Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGMT - RBF Consulting (Environmental Services) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Between c SEA(a %l,, c;N -;r% ORgr,..ro I/i /*{ ,*Ii io 'Q% III.���PTO 21 yQ ,cr i c .''BFH 413°11N17{9-C City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 472-3505 This Amendment No. 1 dated September 12, 2011, amends that certain agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Seal Beach, a California charter city ("City") and RBF Consulting ("Consultant") dated August 9, 2010. • • RECITALS A. The City and Consultant entered into the Agreement on August 9, 2010, under which Consultant has provided environmental review services in relations to the DWP Specific Plan Amendment. B. The original Agreement was for $350,655 and didn't include a detailed hazardous materials review and analysis. C. The parties wish to amend the original.Agreement to include a detailed hazardous materials review and analysis. NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the original Agreement as follows: 1. The original Scope of Services shall be amended to provide a hazardous materials review and analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The additional scope of services and additional compensation is shown in the attached Exhibit"A". 3. All other terms, conditions and provisions of the August 9, 2010, Professional Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. • • CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONSULTANT By: ass A A &feu By: % Are Will ft Ingram, Cit onager Name: Michael S. B. e Its: Executive Vice President Attest: By: • . Name: Glenn Lajoie By: .4/ • • AL/. 1 its: Vice President Li da Devine, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: 027 ie/�Z441 Quinn Barrow, City Attorney i • • Exhibit A Additional Scope of Work and Additional Compensation • • JN 10-107353 Request No. 1 Date: August 1, 2011 ADDITIONAL WORK REQUEST SUMMARY Client: City of Seal Beach Work Requested By: Mr. Mark Persico, City of Seal Beach Summary of Additional Work: • Based upon public comments and input during the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation scoping process, RBF Consulting has requested that Dudek review past documentation for the project site and prepare a proposal to conduct a Limited Subsurface Investigation. This limited sampling scope is intended to supplement the previous investigations and is not intended to be a thorough investigation on its own. The previous documents include a 1987 asbestos sampling and clean up report and a 2000 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The 2000 Phase II ESA included soil sampling for asbestos, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and pesticides/PCBs. The two prior reports indicate the following: • Asbestos was detected in the soil in several areas of the site in 1987. More than 3,500 cubic yards of asbestos-contaminated soil was removed from the site in 1987. The Orange County Health Care Agency granted no further action for the asbestos contamination in 1987. Additional asbestos sampling was conducted in 2000; asbestos was only detected in three samples and none of the site samples contained greater than one percent asbestos. In all, more than 375 samples were collected from the site and analyzed for asbestos. • TPH was detected in three soil samples at a concentration greater than 1,000 mg/kg. TPH was detected in 32 samples at a concentration greater than 100 mg/kg. The TPH samples were analyzed by EPA Method 418.1, which is not appropriate for determining the carbon range of the petroleum compounds detected. • No SVOCs or VOCs were detected in the site soil samples. • Arsenic was detected at concentrations up to 20 mg/kg. The arsenic was determined to likely be background, based on background data from near-by Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. • • • Four groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals. No VOCs or SVOCs were detected in the groundwater samples. One pesticide, heptachlor, was detected in all four groundwater samples; however, it was not detected in any of the soil samples at the site. Therefore, the report stated that it is likely that the heptachlor did not originate on-site. Based on review of the prior reports, Dudek recommends the following sampling scope: • Asbestos sampling: Dudek recommends collection of soil samples from approximately 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) from 15 locations. The 15 sample locations will be spaced throughout the site. This sampling is intended to act as confirmation sampling and to confirm the mostly non-detect sample data from 2000. • Soil vapor sampling: Dudek recommends collection of soil vapor samples for VOC analysis. Soil vapor sampling is better site screening tool than soil sampling (for VOC analysis). Dudek collect approximately 15 soil vapor samples from 5 feet bgs from across the site. The soil vapor samples will be analyzed on-site using a mobile laboratory. Sampling for VOCs is recommended in the California Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Manual. • Soil sampling: Soil samples will be collected from the 15 boring locations. The soil samples will be collected from approximately 1 feet bgs and will be analyzed for the priority pollutant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sampling for PAHs is recommended in the California LUFT Manual. • Groundwater sampling: Dudek recommends collection of groundwater samples from temporary hydropunch wells from four locations at the site, to supplement the data collected in 2000. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs and PAHs. Task 1 —Pre-Sampling Scope Dudek will prepare a work plan to perform a Subsurface Investigation at the site. The work plan will include pre-field activities, a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP), and a work plan for sampling approach and methodology. The pre-field activities include the preparation of a site-specific HSP, contractor coordination, and utility clearance. Dudek will mark out the proposed sample locations and contact Underground Service Alert a minimum of 2 working days prior to the start of drilling activities. A private utility locator will be contracted to identify underground utilities at the site. Task 2—Sampling Scope Samples will be collected as discussed above. Subsurface samples will be collected using a geoprobe push rig. Samples collected using the geoprobe push rig will be collected in acetate sleeves. The geoprobe rig will also be used to advance borings to groundwater; temporary PVC casing will be placed in the borings and a bailer will be used to collect groundwater samples. Soil samples for asbestos, PAHs (EPA Method 8270) and TPH (EPA Method 8015M) and groundwater samples will be sent to Calscience Environmental Laboratories, Inc. for analysis. Soil vapor samples will be analyzed in the field by EPA Method 8260B using a mobile laboratory. • Dudek assumes that groundwater will be encountered at approximately 10 feet bgs at the site. Dudek also assumes that access to the site will be readily available. Lastly, Dudek assumes that the geoprobe rig will not encounter refusal in the subsurface at the site. The costs include the disposal of one drum of investigation-derived waste, which is assumed to be non-hazardous. Additionally, the costs include rental of a photo-ionization detector for health and safety purposes. Dudek assumes that Level D personal protective equipment will be required. The costs also include permit fees for the 4 temporary groundwater wells. Task 3— Data Review and Reporting Following receipt of the analytical data, Dudek will compare the data to appropriate thresholds, such as California Human Health Screening Levels. Dudek will produce a Limited Subsurface Investigation report presenting the data and summarizing the findings. The report will be submitted to the Client for review prior to finalization, Dudek will spend up to two hours to address Client comments. Task 4—Hazardous Materials EIR Section Based on the previous site documentation, and the report provided by Dudek, RBF will discuss the findings, opinions, and conclusions within a Hazards/hazardous materials section in the Environmental Impact Report. This Task does not include a additional site inspection, interviews, review of public records beyond what is outlines in Tasks 1 through 3 above. Schedule and Estimated Cost The draft Dudek report will be available for review approximately 11 weeks following receipt of notice to proceed. The schedule is broken down as follows: o Approximately 2.5 weeks to prepare subsurface investigation work plan o Field work conducted approximately 3-4 weeks following completion of final work plan (pending drilling subcontractor availability) o Receipt of data approximately 2 weeks following field work o Draft report completed approximately 3 weeks following receipt of data Task 4 can be completed within one week of receiving the Dudek report. Estimated Fee for Additional Work: $29,772 Prepared By: Eddie Torres, RBF Consulting Authorized By: r , • . . PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT SERVICES between • ° i f Vii �pCi F q(; 1 '? : sue. zs ,, '''yCeF q 2 `9 � City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 472 -3505 This Professional Service Agreement ( "the Agreement ") is made as of the 9th day of August , 2010 (the "Effective Date "), by and between RBF Consulting ( "Consultant "), a , and the City of Seal Beach ( "City "), a California charter city, (collectively, "the Parties "). 1 of 11 S7296- 0001 \1236808v1.doc • • RECITALS A. City desires certain professional services. B. Consultant represents that it is qualified and able to provide City with such services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Consultant shall provide those services ( "Services ") set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.4. Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize payment for such work up to a cumulative maximum of $10,000. Payment for additional work in excess of $10,000 requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term This term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of 2 years unless previously terminated as provided by this Agreement: 3.0 Consultant's Compensation City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will the City pay more than $ 350,655 . Any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Section 1.4 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B. 2of11 S7296 -0001 \1236808v1.doc • • • 4.0 Method of Payment 4.1. Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for all services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the services were rendered and shall describe in detail the services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Consultant within 30 days of receiving Consultant's invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant. 4.2. Upon 24 -hour notice from City, Consultant shall allow City or City's agents or representatives to inspect at Consultant's offices during reasonable business hours all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. City's rights under this Section 4.2 shall survive for two years following the termination of this Agreement. 5.0 Termination 5.1. This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, or by Consultant based on reasonable cause, upon giving the other party written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days' notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City's representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. Glenn Lajoie, AICP, Vice President is the Consultant's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211 -8th Street ' Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager 3 of 11 37296 -0001 \1236808v1.doc • • To Consultant: RBF Consulting PO Box 57057 Irvine, CA 92619 Attn: Glenn Lajoie, AICP 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Independent Contractor 8.1. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. All services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the services. Any additional personnel performing services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding; unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. • 8.2. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Consultant's personnel practices. City shall have the right offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. 9.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. 10.0 Assignment Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement whether by assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of City. Any purported assignment without such consent shall be void and without effect. 4of11 • S7296- 0001 \1236808v1.doc • • • 11.0 Insurance 11.1. