The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2006 0816 CC REG ITEM 10KITEM /0• K• ACTION: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Yugal K. Lail, City Engineer /Public Works Director Prepared by: Teddy Okoye, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 3, 2006 (CC Meeting of 8/16/06) SUBJECT: Consider Amendment to the Agreement for Engineering Services with Tetra Tech, Inc. for Preparation of the Final Environmental Document (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the Widening of Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to Moorpark Avenue (Project 8013) BACKGROUND City and Tetra Tech, Inc. entered into an agreement on June 15, 2005 to prepare a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) for the widening of Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to Moorpark Avenue. On October 14, 2005 the contract was amended to include the preparation of an Initial Study (IS) and review of the adequacy of the Technical Reports previously prepared by other Consultants. The scope of work on the October 14, 2005 contract included the following: • Review of the previous Technical Study Reports prepared by other Consultants; • Preparation of an Administrative Draft Initial Study (IS) for Caltrans review; • Circulation of the Draft IS; and • Preparation of the Final IS. DISCUSSION Preparation and approval of the final Environmental Document (ED) is the last task that must be completed before the acquisition of right -of -way (ROW) can proceed. The existing Initial Study (IS) is not the completed ED for this project. The final ED requires the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and the update of the IS and technical reports to conform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Caltrans requirements. The scope of work to prepare this final environmental document (IS /MND) is summarized below. 000214 Honorable City Council August 16, 2006 Page 2 Update the following technical studies: • Air Quality Analysis; • Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment; and • Noise Impact Analysis. 2. Prepare additional Air Quality Studies, review and revise hazardous waste report, aerially deposited lead analysis, and asbestos survey, and provide oversight for the preparation of Tree Survey Report. 3. Administrative Draft IS /MND: Revise existing Initial Study (IS) to conform with Caltrans format; incorporate findings from all technical studies, and develop specific mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts. 4. Final IS /MND: Incorporate review comments from the public, prepare response to comments and submit final draft IS /MND to City and Caltrans for review. Incorporate City and Caltrans comments, and prepare final IS /MND. COMPENSATION Consultant's fee to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Work above shall not exceed $74,059, (Attachment 1). Funding shall be from the Los Angeles AOC fund. ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Completion of Final Environmental Document February 2007 Completion of Plans, Specifications & Estimate February 2007 Obtain Caltrans Permit Aril 2007 Construction Start July 2007 ( *) Assumes no eminent domain actions FISCAL IMPACTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to Tetra Tech's Contract. Attachment: 1. Proposal 000215 Current Pending Current Balance FY 06/07 Invoices Amendment FY 06/07 Budget Budget 2501.8310.8013.9601 Design/ $197,109 $85,976 $74,059 $37,074 Engineering STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to Tetra Tech's Contract. Attachment: 1. Proposal 000215 Attachment 1 Ult TETRA TECH, INC. 4213 Slate Street. Suite 100 Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Telephone (805) 681 -3100 Fax(805)601 -3108 July 19, 2006 Mr. Teddy Okoye, P.E., P.M.P. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 M -1470 Revision 3 16350 Subject: Proposal for the Widening of Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to Moorpark Avenue and Modification 2 in Services for Purchase Order No. 04000234 Dear Mr. Okoye: The scope of services for the Widening of Los Angeles Avenue project has been changed from preparing an Initial Study (IS) with Special Studies and reviewing the adequacy of existing technical reports previously prepared for this project to preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Technical Studies. Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Moorpark (City). This proposal has been prepared so that the IS/MND and Technical Studies will adhere to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Caltrans guidance, Initial Study /Environmental Assessment Annotated Outline July 2005. As discussed on May 16, 2006, Caltrans will be the Lead Agency for the project and the City will be a Responsible Agency. For the IS /MND, Tetra Tech will prepare: An Administrative Draft IS /MND A Public Draft IS /MND A Final IS/MND 000216 Mr. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 M -1470 Revision 3 Page 2 of 9 KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL Mr. Randy Griffith, P.E. (California Certificate No. 25171), Associate Director of Tetra Tech's Santa Barbara office, is a Registered Mechanical Engineer in California with over 25 years experience in the environmental field. He will provide technical and management oversight for the project as well as provide oversight for the update of the Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment report. Ms. Judith Charles will serve as the project manager for CEQA consulting services. Ms. Charles has a masters degree in public administration and natural resource policy with 25 years experience in the environmental sciences and natural resource management. She also has a masters degree in soil science and an undergraduate degree in botany. Ms. Charles's background provides both academic training and professional work experience in fiscal administration, program evaluation, and project management. Ms. Charles's project experience includes the preparation of CEQA documents (ISs, MNDs, and Environmental Impact Reports). SCOPE OF WORK: INITIAL STUDYMTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Administrative Draft IS/MND and Technical Studies The following provides a scope of work that Tetra Tech would perform for the preparation of an Administrative Draft IS/MND as required by CEQA and Caltrans. Tetra Tech will revise the existing Initial Study into the Caltrans format previously referenced, incorporate findings from all Technical Studies, and develop specific mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts. The Administrative Draft IS/MND will include revisions requested by the City and Caltrans on the Administrative Draft Initial Study dated February 17, 2006. Tetra Tech will attend a meeting with the City at the Caltrans District 7 office to discuss the submittal of the Administrative Draft IS/MND and Draft Technical Studies and the Caltrans review schedule. Tetra Tech will also conduct consultation with Caltrans and other relevant governmental agencies. We anticipate producing the following number of copies of the Administrative Draft IS /MND and Draft Technical Studies for internal review by the City and Caltrans: Administrative Draft IS/MND Agency IS/MND Technical of Moo ark 3 2 Caltrans 6 2 Tetra Tech will respond to two sets of review comments from the City and Caltrans on the Administrative Draft IS/MND and Draft Technical Studies. Upon completion of these reviews, it is anticipated by Tetra Tech that the Administrative Draft IS/MND will then be ready to be renamed and circulated as the Public Review Draft IS/MND. 00021'- 'Vfr. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 M -1470 Revision 3 Page 3 of 9 Public Review Draft ISINM and Technical Studies Tetra Tech will prepare the following number of copies of the Public Review Draft ISAMND and Draft Technical Studies: Draft IS/1NIND Agency IS/MND Technical Re orts CD City of Moo ark 6 2 2 Caltrans 5 2 1 State Clear-in house 15 15 0 We will also plan to attend a meeting with the City at the Caltrans District 7 office to review comments received during the public review period. Final IS/MND and Technical Studies The Final IS/MND will incorporate review comments received from the public and the agencies on the Public Review Draft IS/MND during the 30 -day public review period. Tetra Tech will prepare a Response to Comment (RTC) Table and submit this to the City and Caltrans for review. We will prepare the Final IS/NM based on the RTC Table. The Draft Technical Studies will be revised as required based on applicable public review comments. Tetra Tech will submit the Final IS/MND and Final Technical Studies for approval by the City and Caltrans prior to their distribution. Tetra Tech will prepare the following number of copies of the Final IS/MND and Final Technical Studies. Final IS/MND Agency IS/MND Technical Reports CD City of Moorpark 4 4 2 Caltrans 6 2 1 Assumptions IS/MND A number of assumptions have been made in developing this cost estimate that if not valid will constitute a change in the scope of work, requiring an adjustment to the project cost. The following assumptions were made in developing the cost estimate: • There is no change to the project description. • Tetra Tech has been- provided the- most-current design plans:- - • Access to a contact person familiar with planned construction operations will be available. • All available right -of -way information and a list of properties to be partially or fully acquired is readily available and up -to -date. 000218 ,Vr. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 M -1470 Revision 3 Page d of 9 • Tetra Tech will prepare the maximum number of copies indicated in this Scope of Work for each of the Administrative Draft IS/MND, Draft IS /VND, and Final IS tiIND submittals and related Technical Studies. • Tetra Tech will schedule /attend up to a maximum of three meetings. These meetings include two meetings with Caltrans at their District 7 office and one meeting at the City's office. Caltrans will coordinate and conduct a Public Informational Meeting to be held during the public review period. • Tetra Tech will prepare all public notices for the project, however, we will not pay the cost of publishing the notices. It is anticipated that the City and Caltrans will file all public notices with the exception of those notices submitted to the State Clearinghouse. • Caltrans will prepare a Categorical Exclusion to meet NEPA requirements for the project. SCOPE OF WORK: TECHNICAL STUDIES The Technical Studies that will be submitted to support the findings in the IS/MND include: • A Tree Survey (Oak Tree Consultants) • Air Quality Analysis (Tetra Tech) • Revised Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (Tetra Tech) • Revised Noise Impact Analysis (Acentech Inc.) • Revised Storm Water Data Report (Boyle Engineering) • Revised Traffic Impact Study (Austin -Foust Associates) Per this scope of work, Tetra Tech will provide oversight for subconsultants hired for the Tree Survey (Oak Tree Consultants) and revisions to the noise impact study (Acentech Inc.). Tetra Tech will prepare the additional air quality studies requested per Caltrans April 25, 2006, review comments; the revised ISA report, aerially deposited lead (ADL) analysis, and asbestos survey. Boyle Engineering will prepare the Revised Storm Water Data Report and Austin -Foust Associates will prepare the Revised Traffic Impact Study. These two revised reports are not included in our cost estimate. Tetra Tech will use the existing information from the technical reports referenced below as the initial starting point for completion of the Technical Studies: • Biological Resource Assessment (Planning Corporation 2004) • Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (LSA Associates Inc. 2003) • Noise Impact Analysis (LSA Associates Inc. 2003) • Storm Water Data Report (Boyle Engineering Corporation 2003) • Traffic Impact Study (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2003) If information is out of date or if analyses were insufficient in the existing_ technical reports, Tetra Tech will perform the necessary analyses required to complete the Technical Studies for this project. We anticipate that the Tree Survey, air quality analyses, revised ISA, and noise analyses will be submitted as letter reports. As mentioned previously, Boyle Engineering will prepare the Revised Storm Water Data Report and Austin -Foust Associates will prepare the Revised Traffic Impact Study. 000219 Afr. Teddy Okove July 19, 2006 N1 -1470 Revision 3 Page 5 of 9 Tree Survey Mary Lindley of the City's Department of Parks and Recreation recommends the services of The Oak Tree Collaborative. The company charges $100 per tree for a Tree Survey Report. We estimate that there are 10 to 15 trees that qualify as mature trees (refer to peer review letter dated December 22, 2005) and several other smaller trees within the project footprint. If trees are left out of the Tree Survey, then the Oak Tree Collaborative's experience has been that the status of these trees will get questioned; therefore, all trees should be measured. The rate of $100 per tree includes the Tree Survey Report. Air Quality The Air Quality analysis will include the following based on review comments received from Caltrans on April 25, 2006: • A PMio Analysis based on the Particulate Matter and Transportation Project, An Analysis Protocol • PM2.5 Analysis using the March 2006 PM10 /2.5 Guidance [see 71 FR 12468 (3/10/06) EPA regulatory text for more details] • Advisory statements for toxic air contaminants in particular diesel PM • Address the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) using the February 2006 FHWA Interim Guidance for the MSAT Tetra Tech will perform the above air quality analyses in- house. Noise Analysis We have included Acentech's estimated costs for services to update and revise the noise study per the peer review conducted in December 2005 in our attached cost estimate. It is anticipated that our noise consultant may need to attend one meeting with Caltrans and we have added this time to the initial cost estimate. Caltrans has reviewed the peer review letter addressed to the City of Moorpark dated December 22, 2005, and agrees that the level of effort and additional analyses described in the letter are appropriate to the proposed project. Initial Site Assessment An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was prepared for the project site by LSA Associates, Inc. in November, 2003. Because the ISA is more than 2 years old it should be updated to identify any changes in the site and surrounding property conditions. The ISA Update will focus on identifying potential environmental concerns that were not present when the previous ISA was completed and on assessing changes in the status of any issues identified in the previous ISA. Tetra Tech proposes the following scope of work to update the November, 2003 ISA: • Acquire and review a current regulatory agency database report • Review historical information sources such as aerial photographs, Sanbom maps, and historical topographic maps 000220 Mr. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 M -1470 Revision 3 Page 6 of 9 • Review readily available regulatory agency files related to sites of concern identified by the database search that were not discussed in the previous ISA. Per Caltrans, a survey of the Alliance Gas Station at 50 West Los Angeles Avenue will not be conducted since this is located outside of the project limits. • Conduct a site reconnaissance visit to observe the site and surrounding properties for any environmental concerns not identified in the previous ISA. During the site reconnaissance visit, pole mounted transformers within the proposed project limits will be observed for evidence of leaking, and areas where soil sampling for ADL is warranted will be identified. A Caltrans ISA Checklist will be completed during the site reconnaissance. • Prepare an ISA Update Report summarizing the results of the above • Conduct an asbestos containing material (ACM) survey of two residences that may be demolished for this project. The ACM survey will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). Asbestos bulk samples will be collected and analyzed by a State of California certified laboratory. The samples will be analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA Method 600/R- 93/116. A technical report summarizing the ACM Survey will be prepared. Assumptions ISA A number of assumptions have been made in estimating the cost to complete the ISA Update as follows: • The site will be readily accessible to Tetra Tech personnel for the site reconnaissance visit. • Regulatory agency files relevant to the project site will be readily available and can be reviewed during a single visit to agency offices. • The ISA Update report will provide a brief summary of the findings of the previous ISA and will present the results of the update with emphasis on any new or changed conditions. The ISA Update report will not include an extensive discussion of information that was provided in the previous ISA. • A draft version of the ISA Update and the ACM survey report will be submitted to the City and Caltrans for review and a final version of the report will be prepared based on the comments received. It is assumed that there will be only one round of comments on the reports. • For the purpose of this cost estimate, it is estimated that a total of 30 bulk samples will be collected and analyzed for asbestos. • Inclement weather or other factors beyond Tetra Tech's control will not impact the project schedule. 