HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2002, C5 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIO MeetinDrte
Council February 19/,2002
Item Number / - S
ac,Enba nEpot2t
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works M
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIONAL
FACILITY (TRANSIT COMPONENT) SPECIFICATION NO. 90207A
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve and authorize distribution of the North Area Regional Facility (Transit
Component)Request for Proposal
2. Authorize the CAO to award and execute contracts with qualified service providers if the
amounts are within budget of$150,000.
DISCUSSION
At its meeting of February 5h, 2002, the Council continued this item until such time as the RFP for
study of the NARF Parking component was before them for consideration. As part of that decision,
Council discussed the need to have a synergy created between the two projects and a need to have
the two consultant groups (assuming that one consultant does not prevail in receiving both projects)
mutually coordinating their design efforts to ensure integration of the two facilities. Staff has taken
the liberty of revising both draft RFD's based upon this input and created tasks and objectives in the
scope of work for each project to promote coordination and integration of the projects,
In March 2001, the Council approved the North Area Regional Facility (Transit) — Alternatives
Assessment Study and adopted Alternative C as the preferred site for the NARF Transit Facility. As
part of that approval, Council also allocated $70,000 from the General Fund to conduct conceptual
level design, investigate hazardous material issues in more depth (what is called a Phase H study)
and complete property appraisals for the site. The Council authorized the CAO to conduct
interviews with selected consultants and move forward with contracting for their services without
the need to return to Council for approval. However, due to the complexity of the workscope, staff
is recommending that Council approve the request for proposal (RFP) prior to release to
consultants.
Subsequent to Council's decision and as part of the Financial Plan and Goal Setting Process for FY
2001-03, Council established the development of the NARF (both Transit and Parking) as a Major
Goal for delivery in the current budget cycle. As shown in Attachment 2, Council allocated an
additional $100,000 in funding during FY 2001-02 to prepare the environmental work associated
with the transit component of the NARF project. To date approximately $5,000 has been spent on
conducting partial appraisal and information gathering for the NARF Transit project.
Staff is also working with the County of San Luis Obispo to issue a joint RFP for investigation and
schematic design of the NARF Parking project, which is the parking component of the NARF
CS
Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Transit Design Services
Page 2
project area. This draft RFP is also being presented at the February 19'h meeting for Council
consideration.
The RFP—What's It All About?
The consultant chosen for this project will: prepare "to-scale" schematic site plan and related
elevations for a consolidated transit center; conduct necessary technical studies to prepare an Initial
Environmental Study(IES) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
�p Project Site Area
County Courts and
Offices 11 Gas
`•S 'on (iP
County O e
ject
B f
ca
Figure 1—Vicinity Map
YM W804VOYOwIIV/RObw\11011
rMOM[ifl ST �
M1
I
•Y. � .t � I - t y
' r I \'t1 r+•t :eu
r, _t
i t „
t
Mw�w n
�.avnmumr .s,vu n,_F�an
wmv
Figure 2—NARF Transit and Parking Concent Plan Alternative C
Source:North Area Regional Facility(Transit)Final Report(2000),Wilber Smith Associates
Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Transit Design Services
Page 3
and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Guidelines that identifies potential project
impacts; conduct a property appraisal for the site and present first order construction cost estimates;
prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations; and present these recommendations to
the City's Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration.
In addition to schematic level drawings being prepared for Alternative Site C as contained in the
Wilbur Smith & Associates (WSA) study, staff is recommending that Council approve the
preparation of an additional schematic level review (not including environmental) for a possible
alternative location for the NARF facility located on the Shell Station property.
This alternative would be a variation of Alternative Site F as discussed in the WSA report and
would look to construct the facility using available public rights of way utilizing Higuera Street.
-_ YOMnMI sr NMf
Sam
.nr
ONLY------------
_ t
ws
m9WMR ��
�f(f� tiY.LM VR NMM/-:Or RYl1\:OR YB:YtL
Fieure 3—NARF Transit and Parking Concent Plan Alternative F
Source:North Area Regional Facility Transit Final Report(2000),Wilber Smith Associates
Although this design effort will lead to some additional cost of the project, staff believes that this is
a prudent request seeing that there are no absolute assurances that the Shell Station property is
going to be "doable" from a fiscal perspective. By including this schematic design effort as part of
the contract, the City will be able to utilize the efforts of the consultant team as they pursue
technical issues of the Shell site and in essence, not duplicate the effort at a later time if the idea of
utilizing the Shell site proves infeasible. This work can also be utilized if an EIR level analysis is
ultimately required for the project.
The attached draft — RFP does not currently include description of this work as a deliverable.
