HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2000, C6 - RFP REQUESTING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR AN UPDATE OF ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES. council °`°�5- -00
j acEnaa nEpont It.
"c6
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;(PFogkf
By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner PK
SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR AN UPDATE OF
ARCIRTECTUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the workscope for preparation of an update of the City's Architectural Review
Guidelines 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 if the proposed
contract amount is within the $30,000 budget.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) has a set of guidelines that it utilizes in the review
of new projects_ While there have been periodic minor revisions to the City's Architectural
Review Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines) in recent years; the last
comprehensive update of the Guidelines occurred in 1982.
The City Council has established as part of its Council Goals in the 1999-01 Financial Plan that
the Guidelines be updated. To meet this goal, a total of$30,000 has been set aside in the City's
budget to hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of revised Guidelines. As noted in the RFP,
much of the preliminary work has already been done to update the Guidelines. The consultant will
use staffs working draft as a starting point to prepare a revised set of Guidelines. Therefore,the
City is seeking consultant services to take what has already been done and refine and build on it,
rather than undertake a wholesale revision to the revised draft Guidelines.
Background
Over the past five years, Planning staff has worked periodically on updating the City's
Architectural Review Guidelines. The current Guidelines contain information on the City's
architectural review process, as well as more generalized guidelines on various aspects of project
design. Staff-implemented revisions that have been completed up to this time, with the
endorsement of past ARCS, have attempted to restructure the Guidelines to have more logical
flow and to make them more user-friendly. Two of the more significant changes to the purpose
and process section of the Guidelines are to:
C6-1
Council Agenda Report—Architectural Review Guidelines Update
Page 2
■ restructure the order of the contents of the Guidelines,describing what architectural review
is all about before getting into the more technical design concepts;and
■ eliminate the distinction between schematic and final architectural review.
In terms of the Guidelines themselves,more extensive work has been completed on some sections
than others. The Table of Contents included in the RFP serves as a workscope indicating the
categories where guidelines and pictorial graphics illustrating design principles need to be included.
Notes have been added in italics to show which sections are generally complete,need fine-tuning,or
where there is background information, but more specific language for guidelines needs to be
suggested.
The Guidelines are intended to provide both general and specific criteria an applicant should
address in plans, which are considered by the ARC or staff. Because they are "guidelines" and
not regulations, most of the principles and concepts outlined are not mandatory requirements.
However, it is planned that there will be some excerpts from other adopted City ordinances, such
as the Parking & Driveway Standards, that are requirements and are repeated in the Guidelines
because of their importance in project design.
The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide direction to applicants on general design preferences
for typical project situations in the City of San Luis Obispo. An applicant that designs a project
that is consistent with the Guidelines is likely to create a project that is well-received and moves
more quickly through the City's architectural review process. While the Guidelines cannot
provide information on every potential situation or detail that may come up with a project, they
will identify general concepts considered in the review of projects, and more specific information
on aspects of project design such as site planning, building design, parking, landscaping and
signs.
Schedule for Guidelines Update
With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope on May 2°d,RFPs would be sent out to
qualified consultants on May 8d'. The contract would specify that a working draft of the Guidelines
be prepared within 60 days of the award of the contract. Therefore,it is anticipated that the draft
would be delivered to the ARC the first week of September. It is likely that the ARC's September
18th meeting would be earmarked for a public forum to review and discuss the draft Guidelines.
This would provide Commissioners with ample time to review the Guidelines prior to the meeting
and be prepared to suggest additions and changes.
Selection of Commission Liaison
From time to time, the Commission selects from its membership individuals to serve on other
committees, such as the Tree Committee. Since the update of the Guidelines is a significant
undertaking, the ARC decided that a Commission liaison would help the review of the revised
Guidelines proceed more expeditiously and smoothly. On April 3, 2000, the ARC endorsed the
attached RFP and workscope and selected Chuck Stevenson as the Commission liaison. Chuck
C6-2
Council Agenda Report—Architectural Review Guidelines Update
Page 3
is the current chairperson of the ARC and has worked on similar projects in his role as a planner
at the County.
Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action
If a consultant were not retained to assist in the preparation of the Guidelines, it would be the
responsibility of City staff to complete the work. Given the high level of the current workload in
the Development Review Division of the Community Development Department, completion of
the update would not be achieved as expeditiously.
CONCURRENCES
As relevant, other City Departments may become involved on reviewing the draft Guidelines
once they are available.