000221 ii/Ir. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 M -1470 Revision 3 Page 7 of 9 Aerially Deposited Lead Assessment As discussed in the November, 2003 ISA, there is a potential for aerially deposited lead (ADL) in soils at unpaved areas of the project site. Tetra Tech will assess the presence of ADL in accordance with the Caltrans ADL Guidance. During the site reconnaissance for the ISA Update, unpaved areas of the project site will be identified to determine the number of sampling locations that are warranted. Tetra Tech proposes the following scope of work to conduct the ADL assessment. • Preparation of an ADL sampling plan based on the areas identified during the ISA Update site reconnaissance. • Implementation of the ADL sampling plan. • Analysis of soil samples for lead via EPA method SW601013. • Preparation of a sampling report documenting the results of the sampling and analysis and providing recommendations as appropriate. Samples collected for the ADL assessment will be submitted to American Environmental Testing Laboratory, Inc. (AETL), located in Burbank, California. AETL is certified by the State of California and has been providing environmental analytical services to Tetra Tech for over 10 years. Assumptions ADL A number of assumptions have been made in estimating the cost to conduct the proposed ADL assessment as follows: • The ADL sampling plan will be in letter format. A draft version will be submitted to the City and Caltrans for one round of comments and the final version will be prepared based on comments received. • The ADL sampling can be implemented in one 8 -hour field day. • For the purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that a total of 30 soil samples will be collected and analyzed for lead and no more than 10 samples will require either a Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) or Deionized Wet Extraction Test (DI -WET) extractions. • A draft version of the ADL sampling report will be submitted to the City and Caltrans for review and a final version of the report will be prepared based on the comments received. It is assumed that there will be only one round of comments on the report. ESTIMATED COST Tetra "Tech proposes to perform Tasks 1 to 21 on a time and materials basis for a cost of 574,059 (Table 1). This cost will not be exceeded without your prior authorization. Our cost is based on an assumed level of effort that may vary depending on existing and proposed development throughout the site. If additional out of scope services or meetings are required, or the client requests additional reports, these will be billed on a time and 0 00222 Mr. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 N1 -1470 Revision 3 Page 8 of 9 materials basis. Tetra Tech has also provided our Rate Schedule based on the proposed general scope of services and our experience performing environmental planning services for projects in accordance with agency requirements (Table 2). PROJECT SCHEDULE/DELIVERABLES The following is an example schedule for the preparation of the IS /MND and related Technical Studies. Tetra Tech will finalize the schedule following the Notice -to- Proceed and after meeting with the City and Caltrans. It is anticipated that review times by the City will be 2 weeks and 4 weeks for Caltrans. Deliverable Schedule Tt submits first copy of the Administrative 60 days after Notice -to- Proceed provided results of all Draft IS/MND and Draft Technical Studies for Draft Technical Studies are available to Tt within 40 internal review by the City and Caltrans days following the Notice -to- Proceed Review of the first copy of the Administrative 28 days after submittal Draft IS/MND and Draft Technical Studies by the City (14 -days) and Caltrans (28 -days) Tt submits second copy of Administrative Draft 20 days after receipt of comments from the City and IS /MND and Draft Technical Studies to the Caltrans on the first copy of the Administrative Draft City and Caltrans IS/MND and Draft Technical Studies Tt finalizes the second copy of the Administrative Draft IS/MND and Draft. 14 days after receipt of comments from the City and Caltrans on the second copy of the Administrative Draft Technical Studies IS/MND and Draft Technical Studies Public Review Draft IS/MND and Draft 30 day public review period Technical Studies Tetra Tech submits Final IS /MND and Final 20 days following receipt of public review comments Technical Studies LIMITATIONS Services performed by Tetra Tech under our contract will be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same general area under the same general conditions. No other representation and no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is included or intended in this proposal or in any subsequent report, opinion, or document. CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS We propose to perform these services in accordance with a purchase order between the City of Moorpark and Tetra- Tech and_the_ agreed scope_o_.f services. in this proposal. Tetra-Tech will begin_ m.plementation_of the proposed scope of work immediately following written authorization acknowledging your acceptance of this proposal. Pursuant to the City's acceptance of our proposal we would like to request a modification of Purchase Order No. 04000234 (ceiling of $73,351). The estimated cost to complete the additional work as shown in Table 1 is $74,059. We would request that the ceiling of the PO be raised from $73,351 to $147,410. 