HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3004(E) - Reach No. 1, 36-Inch Water Transmission Main - Groundwater Project0 q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
-.z4 -y-6-
TO: PURCHASING /ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: August 24, 1995
SUBJECT: Contract No. C- 3004(E)
Description of Contract Reach No. 1 36 -Inch Water
Transmission Main- Groundwater Development Project
Effective date of Contract January 10 1995
Authorized by Minute Action, approved on January 9 1995
Contract with AKM Consulting Engineers
Address 101 Pacifica Suite 150 _
Irvine CA 92718
Amount of Contract (See Agreement)
Wanda E. Raggio
City Clerk
WER:pm
Attachment
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
6 40
January 9t', 1995
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APPROVED ITEM NO. lc
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Utilities Department
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ( CONTRACT NO. C-3004-E)
REACH NO. 1: 36 -INCH WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE
REVISED ALIGNMENT IN WHITTIER AVENUE & 19"' STREET
GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Amendment to
the Professional Services Agreement on behalf of the City, with
AKM Consulting Engineers to prepare additional detailed Plans
and Specifications for re- aligning part of the Reach No. 1: 36 -inch
diameter water pipeline into Whittier Avenue and 19"' Street, for a
fee not -to- exceed $49,148.
2. Adopt the finding contained in the staff report pertaining to
Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR for the Groundwater
Development Project.
BACKGROUND:
The Council approved a professional services agreement with AKM
Consulting Engineers on April 25 , 1994, to, prepare detailed plans and
specifications for the Reach No. 1 Pipeline. This reach of pipeline will extend
from the City's Utilities Yard on 16th Street, northerly to the Santa Ana River at
the prolongation of the 19 " Street alignment.
The Reach No. 1 Pipeline is an integral part of the City's Groundwater
Development Project that will provide for extraction and delivery of groundwater
from water wells in Fountain Valley through pipelines between there and
Newport Beach. To convey the groundwater pumped from the wells to Newport
Beach, the project requires construction of approximately four miles of large
diameter pipelines. The Reach No. 1 Pipeline is one of four segments of pipeline
necessary to complete the overall project. Reach No. 1, as revised, is
approximately 6,900 feet long.
Because of environmental, permitting and construction- related
impacts, the original pipeline alignment is no longer the preferred route. The
previous alignment ran in an unimproved easement along the West Newport Oil
Company property boundary. The easement traverses the boundary of the West
Newport Oil Company property from the westerly end of 16th Street (at the
Utilities Yard) to the Southeast side of the Santa Ana River, where the proposed
19' Street roadway alignment crosses. Refer to the vicinity map in Attachment
"B ", on page 9.
i 3�)
Page 2
Groundwater Development Project
Reach No. 1 Pipeline Design Contract
Amended Agreement & EIR Addendum #3
January 9th, 1995
The proposed amendment to the Professional Services Agreement
provides for: preparation of detailed plans and specifications for the revised
alignment of the pipeline in Whittier Avenue and in 19' Street; modifying the
written special provisions for project construction; and compilation of the
revised plans and documents into a package suitable for bidding and
awarding a contract for construction. A copy of Amendment No. 1 to the
professional services agreement is attached. Refer to Attachment "A'.
If approved, the additional design effort can commence almost
immediately. The critical -path schedule for timely completion of the overall
project requires that the consultant's plans for this phase of the project be
completed by the end of March 1995. This phase of the Groundwater
Development Project must be carefully coordinated with the reservoir, pump
station, other pipeline components, and must be designed within the limits of
the regulatory constraints imposed by various, Local, State and Federal
Agencies. Several of those constraints relate to mitigation required in the area
of pipeline to be constructed near the Santa Ana River. That particular portion
of the Reach No. 1 Pipeline is not being re- aligned, but does have permit
constraints which affect the time of the year construction activity can occur.
Construction of the Reach No. 1 Pipeline is proposed to begin late this spring.
This schedule will integrate properly with construction of the reservoir and
pump station and will meet the permit timing constraints. The Professional
Services Agreement requires completion of the revised design, with plans and
specifications, by March 15th, 1995.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Groundwater
Development Project, certified on January 25', 1993, considered a number of
different pipeline alignments, but did not consider the proposed alignment in
the 19' Street and Whittier Avenue. Therefore, as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental analysis was conducted
by the City to determine any potential effects the revised alignment may have
on the environment.
DISCUSSION ON COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
In accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3, Final EIR No. 151 for
the Groundwater Development Project was prepared and certified by the City
Council on January 25 ", 1993 (Resolution No. 93 -2).
A portion of the Reach No. 1 Pipeline alignment has been revised in
order to locate the proposed pipeline within the 19ffi Street and Whittier Avenue
pubic right -of -way. This re- alignment avoids a large portion of undeveloped
property and eliminates the environmental impacts to two drainage courses,
reduces impacts to riparian habitat and cultural resources, and eliminates the
potential impact to coastal sage scrub. Additionally, the revised alignment
avoids one area of particularly difficult construction where there are very steep
slopes and where there is a 50 -foot high retaining wall in close proximity to the
proposed pipeline.
i
Page 3
Groundwater Development Project
Reach No. 1 Pipeline Design Contract
Amended Agreement & EIR Addendum N3
January 9th, 1995
The revised pipeline alignment within the 19' Street and Whittier
Avenue rights of -way, was evaluated to determine whether there is any
potential for environmental impact beyond those described in Final EIR No.
151. This evaluation determined that the area subject to temporary impacts
related to construction (including traffic control, dust and noise) would
change, but these changes would not be significant. The segment of Whittier
Avenue between the existing pipeline alignment and 19' Street, and 19 "
Street from Balboa Avenue to Whittier Avenue, would experience temporary
construction impacts. Mitigation measures that have been previously
adopted as part of the project would reduce all potential impacts to a level
that is less than significant.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provide that the Lead Agency
(in this case, the City of Newport Beach), shall prepare an addendum to an EIR,
if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR
adequate for the proposed action, and these changes do not raise important
new issues about the significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to the
requirements of Guidelines under Section 15164, an addendum to Final EIR
No. 151 has been prepared to address potential impacts associated with the re-
alignment of a portion of the Reach No. 1 Pipeline.
The addendum concludes that the necessary revisions to the analysis
contained in FEIR No. 151 represent only minor changes and do not raise any
new issues or alter the conclusions of the EIR regarding the environmental
impacts of the project. No new significant impacts will result, and no additional
mitigation measures are required as a result of the revisions to the project.
SUGGESTED CEQA ACTION
Staff suggests that Council adopt the finding that:
Final EIR No. 151, previously certified on January 25, 1993, has been determined to
be adequate and satisfies all requirements of CEQA. The Addendum does not raise
any important new issues regarding the environmental effects of the project and
reduces impacts related to riparian habitat and cultural resources. The Final EIR and
Addendum reflect the independent judgment of the City Council.
The Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 151 is an attachment to this
staff report. Refer to Attachment "B ". The Attachment also contains a vicinity
map showing the original alignment and the proposed revised alignment.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the alternate pipeline alignment and the amended professional
services agreement that will provide for its design. Adopt the finding pertaining
to Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR for the Groundwater Development Project.
Direct staff to pursue the design and implementation as soon as practical to
avoid any delays to the overall project.
0 0
Page 4
Groundwater Development Project
Reach No. 1 Pipeline Design Contract
Amended Agreement & EIR Addendum #3
January 9th, 1995
Funds are available for the additional design effort in the Water Fund
under Capital Project Account No. 7504- P500094A.
Staff recommends approval.
Respectfully submitted,
'-�EFF SrANFJART
Jeff Staneart, P.E.
Utilities Director
JS:sdi
Attachments: "A ": Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement
"B ": Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR No. 151
1]
ADDENDUM NO.3 TO FINAL EIR NO. 151
19TH STREET & WHITTIER AVENUE PIPELINE ALIGNMENT
NEWPORT BEACH GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared by:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
December 12,1994
AVTAU{MEN'r FJ
0
0
ADDENDUM NO.3 TO FINAL EIR NO. 151
19TH STREET & WHITTIER AVENUE PIPELINE ALIGNMENT
NEWPORT BEACH GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
On January 25, 1993, the City of Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No.
93 -2 certifying Final EIR No. 151 (State Clearinghouse No. 911221068) for the
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project. The project consists of four
new water wells along with a water transmission pipeline, storage reservoir and
appurtenant facilities to serve the needs of the residents of Newport Beach.
The Groundwater Development Project Reach No. I Water Transmission Pipeline
alignment begins easterly of the Santa Ana River and terminates at the City Utilities
Yard and proposed reservoir site. The majority of the Reach No. 1 pipeline
alignment traverses through property that is vacant and undeveloped. Other
portions of the pipeline alignment (Reach No.'s 2 & 3) are primarily within street
rights -of -way or improved drainage channels. This Reach No. 1 alignment and
revision to the alignment is the subject of this analysis.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A portion of the Reach No. 1 Water Transmission Pipeline alignment has been
revised in order to be located within the 19th Street and Whittier Avenue pubic
rights -of -way (see attached map). This realignment avoids a large portion of
undeveloped property and eliminates the environmental impacts to two drainage
courses, reduces impacts to riparian habitat, and eliminates the potential impact to
coastal sage scrub in the area.
ANALYSIS
The new pipeline alignment within the 19th Street and Whittier Avenue rights of-
way was evaluated to determine whether there is any potential for environmental
impacts beyond those described in Final EIR 151. This evaluation determined that
the area subject to temporary impacts related to construction (including traffic
control, dust and noise) would change, but these changes would not be significant.
The segment of Whittier Avenue between the existing pipeline alignment and 19th
Street and 19th Street from Balboa to Whittier, would experience temporary
construction impacts which would be mitigated by the following adopted mitigation
measures:
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project .2-
0
LAND USE
Mitigation Measures
1 -1 Prior to the award of a construction contract, the Utilities Director shall verify
the City has obtained all necessary permits and approvals from responsible agencies
including the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Huntington Beach, the County of
Orange, the California Coastal Commission and City of Costa Mesa. Mitigation
Measure 1 -1 has been revised to include the City of Costa Mesa as a responsible
agency due to the revised location of the alignment through its jurisdiction.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measures
2.1 Prior to award of a construction contract, a traffic control plan shall be
prepared subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, in consultation with
the City Traffic Engineer of each jurisdiction affected by construction equipment
traffic and /or haul routes. This plan shall comply with CalTrans Manual of Traffic
Control as well as the requirements of affected jurisdictions, and shall utilize the
following methods where appropriate:
a. Tunneling under major intersections where feasible.
b. Restricting hours of construction to off -peak periods.
C. Locating pipeline alignments within public rights -of -way, but outside travel
lanes or within medians
d. Prohibition of on -street parking during construction periods.
e. Temporary re- striping to utilize existing medians for travel lanes.
f. Temporary street closures when suitable alternative routes exist.
g. Placement of signs identifying construction hours and directing traffic to
alternative routes.
2.2 Prior to the award of a construction contract, the Utilities Director shall verify
that all required encroachment permits have been obtained from responsible public
agencies.
2 -3 Prior to acceptance of improvements, the Utilities Director /City Engineer
shall verify that all public roadways affected by construction have been restored to
the satisfaction of the responsible jurisdiction.
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project .3-
0 0
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measures
3 -1 Prior to the award of a construction contract, the Utilities Director shall verify
that appropriate dust suppression provisions as required by the City Excavation and
Grading Code and SCAQMD Rule 403 have been included in the plans and
specifications for the project. Examples of appropriate dust suppression
mechanisms include the following:
a. Active construction sites, staging and parking areas, and unpaved
construction roads shall be watered at least twice daily, and approved soil
stabilizers or binders shall be applied to inactive construction sites>
b. Vegetation shall be replaces in disturbed areas as quickly as possible after
construction is complete.
