Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1992, C-7 - AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE BROAD STREET ANNEXATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. MEETING DATE: ���H���ullullifll�p►�������I city of San 1L OBIspo S -9z COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:/_ FROM• ,/-1�rnold Jonas, Community Development Director; By: Jeff Hoo��Associate Planner SUBJECT: Amendment to consultant service contract for the Broad Street Annexation Environmental Impact Report. CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, amend the Broad Street Annexation EIR contract to allow an additional 30 days for completion of the final EIR, and authorize the Finance Director to transfer $9, 300 to cover the added EIR costs. BACKGROUND Last July Councilmembers approved a contract with John L. Wallace and Associates in the amount of $21,920 for preparation of the Broad Street Annexation EIR and authorized the Community Development Director to execute the contract. In November the consultant submitted the draft EIR which was then distributed for the required 30-day public review. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft on January 15th and 30th. Commissioners had several concerns, and recommended that more information be provided on the annexation's effects on creek habitat, water and sewer capacity, runoff and groundwater recharge, traffic, housing and funding of public improvements (comments attached) . Over 200 public comments were received on the draft EIR. To adequately respond to the number and complexity of issues raised, Mr. Wallace has requested that the City extend the deadline for completing the Final EIR, and that the Council approve additional funding of up to $9, 300 to cover the cost of work outside of the original workscope. DISCUSSION Additional funding is requested for: 1) work done which was outside of the original EIR workscope, and 2) the anticipated costs of responding to public comments. Under the original workscope, the consultant was to update the "Southern California Gas Company Annexation Final EIR" focusing on water and sewer capacity, traffic, and air quality. The consultant provided this information in the updated draft EIR; and also performed additional analysis on traffic, utilities, drainage and air quality. This work clarified environmental impacts, and resulted in a more complete, accurate document. For example, traffic data which the City was to provide from its ����►��►n►��IVlllllllll� q����ll city of san as oi3ispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 2 computer traffic model was not available in time for the EIR, requiring more consultant time than anticipated. $3 , 300 is claimed for the additional work. Planning Commission and public comments on the draft EIR raise issues which, although pertinent, were not required to be evaluated under the contract. These include creek impacts, effectiveness of water retrofitting, public improvement financing and groundwater i recharge. To adequately respond to these issues and to comply with the City's Environmental Guidelines and state law, the consultant requests an additional 30 days and an additional $6, 000. Normally, an EIR contract includes the cost of responding to public comments; however in this case, neither staff nor the consultant anticipated the number or complexity of issues which were subsequently- raised. The additional work is necessary to proceed with the Broad Street Annexation. The time extension and additional funding request appear reasonable, given the amount and complexity of additional work needed to produce the final EIR. This approach will allow the city to stay "on track" with the annexation, targeted for final City Council action this Spring. FISCAL IMPACT Revised EIR cost Original contract amount $21, 920 Requested for additional work completed 31300 Requested for expanded response to comments 61000 Revised Contract amount $31, 220 I Contract payments to date [14, 248] New balance due $16, 972 Funding Source Councilmembers originally appropriated $23 , 720 for the EIR, including printing cost. Funds to cover the additional EIR cost are available in the Economic Stability Program Budget (Page D- 93 , 1991-93 Financial Plan) , which has a current balance of $60,000 (Account No. 001-1028-008-119) . The Broad Street Annexation was specifically identified as a priority project eligible for funding from this program budget. -7-at �1116111► 1111 11111111111 city of San LL , OBIspo Mine COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 Current Funding $23 , 720 Additional funding needed 91300 I TOTAL $33 , 020 ALTERNATIVES 1. Amend the contract to allow 30-day extension to submit the Final EIR, but do not increase the contract amount as requested. ! Staff does not recommend this approach, since it will require the consultant to perform work which was not anticipated in the original contract without additional compensation. Additional funding will allow timely Council action on the annexation, which has been identified as a high priority. Not completing the additional work would render the EIR incomplete and unable to be certified. i 2 . Continue the request with direction to staff or the consultant ! on changes or additional information needed. Attachments: -Letters from John L. Wallace and Associates -Planning Commission comments on Draft EIR Previously transmitted: Broad Street Annexation draft EIR 2-7-A JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS March 3, 1992 RECEIVED MAR 0 51992 Mr. Arnold Jonas, Director MY OF SAN LUIS OINSPo Community Development Department COMWNrtroEVELOPWW City of San Luis Obispo Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 ATTN: Mr. Jeff Hook SUBJECT: Contract Amendment Broad Street Annexation Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Jonas: As recently discussed with City staff concerning the issues related to the comments received on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Broad Street Annexation; we would propose the following additional services for updating and revising the previous draft of the Broad Street Annexation EIR. These changes are primarily related to the number and complexities of comments received on the DEIR and the need to do additional work not contemplated on the original scope of work. These items also reflect further consideration of the Planning Commission's comments with respect to the different issues which were not originally included in our scope of work. Therefore, we would propose the following items: 1. Creek Policies: Review creek policies for an analysis of the annexation impact and discuss the difference between development in the County versus the City for the potential impact on the water quality of the creek. This would not include any water quality testing but would involve an analysis of impact using the predicted coverage of the lots and their discharge to the creek for the type of development contemplated. - 2. Water and Sewer Capacities: The EIR would be rewritten based upon an overall City capacity at this time including the impact due to the retrofit program as determined by current City analysis. 