HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0651
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-65
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A CERTAIN EIR CONSULTANT AND THE
FORM OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT AS REQUESTED BY
THE SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL WATER
RESOURCES AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority (the
11
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Authority") was organized pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement dated August 26, 1998, by and
among the City of San Bernardino (the "City"), the Inland Valley Development Agency (the
"Agency") and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (the "District") (collectively,
the "Members") for the purpose of determining the most beneficial method of alleviating high
ground water problems existing in the City, including areas within the temtorial boundaries of the
District and the Agency; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish its goals and objectives, the Authority is conducting a
water resource and storage project known as the San Bernardino Vision 20/20 Project (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, after the issuance of a Request For Proposals (the "RFP") and the
conducting of interviews with certain firms submitting formal Proposals in response to the RFP,
the Authority has proposed to retain RBF Consulting (the "E1R Consultant") to prepare the
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") as required pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), in furtherance of the development and
implementation of the Project as proposed by actions taken by the Authority on February 25, 2003,
which actions were subject to final approval by the City in the manner as hereinafter set forth; and
2003-65
1
2~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
171
1
211
WHEREAS, the City, the District and the Authority heretofore entered into that
certain 2001 Loan Agreement dated as of October 1, 2001 (the "Loan Agreement"), as amended
pursuant to Amendment No. 1 thereto, which provides for the payment of the fees and authorized
expenses for a consultant to be selected by the Authority, subject to the approval of this Mayor and
Common Council and the District; and
WHEREAS, the next phase in the development and implementation of the Project
is the preparation of an EIR in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines established thereunder;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to retain the services of the EIR Consultant
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Amendment No. 1 to the Loan Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District have taken all appropriate actions to lend
Funds to the Authority to allow the Authority to pay for the services of the EIR Consultant and
other incidental fees and costs incurred in connection with preparation of the EIR, and the City,
the District and the Authority have amended the Loan Agreement to include the loan of additional
funds subject to the limitations and conditions as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement as amended by Amendment No. 1 provides,
among other things, that (1) the preparation of an EIR must be authorized by separate actions of
the governing bodies of the City and the District to be taken by the City and the District either at
the time of approval of such additional joint funding, or such other arrangements for the funding
of additional consulting fees, for the preparation of the EIR under such terms and conditions that
are acceptable to both the City and the District, and (2) the selection of the intended consultant and
the proposed Consultant Contract (substantially in the form as attached to this Resolution) must
28
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
211
be approved either at the time of approval of the proposed additional funding or prior to the final
execution of such Consultant Contract by the Authority, and this action as set forth in the
Resolution shall be deemed to be the final action of the City with respect to such provisions as
contained in Section 6 of the Amendment No. 1 to the Loan Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the preparation of an EIR
in connection with the Project by the EIR Consultant as identified in the Recitals hereto and concur
in the selection of the EIR Consultant as proposed by the Authority.
Section 2. The Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the form of the
Consultant Contract (a copy which is attached as "Exhibit A") as proposed by the Authority for
execution by and between the Authority and the EIR Consultant provided that there shall be no
liability to the City for any actions to be taken pursuant thereto or for the payments required to be
remitted by the Authority to the EIR Consultant for professional services performed under said
Consultant Contract. The Mayor and Common Council hereby find and determine that based upon
the adoption of this Resolution, the Authority may execute and deliver the Consultant Contract to
the EIR Consultant in accordance with the actions taken by the Authority on February 25, 2003.
The Mayor is authorized to communicate tot the Authority the actions taken pursuant to this
Resolution.
///
///
///
///
///
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTAIN EIR CONSULTANT AND
THE FORM OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT AS REQUESTED BY THE SAN
BERNARDINO REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a ] t. reg. meeting thereof, held on the
3rd day of March , 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
Common Council AYES NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA x
LONGVILLE x
MCGINNIS x
DERRY x
SUAREZ
ANDERSON x
MCCAMMACK x
City lerk
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this ~STh day of March
2003.
20 Approved as to form
and legal content:
21
22 By: PE
ames . Penr
~~ City Attorney
2003-65
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
12 1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
2:
2:
2~
EXHIBIT "A"
CONTRACT
2003-65
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (the "Agreement")
is made and entered into this 25th day of February, 2003, by and
between the SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
("JPA"), a joint powers authority created under the laws of the
State of California, and RBF CONSULTING ("CONSULTANT"), a
California Corporation, with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the JPA was organized pursuant to a Joint Powers
Agreement dated as of August 26, 1998, by and among the City of
San Bernardino, California (the "City"), the Inland Valley
Development Agency (the "Agency"), and the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District (the "District) for the purpose
of determining the most beneficial method of alleviating the
high ground water problems existing in the City, including
areas within the territorial boundaries of the District and the
Agency; and
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish its goals and objectives,
the JPA has requested the Consultant to submit a proposal for
preparation of a detailed project description and draft
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the proposed
water resource storage project known as the San Bernardino
Vision 20/20 Project as set forth in the JPA's request for
qualifications/proposals entitled: "
"• and
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996 2
-1-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Consultant submitted its proposal dated
February 19, 2003, to the JPA and has represented to the JPA
that it has the knowledge, skills, resources, and expertise
that qualify the Consultant to provide the professional
consulting services required under the RFP and this Agreement,
as more fully described in the Section titled "Mission" below;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN AND FOR SUCH OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE
JPA AND THE CONSULTANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the JPA to
procure the professional services of an experienced consulting
team to prepare a detailed project description and a draft EIR
for the San Bernardino vision 20/20 Project in accordance with
CEQA and, as applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA").
2. Mission
The JPA retains the Consultant to provide the professional
environmental consulting services set forth in the Scope of
Work attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "1", which is
incorporated into this Agreement by this reference ("Scope of
work"). The Consultant agrees to perform all elements the work
set forth in Scope of Work, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
3. Term
This Agreement shall commence as of the day and year first
above shown and shall remain in full force and effect until the
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
HH2003:5996.2
_2_
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 I
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
performance of all elements of the Scope of Work is completed
or this Agreement is earlier terminated, pursuant to its terms.
The Management Committee of the JPA is duly authorized to
approve line item adjustments to the budget contained in the
Scope of Work, provided that such adjustments do not materially
alter this Agreement or increase the amount of money payable
the JPA to the Consultant under the terms of this Agreement.
No later than March 15, 2003, the JPA and the Consultant
shall agree upon a schedule of performance of each of the items
listed in the Scope of Work. If the JPA and the Consultant do
not agree on such schedule of performance by March 15, 2003,
the JPA may terminate this Agreement, without further
obligation or liability under this Agreement.
The Consultant represents to the JPA that it is aware of
the funding limitations of the JPA for payment of the
Consultant for services performed and expenses incurred under
this Agreement, pursuant to the applicable Loan Agreement by
and among the City of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, and the JPA, dated as of October 1,
2001, as amended, and further agrees not perform any services
or incur any expenses that are not authorized by said loan
agreement
A. Performance of each element of the work specified in
the Scope of Work, is an obligation of the Consultant
under this Agreement, subject to any changes made
subsequently upon mutual agreement of both the JPA
and the Consultant. Any such mutually agreed upon
changes in the Scope of Work shall be evidenced by
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996 .2
-3-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
written amendments to this Agreement and shall
include any increase or decrease in the amount of
compensation due Consultant for any such change in
the Scope of Work. Any change in the Scope of Work
that is not evidenced by a written amendment to this
Agreement approved by the JPA shall not be binding on
either party.
B. Consultant shall render no extra services under this
Agreement, unless and until the Management Committee,
prior to performance of such extra services,
authorizes such extra services, in writing.
Authorized extra services shall be invoiced pursuant
to the provisions of paragraph 8.