C. Exposed soil stockpile areas shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or
have approved soil stabilizers applied according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
d. Grading operations shall be suspended whenever wind speed exceeds 25 miles
per hour.
e. Adjacent public streets shall be swept daily if any visible soil material is
carried from the construction site.
f. Speed limits on unpaved construction roads shall be 15 miles per hour.
g. Construction vehicle wheels shall be washed prior to leaving the construction
site.
h. All trucks hauling soil, sand or other loose materials shall maintain at least 6
inches of freeboard and be covered when traveling on public streets.
Construction roads with more than 150 total daily trips shall be paved.
j. Pavement shall be extended at least 100 feet onto the construction site from
the public roadway access point.
3 -2 Field trailers shall utilize non - diesel powered air conditioning units.
3 -3 Construction equipment operations shall be suspended during second stage
smog alerts.
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project .4-
0
3 -4 All stationary construction equipment shall comply with the low sulfur fuel
requirements pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 431.2
3 -5 Construction equipment shall utilize catalytic converters and minimizing
idling to the greatest extent feasible.
3 -6 Construction operations affecting traffic flow on public streets shall avoid
peak periods to the greatest extent possible.
3 -7 Temporary traffic control measures (e.g. flagmen) shall be provided to
improve traffic flow and safety whenever construction operations affect public
streets.
3 -8 At least one week prior to beginning grading or construction immediately
adjacent to residential developments, the Utilities Director shall provide written
notice to all occupants immediately adjacent to the construction site.
properties. The potential impact to the California Seabreeze development has been
eliminated due to the revised alignment within the 19th Street and Whittier
Avenue rights -of -way. Therefore, this mitigation measure has been eliminated.
NOISE
Mitigation Measures
4 -2 Prior to the award of a construction contract, the Utilities Director shall verify
that a provision is contained in the plans and specifications limiting construction
activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:30 PM Monday thru Friday, with no
construction activities on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
EARTH RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
5 -1 Prior to commencement of excavation or construction, the Utilities Director
shall verify that a grading permit has been obtained in conformance with Title 15 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Utilities Director and its contractors shall
comply with all the requirements of the grading permit, including but not limited
to:
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project -5.
0
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be prepared
evaluating soil conditions and potential hazards, and provide recommended
means of mitigating potential hazards in conformance with accepted
engineering practices.
b. Grading plans shall include appropriate temporary and permanent drainage
and erosion control plans to minimize impacts from siltation and soil
erosion, with a copy transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Ana Region.
C. If soil export is necessary, haul routes and access points shall be developed so
as to minimize impacts to residential areas.
d. All grading and excavation shall comply with the approved grading plans.
e. Permanent reproducible copies of approved as -built plans shall be furnished
to the Building and Utilities Department.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
7 -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the portion of the property within
the West Newport Oil Company property, the Utilities Director shall insure that a
provision has been incorporated into the Plans and Specifications regarding any
areas disturbed by trenching and grading to be restored to their original contours and
revegetated with appropriate native plant materials.
1 impact to jurisdictional
within the 19th Street and
Whittier Avenue rights -of -way. Therefore, this mitigation measure has been
eliminated.
7 -4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the portion of the property within
the West Newport Oil Company property, the Utilities Director shall insure that
provision has been incorporated into the Plans and Specifications requiring that
construction activities be scheduled to avoid the nesting season for sensitive bird
species that may inhabit the site.
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project -6-
0 0
With the revision to the project, the mitigation measures as required by the certified
EIR are adequate to address the proposed realignment of the pipeline within the
identified public rights -of -way.
A small portion of the pipeline that is not within the public rights -of -way (the
northern most segment of the pipeline that goes in a north -south direction near the
terminus of 19th Street, approximately 100 lineal feet) is within an undeveloped
upland area supporting some flora and fauna. This area was not surveyed as part of
the original EIR. The City retained Glenn Lukos and Associates to conduct a
supplemental survey of the site to determine whether any sensitive resources
would be impacted.
The biological survey (Attachment 2) determined that the additional area that will
be disturbed supports a predominance of ruderal species that have low habitat value
and the pipeline will will have no significant impacts on plant or animal resources.
No other potential impacts were identified that have not been addressed in the
Final EIR, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
CONCLUSION
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 151 was prepared for the Groundwater Development Project and was certified by
City Council on January 25, 1993. Public Resources Code Section 21166 provides that:
"When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a
project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or
any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project
which will require major revisions of the
environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project in being
undertaken which will require major revisions
in the environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as
complete, becomes available."
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project -7-
•
The proposed revision to the project has been evaluated and it has been determined
that none of the conditions described in Section 21166 exist, therefore no additional
EIR is necessary. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that the Lead
Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate for the proposed action, and these
changes do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the
environment.
Pursuant to the requirements of Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum to Final
EIR No. 151 has been prepared to address potential impacts associated with the
pipeline alignment to be located within the 19th Street and Whittier Avenue public
rights-of-way. On the basis of the temporary construction impacts related to traffic
control, dust and noise and the mitigation measures contained in Final EIR No. 151
and the biological survey attached hereto, this addendum concludes that the
necessary revisions to the analysis contained in Final EIR No. 151 represent only
minor changes and do not raise any new issues or alter the conclusions of the EIR
regarding the environmental impacts of the project. No new significant impacts
will result, and no additional mitigation measures are required as a result to the
revisions of the project.
Attachments
1. Pipeline Alignment Map
2. Biological Survey
Addendum No. 3 to Final EIR 151
Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project -8-
Pg CGEG LINE CL'NTNUES
THNWGH HUNTINGTON BEACH
CAA5TN ZONE BY
SEPARATE PENMR
9d
\AT`t \U
ao-
NgW FT
B ONES
TRACT
COLOR KEY
ONE CHANCEET.11L.00r
OP flPHWNH AIJCNMFMT
�A WCNMENT WLTHI COASTAL ZONE
-CIIANGF IN PRFIJNR AI.IC \MENT
LIM, ME COASTAL ZONF
. ELDUNATWS OR PVEW 6
u
WATER NPIN y
vgovoscol ppPP
0�
0
tea,
A
PORTION OF REVIS
PROJECT WITHIN
COASTALZONE
CITY OF NE WPOR
BEACH
I
I
he City of Newport Beach is proposing to amend Coastal
Development Permit 5- 93.356. The amendment consists of elimination
of a major segment of the pipeline through undeveloped property to be
replaced by pipeline that is proposed in the 19th Street and Whitter Avenue public
right -of -way.
The amendment accomplishes the following:
1. Reduces the impacts to riparian habitat.
2. Eliminates a potential impact to Coastal Sage Scrub.
3. Eliminates the impact to two drainage swales.
4. Locates the new segment of the pipeline within eadsting right -of -way.
7
JITY OF NEWPO
BEACH d CITY (
COSTA MESA
CITY
Q
1� cmoPxewvogrEEACN
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
6
UriL1Il ES YAPO E2P4NSN)N
(NO CHANGES PROPOSED)
The project includes a Certified Environmental Impact Report #151 approved by the City
of Newport Beach City Council on January 25, 1993 and an Addendum to the EIR that
describes and analyzes the revised project
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
lol.f•
.� W GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AMENDMENT TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 5 -93 -356
[a
El
GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES
Regulatory Services
December 12, 1994
John Douglas
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Dear Mr. Douglas
I performed a biological evaluation of an area to be impacted as proposed in the most recent
alignment of the pipeline associated with the Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project.
The subject area is a relatively short segment, approximately 100 feet long, between the
easternmost end of the pipeline easement on the property of West Newport Oil and the
intersection of 19th Street and Balboa Boulevard. The subject segment runs in a north -south
alignment whereas the major segment of the pipeline runs in an east -west alignment parallel to
19th Street. Upon installation of the pipeline, the subject segment will be maintained as a gravel
covered access road for access to and maintenance of the pipeline.
The easement for this segment of pipeline is 20 feet wide. Beginning where this segment
connects with the major east -west segment of pipeline, the subject segment of the easement is
primarily vegetated with upland weeds including wild oats (Avena fatua), fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), doveweed (Eremocarpus setigerus), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata),
horehound (Marrubium vulgare), black mustard (Brassica nigra) and tree tobacco (Nicotiana
glauca). A few scattered individuals of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) occur within this segment
of the easement.
After approximately 85 feet the easement extends up the bank of 19th street. The lower portion
(one - third) of the bank support a mixture of mulefat and tree tobacco while the upper portion
(two- thirds) supports only ruderal species including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Australian
saltbush, castor bean (Ricinus communis), cheeseweed (Malva parvii fora) and London rocket
(Sisymbrio Trio).
23441 South Pointe Drive Suite 150 Laguna Hills, California 92653
Telephone: (714) 837 -0404 Facsimile: (714) 837 -5834
John Douglas
City of Newport Beach
December 12, 1994
Page 2
Although the lower portion of the road bank supports some mulefat which is typically considered
to be riparian vegetation,' there is no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) or California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction because there are no jurisdictional wetlands
or indicators of an Ordinary High Water Mark associated with the road bank.
The subject area, because it supports a predominance of ruderal species has low habitat value.
The impacts to this area associated with the trench and backfill operation required for installation
of the pipeline will have no significant impacts on plant or animal resources.
If I can be of further assistance to you in this matter or if you have any questions regarding this
letter please don't hesitate to call me at (714) 837 -0404.
Sincerely,
GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC
70�� o D _
Tony Bomkamp
Botanist
s:0154 -4d.io-
' Mulefat has an indicator status of Facultative Wet (FACW) meaning that it occurs in
wetlands 67% of the time. This also means that in 33% of cases, mulefat can be expected to
occur in upland habitats. This is a clear case where mulefat is occupying upland habitat.
"'ILA F i Gj Cif- 4(p1��.J
1'
0 6, - 361o�("!0
HMENDMENT No.1
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR
REALIGNMENT OF REACH NO.1
36 -INCH WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THIS AMENDMENT to the written agreement, dated April 26th, 1994, is made
and entered into this IC)TN day of January, 1995, by and between "CITY'
and "CONSULTANT'.
WITHESSETH:
WHEREAS, "CITY', as part of its "PROJECT" has determined that certain
additional professional services are required that were not originally foreseen, and;
WHEREAS, implementation of the 'PROJECT' requires these additional
services which are related to re- design of the Reach No. 1 pipeline alignment to
Whittier Avenue between 16th Street and 19th Street (these additional services are
referred to as "SERVICES "),and;
WHEREAS, "CITY' requires a qualified engineering professional to carry out
these essential additional re- design parameters, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY' has solicited and received a proposal from
"CONSULTANT" to perform these additional 'SERVICES" and other incidentals, as
outlined herein below, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY' has reviewed the previous performance of "CONSULTANT'
and has determined it to be of high quality, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY' desires to accept the proposal for "SERVICES" submitted by
"CONSULTANT ", and;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is mutually agreed
and understood that:
1
9 0
I. GENERAL
A. The original professional services agreement dated April 261h, 1994,
remains in full force and effect except as modified by this amendment.
II. ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
"CONSULTANT" shall provide the following additional professional services
for "CITY ".