FISCAL IMPACT
As previously mentioned, $30,000 was budgeted by the Council for the update of the Guidelines.
The RFP notes that proposals need to be consistent with the allocated funds available.
ALTERNATIVES
I. Approve the workscope,but direct staff to prepare the update of the Guidelines.
With staff responsible for the update of the Guidelines, the timeframe for completion of
the document would be more lengthy than that which includes the use of a consultant,
and other staff work program items would be further postponed.
2. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
Attached:
Workscope
A complete copy of the RFP is available in the Council Reading File.
IA Arcguide\RFP(Council report).doc
C6-3
city Of
-= san tins OBIsPO
990 Palm Street■San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES UPDATE
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an update of its Architectural
Review Guidelines. All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by 3:00 p.m. on
Thursday,June 8,2000,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,Associate 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.
C6-4
Specification No. [90149]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
�. R',
.
A. Description of Work 1
B. General Terms and Conditions 2-5
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 6-9
Project Coordination
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Start and Completion of Work
D. Agreement 10-11
E. Insurance Requirements 12-13
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 14-17
Proposal Submittal Form
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
Proposers List
C6-5
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
...,_
Background
In 1973, the City of San Luis Obispo established an Architectural Review Commission (Ordinance No.
600). Since that time, the Commission, commonly referred to as the ARC, has had the charge of
reviewing most new development projects in the community. The ARC has a set of guidelines that it
utilizes in the review of new projects. While there have been periodic minor revisions to the City's
Architectural Review Guidelines in recent years,the last comprehensive update of the guidelines occurred
in 1982.
Proiect Description
The City is seeking a qualified consultant to assist with the update of the City's current Architectural
Review Guidelines. City staff, with the review and direction of the Architectural Review Commission,
has prepared a working draft of the guidelines. The consultant will use this draft as a starting point to
prepare a revised set of guidelines. Instead of a wholesale revision to the revised draft guidelines, the
City is seeking consultant services to take what has already been done and refine and build on it.
Scope of Work
• Review the current set of adopted guidelines and the City's working draft. Potential proposers
interested in reviewing these documents prior to submitting a proposal may contact Project
Manager Pam Ricci at(805)781-7168 to obtain copies.
The attached "Table of Contents" indicates which sections are generally complete, which need
fine-tuning,and those for which we have background information,but need specific language for
guidelines suggested.
• Suggest additional categories of design review that the City may wish to consider adding to their
guidelines.
• Provide ideas and suggestions on how to illustrate various design principles.
• Work with staff to develop an appropriate print style,page layout and required graphics.
• Look at a binding technique for the document that accommodates periodic revisions and additions
to the adopted text and appendices.
-1-
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GC—Generally Complete
FT—needs Fine-Tuning
BI—Background Information is available, but more speck language needs to be suggested
I. The Purpose and the Process
(GC - This section generally reiterates the current guidelines and is in a completed draft
form that has been previously reviewed by past ARCs)
