Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Email from Robert GoldbergGloria Harper From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 12:12 PM To: Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Joe Kalmick Cc: Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Steve Myrter, Patrick Gallegos; Charles M. Kelly, Jeannette Andruss Subject: Questions and Comments for Monday Night's Open Session Attachments: Pool.Westberg+White.pdf, Pool.Griffin Structures.pdf, 1.13.20.Questions.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council and Staff, Please find my attached my comments and questions and referenced supporting documents for Monday's open session meeting. Thank you for your consideration and service, Robert Goldberg Questions & Comments for 1/13/20 (Open Session) from Robert Goldberg Item B: Demand on Treasury (Warrants) Page 12- Check #13722 for $5484 and Page 24- Check #13831 for $2265 to OfficeTeam for temporary staffing services (an Administrative Assistant at $29.00/hr, and an Executive Assistant at $35.95/hr per PRA 19-465). These recent warrants represent the 15th and 16th payments to OfficeTeam since June 2019. The total paid through December 19th is now $40,381. Check # Check Date Amount Check # Check Date Amount 11407 6/20/2019 $1,160 13026 10/17/2019 $3,231 11718 7/11/2019 $1,160 13136 10/31/2019 $3,222 12195 8/18/2019 $2,976 13292 11/7/2019 $2,088 12325 8/22/2019 $2,889 13362 11/14/2019 $1,366 12388 8/29/2019 $2,233 13457 11/21/2019 $1,375 12716 9/26/2019 $3,344 13555 11/27/2019 $2,472 12871 10/3/2019 $3,677 13722 12/12/2019 $5,484 12948 10/10/2019 $1,438 13831 12/19/2019 $2,266 Total Paid to Date $40,381 Contracting with OfficeTeam has never been presented to Council for approval, and expenditures have now far exceeded staff's spending authority of $33,970. This unauthorized "acquisition of ...labor" directly violates Charter Section 420 which reads in part: SECTION 420. Contracts. Execution. The City shall not be bound by any contract, except as hereinafter provided, unless the same shall be made in writing, approved by the City Council... By ordinance or resolution the City Council may authorize the City Manager to bind the City, with or without a written contract, for the acquisition of equipment, materials, supplies, labor, services or other items included within the budget approved by the City Council, and may impose a monetary limit {currently $33,970) upon such authority. For the December 9th Council meeting, I submitted a historical analysis of current and past warrants revealing similar ongoing violations of this Charter section involving GTT Communications, Metropolitan Telecommunications, Verizon Wireless, and Fieldman, Rolapp,& Associates (financial consulting). I once again urge the Council to demand that Section 420 of the Charter be followed by staff. To do otherwise is to continue abrogating the Council's control over spending. This control can be reasserted by taking the following three actions: 1) Pull Item 8 from the Consent Calendar 2) Pass a motion to not "approve" Checks #13722 and 13831-- While this action will not result in any refund of money paid, formal non -approval by Council is the mechanism by which the Council can officially avoid validating staff's violation of the Charter. To wit, the Council has been told in the past that the listing of warrants on the agenda is not just for informational purposes, but rather for the Council to officially "approve" them. The Council should exercise its oversight authority and not approve these two warrants. 3) Direct staff to cease the use of temporary staffing services from Office Team until such time as a contract is approved by Council. Page 13, Check #13734 for $13,210.72 to Richards, Watson, & Gershon. There is a line charge of $5,184 for "Adv Bay City Partners." Bay City Partners is the former owner of the DWP property. Is this legal work and charge related to the DWP property? If so, it should be paid by the Successor Agency rather than the General Fund. In a 2016 email to Councilman Miller, staff stated that "The DWP legal fees are no longer being reimbursed (by the Bay City Partners} because at the time of the approvals of the project when Bay City offered the park for free (instead of $1.1 million), the City Council, in its capacity as the RDA, agreed that it would use redevelopment funds for the RDA's (and Successor Agency's) own legal fees, provided the State did not object to such use for a former redevelopment project. To date, the State has not objected." Item H: Communitv Pool Worksho In August 2019, staff awarded Griffin Structures Inc. a one-year $32,750 contract for work related to the future swimming pool (see attached contract and check #13734 on page 23 for $8,951). The Scope of Services included three areas: Project Feasibility Outreach, Lease Negotiations, and Preliminary Site Investigation Coordination. The first area, Project Feasibility Outreach, appears to be the major focus of the contract. The purpose of this effort is to "reach out to the community to ascertain whether or not the community at large is in support of this project given the cost, time and resources a project of this magnitude will consume." Griffin will use "high-level design information and assumptions" to estimate total project costs. This will be followed by three public discussion sessions. The scope of work in the Griffin contact seems to be very similar to that of our ongoing $239,000 contract with Westberg +White Inc. (see attached) that was awarded in September 2014. You may recall that W+W held an extensive series of community outreach meetings in 2015 which narrowed the potential sites down to McGaugh and the Navy base. W+W also concluded that the public preferred a "community -sized" pool appropriate for local recreational programming, rather than an Olympic -sized pool to accommodate regional competitive events. Additional tasks listed in the 2014 contract included site analysis (acreage, soils, zoning, environmental), an analysis of potential aquatic center cost of operation vs. revenues, three possible conceptual site plans and pool designs (with cost estimates), and finally, preparation of an EIR if necessary. I believe the last payment to W+W was made in January 2019, and that we have only spent about $84,000 of the $239,000 originally budgeted. The remaining funds are in the FY 19-20 budget by virtue of a "roll-over purchase order," and the 2014 contract has no expiration date. Is it staff's intention to no longer use Westberg +White, or is Griffin providing supplemental services beyond the capacity of Westberg +White? Please explain. • 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Westberg + White, Inc. 1775 Hancock St., Ste. 120 San Diego, CA 92110 619-542-1188 This Professional Service Agreement (`tre Agreement') is made as of, Seatember 8. Nz �, 20 4_ (the "Effective Date"), by and between Westberg + White, Inc. ("Consultant"), a California Corporation, and the City of Seal Beach ("City"), a California charter city, Z3s� `t3" (collectively, "the Parties"). • RECITALS A. City desires certain professional services. B. Consultant represents that it is qualified and able to provide City with such services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Consultant shall provide those services ("Services") set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated by this reference To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state. and local law. 1.4. Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manger may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to $28,850. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term This term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and sha' continue until all tasks identified in the scope of service are completed or unless previously terminated as provided by this Agreement. 3.0 Consultant's Compensation City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee scheduie set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will the City pay more than $238,930.00. Any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Section 1 4 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B 2of9 City of Seal Beach EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK NARRATIVE Task t,- Public Participation Process and Anal yAls The City of Seal Beach has stated that they are seeking "creative methods and tools to successfully accomplish a comprehensive community wide outreach program to obtain participation from residents in establishing the ranking of multiple sites and determining if a 30 or 50 meter sized pool is most desirable." Our Team, with Community Change Partners leading this phase will begin by creating a demographic profile of a community surrounding a potential project which we have already completed and has been included in this proposal Information was gamered from census data as well as from site visits. To begin the community outreach process, elected officials, key stakeholders, community and business groups, non -profits, schools and other community institutions are identified and a database compiled. Interfacing with the City of Seal Beach elected representatives and City departments and staff will be an important component of outreach efforts to understand their needs and desires for the project at the outset and keep them in the communication loop as the community engagement process proceeds To engage the entire community of Seal Beach and pool users to identify locations for a new aquatics center and then to give feedback and input on design features, we would do initial PR, media and outreach about the effort (developing a name for the campaign/effort) and create 4 -fun kick-off event for the commuriit-. The kick-off event would be similar to a community fair with food_ and fun activities to provide feedback on locations and des%e7 features for the new aquatics facility. As part of the event, we -wouldcite a_citywide scavenger hunt to have people go to various parts of the city to identify sites acid get points which can be redeemed for prizes. We will prepare site recommendation forms to be used and provide cameras to take pictures of sites_ After the event, we will have a window of time for people to submit additional sites for consideration. We will also do our own reconnaissance and work with local real estate agents and city planning and recreation staff to identify appropnate sites Once we have compiled a list of appropriate sites and the feasibility analysis phase has begun, we will begin engaging the community around the various sites. We will conduct individual meetings with key stakeholders, small group meetings and go door to door to talk with those immediately adjacent to the sites to understand their needs and concerns. We feel that this develops mutual respect and trust with key stakeholders that will ensure a smoother process in the long run. At this stage we will be talking with people about site issues and design features desired We will also conduct outreach at the existing pool facility to understand the needs and concerns of current pool users and seek input from potential users, such as those interested in water polo and competition swim meets to understand their requirements We will create a consensus building decision process to decide on a site once the feasibility analysis is completed and pros and cons of each site enumerated. We will use on-line polling tools for people to rank their preference of sites. While the site selection process is occurring, we will provide the architect with input from the community on design features to begin creating conceptual ideas for the aquatics center. Once a site is selected, we will work closely with the surrounding neighborhood to address any concerns they have involving them in the process to gain buy -in Having effectively engaged the greater community through small group or individual meetings, workshops and door-to-door outreach, we are better able to prepare a design that incorporates stakeholder needs and concerns from the outset, allowing for a more respectful dialogue, more being accomplished at meetings and workshops and more meaningful input being provided. A write-up is completed for all meetings and outreach efforts, providing the client, architect and planners with information that will be needed to design or modify the project. There will be a back and forth iterative process with the desrgr, team and stakeholders Formats can include public meetings. workshops, on-line public meeting tools, focus groups, and surveys. Ongoing communication with the surrounding neighborhood(s) and interested stakeholders is critical throughout the process, from conceptuaiization to project completion. We foresee using various means to communicate with the Seal Beach community which could include- emailing updates, creating a Facebook page, creating a website, and using MindM xer, an on-line public engagement tool However, even when providing electronic updates, in person update meetings and phone calls are very effective in creating a personal connection that people appreciate, We will work with the schools and libraries to help people provide input who do not have access to a computer. In addition, we believe that through an engagement process for a community facilities project, such as this one, there is an opportunity to create a sense of community not found in all neighborhoods, which will