CONTRACT 4716 Professional Services Agreement CLOSEDAgreement No. 4716
Agreement No.
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND
RBF CONSULTING A MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
This AGREEMENT is entered into this 15th day of January, 2015, by and between the
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a general law city and municipal corporation ( "CITY ") and RBF
Consulting a Michael Baker International Company, a California Corporation
( "CONSULTANT ").
1. CONSIDERATION.
A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the
SCOPE OF SERVICES, below;
B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;
C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to
exceed two hundred seventy-one thousand, four hundred and twenty four dollars
($271,424) for CONSULTANT's services. CITY may modify this amount as set
forth below. Unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this
Agreement, CITY will pay this sum as specified in the attached Exhibit `B ",
which is incorporated by reference.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit "A," which is
incorporated herein.
B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical,
administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials,
equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all
tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as
herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper
to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required
of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.
3. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement,
CONSULTANT trust submit a detailed invoice to CITY which lists the hours worked and
hourly rates for each personnel category and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit "A ")
the tasks performed, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period, the
cumulative percentage completed for each task, the total cost of that work during the preceding
Page 1 of 1 I
Agreement No. 4716
billing month and a cumulative cash flow curve showing projected and actual expenditures
versus time to date.
4. POLITICAL REFORM ACT. CONSULTANT agrees that it will be considered a public
official subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974 for purposes of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees and warrants that it has no financial interests which may be materially
affected by the project for which the Initial Study, as specified in the SERVICES, is being
prepared. Such financial interests may include, without limitation, interests in business entities,
real property, or sources of income exceeding $500 received within the past year.
CONSULTANT further warrants that, before executing this Agreement, it reviewed the Political
Reform Act of 1974 and the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, including, without
limitation, Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 18700, et seq., in
order to determine whether any conflict of interest would require CONSULTANT to refrain
from performing the SERVICES or in any way attempting to use its official position to influence
the governmental decisions underlying the subject environmental clearances.
5. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK.
A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that CONSULTANT
has
i. Thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be
performed;
ii. Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and
iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending
performance of the services under this Agreement.
B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT represents that
CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted
with the conditions there existing, before commencing the services hereunder.
Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions that may
materially affect the performance of the services, CONSULTANT will
immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at
CONSULTANT's own risk until written instructions are received from CITY.
C. Although CITY has a duty to the public to independently review any
environmental document, including, without limitation a negative declaration or
draft EIR, prepared by CONSULTANT, that duty to the public, or the breach
thereof, will not relieve CON'SULT'ANT of its duties under this Section or any
representation provided by CONSULTANT in this Agreement.
Page 2 of 11
ar a° a:
Agreement No. 4716
and their level of responsibility are as follows:
Glenn Lajoie, AICP
Project Director
Rita Garcia
Project Manager
Alan Ashimine
Caltrans/NEPA Lead
Edward Torres, INCE
AQ /GHG/Noise Technical Studies
Bob Davis
Traffic
Bob Matson
Traffic
Tom McGill, Ph.D
Biology
Starla Barker, AICP
Land Use /Community Impacts
Sherri Gust, RPA, Cogstone Resource Mgt.
Cultural Resources
Roberto C. Flores, Geo- Environmental, Inc.
Hazardous Materials
B. The resume of each of the individuals identified in this Section are attached to this
Agreement in Exhibit "C," and incorporated by reference.
C. In the event CITY objects to the continued involvement with this Agreement by
any of the persons listed in this Section, CONSULTANT agrees that it will
replace such persons with individuals that are agreed to by CITY.
7. TERM. The term of this Agreement will be from January 15, 2015 to September 30, 2016.
Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will
terminate in the following instances:
A. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit "A";
B. Termination as stated in Section 15.
8. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this
Agreement until:
A. CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required by this Agreement; and
B. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written Notice to Proceed.
C. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written
authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT's
own risk.
9 TIME EXTE NSIONS. Should CONSULTANT d by beyond
control, � u for w # of contracted
services. If delay occurs, O A i
must notify w +w urs (48 hours),
in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay
schedule, but wt required to, extend the completion
appropriate, for w w w contracted
Page 3 of 11
Agreement No. 4716
10. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this
Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the
contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing,
executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in
the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties.
11. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a
Taxpayer Identification Number.
12. PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and
maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that
may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.
13. PROJECT COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION.
A. Rita Garcia will be assigned as Project Manager and will be responsible for job
performance, negotiations, contractual matters, and coordination with CITY's
Project Manager.
B. Kimberly Christensen will be assigned as CITY's Project Manager and will be
personally in charge of and personally supervise or perform the technical
execution of the Project on a day - today basis on behalf of CITY and will
maintain direct communication with CONSULTANT's Project Manager.
14. WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by
CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's
performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in
this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other tern, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different
character.
15. TERMINATION.
A. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time
with or without cause. Notice of termination will be in writing.
B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY's mutual
consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective
termination date.
C. Should termination occur, all finished ,,
d . . . pa CO NSULTANT
s _option, w° • property, and CONSULTANT will
equitable receive just and on for any work satisfactorily completed up
to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under
Page 4 of 11
Agreement No. 4716
Section 1(C).
D. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure
on its own terms services similar to those terminated.
E. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for
damages that might otherwise arise from CITY's termination under this Section.
16. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models,
photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are CITY's
property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired, but
will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of
CONSULTANT's completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement,
or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY's own risk.
17. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service
under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work,
prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or
city without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display
information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely
by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties.
18. INDEMNIFICATION.
A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following:
i. Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save
harmless and indemnify, and at CITY's request reimburse defense
costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and
representatives (including reasonable attorney's fees), from and
against any and all suits, actions, or claims, of any character
whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries or damages
sustained by any person or Property resulting or arising from any
negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by CONSULTANT or
any of CONSULTANT's officers, agents, employees, or
representatives, in the performance of this Agreement, except for such
loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence, active negligence
or willful misconduct.
ii. Indemnification for oilier Damages. CONSULTANT' indemnifies and
holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages,
costs (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees),
injuries, or liability, to the extent resulting from CONSULTANT's
negligence or other wrongful conduct, arising out of this Agreement,
or its performance, except for such loss or damage arising from
CITY "s sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct.
Page 5 of I I
Agreement No. 4716
Should CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought
against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not,
arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, CONSULTANT
will defend CITY (at CITY's request and with counsel satisfactory to
CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it
or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise.
iii. Exclusion for CEQ.4 Actions. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
CONSULTANT need not indemnify, defend, or hold CITY harmless in
CEQA actions initiated pursuant to Public Resources Code §§ 21167 and
21168 where CONSULTANT's work may form the basis of a lawsuit.
However, should CONSULTANT's work, as contemplated by this
Agreement, contain errors or omissions that results in an adverse ruling
against CITY, CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify and hold CITY
harmless to the extent provided for in Section 18(A)(i).
B. For purposes of this section "CITY" includes CITY's officers, officials and
employees,
C. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive
termination of this Agreement.
D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be
maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 22, and any approval of
said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or
qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT
pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions
concerning indemnification.
19. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services.
CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's
written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.
20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that
CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the
manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to
be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSULTANT is not an
agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance,
bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that
may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work
or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the
direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.
21. AUDIT OF RECORDS.
A. CONSULTANT agrees that CITY, or designee, has the right to review, obtain,
Page 6 of 11
Agreement No. 4716
and copy all records pertaining to the performance of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees to provide CITY, or designee, with any relevant
information requested and will permit CITY, or designee, access to its premises,
upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of
interviewing employees and inspecting and copying such books, records,
accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation
for the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement. CONSULTANT
further agrees to maintain such records for a period of three (3) years following
final payment under this Agreement.
B, Upon inspection, CONSULTANT will promptly implement any corrective
measures required by CITY regarding the requirements of this Section.
CONSULTANT will be given a reasonable amount of time to implement said
corrective measures. Failure of CONSULTANT to implement required corrective
measures will result in immediate termination of this Agreement.
C. CONSULTANT will keep all books, records, accounts and documents pertaining
to this Agreement separate from other activities unrelated to this Agreement.
22. INSURANCE.
A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this
Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT must procure and maintain the following
types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits
set forth below:
Type of Insurance
Commercial general liability:
Professional Liability
Business automobile liability
Workers compensation
Limit combined single)
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Statutory requirement.
B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of
the most recent ISO -CGL Form. The amount of insurance set forth above will be
a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and
property damage for thg policy coverage. Commercial. General Liability policy
will be endorsed to name City, its officials, and employees as "additional
insureds!' under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be
deemed "primary " such that any other insurance that may be canied by City will
be excess thereto. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence, " not a "claims
made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon thirty
30) days prior written notice to City.
C. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA
00 0 106 92, including symbol I (Any Auto).
Page 7 of l 1
Agreement No. 4716
D. Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage
is available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is
provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to maintain the
insurance in effect for a period of three (3) years after this Agreement expires or
is terminated ( "extended insurance "). Such extended insurance will have the same
coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this
Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by City arising
out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or
agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.
E. CONSULTANT will furnish to City duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance
evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement,
endorsements as required herein, and such other evidence of insurance or copies
of policies as may be reasonably required by City from time to time. Insurance
must be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating
equivalent to at least a Rating of "A:VII."
F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance
required by this Agreement, City may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT's
expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to
CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate.
G. Self- Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement must
allow CITY, as additional insured, to satisfy the self - insured retention ( "SIR ")
and deductible of the policy in lieu of CONSULTANT (as the named insured)
should CONSULTANT fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The
amount of the SIR or deductible is subject to the approval of the City Attorney
and the Finance Director. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that
satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the
effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONSULTANT as primary insured to
pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should
CITY pay the SIR or deductible on CITY's behalf upon the CONSULTANT'S
failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an
additional insured under the policy, CITY may include such amounts as damages
in any action against CONSULTANT for breach of this Agreement in addition to
any other damages incurred by CITY due to the breach.
3. US E OF CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written approval to
use any consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must
approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation,
INCIDE NTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY monthly to provide the
progress status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of
during the past month for major description of the wM a r. and
10 P
.iescripti n of the work to be done before the next schedule u idate.
Page 8 of l 1
Agreement No. 4716
25. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made
when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:
CITY
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Planning
Manager
City of El Segundo Planning & Bldg Dept
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245-3813
Fax: (310) 322 -4167
CONSULTANT
Rita Garcia, Technical Manager
Environmental Services
RBF Consulting, Inc.
14725 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, CA
92618 -2027
Fax: (949) 837 -4122
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by
the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly
addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are
to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.
26. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor
retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or
secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed
to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting
from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this
warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.
27. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is
generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any
other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT's or
CITY's obligations under this Agreement.
28. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this
agreement will be in Los Angeles County or in the Federal District Court in the District of
California in which Los Angeles County is located.
29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire
understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements
expressed or implied, oral or written, There are three (3) Attachments to this Agreement This
Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent .
successors and assigns.
30. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main
body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached ExWbits; this Agreement supersedes
any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order
in which the Exhibits appear below:
Page 9 of l 1
Agreement No. 4716
A. Exhibit A: Proposal for Services and Scope of Work
B. Exhibit B: Budget; and
C. Exhibit C: Resumes;
31. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Parry had the opportunity to independently review
this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a
whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against
either Party.
32. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the
extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so
modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
33. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary
action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to
engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment.
CITY's city manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.
34. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement,
agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection
with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by
facsimile transmission. Such facsimile signature will be treated in all respects as having the
same effect as an original signature.
35. COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS. The parties agree that all of the provisions hereof
will be construed as both covenants and conditions, the same as if the words importing such
covenants and conditions had been used in each separate paragraph.
36. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of
reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
37. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood,
explosion, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or
other similar causes beyond the Parties' control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate
without obligation of either party to the other.
38. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence to comply with dates and schedules to be
provided.
39. STATE KENT OF EXPERIENCE.. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT
represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fatness and capacity
to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITE'. CONSULTANT represents that its
financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability,
Page 10 of 11
personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in
dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the
proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to
satisfy a public agency.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year
first hereinabove written.
CITY
Greg
City
EL
ATTEST:
-mP
I ra y e ver,
Ci Citrr.
APPROVED AS
MARK D. 'HENS
B
Karl H. Berger,
X 'J
City Attorney;
RBF Consulting
Glenn Lajoie
Vice President, Planning and Environmental
Services
Robert Kallenbaugh,
Chief Executive Officer
Taxpayer ID No. 95- 2247293
PAPlanning & 'Building, Salcty\0 Planning - Old\Consultant Ping, Scrviccs'4Environmen'tal Consultarnts"41t:1 rWa* Place Extension
EIR Project\PSA - RBF Park Place Extension EIR Projcct.doc
Page 11 of It
,e t;
L
,�
Agreement No. 4716
Exhibit A
Scope Of Services
Agreement No. 4716
PROPOSAL
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
NEPAICEQA Review and
Design for
Prepared for:
City of El Segundo
Submitted by:
RBF Consulting
August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Agreement No. 4716
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
I, Understanding of the Project and Approach .......................................... ....... _ ............. ...,..,...,......,....,1
1.1
Introduction ............................................................................................ ..............................1
1.2
Statement of RBF's Commitment to the City of El Segundo ................. ..............................1
1.3
Understanding of the Project .................................................................. ..............................1
III, Scope of Work ..................................................................................................._. ,,..,,...,....,......,....,...4
1.0
Project Scoping ..................................................................................... ....__........................4
1.1 Project Kick -Off and Project Characteristics .......................... _ ...... ,..,......,......,....,.,
4
1.2 Research and Investigation ...................................................... ..............................4
1.3 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ...................................... ,. ...... .,..,..,,,....,,..,,.