A. What's Architectural Review?
B. Who is the ARC?
C. Why These Guidelines?
D. Which Projects Need ARC Approval
1. Individually built houses
2. Aesthetically insignificant projects
3. Minor or incidental projects
4. "Sensitive" sites
5. Demolitions
6. Other projects the ARC reviews
E. ARC Review of Projects
1. Conference with a Planner
2. Application/Plans .
3. Architectural Review Options
4. How long will it take?
F. Possible ARC Actions
1. If plans are approved...
2. If a project is denied...
3. If a project is continued...
4. Appeals
F. Other Procedural Information
1. Meetings
C6-7
Table of Contents
Page 2
2. Staff reports
H. The Guidelines
A. Site Planning
1. General Design Concepts (GC)
2. Site Fencing, Walls and other Features(F7)
3. Site Utilities(FT)
4. Trash/Recycling Enclosures and Service Areas(FT)
5. Outdoor Storage(BI)
6. Bus/Transit Shelters (BI)
7. Solar Shading (BI)
B. Parking Facilities (GC)
1. Siting& Screening
2. Landscaping
3. Pedestrian Access
4. Alternative Paving Materials
5. Bicycle parking
6. Motorcycle Parking
C. Landscape/Irrigation Design and Maintenance (GC)
1. General Principles
2. Street Trees
3. Water Conservation
C6-8
Table of Contents
Page 3
D. Commercial Building Design
1. General Concepts (GC)
2. Auto Dealerships (BI)
3. Fast Food Restaurants (BI)
4. Auto Service Stations(BI)
5. Shopping Center Guidelines (BI)
6. Mechanical Equipment(GC)
7. Energy Conservation(GC)
E. Downtown
1. New Construction (GC)
2. Facade Remodels(GC)
3. Awnings (GC) ,
4. Outdoor Dining (BI)
5. Project Details including signs, lighting design, public seating, gathering
areas and public art(BI)
F. Residential Building Design(BI)
1. General Residential Guidelines
2. Single-Family Residential
3. Multi-Family Residential
4. Neo-Traditional Principles
5. Hillside Development
G. Project Details
1. Signs (GC)
C6-9
Table of Contents
Page 4
2. Lighting design(FT)
3. Public seating (BI)
4. Public art(BI)
H. Special Design Considerations (BI)
1. Creekside development
2. Historical Preservation, including new buildings within historical districts
3. Cell Towers& Telecommunication Sites
4. Public Facilities
III. Appendices
Appendix A- Glossary of Commonly-used Architectural Terms(BI)
Appendix B -Application Checklists(GC)
C6-10
ME AGENDA
11
DATE :52- - 09 ITEM #
MEMO
• Date: April 26, 2000 ta}CAON� Wan
DIA
AO 13FMECMEF
To: Council Colle ORNEY O PW DIR
From Ken Schwartz
Copies: John Dunn, K mpian, Jeff Jorgengen, Arnold Jonas, P
Chuck Steven ARC Chair
VIP G\015(tY1Ct nd-
Re: May 2nd Council meeting agenda item C-6, RFP Requesting Consuhant
Services for an Update of Architectural Review Guidelines
You have all heard me grouse ad nausea about urban design issues and my feeling that
urban design concerns have been failing between the cracks in our review process.
A quick history: Prior to the formation of the ARC, the advisory committee that dealt
with urban design issues was the Design Review Board—and they did just that. The
DRB provided Council with advice about street signing, city`Yurniture"design and
colors, street tree and utility under-grounding priorities,international signing,
recommendations for Mission Plaza embellishments, and city owned budding design
approvals. The DRB did not sit in judgment of private building projects. .
In the early `70's the members of the DRB recommended that the City should undertake
the review of private developments(with certain exceptions)and proposed the formation
of an ARC. As you might guess,the formation of an ARC to render advice and approval
of not only public but also private developments as well became a political hot potato. It
remained a hot potato until a local developer and a local architect proposed a 5 or 6 story
cubistic building with mirror glass exterior walls for the corner of Monterey and Osos
Streets(the site of the old Obispo Theater). Suffice to say,it took only one Council
meeting after that proposal to approve the formation of the ARC.
Suffice to say that the ARC is probably the most controversial of our advisory bodies and
the very controversial nature of architecture has led to the evolution of design
"guidelines"in order to give developers and architects a better certainty ofproject
approval if they stuck with those design guidelines. Consequently, I have no problem
with approving the staff recommended update of our guidelines. It is overdue.
So what's wrong? When the ARC was formed it was intended that the ARC would pick
up the DRB's historical responsibilities. Consequently the DRB was dissolved In
retrospect that was a big,big mistake!! The ARC did not pickup the DRB's urban
design responsibilities and it still hasn't.
Example: Recently. it fell to the Council to deal with street signs. In my book, street
signage design should have come to the Council from the ARC,not because we directed
the ARC to deal with the issue, but because ARC commissioners recognized street signs
were in disarray and needed to be dealt with as part or our City's urban design ima e. I
think we need to reinstate an awareness of urban design issues that lead to actioi i RECEIVED
APR 2 8 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
MEMO Page 2 •
programs.
Proposal: Ido not want to derail this RFP for Guidelines update,but I think it would be
very helpful to us if we were to also ask this consultant to provide us with his/her
professional views with respect to the following questions:
1. Should the City change the ARC back to a DRB in order to make clear to staf,
commissioners and the public that the responsibility of this advisory body by whatever
name is to act on all design issues that effect the visual image of our city including
matters ofurban design as well as architectural design?
2. Is there a title used by other cities for an advisory body that weds these design
responsibilities together?
3. Would another set of design guidelines be necessary to provide such an advisory body
with the tools needed to be effective in making urban design judgments?
Recommendation: Council direct staffto augment the RFP to include consultant charge
to respond to these questions.
•