HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2006, C3 - RFP REQUESTING EIR AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE CHINATOWN PROJECT. council M w c
j agenda uEpout 1�N..b. 6-3
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS FOR
THE CHINATOWN PROJECT.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and archaeological field
work consultant services in connection with the Chinatown Project and authorize staff to
proceed with sending out Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified consulting
firms.
B. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm for the EIR,
contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a
30% administrative fee.
C. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm for archaeological
field work services, contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of
the contract plus a 30% administrative fee.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
SLO Chinatown, LLC, represented by Mark Rawson on behalf of Jim and Tom Copeland, has
submitted plans for the mixed-use development project known as the "Chinatown Project"
(Attachments 1 and 2). The Copeland brothers recently completed the Court Street Project
consisting of the Court Street retail and office building and the parking structure and City offices
at 919 Palm Street. The Copelands have elected to exercise their option to acquire and develop
the property described in the Option Agreement between the City and Copelands. The
"Chinatown Option" was executed on February 18, 2003.
Plans for the Chinatown Project were officially submitted to the Community Development
Department in the spring of 2005, but were not actively processed as the focus was on
completing the Court Street Project. On October 20, 2005, a Development Review Committee
meeting was held to discuss project plans and obtain preliminary feedback. A draft initial study
of environmental impact which also identified needed workscope items was distributed to
various key City staff for comments and edits. The initial study has now been completed and is
the basis for the EIR workscope.
Council Agenda Report-Chinatown Project EIR RFP
Page 2
Back rg ound
The proposed Chinatown Project is the development of a downtown mixed-use center including
retail, offices, restaurants, and residential units. A total of about 41,700 square feet of retail,
12,000 square feet of office, and 6,700 square feet of restaurant space are proposed. Plans also
include 57 residential living units of varying sizes, including four live/work units, located above
parking and retail near Palm Street.
More formal development proposals for the two sites located at the comer of Monterey and
Chorro Streets are still being developed. Envisioned is a three- to four-story building including
about 13,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor with the potential for additional retail on
the second or plaza level, and either residential living units or a hotel on upper floors.
The site is located on the south side of Palm Street, between Morro and Chorro Streets, and
continues down to Monterey Street. The overall project site involves the consolidation of a
series of private and public parcels. The project involves the removal of private and public
surface parking and the demolition of five commercial structures. A two-level underground
parking garage with a total of 184 spaces is proposed. The development will also include
pedestrian walkways connecting plaza areas and the interior of the development to the
surrounding streets.
Staff has developed a workscope for the EIR, which is part of the RFP excerpts attached to this
report (Attachment 3). The workscope was developed from the initial study prepared by staff
and outlines the work tasks that need to be performed to fully evaluate significant project issues.
In addition, there is a separate workscope for the archaeological field work and testing activities.
Staff anticipates that the same cultural resources sub-consultant for the EIR would be selected to
do the necessary field work. Because there are much different work products, milestones, and
timelines for activities involved with the archaeological field work as opposed to the EIR
preparation, it makes logistical sense to have a separate contract for the archaeological field work
and testing services. The RFP includes the workscopes for both the preparation of the EIR and
additional archaeological services, but specifies that there would be two separate City contracts
to administer the distinct activities involved.
The initial study, and standard City RFP attachments outlining general terms and conditions,
insurance requirements, and forms for the consultant to prepare, will be mailed out to
consultants, but are not attached to this report. This additional information is available for
review in the Council Reading File.
Schedule for EIR Preparation
With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope, RFPs would be sent out to qualified
consultants on July 24`h, with consultant proposals due back to the City on August 29th. The
schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held on September 13th and a consultant
contract awarded on September 21, 2006. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft EIR
would be delivered to the City by January 8, 2007.
e3-z.
4
Council Agenda Report-Chinatown Project EIR RFP
Page 3
CONCURRENCES
Other City Departments were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's
initial study of environmental impact from which the EIR workscope was derived.
