), the City has conducted a LEP Needs Assessment, using a Four Factor Analysis to identify need and provide access to the LEP community in compliance with Executive Order 13166.

Title VI Information Dissemination
SLO Public Works’s goal is to provide meaningful access for persons with LEP to all of its services, programs, and information. Efforts to effectively engage persons with LEP will ensure that they can equally contribute to and benefit from the development and improvement of SLO Public Work’s services and programs.

In order to ensure that Title VI and related Civil Rights information is readily available to the public, the city will develop public notices consisting of posters, flyers, and complaint forms that are available in English and Spanish. The languages selected for the informational materials were based upon language data provided from the US Census; see Table 1 above. Said flyers and posters will be placed in the City Hall lobby, in a highly visible and accessible location. The public notices will also be available for viewing on the City’s website, at www.slocity.org.

10 SLO Public Works will comply with the Safe Harbor Provision, which outlines circumstances that can provide a “safe harbor” for recipients regarding translation of written materials for LEP populations. The Safe Harbor Provision states that, if a recipient provides written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent or 1,000 persons, whichever is less, of the total population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered, then such action will be considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient’s written translation obligations. These safe harbor provisions apply to the translation of written documents only.

VII: Data Collection and Analysis
Demographic and related data collected and used by City staff comes from governmental sources responsible for collecting and vetting the information for consistency and accuracy. These sources include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statics, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, California Department of Finance, California Department of Labor, and the California Employment Development Department.

Additionally, staff may also collect project-specific demographic data utilizing data collection as appropriate through the public outreach process on federally funded projects. Such outreach that may give staff the opportunity to collect demographic data may include door hangers, posters, emails, social media releases, press releases to local newspaper, public meetings, virtual meetings, and public comment through websites generated for projects.

VIII: Implementing Title VI Program Activities
Title VI Assurances and Provisions
The City’s Title VI Coordinator will ensure that any federally-funded project documents contain the necessary Title VI Assurances and other language. Such assurances include, but may not be limited to:
• FHWA Form 1273 (Title VI and other non-discriminatory requirements) ο Required on all FHWA contracts and subcontracts valued greater than $10,000
• Title VI Assurances Appendix A-E (Appendix E)
ο Appendix A-E to be attached to Federal-Aid contracts
Review and Remedial Action
Public Works will conduct periodic Title VI self-assessment of its programs and activities for compliance. Where applicable, revise policies, procedures and directives to include Title VI requirements.

When irregularities occur in the administration of Title VI programs, corrective action will be taken to resolve identified Title VI issues. Swift action will be taken to correct any

11 deficiencies found by Public Works, Caltrans, or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), not to exceed 90 days, in order to implement Title VI compliance in accordance with this plan.

Public Works will periodically conduct Title VI compliance reviews of Consultants, Contractors and Subcontractors. The review of selected recipients of Federal Aid Highway or other Federal funds will be conducted to ensure adherence to Title VI requirements. Public Works shall confirm guidelines provided to consultants, contractors, and subcontractors including Title VI language, provisions, and related requirements, as applicable.

Environmental Justice
Public Works strives to identify and address the public works and transportation needs of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo and ensures that the benefits and burdens of investments are being fairly distributed. Safety and improving the quality of life of City residents is Public Works' primary concern. Striving to be transparent in the process of government and insuring access for all is what Public Works strives to do in providing the best, cost-effective facilities and projects to the public.

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”, the City will develop strategies to address disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations to promote nondiscrimination in Federal-aid programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and an opportunity for public participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.

IX: Staff Training
Training will be provided every two years, and within six months of hiring a new employee, by the Office of DEI for all Public Works staff.

Training will include the following:

1. Information on what Title VI is, what staff responsibilities are;

2. How to Identify and document language needs of LEP persons;

3. How to deliver services effectively to LEP persons;

4. Procuring interpreter services needed;

5. Description of language assistance services offered to the public;

6. Documentation of language assistance requests; and

7. How to handle a potential Title VI/LEP complaint.

X: Annual Work Plan
The City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department will annually establish and monitor program goals and accomplishments. The Title VI Coordinator will ensure that employee training is conducted, language translation services continue to be available, public

12 participation is optimal, and appropriate Title VI signage is posted. This also includes updating community statistics and corresponding with state and federal agencies as necessary.

13 Appendix A
Limited English Proficiency Plan
Background
Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency” requires that Federal agencies work to ensure that the recipients of Federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their Limited English Proficiency (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries.

As such, local agencies are required to ensure that federally funded programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to LEP Persons. Each local agency shall perform an annual assessment to determine if modifications are needed to their programs and activities to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. The assessment which is referred to as a “Four-Factor” analysis is based on the following factors:

1. Factor 1 - The number or proportion of persons with LEP eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by SLO Public Works

2. Factor 2 - The frequency with which persons with LEP come into contact with SLO Public Work’s services and programs

3. Factor 3 - The nature and importance of SLO Public Work’s services and programs in people’s lives

4. Factor 4 - The resources available to SLO Public Works for LEP outreach, as well as the costs associated with that outreach.

Figure 1 - Location of the City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo (City) Overview
SLO Public Works serves the City of San Luis Obispo and the adjacent university campus.

The primary languages spoken in the City of San Luis Obispo are English and Spanish.

The total population is approximately 47,000 (US Census: American Community Survey

14 2023 5-Year Estimate). Of the 46,624 residents, approximately 9.9% of the residents are Spanish speaking, 2.9% of the residents are Other Indo-European Language speaking, and 3.0% are Asian/Pacific Island Language speaking.

Four-Factor Analysis

1. The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered.

As shown in Table 1 below, San Luis Obispo has approximately 46,624 residents. 1,404 (3.0%) of residents are considered LEP persons, with the majority of those LEP persons primarily speaking Spanish (4,608, 9.9% of the community), Other Indo-European Languages (1,362, 2.9% of the community), and Asian/Pacific Island Languages (1,395, 3% of the community). The remaining 395 (0.8%) of the population speak other languages.

Table 1: Comparison of Language Spoken at Home in San Luis Obispo Language Spoken
Group
Population
Estimate
Group’s
Percentage
of
Population
Estimate
Portion of Group
that Speaks
English Very Well
Portion of Group
that Does Not
Speak English
Very Well
English Only 38,864 83.4% 38,864 (100%) 0 (0%)
Spanish 4,608 9.9% 3,697 (80.2%) 911 (19.8%)
Other Indo-European Languages 1,362 2.9% 1,197 (87.9%) 165 (12.1%) Asian/Pacific Island Languages 1,395 3.0% 1,104 (79.1%) 291 (20.9%) Other Languages 395 0.8% 358 (90.6%) 37 (9.4%)
Total Population Above 5 Years 46,624 45,220 (97%) 1,404 (3%) Source: US Census: American Community Survey 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimate https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1601?q=San+Luis+Obispo+city,+California+language

2. The frequency of LEP contacts.

No data has been collected regarding the frequency of contact with LEP persons at the City. Most interactions with LEP persons occur at the City’s Finance Department due to residents paying utility bills. Based on observation from Finance Department front-counter staff, the frequency for translation from Spanish to English is on average once per day.

Currently the City’s Human Resources Department retains a list which lists all City staff which are certified translators for various languages. If front counter staff that speak Spanish or another language are not available, City staff will reach out to a certified translator from the list. Public Works staff do not regularly receive requests for translation through Federally funded programs/projects, though the outreach components of said programs/projects do typically have multi-lingual resources. Further, if translation services are needed, staff will provide said translation in a timely manner.

15 3. The nature and importance of programs, services, or activities provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.

From observation provided by Public Works staff, it is rare that translation services are requested for programs, services, or activities which are federally funded. As stated above, the front counter Staff with the City’s Finance Department are the ones who most frequently encounter LEP persons requesting and/or needing translation services.

Though Public Works Staff has received very few requests for translation services on federally funded projects, programs and services, Staff is keenly aware that three percent of the City’s residents are LEPs and therefore it is reasonably likely that LEPs will be stakeholder in any of the said projects, programs and services. As such, when Staff has encountered the need for translation services, Staff has provided the services readily.

4. The Resources Available for LEP persons. After a review of the City’s currently available resources for LEP persons, the City has determined that the current available resources are lacking and inconsistent. The City will remedy the lack of resources, through the action plan listed in the next section.

Action Plan
In order to ensure compliance with Title VI, and Executive Order 13166 the following publications and services will be made available for LEP person use:
• Non-Discrimination Policy Statement
ο Statement shall be printed in English and Spanish. Said statement will be posted in the City Hall lobby in a highly visible location. • Title VI Rights Poster
ο Posters shall be printed in English and Spanish. Said posters will be posted in the City Hall lobby in a highly visible location, and additional copies will be available for the public to review and take.
• Title VI Complaint Form
ο Complaint forms shall be printed in English and Spanish. Said forms will be in the City Hall lobby in a highly visible location.
• Title VI Webpage on City’s Website
ο All of the City’s Title VI resources will be posted on the City’s website at the following link: www.slocity.org
• Future Planning and Projects

16 ο Public Works will ensure that all future projects and planning documents that are federally funded utilize outreach methods that are compliant with Title VI and other related non-discriminatory assurances. ο Additionally, the City will ensure that outreach materials are available in English and Spanish, and that translators are readily available as necessary for any LEP Persons that would like to contribute or participate.

Lastly, the Title VI Specialist will request an updated list of certified translators from the Human Resources Department every six months and distribute said list to those who are likely to encounter LEP persons, such that a translator can be contacted the moment one is needed.

To ensure continuous compliance, the City will review the Title VI Implementation Plan and Limited English Proficiency Plan regularly, but at a minimum, as new data from the US Census becomes available. As new regulations are created, the City will act promptly to update the existing plans and relevant resources.

