HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-13 Environmental Services for Civic Center _ Park Development PlanCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 12
October 13, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Jaime Murillo Associate Planner
949 - 644 -3209, imurillo (a_)city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with LSA
Associates, Inc. for Environmental Services on the Civic Center &
Park Development Plan
ISSUE:
Should the City Council approve an amendment to the Professional Services
Agreement with LSA Associates, Inc., in the amount of $37,790, for environmental
services on the Civic Center and Park Development Plan project?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an amendment (Amendment No. 3) to the Professional Services Agreement
with LSA Associates, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
amended agreement.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On January 13, 2009, the City Council approved professional services agreements with
architects Bohlin Cywinski Jackson and project manager CW Driver. The schedule for
the City Hall project called for the architects to refine the design concept and for City
Council approval of the refined concept plan by April 14, 2009.
Based on preliminary information on the proposed site available at project inception, it
was evident that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be
required; however, since the design concept required further refinement, the scope of
the EIR was not known. Therefore, it was recommended that the environmental work be
completed in two phases:
PSA Amendment with LSA Associates, Inc for Environmental Services
October 13, 2009
Page 2
Phase I- Preparation of technical studies of existing conditions and preliminary
impact analysis to assist the design process and help with the development of a
design concept that minimizes environmental damage to the site and impacts on
the surrounding area. Phase I also included preparation of a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS); and
Phase II- Preparation of the EIR for the proposed Civic Center and Park
Development Plan based on the refined design concept plan.
Professional Services Agreement
On January 27, 2009, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement
with LSA Associates, Inc. for Phase I environmental consulting services. The budget for
Phase I was $180,000.
The technical studies were completed and information was made available to the design
team and had a positive effect on the development of the concept plan resulting in the
avoidance or minimization of several environmental impacts. The NOP and IS were
circulated for a 30 -day public review period on April 1, 2009, and a public scoping
meeting was held on April 22, 2009.
Amendment No. 1
In the interest of starting the environmental analysis as soon as possible, the original
Professional Services Agreement with LSA did not include studies and reports to be
prepared by subconsultants. On February 9, 2009, the City Manager approved
Amendment No. 1 to the agreement to provide additional technical reports for the
project. LSA teamed with Fuscoe Engineering, Inc to provide CEQA -level hydrology and
water quality expertise and AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. to provide CEQA -level hazards and
hazardous materials support. Amendment No. 1 also includes additional coordination
between LSA, the subconsultants, and the architects regarding concept plan
refinement. The additional budget for Amendment No. 1 to the agreement was
$34,584.00, resulting in a total agreement cost of $214,584.00.
Amendment No. 2 — Phase 11 of Environmental Consulting Services
On April 14, 2009, The City Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the Professional
Services Agreement with LSA (Phase II of the environmental consulting services)
necessary for the preparation and completion of the EIR for the project. The scope of
work for Amendment No. 2 included:
• Documentation consistent with CEQA and State Guidelines for the
Implementation of CEQA necessary to allow for environmental clearance of the
project.
PSA Amendment with LSA Associates, Inc for Environmental Services
October 13, 2009
Page 3
Preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs that will provide a complete and thorough
analysis of all environmental aspects of the project.
Preparation of Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, necessary for
certification of the Final EIR.
• Schedule indicating City Council certification of the Final EIR by November 24,
2009.
The additional budget for Amendment No. 2 to the agreement was $250,505.00,
resulting in a total agreement cost of $465,089.00.
Amendment No. 3 — Budget Amendment Request
Preparation of the Draft EIR has been completed and the Draft EIR was distributed for a
45 -day public review period on September 1, 2009, as scheduled. However, in meeting
this major milestone in the environmental review process, LSA has incurred some
unanticipated costs necessitating a budget amendment:
Air Quality and Noise- LSA's original scope and budget included modeling of the
project's traffic noise levels and air quality - related emissions based on traffic data
received from the project's traffic consultant; however, after the original models
were developed and the technical analysis was completed, two revised traffic
data sets were received, requiring re- modeling efforts and technical report
revisions that were not included in the original scope of work.
