|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 05-08-01SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RELATED AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A SUBMARINE FIBER-OPTIC CABLE PROJECT. Recommendation: That the City Council:
Background: On March 27, 2001 the City Council directed staff to proceed with the permit process and negotiations for a lease agreement for the subject project. The project involves the installation of a Trans-Pacific fiber optic cable that is part of a global voice and data transmission system currently under construction. The Trans-Pacific segment is proposed to run from Asia to Hermosa Beach and across the United States connecting to a Trans-Atlantic segment. In Hermosa Beach, the project consists of three segments; a marine segment; a shore end segment and a terrestrial segment. The Hermosa Beach permit process involves discretionary approval for two cable beach landing sites near Longfellow Avenue and 11 th Street and cable installation beneath public streets and the greenbelt along with approval of related lease agreements and encroachment permits. There is no cost impact to the City as the applicant will fund the total cost for environmental review including costs for environmental and planning consultants required to process the project permits . On April 2, 2001 staff issued the attached RFQ/RFP to six firms. The scope of work involves:
The firms of Ecology and Environment (E & E) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) responded with proposals.
Analysis: Ecology and Environment (E & E) E & E is a San Francisco based environmental consulting firm with broad experience in preparing environmental review for state and federal projects. The firm has completed environmental documentation for similar cable projects in Grover Beach, transcontinental cable removal in the Mojave National Preserve, and transoceanic cable landings connecting countries in South America. The firm has also prepared environmental review for lease agreements related to the El Segundo Marine Terminal Reconfiguration EIR. E & E is proposing to utilize subcontractors for cultural resource surveys and ecological studies. Marine Biological Consultants Inc (MBC), is proposed as the firm to conduct all marine ecological studies and biological surveys. MBC will perform a combination of dive and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) surveys to establish or verify the fiber cable route along the near shore segments. Archaeological studies will be prepared by Statistical Research Inc. (SRI) which provides cultural resource management services consistent with state and federal requirements. SRI will be involved in conducting field work for inventory, evaluation and data recovery as required for the project. The total project cost is estimated at $320,046 with $40,000 allocated for marine surveys and $15,000 for archaeological studies. The marine survey cost is based upon experience of similar projects, and may increase if additional survey work is required by the Coastal Commission. The firm’s Senior Vice President, Cheryl Karpowicz and Project Managers, Patrick Ritter and Patti Murphy will be involved in the project. Each of the team members has direct experience in cable projects and preparation of EIR’s. The subcontractors have completed numerous environmental analyses and resource planning documents in connection with preparation of EIR’s. The project permit and environmental review process is proposed to require six months to complete. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) SAIC is an environmental consulting firm based in Santa Barbara which has prepared similar environmental review projects for cable projects between China and the United States linking the Pacific Rim and along the California coast with beach landings in San Francisco, Monterrey Bay, Morro Bay, Santa Barbara, Manhattan Beach, San Diego and Los Angeles. The firm has also prepared other marine or tidal/wetland related EIR’s. SAIC is proposing to utilize subcontractors for cultural resource surveys and ecological studies. Marine Mammal Consulting Group (MMCG), is proposed as the firm to review ecological conditions related to the project. No marine survey is proposed as it is assumed that marine geophysical data will be provided by the applicant (through it’s own marine surveys) confirming that there are no rocky areas along the cable routes across the continental shelf requiring such studies and biological surveys. MMCG will provide a supplementary proposal to address the need for additional marine surveys if the data presented indicates rocky areas are encountered in less than 200 meters of water depth or if required by permitting agencies. Archaeological studies will be prepared by MacFarlane Archaeologial Consultants which provides cultural resource management services consistent with state and federal requirements. The firm will be involved in conducting field work for inventory, evaluation and data recovery as required for the project.
The SAIC team is comprised of Project Manager, Dr. Mike Dungan, CEQA Manager, Deborah Pontifex , Marine Resources Manager, Dr. Andrew Lissner, and Deputy Project Manager, Chantal Cagle. The Subcontractor team will be comprised of Heather MacFarlane and Peter Howorth. The project is anticipated to require 10 months to complete. The total project cost is estimated at $397,924 with $19,745 allocated for subcontractors for marine mammal survey and $15,821 for archaeological survey and $39,800 allocated to prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. E & E has proposed a six month schedule for project completion which underestimates the timing to complete public hearings scheduled at Planning Commission and City Council. Seven months is more likely required to complete the project given the meeting cycles of Planning Commission and City Council. SCIA has proposed a 10 month schedule which is probably a more realistic timeframe considering the Coastal Commission hearing schedule. Although cost for the proposed service is not the primary criteria in selecting an environmental firm, the SAIC price is $77,878 higher than the proposal of E & E. The variation in cost may be even more significant as SCIA is proposing to charge for marine survey work beyond that which is supplied by the applicant and for revisions to the DEIR if required. Both SCIA and E & E have included a price for a Mitigation Monitoring Plan in their proposals, but no cost for implementation. SCIA is proposing to use the applicant’s geophysical surveys to identify the presence of rocky areas which may be impacted by the proposed project, whereas E & E will be conducting a ROV survey of the marine route to identify any potentially impacted sensitive areas or cultural resources. The Coastal Commission has indicated that it has experienced difficulty with previous projects where geophysical surveys were not undertaken as required in the environmental review process of similar cable projects. SAIC is proposing to utilize a shallow water (0 to 15 meter) diver survey along the corridors that would be trenched to install conduits commensurate only with permit requirements from the Army Corp of Engineers and assumes that no marine biological survey is necessary provided that sensitive rocky areas are not shown on supplied geophysical data. SCIA’s subcontractor is proposing to assess two alternatives as indicated by the team subcontractor and E & E is proposing to assess six project alternatives. SCIA is also proposing that it be compensated by the City at the rate of $350 per site record form prepared for identification of onshore cultural resources whereas E & E does not charge an additional cost for this work. SCIA is also assuming that no new field studies will be required as a result of comments received during circulation of the DEIR and that their will only be one draft environmental document and will charge for this service if needed. Public noticing costs have been estimated at $12,000, but will reflect actual costs for such work whereas E & E does not identify separate costs for documentation. Based upon the quality of the E & E proposal and staff experience and the assumptions and reduced scope of work proposed by SCIA, staff recommends that E & E be awarded contract for environmental consulting services for the project.