5
1.4 Scoping Meeting ........................................................................... .................,.,.,........5
2.0
Preparation of Administrative Draft EA/EIR ......................................... ...............................
5
2.1 Executive Summary ................................................................ .......................a.,,,..,
5
2.2 Proposed Project ..................................................................... ...............................
5
2.3 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences,
and Avoidance, Minimization, and /or Mitigation Measures ..... ...............................
5
2.4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation ..................... .............................14
2.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...................................... ...............................
14
2.6 Comments and Coordination .................................................. .............................15
2.7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................... .............................15
2.8 List of Preparers ........................................................................ .............................15
3.0
Draft EA/ EIR ......................................................................................... .............................15
3.1 Preliminary Draft EA/ EIR ......................................................... .............................15
3.2 Draft EA/ EIR ............................................................................ .............................15
3.2 Draft EA/EIR Public Review .................................................... .............................15
4.0
Final Draft EA/ EIR .............................................................................. ...............................
15
4.1 Comments and Responses to Comments ............................... .............................15
4.2 Final EA/ EIR .......................................................................... ......__.,...,..,...,,...,,..16
4.3 Public Notices and FONSI ..................................................... _ ....... ,.. .................
16
4.4 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ............ ..................r..........16
5.0
Project Coordination and Meetings ...................................................... .............................17
5.1 Coordination ............................................................................... .............................17
5.2 Meetings ................................................................................ ...............................
'17
6.0
Deliverables .......................................................................................... .............................17
Preliminary CEQA Schedule_ .... 19
IV. Qualifications ................... ............................... ......... .................... ......... 20
1.0 Summary ................................................... ........ . ..... .... ........ . ......... ......... ......... 20
2.0 Project Team Organizational Chart .................................................... ............................... 21
3.0 Project and Team Experience Matrix,.... ..... _ ...... ... ................... __ .... 22
4.0 Representative Projects ............................... ..... ............. ... ....,,,.. ,.,,.,, ,., 23
5.0 Project Team Resumes .................... ......... ............... . .. ..... . .................. ... ......... 30
V. References ......... ........ ............... ............. ....... .... .......................,.....,. .,.,, .... ... -. - 41
VI. Liability Insurance......,. .. ......... ............. .... ................. .. ......... .............. ..............42
VII. Statement of Financial Conditions ..... ... ......... ........ ......... 43
VIII. Budget ............ ........ 45
Agreement No. 4716
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
X for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
I. INTRODUCTION ND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
CTIO
RBF Consulting has submitted this Proposal to prepare NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review documentation to
assess potential environmental impacts for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project in the City of
El Segundo, Each of the environmental issues will be approached thoroughly in order to fully assess all potential
impacts, establish thresholds of significance, and identify mitigation measures. For this work program, RBF will provide
services from our Corporate Headquarters in Irvine. Our familiarity with environmental and land use issues for roadway
extension projects involving rail, utility, and pipeline issues, coupled with our extensive environmental review experience
in the City of El Segundo, are key assets that we offer in order to complete the environmental clearance for the Project.
1.2 STATEMENT OF ROPS COMMITMENT TMENT TO THE CITY" OF EL SEGO'. NDO
The following affirms RBF's commitment to the City of El Segundo and the proposed work program:
1. The proposed services to be provided by the RBF Consulting team involve the preparation of NEPA/CEQA
environmental compliance documentation and Design Review for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade
Separation Project in El Segundo, California.
2. RBF Consulting is focused on a comprehensive and complete review process. The RBF team will provide
services, pursuant to the goals set forth by the City, and as detailed in Section 11 of this proposal.
3. RBF Consulting will thoroughly address each environmental issue area and will recommend the appropriate
NEPA/CEQA clearance for the Project. RBF Consulting holds as the top priority, the integrity of documentation
and processing, focusing on legal defensibility and full compliance with NEPA/CEQA,
4. All aspects of RBF Consulting's proposal, including costs, have been determined independently, without
consultation with any other prospective Consultant or competitors for the purpose of restricting competition.
5. All declarations in RBF Consulting's proposal and attachments are true and constitute a warranty, the falsity of
which shall entitle the City to pursue any remedy by law.
6. This August 11, 2014 proposal by RBF Consulting is binding, if the proposal is selected and a contract is
awarded.
7. The RBF Consulting team agrees to provide the City of El Segundo with any other information that is
determined to be necessary for an accurate determination of the Consultant's ability to perform services as
proposed,
8. If RBF Consulting is selected for this and all other assignments with the City, RBF Consulting will comply with all
applicable rules, laws, and regulations.
9. RBF has a dedicated team whom maintains the in -house Library/Filing Management System. All Project - related
files are categorized and independently filed to preserve the integrity of the Administrative Record.
Documentation of all Project transactions is kept in a central file readily accessible to Project team members.
Any public records act or Administrative Record requests are coordinated with the Lead Agency, and
implemented per applicable laws and regulations.
1.3 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT
This understanding of the Project is based on the Request for Proposal (City of El Segundo, July 7, 2014), and the Park
Place Extension Preliminary Study Report (NCM Engineering Corporation, April 22, 2014) along with attachments. It is
RBF's understanding that the City of El Segundo (City) is seeking to retain a consultant to prepare the required
JN 140835 0 1 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project (Project).
It is anticipated that Caltrans will be lead for NEPA and the City of El Segundo will be lead for CEQA. It is also
anticipated that the environmental document will be a joint EA/EIR.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Project study area is located in El Segundo's southeast quadrant and is generally bounded by El Segundo Boulevard
on the north, Rosecrans Avenue on the south, South Douglas Street on the east, and Sepulveda on the west. The
Project study limits extend easterly along Park Place from its intersection with Sepulveda Boulevard at the Plaza El
Segundo entrance to approximately 250 feet west of existing Allied Way to Park Place's intersection with Nash Street,
and from the South Douglas Street/Utah Avenue intersection southwesterly along the UPRR and BNSF Railway to the
Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection. The Project area was originally used by Allied Signal and
Honeywell and is relatively flat. In addition to the active UPRR and BNSF railroad lines, both of which serve the Chevron
refinery, the study area includes approximately three buried crude oil pipelines, utilities and spur tracks.
The proposed Project involves extending Park Place between Allied Way and Nash Street, and grade separating the
extension from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway tracks. The Project
also potentially involves: relocating /consolidating the UPRR and BNSF rail lines and yards into a single rail corridor, in
order to facilitate a single grade separation location at the Park Place extension; and relocating the buried crude oil
pipelines located adjacent to /within the railroad rights -of -ways.
The PSR identified six Alternatives (No Build, 1A, 1 B,1 C, 2A, and 2B) that will serve as the basis for selection of a locally
preferred alternative(s) that will be further developed to support environmental evaluation and documentation. The
Alternatives are grouped according to relocation of either the BNSF Railway or the UPRR facilities. Alternatives 1A,1 B
and 1 C involve various roadway and underpass configurations for Park Place with the BNSF Railway relocated to the
west alongside the
existing UPRR facilities, while Alternatives 2A and 2B involve roadway and underpass configurations with the UPRR
facilities relocated to the east alongside the existing BNSF corridor. All build alternatives involve railroad underpass
grade separation configurations with Park Place crossing underneath the railroads. The railroad bridge width would
accommodate two tracks to provide access for the BNSF and UPRR lead tracks between the Chevron Refinery and
railroad storage yards and lines further to the northeast.
The Preliminary Study Report Alternative Comparison Matrix presents a rough comparative analysis of the alternatives.
As shown, two of the Alternatives (Alternatives 1A and 1C) ranked the highest. According to the Preliminary Study
Report, the Project Alternatives identified in the Preliminary Study Report will serve as the basis for selection of a locally
preferred alternative(s) that will be further developed for evaluation during the Project Approval and Environmental
Documentation phase. Accordingly, the Scope presented below assumes that the EA/EIR will address two Build
Alternatives, in addition to the No Build Alternative.
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project is to provide an alternate route to the
Rosecrans Corridor and improve access to /from 1 -105 (Douglas Street and Nash Street on and off ramps, respectively).
Specifically, the Project would connect existing segments of Park Place between Allied Way and Nash Street to provide:
a continuous roadway from Douglas Street to Sepulveda Boulevard; traffic relief to Rosecrans Avenue; and direct access
from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street, and thereby to 1 -105, The proposed extension is a critical project, as
identified in the City's 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update.
APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS /TIERING
When previous environmental documents have already analyzed a particular impact, NEPA and CEQA allow subsequent
environmental analysis and documents to tier from the earlier analysis rather than duplicating work. Under NEPA,
JN 140835 • 2 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
agencies are encouraged to issue a tiered or subsequent EIS or EA when the environmental issues have been analyzed
in a broader (programmatic) NEPA review. The tiered analysis and documentation can thereby focus on specific issues
relevant to the subsequent action (40 CFR § 1502.20). Similarly, CEQA encourages agencies to tier the environmental
analyses, which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development
projects (CEQA Guidelines § 15152). This allows subsequent analyses to focus on project- specific impacts (14 CCR §
15152).
The impacts from the infrastructure improvements /modifications associated with the Park Place Extension and Railroad
Grade Separation Project were considered at a programmatic level in the Environmental Impact Report for the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development (Plaza El Segundo EIR) (Christopher A.
Joseph & Associates, October 2004). According to Plaza El Segundo EIR Section 11, Project Description (page II -10), in
order to accommodate the anticipated development, several existing utilities would need to be relocated and other
infrastructure improvements, including roadways, would need to be constructed. Plaza El Segundo EIR Section II
specifically notes the following:
Specific infrastructure requirements that may be included as part of the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site
Rezoning would include:
Existing Park Place would be extended westerly through the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site to
connect to Sepulveda Boulevard and a new north -south roadway would be constructed to connect the new
Park Place extension to Hughes Way via Allied Way, which presently terminates at the northern edge of the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site (Figure I1-4). The Park Place extension would be grade separated
from the relocated BNSF railroad line (see next bullet). These roadways are identified as part of the City's
roadway network in the City's Circulation Element Update.
• The BNSF railroad line would be moved to a new alignment just south of and parallel to the Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) line (Figure II -5). The pipelines within the BNSF railroad ROW would either be
abandoned or realigned when the railroad ROW is relocated to the north.
• Portions of an existing 42 -inch reclaimed water line may be relocated.
• A number of pipelines within the railroad right -of -ways (ROW) maybe abandoned or relocated vertically to
accommodate roadway improvements.
It is anticipated that the CEQA document will be an EIR and the NEPA document will be an EA. Although NEPA and
CEQA allow similar tiering processes, they do not allow tiering of a NEPA document (such as the proposed EA) to a
previous CEQA document (such as the Plaza El Segundo EIR), nor visa versa. Therefore, the proposed environmental
documentation will tier from the Plaza El Segundo EIR only where allowed and appropriate. Because the first -tier EIR
(Plaza El Segundo EIR) has been certified,' RBF proposes to examine the environmental effects of the Park Place
Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project (or later project) using a tiered EIR (Public Resources Code §
21094(a)). The proposed second -tier EIR (such as the proposed EIR) would be limited to significant environmental
effects that were: 1) not examined in the Plaza El Segundo EIR, or 2) previously examined and that are susceptible to
substantial reduction or avoidance through project revisions, mitigation measures, or other means (Public Resources
Code § 21068.5 and CEQA Guidelines § 15152(d)).
The initiation of the environmental review will involve a detailed scoping process including a review of issues, constraints,
and Project opportunities. RBF, working closely and in collaboration with City staff, will embark on an agency
consultation process, which will include a public scoping session, in order to provide an opportunity to obtain a better
understanding of key environmental concerns of interested agencies and the community, as well as informing the public
as to the purpose of the NEPA/CEQA review and determination process.
This EIR was certified on March 1, 2005 (City Council Resolution 4415).
JN 140835 • 3 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
,µ
The environmental analysis will thoroughly discuss the existing conditions for each environmental issue area and
evaluate the short- and long -term environmental impacts associated with Project construction and operation (both
individual and cumulative). The degree of significance for each potential impact will be determined and feasible
mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce the significance of impacts will be recommended, Areas of
unavoidable significant adverse impacts even after mitigation will be identified. The environmental documentation will
assist in identifying constraints, modifications, and improvements, which may be incorporated into the planning process.
RBF will serve as an extension of City staff to ensure that the entire NEPA/CEQA process is conducted in a
comprehensive manner, which will include consideration of recent NEPA/CEQA legislation and reviewing agency
requirements. The RBF Project management team led by Mr. Glenn Lajoie and Ms. Rita Garcia will provide regular and
consistent communications and updates to City staff on the progression of the work program and status of the analysis.
The RBF Team will be viewed as an integral component in the Project review and will participate in meetings with the City
staff, and public hearings, as required by the City.
RBF will prepare the joint NEPA/CEQA documentation and associated work products in accordance with the City of El
Segundo Environmental Guidelines, NEPA, CEQA, and Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference (SER)
Environmental Document Annotated Outline (AO)2 for an EA/EIR. RBF has extensive experience in processing
environmental documentation for Caltrans Local Assistance projects throughout California, many of which occurred within
Caltrans District 7's jurisdiction. It is anticipated that the environmental document will be a joint EA/EIR leading to a
Notice of Determination /Finding of No Significant Impact (NOD /FONSI). The Scope presented below assumes that the
EA/EIR will address two Build Alternatives, in addition to the No Build Alternative. The following Scope of Work has been
prepared based upon information received by RBF Consulting. The cost estimate, which is itemized according to task
and issue, is included in Section IX of this proposal.