Because staff recommended and Council approved (March 2001) only Site C of the Wilbur Smith
C 6�".3
Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Transit Design Services
Page 4
& Associates -North Area Regional Facility (Transit) Final Report (2000), as the preferred transit
site, staff did not want to appear overly presumptive in including the Alternative F hybrid in the
RFP. Instead, staff felt that a more prudent path was to make recommendation to Council for
inclusion of this alternative site as part of the report and then, once approved by Council, revise the
RFP accordingly.
Staff has identified three areas that need focused investigations for the Shell Station property: traffic
assessment, hazardous materials, and archeology, which the consultant will need to perform to
investigate prior to review of environmental issues for the project. In addition to the technical work,
at least one public workshop will be held to solicit input from the general public and property
owners near the NARF project.
Proiect Schedule
It is anticipated that the draft report will take between five to six months to complete once the
notice to proceed is given. The following is the anticipated schedule for the project:
Benchmarks Target Dates
Issue RFP February 20,2002
Pre-Proposal Consultant March 13,2002
Meeting
Final written requests for March 20,2002
Information Submitted to City
Proposals Due April 5,2002
Complete proposal evaluation April 17,2002
Conduct finalist interviews,if April 26,2002
needed
Finalize staff recommendation April 27,2002
Award contract April 30,2002
Execute contract May 13,2002
Startwork May 14,2002
Complete Work 180 Days
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds have been budgeted for this project, summarized as follows:
Funding Sources:
General Fund FY 2000-01 $70,000
Transit Fund FY 2.001-02 $100,000
Total Budget $170,000
GS=�
Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Transit Design Services
Page 5
Project Budget:
Preliminary Costs to-date $5,000
Proposed Consultant Services $150,000
Contingency $15,000
Total Budget $170,000
As reflected above, if the proposals come within the $150,000 estimated cost for this work, there
will be$15,000 remaining of the budget for other components of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose to modify the RFP. This alternative is not recommended because it may
delay the project.
The Council may choose to defer the distribution of the RFP. This alternative is not recommended,
because it will delay the project and will ultimately lead to a delay to the construction of
improvements at the interchange location.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Workscope of RFP (complete RFP on file in the Council Office)
Attachment 2: FY 2001-03 Major Goals Description Sheets
BCotmcil Agenda Reports\RFP Advertise NARF Transit v3.doc
n
ATT `IHMENT 1
City Of
san tui s oil s o
955 Morro Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services:
North Area Regional Facility (Transit Component) Specification No. 90207A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California, will
receive sealed proposals for the schematic design and environmental review of the North Area
Regional Facility (Transit Component) pursuant to Specification No. 90207A. The Department
of Public Works must receive all proposals by 3:00 P.M. on Friday, April 5th, 2002. Proposals
received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the
proposal title, consultant name and address; and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals
shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
General Work Description: Prepare to-scale schematic site plan and related elevations for a
consolidated transit center on a specified site in downtown San Luis Obispo; conduct necessary
technical studies to prepare an Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Guidelines
that identifies potential project impacts; conduct a property appraisal for the site and present first
order construction cost estimates;prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations; and
present these recommendations to the City's Architectural Review Commission, Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration.
For additional information, contact Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, in the San Luis
Obispo Public Works Department, Transportation Division at (805) 781-7203 or by e-mail at
tbochum(a,slocity.org.
G:\Transportation\TransportationProjecuWARFrransitCenter\NARF RFP
® 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.
C J -�
ATTACHMENT 1
Specification No. 90207A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work I
B. General Terms and Conditions 7
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 12
Proposal Content.
Project Management
Submittal of References
Statement of Contract Disqualification's
Statement of Consultant Information
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Contract.Award
Failure to Award.
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Pre-Proposal Conference
Ownership of Materials
Release of Reports and Information
Copies of reports and Information
Required Deliverable Products
Attendance of at Meetings and Hearings
Accuracy of Specifications
D. Sample Form of Agreement 20
E. Insurance Requirements 22
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 24
Sub-consultant Listing
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
Attachments
Exhibit A: Initial Environmental Study Forms
Exhibit B: ARC and PC Application Checklists
Exhibit C: Catalog of Digital Information Available from SLO Geodata Services Division
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A)
2
- ATTACHMENT I
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
1. INTRODUCTION.
The City of San Luis Obispo is served by two transit systems: San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO
Transit) which offers six routes and serves areas within and immediately adjoining the city limits;
and Central Coast Area Transit (CCA7) that provides service throughout San Luis Obispo County.
Both systems currently use an on-street transfer point in downtown San Luis Obispo near City Hall
and the County Courthouse. The City wants to construct an off-street transit center that can serve
the current and future needs of the SLO Transit and CCAT systems.
