HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Newport Dunes Professional Services AgreementCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hearing Date: April 11, 2000
�^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 9
u c M3 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Patrick J. Alford
o9C,�oaN�T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3235
(949) 6443200% FAX (949) 6443250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort Environmental Impact Report
SUMMARY: An amendment to the professional services agreement for consulting services to
prepare an environmental impact report for the Newport Dunes Resort project.
SUGGESTED
ACTION: Approve the amendment to the professional services agreement with LSA
Associates for the preparation of an environmental impact report for the
Newport Dunes Resort project.
Background
On September 28, 1998, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with LSA
Associates for the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Newport Dunes Resort
project. Pursuant to Policy F -3, this amendment requires City Council approval because it exceeds
twenty five percent (25 %) of the agreement as amended by the City Council on May 24, 1999.
Analysis
The amendment is necessary to compensate the consultant for additional costs incurred during the
preparation of the Newport Dunes Resort EIR. These additional costs were due to changes in the
project design proposed by the applicant at the suggestion of the Planning Commission. These
revisions require additional technical studies and analysis by the consultant. Also, the City received an
unusually large number of comments from the public on the draft EIR and drafting responses to these
comments required additional studies and more time than was budgeted for in the original agreement.
Finally, there were additional printing costs associated with these tasks. These costs total $37,500.
The applicant has agreed to pay additional compensation to consultant to cover the costs associated
with additional review and analysis and to complete the EIR.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
PATRICK J. ALFORD
Senior Planner
Attachments: 1. v PSA AmendmentNo. 5.
2. Letter from the applicant agreeing to revised contract.
AMENDMENT NO. 5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Newport Dunes Environmental Impact Report
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 12th
day of April, 2000, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation,
(hereinafter referred to as "CITY ") and LSA Associates. Inc., whose address is One Park Plaza,
Suite 500, Newport Beach, California 92614 -5981 (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT ") is made
with reference to the following:
RECIITALS:
A. On September 28. 1998, a Consultant Agreement was entered into by and between
CITY and CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT."
B. On November 2, 1998, an amendment to the AGREEMENT was executed by CITY
AND CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AMENDMENT NO. 1."
C. On May 24. 1999 an amendment to the, AGREEMENT was executed by CITY AND
CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AMENDMENT NO. 2."
D. On November 17, 1999, an amendment to the AGREEMENT was executed by CITY
AND CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AMENDMENT NO. 3."
E. On January 10, 2000, an amendment to the AGREEMENT was executed by CITY AND
CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AMENDMENT NO. 4."
F. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend the AGREEMENT, as amended by
AMENDMENT NO. 1, AMENDMENT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3, and AMENDMENT NO. 4,
as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONSULTANT
The Consultant's scope of services shall be amended to include the duties set forth in
Exhibit 'A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in
AGREEMENT, as amended by AMENDMENT NO. 1, AMENDMENT NO. 2., AMENDMENT NO. 3, and
AMENDMENT NO. 4, shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
2. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Consultant's compensation shall be increased by thirty -seven thousand dollars, five hundred
($37,500.00) for all work performed in accordance with AGREEMENT, as amended by AMENDMENT
NO. 1, AMENDMENT NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 3, and AMENDMENT NO. 4 shall not exceed the total
contract price of one hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($179,500.00).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 5 on the
date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robin Clauson
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
LaVonne Harkless
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a municipal corporation
M
Homer Bludau
City Manager
CONSULTANT
AN
2
Robert W. Balen
LSA Associates, Inc.
Sent by ILSR NPr -03 -00 10108an from 949553007617146443250 Page 1
L 5 A
April 0, 2000
,.so- Assoo.nTYY, INO,
ONO PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500
I$VINB, QALIPOKNIA 92614
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
OSIIYB OPP,C$91
949553 -0666 TEL BERKELEY RIVEXA.DO
949a53.E076 SAX PT. RICHMOND eo OKLIN
Post -ir Fax Note 7671
nala -elh
* at 1,
iq
From
r'
Phone# -
Plmne #'3 -D�'66
Fax # v" ,'
Fax #
J ,;r?JQ4 2 /7 14~ & 'rt4,44?`
Subject: Addendum to March 3, 2000, Contract Amendment Request
Dear Patricia:
This letter serves as an addendum to our contract amendment letter dated March 3, 2000 (attached),
and addresses the City's request for additional environmental consulting services related to the
revised Newport Dunes project. As we understand it, the City and the applicant have reviewed out
March 3 letter and will recommend that the City Council approve the requested budget increase.