1.0 PROJECT SCOPING
1.1 PROJECT KICK-OFF AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The environmental work program will be initiated with a kick -off meeting with the City /Caltrans staff to discuss the Project
in greater detail. This initial meeting is vital to the success of the CEQA /NEPA process and will be a key milestone, in
order to confirm the analysis' parameters, the details of the proposed construction buildout conditions, scheduling, and
overall communications. Prior to the kick -off, RBF will distribute a kick -off meeting agenda and detailed memorandum,
which will identify information needs, Based upon the detailed Project information obtained at the Project kick -off
meeting, RBF will draft a preliminary Project Description for review and approval by City staff. Two Build Alternatives, in
addition to the No Build Alternative, will be described.
1.2 RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION
RBF will obtain and review available referenced data for the Project area, including policy documentation from the City
staff, County of Los Angeles, State and Federal agencies, the Southern California Association of Governments, and all
other agencies which may be affected by the Project. This information, along with environmental data and information
available from City staff and other nearby jurisdictions, will become part of the EIR's foundation and will be reviewed and
incorporated into the analysis, as deemed appropriate. This task includes a visit to the Project area, which will include a
detailed photographic recording of on- and off -site conditions.
2 Caltrans' AOs were developed for the preparation of environmental documents addressing both NEPA and CEQA requirements. The
use of the joint NEPA/CEQA AOs is required for any project receiving FHWA federal -aid funds, such as the Project.
JN 140835 • 4 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
1.3 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The Initial Study will include detailed explanations of all checklist determinations and discussions of potential
environmental impacts. The Initial Study will be structured in the same format as CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The
Initial Study will: include a description of the Project and its location, including supporting exhibits; briefly explain the
reasons for determining which Project impacts would not be significant or potentially significant and provide evidence to
support each conclusion; and identify which Project impacts would be significant or potentially significant, in order to focus
the EA/EIR environmental analysis, RBF will respond to one complete set of comments from the City and one from
Caltrans on the Draft Initial Study then finalize the document for distribution.
RBF will prepare the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EA/EIR, which will be distributed along with the Initial Study to a
City- approved Distribution List, This task includes certified mailing to a maximum of 50 NOP /Initial Study to affected
agencies and interested parties. Comments received in response to the NOP will be evaluated during preparation of the
environmental documentation,
1.4 SCOPI'NG MEETING
A public scoping meeting, which can also involve Federal, State, or other local agencies, will be scheduled during the
NOP public review period, in order for that the community can gain an understanding of the proposed Project and provide
comments on environmental concerns. The Scoping Meeting will orient the community on the CEQA /NEP review
processes and will be presented in a manner that would enable the community to gain a greater understanding of the
proposal, intent of CEQA/NEPA, and the key issue areas to be addressed in the environmental documentation. RBF will
provide a PowerPoint presentation, handouts, and presentation -size graphics to supplement the discussion, as needed.
Following the presentation, the meeting will be devoted to public participation, questions, and comments. Written
comment forms will be provided for this purpose, and these comments, along with oral comments, will become a part of
the administrative record. This task is included in Section 5,2 below,
2.0 PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MEIR
2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary will include a brief summary of the proposed actions and their consequences. This summary
section will also identify each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect,
and the Project alternatives. The areas of controversy and issues to be resolved will also be included in this section. The
Environmental Summary will be presented in a columnar format.
2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
This Section will include an Introduction, Purpose and Need for the Project, and a Project Description. The Introduction
will cite the CEQA/NEPA provisions and the City of El Segundo CEQA Implementation procedures for which the
proposed Project is subject. The Purpose and Need for the Project discussion will identify the purpose of the study and
statutory authority, as well document scoping procedures, summary of the EA/EIR format, listing of responsible and
trustee agencies, and documentation incorporated by reference, The Project Description will detail the Project's location,
environmental setting, background and history, characteristics, discretionary actions, goals and objectives, construction
program and phasing, and permits and approvals needed. Two Project Alternatives, in addition to the No Build
Alternative, will be described. Exhibits to support the discussion will also be included.
2.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND /OR MITIGATION (MEASURES
RBF will evaluate the necessary information with respect to the affected environment. The significance threshold criteria
for each environmental issue area will be described, providing the basis for conclusions of significance. Primary sources
JN 140835 • 5 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
The potential environmental consequences of Project implementation (individual and cumulative, and short- and long-
term) will be analyzed, and measures to avoid, minimize, and /or mitigate such effects will be recommended.
Environmental issues raised during the scoping process and any other relevant and valid informative sources will also be
evaluated. The analyses will be based upon all available data, results from additional research, and an assessment of
available technical data, These analyses will be performed by qualified RBF Environmental Analysts, NEPA/CEQA
experts, Planners, and Engineers.
The following environmental scope considers the Preliminary Environmental Investigation, Park Place Extension (LSA
Association, Inc., October 18, 2013), which used the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Checklist (Caltrans'
Standard Environmental Reference (SER)) to determine preliminary environmental topics for environmental investigation.
The topics addressed in the Preliminary Investigation reflect the topics in the PES Form that were preliminarily
determined to potentially have effects from the Project.
2.3.1 Special Studies
A. Air Quality Assessment
The Project is located in Los Angeles County, within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), and is under the jurisdiction of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This SCAB portion is designated as nonattainment for
ozone (State and federal standards) and for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) (State and federal
standards). Carbon monoxide (CO) and PM2.5 is now in attainment/maintenance status in the Project area for federal
standards and attainment status for State standards. An air quality analysis is required along with a conformity
determination and, potentially, a hot spot analysis.
The air quality analysis will be conducted by RBF's in -house technical team. RBF's air quality specialists have an
extensive background in preparing, modeling, and conducting analyses pursuant to air quality district requirements and
the CEQA Guidelines. The Scope of work is as follows:
Air Quality Assessment and CEQA/NEPA Section
The analysis will be prepared in accordance with the latest following protocols /guidelines: Caltrans Standard
Environmental Reference; U.S, Environmental Protection Agency's March 2006 Final Rule and Transportation Conformity
Guidance for Quantitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (December
2010); Federal Highway Administration's Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (December 2012);
and Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. The particulate matter analysis will require coordination
with the regional Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) to determine Project level conformity for particulate
matter. The Air Quality Report will also analyze and discuss the presence /absence of naturally occurring asbestos and
construction - related emissions.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis will be based on the Caltrans Climate Action Program and will require
coordination with District Headquarters staff on the final methodology.
The analysis will address "existing," "existing plus project," "opening year," "opening year plus project," "forecast," and
"forecast plus project" conditions. The analysis will also document whether the Project is included in the latest Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for preliminary
engineering /environmental documentation. Mitigation measures will be defined for any construction and /or operational
impacts that are identified.
JN 140835 • 6 * August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
B. Biological Resources (Natural Environment Study - Minimal Impacts)
Previous biological studies and a biological resources investigation of the site determined federally listed species are
absent from the site. However, the Project has the potential, directly or indirectly, to affect migratory birds or their nests
or eggs. Additionally, previous investigations indicated the presence of Mulefat scrub in the Project area, which is on the
National Wetland Plants List and could be an indicator of wetlands within the Project area. It does not appear that the
site supports waters of the U.S, or waters of the State. Because the original biological report was prepared in 2003/2004
and is over one year old, it is no longer considered valid. An updated biological survey and report will need to be
conducted to ensure that the site conditions have not changed and to update the potential for sensitive plant and wildlife
species to occur on the Project site.
A Natural Environment Study - Minimal Impacts (NES -MI) will be prepared in accordance with guidance set forth in the
Caltrans SER Volume 3, Section 2 -5 for addressing potential impacts to biological resources occurring within the
Biological Study Area, including the effect on migratory birds. Specifically, the scope proposed below is for: 1) conducting
a habitat assessment of the site; and 2) preparing a NES -MI. For qualification of a NES -MI, certain criteria apply:
Of limited scope and impact;
Minor A or B projects that do not require consideration of both context and intensity;
a) Context. The significance of an action must be analyzed in different circumstances, such as society as a
whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. An impact's level of
significance varies with the setting (context) of the proposed action. Both short -term and long -term effects
are relevant.
b) Intensity, The intensity of an impact refers to the severity of impact. The following should be considered in
evaluating intensity:
Not ordinarily intended for projects involving listed species.
May be used in conjunction with cumulative project impacts where the biological issues are limited to
those covered in the NES -MI.
RBF will prepare an NES -MI that will document all biological resources and the pertinent requirements. The NES -MI will
also address impacts to biological species, noxious weed management, and invasive species, and identify construction
BMPs to limit the potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plant species. The NES -MI will include a description
of the field methods used and the results of the biological evaluation of the Project area. The report will include a list of
plant and wildlife species present within the Project area, a general description of the plant communities occurring in the
area, and the presence or absence of any federally or State listed species or sensitive plant communities. The proposed
scope includes preparation of a draft NES -MI report to be reviewed by both the City of El Segundo and Caltrans, RBF will
prepare and distribute up to five copies of the NES -MI review and will respond to one complete set of comments and
update the NES -MI report.
If the Project scope is expanded to a full NES (i.e., jurisdictional waters not observed on aerials will be impacted or
sensitive biological resources are found onsite during a filed survey), a revised scope and fee will be submitted to the City
of El Segundo.
Natural Environmental Study — Minimal Impacts (NES -MI)
Literature Review
RBF will review all biological reports previously prepared for the Project and other vicinity data for the general area to
determine which sensitive biological resources are likely to occur onsite or within adjacent areas. RBF will also utilize the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare
and Endangered Vascular Plants of California to conduct record searches of sensitive biological resources known to
occur in the region and general site vicinity. Additional information sources will be consulted including the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), historic /current aerial
JN 140835 • 7 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
photographs, and topographic maps as appropriate, to define the habitat requirements for sensitive species potentially
occurring onsite. This will allow RBF to focus its field visit on those sensitive biological resources present or likely to be
present onsite.
In accordance with Caltrans guidelines, RBF will submit a letter to the USFWS requesting a list of threatened and
endangered species known from the Project vicinity, The results of the records search will be summarized in a table and
included in the NES -MI. The biological study area will be determined through coordination with a Caltrans Biologist.
Habitat Assessment
Following the literature review, the site will be surveyed to document baseline conditions of the project site and to verify
its ability to support any listed species or sensitive plant community. The fieldwork will be conducted by a qualified RBF
biologist in order to document the presence /absence of sensitive biological resources, or to determine the potential for
occurrence of such resources that may not be detectable when the literature review is conducted, Particular attention will
be given to undeveloped areas that have a higher potential to provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant and wildlife
species. The location of any sensitive biological resources if present on -site (i.e., plants, plant communities, drainage
features, wildlife) will be mapped. RBF will also search for suitable avian nesting opportunities potentially occurring on or
within 500 feet of the project site. Notes will be taken on all plant and wildlife species observed on -site during the survey.
This survey will provide an understanding of the overall project setting and biological resources occurring in the area. This
data will be used to devise an appropriate clearance /conservation strategy for developing the project site.
NES -MI Report
A NES -MI will be prepared with the results from the habitat assessment that will document all plant and wildlife species
and plant communities occurring on the Project site, the site's potential to support any federally or State listed species,
and whether the site supports potential jurisdictional features. The report will include a detailed map of the plant
communities occurring onsite and their respective acreages. The report will include a brief analysis of anticipated impacts
to biological resources and suggestions for further studies that may be needed prior to development, and will recommend
mitigation measures, if necessary. The report will be sufficient to allow Caltrans to make the appropriate impact/mitigation
determinations under the NEPA and CEQA.
C. Cultural Resources (Historic Property Survey Report/Archasological Survey
Report/Historical Resources Evaluation Report)
Plaza El Segundo EIR Section IV.N, Cultural Resources, concluded there are no archaeological resources in the rezoning
area (inclusive of the Project site), However, one historic resource (Resource 19- 186856) was identified on the H.
Kramer portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site, which includes the Project site, This resource was identified
as the old foundry foundations, Plaza El Segundo EIR Section IV.N concluded that future development on the H. Kramer
portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site could significantly impact this resource and further evaluation was
necessary, as specified in the following Mitigation Measure:
N -2 Further analysis of Cultural Resource 19- 186856 is required, that meets the requirements of CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(2), to determine potential eligibility forthe California or National Registerof
Historic Places prior to any construction activities occurring on the H. Kramer portion of the
Sepulveda/Rosecrans Rezoning Site. If further analysis identifies that the resource is eligible, then the
recommendations identified in that analysis shall be followed.
Thus, in compliance with Plaza El Segundo EIR Mitigation Measure N -2, RBF has retained Cogstone Resources
Management to prepare a Historic Property Survey Report/Archaeological Survey Report/Historical Resources Evaluation
Report (HPSR/ASR/HRER) in accordance with Caltrans requirements. Sherri Gust, Registered Professional
Archaeologist and Professional Paleontologist, will serve as Task Manager. She may be assisted by Nancy Sikes or
Molly Valasik, also all RPAs. Pamela Daly will be the architectural historian, All Cogstone personnel meet the Secretary
of Interior Standards for archaeology and historic preservation, and meet Caltrans qualifications standards. All work will
JN 140835 • 8 # August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
be completed in compliance with National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and Caltrans Standard
Environmental Reference (SER) Handbook. Cogstone will complete the following tasks in support of the Project:
• Coordinate preparation of Area of Potential Effects (APE) maps for archaeological and architectural resources
with RBF and Caltrans;
• Cultural resources record search to determine existence of previously recorded resources;
• Record search for sacred lands from the Native American Heritage Commission;
• Follow up contact with all Native Americans the Commission recommends;
• Consultation with local historic preservation groups;
• Record search for paleontological resources;
• Complete pedestrian surveys of the APE for archaeological, architectural, and paleontological resources;
• Prepare log of Native American /historical societies contact results;
• Prepare Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and Historic
Property Survey Report (HPSR);
• Prepare Paleontological Technical Report (CEQA level document)
This scope assumes one round of comments from the City and one round of comments from Caltrans on the technical
reports, In the APE for this approximately 0.5 mile length Project, there are NBSF and UPRR Rail Road lines and spur
tracks that would require recordation and evaluation by our experienced architectural historian,
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Phase i Initial Site Assessment)
Current and historic land uses in the Project area have generated hazardous waste. A Remedial Action Plan for Soil
(Honeywell, Inc., October 2004) was prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The Plan indicated that some of the highest concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were
located in the Project site's railroad area. An Initial Site Assessment for Hazardous Wastes will be required, and
recommendations for remediation are anticipated.