In 2000, the City hired Wilber Smith Inc. to study the feasibility of establishing a consolidated
transit center and parking facility within a two-block downtown area. The consultant's report,
available at the City's website: http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/download/rei)ort.pdf, evaluates
the future needs of the SLO Transit and CCAT transit systems, reviews development constraints
including hazardous materials concerns,and presents eight layout options for a transit center.
The City wants to hire a qualified consultant to prepare a to-scale schematic site plan and pertinent
elevations for a consolidated transit center on the Shell Gas Station site, as shown by Site Concept
C (see Figure 1.2) within the Wilber Smith report. The consultant will also prepare one alternative
design to Site C —that of using Higuera Street as part of the project. The consultant will: conduct
necessary technical studies to prepare an Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA)
Guidelines that identifies potential project impacts; conduct a property appraisal for the site, and
present first order construction cost estimates; prepare a report that presents findings and
recommendations; and present those recommendations to the City's Architectural Review
Commission,Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.
2. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing Conditions: The Shell Gas Station site has frontages on Monterey, Higuera, and Santa
Rosa Streets, all designated by the City as arterial routes. Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets
carry significant daily traffic volumes (11,200 and 21,400 ADT respectively) while Higuera
Street (a one-way westbound route) handles
significantly less traffic—4,500 ADT.
l The site is approximately 31,540 square feet in
qarea, rectilinear in shape, with boundary
County Offices % ensions of approximately 140 feet x 224
County Courthouse ' Project Site Area
•,s 11 Gas
, s � To the west of the site lies the County
Admin. B of Courthouse block and site for a newly
o Si erica developing County Administrative complex.
These office complexes and the retail district to
the west are prime destinations for transit
Norm Area xegtonai racnity Kr (apec. NO.WZWA)
3
ATTACHMENT 4
patrons. To the east lie retail commercial, office, and residential uses. The project site has been
used as a service station since 1971 and has been modified over the years to include fuel
containment and monitoring equipment.
Project Site Area and Design Objectives: The project site area includes the Shell Gas Station
parcel and adjoining public street rights-of-way (reference preceding map). The objectives of this
project are to design a consolidated transit center that:
6C111Op OBOPO NOtM AIGS[OIONAt IACItR1
ONLY C
'any y'� � . � R I � 2 '' ,s •I {s
7
S ..
RAN= 9
y - IPR00 WUNMtl15 �' y 4
4
i I .
} V I, `
..•- 5 :.. ygp(rS OOUNOARY J �^
I
,.
<�Z NIGUERA ST
q Imiiiw M.W
��[�� SRI CONCpIC-SN[LL SfeTON'�
Yr�Ytt9Y.lTIDxS
Figure 1.2 —NARF Transit and Parking Concept Plan
Source:North Area Regional Facility(Transit)Final Report(2000),Wilber Smith Associates
Q Provides easy-to-use queuing spaces for SLO Transit and CCAT buses that meet current and
future needs(20 year time frame).
Provides for the safe mixing of pedestrians, busses, bicycles and private vehicles within the site
area.
Provides an attractive durable facility that enhances that area's urban design and is safe and
comfortable to use during the day or night.
Q Provides support facilities including restrooms and space for on-site transit pass sales, and
distribution of schedules and other transportation information.
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A)
4
ATTACHMENT I
Provides public office area, if possible, for use by public agencies promoting mass
transportation and alternative transportation services.
Enables safe passage of pedestrians across Santa Rosa Street to access the County Government
office complexes and adjoining retail district.
Relationship to Other Planning Efforts: The Wilber Smith study evaluated the feasibility of
creating the North Area Regional Facility (NARF). This facility has a variety of components
including a consolidated transit center (the subject of this RFP) and a public parking structure,
which would likely include ground floor retail space and possibly upper floor offices. The
consultant will coordinate their efforts with other public and private activities that may affect the
site area (e.g. such as the expansion of the new County Government Center building and the NARF
Parking Facility).
jThe City and the County of San Luis Obispo have released separate RFP for study of the NARF
Parking project that is the sister component to the project being reviewed under this RFP.;
,Consultants are encouraged to review that RFP to familiarize themselves with the goals and
objectives of that planning project and how it relates to the transit project. Consultants are
encouraged to propose on one or both of these projects.
Coordination with NARF Parking design consultant team:The scope of this RFP covers only,
the transit center component of the NARF. If more than one consultant is chosen for work on the!
separate NARF Transit and Parking projects, it will be the duty and obligation of each of the
consultant teams to coordinate architectural styles and integration of project site areas to ensure'
uniform development schemes for the blocks. At a minimum, the consultant should anticipate at.
least two coordination meetings between these development teams to discussproject objectives and'.
integration.
3. THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Deputy Director of Public Works will function as the City's project manager who will establish
a Project Development Team (PDT) that will work with the selected consultant and provide
information, direction and advice. The PDT will include civil and traffic engineering and planning,
SLO Transit and CCAT, utility, emergency services, and planning staffs. In establishing the design
for this project,the City anticipates that the selected consultant will undertake the following:
A. Evaluate existing conditions to understand current circulation and access patterns, the
dimensions of site,and utility locations, and review all pertinent studies and documents.
B. Meet with the Project Development Team (PDT) to verify project objectives, gain insight into
the past and current site conditions, and discuss opportunities and constraints observed as the
result of completing Activity A.
C. Prepare a Schematic Site Plan and Pertinent Elevations that accurately identifies all proposed
new or modified facilities within the site area (both the Shell Gas Station parcel and adjoining
public streets)and review them with the PDT for refinement, as needed.
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A)
5
- . ATTACHMENT 1
D. Sponsor a community workshop that solicits input from the general public concerning the
proposed design concept and contact individuals who indicate that they wish to provide detailed
feedback.
E. Meet with the City's Mass Transportation Committee to receive input and comment on the
draft schematic plans.
F. Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES), using forms provided by the City(attached
as Exhibit A). The IES shall identify all potentially significant project impacts in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) guidelines. The IES will present mitigation measures needed to avoid significant impacts
or reduce them to insignificant levels. In order to fill out and complete the IES, it is anticipated
that the consultant will, at a minimum, the preparation of- a Phase II Hazardous Materials Survey
(note: a Phase I survey has been conducted and is included as an attachment in the Wilbur Smith
report); a Phase I Archaeological Survey (documents search); and a traffic circulation analysis
involving streets within the project site area and focusing on traffic operations and pedestrian
access.
The anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determines that a focused
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort and cost of producing the EIR is
outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP, and will require mutually agreed upon
modifications to this scope or the City's selection of an independent consultant to do the work.
G. Coordination with NARF Parking design consultant team: if more than one consultant is
chosen for work on the separate NARF Transit and Parking projects, it will be the duty and
obligation of each of the consultant teams to coordinate architectural styles and integration of
project site areas to ensure uniform development schemes for the blocks. At a minimum, the ,
consultant should anticipate at least two coordination meetings between these development teams
to discuss project objectives and integration.
H. Refine the project design based on PDT and community workshop input and the findings of the
Initial Environmental Study, and prepare and submit application and plan materials to the
Community Development Department for approval by the City's Architectural Review
Commission and Planning Commission(see checklists attached as Exhibit B).
Note: City staff will prepare minutes of the ARC and Planning Commission meetings and prepare
a staff report that presents the ARC's and PC's recommendations on the project to the City
Council.
I. Conduct a Property Appraisal to determine the fair market value of the property to determine
the acquisition cost of the property. An initial and confidential "good will" appraisal has been
preformed by the City and will be made available to the chosen consultant upon execution of the
contract. Appraisals should be prepared in such a manner to be used as evidence in case
acquisition by eminent domain is required.
J. Present the recommended schematic site plan to the San Luis Obispo City Council and make
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A)
6
any refinements to the selected alternative as directed.
:II,I III 1111 I1��
III 1111111 ,M . ..
r rJii lr�
�r I
I� L
r
14 x i
1
Ad
A
Figure 3.1—Example Transit Center, Corpus Christi,Texas
Unless otherwise specified, throughout this planning process, the selected consultant will take the
lead in preparing all documents, applications, plans, right-of-entry agreements and related materials
and arrangement of public meetings and opportunities for public input. The City will provide
public notice of meetings as needed.
4. DELIVERABLES AND SPECIFIC SERVICES
Consistent with the planning process described above, the selected Consultant shall provide at least
the following:
Deliverables
A. A dimensioned site plan and pertinent elevations accurately showing all improvements in
plan view at a scale that is suitable for public presentations and discussion. Site plan shall
also accurately depict any modifications to public street areas adjoining the Shell Gas Station
property.
B. A complete Mass Transportation Committee project application to review and comment
on the draft schematic plans.
C. A complete Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission project
application and all requisite accompanying materials necessary to achieve final design
approval from the ARC and PC. Consultant will also provide an estimate of probable
construction costs at this time.
D. A completed Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance with City format
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A) C5-- JA
7
ATTACHMENT I
requirements and consistent with the CEQA and NEPA and their implementation guidelines.
E. Presentation materials and information needed to schedule and conduct any public meetings
or public outreach effort
Specific Services
E. Scheduling all meetings and presentation of plans to groups, individuals, the MTC, ARC,
the PC and City Council.
F. Modify initial plan concepts that are the result of the public review workshops and the
City's own internal plan review process.
