HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/2009, B 7 - MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTURE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS council Mce Dae
acEnc)a nepont °®Nu�
C I T Y OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Pubk'c Works
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTURE REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals (RFP) for architectural design and environmental review for the
Monterey Street Parking Structure and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if within
the project budget.
DISCUSSION
The Monterey Street Parking Structure project (previously referred to as the "Palm-Nipomo") was
established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003-05
Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the site and designs for a
parking structure at the southeast comer of Palm and Nipomo Streets (see Attachment 1, Summary
of Council Actions). At its April 24, 2007 meeting the Council identified Site Plan Design Option
D3 (self-park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking Structure (see
Attachment 2, Site Plan Option 133). The selected design was chosen over a mechanical or
automated parking structure and did not include any other uses within the structure. It did include
an area for other uses fronting the structure on Monterey Street.
At its meeting of March 17, 2009 the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fund
prepared by a consultant and reviewed by a Council-appointed Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review
Committee. The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive findings and
recommendations then directed staff to take the next steps of environmental review for the
Monterey Street Parking Structure including completion of design and the preparation of plans and
specifications. The Council also directed that the Request for Proposals for these services be
returned to Council for consideration prior to its issuance.
Subsequently a Request for Proposals (RFP) has been prepared and is ready for distribution (see
Attachment 3, Draft Request for Proposals). As requested by Council, the RFP includes a
requirement for the consultant to take a final look into the issue of additional potential uses of the
structure or surrounding site and the estimated cost/benefits of those uses.
Scope of Work Summary
As discussed in previous project reviews, the Council has established the following project goals
which will shape the consultant's design that will return to Council for final approval:
3I�Z- /
I,.
Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 2
• Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces.
• Be creative,but mindful of costs.
• Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not look like a
typical parking garage.
• Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties(i.e. Lattimer-Hayes adobe).
• Consider City codes such as setback and height.
• Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater on a
portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifies cultural
uses in addition to parking on the site.
• Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street.
• Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site.
• Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure and provide a
direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street.
• Make every effort to preserve the large oak tree and integrate into the site design.
• Incorporate green/sustainable technologies into the structure.
• Design and construct the project within budget.
The consultant selected will be responsible for performing the necessary work to develop a final
design within the guidelines established by the City and consistent with the Preferred Site Plan (133).
In the course of the design work, the consultant will be required to present plans to various City
Commissions including the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commission
and the Planning Commission. Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans.
A final design will be approved by the City Council. The following tasks have been outlined in the
RFP:
Project Tasks
A. Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with the site and
the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulation around the site, access patterns, utility
locations, as well as previous reports, studies and documents related to the project. Consider any
findings and/or recommendations that may further develop, revise, or question any previous
decisions by the City on the design of the project or the development of other uses on the site.
B. Meet with the City project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past and
current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous City Council
action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A. The proposal should
reflect meetings with the project team prior to each meeting with the City Council and City
Commissions.
C. Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost of those
uses. The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize the use of the site by
exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum of options for their
consideration. Some options have been previously studied and discarded. They are discussed in
previous reports to the City Council.
Monterey Stmt Parking Structure Page 3
D. Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), in
accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the application requirements
for architectural review,environmental review and the Planning Commission use permit.
E. Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES) using forms provided by the City. The
IES shall identify all potentially significant project impacts in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The IES will present mitigation measures
needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them to insignificant levels. In order to fill out
and complete the IES it is anticipated that the consultant will, at a minimum, be required to
prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusing on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and
drainage study analyzing the impacts of building a structure 16 feet below grade and the
impacts on both the parking structure and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study including
shading impacts on adjacent properties and a study of archeological and historical issues. A
Phase II Hazardous Materials Survey was previously conducted; but may need further
investigation. The anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director
determines that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort and
cost of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and will
require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of an
independent consultant to do the work.
F. Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritage Commission,
Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission for approval. An
estimate of project costs for construction and operation will also be required at this time.
Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, ARC and the PC into the project plans as directed.
G. Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make changes as
directed.
Although not included in the scope of work for this request for proposals, the selected consultant
may be retained to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage.
RFP Schedule
Monterey Street Parking Structure
1. Issue RFP. 71/8/10
2. Receive Proposals.
3. Evaluate Proposals. 1/15/10
4. Conduct Finalist Interviews. 1/22/10
5. Check References and Award the Contract 1/29/10
6. Complete work for Council Approval 3/11
Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
To date approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis.