17 Appendix B

18 Appendix C

19 Page 271 of 359
20 Page 272 of 359
21 Page 273 of 359
22 Appendix D
Below is a list of the community partners that were contacted to complete a survey as part of the Four Factor Analysis.
• People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH)
• Community Action Partnership of SLO (CAPSLO)
• Housing Authority of SLO (HASLO)
• County of San Luis Obispo Public Health
• Cal Poly Transportation & Parking Department
• Transitions Mental Health Association (THMA)
• Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GALA)
• Race Matters
• San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
• San Luis Coastal Unified School District
o SLO High School Leadership
o Laguna Middle School Leadership
o Bishops Peak Principal
o CL Smith Principal
o Hawthorne Elementary Principal
o Los Ranchos Elementary Principal
o Sinsheimer Elementary Principal
o Teach Elementary Principal
• Cal Poly University Office of Diversity and Inclusion • Ride-On Transportation
• San Luis Obispo County Access for All (Pathpoint)

23 Appendix E
US DOT Title VI Assurances A-E

APPENDIX A
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees as follows:

1. Compliance with Regulations: The contractor (hereinafter includes consultants) will comply with the Acts and the Regulations relative to Nondiscrimination in Federallyassisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, as they may be amended from time to time, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.

2. Non-discrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor will not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by the Acts and the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21.

3. Solicitation for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment:

In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier will be notified by the contractor of the contractor’s obligations under this contract and the Acts and the Regulations relative to Non-discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.

4. Information and Reports: The contractor will provide all information and reports required by the Acts, the Regulations, and directives issued pursuant thereto and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the Recipient or the FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Acts, Regulations, and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the contractor will so certify to the Recipient or the FHWA, as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.

5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of a contractor’s noncompliance with the Nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the Recipient will impose such contract sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
a. withholding payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies; and/or
b. cancelling, terminating, or suspending a contract, in whole or in part.

6. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs one through six in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto. The contractor will take action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Recipient or the FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the contractor becomes involved in, or threatened with litigation by a subcontractor, or supplier because of such direction, the contractor may request the Recipient to enter into any litigation to protect the interests of the Recipient. In addition, the contractor may request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

24 APPENDIX B

CLAUSES FOR DEEDS TRANSFERRING UNITED STATES PROPERTY
The following clauses will be included in deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein from the United States pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 4:

NOW THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation as authorized by law and upon the condition that the California Department of Transportation will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon in accordance with Title 23 U.S.C., the regulations for the administration of the preceding statute, and the policies and procedures prescribed by the FHWA of the U.S. Department of Transportation in accordance and in compliance with all requirements imposed by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federallyassisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the California Department of Transportation all the right, title and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in and to said lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. (HABENDUM CLAUSE)
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the California Department of Transportation and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and will be binding on the California Department of Transportation, its successors and assigns.

The California Department of Transportation, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interest in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that (1) no person will on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed [,] [and]* (2) that the California Department of Transportation will use the lands and interests in lands and interest in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federallyassisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations and Acts may be amended[, and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above-mentioned non-discrimination conditions, the Department will have a right to enter or re-enter said lands and facilities on said lands, and that above described land and facilities will thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S.

Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this instruction].* (*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

25 APPENDIX C

CLAUSES FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR IMPROVED UNDER THE

ACTIVITY, FACILITY, OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the California Department of Transportation pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a):

A. The (grantee, lessee, permittee, etc. as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree [in the case of deeds and leases add “as a covenant running with the land”] that:

1. In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations (as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.

B. With respect to licenses, leases, permits, etc., in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the California Department of Transportation will have the right to terminate the (lease, license, permit, etc.) and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the (lease, license, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to a deed, in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the California Department of Transportation will have the right to enter or re-enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the California Department of Transportation and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

26 APPENDIX D
CLAUSES FOR CONSTRUCTION/USE.ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER

THE ACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, permits, or similar instruments/agreements entered into by the California Department of Transportation pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(b):

A. The (grantee, licensee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest ,and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add, “as a covenant running with the land”) that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishings of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits or, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Acts and Regulations, as amended, set forth in this Assurance.

B. With respect to (licenses, leases, permits, etc.) in the event of breach of any of the above of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the California Department of Transportation will have the right to terminate the (license, permits, etc., as appropriate) and to enter or re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to deeds, in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the California Department of Transportation will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the California Department of Transportation and its assigns. (*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

27 APPENDIX E
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees to comply with the following nondiscrimination statutes and authorities, including, but not limited to: Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities:

During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees to comply with the following nondiscrimination statutes and authorities, including, but not limited to: Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects); • Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex;
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
• Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not);
• Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination of the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38;
• The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations;
• Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).

Item 6g
Department: Attorney
Cost Center: 1501
For Agenda of: 9/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney
Natalie Harnett, Policy and Project Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVE PARTICIPATION IN MULTIPLE NATIONAL OPIOID

LITIGATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve City participation in the nationally negotiated opioid related settlement agreements with Purdue Pharma L.P. & Sackler Family (“Purdue and Sackler”); and

2. Approve City participation in the nationally negotiated opioid related settlement agreements with eight opioids manufacturers, Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (the “Manufacturers”); and

3. Approve City participation in all future nationally negotiated opioid related settlement agreements; and

4. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute documents as needed to participate in the above-specified and all future nationally negotiated opioid related settlement agreements; and

5. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to elect direct allocation of the settlement funds to the City; and

6. Authorize the City Manager to vote on the Purdue bankruptcy plan, in consultation with the City Attorney (including abstention if the City Manager determines abstention is in the best interest of the City.)

7. Authorize staff to submit required annual opioid settlement expenditure reporting forms to the Department of Health Care Services.

POLICY CONTEXT
Over the last several years, nationwide litigation has resulted in a series of landmark settlements with opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers accused of fueling the opioid crisis through deceptive marketing and inadequate oversight. These settlements allow states, counties, and cities—including those not directly involved in the litigation - to opt in and receive dedicated funding to support local opioid abatement efforts.

Participating in these agreements provides the City with a non-General Fund resource to help address opioid misuse, addiction, and related public health and safety impacts.

Item 6g
These efforts align with the City’s adopted Major City Goals and broader commitments to community well-being, fiscal sustainability, and regional collaboration.

DISCUSSION
Background
Since 2021, the City Council has approved participation in five national, class-action opioid settlements (See Previous Council Action), and the City received approximately $370,000 in direct allocations from the settlements since 2024. Two new proposed nationwide settlement agreements (“Settlements”) have been reached to resolve ongoing prescription opioid litigation brought by numerous states, local political subdivisions, and special districts.

Purdue Pharma L.P. & Sackler Family Settlement
The first settlement concerns litigation against Purdue Pharma L.P. and the Sackler Family (“Purdue and Sackler”) and is being implemented through Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings. The Settlement1includes two components:
 The Estate Settlement, which settles Purdue’s claims against the Sacklers and other parties, and
 The Direct Settlement, which resolves direct claims by states, local governments, and other creditors.

Actual payments will depend on rate of subdivision participation. However, it is estimated that the two Settlements will require the Sacklers to pay up to $6.5 billion over 15 years, including a $1.5 billion payment on the Effective Date (expected in 2026), in addition to nearly $900 million available from the Purdue estate.

The Settlement also includes injunctive relief, requiring Purdue’s successor to adopt safeguards to prevent opioid diversion, and restricting certain Sacklers from engaging in opioid-related activities.

Cities and counties that opt in will be eligible for funding under the Direct Settlement (commonly referred to as the “GESA”) and may be eligible to vote on the bankruptcy plan governing the Estate Settlement. Opting out of the Direct Settlement would preclude the City from receiving any funds and would leave individual litigation as the only alternative— a costly and resource-intensive path with uncertain outcomes. The deadline to submit the Participation Form and California State-Subdivision Agreement (Attachment A), without alterations, is September 30, 2025.

Voting on the bankruptcy plan is separate from opting into the Direct Settlement. On a previous opioid bankruptcy (Endo), the City abstained from voting on the plan (since staff determined it was unlikely the City would have any basis for objecting to the plan) and opted out of the release of claims (since staff was informed this would not waive any claim

1 View the full terms of the proposed Purdue and Sackler Settlement Agreement here:
https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/purdue-sacklers-settlements/

Item 6g
to proceeds if the plan were approved.) Staff does not yet have information on the Purdue bankruptcy, nor has the implementation administrator confirmed whether the City is even eligible to vote on the bankruptcy plan. If the City is deemed eligible to vote on the plan, staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to do so, including to abstain from the plan and opt out of the releases if the facts of the Purdue bankruptcy are sufficiently similar to the Endo bankruptcy. Staff believe this conservative approach will best protect the City’s rights without waiving its claim to any proceeds from the bankruptcy if the plan is approved.

Additional Manufacturer Settlements (Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, Zydus)
The second set of proposed settlements2 would resolve claims against eight additional opioid manufacturers—Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (collectively, the “Manufacturers”). These Settlements would provide up to $720 million nationwide for opioid abatement, a portion of which would be available to California and its participating subdivisions, including the City of San Luis Obispo.

Depending on participation, the Manufacturers will contribute both cash and productbased remedies over multiple years. For example:
 Mylan will pay up to $290 million over nine years;
 Amneal will pay up to $74 million and contribute up to $177 million in generic Narcan;
 Other manufacturers will contribute a mix of immediate payments and naloxone or buprenorphine products in lieu of cash.

These Settlements also include injunctive relief, requiring manufacturers to change marketing, distribution, and sales practices to prevent future opioid misuse.

The City must opt in to each of the individual manufacturer settlements by October 8, 2025, to be eligible for any share of the settlement funds.3 City Participation and Use of Funds
Since 2021, the City has participated in five national opioid settlements (See Previous Council Action) and has received approximately $370,000 in direct allocations since 20244, which currently funds two Licensed Psychiatric Technicians contracted through the County of San Luis Obispo to support the City’s Mobile Crisis Unit and Community Action Teams. These new settlements, if approved, could provide continued or expanded funding for those positions or other eligible opioid abatement activities.

2 View the full terms of the proposed Manufacturers Settlement Agreements here:
https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/additional-settlements/ 3 The Participation and Release forms for the Manufacturers settlements were not yet available to the City at time of publication of this report.
4 Prior to 2024, the City’s allocation of annual opioid settlement payments was deferred to the County.

Item 6g
Failure to act before the respective deadlines—September 30, 2025 for Purdue and October 8, 2025 for the Manufacturer Settlements—would render the City ineligible for any of the allocated funds. Staff recommends City Council authorize participation in both settlements and direct staff to complete and return the required participation forms once issued by the Implementation Administrator.