However, the City also wishes to ensure that the amendment to the Professional Services Agreement
includes all future costs by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), including a new analysis of the recent
revisions to the project and possible future revisions to the project that have not yet been proposed.
This letter provides the scope of work and budget for our future consulting services, and a final
budget to be included in the contract amendment.
SUMMARY OFMARCH3,2000, CONTRACTAMENDMBNTREQUEST
Our March 3, 2000, contract amendment request (attached) summarized the budget for completing
the following tasks:
• Draft responses to comments
• Environmental evaluation of revised Bayside Drive gate access
Environmental evaluation of proposed service drivetmobile home park butler
• Dover Shores noise study
• Draft ETR Errata
• Discussions with City as to approach to responses
• Printing and delivery charges
As a point of clarification, the budget amendment requested in our letter also includes fees necessary
to prepare the Final 'FIR document, attend the April 6, 2000, Planning Commission meeting and two
future City Council meetings, and conclude our contract with the City. This includes preparation of
45 /000PXNB8341Admink3 -7.00 RevAUg.wpd))
PLAHHIHR i YN�,v CNNBHSSL sD,[NI, YY
DEaIGN
Sent by!LSA 0Pr -03 -00 10+08an from 949553867697146443250 Page 2
LEA AEEUCIATEA, 1NC.
the Findings of Fact/ Statement of Overriding Considerations, Final EIR (responses to comments,
Errata, and Draft EIR), and Notice of Determination. Our fee for completing this work is $22,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL E VAL UA TION OF RE VISED PROJECT
In response to comments from the Planning Commission and the public during the public review
process, the applicant submitted a Revised Precise Plan, dated March 7, 2000. The major changes to
the plan include the following:
• Reduction in the number of hotel rooms from 400 to 370
• Reduction ut the number of time share units front 100 to 75
Employee and service vehicle traffic redirection to access the hotel and title Share resort site
through the RV Resort via Back Bay Drive, rather than Bayside Drive.
• Increase of setback between proposed hotel and mobile home park to a minimum of 80 feet,
including surface parking in this area in place of the previously proposed service drive and
loading dock
Relocation of loading dock to the southeast portion of the building, adjacent to the RV Resort
On March 23, 2000, the Planning Commission instructed the applicant to make additional revisions to
the project, including reduction in: 1) the height of the structures, 2) the number of rooms, and 3) the
size of the conference area. The applicant is expected to submit revised plans for review at the April
6, 2000, Planning Commission meeting.
An environmental analysis of the revised project is necessary for the purposes of CEQA to document
that the revised project has no new environmental impacts unanticipated in tite DEIR or the
subsequent analyses prepared by LSA. In addition, the analysis should determine whether any of the
significant impacts identified in the DEIR have been reduced to less than significance through the
redesign of the project. LSA will require the following items to conduct the environmental analysis:
• Revised precise plan
• Revised view simulations
• Revised traffic and parking analysis
• Revisions to PC District plan
Approach
To address these changes to the project after City staff accepts the revised plans, LSA will prepare an
analysis of the environmental impacts associated with this modification. Due to the substantial nature
of the above changes, LSA's analysis will focus on how the revised project reduces or eliminates the
significant impacts identified in the DEIR. The DT;TR identified significant unavoidable adverse
impacts related to traffic, air quality, and visual impacts. Noise impacts were also a major concern,
although these impacts were considered less than significant with the mitigation measures provided.
46/00<0ACN8834\Adminl3-7.00 R"Aug.wpd))
Sent bg ;LSO prr -03 -00 10109a,, rr.r. 9495538076-)7146443250 rage 3i 5
LIA ASSOCIATE:, INC.
Our analysis of the revised project will utilize revised technical studies prepared by WPA and Mestre
Greve Associates (MGA), as well as technical analyses by LSA.