A. "CONSULTANT" shall provide the services necessary to re- design the
southerly portion of the Reach No. 1 pipeline to a new alignment in Whittier
Avenue between 16th Street and 19th Street and to complete the defined
tasks associated with the "PROJECT ". Those additional and supplemental
tasks include the following:
1. Additional Meetings with City staff.
a. "CONSULTANT" shall keep City Project Manager apprised of the
progress being made by the "C1TY's" contractor. Such apprisal shall
be made via telephone, in writing as appropriate and via meetings
mentioned herein below.
b. "CONSULTANT" shall meet with the City staff on an as- needed
basis for the "PROJECT ".
2. Review Background & Supplemental Data.
a. "CONSULTANT" shall, in an effort to relay relevant information
to their staff, review the pertinent background data obtained at
additional meetings with City staff and /or as provided by "CITY"
during the course of the "PROJECT ".
b. "CONSULTANT" is entitled to rely on materials provided by or
through "CITY" without independent evaluation by
"CONSULTANT ".
3. Revision of Existing Drawings.
a. "CONSULTANT" shall complete revisions on the required drawings
for the "PROJECT" so they reflect the true scope of work revised by
this Amended Agreement.
b. "CONSULTANT" shall deliver three (3) complete copies of the final
design plans.
III. PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE
A. In consideration for the specified services, "CITY' hereby agrees to
compensate "CONSULTANT" on an hourly basis as set forth in the
"PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE" in Section VIII, in the original
professional services agreement, dated April 26th, 1994.
B. In no event shall the total amount for these additional and
supplemental services be greater than forty nine thousand one
hundred and forty eight dollars ($49,148), inclusive of subconsultants
fees, except as provided for in the original professional services
agreement and herein below.
C. Subconsultant Services:
Aerial Mapping & Photogrammetry - Surveying services provided
by DM` Engineering relative to preparation of an aerial
topographic map of Whittier Avenue from 17th Street to 19th
Street, thence along 19th Street to the westerly terminus of 19th
Street for a lump sum, "not to exceed" amount of four thousand
two hundred dollars ($4,200).
2. Geotechnical Investigation - Geotechnical investigation provided by
Leighton & Associates to evaluate the on -site geotechnical
conditions and their effect on the proposed pipeline realignment for
a lump sum, "not to exceed" amount of five thousand eight hundred
sixteen dollars ($5,816).
IV. MORE ADDITIONAL SERVICES
A. No additional change in character, extent, or duration of the work to be
performed by "CONSULTANT" as a part of this amendment to the
original professional services agreement shall be made without prior
written approval from "CITY'.
B. In consideration for performance of additional and supplemental
services authorized by "CITY' in writing, "CITY' hereby agrees to
compensate "CONSULTANT" an amount based upon the hourly rate
defined in the 'TEE SCHEDULE ".
C. However, except that any additional increase in total compensation
exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) shall require another
amended Agreement for such additional services between the
"CONSULTANT" and "CITY'.
• •
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
first date above written:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
Robin Clauson
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Wanda Raggio
City Clerk
Address and Telephone:
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newpon Boulevard, P. O. Box 1768
Newpon Beach, California 92658 -9915
(714)644 -3011 (714)646 -5204 FAX
City of Newport Beach,
a municipal corporation
I
John Hedges, Mayor
"CITY"
AKM Consulting Engineers,
a California Corporation
Jaime E. Moreno, Vice President
"CONSULTANT"
ARM Consulting Engineers
101 Pacifica. Suite 150
Irvine, California 92718
(714)753 -7333 (714)753 -7320 FAX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
January 6, 1995
TO: Honorable Mayor And Members
r,O•f,The City Council
FROM: Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager�lN
SUBJECT:SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT & CONTRACTS
On the City Council agenda on January 9th there are four items related to the
Groundwater Development Project. Three of these items are holdovers from our
meeting in December. In the reports that were prepared by our Utilities Director, I
requested that in each he indicate the reasons why we should go forward. In general,
in each report the Utilities Director has indicated the importance from the standpoint of
completing the project in accordance with our schedule. I'd like to add several
reasons why I'm supporting the approval of the various contracts and ask that the City
Council consider these reasons as well.
My reasoning can be summarized in four key areas:
DEBT SERVICE AND PURCHASE OF WATER COSTS
The City issued bonds to construct this project and has the annual payments on
the bonds of approximately $1.7 million. This cost has been built into our
budget for the Water Fund in the Utilities Department, while including an
anticipated date of completion of the project when our costs of obtaining water
through the groundwater project will reduce our costs by $2.0 million. Further
delays in the project will result in higher operating costs due to an extended
reliance on the purchase of water via MWD. It is in our immediate and long term
financial interests to complete the project.
2. OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON BOND ISSUE
In our official statement for the Groundwater Project bonds there are summaries
of certain portions of the Bond Indenture. Within that document the City has
committed to construct the project by August 1, 1997. There is a provision that
provides for an exception for unforeseeable delays which are considered
beyond the control of the City. However, based on all the reasons stated in this
memo and the fact completion is important to keep the City's credit rating with
the rating agencies at the highest levels, we should move forward.
�/C;,/ 8
0 0
-2-
3. CASH FLOW
In the cash flow analysis prepared by the Finance Director in response to the
County's bankruptcy filing, the City without access to any of the remaining water
bond proceeds ($10.8 million) is still able to comfortably meet all of our
obligations. As of this writing, it now appears that the issue of the withholding of
the property tax will soon be favorably resolved by the County obtaining
Bankruptcy Court approval to release the funds.
The Finance Director during the course of the bankruptcy and the freeze on our
water bond proceeds will be updating his analysis monthly for comparative
purposes. On the attached updated cash flow analysis you'll note the
December 1994 column and the line for "Adjustments (experience)." As of the
close of December our cash balances were $3.4 million more than projected. A
large reason for this higher balance is the fact that the vast majority of our
capital projects remain frozen due to our concern about the State budgetary
situation. This week the Finance Committee received information that of the
total capital projects of $49.5 million, the City has only expended $4.6 million so
far this fiscal year.
Finally, the City Council will recall that the cash flow analysis is a conservative
projection. The projected disbursements are based on the past two years when
the City was carrying heavy litigation, early retirement, and capital improvement
expenses. More importantly, the costs to construct the Groundwater project are
in the cash flow analysis.
4. RELEASE OF FUNDS
While it is still too early to tell when the City will have the funds held in the
Investment Pool released, the Investor's Creditor Committee, the County, and
the Bankruptcy Court have approved a program permitting the release of funds
to investors upon an urgent need or to permit the City to avoid tapping into other
invested funds that would require the early sale of another investment. Each
investor can obtain release at this time of up to 30% of its total investment upon
the ability to make certain findings. While the City doesn't anticipate the need to
sell any other investment security for cash flow needs, if the need arises the City
could tap into the funds which are now frozen in bankruptcy to pay contractor
costs.
5. TIMELINESS OF THE PROJECT PHASES
Three of the four agenda items are contracts for engineering services of
relatively small scale, in comparison with the overall costs of the project. The
contract with the Construction Management firm is for a total of $253,090,
however, it will be spent over an extended construction period. Staff wishes to
bring this contractor onboard prior to the award of bid to undertake preparation
9
-3-
0
for the large construction phase of work on the reservoir and pump station. The
fourth contract is a substantial and vital one (construction of Reach 2 of the
pipeline) to completion of the overall project.
RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons cited above, it is recommended that the City
Council proceed forward on the approval of the items on the City Council agenda
related to the Groundwater Development project.
0
-m
N
N
O
W N b
J
m
N
J
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
w
N
N O
L
�O
N
W
N
W
>
>
V
N
O q
W
O
o
O
4A U U
V
O V
n
(p
p b
W
6/
S
n
i
z
N
N
0 3'
<
O
m
0
N
N
m
Z
b
y
N
n
N
c
Z
�
w
CD
�
�
v
f
c
N
N
N
0
°o_
0
o w
N
J
N
W fN
F/1
N
3
0
A
Q U O
N
N W
p t
CL
m
a
...
i
�
tO
T
LA O
O
b
O m
N
O U
N
H
�D
m
N
61
N
j
� '�
'•
J
W
V
'
O
u
�
O
O
pVj
V A U
N
O U
N
N
N
N
N
N
amen
m
am
W �
N
N
ro
U b W
b
N b
p
A
A
U b
W t
V
N W b
O m
m
0
0
ep
pwj
O O m
T
O m
a
N
N
(n
N
N
G
N
H U m
V
Fn O V
V
N
N
6n
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
o
m
W U
O
i
�O
b
N
N
W
W
O
O
O
w
W
O V A
N
b O U
w
N
N
W
N
H
O
N
N
j
m
01
N
N W W
A
kA 0 V
O
O
O
N
O W N
V
O V
m
N
N
O
fq
N
N
A m
b
N
N
ID
N
m 0
UN
T
A
O
O
Vii
p` m
W
`O m
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
_
_
N
N
N
fq
N
N
N
N
W
9
> >
2 0 0 O g
r ¢ o r
Y
Z 2 > m _I � m
N m O m a'
N Z
o � y
o y
N
O_
N
n
c'
w
m
°o
m
a
4j
N
N
O
W N b
J
M
N
J
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
w
N
N O
L
�O
N
W
N
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
4j
N
N
N
W N b
J
M
N
J
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
w
N
N O
L
�O
N
W
N
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
N
O q
W
NN
NO
W
4A U U
W
N
W+
b
W N b
J
M
N
J
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
w
N
N O
L
�O
N
W
N
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
w
m
N
NN
T
W N b
J
M
N
J
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
w
N
N O
L
�O
N
N N+
b
N
� U m
b N uJi N W
N N
N N N
b m
V a+ a m
Ol N A W
V V
N
N
W
N
T
W N b
J
M
N
J
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
w
N
N O
L
�O
N
W
N
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
N
O q
W
NN
NO
W
4A U U
V
O V
N N
N
W
N
T
W N b
J
M
N
m O a
OD
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
N
N
b U
N
�O
N
W
N
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
N
O q
W
O
N
V
O V
n
(p
p b
W
N N
N
W
N
T
W N b
J
V p m
N
m O a
q
A
O m
m k» O W
�
N
N
Wm b `o m
A
N
N N
A
N
W
N
m
O
+
O
q
- 2
o %o
b M O O
IV
b U
N
�O
N
W
O �
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
N
O q
W
O
N
V
O V
n
(p
p b
W
6/
S
n
ON
N
N
<
O
bi
m
P
b
c
Z
CD
v
f
N
0
°o_
0
o w
N
3
CL
m
a
...
i
�
tO
T
A
�D
m
(O
W
N
N
W
N
m
N
w a
m
A U U
q
- 2
o %o
b M O O
V
N
N
fq
N
N
W
W
O
W +
J
_
- 2
V
N
p W
N
W
O �
W
X 4 0 v
O
V
N
O q
W
N
N
W b
N
W
O
O
W
_
O
- 2
O b
V
N
b
W bq p W
O
X 4 0 v
b
O
N {q N
r
N � -
W b
N
O
L
_
- 2
n
D
N
0
X
N
J
V
a
N
I
0
0
n
n
m
a
'�
m
'n
Of
D
?
,a
0
A
G'
°c
0
A
0 S
0
0
T
O
(DA,
c
7
<
m
0
m
y
C
7
3
N
0
o
0
3
'0
;
0
A
O
y
<
c
J
N
^i
7
O
N
i0
Q7
c
'a
A
3
3
0.
