Cyrus Abhar, City Manager
October 3, 2022
DPML-58478\2688190.1
consistent with aesthetic criteria in urban design guidelines established in connection with redevelopment project reviewed and approved under earlier EIR; limited scope of city’s discretion in reviewing plans for conformity to guidelines’ aesthetic criteria did not give it ability to meaningfully respond to GHG and climate change impacts raised by project opponent]; McCorkle, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at 94 [rejecting project opponent’s argument “that because the City had discretion to conduct design review the entire project was discretionary and subject to CEQA”]; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th 11 [vineyard development permit was ministerial where applicable regulations conferred no meaningful discretion to mitigate environmental damage].)
III. To the Extent Limited CEQA Review Is Required Here, The Design Review Project Qualifies For A Guidelines Section 15183 Partial Exemption And Streamlined Review.
As noted above, to the extent that CEQA applies to the Design Review Project, it qualifies for a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 partial exemption for projects that are consistent with the densities/intensities established by the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan. Because an EIR was prepared and certified by the lead agency in accordance with CEQA, which covered full development of the Project site with the type and intensity of uses authorized when it adopted the ZSPA, the City’s additional CEQA review of the Design Review Project here must be narrowly limited to analysis of only the design review-related environmental effects of the Design Review Project (if any).
Moreover, any such CEQA review is further limited under Guidelines Section 15183 as follows:
(1) to those environmental effects that the city determines are peculiar to the project and were not studied in the EIR for the zoning, community plan, or general plan;
(2) to those environmental effects of the project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the EIR prepared for the general plan (or zoning action, or community plan);
(3) to potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative environmental impacts of the project which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan (or zoning action or community plan); or (4) to previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
Here, the Design Review Project involves a land use that the ZSPA permits by right at the proposed density and intensity (also fully consistent with the ZSPA) — and for ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 7
Cyrus Abhar, City Manager
October 3, 2022
DPML-58478\2688190.1
which Dermody has vested rights under the Development Agreement to proceed — and all environmental impacts of such use, density and intensity were fully disclosed, analyzed and mitigated as required under CEQA in the certified ZSPA FEIR. Thus, in addition to the legal limitations on the application and scope of CEQA inherent in the Major Design Review process itself, the application of a Guidelines Section 15183 exemption is also entirely appropriate and is exactly the CEQA compliance pathway that the City has followed for similar recent projects in the ZSPA.2
With regard to any potential design-related environmental effects peculiar to the Design Review Project, we note that the applicant has already prepared a thoughtful noise study to confirm that it would not have any new significant and/or peculiar noise impacts not already analyzed in the ZSPA FEIR. The Project will also be required to – and will – comply with all applicable mitigation measures under the ZSPA MMRP, which further ensures that the Design Review Project will not result in any peculiar or more severe impacts than already discussed in the ZSPA FEIR.
Among other things, the MMRP includes measures to mitigate any potentially significant biological impacts, air quality impacts, water quality impacts, and noise impacts.
Finally, we note that following the preparation and certification of an EIR, CEQA places strict limitations on conducting subsequent CEQA review of a project (the conditions for which are not met here), and prescribes no “expiration date” for an EIR (or for any relevant type CEQA document, for that matter). (See Pub. Res.
Code, § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 [setting forth the limited situations where subsequent or supplemental review may be required after an EIR has been prepared]; see also Latinos Unidos v. City of Napa (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 192 [upholding city’s reliance on decades-old general plan EIR when approving a new housing element and determining no new EIR was required]; Committee for Re- Evaluation of T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1254 [16-year old EIR held adequate CEQA compliance for light rail line project]; Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793 [nearly decade-old negative declaration held adequate CEQA compliance for parking structure project].) In sum, here it is entirely appropriate to apply the Guidelines Section 15183 partial exemption and streamlined CEQA review to the Design Review Project based on 2 Within the ZSPA, the Project site has a land use designation of Business and Professional Office where the proposed warehousing, delivery, and distribution type use is permitted by right, not requiring approval of a conditional use permit. (ZSPA, § 512-204 (D).) The Design Review Project at issue here has also been carefully designed so as to ensure that the height and size of the proposed building, setbacks, and site improvements are consistent with the development standards set forth in the ZSPA. (See, e.g., Development Agreement, at § 2.1; ZSPA, § 512-204 (D); 2003 Zoning Ordinance at § 230, Table IV.)
