Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001, C4 - RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE COSTCO/FROOM RANCH DEVELOPMENT, ER173-00 counciL M«fin Da. j dcEnba Repom D®Numbv CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct r By: John Shoals, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE COSTCO/FROOM RANCH DEVELOPMENT, ER173-00 CAO RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant services in connection with the Costco 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, contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a 30% administrative fee. DISCUSSION: Situation Costco Wholesale has filed an application for construction of a warehouse retail store on property located on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and U.S. Highway 101. The specific proposal consists of a 138,000-square foot Costco store and 867 parking spaces on a 16.5-acre parcel, 142,000+/- square feet of general commercial on the two remaining Froom Ranch parcels on Los Osos Valley Road, parking, landscaping and various site improvements. Attachment 1 is a conceptual site plan. In order to proceed with the applicant's proposal, the project must be processed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all applicable City Regulations. In general, CEQA requires that a project's potential environmental impacts be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures developed before a lead agency can take action on a project. In accordance with CEQA, the Community Development Department staff has completed a preliminary review of the project and determined that it will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to fully evaluate the potential impacts of the project and to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Potential impacts were identified in the areas of: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, General Plan consistency, geology, hazards, hydrology and drainage, noise, transportation/circulation and utilities. These impacts will be evaluated for project-specific and cumulative effects. The EIR will also examine potential development of the remaining Froom parcels, and evaluate project alternatives, including the "No-Project" scenario. Attachment 2 is a copy of the draft EIR Cy/ Council Agenda Report stco/Froom Ranch Project EIR RFP Page 2 workscope. The draft workscope will be refined with input from the Council and the selected EIR consultant. It should be noted that an initial environmental study was initiated, but was not finalized because it was determined that an EIR is required for the project. The EIR is being processed consistent with Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: If the lead agency can determine that an EIR will be clearly required for a project, the agency may skip further initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR process described in Article 9, commencing with Section 15080. In the absence of an initial study, the lead agency shall still focus the EIR on the significant effects of the project and indicate briefly its reasons for determining that other effects would not be significant or potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts are briefly discussed in the EIR workscope. Less than significant impacts were identified in the areas of: energy and mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation and service systems. The EIR will discuss why these issue areas were determined to be less than significant. Impact of Building Size Ordinance On December 4, 2001, the City Council will consider the first reading of a revised ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations to establish building size limits for large-scale retail establishments in all commercial zoning districts, to set a maximum parking requirement for large-scale retail establishments over 45,000 square feet and to exempt existing large retail establishments. The draft ordinance under consideration would set a building size limit of 60,000 square feet in the C-R zoning district with the possibility of going up to 140,000 square, if the retail building meets community-and design-based performance standards. The Costco proposal would be subject to any retail size limitations and parking requirements adopted by the Council. Approval of a retail size ordinance means that the Costco application may need to be revised to comply with the standards. In staff s opinion, it is possible for Costco to design a facility that provides 138,000 square feet of floor area and complies with the building size ordinance, should that ordinance ultimately allow an upper size limit of 140,000 square feet. The project description and draft EIR workscope would be refined with input from the public agencies, interested parties and the EIR consultant. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain the most basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The CEQA guidelines go on to state that an EIR does not have to consider every conceivable alternative to the project, but it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. The subject EIR will include a full discussion of reasonable project alternatives CS/- OZ. Council Agenda Report=, jstco/Froom Ranch Project EIR RFP Page 3 including the "No Project" scenario and a modified project that complies with any adopted retail size limitations (a 138,000 square foot store with 552 parking spaces). The EIR will also examine alternative project locations such as the "Gap" property, the Dalidio property and any other potential sites. Previous Environmental Studies and Resources The EIR will use information provided in previous environmental documents. Four EIRs provide information about the project area: • Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, prepared by Morro Group, Inc. for San Luis Obispo County, October 1998. • San Luis Obispo Area Plan Update EIR prepared by San Luis Obispo County, certified in 1996. • Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates Final EIR, prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo in August 1994. • DeVaul Ranch Planned Development Final EIR, prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo in October 1998. Select information from these documents will be used in the preparation of the recommended EIR. New data and analysis will be prepared where evidence suggests existing information no longer describes existing or future conditions. Each document will receive a peer review prior to incorporation of any information into the Costco/Froom EIR. Schedule for EIR Preparation Preliminarily this RFP was set to be considered on November20, 2001. However,at the request of the applicant,processing was suspended pending the Council's further discussion of the retail size ordinance on November 20`h. Following that discussion, the applicant asked that the process continue at this time. With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope,RFPs would be sent out to qualified consultants on December 17,2001,with consultant proposals due back to the City on January 25,2002. The schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held in the first week of February 2002, and a consultant contract awarded on February 18, 2002. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft EIR would be delivered to the City within 90 days after execution of the contract. CONCURRENCES The proposed plans were distributed to other departments for review and comments. Those comments have been included in the EIR workscope. It should also be noted that all City departments and other governmental agencies will be given another opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation that will be sent out prior to beginning work on the EIR. Cy 3 Council Agenda Report=. istco/Froom Ranch Project EIR RFP Page 4 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 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 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 I—Conceptual Site Plan Attachment 2-Excerpts from Draft RFP including the Scope of Work Attachment 3—Proposers List The entire draft RFP and workscope are available in the Council reading file. Bhoals/CUER 173-00(CostcoUP) i - - �L_l In I. le la Ic_I� I ( I I Q^��_�jYyvv'vr w�93�'■b■ � e� • � �—r \ � I -L� I�YI I w � � • i -- _ '' �' IB �I i 1 � I II I 1 � -- - � • ►����.�—d. �V .�. _ C t i► 1 0O � • S. N•dp. • u. 'nfm •�>.I�vulr Yi+11 n fiin oil� � i m Ip,>s�,ar;•u�r at•c'�r �1�=011► ��i 1� I \ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII`i:: '� _ _ ,•oRj q SII t GI i Fil Section A Attachment 2 DESCRIPTION OF WORK Project Description An application has been filed to develop of 33+/- acres of land with approximately 280,00 square feet of commercial uses and related site improvements. The project includes a 138,000 square foot Costco Wholesale store with tire sales/installation and gas pumps, and approximately 142,000+/- square feet of general commercial uses in multiple buildings. The project involves: site grading, utility installation, parking, landscaping and various other site improvements. The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant, which are available for public review in the Community Development Department. A reduced site plan is attached. Scope of Work A preliminary review of this project determined 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 following workscope more specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential impacts of the project. EIR Workscope Items 1. Aesthetics The General Plan Circulation Element (Scenic Roadways Map) designates this segment of Los Osos Valley Road as a roadway of moderate scenic value. From this segment are views of Cerro San Luis,the Santa Lucia Foothills and the Irish Hills. The project could block views of these scenic resources and permanently alter views along this roadway. A visual study must be completed for the project. The visual study should emulate views of the hillsides from vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of Los Osos Valley Road, from Highway 101 to beyond Madonna, as they will be with the proposed buildings in place. Mitigation should be included for significant impacts on these views. The consultant shall complete a visual analysis, identify potential impacts on views of important scenic resources,and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 2. Air Quality The proposed project will create result in short-term (construction activities)and long-term (operational) air quality impacts. Air quality impacts from this project shall be evaluated for both short-term and long- term conditions and compliance with the San Luis Obispo Air Quality Plan. • In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic study, interpolate expected emissions generated by the project. • Quantify expected emissions from construction-related activities. • Discuss modifications that could be made to the proposed project to result in a more compact development pattern and improve transit and pedestrian orientation. e 5/ 6 _ Attachment 2 • Evaluate the reduction in trips to outlying areas for shopping with development of the site and the associated impacts to air quality on a regional scale. • Discuss prevailing wind patterns in the area and the impacts of wind on site development. 3. Biological Resources Previous environmental studies have verified the presence of seasonal wetlands in the project area. The biological study should map the location and extent of affected wetland and grassland habitat that would be affected by proposed development. Wetland delineation should be determined consistent with the Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual. The study should determine the type and significance of impacts that proposed on- and off-site improvements could have on habitat areas, with particular attention to potential impacts on wildlife migration routes across the project site. The report should include recommended mitigation measures where impacts may be significant. The Congdon's tarplant was found in the development area of the DeVaul annexation. The project site was surveyed for Congdon's tarplant in July 1998. Two small population of the plant was found along the northerly property boundary. These discoveries indicate that the plant could be found throughout the project site. 4. Geologic Problems The proposed project is located within, or in close proximity to, the Los Osos fault zone as defined by consultants to Pacific Gas and Electric in a 1987 report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic study. Geologic hazards, seismic hazards (earthquake shaking and liquefaction) and soil hazards (shrink-swell potential, subsidence) were analyzed in the EIR Supplement prepared for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware &Garden project. The EIR will address geologic problems on a project-specific basis. It will provide an overview on the soils and geologic conditions of the site. Discussion should focus on the site's potential for liquefaction and subsidence, and identify necessary earthwork, special grading, construction techniques and foundation design criteria for the site development proposed. 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project includes the installation of fueling pumps in conjunction with Costco Wholesale. Construction and operation of the wholesale store and general commercial uses would not create significant hazards. Construction of the proposed gas pumps could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment though the routine use and transport of hazardous materials (gasoline) as well as the placement of underground storage tanks. During transportation and filling, spills and accidents leak oil into the environment. Vaporization and underground tank leakage add even more chemicals to the neighborhood environment. The EIR will assess the potential impacts associated with the fuel pumps and identify mitigation measures to address this impact. 