HomeMy WebLinkAboutS1-Mayor's Office
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
'.
Subject: Resolution of the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino, California, approving a certain
ErR Consultant and the form of Consultant
Contract as requested by the San Bernardino
, '. ~[' egional Water Resources Authority,
~ j ;
From: Timothy Cook, Assistant to the Mayor
Special Projects
~.,
Dept: Mayor's Office
Date: February 27, 2003
Synopsis of previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
Adopt Resolution,
;} ~Lp-
~
Signature
Contact person:
Timothy Cook
Phone
5133
Supporting data attached:
yes
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
$456.000
Source: (Ace!. No.) San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority
Council Notes:
'~),;B2CO:s ..(,...-::;-
Agenda item NO.--.SJ
3/3/03
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subiect:
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.
Backqround:
On October 23, 2002, the Common Council adopted Resolution No.
2002-332 which approved a certain Amendment No. 1 to the Loan
Agreement among the City, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District and the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources
Authority. This Amendment No.1 provided for the additional
funds to be loaned by the City and the District in equal amounts
to the Water Authority for purposes of completing the
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for what has commonly been
referred to as the Lakes and Streams Project.
Amendment No. 1 provided for an approval process of the to-be-
identified EIR Consultants and the proposed Consultant Contract
prior to the Water Authority authorizing any EIR Consultants to
proceed with preparation of the EIR regardless of funding
source. The District has previously pre-approved the Consultant
and the Consultant Contract as required under the Amendment No.
1. The Water Authority has recently requested the Common Council
to consider a similar action.
The Water Authority previously issued a Request For Proposals
("RFP") and received four proposals in response to the RFP.
Interviews were conducted with three of the four firms
submitting proposals and the selection of RBF Consulting was
recommended to the Water Authority. On Tuesday, February 25,
2003, the Water Authority accepted the recommendation to approve
RBF Consulting and the form of the final Consulting Contract and
further authorized execution of the Consulting Contract after
all final action has been taken by the Common Council as
required under Amendment No.1.
The proposed Consultant Contract establishes a $456,000
consultant fee and estimates a 10-month period of time to
complete all work on the EIR. The scope of the EIR project will
specifically analyze the feasibility of the "North Lake" in the
area bounded by Baseline, "E" Street, 9th Street and the 1-215
Freeway. The other component of the EIR analysis will include
several development alternates for the Central City South Area
including a wetlands or water features north of Mill Street
adjacent to the 1-215 Freeway. All General Plan amendments and
zone changes, if and to the extent required, will be prepared by
the staff of the Development Services Department.
Attached to this report is the proposed Resolution, the
Consultant Contract and the Exhibit specifying the Scope of Work
and several pages from the previously approved Amendment No.1.
The Assistant to the Mayor, Special Projects, Timothy Cook,
recommends approval of the attached Resolution in accordance of
the provisions of Amendment No. 1 to the Loan Agreement with the
Water Authority.
Financial ImDact:
$456,000 from the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources
Authority.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution.
\
\
2002-332
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and such other good and
valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
Section \. Except as hereby amended, the Loan Agreement is in all respects
ratified and confirmed and all of the terms, provisions and conditions thereof shall be and remain
in full force and effect.
Section 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, all terms not otherwise defined
in this Amendment No. \ shaH have the same meanings in this Amendment No. \ as those terms are
given in the Loan Agreement.
Section 3.
read as follows:
The third recital of the Loan Agreement is amended in its entirety to
"WHEREAS, the Authority has retained Ebrenkrantz, Eckstut &
Kuhn Architects PC, a California corporation (the "initial
consultant") pursuant to that certain Agreement for Professional
Services approved by the Authonty on August \4,200\ and may in
the future retain an additional consultant or consultants (the initial
consultant and any such other consultant or consultants being
hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Consultants") to assist the
Authority with the preparation of an Environrnentallrnpact Report
(the "EIR"), and seeks funding from the City and the District in
connection therewith; and"
Section 4. Paragraph numbered \ of the Loan Agreement is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
"I. CitylDistrict Loan. The City and the District shaH each loan
to the Authority an amount not to exceed Eight Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($850,000), which in the aggregate shall not
exceed One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($\,700,000)
(the "CitylDistrict Loan"), including the amounts described in
Section 3 of this Agreement. The City and the District shall each
provide their respective portions of the funds necessary to fund the
full amount of the CitylDistrict Loan by the dates required in this
Agreement. The CitylDistrict Loan shall be evidenced by two (2)
separate promissory notes executed by the Authority in favor of each
the City and the District, respectively, for one-half of the total
principal amount of the CitylDistrict Loan, substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this
reference (the "Notes"). No interest, origination points or loan fees
shall be charged to the Authority under or regarding the Notes.
\
\
\
S82oo2:34382.\
2
2002-332
Principal disbursements shall be noted on the Notes, as each
disbursement is made by the City or the District, respectively."