FISCAL IMPACT
Once a qualified consultant is selected and a contract negotiated, the project applicant will pay
all of the costs for the consultant services to prepare the EIR, plus a 30% administrative fee, with
the administration of the consultant contract overseen by the Community Development
Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department. This same procedure will be used
with the archaeological consultant. This is the approved procedure for City-required EIRs.
Therefore, the project will have no direct fiscal impact..
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the workscope, but direct staff to prepare the EIR.
If,a consultant were not retained to prepare the EIR; it would be the responsibility of the
City to do so. With staff responsible for EIR.production, the timeframe for completion of
the document would be lengthier than that estimated above for a consultant, and other
staff work program items would be further postponed. In addition, staff would need to
hire sub-consultants to adequately evaluate certain technical issues.
2.. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced scale plans
Attachment 3: Excerpts from Draft RFP including the Scope of Work
Attachment 4: Proposers List
Available in Council Reading File—Initial Study ER 69-06 and Entire Draft RFP
LA ChinatownEIR RFP(CC Report).doc
� 3 3
Z
`- Attachment 2
n9ae roNuuwa lj'r� °Ejt1�i4�3�!'a'y',�i1 j
I 7 i� �ont�e {IjJ �Ftift}+1�E�i�t� ; E"
•.." +aa4aw9�w 66a•a9dv aibaama
N M O iV N I H ><, �9 -111111 i+ l{ { 1
#�"' !n
rry rH t,�l 1 F ; { x
i+
a�remsv anmv /
(w•s6wr1 om-.c 8IVJ9 ,�#!1�[i! Tl1�l,Ib{r r
� !!! a. �E,�gG. � �9 ���
C
.. n n . n a n e � •. .. w .. .. .. .. � F��tl�M 6tl�i�8 \ i y /"�Ol,` \�
®na.ma 5�9� S u u AStl z F7 a
b p4p pY q9 b bp 9 4 '1 b4p p4Q � 6
bo
a $
wweL ,Q
cn = A
IMP,pp j$ d
L < $
j V11
aaa4.ce o49on
m dd++
Il n
of
F
Z
O
a �
am I C
[I 11T IT
289116 0410aJ
(� Attachment 2
•.•�. �..•�..�� ,��. �me,.e vera mocawh alvalmt l3i ci[ jd t �1
�N MOlV N
FH j (wwwb JIM-.1 it'll I Uou
xmrwvm.p�v =�
U!PFID UBMAO
< g
u
N
dsda�mvw
Lb o
a e e e elis9l 1 I
I 1
g I `./
m
I
p - - - p
I` m
I
1HHlll olloua
ttachment 2
L[ -«„mea }!fills a q i
e�rss(mv ` P fill
..: .. _....^:•:,. �,���� SMO—l�f N I Hj � � � j�l�i��l;�i�
1 ,. 1.1}t_1� 1rt m
tlIY NOSINVHANVW IO.LRN AN•.I }'�l�y�l �{a It�+•�1�i W
, 1
ammiaAw,WAS uow :1,:FlRIMilf;,11li11
m
� a
e
Iaa111S 0aa0w
l Je 111�L ►���- ' '--i.-J w
0
1
wo,
e oe0 e f o e Sgt o
.. �_ t
O O O y hNy O � O_— � O O O y �
W
N It
o N
L]
OG
e e e Qj
N
z
0
0 o e
u E�
p.S,at
g e o
d ;
Z 0 0 0
- Attachment 2
owcoN aM,l r 1§ ill .1m
xa�wv+m..v awrtsv (womd �fa'; t1�e 1
SUEIdlaea' UZLTd siui�s
D
P
m
J
a �
u
y b
0
zaaxis ODUONJIM
—01 lu
`o
—" it — tt I-- 4
f--"--- ---' ---- e i IAN
� e
� L IIIA
—� UP
a u �. x
._o -- ti ° x ° 8
r- -- o 8
ar F
Ilk
e k
c �
ai
w
F
I I �
0 0 0
I I I
Attachment 2
IJI
�I.e�, �•�� swa,od � ,
N M OIV N I F f
Vrv'NOSAAVe98YW NatvnU.o-m_a ,jy 33'y{ 1 j'� l Vi
amralatat4aaqsuqua
m
a �
u
y e
_ o
133UIS ON2IOw y
i�
wo
u$ p $+
P4 za o 0 0 (�
1 a�
o 0 0 0 w�
a�
w '
I ^`
y ' W
1
I
a o l o 0 o Al o s a
yl cis
n
i
O O O O O
1
1
I
1
1 O
1
11\
I , ,
z
I 1
- I TTFTTI I I I I 1 1 17-74
1 1
r
1
- Attachment 2
artmr6tumt f1I �' e m
... 9mcsgm!��Ias 9041 f BCYUILTId [51 i
`:... NMOiVNIH N. Il� fi '(� i.,' '
vn'uosnvxaavw rn aoms vr�n N.