6. Hydrology and Water The proposed project will increase runoff from the site as a result of the increase in impervious surfaces -2- Cy 7 Attachment 2 associated with the roof areas and paved parking. The applicant proposes to mitigate the effects of the increased runoff by detaining runoff in a detention basin. The Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden EIR evaluated drainage for that hardware store, but did not address runoff from development of the two parcels on Los Osos Valley Road. This EIR will evaluate drainage impact from overall site development. • Describe impacts of the project in terms of absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. • Evaluate the flood hazard for the site and the potential adverse impact of flooding on the project. Evaluate the potential impacts of the project on flooding of the site and to adjacent or downstream properties. • Review and evaluate the proposed recommendations included in the submitted drainage and flood analysis for the project, and suggest any additional mitigation measures to address project impacts. 7. Land Use& Planning Provide a summary of the relevant general plan policies that relate to development. Discuss briefly how proposed land uses were established for this site with the update of the City's Land Use Element. The EIR will evaluate the project's effect on the City's growth management policy for non-residential development. The applicant is proposing to construct a 138,000 square foot commercial building, 867 parking spaces (one space per 159 square feet of floor area) and landscaping. On December 4, 2001, the City Council voted to introduce a retail size cap ordinance that would limit the size of the building to 60,000 square feet with provisions to allow the building to go up to 140,000 square feet with compliance with certain performance standards. The ordinance would also set are a maximum parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The project will be evaluated for consistency with the retail size limit ordinance. It should also be noted that a smaller size store will be evaluated an alternative project. 8. Noise The project is not expected to result in long-term adverse noise impacts. However, there may be short- term impacts during grading, when subdivision improvements are installed and when individual homes are constructed. • Suggest mitigation measures for short-term noise impacts from construction activities. • Analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify appropriate noise attenuation measures consistent with the 1996 Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. 9. Transportation/Circulation The proposed project will generate additional vehicular trips that will increase traffic volumes on the nearby road system. Preliminary estimates indicate that this project could significantly increase the amount of traffic on Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and U.S. 101. Necessary changes to the highway interchange, the roadway and affected intersections must be clearly identified. City staff is working with project representatives, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and interested property owners to develop a work scope for traffic studies. -3- ey� %^1 i -- Attachment 2 Traffic Impact Analysis 1) General Requirement: A traffic impact study (TIS) must be prepared and incorporated into the project's draft Environmental Impact Report. The study must comply with the format requirements and standards contained within the City of San Luis Obispo's Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines (Public Works Department, June 2000). 2) Facilities Impacted: As a minimum, the TIS must describe existing traffic conditions and evaluate impacts of the proposed Costco Wholesale Store on level of service (LOS)or to safe traffic operations at the following facilities: Intersections Street Sections Madonna-Los Osos Valley Los Osos Valley Rd. Freeway Bridge Garcia-Los Osos Valley LOVR: Hwy 101 northbound ramp to S. Higuera Main Site Driveway-Los Osos Valley Auto Park Way-Los Osos Valley Calle Joaquin-Los Osos Valley SB&NB U.S. 101 Ramps @ LOVR S. Higuera-Los Osos Valley S. Higuera-Vachell Lane 3)Temporal Scope of TIS: The TIS must evaluate traffic impacts for the following time frames: • Existing + Proiect Conditions: Existing conditions shall constitute the most current measurement of traffic conditions plus any traffic that will be added to the impacted facilities from development projects that has received final discretionary approval from the City or County of San Luis Obispo. City will provide list of these approved projects. • Existing+ Proiect+ 10-Year Cumulative: As described in A above plus the addition of traffic to impacted facilities from anticipated development that would generate traffic within ten years after the project opens. City will provide list of these projects. • Existing+ Project+General Plan Buildout: As described in A above plus full development with the City's urban reserve as envisioned by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element. The City will make its MINUTP traffic model available to consultant to update, as needed, and use to determine buildout conditions. 4) Use of Existing Information and Analytical Tools: The City will enable the selected consultant access to its latest version of its MfNUTP traffic model. This model resides with the firm of Fehr and Peers Associates of Walnut Creek. The selected consultant may request appropriate files from Fehr & Peers or contract with them as a sub-consultant to provide modeling analysis of the impact scenarios described in Paragraph 3 above. Costco Wholesale Inc. has retained Kimley-Horn Associates Inc. who has prepared a draft Traffic Impact Study for this project (April 2001). There are a variety of other environmental document and traffic studies that may contain pertinent information. The selected consultant may use information contained within these documents subject to validation of its accuracy and completeness. However, all analysis of data and judgments concerning traffic distribution, project impacts, and appropriateness and design of mitigation measures shall involve the independent judgment of the selected consultant. -4- �y-9 Attachment 2 5) Impacts and Mitigation: The TIS shall explicitly describe impacts that can be assigned to the project's development under the Existing + Project Scenario and present (in text and graphic form) recommended mitigation measures. For the 10-year and General Plan buildout scenarios (reference Paragraph 3), the consultant shall identify impacts, the project's specific contribution to these projects, and describe specific feasible mitigation strategies. In addition to traffic impacts to the local and State street systems, consultant shall analyze the project's impact on transit service and bicycle and pedestrian access and identify any supplemental mitigation measures that are not included in the project's design. 