Section 5. Paragraph numbered 2 of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended in
its entirety to read as follows:
"2. Use of City/District Loan. The Authority shall use the
CitylDistrict Loan proceeds solely for the purposes of paying the fees
and authorized expenses of the Consultants and for such other fees
and other expenses reasonably incurred by the Authority related to
the Project. The Authority agrees that the proceeds of the
CitylDistrict Loan shall not be used for any other purposes."
Section 6. Paragraph numbered 4 of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended by
substituting for the word "Consultant", in each instance of its use, the word "Consultants".
Section 7. Paragraph numbered 5 of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended by
substituting for the word "Consultant", in each instance of its use, the word "Consultants".
Section 8. Paragraph numbered 6 of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended in
its entirety to read as follows:
"6. Limitations on Authorized Proceedinis. The parties to this
Agreement recognize and agree that the direction to proceed pursuant
to the Agreement for Professional Services by and between the
Authority and the initial consultant has been limited solely to the
preparation of the documents submitted on or about August 1,2002,
exclusive of any EIR documentation. The preparation of an EIR is
herein approved by the separate actions of the governing bodies of
the City and the District by reason of the approval of Amendment
No. I to this Agreement subject to the subsequent official action of
the governing bodies of both the City and the District to approve the
Authority selected EIR consultant and the proposed consultant
contract prior to any final action of the Authority to approve the
Authority selected EIR consultant and the proposed consultant
contract; provided, however, that said governing bodies at their
election may grant both of their respective approvals as required
herein in a single official action at the time of their approval of
Amendment No. I to this Agreement. The Authority agrees not to
allow, direct or permit any scope of work, regardless of payment
source, in furtherance of the preparation of the EIR, unless and until
the conditions contained in this paragraph are satisfied. If the
Authority is dissolved by the joint actions of all parties comprising
the Authority, this Section shall, thereafter, have no further force or
effect and nothing contained herein shall be binding upon either the
\
\'
I
S82002:34382.1
3
2002-332
City or the District to proceed with any portion or phase of the
Project."
Section 9. Exhibit "A" to the Loan Agreement (San Bernardino Regional Water
Resources Authority Promissory Note) is amended as follows:
(i) the Maximum Principal Amount shall be $850,000; and
(ii) the first paragraph shall in its entirety read:
"FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the San Bernardino Regional Water
Resources Authority (the "Authority") hereby promises to pay to
(the "Lender"), at such
address as the Lender shall designate, an aggregate principal sum not
to exceed Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (S850,OOO). This
Note is hereby tendered in accordance with that certain Loan
Agreement dated as of October I, 2001, by and among the Authority,
the Lender and the , as amended by
Amendment No. I dated as of , 2002 (the "Loan
Agreement"). "
Section 10. This Amendment No.1 may be executed in counterparts, eacb of
which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument
\
\\ S82002:34382.1
4
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
'-':>
RESOLUTION NO.
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
"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 ten-itorial 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 "EIR 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 devclopment 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 f0l1h; and
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 City, tbe District and the Authority heretofore entered into that
certain 200 I Loan Agreement dated as of October L 200 I (tbe "Loan Agreement"), as amended
pursuant to Amendment 1\0. I thereto, wbich provides for the payment oftbe fees and authorized
expenses for a consultant to be selected by the Authority, subject to the approval of this Mayor and
Common Council and tbe 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 sen'ices of the EIR Consultant
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Amendment No. I 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 incurrcd in connection with preparation of the EIR, and tbc City.
the District and the Authority baIT amended the Loan Agreement to include the loan of additional
funds subject to the limitations and conditions as sct forth tberein; and
WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement as amended by Amendment No. I provides,
among other things. that (I) the preparation of an EIR must be authorized by separate actions of
the gO\'eming bodies of the City and the District to be taken by the City and the District either at
the timc 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
arc 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
1
2
3 be approvcd either at the time ofapprm'al of the proposed additional funding or prior to the final
4 execution of such Consultant Contract by the Authority, and this action as set forth in the
5 Resolution shall be deemed to bc thc final action of thc City with respect to such provisions as
6 contained in Section 6 of tbe Amendment No. I to tbe Loan Agreement
7 NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
8 SAt\' BERNARDINO DO HEREBY RESOL \IE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
9
10
Section I.
The Mayor and Common Council bereby approve tbe preparation of an EIR
11 in connection \\ith the Project by tbe EIR Consultant as identified in the Recitals bereto and concur
12 in the selection oftbe ElR Consultant as proposed by tbe Autbority.
13
14
Section 2.
Tbe lvlayor and Common Council hereby approve tbe fonn of tbe
15
Consultant Contract (a copy \\bieh is attacbed as "Exbibit A") as proposed by tbe Authority for
execution by and between the Autbority and tbe EIR Consultant provided tbat tbere sball be no
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
liabilit\ to the Cily for any actions to be taken pursuant thereto or for tbe paymcnts required to bc
remitted by the Authority to the EIR Consultant for professional services performed under said
COlNdtant Contract The \1ayor and Common Council bereby find and determine that based upon
the adoption of this Resolution, tbe Authority may execute and deliver the Consultant Contract to
tbe EIR Consultant in accordance witb tbe actions taken by the Authority on February 25, 2003.