1•��,iltill�1' j x�
{M.LR[U dA•.t 1 0 ��j=CY1j11 i fJl
MMa saaaz tMMpTSOa 791 MORE 1
m
�+ b
0
iaaxis OU1031
O
F �F F 5F V
1-4
o s
;
e a
�r
H
o
Co
id
� qy
I
C,3 ip
_ Attachment 2
amsmm oil
�amru 11r�Ii�i�{t`f��tlj;� i
N MOlVN i H m �
tltr+!;
ZU' Jill,' }
H
ala 1A--1lmuaplmx PUZ ,):1 � fig 1
N
d
G�=9 Ad
m
U
m a
Iaax.cs OxxON P-4
w
O
O
° w
8 N
5
S ° >
ij�
Attachment 2
a j* 1 j11
-_..._.. ooYJF41D•Rlei 11
'I 61=F1 �j RF(i11
[NMOiVN I HD m � ,.121!112..11 jai'lip. ill
I x�
StTeja ram TeqWvqSax PZs tll{;l�i l
a
as
9 m
U b
m O
BEE
.I.ff3lI1S OZIHOW
i-�
O
o oils- o
r
o
ilk '
N Y
55q a
N da
t T�c 904-il I
O m
1 1
/c
Attachment 2
r ,
=�1t},ti,�f�,t1�
vn moose vara ar N M OiV N I H D m � M 11!{;tiH��iJul
;T4 • a
�.�,
!t tit,?-J;,ijltI I y
�a,�,[en�e!�xu�t ,� ;1,:lt:ti�lttl};tf�,
L
> s
G4 m a
w
u
iasxis oxxoW
O
IX64 DIM
O
v
9
a1
a
:>r
v
j M
�F
C3-13
Aftac;imcnt G
IYt�siy'c•..I j
;Iii
m } �f��
�VI� N M Olaf N I H m om ;�� ; ;='ij�
ll t� ] y
a-AMu dA_.[ y
Il•'�°s'���}f!s�tl�i
s.w�v..nYry euoRp�II� 39,....�s
n
w
® ,
® ma
❑ ❑ ❑ e e
m m m
0
it tz
a�
•a+a. .F,
j 4 rx
B Aw' W
� T
8
� 9
rn
C a •..i O
CJI®
y >y as
00
y A� rn $�
z ai
aomscWd I nrme-aa� Bill l Jill
i�li�at+'i1 3
t 1�1
. 9oaq'•�RD�P1� i1 1 ! F
ffi 2�Y $LYGIOY j
M OiV N I H �I� :'�i' �li�
m � x
vrvtros�avaztaoa 1.11;!:,,I�14li . a ,
1'' a)0!.{
o�.,csd ��p j f F1 a H
B $
m
u
m b
0
O
Q)
� X
� W
-1a
!
Sol.