RBF has retained Geo- Environmental, Inc. (GEI) to perform an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) or Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) investigation at the Project site. The purpose of the investigation is to identify recognized
environmental conditions (REC) at the site, as defined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
E1527 -13. The Phase I ISA/ESA investigation will be conducted in general accordance with CALTRANS and ASTM
Ell 527 -E Standards for Environmental Site Assessments.
Review of Local Geology and Hydrogeology Using Available Data
• GEI will review readily available, published local geology maps and literature to evaluate the geologic setting
and types of geologic formations beneath the site. These materials will be used to determine ideal contaminant
migration patterns, if needed.
• GEI will review readily available published local and regional hydrogeology maps and literature for depths to
groundwater, general quality of groundwater, direction of groundwater flow, and waterbearing formations
(aquifers).
Review of Historical Conditions and Uses of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity
• GEI will review selected historical aerial photographs for general site use information,
• GEI will review existing geotechnical and environmental reports for mention of hazardous materials onsite.
• GEI will review selected government documents for record of potential hazardous materials /waste contamination
at the site and in the immediate vicinity of the site.
• GEI will contact appropriate local, county, and state agencies that may have information regarding the
occurrence of hazardous materials /waste in the area of the site.
JN 140835 • 9 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
• GEI will review title documents (if provided by the City) for names of previous owners of the site, for mention of
hazardous materials at the site, and for any liens recorded.
• GEI will interview selected present and /or past owners, lessees, and employees (if they are available and
cooperative) for additional information about past and present site usage.
Onsite Observational Reconnaissance
• GEI will perform an onsite observational reconnaissance with assistance from onsite personnel, if any, for visual
indications on the ground surface of hazardous materials or hazardous waste contamination. This includes
observations of drum storage and chemical use areas, discolored ground surfaces, wells, underground storage
tanks, sumps, electrical transformers, areas of solid waste disposal, and potential contamination from
immediately adjacent properties. Land use of immediately adjacent properties will be identified.
• GEI will take photographs of representative site conditions.
Phase I ISA/ESA Report Preparation
• GEI will prepare a report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the subject site. If
the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or identified at the site, subsurface sampling and analyses
may be recommended.
E. Land Use and Planning (Relocatlon Impact Memorandum)
All Project Alternatives would require relocation of UPRR /BNSF Railway railroad tracks. Also, the two Build Alternatives
would require acquisition of railroad right -of -way and a portion of the commercial property (parking lot) located north of
the Arc Light Cinemas parking structure. According to the Preliminary Study Report and Preliminary Environmental Study
(PES) Form, a Relocation Impact Memorandum (RIM) must be prepared.3 RBF will prepare a RIM consistent with
Caltrans requirements. The RIM will evaluate the Project's impact on businesses (no residences, farms, or and nonprofit
organizations are known in the area), The RIM will include an estimate of the number, type, and size of the businesses to
be displaced and the approximate number of employees that may be affected. An estimate of the availability of
replacement business sites will be provided. This analysis will consider any special relocation advisory services that may
be necessary.
As previously noted, Plaza El Segundo EIR Section II anticipated that several existing utilities would need to be relocated
and other infrastructure improvements would need to be constructed, in order to accommodate the anticipated
development. The Project was identified among the anticipated improvements. This section will analyze the proposed
actions for consistency with any applicable City of El Segundo land use plan, policy, or regulation, including the El
Segundo General Plan and Zoning Code. The consistency review will focus on General Plan policies and Zoning Code
standards, which were adopted for the purpose of avoiding /mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, El Segundo
General Plan Circulation Element Goals include providing efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. The Project
will be evaluated for consistency with this and all relevant General Plan Goals and Policies. This Task also includes
preparation of a Memorandum regarding design review recommendations for the Specific Plan document, which will not
be a part of environmental document.
The Project will provide improved local circulation and access to planned future development projects in the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning area. Therefore, the analysis will evaluate the Project's merits with particular attention
given to land use compatibility between the Project and these future developments and the expanded transportation
network that will be developed with them. Consideration will be given to environmental factors that influence land use
compatibility, including, air quality, noise, and traffic.
3 This is pending verification, since the Preliminary Study Report and Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form also state that 30
properties are impacted. Since ten or more properties are involved, a Relocation Impact Statement (RIS) is required under the Caltrans SER.
JN 140835 • 10 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
F. Noise
The Project's build alternatives would construct a new roadway and include a vertical component in the form of a grade
separation. Therefore, the proposed Project with federal funding is a Type I project. A Noise Study Re port (NSR) will be
required. RBF will conduct a noise analysis in accordance with Caltrans SER Volume 1 Chapter 12 and CEQA and
NEPA guidelines. RBF will adhere to the guidance provided in the Caltrans' Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol and
Technical Noise Supplement. Prior to preparing the NSR, RBF will initiate a teleconference call with Caltrans for review
and concurrence with the short- and long -term measurement locations. The NSR will be prepared consistent with the
Caltrans Noise Analysis Protocol to address traffic noise impacts on noise - sensitive land uses located within the study
area. Short -term (15- minute) noise measurements will be taken at up to two (2) locations to document the existing noise
environment, as well as to calibrate the traffic noise model. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise
Model (TNM) version 2.5 will be used to evaluate traffic noise levels associated with the Existing, Future No Build, and
Future Build conditions, The Traffic NSR will also consider impacts to frequent outdoor uses, as defined by FHWA, and
recommend mitigation as appropriate. Recommendations will be made for any required noise abatement measures,
including sound walls. The Project will generate construction noise and construction equipment could result in temporary
or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. Pile- driving may be necessary. The NSR will also address the full range of
construction noise potential. This scope excludes the preparation of a Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR).4
6. Traffic and Circulation
RBF will prepare a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Park Place Extension Project in the City of El Segundo.
The TIA will assess forecast traffic conditions associated with the proposed Project on the study area circulation system.
If necessary, mitigation measures for identified Project - generated traffic impacts will be recommended in accordance with
applicable agency performance criteria and thresholds of significance. RBF has extensive knowledge of the
roadway /intersection circulation system in the vicinity of the Project site based on our detailed multi - jurisdictional (City of
El Segundo, Caltrans, etc.) TIA for the Raytheon Project located northerly of the Project site area, However, since this
Scope of Work has not been reviewed by City of El Segundo staff, it is subject to change along with the fee associated
with the Scope of Work.
Study Conditions
The TIA will evaluate the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions;
• Forecast Existing Plus Conditions;
• Forecast Project Opening Year Without Project Conditions; and
• Forecast Project Opening Year With Project Conditions.
The City anticipates beginning construction of the Park Place Extension Project in 2018; therefore, the precise near -term
year will be identified based on discussions with City staff as the year the roadway extension would be expected to be
complete. No long -range year analysis is assumed, since the proposed Project is consistent with the City of El Segundo
General Plan Circulation Element.
4 The Project is not expected to require a NADR, since no sensitive receptors have been identified in the study
area, thus, the Project design does not include sound walls.
JN 140836 0 11 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
Study Area
The proposed Project will redistribute trips in the study Project site vicinity by providing additional roadway capacity and
linkage between the existing Park Place terminus east of Sepulveda Boulevard (SR -1) and the existing Park Place
terminus west of Nash Street, with Allied Way realigned to intersect with the Park Place Extension. Therefore, as part of
the analysis, RBF proposes to count the following 21 study intersections during the a.m. peak period (7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m.) and the p.m. peak period (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on a typical weekday:
1. Sepulveda Blvd. (SR -1) /EI Segundo Blvd.;
2. Sepulveda Blvd. (SR -1) /Hughes Way;
3. Sepulveda Blvd, (SR -1) /Park Place;
4. Sepulveda Blvd, (SR -1) /Rosecrans Avenue;
5. Plaza El Segundo /Park Place;
6. Village Drive /Rosecrans Avenue;
7. Continental Blvd./El Segundo Blvd.;
8. Allied Way /Hughes Way;
9. Nash Street/El Segundo Blvd.;
10. Nash Street/Park Place;
11. Nash Street/Rosecrans Avenue;
12. Apollo Street/Park Place;
13. Apollo Street/Rosecrans Avenue;
14. Douglas Street/El Segundo Blvd.;
15. Douglas Street/Transit Center;
16. Douglas Street/Park Place;
17. Douglas Street/Rosecrans Avenue;
18. Aviation Blvd,/El Segundo Blvd.;
19, Aviation Blvd. /Utah Avenue;
20. Aviation Blvd, /Alaska Avenue; and
21. Aviation Blvd. /Rosecrans Avenue,
This Scope of Work does not assume vehicle classification traffic count data collection, however vehicle classification
counts can be accommodated for a fee in addition to the fee associated with this Scope of Work.
The study area will consist of the existing 21 intersections identified above, plus the proposed future Allied Way /Park
Place intersection, which will be analyzed as both a standard intersection and as a roundabout.
Since some study intersections are not under jurisdiction of the City of El Segundo, the traffic analysis will utilize
applicable agency performance criteria and thresholds of significance, as appropriate. Due to the overlap of jurisdictions,
some study intersections may be analyzed and subject to multiple jurisdiction traffic impact review. Study intersections
within the Caltrans' jurisdiction will be analyzed based on the Caltrans Guide forthe Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
(State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002).
Site Visit/Existing Systems Documentation
RBF will visit the study area to document existing conditions including intersection control, traffic signal phasing, roadway
cross - section, speed limits, parking restrictions, intersection approach lanes, etc. The TIA will include graphics
documenting the existing intersection roadway geometry and will utilize existing geometric conditions to establish a
baseline for current operations.
Proposed Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
The TIA will provide a forecast redistribution of trips assuming implementation of the proposed project, taking into account
the proposed modified roadway circulation system. Manual trip distribution and assignment will be reviewed and
approved by agency staff prior to utilization in the analysis.
Forecast Near -Term Project Opening Year Traffic Volumes
Forecast near -term year traffic volumes will be based on either specific cumulative projects traffic data supplied by City
staff, and /or by applying an annual traffic growth rate provided by the agency staff to adjust existing traffic volumes to th e
JN 140835 * 12 * August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
ice,,.. ,
designated future horizon year. Forecast near -term year conditions will assume planned, programmed, and funded
circulation improvements identified by agency staff, anticipated for completion by the project opening year. The study will
identify the number of daily and peak hour trips forecast to be generated by approved /pending projects, using trip
generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012) or other source as
directed by agency staff. RBF will manually derive cumulative projects trip generation and assignment data, which will be
reviewed and approved by applicable agency staff for use in the analysis.
Level of Service
The analysis will assess the forecast traffic impacts of the proposed project during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour
at the 22 study intersections for the analysis scenarios identified above. The analysis will document operation of the
study intersections using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology for signalized study
intersections under City and /or Congestion Management agency jurisdiction and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
analysis methodology for unsignalized study intersections under City jurisdiction as well as signalized State Highway
study intersections under Caltrans jurisdiction. Intersection level of service analysis will be prepared using the TraffixTM
software. If the analysis indicates the proposed project will significantly impact the study intersections based on
applicable agency thresholds of significance, mitigation measures will be recommended in accordance with established
agency performance criteria, The analysis will document forecast operating conditions after implementation of
recommended mitigation measures, Since a project alternative considers the proposed Allied Way /Park Place
intersection as a roundabout in lieu of a standard signalized intersection, the SIDRA analysis software will be utilized to
evaluate the proposed Allied Way /Park Place roundabout,
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
The analysis will include a traffic signal warrant analysis in accordance with the Manual For Uniform Traffic Control
Devices ( MUTCD) analysis methodology for average daily traffic (ADT) volumes at the following unsignalized study
intersections for the analysis scenarios identified above: 1) Nash Street/Park Place; 2) Apollo Street/Park Place; and 3)
Douglas Street/Park Place. As part of MUTCD ADT traffic signal warrant analysis, RBF will collect ADT volumes over a
24 -hour period on a typical weekday on the approach legs of the unsignalized intersections.
State Highway Intersection Analysis
The Caltrans traffic studies guide requires review of substantial individual projects, which might on their own impact the
State Highway transportation system. The State Highway intersection analysis will be prepared based on the Caltrans
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002),
assuming the State Highway analysis study area will consist of the following four (4) State Highway intersections in the
study area: 1) Sepulveda Boulevard (SR -1) /EI Segundo Boulevard; 2) Sepulveda Boulevard (SR -1) /Hughes Way; 3)
Sepulveda Boulevard (SR -1) /Park Place; and 4) Sepulveda Boulevard (SR- 1) /Rosecrans Avenue. The State Highway
study intersections will be analyzed as discussed in the Level of Service section above. This Scope of Work assumes no
freeway mainline or freeway ramp analysis is required.
The analysis will assess the Project's forecast traffic impacts at the State Highway study intersections for the peak hours
and analysis scenarios identified above in the study scenarios section. The analysis will document operation of the study
intersections for the analysis scenarios to identify potential project - related traffic impacts using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) 2000 analysis methodology.
If the State Highway intersection analysis shows the proposed project will significantly impact a State Highway facility
based on Caltrans thresholds of significance, mitigation measures will be recommended in accordance with Caltrans
performance criteria. The analysis will also document forecast operating conditions after application of any
recommended mitigation measures.