G. Coordination of the efforts to prepare a design for NARF Transit project with other public
and private activities that,may affect the site area.
H. Conduct special studies including a Phase II Hazardous Material Study, a Phase I
Archaeological Report, an analysis of traffic operations and pedestrian access within the site
area (reference Section 3, Paragraph E above).
I. Conduct a property appraisal by a State of California, "Certified General' Real Estate
Appraiser for the subject property.
J. Prepare a Final project report for the project detailing all project information including
cost estimates, recommendations, mitigation strategies and design issues for consideration
and approval by the City Council.
5. PROJECT BUDGET
The City has earmarked $150,000 to cover design services, the IES environmental review and
related studies for this project and the property appraisal.
6. STANDARDS TO BE USED
In performing the services and providing the products described in the preceding section, the
Consultant shall,as a minimum,.use the following standards:.
❖ Metric Engineering Construction Standards&Metric Engineering Design Standards, City
of San Luis Obispo Pubic Works Department, Engineering Division. Consultants should
note that project is within the portion of the downtown where Mission Style sidewalks (salt
textured tan concrete with tile trim) are required.
43 San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Guidelines and application materials. All ARC
materials are available from the San Luis Obispo Community Development (Planning)
Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, 93401.
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A) CS
8
ATTACHMENT
❖ CAD Drafting Standards, San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, Engineering
Division. (Exhibit C)
❖ Pertinent plan documents including the 1994 General Plan Circulation Element and the
1993 Conceptual Physical Plan for City's Center.
7. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY
The digital map data listed on Exhibit D is available from the City of San Luis Obispo Geodata.
Services section. Contact Alice Carter at (805) 781-7167 for questions about the form and content
of the data sets. The City will provide this "off the shelf' data to the selected Consultant at costs
established by the City's GIS Division.
The Public Works Department Engineering Division maintains a variety of mapped information
sources that may be helpful in developing this project. Contact Christine Comejo at (805) 781-
7216 with specific questions.
ATTACHED
Exhibit A: Initial Environmental Study Forms
Exhibit B: ARC and PC Application Checklists
Exhibit C: Catalog of Digital Information Available from SLO Geodata Services Division
North Area Regional Facility RFP(Spec.No.90207A)
9
ATTACHMENT 2
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
MAJOR CITY GOALS—NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACIIITY
OBJECTIVE need to be pursued through internal and external
sources.
Work with other agencies to acquire land for a
multi-modal transportation center and parking 3. Operating the new parking garage will generate
structure, northeast of Santa Rosa Street between additional revenues, and there are already
Monterey and Higuera Streets. schedule rate increases for parking meters and
other revenues. However, it is unlikely that
DISCUSSION these will offset increased debt service costs to
finance land acquisition and construction. As
Background. This project creates a major such, we will need to develop a funding
transportation center in the Downtown area of the program for this, which will probably require
City. In March 2001, the Council adopted the area new revenue sources or rate increases. These
north of Santa Rosa between Monterey and Higuera costs may be partly offset by contributions from
Streets as the preferred location to develop the the County. The total number of parking spaces
North Area Regional Regr Facility F (NARF) project. The needed will drive the overall cost of the project.
ultimate project will include development of a 4. Financing costs (and overall costs) of the
multi-modal transit transfer center, a transit plaza parking component of the project will be higher
and a public parking garage that will house much of if office space for private use is included in the
the necessary employee parking for the Downtown overall project
area. On March 13, 2001, the Council approved
$70,000 toward the Transit portion of the site for 5. Achieving consensus on the concept for uses on
the parking portion of the site will be difficult.
1. Phase II hazardous material investigation. The more amenities that are added to the
2. Property appraisal of the Shell Station property. concept(such as day care center, offices, senior
center and public restrooms), the fewer parking
3. Preparation of conceptual plans for the transit spaces will be available to meet the demands
project. and a higher cost per space will result-
Additionally,
that staff return with Additionally, the complexity of consensus is
The Council also
requestedmagnified by adding necessary stakeholders
recommendations for preliminary development, such as SLORTA, Ride-0n/I'MA and taxi
investigation and appraisal work for the parking companies.
component of the NARF project as part of the 2001-
03 Financial Plan 6. Parking expansion in the Downtown has always
been controversial and the parking component
Challenges We Will Face in Achieving this Goal. of this project is anticipated to receive much
This project will face many challenging and difficult scrutiny from the public.
tasks before achieving its goal:
7. Participation of other public agencies such as
1. Property owners on the identified block remain the County will be necessary to complete the
opposed to the development of the NARF project.
project and as such, eminent domain will
probably be required to pursue the project. 8. The transit project will require grant or voter-
approved funding.