+r TS m
O
❑
0
O
O ❑
O ❑
63 �s
Attachment 2
"'.::.'•::. ••••• ao.anraro��J �['arvar nJvaJdu Il} aJ t J J �J'�II t C1
NMO1VN114J1.lifjll':(,� I z �
m7mmvemrn U+uw arm..i . JI}t'1}ijyti : m
. �s.. !i111 EH t 1111 Id t
suoAenap io?sa3X3 :PZ�:�i�t�llit111}
m
a �
j m a
rCIEte'
II
O
to d
IM +J
X
k�
.fi
0
o
A
v
w
Co
ae
Co
mm
m ®
mea �
�m
Affachmcnf 2
N M OlafN f H ,., ,
111 s11
a-wmd Of IN T
dil
HIM I
s
u
m
a c
- - c
�o
Cit! Of Attachment 3
san LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
Chinatown Project EIR & Archaeological Services
Specification No. 90659
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) for the Chinatown Project. The EIR must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines and address the topics identified in the Request for Proposals (RFP). All proposals
must be received by the Department of Finance by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2006, when they
will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each
proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401,
in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and
time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the
specification package.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Pam Ricci, Senior Planner at(805)781-7168.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
c3 ��
i
Attachment 3
Specification No. 90659
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work ��}q(,h�� 1-5
r101- B. General Terms and Conditions 6-9
CL kcbe� Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions C-a"CkeA) 10-13
Project Coordination
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Start and Completion of Work
D. Agreement 1415
rto{-
Q E. Insurance Requirements 16-17
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 18-20
Proposal Submittal Form
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
Section A Attachment 3
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
r 77 z..
Proiect Description
The proposed "Chinatown Historic District" project is the development of a downtown mixed-use center
including retail, offices, restaurants, and residential units. A total of about 41,700 square feet of retail,
12,000 square feet of office,and 6,700 square feet of restaurant space are proposed. Plans also include 57
residential living units of varying sizes, including four live/work units, located above parking and retail
near Palm Street.
More formal development proposals for the two sites located at the corner of Monterey and Chorro
Streets are still being developed. Envisioned is a three- to four-story building including about 13,000
square feet of retail on the ground floor with the potential for additional retail on the second or plaza
level,and either residential living units or a hotel on upper floors.
The site is located on the south side of Palm Street, between Morro and Chorro Streets, and continues
down to Monterey Street. The overall project site involves the consolidation of a series of private and
public parcels. The project involves the removal of private and public surface parking and the removal of
commercial structures. A two-level underground parking garage with a total of 184 spaces is proposed.
The development will also include pedestrian walkways connecting plaza areas and the interior of the
development to the surrounding streets.
Scone of Work
An Initial Study of Environmental Impact was completed for this project, which concluded that there may
be significant environmental impacts associated with development and that an environmental impact
report (EIR) is required. The applicant is not disputing the need for preparation of an EIR. The
workscope more specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential
impacts of the project.
EIR Workscope Items
The selected consultant shall incorporate the Initial Study of Environmental Impact that was completed
for this project into the EIR. The following list of workscope issues was extracted from that initial study.
The numbers used below that identify issue areas are consistent with the system from the initial study.
For those issue areas included in the initial study, which concluded that there were no impacts, or that
impacts could be mitigated with identified mitigation measures,no workscope items appear.
#1 AF.STHRTics
A. The consultant shall perform a visual analysis to identify potential impacts of the project on views
of important scenic resources, and impacts to adjacent businesses and residents in terms of
sunlight exposure levels and views, and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. Specifically,
the analysis shall consider project effects on the dwellings above the historic Muzio's Store. The
visual analysis shall also evaluate aesthetic concerns related to creating a "canyon-like effect" as
a result of having several large structures within the same block and in close proximity to one
another in terms of both loss of solar access (shadowing) and impacts to streetscape views. The
consultant shall factor into their cost proposal forphoto-simulationsand other appropriate visual
analyses. In designing mitigation measures, the consultant should look at opportunities in the
l � 3 -a6
Attachment 3
project to provide unobstructed view corridors, given levels and orientations of building decks
and public areas such as plazas.
