SR-11-27-1979-11DSanta Monica, California, November 13, 1979
TO: Mayor and City Council / / D
FROM: Airport Consultant Selection Committee NOV I 7 i97C�
SUBJECT: Recommendation Regarding Selection of a Consultant
to Prepare an Analysis of Alternative Land Uses
at the Santa Monica Airport
Background
At the May 8, 1979, meeting of the City Council, the Council directed the staff
to prepare an outline of the parameters of potential uses of the airport property
and to retain a consultant to perform an analysis of cost and revenues to be
generated by alternative land uses (Item 13D).
Subsequently, on June 15, 1979, Council received a report from staff which
outlined three (3) alternative approaches to be incorporated into the analysis,
established a 1979-80 budget allocation of $30,000 for consultant services, and
directed staff to proceed with consultant selection (Item 7A).
A "Request for Proposals" (RFP) was prepared and circulated to Council for review
and comment on July 24, 1979, along with the intended method of consultant
evaluation, and a proposed mailing list of 16 consultants. The RFP was mailed to
an expanded list of 22 consulting firms on July 30, 1979, and eight proposals were
submitted to the City by the August 20th cutoff date.
Following the development of tenative proposal evaluation criteria by the Planning
staff, the Consultant Selection Committee, comprised of a representative from the
Airport Commission, Planning Commission and City staff, met on October 23rd to
review and adopt the evaluation criteria, and to establish the schedule for
interviewing the eight prospective consultants.
NOV � 7 1979
Mayor and City Council -2- November 13, 1979
The consultant interviews were conducted by the Selection Committee on
November 6th. Also present during these interviews were representatives from
the City Manager's office, Planning Department, and the Airport Department. The
consultants were each allowed 30 minutes to summarize and /or expand upon their
written proposals and to respond to questions from the Committee and staff.
Discussion
The consultants were instructed in the RFP to respond to and analyze three
alternatives. These alternatives were:
Assume the City Council decides to continue airport operations in general
aviation. What development opportunities might exist given the recommended
FAA height restrictions, market demand factors, and realistic development
financial requirements? Analysis of past and projected future airport
operations and fiscal performance will be required. Additionally, the
fixed base operator's land requirements necessary to continue economically
viable businesses given the desired level of airport operations must be
taken into account. Calculate net City revenues with continued airport
operations.
2. Assume that the City Council decides to abandon airport operations and to
maximize the net City revenues on the property. Evaluate the market demand
levels for retail commercial, office commercial, industrial, hotel -motel and
various residential type development alternatives. If the maximization of
the net City revenues is the major goal, what land mix, absorption rates,
and level of net City revenues could be obtained?
3. Finally, if the City Council decides to abandon airport operations and have
the property developed, what net City revenues might be anticipated from an
orderly development plan? This would be a plan which had a land use program
consistent with the community's needs and desires as a major goal. The
maximization of net City revenues would be a secondary goal in this alternative.
The market demand levels evaluated in Alternative 2 must be tempered with a
reasonable land use plan in this option to arrive at the conclusions.
In order to objectively analyze the consultant proposals, specific evaluation
criteria were developed, as noted above. The evaluation criteria emphasized three
general headings: (a) a demonstration of the consultant's understanding of the
problem; (b) the experience and commitment of senior staff members to the project;
Mayor and City Council -3- November 13, 1979
and (c) the technical approach described in the proposals. The first two headings
were weighted approximately 40% in the overall evaluation, and the technical
approach was weighted approximately 600.
Under the category of understanding of the problem, the evaluation elements
included a demonstration of the realization of the controversial nature of the
airport issue, an awareness of existing data including previous airport and other
related studies, an awareness of the need for an accurate, impartial and realistic
report, and an appreciation and understanding of the need for public confidence in
the study. (This includes all aspects of the study: the methodology, the data
used, the analysis and findings, the recommendations, and public participation
and input.)
The category of commitment of senior staff concerned the educational and
professional background of the designated project staff members, and the recent
experience of project staff members with respect to airport development and
operations, market forecasting, and land use studies. The Selection Committee and
staff also evaluated the proposals with respect to actual commitment of senior
staff members to the project, the number and percentage of hours devoted to the
project by the senior staff, City access to the senior staff assigned to the project,
and an indication of the commitment of senior staff members to make the firm's
presentation at public meetings.
The evaluation of the technical approach examined the consultant's expertise in six
areas: (a) airport operations and economics; (b) market demand and absorption rates
for non- aviation uses; (c) economic impact analysis and measurement; (d) on- and
off -site compatibility and impact analysis; (e) written and oral presentation ability;
Mayor and City Council -4- November 13, 1979
and (f) ability to focus on the most critical elements of the study given the
established budget constraints.
In applying the criteria described above, it was the unanimous opinion of both the
Selection Committee and the non - voting staff participants that the proposal submitted
by the firm of Williams - Kuebelbeck and Associates was clearly superior to any of the
other proposals. Although the proposal generally met or exceeded the other proposals
in all areas of evaluation, the Williams - Kuebelbeck showed particular strength in
the areas of understanding the problem, knowledge of airport operations and
economics, on- and off -site compatibility and impact analysis, and ability to
identify and focus on the most critical elements of the study.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council authorize the preparation of a contract with
Williams - Kuebelbeck and Associates in the amount of $28,000 to undertake a fiscal
evaluation of alternative land use plans for the Santa Monica Airport, and
authorize the City Manager to execute said contract.
Prepared by: Herb Roney
Herb Katz
John Hemer
HR:HK:JH:mh