JN 140835 • 13 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
Congestion Management Program Analysis
The analysis will analyze potential project impacts as applicable as required by the Los Angeles County Congestion
Management Program (CMP) assuming the State Highway analysis study area will consist of the following two (2) State
Highway intersections in the study area: 1) Sepulveda Boulevard (SR -1) /EI Segundo Boulevard; and 2) Sepulveda
Boulevard (SR- 1) /Rosecrans Avenue. If the CMP analysis shows the proposed project will significantly impact a CMP
study facility based on applicable CMP agency thresholds of significance, mitigation measures will be recommended in
accordance with applicable agency performance criteria.
Conference Calls /Meetings
This Scope assumes up to 20 hours of conference calls /meetings, as identified by City staff.
2.3.2 Topical Environmental Issue Areas
RBF will prepare the Screencheck Draft EA/EIR consistent Caltrans requirements. This task assumes that the following
topical sections will be included within the EA/EIR, incorporating the results of the studies described above. Impacts will
be analyzed on both a project -level and cumulative basis, as required by Caltrans. Short -term construction and long -term
operational impacts will be evaluated.
Human Environment: Land Use; Growth; Farmlands/Timberlands; Community Impacts; Utilities /Emergency
Services; Traffic and Transportation /Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Visual /Aesthetics; and Cultural
Resources,
• Physical Environment,: Hydrology and Floodplain; Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff;
Geology /Soils /Seismic /Topography; Paleontology; Hazardous Waste /Materials; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration;
and Energy.
• /oto ical Environment: Natural Communities; Wetlands and Other Waters; Plant Species; Animal Species;
Threatened and Endangered Species; Invasive Species;
2.3..3 Cumulative Impacts
In accordance with NEPA/CEQA, the ENEIR will include a section providing a detailed listing of cumulative projects and actions under
consideration for the analysis. The likelihood of occurrence and level of severity will be studied. The purpose of the section is to
present a listing and description of projects, past, present and anticipated in the reasonably foreseeable future, even if those projects
are outside of El Segundo's jurisdiction. The potential for impact and levels of significance are contingent upon the radius or area of
interaction with the Project. RBF will base this analysis on a Cumulative Projects List to be provided by the City. The cumulative
analysis for each topical area will be incorporated throughout the topical environmental issue areas.
2.4 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONIIIIENTAL QUALITY ACT EVALUATION
This section will discuss the environmental evaluation's approach to determining significance under CEQA and the significance of
Project impacts, including those that were determined to be: less than significant; significant; significant and unavoidable; significant
irreversible. The mitigation measures for significant impacts under CEQA will be outlined. This Section will also identify the
Organizations and Persons Consulted and will include a Bibliography. The Project's growth- inducing impacts and impacts on climate
change will be included in the topical environmental issue areas.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Scope presented above will include an analysis two Build Alternatives, in addition to the No Build Alternative.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6, RBF will provide an analysis of a "reasonable range" of alternatives, comparing
environmental impacts of each alternative in each impact area to the Project. For each alternative, RBF will provide a
qualitative analysis. An impact matrix that will compare the varying levels of impact of each alternative being analyzed
will be included.
JN 140835 , 14 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
2.6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
If comments are received on the Draft EA/EIR during the public availability period and /or at the public hearing, the Final
EA/EIR will be modified to reflect all substantive comments and responses to comments; refer to Final EA/EIR Section
below.
This Section will serve to document the coordination that occurred throughout the environmental review process. It will
discuss the following: the early and continuing coordination with the general public and public agencies; the scoping
process; the consultation and coordination with public agencies; and public participation.
2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
To comply with the Public Resources Code § 21081.6 (AB 32180), RBF will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) to be defined through working with City staff to identify appropriate monitoring
steps /procedures and in orderto provide a basis for monitoring such measures during and upon Project implementation.
The MMRP Checklist will serve as the foundation of the Project's MMRP, The Checklist outlines the mitigation measure
number as outlined in the EA/EIR, the Mitigation Measure /Condition of Approval, the Monitoring Milestone (what
agency /department is responsible for verifying implementation of the measure), Method of Verification (documentation,
field checks, etc.), and a verification section for the initials of the verifying individual, date of verification, and pertinent
remarks.
2.8 LIST OF PREPARERS
This Section will include a list of state and local agency personnel, including consultants, who were primarily responsible
for preparing the environmental document and technical studies.
3 *0 DRAFT EA1EIR
3.1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT EA/EIR
RBF will respond to one complete set of comments from the City and one from Caltrans on the Administrative Draft
EA/EIR. If desired, RBF will provide the revised document with all changes highlighted to assist in the review,
3.2 DRAFT EAIEIR
RBF will respond to a second review of the Preliminary Draft EA/EIR, including one complete set of comments from the
City and one from Caltrans. If desired, RBF will provide the revised document with all changes highlighted to assist in the
review of the Draft Public Review EA/EIR, prior to release.
3.3 DRAFT EA/EIR PUBLIC REVIEW
RBF will prepare the EA/EIR for the required 45 -day public review period. RBF will consult with the City and Caltrans to
establish the public review period, public notification, and agency filing requirements, and to develop a Distribution List.
The necessary Notices (Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Completion (NOC)) will be prepared, as outlined in Section
4.3 below. The NOI, Distribution List, EA/EIR, and NOC will be filed at the State Clearinghouse. The NOI will also be
filed at the County Clerk. RBF will distribute copies of the NOI and EA/EIR, based on the Distribution List.\
4.0 FINAL EiA EII
4.1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
If comments are received on the Draft EA/EIR during the public availability period and /or at the public hearing, RBF will
respond to all substantive comments and will modify the EA/EIR to reflect all substantive comments. RBF will prepare
thorough, reasoned, and sensitive responses to substantive comments. The Draft Responses to Comments will be
JN 140835 • 15 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
prepared for review by the City. RBF will respond to one complete set of comments from the City and one from Caltrans
on the Draft Responses to Comments, and will finalize this section for inclusion in the Administrative Final ENEIR.
It is noted that it is unknown at this time the extent of public and agency comments that will result from the review
process. RBF has budgeted conservatively, given the Project's complexity. Should the level of comments and responses
exceed our estimate, RBF will submit additional funding requests to the City, in order to complete the responses.
4.2 FINAL EA/EIR
The Final EA/EIR will consist of the revised Draft EA/EIR text, as necessary, and the "Comments to Responses" Section.
The Draft EA/EIR will be revised in accordance with the responses to public comments on the EA/EIR. To facilitate City
review, RBF will format the Final EA/EIR with shaded text for any new or modified text, and "strike out" any text which has
been deleted from the Final EA/EIR. The Final EA/EIR will be submitted to Caltrans for approval and Finding of No
Significant Impact ( FONSI). RBF will also prepare and file the Notice of Determination within five (5) days of EA/EIR
approval. This Scope of Work excludes the required fees for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
4.3 PUBLIC NOTICES AND FONSI
RBF will prepare, submit, and mail all NEPA/CEQA notices required for the Project. Public notices are anticipated to
include:
• Notice ofPreparation: As stated above within Task 1.5, RBF will prepare the NOP for the Project to initiate the
30 -day NOP public review period. RBF will distribute the NOP to appropriate agencies, parties, and individuals
(including the State Clearinghouse). RBF will also post the NOP at the County Clerk.
• Notice ofAvaiiadiiit : RBF will prepare a Notice of Availability (NOA) to be distributed at the onset of the
Project's 45 -day public review period. The NOA will include required Project information, such as a brief Project
description, the start/end dates of the public review period, locations where the EIR is available for review, and
contact information for City staff,
• Notice ofCom /etion: RBF will prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) for submittal to the State Clearinghouse
at the onset of both the 30 -day NOP public review period and the 45 -day Draft EIR public review period. The
NOC will follow the format recommended by the State Clearinghouse.
• Notice of Determination; As stated above within Task 4,2, RBF will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD), to
be filed with the County Clerk and sent to the State Clearinghouse within five days of EIR certification. This
Scope of Work excludes payment of any CDFW filing fees, if applicable.
• Findh?g of No Significant iin ect RBF will prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) for review,
approval, and signature by Caltrans. A notice of availability of the FONSI will be sent to the affected units of
federal, state and local government. RBF will also provide a copy of the environmental document to the
Headquarters NEPA Assignment Office.
This scope assumes that the City would be responsible for any radius mailing, newspaper notices, and filing fees required
for the Project.
4.3 FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RBF will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process including the preparation of the Notice of
Determination, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Findings for City use in the Project review process. RBF will
prepare the Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091 and 15093 and in a form specified by the City. RBF
will submit the Draft Findings for City review and will respond to one complete set of City comments.
JN 140835 . 16 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
5.0 PROJECT COORDINATION AND MEETINGS
5.1 COORDINATION
Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP, and Ms. Rita Garcia, will be responsible for management and supervision of the EIR Project
Team as well as consultation with City staff. Mr. Lajoie and Ms. Garcia will undertake consultation and coordination of the
Project and review the EIR for compliance with NEPA/CEQA requirements and guidelines and City procedures. RBF will
coordinate with state and local agencies regarding this environmental document. Ms. Garcia will coordinate with all
technical staff, consultants, support staff, and word processing toward the timely completion of the EA/EIR, This Task
assumes bi- monthly progress conference calls with the City /Caltrans (12 total), It is RBF's goal to serve as an extension
of City staff throughout the duration of the Project. As is stated in Understanding of the Project, RBF will be available to
meet with City staff to discuss particular Project parameters, as required by the City.
5.2 MEETINGS
Mr. Lajoie, and /or Ms. Garcia, will attend all staff meetings and will represent the Project Team at public hearings and
make presentations as necessary. RBF anticipates several meetings with City staff, including a "kick -off meeting" (refer
to Task 11), progress meetings, public meetings, and hearings. Mr. Lajoie and Ms. Garcia along with other key Project
Team personnel, including the Design Review staff, will also be available to attend meetings with affected jurisdictions,
agencies, and organizations, as needed to identify issues, assess impacts, and define mitigation. At public hearings,
RBF will present an overview of the environmental review process, a summary of the environmental issue areas to be
studied, areas of controversy, and EIR conclusions, and will be available to answer questions. Any sub - consultants used
as part of the environmental consultant team would also be available for attendance, Should the City determine that
additional meetings beyond the meetings outlined below are necessary, services will be provided under a separate Scope
of Work on a time and materials basis. The estimated cost for additional meetings is approximately $800 per person.
• One (1) kickoff meeting with City staff (Refer to Task 1.1) to coordinate the Project;
• One (1) meeting to monitor the environmental document's progress, resolve issues, review comments on
Administrative documents, and receive any necessary direction from the City,
• Two (2) meetings with City staff regarding proposed recommendations;
• One (1) scoping meeting.
• One (1) public hearing with presentations, as necessary, before the Planning Commission;
• Two (2) public hearings with presentations, as necessary, before the City Council.
6.0 DELIVERABLES
A breakdown of all products /deliverables is provided below. The listed deliverables assume a standard number of
deliverables for a project of this type and can be adjusted, as directed by City. RBF can also provide a cost per document
and billing on a time and materials basis, as requested by the City.
SECTION 1.0
Initial! Staid /Notice of Preparation (NOP)
• 50 printed copies NOP;
• 20 printed copies of IS;
• 30 CDs;
SECTIONS 2.0 - 3.0
Administrative Draft EA/EIR
• Five (5) printed copies;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF;
• One (1) camera -ready copy;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF;
2nd Administrative Draft EA/EIR
• Five (5) printed copies;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF;
JN 140835 • 17 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
Draft EA/EIR
• 30 printed copies;
• 2 printed copies of Appendices;
60 CDs;
• One (1) camera -ready copy;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF;
SECTION 4.0
Administrative Comments and Res onses
• Five (5) printed copies;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF;
Final EA/EIR
• 15 printed copies;
15 CDs;
Executive Summary
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) printed copy;
20 CDs;
One (1) camera -ready copy;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF included in
Draft EA/EIR CDs,
• One (1) camera -ready copy;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word;
• One (1) electronic copy in PDF;
Cesi n Review Recommendations
• 1 printed copy;
• One (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word; and
One (1) electronic copy in PDF.
All documents, notices, labels and maps included in the Scope of Services section will be provided on CD in Microsoft
Word 2010 format, unless otherwise agreed to by City staff, and sent via e-mail or uploaded as required by the City.
Regular electronic updates of the documents shall be provided to City staff as drafts are revised and finalized.
JN 140835 • 18 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
There maybe additional opportunities to streamline the overall schedule and reduce the schedule by another one to two
months (based upon further discussions with City staff). A date - specific schedule will be provided at the Project kickoff.
EA/EIR Kickoff
Month 1
Project Description is Drafted /Approved
Month 1
Initial Study /Notice of Preparation
Month 1
30 -Day NOP Public Review
Month 2
EA/EIR Scoping Meeting
Month 2
Administrative Draft EA/EIR preparation
Months 2 - 8
Review of Administrative Draft EA/EIR
Month 8
Preliminary Draft EA/EIR preparation by RBF
Month 9
Review of Preliminary Draft EA/EIR
Month 9
Complete, Publish, and Circulate Draft EA/EIR
Month 9
45 -Day Public Review Period
Months 9 -10
Hearing during the Draft EA/EIR Review to receive Comments
Month 10
RBF prepares Responses to Comments
Month 10
Review of Responses to Comments
Month 10 -11
RBF prepares Administrative Final EA/EIR
Months 11
Review of Administrative Final EA/EIR
Month 11
Complete, Publish, and Circulate Final EA/EIR
Month 11
Certification Hearing
TBD
* The schedule considers on -going coordination and meetings with the Project team through the duration of the Project.
