CONTRACT 4133B Amendment CLOSED1 3 l "QV,
Approximately five (5) in- person meetings and several conference calls have occurred over the past
several months. This task accounts for travel time, attendance and action item follow -up. One
additional meeting (which is anticipated in September 2012) has been budgeted.
8.2 PROJECT COORDINATION
RBF has incurred substantial costs related to on -going coordination for tasks that are not associated
with the CEQA process. This task budget is intended to cover those costs through September 2012.
8.3 SPECIFIC PLAN PREPARATION /ASSISTANCE
In addition to services provided under Task 7.0, the RBF team has had continuous participation in
the Specific Plan process. The work program has included the Land Use Plan and Design
Guidelines, update the general plan discussion to correctly reference appropriate goals and policies,
update and expand the Circulation Plan, the development regulations and infrastructure based upon
project studies.
The following efforts will result in additions to the South Campus Specific Plan, providing landscape
guidance and a level of consistency in the new campus. This assumes that a real landscape master
plan would be prepared by the applicant at the time of the first site plan review for any new
development within the Specific Plan.
Streetscape Palette. A landscape architect will visit the site, conduct research and investigation of
city standards, contact the City's urban forester, and prepare a comprehensive plant palette for the
public and future publicly maintained streets, as well as the parking lots.
Streetscape Concept. Development of a streetscape concept illustrated through typical streetscape
cross sections for the Hughes Avenue extension, Continental Avenue, and the El Segundo
Boulevard frontage. A landscape architect will design, draft, create and exhibit for each, including
provision of the bicycle lane in Hughes /Nash and the bicycle trail on El Segundo Boulevard.
Parking Lot Landscape. Development of a typical parking lot landscape concept and related
standards for landscape percentages and tree coverage. RBF's landscape architects will design,
draft, create and exhibit and review with City staff.
Typical Entry Concept (Plan View Vignette). RBF's landscape architects will design, draft and create
and exhibit of a typical entry landscape concept and review with City staff. No
monumentation /signage is assumed as this will be subject of a future signage program.
8.4 TRAFFIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
In June 2012, RBF prepared a sensitivity analysis to determine the maximum number of trips, known
as a "trip ceiling," that can be generated by the proposed Raytheon project that will not result in a
significant impact at the Sepulveda Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard intersection based on City of El
Segundo thresholds of significance, and thus not require the connection of Nash Street and Hughes
Way as mitigation. The analysis also evaluated the Continental Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard
and Nash Street/El Segundo Boulevard intersections.
JN 10- 107917 • 23 • February 13, 2013
X413 3 i.a
City of El Segundo
Raytheon El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan Services
Based on the proposed phased buildout of the project site supplied by City staff, the analysis
identified which phase of the proposed project would be required to make the Nash Street — Hughes
Way connection as mitigation for the first significant impact identified at one of the study
intersections. Additionally, RBF derived examples of land use combinations possible under the trip
ceiling impact requiring the connection of Nash Street and Hughes Way as mitigation.
9.0 CONTINGENCY
The update to the Work Program includes replenishing the contingency budget. The contingency is
15% of the project budget and would not be utilized without the consent and authorization bythe City
of El Segundo. Examples of the need for contingency reimbursement outside of the recognized
scope of work include:
• Additional traffic analysis
• Additional intersection and /or roadway traffic counts
• Cost for SCAG /agency traffic model forecast runs
• Additional stages of Peer Review of Applicant prepared information
• Additional Alternatives included in the EIR review
• Quantitative analysis for Alternatives that were assumed to require only a qualitative review
• The level of analysis /responses for comments received during the Draft EIR Public Review
• Increased level of project coordination
• Additional meetings
JN 10- 107917 • 24 • February 13, 2013
Project "Restart" Meeting (post April -June project re- submittal and coordination) .......... Early July 2012
Land Use /Development Standards ................................ ...............................
...........................July
InfrastructureMeeting ........................................................................ ...............................
Mid -July
Complete the Administrative Draft Specific Plan .................... .........................August
— November
Applicant's Infrastructure Plans and Reports ..................... ...............................
August — February
Updated Specific Plan and NOP Project Description .............. .........................August
— November
Draft Initial Study/ NOP ............................................. ............................... .......................November
Finalized Initial Study /NOP ...................................... ............................... .......................November
30 -Day NOP Public Review ........................................ ...............................
November — December
EIRScoping Meeting ............................................... ............................... .......................November
Review of NOP Comments ...................................... ............................... .......................December
Updated EIR Work Program and Budget .......... ............................... .........................January
2013
Technical Studies in Support of the EIR .......... ............................... .........................January
— April
Administrative Draft EIR Preparation ....................................... ...............................
January — May
City Review of Administrative Draft EIR ........................................ ...............................
May — June
Preparation of Draft EIR "Check Copy' ............. .......................... .... ...............................
June
City Review of Draft EIR "Check Copy'..„ ..........— ..... .................. .........
........ ........ ..... 'July
Complete, Publish, Circulate Draft EIR .......................... ...............................
...........................July
45 -Day Public Review Period ................. ............................... .........................August
— September
Planning Commission Hearing during the Draft EIR Review to receive Comments ..................TBD
Review of Comments received during the Draft Review .......................... ......................September
Prepare Responses to Comments ........................... ............................... ......................September
Review of Responses to Comments ........................ ............................... ......................September
Preparation of Administrative Final EIR .............................................. ...............................
October
Review of Administrative Final EIR .................................................... ...............................
October
Complete, Publish, Circulate Final EIR .............................................. ...............................
October
Planning Commission Recommendation Hearing ..... ............................... .......................November
City Council Certification Hearing ......... ............................... .......................November
— December
Post CEQA Certification /Project Approval Hearing ... ............................... .......................December
Schedule is contingent on completion of the Draft Specific Plan and Applicant Infrastructure Plans/ Reports in August.
JN 10- 107917 • 25 • February 13, 2013
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 March 1, 2014. 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 March 1, 2014, 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. Our Scope of Services and its associated cost are based on several key
assumptions, including the following:
1. City will develop the mailing list for distribution of the EIR and notices. The City will be
responsible for newspaper cost of publication of notices, which will be billed directly to the
City, so they 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 requirements of the proposed action. Work related to
NEPA compliance, Section 404 compliance, or other permitting processes is not included
(although these can be added, as needed, with a contract amendment). Work concludes at
the 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.
JN 10- 107917 • 26 • February 13, 2013
I'J 1
. � ka.
City of El Segundo
Raytheon El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan Services
x
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.
10. The CEQA statutes or guidelines may change during the course of this EIR. If amendments
require redoing work already performed or substantially increasing effort, a contract
amendment may be warranted.
JN 10- 107917 • 27 • February 13, 2013
GI, = Glenn Lajoie E I = Eddie Torres
C M = Collette Morse B M =Bob Matson
R G. = Rita Garcia P M. = Paul Martin
J N 10- 107917
•28•
R.B. = Richard Beck
R K.. = Rebecca Kinney
Ch.M. = Charlie Marr
M,A, = Margil Allen
J F =Jeremy Franzini
G A, =Graphic Artist
February 13, 2013