000223 Mr. Teddy Okoye July 19, 2006 M -1470 Revision 3 Page 9 of 9 If you have any questions regarding our proposal, please contact the undersigned at (805) 681 -3100. We appreciate this opportunity to present our proposal for this very important project. Sincerely, TETRA TECH, INC J sect Manager Attachments: Table - 1 Cost Estimate Table 2 - Time and Material Rates cc: Weston, A. (Tt SBA) Elliot, I (Tt SBA) Wellhausen, N. (Tt SBA) C� Randy . Griffith, P.E. Associate Director 000224 Table 2 Tetra Tech Santa Barbara Time and Materials 2006 Calendar Year Rate Schedule Labor Category Rate Vice - President $172 Director /Associate Director 5157 Principal Scientist/Engineer $130 Senior Registered Geologist $121 Senior CEQA/N -EPA Specialist $118 Senior Scientist/Engineer $103 Technical Editor $96 Mid -Level Scientist/Engineer $75 Associate Scientist/Engineer $60 Administration $77 Graphics /CARD $78 Environmental Technician $56 Word Processing/Pubs $52 Technical /Clerical Aide $48 1. Subcontractors will be billed at cost plus 10 percent profit. 2. Other Direct Costs such as computer usage, mileage, telephone cost, etc., will be billed at actual cost plus 25 percent burden. 3. Escalation will be applied at 3.5 percent per calendar year. 0()0225 v V` 7212000 TABLE 1 TETRA TECH, INC. PROIY)SED FSHMATE TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TECHNICAL STUDIES CITY OF MOORPARK, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, WIDENING OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE MODIFICATION NO. 02 -- - -- Task I Task 2 Task 7 Task 4 - Task 5 Task 6 - _ask? - Task 7 Planning aad Coordinntioo Atsthetics/Visual Resources I Agricultural Resources Air Quality Analyses Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils/ Mineral Resources LABOR i Cat o Director /Associate Director Principal Sciendst/Engineer Registered Geologist Senior CEQA Specialist (Project Manager) Srnior Scientist/Enginccr Technical Editor Mid -Level Scienan/Engineer Associate Scientist/Engineer Graphics/CADD Word Processing/Publications Administration Rate 5157 5130 5121 5118 $103 S96 S75 S60 $78 $52 $77 Hours 4.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 Cost S 628 - - 1,180 - - - - 156 104 308 Hours Cost 0.0 S - 0.0 - 0.0 4.0 472 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 4.0 312 0.0 0.0 - Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cost S- - - - - - - - - - - Hours 0.0 I 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cost S - 5211 - - - - 6,000 - - - - Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cost S - - - 236 - - - - - - Hauls 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cost S - 59 - - - - Hours Cost F2,0242 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - TOTALLABOR SURCONTR ACTOR COSTS 22.0 52,376 8.0 S 784 0.0 S- 84.0 56,520 2.0 S 236 0.5 S 59 2.0 $ 242 Oak Tree Consultants (Tree Survey and Report) Acenlech (Noise Analysis) $ - - S - S - - $ - $7,000 $ $ _ Analytical Laboratory (AETL) Subtotal on Subcontract Costs S - S - S - S - 53,000 S - S Mark up on Subcontractor at 10% I f 300 - TOTAL SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS OTHER DIRECT COSTS _ _ _ Reproduction (includes copies of technical Studies, Computer Usage per Hour EDR Database report Travel So .043 SI.22 5295.00 Units 25.0 8.0 0.0 S - I Cost $ I i 10 ' - $ _ Units Cost 0.0 $ 4.0 5 0.0 - Units 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- Cost S- - - Units 0.0 84.0 0.0 S - Cost S - 102 - Units 20.0 2.0 0.0 53,30D Cost S 1 2 i Units 0.0 0.0 0.0 S - Cost S - - I S _ Units Cost f 0.0 S - 2.0 2 0.0 Telephone Fed Ex Level D PPE (per person per day) Subtotal ODCs $2.00 S15.00 $15.00 4.0 0.0 0.0 8 I - S - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 2.0 0.0 0.0 4 - 2.0 0.0 0.0 4 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - I 1.0 2 0.0 0.0 S 19 S 5 S- S 106 S 7 S- f 4 Burden on ODCs at 25.0% 5 1 - 27 2 1 TOTAL ODCs S 24 f 6 S- S 133 $ 9 $- S 6 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 400 S 790 S- S 653 S 5 S 59 $ 248 Tetra Tech Proprietary Pagel of 3 M.1470 Revision 3 C C r� 7/21/2006 TABLE 1 TETRA TECH, INC. PROPOSED ESTIMATE TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TECHNICAL STUDIES CITY OF MOORPARK, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, WIDENING OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE MODIFICATION NO. 02 - - - - - -- ____ i Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Task I1 Task 12 Task 13 Task 14 Task 15 LABOR I Hydrology/ Quality Water Land Use/Planning Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation I Transportation/ Traffic i I Growth! Cumulative Impacts j _ Category DnectodAssociate Director Principal ScientisVEngineer Registered Geologist Senior CEQA Specialist (Project Manager) Senior Scientist/Engineer Technical Editor Mid -Level ScientistTrigineer Associate Scientiet/Engineer Graphics/CADD Word Processing/Publications Administration Rate E157 $130 5121 S t 18 5103 $96 $75 S60 578 S52 377 Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 Cost S - - - 236 - - - - - - - Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cost $ - - - 1 18 - - 375 - - - - I Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cost S - - - 354 - - - - - - - Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost 0.0 S - 0.0 - 0.0 - 3.0 354 0.0 - 0.0 - 8.0 600 I 0.0 - 0.0 - I 0.0 - 0.0 - I 0.0 S - 0.0 - 0.0 1.0 118 0.0 - 0.0 20 150 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - I 0.0 S 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.5 59 O.D - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 S 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 4.0 472 4.0 I 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 S 472 450 - TOTAL LABOR SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS 2.0 S 236 6.0 S 493 3.0 S 354 11.0 $ 954 3.0 E 268. 