2. Funding for the transit facility, beyond the
$70,000, has not yet been acquired and will
B-44
ATTACHMENT 2
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
MAJOR CITY GOALS—NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY
ACTION PLAN RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
bate I. Public Works. Take lead role in managing the
project through the Transportation Planning and
1. Pursue discretionary grant 2001-03 Engineering Program, including working with
funding for property acquisition contract attorney on eminent domain
and construction proceedings if needed. The CIP Project
2. Begin negotiations for`right of 8/01 Engineering Program will contribute
entry"to the Shell Station engineering oversight and assistance in all tasks
property to conduct Phase II of the project.
hazardous material testing
3. Begin conceptual design phase 11/01 2. Community Development. Assist in
• for the Transit Plaza processing environmental review of the project,
4. Receive right of entry approval 11/01 Architectural Review Commission and Cultural
for Shell Station property;begin Heritage Committee review and approval, and
Phase II hazardous material study with any Planning Commission findings if
5. Complete appraisal of the Shell 01/02 eminent domain is required.
Station property
6. Complete draft conceptual design 04/02 3. Finance Department. Assist in implementing
and environmental review;begin necessary project financing.
hold public workshops and
advisory body meetings on 4. 'City Attorney. The .City Attorney will assist
proposed plan Public Works in property negotiations and
l 7. _Council approves implementation 10/02 acquisition as required.
plan
8. Secure funding for property; 01/03 FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES
begin negotiations REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
9. A 3. 06/03 �{�
e •` t r .$�~ Y� iI'.:A. StalTang Impacts
L Pursue County financial 2001-03
participation in the project The bulk of staff support for this project will be
2. Hire parking design consultant 1/02 borne by Public Works. Given current and
team to develop preliminary projected wm'kloads, significant time by staff will
Jproject conceptual plans;begin be spent administering consultant contracts in order
property appraisals for all to achieve the above listed goals. It is doubtful that
remaining properties on block; the current staffing levels will be able to conduct
begin environmental review of these tasks without affecting delivery of day-to-day
° conceptual design transit and parking service. As such, significant use
3. Complete draft preliminary 10/02 of consultant contract services will probably be
project conceptual plans, necessary to complete individual project tasks. This
appraisals,environmental review is projected to cost$50,000 in 2002-03.
and financing plan
4. Begin holding public workshops 10/02 Financial Resources
and advisory body meetings on
proposed plan Transit Plaza. The Council approved$15,000 from
5. Council adopts implementation 6/03 the Transit Fund in the 1999-01 Financial Plan to
plan pursue a transit center study. That study was
B-45 C 5`
ATTAciiMENT 2
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
MAJOR CITY GOALS—NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY
completed, and in March 2001 the Council unknown at this time what amount may be
authorized an additional $70,000 from the General contributed for the project.
Fund to prepare conceptual plans, property
appraisals and hazardous material studies for the No detailed funding estimates have yet been
Shell Station property to be used for the transit plaza provided as to the total cost of the entire parking
component of the project. Staff will be pursuing project. However, based upon early parking space
outside funding sources for the remaining portions demand numbers, this is roughly estimated at $15
of the transit project but these .sources are not million for design, land and construction. The
guaranteed- Parking Fund'will be responsible for all acquisitions
(any contributions from the County would be
Limited grant funding (requiring a small match of deposited into the Parldng Fund). Over the next two
Transportation Development Act revenue, if years, $240,000 from the Parking Fund will be
available) in the amount of$100,000 is assumed in required for conceptual studies, and environmental
2001-02 for planning purposes.. This will result in review of the project once the Council adopts a
an approved Transit Plaza conceptual plan and conceptual plan for staff to analyze.
environmental documents that will provide the City
with the foundation for purchasing land and GENERAL FUND REVENUE)POTENTIAL
proceeding with construction when sufficient ]3 helping keepour Downtown vital,construction
funding sources can be found to do so. these of facilities will indirectly contribute to the
While the Action Plan shows purchase of the fiscal health of the Downtown,which is the City's
property in 2002-03(estimated at$1 million), this is largest sales tax producing area.
contingent upon securing new funding for this.
OUTCOME.—FINAL WORK PRODUCT
We estimate that the entire project could cost about
$2.6 million for design, land and construction. Achieving this two-year Action Plan will result in
However, these figures will need to be refined as the following final work products:
part of the 2001-03 work program. Staff will be
pursuing FTA and TDA grant funding for property 1. Conceptual plans, property appraisals and
acquisition, design, environmental work and hazardous material investigation for both the
construction of the actual Transit Plaza facilities. It NARF parking and transit components.
is important to note that the anticipated transit
funding sources will be highly competitive and 2. Long-term financial plan for .the parking
might not materialize. Ultimately, funding may be component of the NARF project to be used in
necessary from new voter-approved financing future financial plans.
revenues if no other means of funding the project.
materializes. 3. Contingent upon securing new, unidentified
funding sources for this,purchase of the Transit
Parking Structure. The funding of the parking Plaza site.
component of the project is a complex one. The
City's parking in-lieu fee and parking enterprise
funds normally are earmarked for providing
additional public parking in the Downtown area.