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 7
Cyrus Abhar, City Manager
October 3, 2022
DPML-58478\2688190.1
the extensive CEQA review already conducted in the certified ZSPA FEIR, which is now final, beyond legal challenge, and conclusively presumed to be adequate. To require any more extensive or repetitive review would violate fundamental principles of CEQA that seek to promote the finality of EIRs and avoid and prohibit meaningless, duplicative, wasteful, and/or unnecessary environmental review. ***************************************************
Your anticipated attention to the above information is greatly appreciated, and we hope it is helpful to you. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned directly.
Very truly yours,
MILLER STARR REGALIA
Arthur F. Coon
AFC:tzb/klw
cc: Adam Lindgren, Esq., City Attorney, [email protected] Elizabeth Sparkman, Community Development Director,
[email protected]
George Condon, Dermody Properties, [email protected]
Lucy Crocker, Lucy & Company, [email protected]
Michelle Smira, MMS Strategies, [email protected] Nadia L. Costa, Esq., Miller Starr Regalia, [email protected] Travis A. Brooks, Esq., Miller Starr Regalia, [email protected] ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 7
EXHIBIT E
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 7
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814
tel (916) 556‐1531
fax (916) 556‐1516
www.meyersnave.com
Edward Grutzmacher
Attorney at Law
[email protected]
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA SAN DIEGO March 2, 2020
Michael R. Lozeau
Paige Fennie
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Project DD9903: GLP Stores, LLC Warehouse on APN 072-2860-033-0000 Request for Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Dear Mr. Lozeau and Ms. Fennie:
The City of Rancho Cordova (“City”) is in receipt of your letter dated February 18, 2020 concerning Project DD9903: GLP Stores, LLC Warehouse on APN 072-2860-033-0000 (“Project”). The City Attorney’s Office has had the opportunity to review your letter and has the following responses to the allegations and assertions made therein.
In your letter, you claim that the City is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for relying on CEQA Guidelines section 15183 to conclude that the Project is in compliance with the City’s General Plan and no further environmental review is required.
Your letter further asserts that the CEQA requires the City to examine the Project’s potential impacts to human health from toxic air contaminants (“TAC”), (pp. 3-4), impacts from the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions, (p. 4-5), the Project’s consistency with the General Plan (p. 5-6), and the Project’s impacts to biological resources, (p. 5-8).
The Project seeks Major Design Review approval for a 164,149 square-foot light industrial office warehouse and associated office space building that includes parking, lighting, and landscaping for the applicant GLP Stores, LLC. The Project is located within the Villages of Zinfandel Special Planning Area (“ZSPA”). The Special Planning Area was approved in 2002 by Sacramento County. The ZSPA includes residential, commercial, business professional, light industrial, park, bike trails, and open space uses. A Final Environmental Impact Report was certified for the Special Planning Area in 1998 by Sacramento County and a Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted. Under the City’s General Plan and the ZSPA, the Project site has a designation of Light Industrial, which allows for limited industrial uses. Similarly, under the City’s Zoning Code, the Project site is zoned Light Industrial Villages of Zinfandel Special Planning Area (LI ZSPA) which allows for industrial/retail flex and manufacturing and warehousing uses.
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 7
Michael R. Lozeau
March 2, 2020
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA SAN DIEGO The Project site has had previous entitlements that were approved as follows:
April 2006: Tentative Parcel Map that included the light industrial zoned area to the west and south. Divided 3 parcels into 93 parcels.
May 2007: Tentative Subdivision Map, Creekside Commerce Center, to divide 28 acre parcel into 16 parcels. The project also included a design review for 16 buildings.
Feb 2009: A Tentative Subdivision Map Amendment, Creekside Commerce Center, that reduced the subdivision map from 16 parcels to 8 parcels and reduced 16 buildings to 7 buildings.
March 2017: A Tentative Subdivision Map, Creekside Commerce Center, Extension to February 2020.
Oct 2018: Final Map recorded.
Oct 2019: Lot Line Adjustment to combine 3 lots into 1 lot (subject property).
The Project is a permitted use and does not require a conditional use permit. Rather, the Project requires only approval of Major Design Review. Pursuant to the City’s Code, Chapter 23.141, the City Council “may approve or approve with conditions an application for major design review after finding all of the following” “A. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, complies with applicable zoning regulations, Specific Plan provisions, and special planning area provisions, and is consistent with the applicable Rancho Cordova design guidelines.
B. The proposed architecture, site design, and landscape are suitable for the purposes of the building and the site and will enhance the character of the neighborhood and community.