The Mayor is authorized to communicate tot the Authority tbe actions taken pursuant to tbis
Resolution.
/1/
/'//
/Ii
//1
" ,
i /1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESOLUTIO:\' OF THE MAYOR A:\'D COMMO:\' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SA:\'
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTAIN EIR CONSULTANT A:\'D
THE FORM OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT AS REQUESTED BY THE SAN
BERl\'ARDINO REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
I HEREB'r' CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
,2003, by the following vote, to wit:
day of
9 Coml11on Council
AYES
NAYS
ABST AIN
ABSENT
10 ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
11 :v!CGINNIS
DERRY
12 SUAREZ
ANDERSON
13 MCCAMMACK
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
City Clerk
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this ~ day of
2003.
Judith Valles, Mayor
of the City of San~ Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
()
" <J . 6' e \c...._,'--
. ames F. Penman
City Attorney
25
26
27
28
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached copy of Mayor and Common Council of the
City of San Bernardino Resolution No. is a full, true and concct eopy of that no\\' on
file in this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of the City of San Bernardino this day of ,2003.
Citv Clerk
orthe City of San Bernardino
1
2
EXHIBIT "A"
3
4 COi\TR~CT
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2
3
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (the "Agreement")
lS made and entered into this 25th day of February, 2003, by and
4
5
between the SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
6
("JPA"), a joint powers authority created under the laws of the
7
State of California,
and RBF CONSULTING
( "CONSULTANT") ,
a
8
California Corporation, with reference to the following facts:
9
RECITALS
10
WHEREAS, the JPA was organized pursuant to a Joint Powers
11 Agreement dated as of August 26, 1998, by and among the City of
12 San Bernardino, California (the "City"), the Inland Valley
13 Development Agency (the "Agency"),
and the San Bernardino
14 Valley H'Jnicipal Water District (the "District) for the purpose
15 of determining the most beneficial method of alleviating the
16 high ground water problems existing in ~he City, including
17 areas within the territorial boundaries of the District and the
18 Agency; and
19
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish its goals and objectives,
20 the JPA has requested the Consultant to submit a proposal for
21 preparation of a detailed project
description and draft
22 Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") In accordance with the
23 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the proposed
24 water resource storage project known as the San Bernardino
25 Vision 20/20 Project as set forth In the JPA's request for
26 qualifications/proposals entitled: "
27 "; and
28
2/27/03 8:3: :~~
-, -
10
11
1 ~.
'"
1
WHEREAS,
the Consultant submitted its proposal da~ed
::2 I ?ebruary 19, 2003, to the JPA and has represented to the JP.z,
3 ~hat it has the knowledge, skills, resources, and expertise
4 :.hat
qualify the
Consultant
the professional
to provide
5 =onsulting services required under the RFP and [cis AgreemeE:',
6 as more fully described in the Section titled "Mission" below;
"7
3.nd
8
NOW, THERE?ORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN .I\ND FOR SUCH OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACY~OWLEDSED, THE
CPA AND TEE CONSULT.~JT AGREE AS FOLLOWS,
9
The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the JPA to
1.
Purpose
13 :)rocure the professional services of an experienced cO:1s'.1lting
L~ .=eam to prepare a detailed project description and a draft EIR
IS . ::or the Sar: Bernardino Vision 20/20 project in accordar.ce with
16 CEQA a~ld, as applicable, the NatioDal Environmental Policy Act
17 i \'NEPA" )
18
19
2 .
Mission
Tl'le ,J:?~ retair:s
professional
Consultant to provlde
"'r.~
L...::
cl:e
20 eDvironmeTIcal cons',-:~cing serVlces set. forth In che Scope of
\\l II
~ ,
\,..:r~ich is
21 ~ork attached to this Agreement as Exhibit
22 :.ncorporated into this .i\greement by this !:'efere~ce (\'Scope of
The Cons~ltant agrees to perform all elE~ents the wo~k
23 ~'~ork").
24 set forth =-n Scope of ~'.Jol.-kl in accordance 'v\,it~ the terms and
25 conditions of this Agreement.
26 3 . Term
27 This AgreemeDt shall commence as of the day and year first
28 above shown and shall remain in full force and effect until the
"'- L I ~.:, ,,: ~ '_
o
1 performance of all elements of the Scope of \-lorK is completed
2 or this Agreement is earlier terminated, pursua~t to its te~ms.
3 The Management Committee of the JPA 1S duly authorized to
4 approve line item adjustments to the budget contained 1n the
5 Scope of WorK, provided that suoh adjustments do not materially
6 alter this }\greement or increase 'che amount of money payable
7 the JPA to the Consultanc under the terms of this Agreement.
8
No later than March 15, 2003, the JPA and the Consultant
9 shall agree upon a schedule of performance of each of the items
:2-0
listed in the Scope of Work.
If the JPA and the Consultant do
11 not agree on such sched'Jle of performance by March 15, 2003,
1..'::
the
terminate
this
.l\greement,
',Ii thout
further
JF.~
mQ~/
13 obligation or liability under this Agreement.