enhance the project and its constituents, customers and stakeholders for the long-term. This can be accomplished through special activities and events specifically designed to bring people together around the project in a fun and relevant way such as described for the kick-off event. We have broad experience in developing ideas for activities and events and implementing them. Task 2 - Site Selection Recommendation We understand that we will be required use our professional expertise and analysis to recommend the most practical site to locate a multi -generational community aquatic center within the City limits based upon location, costs and design. Selecting the most appropriate and practical site is an important and vital consideration for this project. The location, size, shape, orientation, access, views, surrounding neighbors, geology, water table, hazardous material and drainage among others will greatly influence the site selection and affect the program master plan. Our approach is to develop the community aquatic program and master plan and select the site based upon the interrelationships of the program that was developed through the public participation process. Once a preliminary program is developed that conceptually illustrates the present and future needs of the community aquatic center we should begin the site selection process Because the perfect site may not be able to be located that meets all the criteria of the program, we'll need to set priorities for the site selection and be prepared to make compromises. After walking the potential sites with the site selection committee, we should consider selecting three (3) sites and ranking the sites based on the Feasibility Analysis. Successful real estate feasibility analysis must be based on community input and the results of the public participation process to define the program and relevant factors to consider when ranking sites. All feasibility starts with "highest and best use" for each property - uses that are physically feasible, legally permissible, and financially optimal - but selecting the best site for a community recreational amenity has to consider a wide range of additional measures including accessibility, impacts on nearby uses, and the ability to mitigate those impacts. James Suhr & Associates (JSA) will prepare a feasibility study for the proposed Seal Beach Community Aquatics Center, as part of the Westberg + White team, which builds on the community outreach results to be generated by team member Community Change Partners. Among the many factors to be used to rank potential sites, community suitability and community accessibility will be heavily weighted so that the process does not generate unviable site selections Jim Suhr, principal of JSA, holds a California broker's license, and will work with City staff closely on the selection of the recommended site(s) and negotiation with property owners for site acquisitions Suhr has 30 years of experience as a developer and consultant in Southern California real estate markets, with particular expertise on site due diligence, feasibility, and acquisitions. As noted in the RFP, the real estate market in Seal Beach is very tight - few sites are available at any point in time, and huge portions of the City are subject to significant constraints (Naval Weapons Stat on. National Wildlife Refuge Leisure World) placing much of the jurisdiction out of reach. Not withstanding the difficulty, we should keep the Navy and Wildlife Refuge at the discussion table JSA will work with City staff and the local brokerage community to identity any/an available properties, as well as using adaptive reuse and redevelopment creativity to identify additional potential sites that are off -market. City staff and the selected team will need to explore shared -use alternatives with existing facilities to create as large a list of potential sites for consideration. Potential sites for the Seal Beach Community Aquatics Center would be evaluated using the following preliminary matrix/weighting system. Each site will be scored using a 0-5 scale for each factor, other than estimated cost categories, and then each category subtotal score will be adjusted by the weighting factor shown below to arrive at the overall weighted score for each candidate property Site size adequate for use Site existing improvements Existing/newparking adequate for use Environmental condition foruse Soils/Water Table condition for use Permitted use by existing zoning Ability to satisfy all code req'ts CommuniySuftailift?(50%ojWoo I I 1 I — pedestrian/bike — transit —private vehicle No impacts on adjoininguses Adjoininguses favor Aquatics Center Financial Feasibility (30 % Estimated acquisition cost (relative to lowest S) Estimated site prep cost (relative to lowest $) j Overall WelahtedScore This evaluation process will result in a ranked list of potential Aquatics Center sites, factoring in the community outreach and stakeholder input responses gathered by the team, which will serve to guide City staff and JSA in subsequent real estate negotiations We understand that we will be expected to provide a detailed analysis of the site being recommended. This analysis will include but not limited to the following features: acreage, surrounding land uses, soil types, environmental issues, historic uses, floodplains, drainage and coning The process that will be used for our analysis is illustrated in Task 2 - Site Selection Recommendation Seal Beach has many amenities including 25 parks or community facilities, including the beach The existing aquatics center is located or the campus of McGaugt, Elementary School. The City runs a robust aquatics program, which includes lap swirrming aquasize classes, swim team, recreational swim, swim ;essons, and a summer swim program. At the current site, the swim team cannot hest competitions and the pool cannot support a water polo program which is desired by many. There are two pools currently the large pool with 6 lanes for lap swimming and an area called "the widths' for people to lounge and water walk There is an adjacent small shallow pool that does not get much use most of the year It is used during the summer months for recreational swimming or for games as a reward after swim lessons During the summer months, the pool complex can be rented out for pool parties. Pool users include the local residential community in Seal Beach and surrounding areas of all ages and people who work it Seal Beach There are only a few people that come from Leisure World since they have multiple pools within their complex. In getting a preliminary sense of the interests from those currently using the pool, we learned that people would like a pool that will