C. The architecture, including the character, scale, and quality of the design, relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements, establishes a clear design concept and is compatible with the character of existing or anticipated buildings on adjoining and nearby properties.
D. The proposed project will not create conflicts with vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian transportation modes of circulation.” (City Code, § 23.141.070.) The City Council may only condition approval of a Major Design Review application “to ensure specific design features, construction materials, and conformance with all applicable provisions of this chapter.” (City Code, § 23.141.080.) ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 7
Michael R. Lozeau
March 2, 2020
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA SAN DIEGO “A city is not, pursuant to general law, required to have a design review ordinance.
Accordingly, where, as here, a city chooses to impose such an additional level of review, it is for the city to determine the scope that such review will entail.” (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004,1014 (“Friends of Davis”).) “The Guidelines recognize that the application of CEQA to a local ordinance is dependent upon the scope and interpretation of the local ordinance, rather than vice versa. ... The Guidelines note[d] that CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted by other laws. (Guidelines, § 15040, subd. (a).) Rather, the exercise of an agency’s authority under a particular law must be within the scope of the agency’s authority provided by that law and must be consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws.” (Id. at pp. 1014–1015.) Where a city’s own ordinance prevents it from disapproving or conditioning a project “for non-design related matters,” it lacks “discretion to address environmental effects” and, thus, the city’s ability to apply CEQA review to a project is limited to design- related issues. (McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Ca.App.5th 80, 91-95.)
Therefore, under CEQA, the City lacks the discretion under the Major Design Review approval process to consider environmental effects not related to the design of the Project, including, but not limited to human health impacts from TAC’s, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to biological resources. That said, pursuant to the General Plan and the ZSPA, the Project will be required to comply with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the ZSPA, which includes measures designed to mitigate the impacts from air pollutant emissions and impacts to biological resources in the area. Moreover, the Project has undertaken a trip generation analysis that concludes that the Project’s traffic trips are consistent with the analysis and findings of the ZSPA EIR. As such, no further CEQA review of this Project is required.
If you have any further questions regarding this Project, please do not hesitate to contact myself or the City.
Best Regards,
Edward Grutzmacher
cc (email only): Adam Lindgren
Frank Splendorio
Cyrus Abhar
Darcy Goulart
Stacy Leitner
June Cowles
3489253.1
ATTACHMENT 7
Logisticenter at Rancho Cordova
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
Nicholas Sosa, Associate Planner
Darcy Goulart, Planning Manager
January 17, 2023
PLND-1021-0015 Major Design Review
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
• Receive a presentation from staff and the project applicant on what
has occurred since the December 5th City Council meeting. • Direct staff to return at a later City Council meeting with final acti
on documents or direct the applicant to make additional modifications to the proposed project.
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Updates Since December 5th City Council Meeting
• Applicant has pro vided additional renderings from
Queens Arbor and Portico Circle.
• Applicant has m odi fied their elevations to provide
additional architectural elements to be more consistent with an office appearance.
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Logisticenter Project Location
Douglas 98
Cordova
Community
Pool
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Applicants Presentation
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Business Park at Rancho Cordova
Final City Council Presentation
January 17, 2023
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Original Site Plan
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Updated Site Plan
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Original Bear Hollow Drive Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Original Elevations
EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Current Elevations
TOP OF PARAPET
41'-6"
TOP OF PARAPET
40'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
39'-6"
TOP OF PARAPET
38'-0"
CLEAR HEIGHT
32'-0"
GLASS HEIGHT
26'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
41'-6"
TOP OF PARAPET
40'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
39'-6"
TOP OF PARAPET
38'-0"
CLEAR HEIGHT
32'-0"
GLASS HEIGHT
26'-0"
TOP OF WALL
12'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
NORTH ELEVATION 0'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
39'-6"
CLEAR HEIGHT
32'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
40'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
39'-6"
TOP OF PARAPET
38'-0"
CLEAR HEIGHT
32'-0"
GLASS HEIGHT
26'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
40’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-6”
TOP OF PARAPET
37’-0”
CLEAR HEIGHT
32’-0”
GLASS HEIGHT
26’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
EAST ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
40’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
39’-6”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-6”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-0”
TOP OF WALL
12’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
NORTH ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
39’-6”
CLEAR HEIGHT
32’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
WEST ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
40’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-6”
CLEAR HEIGHT
32’-0”
GLASS HEIGHT