..:...'-:!:
~"---~e c.:Jns'~lltaDr: represents to :.he JPP. that it is a""'v"are of
15
I th:_cf~~.~:ng
CC...::J~;~_G.~'- for
limi':a:.ions
:or
the
of t~'1e
JP}'I.
payment
of
expenses incurred
under
services
performed
and
17 th~s .:"greement I pursuant t,:) the applicable Loan Agreement by
18 and a~oEg the City o~ San Bernardi~o, the San Bernardino Valley
I'Ml'~'-'~"
,I l~.~,- -'-:,0_
a:1d the JP]'..,
da ted as of October
'{later D:,s':l.-ict /
20 20 C 1, a2 amended I CillQ :'Jrther ag~ees not perform any services
21 or i~~::'J::'- any expenses that. are n8t authorized by said loan
22 agree::,ent:.
23
Performance of each element of the work specified in
D
2c;
the Scope of \';ork, is an obligation of the Consultant
25
under this Agreement, subject to any changes made
26
subsequently upon mutual agreement of both the JPA
27
and the Consultant. Any such mutually agreed upon
28
changes 1n the Scope of \-JorK shall be evidenced by
- ? -
,
II
5 II
I
I
o I
, II
S II
!,
9 II
lO il
11
12
13
E
1
\.,.rri t ten
amendments
this
, ~ 1
sno~-,-
to
Agreement
and
include arl~r increase or decrease lTI the a~GU~:
j
compensat:lon due
ConsGltant
for
-n'.'
O~~.1
such
c~~ange
.:J:
the Scope of ~']ork. A;:ty change 1 n the Scope :J: ""':;~-r:
thac is ~ct evidenced by a w~itte!~ a~e:ldment :0 :~:s
.l\greemen t
approved by the J?A sha:l noc be
- "
D:r~Gl::J.':?
either par::::y.
B.
Consul:ant shall rencier no extra Ser']lCeS u:r~der :::--::..s
Agree~en:, u~less and u~til the ~anageDent Cosmi:tee,
prior
of
sueD
performa:lce
c>'."r-"'~ ~
,-I>-,-~ct
to
8El-'/1 ce S I
authorizes
'::ri ring.
s":..lch
extra
ser~"rlces I
lD
.i;uthorizeci
shall
i~voiced purs~a~t
e".- y--
^~_O
Ser'v"lCeS
be
to the Drovis:..cns or paragraph 8.
4 .
Consultant Responsibilities
::=:::::~.:.s',;l tant
=c~~~ts ~~e p~~~cipal
~ is t. 28. t~ 1 :y,,/
pe~SC;:1T'~2~
_~ c~:e p~~~e~c ~C~ l~S ~~ra:ioE:
- ,
"n
Names:
~ ~10Ta:3
:-,:::c'::ra ig
5. Replacement of Named Personnel
J..;;.e
i~di vid',-~als
lr~ Section
this Agl-ee:nec:
r:'2,~:ed
of
22 :'leCes33:::'~"'.:. for t~le Con:3,--:2. tant 's s":...lccessful per!:crm3~ce 0: t~:'2
23
~~
..:::,
~r-..:s
COI:sul t2:-: L_
- -,
5.'1211-
:-:-,?.k.e
Scope
~-F \'J02:k
.L.::~.l:t~ e e ~l e:-;. t .
~"
~~
I
1.1 d' ,,~,-~, rr
I .1 ',' '-- _ :::;, _ ,-,..~
'I
indi '\"iduals,
':,'i thC-~l:
of
t f.e s e
or
:;::,eplacer:~e=--~:
prlor written consent o~ the Managemen~ Committee.
If
26 Manage~en: Comm~ttee fails to respond ~o Conscltant ~it~i~ ~~.,
27
28
di."Te:::.-t
rep-J,3ce
(10 )
by Cons'c.lltant
~~
or
of
ca~'s
l~eques t
a
0:
lndivid~als designated
iE Sect iOTI 4
sf
Sc:op~
t.he
t';--'':::'
,-~
2..::1
',.1. ~
~ ,
.~'J
C';.re
:1C'
c.....:.:.::
::. ~le
c,~-:. ','
,",,';:'
1
'"Jork,
sa:..d personnel
di version or replacemeEt
shall
1r,c.
u~
deer::es
appl-oved.
3
6 .
Release of News Information
No ~ews release,
photographs,
public annou~cerents O~
5 Ico~firsat~2n of same,
relating to any par~ of the subjec~
6 matt el- c: this .4.greemen t or any phase of the 3co:;::.e 0: T/:Dr~:
7 shall be IT,ade by the Consultant, viithout the pY'~" "\Titter-~
.J... -'-V~
8 approval or the Management Committee.
9 7. Confidentiality of Reports
10
C2:-~s~:1 tan:::
shall
keep
confidential
all
l-ep'orc s ,
11 inrormaL:i.:;n and data received, prepared or asse:nbled Dursuant
12 to perfcr~ance of the Scope of Work and which either tie JPA or
13
the
f\12na:remen t
Committee designates
as
conf~dent:"21.