171
o
0
CD
0
.191
w
n
0
o
c
2
a
0
0
w
61)
(A
4V)
'A
'A
W
W
(0
J
W
W
d J
co
co
W
CO
V
m
O
W
O
coo
CD
D
i0
IJ
ih
0
J
V
N
`2
Of
QOf�
A
N
A
A
W
O
V
A
(A
(A
f9
W
69
di
J
A
J
N
(0
T
J
J
O
"
O
p?p,D
C l0
O
V
O
A
O
P
61 N
co
O
N
O
A
(D
(4
I
J
O
O
O
N
EA
to
fA
49
49
J
J
N
OD
O
O
J
(0
ID
V
O
O
O1
� N
J
V
O
O
OD
W
-N+
N
O
O
<A
49
fA
w
J
v
J
J
J
co
N
'D
W
a)
co
co
O
O
D
V
OD
w
N
(9
(A
49
J
J
DD
J
V
y
(O1i
pOp
O
O
W
ED
d 10
W
A
O
O
co
< <A
IJ
OD
O
O
4.
co
OWD
(A
O
O
N
69
C�
J
J
A
J
OD
L J
pAp
W
O
W
W VI
D
O
IV
(Ny
m
eA
in
W
N
N
A
L J
C
ul
-W+
O�1
t0
O)
(J
V)
N
W
4i
N
W
V
n
D
N
0
X
N
J
V
a
N
I
Raw
tp W
co N
W
W W
w a
o�
aN )
(0 W
O W
N (0)
N O1
A O
N
V "
J CY)
J (p
A
W 00
O
(n A
N N
J
V 4W(,�7
to
Im A
CD V
69 fA
N
V
40
W N
0 di
A
W
O co
A J
A 10
N m
Ot N
T
d!
4»
N
O
O
O
O
O
F
N C J
N y N
M
N
N
0
W C N
O �
W
O J
O
ONE � N
OD
4A
Lz
N < J
A 0 c0
f0
J (ii
.J 1
J
v
A n to
W m to
O Q (n
0) 1
N
L
N N J
J � �
C
T
co
T
N Q J
V
J L"
O) d O>
01
W
n
N
x
T
r
O
X
r
N
V
S
3
0
a
N
0
0
W
00
o
C
7
D
A
O'
fQ
=
O
an
N
0
O
d
N
3
a
D
N
o
-0
m
y
m
Cam.
^
.D
I O
W
d
7
o
ry
w
T
O
O
O
'o'
5
10
M
3
<
0
..
3
O
Q
w
1D
W
m
f
0
o
o
»
0
»
c
n
Z
0
a
0
Raw
tp W
co N
W
W W
w a
o�
aN )
(0 W
O W
N (0)
N O1
A O
N
V "
J CY)
J (p
A
W 00
O
(n A
N N
J
V 4W(,�7
to
Im A
CD V
69 fA
N
V
40
W N
0 di
A
W
O co
A J
A 10
N m
Ot N
T
d!
4»
N
O
O
O
O
O
F
N C J
N y N
M
N
N
0
W C N
O �
W
O J
O
ONE � N
OD
4A
Lz
N < J
A 0 c0
f0
J (ii
.J 1
J
v
A n to
W m to
O Q (n
0) 1
N
L
N N J
J � �
C
T
co
T
N Q J
V
J L"
O) d O>
01
W
n
N
x
T
r
O
X
r
N
V
S
3
0
a
N
601 69 (19 to
V1 N A in J
WI J i O I0) tD to
WD A O to
V)l di H 49
J
W
S
o
o
d
W
nn
i
OD
�?
O
W
TI O
W
8
d
a
N
o
O
N
:r
d
m
> s
3
d
J
O
O
7
d
a
<
O
T
C
J
W
K O
!n
r
0
£
0
v
0
0'
0
3
»
3
T
a
e
Ri
n
O
O
0
0
0
0
o
C.
O
2
fA
to
H
0
fR
to
601 69 (19 to
V1 N A in J
WI J i O I0) tD to
WD A O to
V)l di H 49
N
2
0
f
x
V
v
a
N
J
W
O
W
O 0
i
OD
O
W
� t0
W
OD
J
O
O
N
0
O
co
O
O
O
O
fA
to
H
fR
to
J
O
J
J
co
CA
-4
A
O
O
O
W
(J
O
O
tb
A
i
O
O
N
N
Ot
O
O
tD
fA
to
(A
fA
to
(A
t_
C
7
A
W
W
W
tT
O
Q° 00
co
i
O
O
O
/n
co
0
A
O
O O
A
3
OI
O
O
N
C.
H
N fA
�
fA
fR
fA
to
yq
N
J
J
J
J
C
i
co
-�
V
QOp
O
O
W
N
O
O
N
W
N
N
CO
ul+
V
O
0
A
W
A
N
2
0
f
x
V
v
a
N
;7y
FIGURE 8
ADOPTED AND PROJECTED WATER RATES
MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL USE
$/AF
450
$412.00
400
350
300
250 1 Treated MWID Import Water
200
150 Average Cost to Produce Groundwater $145�00
(Excluding Operation & Maintenance) F///" I
011
VON
so / / n�
Replenishment Assessment
0 ...... J- J. A. ..-L A. ...I-
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
16
0
R
0 0
To achieve basin management objectives during 1994-95, two agencies (Anaheim and
Orange) are assigned a production requirement by OCWD. The pumping requirement is
established for these producers to pump in excess of their Basin Production Percentage (BPP),
The OCWD Board of Directors provided exceptions from the Basin Equity Assessment for
production of poor quality well water, treated to domestic standards, in excess of the basin
production percentage for Anaheim, Garden Grove and Orange in 1994 -95. In addition, pump-
ing limitations are assigned to four agencies (Buena Park, Irvine Ranch Water District, Southern
California Water Company, Yorba Linda) during 1994 -95. The pumping limitation is established
for these producers due to their inability to meet the BPP in 1994 -95, because of insufficient
production facilities.
COST OF WATER PRODUCTION FOR THE ENSUING YEAR (1994 -95)
The OCWD Act requires that costs of producing groundwater and of obtaining supplemental
water be evaluated annually. The cost of producing groundwater and/or supplemental water
varies for each producer, depending on many factors. Although these variations in cost are
recognized, it was necessary for the purpose of this report to arrive at figures representative of
the average cost of producing groundwater, and of purchasing supplemental water for irrigation
use and for uses other than irrigation.
COST OF GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION FOR USES OTHER THAN IRRIGATION
The variable cost of energy and the Replenishment Assessment for groundwater production for
uses other than irrigation within the OCWD service area during the ensuing year is about
$145.00 /acre -foot. A survey of the major water producers was conducted to determine the
characteristics of a representative extraction facility and the associated production costs. The
findings of the survey are presented in Appendix A -10.
Two significant factors influencing the cost of groundwater production are energy prices and
operation and maintenance costs. Based on the responses of the October 1993 agency survey,
the energy cost ranged from $25.00 /AF to $119.74/AF, with an O &M cost of $4.90 /AF to
$42.46/AF. Other factors which influence these costs include varying load factors and different
groundwater levels. Recently drilled wells are generally deeper (1,100 foot depth for atypical
well) than those drilled two decades ago. The average load factor, which indicates the percent of
use of an extraction facility, was 61% for the major water agencies subject to the Basin Equity
Assessment.
Electrical energy accounts for approximately 30% of the total groundwater production cost for
uses other than irrigation in 1994 -95. A major factor influencing the cost of electrical energy is
the lift, i.e., the vertical distance water must be lifted from pumping level to land surface. The
estimated production costs during the ensuing year for a representative well are presented in
Table 8.
22
0
l'he three major goals set forth in the GWMP are to:
increase basin water supplies
protect and enhance water (111.1/11'
improve management of the basin and the
District
Great progress has been made over the past five
Years in reaching each of these goals. Rechal,ge
capacity and efficient. have been narasurably
improccd, so that a 75 percent basin pr'odut tit' n
percentage is sustainable without slressuag basin
limitations.
Numerous water treatment projects are .dread\
intrcasing the volume of usable groundwater,
and sc\ oral morn major projccls are on the
700
600
v
LL
• • • • • °i 500
U
a
Figure 17 5 400
Increased recharge of Santa Ana River ° 300
flows, expanded recycling of wastewater,
and additional wellhead treatment will c6 200
remove most of the need for imported 100
water usage within OCWD by the early
part of the 21st Century. 0
•
horinal. F:novvlcdgc of basin hyclrogeologY and a
highlN yualificd, well- cyuipped work force
contribute to optimal monat;ement of the basin
and District operations.
"I he C;WMI' provides for incremental progress in
increasing the reliability of local water supplies.
'I he ultimate outcome of the programs developed
through the I;WMI' will he a substantial
n•dut6011 in ditch use of imported water sources
Wiguic 17I. Safe reliance on the groundwater
basin during drought, shorlagc, and cmcrgenca
conditions Will COeStitute the GWMI "s
ItI111llnarnt - - -all achievement 0CWD believes can
Lie realized in the carp' part of the 21st CentUl\'.
OCWD Water Supply and Demand
1993 -94 2010
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 036
0
OCW D and CSDOC provides for each agency to
pay half the cost of the study, approximately
$40,000 per agency. The pilot project, which use=
UV on tertiary treated water, analyzes its
effectiveness when the water is seeded uvith
appropriate test microorganisms. Data being
compiled on the results of different UV dosages
will contribute to treatment system design and
will help refine UV operational procedures.
Alamitos Barrier Project
The Alamitos Barrier Project keeps ocean water
from contaminating the Orange County
groundwater basin and Los Angeles Cuunh_•'S
central basin. It was constructed on the
Los Angeles /Orange County border near
Seal Beach in the 19(01 as a cooperali, e project of
OCWD and the Loa AngelesCounh flood
Control District. Fier to tell thousand acre -feet of
imported water is needed annualh• for injection,
but the reliabilih• of this source is uncertain, and
its cost continues to rise.
OCWD and the Water Replenishment District of
Southern California (WRDSC) propose to
construct a 4,500 -afy reclamation plant to produce
treated water for the barrier. The two district,
conducted a feasibility StudV in 1991. which
confirmed that reclaimed water is acceptable as a
substitute for imported water in this project. In
December 1993, having received a discharge
permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), OCWD and WRDSC signed a
cooperative agreement for construction and
operation of the tertiary treatment plant. They an•
negotiating with the City of Long Beach for it site
adjacent to the Long Beach Water Reclamation
Plant.
The proposed facility, similar to Water Factors 21
will produce 5,000 at of recycled water. The
treatment plant design will accommodate future
expansion to 10,000 afy. OCWD and WRDSC are
applying to the SWRCB for a low- interest loan to
fund the $20 million construction cost for Phase 1
of the project.
Continued seawater intrusion at the east end of
the barrier in Orange County and leakage
through the central portion in Los Angeles
Count' have required the construction of
additional monitoring and injection wells. Five
monitoring wells were completed in 1990, and
40
four Injccholl wells were added in l993. Of fill-
$3;8,000 construclion cost for these wells.. OCWD
and the Los Angeles County Department of
ruhlic Works each paid half.
Completion of this project will signal the end of
one era and the beginning of another at the
Alamitos Barrier. Local reclaimed Water supplies,
a reliable and ecOnomicel source of injection
w.uh•r, will bring an end to dependencv on
imported water to sustain this nnjor sl-awah•r
barrier.
Orange County Regional Water
Reclamation Project
00,0) and L'SDOC are developing a joint
regional wales n•cvchng project that will provide
up to 100,000 acre-frrl of reclaimed water
annually fur grotnxAvatcr rcplcnishnu•nl. The
proposed Orange County Rcgionul Water
Rrc!amalinn Project (tX'h) will not onh' utilizo a
virfual!v drought -proof Source of local water
supph', but will also take advanj•igc of available
capacit in 0CMDS nine drop recharge basins.