Approximately $1,193,000 remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget for
design services and environmental review. Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likely
increase depending on final project design and environmental conditions.
ALTERNATIVE
Deny or defer design RFP. The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in the
area increases. It is anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could be
available for use, therefore staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase.
Rather, staff recommends this time could be devoted to researching innovative ways to increase the
initial demand for and subsequent use of the Monterey Street parking structure.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of City Council Actions, Monterey Street Parking Structure
2. Site Plan Options D3
3. Draft Request for Proposals, Description of Work
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2009\Parking\Monterey St.Parking Structure\CAR Draft Revision 20091103.DOC
-V'r
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) was
established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan.
The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the
comer of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use
as a multi-level parking structure. The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owned
surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Street
and two single family residences on Monterey Street).
The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site; 79 surface
parking spaces currently exist on the site. They were directed to incorporate uses intended by the
Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's-Center. They were also asked to be mindful of the City's height
regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may
include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is
the principal use. Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures: a self park
structure, like the.City's current parking structures; and a mechanical structure,that parks the vehicle in the
structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay.
May 25,2004 City Council Direction
Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eight
schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, the
consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design(mechanical and self park),
however,it was determined that given the size of the site,providing both self park and mechanical parking
proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed
with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the
"baseline"design options for further study. Council also directed staff to consider the following in the
refinements of the two options:
1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area
on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some area
along Palm Street for offices and/or housing.
2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built.
3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street.
4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project.
5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground.
6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for the
roof of the structure.
7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey.Street by not encroaching into its drip-line.
July 5,2005 City Council Direction
On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roof
of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3,
mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the
structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access,
B4.S'
ATTACHMENT
added engineering requirements,and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use.
Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components.
1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street.
2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties(historic Lattimer-
Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street).
3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.)on
project plans.
4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design.
5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site(near Lattimer Adobe
detached"Dwelling over Garage").
6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations and note
where exceptions are needed.
7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-set
the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings.
8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site.
9. Identify location of access/servicing area for"Future Use by Others"-if office use is developed on
Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street.
10. Provide financial analysis-general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons for
the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an
additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass.
In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additional
refinements to Self Park Option D3:
a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible.
b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access.
c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey.
To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographic
survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building
heights.
In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other uses
on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea after
receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs of
construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would be General
Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions would come into
play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the net
amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council agreed that it would be
more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an already
expensive parking structure.
April 24,2007 City Council Direction
In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All options
located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan),
ATTACHMENT
maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by "others"
when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as
the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The three options were compared
from the standpoint of features, construction cost,maintenance cost and operational cost.
Table 1 -Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features
Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3
Summary of Key Features Self park Mechanical Mechanical
structure with structure with structure
portions of portions of oriented to
upper levels upper levels reduce building
removed to removed to height impact.
reduce reduce building
building height height impact.
_
impact.
Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f.
Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f.
No. of Levels 4'/2 5'/2 6
Building Height(35 ft.) * 39 ft. 41 ft. 37 ft.
Height exception needed? Yes Yes Yes
Building Setback**
Street yard (15 ft.) 8-10 ft. 0 ft. 0-10 ft.
Street yard exception needed? Yes Yes Yes
Other yard (10 ft.) 10 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft.
Other yard exception needed? No No No
Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565
Net New Spaces 366 412 486
Remaining Available Land Area for Future 11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f. 19,800 s.f.
Use by Others 12,700 s.f..
Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f.
7,000 s.f.
Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended,and
the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park)be chosen as the preferred design.
Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the comer of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving room
for other uses (cultural and/or residential)to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure and
a public use area at the comer of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street
from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public
use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until
the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would be
devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking(totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from
the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing
the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast,
including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located
approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system
ATTACHMENT
is not required. Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for
ventilating and waterproofing the structure.
- ' f T
I
J I
1. 4 p. . . :.A; . .
-------------
3g
f 4:r Mr•i•w:. J� i.i
Site Diagram for Option D3
The parking structure's height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers.
Monterey Street= 33 feet
Nipomo Street= 36 feet
Palm Street= 44 feet
Adjoining"Dwelling over Garage"= 21 feet
March 17,2009 City Council Direction
On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review,the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant
and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Monterey
Street Parking Structure. The questions were:
1. Can we afford it?
2. And if we build it, will they come?
Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee
provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration:
1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial
condition through fiscal year 2016-17.