26’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION
1 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7009 2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 2849 3 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7069 4 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 6804
PEARLY WHITE WESTCHESTER GRAY IRON ORE DIGNITY BLUE
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7009
PEARLY WHITE
1 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 2849
WESTCHESTER GRAY
2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7069
IRON ORE3 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 6804
DIGNITY BLUE
4 TOP OF PARAPET
40’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-6”
TOP OF PARAPET
37’-0”
CLEAR HEIGHT
32’-0”
GLASS HEIGHT
26’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
EAST ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
40’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
39’-6”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-6”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-0”
TOP OF WALL
12’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
NORTH ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
39’-6”
CLEAR HEIGHT
32’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
WEST ELEVATION
TOP OF PARAPET
40’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET
38’-6”
CLEAR HEIGHT
32’-0”
GLASS HEIGHT
26’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
0’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Original Corner Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Revised Corner Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Final Corner Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Revised Bear Hollow Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Final Bear Hollow Drive Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Bear Hollow Drive
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Final Bear Hollow Drive Rendering
Final Bear Hollow Drive Rendering Pedestrian Approach
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Current Landscaping Plan
Previous Landscaping Plan
Final Submittal
Box Size Number of trees Diameter of all
trees combined % Increase
24 141 3384 -10%
36 28 1008
48 36 1728 20%
205 6120 18%
First Submittal
Box Size Number of trees Diameter of all
trees combined
24 157 3768
36 0 0
48 30 1440
187 5208
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
6350 Sky Creek Road
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
6003 88th Street
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
6271 Florin Perkins Road
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
4525 W. Elkhorn Boulevard
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
5849 88th Street
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Final Rendering
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
Project CEQA
• The project is ex empt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning.
• The proposed project has been reviewed and determined to be in conf
ormity with what was reviewed in the original EIR for the Zinfandel Special Planning Area and no further CEQA review is required.
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
1. Direct staff to return at a later City Council meeting with final acti
on documents; or
2. Direct the applicant to make additional modifications to the proposed
project.
Council Action
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
THANK YOU
Questions?
ITEM 18.1.
ATTACHMENT 8
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1
ITEM 19.1.
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Steve Harriman, Public Works Division Manager
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL WASTE COLLECTION AND STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT OPTIONS FOR THE TERM BEGINNING JANUARY 1,
2025
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the presentation and provide direction to staff on the preferred option to develop and execute a new residential waste collection and street sweeping contract for the term beginning on January 1, 2025.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff will proceed with Council direction based on the preferred option.
BACKGROUND
The term of the current contract with Republic Services expires on December 31, 2024. The two options available for the execution of a new contract include:
Option 1: Direct staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposals document, which would allow multiple waste hauling companies to compete for a new contract beginning January 1, 2025.
Option 2: Direct staff to negotiate with Republic Services for 90-days and return to Council with a term sheet for the contract term beginning January 1, 2025. At the conclusion of the 90-day negotiation period, the Council may direct staff to prepare a contract for council approval based upon the negotiated terms, or direct staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposals document allowing multiple waste hauling companies to compete for the new contract.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
This item will have no impact on the General Fund.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Waste Presentation
1 Residential Solid Waste
Contract Options
January 17, 2023
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
2 Introduction
• Republic Services contract for residential waste
c
ollection, recycling and street sweeping
services expires December 31, 2024.
• Now is the time to determine how to plan and
e
xecute a new contract for January 1, 2025.
• The purpose of tonight is to present options for
C
ouncil consideration and receive direction.
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
3 History
• The City issued an RFP in early 2004 for residential waste c
ollection and recycling services.
• Proposals received from Sacramento County and
Br
owning Ferris Industries (Republic Services). City
Council approved selection of BFI on July 19, 2004.
Original contract term was February 1, 2005, through
December 31, 2012.
• 1
st contract extension executed in September 2011,
extending the term through December 31, 2017.
• 2nd contract extension approved by the City Council on June 19, 2017, extending the term through December 31,
2024.