10. Utilities Water Supply& Distribution Workscope Items • Discuss projected water demand for new retail development and its potential impacts on citywide water supplies. • What is the anticipated yield from on-site wells? What types of improvements will be necessary to improve the quality of the groundwater to meet State and local standards? • What is the best approach to tie water rights to project entitlements (development agreement, PD zoning)? • Are additional offsets required to mitigate the impacts of the new development on the City's water supply? Wastewater Service& Facilities Workscope Items • What are the projected flows for the project? • How will projected flows impact the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant? • Evaluate the status of the Laguna sewer lift station and its schedule for replacement as it relates to the development of the project Sewer Service • Evaluate the adequacy of the proposed sewer system to accommodate the expected development and discuss any need to provide improvements to the City's existing treatment facilities. • Evaluate alternatives to the provision of sewer service that does not require a lift station (i.e., gravity flow). Discuss concerns with sewer service being provided in the event of a power outage. Landfill Capacity • What will be the impact of this project on the provision of solid waste disposal? -5- CAI-10 I 11. Cumulative Effects Attach ment .2 The EIR must address cumulative impacts within each area of analysis. 12. Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project design need to be evaluated. Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and should at minimum evaluate the following: • the"no"project alternative; • a commercial project of a more limited size and scope;and • other comparable sites where the project might be developed, including the"Gap"property and the Dalidio property. -6- Attachment 3 PROPOSERS LIST COSTCO/FROOM DEVELOPMENT EER- SPECIFICATION NO.90307 Envicom ESA Fugro West, Inc. 28328 Agoura Rd. 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480 1012 Pacific St., Ste. A Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Los Angeles, CA 990010 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dudek & Associates, Inc. Jones and Stokes Associates The Morro Group 621 Chapala St. 2600 V St., Ste. 100 1107 Johnson Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Sacramento, CA 95818-1914 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ogden Environmental & SAIC FIRMA Energy Services Co., Inc. 816 State St., Ste. 500 849 Monterey St. 510 State St., Ste. B Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Woodward Clyde Law/Crandall, Inc. Michael Brandman Associates Consultants Attn: Roberta Tassey Attn: Patricia Hughes 5951 Encina Rd., Ste. 200 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Ste. 150N 15901 Red Hill Ave., Ste. 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tustin, CA 92780-7318 Kleinfelder Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. Planetek, Inc. Attn: Susan Charles Attn: Michael Josselyn 41 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200 1370 Valley Vista Dr., Ste. 150 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. Arcadia, CA 91006 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 San Rafael, CA 94901 Greystone Leighton and Associates, Inc. Brady and Associates Attn: Jeffrey Harvey Attn: Andrew Price Attn: David Clore 1211 H Street, Ste. A 31344 Via Colinas, Ste. 102 2215 Fifth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Berkeley, CA 94710 Rincon Consultants, Inc. Emcon Bio Systems Attn: Stephen Svete Attn: Ilona Rubino Attn: Cathy Newmann 790 E. Santa Clara St. 1921 Ringwood Ave. 303 Potrero St., Ste. 29-203 Ventura, CA 93001 San Jose, CA 95131-1721 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tetra Tech, Inc. Chambers Group, Inc. Regional Environmental Consult 4213 State Street, Suite 205 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100 Attn: Sandra Fayette Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Irvine, CA 92614 4241 Jutland Dr., Ste. 201 San Diego, CA 92117-3653 Cy-�z Attachment 3 Zeiser Kling Consultants Robert Bein, William Frost& PRA Group Attn: Barbara Associates Attn: John Larson 3187 Red Hill Ave., #135 14725 Alton Pkwy. 1190 Marsh St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92618-2069 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Takata Associates Perspective Planning David Evans & Associates, Inc. Attn: Kathleen Takata Attn: John Ashbaugh 23382 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 225 600 Fremont Ave. 979 Osos St., Suite E Laguna Hills, CA 92653 South Pasadena, CA 91030 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 McLaren/Hart, Inc. Padre Associates, Inc. EIP Associates 16755 Von Karman Aave., 5450 Telegraph Rd., Suite 101 601 Montgomery St., Suite 500 #200 Ventura, CA 93003 San Francisco, CA 94111 Irvine, CA 92606-2667 Dames& Moore Burns & McDonnell Ultrasystems Environmental Inc. 3445 West Shaw Ave., Suite 2102 Business Center Dr., Suite 6 Jenner, Suite 210 101 130 Irvine, CA 92618-3811 Fresno, CA 93711 Irvine, CA 92612 Douglas Wood& Associates, Duane A. Morita TPG Consulting, Inc.. Inc. 14312 Shadybrook Dr. Attn. Quincy Struve 1461 Higuera St., Suite A Tustin, CA 92680 679 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MEETING AGENDA ITEM # ���������������►����������� ,������� council m e m o iza n b u m DATE: December 7, 2001 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director pr—.,- '3w BY: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Directo01' SUBJECT: December 11, 2001 Red File Item—Costco EIR RFP (ER 173-00) In light of the Council's discussion of a "maximum parking" standard for large retail tenants at your hearing of December 4`h, staff felt that it might be desirable to amend the work scope for the Costco EIR to address parking as it specifically relates to our new standard. The revised language is located on page 5 of the RFP. In addition to the parking work scope addition, staff has made other minor corrections and formatting changes to the RFP and Work Scope (attached). C UNCILDD DIP AO ❑ FIN DIP CC�AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF �! ORNEY ❑ PW DIR LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ DSP HEADS 11REC DIR (� ❑ UTIL DIR HR DIR Red File Memo on Cosico RFP J �1 city of san LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street o San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for COSTCO/FROOM RANCH DEVELOPMENT EIR The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for pursuant to Specification No. 90307. 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 January 25, 2002, when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance 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 Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development,at(805) 781-7177. ® 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. Specification No. 90307 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Project Description and Scope of Work 1 B. General Terms and Conditions 7 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 11 Project Coordination Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Start and Completion of Work D. Agreement 15 E. Insurance Requirements 18 F. Proposal Submittal Form 20 G. References 21 H. Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications 22 F. Site plan of Costco/Froom Ranch proposal Attached Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK Project Description An application has been filed to develop 33+/- acres of land with approximately 280,00 square feet of commercial uses and related site improvements. The project includes a 138,000 square foot Costco Wholesale store with tire sales/installation and gas pumps, and approximately 142,000+/- square feet of general commercial uses in multiple buildings. The project involves: site grading, utility installation, parking, landscaping and various other site improvements. The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant, which are available for public review in the Community Development Department. A reduced site plan is attached. Scope of Work A preliminary review of this project determined 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 following workscope more specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential impacts of the project.. EIR Workscope Items 1. Aesthetics The General Plan Circulation Element (Scenic Roadways Map) designates this segment of Los Osos Valley Road as a roadway of moderate scenic value. From this segment are views of Cerro San Luis, the Santa Lucia Foothills and the Irish Hills. The project could block views of these scenic resources and permanently alter views along this roadway. A visual study must be completed for the project. The visual study should emulate views of the hillsides from vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of Los Osos Valley Road, from Highway 101 to beyond Madonna, as they will be with the proposed buildings in place. Mitigation should be included for significant impacts on these views. The consultant shall complete a visual analysis, identify potential impacts on views of important scenic resources, and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 2. Air Quality The proposed project will create result in short-term (construction activities) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts. Air quality impacts from this project shall be evaluated for both short-term and long- term conditions and compliance with the San Luis Obispo Air Quality Plan. • In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic study, interpolate expected emissions generated by the project. • Quantify expected emissions from construction-related activities. • Discuss modifications that could be made to the proposed project to result in a more compact development pattern and improve transit and pedestrian orientation.. • Evaluate the reduction in trips to outlying areas for shopping with development of the site and -1- the associated impacts to air quality on a regional scale. • Discuss prevailing wind patterns in the area and the impacts of wind on site development. 3. Biological Resources Previous environmental studies have verified the presence of seasonal wetlands in the project area. The biological study should map the location and extent of affected wetland and grassland habitat that would be affected by proposed development. Wetland delineation should be determined consistent with the Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual. The study should determine the type and significance of impacts that proposed on- and off-site improvements could have on habitat areas, with particular attention to potential impacts on wildlife migration routes across the project site. The report should include recommended mitigation measures where impacts may be significant. The Congdon's tarplant was found in the development area of the DeVaul annexation. The project site was surveyed for Congdon's tarplant in July 1998. Two small population of the plant was found along the northerly property boundary. These discoveries indicate that the plant could be found throughout the project site. 4. Geologic Problems The proposed project is located within, or in close proximity to, the Los Osos fault zone as defined by consultants to Pacific Gas and Electric in a 1987 report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic study. Geologic hazards, seismic hazards (earthquake shaking and liquefaction) and soil hazards (shrink-swell potential, subsidence) were analyzed in the EIR Supplement prepared for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware &Garden project. The EIR will address geologic problems on a project-specific basis. It will provide an overview on the soils and geologic conditions of the site. Discussion should focus on the site's potential for liquefaction and subsidence, and identify necessary earthwork, special grading, construction techniques and foundation design criteria for the site development proposed. 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project includes the installation of fueling pumps in conjunction with Costco Wholesale. Construction and operation of the wholesale store and general commercial uses would not create significant hazards. Construction of the proposed gas pumps could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment though the routine use and transport of hazardous materials (gasoline) as well as the placement of underground storage tanks. During transportation and filling, spills and accidents leak oil into the environment. Vaporization and underground tank leakage add even more chemicals to the neighborhood environment. The EIR will assess the potential impacts associated with the fuel pumps and identify mitigation measures to address this impact. 6. Hydrology and Water The proposed project will increase runoff from the site as a result of the increase in impervious surfaces associated with the roof areas and paved parking. The applicant proposes to mitigate the effects of the increased runoff by detaining runoff in a detention basin. The Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden EIR evaluated drainage for that hardware store, but did not address runoff from development of the two parcels on Los Osos Valley Road. This EIR will evaluate drainage impact from overall site development. -2- • Describe impacts of the project in terms of absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. • Evaluate the flood hazard for the site and the potential adverse impact of flooding on the project. Evaluate the potential impacts of the project on flooding of the site and to adjacent or downstream properties. • Review and evaluate the proposed recommendations included in the submitted drainage and flood analysis for the project, and suggest any additional mitigation measures to address project impacts. 