2. Rename the project"Monterey Parking Structure."
3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process.
V-7U
' ATTACHMENT
4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the
General Plan.
5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces
combined with increases in parking demand.
Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure.
However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking. Projects such as Chinatown
and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce public
parking surface lots. In addition,parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/or
converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown. Based on past consultant reports, parking
demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years. Further, because the City is in the early
phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantly
upon creation of the district. To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will
be needed in the next 5 to 10 years.
1 TACHMENT ?�
ami m g
c c c m 10 5 N
��� E � '� � n m 8 �i � � � �O 4. •. ^ao��a
Mama
m
MON J � tml m y � �O � 4q Vtw'n•'•
gyLn„;
ml m to d
b
1
i
a � J
4
• : - J q Im � Q
o o
• d
\\\\ \\\L
�
- ---.a------ �
----- R
in
t
a � �
le
sh
cJ; o
aw
<� is owodw � E n
_ m
a
city o� san LUIS OBISPO';
ATTACHMENT
919 Palm Street• San Luis Obispo• CA• 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
Architectural Design and Environmental Review:
Monterey Street Parking Structure Specification No.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California will receive
sealed proposals for the design and environmental review of the Monterey Street Parking
Structure pursuant to Specification No. . The Department of Public Works must receive
all proposals by 3:00 P.M. on January 8, 2010. Proposals received after said time will not be
considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title,
specification number, consultant name and address, and time and date of the proposal opening.
Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
■ Download from the City's Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals page
■ Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above address
• Mail a request to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the above address
■ Fax a request to the City of San Luis Obispo at 805-781-7537 — include company name,
street address, phone, fax, email and the name of the contact person.
Requests must include the RFP title and specification number.
General Work Description: Prepare plans and architectural elevations for an approximately 400
space "self-park" parking structure on a City-owned site in downtown San Luis Obispo; conduct
necessary technical studies to prepare an Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance with
the California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guidelines that identify potential project impacts;
prepare preliminary construction cost estimates; prepare a report that presents plans,
environmental findings and cost estimates for presentation to the Cultural Heritage Commission,
the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
For additional information, contact Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner by
telephone at (805) 781-7590 or by e-mail at pmandeville(a)slocity.org.
Additional information is also available by downloading the following City Council Agenda
Reports from the City's website:
May 25, 2004 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure
July 5, 2005 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure
April 24, 2007 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure
March 17, 2009 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations
ATTACHMENT 3
Specification No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTIONOF WORK...........................................................................................................................................3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................7
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS...............................................................................................................................7
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION................................................................................................................8
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ..............................................................................................9
PROPOSALCONTENT...........................................................................................................................................9
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION..............................................................................9
FORMOF AGREEMENT........................................................................................................................................... 11
PROPOSALSUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................ 18
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................................................... 18
INSURANCECERTIFICATE................................................................................................................................. 18
SUBCONSULTANT LISTING................................................................................................................................ 18
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................20
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS...............................................................................22
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services.............................................................................................23
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................24
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 2 of 24
ATTACHMENT 3
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Background:
The Monterey Parking Structure project was established by the City Council as an important
objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several
occasions to discuss the location of the structure on the City-owned Palm-Nipomo site and
consider designs for a parking structure at this location. At its last Monterey Parking structure
meeting held in April 2007, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual design options and
selected a preferred site plan design for the proposed structure.
At their March 2009 meeting the City Council unanimously approved moving forward with the
next steps of environmental review, completion of design and preparation of plans and
specifications.
The Preferred Site Plan (Option D3)
v,
dL
g4TIIV 08 - Iii -7"y'
71
8E4Tg1AA {;
Important considerations of the site plan include locating the parking structure main entry on
Palm Street, maintaining the large oak tree on Monterey and allowing portions of the site to be
developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built
first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is
in place. The preferred site plan locates the parking structure at the comer of Palm and Nipomo
Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey
Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the comer of Nipomo and Monterey
Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each comer of the structure, including
two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian
paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property
along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would be
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 3 of 24
46/
ATTACHMENT _
devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been
removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center of
the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining
residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of
the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the
adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required. Additional parking
levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing
the structure. The parking structure's height is measured as follows. Heights do not include
elevator towers.