allow for competition swim meets and water polo matches. The people we spoke with said that a fountain area or splash pao would be fun for young kids and get more use than the shallow pool. Current pool users would like to see a 50 meter pool that would allow for 8 lanes for lap swimming. When shown the photo of Sp ash La Mirada Regiona: Aquatics Center, people were very excited with the prospect of having a similar facility in Seal Beach The people we spoke with thought that a larger pool complex would be quickly flled with activities and become well -used. They also thought that such a destination facility would generate more income from pool parties, activities and usage fees to help maintain the multi -generational facility We heard from stakeholders that a few years ago the City considered locating the new aquatics center at the vacant site along First Street north of Central Avenue adjacent to Marina Park and Community Center We were told that the project was shelved because the Marina neighborhood did not want a larger pool facility in that location fearing noise and traffic that would lower the value of their properties We also understand that this site is contamirated and would have to be cleaned or sealed if the aquatics center were to be located there Given that this site is one of the few vacant properties of a substantial sve in the city, the site will most likely oe analyzed in the feasibility study The issues previously raised by the Marina neighborhood will have to be addressed in the public outreach and engagement process and environmental review process BRG Consulting Inc (BRG) will assist the Team during the identification of alternative sites by providing an ongoing Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis of the potential candidate sites and surrounding areas. BRG will focus on opportunities to maximize existing environmental values of the protect areas and avoid potential adverse impacts on s.gnificant environmental and community resources at the candidate sites. A guide to this environmental evaluation will be the Mandatory Significance Findings in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Gu.delmes One of the goals of this environmental planning component of the site selection process s to avoid significant environmental impacts and thereby simp!ify the CEQA document required for the project Tae" d — Activity and Anuatic Center Anal AJA We will identify the community programming and aquatic center needs for the site that was developed in Task 1 Task 2 and Task ; in addition to the aquatic certer' s physical analysis we will also provide a Financial Impact Study that will be developed as an opinion of the facility financial performance and an opinion of suggested operations for the planned facility. The study wJ include the following elements. 1 Economic Impact This part of the study will incorporate an analysis of the economic impact of the facility to the City. In this segment of the study the following will be researched, analyzed and reported a Demographic research will be completed to appropriately evaluate the Error[ Unknown document property name. proposed facility Analysis will include population and age distribution, income, weather analysis, and local economic considerations that could affect the project's viability An opinion of probable expenses will be developed and it will include demands on labor, contract services, supplies, utilities, maintenance, and funds needed for future repair. An opinion of revenue will be developed. Market area demographics for population, age, and income will be analyzed to understand the economics of the region and the level of discretionary income that may be used for leisure and competitive aquatic activity. Revenue projections will be derived from the likely market penetration, special user groups through creative programming, and the potential of income The analysis may include a study of the influence of the tourism This analysis will incorporate an opinion of attendance and offer recommendations of a compeUtive fee structure for all facilities. 2. Operational Impact This part of the study incorporates an analysis of the operational impact of the facility to the City In this segment of the study the following will be researched, analyzed and reported a A facility management outline will be completed that includes a facility operating schedule, facility capacity limits, organization chart, job descriptions, and a wage structure for all employees. b. Area aquatic user groups will be identified to determine organizations that will contribute to filling available capacity in the facility c A marketing program will be prepared to aid in creatively promoting the facility once the project is completed. We will recommend to the City the most feasible site based upon the public participation's desire location, costs, facility needs and design. Our recommendation will account for the program needs that were developed through public participation along with necessary support facilities This recommendation, which is the product of our analysis of Tasks 1 through a will include Preparation and submittal of an outline of the Design Program of spaces and features for the proposed aquatic center describing the natatorium, pool size. shape and support spaces based on preliminary discussions and meetings noted above. Based on the meetings and committees review of the outline program, develop with the you a Design Program for the building with recommendations on the size and shape of the pools? as well as architectural and engineering features of the building and support spaces Make a final oresentation to the project committee outlining the methods and results of the study We will provide conceptual site plan, plans and elevations for the aquatic center that incorporates the needs of the entire community and the program as developed and prioritized during the public participation and Tasks 1 through 5. The conceptual plans that we will present will be the Vision, Translation and Implementation of the Program balancing the needs as follows A. Based on the agreed upon program, we will prepare three concepts. Typically these concepts consist of an ideal, preferred and minimum acceptable. The ideal concept includes areas of programming without taking into account budget considerations The preferred facility supports the design program with costs to meet the proposed budget The minimum acceptable concept is a facility that will be considered if the project experiences limited funding. Through our experience site planning a number of these types of facilities, Westberg + White and Counsilman-Hunsaker have learned that it is important to provide separate areas for the