0.5 $ 59 4.0 $ 472 I 10.0 S 922 Oak Tree Consultants (Tree Survey and Report) Acentech (Noise Analysis) S - - $ - - S - 13,000 S - S - E Analytical Laboratory (AETL) Subtotal on Subcontract Costs $ - S - I S 13,000 S - $ - S - S Mark up on Subcontractor at 10% - 1 300 3.OTAL SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS OTHER DIRECT COSTS Units 0.0 2.0 0.0 S - i Cost E� 2 I Units 20.0 6.0 0.0 S - Cost S I 7 - Units -0.0 3.0 0.0 S 14,300 Cost S - 4 - Units Cost Units - Cost S Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost _ Reproduction (includes cops of Technical Studies $0.043 Computer Usage per Hour $1.22 FDR Database report S295.00 Travel 100.0 $ 4 8.0 10 I 0.0 - 2500.0 S 108 3.0 4 0.0 - 0.0 S 0.5 1 0.0 0.0 S - 4.0 5 0.0 I 0.0 ; 10.0 0.0 S 12 Telephone Fed Ex Level D PPE (per person per day) Subtotal ODCs $2.00 515.00 515.00 1.0 0.0 0.0 2 - 2.0 0.0 0.0 4 - 2.0 0.0 0.0 4 - 2.0 0.0 0.0 4 - 1.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 4 - 1.0 0.0 0.0 2 S 4 $ 12 S 8 $ 18 S 113 S I S 9 S 14 Burden on ODCs at 25.0% t 3 2 5 28 01 2 4 TOTAL ODCs S 6 $ 15 S 10 S 23 S 141 S I S 11 S 18 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST S 242 S SOi S I4 6W S 977 S 409 S 60 S 483 S 910 Tetra Tech Proprietary Page 2 of 3 M -1470 Revision 3 �a TABLE 1 TETRA TECH, INC. PROPOSED ESTIMATE TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TECHNICAL STUDIES CITY OF MOORPARK, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, WIDENING OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE MODIFICATION NO. 02 1/21/2006 Tetra Tecn Proprietary Pape 3 of 3 M -1470 Rt IFIOn3 Task 16 Task 17 Task IS Task 19 Task 20 Task 21 Administrative Utllities/Ser ice Draft IS/MND Draft IS/MND Screencheek and Subtotal Total Tasks Systems (internal Working (Public Draft) Final IS/MND Meetings/Notices Tasb I to 20 ISA Update/ADL 1 to 21 LABOR I Draft) Category DirectodAssociate Director Rate floors Cost Hours Cost I Room Cost Hours Cost I Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hour, Cost- Principal ScientisUEngineer 57 if- $130 0.0 S 0.0 I 8.0 $ 1,256 8.0 S 1,256 6.0 S 942 I 12.0 5 1,884 38.0 S 5,966 3.0 S 471 41.0 S 6,437 , Registered Geologist 5121 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 4.0 520 0.0 4.0 520 Senior CEQA Specialist (Project Manager) $118 1.0 118 40.0 4,720 0.0 32.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 2.0 242 12.0 1,452 14.0 1,694 Senior Scientist/Engineer $103 0.0 I 3,776 30.0 3,540 24.0 2,832 162.0 19,116 0.0 1'6200 19,116 Technical Editor S96 - 0.0 - 0.0 ! 10.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 24.0 24 0 2,472 Mid -Level ScientisvTnginoar S75 1.0 75 960 8.0 768 10.0 960 0.0 - 28.0 2,688 0.0 ::94702 28.0 2,688 Associate Scientist/Engincer S60 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 4.0 i 300 0.0 IlMO 7,950 52.0 0 158,0 1 1,850 GTaphics/CADD $78 0.0 - - 3.0 0.0 0.0 I - 0.0 - 0.0 -0 - 8.0 480 6.0 480 Word Processing/Publications $52 0.0 234 18.0 1.5 117 I.5 117 0.0 1 936 5.0 390 170 1,326 Administration S77 - 936 16.0 832 I 16.0 832 3.0 156 55.0 2,860 2.0 104 57.0 2,964 0.0 4.0 308 2.0 154 L0 7J 0.0 11.0 847 0.0 11.0 847 TOTAL LABOR 2.0 S 193 83.0 S 8,414 67.5 S 6,903 68-5 S 6,768 39.0 S 4,872 418.0 S 41,125 106.0 S 9,269 524.0 5 50,394 SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS Oak "free Consultants (Tt et survey and Report) $ - S Acentech (Noise Analysis) _ - $ - $ - S $ 3,000 S - $ 3,000 Analytical Laboratory (AETL) - - - - 13,000 - 13.000 Subtotal on Subcontract Costs S _ - 2 ,100 I 2,100 - S - $ - S - $ - I S 16,000 $ 2,100 i $ 18,100 Mark up on Subcontractor at 10% I _ 1,600 210 1,810 TOTAL SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS $ - $ - S - $ - S - S 17,600 f 2,310 S 19,910 OTIfER DIRECT COSTS Reproduction (includes copies of Technical Studies _ $0.043 Units Cost -0.0S Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost 4750.0 S 204 17710.0 S 762 8790.0 S 378 50.0 S 2 33965.0 S 1,460 400.0 S 17 34,365.0 S 1,478 j Computer Usage per Hour - EDR Database report $1.22 5295.00 2.0 2 70.0 85 60.0 73 70.0 85 8.0 10 { 346.5 423 64.0 78 410.5 501 Travel 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - I 0.0 - L0 295 1.0 295 Telephone Fed Ex $2.00 0.0 - 1.0 2 I.0 - 2 2.0 - 4 2.0 320 4 26.0 320 52 0.0 163 26.0 483 52 Level D PPE (per person per day) $ 15.00 S15.