I hOSV basins are under - utilized eight to ten
nonths of the scar.
l he project call:; for high-qualit treated effluent
to bo piped from Fountain Vallee northward
along the Santa Ana Ricer to OCWDS existing
recharge in Anaheim. (Sec map in
Figure '.) 1 he OCR's new facilities Would include
a 15 -mile pipeline atom; the river and a pumping
station and treatment facilities at existing OCWD
and CStX)C sites. The completed project will
include a 100 -mgd MI: vstem and a 55 -mgd RO
system.
The OCR could produce recycled water at a cost
estimated between $:150 and 5475 per acre -Foot.
I'lanned in three phases, till, project would
produce 50,0M afy in the vear 20110, increase to
75091 afy in 2010, and expand to the full 100,0M
aft' in the year 2020. The preliminary cost
estimate for the OCR is 5230 million.
Plans for the regional n•cVCling project include
brine and salt management. Certain waste
streams would be rerouted to CSDOC's Plant
No. 2, thereby improving the quality of influent
to I'lant No. 1 and reducing dennneralizalion
costs. Brine disposal could be managed through a
connection to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor
0 6 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 6140 6 0 6 6 6 0 e 6 0 e 0 6 6 6 0 6 0 6 6 6 0
i
Figure 7
pradc Treated wastewater from the Orange
Dam County Regional Water Reclamation
rs Project treatment facilities in Fountain
Valley will be piped to the forebay for
groundwater recharge. A brine diversion
system will transport dissolved solids
r� from this project and from OCWD's
'>a
desalters.
Turtle
NiVate
Project
,..Q Ilvtne S
Desaller
(SARI) for ocean discharge. I tic OCR )could list)
incorporate nitrogen removal prnceSSCS and
trvatent to reduce I'OC.
I'ubliC acceptance• of HIV OCR is CxpCCtud to he
positive, largult because the regional project
would obviate the nerd to Construct SCCeI'al WW
treatment plants and nlileS of pipclincs Within the
district:' service area. The thvo districts had
planned for several Years to construct up to three
new Satellite lvalcr reclamation plants at various
Orange County SitcS. These prujrctS, each With
5,000 to 10,000 afy capaCitV, )could Cost bl'tWLVII
S50 and $1 33 million each because of the high
cost of Site aCyuiSition and CU11St'llchon.
Consequcnth, the cost of the roc vCled hotel
Would he Is high as 51,300 to 51,000 per acre -foot.
The 5230 million OCR project, by providing aS
ankh as 100,000 afy of additional water ft)r
recharge at reasonable cost, will nnlre fill)\' utilize
O WD's spreading facilities throughout file vicar.
Reclainling this large volume of Water, CurrentlY
discarded as waste, con potentiolly free OCIND's
producers from dependency on imported
SupplicS,
Talbert Extraction Desalter
bile District iS eraluafing file 1COSIbilitV of a
future brackish groundwater extraction and
treatment project in the Talbert Crap, Sea lvo rd of
file injection barrier. SIICh a project lt)nld provide
LIP to 8,000 afy of additional potable water and, if
located properly, could reduce file
potential for seawater intrusion by
forming a groundwater "trough." Its
cost is estimated at $10 million.
Computer simulations carried out in
1993 explored potential effects on the
barrier by modeling two extraction well
Iavouts.One of these incorporated
OCW D's set en existing extraction
wells, and the other modeled five null• wells and
ono existing well. This work pros ided hater
yualitY and flow data on ,which to hose a
preliminary evaluofion of olturnati\ e distribution
S1'stcnls and Ireatnent processes.
OCIND will weigh the advant.lgt-s of reactivating
additional existing wells versus constructing new
ones, and will compare the cost effectiveness of
111C two IltVrII ItiVV.s dild their l'ffCCtS oil })',Mater
intrusion. In addition, various desalting
technologies to be used in the stude will tic in
with other District research projects and product-
data for comparison with KO lrumnient.
Table 2 shows file expected additional yield from
increasing basin supplies, estinuled of 115,000 afy
by the vear 2000. (The Western Riverside
Regional treatment plant is discussed on page 2t),
under Cooperative Watershed Managuman1.) The
Projects will enable producers to increase
groundwater production hl satisfy as much as 90
percent of their demand by the Year 2010. The
eStinlah'd Costs of the projects are given on
Table 3.
BY meeting program objectives of increased water
conservation, improved recharge operations,
t-xpanded reclamation, and treatment of brackish
and Colored walcr, the GIN,MI' Will substantially
increaso hasin hater supplies. '['Ile nun el -OLIS
benefits to be derived from achieving lhis goal
are liSled on Table 4.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •j$• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
0 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(714) 644 -3005
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: June 1, 1994
SUBJECT: - Contract No. C- 3004(E)
Description of Contract Design of Reach No. 1, 36 -Inch Water
Transmission Main as a part of Groundwater Development Project
Effective date of Contract April 26, 1994
Authorized by Minute Action, approved on April 25, 1994
Contract with AKM Consulting Engineers
Address 101 Pacifica, Suite 150
Irvine. CA 92718
Amount of Contract (See Agreement)
" �q
Wanda E. Raggio
City Clerk
WER:pm
Attachment
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
0 • (3k)
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Utilities Department
April 25th, 1994
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. /0
C - 3oo�Z(,F-)
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF
DETAILED PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS BY AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
REACH NO. 1: 36 -INCH WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE
AS A PART OF THE GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
If desired, authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a
Professional Services Agreement on behalf of the City, with AKM
Consulting Engineers to prepare detailed Plans and Specifications
for construction of a 6,500 foot long reach of 36 -inch diameter
water pipeline, for a fee not to exceed $101,517.
BACKGROUND:
The Groundwater Development Project is comprised of a series of
capital projects that will provide for extraction and delivery of groundwater
from water wells in Fountain Valley through pipelines between there and
Newport Beach. To convey the groundwater pumped from the wells to Newport
Beach, the project requires construction of approximately four miles of large
diameter pipelines.
The overall project plan calls for the transmission pipeline to be
designed and constructed in segments. This portion of the overall project will
provide the design with detailed plans and specifications for approximately
6,500 linear feet of 36 -inch diameter pipeline. This project segment is referred
to as Reach No. 1. The pipeline route runs in an easement the City obtained
from the West Newport Oil Company in 1990. The easement traverses the
boundary of the West Newport Oil Company property from the end of 16th
Street (at the Utilities Yard) to the East side of the Santa Ana River where the
proposed 19th Street roadway alignment crosses the river. Reach No. 1 is
approximately 6,500 feet long. Refer to vicinity map, Exhibit "E ".
To initiate this phase of the project, staff implemented a
"qualifications -based selection" (QBS) process for the necessary professional
engineering design services. The QBS process was provided for by the Federal
Government in 1972 under Public Law No. 92 -582. This law, known as the
Brooks Architect- Engineering Act of 1972, specifically addressed the process
of selecting architects and engineers based on qualifications. This was done
recognizing that these services relate directly to project issues affecting public
health and safety, such as buildings, structures and public water supplies.
• •
Page 2
Groundwater Development Project
Reach No. 1 Pipeline Design Contract
April 25th, 1994
In 1989, the Brooks Act was amended by the Federal Government
under Public Law No. 100 -656. California has enacted legislation to conform to
the revised Federal Law under SB -419, which was also enacted in 1989. This
bill amended the Government Code, Section 4526. As a result, California law
provides for a QBS process for any political subdivision or state or local agency
in California. In effect, this precludes "bidding" for professional engineering
services. Instead, it requires that consultant's be selected on criteria relating to
competence, experience, ability and qualifications. A key excerpt from Section
4526 of the State Government Code reads, "Notwithstanding ......... selection by a
State or local agency for professional services of private architectural, engineering,
land surveying, or construction project management firms shall be on the basis of
demonstrated competence and on the professional quahfications necessary for the
satisfactory performance of the services required."
The City of Newport Beach has a procedure for obtaining
professional services. The Public Works and Utilities Departments use
essentially identical procedures to obtain professional engineering services.
In keeping with this procedure, the City solicited "statements of
qualifications" from a number of professional design firms. Based on these
"statements of qualifications" proposals were solicited from six of the most
qualified firms. This was done by written "requests for proposals" or RFP's.
A copy of the project RFP is attached as Exhibit "B ".
The six firms that were invited to propose were selected based on
their previously submitted statements of qualifications and experience. All six
firms submitted responses to the request for proposals. The firms were: Robert
Bein, William Frost & Associates, Daniel Boyle Engineering Inc., NBS -Lowry
Consulting Engineers, AKM Consulting Engineers, Civiltec Engineers, Inc., and
ASL Consulting Engineers.
The written proposals were reviewed by the Utilities Department
Selection Committee. The committee was comprised of the Utilities Director, a
principal from an independent private Civil Engineering firm (a firm not
proposing on this project) who is a registered professional engineer, and an
engineering staff member who is also a registered professional engineer from
the same engineering firm . On the basis of a detailed ranking of the various
firms, the selection committee chose AKM Consulting Engineers as the most
qualified firm to perform the required professional services to complete the
pipeline design. The numerical ranking of the selection committee and criteria
is attached as Exhibit "C ".
A summary discussion of the detailed criteria used to evaluate the
qualifications of the six engineering firms is also provided as an attachment to
this report. Refer to Exhibit "D ". The key areas of review were:
1. Proposal Content
2. Project Understanding
3. Project Experience
4. Project Team
5. Project Management
6. Project Schedule
7. Labor Costs
0 •
Page 3
Groundwater Development Project
Reach No. 1 Pipeline Design Contract
April 25th, 1994
The most highly qualified firm for this project was selected based
on the listed criteria and their abilities demonstrated on other similar projects
in the past. The firm of AKM Consulting Engineers has a team of
exceptionally qualified, technical professionals and designers who have
extensive experience with similar water pipeline and utility construction
projects in Southern California. As a result, the selection committee and staff
believe that the consultant's team will be able to best provide a high quality,
cost - effective, timely, professional design product and coordinate efficiently
with the City and other consultants working on the interrelated phases of the
Groundwater Development Project.
The proposed Professional Services Agreement with the
successful proposing consultant, AKM Consulting Engineers provides for:
preparation of a preliminary design report; preparation of detailed
specifications; preparation of detailed construction plans; written special
provisions for project construction; and compilation of documents suitable for
bidding and awarding a contract for construction. A copy of the professional
services agreement is attached as Exhibit "A ".
If approved, the final design effort can commence almost
immediately. The critical -path schedule for timely completion of the overall
project requires that the consultant's plans for this phase of the project be
completed by the end of July 1994. This phase of the Groundwater
Development Project must be carefully coordinated with the reservoir and
pump station designs and other pipeline design components. Construction of
the Reach No. 1 Pipeline is proposed to begin late this summer, to integrate
properly with the construction of the reservoir and the 14,000 gallon per
minute pump station. The Professional Services Agreement requires
completion of the design plans and specifications by July 29th, 1994.
Funds are available for this design contract in the Water Fund
under Capital Projects Account No. 7503- 98500016. Staff recommends
approval.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFF STgpvEAXT
Jeff Staneart, P.E.
Utilities Director
1S:sdi
Attachments: "A ": Professional Services Agreement
"B ": Request for Proposals
"C ": Proposal Evaluation Matrix
"D ": Proposal Matrix Criteria
"E ": Project Vicinity Map
0
0
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR
(REACH NO. 1) 36 -INCH WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
AS A PART OF THE
GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Description and Location of Project
The project to be proposed on, is part of the City's Groundwater Development
Project. The project involves water wells, 6 -miles of transmission pipelines, a
3.0 million gallon reservoir and a 14,000 gallon per minute pump station.
