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 //