To adequately analyze the project revisions, the noise and air quality analyses will be updated by
MGA under LSA's direction, utilizing the updated WPA traffic analysis. In addition, the visual
analysis of View K, where a significant impact was found, will be reevaluated to determine whether a
significant impact to public views still exists at that location; the other views will be reevaluated at a
lesser level of detail to determine whether the revised project causes any new significant visual
impacts. In addition, the revised project will be evaluated in terms of the other environmental topics
included in the DEIR analysis. A brief outline of our approach to the environmental analysis follows.
T'raffwlCirculadon
LSA will review WPA's updated traffic analysis and discuss the significant impacts of the traffic and
circulation impacts of the revised project. The revised project's traffic impacts will be compared with
those analyzed in the DEIR. LSA will also evaluate the on -site vehicular circulation of the revised
project. Redirecting employee and service traffic through the existing RV Resort may result in
increased pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. This conflict with guests at the RV Resort represerus a
potentially significant safety issue.
Air Quality
MGA will provide a letter report augmenting their original air quality analysis. The report will
calculate the air quality emissions of the revised project and compare those emissions to the
previously proposed project. This analysis will include an evaluation of construction emissions and
long -term operational emissions, and a CO hot spots analysis. The analysis will be based on WPA's
updated traffic analysis. LSA will integrate MGA's findings into our environmental analysis.
Noire
MGA will provide a letter report augmenting the previous noise analysis. The report will quantify the
revised noise impacts generated by the project. The report will evaluate updated traffic estimates
along Bayside Drive (based on WPA's updated traffic analysis) and potential new noise levels in the
RV Resort from rerouted employee and service vehicle trips. The revised project will also be
evaluated to consider the continued need for a sound wall along the property line between the hotel
and the adjacent to the mobile home park. Noise impacts to the Dover Shores neighborhood will also
be reconsidered. LSA will integrate MLA's findings into our environmental analysis.
413 /00(<?ACNB834kAdm1n13 -7.00 RevAug.wpd»
Sent by :LSA RPr -03 -ee 10:091"- from 9495536e769714644325e Page 4� 5
L$A A650GII,S ES. INC.
Visual Resources
LSA will evaluate the visual simulations of the revised project to determine whether the revised
project's visual impact to View K, from the Swimming Lagoon Beach, is significant. LSA will also
conduct a brief review of the other revised view simulations to determine whether any new visual
impacts will be created by the revised project.
Other EnvironnrentalImpact Report Sections
LSA will prepare a brief update of each of the remaining environmental topic sections, similar to our
previous analyses of the project modifications, including: land use, population and housing, earth
resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural /scientific resources, public health and
safety, public services and utilities. This will be a comparative analysis to the project evaluated in the
DEIR, and no new quantitative analyses are assumed in this task. Each of these F,IR topic areas will
be evaluated to determine whether the revised plan would create any new environmental impacts.
ADD17YONAL STAFFASSISTANCE
The City has asked LSA to include provisions within the budget to address future requests for
assistance with the EIR and CEQA process that may arise through future hearings at the Planning
Commission and City Council. This could include, but is not limited to, additional environmental
analysis of revisions to the project and attendance at additional meetings. LSA is requesting a reserve
of $5,000 for this purpose. This amount will be reserved for specific tasks as directed by the City.
SCFIEDUL,E
LSA will require approximately three weeks to prepare the environmental analysis of the revised
project because MGA will require approximately two weeks from the receipt of WPA's revised
traffic analysis to prepare the updated air and noise studies, and LSA will require approximately one
additional week to review the MGA reports, summarize the findings, and complete our analysis.
BUDGET
The budget for completion of our contract for the Newport Dunes FEIR is summarized below, based
on the scope of work outlined above and in our March 3, 2000, letter (attached). LSA requests the
City's approval of this contract amendment for the tasks described above to complete the Final EIR,
to be billed on an hourly basis consistent with the rates and provisions in our existing contract with
the City of Newport Beach. A budget increase of $37,300 will be required for this scope of work.
When added to our approved budget of $142,000, the revised contract total will be $179,500. This
amount will not be exceeded without the City's approval. The budget increase is summarized below.
4 3/00 «P :ICN8834\Admin13 -7-00 R.Aug.wpd))
Sent by:LSP HPr -83 -80 10:89an fro,i 9495538876 >7146443258 Page 5, 5
LEA 6980. "T99, INO.