Participation in litigation, including a settlement of class-action litigation, requires authorization of the Council. This is the fourth time staff have sought authorization to participate in class-action opioid settlement agreements. Participation in these agreements is very low-risk to the City, since it is unlikely the City will have the resources and/or basis to pursue individual litigation against any particular opioid defendant or group of defendants, and the benefits are substantial. The settlement funds have paid the entirety of the City’s costs of the two Licensed Psychiatric Technicians (LPTs) within the Mobile Crisis Unit and Community Action Team under contract with the County. Fire and Police have identified several other potential uses of the opioid remediation funds to combat the opioid crisis in our community. Staff recommends authorization by Council to opt-in to future class-action settlement agreements if the settlement terms are substantially similar to those previously approved by the Council (see Previous Council Action below) and if the City Manager and City Attorney agree it is in the best interests of the City to do so.

Direct recipients of opioid settlement funds are required to submit annual reporting to the Department of Health Care Service (DHCS). Since the City is a direct recipient of several existing settlement funds and is seeking authorization to opt-in to additional settlements as a direct recipient, the City is required to report on its use of settlement funds by September 30th of each year (including this year) until all funds from the respective settlements are expended. Staff is therefore seeking authorization to complete this annual reporting without returning to Council for further approval.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
December 7, 2021 – Council approved the City’s participation in the settlement agreements with pharmaceutical distributes, McKesson, Cardinal Health and Amerisource Bergan (“Distributors”) and with manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals and its parent company Johnson & Johnson (“Janssen”).

April 4, 2023 – Council approved the City’s participation in the settlement agreements with pharmacies CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart ("Pharmacies"), and with pharmaceutical manufacturers Teva and Allergan (“Manufacturers”).

July 16, 2024 – Council approved the City’s participation in the settlement agreements with supermarket pharmacy Kroger Co. (“Kroger”). Council also directed the City Manager and City Attorney to evaluate the aggregate national opioid settlement amounts to be allocated to the City each year and the administrative burdens of direct allocation and, if warranted, to change the distribution to direct allocation. The City Manager thereafter opted in to direct allocation in August 2024.

Item 6g
Public Engagement
None. Not applicable since this involves a settlement of litigation to which the City was not a direct party.

CONCURRENCE
The Police and Fire Chief, Community Development and City Administration Departments concur in the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a "Project" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2026-2041
Funding Identified: N/A. Settlement agreement would provide funds to the City, not require funds to be paid out.

Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $0 $0 $0 $0
The amount of funds that would be received by the City under the settlement agreements cannot be estimated at this time. The final pay-out amounts will be determined by the percentage of local jurisdictions that elect to participate in the agreements. Any revenue received will be deposited into the City’s Opioid Settlement Fund (Fund 217) to help support the annual contracts with the County for two Licensed Psychiatric Technicians serving the MCU and CAT programs. Beginning in FY 2027-28, the annual cost of these contracts will exceed the ongoing opioid settlement revenue currently forecasted; the additional revenue from the new Settlements would help offset the shortfall.

ALTERNATIVES

Item 6g
Do not approve the City’s participation in the settlement agreements. It is unlikely the City will have the capacity to pursue individual litigation against these opioid defendants. Failure to participate in the nationally-negotiated settlement agreements will deprive the City of funds it is otherwise entitled to as a class member.

Approve the City’s participation in the settlement agreements with Purdue and Sackler, and with the Manufacturers, but require staff to seek authorization for participation in future settlement agreements. Staff anticipates being well-suited, in close consultation with the City Attorney, to evaluate future settlement agreements and determine whether class participation is in the best interest of the City, but Council may direct staff to return for authorization to participate in future agreements with new defendants.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Participation and Release Form (Purdue and Sackler)

EXHIBIT K
Subdivision Participation and Release Form
Governmental Entity: San Luis Obispo city State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_purdue/
Address 1: /address1_purdue/
Address 2: /address2_purdue/
City, State, Zip: /cit_pd/ /state_pd/ /zi_pd/
Phone: /phone_purdue/
Email: /email_purdue/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to that certain Governmental Entity & Shareholder Direct Settlement Agreement accompanying this participation form (the “Agreement”)1, and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Agreement, grant the releases set forth below, and agrees as follows.

1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Agreement, and agrees that by executing this Participation and Release Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Agreement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.

2. The Governmental Entity shall promptly after the Effective Date, and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com.

3. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Agreement pertaining to Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.

4. By agreeing to the terms of the Agreement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning following the Effective Date.

5. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Agreement solely for the purposes provided therein.

6. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as and to the extent provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the 1 Capitalized terms used in this Exhibit K but not otherwise defined in this Exhibit K have the meanings given to them in the Agreement or, if not defined in the Agreement, the Master Settlement Agreement.

K-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

Agreement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise provided in, the Agreement.

7. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Agreement as provided therein.

8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Agreement, including without limitation all provisions of Article 10 (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in his or her official capacity whether elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Subdivision Releasor, to the maximum extent of its authority, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby confirmed, the Shareholder Released Parties and Released Parties are, as of the Effective Date, hereby released and forever discharged by the Governmental Entity and its Subdivision Releasors from: any and all Causes of Action, including, without limitation, any Estate Cause of Action and any claims that the Governmental Entity or its Subdivision Releasors would have presently or in the future been legally entitled to assert in its own right (whether individually or collectively), notwithstanding section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any law of any jurisdiction that is similar, comparable or equivalent thereto (which shall conclusively be deemed waived), whether existing or hereinafter arising, in each case, (A) directly or indirectly based on, arising out of, or in any way relating to or concerning, in whole or in part, (i) the Debtors, as such Entities existed prior to or after the Petition Date, and their Affiliates, (ii) the Estates, (iii) the Chapter 11 Cases, or (iv) Covered Conduct and (B) as to which any conduct, omission or liability of any Debtor or any Estate is the legal cause or is otherwise a legally relevant factor (each such release, as it pertains to the Shareholder Released Parties, the “Shareholder Released Claims”, and as it pertains to the Released Parties other than the Shareholder Released Parties, the “Released Claims”). For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing: the Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims include any Cause of Action that has been or may be asserted against any Shareholder Released Party or Released Party by the Governmental Entity or its Subdivision Releasors (whether or not such party has brought such action or proceeding) in any federal, state, or local action or proceeding (whether judicial, arbitral, or administrative) (A) directly or indirectly based on, arising out of, or in any way relating to or concerning, in whole or in part, (i) the Debtors, as such Entities existed prior to or after the Petition Date, and their Affiliates, (ii) the Estates, (iii) the Chapter 11 Cases, or (iv) Covered Conduct and (B) as to which any conduct, omission or liability of any Debtor or any Estate is the legal cause or is otherwise a legally relevant factor.

9. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Shareholder Released Claims or Released Claims against any Shareholder Released Party or Released Party in any forum whatsoever, subject in all respects to Section 9.02 of the Master Settlement Agreement. The releases provided for herein (including the term “Shareholder Released K-2
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

Claims” and “Released Claims”) are intended by the Governmental Entity and its Subdivision Releasors to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Shareholder Released Parties and Released Parties the broadest possible release of any liability relating in any way to Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Agreement shall be a complete bar to any Shareholder Released Claim and Released Claims.

10. To the maximum extent of the Governmental Entity’s power, the Shareholder Released Parties and the Released Parties are, as of the Effective Date, hereby released and discharged from any and all Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims of the Subdivision Releasors.

11. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision as set forth in the Agreement.

12. In connection with the releases provided for in the Agreement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:

General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.

A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Shareholder Released Claims or such other Claims released pursuant to this release, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Shareholder Released Claims or such other Claims released pursuant to this release that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Agreement.

13. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Agreement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent any portion of this Participation and Release Form not relating to the release of, or bar against, liability is interpreted differently from the Agreement in any respect, the Agreement controls.

14. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in the Agreement, (x) nothing herein shall (A) release any Excluded Claims or (B) be construed to impair in any way the rights and obligations of any Person under the Agreement; and (y) the Releases set forth herein shall be subject to being deemed void to the extent set forth in Section 9.02 of the Master Settlement Agreement.

K-3
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation and Release Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.

Signature: /signer_1_purdue/
Name: /name_1_purdue/
Title: /title_1_purdue/
Date: /date_1_purdue/
K-4
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds
Purdue/Sackler Settlement

1. Introduction
The State of California1 and certain of its cities and counties have reached this proposed agreement (the “California Purdue/Sackler State-Subdivision Agreement” or the “Agreement”) to govern the payments made to California in In re: Purdue Pharma L.P., et al, Case No. 19- 23649, pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (the “Purdue Bankruptcy Matter”) and pursuant to the related settlement with the Sacklers.

This Agreement is proposed to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of payments, including the Statewide Payment Amounts, consisting of Base Payments and Incentive Payments, and Estate Distributions, paid to California pursuant to the Governmental Entity & Shareholder Direct Settlement Agreement (“GESA”), the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), the Thirteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma L.P. and its Affiliated Debtors (the “Plan”), and the Governmental Remediation Trust Agreement (“GRTA”), and any revisions thereto (collectively, the “Governing Documents”), filed in the Purdue Bankruptcy Matter.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Agreement does not apply to payments of attorneys’ fees and costs made to California, including any payments to California from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund and the State Expenses Fund and payments pursuant to Sections

9.01, 9.02, and 9.03 and Exhibit R of the GESA and Sections 5.9(a) and 5.9(b) of the Plan, unless otherwise noted.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, paragraph 4, of the GESA, acceptance of this California State-Subdivision Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.

2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a General Purpose Government that is a Participating Subdivision and also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision; (b) a Primary Subdivision; and/or (c) a Non-Litigating Threshold Subdivision. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California Subdivisions listed in Exhibits C (excluding Litigating Special Districts), I, and/or W to the GESA. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special District does not include School Districts and certain Health and Hospital Special Districts that fall under a separate creditor group in the Purdue Bankruptcy Plan. 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

2 c) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. a/k/a Mylan N.V.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.

3. General Terms
This Agreement is subject to the requirements of the Governing Documents, as well as applicable law, and the Governing Documents govern over any inconsistent provision of this California Purdue/Sackler State-Subdivision Agreement. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Governing Documents.