B. The consultant shall provide a preliminary analysis regarding the submitted project's consistency
with the City's Community Design Guidelines and the performance standards included in
Aesthetics Mitigation Measure No. 2 and offer specific suggestions for ways that the project may
be modified to be more in conformance,if deficiencies are found.
#3 AER QuAt,EM
A. The consultant shall develop more specific performance standards for the dust management and
emissions control plan described in the mitigation measure above. The consultant shall develop
these standards, based on input from the APCD, and may wish to refer to Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 (a)—(1) on Pages 3.2-9—3.2-11 from the Final EIR for the Coplelands Project prepared by
AMEC Earth &Environmental dated August 2002 for a recent example of a similarly developed
mitigation measure.
B. In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis,interpolate
expected emissions generated by the project,and develop appropriate mitigation measures, which
accommodate needed transit facilities, encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and consolidate
parking,to help offset impacts.
#5Cuixugm,RFcammi -
A. The EIR consultant selected will need to thoroughly discuss the impacts to cultural and
archaeological resources and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The consultant's
proposal will need to cover the following:
1. An archeological subsurface testing program/work plan shall be prepared by a qualified
archeologist pursuant to the preferred "consolidated" approach to perform subsurface testing
and impact mitigation concurrently This plan will provide for an integrated program of
subsurface archaeological testing,evaluation,and impact mitigation for inclusion in the EIR
2. A qualified historical consultant shall be retained to identify significant historic resources
within the project area, discuss in particular detail those buildings proposed for demolition,
evaluate project effects on those historic resources, and recommend appropriate measures to
mitigate adverse impacts, consistent with CEQA, the City's General Plan and the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
Separate Archaeological Services Contract Workscope:
A. The EIR Cultural Resources sub-consultant would be the preferred consultant for the separate
field work and testing contract, which would include the following tasks:
1. An archaeological field team shall be assembled to determine whether archaeological remains
are present; evaluate their significance and integrity; assess potential effects; and perform
impact mitigation, where appropriate,through data recovery excavation.
2. The results of the testing program shall be presented in a report which details all findings,.
discusses the significance of the resources, and describes steps necessary to protect the
resource, including provisions for resource recovery, monitoring, curation and public
display/interpretation of the significant resources.
3. Native American coordination shall be arranged for in case of possible recovery of
human remains during project excavation.
-2-
Attachment 3
#7 GEOLOGY ND SO .S-
A. The consultant shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the
findings of the soils engineering report, and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
#S HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATF.RIAi.S:
A. The consultant shall incorporate the background, conclusions and proposed mitigation programs
of the required environmental site assessments into the EIR.
#9 i.AND U.SR
A. The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project's consistency with the
General Plan. A table shall be incorporated into the EIR to summarize where the project design
complies with polices and programs and where mitigation may be necessary to assure
consistency.
B. Similar to LU Policies 4.7 and 4.13, consistency with LU Policy 4.16.4 will be the focus of
workscope items provided in Section 1, Aesthetics. This is an evolving issue since City staff is
working on a possible amendment to this policy as well as to the zoning regulations to allow
greater building height in the downtown if certain performance standards are met and particular
project amenities are provided. The selected consultant will need to coordinate with City staff to
keep abreast of the status of any amendments during the course of EIR preparation.
#10 MINERAi,.AND ENERGY RF.SO 1R .FLS:
A. The consultant shall identify the potentially significant energy implications of the project
as detailed In Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.. Mitigation measures shall be
proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during
construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal.
#11 NOISE:
A. Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses, attenuating noise to the planned residential
units, and minimizing impacts to surrounding residential uses. Noise readings shall be conducted
at different locations within the project site and at various times of day to establish a baseline for
ambient conditions
#15 TRANsPoRTATioN/TRAEELCi
A. A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the
EIR. The traffic study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study
Guidelines (June 2000). Project trip generation characteristics and distributions are to be
submitted to the City for review and comment/approval prior to proceeding with the traffic
analysis. The EIR will highlight the project setting related to traffic issues, summarize the impact
analysis,and outline appropriate mitigation measures. The traffic study would eventually become
a technical appendix to the EIR.