SllCh
confijent.:..a=-
information
shall
not
be
ITtade
a~\~ailable
A.-J' ,
the
Consult2.:-'.t to an~i perso:1, firm, corporatio:-:. Ol- en::'2-:'/ '.'JithoL:t
-, ! l:I:e 01-~J:- ':::-i: tel~ :::::.:;l1sen: 0: 'l:he [\1a.:1agement CO~1;TLi.: :Ee.
8. Compensation
I~e C~:1sulta~= ~ill De pald a noc-to-exceed
~=-iCl'--lSi '"re
0: ~.~ ~ e:':?eC',ses, of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS
~ -
L .L
"
jl ($456,000) ::::::n- pE:rfOr~1a.r~ce 2,::'l
I ~lork by t~s Consultant purs~an:
I
I
I
I accorda::ce v;ith the method 0:
I
i Scope 0: ~/;ork.
.,-1=
~L
:.:..e
elec',encs
0:
the S:::::olJe of
co
the
terms
or
':his ;'.g::eerneT"'~~.
22
The
-r7\
......=-'rl
agrees
to
pay
Cc,nsultant
0:1
a
,TJ.Jn t 'cl~'
basis
ir:.
compensation
se::
fer:h
---..
t~1e
2-1
The
Consulta.:lt
shall
sLbTli t
111C:Olces
on
25 montr.ly ba3is to the I'-1anagemen t Committee for tr~e i r l__e'.-2..ev,r a:'.Q
26 deterl:l.ina:icn as to compliance I..Jith the Scope of T::crk. .L.ll
27
determi:1a:ior:s
of
the
f'lanagemen t
Corr.mi t tee
0..3
to
the
")~
~C
II
"
1 app~-opriateness of any pa:-.nient shall be final and cO:1clusi~Ie,
2
I
IlL
I
S 11Ci 11
:lle sole decermination of ttle Management Commitcee.
.L~nl' appro~1ed payment fl~orn the JPA to the CO:lsultan~
3
4 be :naae \'.'i thin thirty (30) days of :::eceipt of eae}: i:1\coice.
9 .
Department Support
.0
The San 3ernardino \"a="ley f\1U:licipal ',;ate::..~ D:.stl~ict, City
..,
or ::ia:1 3er:1ardi:v:::, City or San Bel-nardi:1o Econc;-:lic ue~ielopmer:.t
8
and =nland Vallev Development Agency sha~l p:::ovide
Ager'Lc~r ,
9 CODSt.:.2.tant 'o\l'ith anv plans, publications, reports, statistics,
~u ~ec2rds C~ ether data or in~ormat~o~ per~inent to :}:e Scope of
11 :.;o::..-~: to De pel.fol-med under this l\greement that are reasonably
=-2 a~.'-ai:ia::::le.
l3
Independent Contractor
1v.
14
C~:-i.s~:l caDC
shall pel-:crl1 tilt:: Scope Dr
Services as a~
, ~
-l.':J
:.::..j~pe~~der:.t
ca~:Yacto~ and s~all
r:ot
De
. d .
CO~1S 1 el-eCl a:1
employee
~/'
'""',~ ~~,- -.J: ~_t.s e~:;::~,=:~.-ees 3.2:.-0' en":.p-,:"c~7:2:? of '=.:-:'2 J:?~. 01- an\-
Neither
CDnsLlta~:.
~~""\', -
or
ics
::'ce
.]?_::~ .
r,"-'-
- ,- c.
s ~1a 11
S.~~DC=:~_:' :::-actc ~-s
-.,
aL~ "
r., ~",-, ~ ,-
'..c,-_,:,,:,~c-,--
repr-esent
at
:'l rl~e
cr-
t.::?, ::
..:..:.'
:ner"lce::..-
'=~.e
s~:::~
r..,-
:;?;..
::::_-e':}'c1E:st.ec::i
::1:J-
,- :.::..
2,-'~~:r-~ :='~.'
,).::-'_....:-...
G::"-Ge~e:::::.
.J. S s'--::-;-~C: D:11'
l.i.o.;:,il::..::\. or
-=or ::~le di~ect
ezpe:lse
:21 pa~.;-:-.en:: of an'.- sa1ar~., '.":202 0::"- benefi:. to an'y" pe~son emp1oj-ed
22 b\/ Cc,~-:s'....i.ltar..t cr 1::5 Sl..~bcontl~2,c':ors to per=or!1~. ct~l'. element of
t~e ~CCDe r~ ilerK.
This .2..q::..-eer:1.e:-:t.
by 2::'0 b2t',';ee::-1 Consultant
~.. .1
,:"'-:1;
Ci",,;
..~
::..:-::.ended,
no':.
ar.d
sh.ol2..
be
construed,
t!12
a:-:d
~~.,..,
-.) ~.'--'o.,
f''""'....
._'~ l..
25
the
relat::..cnship
sel~\7.ont ,
employee,
or
to
ager,t,
c:::__eate
~,
~O
Ipar,:ne::Shlp,
II ,~-,-,,'; c~.... ~"a'
,-,-".1~U._ '---~.._ '-"__
II
Ii
the JP.;;'.