competitive swim users and recreational users. The competitive users will require a large amount of deck space for staging, as there are many swimmers but few in the water at the same time. The recreational users are best served by thinking of the facility in three areas with corresponding water depths - Tots - Characterized by 0" to 12" Deep Water Family - Characterized by 0" to T-6" Deep Water Teen/Adult - Characterized by 3'-6' to 12'-6' Deep Water As an example at Splash! at La Mirada Aquatic Park, we creatively separated the competitive and recreational users Each designated user had their own bathhouse and separate and independent heating and filtration systems. For instance during the cooler periods of the year the less used recreational pools' mechanical and plumbing systems and bathhouse were shut down to save energy and maintenance costs. The competitive side remained usable and operational. B We will provide a conceptual plan of each building. The purpose of the plans will be to Illustrate ways to organize the spaces in a functional arrangement and to confirm that the Building footprint will contain the areas proposed in the Design Program. For the Bathhouse facility, the location, size, and layout will be developed as an integral part of the overall site plan. Over the years and through multiple projects we know that these facilities need to be functional, well -ventilated and lighted and low maintenance while meeting the basic code requirements and operational requirements of the facility. As a support facility to the aquatic center we carefully select the structural systems and finishes that are attractive yet economical so that most of the budget can be used for the pool Since the public does not come to a family aquatic center or waterpark for the bathhouse. This concept of Recreation First! is a consistent theme throughout our work C As an integral decision-making tool, we will prepare a detailed Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the new facility. Recent project bid figures of similar projects will be used as well as national estimating guides and local cost adjustment factors. The hard construction cost figures will be supplemented by a development cost factor, which will include such "soft" costs as professional fees, survey, geotechnical report, document reproduction, advertisement for bids and all anticipated expenses related to the administration of the project. The sum of these two cost figures will be the total project cost so that you will have a comprehensive overview before making an informed decision about the project By making recreation and operations the focus we have successfully stayed within budget, minimized staffing requirements, and made every possible dollar available for outdoor family aquatic recreation. It is likely that the new Community Aquatics Center will qualify for preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which will foes on only the potential significant environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Article 6) With BRG's partiapabon during the site selection process (Task 3) and the active community outreach program (Task 1), it is anticipated that potential significant impacts will be avoided to the maximum extent possible during the planning and site selection phase, thereby improving the likelihood that an ND or MND can be prepared for the project. The ND/MND document needs to be circulated for a 21 -day public review, compared to 45 days for an El The ND/MND will be based on the Initial Study Checklist form found in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines As described in Task 3, our Environmental Opportunities and Constraints review of the alternative sites will focus on potential ervirormental issues relative to the Mandatory Significance Findings in Sector 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines If the Initial Study for the proposed alternative identifies any significant adverse impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will need to be prepared The EIR will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.), and the City Guidelines for Compliance with CEQA The following provides a detailed scope of work for preparation of the EIR: 1_ Project Initiation_ NOP and Data Collect' Our first task to initiate preparation of the EIR is for the Team to meet with City staff to confirm the project description and scope of analysis for the EIR. The first task to start the public timeline for the EIR will be preparation and publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) 2- Prosect Description: CEQA requires that the EIR description of the project shall contain certain information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact BRG's project description will provide the following required elements* 1) the precise location and boundaries of the Proposed Project shall be shown on a detailed local map and on a regional map. using the Base Maps prepared for the site selection study, 2) a statement of objectives sought for the Proposed Project. 3) a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics. considering the principal engineering plans, if any, and supporting public service facilities, and, 4) a description of the intended uses of the EIR including a list of the agencies that are expected to use the document in their decision making; a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. The project description will also list the City decisions subject to CEQA in the order in which they will occur. For this reason, the project descrption can be a living document initially, incorporating additional detail as it is developed Ultimately, the project description must become a finite, stable document for the environmental analysis to be prepared and reported in the First and Subsequent Screencheck Draft and Final EIRs. 3. Project Alternatives: Properly defining the project objectives is a critical component of any EIR because CEQA requires that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Identification of project objectives would be one of the first tasks undertaken Based or those objectives, an initial set of alternatives would be prepared We would also work with City staff to determine the level of detail for project description information and environmental analysis that would be prepared for the alternatives. We anticipate identifying an initial set of alternatives based on City staff and the Team's knowledge of the project and site Such alternatives would be reported and analyzed in the First Screencheck Draft EIR CEQA Alternatives cannot be fully defined until the environmental analysis is initially drafted so that City staff and the BRG Team understand the environmental impacts that nse to a level of significance City review of the First Screencheck Draft EIR we would work with City staff and Team to identify any additional alternatives that might need to be considered in the EIR based on the detailed analysis presented in the First Screencheck Draft EIR. Such alternatives would be developed and reported in the Second Screencheck Draft EIR and all subsequent EIR submittals. For the purpose of this proposal, we have assumed the EIR will analyze the Proposed Project, two project alternatives, as well as the No - Project Alternative. 