7. Land Use& Planning Provide a summary of the relevant general plan policies that relate to development. Discuss briefly how proposed land uses were established for this site with the update of the City's Land Use Element. The EIR will evaluate the project's effect on the City's growth management policy for non-residential development. The applicant is proposing to construct a 138,000 square foot commercial building, 867 parking spaces (one space per 159 square feet of floor area) and landscaping. On December 4, 2001, the City Council voted to introduce a retail size cap ordinance that would limit the size of the building to 60,000 square feet with provisions to allow the building to go up to 140,000 square feet with compliance with certain performance standards. The ordinance would also set are a maximum parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The project will be evaluated for consistency with the retail size limit ordinance. It should also be noted that a smaller size store will be evaluated an alternative project. 8. Noise The project is not expected to result in long-term adverse noise impacts. However, there may be short- term impacts during grading, when subdivision improvements are installed and when individual homes are constructed. • Suggest mitigation measures for short-term noise impacts from construction activities. • Analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify appropriate noise attenuation measures consistent with the 1996 Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. 9. Transportation/Circulation The proposed project will generate additional vehicular trips that will increase traffic volumes on the nearby road system. Preliminary estimates indicate that this project could significantly increase the amount of traffic on Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and U.S. 101. Necessary changes to the highway interchange, the roadway and affected intersections must be clearly identified. City staff is working with project representatives, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and interested property owners to develop a work scope for traffic studies. Traffic Impact Analysis A. General Requirement: A traffic impact study (TIS) must be prepared and incorporated into the project's draft Environmental Impact Report. The study must comply with the format requirements and standards contained within the City of San Luis Obispo's Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines -3- 1 (Public Works Department,June 2000). B. Facilities Impacted: As a minimum, the TIS must describe existing traffic conditions and evaluate impacts of the proposed Costco Wholesale Store on level of service (LOS) or to safe traffic operations at the following facilities: Intersections Street Sections Madonna-Los Osos Valley Los Osos Valley Rd. Freeway Bridge Garcia-Los Osos Valle LOVR: Hwy 101 northbound ramp to S. Hi era Main Site Driveway-Los Osos Valle Auto Park Way-Los Osos Valle Calle Joaquin-Los Osos Valle SB &NB U.S. 101 Rams P,LOVR S. Hi era-Los Osos Valle S. Hi era-Vachell Lane C.Temporal Scope of TIS: The TIS must evaluate traffic impacts for the following time frames: 1. Existing + Project Conditions: Existing conditions shall constitute the most current measurement of traffic conditions plus any traffic that will be added to the impacted facilities from development projects that has received final discretionary approval from the City or County of San Luis Obispo. City will provide list of these approved projects. 2. Existing + Project + 10-Year Cumulative: As described in A above plus the addition of traffic to impacted facilities from anticipated development that would generate traffic within ten years after the project opens. City will provide list of these projects. 3. Existing + Project+ General Plan Buildout: As described in A above plus full development with the City's urban reserve as envisioned by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element. The City will make its MINUTP traffic model available to consultant to update, as needed, and use to determine buildout conditions. D. Use of Existing Information and Analytical Tools: The City will enable the selected consultant access to its latest version of its NIINUTP traffic model. This model resides with the firm of Fehr and Peers Associates of Walnut Creek. The selected consultant may request appropriate files from Fehr & Peers or contract with them as a sub-consultant to provide modeling analysis of the impact scenarios described in Paragraph 3 above. Costco Wholesale Inc. has retained Kimley-Horn Associates Inc. who has prepared a draft Traffic Impact Study for this project (April 2001). There are a variety of other environmental document and traffic studies that may contain pertinent information. The selected consultant may use information contained within these documents subject to validation of its accuracy and completeness. However, all analysis of data and judgments concerning traffic distribution, project impacts, and appropriateness and design of mitigation measures shall involve the independent judgment of the selected consultant. E. Impacts and Mitigation: The TIS shall explicitly describe impacts that can be assigned to the project's development under the Existing + Project Scenario and present (in text and graphic form) recommended mitigation measures. For the 10-year and General Plan buildout scenarios (reference Paragraph 3), the consultant shall identify impacts, the project's specific contribution to these projects, and describe specific feasible mitigation strategies. -4- In addition to traffic impacts to the local and State street systems, consultant shall analyze the project's impact on transit service and bicycle and pedestrian access and identify any supplemental mitigation measures that are not included in the project's design. Parking Analys s The City has a maximum parking requirement for large retail.establishments over 45,000 square feet at a ratio of one space per 200 square feet. The EIR should analyze the parking demands fo a 138,000 square foot Costco against ,this standard and assess parking .sufficiency to meet th demands on the facility, and avoid parking impacts to adjoining businesses and residents neighborhoods (if any). In addition, the EIR should determine appropriate parking for th 1142,000 +/- square feet of general commercial uses along Los Osos Valley Road consideringth use of ioint access and parking 10. Utilities Water Supply&Distribution Workscope Items • Discuss projected water demand for new retail development and its potential impacts on citywide water supplies. • What is the anticipated yield from on-site wells? What types of improvements will be necessary to improve the quality of the groundwater to meet State and local standards? • What is the best approach to tie water rights to project entitlements (development agreement,PD zoning)? • Are additional offsets required to mitigate the impacts of the new development on the City's water supply? Wastewater Service&Facilities Workscope Items • What are the projected flows for the project? • How will projected flows impact the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant? • Evaluate the status of the Laguna sewer lift station and its schedule for replacement as it relates to the development of the project Sewer Service • Evaluate the adequacy of the proposed sewer system to accommodate the expected development and discuss any need to provide improvements to the City's existing treatment facilities. • Evaluate alternatives to the provision of sewer service that does not require a lift station (i.e., gravity flow). Discuss concerns with sewer service being provided in the event of a power outage. Landfill Capacity • What will be the impact of this project on the provision of solid waste disposal? -5- 11. Cumulative Effects The EIR must address cumulative impacts within each area of analysis. 12. Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project design need to be evaluated. Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and should at minimum evaluate the following: • the"no"project alternative; • a commercial project of a more limited size and scope; and • other comparable sites where the project might be developed, including the"Gap"property and the Dalidio property. -6- Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (proposer) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope, which shall be sealed and addressed to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 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 proposer, 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 proposer'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 E. 4. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 5. 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 which has submitted a sub-proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals. 6. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place of business,and will be directly billed by the successful proposer. 7. 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. -7- i CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 8. 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. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 9. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers will provide, in a timely manner, any and all information which the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 10. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) 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. 11. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages, and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. 12. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate prior to execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling(805)781-7134. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 13. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations. 14. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes which the Contractor is required to pay. 16. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. 17. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 18. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition. hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. -8- 19. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged as a result of the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work. 20. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 21. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation,or religion of such persons. 22. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages which may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same. 23. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Contractor(Net 30). 24. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 25. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor. 26. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work,no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 27. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and -9- all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same, provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. 28. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 29. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. -10- Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROJECT COORDINATION. a. City. The Community Development Director (hereinafter referred to as "Director") hereby designates John Shoals as the Project Manager for the City. He shall serve as the representative of the City for all purposes under this agreement. The Project Manager, or the Director in his 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. A qualified historian or historical 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 program which expands on the attached EIR workscope. 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 #3, 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 within 90 days of a signed agreement between the City and the consultant for requested services. -11- 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 EMs. PROPOSAL EVALUATIONAND CONSULTANTSELECTION 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. -12- PROPOSAL REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE TENTATIVE The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: Issue RFP December 17, 2001 Receive proposals January 25, 2002 Complete proposal evaluation January 31, 2002 Conduct finalist interviews February 6,2002 Finalize staff recommendation February 11, 2002 Applicant deposits EIR cost February 18,2002 Award contract February 18,2002 Execute contract/Start work February 18,2002 Complete admin. draft May 20, 2002 If you have any questions about this RFP, schedule, or attachments, please call Ronald Whisenand at (805) 781-7177. 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. Any documents or materials provided by the Consultant will be reviewed by City staff 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. 20 copies of the Final EIR,which incorporates the draft EIR,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 -13- the project manager: Word Processing Microsoft Word 7.0 or earlier version Spreadsheets Excel 7.0 or earlier Desktop Publishing Coreldraw,Pagemaker Computer Aided Drafting(CAD) AutoCAD Computer files must be on 3.5" high-density, write-protected diskettes, formatted for use on IBM-compatible systems. Each diskette must 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. Consultant shall attend as many"working"meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. -14- Section D FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this day of , by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [CONSULTANT NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS],hereinafter referred to as Consultant. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on January 4, 2002, City requested proposals for development of an environmental impact report for the Costco/Froom Ranch Development EIR,per specification no 90307. WHEREAS, pursuant to said invitation request, Consultant submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for said services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,as first written above,until acceptance or completion of said services. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 90307 and Consultant's proposal dated and amended by letter dated are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City agrees to cooperate with Consultant in the completion of the work described in Exhibit A(Scope of Work) attached hereto and incorporated by reference. City will pay and Consultant shall receive therefor payments in accordance with Exhibit B(Compensation Schedule). 4. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to -15- provide all specified services as set forth in Exhibit "A" (Scope of Work) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Consultant may not amend the Scope of Work, either to modify provisions or to add or delete provisions,without prior written consent of the City's Project Manager. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Community Development Director of the City. 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director-Dev.Review Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 Consultant [ ] [ l [ l [ l 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. -16- J �I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST:. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,A Municipal Corporation By: City Clerk City Administrative Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney -17- Section E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents,representatives,employees,or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage(occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87)covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3. Workers'Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:. 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this projectilocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations,claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain,or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees,agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 4. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. -18- 5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. -19- PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM The undersigned declares that she or he: ■ has carefully examined Specification No. 9253,which is hereby made a part of this proposal. ■ is thoroughly familiar with its contents. ■ is authorized to represent the proposing firm. ■ agrees to perform the work as set forth in this proposal. ❑ Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M. Best rating: Firm Name and Address Contact Phone : nature o Authorized R resentadve Date -20- REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm which demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. l Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone&FAX number Street Address City,State,Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount,when provided and project outcome Reference No. 2 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone&FAX number Street Address City, State,Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount,when provided and project outcome Reference No.3 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone&FAX number Street Address City, State,Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount,when provided and project outcome -21- STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it,has ever been disqualified,removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a.federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. ® Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes ❑ No ❑ ■ If Yes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California,that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative -22- 01 ME-10115 0 r O . ` sum��«_ a'7S:i2 G r - I � '"� -+....moi .0�.....—::..-.. w -♦�!i��ll� �^I � _ - � O E Ttfi' If ail.s_�( I $ e lux:0 ���,, __�,....._ ::^fig ►�■� I �,,BT— rlai- �e! 1g ���■r YY' Y Y • � I I I man Ip ilr`N.Cy+Ci.CmSL:.iiO JIB - � Q, 1Mw'i • PROPOSERS LIST COSTCO/FROOM DEVELOPMENT EIR- SPECIFICATION NO.90307 Envicom ESA Fugro West, Inc. 28328 Agoura Rd. 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480 1012 Pacific St., Ste. A Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Los Angeles, CA 990010 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dudek & Associates, Inc. Jones and Stokes Associates The Morro Group 621 Chapala St. 2600 V St., Ste. 100 1107 Johnson Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Sacramento, CA 95818-1914 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ogden Environmental& SAIC FIRMA Energy Services Co., Inc. 816 State St., Ste. 500 849 Monterey St. 510 State St., Ste. B Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Woodward Clyde Law/Crandall, Inc. Michael Brandman Associates Consultants Attn:Roberta Tassey Attn: Patricia Hughes 5951 Encina Rd., Ste. 200 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Ste. 150N 15901 Red Hill Ave., Ste. 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tustin, CA 92780-7318 Kleinfelder Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. Planetek, Inc. Attn: Susan Charles Attn: Michael Josselyn 41 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200 1370 Valley Vista Dr., Ste. 150 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. Arcadia, CA 91006 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 San Rafael, CA 94901 Greystone Leighton and Associates, Inc. Brady and Associates Attn: Jeffrey Harvey Attn: Andrew Price Attn: David Clore 1211 H Street, Ste. A 31344 Via Colinas, Ste. 102 2215 Fifth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Berkeley, CA 94710 Rincon Consultants, Inc. Emcon Bio Systems Attn: Stephen Svete Attn: Ilona Rubino Attn: Cathy Newmann 790 E. Santa Clara St. 1921 Ringwood Ave. 303 Potrero St., Ste. 29-203 Ventura, CA 93001 San Jose, CA 95131-1721 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tetra Tech, Inc. Chambers Group, Inc. Regional Environmental Consulta 4213 State Street, Suite 205 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100 Attn: Sandra Fayette Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Irvine, CA 92614 4241 Jutland Dr., Ste. 201 San Diego, CA 92117-3653 Zeiser Kling Consultants Robert Bein, William Frost& PRA Group Attn: Barbara Associates Attn: John Larson 3187 Red Hill Ave., #135 14725 Alton Pkwy. 1190 Marsh St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92618-2069 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Takata Associates Perspective Planning David Evans& Associates, Inc. Attn: Kathleen Takata Attn: John Ashbaugh 23382 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 225 600 Fremont Ave. 979 Osos St., Suite E Laguna Hills, CA 92653 South Pasadena, CA 91030 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 McLaren/Hart, Inc. Padre Associates, Inc. EIP Associates 16755 Von Karman Aave., 5450 Telegraph Rd., Suite 101 601 Montgomery St., Suite 500 #200 Ventura, CA 93003 San Francisco, CA 94111 Irvine, CA 92606-2667 Dames & Moore Bums &McDonnell Ultrasystems Environmental Inc. 3445 West Shaw Ave., Suite 2102 Business Center Dr., Suite 6 Jenner, Suite 210 101 130 Irvine, CA 92618-3811 Fresno, CA 93711 Irvine, CA 92612 Douglas Wood & Associates, Duane A. Morita TPG Consulting, Inc. Inc. 14312 Shadybrook Dr. Attn. Quincy Struve 1461 Higuera St., Suite A Tustin, CA 92680 679 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401