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of April, 2001, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach (hereinafter called "CITY"), and TyCom Networks (U.S.) Inc., (hereinafter called "TYCOM"). 1. Recitals . TYCOM desires to lay an undersea fiber optic cable ring that will connect the Pacific Rim through fiber optic cable. TYCOM desires to bring the undersea cable ashore in Hermosa Beach to connect to a terrestrial network that will serve California as well as the remainder of the United States and North America (the "project"). TYCOM has requested that CITY approve a lease and a Planned Development Permit application in connection with the project and act as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act. CITY and TYCOM agree that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared for the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and the state and local regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. CITY and TYCOM also agree that the EIR should be prepared under the direction of CITY, but at TYCOM's expense and that it would be desirable for the City to retain a project manager for the sole purpose of overseeing the approval process for the project 2. Payment . TYCOM agrees to reimburse CITY, in full, for all costs and expenses incurred pursuant to the contract between CITY and ______________, (the "Consultant") who is the EIR consultant selected by CITY to prepare the EIR. TYCOM also agrees to reimburse CITY, in full, for the cost of retaining ____________ as a project manager for the sole purpose of administering the project approval process. In addition, TYCOM will reimburse the costs incurred by the City for staff work associated with processing the project including City Attorney staff time. TYCOM shall deposit with the City a balance of $75,000 which CITY shall keep in a segregated account and which it may draw upon for the sole purpose of reimbursing CITY for the costs of EIR preparation and the project manager. Whenever the balance of that account is drawn down below $25,000, CITY shall supply TYCOM with invoices evidencing that the City has incurred costs that have required the account to be drawn down below $25,000 and TYCOM shall restore the balance to the original amount of $75,000. At the conclusion of the project approval process, and after the City has been reimbursed for all of the expenses described above, CITY shall pay to TYCOM the funds remaining in the account. 3. Abandonment of Project . In the event TYCOM abandons the project prior to a final decision on the project or the EIR by the City Council, and upon written request from TYCOM directed to the City Manager of the CITY, the CITY will suspend preparation of the EIR and evaluation of TYCOM's applications and avoid further expense. TYCOM shall be responsible for all costs associated with the suspension of the application process. TYCOM shall be reimbursed any funds remaining in the account established pursuant to paragraph two of this agreement, after all CITY expenses have been paid as provided in paragraph two and this paragraph three. 4. Independent Consultants . (a) During the existence of CITY's contracts with the Consultant and project manager, TYCOM shall not enter into any financial or business relationship with the Consultant or project manager or propose to enter into any future relationship. (b) TYCOM hereby acknowledges and agrees that CITY has sole control and discretion concerning the employment and conduct of the Consultant and the project manager. CITY, not TYCOM, shall be responsible for paying the Consultant and project manager from an account under the exclusive control of CITY. (c) CITY and TYCOM hereby acknowledge and agree that processing of TYCOM’s application is not contingent on the hiring of any specific contractor. (d) CITY and TYCOM hereby acknowledge and agree that the TYCOM's duty to reimburse CITY is not contingent upon the CITY's approval or disapproval of the proposed project. (e) TYCOM shall not communicate directly with Consultant except with the participation or knowledge of CITY. 5. Interpretation . This Agreement is deemed to have been prepared by all of the parties hereto, and any uncertainty or ambiguity herein shall not be interpreted against the drafter, but rather, if such ambiguity or uncertainty exists, shall be interpreted according to the applicable rules of interpretation of contracts under the law of the State of California. 6. Assignment . This Agreement shall not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 7. Notice . Any notice required to be given to TYCOM shall be deemed duly and properly given upon delivery, if sent to TYCOM, postage prepaid, to: 8. Entire Agreement . This agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between CITY and TYCOM relative to the subject matter addressed herein, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both CITY and TYCOM. 9. Litigation Costs . Should any dispute under this Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the action.
11. Authority . The persons signing this Agreement warrant that each of them has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party on whose behalf said person is purporting to execute this Agreement, and that this Agreement is a binding obligation of said parties.
|
|
|
|