Budget Amendment Summary
Task(s) Amount
Environmental Analysis of Revised Project
LSA Analysis $6,000
MGA Air &. Noise Studies 4,500
Subtotal 510,500
March 3, 2000, Augment Request 22,000
Additional Staff Assistance 5,000
Total $37,500
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this contract amendment. We
look forward to completing the CEQA process on the Newport Dunes project. We request that this
amendment be forward to the City Council as soon as possible so that we may be reimbursed for our
past expenses dating back as far as December, 1999. Also, prompt approval of this request will allow
us to begin our work on the environmental analysis once the revised project plans and traffic analysis
are received. Your verbal authorization of the above scope of work and budget will be adequate for
us to begin work on the environmental analysis.
Sincerely,
C.
TRO2 W. Bale "n — L
Principal
cc: Sharon Wood
Patrick Alford
Les Card, P.E., CFO
Rob McCann, President
James Baum, CFO
Attachment: March 3, 2000, Contract Amendment Request
4i3IOO<(PXNH434\Adntinl3.7 -00 AevAUg.apd)) 5
Sent by:LSR
March 3, 2000
Patricia Temple, planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
P.:., 1 /
RIYCYalDt
Ea CBLim
Post -ir Fax Note 7671
Date V3 ---T
g1! 7
RPr -83 -88 10:54ari
from 94955388'6)7146443258
L
to.
Wane N
I LSA C{ATEL, INC.
FAR
OMY TwBY TLA2A, 4UIT8 SOO
949.553•0466 TYL
OF FIG83
LLYRELEY
HZIKE
fZV19R. CALIFORNIA 9 %614
949.551.8076 FAX
FT. RICHMOND
March 3, 2000
Patricia Temple, planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
P.:., 1 /
RIYCYalDt
Ea CBLim
Post -ir Fax Note 7671
Date V3 ---T
g1! 7
TO
COA38PL
to.
Wane N
Phone e
Fox R Zw -3Zr0
F"O
Subject: Revised Contract Amendment to Address Additional Studies
Requested by City of Newport Beach and to Address Additional
Public Comments Received
Dear Patricia:
This letter outlines the additional tasks and budget necessary to perform additional work requested by
the City to complete the Final EIR, including: 1) preparation of responses to comments beyond the
estimated work included in our contract; 2) preparation of additional studies for the applicant's new
proposal for gated access on Bayside Drive; 3) preparation of additional analysis for the applicant's
new proposal for an increased landscaped buffer and relocation of a block wall between the hotel
resort and the Bayside Village mobile homes; and 4) preparation of additional noise analysis study
regarding noise effects on Dover Shores.
Responses to Comments
As we noted in letters dated December 7, 1999, and January 3, 2000, responding to the comments
received during the public review period required greater effort than originally specified in our
contract. As our contract states, "It is extremely difficult to accurately predict the level of effort
necessary to respond to those comments. A maximum of 40 LSA staff hours is specified for this
task. Should additional time be necessary to prepare responses to comments, a budget adjustment
may be necessary." As we have notified you, additional work beyond the hours specified in the
contract was required to complete the responses to comments (RTC) task.
As we have discussed, the comments received by the City were numerous, extensive, and
complicated. According to CEQA, "There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response to each
comment received. Conelusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice
LSA staff diligently responded to all of the comments with the level of detail required by CEQA, in
order to provide the City a defensible FEIR.
3rIDWP11CNB83418tn7GHT\ATC bud99L3.wpd*
FLARMfma I xxVAao. MTAL i DESFOY
Sent b9:LSN PPr -03 -00 10:54an £rOM 949553807637146443250
Page 2/ 7
1bn INC.
Due to the level of sophistication of the comments and the number of comments received,
compilation of the RTC document required a major effort, substantially beyond the 40 hours we
estimated in October, 1998, when we first prepared our scope of work and budget estimate. A total
of 75 comment letters was received during the public review process, and an additional ten comment
letters were received after the close of the comment period on November 15. A significant comment
letter was also generated by the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC),
demanding particular attention and discussion with staff.