Join':
associa.t.iOI1,
bet'deen
the
'Jen t ure I
or
27
0..
~D
I-
I,
1
11.
Ownership and Reuse of Documents and Other Materials
and Information
maps I
photographs,
i:r:l:Eor~i3 '= .:.cr: I
l"e:=': ::.-~ s
~
~2..11
4
ara\'::..ngs I
dat.a,
specifications,
computations,
no'=.es,
::.-e~cie~:::gs I
or
other docume~ts genera:ed b\' or
~,
vc
5
G:~~ ;:'2h2.~f
,correspondence
II
the Cc.nsLltant
lC
14
I ~
: i~,
" Q
'C
c~
~ ,
~-
22
23
~~
')c
~O
27
22
8
payme:1:
UDal': '/:::'-lccen request to the COEsultant.
generated
cc
9
(r
ot~ler
in
s::al2. .::~
performance
the Scope
0= T,';O::.-j:
:cne
7 prope::.-:y .of the JPA, as of the Lime of :.heir p::.-epa.::.-a::c:-. ana
:cherefor by the JPA,
and shall be del~veced ~o
JPA
:A.r:.y use 0: QOCL.:.:-:.eY'.t.s
mat.erials
cle 1 =- \rel-ed
" -
LCnSi..:_ t.ant.
b~/
the
under :h:s Agreement by JPA for ot~er than the project tt~L lQ
12.
:2 the s~b~ect of this Agreement shall be at che JPA's sole ~~sk,
13 ~:thCL: legal liability or exposLre to Cons~ltant
Conflict of Interest
,=:::-~sul ~a~:=. agrees for :.h2 ce::::-w of tl-:: S i-\:~!l_-eerr.s::t
e:Tte::--
~V
__.'--,,) E~r-~dr agreerr,ent
':hat
" "~ - 1
detl-in-,e:1:'d~
Cl"
a,=~-:el.2~
be
t.c
a~c: ::::.erest of
3el-rl3.l"J.:nc
14.
l..-~~~ San Ber::2,l-c::.lno Va-,-~e:::c lo.:-;..:c1-=-C-=-::::,-J...:... :':3:.-e1-
," ~ +-, T '1'::
'-,_ '_) 0....
Bel~:-~2,l":i=-nc ,
c: t:::' S':
=ist~:i=:
;::'~r.r- ~_.,,-
--,-,"-,-
;.:."gen;::-
13 .
(:'o1':Sl: ~ :. a::.:.
23:-1
Sacl
De':/eloprnen::
=- :11 a:;'8
__~ ~,__'_,_n_
~>C:'_C:_'_~"'C:_.'_
\.~al~e::'
_2..,:;er;,c',.'
Successor and Assignment
elements
~.
t.o be
l-er:de:-e::::1 C',T
'~he
Sccpe
l',;ork a1.-e
c:
',.:hose nar:-'Le
::l::st
a::;=:1
abo'ce
'."- - - - c..>~
<<- -- ~ ~~.-
lS
as
a;::'~-:;ears
shall
2.ss:0:: nOl- transfel- a:;,'/
_:1
532.0::==::'5',-11 tant
not
,- c..~-c..::::::-
----'---- ~._'-
25 this ~9reement, ~ithout the nrlor ~~itten ceDsent. 0: t~e J~~,
Indemnification
:=2::s'Jltant agrees to inder:::1:fy, defeno, and Dole. l1arTless
thE:
l..-.c........
I
I
r<u:1ic~pa~
Distl":ct,
the
Bernardin.o
~>lat.er
\.'::::: lc:.'r
. ~,- ~ '-1
San
_ ._...._....__,_.___...._"-........"_A.,.."..._..~__ ,__..
1 City of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino Economic
2 Development Agency, and Inland Valley Development Agency and
3 their elected off icials, agents, officers and employees from
4 and against any and all liability, expense and claims for
5 damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited
6 to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damages
7 arising from or connected with Consultant's negligent
8 operations or willful misconduct in its performance of the
9 Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement.
10 15. Compliance with Laws
11 The Consultant shall comply with all local, state, and
12 federal laws, including, but not limited to, environmental
13 acts, rules and regulations applicable to the elements of the
14 Scope of Work to be performed by the Consultant pursuant to
15 this Agreement. The Consultant shall maintain all necessary
16 licenses and registrations for the lawful performance of the
17 Scope of Work to be performed by the Consultant pursuant to
18 this Agreement.
19 16. Non-Discrimination
20 The Consultant agrees not to discriminate nor to allow any
21 subcontractor to discriminate on the basis of age, race, color,
22 creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, marital status
23 or physical handicap, related to either employment, upgrading,
24 demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,
25 layoff or termination, rates of payor other terms of
26 compensation, selection for training, including apprenticeship,
27 in its performance of the Scope of Work.