4. Consultant Responsibilities
Consultant commits the principal personnel listed below to
the project for its duration:
Names•
Kevin Thomas
Ron Craig
5. Replacement of Named Personnel
The individuals named in Section 4 of this Agreement are
necessary for the Consultant's successful performance of the
Scope of Work of this Agreement. Consultant shall make no
diversion or replacement of these individuals, without the
prior written consent of the Management Committee. If the
Management Committee fails to respond to Consultant within ten
(10) days of a request by Consultant to divert or replace any
of the individuals designated in Section 4 of the Scope of
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SH2O03:5996.2
-4-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Work, said personnel diversion or replacement shall be deemed'
approved.
6. Release of News Information
No news release, photographs, public announcements or
confirmation of same, relating to any part of the subject
matter of this Agreement or any phase of the Scope of Work
shall be made by the Consultant, without the prior written
approval of the Management Committee.
7. Confidentiality of Reports
Consultant shall keep confidential all reports,
information and data received, prepared or assembled pursuant
to performance of the Scope of Work and which either the JPA or
the Management Committee designates as confidential. Such
confidential information shall not be made available by the
Consultant to any person, firm, corporation or entity without
the prior written consent of the Management Committee.
8. Compensation
The Consultant will be paid a not-to-exceed fee, inclusive
of all expenses, of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS
($456,000) for performance all of the elements of the Scope of
Work by the Consultant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
The JPA agrees to pay Consultant on a monthly basis in
accordance with the method of compensation set forth in the
Scope of Work. The Consultant shall submit invoices on a
monthly basis to the Management Committee for their review and
determination as to compliance with the Scope of Work. All
determinations of the Management Committee as to the
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996.2
-5-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
appropriateness of any payment shall be final and conclusive,
in the sole determination of the Management Committee.
Any approved payment from the JPA to the Consultant shall
be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
9. Department Support
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, City
of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency, and Inland Valley Development Agency shall provide
Consultant with any plans, publications, reports, statistics,
records or other data or information pertinent to the Scope of
Work to be performed under this Agreement that are reasonably
available.
10. Independent Contractor
Consultant shall perform the Scope of Services as an
independent contractor and shall not be considered an employee'
of the JPA. Neither the Consultant nor any of its
subcontractors shall at any time or in any manner represent
that it or any of its employees are employees of the JPA or any
member agency of the JPA. The JPA shall not be requested or
ordered to assume any liability or expense for the direct
payment of any salary, wage or benefit to any person employed
by Consultant or its subcontractors to perform any element of
the Scope of Work. This Agreement is by and between Consultant
and the JPA, and is not intended, and shall not be construed,
to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee,
partnership, joint venture, or association, between the
Consultant and the JPA.
2/29/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996.2
-6-
2003-65
1 I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11. Ownership and Reuse of Documents and Other Materials
and Information
All maps, photographs, data, information, reports,
drawings, specifications, computations, notes, renderings,
correspondence or other documents generated by or on behalf of
the Consultant in performance of the Scope of Work shall be the
property of the JPA, as of the time of their preparation and
payment therefor by the JPA, and shall be delivered to the JPA
upon written request to the Consultant. Any use of documents
or other materials generated or delivered by the Consultant
under this Agreement by JPA for other than the project that is
the subject of this Agreement shall be at the JPA's sole risk,
without legal liability or exposure to Consultant
12. Conflict of Interest
Consultant agrees for the term of this Agreement not to
enter into any agreement that will be detrimental or adverse to
any interest of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District, City of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino
Economic Development Agency, or Inland Valley Development
Agency.
13. Successor and Assignment
The elements of the Scope of Work are to be rendered by
Consultant whose name is as appears first above written and
said Consultant shall not assign nor transfer any interest in
this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the JPA.
14. Indemnification
Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
the JPA, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District,
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996.2
-7-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6!
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino Economic
Development Agency, and Inland Valley Development Agency and
their elected officials, agents, officers and employees from
and against any and all liability, expense and claims for
damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited
to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damages
arising from or connected with Consultant's negligent
operations or willful misconduct in its performance of the
Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement.
15. Compliance with Laws
The Consultant shall comply with all local, state, and
federal laws, including, but not limited to, environmental
acts, rules and regulations applicable to the elements of the
Scope of Work to be performed by the Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement. The Consultant shall maintain all necessary
licenses and registrations for the lawful performance of the
Scope of Work to be performed by the Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement.
16. Non-Discrimination
The Consultant agrees not to discriminate nor to allow any
subcontractor to discriminate on the basis of age, race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, marital status
or physical handicap, related to either employment, upgrading,
demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,
layoff or termination, rates of pay or other terms of
compensation, selection for training, including apprenticeship,
in its performance of the Scope of Work,
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996 .2
_8_
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
void or illegal by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
same shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this
Agreement and shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any
other provision of this Agreement. If any provision of this
Agreement shall be deemed invalid due to its scope or breadth,
such provision shall be deemed valid to the extent of the scope
or breadth permitted by law.
18. Interpretation
No provision of this Agreement is to be interpreted for or
against either party because that party or that party's legal
representative drafted such provision. This Agreement shall be
construed as if both parties drafted it.
19. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with Exhibit "1", constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and supersedes all
prior written and oral agreements and understandings between
the parties.
20. Waiver
No breach of any provision of this Agreement can be
waived, unless in writing. waiver of any one breach of any
provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any other breach of the same or any other provision of this
Agreement.
21. Contract Evaluation and Review
The ongoing assessment and monitoring of this Agreement is
the responsibility of the Management Committee, as duly
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996.2
-9-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
established by the JPA.
22. Default and Remedies
Failure or delay by any party to this Agreement to perform
any material term or provision of this Agreement shall
constitute a default under this Agreement; provided, however,
that if the party who is otherwise claimed to be in default by
the other party commences to cure, correct or remedy the
alleged default within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of
written notice specifying such default and shall diligently
complete such cure, correction or remedy, such party shall not
be deemed to be in default under this Agreement.
The party, which may claim that a default has occurred,
shall give written notice of such default to the party claimed
to be in default, specifying the alleged default. Delay in'
giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of such
default nor shall it change the time of default; provided,
however, the injured party shall have no right to exercise any
remedy for a default under this Agreement, without delivering
the written default notice.
Any failure or delay by a party in asserting any of its
rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a
waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated
with a default. Except with respect to rights and remedies
expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the
rights and remedies of the parties under this Agreement are
cumulative and the exercise by any party of one or more of such
rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at
the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
HH2O03:5996.2
-10-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for the same default or any other default by the other party.
If default of any party to this Agreement remains uncured
for more that seven (7) calendar days following written notice,
as provided above, a "material breach" shall be deemed to have
occurred. In the event of a material breach, the injured party
shall be entitled to seek any appropriate remedy or damages by
initiating legal proceedings.
23. Termination
The JPA or Consultant may terminate this Agreement, with
or without cause, or for any reason, at any time, by mailing by
certified mail thirty {30) days written notice of termination
to the other party. In this event, the Consultant shall be paid
the reasonable value of services rendered prior to the date of
termination. In the event of any such termination, Consultant
shall provide to the JPA, without charge, all documents, notes,
maps, reports and data accumulated to the date of such
termination. Consultant further covenants to give its good-
faith cooperation in the transfer of the work to the JPA or to
any other consultant designated by the JPA, following such
termination, and to attend and participate in any meetings atl
no cost to the JPA, as shall be deemed necessary by the JPA to
effectively accomplish such transfer.
24. Governing Law
The laws of the State of California shall govern this
Agreement. Any Iegal action arising from or related to this
Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of the Sate of
California in and for the County of San Bernardino.
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996.2
-11-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25. Effectiveness of Agreement as to the Authority
This Agreement shall not be binding on the JPA, until
signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant,
approved by the JPA governing body, approved as to form by JPA
Counsel and executed by the President of the JPA.
26. Warranty
Consultant expressly warrants that the Scope of Work will
be performed with care, skill, reasonable expedience,
professional due diligence, and faithfulness and that all
deliverables and/or reports shall be appropriate and proper for
their intended use by the JPA in furtherance of Vision 20/20.