Development of the RTC involved the following effort:
1. Compiling, numbering, and tracking comments and responses,
2. Reviewing the EIR and referencing the corresponding EIR section for many of the responses;
3. Follow -up with subconsultants and technical 'specialists to address issues raised in the
comments;
4. Reviewing subconsultant responses and including them in the RTC document;
S. Discussions with the applicant and the City regarding response strategy and issues raised by
commenters;
b. Word processing, editing, and proofing by clerical staff;
Internal quality review of draft responses by an LSA Principal;
S. Responding to City /applicant comments and questions on the RTC; and
9. Initiating several pieces of correspondence and telephone calls to City staff and the City
Attorney's office to complete the RTCs.
The RTCs required approximately 170 hours of LSA senior level personnel, in January alone.
Including November and December time, the total is approximately 284 hours for preparation of the
RTC package. An extra effort by LSA occurred in January, when approximately 117 hours of
overtime were spent by three senior level LSA personnel to complete the RTC package, the EIR
Errata, the EIR Addendum, and additional analysis for the above studies within the time frame
established by the City for a targeted Planning Commission hearing in mid - February. This
extraordinary effort was accomplished by LSA in good faith at the direction of Ms. Sharon Wood.
Additional Studies and Draft EIR Errata
Three additional studies and an Errata to the Draft EIR were prepared at the request of the City for
the FEIR
3r /00((pt\CNB8341aUDGLnRTC budScu.wp&) 2 '
Sent 6y:LSP Prr -03 -00 10:54an from 949553807647146443258
Page 3i 7
I" .A6300IAT£5. Tsc.
Supplerrtenral Analysis of Bayside Drive Modification
Subsequent to the public comment period, the applicant submitted a proposal to provide gated access
west of the entrances to Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. In order to adequately address this
change in the project, LSA conducted supplemental analysis of the environmental impacts associated
with this modification. Prior to the preparation of the analysis, LSA had expended seven hours
evaluating this issue, reviewing the proposal and related materials, and discussing with the City the
appropriate CEQA approach for this late change to the project.
The supplemental analysis included the following scope of work: an analysis of the modification's
effect on each Elk environmental topic and expanded discussion of the changed project's potential
environmental effects from traffic, noise, and air quality. To describe the traffic impacts of the
changed project, LSA utilized the City Traffic Engineer's evaluation of the plan and the queuing
analysis prepared by WPA. The findings of the queuing analysis were then incorporated into a
revised air quality and noise impacts analysis, utilizing the U.S. EPA approved CAL3Q14C model for
CO hot spot analysis. We estimate that completing these analyses required an additional 40 hours of
LSA professional staff time, for a total of $4,000.
Dover Shores Noise Study
At the City's requests Mestre Greve Associates, the subconsultant charged with preparing the EIR's
air and noise studies, prepared a supplemental analysis addressing potential noise levels at the Dover
Shores community that would be generated by the proposed project. In addition, Mestre Greve
Associates responded to the technical comments received related to the noise and air studies in the
Draft Elk. LSA coordinated these efforts and summarized the additional information in the RTC
document. Mestre Greve Associates provided an estimate of 52,000 for this work. LSA time for
coordinating this requested study and incorporating the findings into the RTC is included in a
separate task, described below.
Service Drive, Wall, and Landscaped Area Revised Plan Analysis
LSA prepared an Elk Addendum analyzing the changes to the proposed project submitted by the
applicant to the City in response to several EIR comment letters requesting expansion and changes to
the buffer area between the project and the Bayside Village mobile homes. This late change to the
project description was analyzed for each Elk environmental topic, and provided as an Addendum to
the Draft EIR. Approximately ten hours were spent on this task.
Draft .EIR Ervato
!i +.:' `. ::11[i•,,� l,.:r.ne.. tl? he : -.: ane:;: -! pTC: "_c +. t:y ti ": appli ^3t1r R*1�? mincx •, ,;r!lins, i.i1;1n�7� t ;::h{
: f! 3rac: a 'r'�,C:�:9f•'- 4`.6U,G}-3'',F.TC hud?W.Y. -OI
Senf 6y:LSP Par -03 -00 10:54ar, rl'O.. 949553807687146443250
aa9e 3�
LSn A,SOC1ITE6, INC.