JN 140835 . 19 # August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
Size aplrrn.'px�rrrak4y 540 r za plo cs
1 0 SUMMARY
"
lEsta lb l i sh ed: 11.944
Incorporated. Stateo Cginhforrnia,
FIRM OVERVIEW
Noverrabeu 1%1
Locations:
RBF Consulting, a Company of Michael Baker International (RBF), is one of the
C.arnartiian, CA
largest engineering, design and construction management firms in the Nation.
0,
Car.11sbad, CA
From RBF's beginning in 1944 in southern California, the company has grown to
0
El 13egundo, CA
a full service consulting firm with project experience in 13 countries, 27 states
R -as Vegas, NV
and with over 700 local agencies. RBF has a team of 540 professionals with 16
1-rs Anngeies, CA
offices in the Western United States. RBF has experience, organizational
Oakland, CA
resources, and management capabilities to provide a complete range of services
0
O ntr.ario, CA
for planning, urban design, transportation planning, land use and policy
Palm Dc -wrt, CA
planning, landscape architecture, and environmental services.
A
Phoenix, Z
MMIr~EY QUALIFICATION FACTORS
0
Sacramento, CA
0
San Diego, CA.
RBF Consulting is a multi - disciplinary planning and engineering firm with offices
Sarn pose, CA
in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Diego, Contra
0
llc;nlecula, CA
Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, and Sacramento counties. With over 68 years of
0
'ruu.;on, , Z
public and private sector experience, RBF is respected and recognized in the
Walnut Creek, CA
profession of consulting planning, environmental, and engineering services
throughout the state of California. RBF has in -house expertise in disciplines
Services Provided:
including Environmental Analysis, Planning, GIS Services, Surveying, Aerial
t nZa
Photogrammetry, Mapping, Real Estate Assessments, Transportation /Traffic
0
]...anal Planning
Engineering, Civil Engineering (including Grading, Public Works,
0
TransportationN.ant-Lihig
Water /Wastewater, Hydrology), Mechanical /Electrical /Energy Services,
1'hviro nxnmentall Services
Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD), and Media Services. Over 75
Watershed Management
professionals are dedicated to Environmental, Planning, Urban Design, and
a
Urban Plarrn ng and Design
Landscape Architecture services company -wide.
c:Yu�
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Visual An.alyAs and Design
esz a
RBF possesses the full range of disciplines necessary to provide turn -key
Civil Engineering
planning, design and implementation of a wide range of projects. We combine
Transportation Engineering
our expertise in development projects and urban planning, transportation, and
Water Resource IFngincerAnf
air quality management, to develop and assess project designs that minimize
0
Structural Enfgirneerht g
impacts to the natural environment and community.
0
Tr.af c E nlgunneemig
0
Electrical Engineering
a
Landscape Architecture
Stcrrm.wvater Management
Construction:
0 field Sarveyirig
0 Map ping / Right of Way
0 Construction Staking
Con atruckion Mannagcar4enf.
0 Construction Ilnspectie7rn
JN 140835 9 20 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Rita Garcia
Alan Ashimine
Glenn Lajoie, AICP
Air Quality/GHG /Noise
Hazardous Materials
Eddie Torres, INCE
Roberto C. Flores
Geo- Environmental, Inc.
Biology
Tom McGill, PhD
Land Use /Community Impacts
Starla Barker, AICP
Cultural Resources
Sherri Gust, RPA Traffic
Cogstone Resource Management Bob Matson
JN 140835 . 21 • August 11, 2014
r •�
L o
O L
�a
co C
N> O
Q R
O L
L R
a
m
R
,L^
V
R
0
L
R-
C
R
C
O
.y
C
d
W
d
v
R
a
Y
L
R
a
m
L
0
w
3
R
.j
R
C
.N
N
C
R
3
a�
m
a�
c�
w
U
a
a
w
z
M
Agreement No. 4716
0
N
r
fA
7
Cl
3
2
N
N
LO
M
O
O
V
z
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPAICEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
The following pages provide a small sample of representative projects throughout Southern California. Additional
examples and references may be provided, as requested.
JN 140835 • 23 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
RBF assisted the City of Long Beach with preparation of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) clearance documentation for the Alamitos Park project. The project
included roadway improvements at and surrounding the intersection of Martin
Luther King Jr. (MLK) Avenue and 7th Street, within the southwestern portion
of the City. The project proposed to vacate a portion of MLK Avenue and
convert it into a public park use. The project utilized Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) funds through the Federal Highway
Administration, and thus required NEPA documentation through the Caltrans
District 7 Division of Local Assistance.
RBF prepared an extensive range of environmental technical documentation in
accordance with the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER). This
technical analysis pertained to air quality, noise, traffic, hazardous materials, and
cultural resources, and required close consultation with Caltrans staff to complete
the CEQA/NEPA documentation on an expedited schedule.
Long Beach, CA
JN 140835 « 24 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
RBF is currently assisting the City of San Diego with preparation of an
Highlights:
Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA and for the El Camino Real
a Federally Funded — Caltrans
Bridge Widening Project. Due to the City's use of federal funding for the
Environmental Assessment
project, the EA is being processed through the Caltrans Division of Local
Assistance.
N Endangered Species
Impacts
The project is required to correct seismic and operational deficiencies
0: Air Quality and Noise
associated with the existing El Camino Real Bridge. The City proposes to
Modeling
reconstruct and widen the 340-foot long bridge over the San Dieguito River.
Extensive Habitat
Project build alternatives include four vehicle travel lanes with pedestrian,
Restoration Required
bicycle, and equestrian improvements. Utility relocations and improvements to
bridge approaches would also be included.
The EA and supporting technical studies include preparation of a detailed
biological analysis to determine potential impacts to federally listed species. In
addition, the project will require extensive coordination with multiple state and
federal regulatory agencies. Other primary issues to be analyzed within the EA
and supporting technical studies include aesthetics, noise, wetlands, and
hydrology / water quality.
JN 140835 • 25 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
RBF prepared the EIR for the El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan Project
located at the Raytheon Company's Space and Airborne Systems Facility at
2000 -2100 East El Segundo Boulevard. The El Segundo South Campus
Specific Plan Project proposes to establish a maximum allowable development
within the Specific Plan area boundaries of 4,231,547 gross square feet, or an
additional 2,142,457 gross square feet over existing conditions. Proposed uses
within the Specific Plan include office, warehousing, light industrial, and
commercial (retail /restaurant) uses. In addition to the Specific Plan, the
proposed Project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Zone Map Amendment, Zone Text Amendment, a Vesting Tentative
Map, and a Development Agreement. The Specific Plan also proposed
extensive utility improvements, and vehicular and non - vehicular circulation
improvements to El Segundo Boulevard, Nash Street and Continental
Boulevard.
$ w
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Ms. Kimberly Christensen, AICP,
310/524 -2340
��,��nn } Commercial /Office Mixed Use
CiI�1��U1rD�u Office/ Indusinal Mixed Use
i�r Open Space / Recreational
,77
i
I III ii
JN 140835 • 26 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Airside
Perimeter Road Realignment
RBF provided professional engineering services to realign approximately 1,300
feet of perimeter access road at John Wayne Airport. This work included
pavement section analysis and retaining wall design to accommodate the
existing water pressure reducing station, geometric and vertical profile analysis,
signing and pavement markings, electrical design, access gates, specifications,
and cost estimates.
Landside
Interstate 405 / State Route 55 Access Ramps
RBF provided professional engineering services for this project which added
local access ramps into the John Wayne Airport from branch connectors on the
Interstate 405 /State Route 55 Freeway Interchange. Complete PS &E were
prepared to Caltrans Standards and Specifications. Caltrans review and
approvals were obtained from Caltrans District 7. Project work included
geometric layout and profile design of the new access ramps, on and off site
highway drainage systems, and signing and striping. Services provided
included: Concept Plan Development; Preliminary Plan Preparation;
Alternative Interchange Analysis; Technical Report Preparation; Geometric
Approval Plans; and Final PS &E. Complete PS &E was also prepared for the
realignment of the east/west perimeter /fire access road and taxiway connector.
This work also included the construction of an extinguishable message sign for
emergency access as well as utility relocations.
Director Connectors to
Interstate 405 / State Route
55
JN 140835 • 27 9 August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
Saw Canyon Avenue Gra*e Separation at the
i Railroad
RBF provided design services for Sand Canyon Avenue / Undercrossing at
Southern California Regional Rail Authority ( SCRRA) / Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) / Metrolink Grade Separation in Irvine,
California. RBF was responsible for roadway layout, structures design, pump
station design, railroad permitting and coordination, railroad shoofly design,
drainage design, utility relocation coordination, survey/ right -of -way engineering,
community outreach, landscape / irrigation, identification of funding and
geotechnical engineering services.
Key issues included:
• Value analysis of project report and rail bridge structure design elements
• Complex construction staging for maintenance of operations including:
rail, trucks, cars, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic
• Coordination with multiple utility agencies for major transmission and
distribution facility relocations including: oil- transmission lines, high
pressure gas, electric transmission lines, fiber -optic facilities, domestic
water transmission, and multiple distribution facilities
• Construction of a new 84 -ich stormwater drainage facility and stormwater
pump station
• Stormwater treatment facility
• Landscaped medians and parkways including "Heritage " oak tree
preservation
• Maintain two (2) operating railroad mainlines using temporary Shoo-
fly (detour)
• Temporary property encroachments and protection of "Old Town"
Irvine property
• Relocations of SCRRA Maintenance of Way (MOW) site
• Traffic signal design, interconnect, queue cutter signal design, and
street lighting
• Careful roadway / rail alignment study and design to maximize
highway speeds, and rail track adjustments to maintain appropriate
structure clearances
• Caltrans encroachment permit for work within their right -of -way
Reference:
City of Irvine
One Civic Center Plaza
Irvineg CA 92623
Mr, Steven 011o, 944/724 -7562
solo@ci.irvine.ca.us
JN 140835 • 28 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPAICEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
RBF prepared the Environmental Impact Report for a 3,000 -acre expansion of
the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) Specific Plan to
accommodate proposed intermodal and multimodal rail facilities adjacent to the
former George Air Force Base in the City of Victorville. Rail facilities would
be complemented by nearly 20 million square feet of general industrial
development. Issues analyzed within the EIR included air quality, noise,
biological resources, cultural resources, aesthetics, and traffic, among others.
RBF also assisted in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment for the
project, necessitated by the City's pursuit of Federal funding. RBF coordinated
extensive Section 7 and Section 106 consultations with Federal agencies and
local Native American tribes, in addition to processing the document through
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
m qj
Stirling Airports International, LLC
27422 Portola Parkway
Suite 300
Foothill Rancho CA 92610
Mir. Jim Houlihan
949/588 -2233
JN 140835 • 29 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
RBF Client references are provided below, Additional references are available upon request,
Ms. Kimberly Christensen, AICP
Planning Manager
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
350 Main Street
El Segundo, California 90245
310.524.2300
Mr. Robert C. Gresens, P.E.
District Engineer
CAMBRIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
1316 Tamson Drive, Suite 201
Cambria, California 93428
805.927.6119
Mr. Ara Mihranian
Principal Planner
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
310.377.0360
Ms. Jennifer Le
Senior Planner /Environmental Coordinator
CITY OF ORANGE
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
714.744.7238
JN 140835 o 41 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Exhibit
Budget
�� ca
G13'7
ice'
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
GL = Glenn L*ie
RG = Rita Garda
M = Alen Ashinine
SO = State Barker
ET = Eddie Tones
BM = Bob Matson
TM - Tan McGill
EA = Enviro menW Anayst/Entirw
GA - GWk Artist
JN 140835 a 45 a August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
This proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days. Progress billings will be forwarded based on payment criteria
established by the City, These billings will include the fees earned for the billing period. The City shall make every
reasonable effort to review invoices within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt of the invoices and notify
Consultant in writing of any particular item that is alleged to be incorrect.
The fees proposed herein shall apply until July 1, 2015. Due to annual increases in costs associated with inflation, staff
wage increases and increases in direct costs, Consultant will increase those portions of the contract fee for which work
must still be completed after July 1, 2015, by fifteen percent (15 %).
Deviations or modifications from the Scope of Work will result in potential re- evaluation of the associated fees. Items not
specifically stated in the proposal will be considered an additional work item.
All work will be performed at a "Not to Exceed" contract price, which will become the fixed price upon completion of
negotiations with the City staff authorized to negotiate and agreement. The total budget includes all miscellaneous costs
for travel /mileage, reproduction, telephone, postal, delivery, reference materials, and incidental expenses.
The budget provides a breakdown of our estimated cost of performing the services described in this Scope of Services.
The RBF Scope of Services and associated costs are based on several key assumptions, including the following:
1. The City will develop the mailing list for distribution of the EA/EIR and notices. The City will be responsible for
newspaper cost of publication of notices, which will be billed directly to the City, thus, are not included in the
proposed budget.
2. Photocopy costs included in the proposal are for the specified number of copies of deliverables and reasonable
incidental and in -team photocopying. If additional copies of deliverables are needed, they can be provided with
an amendment to the proposed budget.
3. Review cycles for preliminary documents are presented in the Scope of Work. Additional review cycles or
additional versions of administrative drafts are assumed to not be needed.
4. The proposed work addresses CEQA/NEPA requirements of the proposed action. Work related to Section 404
compliance or other permitting processes is not included (although these can be added, as needed, with a
contract amendment). Work concludes acceptance by the City of the final deliverable.
5. The budget is based on completion of work within an agreed upon schedule. If substantial delay occurs, an
amendment of the budget would be warranted to accommodate additional project management time and other
costs. Substantial delay is normally defined as 90 days or more.
6. Costs are included for the number of meetings specified in the Scope of Work. If additional meetings are
needed, they can be included with an amendment of the budget.