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this Section. Consultant shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance` policies, at any time. 11.2. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and, if required by the City, (3) Professional Liability. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either - the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Professional Liability: $1,000,000 per claim /aggregate. 11.3. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by the City to state: (1) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its directors, officials, officers, (3) coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it; (4) for general liability insurance, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and _ volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (5) for automobile liability, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be 5 of 11 S7296- 0001 \1236808v1.doc • • covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible. 11.4. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 11.5. Any deductibles or self - insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant guarantees that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 12.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city officials (collectively "Indemnities ") free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, or its agents in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. With respect to any and all such aforesaid suits, actions, or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Indemnitees, Consultant shall defend Indemnitees, at Consultant's own cost, expense, and risk, and shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award, or decree that may be rendered against Indemnitees. Consultant shall reimburse City and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and /or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 13.0 Equal Opportunity Consultant affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or age. Such non - discrimination includes, but is not limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination. 6of11 S7296-0001\1236808v1 .doc • 14.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 15.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 16.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 17.0 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 18.0 No Third Party Rights No third party shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party as a result of this Agreement. 19.0 Waiver No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise. 20.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 20.1. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Consultant "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code § §1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained. 7 of 11 S7296 -0001 \1 236808v 1.do c • • • 20.2. Consultant further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Consultant paid or agreed to pay any person - or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Consultant hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 20.3. Consultant warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this subsection. 21.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 22.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 23.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said Party and that by his or her execution, the Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. ( 8 of 11 S7296- 0001 \1236808v1.doc • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONSULTANT By: By: /I % David Carmany, City Manager Name: Michael J. Burke. AICP Attest: Its: Executive Vice President Linda Devine, City Clerk By: Name: Glenn Lajoie, AICP Approved as to Form: _ Its: Vice President, Planning /Environmental By: Y• Quinn Barrow, City Attorney 0 9of11 • S7296- 0001 \1236808v1.doc • • Exhibit A Scope of Work 10 of 11 S7296-0001\1236808v1.doc • • of slat F, City of Seal Beach -�wa qz Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment :, i J Environmental Compliance Documentation 1 �E�Tt � ,oh\\�- 7.0 EAR DELIVERABLES The following is a breakdown of all products/deliverables. The listed deliverables assume a standard number of deliverables for a project of this type and can be adjusted, as directed by the City. RBF can also provide a cost, per document, and can provide billing on a time and materials basis, as requested by the City. PROJECT SCOPING • Twenty-five (25) copies of the Notice of Preparation • Twenty-five (25) copies of the Initial Study • Sixty (60) CD versions of the NOP/Initial Study • One (1) Camera-Ready Unbound Copy • One (1) Electronic Copy of the NOP/Initial Study PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR • Five (5) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR and Technical Appendices • Five (5) CD's containing the Administrative Draft EIR and Technical Appendices • One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft EIR and Exhibits DRAFT EIR • Five (5) copies of the Second Administrative Draft EIR and Technical Appendices • Five (5) CD's containing the Second Administrative Draft EIR and Technical Appendices • One (1) electronic copy of the Second Administrative Draft EIR and Exhibits • Twenty-five (25) copies of the Draft EIR with Technical Appendices • Seventy-five (75) CD's containing the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices • One-hundred (100) copies of the Notice of Completion • One (1) camera-ready unbound original of the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices • One (1) electronic copy of the Draft EIR and Appendices FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • Five (5) copies of the Draft Responses to Comments • One (1) electronic copy of the Response to Comments • Five (5) copies of the Administrative Final EIR and Technical Appendices • Five (5) CD's containing the Administrative Final FIR Technical Appendices • Twenty-five (25) copies of the Final EIR and Technical Appendices • Fifty (50) CD's containing the Final FIR and Technical Appendices • One(1) unbound camera-ready original of the Final EIR, Exhibits and Technical Appendices • One (1) electronic copy of the Final EIR, including exhibits and Technical Appendices • Five (5) copies of the Draft Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • One (1) camera-ready Final Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • One (1) electronic copy of the Final Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • One (1) camera-ready Notice of Determination • One (1) camera-ready Notice of Completion JN 10-107353 • 24 • August 2, 2010 • • i�V °r`eF City of Seal Beach s s Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Compliance Documentation thu 1621 cOliNn 5.3 FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RBF will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process including the preparation of the Notice of Determination, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings for City use in the Project review process. RBF will prepare the Findings in accordance with the provisions of Section 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and in a form specified by the City. RBF will submit the Draft Findings for City review and will respond to one set of City comments. 