Supplernenral Analysis Of$dyside Drive Modiftcdtiotr
Subsequent to the public comment period, the applicant submitted a proposal to provide gated access
west of the entrances to Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. In order to adequately address this
change in the project, LSA conducted supplemental analysis of the environmental impacts associated
with this modification. Prior to the preparation of the analysis, LSA had expended seven hours
evaluating this issue, reviewing the proposal and related materials, and discussing with the City the
appropriate C£QA approach for this late chance to the project.
The supplemental analysis included the following scope of work: an analysis of the modification's
effect on each FIR environmental topic and expanded discussion of the changed project's potential
environmental effects from traffic, noise, and air quality. To describe the traffic impacts of the
changed project, LSA utilized the City Traffic Engineer's evaluation of the plan and the queuing
analysis prepared by WPA. The findings of the queuing analysis were then incorporated into a
revised air quality and noise impacts analysis, utilizing the U.S. EPA approved CAL' QHC model for
CO hot spot analysis. We estimate that completing these analyses required an additional 40 hours of
LSA professional staff time, for a total of $4,000.
Dover Shores Noise Study
At the City's request, Mestre Greve Associates, the subconsultant charged with preparing the EIR's
air and noise studies, prepared a supplemental analysis addressing potential noise levels at the Dover
Shores community that would be generated by the proposed project. In addition, Mestre Greve
Associates responded to the technical comments received related to the noise and air studies in the
Draft EIR. LSA coordinated these efforts and summarized the additional information in the RTC
doeumeni. Mestre Greve Associates provided an estimate of $2,000 for this work. LSA time for
coordinating this requested study and incorporating the findings into the RTC is included in a
separate task, described below.
Service Drive, Wall, and Landscaped.4rea Revised Plan analysis
LSA prepared an EIR Addendum analyzing the changes to the proposed project submitted by the
applicant to the City in response to several EIR comment letters requesting expansion and chances to
the buffer area between the project and the Bayside Village mobile homes. This late change to the
project description was analyzed for each EIR environmental topic, and provided as an Addendum to
the Draft EIR. Approximately ten hours were spent on this task.
Draft EIR Erraro
Due to minor changes to the proposed project by the applicant, and minot wording changes and
editing to the Draft EIR requested by the City, an EIR Errata was prepared by LSA. This Errata was
3iV90((PACNB834%BU1)GEI1RTC budder MPOI 3
Sent by!LSA RPr -03 -00 10:55.,. F,O,. 949553007637146443250 Page 4, 7
10.. ASSJCInTesl 1'..
submitted on February 3, 2000. Subsequent to submittal, LSA was requested by City staff to provide
an expanded introduction to the Errata citing CEQA sections, and additional edits to the wording.
Approximately 20 hours of senior LSA staff time were expended on this task'.
Discussions with City Staff and City Attorney Regarding EIR Baseline, Status of
Previously Approved Dunes Resort Project and Settlement Agreement, and RTC
Approach
LSA staff participated in a meeting held at City Hall to determine the proper CEQA approach to the
previously approved project, including the Settlement Agreement. LSA staff had various telephone
conference calls before and after the meeting, further discussing the previously approved project and
the baseline for the analysis in the EIR.
Printing and Delivery Charges
Additional printing costs and delivery charges were incurred over what was budgeted in our original
contract to reproduce and distribute the RTC, Errata, Addendum, and additional technical studies.
Budget
LSA requests the City's approval of a contract amendment for the additional tasks described above to
complete the Final EIR, to be billed on an hourly basis consistent with the rates and provisions in our
existing contract with the City of Newport Beach. A budget of $28,000 will be required for the scope
of work. When added to our approved budget of $136,000, the revised contract total will be
5163,000. This amount will not be exceeded without the City's approval.
* See Note Below
Budget Amendment
This budget proposal covers LSA fees and reimbursable costs through February 15, 2000, and is
based upon actual hours billed to the project, as reflected in the attached table of LSA hours
expended for each product. The following table summarizes this budget estimate for completion of
the Final EIR and our contract:
Additional Studies
Bayside Drive Proposed Modification -Air Quality and
Noise Analysis $2,000
Analysis for Proposed Bayside Drive Modification, by Topic $2,000
Dover Shores Requested Noise Study and Air and Noise RTC $2,000
3l31000P.1CNB8341BUDGMKTC bud$ed.wpdA
*Note: City Manager approved $6000 budget increase to $142,000 January 10,2000.