• Native American Consultation- LSA's original scope and budget assumed limited
Native American consultation; however, expanded consultation was performed
outside of the original scope of work. A majority of the additional work resulted
from multiple correspondence and extensive consultation with one individual who
ultimately was unwilling to commit to a meeting with City. LSA contacted the
State's Native American Heritage Commission, who ultimately suggested that the
City had attempted a good -faith consultation effort with this individual.
Revised Administrative Draft EIR- LSA's original scope and budget assumed
receiving one set of consolidated City staff comments on the Administrative Draft
EIR; however, due to the aggressive schedule and limited staff review time,
multiple City staff comments were provided to LSA, necessitating additional LSA
staff time to address City comments, confer with City staff, and respond
appropriately.
PSA Amendment with LSA Associates, Inc for Environmental Services
October 13, 2009
Page 4
Rermbursables- Generally, LSA estimates printing costs for an EIR between $85
and $115; however, the actual printing costs for the Draft EIR were $154.
Additional budget is required in order to cover the cost to print and distribute the
Final EIR.
The requested budget amendment is $37,790.00. The total cost of the agreement,
including the budget amendment, will be $502,879.00.
Funding Availability
Funds for environmental services for the City Hall and Park Development Plan are
available in the City Hall and Park Design Account, 7410 C1002009.
Prepared by:
aime Murillo, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Planning Director
Attachments: Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement
AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY HALL MASTER PLANNED FACILITY
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is
entered into as of this 13th day of October, 2009, by and between the CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "CITY"), and LSA Associates, Inc., a
California Corporation, whose address is 20 Executive Park, Irvine, California, 92614
( "CONSULTANT "), and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On the 27th day of January, 2009, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a
Professional Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT ", for
environmental services for the City Hall Master Planned Facility hereinafter
referred to as "PROJECT ".
B. CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into two separate AMENDMENTS of the
AGREEMENT, the latest dated April 14, 2009.
C. CITY desires to enter into this AMENDMENT NO. 3 to reflect additional services
not included in the AGREEMENT or prior AMENDMENTS and to increase the
total compensation.
D. CITY desires to compensate CONSULTANT for additional professional services
needed for PROJECT.
E. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend AGREEMENT, hereinafter
referred to as "AMENDMENT NO. 3, as provided here below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
In addition to the services to be provided pursuant to the AGREEMENT,
AMENDMENT NO. 1 and AMENDMENT NO. 2, CONSULTANT shall diligently
perform all the services described in AMENDMENT NO. 3 including, but not
limited to, all work set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks
of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.
2. COMPENSATION
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached to the AGREEMENT. Consultant's total amended
0
compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement and prior
Amendments, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not
exceed Five Hundred Two Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars
and no /100 ($502,879) without prior written authorization from City.
2.1 The amended compensation reflects Consultant's additional
compensation for additional services to be performed in accordance with
this AMENDMENT NO. 3, including all reimbursable items and
subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed Thirty Seven Thousand
Seven Hundred Ninety Dollars and no /100 ($37,790.00), without prior
written authorization from City.
3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in AGREEMENT shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 3
on the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By:
Mynette D. Beauchamp
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
By:
Leilani Brown,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Edward D. Selich
Mayor
CONSULTANT:
Title: President
Print Name: Robert H. McCann
M
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Print Name: James Baum
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
F :IUSER51PLN%SbaredlProfessional Services Agreements & Contracts \City Hall - LSAAmendmentslAmendment No 3.docx
U
L 20 i. fl &SO VE PAR . INC. U C BERKELEY
LSBAD PALM S
24 EXECUTIVE PARK. SUITE 140 9d9.i5 S.0GG6 TGL CL4RLSRAD PALM SPRINGS
IRVINE. CALIrORNIA 9261; 949.553.5076 FAX FORT COLLINS POINT - RICHMOND
September30, 2009
Jaime Muril.lo, Associate Planner
City of Newport 'Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Subject: Contract Amendment Request: FIR
Dear Jaime:
RIVERSIDE
ROCKLIN*
SAN LVIS OBISPO
SOUTH SAN PRANCISCI
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to have had the opportunity to collaborate. with the City of
Newport Beach (City) and other team members on the writing and release of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan Project. The release of the
Draft EIR on September 1, 2009, as scheduled, represents a major milestone in the environmental
review process.