All payments made to the State of California and CA Participating Subdivisions subject to this Agreement will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section 5.02(b) of the GESA and Section 4.01(f)(ii) of the MSA.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California for attorneys’ fees and cost, including payments from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund or the State Expenses Fund, unless otherwise noted.

4. State Allocation
Funds allocated to California shall be combined pursuant to this Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).

A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the payments to California subject to this Agreement will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

3 B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the payments to California subject to this Agreement will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 (except those that are Plaintiff Subdivisions) are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Governing Documents and this Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds). d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but has not, for a particular payment, become a Participating Subdivision. f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Governing Documents and this Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

4 Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the GESA.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list. d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Governing Documents and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Governing Documents and this Agreement, a county and Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

5 any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated. iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving funds pursuant to the Purdue Bankruptcy Plan and related Sackler settlement must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Governing Documents and this Agreement. b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Governing Documents or this Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action against the Subdivision in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Governing Documents or this Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this Agreement. e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.

C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the payments to California subject to this Agreement will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Governing Documents and this Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

6 However, in no event shall more than one-third (5% out of the 15%) be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund pursuant to the Governing Documents, and if applicable, the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R of the GESA and the MDL Fees Order, so long as: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Agreement; and (2) Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop Agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section 5.02(a) of the GESA and Section 4.01(f)(i) of the MSA. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund funded pursuant to the Governing Documents. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 2 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 2. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

7 5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the Purdue Bankruptcy Plan and related Sackler settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the Purdue Bankruptcy Plan and related Sackler settlement have been used in compliance with the Governing Documents and this Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other payments will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Governing Documents and this Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section 5.02(b) of the GESA and Section 4.01(f)(ii) of the MSA, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Administrator and Sackler Parties’ Representative.
e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this California Purdue/Sackler State-Subdivision Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

8 b) Except as provided in the Governing Documents, this California Purdue/Sackler StateSubdivision Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in this Agreement, if any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Governing Documents, this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

9 The undersigned, San Luis Obispo city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Purdue/Sackler Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Purdue/Sackler Settlement.

I swear under penalty of perjury that I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this agreement on behalf of the Governmental Entity.

Signature: /signer_1_purdue/
Name: /name_1_purdue/
Title: /title_1_purdue/
Date: /date_1_purdue/
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Purdue/Sackler Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to onehundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221 %
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
2 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211 %
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kem 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kem 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kem 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kem 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kem 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kem 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kem 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kem 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kem 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kem 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
4 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411 %
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
5 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cafiada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
6 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
7 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
8 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991 %
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431 % City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841 % County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841 %
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

APPENDIX 1
15 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

1 APPENDIX 2

CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Purdue/Sackler settlement and their counsel.

In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs) of the Governmental Entity & Shareholder Settlement Agreement (GESA).

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Governing Documents and California Purdue/Sackler State-Subdivision Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the CA Subdivision Fund of the Purdue/Sackler settlement to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the [SUBDIVISION’S] total gross recovery from the Purdue/Sackler settlement. [SUBDIVISION] further certifies that any payments made under this Backstop Agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section 5.02 A of the GESA and Section 4.01(f)(i) of the Master Settlement Agreement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Local Government Costs and Expenses Fund created under the Governing Documents before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Governmental Entity & Shareholder Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.

Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

2 [DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
Docusign Envelope ID: 52C724AD-7EEC-4EB5-BB96-4E2FAD27B3DD

Item 6h
Department: Parks and Recreation
Cost Center: 5000510
For Agenda of: 9/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks & Recreation Director
Prepared By: Meghan Tolley, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF A MONETARY GIFT TO THE PUBLIC ART FUND

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to execute a donation agreement with the Donna P. Duerk Family Trust, in substantially the same form as that in Attachment A, accepting a donation valued at $21,730.07 to be used to support the installation of an art piece within the City.

POLICY CONTEXT
The City adopted a Donation Acceptance Policy on September 7, 1999, as Resolution No. 8965 (1999) Series. Per the City’s Donation Policy, all donations exceeding $5,000 in value must be accepted through a written agreement and approved by City Council.

DISCUSSION
In the winter of 2025, Parks and Recreation staff were contacted by Stephanie Mamis, daughter and estate Trustee of former local architecture professor Donna P. Duerk.

Sadly, Ms. Duerk passed away in January of this year and generously identified part of her estate to benefit “the fund or entity that the Trustee deems most likely to lead to the installation of Public Art in the City of San Luis Obispo, California.” The City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Art program was identified by Ms. Mamis as the organization to best fulfill her mother’s wishes with the stipulation that the funds should be earmarked towards the cost of an actual installation rather than to be used towards administrative fees in the public art program, and requested that the installation be permanent in a place the family can visit and remember Ms. Duerk.

City staff have identified the soon to be built Righetti Community Park as the location for the next permanent public art installation. The family is supportive of the funds being used towards this identified project. While funds for this project have already been identified, by accepting the donation, reserve funds will be able to be applied to another public art installation, expanding the offerings of art within the City. Upon completion, City staff will honor Ms. Duerk with a permanent plaque that will also identify the piece of art and the artist.

Item 6h
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
In 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 8965 adopting a City Donation Acceptance Policy (Attachment C) for donations more than $5,000. This policy stipulates requirements of the donations to ensure they are in the best interest of the City. The current donation proposal meets the requirements and intent of this policy, as reflected and memorialized in the draft Donation Acceptance Agreement (Attachment A.) Public Engagement
Public comment can be provided to the City Council through written correspondence submitted prior to the meeting and through public testimony during the meeting.

CONCURRENCE
Parks and Recreation staff conferred with the City’s Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office, who concur with the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action is not considered a “Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-2026
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

The Public Art Installation Project (Project No. 2000510), which funds all public art installations citywide, is supported by the Private Sector Fund and Local Revenue Measure funds. As of the date of this report, the project has an available balance of $368,160.

Acceptance of this one-time donation from the Donna P. Duerk Trust, valued at $21,730.07, would increase the available balance of Project No. 200510 from $368,160 to $389,890.07 to support the Righetti Community Park art installation. Although funds have already been allocated for this installation, the donation will allow funds previously earmarked for this project to be redirected to future public art projects, expanding the City’s overall public art program.

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal

Item 6h
Fees
Other:

Total $0 $0 $0 $0

ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to accept the donation. In accordance with the Donation Acceptance Policy, the Council may decline the donation without comment or cause.

However, the recommended donation meets all objectives in the City’s donation policy and the funds would be welcome in expanding the City’s public art collection.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Donation Acceptance Agreement with Donna P. Duerk estate B - Donation Letter from Donna P. Duerk estate
C - Donation Policy, Resolution No. 8965 (1999) Series

DONATION ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 2025, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter called the Owner) and the Donna P. Duerk Estate (hereinafter called the Donor).

Thiswritten Agreement,including all writingsspecifically incorporated herein by reference shall constitute the complete WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the City Council established and funded a public art program in 1990 (Resolution No. 6811 (1990 Series)); and
WHEREAS, Donor desires to provide a community wide improvement to benefit the public art program; and
WHEREAS, Donor will donate $21,730.07 for the City to use towards a permanent public art installation; and
WHEREAS, the City has already identified the next permanent piece of public art to be installed at the Righetti Ranch Park; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of this donation is consistent with the City policy regarding donation as set forth in Resolution No. 8965 (1999 Series).

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein, the parties herby agree as follows:

1. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. The City shall perform asfollows:
a. Manage the installation of the public art piece at the Righetti Ranch Park in accordance with City policy and procedure.
b. Install a plaque in honor of Donor in accordance with applicable City policies.

2. DONOR’S OBLIGATIONS. The Donor shall perform asfollows:
a. Donate $21,730.07 to the City for the City to use towards installation of public art. Donor agrees that no other restrictions will be placed on the donation. b. Donor acknowledges and agrees that selection, installation, maintenance, and removal of the public art piece will be done in accordance with City policy generally applicable to permanent public art pieces and at the sole discretion of the City. c. Donor acknowledges and agrees that the piece of public art is and will at all times remain property of the City unless and until disposed of by the City.
d. Donor acknowledges and agrees that, other than the plaque in honor of Donor, Donor will not receive any concessions, entitlements, benefits, or other consideration from the City in exchange for the donation.

3. ADMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager.

4. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE. BothCity and Donor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above written.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
Erica A. Stewart,Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: DONOR:

Christine Dietrick, Stephanie Mamis, Trustee for the
City Attorney Donna P. Duerk estate

July 23, 2025
Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Bequest to Public Art Fund for San Luis Obispo
Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to you in honor of my mother, Donna P. Duerk, a long-time resident of San Luis Obispo who passed away peacefully in January 2025. Through her trust, she directed a specific gift of $21,730.07 to support public art in the City of San Luis Obispo, with the specific instruction that it go “to the fund or entity that the Trustee deems most likely to lead to the installation of Public Art in the City of San Luis Obispo, California.” While the trust does not specify that the installation must be permanent, I personally interpret “installation” to suggest a lasting work, something that will remain in the public sphere for years to come. On a personal note, I would love to be able to visit a piece that reflects my mother’s legacy — something rooted in this community she loved so deeply and contributed to so fully.

My mother was truly a force of nature. She carved her own path in architecture and education, choosing a career in a male-dominated field and overcoming considerable cultural resistance along the way.

Donna was passionate about education, the environment, art in public places, and sustainable living. Her downtown home is a lush jungle of fruit trees and succulents. She was an architechture professor, a Master Gardener, a scuba diver, a costume creator, a devoted cat lover, and a proud grandmother.

She left behind a legacy of fierce independence, brilliant intellect, and a sense of fun and discovery that never faded. She believed in public spaces that invite inspiration and in art that lives where people can encounter it in their everyday lives. For that reason, I can think of no more fitting tribute than for her donation to contribute to a permanent piece of public art in San Luis Obispo.

Thank you for considering this gift and helping to ensure that Donna’s deep love for this city and for public art lives on in a meaningful and visible way.