However, because the County is proposing a major
expansion in the Downtown area, it is anticipated
that some form of financial participation will be
forthcoming to the NA" parldng project. It is
B-46 C 5-/7
Retain this document for
future Council meeting
NCIL1<bD DIR (t_D
❑ FIN DIR
MEMOFCCLgER1KIORIG
❑ FIRE CHIEFagNEY W❑ POLICE CHF Y''
February 10, 2002 ❑ PT HEADS O REC DIR
am 0 LITIL DIFI
To: Council Collea es ag
From: Ken Schwartz
Copy: Ken Hampian;4endy George, Mike McCluskey, Timothy Bochum, John
Mandeville
Re; RFP's for North Area Regional Facilities—Transit and Parking
I was pleased with our action to continue a decision on the Transit.Component RFP until
our meeting of February 19a'when Public Works will be presenting an RFP for a Parking
Component. I trust that it was evident from my remarks that.I believe we should be
thinking of these projects in a larger urban design context. While the transit and parking
components may well be built at different times due to financial reasons, I believe
strongly that they should be designed as one comprehensive "structure"capable of being
built in two separate units at two different times. Today, the term is"holistic"planning;
yesterday, it was called `master planning."
(Note: "structure"does notmean,per se, one monolithic building.)
My preference would be to see us combine these two RFD's into one RFP with(A)
(transit) and(B)(parking) components. Further, I would like to see the list of firms
invited to respond to our RFP limited to firms who have the capability of designing both
transit facilities and parking facilities. Lacking in-house design professionals in both
transit and parking,the successful bidder should be able to list consultants that they could
bring to a team response to our two needs.
It would be very important for our RFP invitation to explain`sip-front" SLO's concern
with architectural design that the project design will be subject to Architectural Review
Commission approvals,that scale and materials selection are important components to
ARC review and community acceptance of design proposals, and that the County will
shortly be constructing a new Administrative Building across Santa Rosa Street the
design and scale of which will have serious implications on the design and scale ofboth
the transit facility and the parking facility. In, short, aesthetics will be an important
aspect of the acceptance of the designs and bidders are well advised that their design
team consist of professionals with demonstrated abilities in these areas of facility design.
In my opinion, the roof of the parking'structure would be an excellent location for a
senior citizens' center. It would most likely.require a height exception, but think of the
location . . . . . centralized, accessible by auto, accessible by public transit, accessible to
downtown, and what a spectacular view to look out upon. Perhaps the roof could be also
be used for a roof top restaurant—again,what a view! The only problem is that roof
parking is the cheapest of the parking levels..
RECEIVED
FES 1 2F0
SLO CITY COUNCIL
- MFFTING AGENDA
2-12-09, ITEM # C 5 Cw
council memoizanbum
February 15, 2002 =b -
0
NCIL CDD DIR
TO: City Council ML�ERK�(CRIG
❑ FIN.DIR
V WW RHIEF,.
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer 1h ❑ POLICE CHF
VY
❑ DE H DS511
REC DIR
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works r"x) a [� -HR.
R. DIR
. HR.DIR
SUBJECT: Councilman Schwartz memo 2-10-02 re: NARF RFP's 7Qoe�iw�
Councilman Schwartz makes two points in his memo:
1. The two RFP's should be combined into one effort with a look at a project,that is an
entire block in scope; and
2. A local architect should be the lead on that one project.
Issue 1:
Staff believes that these are two separate (but related) specialized projects. The first, transit,
requires: a) a specialized transit planning firm to review two different layouts, and analyze
effects on bus routing and timing; b) a traffic engineer to ascertain the congestion impacts on the
local road system by locating the transit terminal at either location; c) an appraiser qualified to
prepare an appraisal to Federal guidelines; d) a civil engineer to determine the cost of any
remediation and construction costs of either transit terminal layout; and e) an architect to prepare
conceptual plans for ARC design feedback. In projects such as these, the transit specialist is
usually the project team leader.
The second project, parking, involves: a) a specialized parking consultant with experience in
standard and robotic type parking garages who must prepare six different layouts for two
different site locations; b) a traffic consultant that must evaluate the impact to local traffic
patterns of each of those six scenarios; c) a civil engineer to prepare construction cost estimates;
and d) an architect to prepare conceptual plans for ARC design feedback. In projects such as
this, the parking consultant is usually the project team leader.