6.0 EIR PROJECT COORDINATION AND MEETINGS 6.1 COORDINATION Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP, and Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, will be responsible for management and supervision of the EIR Project Team as well as consultation with the City staff to incorporate City policies into the EIR. Mr. Lajoie and Mr. Torres will undertake consultation and coordination of the Project and review the EIR for compliance with CEQA requirements and guidelines and City CEQA procedures. RBF will coordinate with state and local agencies regarding this environmental document. Mr. Lajoie and Mr. Torres, will coordinate with all technical staff, consultants, support staff and word processing toward the timely completion of the EIR. It is the goal of RBF to serve as an extension of City staff throughout the duration of the EIR Project. As is stated in Understanding of the Project, RBF will be available to meet with staff to discuss particular Project parameters, as required by the City. In addition, as requested, RBF will provide detailed progress reports on a monthly basis. All progress reports will include the status of documents currently in production, delivery dates of documents, upcoming meetings with City Staff, and any outstanding items to be resolved at that time. Each progress report will include a summary of tasks performed and the percentage of work completed to date according to individual task. 6.2 MEETINGS Mr. Lajoie, and/or Mr. Torres, will attend all staff meetings and will represent the Project Team at public hearings and make presentations as necessary. RBF anticipates several meetings with City staff, including a "kick-off meeting" (refer to Task 1.1), progress meetings, public meetings and hearings. Mr. Lajoie and Mr. Torres along with other key Project Team personnel will also be available to attend meetings with affected jurisdictions, agencies and organizations as needed to identify issues, assess impacts and define mitigation. Should the City determine that additional meetings beyond the following meetings are necessary, services will be provided under a separate scope of work on a time and materials basis. The estimated cost for additional meetings is approximately $800 per person. • One Public Scoping Meeting (Refer to Task 3.2). • Progress meetings with City Staff assumes five (5) meetings to provide written and oral progress reports, resolve issues, review comments on Administrative documents and receive any necessary direction from City Staff. • Up to four (4) public hearings with presentations as necessary. This includes the Environmental Review Board (ERB), Planning Commission and City Council meetings. • JN 10-107353 • 23 • August 2, 2010 • • -a�`�rySSEE�IAi'B , City of Seal Beach •.+/.. aV reC, t Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment )l<q � z,' Environmental Compliance Documentation +CF v��11 `OQ: 3.12 GRAPHIC EXHIBITS The EIR will include a maximum of 35 exhibits to enhance the written text and clarify the proposed Project 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 City. All exhibits will be 8.5" x 11" in size. 4.0 DRAFT EIR 4.1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIR RBF will respond to one complete set of City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. If desired by the City, RBF will provide the Preliminary Draft of the EIR with all changes highlighted to assist the final check of the document. 4.2 COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT EIR RBF will respond to a second review of the Preliminary Draft EIR and will prepare the report for the required 45-day public review period. In addition, RBF will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) for submittal to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). RBF will also work with the City to develop a distribution listing for the NOC and Draft EIR. 5.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RBF will respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, and any additional comments raised during hearings that occur during the 45-day review. RBF will prepare thorough, reasoned and sensitive responses to relevant environmental issues. This task includes written responses to both written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR (includes review of hearing transcripts, as required). The Draft Responses to Comments will be prepared for review by City staff. Following review of the Draft Responses to Comments, RBF will finalize this section for inclusion in the Final EIR. It is noted that it is unknown at this time the extent of public and agency comments that will result from the review process. RBF has budgeted conservatively, given the potential scrutiny involved with the proposed project. Should the level of comments and response exceed our estimate, RBF will submit additional funding requests to the City in order to complete the responses. 5.2 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 City review, RBF 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 will also prepare and file the Notice of Determination within five(5) days of EIR approval. This scope of work excludes the required fees for the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). JN 10-107353 • 22 • August 2, 2010 • of spat se City of Seal Beach ,a N°pp71470 05= Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment *€ ) j* Environmental Compliance Documentation Zfr. CFb �C Impact Subsection will provide a detailed analysis of each issue determined to be Less Than Significant With Mitigation incorporated or Potentially Significant Impact. For each environmental issue, the ER will state the level of significance of impact, and provide the analysis discussion, mitigation measures specific to the environmental issue, and level of significance after mitigation. 