28
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
1 17. Severability
2 If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
3 void or illegal by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
4 same shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this
5 Agreement and shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any
6 other provision of this Agreement. If any provision of this
7 Agreement shall be deemed invalid due to its scope or breadth,
8 such provision shall be deemed valid to the extent of the scope
9 or breadth permitted by law.
10 18. Interpretation
11 No provision of this Agreement is to be interpreted for or
12 against either party because that party or that party's legal
13 representative drafted such provision. This Agreement shall be
14 construed as if both parties drafted it.
15 19. Entire Agreement
16 This Agreement, with Exhibit "1", constitutes the entire
17 understanding and Agreement of the parties and supersedes all
18 prior written and oral agreements and understandings between
19 the parties.
20 20. Waiver
21 No breach of any provision of this Agreement can be
22 waived, unless in writing. wai ver of anyone breach of any
23 provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver
24 of any other breach of the same or any other provision of this
25 Agreement.
26 21. Contract Evaluation and Review
27 The ongoing assessment and monitoring of this Agreement is
28 the responsibility of the Management Committee, as duly
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
1 established by the JPA.
2 22. Default and Remedies
3 Failure or delay by any party to this Agreement to perform
4 any material term or provision of this Agreement shall
5 constitute a default under this Agreement; provided, however,
6 that if the party who is otherwise claimed to be in default by
7 the other party commences to cure, correct or remedy the
8 alleged default within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of
9 written notice specifying such default and shall diligently
10 complete such cure, correction or remedy, such party shall not
11 be deemed to be in default under this Agreement.
12 The party, which may claim that a default has occurred,
13 shall give written notice of such default to the party claimed
14 to be in default, specifying the alleged default. Delay in
15 giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of such
16 default nor shall it change the time of default; provided,
17 however, the injured party shall have no right to exercise any
18 remedy for a default under this Agreement, without delivering
19 the written default notice.
20 Any failure or delay by a party in asserting any of its
21 rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a
22 waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated
23 with a default. Except with respect to rights and remedies
24 expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the
25 rights and remedies of the parties under this Agreement are
26 cumulative and the exercise by any party of one or more of such
27 rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at
28 the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
-~._.,--_.__.---,"""""-'-"'-"~-""'~
1 for the same default or any other default by the other party.
2 If default of any party to this Agreement remains uncured
3 for more that seven (7) calendar days following written notice,
4 as provided above, a "material breach" shall be deemed to have
5 occurred. In the event of a material breach, the injured party
6 shall be entitled to seek any appropriate remedy or damages by
7 initiating legal proceedings.
8 23. Termination
9 The JPA or Consultant may terminate this Agreement, with
10 or without cause, or for any reason, at any time, by mailing by
11 certified mail thirty (30) days written notice of termination
12 to the other party. In this event, the Consultant shall be paid
13 the reasonable value of services rendered prior to the date of
14 termination. In the event of any such termination, Consultant
15 shall provide to the JPA, without charge, all documents, notes,
16 maps, reports and data accumulated to the date of such
17 termination. Consultant further covenants to give its good-
18 faith cooperation in the transfer of the work to the JPA or to
19 any other consultant designated by the JPA, following such
20 termination, and to attend and participate in any meetings at
21 no cost to the JPA, as shall be deemed necessary by the JPA to
22 effectively accomplish such transfer.
23 24. Governing Law
24 The laws of the State of California shall govern this
25 Agreement. Any legal action arising from or related to this
26 Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of the Sate of
27 California in and for the County of San Bernardino.
28
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
, ,
__.~u_". .__~___.,,_._..,.-...__,.._~.__..I..
1
25. Effectiveness of Agreement as to the Authority
This Agreement shall not be binding on the JPA, until
2
3 signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant,
4 approved by the JPA governing body, approved as to form by JPA
5 Counsel and executed by the President of the JPA.
6
26. Warranty
Consultant expressly warrants that the Scope of Work will
7
8 be
performed
with
care,
ski 11 ,
reasonable
expedience,
9 professional due diligence, and faithfulness and that all
10 deliverables and/or reports shall be appropriate and proper for
11 their intended use by the JPA in furtherance of Vision 20/20.
12 Consultant further warrants that all work required under this
13 Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally
14 accepted professional practices within the area of expertise of
15 the Consultant and its subcontractors.
16
27. Liability/Insurance
17 The Consultant shall maintain insurance policies meeting the
18 minimum requirements set forth in this Section 27. All
19 insurance maintained by the Consultant shall be provided by
20 insurers admitted by the California Department of Insurance to
21 do business in California and satisfactory to the JPA.
22 Certificates or copies of policies of insurance evidencing all
23 insurance coverage required in this Section 27 shall be
24 delivered to the JPA prior to the Consultant performing any
25 elements of the Scope of Work under this Agreement. All
26 insurance required in this Section 27 shall name the JPA as an
27 additional insured and provide for thirty (30) days written
28 notice from the insurer to the JPA prior to modification or
2/27/03 8:30 jmm
_, 'i_
._-... -.-..-. -_.._--......---..'-"',.~, ..",'...~,.......