Therefore the budget increase is $28,000— $6,000= $22,000. $22,000 +142,000= $164,000
Sent by ;LSA
Hvr -03 -00 10:55a,.
L'A A*.00l..rcl. 10C.
Revised Project Plans for Wall/Landseaping/Buffcr
Management/Coordination of Additional Studies
Entitled Prgjeei Baseline Analysis Re: Air/Noise
from 949553807617146443250
CEQA Approach Discussions Regarding Baseline Analysis
Meeting at City December 22, 1999
Additional Printing
Printing Additional Response to Comments
Printing Additional Studies/Errata
subtotal Additional Studies
Additional LSA Fees to Prepare Response to Comments
$I,000
S1,500
$ 800
$ 500
$1,100
00
$II,800
LSA Time Needed to Complete RTC $13,700
LSA Time Needed to Revise RTC after City/Applicant Review $2,000
RTC Coordination /Distribution/Sirategies $ 500
Subtotal Response to Comments $16,200
Page 5/
Grand Total $281000
— $6,000 Budget increase approved
-$221000 1/10100 .
As discussed with you at our most recent meeting, LSA has proceeded in good faith, providing the
City with a thorough set of responses to the unexpected level of comments on the Draft EIR. In
December and again in early January, I made a specific point of informing you of the magnitude of
the effort we would make on behalf of the City in preparing the responses to comments. I have
attached a copy of the responses and the other products delivered to the City within the very
demanding schedule required by the City. As I indicated above, an extraordinary effort by several of
our staff was required to produce the documents requested by the City. We hope the City also
recognizes the inherent value in the environmental documentation prepared by LSA and that it forms
a defensible basis enabling the EIR to move forward to be considered for certi$oation by the City
Council,
313/00(<FACNa934unn>canxTC budgerlwpd#
Sent by:LSQ
I
4Pr -83 -88 10e55a,. fron 949553887637146443258
r+aae 6i 7
1i,'.SOCl/Tsz. INC.
We look forward to finalizing our contract to prepare the Final EIR. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LS. CLATES,INC.
�ert W. Balen
Principal
cc: Sharon Wood
Patrick Alford
Les Card, P.E., CEO
Rob McCann, President
Attachments_ 'fable of Hours Expended
FOR Package
3510e0PACN9 634%BUDGEIVtTC budgeompO 6
Sent by:LSP
Par -03 -00 10:55am
DELIVERABLES
Month
fl.n 949553807617146443250
Staff Hours
1/14100 SC Bayside Drive Gate Access Study
Steve
21.50
January
Tony C.
4.00
January
Paul N.
4.75
January
Steve
20.00
January
Rob
3.00
1128100 Final Gate Access Study
January Steve 3.00
1217/99 Initial Draft RTC
November
Steve
21.50
December
Steve
73.00
December
Deby
21.00
1/28100 Draft RTC
January
Steve
60.00
January
Deby
60.00
January
Rob
50.00
2/3/2000 Draft MNIRP
January
Steve
3.00
January
Rob
1.00
2/3/00 Draft Errata
January
Steve
10.00
January
Deby
1.00
January
Rob
2.00
2/3/00 Draft Service Drive/AMP Addendum
January
Steve
12.00
January
Rob
2.00
Word Processing - January through February 15
January
68.50
February
14.25
3r100(( P: 1CNB &34\Admin\RTCBudgeStatw.wpd))
page 7i 7
up' '( I o
April 3, 2000
Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Newport Dunes Project
Dear Mr. Alford:
Although we have serious concerns about the way LSA has handled the administration of the
contract for preparation of the Newport Dunes EIR, we think it best at this point to move
forward and complete the project.
Therefore, we are in agreement that the city should proceed with the contract amridment
request as set forth in LSA's letter of March 3, 2000, and as further addressed in their letter of
April 3, 2000.
Please call if you have any questions or need anything else from me on this matter.
Sincerely,
Robe !a
son
Financial Officer & General Counsel
RHG:rh
1131 Back Bay Drive - Newport Beach, California 92660 • (71d) 729 -DUNE