HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2011-09-12 #G,� F At
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
�vcq� /PORN \P r
DATE: September 12, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Mark H. Persico, AICP, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT
WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMNETAL IMPACT REPORT FOR DWP
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (NOT TO EXCEED
$29,800)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Staff requests that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6181 approving contract
amendment number one between the City of Seal Beach and RBF Consulting for
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Department of
Water and Power (DWP) Specific Plan Amendment project.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On August 9, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6042 approving a
Professional Services Agreement between the City and RBF for completion of an
Environmental Impact Report for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment. During the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) period and at the Scoping Meeting, the City
received a number of comments related to the previous power plant operation
and potential residual hazardous materials. Following the close of the NOP
comment period on July 6, 2011, staff and the consultant met to consider the
best method of addressing the public's concerns.
Staff concluded that the original scope of work should be expanded to include
additional hazardous materials review and analysis. RBF requested that Dudek
develop an appropriate scope of work based upon public comment and the
previous Phase II work completed by LADWP. Dudek was selected due to the
high marks they received from the community for the remediation work they
completed on the ARCO gas station at 5 and PCH.
Attached is a detailed scope of work for the site. The work will cover the entire
site, both the residential area at the north and the open space /park area at the
south. The field work and much of the analysis will be conducted by Dudek, but
Agenda Item G
RBF will be responsible for incorporating the analysis into the overall
Environmental Impact Report.
All the other original terms, conditions and provisions of the August 9, 2010,
contract shall remain in full force and effect.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
A complete Environmental Impact Report is currently being prepared. This
additional work will be incorporated into the EIR.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed and concurred with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The contract amendment is for an amount not to exceed $29,800. The applicant,
Bay City Partners, has agreed to pay the full cost of the additional work and has
already deposited the funds into the project's reimbursement account.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6181 approving contract amendment
number 1 in an amount not to exceed $29,800.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
k H. Persico, IC
Director of Develo ent Services
1 211
F& Ingram �� . •
Attachments:
A. Resolution No. 6181
B. Contract Amendment No. 1
Page 2
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6181
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH
RBF CONSULTING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves that certain Amendment No. 1 to
the Agreement for the Environmental Services between the City of Seal Beach
and RBF Consulting, not to exceed $29,800 (applicant, Bay City Partners, has
deposited funds into the project's reimbursement account).
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to
execute the amendment on behalf of the City.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6181 on file
in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2011.
City Clerk
r'
Between
City of Seal Beach
211 - 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
0
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 472 -3505
T hi"- mendmea-t -- a .'I-- dated —Septer- r�b 1, 201 -1, amend-s—th-at—eeFtain---
agreement ( "Agreement ") between the City of Seal Beach, a California charter city
( "City ") and RBF Consulting ( "Consultant ") dated August 9, 2010.
RECITALS
A. The City and Consultant entered into the Agreement on August 9, 2010,
under which Consultant has provided environmental review services in relations to the
DWP Specific Plan Amendment.
B. The original Agreement was for $350,655 and didn't include a detailed
hazardous materials review and analysis.
C. The parties wish to amend the original - Agreement to include a detailed
hazardous materials review and analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual
covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the original
Agreement as follows:
1. The original Scope of Services shall be amended to provide a hazardous
materials review and analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The additional scope of services and additional compensation is shown in the
attached Exhibit "A ".
3. " All other terms, conditions and provisions of the August 9, 2010, Professional
Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREO , the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized
representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above
written.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Attest:
LIM
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
Linda Devine, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:
Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
By:
Name Michael J. B
Its: Executive Vice Pr esident
By : ���
Name Glenn Laj oie r
Its: Vice President
Exhibit A
Additional Scope of Work and
Additional Compensation
JN
Request No.
Date:
10- 107353
1
August 1, 2011
ADDITIONAL WORK REQUEST SUMMARY
Client: City of Seal Beach
Work Requested By: Mr. Mark Persico, City of Seal Beach
Summary of Additional Work:
Based upon public comments and input during the Initial Study /Notice of Preparation scoping
process, RBF Consulting has requested that Dudek review past documentation for. the project
site and prepare a proposal to conduct a Limited Subsurface Investigation. This limited
sampling scope is intended to supplement the previous investigations and is not intended to be
a thorough investigation on its own. The previous documents include a 1987 asbestos sampling
and clean up report and a 2000 Phase Il Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The 2000
Phase 11 ESA included soil sampling for asbestos, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and
pesticides /PCBs.
The two prior reports indicate the following:
Asbestos was detected in the soil in several areas of the site in 1987. More than 3,500
cubic yards of asbestos- contaminated soil was removed from the site in 1987. The
Orange County Health Care Agency granted no further action for the asbestos
contamination in 1987. Additional asbestos sampling was conducted in 2000; asbestos
was only detected in three samples and none of the site samples contained greater than
one percent asbestos. In all, more than 375 samples were collected from the site and
analyzed for asbestos.