Consultant further warrants that all work required under this
Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices within the area of expertise of
the Consultant and its subcontractors.
27. Liability/Insurance
The Consultant shall maintain insurance policies meeting the
minimum requirements set forth in this Section 27. All
insurance maintained by the Consultant shall be provided by
insurers admitted by the California Department of Insurance to
do business in California and satisfactory to the JPA.
Certificates or copies of policies of insurance evidencing all
insurance coverage required in this Section 27 shall be
delivered to the JPA prior to the Consultant performing any
elements of the Scope of Work under this Agreement. All
insurance required in this Section 27 shall name the JPA as an
additional insured and provide for thirty (30) days written
notice from the insurer to the JPA prior to modification or
12/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003:5996.2
-12-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cancellation in scope of coverage relating to the Scope or work
to be performed under this Agreement and the Consultant's other
obligations under this Agreement.
A. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. The
Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general
liability insurance with a combined single limit of
not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence.
B. Automobile Insurance. The Consultant shall maintain
comprehensive automobile liability insurance with a
combined single limits of not less than One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence covering all
vehicles leased or owned by the Consultant and which
are used or which may be used to perform any services
under this Agreement.
C. Worker's Compensation Insurance. The Consultant
shall maintain worker's compensation insurance in
accordance with the laws of the State of California
for all workers employed by the Consultant.
28. Notice
Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be presented in
person or by certified or registered U.S. mail, as follows:
To Consultant: RBF Consulting
3538 Contours, Suite 220
Ontario, California 91764
To JPA: Management Committee
c/o City of San Bernardino Economic
Development Agency
Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director
201 N. "E" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507
Nothing in this Section 28 shall be construed to prevent
the giving of notice by personal service.
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
sazao3:se9s.z
-13-
2003-65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the JPA and the Consultant have caused
this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first
above shown.
SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL
WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
By:
Judith Valles, President
Approved as to form
and legal content:
By:
Timothy Sabo
Special Legal Counsel
RBF CONSULTING
By:
Ron Craig, Vice President
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
352003:5996.2 - 14 -
2003-65
1 EXHIBIT 1
2
3 CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
SB2003 : 5996 . 2 - 15
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Paee 1 of 21
EXHIBIT 1 -SCOPE OF WORK
The following Scope of Work has been prepared pursuant to the information contained in the
Request for Proposal and subsequent information received from the Authority. The cost estimate,
which is itemized according to task and issue is presented at the end of this Proposal.
1.0 PHASE I: COORDINATION WITH CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1.1 Validate Land Use/Circulation Changes
RBF Consulting will conduct an initial workshop with the Water Authority Management
Committee (WAMC) to identify the desired and undesired land uses and proposed
circulation changes in the North District and the Central City South District. RBF Consulting
will conduct an independent technical review of the proposed circulation plan for general
concerns to the flow and design of the proposed street system and its relationship to the
proposed type and intensity of land uses within both Districts.
RBF Consulting will undertake a critical review of the technical feasibility of the physical
components to ensure a workable planning process. To that end, RBF Consulting will
conduct an independent technical review of the feasibility of the proposed land use pattern
for both of the proposed Districts with on-going participation by Dudek & Associates
(Dudek), on behalf of SBVMWD to provide an independent perspective on the validation of
the lakes and other water issues for the North Lake District, the proposed Caltrans stream
systems and the Central City South District as presently proposed by the City. As set fort
in Tasks 2.2.5.14, 2.3.1 and 2.3.5, this task will include development of project alternatives
for the North Lake and Central City South Districts. As part of the initial workshop, the RBF
Team will work with Authority staff in developing mutually agreeable goals and criteria for
both Districts. Concurrent with development of an Existing Conditions Report discussed
below, the RBF Team will develop several (up to five) schematic/concepts for each District
to review with Authority staff (these may be hand-illustrated or rough graphics, for
discussion purposes only). As stated in the RFP Questions/Clarifications, this task will
include review of existing land use concepts and technical feasibility, and preparation of a
written report and concept graphics. The alternatives report will include a summary matrix.
The resulting end product of this task is anticipated to be a "Preferred Alternative" for each
District, and several additional alternatives to be addressed in the EIR Alternatives section
in less detail. Based on discussions with Authority staff, the scope and budget for this task
is based upon the RBF Team focusing the majority of our resources on refining the current
concepts for both Districts, including evaluation of design options. However, this scope
assumes that any additional engineering data for the North Lake will be provided by
SBVMWD, and that engineering level analysis for the Central City South will be limited to
that necessary for CEQA. Any cost estimates will be provided by others, with the RBF
Team providing input as appropriate.
The RBF Team will develop the following alternatives:
North Lake District
a) No Project
b) No Lake (alternative water storage and associated land uses)
c) Up to three alternative lake concepts (two additional alternatives)
Central City South
a) No Project
b) No water element (commercial/retail)
c) Water element alternatives (up to three)
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 2 of 21
The land use alternatives evaluation will consider land use planning, adjacent uses, historic
resources, surface and groundwater system performance, infrastructure, circulation, and
overall constructability at a concept level. As stated below, RBF recommends that portions
of technical study work identified in other tasks be conducted as part of this first phase. As
stated in the RFP Questions/Clarifications, this Scope of Work assumes that this task will
result in selection of a Preferred Alternative for each District, with remaining alternatives to
be evaluated within the EIR's Alternatives Section. RBF understands that the selected
Preferred Alternative must meet a variety of criteria in addition to environmental issues,
including feasibility, compatibility with SBVMWD and City goals, and infrastructure.
This task will also include evaluation of the drainage linkage between the two districts,
assumed to be a subsurface drainage pipe. Operational conditions for the Central City
South wetland/water feature will be evaluated both with and without this surface water
connection between the Districts. This scope excludes evaluation of surface drainage
features, such as those being considered as part of the City's Vision Creek project (although
any such proposed features will be considered as part of this project's hydrology analysis).
This task includes the following recommended additional tasks: 1) an initial kickoff meeting
with the Authority to discuss scope, schedule, available data, involvement of existing
Authority staff and consultants, and key project issues; 2) an initial field review,
recommended to be in the form of a site tour with Authority staff, to discuss site-specific
design issue areas; 3) literature/records search; 4) preparation of basemaps for use in later
tasks; and 5) compilation of site opportunities and constraints. RBF will work with Authority
staff in preparation of preliminary (ROM) costs for land preparation and lake/wetland feature
operation and maintenance. RBF further recommends that certain technical studies be
initiated immediately for the purposes of reviewing and refining previous studies and
developing a comprehensive Existing Conditions Report for use in developing project
alternatives and associated infrastructure and environmental assessments.
This task will include involvement by key RBF Team members, including Ron Craig, Kevin
Thomas, Ron Pflugrath, Desmond Stevens, Dennis Williams, Scott Taylor, Bob Matson, and
Larry Gallery. This task is subject to further refinement following discussions with Authority
staff. The scope and fee for this task is based upon a work effort and work products
developed using up to 500 hours of staff and subconsultant time (the level of detail desired
by the Authority for technical review of existing concepts and development of new concepts
could substantially increase or decrease the indicated work effort level).
Meetings: Kickoff meeting
One Workshop (1)
Deliverables Existing Conditions Report
Alternatives Report
1.2 General Plan Amendments
The Director of Development Services ("Director") and the planning staff of the City will be
responsible for the preparation of the necessary General Plan Amendments for the entire
project. The Director will likely recommend modifications to the Land Use Element and the
Circulation Element to the General Plan. RBF Consulting will evaluate the recommended
modifications and review the General Plan for internal consistency with the General Plan
Amendments. The City will be responsible for all coordination and incorporation of the
General Plan Amendments into the ongoing Citywide General Plan update process. This
February 19, 2003
2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 3 of 21
task is assumed to be limited to minor coordination and incorporation of City-provided
information, estimated at 20 hours of staff time.
1.3 Development Code Amendments
RBF Consulting will analyze the language changes as prepared by the Director for
incorporation in appropriate sections of the Development Code. The Director wilt
recommend whether one or more new land use districts will be established or an overlay
district concept will be incorporated and the extent zoning changes may be advisable to
implement any aspects of the project. This task is assumed to be limited to minor
coordination and incorporation of City-provided information, estimated at 10 hours of staff
time.
1.4 Map Amendments
RBF Consulting will prepare modified land use maps and Circulation System Maps
illustrating the physical changes to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element using
available base maps (including GIS). This task is assumed to be limited to minor
coordination and incorporation of City-provided information, estimated at 10 hours of staff
time.
Deliverables: 1 set of check copies for two maps
1 final set, along with electronic files
1.5 Processing and Applications
RBF Consulting will assist City staff in the necessary amendment applications from the
Water Authority (as the amendment proponent) to the City, including a General Plan
Amendment and Development Code Amendment. This task assumes that any required
exhibits or attachments can be provided by deliverables created in other tasks. RBF
assumes that Authority staff will prepare the necessary staff reports, resolutions and related
administrative items to process the applications. This task is assumed to be limited to minor
coordination and incorporation of City-provided information, estimated at 10 hours of staff
time.
1.6 Phase One Coordination
RBF Consulting, led by Mr. Kevin Thomas, CEP, will attend coordination meetings with
Water Authority member agencies, the Water Authority Management Committee, and the
City's Development Services Department Staff. Six (6) coordination meetings are
anticipated during Phase !, assumed to have two RBF team members in attendance. RBF
will prepare meeting summaries as well as periodic email updates to keep Authority staff
updated on issues, progress, and action items.
Deliverables: Meeting summaries
Periodic email updates
Meetings: Six coordination meetings (Ei)
1.7 Phase One Meetings and Hearings Re: General Plan
Amendments/Development Code Amendments
RBF Consulting, led by Mr, Kevin Thomas, CEP, will attend meetings with the Water
Authority Management Committee to obtain their direction on the application materials for
requesting the necessary General Plan and Development Code Amendments. It is
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 4 of 21
anticipated that RBF Consulting will attend not more than six (6) meetings with the Water
Authority Management Committee and four (4) meetings with the Director and other City
Staff for adoption of resolutions and ordinances related to the requisite amendments. RBF
assumes that two RBF staff will attend the meetings, on average.
Meetings: Six meetings with the WAMC (6)
^ Four Meetings with the Director and City Staff (4)
2.0 PHASE 2: CEQA, TRAFFIC STUDIES AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION
The following scope of work assumes preparation of a single Program EIR addressing the
policy level approvals (General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment), as
well as project-level environmental analysis for a Preferred Alternative for the North Lake
and Central City South Districts. In addition, the EIR will provide detailed analysis of
alternatives within the Alternatives section, and will distinguish mitigation measures as they
apply to one or both Districts. This task will draw upon work conducted in Phase I, including
the Existing Conditions Report. To expedite the process, portions of this phase may
proceed concurrently with Phase I, including development of the EIR existing conditions
discussions and commencement of technical studies.
2.1 CEQA INITIAL TASKS
Project Description and Notice of Preparation
RBF Consulting will conduct a meeting with the Water Management Committee and the
staffs of the member agencies to the Water Authority and the Director and other City staff
to review and refine the scope of the EIR. RBF Consulting will prepare a detailed Project
Description and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project. Due to the project's
complex nature, RBF suggests preparing an "Expanded NOP" to further define the
anticipated environmental issues.
RBF Consulting will distribute, post and file the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR.
Distribution will be based on aAuthority-approved distribution list to be prepared by RBF
Consulting in conjunction with City staff. This task includes mailing the NOP to up to 50
affected agencies and interested parties (with a delivery record), in addition to providing 15
copies to the State, posting the NOP in a local newspaper, filing the NOP with the County
Clerk, and providing a reproducible and electronic copy for Authority use. RBF will send a
Notice of Availability via regular mail to a radius mailing list, assumed to be no more than
2,000 listings. The NOP will also identify any scheduled public scoping meetings pursuant
to CEQA. Comments received in response to the NOP will be evaluated during the
preparation of the EIR.
RBF Consulting will assist with the coordination and will conduct a Public Scoping Meeting.
RBF Consulting will prepare all information and hand-outs at the Public Scoping Meeting
(assumed to include wall-sized graphics, comment forms, and sign-in sheets). RBF will
prepare separate Briefing Packets for key stakeholders and decision-makers, including a
condensed version of the NOP, summary of key issues, and a summary of the overall EIR
process.
This task includes an additional scoping meeting for key agency stakeholders, such as the
County, Caltrans, SANBAG, Regional Water Quality Control Board and/or others. This
agency scoping meeting could be conducted during normal business hours, and be more
focused on regulatory and implementation issues rather than issues typically raised by the
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Pale 5 of 21
general public. RBF will arrange and conduct this agency scoping meeting, as well as
provide copies of the Briefing Packet.
Deliverables: Ten (t 0) draft copies of the Notice of Preparation
Up to sixty-five (65) copies of the NOP
Distribution List
Notice of Availability
Up to 2,000 NOAs mailed to radius list
Newspaper Notice
Radius List
Up to 30 Briefing Packets
One (1) reproducible and one (1) electronic copy of the NOP
Meetings: Project Description (EIR) Meeting (1)
Public Scoping Meeting (1)
Agency Scoping Meeting (1)
2.2 Preparation of Screencheck Draft EIR -General Plan and Development Code
Amendments Program Level Component
The overall intent of the Program-level environmental analysis is to provide sufficient
comprehensive evaluation of the policy level approvals to adequately address the currently
contemplated project-specific concepts, as well as minimize the potential for future
environmental documentation should the project-specific concepts change.
2.2.1 Introduction and Purpose
The Introduction will cite the provisions of CEQA for which the proposed project is subject
to, as well as the purpose of the study, statutory authority, scoping procedures, summary
of the EIR format, listing of responsible and trustee agencies and documentation
incorporated by reference.
2.2.2 Executive Summary
RBF Consulting will provide an Executive Summary for the EIR including a Project
Summary, an overview of project impacts, mitigation and levels of significance after
mitigation, summary of project alternatives and areas of controversy and issues to be
resolved. The Environmental Summary will be presented in a columnar format.
2.2.3 Project Description
The Project Description section of the EIR will detail the Project location, background and
history of the project, discretionary actions, characteristics, goals and objectives, phasing,
agreements and permits/approvals which are required for the Project based on available
information. This section will include a summary of the local environmental setting for the
project. Exhibits depicting the regional and site vicinity will be included in this section. An
aerial photograph will be included within the Project Description.
2.2.4 Cumulative Projects to be Considered
The purpose of this 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
the jurisdiction of the Authority. The potential for impact and levels of significance are
contingent upon the radius or area of interaction with the proposed development. RBF will
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 6 of 21
consult with Authority staff and other applicable local jurisdictions to define the appropriate
study area for the cumulative analysis.
2.2.5 Environmental Analysis
RBF Consulting will evaluate the necessary information with respect to the existing
conditions, the potential adverse effects of Project implementation (both individual and
cumulative), and measures to mitigate such effects. Environmental issues raised during the
scoping process (Notice of Preparation responses, Public Scoping Meeting, and any other
relevant and valid informative sources) will also be evaluated. The analyses will be based
upon all available data and previously prepared reports, results from additional research,
and an assessment of existing technical data.
The Environmental Analysis section of the EIR will discuss the existing conditions for each
environmental issue area, identify short-term and long-term environmental impacts
associated with the project and their levels of significance. Mitigation measures will be
recommended to reduce the significance of impacts, and the EIR will identify areas of
unavoidable significant adverse impacts even after mitigation. The environmental
documentation will assist in identifying constraints, modifications and improvements which
may be incorporated into the land planning process. This section will include analysis for
the following environmental issue areas:
2.2.5.1 Land Use/Population/Housing -Relevant Planning
The proposed Project may result in changes to the land use character and intensity that
have the singular objective of enhancing the economic vitality of the Districts. To this end,
the Project may displace a substantial number of dwelling units and businesses. The
Project may change the parameters for allowable uses and targeted development intensities
within the Districts.
RBF Consulting will quantify current and anticipated employment levels based on available
information. Employment generation will be estimated and issues relative to direct and
indirect impacts upon population, housing and employment will be described and related
to the proposed land use designations and related polices. Anticipated population, housing
and employment changes will be "calibrated" against regional growth forecasts provided by
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
RBF Consulting will analyze the potential land use compatibility issues and the relationship
of the project to all applicable ordinances and planning policies. The review will be based,
in part, upon reports provided by the SBRWRA, SBVMWD and the City of San Bernardino
regarding the North District and the Central City South District, as well as City ordinances
and policies including: 1) the City of San Bernardino General Plan; 2) the City of San
Bernardino Zoning Map and Municipal Code; and 3) environmental data available from the
City of San Bernardino and County of San Bernardino. The policy review will include all
relevant goals and objectives contained in the City's General Plan, as well as discussion
of the project's relationship to the City's current General Plan Update and earlier planning
programs for the Vision 2020 project..
RBF Consulting will evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed project relative to land
use compatibility with surrounding uses. To the extent possible, the relevant planning
discussion will be in tandem with the preparation of the applicable General Plan
Amendment tasks in order to provide far an interactive opportunity to incorporate mitigation
measures as land use policy. This discussion would include a consistency review with the
Development Code and zoning requirements. The EIR will incorporate relocation plans to
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 7 of 21
be prepared by the appropriate agency. The RBF Team includes Lee Andrews Group, a
firm specializing in community impact analyses and controversial redevelopment projects.
Lee Andrews Group will assist RBF in the evaluation of available relocation plan
information and incorporation into the EIR. Other environmental plans applicable for the
project area will be studied including: the Air Quality Management Plan, the County
Regional Transportation Plan, and other Policy documents, as deemed appropriate. RBF
Consulting intends to utilize information available from the City of San Bernardino, as well
as the NOP process and Public Scoping Session to identify particular concerns and any
potential for public controversy. RBF Consulting will recommend mitigation measures to
reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible.
2.2.5.2 Traffic and Circulation
RBF Consulting will prepare an impact analysis documenting the forecast traffic impact
associated with the proposed North Lake and Central City South project in the City of San
Bernardino. The traffic study will assess the impacts of the proposed project by analyzing
forecast project trip generation, distribution and assignment on the study area
roadway/intersection circulation system.
Mitigation measures for identified project-generated traffic impacts will be recommended in
accordance with City of San Bernardino performance criteria and thresholds of significance.
Since the project is expected to generate more than 250 two-way peak hour trips, the
analysis will be prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis
Reports in San Bernardino County.
Study Conditions
The analysis will use current traffic volumes to determine existing conditions. It will identify
traffic impacts under the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions;
Near-Term Cumulative Without Project Conditions;
Near-Term Cumulative With Project Conditions;
Long-Range Cumulative Without Project Conditions; and
Long-Range Cumulative With Project Conditions.
This scope of work assumes that the project will require a General Plan Amendment and
Zone change, therefore along-Range Cumulative Year scenario is included.
Since the City is undertaking a General Plan revision which is currently anticipated to be
completed during the latter half of the year 2003, RBF will review and utilize relevant data
from this document provided by the City for inclusion in the analysis. This will ensure that
there are no inconsistencies and/or conclusions between the North Lake and Central City
South EIR and those contained in the General Plan update.
Study Area
As part of the analysis, RBF will count up to thirty (30) 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. Additionally, up to twenty-six (26) roadway segments will be counted
over a 24-hour period on a typical weekday. The study area is assumed to include the two
project sites.
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 8 of 21
If additional counts are required, they can be accommodated on a "time-and-materials"
basis per direction from the Client. The precise locations of the traffic counts will be
identified based on discussions with Authority staff.
Trip Generation
The study will identify the number of daily and peak hour trips forecast to be generated by
the proposed project, using trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 6'^ Edition, 1997), or other source as directed by the Authority.
Assumptions regarding project trip generation will be will be reviewed and approved by
Authority staff prior to inclusion into the analysis. Any assumptions regarding project site
trip reduction will be reviewed and approved by Authority staff prior to inclusion in the
analysis.
Trip Distribution & Assignment
The analysis will provide a forecast distribution and corresponding assignment of project-
generated trips. Trip distribution and assignment will be will be reviewed and approved by
Authority staff prior to inclusion into the analysis.
Level of Service
The analysis will assess the proposed project's forecast traffic impacts during the a.m. peak
hour and p.m. peak hour at the identified study intersections. The analysis will document
the existing operation of the study intersections, and determine forecast future year near-
term and long-range operation of the study intersections both with and without the proposed
project to identify project-related traffic impacts utilizing Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
analysis methodology.
Forecast future year near-term and long-range traffic conditions will be based on either
specific cumulative projects traffic data supplied by the Authority, or by applying an annual
traffic growth rate provided by the Authority to adjust existing traffic volumes to the
designated future horizon year.
If the analysis shows that the proposed project will significantly impact an intersection based
on City of San Bernardino thresholds of significance, mitigation measures will be
recommended in accordance City of San Bernardino performance criteria. The analysis will
also document forecast operating conditions after application of any recommended
mitigation measures.
This scope of work assumes coordination with the City of San Bernardino, specifically
participation during an initial workshop with the Director and Water Authority Management
Committee to discuss land use and circulation related issues.
2.2.5.3 Hydrology & Water Quality
Field Investigation/Data Collection
RBF will conduct a site visit to verify onsite drainage patterns, land uses, and hydrologic
cover for use in the Existing Condition Hydrology Analysis. The review will include
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 9 of 21
investigation of the offsite drainage and the downstream drainage facilities, identifying
potential constraints. RBF will research available hydrologic information to use as baseline
data for Tasks 2.0 and 3.0. The results of the investigation shall identify any additional data
requirements to be provided by the Authority or CalTrans. If data on levels of flood
protection and existing drainage facility hydraulic capacities is not available, the work will
be performed through separate studies to be conducted by SBVWMD.
Watershed Base Maps and Boundary Delineation
RBF will prepare a preliminary inventory of existing flood control and local drainage facilities
based on existing information available onsite and immediately downstream offsite including
Interstate 215 drainage improvements. The inventory will identify channels, natural stream
drainage courses, and backbone storm drain systems. Two base maps will be compiled
(one for the 106-acre North Lake Area and one for the 150 acre Central City South Area)
using existing watershed mapping provided by the Client or USGS in conjunction with FIRM
delineation. Watershed boundaries will be located according to physical constraints from
the topography and existing drainage facilities or developments. The watershed base map
and drainage facility inventory database will be utilized in the assessment of the existing
drainage conditions including characterization of hydrologic parameters for subareas.
Existing Conditions Hydrology Analysis
RBF will perform an engineering study to estimate the existing surface hydrology for (1) the
tributary offsite watersheds impacting the North Lake Area utilizing master plan data, (2) the
tributary offsite watersheds impacting the Central City South Area utilizing master plan data,
(3) the on-site generated drainage for the North Lake Area, and (4) the on-site generated
drainage for the Central City South Area. In addition, offsite drainage boundaries will be
delineated to the downstream project boundary (Interstate 215) and results of the hydrology
analysis will be summarized on a hydrology map using the base maps from the Watershed
Base Maps and Boundary Delineation section. All hydrology developed will be consistent
with the criteria developed by the local jurisdictional agency (San Bernardino County
standards). Estimates of discharges will be developed for the 10-and 100-year frequency
storms. Drainage patterns, land use, and hydrologic cover will be based on the existing
topography and field conditions.
Developed Condition Onsite Hydrology
RBF will prepare a preliminary watershed developed condition hydrology analysis for the
project based upon local jurisdictional hydrology criteria and methodology for the North Lake
Area and the Central City South Area. Drainage subareas and patterns will be identified
based upon the proposed local storm drain system and grading indicated for the proposed
land use as provided by the Authority. Onsite hydrology will be developed for the 10-and
100-year storm frequencies. Developed condition hydrology analysis will only be prepared
for the Preferred Alternative for each District.
The onsite developed condition hydrology will be used to assess impacts to downstream
hydrology, specifically impacts to Interstate 215.
Proposed Drainage Impacts and Hydraulic Analysis
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Paee 10 of 21
RBF will perform preliminary hydraulic analysis to determine preliminary storm drain facility
requirements including estimated sizes per San Bernardino County requirements for the
alternative with the highest land use density. Provide a preliminary estimate of the
hydraulic impacts to flood control facilities and adjacent property owners including Interstate
215. Additional drainage impacts to be qualitatively discussed are impacts from the
proposed drainage/detention facilities onsite, urban stormwater quality concerns,
sedimentation/erosion concerns downstream, phasing, interim flood control improvements,
and maintenance.
Preliminary Drainage Facility and Mitigation
RBF will develop recommendations regarding the relationship of the project to the overall
watershed flood protection floodplain management. This task specifically includes review
of the project for compliance with FEMA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements. For the North Lake Village area, feasibility of the proposed detention basin
and lake will be discussed. For the Central City South Area, feasibility of the proposed
wetland creation will be discussed. Conceptual mitigation measures for drainage impacts
will be identified and briefly explained.
Conceptual Water Quality Control Program
RBF will prepare a preliminary assessment of the existing site generated runoff water
quality. An evaluation will be performed to qualitatively describe post-development pollutant
loadings of the urban runoff. Pre-, and post-development conditions will be compared to
assess project impacts of non-point source pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be identified which can mitigate water quality concerns as part of a conceptual program
for the development. Particular emphasis will be provided for unique water quality aspects
of the proposed lake concept, as well as water quality benefits associated with the proposed
Central City South water feature.
Report Preparation
RBF will prepare a written report summarizing the drainage assessment for the project.
Report shall include discussions reviewing the drainage constraints, offsite and onsite
hydrology, flooding impacts and mitigation, flood protection requirements, and offsite
drainage impacts, and water quality impacts. A technical appendix shall be prepared which
includes all hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the site, and all reference documents.
2.2.5.4 Public Utilities/Infrastructure
The EIR will address project-related effects upon existing infrastructure as well as the need
for new or modified infrastructure, utilities or public services (see Task 2.2.5.6). This
information will be based upon research conducted during Phase I, data obtained from the
affected utility/service provider through correspondence and the NOP process, and
technical studies described in other tasks.
2.2.5.5 Noise
A technical noise evaluation will evaluate potential noise impacts of the proposed Project,
focusing on long-term changes in noise levels in the Project area due to traffic changes
Februa 19,2003 2003-65
rY Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
_ Page 11 of 21
along area roadways and changes in ambient noise levels associated with stationary noise
sources. RBF Consulting will identify relevant existing conditions, including review of
applicable planning documents such as the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Noise
Ordinance. RBF Consulting will conduct ambient noise measurements at up to five (5)
locations within each District to establish the present average sound levels for potentially
affected areas (15-minute Leq readings will be taken using a Type I rated sound level
meter). The project team will review applicable noise control standards by the State of
California and local jurisdiction(s) affected by the proposed project.
The noise analysis will discuss project impacts upon off-site areas due to project-related
construction traffic, operational traffic noise, and stationary noise sources. Mobile noise
will be predicted using FHWA RD-77-108 noise model. Noise levels associated with on-site
stationary noise sources will be calculated for areas located along the boundary of the
project site, particularly adjacent to the existing sensitive receptor locations (i.e., schools,
churches, residences). These calculations will be derived from accepted industry
interpretations of noise propagation. The noise analysis will also discuss the potential
effects of existing noise sources upon project land uses, particularly proposed North Lake
residential areas. Existing noise sources to be evaluated include freeway and arterial traffic
noise, rail noise, and airplane noise.
Project noise impacts will be assessed based on total increases in the ambient noise level
and potential exceedances of City standards. RBF Consulting will provide tables to identify
potential Project noise impacts, and identify mitigation measures necessary to achieve the
City of San Bernardino noise standards. This mitigation will consist of preliminary design
recommendations, and is not intended as a design-level analysis. Potential impacts of
project mitigation will be briefly discussed.
2.2.5.6 Public Service; Utilities
RBF will contact potentially affected agencies to identify relevant existing conditions, project
impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The discussion will focus on the potential
alteration of existing facilities, extension or expansion of new facilities and the increased
demand on services based on the proposed land uses. RBF will evaluate the ability of the
project area to receive adequate service based on City and County standards and, where
adequate services are not available, will identify the effects of inadequate service and
recommended mitigation measures. The EIR will discuss the potential effects of any
necessary utility relocations due to the redevelopment.
Based on agency responses and RBF Consulting's extensive experience with similar
projects, RBF Consulting will recommend mitigation measures to substantially reduce or
avoid potential impacts.
2.2.5.7 Geologic Resources and Hazards
RBF Consulting has retained Scott Magorien, CEG, to provide third party technical review
of existing documentation, consisting of an assessment of geological constraints and
hazards for the North and Central City South Districts.
The scope of work will begin with an engineering geologic peer review of Geocon's August
8, 2002, geotechnical investigation report for the Phase 1A Reservoir in the North Lake
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 12 of 21
District project area. Upon completion of the review, a letter report will be prepared that
presents an opinion regarding the adequacy of the report, identifies whether additional
information is required to determine whether the geotechnical/geological, and/ or seismic
safety recommendations require clarification, and/or suggests modification from those
currently proposed.
Following the initial peer review of Geocon's report, an EIR-level evaluation of the geologic,
soils and overall seismic conditions will be performed for the two project areas. The
geology, soils, and seismicity portion of the EIR is to be based on the existing geotechnical
report by Geocon (2002), as well as a limited site reconnaissance and review of existing
literature/records for the CCSD project area. The proposed scope of work for the project
is presented below.
Review several sets of stereo-paired black & white aerial photographs on file
with the County and the Fairchild aerial photo collection at Whittier College;
Review pertinent published geologic data/ maps of the area that would be
necessary to complete the EIR-level evaluation, including published reports
and geologic maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and California
Division of Mines and Geology, and previous consultants' reports in the
vicinity of the project area. I will also contact various geologic researchers
from the U.S. Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and Geology
Seismic Hazards Working Group, Cal Tech, as well as other institutions that
have performed assessments of faulting in the vicinity of the project site.
Perform reconnaissance-level geologic mapping of the project area at an
appropriate scale
Perform an assessment regarding the nature of surface faulting and its
potential impacts on ground deformation within for the entire project site; and
Prepare one report for both project areas addressing existing conditions,
geologic constraints/ hazards, and mitigation measures for the geology, soils
and seismicity portion of the EIR. It is anticipated that sufficient data will be
available to conclude impacts and mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA.
2.2.5.8 Biological Resources
RBF Consulting has retained BonTerra Consulting to conduct a biological resources
technical analysis of the North Lake and Central City South Districts.
Prior to the initiation of field surveys, a literature review will be conducted to determine
which species have been identified as sensitive by state, federal, and local resource
agencies and organizations and have a potential to occur within the project site that may
be subject to direct and/or indirect impacts of project implementation. The literature review
will include a review of biological documentation previously prepared for the project site.
A field survey will then be conducted to map the vegetation types on the project site, and
a general walkover survey for wildlife will be conducted. A description of the existing
quality and species composition of the vegetation types/wildlife habitat on the project site
will be compiled based on observations and field notes taken during the survey. The
Februar 19,2003 2003-65
y Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Pa~e13of21
current vegetation types/wildlife habitat will be compared to those resources identified in the
previous documentation for the site.