Monterey Street = 33 feet
Nipomo Street = 36 feet
Palm Street = 44 feet
Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 21 feet
The City Council directed that the proposed final design for the parking structure also look at
added uses on the site and the cost of those uses.
Proiect Goals
• Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces.
• Be creative, but mindful of costs.
• Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not look
like a typical parking garage.
• Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i.e. Lattimer-Hayes adobe).
• Consider City codes such as setback and height.
• Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater on
a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifies
cultural uses in addition to parking on the site..
• Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street.
• Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site.
• Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure and
provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street.
• Make an effort to preserve the large oak tree.
• Incorporate green technologies into the structure.
• Design and construct the project within budget.
Scope of Work:
The consultant selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to develop a final
design within the guidelines established by the City Council and consistent with the Preferred
Site Plan (D3). The final design will include a biddable set of plans and .specifications for
construction, consistent with current policies and procedures. In the course of the design work
the consultant will be required to present plans to various City Commissions including the
Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning
Commission. Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans. A final
design will be approved by the City Council.
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 4 of 24
ATTACHMENT 3
The Deputy Director of Public Works will establish a Project Team that will work with the
selected consultant and provide information, direction and advice. The Project Team will
include civil and traffic engineering, parking services and planning. In completing the design for
this project, the City anticipates that the selected consultant will perform the following tasks:
A. Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with the
Palm-Nipomo Street site and the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulation
around the site, access patterns, utility locations, as well as previous reports, studies and
documents related to the project. Consider any findings and/or recommendations that
may further develop, revise, or question any previous decisions by the City on the design
of the project or the development of other uses on the site.
B. Meet with the project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past and
current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous City
Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A. The
proposal should reflect meetings with the Project Team prior to each meeting with the
City Council and City Commissions.
C. Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost of
those uses. The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize the
use of the site by exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum of
options for their consideration. Some options have been previously studied and are
discussed in previous reports to the City Council.
D. Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), in
accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the requirements of
the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission.
E. Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES) using forms provided by the City
(attached as Appendix 1). The IES shall identify all potentially significant project impacts
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The IES
will present mitigation measures needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them to
insignificant levels. In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that the
consultant will at a minimum, be required to prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusing
on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impacts
of building a structure 16 feet below grade and the impacts on both the parking structure
and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study including shading impacts on adjacent
properties and a study of archeological and historical issues. A Phase II Hazardous
Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need further investigation. The
anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determines
that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort and cost
of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and will
require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of an
independent consultant to do the work.
F. Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritage
Commission (CHC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the Planning
Commission (PC) for approval. An estimate of project costs for construction and
operation will also be required at this time. Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, ARC
and the PC into the project plans as directed. Refer to the checklists attached as
Appendix 2.
G. Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make changes
as directed.
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 5 of 24
ATTACHMENT
Although not included in this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retained
to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage.
Deliverables
• Analysis of potential additional uses on the site.
• Architectural site plans and elevations.
• Architectural Review application including submittal requirements.
• Cost estimates for construction and maintenance of design submitted for City Council
approval.
• Environmental Initial Study
Agreement Management:.
The selected consultant will be expected to assign a single point person who understands the
overall agreement and can manage paperwork associated with it. This person does not need to
be assigned to any of the individual projects, but should be available to listen and follow up on
concerns regarding performance. Cost proposals will be received after scoping meetings, and
may include the cost of the scoping meeting. The City will evaluate the proposal upon receipt
and negotiate workscope further as needed. The consultant will receive a Purchase Order after
the proposal scope and cost has been accepted, signaling the start of the project work..
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 6 of 24
ATTACHMENT _
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must include the form(s) provided in the specifications, accompanied by
any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an
envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 919
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should
be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time of
proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant's insurance coverage
during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until
contract award. The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specked for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal,
in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the"Notice Requesting Proposals"will be considered. All
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present
at the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from
the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals)that it believes will
also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an
analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what
circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).