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 30 4.0 60 4.0 60 10.0 150 2.0 30 110 180 SobtalalODCs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 E 15 1.0 i S $ 2 S 292 S 867 $ 527 $ 396 S 2,406 S 598 S 3,004 Burden on ODCs at 25.0% 1 73 217 132 99 601 150 751 TOTAL ODCc S 3 $ 365 S 1,083 S 659 S 495 S 3,007 S 748 S 3,755 TOTAL ESTIMATE D COST S 196 S i 779 S T 986 S 7427 S 5 67 S 61 732 S f i 27 f 74 059 1/21/2006 Tetra Tecn Proprietary Pape 3 of 3 M -1470 Rt IFIOn3 Acentech Incorporated 1429 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 200 Thousand Oaks, Ca 91362 8 December 2005 Ms. Judy Charles Tetra Tech, Inc. 4213 State St., Suite 100 Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Telephone Facsimile (805) 379 -5774 (805) 379 -1797 Acen� Subject: Widening of LA Avenue Review of Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates Dear Ms. Charles: Acentech Incorporated has visited the project site and has reviewed the following documents related to the Widening of LA Avenue. 1. "Noise Impact Analysis , State Route 118/Losan Angeles Avenue Segment 2 Noise Study," LSA, November 25, 2003. 2. Memorandum: Jin S. Lee, Caltrans to to Mohammed Ahmed, Caltrans, Review — Noise Impact analysis — Initial Study /Categorical Exclusion," March 2, 2004. 3. Memorandum: Chris Benz - Blumberg, Caltrans to Mohammed Ahmed, Caltrans, "City of Moorpark IS /CE 2nd Review and Comments," April 20, 2004. 4. Memorandum: Jason Lui, LSA Associates, Inc. to Kendall Zirkell, Boyle Engineering, "S$- 118/Los Angeles Avenue Segment 2 (07 -VEN -118 K.P. 28.2/29.0 [P.M. 17.5/18.0], EA 24150K)," April 27, 2004. 5. "Noise Impact Analysis, State Route 118 /Los Angeles Avenue Segment 2 Noise Study, 07 -VEN- 118 K.P. 28.2/29.0 (P.M. 17.5/18.0), EA 424150K," LSA, April 28, 2004. Acentech Review Documents 2 and 3 contain Caltrans' comments regarding Document 1. Document 4 is the LSA response to the nine Caltrans comments in Document 2. LSA responded to Caltrans comments in Document 4 and made changes to the report that addressed Caltrans Comments 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and reissued it (Documents 5). LSA had issues or did not fully comply with Caltrans' comments 2 and 4. Caltrans: 2. According to the Noise Impact Analysis for this project, the long -term noise measurement was conducted on August 27, 2003, and the short-term noise measurements were conducted on November 6. 2003. In order to adjust the measured short-term noise levels to existing worst -hour noise levels, they must be measured within the long -term noise measurement time period. LSA Response: The long -term noise measurements were taken to establish the peak traffic noise hour. Short-term noise measurements were then taken either during the established peak traffic noise hour (no adjustment needed) or outside the peak traffic hour (with 000229 Ms. Judy Charles 8 December 2005 Page 2 adjustment relative to noise levels within the peak traffic hour). The Caltrans Noise Protocol does not require short-term noise measurements to be taken within the long- term noise measurement time period on the same day. Caltrans' comment is technicly correct. Using 24 -hr measurements to indicate when peak traffic noise hour is appropriate, however, if measurements are not performed concurrently than corrections must be made using the prediction model.' The five short-term measurements (20- minute samples) were made between 11:00 and 13:53 on a different date following the long -term measurements. The 1 -hour Leq values were reported for the 24 -hr measurement performed by LSA. This measurement was not synched to the beginning of the hour but to the beginning time of the measurements, 8:39 a.m., consequently each hour of reported data has a start time of xx:39. The short-term measurements were not synched to conincied with the 1 -hr measurements. These measurements indicated that the peak traffic noise occurred at the 60- minute periods beginning at 05:39, 06:39, 07:39, 08:39, 11:39, and 12:39. From 05:39 to 13:39 the 60- minute Leq was within 1 -dB of the peak traffic noise hour. This would mean that all short-term measurements were within 1 -dB of the value of the peak traffic noise hour. Only M -1 was effected by this and is well within the 1 -dB inherent uncertainties in measurement procedures.2 Caltrans: 4. Background noise levels need to be measured and taken into consideration in determining the overall acoustical performance of recommended noise barriers. The soundwall cannot reduce noise levels below the background noise levels generated mostly by local street traffic within a community. LSA Response: Ambient noise measurements were taken at five locations within the project area. Table C lists results of the ambient noise measurements. A correction factor was applied to ensure that the measured and modeled noise levels were the same. Table G shows the overall accuracy of the noise model by comparing the measured existing level and the modeled adjusted existing noise level. LSA was not responsive. Caltrans is referring to measuring and correcting for background noise.3 Background noise is the total of all noise in the region without the presence of the noise source of interest, i.e. Los Angeles Avenue traffic noise. It does not appear that this measurement was made. Our review of the LSA report and visit to the project site discovered additional issues and found some inconsistencies. The report did not tabulate traffic volumes used in the modeling. When we tabulated the total of EB and WB traffic volumes observed and those used in the modeling (see Table 1 on next page), we found inconsistencies for monitor location M -1. According to Table D (Document 5), traffic counts were 15- minutes long and included both EB and WB traffic for all locations except M -1. Consequently, these traffic counts must be multiplied by 4 to get an estimate of the total 1 -hour traffic volume. Since the traffic count for M -1 was only EB traffic counts an adjustment for WB must also be made. Therefore, assuming a 50/50 split in traffic flow in each direction, the observed 15- minute traffic volumes must be multiplied by 8 ( *4 to convert to 1 hour volumes and *2 to get total flow in both directions). Because of the inconsistent traffic volumes modeled, it appears that the calibration run for M -1 resulted in a noise level approximately 1 dB too low. The observed and modeled traffic volumes for the other four measurement locations are consistent. 