The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM), or equal, to
develop the background traffic projections for future year analyses. The study facilities are to be
analyzed as a) existing and b) existing with traffic generated by the proposed project. The
consultant shall supply exhibits illustrating proposed mitigations. Along arterial corridors, a
-3- 673 `C:DQ
Attachment 3
traffic signal progression analysis may be necessary for Level of Service determinations and
mitigations.
Regarding the SLOCTM, the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk
and documentation with the project land uses and loaded network. If the consultant utilizes
another software other than MINUTP, a licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the
City along with the project disks.
Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include:
1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan - review the EIR to: validate this
previous EIR's conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent mitigation
measures identified in the EIR into the design of this project; determine whether residual
significant transportation impacts exist; and present supplemental mitigation measures as
necessary.
2. Trip Generation - provide specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to which
this project will increase traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion,in the downtown core.
3. Intersection Impacts - evaluate the adequacy of vehicle storage for left and right turns at
impacted intersections within the commercial core in close proximity to the project sites (and
the secondary impacts on the existing supply of curb parking).
4. Traffic Signals-look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the potential
need for new traffic signals.
5. Pedestrian Facilities evaluate the need for improvements to pedestrian facilities along
downtown streets, traffic signals, and at mid-block and intersection locations, to safely
accommodate increased pedestrian volumes associated with the project.
6. Project Support Access - determine whether adequate service, delivery, refuse collection,
and emergency access to the proposed project sites is provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle
and non-vehicular circulation.
7. Parking Facility Access Points - the location and adequacy of vehicular access to the
proposed parking facilities, their impacts on vehicle circulation, parking, and pedestrian
safety within adjoining public street rights-of-way.
8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency - review and recommend changes to, if any, the
proposed parking structure regarding, circulation, efficiency, and the ability to allow at a
minimum: 60 ingress vehicles per hour and 60 egress vehicles per hour, in a safe and
effective manner.
9. Parking Adequacy Issues - summarize parking demand and supply, and identify alternative
parking strategies as mitigation measures, such as supplemental parking supply, Parking
Demand Reduction, Transportation Demand Management, and pricing, to reduce potential
impacts of the proposed parking deficiency to less than significant levels.
10. Access Mitigation Strategies - provide an evaluation of how access levels to the downtown
for employees and patrons can be maintained during the phased construction of the project.
At a minimum, mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures, supplemental parking,
and/or alternative parking techniques and programs.
-4-
Attachment 3
#16 UTrLnriEs AND s1FRvicE SYSTEMS:
A. Based on the submitted water demand and wastewater generation calculations submitted by the
applicant's engineer, the consultant shall discuss and analyze the following, and provide
appropriate mitigation as needed:
1. The projected wastewater flows for the project;
2. The impact of projected flows on the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant;
3. The impact of flows on the wastewater collection system, specifically in the area between
the project site and the Nipomo collector main.
B. Evaluate appropriate ways of accommodating trash and recycling areas in to the project that are
functional,accessible, and aesthetically pleasing.
Additional EIR Workscoue items
In addition to the above-mentioned significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed
development, the EIR should discuss any other significant environmental impacts that are discovered by
the consultant while preparing a proposal, public input from the scoping meeting, or comments made by
other agencies after circulation of the Notice of Preparation. In order to be sure the EIR is a
comprehensive list of all the potential significant items, a discussion of standard CEQA items that were
not considered significant should be included. A description of each of these items, including
justification of why they were deemed less than significant, including proposed mitigation measures,
should be provided.
Alternatives
Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and
should at minimum evaluate the following:
1. The "no"project alternative;
2. A project of a more limited size and scope; and
3. Other comparable sites where the project might be developed.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The consultant shall prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program consistent with CEQA Section 21081.6.