As you are aware, August was an incredibly demanding month in terms of review and changes to the
Administrative Draft EIR. This, coupled with unforeseen technical work in previous months, led to
some unanticipated costs. LSA was able to obtain permission from Fuscoe Engineering to use the
remaining budget allocated for peer review of the Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology
Study to address some of the costs. LSA was also able to shift money between tasks to address some of
the costs. However, even with these steps, additional budget is necessary to address the unanticipated
costs associated with preparation of the Draft EIR. These unanticipated costs are described in.greater
detail below.
ADDITIONAL AND AMENDED TASKS
Air Quality and Noise
LSA received traffic data forthe modelingof traffic noise levels and airquality- related emissions
and /or concentrations for the proposed Newport Beach City Hall and Park Development Plan Project
from RBF Consulting. After the original models were development and the technical analysis
completed; two revised traffic data sets were received; requiring LISA to redo all of the modeling and
revise the technical reports twice. These re- modeling efforts and technical report revisions were not
included in the original Scope of Work and Budget, and therefore warrant a budget augment to cover
the cost of the re- ntodelinc.
Archaeological Assessment .Report and Native American Consultation
The Newport Beach City Hall and Park Development Plan Project are located on. a, parcel that is
known to contain two archaeological sites. Both of these sites were impacted during previous widening
of MacArthur Boulevard, and one site produce a human burial. The burial was removed and
U9; iprU9 d';1C:vn09(}IV'rejcvt Mauuguaenrl3udgn ; \u��mcntstScplcmher ?1709 ISRJ�.r Au_m1'nt aallucsi.dD.�:
?L6 N;Nc ! EN %IRONMENTAI. I UCSION /t
subsequently reburied outside of the current project area. When the budget for Cultural Resource
compliance for the Newport. Beach City fall Project was developed, it was anticipated that only
Juaneno representatives would be actively involved in the tribal consultation process. In addition; it
was anticipated that a limited Native American consultation list would be provided by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for this project.
Subsequent to project initiation, the NAHC provided an initial list for Senate Bill (SB) 18 Native
American consultation. Consistent with the approved Scope of Work and Budget, LSA assisted the
City in consulting with those tribes listed in the initial NAL-IC letters. After publication ofthe project
Notice of Intent (NO[), the NAHC provided a second, substantially longer, fist of Native American
contacts for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consultation. LSA. with the City's
approval, then initiated additional consultation with the newly listed representatives. This expanded
consultation was beyond the initial scope of work. At the time, it was hoped that the expanded
consultation would be similar to the prior consultation efforts and would not elicit extensive
continents.
This expanded consultation included numerous representatives of the Gabrielino people, including one
individual named John Tommy Rosas. After initial letters were sent to all tribal groups, Mr, Rosas
began a series of email and telephone queries about the project, establishing a "protocol" for further
consultation between Mr. Rosas and the City, and expressing - eneral concern about the project. Mr.
Rosas was deeply concerned that the archaeological sites present within the project area remained
highly sensitive. LSA's Native American Consultation specialist, `Ferri Fulton, spent numerous hours
responding to Mr. Rosas' emails and talking with Mr. Rosas on the phone LSA then prepared a letter
to Mr. Rosas suggesting that consultation either needed to advance or be halted. During the period this
letter was in review, Mr. Rosas again sent a series of emails to Ms. Fulton indicating an increase in his
concern about the project and restating his desire to enter into "productive" consultation .vide the Cite.
Ultinnately, however, Mr. Rosas was unwilling to actually commit to meeting with the City. At that
point, another letter to Mr. Rosas was developed by Nit. Steve Conkling. This letter clearly stated that
consultation needed to move forward, or halt. Mr. Rosas continues to voice his concerns aboutthe
project, but has still not committed to furthering consultation with the City. As several weeks went by
with continuing comments from Mr. Rosas, Mr. Conklin-and Ms. Fulton began talking to tile NAH.C,
requesting assistance facilitating the consultation process. In representing the City in the consultation
process. LSA believed there was a need to continue communication with Mr. Rosas until closure was
recommended by the NAHC. Ultimately, Dave Sing Teton (NAHC Southern California) suggested that
the City had attempted a good -faith consultation effort with Mr. Rosas and should move forward. LSA
has now recommended that the City foreclose further consultation with Mr. Rosas.
