HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1991, 5 - JOINT CITY/ CAL POLY STUDENT HOUSING PREFERENCE STUDY 11III Original agenda
WIn�da re I from the meeting of 6/'`191.
I�����I��INIIIII�II� II 1"
M713 DATE:
I cityo San S Oso SPO - /4?- 9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director p
SUBJECT: Joint City/ Cal Poly Student Housing Pref ere
Study
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Ratify selection of MPC and Associates as the consultant of
choice for the desired study.
2. By motion, authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with the
consultant and Cal Poly for the desired work at a cost not to
exceed $74,000.00, with the cost to be shared equally by the
City and Cal Poly.
DISCUSSION:
Background
There is a growing interest in the community for minimizing the
potential of adverse impacts on established residential areas by
increasing numbers of student residents. This interest has prompted
the City to pursue new courses of land use regulation, and to seek
other methods of promoting a positive relationship between it's
various citizen groups. A basic need in this latter effort is
reliable information on the basis for the evolving residency
patterns, and the potential for accommodating them in the least
conflicting manner. This need exists relative to both independent
student living arrangements and organized fraternal living groups.
i
Some time ago, representatives of the city and, university agreed
that while the symptoms of this new residency pattern were
apparent, little was actually known as to the underlying
motivation. A joint study of student housing preferences, and the
possible means of satisfying those preferences, was recognized as
being of significant value to both organizations and thus suitable
for a shared cost study. To accommodate such a study, the City's
1989-1991 Financial Plan contains a budget item (Greek Row study)
in the amount of $30,000.00
Process to Date
A jointly prepared Request for Proposals was distributed to a
number of firms who appeared to be qualified for the task. Ten
separate proposals were received and ranked, including firms with
a local, regional and national orientation. The ranking of the
proposals was conducted by a steering (selection) committee
comprised of four members from Cal Poly Administration, a student
representative, representatives of Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods, the Off-Campus Student Housing Association, and the
Community Development Department. This same group will serve as the
steering committee throughout the course of project development,
011 city o f San JS osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
providing oversight and advice to the consultant.
By consensus, the committee selected MPC and Associates of Irvine,
CA for recommendation as the appropriate firm for the job. MPC was
selected based on extensive prior experience with student housing
reports similar to the one desired here, an apparent clear
understanding of the project goals, and a moderate cost compared
to other submittals. Their submitted budget totals $74, 000.00.
Projected study costs ranged between $43,920.00 and $114, 039.00.
The second ranked firm, MGT of Sacramento, was also highly regarded
by the committee but was seen to have significantly less directly j
applicable experience than MPC. Their main advantage was a lower
projected cost, $48,287. However, there was a general feeling among
committee members that the experience advantage of MPC was so
important to achieving the best possible study that it outweighed i
the difference in cost. Copies of all proposals received are
available in the Council reading file.
A Cal Poly management committee has already agreed with the choice
of MPC and Associates and authorized expenditure of their share of
the projected contract cost. Once a contract is consummated, it is
expected that most of the work will actually occur during the fall
academic quarter of this year to insure adequate student
availability for the survey component.
FISCAL IMPACT
The city share of the proposed study contract is $37, 000.00. Monies i
were budgeted in the 1989-91 Financial Plan for this study, and
sufficient funds exist in the Community Development Department
carryover account to fund the full city cost.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the matter with direction to staff.
2. Decide to not participate in the study, deferring for either a
specific period of time or permanently.
(Contract to be prepared upon Council authorization. )
(Proposals are available in the Council Office for inspection. )
s -