3.9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION It is anticipated that there will be great interest and concern for development of project site and the Alternatives section will provide the opportunity to compare and contrast optional conditions for the property. The range of Alternatives may include the existing 1996 Plan, a more extensive open space component, a project reduction Alternative and a No Project Alternative, as required under CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, RBF will provide an analysis which will compare environmental impacts of each alternative for each impact area to the project. For each alternative, RBF will provide both quantitative and qualitative analysis for topical areas presented in Section 2.0 of this proposal. One important element of the Alternatives section will be an impact matrix which will offer a comparison of the varying levels of impact of each alternative being analyzed. This matrix will be prepared in a format to allow decision-makers a reference that will be easily understood, while providing a calculated (where feasible), accurate comparison of each alternative. The alternatives section will conform to both amendments to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and to recent and applicable court cases. RBF will discuss as required by the CEQA Guidelines, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the reasons for rejecting or recommending the project alternatives stated. This alternatives section will culminate with the selection of the environmentally superior alternative in accordance with CEQA requirements. 3.10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM To comply with the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 32180), RBF will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be defined through working with City staff to identify appropriate monitoring steps/procedures and in order to provide a basis for monitoring such measures during and upon Project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist will serve as the foundation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Checklist indicates the mitigation measure number as outlined in the EIR, the EIR reference page (where the measure is documented), a list of Mitigation Measure/Conditions of Approval (in chronological order under the appropriate topic), the Monitoring Milestone (at what agency/department responsible for verifying implementation of the measure), Method of Verification (documentation, field checks, etc.), and a verification section for the initials of the verifying individual date of verification,and pertinent remarks. 3.11 ADDITIONAL SECTIONS RBF will provide additional sections in the EIR to meet CEQA and City requirements including the following: Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, and Organizations and Persons Consulted/Bibliography. JN 10-107353 • 21 • August 2, 2010 • • 4-cal a.. City of Seal Beach i%�i �9di e=t Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment 11 i Environmental Compliance Documentation 'y99 � s; <P�xrr.�9-- 3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE This section will provide a comprehensive description of thresholds of significance for each issue area of the environmental analysis. The significance threshold criteria will be described and will provide the basis for conclusions of significance. Primary sources to be used in identifying the criteria include the CEQA Guidelines, local, State, Federal or other standards applicable to an impact category. 3.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Description section of the EIR will detail the project location, background and history of the project, discretionary actions, characteristics (addressed in Task 1.1), goals and objectives, construction program, phasing, agreements, and required permits and approvals that are required based on available information. This section will include a summary of the Project's local environmental setting for the project. Exhibits depicting the regional and site vicinity will be included in this section. 3.7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS/ANALYSIS In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will include a section providing a detailed listing of cumulative projects and actions under consideration for the analysis. The likelihood of occurrence and level of severity will be studied. The purpose of the section is to present a listing and description of projects, past, present and anticipated in the reasonably foreseeable future, even if those projects are outside of Seal Beach' jurisdiction. The potential for impact and levels of significance are contingent upon the radius or area of interaction with the project area. RBF will consult with City staff and other applicable local jurisdictions to define the appropriate study area for the cumulative analysis. The cumulative analysis for each topical area will be incorporated throughout the analysis in Section 3.8. 3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RBF 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, results from additional research, and an assessment of existing technical data. The Environmental Analysis section of the EIR will thoroughly discuss the existing conditions for each environmental issue area, identify short-term construction and long-term operational impacts associated with the project and their levels of significance. The impact analysis will be in a consistent order of environmental factors as Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Aesthetics, Air Quality, etc.). For each Environmental Factor Analysis Section, the Impacts Subsection will begin with a list of all issues contained in the Initial Study. The thresholds for significance shall be identified for every environmental issue. A brief discussion will be provided for all environmental issues determined to be No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact in the Initial Study, explaining why these determinations were made and that no further analysis in the EIR is warranted. The JN 10-107353 • 20 • August 2, 2010 • • =oF sEai aF City of Seal Beach ;`a �x�ot47;11= Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment v.171 t Environmental Compliance Documentation • Public Services and Utilities • Traffic and Circulation Based upon the analyses conducted under Task 2.0, RBF will complete the environmental review process, respond to all comments received during the Draft EIR public review period, prepare the mitigation monitoring program and draft the necessary Findings and possible Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental review process will result in the presentation of pertinent information associated with Project impacts and findings to the City decision makers for determination and CEQA certification. 