Warm regards,
Stephanie Mamis
Trustee for the Estate of Donna P. Duerk
15 Orris Street 543 Dana Street
Auburndale, MA 02466 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
617-429-6543

Section 760

DONATION POLICY
745-1 Page 329 of 359
Donation Policy
745-2
Donation Policy
745-2 Page 330 of 359
Item 6i
Department: Utilities
Cost Center: 6002
For Agenda of: 9/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: NA
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Chris Lehman, Deputy Director - Wastewater SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE SEWER FUND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR UTILITIES

CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) VAN RETROFIT

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Approving a Budget Adjustment to Allocate $25,675 From the Sewer Fund Undesignated Balance”. (Attachment A)

2. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

POLICY CONTEXT
Infrastructure and Sustainable Transportation and Open Space, Climate Action, and Resilience were adopted by the City Council as a Major City Goals within the 2025-27 Financial Plan. Replacing the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) van camera system will help ensure staff have the tools required to maintain sewer infrastructure and prevent sewer spills, helping to ensure that utilities support future growth and development pursuant to the City’s General Plan. The project would also facilitate the strengthening of community resilience and the protection of natural resources.

Sewer spill investigations and pipe assessment, which are outlined in the city’s 2025 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, are also required by the State Water Resources Control Board General Order (2022-0103-DWQ).

On September 20, 2022, through Resolution 11360, Council delegated fleet purchasing authority for Tier 4 Fleet and Transit purchases made through cooperative purchasing agreements and within the council-approved budget to staff (Public Works Director and Finance Purchasing Division). In alignment with Municipal Code 3.24.060(E), the City participates in the Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement Program, which staff will utilize to upgrade the CCTV van asset.

DISCUSSION
Background

Item 6i
The City's current Ford Transit CCTV inspection van, acquired in 2016, is equipped with an Envirosight standard-definition camera system. This vehicle plays a critical role in the Wastewater Collection (WWC) program’s daily operations, primarily supporting:
 Sewer mainline condition assessments and
 Acceptance inspections as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to verify the condition and compliance of newly installed or rehabilitated sewer mains.

Current CCTV Equipment
The existing CCTV system and van
(Figure 1), acquired in 2016, includes a
standard-definition camera, 1,000 feet of
camera cable, and a six-wheel-drive
pan/tilt/zoom (PTZ) crawler. A PTZ
crawler is a remote-controlled, motorized
vehicle designed for inspecting and
navigating various environments,
particularly within pipelines and other
confined spaces.

While this equipment has served the city
well, it is now over nine years old, and the
system has deteriorated. This has led to
extended equipment downtime due to
needed repairs, as well as increased
maintenance costs.

Proposed CCTV Equipment Replacement
As presented in the adopted 2025-27
Financial Plan, staff are proposing to defer
replacement of the 2016 Transit van to
2030, and in the meantime, upgrade the
existing standard-definition inspection
equipment with a modern high-definition
(HD) camera system that includes a 1,000-
foot cable and a six-wheel-drive
pan/tilt/zoom crawler. In addition, as part of the strategy to defer replacement of the vehicle itself, minor vehicle repairs will be completed, such as replacement of the van’s alternator and emergency strobe and beacon systems, to ensure reliability and safety of City staff during operations on public roadways.

One advantage of this approach is that the new inspection equipment will be transferable to a future replacement van or vehicle, which will reduce overall costs. This phased replacement strategy has been successfully adopted by other municipalities, such as the Figure 1: Existing CCTV Van With Camera Equipment

Item 6i
City of Carpinteria, which recently upgraded its CCTV system while retaining its existing vehicle. This proposal represents a cost-effective solution that extends the service life of existing City assets while improving the reliability of City infrastructure and the effectiveness of sewer inspection operations.

Over the past three years, accumulated maintenance costs associated with the CCTV system have exceeded $40,000 and resulted in ten months of out-of-service time, which has prevented staff from utilizing this critical risk-mitigating tool that helps direct capital improvement projects, evaluate sewer infrastructure, and prevent sewer spills.

While $200,000 has been appropriated for this project, which covers the replacement of the CCTV van camera system, additional funding of $25,675 is required for vehicle repairs that will help extend the vehicle lifecycle to 2030 and ensure safe operations for staff.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
This project is included in the City Council-adopted 25-27 Financial Plan.

Public Engagement
Public comment on the item can be provided to the City Council through written correspondence before the meeting and through public testimony at the meeting.

CONCURRENCE
The Public Works (Fleet) and Finance Departments concur with the approach presented in this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review, pursuant the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because the project would result in the upgrading and replacement of existing equipment within an existing City vehicle, which would serve the same function and purpose, and would not result in an expansion of the existing use.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
Fleet $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0

Item 6i
Replacement:

Utilities
(2000521-2.1)
Sewer Fund –
Unreserved
Working
Capital
$10,559,771 $25,675 $10,534,096 $0
Total $10,759,771 $225,675 $10,534,096 $0
This project is included in the adopted 25-27 Financial Plan (2000521, Fleet Replacement: Utilities, Camera Replacement in Wastewater Collection Van). The Financial Plan identifies $200,000 for this project in fiscal year 2025-26. The cost of the project is $225,675, which includes the proposed cost, $220,675 (Attachment A), and a $5,000 contingency.

Staff requests Council authorization to allocate an additional $25,675 from the Sewer Fund’s undesignated capital, for a total of $225,675 to fund the CCTV Van Retrofit Project (Attachment B, Draft Resolution). This ensures that the retrofit is fully funded without negatively impacting operating budgets or deferring other planned capital expenditures.

Procurement through Sourcewell’s cooperative purchasing agreement allows the City to meet competitive purchasing requirements while maintaining equipment compatibility.

Investing in this equipment now also supports long-term asset management goals and reduces the likelihood of emergency repairs.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may direct staff to defer the additional repairs to the CCTV Van. If staff were directed to proceed with this alternative, the camera system upgrade would proceed, but vehicle repairs would be deferred. Impacts of this alternative include increased maintenance costs and system downtime, as well as potential impacts to staff safety.

Overall impacts would consist of increased lifecycle costs associated with this asset, potential rescheduling of overall asset replacement (which has been deferred with the approach recommended by staff), and a significant reduction in asset availability moving forward.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Approving a Budget Adjustment to Allocate $25,675 From the Sewer Fund Undesignated Balance.”
B - Sourcewell Proposal (Haaker Municipal)

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2025 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO
ALLOCATE $25,675 FROM THE SEWER FUND UNDESIGNATED

BALANCE FOR CCTV VAN RETROFIT UPGRADES
WHEREAS, the Utilities Department Wastewater Collections Division operates a critical Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection van used to assess the condition of sewer infrastructure and support capital project acceptance inspections; and WHEREAS, the existing camera equipment, installed in 2016, is outdated and experiencing extended downtime and increased maintenance costs; and WHEREAS, staff recommend replacing the camera system with a new highdefinition unit and completing minor repairs to the existing vehicle in order to extend its service life to 2030, at which time staff will recommend replacement of the vehicle; and WHEREAS, $200,000 is identified in the adopted 2025–27 Financial Plan (2000521 – Fleet Replacement: Utilities, Camera Replacement in Wastewater Collection Van); and
WHEREAS, an additional $25,675 is needed to complete all necessary vehicle repairs and ensure safe and reliable operation; and
WHEREAS, the Sewer Fund Undesignated Balance currently includes sufficient unallocated capital to support this expenditure without negatively affecting operating budgets or other capital projects;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

1. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review, pursuant the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because the project would result in the upgrading and replacement of existing equipment within an existing City vehicle, which would serve the same function and purpose, and would not result in an expansion of the existing use.

2. The City Council hereby authorizes a budget adjustment in the amount of $25,675 from the Sewer Fund Undesignated Balance to supplement the CCTV Van Retrofit Project (CIP 20000521-2.1).

3. The City Manager or their designee is authorized to take any necessary actions to implement this resolution.

Resolution No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 2
R ______
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2025. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

SINCE 1972
2070 North White Avenue, La Verne, California 91750
(909) 598-2706 ~ FAX (909) 598-1427 ~ haaker.com
July 21, 2025
City of San Luis Obispo
25 Prado Rd.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

PROPOSAL
Sourcewell Contract Number: 022014-EVS
RE: Proposal for One (1) Envirosight Rovver X System and Chassis Retrofit Description Price:

CCTV Van Retrofit $13,765.00
Equipment will be installed in San Luis Obispo’s existing CCTV Van. All components will remain and be reused with new equipment.

New flooring in rear Equipment Area of the van. All existing components removed, new marine grade plywood and new flooring installed, existing components reinstalled.

New 21.5” HD monitors installed, one rear facing in the Equipment Area, and one mounted in the Office Area.

New Light Package: (2) Traffic Advisors one front facing one rear facing, Corner Strobes (4), and Roof Mounted Beacons front and rear.

New Tow Hitch Assembly
MEPS Alternator with Pulley $3,839.67
Rovver X Pro Package: $110,292.80
RCX90 HD Zoom Camera; high-resolution CCD color zoom camera with 10x optical and 12x digital zoom, auto shutter, auto/manual focus, built-in LED lighting, +/-135- degree tilt, endless 360-degree rotation, pressure sensor, and twin laser diodes for measuring feature.

RVX 130 Crawler; Steerable crawler with two-high performance motors and 6-wheel drive. Includes pressure indicator, inclination and tilt sensors, location transmitter, integral Back-eye camera, and clutch.

VC500 Control Panel; 10” Touch screen, joystick crawler/camera control, digital recording/jpeg, built in inspection software PACP based.

RAX300 Automatic Motorized Cable Reel; with meter/footage counter, splash-proof rating, 1000' orange transmission cable; power supply for 115/230V; remote control (for equipment set up); patch cable with e-stop (connecting DCX5000 to RAX300).

Pressurization Kit; Regulator, air valve, and two (2) CO2 Canisters, for replacing air

SINCE 1972
2070 North White Avenue, La Verne, California 91750
(909) 598-2706 ~ FAX (909) 598-1427 ~ haaker.com
into camera, crawler, and accessories.

Crawler lowering tool and tool kit.