4. Preparation of Technical Studies: BRG specializes in the preparation of ervironrrentai documentation for compliance with the requirements of CEQA For over thirty years, the firm has successfully managed the preparation of technical studies by others that support the CEQA documents we prepare It may be appropriate to develop specific technical studies, depending on the environmental issues associated with the Proposed Project. Our principals and project managers review every technicai document we receive. including the appendices to the technical studies. 5_ First Screencheek Draft EIR: BRG will prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project The EIR and associated technical studies will assemble all data, originate new studies where necessary, and provide an assessment of the probable direct and indirect, and short- and long-term cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project. The Draft EIR will provide an evaluation of feasible mitigation measures, which could be carried out to reduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Project. One of our initial tasks will be to confirm overall document format with City staff The document will include the basis of analysis, a description of the relevant existing conditions, thresholds of significance, impacts, level of significance prior to mitigation, recommended mitigation measures to substantially reduce or avoid significant impacts, an analysis of the level of significance after mitigation measures are applied, and evaluation of the project alternatives. The discussion of mitigation measures will provide the background for the Candidate Findings under CEQA Guidelines §15091(a) Environmental issues to be Addressed in EIR The following environmental issues will be addressed in the EIR. air quality, biological resources, climate change/greenhouse gas emissions/sea level rise, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportabon/traffic/parking, utilities and service systems, and cumulative impacts. We understand that some environmental issues may be added based on responses received during the public scoping and Nonce of Preparation review process. The following section summarizes BRG's proposed approach to the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project will be identified and assessed Our approach would be to utilize the project list approach provided by CEQA. On a resource -by resource basis, we would identify a study area within which cumulative impacts might be expected. We would work with City staff to identify all of the potential past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that should be considered in the Cumulative Impacts analysis We aiso will coordinate as necessary with the City, the Navy and the resources agencies that may provide the necessary cumulative project informabon. We will provide a map showing the cumulative impact study area and the location of each project, a brief description of each project, and a summary of envirormental effects for each project organized by each environmental resource that may be impacted. We would then provide analysis and discussion as to any significant cumulative impacts Mitigation would be identified if necessary Other Reou+red Considerations This section will discuss growth inducemert, significant irreversible environmental changes, and effects found not to be significant Quality Assurance/Quality Control BRG will implement its rigorous Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QAIQC) procedures in reviewing the First Screencheck Draft EIR (and subsequent submittals as well), and related technical reports that w l be included as appendices to the EIR document ,n addition to an independent QA/QC review by our Principai Env rormental Piarner. BRG will assure that all deliverables undergo a Project Management review BRG is dedicated to delivering high quality deliverables that have been thoroughly reviewed prior to submittal. 6. Second Screencheck Draft EIR: BRG will carefully review City staff comments on the First Screencheck Draft EIR. We will prepare a matrix detailing all substantial comments and identify how each comment is addressed in the EIR. At this time, we will also make a recommendation as to whether we feel additional alternatives need to be added to the EIR and discuss our recommendation with City staff. We will incorporate City comments and perform a final quality control review before submitting the Second Screencheck DEIR to the City. We will complete the comments matrix by providing a summary of each response and where each response can be found in the EIR 7. Draft EIR for Public Review: BRG will carefully review City staff comments on the Second Screencheck Draft EIR. We will incorporate City comments and perform a final quality control review before submitting the Camera -Ready DEIR to the City. We will prepare a matrix detailing all substantial comments as described above. We will meet with City Staff to discuss how we responded to all comments. During this meeting we will discuss any further changes that may be necessary. After the meeting, BRG will complete any additional changes. perform a final QA/QC review, then will have one final meeting with City staff to review the Draft EIR. 8. First Screencheck Final EIR: We understand the First Screencheck Final EIR will consist of the following deliverables: Response to Comments, revised text, First Screencheck Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Findings of Fact (Findings), Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), figures, and attachments. Response to Comments Upon close of the Draft EIR public review period. BRG will review all comments, number them, and distribute them to the City. We will assign specific individuals to prepare responses to comments, based on the nature of each comment. Each individual will be responsible for preparation of a response to their assigned comments. BRG will assemble and review all responses for adequacy and consistency. BRG will identify any responses that affect information contained in the Draft EIR and may require revising or supplementing information in the EIR. The format of the responses will be in a side-by-side presentation with the comment letter reduced but legible on the left and corresponding responses on the right First Screencheck Final EIR. Figures_ and Attachments BRG will assemble the First Screencheck Final EIR, which will include the responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and any text that has been revised in response to comments received during the public review period. The First Screencheck Final EIR will also include all Figures and Appendices. Again, BRG will implement its QA/QC procedures on the First Screencheck Final EIR document prior to submittal to the City. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program BRG will prepare the MMRP that presents necessary information in table format. The MMRP will be prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines §15091. The MMRP will identify the party responsible for monitoring and will include monitoring qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. Findings of Fact BRG Consulting will prepare draft Candidate Findings in accordance with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. The Findings will follow past formats used by the City and we will confirm the format prior to beginning work on the Findings Statement of Overriding Considerations In the event there are significant and unmitigable impacts of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR, BRG will prepare the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) in accordance with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. BRG would work closely with City staff to draft the SOC, incorporating evidence provided by the City for the Findings to support approval of the Proposed Project should it have significant and unmitigable impacts. The SOC would document the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks. The SOC would state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. 9. Second Screencheck Final EIR, BRG will carefully review all City comments. We will prepare a comments response matrix as described previously. We will incorporate comments to prepare the Second Screencheck submittal to include the revised response to comments, EIR text, MMRP, Findings, SOC, figures, and attachments BRG will again implement its QA/QC procedures on the Second Screencheck Final EIR document prior to submittal to the City. 10, Final EIR: BRG will carefully review all City comments. We will prepare a comments response matrix as described previously. We will incorporate comments to prepare the Final EIR submittal to include the revised response to comments, EIR text, MMRP, Findings, SOC, figures, and attachments. We will implement our QA/QC procedures in reviewing the Final EIR document prior to submittal to the City. We will meet with City Staff and discuss how we responded to all comments. During the meeting we will discuss any further changes that may be necessary. After the meeting we will complete such changes and perform a final QA/QC review. We will then have one final meeting with City staff to review the Final EIR to include the revised response to comments, EIR text, MMRP, Findings, SOC, figures, and attachments. 11. Proiect Coordination and Meetinos: BRG and our team members anticipate participating in regular meetings with City staff and/or the design team throughout preparation of the EIR, and that the majority of these meetings will be conducted via telephone conference call. We will ensure the appropriate project team members are at each meeting. We will prepare meeting notes to document action items and responsibilities. EIR Schedule A proposed schedule for completing all work specified in this Scope of Services is provided on the following page. BRG proposes to complete the EIR within approximately nine (9) months of receiving the Notice to Proceed. This is an accelerated schedule that will require significant coordination with City Staff and the Team The 13RG team will manage the project schedule carefully, keeping a close watch on critical path tasks. City of Seal Beach EXHIBIT B COST PROPOSAL AND FEES SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 Public Participation Process and Analysis Task 2 Site Selection Recommendation 8, Analysis Task 3 Site Information and Analysis Task 4 Activity and Aquatic Center Analysis Task b Aquatic Center Recommendation Task 6 Conceptual Pians and Cost Analysis Task 7 Environmental Preparation Kick -Off Event Refreshment Allowance Mindmixer Online Platform Allowance Traffic Engineer Allowance Total: Westberg + White (Architect) Hourly Rates Partner $23000 Project Archdect/Manager $175.00 Senior Designer $135.00 CAD, Senior $60.00 CAD, Intermediate $65.00 Administrative $60.00 Counsilman-Hunsaker (Aquatic Design) Hourly Rates Principal/Studio Director $160.00 Protect Manager $135.00 Project Engineer $11000 Design Associate $90.00 Administrative $5500 Community Change Partners (Outreach) Hourly Rates Partner $180,00 James Suhr & Associates (Feasibility Study) Hourly Rates Partner $17500 ERG Consulting (CEQA) Hourly Rates Principal $285.00 Senior Project Manager $16500 Asst. Project Manager S12000 FEE $36,800.00 $62,190.00 $17,390.00 $8,600.00 $35,130.00 $63,320.00 $5,000,00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $238,930.00 MAN HOURS 209 358 114 64 270 399 1,414 Environ Analyst II $9500 Environ Analyst 1 $7500 GIS Specialist $9500 Documents Manager $85.00 Leverton & Associates (Cost Estimating) Hourly Rates Partner $90.00 Notes While we believe a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration will likely be the appropriate CEQA document for the project, it may be determined that an EIR would be the recommended document for compliance with CEQA This determination will be possible once the site selection process has narrowed the choke of feasible alternative sites, including community input during the public outreach and our initial environmental review. In the event an EIR is necessary, the probable range of cost would likely be from $95,000 to $150,000, including all technical studies. The actual cost of preparing the EIR would be highly dependent on the number and nature of significant issues to be addressed This cost would be negotiated with the City and would replace, not be in addition to. the currently proposed $63.320 00 budget for Task 7. As we proceed with the task of identifying potential saes and making a site selection, other services may be necessary such as GeotechnicaVHydrology Reports. Civil Engineering and Topographic Surveys etc. which will be considered as Reimbursable Expenses The fee for the real estate transaction involvement of James Suhr to represent the City as the buyer would typically result in a 1% fee based on purchase price PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT for Community Pool — Program and Construction Management Services Between City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 0 Griffin Structures, Inc. 2 Technology Drive, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 497-9000 This Professional Service Agreement ("the Agreement") is made as of August 2, 2019 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Griffin Structures, Inc. ("Consultan a corporation, and the City of Seal Beach ('City'), a California charter city, (collectively, "the Parties") RECITALS A. City desires certain professional program and construction management services. B. Consultant represents that it is qualified and able to provide City with such services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Consultant shall provide those services ("Services') set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.4. Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. 2.0 Term This term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of one (1) year unless previously terminated as provided by this Agreement. 3.0 Consultant's Compensation City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A for Services but in no event wmore than Thirty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollart__.$32,750.00). ' Any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Sec iorl—l- - will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 1 of 8 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FEE PROPOSAL POOL PROJECT CITY OF SEAL BEACH ,)'' 17? 24)19 Griffin Structures' Fee Proposal is based on all reasonable costs uecessar- to per•forn► Prograrn ;u►d Construe ticx, Mairagetticnt Services for the City of Seal Beach's Pool Project For these requisite services Griffin Strurtme, proposes the following 1NQt-to-Exceed Fee: Program and Construction Managenictir Services: $ 32,500 Reimbursable Costs: 250 1 otal $ 32,750 I'lease see the end of this document for a hourly fee schedide. SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT FEASIBILITY OUTREACH The Cit) of Seal Beach would like to reach out to the community to ascertain whether of not the communis% at iiil ge is rn support of this project given the cost, utue and resources a project of this magnitude will consun►c. I o address this opportunity, Griffin Structures proposes toapple the following approach: "Task 1: Conceptual Estimating 1 conceptual plan was developed which we will review in detail and develop a conceptual stateu►cnt of prolxible n=l li,ued on the suggested program. sizes of facilities and related site work. The cost.% will be based on unit and niay--i component cost facto", and on high-lc.vel design inforuuition and assumptions. Griffin's Tear" has vci unrest experience wnh the delivery 0fthis IaIciltty type and will reflect local construction conditious and flit: local bio market 'I he couceptual statement of probable post will he presented in such a "manner so that, once approval to pi oct•ed is given and de,•sirm is utken further, the estiufate can be refined. I lit ,<,.t ni�,dcl will include 'total pruject cost%* to tin• degree possible. Site costs will be piep:aied based ;fu ltaforuruion reclttested of, and provided by, the Citti, C:rifiin will include allowances for pre -development cost~. building c.onstrucuon costs, architectural and engineering costs. program and ronstruct.ion management, other :ees and permits, consulting costs. insurance costs. FF!t E allo.sance. landscaping, reasonable comingencnes. end kAhe► :tpprol,riate components of total project costs, based on input from the City. hosts will exclude coats tot off-site improvefnents and will he based on site condition information as available. I his tnformatinn will be critical to having urteiltgcnt and accurate f11formatiun as we move toraard 11110 the puliht .utn'.u•h prc,cess lecnnotaQy pave. Suite 150 ■ Irvine CA 92618 0 949 497 90W ■ prtf}instructures corn Task 2: Outreach Planning Meeting (,I111it1 proposes to meet in a face-to-face setting with City stall to cooftrnt objecuves for each public sessinn. idcncifi, kev stakeholders to engage, and best outreach opportunities; ideas to encourage comniunity attendance. Possible dues, tithes, and locations for the sessions will be determined during this meeting as well. Workshop :!airs and :approaches will be entablished during this hutial meeting. along with the identification of kev issues and .iakehcldei concerns. Task 3: Prom otion%notification B,vwd on the discussion in Task 2, Griffin will coordinate with Citi Stall'to develop and disseminate: public until es -nni ,nsit.mons to fiat 6ripate.,ucb as • Flyers • Press :•eleases • 1 ables at local events. libraries, cominuitity centers, etc- . Wchsitelernail notices • '�orial ttuedia announcements (as applicable) Task 4: Public Discussion Sessions on tilt specific objectives established tvi each of the tlurc sesSionb. Giiffut will develop agewi,as. ,eiueabonal PowerPoint presentations, Post -it. Note exploration exercises, small group breakout conversations, fa,i itated Iarge group dialogue, flip chart recording, etc. Nvpothetital scenarists ntay be included as part of dw ,tn.ill t;: oup activities. After each session, a sununart of the stakeholder input will be prepared. LEASE NEGOTIATIONS i t it ,rt `cal beach has requested Griffin Stnirtures assist in least, negotiations wish the navy. This wrll include "nulerstaaduig milestones and key schedule requirements to ensure tnomenturn is not lost during the procr,s. \',r .:itl atirnd rcgiiLu negotiauon ineeungs and serve as a resource fat tine City to review infolrtrttion alit) pi ett.r, e a( tion iteu,s accordingly. PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION COORDINATION As ;),i; of the C:iWs due diligence phase. (aill'iu trill coordinate ptelintinary exploraturN work vtilth the �, uirrlinical vngineer for- Site composition uicludutg, but noi linutecl t'), un site soils txn_lttgs, hyuetacul n 1m„trntiai, InAllvertrllt discovery plan. monitor llig plan. anti a Phase I (and III if rerlurstecl. Page 2 of 3 BILLING RATES t)ur cram kill bill based on a not to exceed fee identified on page I of this proposal and will he hilled cin si witc and materials basis as noted in the hourly fcc schrdide below. Dote hourly rates are fullti burdened grid includc• c;%erhead. profit. taxes. and benefits. Principal -in -Charge $240.00 u * t. .. F! e CFO 8 Financial $210.00 CJ tfiEltpCuhtl�sr r 1 r � �yP "I ,f .< Program Manager $195.00 Sto�ngtru�tiorliNtan4a�� 44 `# Construction Manager $185.00 P } i Public Outreach $175.00 IfAm- 00, W 44m," Estimating $160.00 I 71 WWI Rates are applicable from July 2019 — July 2020 Page 3of3