TPH was detected in three soil samples at a concentration greater than 1,000 mg /kg.
TPH was detected in 32 samples at a concentration greater than 100 mg /kg. The TPH
samples were analyzed by EPA Method 418.1, which is not appropriate for determining
the carbon range of the petroleum compounds detected.
No SVOCs or VOCs were detected in the site soil samples.
Arsenic was detected at concentrations up to 20 mg /kg The arsenic was determined to
Weapons Station.
on
• Four groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides /PCBs, and
metals. No VOCs or SVOCs were detected in the groundwater samples. One pesticide,
heptachlor, was detected in all four groundwater samples; however, it was not detected
in any of the soil samples at the site. Therefore, the report stated that it is likely that the
heptachlor did not originate on -site.
Based on review of the prior reports, Dudek recommends the following sampling scope:
• Asbestos sampling: Dudek recommends collection of soil samples from approximately
0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) from 15 locations. The 15 sample locations will be
spaced throughout the site. This sampling is intended to act as confirmation sampling
and to confirm the mostly non - detect sample data from 2000.
• Soil vapor sampling: Dudek recommends collection of soil vapor samples for VOC
analysis. Soil vapor sampling is better site screening tool than soil sampling (for VOC
analysis). Dudek collect approximately 15 soil vapor samples from 5 feet bgs from
across the site. The soil vapor samples will be analyzed on -site using a mobile
laboratory. Sampling for VOCs is recommended in the California Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank (LUFT) Manual.
• Soil sampling: Soil samples will be collected from the 15 boring locations. The soil
samples will be collected from approximately 1 feet bgs and will be analyzed for the
priority pollutant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sampling for PAHs is
recommended in the California LUFT Manual.
• Groundwater sampling: Dudek recommends collection of groundwater samples from
temporary hydropunch wells from four locations at the site, to supplement the data
collected in 2000. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs and PAHs.
Task 1 — Pre - Sampling Scope
Dudek will prepare a work plan to perform a Subsurface Investigation at the site. The work plan
will include pre -field activities, a site - specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP), and a work plan for
sampling approach and methodology.
The pre -field activities include the preparation of a site - specific HSP, contractor coordination,
and utility clearance. Dudek will mark out the proposed sample locations and contact
Underground Service Alert a minimum of 2 working days prior to the start of drilling activities. A
private utility locator will be contracted to identify underground utilities at the site.
Task 2 — Sampling Scope
Samples will be collected as discussed above. Subsurface samples will be collected using a
geoprobe push rig. Samples collected using the geoprobe push rig will be collected in acetate
sleeves. The geoprobe rig will also be used to advance borings to groundwater; temporary PVC
casing will be placed in the borings and a bailer will be used to collect groundwater samples.
Soil samples for asbestos, PAHs (EPA Method 8270) and TPH (EPA Method 8015M) and
g1VUI1UVVdLVj SGI111jJ1Ub.WE11 VC. AGIll lV liGIAGIGIIGC CIIVIIVIIIIICIILQI LGtUVIaIVIIGA, 11R'. IVI Q11Q1yola.
Soil vapor samples will be analyzed in the field by EPA Method 8260B using a mobile
laboratory.
Dudek assumes that groundwater will be encountered at approximately 10 feet bgs at the site.
Dudek also assumes that access to the site will be readily available. Lastly, Dudek assumes
that the geoprobe rig will not encounter refusal in the subsurface at the site.
The costs include the disposal of one drum of investigation - derived waste, which is assumed to
be non - hazardous. Additionally, the costs include rental of a photo- ionization detector for health
and safety purposes. Dudek assumes that Level D personal protective equipment will be
required. The costs also include permit fees for the 4 temporary groundwater wells.
Task 3 — Data Review and Reporting
Following receipt of the analytical data, Dudek will compare the data to appropriate thresholds,
such as California Human Health Screening Levels. Dudek will produce a Limited Subsurface
Investigation report presenting the data and summarizing the findings. The report will be
submitted to the Client for review prior to finalization. Dudek will spend up to two hours to
address Client comments.
Task 4 -- Hazardous Materials EIR Section
Based on the previous site documentation, and the report provided by Dudek, RBF will discuss
the findings, opinions, and conclusions within a Hazards /hazardous materials section in the
Environmental Impact Report. This Task does not include a additional site inspection,
interviews, review of public records beyond what is outlines in Tasks 1 through 3 above.
Schedule and Estimated Cost
The draft Dudek report will be available for review approximately 11 weeks following receipt of
notice to proceed. The schedule is broken down as follows:
o Approximately 2.5 weeks to prepare subsurface investigation work plan
o Field work conducted approximately 3 -4 weeks following completion of final work plan
(pending drilling subcontractor availability)
o Receipt of data approximately 2 weeks following field work
o Draft report completed approximately 3 weeks following receipt of data
Task 4 can be completed within one week of receiving the Dudek report.
Estimated Fee for Additional Work: $29,772
Prepared By: Eddie Torres, RBF Consulting
Authorized By: