HomeMy WebLinkAboutContracts & Agreements_79-2005_CCv0001.pdf THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO FURNISH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
This Third Amendment to Agreement is made and entered into this 3rd day of May 2005,
by and between the City of Redlands, a municipal corporation ("City") and Michael Brandman
Associates ("Consultant").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2003, the City and Consultant entered into an agreement
entitled "Agreement for the Provision of Professional Environmental Consulting Services" (the
"Agreement") which described the scope of work which Consultant would undertake for City for
the total compensation of$127,000 in connection with the necessary environmental review for
General Plan Amendment No. 93, Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 100, Zone Change No.
390, and Tentative Tract No. 16361, and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2004, the City and Consultant amended the Agreement to
increase the compensation to be paid by City to Consultant by the amount of$29,060.00 for a
total compensation of$156,060, and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the City and Consultant amended the Agreement to
increase the compensation to be paid by City to Consultant by the amount of$15,500.00 for a
total compensation of$171,560, and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that additional work is required to amend the Scope
of Work for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to incorporate additional work that has
exceeded the previously authorized scope of work due to extensive comments on the Draft EIR,
prolonged delays, additional meetings, additional geotechnical work, expanded EIR discussions
and extended work associated with project management,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the City of
Redlands and Michael Brandman and Associates hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Section 4.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the
compensation to be paid by City to Consultant by the amount of $39,480,00 for a total
compensation of$211,040.00 including the amount expended in the original contract approved
August 5, 2003, and amended January 6, 2004 and December 21, 2004,
Section 2. Exhibit "A" of the Agreement which describes the extent of Consultant's
Services is hereby amended to include revisions to the EIR to reflect the revisions, the details of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
CITY F RE
DLAND ATTEST:
us Peppier ...........
M Lorrie Poyzer7(5�4
Mayor of the City of Redlands fi City Clerk
ASSOT
MIC
RANDM!,kN I A YS
V �A
/14
as J, M
Regional Manager of Michael Brandman &Associates
S:\CHRISTINE\PROJECTS10629-7 TTM163611ADMIN\AUGMENTSkMAJOR CONTRACT AUGMENT 2005APR26,DOC
MOEN
MENE
Michael Brandman Associates P
E\1'Ik(1'�:�1P,:�T,��F.h f .E.
April 11, 2005
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Asher Hartel
City of Redlands
Planning Department
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Redlands, CA 92373-1505
Subject: Request for an Amendment to the Scope of Work/Budget Augment for the
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for Tentative Tract 16361
Dear Mr. Hartel:
Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is requesting an Amendment to the Scope of Work and Budget
Augment for our preparation of the EIR for Tentative Tract 16361 (commonly referred to as the
Covington project).
The work needed on this project will greatly exceed that of the authorized Scope of Work, due to
extensive comments on the Draft EIR,prolonged delays in the project, and other reasons which are
further explained in the attached document. The total budget augment requested is $39,480.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this request.
Sincerely,
Christine Jacobs Donoghue V
Project Manager F
Michael Brandman Associates ? _r. AN 1 �'
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
r. i
Attachment
CJD:sep
N:,C4ent%0629W07Apr2(I()5I 1 cover itr.doc
cc: John Jaquess
621 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 100, San Bernardino. CA 92=408 900 . 884 . _'255 FAx 909 . 88.4 . 2113
Orange County Bav Area Kern Count}
714.508.4100 925.830.2733 001,334.27 55
www.bmndman.com EMAIL,mbaWbrandman.com
Basis for Budget Augment
CYof RedlandsCEQA Compliance for rr16361
Basis for Budget Augment/ Amendment to Scope of Work
Additional Costs Due to Time Delays
The environmental review process conducted by Michael Brandman Associates(MBA)was scheduled to
take 9 months to complete; however, 12 months is a reasonable schedule for an Environmental Impact
Report(EIR). The review process project began in August 2003 and it is now estimated to be completed
by May 2005, a total of 17 months,which is over 10 months behind schedule. The most relevant reasons
for the delays are as follows:
• The primary reason for the extended project schedule has been extensive geotechnical work
required for the project. MBA's geologists found the work by the applicant to be insufficient to
support the environmental review. It took a long period of time to resolve what additional work
was needed, and than to conduct the additional investigations. This issue resulting in a delay of
approximately 6 months.
• Another factor contributing to the delay was the large volume of comments received on the
project which required detailed written response. The Response to Comments includes
approximately 112 pages of comment letters and 125 pages of text in written response to the
comments made on the EIR. The volume of the comments resulted in a delay of about 6 weeks,
• Additional delays resulted from substantial wait periods on information needed from the project
applicant throughout the environmental process.
A delay in project schedule of this magnitude extends the project into new fiscal years not anticipated in
the original budget in terms of the inflation of project costs, staff salaries and subconsultant rates
(approximately 5%per year). Accordingly, a budget augment is requested to address costs associated
with extended project management,and to account for inflation for those tasks which extend beyond the
original project schedule. Time delay/inflation expenses will be specifically identified herein. Although
the delay has been 10 months, costs resulting from only 7 months are sought based on the reasonable
timeframe of I year for an EIR.
The inflation cost for each task affected by inflation is identified below:
Draft EIR $207
RTC/Final 300
MM? 73
Findings 82
Public Meetings/Hearings 233
NOD 15
Staff Meetings 225
PM —155
Total $1,390
Michael Brandman Associates
HACItent%0629000-AProposed Augment 05Apr6.doc
Basis for Budget Augment City of Redlands
CEOA Compliance for 7T16361
A delay in project schedule of this magnitude also requires extended project management time to manage
the work effort, schedule, budget, billings and planned staff allocation over the additional time(see
Project Management heading later in this document).
Response to Comments/Final EIR
The scope of work and budget provided for 80 hours of MBA professional staff time to address written
comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. As indicated above, the amount of
comments were voluminous, requiring over 125 pages of written text in response. MBA also required
inputs from Applicant's subconsultants(engineers,hydrologists, geologists), which required extensive
unanticipated coordination by MBA. Inputs had to be requested numerous of times, and initial
information provided was often unresponsive to the subject issue needing to be addressed. This effort
was time consuming, and also resulted in the need to prepare an additional administrative draft of the
response to comments document in order to achieve progress on the document and project schedule.
Subconsultant time was also needed to address comments and review applicant inputs.
Finally, the project Applicant made a number of changes to the project which required additional
revisions to the response to comments and the Final EIR, including a comprehensive revision to the traffic
section of the EIR.
The resulting work effort has required approximately 260 hours of professional staff time.
A budget augment of$19,230 is requested to address this effort.
Findings of Fact
The scope and budget provides for 25 hours of professional staff time for the preparation of
environmental findings and statement-of overriding considerations. MBA's standard findings provide a
brief introduction,and findings on the potentially significant impacts, as well as a statement of overriding
considerations. Based on the large degree of public opposition, and the recent rigorous reliance of courts
on a project's environmental findings,MBA determined that it would be prudent to prepare more rigorous
environmental findings that would be useful in the event of a court challenge. Specifically, the more
rigorous document includes findings on the following additional items. Less than Significant Impacts,
Growth-Inducing Impacts,Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Irreversible Impacts, and Alternatives to the
Proposed Project. In addition,the document provides additional context specific to California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)for discussion of these items. An administrative draft of these
findings has been submitted; however,extensive revision is still anticipated, so that the projected total-
hour requirement for this work is 75 hours.
A budget augment of$5,500 is requested to address this effort.
Project Meetings
The scope of work provides for five(5)meetings with City Staff on the project. More than seven(7)
meetings have been held to resolve environmental issues on the project.
The scope of work also provides for limited attendance by subeonsultant at staff meetings or public
hearings. At least three(3)have included the attendance of technical experts (geology and traffic). In
addition, upcoming public hearings require attendance by technical experts in three areas(traffic,biology
and cultural resources) is required in addition to the project manager and project director.
An augment is requested to ensure funding of professional staff for the public hearings. Additional
meeting preparation time is also requested for technical experts to coordinate materials needed at the
Michael Brandman Associates
N.lchentO629OW-AProposed Augment 05Apr6.doc
Basis for Budget Augment City of Redlands
CEQA Compliance for 7776361
hearing(cultural), and to review the revised traffic study prepared the applicant's traffic consultant for
sufficiency, and to be properly prepared for the public hearing(traffic).
A budget augment of$7,200 for public meetings is requested to address this effort.
Project Management
Approximately 8 hours of project management per month is required for a project of this size. The
project has experienced an approximately 7-month delay resulting in the need for continued project
management during this time, including work load allocations,revised schedules, budget, billings and
other coordination/management. Approximately 56 additional hours of work will be incurred as a result
of delays.
A budget augment of$6,160 is requested to address this effort.
Summary of Additional Costs
Item Additional Cost
Draft EIR $ 207
RTC/Final EIR 19,530
MM? 73
Findings 5,582
Public Meetings/Hearings 7,433
NOD 15
Staff Meetings 225
PM 6,415
Total Augment Requested $39,480
Michael Brandman Associates
H:kCfient\06290007\Pr,oposed Augment%Apffi.doc 3