7. The extent of public comment on a Draft EIR is not predictable. The proposed budget includes a reasonable,
preliminary estimate time to respond to comments. RBF will consult with the City after the valuation of the
comments to determine if the preliminarily estimated budget is sufficient. An excessive amount of comments is
generally considered to be more than thirty (30) commenting agencies /individuals and /or over 150 comments
that require answers other than "Comment is noted."
8. Costs have been allocated to tasks to determine the total budget. RBF may reallocate costs among tasks, as
needed, as long as the total budget is not exceeded,
9. Once the proposed Project Description, baseline, and alternatives are approved by the City for analysis in the
Draft EIR, it is assumed they will not change thereafter. If changes requiring revisions to analysis or rewriting of
EIR information occur, an amendment of the budget would be warranted.
JN 140835 • 43 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
10. RBF is agreeable to execute the City Professional Services Agreement and is able to provide proof of insurance
and required endorsements as noted in the agreement.
11. The CEQA/NEPA statutes or guidelines may change during the course of this EA/EIR. If amendments require
redoing work already performed or substantially increasing effort, a contract amendment may be warranted.
JN 140835 • 44 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
VI. LIABILITY INSURANCE
RBF has general liability insurance in the amount of $4,000,000, RBF's Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
amounts to $3,000,000. RBF also carries automobile liability, excess liability, work's compensation and employer's
liability. Further information and /or certificates of insurance will be provided by RBF, as requested by the Client.
JN 140835 • 42 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Exhibit C
esurnes
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
The following are brief background descriptions for the key professionals who would be responsible for preparing the
ENEIR. The percentage of hours of each staff member and individual tasks are included in the Fee Summary.
JN 140835 • 30 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
GLENN LAJOIE, AICP I PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE
Registration /Certification:
1994, American Institute of Certified
Planners, 087288
Years Experience: 27
Education:
B,A., 1985, Geography /Urban Studies, California State University,
Long Beach
M.P.A., 1992, Public Policy and Administration, California State
University, Long Beach
Professional Affiliations:
Full Member, American Planning Association
Full Member, Association of Environmental Professionals
Member, Orange County American Planning Association Board of
Directors, 1992 -1997
President, Orange County American Planning Association, 1994-
1996
Lecturer, California State UniNersity, Long Beach
Mr. Lajoie's primary responsibilities include oversight of daily operations, management of projects, staff
mentoring and instruction, scheduling, and business development. With many years of practical experience,
Mr. Lajoie is a recognized leader in CEQA and NEPA studies (EIR's, EIS's, Negative Declarations,
Environmental Assessments), as well as other policy planning documents, including General Plans, Area
Plans, Specific Plans, and due diligence studies. Projects have ranged from private entitlement applications
related to residential and commercial projects as well as a variety of water, wastewater, highway, and
redevelopment projects throughout California. Project responsibilities include analysis, technical review and
management of environmental and policy planning documentation for compliance with NEPA/CEQA,
implementation of public participation programs, and assistance to various public and private sector clients in
meeting the requirements of local, State, and Federal agencies.
Relevant Experience:
• 231 -265 North Beverly Drive (William Morris Agency) Project EIR
• Automobile Club of Southern California EIR
• Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Mixed Use Project EIR
• Boeing Specific Plan Program EIR
• Buena Park General Plan Update /Program EIR
• Cypress Business Park Environmental Review
• Downtown and Central Long Beach Redevelopment Plans Master EIR
• El Segundo Media Center
• Fair, Isaac Office Park EIR
• Glendora Route 66 Specific Plan /EIR
• Hotel Del Coronado Master Plan EIR
• Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan MND
• Long Point Resort EIR
• Marymount College Facilities Expansion EIR
• North Downtown Lancaster Neighborhood Revitalization / Transit Village Plan EIR/EA
• North Village Mammoth Specific Plan Program EIR
• Oasis Road Specific Plan Master EIR
• Old Town Yucca Valley Specific Plan Program EIR
• Pacific Trade Center EIR
• Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan Program EIR
• Shoreline Gateway EIR
• Temple Palms Business Park EIR
JN 140835 . 31 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
RITA GARCIA I PROJECT MANAGER
Years Experience: 25 Education:
B.S., 1988, Urban and Regional Planning, California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona
Professional Affiliations:
American Planning Association
Association of Environmental Professionals
Ms. Garcia is involved in the preparation, daily monitoring, and coordination of environmental documents,
ensuring their timely completion reflective of the highest standard of professional care. With over 25 years in
the environmental field, Ms. Garcia has extensive experience with projects involving sensitive planning and
environmental issues including land use and relevant planning, aesthetics /visual character, and
traffic /circulation. She has had significant experience with environmental analyses of a very broad range of
projects, including small /large, development/redevelopment, and residential /non - residential (i.e., commercial,
industrial, facility /institutional, and infrastructure). These projects were located in varied settings, including
inland and coastal, and rural and urbanized communities, many involving substantial controversy and public
participation. Her background is foundational to providing environmental, land use, and project management
services that produce successful results for her clients. Her experience in environmental analysis ranges
from Initial Studies /Negative Declarations and Environmental Assessments for small -scale urban infill
residential /commercial projects to environmental impact reports (EIRs) for large- scale, mixed -use projects on
vacant properties. More specifically, her experience as Project Manager for El Segundo Project includes the
El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan EIR, which addressed the Nash Street and Continental Boulevard
extensions proposed just north of the Park Place Extension Project area, and multiple IS /MNDs (Queen
Esther Square Shopping Center Project, Equinix Data Center, T5 Data Center, and Hampton Inn. Ms.
Garcia also served as Senior Environmental Analyst on the Chevron Central Reliability Center and Central
Tool Room /I &E Shops EIR, Nash Street Data Center IS /MND, and Aloft Hotel. These projects required
detailed traffic /circulation, noise, land use consistency, and traffic /circulation analyses for short- and long-
term conditions. These projects involved critical land use compatibility and relevant planning issues, and in
depth analyses of consistency with city policies and code standards.
Additional Relevant Experience:
• Arbor Gardens Senior Citizens Housing Project EA
• Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Mixed Use Project EIR
• Bloomington Phase I Housing Project EA
• Crestridge Senior Housing EIR
• Dana Point Harbor Revitalization EIR
• Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment EIR
• University of California East Campus Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2 IS /MND
• General Plan Update /Program EIRs (Artesia, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Murrieta, Villa Park)
• Inspiration Neighborhood Center EA
• Holiday Haus Project IS /MND
• Hotel del Coronado Master Plan Program EIR
• Housing Element Update IS /MNDs (Anaheim, Fullerton, Los Alamitos, Orange, Placentia, Stanton)
• Jamboree Housing Project EA
• John Wayne Airport Fuel Farm Feasibility Study
• John Wayne Airport Perimeter Road Rehabilitation Project IS /MND
• Long Point Resort EIR
• Monterey Downs, Monterey Horse Park, and Central Coast Veterans Cemetery SP EIR
• SCLA Rail Service Project NEPA/CEQA
JN 140835 • 32 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
t for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
t�m
ALAN ASHIMINE � PROJECT COORDINATOR
Years Experience: 15
Education:
B.A., 2000, Environmental Analysis and Design, University of
California, Irvine
Professional Affiliations:
Board of Directors, Orange County Association of Environmental
Professionals (OCAEP), 2009 and 2010
Legislative Committee, OCAEP, 2008
Member, American Planning Association (APA)
Member, Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
As a Project Manager and Senior Environmental Analyst at REIF, Alan Ashimine prepares environmental
studies for public and private sector clients under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mr. Ashimine has extensive practical experience in managing
Environmental Impact Reports, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and joint CEQA/NEPA documents for a
diverse range of projects including infrastructure, land development, redevelopment/brownfield, and
institutional uses. Using his broad background and understanding of environmental constraints, Mr.
Ashimine provides defensible CEQA/NEPA compliance review and environmental documentation.
Mr. Ashimine is currently serving as project coordinator for the Coast Community College District's Maritime
Training Center Project, which is also located along West Coast Highway and requires analysis of a similar
range of issues. In addition, he has worked on a range of projects located along the coast and is familiar
with issues typically encountered with coastal development.
Relevant Experience:
• Alamitos Park CEQA/NEPA Clearance
• Pacific Trade Center EIR
• Biane Business Park Project EIR
• Orange Coast College Maritime Training Center IS /MND
• California Senior Plaza IS /MND
• Capistrano Bluffs Sewer Pipeline IS /MND
• Poseidon Seawater Desalination EIR
• West Basin Municipal Water District Temporary Ocean Water Desalination Demonstration Project EIR
• River's End Staging Area and San Gabriel River Bikeway Enhancement Plan
• Universal Health Services Mixed -Use Facility EIR
• Huntington Beach Gun Range EIR
• San Diego County Water Authority Seawater Desalination Project EIR
• Coastal Water Project Proponent's Environmental Assessment
• Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan Program EIR
• Cajon Wash Improvements Plan IS /MND
• Camp Pendleton Desalination Feasibility Study
• Carbon Canyon Dam Sewer Pipeline EIR
• Linda Vista Reservoir Complex Environmental Analysis
• Prado Reservoir Environmental Analysis
• Sycamore Creek Channel Improvements IS /MND
• Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority Treatment Plant IS /MND
• Walnut Canyon Reservoir CEQA and Regulatory Permitting
• Yucaipa Master Plan of Drainage Update IS /MND
JN 140835 • 33 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
STARLA BARKER, AICP I SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST
Registration:
2009, American Institute of Certified
Planners, 58834482
Years Experience: 12
Education:
Masters, 2004, Urban and Regional Planning, California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona
B.A., 1996, Business Economics, University of California, Riverside
Professional Affiliations:
2009, American Institute of Certified Planners, 58834482
Member, American Planning Association (APA)
Ms. Barker received her master's degree in urban and regional planning from California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona, specializing in community development and environmental planning. At RBF, Ms.
Barker's primary responsibilities are the preparation and management of environmental documents (Initial
Studies, Negative Declarations, Environmental Impact Reports, and Environmental Assessments), as well as
other policy planning documents, including General Plans and Specific Plans. Project responsibilities
typically include research, analysis, and writing of policy planning and environmental documents for
compliance with CEQA / NEPA, as well as technical review and management of General Plan and CEQA /
NEPA work programs and participation in public outreach programs.
Ms. Barker has managed a wide range of projects with particular emphasis in urban infill, downtown, and
redevelopment projects. Utilizing her experience in community planning, Ms. Barker is also regularly
involved in land use and policy planning and frequently prepares environmental documents for citywide policy
planning and redevelopment projects. Ms. Barker is also involved in several needs assessment studies,
which use GIS mapping to analyze and evaluate neighborhood and /or city needs and to develop strategies
for redevelopment and revitalization within those areas.
Relevant Experience:
• Buena Park General Plan Update and EIR (Buena Park, CA)
• Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment EIR (Seal Beach, CA)
• Downtown Lancaster Specific Plan EIR (Lancaster, CA)
• Duarte General Plan Update EIR (Duarte, CA)
• Expansion Area Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Project Area Program EIR (Palmdale, CA)
• Fullerton Plan 2030 General Plan Update EIR (Fullerton, CA)
• Garden Grove General Plan Update and EIR (Garden Grove, CA)
• Historic Upland Downtown Specific Plan EIR (Upland, CA)
• Lancaster General Plan Update and EIR (Lancaster, CA)
• Murrieta General Plan Update and EIR (Murrieta, CA)
• North Downtown Lancaster Neighborhood Revitalization/Transit Village EIR/EA (Lancaster, CA)
• Northeast Gateway Corridors EIR (Lancaster, CA)
• Palmdale Expansion Area Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Project Area EIR (Palmdale, CA)
• Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan EIR (Palmdale, CA)
• Perris Historic Downtown Specific Plan EIR (Perris, CA)
• Plan Amendment No. 13 to Existing Project Area No. 1 Program EIR (South Gate, CA)
• Proposed Plan Amendment to Existing Project Area No. 1 Program EIR (South Gate, CA)
• San Bernardino Merged Area B Merger and Amendments Project EIR (San Bernardino, CA)
• South Gate General Plan Update EIR (South Gate, CA)
• Stanton General Plan Update and EIR (Stanton, CA)
• Glendora General Plan Update and EIR (Glendora, CA)
JN 140835 « 34 . August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Registration /Certification:
2003, Institute of Noise Control Engineers
2009, Registered Environmental Assessor,
30154
Years Experience: 15
Education:
B.A., 2000, Environmental Analysis and Design, University of
California, El Segundo
B.S., 2000, Mechanical Engineering, University of California, El
Segundo
M.S., 2005, Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern
California
Professional Affiliations:
American Planning Association
Air & Waste Management Association
Acoustical Society of America
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
American Institute of Physics
Mr. Torres serves as the Director of Technical Studies, with a specialty in Acoustics, Air Quality, Climate
Change, and Visual Impact Assessments. Mr. Torres leads RBF's efforts to be at the forefront of Global
Climate Change studies. Mr. Torres has prepared numerous analyses that are consistent with climate
change legislation such as Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 97, Executive Order S -3 -05, and Senate Bill 375. In
addition to analyzing climate change impacts, Mr. Torres has led the development of numerous greenhouse
gas inventory models which calculate greenhouse gas emissions from such sources as vehicular traffic,
stationary sources, electricity consumption, water consumption, wastewater treatment, and construction
processes.
Mr. Torres has also been selected by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to co -lead a set of technical
working groups to develop energy and GHG assessment protocols for single buildings, land use and
infrastructure projects. The program was developed through a Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)
grant to facilitating a series of technical working groups that bring together diverse sets of subject matter
experts, emphasizing individuals with combinations of "front line" experience and vision for the implications
for public policy, regulation, and market transformation. The following is a representative sample of projects
for which Mr. Torres has prepared environmental and technical analyses.