The portion of the groundwater project your firm is being asked to propose on,
requires design services for installation of a new 36 -inch water transmission main and
appurtenances. The Reach No. 1 pipeline runs from the terminus of an existing
30 -inch water main on the east side of the Santa Ana River, at the prolongation of 19th
Street, toward the City of Newport Beach. The southerly terminus point of the Reach
No. 1 pipeline is at the westerly end of 16th Street near the City's Utilities Yard.
This work will involve design of some important water tie -ins and installation of a
water valve vault in 16th Street. This project will also include relocation of
approximately 640 feet of 12 -inch water main from the south side to the north side
of 16th Street adjacent to the Utilities Yard.
The majority of the 36 -inch water main will be placed within a 20 -foot wide water
line easement across West Newport Oil Company and Newport -Mesa Unified
School District properties (See Exhibit "A ").
The proposed project crosses jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Newport Beach
and the County of Orange.
This project is a major portion of the City's Groundwater Development Project and
timing of this phase of the project is crucial to the overall completion schedule.
Scope of Services
The consultant shall be responsible for complete design services relative to the
construction of the previously described project.
Design services shall include preparation of construction drawings showing plan
and profile views of the pipeline, all connection details, water valve vault details,
all pipeline appurtenances, preparation of detailed special provisions, bid
documents, quantity estimates and an overall cost estimate.
RFP -1
F-x4i19(T "S
0
Scope of Services Cont.
0
Reach No. 1
Water Transmission Pipeline
Request for Proposals
The consultant will be required to process the plans through the County of
Orange for permit approval.
All drawings and design specifications shall be prepared in accord with requirements
of the City of Newport Beach Design Criteria, Special Provisions and Standard Drawings
for Public Works Construction" latest edition, which incorporates the "green book"
specifications titled, "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ", latest
revision. All specifications and drawings shall be subject to final review and
acceptance by the City of Newport Beach, Utilities Department, Project Manager.
The consultant's proposal shall include a detailed list itemizing the tasks required
to complete the scope of work outlined herein. Each task shall include a detailed
estimate of person -hours required to complete it.
The consultant shall also provide a proposed project schedule depicting the time of
completion for the project design. The schedule shall include the number of
calendar days required to perform each task and the total number of calendar days
required to complete the entire project. The schedule should be coordinated with
the following design review dates.
The City will require a number of submittals prior to approval and signature of the
plans and specifications. The following list identifies key submittals and required
design information for each.
1. 50% Design Review - Consultant shall, as a minimum, submit preliminary title
sheet, second sheet (including vicinity map, location map, general notes,
construction notes,... etc.), completed base sheet information on plan and profile
sheets with a proposed pipeline profile, working sketches of details and sections,
and a cost estimate for review and comments from the Utilities Department.
2. 90% Design Review - Consultant shall, as a minimum, submit complete plans, 2
refined cost estimate and preliminary special provisions for review and
comments from the Utilities Department. The Consultant shall address the 50%
design review comments. The Consultant shall submit plans and special
provisions to the County of Orange for their review and approval.
3. 100% Design Review - Consultant shall, as a minimum, submit the final plans
reflecting 90% design review corrections; a complete and detailed cost estimate on
the contractor's bid proposal form (with cost estimate back -up detail); complete
(and bound) special provisions, contract documents and any appendices, for final
approval from the Utilities Department.
4. Final Approval Review - Consultant shall submit final plans reflecting 100% design
review corrections; complete (and bound) special provisions, contract documents
and any appendices, for final approval and plan signature by the Utilities
Department.
RFP -2
• •
Reach No. 1
Water Transmission Pipeline
Request for Proposals
Scope of Services Cont.
The City is anticipating authority to advertise for construction bids by August 8, 1994, and
anticipates beginning construction by September 26, 1994. To meet this construction
schedule, the following is a list of critical dates for the above design review submittals.
April 25, 1994 ...................
May 20,1994 .....................
June 17, 1994 .....................
July 13, 1994 ......................
July 27, 1994 .....................
............................. notice to proceed
. ............................50% design review
............................. 90% design review
.. ...........................100% design review
............................. final design review
The consultant will be responsible to address plan review comments at each of the
formal submittals and throughout the plan preparation process.
The consultant shall also propose on providing construction staking for the City's contractor.
The consultant shall assign a responsible project representative and an alternate, who
shall both be identified in the proposal. The consultant's representative will be
responsible for the consultant's duties from contract negotiations through project
completion. If the consultant's primary representative should be unable to continue
with the project, then the consultant's alternate representative shall become the primary
representative. Any changes in responsible representative must be approved, in
advance by the City. The City will have the right to reject other proposed changes in
personnel, and may consider any other changes in responsible personnel as a breach of
the contract and cause for termination.
The consultant shall provide a "Fee Schedule" outlining all applicable hourly rates and costs
for services. The proposal shall provide a breakdown of fees associated with each project
task. Most importantly, the consultant shall submit a total fee, with a "not -to- exceed" total,
which shall include and incorporate all work necessary to complete the project design.
The timing and schedule of this project is critical to the overall completion of the City's
Groundwater Development Project. All work must be completed in less than 16 weeks.
The deadline for final approval of the consultant's plans and specifications is July 29,
1994. Liquidated damages for delays beyond this date will be deducted from the
consultant's design fee. Liquidated damages shall be $300.00 per calendar day.
Additional Responsibilities
The consultant shall be responsible for completing the specified services in accord with
the standard form, "Professional Services Agreement ", which will be prepared by the
City. Services specified in this agreement shall be taken directly from the Consultant's
Proposal and from this "Request for Proposal ". The primary components and
provisions of the agreement shall include; liability insurance coverage and errors and
omissions insurance coverage in the amount of one million dollars.
The consultant shall prepare the necessary plans in AUTOCad, Release 11, and shall plot
them on City standard mylar sheets. Project special provisions and contract bid
documents shall be prepared in accord with the requirements of the City's design criteria.
RFP -3
Additional Responsibilities (Cont.)
Reach No. 1
Water Transmission Pipeline
Request for Proposals
The consultant shall be required to propose a fee based on time and materials to
review shop drawings, submittals related to the design of this project and
monitor construction progress once it is underway. The consultant shall provide
guidance and direction to the City with respect to the installing contractor's
general conformance to plans and specifications. This does not mean the
consultant will be responsible for the project construction inspection, but will
instead be expected to provide some monitoring and, where appropriate, make
field recommendations. During the course of construction, if changes occur
which require revision to the plans and /or special provisions, the consultant is
expected to modify the project plans and /or prepare addenda to the
specifications if such changes are deemed necessary by the City.
The consultant shall include in his proposal a fee to prepare "as- built" drawings
once the project construction has been completed.
The project schedule and the liquidated damages will not apply to the construction
monitoring, field change drafting or preparation of "as- built" drawings after
construction has been completed. Language covering this matter will be made part
of the professional services agreement between the City and the consultant.
The consultant shall include in his proposal a budget cost total for reproduction.
This budget amount should not include the costs of reproduction of plans and
special provisions as described below.
City's Responsibilities
The City will provide the following to assist the consultant with the project and its
completion:
1. Plans and drawings, as are available and appurtenant to the proposed project.
2. Survey records and easement information, as are available and appurtenant
to the project.
3. Design criteria, hydraulic data and other technical information, as are
available and appurtenant to the project.
4. The City shall be responsible for completing applications to obtain any
required permits from the City or other governing agencies, except the
County of Orange.
5. A topographic survey of the pipeline alignment within the existing easement.
6. The City will provide blueprinting, CADD plotting, Xeroxing and other
services through the City's reproduction company for each of the required
submittals and for bidding purposes. The consultant will be required to
coordinate the required submittals and bid plans with the City's reproduction
company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of the consultant.
AHD
RFP -4
Rankings:
1 - Fair
2 - Average
3 - Good
4 - Very Good
5 - Excellent
E"IBIT "c- 1.
Groundwater Development Project
Professional Engineering
Design Services
Reach
#1
- 36" Water Transmission Main Design
Selection Matrix
AI4vt
ASL DBE
RBF NBSL
civlltec
Weights
Related Project
Experience
4
4 4
4 4
3
25.00%
Project Staff
Assigned
4
4 4
4 3
3
25.00%
Grasp of the
Project
Requirements
5
4 4
3 3
3
10.00%
Approach to
Project Management
4
3 3
3 2
3
20.00%
Proposed Project
Schedule
3
3 3
3 3
3
10.00%
Proposed labor
Breakdown
4
4 3
3 3
3
10.00%
Total Fee ($)
101,517
87,000 120,600
90,740 64,740
68,726
Average Labor
Cost ($ /Hr.)
69
75 50
87 58
55
Total Weighted
4.00
3.70 3.60
3.50 3.05
3.00
Score
Rankings:
1 - Fair
2 - Average
3 - Good
4 - Very Good
5 - Excellent
E"IBIT "c- 1.
0 0
Groundwater Development Project
Professional Engineering Design Services
Reach # 1 - 36" Water Transmission Main Design
Evaluation Criteria
Selection Matrix Discussion
Summary:
Proposals were received from six (6) firms that were requested to submit
proposals for the subject project. These firms were selected based on previously
submitted "Statements of Qualifications ". The six (6) firms that submitted
proposals are listed below:
1. AKM Consulting Engineers (AKM)
2. ASL Consulting Engineers (ASL)
3. Civiltec Engineers, Inc. ( Civiltec)
4. Daniel Boyle Engineering, Inc. (DBE)
5. NBS Lowry (NBSL)
6. Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF)
The proposals were reviewed by the selection committee and were ranked
based on the content of their proposals with respect to the following items:
prior experience performing similar services; the project team experience; and
the completeness of the discussion relating to their approach to the project.
Based on a complete analysis of the written proposals, three (3) proposing
firms were deemed most capable to perform work required by this project.
After careful review by the selection committee and additional information that
was requested from the top three (3) firms, the selection committee
recommended that AKM be awarded the proposal. This recommendation is
based on the quality of AKM's proposal with respect to the proposed scope of
work for preliminary and final design and most importantly the qualifications
of the firm's proposed project team.
A ranking matrix is attached. The following paragraphs describe the rationale
behind each ranking, by category.
�XiiIBiT ••D•,
0
Project Understanding
0
Page 2
Groundwater Development Project
Reach #1 Design
Consultant Matrix Criteria
It is imperative that the full scope and extent of the work is clearly identified
and understood by the consultant in their written proposals.
During the proposal process, all the six firms sought additional information
from the City. Each firm brought members of their proposed project teams to
meet with members of the Utilities Department staff and /or the selection
committee.
Each firm demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the project scope.
However, three of the firms demonstrated a more complete understanding.
They were: ASL, DBE, and AKM.
These three (3) consulting firms had a good understanding of the necessary
scope of work required for the project. The consultant's thorough
understanding of scope of work will be a major part of this project, this factor
is important to the consultant's ability to effectively complete the design tasks
within the parameters of the schedule and project construction costs.
Project Experience
The proposing firms were ranked on recent project experience relative to
water transmission pipeline design. Local experience with similar projects
was a large element in determining the ability of the consultant. More weight
was given to firms who had Orange County experience and with a greater
emphasis on Newport Beach experience. Familiarity with local water supply
conditions, site constraints and general pipeline design was highly important.
Of the six proposing firms, ASL and AKM appeared to have the most
experience in overall design of pipelines. DBE and RBF, also had significant
experience with numerous pipeline projects.