As indicated above, the parking study isnot just a one-block study. The Council has entered into
an MOU with the County to perform this study, and the County has determined a need to look at
a second block. The Council's stated goal is to locate a new parking structure "north of Santa
Rosa" and both blocks meet that objective. The County has withdrawn its desire to also study
the property they own on Monterey Street,which would have been a third site.
When the Wilbur Smith Transit study came before the City Council in March 2001, it included
numerous schematic locations for a transit center and a discussion of how parking structures
could be constructed adjacent to each of those options. The Council adopted the Shell Station
option as the preferred transit site, based upon the consultant's conclusion that it was the best
overall and because it left the most area remaining in the block for a possible future parking
structure. However, in adopting the consultant's recommendation on the transit site, the Council
did not decide to combine the transit project and the potential parking project into one. Given
the Council's MOU with the County on the parking project and their desire for a two-location
study, a single-location transit/parking study, as suggested by Councilman Schwartz, would not
be possible without violating the MOU.
However, staff appreciates Councilman's Schwartz's concern for overall aesthetics.
Accordingly, specific language has been added to each RFP to make sure that both consultant
teams will talk to one another. The two projects will present like or similar themes; and when
finally built,would appear to have been well coordinated with one another.
Stars ultimate goal for these RFP's is to produce two documents that can be implemented
when, and if, funding becomes available. Currently, the County has set aside funding for
underground parking at its new office building, but none for a new parking structure north of
Santa Rosa. Likewise, the City will be tying up the bonding capacity of our parking fund with its
purchase of the Copeland garage. No analysis of the parking fund's ability to fund a new
structure north of Santa Rosa has taken place. Funding for the transit center is assumed to come
from future Federal Transit Administration funding grants and the likelihood of receiving grants
in the multi-million dollar range is very poor in the coming years. We believe we have been
clear in stating that at this time the goal is to create master plans for two facilities that will serve
the best interests of the community by identifying the proper location, constraints (haz-mat, etc.)
and cost before even looking for grants. Once this information is known, the grant application
and eventual property acquisition process can begin.
It is highly likely that the parking structure, in whatever final location is chosen, will be built
long before the transit center, since it is not dependent upon Federal funding. However, before
the parking project can go forward to construction, the chosen property(s) will have to be
acquired and all cultural and hazardous issues fully resolved. On one site, the Spring Toyota
block, the time needed to accomplish all these issues could be lengthy and would most likely
require Council support of the use of eminent domain. Because of these timing issues, neither
consultant is being requested to present a final or even near-final architectural rendering of the
transit or parking facility. When either project is fully ready to proceed, staff assumes that a new
team of consultants will be hired to take the project from its conceptual approval (hopefully
given sometime in 2002) and proceed to full architectural plans that: a) reflect that concept; b)
receive full ARC review and approval; and c)proceed to construction.
Issue#2
Staff agrees with Councilman Schwartz that a good architect is crucial to a good final product.
However,we feel that project timing is the crucial issue when deciding to hire the architect as the
team leader. The need for an architect is paramount during the actual design of either the transit
or the parking project. The actual design will take place only after funding for construction has
been secured,property acquired, and environmental issues resolved.
At this stage in the projects, the need for an architect is limited: i.e. prepare conceptual "looks"
after all technical studies have been completed. What is paramount at this time is to assure that
the `overall" look and feel of the two faculties is well coordinated. The ARC will, as the
guardian of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center give the needed feedback to
assure a good, well-coordinated concept. This concept may not be exactly as shown in the Plan,
as input Council received from the transit site selection consultant indicated. He stated that a
transit center under office buildings or with the bus parking layout shown in the Plan would not
be well functioning and successful. However, he did confirm that the Plan had designated the
most appropriate location for the transit center.
Additionally, staff's recent history with architects acting as team leaders of a study consultant
team has been less than satisfactory. However, we recognize that once these projects have
reached the point of final design, the role of the architect becomes the significant one and they
should lead the team. We just are not at that point in either of these two projects. At this time,
the architect's role is minor in comparison to the other consultants. In general, consultant teams
are led by the specialty that performs the majority of the work—in this case most likely a transit
specialist and a parking specialist. However, as indicated above,by the time funding is available
to actually construct either project, it is likely that new, architect-led teams will be created.
Therefore we would prefer to keep the RFP's separate and let whatever teams propose for each
project be evaluated on their own merits. Finally, there is nothing in either document that
precludes an architect from forming a single project team and proposing on both RFPs. Thus, it
is possible that Councilman Schwartz's desire for a single leader may result even if the two
projects are not combined.
GATransportation\Transportation Projects\Transit\Current Projects\NARF Transit Center\schwartz rfp memo reply 2-18-02.doc