Relevant Experience:
• Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Mixed Use Project EIR
• Buena Park General Plan Update /Program EIR
• Dana Point Harbor Revitalization EIR
• Fullerton Climate Action Plan
• Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan Program EIR
Hotel del Coronado Specific Plan Program EIR
Mammoth Clearwater Specific Plan EIR
• Murrieta Climate Action Plan
■ Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan Program EIR
Plan Amendment No. 13 to Existing Project Area No. 1 Program EIR, South Gate
■ Rio Bravo Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR
Saco Ranch Commercial Center EIR
San Bernardino East Project Areas Mergers and Plan Amendments EIR
Seal Beach City Wide Sewer Master Plan Project IS /MND
South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization Project
• Temple Palms Business Park EIR
• Tyler Mall Redevelopment Project
JN 140835 9 35 * August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
THOMAS MCGILL, PH.D. I BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Years Experience: 31
Honors /Awards:
Lifetime Achievement Award, 2004 Inland
Empire Leaders of Distinction
Outstanding Individual Achievement
Award, 2003 AEP State of California
Outstanding Individual Achievement
Award, 2003 AEP Inland Empire
Chapter
Education:
Ph.D., Genetics, University of California, Santa Barbara 1978
M.A., Ecology, University of California, Santa Barbara 1978
B.A., Biology, Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts, 1971
Professional Affiliations:
Association of Environmental Professionals
Business Development Association of the Inland Empire
California State Bar Association
Death Valley Natural History Association, Past Chairman
Dr. McGill has more than 30 years of experience in preparing all types of biological reports, including
resource management plans, habitat conservation plans (HCP), multi- species habitat conservation plans
(MSHCP), sensitive species surveys, and biological assessments under Section 7 of the federal endangered
species act. He provides the unique combination of being and environmental consultant as well as an
attorney having passed the California State Bar in 1990. Dr. McGill has directed numerous habitat
conservation planning, land use planning, and environmental efforts throughout the Inland Empire, including
the cities of Chino, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, Highland, Redlands,
Riverside, San Jacinto, and Hemet. Dr. McGill is also one of the authors of the multiple award - winning first
ever Tribal Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
which established the benchmark for all future similar documents for Sovereign Nations. Prior to his entry
into the private industry, Dr. McGill worked for the U.S. Department of the Navy as head of environmental
management in the Mojave Desert at China Lake.
Relevant Experience:
• Alabama Street Bridge (County of San Bernardino, CA)
• City of Chino Annexation, General Plan Amendment and EIR
• DARPA Grand Challenge (San Bernardino County, CA)
Desert Conservation Program Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Nursery Products (Barstow, CA)
* Hawes Radio Relay Station (San Bernardino County, CA)
MSHCP Consistency Analyses for the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley Association of Governments
■ North Fontana Habitat Conservation Plan (Fontana, CA)
■ On -Call Environmental / Biological Consulting (Los Angeles, CA)
Panattoni Development Species Relocation Plan (Chino, CA)
■ Prado Basin Biological Studies and Section 7 Consultation
■ San Bernardino Merged Area B Merger and Amendments Project EIR (San Bernardino, CA)
Santa Ana River Trail Biological Assessment
■ Sares Regis Relocation Plan for the Burrowing Owl (Chino, CA)
Silver State North Solar Project (Primm, NV)
■ The Preserve Development (Chino, CA)
Walton Development San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (Redlands, CA)
JN 140835 • 36 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
t for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
F ,m
BOB MATSON I TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Years Experience: 25
Education:
B.S., 1984, Engineering Technology, California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
Certificate, 1988, Land Use and Development Planning, University of
California, El Segundo
Professional Affiliations:
Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Mr. Matson has many years of diverse traffic and transportation experience in preparing a wide range of
traff ic studies and transportation planning analyses. He is responsible for managing traffic and transportation
studies for planning, environmental and engineering projects. His experience encompasses serving as the
Manager of Transportation for the El Segundo Company for major land use planning, entitlements for
generating traffic impact analyses for Caltrans on an on call basis. Mr. Matson and his staff generate a
variety of traffic /transportation studies to analyze and document projects at various stages of development,
such as conceptual planning, preliminary engineering, agency general plan /zoning modifications,
environmental documentation, project/infrastructure phasing, site plans, tract maps, final engineering,
construction traffic management plans, and parking studies. Mr. Matson received his B.S. in Engineering
from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and Social Ecology Development and Land Use
Planning Certification from the University of California, El Segundo, along with numerous Institute of
Transportation Studies certifications.
Relevant Experience:
• Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Mixed Use Project EIR
• Buena Vista Casino Project Traffic Analysis Support to Agency Staff
• Casino Morongo Roundabout Traffic Visual Simulations
• Downtown Laguna Beach Traffic Circulation and Parking Management Analysis
Downtown Lancaster Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
im Downtown and Central Long Beach Redevelopment Plans Master EIR
• Downtown Sierra Madre Specific Plan and Program EIR Project Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis
• Hotel Del Coronado Master Plan EIR
• Long Point Resort EIR
• Los Alamitos Medical Center Traffic Impact Analysis
• Marblehead Coastal EIR
• Marymount College Facilities Expansion EIR
• North Downtown Lancaster Neighborhood Revitalization / Transit Village Plan EIR/EA
• Oasis Road Specific Plan Master EIR
• Old Town Yucca Valley Specific Plan Program EIR
• Pacific Trade Center EIR
• Perris Downtown Specific Plan Traffic and Parking Analysis
■ Plymouth Casino Project Traffic Analysis Support to Agency Staff
San Fernando Downtown Parking Lots Project Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis
Seal Beach Townhomes Project MND
South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization Project Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis
Temple Palms Business Park Traffic Impact Analysis
Torrance Citywide Comprehensive Traffic Study
JN 140835 + 37 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Caltrans Certified Mr. Flores has over ten years of experience in Civil Engineering especially in the area
DBE Firm of Geotechnical Engineering. Mr. Flores has experience in construction materials
laboratory testing, field observation and inspection, and environmental services. He
is proficient using engineering software programs such as Gint ( Geotechnical INTegrator), GSTABL7, PDI, GRLWEAP, DRIVEN,
STEDWin, LPILE, LIQUEFY2, AutoCAD, and Corel Draw. Mr. Flores is proficient using software such as EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and
FRISKSP to perform probabilistic seismic analysis. Mr. Flores has experience preparing site plans and drawings for construction projects,
performing geologic studies, preparing geotechnical engineering reports providing recommendations for the construction and design of
projects related to roadways, parking lot structures, utility lines (sewer lines, storm drains, and water mains), pump stations, channels,
slope stabilizations, residential and commercial building structures. He also has experience in litigation projects interacting with Lawyers
and preparing reports. Mr, Flores is very experienced in providing field and laboratory testing of construction materials such as soils,
asphalt concrete, Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) following the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Procedures and
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Test Methods. In addition, he has experience reviewing contractor technical submittals,
preparing construction schedules, monitoring and evaluating construction activities, coordinating and reviewing work plans.
EDUCATION
M.S., 2008, Civil Engineering ( Geotechnical), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
B.S., 1999, Civil Engineering, Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM), Campus Monterrey, Mexico
AFFILIATIONS/ REGISTRATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) — Chapter UCLA
Registered Civil Engineer, Mexico
CERTIFICATES
Nuclear Gauge Operator Training, No. 14205
Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) in the State of California
Cone Penetration Testing by Gregg In -Situ Drilling & Testing, Inc.
EXPERIENCE
Geo- Environmental, Inc.: Senior Project Engineer, 2002 —Continuing.
Mr. Flores is responsible for developing project schedules, man -hour and budget estimates. He assists during engineering analysis and
makes decisions during the preparation of geotechnical engineering reports and proposals. Mr. Flores supervises all in- progress projects,
conducts and evaluates geotechnical tests in field and laboratory and prepares plans, design drawings, project studies, and laboratory
reports. He is responsible for field inspection, field materials testing, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and report preparation. He
has participated in numerous engineering projects for several cities throughout southern California and overseas therefore, is very
familiar with local engineering and construction requirements:
Retention Basins Dams and Reservoirs: Geotechnical investigations (Geologic and Seismic Evaluation) in the City of
Palmdale, Geotechnical Investigation (Slope Stabilization) at Entradero Basin in the City of Torrance.
«
Roadways, Hi hwa s and Air ortss: Geotechnical Investigation Reports and Construction Observation and Materials Testing
Services in the.Cities of Burbank, Brea, Chino, Corona, Compton, Fontana, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, El Segundo, La
Quinta, La Habra, La Habra Heights, La Canada Flintridge, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Palmdale, Palm Springs, Lancaster,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rialto, Riverside, Ontario, San Bernardino (Omnitrans San Bernardino Express Bus Rapid Transit
Project), San Dimas, Torrance, Pomona, Yorba Linda, and Baja California, Mexico.
JN 140835 • 38 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
Proposal for the NEPA/CEQA Review and Design Review
for the Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation Project
• Parks and Parking Lots: Geotechnical investigations and materials testing in the Cities of Corona, Torrance, Riverside, Moreno
Valley, Bell, Santa Monica (Parking Structures 1 and 6), and San Marcos.
• Environmental Site Assessments [ESAI Phases I and 11 and AerialN De osited Lead (ADL) Investioationsl: Phase I ESA for
the proposed Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Fullerton Road Grade Separation and the City of Industry Betterment (Fullerton
Road Widening) Projects, Phase I and Phase 11 of projects located in the Cities of Anaheim, Burbank, Carson, Corona,
Compton, Monterey Park, and San Bernardino. ADL Investigation in the City of El Segundo, California.
• Bridge Desi nMiterchan e Improvements: Geotechnical investigation for the proposed 1 -5/ Sand Canyon Avenue
interchange improvements in the City of Irvine under the supervision of Caltrans. Inspection and materials testing during
the 1 -15/ El Cerrito Road interchange improvements in the City of Corona. Geotechnical investigation for the proposed
rehabilitation of Hinkley Road Bridge over the Mojave River in Hinkley (An Unincorporated Community of the County of San
Bernardino).
• Ground improvement (Compaction Grouting/ Caissons! Geo rids :Materials testing (soil, mortar, grout and PCC), monitoring,
and inspections in the Cities of Sunset Beach and Yorba Linda.
• Landslide / Slope Stabilization Pro"eots recornm ridjinfl Gabions Drapm Systems, Block Walls La ers of Geotextile Fabric and
Geo rids and Retainin Walts reinforced concrete and "°shotcrete" including Soil Nailing and Tieback Systems: Geotechnical
investigations and field inspections in the Cities of Irvine, Corona, Costa Mesa, Highland, La Canada Flintridge, La Quinta, La
Jolla, Capistrano Beach, and Torrance.
JN 140835 • 39 • August 11, 2014
Agreement No. 4716
SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Gust is a Registered Professional Archaeologist and is accepted as a principal investigator for prehistoric and
historical archaeology by the Califonia Historic Resources Information System (chris.org). She has more than 30
years of experience in California. She is a Member of the Society for Historical Archaeology, the Society for
California Archaeology and others. Gust holds a California statewide BLM cultural permit. She has special
expertise in the identification and analysis of human and animal bone.
SELECTED PROJECTS
Metropole Vaults Replacement Project, Southern California Edison, Avalon, Catalina Island. Managed
monitoring, recovery of multiple prehistoric burials with artifacts, negotiation with Most Likely Descendent
regarding analysis permitted, processing of all materials and report. Helped arrange reburial ceremony attended
by Gabrielino/Tongva elders. Project Manager and Principal Archaeologist. 2013 -14
Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway) Final EIS /EIR and Mitigation Plans, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, Los Angeles. The project involves construction of seven stations from the existing
Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Avenue along Wilshire Boulevard to the Veterans Administration Hospital in
Westwood for 9 miles. The Federal Transit Authority (FTA) is the lead agency for the project. Cogstone prepared
the supplemental Archaeology and Architectural History Reports for the FEIS /EIR. Subsequently prepared the
Cultural Resoures Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the entire project. Sub to Parsons Brinkerhoff. Task
Manager. 2011 -2013
Exposition Light Rail Phase 2, Exposition Transit Authority, Culver City to Santa Monica. Prepared
Paleontological Assessment in support of EIR. Subsequently prepared Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Management Plans, Santa Monica Air Line Railroad Data Recovery Plan and Paleontological Resources
Management Plan for 7 linear miles of new rail facilities including stations. Supervised monitoring and data
recovery programs. Principal Archaeologist and Paleontologist and Project Manager. 2012- present
Northside Plan Update, Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles. Prepared Paleontological Assessment in
support of EIR. Principal Paleontologist. 2012.
San Juan Capistrano Town Center Master Plan Update, City of San Juan Capistrano. Managed
archaeological record searches, research, and survey plus Native American consultation for 31 acre town center.
Prepared report including evaluation of resources, updated/new site records and impact assessment. Principal
Archaeologist and Project Manager. 2011
Scattergood Olympic Line, LADWP, Los Angeles County. Prepared Archaeological and Paleontological
Assessment in support of EIR for new 11 mile underground electrical transmission line. Principal
Archaeologist and Paleontologist and Project Manager. 2009.
First Street Trunk Line, LADWP, Los Angeles. Prepared Paleontological Assessment in support of EIR for 2.8
miles of new water line. Subsequently, directed monitoring during construction and provided monitoring
compliance report. Project Manager and Principal Investigator. 2006
Eastside Gold Line Extension, Metro/FTA, Los Angeles. Prepared Paleontological and Cultural Resources
Management Plan for six mile extension into East Los Angeles and Alhambra. Subsequently provided
monitoring oand prepared monitoring compliance report. Principal Archaeologist and Paleontologist and Project
Manager, 2006.
JN 140835 • 40 • August 11, 2014