Accessories and Extra Wheel Sets:

RX95 Crawler; Steerable crawler with two-high performance motors and 6-wheel drive. Includes pressure indicator, inclination and tilt sensors, location transmitter. $22,205.21
PTP-50 Camera; high-resolution color camera with manual focus, built-in LED lighting, +/-135-degree tilt, endless 360-degree rotation, pressure sensor, and twin laser diodes for measuring feature.
$22,205.21
95 Crawler Grease Wheel for 4” line. Set of 6 $2,600.74 95 Crawler Grease Wheel for 6” line. Set of 4 $1,589.34 Super-Aggressive Medium Grease/PVC Wheel for 6" line Quick-Change. Set of 4 $2,369.00 Super-Aggressive Medium Grease/PVC Wheel for 8” line Quick-Change. Set of 4 $3,079.70 RX130 Crawler and RCX90 Camera SD to HD Conversion/Upgrade: $20,972.88 Total: $202,919.55
Sales Tax 8.75%: $17,755.46
Freight: $1,000.00
Total Price: $220,675.01

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: September 2, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Laura Fiedler, Economic Development & Tourism Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 6j - GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE CAL

POLY CIE
Staff received the following question regarding the proposed grant agreement. The question is below with staff’s response shown in italics:
1) In the Fiscal Impact section of the report, there is a reference to $246K of funding also from the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance. Can you outline the purposes of that funding and the remaining balance? At the start of the FY2025-26, the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance had a balance of $608,000. In the 2025-27 Financial Plan, the Economic Development & Tourism program had several Significant Operating Budget Changes (SOBCs) approved to receive $246,000 each year from the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance for childcare expansion, implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, and “support local” programs, as detailed in the table below.

After expending $246,000 for each year of the two-year financial plan, the remaining amount in the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance would be $116,000, which is proposed to be used for the CIE renovation grant.

ITEM 6j - GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE CAL POLY CIE Page 2 ID Description Fund FY 2025-26 FY2026-27 One-time/
Ongoing
2 Funding for CAPSLO to support
new and expanded private childcare
options
General
Fund
$25,000 $25,000 One-Time
Funding to support childcare grant program administered by CAPSLO, to provide grants of up to $5,000 for family childcare home business owners and up to $10,000 for prospective childcare centers for those looking to start-up or expand.
3 Funding for Economic Development
Strategic Plan Implementation
General
Fund
$66,000 $66,000 One-Time
Planned expenditures for the FY2025-26 include $30,000 to explore a potential conference facility at the current courthouse building downtown and $20,000 to support the promotion of business areas beyond the downtown. Planned expenditures for FY2026-27 include $50,000 to support work on disaster resilience for businesses. An additional $16,000 in each year would support data collection and analysis on economic, wage, and employment trends to inform programming. 4 Funding to support SLO Restaurant
Month and Buy Local Bonus
program, and advertising in support
of local businesses
General
Fund
$155,000 $155,000 One-Time
Planned expenditures for each fiscal year include $20,000 for SLO Restaurant Month, $110,000 for the Buy Local Bonus program during the holidays, and $25,000 in advertising expenses to promote these programs and carry through messaging to the community about supporting local businesses and restaurants in other times of the year.

Item 6j
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1004
For Agenda of: 9/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Laura Fiedler, Economic Development and Tourism Manager SUBJECT: GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE CAL POLY CIE

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a one-time Grant agreement with the Cal Poly Corporation for the renovation of the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in a final form satisfactory to the City Attorney and authorize the disbursement of funds in the amount of up to $116,000.

POLICY CONTEXT
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan (“EDSP”), adopted by City Council in July 2023, notes that Cal Poly State University “serves a vital role in the regional entrepreneurial and business support ecosystem. The Cal Poly Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (“CIE”) and the Cal Poly CIE Small Business Development Center (“SBDC”) have not only fostered a culture of innovation and championed cleantech advancements, but both have also supported local and regional business creation.” Cal Poly and the CIE are listed as supporting partners in many strategies of the EDSP, including:

1.1. Business Retention and Expansion (“BRE”). Develop a proactive and targeted approach to identify and address the needs of existing businesses, while creating an environment that fosters growth and innovation.

1.2. Entrepreneurial Support. Continue to bolster the entrepreneurial ecosystem by improving access to resources, education, and networks for entrepreneurs.

1.3. Business Preparedness, Sustainability, and Resiliency. Implement disaster preparedness measures that enhance the city’s ability to respond to economic disruptions and effectively support business recovery.

1.4. Small Business Development. Continue to support the small business community to sustain growth.

1.5. Business Support Infrastructure. Maintain efforts to develop and grow business support infrastructure and tools.

3.1. System Development. Encourage the continued strengthening of the system to create Moderate Income+ jobs.

Item 6j

3.2. Employer and Employee Integration. Develop methodologies, tools, and programs to welcome and acclimate new employers and employees to the community.

3.3. Talent Attraction and Retention. Position the City as not just a place to visit but also a desirable location to live and work.

For strategy 1.2 Entrepreneurial Support listed above, the EDSP contains several action items that specifically call for the City to continue to support infrastructure for coworking and entrepreneurship, including the CIE and SBDC:

1.2.1. Support the creation of coworking, shared resource facilities, maker spaces, and other innovative ways to lower the barriers to entry and provide additional resources.

1.2.2. Maintain and build on the efforts with the Cal Poly CIE, which includes the HotHouse and other activities, to help ensure its continued success and the success of the local entrepreneurs it supports. Where possible, increase the promotion of the outcomes from the contributions of the City.

1.2.4. Maintain support of organizations like the SBDC, the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), and Softec to address the needs of both startup and existing businesses.

1.2.6. Work with REACH and other partners to promote the region in general and the City specifically as an entrepreneur destination in select markets, such as the Silicon Valley area. Target high-growth entrepreneurs who do not require a significant amount of operating space to grow.

In addition, the 2025-27 Major City Goal of Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability includes the following workplan item, “3c. Support the creation or expansion of coworking opportunities, such as the HotHouse, or other shared resource facilities to lower the barriers to entry for new businesses and provide opportunities for community members to build skills.”
In 2021, the City engaged Resonance Consulting to examine the future of downtown amid a global pandemic. That report listed a few key opportunity areas, including increasing daytime traffic in our downtown and creating alternative workspaces and coworking spaces for a growing number of remote workers. Another specific recommendation was to expand and diversify the business incubator to attract entrepreneurs and drive innovation downtown for all types of industries.

DISCUSSION
Background
In 2010, Cal Poly opened the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship to expand entrepreneurship programming for Cal Poly students, faculty, and community members and to promote regional economic development. In 2011, the SLO HotHouse opened as a community space through partnership between Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo,

Item 6j
the County of San Luis Obispo, and the business community. Also in 2011, the Cal Poly Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (“CIE”) became home to the Small Business Development Center (“SBDC”) to provide free business assistance to new and existing businesses and to attract capital investment. Originally located at 955 Morro Street, the HotHouse moved to the upper floor of 872 Higuera Street in 2016. Since its founding, the HotHouse has launched 125 companies, helped raise more than $250 million in capital, and witnessed acquisitions that totaled $650 million. In 2023, the HotHouse renovated its office to accommodate more private working spaces, with support provided by the City.

The SLO HotHouse has been home to five thriving programs that drive economic development and bring countless professionals into downtown San Luis Obispo each day.

Those programs include:

1. Coworking: The SLO HotHouse provides local entrepreneurs, business owners and remote workers with designated desks and private offices. These coworkers eat and shop downtown and host regular meetings at the SLO HotHouse. The SLO HotHouse began offering coworking in May 2013 and is now averaging 70 to 80 members monthly.

2. SLO HotHouse Event Space: The SLO HotHouse event space is home to 50+ events, gatherings and workshops each year, drawing well over 1,000 visitors downtown.

3. Small Business Development Center (SBDC): The SBDC provides free consulting services to regional businesses. Through state and federal grants, the SBDC connects 40+ consultants with businesses of all types, to help them grow, thrive and create jobs in our community. The SBDC advises about 500 clients per year, including small downtown businesses. In 2024, they achieved 14 business starts, 127 jobs created, and more than $18.8M in total capital (loans and equity). In 2025, they achieved 17 business starts, 120 jobs created, and $57.4 million in total capital (loans and equity).

4. Incubator Program: The Incubator program provides high-growth startups with two years of targeted support, space in the SLO HotHouse and introductions to professional investors with the goal of helping these startups scale in our community. As of May 31, 2025, there were 12 companies selected through a competitive application process incubating full time virtually or in-person at the HotHouse. Seven start-ups that have emerged from the HotHouse incubator have kept their headquarters in San Luis Obispo, and four have corporate offices in San Luis Obispo. Of the companies that have remained in SLO, 82 jobs have been created.

5. Summer Accelerator: The Summer Accelerator program has 7 startups enrolled for 2025 for an intensive 13-week program designed to turn ideas into scalable businesses.

More than 50% of SBDC clients are based within the City of San Luis Obispo, including the following that may be familiar: Blue Mango (operating Luna Red and Novo), Bread Bike, Junk Girls, the SLO International Film Festival, Whalebird Kombucha, and Whiz Kids Toys. Other businesses the SBDC has supported include Whitefox, Novocuff, Inspired Flight, Pashion Footwear, Mantis Composites, HiView Solutions, and Digital Market Media.

Item 6j
Overview of HotHouse Move to 1144 Chorro Street
In 2024, Cal Poly approached the City to advise on its plans to move the HotHouse to 1144 Chorro Street to expand the reach and effectiveness of its program and to provide additional resources, mentorship opportunities, and particularly, improved infrastructure to the community’s aspiring entrepreneurs. The new location will allow for expanded coworking space to serve more local professionals, which is needed as the current location operates at nearly 100% capacity. The purpose-built event space will allow the CIE to introduce expanded programming, including entrepreneurship events, speaker series, and economic development convenings.

The new HotHouse location will be filling a 15-year vacancy at 1144 Chorro Street, activating a 24,500 square foot ground floor location in the heart of downtown. In addition, the Cal Poly Mustang Shop Downtown currently located at 767 Higuera Street will be colocated with the CIE at the new 1144 Chorro Street location. The move from a smaller second-floor office to a larger ground-floor space with a retail shop in a prime location is expected to increase foot traffic and awareness of its offerings. The move also opens up the possibility of a future redevelopment opportunity at its current location. The ground floor of CIE’s current location at 872 Higuera Street has been leased to the owner of Thrifty Beaches for an expansion of the vintage clothing store next door.