A letter report documenting the general biological resources on the project site will be
prepared based on the results of the survey and a map of the existing vegetation types on
the project site will be provided. Any significant discrepancies between the existing site
conditions and those resources previously documented onsite will be identified. The report
will describe: (1) the methodology used to conduct the biological survey; (2) descriptions
of the existing vegetation types on the project site with a table showing the existing acreage
of each vegetation type on the project site; (3) the potential of the project site to support
special status biological resources; (4) potential impacts to biological resources; and (5)
conceptual mitigation measures (if necessary). The biological resources report will also
address the proposed wetland/water feature, relative to the potential wildlife benefits and
long-term operational issues in order to remain viable.
Focused surveys for special status plant and wildlife species are not included within this
scope of work. The documentation of the above survey effort will make recommendations
as to which species require additional surveys based on the concerns of state, federal and
local resource agencies and the presence of suitable habitat within the project site.
2.2.5.9 Public Safety/Risk of Upset
This section will address potential existing and project-related public safety/upset
conditions, including summarizing relevant discussions in other EIR sections {flood hazards,
fire hazards, emergency response, and seismic hazards). This section will primarily focus
on the potential for introduction of new uses and associated use, storage, disposal or
transport of hazardous materials. RBF will conduct a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment to identify potential existing site constraints, based upon a site reconnaissance,
electronic database search, review of historic aerial photos, and review of relevant
information provided by the Authority (this scope excludes chain of title review,
operational/inventory analyses, and any Phase II investigations or laboratory testing). This
scope is limited to 40 hours of staff time for review of local agency files. Recommendations
for subsequent Phase II investigations will be provided where appropriate.
2.2.5.10 Historic/Cultural Resources
RBF Consulting has retained CRM TECH to conduct ahistoric/cultural resources technical
analysis of the North Lake and Central City South Districts. The historical/cultural resources
analysis will proper identification, recordation, and evaluation of all cultural resources that
are present within the project area under CEQA and City guidelines for statute compliance
purposes. The following tasks will be completed as part of the historical/cultural resources
analysis:
Initiate a historical/archaeological resources records search at the
Archaeological Information Center for a complete inventory of previously recorded
cultural resources within the project area;
2. Conduct an intensive-level field survey of the project area to identify all
cultural resources that potentially meet mandated age criterion;
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Pale 14 of 21
3. Complete field recording of all potential cultural resources, including
compiling detailed field notes and photo-documentation;
4. Conduct detailed historical research on the project area and potential cultural
resources, using existing literature on local history, early maps, archival records,
contemporary publications. and oral interviews;
5. Complete DPR-523 forms on properties determined to predate 1957 and
historic districts whose periods of significance predate 1957, and evaluate their
historical significance under the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places and the California Register of Historical Resources;
6. Prepare a final report to document the findings of Steps 1-5 to outline the
historic context of the project area, document research procedures used during the
survey, identify and evaluate potential historic properties/historical resources within
the study area, and recommend subsequent courses of action regarding such
properties.
2.2.5.11 Environmental Justice Issues
The EIR will address community impact issues within the Land Use section (Task 2.2.1).
2.2.5.12 Aesthetics
RBF Consulting will characterize the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources,
including a discussion of views within the site and views from surrounding areas to the site,
particularly from adjacent residential uses. Project impacts will be addressed based on
changing on-site aesthetics visible from surrounding roadways and locations. RBF
Consulting will incorporate discussion of architectural and design specifications pursuant
to the City's Municipal Code. Mitigation measures such as perimeter landscaping,
screening and setbacks, as determined necessary, will be recommended to reduce the
significance of potential impacts. Site photographs will be provided which will show on-site
and surrounding views. This section will analyze potential view impairments to adjacent
uses as a result of Project implementation. As an optional task, RBF Consulting could
provide realistic computer-generated renderings of the proposed project as discussed within
Optional Tasks.
RBF Consulting will also address impacts due to the introduction of light and glare
associated with the development of the proposed Project. This analysis will include a light
and glare impact discussion on neighboring sensitive uses from street lights, vehicle
headlights, building lights, etc. RBF Consulting will review and incorporate existing City
policies and guidelines regarding light and glare for inclusion within the EIR. RBF
Consulting will recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential aesthetic and light and
glare impacts to the maximum extent possible.
2.2.5.13 Air Quality
The existing setting discussion will provide a description of the local climate, South Coast
Air Basin, monitored pollutants and their levels, the attainment status of criteria pollutants
and a summary of the applicable air quality and growth documents from the air district.
Significance criteria as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) will also be described. The impact analysis will include quantified emissions
February 14, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Paee 15 of 21
for both short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) project impacts based on the
URBEMIS7G computer model or other model approved for use by the SCAQMD.
Stationary source emissions will be discussed based on data provided by the Authority,
SCAQMD or equipment manufacturer(s). A discussion of the short-term construction
impacts will be provided for the land uses within each district. The effectiveness of
recommended mitigation measures should be quantified and the residual emissions after
mitigation described. Further discussion of short-term construction impacts are also
provided within the Construction-Related Impacts discussion.
2.2.5.74 Alternatives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126,6, RBF Consulting will provide an analysis of
a reasonable range of alternatives. This is anticipated to include, for both Districts, a No
Project (existing zoning) alternative, a No Development alternative, and an alternative land
use alternative (also refer Yo Task 1.1). In addition, the EIR will address alternatives
rejected from further consideration, including additional design alternatives, alternative land
uses, and, as appropriate, alternative sites.
This alternatives section will culminate with the selection of the environmentally superior
alternative in accordance with CEQA requirements.
2.2.5.15 Additional CEQA-mandated Discussions
RBF will also address, in appropriate separate EIR sections, growth-inducing impacts,
significant irreversible environmental changes, effects found not to be significant,
organizations and persons consulted, references, and technical appendices.
2.3 Screencheck Draft -North Lake Project Level Component
For each impact section identified above for the policy level analysis, a separate discussion
will be provided for the project-specific Preferred Alternative for each District.
2,3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
RBF, in conjunction with STO Design Group and Geoscience, will prepare a technical
memorandum for the proposed lake design. The memorandum will include a summary of
the lake requirements required for use in the EIR. This task includes review of the
SBVMWD's Dudek PDR studies and lake designs. The technical memorandum will address
potential modifications or enhancements to the lake system to improve overall function and
assess the potential of integrating stormwater runoff management as a function of the lake.
It is assumed that no additional technical/design studies are required for this task other
than that identified in Tasks 1.1 and 2.2.5.3
2.3.2 Public Utilities and Infrastructure
RBF Consulting will coordinate with SBVMWD to obtain the infrastructure master planning
and design information for water, wastewater and storm drain facilities and storm water
quality facilities. This Scope assumes that SBVMWD and its civil engineer for the North
Lake District will provide all proposed system information including assumptions,
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Paee 16 of 21
calculations and cost estimates for the North Lake District. Data for Central City South will
be based upon information provided by the affected utility/service providers.
Based on agency responses and RBF Consulting's extensive experience with similar
projects, RBF Consulting will recommend mitigation measures to substantially reduce or
avoid potential impacts.
2.3.3 Air Quality
Project-specific construction and operational emissions will be provided for each District.
2.3.4 Geology/Public Safety/Risk of Upset
As part of this EIR section, site-specific constraints will be identified for each District, as well
as appropriate mitigation measures.
2.3.5 Alternatives
Refer to Task 2.2.5.14 above.
2.3.6 Graphic Exhibits
The Draft EIR will include a maximum of 30 exhibits to enhance the written text and clarify
the proposed Project and environmental impacts. Using state-of-the-art computer design
equipment and techniques, our in-house graphic design team will create professional
quality, black and white or full color exhibits, dividers and covers for the EIR and
Appendices. This Task assumes camera-ready base maps are provided by the Authority.