Resources
The EIR should address, and rely on as a resource, previous EIRs that have been completed within the
project vicinity, specifically the Environmental Impact Report for the Copeland's Project (EIR 192-01
and ER 193-01, August 2002, prepared by AMEC for the City of San Luis Obispo).
-5-
Attachment 3
Section C
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
p.
PROJECT COORDINATION.
a. City. The Community Development Director (hereinafter referred to as "Director") hereby
designates Pam Ricci, Senior Planner as the Project Manager for the City. She shall serve as the
representative of the City for all purposes under this agreement. The Project Manager, or the
Director in her absence,shall supervise the progress and execution of this agreement.
b. Consultant. Consultant shall assign a single Project Manager to have overall responsibility for the
progress and execution of this agreement for Consultant.
CONTENT OF PROPOSALS
Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted that reflect a clear understanding of the workscope to
be performed and include the following information:
1. Resumes of your firm, the project manager; key technical staff and any sub-consultants you plan
to employ. Work on previous projects with similar workscopes should be highlighted, along with
references from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services with telephone
numbers included. With this project, it is critical that the consultant's professional team include:
a. A geologist,geotechnical engineer, or soils engineer to evaluate geological issues;
b. A licensed civil engineer with a background in traffic,or registered traffic engineer;
C. An architect or engineer with a specialization in parking structure design;
d. A qualified architectural historian and archaeologist.
An organizational and manpower chart to show the names of all key personnel assigned to the
project should also be included.
2. A draft work QroQram, which expands on, the workscope contained in Section A of this Request
for Proposals (RFP). The work program shall itemize major tasks and work products, responsible
staff, special information or studies required, and special methods or equipment, if any, you
anticipate using. Procedures should be included showing how the consultant plans to coordinate
with key City staff. The work program shall also specify information, equipment, or services to
be provided by the City that is not already identified in the workscope. The work program should
identify all other elements of the EIR needed to assure CEQA compliance, which may not be
listed in the workscope, and should explain how this will be accomplished.
3. A preliminary estimate of number of hours expected to complete the work, organized by major
task to be accomplished and by level of employee who will be assigned to do this work. The time
for firm members to attend public hearings where the EIR is considered (minimum of four)
should be included as part of the hours estimate.
4. A schedule of completion for major tasks identified under#2,above. Examples of key tasks are:
data collection, data verification and analysis, completion of the Draft EIR, responses to
comments, attendance at public hearings, and certification of the Final EIR. It is the City's intent
that an administrative draft of the EIR would be prepared by January 8, 2007. The schedule was
based on using the typical 90-day timeframe for production of the administrative draft of the EIR
-10-
- -� Attachment 3
from signed agreement between the City and the consultant and then adjusting it forward a few
days, accounting for the end of the year holiday season.
5. Hourly billing rates for the staff to be assigned to this project, including any sub-consultants.
6. Three references from clients for whom your firm has completed similar EIRs.
PROPOSAL EVALUATIONAND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Review of the project by City decision-makers is dependent on completion of the Draft EIR. Therefore,
timely completion and circulation of the Draft EIR is essential to expeditious processing of the project
consistent with CEQA and will be considered in evaluating consultant proposals. A review committee
using a two-phase selection process as follows will evaluate proposals:
Written Proposal Review and Finalist Candidate Selection
A group of finalist candidates (generally the top three to five proposers) will be selected for follow-up
interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as indicated in their written proposals:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City
b. Quality and responsiveness of the proposal
C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance
of the work required by the City
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services
e. Proposed approach in completing the work
f. References
g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project
Presentations,Interviews,and Consultant Selection
Finalist candidates will be required to make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer
questions about their proposals. The purpose of this phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any
outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer's ability to present
information orally clearly and concisely. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist
candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule
tied to the completion of key project milestones or tasks. Contract award will be based on a combination
of factors that represent that best overall value for completing the work outlined in the workcope as
determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria noted above. results of background and
reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation.