Cal Poly has secured $1.86 million to date out of its fundraising goal of $4.25 million to support the development of the CIE, including a $350,000 commitment from the County of San Luis Obispo. The total project cost, including tenant improvements for the Cal Poly Mustang Shop, is $7.9 million. In a letter to the City Council of San Luis Obispo dated August 15, 2025 (included as Exhibit A in the attached draft grant agreement), Cal Poly CIE formally requested a one-time investment of $250,000 from the City. The new HotHouse is expected to open in the first half of 2026.

Overview of the Grant Agreement
The attached draft grant agreement outlines the conditions for the City’s proposed contribution of up to $116,000 for tenant improvements (such as furnishings or the audiovisual equipment for the community meeting space) for the areas of the CIE intended for use for community-facing events or for business support services:
 Community event space: The City will have the ability to use the event and meeting space at no additional cost up to 4 times per year. In addition, the event and meeting space may be made available as an event rental space for businesses and non-profit organizations in the community.
 Recognition: The City will be recognized as a sponsor of the CIE and SLO HotHouse with signage at the entrance of the building, logo placement in monthly emails, and on printed displays at public events. To acknowledge the City's critical role in funding the new space, the CIE will have signage affixed in the community and event space with the City’s logo and anticipated language of the following, “This space made possible through a grant by the City of San Luis Obispo." The mockup of the design will be shared with the City prior to printing for approval.

Item 6j
History of Prior Funding from the City
The City has been providing financial support for the HotHouse since its establishment in 2011. In the 2019-21 Financial Plan, the City increased the annual funding amount from $25,000 to $30,000 and has been funding the CIE at this level since then.

In the adopted 2025-27 Financial Plan, $30,000/year has been budgeted to continue this partnership from the Economic Development program’s budget and the annual grant agreement will be approved separately by the City Manager following the City’s procurement policies.

The annual services agreement with the CIE includes additional services and benefits to the community, including:
 A seat for a representative from the City of San Luis Obispo on the CIE Advisory Council;
 SBDC programming which provides no-cost business advising and training to entrepreneurs and local businesses;
 The two-year start-up incubator program to help entrepreneurs launch companies, create and retain jobs, attract capital investments, and grow and scale their businesses; and
 HotHouse coworking and office space.

The Economic Development and Tourism team has been meeting with CIE leadership to improve coordination and collaboration. In 2025, the ED&T team will be working with CIE to share the City’s Business Navigator program and services with its HotHouse and SBDC clients in an effort to support more businesses in starting and staying in the community.

In 2023, the City provided an additional $21,630 to support the expansion of the CIE HotHouse in its current location on Higuera St. to provide more private workspaces for small teams or individuals to better meet entrepreneurs’ workspace needs. The City’s contribution covered half of the total cost for the office renovation.

The County of San Luis Obispo has provided $200,000 in funding per year to the CIE.

Cal Poly similarly requested $750,000 additional one-time funding from the County of San Luis Obispo for the HotHouse move and has received $350,000.

Although Cal Poly requested an investment of $250,000 from the City for the HotHouse move and renovation, staff arrived at the recommendation for $116,000 in one-time funding for two reasons. First, Cal Poly requested $750,000 in funding from the County and received $350,000; a $116,000 contribution from the City would be in keeping with a roughly 3:1 funding ratio with the County for the CIE. Second, the available balance in the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance in the General Fund in the 2025-27 Financial Plan is $116,000. Please see the Fiscal Impact section below for more details.

Municipal Investment in Business Incubators

Item 6j
The benefits of agglomeration development in a municipality mean that businesses gain competitive advantages by physically locating close to other businesses in related fields. 1 The HotHouse primarily focuses on technology and innovation industries, attracting agglomeration development in the industries of medical, defense, environmental and agricultural technologies. As the San Luis Obispo and Central Coast region becomes poised as a central location for space, aerospace, clean tech, renewable energy, precision manufacturing, and agtech, the HotHouse serves as starting point for new and relocating businesses in these high-paying fields.

Many other cities have sponsored business incubators in their communities, including Cleveland, Austin, Berkeley,
2 Santa Fe,3 Yucaipa, Merced, Los Angeles, and San Jose.

As opposed to traditional economic development practices of attempting to incentivize single corporations, business incubators attract multiple small, home-grown companies.

There is evidence of long-term return on investments for public dollars put into business incubators. In New Mexico, the State saw a 57 to 1 cost benefit ratio, or $57 dollars in tax revenue for every $1 of State funding.
4 In Austin, an average of $67 of local economic
activity was generated annually for every $1 the City invested in the Austin Technology Incubator.
5 Additionally, the National Business Incubator Association indicates that 84% of incubator graduates stay in their communities.6
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
As noted in greater detail in the Policy Context section above, support for the Cal Poly CIE and an entrepreneurial ecosystem has been part of successive Council-adopted Economic Development Strategic Plans since CIE’s founding.

In addition, the 2025-27 Major City Goal of Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability includes the following workplan item, “3c. Support the creation or expansion of coworking opportunities, such as the HotHouse, or other shared resource facilities to lower the barriers to entry for new businesses and provide opportunities for community members to build skills.” Public Engagement
Through the financial planning forums and surveys, community members expressed a continued desire for economic development and business support to remain a focus as part of the 2025-27 Major City Goals, as well as support for downtown vitality. In addition, community members may provide feedback on this item at or before the Council meeting.

1 Incubator Cities: Tomorrow’s Economy, Yesterday’s Start-ups, Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review.
2 Entrepreneurship Hub | Capital Strategies
3 City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2014-24
4 New Mexico Legislature, Economic and Rural Development Policy Committee Handout: New Mexico Certified Business Incubators
5 Overview of US incubators and the case of the Austin Technology Incubator, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Innovation Management
6 ) “Innovation Works”, Morgan State University Office of Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property

Item 6j
During the update process for the 2023-28 EDSP, the City engaged the community through a survey which generated 982 responses, 9 virtual roundtables with key stakeholders, and interviews and other outreach. This engagement progress revealed the community held the promotion and support of entrepreneurship as a top need for the new EDSP.

CONCURRENCE
The proposed agreement has the concurrence of the Administration, Finance, and the City Attorney.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $116,000 $116,000 $0 N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $116,000 $116,000 $0 $0
The identified funding source for this grant agreement would be the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance in the General Fund. The approval of this grant agreement and subsequent disbursement of $116,000 of funds would fully expend this assigned fund balance by the end of the 2025-27 Financial Plan.

For each year of the approved 2025-27 Financial Plan, the Economic Development & Tourism program had several Significant Operating Budget Changes (SOBCs) approved to receive $246,000 from the same Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance that this proposed grant to the CIE would be drawn from. The SOBCs support childcare expansion, implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, and “support local” programs such as the Buy Local Bonus program during the holidays and SLO Restaurant Month.

Item 6j
If this grant agreement is approved and funds are disbursed, this funding source would be completely depleted by the end of the 2025-27 Financial Plan. The $30,000 annual services agreement with CIE is part of the Economic Development program’s ongoing base budget.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Council may request changes to the draft Grant Agreement or decide not to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the draft Grant Agreement.

The Council should provide direction on which aspects of the grant agreement should be revised.

2. Council may increase or decrease the amount of the recommended grant of $116,000. If Council elects to increase the recommended grant amount, Council should specify the amount and provide direction that the approved SOBCs in the 2025-27 Financial Plan drawing from the Economic Development Assigned Fund Balance should be re-evaluated for reduction to accommodate an increase in the CIE renovation grant. The approved SOBCs support childcare expansion, implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, and “support local” programs such as the Buy Local Bonus program during the holidays and SLO Restaurant Month in FY2025-26 and FY 2026-27. Council may also elect to provide $116,000 in funding now to support the CIE and evaluate during the FY 2024-25 Year-End Budget Report scheduled for the November 4, 2025, City Council Meeting whether additional funding should be made available.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Grant Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly Hothouse

1 GRANT AGREEMENT

CAL POLY CORPORATION
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on ____________________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City”, and CAL POLY CORPORATION hereinafter referred to as “Cal Poly” with reference to the following:

WHEREAS, Cal Poly has requested that the City contribute to Cal Poly’s efforts to move the Cal Poly Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE), which is home to the HotHouse and Small Business Development Center (SBDC), from 872 Higuera Street to 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, by providing financial support towards tenant improvements in the new location, and
WHEREAS, the City and Cal Poly have partnered since the inception of the CIE to foster an entrepreneurial ecosystem in the region and have historically maintained a separate annual services contract related to entrepreneurship programming and business support services, and WHEREAS, the 2025-27 Major City Goal of Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability includes the following workplan item, “3c. Support the creation or expansion of coworking opportunities, such as the HotHouse, or other shared resource facilities to lower the barriers to entry for new businesses and provide opportunities for community members to build skills,” and
WHEREAS, the City’s 2023-28 Economic Development Strategic Plan lists Cal Poly and the CIE as supporting partners for implementing many strategies, particularly around entrepreneurial support, small business development, and business support infrastructure, and WHEREAS, the City has determined that contributing to tenant improvements for the CIE would enhance CIE’s ability to perform its services and increase community access to business support services.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and CAL POLY CORPORATION for and in consideration of the mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth herein, do agree as follows:

1. Term
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until June 30, 2026.

2. Incorporation by Reference
Cal Poly’s scope of work as the basis of their request for funding is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit A. The City’s insurance requirements are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit B. To the extent that there are any conflicts between Cal Poly’s scope of work and the City’s terms and conditions as stated herein, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both Parties.

2 3. Grant Amount and Allowable Expenses
City agrees to pay Cal Poly a one-time only grant of up to $116,000 as provided in Section 3 to reimburse costs for tenant improvements, finishings, and furnishings directly related to areas of the CIE intended to be used for events and provision of business support services or coworking spaces, as described in Exhibit A. Examples of allowable expenses would be for furnishings and the purchase and installation of audiovisual equipment for conference rooms and the event space.

