Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102-Attachment 1 - CC Staff Report - June 4, 2008.pdf1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 4, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Michael Fossati DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Independent Contractor Agreement with LSA Associates for Environmental Consultant Services and Metropolitan Planning Group, Inc. for Land-Use Planning Consultant Services RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with LSA Associates (LSA) to prepare environmental documents for land development applications within the City of Saratoga (City). The agreement would include a three year contract with an option of two additional years of service if approved by the City Council. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group (M- Group) for land-use planning consultant services within the City. The agreement would include a three year contract with an option of two additional years of service if approved by the City Council. REPORT SUMMARY: In past years, the City has utilized environmental and land-use planning consultants for a variety of development projects, on a contractual basis. Environmental services include preparation of environmental assessments and documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. Land-use planning services include processing and reviewing development permits, such as Administrative Design Review and Planning Commission Design Review projects. Contracts with consultants are currently drafted with one year expiration dates. The following report discusses the option to prequalify and establish contractual agreements with professional environmental and planning consultants. These agreements would include a three year contract with an option of two additional years of service. The proposed method of having consultants prequalified will save the City time and possibly money. Furthermore, Staff believes offering contracts for longer durations will lure more competitive bids for consultant services. There is also a benefit to having a firm working on several projects with the City over time, gaining experience with the community. 2 CURRENT PROCESS: In order to process applications that require an environmental review, City Staff must execute a Request for Proposal (RFP) for environmental consultant services. Environmental consultant service contracts are awarded on a “case-by-case” basis. The RFP process includes a minimum two weeks to prepare the RFP, one month to advertise the RFP, two weeks to review submitted proposals, and one month for City Council to approve the execution of a contract. This RFP process can add a minimum of two to three months to a project timeline. Similar to the environmental consultant RFP, planning consultant contracts are awarded through the same process. Rather than a “case-by-case” basis, planning consultant contracts are awarded annually. The proposed process would eliminate this and save the applicant time. PROPOSED PROCESS: With the aim of attracting more competitive proposals while decreasing staff time dedicated to drafting RFPs for future projects, Staff recommends obtaining environmental and land-use planning consultant services for longer periods, such as three to five years. The City solicited proposals from private firms for environmental and land-use planning services. The City requested proposals from twelve environmental and eleven land-use planning consultants. The solicitation was drafted as an RFP. The RFP included a scope of work, detailing the City’s projected workload for the next three to five years. All services requested would be on an “as- needed” basis, dependent on development applications received by the City. As of May 22, 2008, the City received six proposals from environmental and five proposals from land-use planning firms. City staff reviewed all proposals in detail and rated them on the following parameters: • Cost • Location • Scope of Work • Qualifications • Experience • Service Based on review and discussion within the Community Development Department, using parameters addressed on the attached matrix (ATTACHMENT 4), LSA was chosen as the environmental consultant and M-Group as the land-use planning consultant. Contracts with LSA and M-Group would be valid for three years with the option of extension for additional two years, per City Council approval at a subsequent City Council meeting. 3 FISCAL IMPACTS: In the contract for environmental consultant services, the consultant will perform work on a time and materials basis, at the discretion of the Community Development Director. The consultant will be utilized on development projects requiring a more thorough environmental analysis above the requirements of categorical exemptions allowed by CEQA. All environmental services will be charged directly to the applicant, without the need for supplemental City funding. Land-use planning consultant services are used on an “as-needed” basis to supplement the City’s Development Review practice of processing planning applications in a timely manner. Application fees are based upon hourly costs for these services which incorporates average staff and consultant hourly billing rates. Funds are budgeted for these services on an ongoing basis each year, with the expenses incurred directly correlating to Development Review Fee revenues. Fifty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($52,500) is budgeted for these services for FY 2008/09. Complex projects which would be in addition to the $52,500 budget would be charged directly to the applicant on a time and materials basis, the same as the environmental consultant services. Although contractual agreements will be completed, funding will be appropriated in future year budgets for both environmental and planning consultants, on an “as-needed” basis. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Without contract planning services, the City will have difficulty completing essential planning and development functions in a timely manner. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Consider using existing staff for all planning services directly related to the City. This could lead to a significant time constraints on existing and future environmental and land-use planning project submittals and difficulty meeting the Permit Streamlining Act. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Execute the contract agreement for both environmental and land-use planning services. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of the Agenda Item was properly posted. 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Environmental Planning Services Contract 3. Land-Use Planning Services Contract 4. Environmental and Land-Use Planning Matrix 5. LSA Proposal 6. M-Group Proposal