94-17Z
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 7 of 24
ATTACHMENT
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for
examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities in any
proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to
the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the City
within ten(10)calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its
proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and
amounts specified in these specifications within 10 (ten)calendar days after notice of contract award as a
precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License&Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant)fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
�Al
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 8 of 24
ATTACHMENT
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. Subconsultant Listing
d. References
e. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Evaluation and Selection Criteria
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
c. Proposed approach for completing the work.
d. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work
required by the City.
e. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work
f. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any known sub-consultants
g. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
h. Demonstrated ability of assigned staff to communicate effectively with elected and appointed City officials.
i. References
j. Proposed compensation.
k. Estimated cost to prepare construction plans and specifications.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
Capital Improvement Plan work.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other short form
approaches to convey information are encouraged.
b. Three(3)copies of the proposal must be submitted.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the responsiveness,
qualifications and understanding of the Consultant relative to these specification requirements. A group of
finalist candidates will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations, or requests for additional
clarifying information, before a final top ranked consultant is determined.
0?7-/9
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 9 of 24
ATTACHMENT _
6. Oral Presentations/Interviews
Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their
proposal, or respond to a written request for additional information within an allotted time. The purpose of this
second phase to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal, to evaluate the
proposer's ability to clearly and concisely present information orally, and to expand on the approach to working
integrally with City staff.
7. Consultant Selection
After evaluating the proposals and discussing them with the finalists, a ranking of the consultants based on
these items will be generated. Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best.
overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including;the written proposal criteria
described above; results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations
phase; and proposed compensation rates.
8. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:.
Issue RFP ................................................................12/3/2009
Conduct pre proposal conference..........................12/17/2009
Receive proposals ............:.........................................1/8/2010
Complete proposal evaluation.................................1/15/2010
Conduct finalist interviews .......................................1/21/2010
Finalize staff recommendation.................................1129/2010
Award contract...........................................................2/2/2010
Execute contract........................................................215/2010
Start work...................................................................2/8/2010
8-020
Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 10 of 24
Page 1 of 1
Cano, Elaina
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Monday, November 30, 20096:38 AM RED FILE RECEIVED
To: Cano, Elaina; Chippendale, Sue MEETING AGENDA
Subject FW: Item B7— Parking Garage DATE /2Jt 102 ITEM #, aZ-_ NOV 3 0 LCC9
From: carter, Andrew SLO CITY CLERK
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:58 PM
To: Council ALL
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Walter,Jay; Bochum,Tim; Mandeville, Peggy; Horch, Robert
Subject: Item B7 — Parking Garage
Fellow Council Members,
I thought I would share a concern I have with the proposed scope of work for the Monterey Street
Parking Structure in advance of our meeting on Tuesday. It has to do with the location of the garage entrance.
The scope of work calls for the main entrance to be on Palm Street. The scope of work does NOT mention a
secondary entrance on Nipomo, although the preliminary design previously developed does show a secondary
entrance there. I strongly believe that the main entrance needs to be on Nipomo.
Why is that? It's important to think where the majority of car traffic for this garage will be coming from. It will be
coming primarily from Nipomo Street, not from Palm. (Most of the traffic will be coming south on Higuera or north
on Marsh before turning onto Nipomo.) Having the main, and perhaps only, entrance on Palm is like telling all
visitors to your house to come around the house and use the back door. That just doesn't make sense.
I am comfortable leaving it to the architects to determine the feasibility/desirability of a secondary entrance on
Palm, but the design must assume from a traffic flow perspective that Nipomo is the primary entrance.
I also have one other issue to raise. It's not related to the scope of work, but it is related to the garage. I strongly
recommend that this garage NOT be referred to as the Monterey Street Parking Structure. I note that this garage
will NOT have an entrance on Monterey Street Furthermore, this structure will NOT front on Monterey, since
"future use by others" (perhaps a new SLO Little Theatre) is planned to front on Monterey. Calling this garage the
Monterey Street Parking Structure will only lead to future confusion by residents and tourists alike. This will
particularly be the case because most tourists think that Monterey Street ends at the Mission and most residents
have to stop and think a minute to realize that there are actually two blocks of Monterey south of the Mission.
Imagine the difficulty of providing directions to a"Monterey Street"garage that isn't on Monterey and can only
be accessed from Palm or Nipomo.
Andrew Carteri42D
Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo *?COUNCIL TCDD DIR
S?CAO FIN DIR
❑ ACAO FIRE CHIEF
'5�A7TORNEY PW DIR
V CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
O DEPT HEADS REC DIR
�c PSB �kr UTIL DIR
Y, _T�< _ Q MIR DID
k �1�wT/MES yt f'ouve�c.
y E rry /X 4 A-
11/30/2009
-11/30/2009