3. Reclamation: We would review and incorporate appropriate items as to the potential impact for the use of reclaimed water. 1458 HIGUERA STREET•SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805) 544-4011 Mr. Arnold Jonas March 2, 1992 Page 2 4. Hiehwav 227: We would review the issues related to the future widening of Highway 227 and the cooperative efforts between CALTRANS, the City, and the County to establish a uniform plan line and the width of roadway section 5. Infrastructure Financing: The EIR will discuss the need for and the options available for infrastructure financing. This is not meant to be a comprehensive financing plan, but rather, a discussion of the options available and a discussion of the City's position as applicant in requiring payment for these improvements. 5. Affordable Housing/Mixed Uses: The EIR would be revised to incorporate more consideration for the affordable housing in accordance with recent City documents, and to include consideration of mixed use zoning within the area. 6. Alternatives: We would clarify alternatives for the "no-project alternative" and incorporate further information from the County of San Luis Obispo regarding the Airport Area Specific Plan. 7. Mitigation Monitoring: Revisions to the mitigation measures would be made in their scope as to future development conditions versus annexation. The document would be revised to limit the specifics as to future development conditions and focus more on the impact due to annexation. We would revise the responses to comments already prepared at this time. 8. Word Processing: The document would be revised to reflect the above changes. 9. Graphics: Graphics would be revised to reflect the above changes. 10. Meetings: Two formal meetings with staff would be held to review the document while it is being revised prior to completion and submittal of a final EIR. We believe this addresses those items we discussed at our February 21, 1992 meeting, and would allow a final EIR (without the need to a DEIR) to be considered by the City Council in proceeding with the annexation process through the City, processing as well as LAFCO. �-r'S Mr. Arnold Jonas March 2, 1992 Page 3 FEES We would estimate the extra cost for the above work to entail approximately 98 hours of engineering and secretarial work. This work would be completed for a lump sum of$6,000.00. SCHEDULE We would complete and submit a camera-ready copy of the final EIR, with corrections as noted above, within 30 days after a notice to proceed from the City. TERMS AND CONDITIONS If this proposal meets with your approval, please have an authorized agent for the City sign where indicated below and return one original to our office to serve as our notice to proceed. The second original is for you to keep for your files. All other terms and conditions of our original agreement would remain in force. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our consulting engineering services. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding our proposed amendment. Sincerely, JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES I ohn L. Wallace Principal Signature 61.07/amendmt Title Date THIS PROPOSAL IS VALID FOR 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DOCUMENT. JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS December 18, 1991 Mr. Arnold Jonas Director of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Attention: Jeff Hbook Subject: Budget for the Broad Street Annexation Environmental Impact Report Project Dear Mr. Jonas: The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Broad Street Annexation project has been submitted to Jeff Hook of your staff for reproduction and distribution. With this phase of the project completed, we have compared below, the original scope of work and its budget with actual work completed and the corresponding charges for this work. A summary of the findings are listed below: Original Budget $21,920.00 Billed and Paid (70% of budget) $15.344.00 Total (not Billed or Paid) $6,575.00 Total Charges accrued through 11/22/91 $29,577.00 Total Original Budget $21,920.00 Total Over Original Budget $7,657.00 When the DEIR was submitted for staff review, the City was billed and processed a payment that brought the City's total payments to $15,344.00. As of yet, neither the remaining $6,756.00 of the original budget nor the $7,657.00 has been addressed in a billing to the City. A review of the Original contract which delineates the scope of work for this project is-helpful in determining extra work that has been performed on this project. An itemized list of extras and their corresponding dollar value for your consideration is as follows: -7-7 1458 HIGUERA STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805)5444011 • FAX(805)5"4294 Mr. Arnold Jonas December 18, 1991 Page Two 1. The Original EIR did not compare Impact to City resources but to resources in general (independent of supplier). Several sections were revised and tables included to give City personnel a clear understanding of the impact that development under City proposed zoning versus County Zoning would have on City services (water, sewer, etc.). Tables 8-2 and 8-3 are examples of this. This was not an update but new work requested by the Community Development Department. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $750.00 2. The contract stipulated that the recently developed traffic computer model, developed by DKS Associates would be utilized to prepare the traffic report for this project. Due to the unavailability of this model, traffic counts and forecasts had to be performed manually. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500.00 3. Drainage was not included in the contract scope of work but was reevaluated at the request of the Community Development Department. The computer program originally utilized for drainage was rerun with a new developed area percentage and for various storm reoccurrence intervals. These new computer runs modified the results slightly and made them more reliable. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $750.00 4. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) utilized Urbemis No. 3 as its computer program to determine air quality impacts for proposed projects. APCD requires that the program be run with its own default values of vehicle trips per acre for each specific zoning category. We ran Urbemis No. 3 with both the required default values in addition to traffic volumes determined from the traffic report with the expectation of obtaining more site specific results. Since air quality is a critical issue in this EIR, having more accurate results seems prudent. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300.00 Mr. Arnold Jonas December 18, .1991 Page Three 5. Two formal meeting wit staff were included in the contract but with volume of information to be discus d reviewed, five meetings were required. '- I Total Extra Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,00.00 In conclusion, we are requesting additional $3,3uu.uu for extra wwk performed that was not included in the contract. The $3,,JD0.00 is only a portion of the $7,657.00 that we have accrued in additional charges at this time. Additionally, as can be seen from the contract payment schedule, only 85% of the work on this project has been completed. Most of the extra work was requested by the City and the rest was included to achieve results that were more accurate than the previous DEIR. It should be noted that in many ways this DEIR more closely resembled a new DEIR than an updated DEIR. We would appreciate your consideration of the request stated above. If further clarification is needed, I would be happy to meet with you so we can reach a mutual understanding on this matter. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, JOHN WALLACE & ASSOCIATES John L. Wallace Principal 061-budbsa 6 47-9 7111 city osAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 January 27, 1992 John Wallace and Associates 1458 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Planning Commission comments on the Broad Street Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Wallace: The Planning Commission reviewed the Broad Street Annexation draft environmental impact report (DEIR) at public hearings on December 11, 1991 and January 15, 1992. As a result of its review and after public testimony, the commission had these comments on the DEIR: 1. The Final EIR (FEIR) should identify the area's creek(s) and evaluate the annexation's effects on water quality, riparian habitat, and consistency with city policies on creeks. Where possible, creeks should be used as focal points in future developments' landscaping. City policy since at least 1974 and the Waterways Planning Board's review of the adjacent Burke industrial subdivision has earmarked the creek traversing the annexation area for preservation. 2. The FEIR should document that the city has adequate water and sewer capacity to accommodate the additional demand resulting from annexation and buildout at urban intensity. Since annexation is premised on the use of on-site water, what happens if after annexation, on-site water proves inadequate? If the City must then provide water service, will it be able to do so without stressing supplies for current city water customers? 3. The feasibility of using (or at least planning for its future use) reclaimed water to offset increased water demand should be discussed in Chapter 8. The City is just now recognizing the possibility of such use and this project should make provisions for tieing into any such use. 4. Since the EIR's conclusions regarding water supply impacts hinge on the City's retrofit program, the FEIR should discuss the program's effectiveness. 5. Discuss the effects of paving large areas of the site on groundwater recharge and on water quality within the annexation area and downstream. Discuss protecting water quality, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. PC Comments, Broad Street Annexation DEIR Page 2 6. Table 2-2, item 8 under Traffic and Circulation notes that a new plan line is being considered and property owners should be notified. The FEIR should evaluate the need for widening State Highway 227 and show conceptually how the widened street section would transition to the narrower street section north of Capitolio Way. 7. The FEIR should identify alternative strategies for financing infrastructure improvements, and discuss possible impacts of annexing the area without requiring full code compliance at time of annexation (eg. deferral of water or sewer hook- ups or of fire sprinkler installation, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and other code requirements). Note that existing property owners would have the improvements deferred, but that new development would meet codes when required to do so. This information should be clearly communicated to the annexation area property owners. 8. Discuss the need for affordable housing to serve new employees in the annexation area and how the need can be met, considering total city needs and supply. The possibility of including mixed uses to include housing could be discussed here. 9. The FOR should discuss the basis for how the City, as applicant, can require the annexation area's property owners to pay for public improvements. Would property owners be able to partially pay costs of improvements rather than pay full costs? Could their be a fair and equitable distribution of costs? This may involve cost sharing with the City paying more than usual and existing property owners paying less than usual. 10. The draft EIR appears to be a "development feasibility study" and must include a more complete, impartial examination of environmental impacts. The "Alternatives" section needs to be clarified and discussed in greater detail, including potentially positive aspects, and the difference in impacts between alternatives. The"no project" alternative should be explained in less "political" terrors. 11. The section(s) which discusses the "environmentally superior alternative" should address environmental issues, not political and development strategy issues. Sincerely, is Barry KBrleskint, Vice-Chairman Planning Commission jh:pccom.wp AV //