Project Team
The project staff and their respective qualifications are a key qualification
requisite in this project. The work experience of the individual professional
staff members is vital to the success and efficiency of the effort to provide a
finished design product. Given the complex nature of this project, the
experience and capability of the project team affects the other key areas such
as ability of the consultant to meet the required schedule and to provide
efficient project coordination with the City.
AKM, DBE and ASL had key team members assigned to the project. DBE and
ASL provided an above average team. However, AKM Consulting Engineers had
the strongest project team proposed in terms of design experience and
technical capabilities.
0 0
Page 3
Groundwater Development Project
Reach #1 Design
Consultant Matrix Criteria
Project Management
The magnitude of the coordination and management that is required for the
various aspects of this project is deemed to be an important element for a
successful project. It is mandatory that the successful firm provide a
knowledgeable project manager or a principal of the firm.
DBE, RBF, and ASL provided proven project managers for water resources
design services. AKM proposed the strongest project manager with direct
applicable and successful project management experience.
Project Schedule
The project schedule is crucial to insure that the overall Groundwater
Development Project schedule is not adversely affected by this proposed work
effort.
Because the schedule for this critical element of the Groundwater
Development Project was set by the City, every firm had proposed to meet the
required schedule.
Labor Costs
Fees, as well as average labor costs, are a vital indicator in the evaluation of
the consultants' fees to assure that appropriate time is committed to complete
the designated tasks within a "not -to- exceed" price contract.
An analysis of the total hours allotted for each project task was performed.
This was done to get an idea of the completeness and the level of effort each
consultant proposed to place on the various project task components. The
review looked at both the number of hours, the assigned personnel and the
hourly rates for various team members. The indicator in the evaluation matrix
looked at the average weighted hourly labor cost.
In this analysis, the two firms who provided the most thorough engineering
services value, were AKM and ASL.
0
Existing 30"
Water Main
"Seawater" I
Line !
BANNING AVE.
m
i
VICTORIA ST
l Existing 30"
Water Main
6 �h
City of Newport 1
Beach Utilities
Yard
REACH t & 2 PROJECT LOCATION
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
�-:xH lgtr ., E,r
C - 3U0zl(,O
HGZEEMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR DESIGN OF REACH NO.1
36 -INCH WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
AS A PART OF
THE GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this uv day of April,
1994, by and between the City of Newport Beach, a municipal Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "CITY ", and AKM Consulting Engineers, a California Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT ".
WITHESSETH:
WHEREAS, "CITY ", desires to secure an alternate source of reliable water for its
municipal water system by implementing a Groundwater Development Project which
requires the City to construct water wells and delivery facilities to bring potable water to its
customers, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" as part of this project seeks to collect well water for pumping,
and must construct a series of transmission mains to bring water to a storage reservoir at
it's 16th Street facility, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" desires to prepare the design for installation of a portion of
the new water transmission main system, known as "Reach No. 1" and which is
hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT ", and;
WHEREAS, implementation of the design of said "PROJECT" requires the
services of a qualified engineering design consultant, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" has solicited and received a proposal from "CONSULTANT"
for preparation of the "PROJECT" design and to provide certain other essential
professional services, as outlined herein below, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" has reviewed the previous experience and has evaluated the
expertise of "CONSULTANT" and desires to accept the proposal submitted by
"CONSULTANT ", and;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is mutually agreed and
understood that:
0
I. GENERAL
0
A. "CITY" engages "CONSULTANT" to perform the described services for the
consideration hereinafter stated.
B. "CONSULTANT" agrees to perform the described services in accord with the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
C. "CONSULTANT" agrees that all services required hereunder shall be performed
under his direct supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully
qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform
such services. "CONSULTANT" shall not sublet, transfer or assign any work except
as otherwise provided for herein or as authorized in advance by the "CITY ".
II. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
"CONSULTANT" shall provide the following listed professional services to "CITY ".
A. "CONSULTANT" shall provide the necessary services to complete the defined tasks
associated with the design phase of the "PROJECT ". Those tasks include the
following:
1. Coordination and Meetings with City staff.
a. "CONSULTANT" shall keep City Project Manager apprised of the progress
being made on the "CONSULTANT'S" design activities. Such appraisal shall
be made via telephone, in writing as appropriate and via the meetings
mentioned herein below.
b. "CONSULTANT" shall meet with the City staff for an orientation meeting,
a 50% design review, a 90% design review, a 100% design review, and a
final design meeting for the "PROJECT ". Other meetings may be held on
an as- needed basis.
c. "CONSULTANT" shall meet with the County of Orange staff for coordination
and approval of plans and specifications. In addition, "CONSULTANT" shall
coordinate with the "CITY's" pump station consultant regarding chlorine
facilities within the valve vault in 16th Street.
2. Review Background Data
a. "CONSULTANT" shall, in an effort to relay relevant information to their staff,
review the pertinent background data obtained at the meetings with City staff
and /or as provided by "CITY" during the course of the "PROJECT ".
b. "CONSULTANT" is entitled to rely on materials provided by or through
City without independent evaluation by "CONSULTANT ".
3. Plans Preparation
a. "CONSULTANT" shall complete the required drawings and plans for
"PROJECT ". A listing of those drawings included in this phase shall include
at least the following:
0
(1.) Preparation of a "Title Sheet" with the "CITY'S" Groundwater
Development Project Title Sheet. In addition, prepare a "Second Sheet"
with the legend, notes, benchmark, basis of bearings and vicinity map
associated with the "PROJECT ".
(2.) Preparation of "Plan and Profile Sheets" as required to detail the 36-
inch water transmission main alignment within the existing 20 -foot
wide easement and the 12 -inch water main relocation within 16th Street
in accord with City Standards associated with the "PROJECT ".
(3.) Preparation of "Detail Sheets" as required to fully illustrate and show all
fittings, tie -ins, and water valve vault appurtenances associated with
the "PROJECT ".
4. Specifications Preparation
a. "CONSULTANT" shall complete preparation of detailed written
specifications, bid proposal, standard special provisions, special
provisions, compile City standard contract forms, and coordinate binding
them with the "CITY'S" reprographic company for "PROJECT ".
b. "CONSULTANT" shall include within the special provisions; the method
of providing for protection of existing facilities such as houses, retaining
walls and access gates during construction and the method of pressure
testing the water transmission main.
c. "CONSULTANT" shall utilize City Standard Specifications and shall
prepare them in the standard format.
(1.) Construction documents are intended to be publicly bid as a complete
package which shall meet the requirements of "CITY" and all applicable
State and Local laws.
5. Cost Estimate & Schedule
a. "CONSULTANT" shall prepare a detailed written cost estimate and
construction schedule for "PROJECT ". Estimate shall be transmitted to
"CITY" with a written memorandum of transmittal and explanation.
(1.) Any opinion of construction cost prepared by "CONSULTANT"
represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the
general guidance of the "CITY ". Since "CONSULTANT" has no control
over the cost of the labor and material, or over competitive bidding or
market conditions, "CONSULTANT" need not guarantee the accuracy of
such opinion as compared to Contractor bids or actual cost to the "CITY ".
6. Construction Phase Services
a. "CONSULTANT" shall perform the following during the construction phase:
(1.) Visit the site at scheduled 'intervals or as otherwise agreed by the
"CITY" and "CONSULTANT ", to become generally familiar with the
progress and quality of the work and to provide assistance to the
"CITY" to verify the work is being performed substantially in accord
with the contract documents.
0
(2.) "CONSULTANT" shall not be required to make exhaustive or
continuous on -site inspections to assess the quality or quantity of
work and shall not be responsible for the contractor's failure to carry
out the work in accord with contract documents.
(3.) Prepare change order work and review shop drawings as requested by
"CITY ", including all drawings or specifications necessary to describe and
detail the work to be added, deleted or modified. Should said work
require a substantial addition to the plan set, then additional
compensation to "CONSULTANT" would be authorized.
(4.) Prepare "record" drawings based upon change orders and addenda to
the extent approved by "CITY" and incorporated into the construction
of the Project. "CITY" shall require the contractor to submit "as- built"
drawings of actual construction installations to "CONSULTANT" for
use in preparing "record" drawings.
(5.) "CONSULTANT" shall provide one set of construction stakes for the
water transmission main within the 20 -foot wide easement, the 12 -inch
water main realignment in 16th Street and the water valve vault in
16th Street for the "CITY'S" Contractor. Any additional staking or any
restaking or costs thereof will be the responsibility of the Contractor.
7. Supplemental Services
a. "CONSULTANT" shall provide a geotechnical report with recommendations
as a supplemental to this project. This report shall include, but limited to:
(1.) Evaluate on -site geotechnical conditions and their effect on the
proposed pipeline alignment.
(2.) Subsurface investigation including drilling four to six borings, eight to
ten trenches, laboratory testing and analysis of collected data.
(3.) Provide a conclusion and develop recommendations for the proposed
pipeline including geotechnical parameters for temporary stability of
excavation and shoring design, adequacy of excavated on -site material
for use as backfill, bearing capacity and lateral earth pressure, criteria
for temporary excavation, bedding and backfill recommendations and
corrosion evaluation and protection recommendations.
III. DUTIES OF THE CITY
In order to assist the "CONSULTANT" in the execution of his responsibilities under
this Agreement, "CITY" agrees to provide the following:
A. Provide any background information, reports, contracts, specifications, proposals
or agreements as may be available or are in existence, which may be germane to
the proper preparation and completion of the "CONSULTANT's" defined duties.
B. Provide survey records and easement information, as are available and a
topographic survey of the pipeline alignment within the existing easement
which are appurtenant to the project.
C. Provide design criteria, hydraulic data and other technical information, as are
available and appurtenant to the project.
D. Assist "CONSULTANT" with interpretation of "CITY" standards and design
criteria. Meet with "CONSULTANT" as necessary to provide niput or
direction on matters pertaining to completion of specifications and final
construction plans.
E. Act as the Project Manager and provide construction administration and
field inspection on the proposed project, once designed and awarded for
construction.
F. The City shall be responsible for completing applications to obtain any
required permits from the City or other governing agencies, except the
County of Orange.
G. Provide blueprinting, CADD plotting, Xeroxing and other services through
the City's reproduction company for each of the required submittals and for
bidding purposes. The consultant will be required to coordinate the required
submittals and bid plans with the City's reproduction company. All other
reproduction will be the responsibility of the consultant.
H. City staff will be available to meet with "CONSULTANT" on or before the
following dates. These meetings will include reviewing plans, specifications
and other documentation provided by "CONSULTANT" relative to
"PROJECT ". In addition, "CITY" will return all comments within seven (7)
calendar days.
1. May 20, 1994 - 50 Percent Design Review Submittal
"CONSULTANT" shall, as a minimum, submit preliminary title sheet,
second sheet (including vicinity map, location map, general notes,
construction notes,... etc.), completed base sheet information on plan and
profile sheets with a proposed pipeline profile, working sketches of details
and sections, and a cost estimate for review and comments from the
Utilities Department.
2. June 17, 1994 - 90 Percent Design Review Submittal
"CONSULTANT" shall, as a minimum, submit complete plans, a refined cost
estimate and preliminary special provisions for review and comments from
the Utilities Department. The Consultant shall address the 50% design
review comments. The Consultant shall submit plans and special provisions
to the City of Huntington Beach, County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County and the County of Orange, for their review and approval.
3. July 13, 1994 - 100 Percent Design Review Submittal
"CONSULTANT" shall, as a minimum, submit the final plans reflecting
90% design review corrections; a complete and detailed cost estimate on
the contractor's bid proposal form (with cost estimate back -up detail);
complete (and bound) special provisions, contract documents and any
appendices, for final approval from the Utilities Department.