1 cancellation in scope of coverage relating to the Scope or Work
2 to be performed under this Agreement and the Consultant's other
3 obligations under this Agreement.
4
A.
ComDrehensive General Liabilitv Insurance. The
Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general
liability insurance with a combined single limit of
not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.001 per
occurrence.
5
6
7
8
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.
9
10
11
12
13
14
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.
15
16
17
28. Notice
18
Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be presented in
person or by certified or registered U.S. mail, as follows:
19
20
To Consultant: RBF Consulting
3538 Concours, Suite 220
Ontario, California 91764
21
22
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
23
24
25
26
Nothing in this Section 28 shall be construed to prevent
27
the giving of notice by personal service.
28
2/27/03 8;30 jrnm
- ........, '-- .--', ----..-_ ~__ _b w_._...__
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the JPA and the Consultant have caused
2 this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first
3 above shown.
4
5
SAN BERNARDINO REGIONAL
WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
6
7
By:
Judith Valles, President
8
9
Approved as to form
and legal content:
10
11
12
By:
13
Timothy Sabo
Special Legal Counsel
14
15
RBF CONSULTING
16
17
By:
Ron Craig, Vice President
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2/27/03 8:30 jrnm
, ^
~,_""""""""",'",L_."'_
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
-, ~-
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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)
. _ __.._,...._ ......u...._.,.,__._.._--'_...___
----~----_. -. _._---_.._~----------.
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 2 of 21
The land use altematives 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 Altemative for each District, with remaining altematives 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)
Oeliverables
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 intemal 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
".._ '" _ _ _.' _.'__k._ _~_~_k~'., .' ._..." _ _,', F.........~"..' ..,._..... ' ';.-,..
February 19, 2003
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 will
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 at1 0 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 at1 0 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 I, 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
Six coordination meetings (6)
Meetings:
1.7
Phase One Meetings and Hearings
Amendments/Development Code Amendments
Re:
General
Plan
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
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:
o
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 a Authority-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, SAN BAG, 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
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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 (10) 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
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 for 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
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 Nap 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 Ana/ysis
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 a Long-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.
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 (/nstitute of
Transportation Engineers, 6'h 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 on site drainage patterns, land uses, and hydrologic
cover for use in the Existing Condition Hydrology Analysis. The review will include
February 19, 2003
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
1 OO-year storm frequencies. Developed condition hydrology analysis will only be prepared
for the Preferred Alternative for each District.
The on site developed condition hydrology will be used to assess impacts to downstream
hydrology, specifically impacts to Interstate 215.
Proposed Drainage Impacts and Hydraulic Analysis
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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
February 19, 2003
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 briefiy 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 1 A Reservoir in the North Lake
February 19, 2003
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-Ievel 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-Ievel 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
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 13 of 21
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 a historic/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:
1. 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
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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.
2.2.5.14
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 to 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, grow1h-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.
2.3.1 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
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 17 of 21
Deliverables: Distribution List
~ Notice of Availability
. . Up to 2,000 NOAs mailed to radius list
::J 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
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 screen check 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.
February 19,2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 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/MedialWeb 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 EngineeringlDesign 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.
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 20 of 21
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 $10,000
Plan AmendmentslDevelopment Code
Amendments
TOTAL PHASE I $85,000
Schedule of Compensation
PHASE" Not To Exceed Amount
Task 11.1 CEQA Initial Tasks $16,000
Task 11.2 Draft EIR - General PlanlDevelopment Code $170,000
Amendments Program Level Component
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 11.6 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" $371,000
TOTAL PHASE I and PHASE" $456,000
Optional Task A (Renderings) $15,000 (est.)
Optional Task B (Public/MedialWeb) $20,000 (est.)
Optional Task C (Additional Meetings) $15,000 (est.)
Optional Task D (Additional Planning Support) $10,000
Optional Task E (Additional Engineering Support) TBD
February 19, 2003
Exhibit 1 - Scope of Work
Page 21 of 21
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): 3 - 3- O::?, Item # 'S.1- Resolution #
Vote: Ayes I~ '1 G, '1 Nays _0 Abstain 0-
,
'2003-<05-
Absent 5
Change to motion to amend original documents:
Reso. # On Attachments:
,r
Contract term:
~
NulUVoid After:
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: ---==--
Direct City Clerk to (circle 1): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD W/COUNTY By:
Date Sent to Mayor:
'2,. ~ ~O ~.z,
Reso. Log Updated: /
Date of Mayor's Signature: 3,.') '03
Date ofClerk/CDC Signature: ~3- S-(~=>'
Seal Impressed:
./
Da~emo/Letter Sent for Signature:
60 Day Remin r Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 4
See Attached:
See Attached:
See Attached:
DateRe~
es ./ No By
Yes No~ By
Yes No L- By
Yes N07 By
Yes No y-
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney ,-/
Parks & Rec.
Code Compliance Dev. Services
Police Public Services Water
EDA
Finance
MIS
Others:
rnl1cr~
Notes:
BEFORE FILING, REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term, etc.)
Ready to File: f"\~ Date: 3/ s/ v)
Revised 01/12/01