1 Caltrans, 1998. "Technical Noise Supplement," §N -3312. 2 Caltrans, 1998. "Technical Noise Supplement," §N -5460. 3 Caltrans, 1998. "Technical Noise Supplement," §N -3110 and N -6160. Acene(* 000230 Ms. Judy Charles 8 December 2005 Page 3 The project was modeled in two parts, one part was for the receivers on the EB side and the second was for receivers on the WB side. Table 2 indicates that inconsistent traffic volumes were used to model the two groups of receivers during the modeling of Existing Noise. This would effect the results in Table G and H (Document 5). The volumes of cars and medium trucks used in the modeling of Existing Conditions were less than the averages observed during short -term measurements. There was no explanation given for the bases of the traffic volumes used to model Existing Conditions, however, the same volumes should be used to model receivers on both sides of the road. The traffic volumes used to model future conditions for EB and WB receivers were consistent as shown in Table 3 below. 3. Table 4 below shows that the K- Factors reported on Table E (Document 5) and actually used in the modeling are not consistent. In addition, the calibration discrepancy described in our review comment 1 above would result in a different calibration factor for receivers R -10 through R -14. 4. At the time that the LSA study was performed, the property on the WB side of Los Angeles Avenue between Millard Street and Flory Avenue was vacant. Document 5 recommended SW #2 [3.05m (10 ft)] on the north side of this property to abate noise levels at a school that adjoined back of this vacant property. The vacant property has been developed. Two rows of 2 -story residential buildings occupy the property and a 3.05m (10 ft) soundwall has been built along the Los Angeles Avenue ROW (see Figure 1 below). Shielding is being provided by the new soundwall, the property walls on Flory Avenue and between the development and the school, and the 2 -story structures. The new residential development eliminates the need for SW #2. 5. Based upon our field observations, the existing soundwall on the WB side between Spring Road and Millard Street is between 2.2m (7 ft) and 2.6m (9 ft) high. It was modeled as 3.05 m (10 ft) high for the Calibration modeling run and for the Future Worst -Case conditions modeling run. A 4.3m (14 ft) soundwall for the area represented by receivers R -1 through R -7 may be feasible. Also the wall was modeled with a 1.5m (5 ft) drop in the wall east ofR -1, which does not exist. 6. R -10 through R -12 have an existing 2.1m (7 ft) wall, however, Table I (Document 5) indicates that a 1.8 m (6 ft) wall would provide 1 dB improvement. A curious result, but we could not find any discrepancy in the input files to account for this anomaly. Table 1: Calibration Modeling Runs Vehicles per hour, EB +WB Receiver Receiver Time Side Observed Cars MT HT M -1 Traffic Count R -12 EB 1100 '1840112 408 M -1 Cal Model 1380 84 306 M -2 Traffic Count R -16 EB 11:40 1760 72 336 M -2 Cal Model 1760 72 336 M -3 Traffic Count R -19 EB 12:12 1880 128 266 M -3 Cal Model 1880 128 264 M-4 Traffic Count R-4 WB 12:58 1920 156 248 M-4 Cal Model 1920 156 248 M -5 Traffic Count WB 13:33 1840 116 232 M -5 Cal Model 1840 116 232 Observed Average WB Side 1880 136 240 Observed Average EB Side 1827 104 337 Acentech 00® Ms. Judy Charles 8 December 2005 Page 4 Table 2: Existing Modeling Runs Receiver Side Vehicles per hour, EB +WB Cars MT HT Part 1 WB 1400 100 268 Part 2 EB 1760 72 336 Table 3: Future Modeling Runs Receiver Side Vehicles per hour, EB +WB Cars MT HT Part 1 WB 2424 214 392 Part 2 EB 2424 214 392 Table 4: K- Factor Recommendations Since changes to the project area have occurred since the analysis and there are areas in the reporting and modeling that are inconsistent, additional monitoring, modeling and revisions to the report are necessary to meet the requirements of Caltrans and to update the recommendations based on conditions that currently exist. If the digital files for the model input are provided, we estimate that the cost would be $12,000 and taking a period of 1 -month to complete. Acent?A& 000z:,2 K- Factor Rec # Monitor # Table E Part 1 Part 2 Runs Runs R -1 0.2 R -2 0.2 R -3 0.2 R -4 M -4 1 0.2 R -5 0.2 R -6 0.2 R -7 0.2 R -8 0.9 R -9 0.9 R -10 -1.8 R -11 -1.8 R -12 M -1 -2 -1.8 R -13 -1.8 R -14 -1.8 R -15 2 R -16 M -2 1 2 R -17 2 R -18 0.1 R -19 M -3 0 0.1 K— Factor = measured level minus calculated level. Recommendations Since changes to the project area have occurred since the analysis and there are areas in the reporting and modeling that are inconsistent, additional monitoring, modeling and revisions to the report are necessary to meet the requirements of Caltrans and to update the recommendations based on conditions that currently exist. If the digital files for the model input are provided, we estimate that the cost would be $12,000 and taking a period of 1 -month to complete. Acent?A& 000z:,2 Ms. Judy Charles 8 December 2005 Page 5 This concludes our review and recommendations. Sincerely yours, Acentech Incorporated 40� 01."- - Ramon E. Nugent, P.E. (TX) Director, West Coast Office Acent & 00023-3 r,gurc i. ivew iieveiopment on wt3 -side Between Millard Street and Flory Avenue (looking NE from SR 118/Los Angeles Ave). rJ