All exhibits will be 82" x 11" in size, unless otherwise approved by the Authority. Where
practical, RBF will utilize our extensive GIS capabilities and the City's existing GIS files to
create project-specific graphics.
Deliverables: 5 copies of the Screencheck Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Exhibits and Technical Appendices
2.3.7 COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT EIR
RBF Consulting will respond to one complete set of Authority comments on the
Screencheck Draft EIR, will produce one "check copy" of the Draft EIR with all changes
highlighted for final Authority review, and will prepare the EIR for the required 45-day public
review period. In addition, RBF Consulting will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) for
submittal to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). RBF will provide all required
noticing, similar to Task 2.1. RBF will assist City staff in distributing the Draft EIR, including
provision of one (1) electronic copy and one (1} reproducible copy of the Draft EIR and
appendices. Once reproduced by the City, RBF will distribute the Draft EIR, including 15
EIR copies to the State Clearinghouse, up to 30 EIRs to a distribution list, publication of a
Notice of Availability (NOA} in a local newspaper, mailing of the NOA to up to 2,000
individuals, posting the NOA with the County Clerk, and providing up to 10 copies of the EIR
and one reproducible copy for Authority use. The NOA will identify any scheduled public
meetings pursuant to CEQA. This Scope of Work assumes that no new substantive issues
are raised by the Authority following Screencheck EIR review. As the EIR volume and
number of color exhibits may vary, this scope is based on a direct cost budget of no more
than $10,000 for Draft EIR distribution.
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 17 of 21
Deliverables:
Distribution List
Notice of Availability
^ Up to 2,000 NOAs mailed to radius list
^ Newspaper Notice
Radius List
^ One (1) reproducible copy of the Draft EIR and Appendices
Electronic copy of Draft EIR on CD (excludes appendices)
2.4 FINAL EIR/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2.4.1 Response to Comments/Screencheck Final EIR
RBF Consulting will respond to all comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day
public review period, including comments raised at public meetings, if directed by the
Authority. As the number and nature of responses is uncertain, this scope is based on 300
hours of staff time to prepare responses and any associated technical analyses. Following
review of the Draft Responses to Comments, RBF Consulting will finalize this section for
inclusion in the Screencheck Final EIR. RBF Consulting will distribute copies of the
Response to Comments document to any public agency commenting of the Draft EIR per
the requirements of CEQA.
Deliverables: Five (5) screencheck copies of the Draft Responses to Comments
One (1) reproducible for Authority use
2.4.2 Final EIR
The Final EIR will consist of the revised Draft EIR text, as necessary, and the "Comments
to Responses" section. The Draft EIR will be revised in accordance with the responses to
public comments on the EIR. To facilitate Authority review, RBF Consulting will format the
Final EIR with shaded text for any new or modified text, and "strike out" any text which has
been deleted from the Final EIR. RBF Consulting will also prepare and file the Notice of
Determination within five (5) days of EIR approval.
Deliverables: Two (2) copies of the Preliminary Final EIR, including exhibits and
Technical Appendices and Response to Comments
One (1) unbound camera-ready original of the Final EIR, Exhibits
and Technical Appendices, and Response to Comments, including
an electronic copy of the EIR (excluding appendices)
Notice of Determination
2.5.1 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
RBF Consulting will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process
including the preparation of the Notice of Determination, Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Findings for Authority use in the Project review process. RBF
Consulting will prepare the Findings in accordance with the provisions of Section 15091 and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and in a form specified by the Authority. RBF
February 19, 2003 2403-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 18 of 21
Consulting will submit the Draft Findings for Authority review and will respond to one set of
Authority comments.
Deliverables: Two (2) screencheck copies of the Draft Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
One (1) camera-ready Final Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
2.5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
To comply with the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 32180), RBF Consulting
will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be defined through working
with Authority staff to identify appropriate monitoring steps/ procedures and in order to
provide a basis for monitoring such measures during and upon Project implementation.
RBF Consulting will prepare a Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will
be submitted to the Authority for review at the Administrative Final EIR milestone submittal.
RBF Consulting will respond to one set of Authority comments on the Draft Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Deliverables: Two (2) copies of the screencheck Mitigation Monitoring Program
One (1) camera-ready Final Mitigation Monitoring Program
2.6 Phase Two Coordination
RBF Consulting will coordinate the EIR process with the Water Authority member agencies,
Development Services Department staff and the technical consultant team retained by RBF
Consulting. This task includes preparation of meeting summaries and periodic email
updates to keep Authority staff updated on the EIR progress, issues, and action items.
2.7 Phase Two Meetings and Hearings re EIR
RBF Consulting, led by Mr. Kevin Thomas, CEP, will attend meetings with the Water
Authority Management Committee, the Director, City Staff and attend public meetings in
Support of the EIR. It is anticipated that up to two (2) public hearings will be conducted by
the City and that an additional two (2) public hearings will be conducted by SBVMWD in
their respective roles as co-lead agencies for the EIR. Additionally, it is anticipated that up
to six (6) staff level meetings will be conducted with the staff of SBVMWD, the Water
Authority Management Committee and/or the City Staff. This scope assumes that two RBF
team members attend the meetings, on average.
Meetings: Two Public Hearings with City Staff (2)
Two Public Hearings with SBVMWD (2)
Six Staff Level Meetings (6)
2.8 Phase Two Document Finalization
RBF will prepare the Final EIR document for Authority use, including any final corrections
based on EIR certification hearings.
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Paee 19 of 21
Optional Tasks
A. Computer-Generated Renderings
If desired by Authority staff, RBF could develop realistic computer-generated
renderings of the project, using GPS-controlled color photos and available design
plans. These would be useful not only for the EIR, but also for project marketing
purposes.
B. Public/Media/Web Services
RBF Consulting, together with the Lee Andrews Group, has the expertise and
experience to provide a wide range of public relations, community involvement and
project information services, including multi-lingual newsletters, project web sites,
and project videos.
C. Additional Meetings
If desired by the Client, RBF and our technical experts can attend additional
meetings with Authority staff, key stakeholders and/or the general public.
D. Additional Planning Support Services
RBF can assist City staff in developing more detailed design guidelines and
development standards for the proposed project.
E. Additional Engineering/Design Support Services
RBF can assist the Authority with additional civil engineering, surveying, landscape
architecture, construction management and related services as may be necessary
through project implementation.
2003-65
February 19, 2003 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Pane 20 of 21
Schedule of Compensation
PHASE I Not To Exceed Amount
Task 1.1 Validate Land Use/Circulation Changes $60,000
Task 1.2 General Plan Amendments $2,000
Task 1.3 Development Code Amendments $1,000
Task 1.4 Map Amendments $1,000
Task 1.5 Processing and Applications $1,000
Task 1.6 Phase One Coordination $10,000
Task 1.7 Phase One Meetings and Hearings re General
Plan Amendments/Development Code
Amendments $10,000
TOTAL PHASE I $85,000
PHASE II Not To Exceed Amount
Task 11.1 CEQA Initial Tasks $16,000
Task 11.2 Draft EIR -General Plan/Development Code
Amendments Program Level Component $170,000
Task 11.3 Draft EIR -North Lake Project Level Component $110,000
Task 11.4 Final EIR/Response to Comments $30,000
Task 11.5 Findings/Overriding Considerations/Final Notices $5,000
Task II.6 Phase Two Coordination $20,000
Task 11.7 Phase Two Meetings and Hearings $15,000
Task 11.8 Phase Two Document Finalization $5,000
TOTAL PHASE II $371,000
TOTAL PHASE I and PHASE II $456,000
Optional Task A (Renderings) $15,000 (est.)
Optional Task B (Public/Media/Web) $20,000 (est.)
Optional Task C (Additional Meetings) $15,000 (est.)
Optional Task D (Additional Planning Support) $10,000
Optional Task E (Additional Engineering Suppon) TBD
January 29, 2003
February 19, 2003 2003-65 Exhibit 1 -Scope of Work
Page 21 of 21
January 29, 2003