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
4 Current Agreement Summary
• Weekly garbage and organics collection
• Biweekly recycling collection
• Curbside oil, filters, sharps and battery collection
• Bulky item collection (3X per year at 10 yards each)
• Garbage, recycling and organics collection at City facilities • Garbage, recycling and porta-p otty services at 10 City events • Billing, customer service and public education
• Street sweeping (14 sweeps per year on residential streets) • 8% franchise fee on collected revenue
• 40% minimum “diversion” rate
• Extra leaf collection in Nov and Dec (4 bags per week) ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
5 Current Agreement Summary continued
• $7.5M in annual billings charged by Republic to residents • $688,676 franchise fees paid to City in FY2021/22
• $450,000 annual payment to City for road rehab projects • $4,000 annual payment to City for shopping cart program • $100,000 to cover staff and consultant costs for negotiations • Full- time recycling coordinator or $50K annual payment to City • 2,000 cubic yards per year of illegal dumping collection • New compressed natural gas collection vehicles
• Forward Landfill for waste disposal (140 miles round trip) • Newby Island for recyclables processing (250 miles round trip) • Organics sent to various facilities outside Sacramento County ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
6 2021 by the numbers…
• 18,400 tons of garbage
• 5,100 tons of recyclables
• 7,200 tons of green waste
• 3,300 gallons of used oil
• 730 oil filters
• 900 bags of batteries
• 4,000 tons of bulky items (27,400 appointments)
• 460 computer monitors
• 653 cubic yards of illegal dumping on City streets
• 42.3% diversion rate
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
7 2022 Monthly Residential Rates
64-Gallon Trash Cart
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
8 Two Options for January 1, 2025
Option 1: RFP Competitive procurement process
allowing multiple companies to compete for the new
contract.
Option 2: 90-day negotiation with Republic Services
and return to Council with a term sheet. Council will
then direct staff to either:
• Execute an extension based on the
n
egotiated terms
OR
• Proceed w ith a competitive procurement
process
RFP
Process
90-Day
Negotiation
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
9 Option 1: Competitive Procurement
Pros Cons
Competition ensures “best services at the best
price” for city ratepayers
New contract >$50M for 7-year term
24-month process with transition to a new
waste hauling company
Provides ability to accurately evaluate options:
- Local disposal and processing
- Enhanced services and programs
Hauler transition is a difficult process
- Billing transition, cart exchange, new
employees unfamiliar with Rancho Cordova,
customer confusion
- Supply chain issues may cause delay in
acquiring new collection equipment
Proposal process allows City Council to select
best combination of price, qualifications and
experience. Not bound by low bid.
New hauler may be an unknown City partner.
Competitive marketplace
- 2 to 4 proposals likely
Successful proposer would reimburse City for
staff and consultant costs
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
10 Option 2: 90-day negotiation with Republic
and return to Council with terms
Pros Cons
Allows Republic and City staff a limited
time to negotiate terms for a new contract
starting January 1, 2025
Tight schedule if Council directs staff to
issue an RFP after 90-day negotiation
period
Provides the City Council with flexibility to
1) execute a contract based on negotiated
terms, or 2) issue an RFP and allow other
companies to compete
May eliminates opportunity for other
hauling companies to participate in a
competitive process if Council directs staff
to execute a contract based on negotiated
terms
Contract negotiations were successful in
2011 and 2017. City Council approved the
current contract after a 90-day negotiation
period
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
11 January–April 2023: 90-day negotiation and return to Council with term sheet.
Council rejects terms and directs staff to issue RFP.
May – July 2023: Resident engagement on services and programs. Execute consultant agreement to assist with RFP process. Draft and release RFP.
September 2023: Proposals from waste haulers due to City.
October 2023: Evaluation committee process (site visits, interviews, reference checks, background research, options analysis, etc.
November 2023: Council approves selection of waste hauling company.
December 2023: Complete and execute new contract.
January 1 – December 31, 2024: Transition.
January 1, 2025: New contract begins.
Schedule for 90-Day Negotiation and
Competitive Procurement
(Longest Timeline Scenario)
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
12 Why is a 12-month transition necessary?
If a new waste hauling company is selected at conclusion of RFP process:
• Purchase and delivery of new trucks requires at least 12 months. • New hauler may need to purchase new or expand an existing Corp Yard. • Hire and train new employees (contract manager, recycling manager, customer s
ervice reps, drivers, route auditors, mechanics, etc.). • Establish new billing and customer service systems.
• Public education on transition to new hauling company. • Purchase and delivery of new carts (maybe).
• Re-des ign collection routes (maybe).
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
13 Thoughts and Discussion…
• Option 1: Competitive procurement process allowing
multiple companies to compete for the new contract starting January 1, 2025.
• Option 2: 90-day negotiation with Republic Services and return to Council with a term sheet. Council will then direct staff to either:
•
Execute a contract based on the negotiated terms, or
• Proceed with a competitive procurement process
ITEM 19.1.
ATTACHMENT 1