3.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION RBF will prepare, distribute and file the Notice of Preparation (NOP)for the EIR. A Draft NOP will be prepared and forwarded to City Staff for review and comment. RBF will then finalize the NOP for distribution. The distribution of the NOP and Initial Study as an attachment will be based on a City- approved distribution list to be provided by City staff. This task includes certified mailing to affected agencies and interested parties. Comments received in response to the NOP will be evaluated during the preparation of the EIR. 3.2 SCOPING MEETING A public scoping meeting, which can also involve Federal, State or other local agencies, will be scheduled during the NOP public review period, in order that the community can gain an understanding of the proposed project and provide comments on environmental concerns. The Scoping Meeting will orient the community on the CEQA review process and will be presented in a manner which the community can gain a greater understanding of the proposal, intent of CEQA and the key issue areas to be addressed in the EIR. RBF will provide a PowerPoint presentation handout and presentation-size graphics to supplement the discussion. Following the presentation, the meeting will be devoted to public participation, questions and comments. Written comment forms will be provided for this purpose, and these comments, along with oral comments,will become a part of the administrative record. 3.3 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Introduction will cite the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Seal Beach CEQA Implementation procedures for which the proposed project is subject. This section will identify the purpose of the study and statutory authority as well document scoping procedures, summary of the EIR format, listing of responsible and trustee agencies and documentation incorporated by reference. 3.4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary will include 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. JN 10-107353 • 19 • August 2, 2010 • • City of Seal Beach .iE`09°'6Fq Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment ¢ f ¢, Environmental Compliance Documentation 9 * QI itAA. 05\40. • Evaluate the Traffic Study for compliance with the Los Angeles and Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements; • Evaluate the traffic study for compliance with the Caltrans Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (State of California, Department of Transportation, December 2002); and • Prepare a memorandum summarizing the adequacy of the traffic impact analysis for inclusion in an environmental document and suggest modifications as necessary. Based upon the finalized traffic study to be prepared by the applicant's consultant, the CEQA document will describe the existing roadway circulation in the study area, including roadway lanes, intersection geometry and intersection control mechanisms. The existing operating level of service of the study area circulation system will be described and documented in accordance with the Agency's criteria and established analysis methodology. The Traffic Study is expected to forecast existing plus Project and existing plus Project plus cumulative traffic conditions, based upon an agreed upon buildout/horizon year. The analysis will include an evaluation of circulation, turning movement and roadway standards for the internal Project roadways. Ingress/egress points will be evaluated. Utilizing established performance criteria and thresholds of significance, necessary mitigation measures will be developed to address traffic impacts. 3.0 CEQA CLEARANCE OPTION 1: PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR The EIR will include the Introduction and Purpose, Executive Summary and Project Description. The Environmental Analysis section will evaluate the necessary information with respect to the existing conditions,the potential adverse effects of Project construction and implementation (both individual and cumulative), and measures to mitigate such effects. Environmental issues raised during the scoping process (Notice of Preparation responses; Public Scoping mailing; and any other relevant and valid informative sources)will also be evaluated. The environmental analysis section of the EIR will thoroughly 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. Feasible mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce the significance of impacts and identify areas of unavoidable significant adverse impacts even after mitigation. The environmental review (Task 3.8)will focus on the comprehensive review of the following topical area,as detailed in Section 2.0 of this proposal: • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Climate Change analysis • Cultural Resources • Drainage/Water Quality • Geology and Soils • Growth/Population and Housing • Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation • Land Use and Relevant Planning • Noise • Parks, Recreation and Open Space JN 10-107353 • 18 • August 2, 2010 • • of stns e City of Seal Beach :';°5 j F Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment i6 Environmental Compliance Documentation ycF 4 n rgoNr Public Utilities: Water. Based upon technical information provided by the City, existing capacities and deficiencies will be addressed. The on-site potable and non-potable water system conditions will be presented. Off-site potable and non-potable water storage, pumping and transmission facilities will be studied. Sewer. Based upon technical information provided by the City, existing capacities and deficiencies will be addressed. Major off-site sewer conveyance,treatment and disposal will be presented. Project generation, infrastructure connections, easement modifications and upgrades to the existing system will be studied. Electrical. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure relocation, undergrounding of overhead lines, easements and necessary mitigation. Telephone. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure relocated, undergrounding of overhead lines, easements and necessary. Gas. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure relocation, easements and necessary mitigation. Roadway Maintenance. The proposed project may incrementally increase the maintenance of streets, storm drains, and other below surface facilities. RBF will consult with the project team and City Public Works Division to ascertain key concerns/impacts due to increased utilization of area roads. 2.14 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION RBF's Transportation Department will conduct a two-phased peer review of the applicant's Traffic Study. The original report will be critiqued and any follow-up revisions and/or new information will also be evaluated. The traffic impact analysis peer review will include the following: • Conduct a site visit and field review of surrounding circulation system to familiarize RBF staff with traffic and transportation related conditions and issues in the project vicinity; • Field verify study area geometry configurations and traffic signal operations utilized in the traffic analysis; • Examine the traffic study in accordance with City of Seal Beach City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines; • Review the results of the traffic analysis to confirm summary of level of significance; • Examine potential/approved project trip generation based on a list of pending/approved projects in the vicinity of the proposed project or an annual growth rate factor to account for cumulative/approved projects contained in the analysis. • Assess identified mitigation measures for feasibility and ability to eliminate or reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant; • Review traffic signal warrant analysis, if applicable; JN 10-107353 • 17 • August 2, 2010 • • StACB City of Seal Beach ricks 4,, -re,; Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Compliance Documentation v6 y^f �pl1�9h\402: eUHr - 2.12 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Given the concerns and need for parks and recreation facilities in the community and considerations for open space onsite, a focused analysis will be conducted. RBF will provide an existing conditions analysis of citywide active and passive recreational facilities (i.e., parks, trails, etc.). The analysis will address potential impacts to existing facilities as well as project compliance with existing programs, standards and provisions applicable to the subject site. The project's building footprint and intent for open space and parks will be studied. The analysis will clarify the visitor serving recreational component of the project. The evaluation will conclude significance of any impacts and recommendations for mitigation to reduce significance. 2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES RBF will contact potentially affected agencies to confirm 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 to receive adequate service based on applicable City and County standards and, where adequate services are not available, will identify the effects of inadequate service and recommended mitigation measures. Issues discussed include: Public Services: Solid Waste. Solid waste generation resulting from the proposed uses may impact landfill capacities. The analysis will establish baseline projections for solid waste, including composting and recycling for both construction and operation of the project. Project's compliance with AB 939 will also be addressed. Fire. The overall need for Fire Services would potentially increase beyond existing conditions as a result of the project. The Fire Services review will include a review of existing services/facilities in the area, response times to the sites (which includes hazardous material responses to emergencies), available fire flow, project impacts and required mitigation. Police. The Police Service review will focus upon response times to the site,available personnel and overall protection services. The overall need for police protection services would increase beyond existing conditions as a result of the project.. Mitigation incorporated into the project design, including lighting, signage and security hardware to further reduce potential crime activity will be identified. Schools. Potential impacts to schools focusing on existing conditions, student capacities, current enrollment and facility locations. Generation rates resulting from the project will be the basis for the impact analysis. Mitigation measures will be provided to reduce the significance of impacts. JN 10-107353 • 16 • August 2, 2010 • • -aE [a7 , City of Seal Beach "Fr;, Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment VQ' Environmental Compliance Documentation Sp�2f iY.C°'_ The consistency review will focus on General Plan policies and the standards/provisions set forth in the City's Zoning Code. This portion of the review will include any proposed modification to development and design standards. The interface of the project with nearby uses will be studied. The project is anticipated to be subject to compliance with the Coastal Act Section 30600(c),which requires that a coastal development permit be obtained from the California Coastal Commission. As the City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) the Coastal Commission is responsible for reviewing project compliance with the Coastal Act. Thus, RBF will conduct a consistency review with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In addition, the regional planning review will include consistency with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide policies. 