• 0
4. July 27, 1994 - Final. Design Review Submittal
"CONSULTANT" shall submit final plans reflecting 100% design review
corrections; complete (and bound) special provisions, contract documents and
any appendices, for final approval and plan signature by the Utilities
Department.
5. July 29, 1994 - Deliver 50 sets of Plans and Specifications to the "CITY"
through " CITY's" reprographic company.
IV. TIME OF COMPLETION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
"CONSULTANT" shall commence work immediately upon receipt of written
notice to proceed. Work as required herein, shall be completed in a diligent and
efficient manner to the execution of its completion. All work, with the exception of
the construction phase services required to advertise for construction shall be
completed no later than July 29,1994. It is mutually agreed by "CONSULTANT"
and "CITY" that liquidated damages of three hundred dollars ($300.00) per calendar
day shall be assessed "CONSULTANT" for delays beyond the above specified
completion date. Said damages shall be deducted from the "CONSULTANT's" fee.
Provided, however, that "CONSULTANT" shall not be responsible for damage or
delay in performance caused by events beyond the control of "CONSULTANT ".
The term of this Agreement shall expire thirty (30) calendar days after the date the
"PROJECT" is completed and accepted by "CITY ". It is agreed and understood by
both parties, that this is sufficient time to complete all such activities and tasks
associated with the "PROJECT ", including "as -built drawing" preparation.
V. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Original drawings and other deliverable documents to be provided by
"CONSULTANT" under this Agreement shall become the exclusive property of
"CITY" and may be reproduced as deemed necessary by "CITY" or its duly
authorized representative. However, any use of completed deliverables or
documents for purposes other than for this "PROJECT ", or any use of incomplete
documents, shall be at "CITY'S" sole risk, and "CITY" shall indemnify
"CONSULTANT" for any damages incurred as a result of such use. No report,
drawing, map, document or other data given to or prepared or assembled by
"CONSULTANT" pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any
individual or organization by "CONSULTANT" without prior written approval by
"CITY ", unless required by subpoena.
"CONSULTANT" may reserve the right to publish materials or reports related to
the work performed or data collected under the provisions of this Agreement.
The right to publish shall be at the sole discretion of the "CITY" and written
permission must be obtained by "CONSULTANT" from "CITY" on a case by case
basis. Blanket publishing approval shall not be granted.
"CONSULTANT" is granted permission to show to prospective clients reports and
data which have been accepted by "CITY" as prepared under this Agreement.
VI. RIGHT OF TERMINATION
A. "CITY" reserves the right to terminate this Agreement without cause at any
time by giving "CONSULTANT" five (5) business days prior written notice.
Notice shall be deemed served when delivered personally or upon deposit in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the "CONSULTANT's"
business office at 101 Pacifica, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92718.
B. "CONSULTANT" may terminate this Agreement after ten (10) days' written
notice from "CONSULTANT" to "CITY" notifying "CITY" of it's substantial
failure to perform in accord with the terms of this Agreement, if , the "CITY"
has not corrected it's non - performance within that time.
C. In the event of termination due to errors, omissions, or negligence of
"CONSULTANT ", "CITY" shall be relieved of any obligation to compensate
"CONSULTANT" for that portion of work directly affected by such errors,
omissions, or negligence of "CONSULTANT ". If this Agreement is terminated
for any other reason, "CITY" agrees to compensate "CONSULTANT" for the
actual services performed up to the effective date of the "Notice of Termination"
on the basis of the fee schedule contained herein.
VII. SUBCONTRACTORS AND ASSIGNMENT
A. None of the services included in this Agreement shall be assigned, transferred,
contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of "CITY ".
B. Neither "CONSULTANT" nor "CITY" shall assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement, whether by assignment or novation, without the prior written consent
of the other party; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due
"CONSULTANT" from "CITY" under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank,
trust company or other financial institution, or to a trustee in bankruptcy, without
such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be promptly
furnished to "CITY ".
C. In the performance of this "PROJECT ", "CONSULTANT" may utilize the services
of a private surveying firm and geotechnical firm to complete those tasks which
require related professional tasks. Said surveying firm, DMc Engineering, Inc.
and said geotechnical firm, Leighton and Associates, Inc., hereinafter
"SUBCONSULTANT ", shall be directed and compensated by "CONSULTANT"
as if said firm were a direct employee of "CONSULTANT ".
1. Compensation for "SUBCONSULTANT's" services shall not be more than
thirty thousand two hundred ninety nine dollars ($30,299.00) and shall be
paid to in accord with the limits of the "not -to- exceed" fee listed herein below.
No additional compensation shall be made therefor.
VIII. PAYMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE
A. In consideration for the specified services, "CITY" hereby agrees to compensate
"CONSULTANT" on an hourly basis as set forth below in the "PAYMENT &
FEE SCHEDULE ". In no event shall said amount be greater than the amount of
one hundred one thousand five hundred seventeen dollars ($101,517), inclusive
of the subcontract services defined herein, except as otherwise provided for
herein below.
0
B. PAYMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE
personnel
Principal......................................... ...............................
Senior Associate ............................ ...............................
Associate....................................... ...............................
Principal Engineer ........................ ...............................
ProjectManager ............................ ...............................
Senior Engineer ............................. ...............................
ProjectEngineer ........................... ...............................
AssociateEngineer ....................... ...............................
Assistant Engineer ....................... ...............................
Senior Designer /Senior CADD Technician ............
Designer /CADD Technician ...... ...............................
SeniorDraftsman .......................... ...............................
Draftsman...................................... ...............................
EngineeringAid ........................... ...............................
Data or Word Processing ............ ...............................
OfficeSupport ............................... ...............................
Survey Crew (DMc Engineering ) ..............................
9
hourly rates
$110.00
105.00
98.00
98.00
93.00
93.00
85.00
72.00
66.00
66.00
59.00
55.00
49.00
40.00
49.00
40.00
150.00
C. The contract amount shall be paid to "CONSULTANT" in monthly partial
payments based on the amount of hours worked and expenses incurred
during each monthly pay period based on the actual hours of labor expended
as determined by the Project Manager for "CITY ".
D. In addition to the fixed, not -to- exceed fee, "CITY" agrees to reimburse
"CONSULTANT" for the actual cost (plus 10 %) for all outside expenses
including those for: reproduction for copies of plans, reports and related
documents, material costs authorized in advance by the Project Engineer for
"CITY ", and other reasonable expenses, where such costs have been advanced
by "CONSULTANT" and approved in advance by "CITY ".
1. "CONSULTANT" shall provide written records (originals) of all expenses
incurred, and shall report all hours expended in the performance of his duties
and tasks on a monthly basis. "CITY" agrees to pay "CONSULTANT" within
thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt of said records and hourly summary.
2. "CONSULTANT" shall not be compensated for use of "CONSULTANT'S"
equipment, hardware, software materials or reproduction. Said costs are
non - compensable. Time expended by "CONSULTANT'S" personnel on such
equipment shall be paid on the basis of the "FEE SCHEDULE" herein above.
IX. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
No change in character, extent, or duration of the work to be performed by
"CONSULTANT" shall be made without prior written approval from "CITY ". In
consideration for performance of additional services authorized by "CITY" in
writing, "CITY" hereby agrees to compensate "CONSULTANT" an amount based
upon the hourly rate as submitted to "CITY" in the "FEE SCHEDULE ", except that
an increase in the total compensation exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)
shall require that an amended Agreement for such additional services be executed
by the "CONSULTANT" and "CITY ".
0
X. RECORDS
0
"CONSULTANT" shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by "CITY" that relate
to the performance of the services specified under this Agreement. All such
records shall be maintained in accord with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. "CONSULTANT"
shall provide free access to the representatives of "CITY" or its designees at all
proper times upon reasonable notice to "CONSULTANT" to such books and
records, and gives "CITY" the right to examine and audit same, and to make
transcripts therefrom as deemed necessary at "CITY'S" cost, and to allow
inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement.
XI. INSURANCE
A. On or before the date of execution of this Agreement, "CONSULTANT" shall
furnish "CITY" with completed certificates showing the type, amount, class of
operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance
policies. "CONSULTANT" shall use the " CITY's" Insurance Certificate form for
endorsement of all policies of insurance. The certificates do not limit
"CONSULTANT's" indemnification, and also contain substantially the
following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate may not be
canceled, non - renewed, except after thirty (30) days' written notice has been
received by "CITY ". Coverage may not be reduced or otherwise materially
altered without the same advance notice to "CITY" of such alteration.
B. "CONSULTANT" shall maintain in force at all times during the performance
of this Agreement, policies of insurance required by this Agreement; and said
policies of insurance shall be secured from an insurance company assigned
Policyholders' Rating of "B" (or higher) and Financial Size Category "XV" (or
larger) in accord with an industry-wide standard and shall be licensed to do
business in the State of California. However, the minimum rating for the
"CONSULTANT's" Errors & Omissions carrier shall be "B + ", "VIII" or better.
1. An appropriate industry-wide insurance rating standard shall be
deemed "Best's Key Rating Guide ", latest edition.
C. "CONSULTANT" shall maintain the following minimum coverages:
Liability Insurance
General liability coverage shall be provided in the following minimum limits:
Category
Bodily Injury
Property Damage
Amount
$ 1,000,000 each occurrence
$ 1,000,000 aggregate
$ 1,000,000 each occurrence
$ 1,000,000 aggregate
�J
A combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of
$1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits.
Errors & Omissions Insurance
Errors & Omissions coverage shall be provided in the amount of one
million dollars ($1,000,000.00).
D. Subrogation Waiver
In the event of loss or claim of loss due to any of the perils for which it has
agreed to provide general liability insurance, "CONSULTANT' shall look
solely to its insurance for recovery. "CONSULTANT' hereby grants to
"CITY ", on behalf of any general liability insurer providing insurance to
either "CONSULTANT' or "CITY" with respect to the services of
"CONSULTANT", a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such
insurer of said "CONSULTANT' may acquire against "CITY" by virtue of the
payment of any loss under such insurance.
E. Additional Insured
"CITY", its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, servants and
employees shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance policies
required under this Agreement, except Errors & Omissions Insurance. The
naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such
additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such
additional insured; and an additional insured named herein shall not be liable
for any premium or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension
thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required
to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance
provided by this policy. Proceeds from any such policy or policies shall be
payable to "CITY' primarily, and to "CONSULTANT' secondarily, if necessary.
XII. WAIVER
A waiver by "CITY' or "CONSULTANT' of any breach of any term,
covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein whether of the same or different character.
XIII. COST OF LITIGATION
If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for
damages by reason of an alleged breach of any provisions of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the losing party all costs
and expenses in such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable
costs of litigation.
XIV. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind
or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary
negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein.
No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions
hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both "CITY" and "CONSULTANT'.
10
XV. HOLD HARMLESS
"CONSULTANT" shall indemnify and hold harmless, "CITY', its City Council,
boards and commissions, officers, and employees from and against any and
all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses, whatsoever,
including reasonable costs of litigation, arising from "CONSULTANT's"
negligent acts, errors or omissions, in the performance of services hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
on the first date above written:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
jt
Flory
mt City Attorney
n mmr. cm.
City Clerk
Address and Telephone:
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Califomia 92659-8915
(714)644 -3011 (714)646 -5204 (FAX)
11
City of Newport Beach,
a municipal corporation
Clarence Tu Mayor
"CITY..
AKM Consulting Engineers
a California Corporation
'1
Jaime E. Moreno, Vice President
"CONSULTANT"
AKM Consulting Engineers
101 Pacifica, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92718
(714)753-7333 (714)7537320 (FAX)