4. Reimbursement Requests
Reimbursement payment requests for allowable expenses as described in Section 3 shall be submitted to City’s Deputy City Manager. Reimbursement payment requests shall include supporting documentation including invoices or receipts. Reimbursement payment requests will be reviewed and approved for reimbursement by the City in a timely manner, and City will make best efforts to process and pay reimbursement requests within thirty (30) business days from the date of such payment request, provided that sufficient documentation supporting the reimbursement request is provided to City. Sufficiency of payment documentation shall be in the sole but reasonable discretion of the City and City reserves the right to request and receive additional reasonable documentation to support Cal Poly’s reimbursement requests and as may be appropriate to aid in City’s determination of whether the requested reimbursement payment is for an Eligible Cost.

5. Funding Source Recognition
Cal Poly will ensure recognition of the role of the City in providing funding through this Grant Agreement. The City shall be identified as a funding source in all applicable publications, press releases, social media outreach, and similar fundraising promotions. The City will be recognized as a sponsor of the CIE and SLO HotHouse with signage at the entrance of the building, logo placement in monthly emails, and on printed displays at public events. To acknowledge the City's critical role in funding the new space, the CIE will have signage affixed in the community or event space with the City’s logo and anticipated language of the following, “This space made possible through a grant by the City of San Luis Obispo." The mockup of the design will be shared with the City prior to printing for approval.

6. Event and Meeting Spaces
City may use the event and meeting spaces at no additional cost up to 4 times per year. In addition, the event and meeting spaces will be made available for rent by businesses and nonprofit organizations in the community.

7. Amendments
Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager of the City or their designee.

8. Complete Agreement (Integration Clause)
This clause serves to explicitly state that this written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein, shall represent the complete and final agreement between

3 the parties regarding this subject matter. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall not be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.

No alteration or variation of the terms of this agreement shall be valid, unless made in writing and signed by both parties, by those authorized to bind the parties.

9. Notice
For purposes of notice under this agreement, all written notices shall be considered effective upon being sent by certified mail to the following addresses:

Teresa Purrington, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Economic Development Program
Maral Kismetian, Director of Grants Development, Cal Poly Corporation 1 Grand Ave., Building #15
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

10. Authority To Execute Agreement
Both City and Cal Poly do covenant that everyone executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
By: _____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________________________
City Attorney
Cal Poly Corporation
By: ________________________________
Director of Grants Development

4 Exhibit A – Letter to City Council from Cal Poly CIE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
August 15, 2025
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Mayor and City Council Members
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: One-Time Funding Request for the Cal Poly Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council, Construction is well underway at 1144 Chorro Street—the future downtown home of the Cal Poly Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship (CIE) and the Cal Poly Mustang Shop. As previously shared, our vision for this location is to create a dynamic regional hub for entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development, activating a storefront that been vacant for 15 years. In support of this vision, we respectfully request $250,000 in one-time funds from the City of San Luis Obispo.

While we are excited about what’s to come, it’s important to recognize the tremendous success the CIE has already achieved through its current downtown presence at the HotHouse. Since its founding in 2010, the CIE has played a vital role in developing entrepreneurial talent in our region. The CIE has launched 125 companies, helped raise more than $250 million in capital, and witnessed acquisitions that totaled $650 million. Thousands of students and community members have benefited from CIE programs, tools, and mentorship.

The HotHouse has become the cornerstone of Cal Poly’s commitment to San Luis Obispo and regional economic development. In addition to our student programming, it houses the Small Business Development Center, which supports over 500 clients annually, and our two-year Incubator program, which helps early-stage companies grow into financially stable, high-growth enterprises. These achievements have been made possible through the support of valued partners like the City of San Luis Obispo.

More than 50% of our SBDC clients are based in the City of San Luis Obispo. Our HotHouse location will provide expanded opportunities to engage our local entrepreneurship community and will allow us to work with regional partners to advance our economic development goals.

5 Upon opening in the first half of 2026, the HotHouse will expand its offerings to include entrepreneurship events, speaker series, and economic development convenings, all supported by a purpose-built event space. This space, available for community bookings, will accommodate up to 70 guests seated or up to 100 in a cocktail-style setting.

The expanded coworking space—currently operating at nearly full capacity—will allow us to serve more local entrepreneurs, freelancers, and small businesses. The HotHouse consistently maintains a waiting list for private offices, and the new facility will double the number available.

This increased capacity will not only meet existing demand but also draw more professionals, startups, and visitors into downtown San Luis Obispo, adding to its vibrancy and economic activity.

The total project cost, including tenant improvements for the Cal Poly Mustang Shop, is $7.9 million. Of this, the CIE’s share for its new downtown facility is $4.25 million. As a selfsupporting nonprofit, the CIE is actively raising these funds. A lead donor has committed a $2 million dollar-for-dollar matching challenge to accelerate the campaign. To date, including matched contributions and a $350,000 investment from the County of San Luis Obispo, we have secured $1.86 million—leaving a funding gap of $2.39 million. The City’s proposed $250,000 contribution would directly reduce this gap and be applied exclusively to the HotHouse portion of the project, ensuring the new facility is fully equipped to serve the community.

The City’s contribution would fund the outfitting of the event space and community coworking areas, offsetting costs associated modernized audio-visual systems, conference tables and seating, modular coworking desks, reception and lounge furnishings, whiteboards and presentation boards, signage, lighting fixtures, and other movable equipment needed to ensure the space is fully functional and welcoming for community use.

The County and City grants are critical in demonstrating to private donors the long-term commitment of our local government partners, and the importance supporting local small businesses, and the innovation and entrepreneurial community. We believe this investment strongly aligns with the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan and the Future of Downtown – Downtown Development Recommendations. The CIE’s ongoing success contributes to the vitality of our local economy and elevates San Luis Obispo’s reputation as a center of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Thank you for considering this funding request. With your support, we can further empower students, support entrepreneurs, and deepen the connection between Cal Poly and the City of San Luis Obispo.

Sincerely,
Karen Tillman
Economic Development Advisor to the University President Interim Executive Director, Cal Poly Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship [email protected]

6 Exhibit B – Insurance
Cal Poly, hereinafter the Contractor, shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).

2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).

3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.

4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.

Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of

7 protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.

2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII.

Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.

Item 6k
Department: Attorney
Cost Center: 1501
For Agenda of: 9/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Kelly Holcomb, Senior Legal Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR (2024-29 ON-CALL LIST FOR LEGAL SERVICES)

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Attorney to send belated notification of the City’s Request for Qualifications for Legal Services, On-call Outside Counsel 2024 (“RFQ”) to two law firms that were unintentionally left off the notification list; and

2. Authorize the acceptance of qualifications, in the form directed by the City Council approved RFQ specifications, from the two law firms that receive belated notifications; and

3. Authorize the City Attorney to review submitted qualifications and, if deemed responsive, add the two law firms to the City’s current 2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal services.

POLICY CONTEXT
Every five years since 2014, as provided in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 3.24.070(C), the City Attorney’s Office has maintained an on-call list for outside counsel legal services.

DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2024, City Council approved a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) to create a 2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal services (January 9, 2024, Agenda Item# 5e). Following Council approval and public posting of the RFQ, members of the thencurrent 2019-24 on-call list were notified of the deadline to submit qualifications. From the qualifications received, the City Attorney’s Office built and maintains an on-call list of 26 law firms. These firms are not under contract but only evaluated and deemed qualified in specific areas of law, with each firm signing an acceptance letter placing them among the on-call law firms City staff can more easily contract with should a matter arise.

Item 6k
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
One law firm that did not respond to the RFQ was Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (“LCW”).

This was surprising to City staff since the firm had responded to the two previous on-call list qualification requests and were frequently under contract with the City for support of labor negotiations, personnel, and employee benefits matters. Due to LCW’s long history working with City staff and deep familiarity with City employee group memorandums of understanding, since August of 2024 City staff have completed three Specialized Service Justification forms in order to continue contracting with LCW.

Recently, while completing the contract language for LCW legal support beginning in July 2025, staff researched why the firm had not submitted qualifications to the RFQ. It was discovered, by checking the document version history of the working file of the 2019-24 on-call list, that LCW and another attorney (Stephen J. Densmore) had been inadvertently deleted in October 2023. This error occurring just four months prior to the opening of the 2024-29 RFQ, staff did not notice the deletions and when it came time to notify the members of the then-current 2019-24 on-call list of the new RFQ, neither LCW nor Densmore were notified of the deadline to submit qualifications.

Densmore
Attorney Stephen J. Densmore, the other member of the 2019-24 on-call list that was inadvertently deleted and subsequently not notified of the 2024-29 on-call list RFQ, is a solo practitioner. He had qualified for the 2019-24 on-call list in the “Public Works Engineering, Design Professional & Construction Contracting Issues and Litigation” subject area, but has not been under contract with the City since at least 2018 (based on data in the Oracle accounts payable module).

Correction due to clerical error
At this time, the City Attorney requests City Council authorization to notify LCW and Densmore of the RFQ contents; to provide the two firms with a limited timeframe in which to submit qualifications should they desire; and to evaluate the submissions for responsiveness to the RFQ. If deemed responsive, the firms would be added to the current 2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal services.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Staff is unaware of a previous instance where a member of a City on-call list was accidently deleted and that deletion resulted in their not being notified of the RFQ for the next on-call list. Regardless of a lack of precedent, the City Attorney believes the recommended action is appropriate since the legal services on-call list is not contracted attorneys but only attorneys whose qualifications have been evaluated and, having been deemed proficient in specific areas of law, the City can more easily contract with in the future. Allowing LCW and Densmore to take actions they could have if they had been

Item 6k
notified of the RFQ, seems an appropriate balance of fairness to all the law firms both on and off the on-call list.

Public Engagement
No public engagement was deemed necessary in this matter.

CONCURRENCE
Human Resources agrees with the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $0
There is no fiscal impact of the recommendation.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to authorize belated notifications for the RFQ. Should LCW and Densmore remain off the current 2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal services, City staff would necessarily continue to write Specialized Service Justifications, or follow the otherwise applicable purchasing guidelines, should work be needed from one of those firms. The City staff time to complete these additional steps through March of 2029 (when the current on-call list expires) would not be terribly burdensome but since the firms were not notified of the RFQ due to a City error, staff would like permission to remedy the omission.