After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected
Consultant, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workcope and/or method and
amount of compensation.
PROPOSAL REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE TENTATIVE
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFP July 24, 2006
Receive proposals August 29, 2006
Complete proposal evaluation September 6, 2006
Conduct finalist interviews September 13, 2006
.-11- C3 _C�26
Attachment 3
Finalize staff recommendation September 18, 2006
Applicant deposits EIR cost September 25, 2006
Award contract September 25, 2006
Execute contract/Start work September 28, 2006
Complete admin. draft January 8, 2007
If you have any questions about this RFP, schedule, or attachments, please call Pam Ricci at (805) 781-
7168.
START AND COMPLETION OF WORK
1. Contract Schedule. The above schedule, as well as meeting dates needed in the future, may be
modified with the mutual consent of the City and the Consultant.
2. Completion of Work. Work on the administrative draft of the EIR shall be completed 90 calendar
days after execution of the contract.
3 Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
4. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
5. Required Deliverable Products. The Consultant will be required to provide:
a. Five (5) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR which addresses all elements of the
workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant
and, where necessary, the Consultant will be required to respond to staff comments and
make such changes as deemed appropriate.
b. 60 copies(utilizing two-sided copying)of the Draft EIR.
C. 50 copies of the Final EIR, which incorporates changes to the draft document as a result of
its review at pubic hearings,and includes responses to comments.
d. One camera-ready original of the Draft and Final EIRs, unbound,each page printed on only
one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for reproduction.
e. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the
workscope, the Consultant must provide the corresponding computer files to the City,
compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by
the project manager:
Word Processing Microsoft Word
Spreadsheets Excel
Desktop Publishing Coreldraw,Pagemaker
-12-
�� a
Attachment 3
Computer files must be submitted on a compact disc. Each disc shall be clearly labeled and
have a printed copy of the directory.
6. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price
is attendance at up to four public meetings to present and discuss the Consultant's findings and
recommendations. The cost should also include a public scoping meeting to be held at a Planning
Commission meeting on October 25, 2006. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings
with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks.
7. Preparation of CEQA Documents. The consultant, in consultation with the Project Manager,
shall be responsible for the preparation of the required Notice of Preparation (NOP), Notice of
Completion (NOC), and Notice of Availability (NOA). The consultant will also be responsible for
mailing these documents to relevant agencies and interested citizens, as well as distributing Draft
EIRs. The costs for these tasks and mailing costs should be factored into the total EIR budget.
13 (23 —Oc?
Attachment 4
PROPOSERS UST
CHNATOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT/COURT STREET PROJECT EIR—
SPECIFICATION NO.90659
AMEC Earth & Dudek & Associates, Inc. Envicom
Environmental, Inc. 621 Chapala St. 28328 Agoura Rd.
1 E. Anapamu St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Fugro West, Inc. FIRMA The Morro Group
1012 Pacific St., Ste. A 849 Monterey St. 1422 Monterey St., Ste. C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
LSA Associates, Inc. SAIC Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1998 Santa Barbara Street, 816 State St., Ste. 500 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
Suite 100 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Woodward Clyde Consultants Tetra Tech, Inc. Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc
130 Robin Hill Rd., Ste. 100 4213 State Street, Suite 205 1461 Higuera St., Suite A
Santa Barbara,CA 93117 Santa Barbara, CA 93110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Padre Associates, Inc. David Early, Prinicpal TPG Consutling, Inc.
811 EI Capitan Way, Ste. 130 Design,Community & Environment 222 N. Garden St., Ste. 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Visalia, CA 93291
Berkeley, CA 94709
A/E Consultants Dames & Moore LFR Levine Fricke
Information Network 3445 West Shaw Ave., Suite 101 301 Miller St., Ste. 210
P.O. Box 417816 Fresno, CA 93711 Santa Maria, CA 93454
Sacramento, CA 95841.