Revised Administrative Draft EIR
As stated in USA's proposal dated March 2009, LSA budgeted and specified 80 hours of professional
staff time for revisions to the Administrative Draft E,1R.. LSA spent approximately '<20 hours of
professional staff time for revisions to the Administrative Draft CIR.
fn addition. LSA's scope and budget (Page 2, March 2009) was based on LSA receiving one set of
nonconflicting consolidated staff comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. This was reiterated to
City staff when nulftiple continents were received from the City. I -SA received:
()Ii3(:09 o1 *.IC' \id1190 rtl'n>i \:: 1lainm_c:nertlinlr� Yr \l:•_r.:::ug',$CPtt:n:xr ?r,,i;ii :.Wd�c!A.- Rceus:iiitu: I
_ i/
i.Sd ASSQGI AIF.S. t$ C.
• 3 set of comments on the Introduction, Alternatives, and Long -Term Implications Chapters
• 3 sets of comments on the Land Use Section, Traffic and Circulation Section, Cultural Resources
Section, Geology and Soils Section, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section, Hydrology and
Water Quality Section, Population and Housing Section, and the Recreation Section
• 4 sets of comments on the Aesthetics Section, Air Quality Section, Biological Resources Section,
and the Public Services and Utilities Section
In some cases, it appears that staff comments may not have been reviewed internally before being
provided to LSA, and City staff members who provided comments may not have been fully familiar
with the proposed project, resulting in conflicting or inconsistent comments. When multiple sets of
comments on one EIR section were received; it necessitated additional LSA staff time to address
conflicting City staff comments, confer with City staff. and respond appropriately. Again, a single set
of consolidated nonconflicting comments would have resulted in less time.spent by LSA on revising
the document.
Reimbursables
As stated in .LSA's proposal.dated March 2009, printing costs are difficult to quantify because the size
and composition (i.e., graphics and medium) are uncertain until the document is sent to the printer.
LSA generally estimates printing costs for an EIR'to be between $85 and S 115 per document: The
actual printing cost per document for the City Hall and Park Development..Plan Project EIR was $154
Per document (a difference of $39 per document). LSA was able to cover the printing costs .for the
Draft ri;R out of its existing reimbursable budget for the proposed project due to cost savings in other
reimbursable areas. There is, however, less than $1,000 remaining in the reimbursable budget, which
will not be sufficient to print and distribute the proposed Final F.IR. One means of reducing this cost
would be for the printer to bill the City directly.
BUDGET
The following is the estimated budget required to complete the scope of work described above.
Task
i Budget
Air Qualm' -_ ............. ......_.._.......__!__._$1
:000
Noise
$1,000
Dative American Consultation
! $5,640
Revised Administrative Draft
_
$21,150
Subtotal _,__...
S23.790
Reimbursable hepcnses.,__„ _
.. $9 U00
Total
: $37.790
With this budget augment, LSA's unrecovered fees (i.e., fees that LSA will absorb) remain at over
S 10,,000. LSA proposes to complete the work' for the EIR (i.e., response to comments and preparation
of the Final FIR) using previously authorized budget.
1)V! ?!y?!p o41P.C,Na09011pr( k=t k +.n oaenum\iudgel Auy,;nu�uglSCl�trnrber 2001) Hudgel Angmem Ralu, lIAOC: 3 /�
L.A A SSOCtares. INC.
Thank you for your consideration. LSA looks forward to successfully completing this project with you.
If you have any questions. concerning the content of this budget augment request. please contact me or
Nicole Dubois at (949) 553 -0666.
Sincerely,
9SSdCIATES, INC.
' Ro rt Baler
Principal
!)9; :q,'0•/.d':'..0 nC�4U l Aurzm'nttsOeptcmber'001) Budnet Augmant Requs door 4 �y,