Loading...
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