2.11 NOISE Development of the Specific Plan would increase the level of activity in the area. Accordingly, the proposed project would have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts that could adversely affect surrounding land uses. RBF will prepare a Noise Analysis will consist of: Existing Conditions. RBF will conduct a site visit along the project site and at adjacent land uses. During the site visit, RBF will conduct short-term noise level measurements along the project area. Noise monitoring equipment will consist of a BrOel & Kjr model 2250 sound level meter (SLM) equipped with Briiel & Kjr pre-polarized freefield microphone. The results of the noise measurements will be post-processed and graphically illustrated with the BrOel & Kjwr Noise Explorer software. The noise monitoring survey will be conducted at up to five separate locations to establish baseline noise levels in the project area. Noise recording lengths are anticipated to require approximately 10 minutes at each location. The noise measurements will evaluate noise exposure due to traffic while accounting for local topography, shielding from existing structures, and variations in travel speed. Construction-Related Noise and Vibration. Based upon the development guidelines set forth in the Amended Specific Plan, RBF will develop a set of assumptions for quantifying short-term construction related noise. The construction noise impacts will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax) and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leg)and the frequency of occurrence at the adjacent residential uses. The analysis will be based on Section 7.15.025 of the City's Noise Ordinance. A review of City Council Policy 600-11 will also be conducted, which established benchmarks for continuous and intermittent short-term noise sources. Stationary Noise Sources. The effects of stationary noise sources will be evaluated based on local land use compatibility standards. Such noise sources are typically attributed to mechanical equipment and parking areas. Compliance with applicable noise standards will be evaluated, with recommended mitigation measures included where appropriate. Traffic Noise. The proposed project is anticipated to generate new vehicular traffic trips from future growth. Noise impacts from vehicular traffic will be assessed using the U.S. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Models (FHWA-RD-77-108 and TNM 2.5). Model input data will include average daily traffic volumes, day/night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. Noise impacts related to the potential site ingress/egress point(s) will be evaluated to determine noise impacts to the residences along 1st Street. JN 10-107353 • 15 • August 2, 2010 • • of stAi s, City of Seal Beach (s±tr°�""occ, Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment _ ' Environmental Compliance Documentation yy��i,�Pla 21�9��t0 Site Reconnaissance. RBF will conduct a site reconnaissance to perform a delineation that will determine jurisdictional"waters of the United States"and "waters of the State" (including wetlands), located within the boundaries of the project site. RBF's delineation methodology is in compliance with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, which resulted in changes to ACOE jurisdictional authority after June 2007. The delineation will result in: • A determination of potential Coastal waters/wetlands using the Cowardin classification system.This classification system defines a wetland by the presence of the proper hydrology and either the presence of hydric soils or hydrophytic vegetation. • A determination of the ACOE ordinary high water mark(OHWM) and indicate the existence of any three (3) parameter wetlands on-site. The actual presence or absence of wetlands on-site will be verified through the determination of the presence of hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils pursuant to the September 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). A significant nexus test is excluded from this scope of work; therefore, findings will be based on the assumption that a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination will be pursued with the ACOE. • The CDFG's jurisdiction being identified via the top of bank of the on-site streambed or to the outer drip line of riparian vegetation (if present) pursuant to the 1994 CDFG Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements. • In cases where isolated and/or Rapanos conditions are present, the delineation will identify areas under the jurisdiction of the Regional Board. Findings. Once RBF conducts a site visit and the project site baseline information is obtained, RBF will prepare a comprehensive written report discussing on-site jurisdictional areas. The delineation will consist of the following Sections: 1) Introduction and Purpose; 2) Summary of Regulations; 3) Methodology; 4) Literature Review; 5) Site Conditions; 6) Findings 7) Regulatory Approval Process; 8) References; and 9)Appendices. Pursuant to agency requirements,the delineation report will include a maximum of five(5)exhibits to enhance the written text and clarify the Project,jurisdictional areas, and project impacts. This task includes time for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis associated with the delineation map. The delineation map will be a scale of 1"= 300' or greater and will consist of an aerial photograph. Drainages will be overlain on the aerial photograph and each agency's jurisdiction will be identified by width and length. 2.10 LAND USE AND RELEVENT PLANNING The proposed project would require an amendment to the original 1996 Plan and would also amend the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan. The applicant has not submitted a Development Plan and build- out of the project would be in accordance with the City's Residential Medium Density Zoning standards. The focus of this section is to conduct a consistency review with existing policies, standards and to review overall land use compatibility of the project with adjacent residents, recreational uses and planned uses/improvements in the local area. JN 10-107353 • 14 • August 2, 2010 • • . ArTo�sEat BF. City of Seal Beach 0",y 'F " '�y� Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment +: L_ 3a Environmental Compliance Documentation ti�sry .4,lo NIY.�pJ Site Reconnaissance. A site review will be conducted in order to preliminarily evaluate the nature and extent of liquefaction-prone soils, and other secondary seismic hazards (i.e., soil settlement and lateral spread), as well as the long-term settlement potential of the soils beneath the project area. The following work will be conducted during the site reconnaissance: • Perform five (5), 75-foot-deep Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings. • Drill, sample and log two (2), 75-foot deep rotary-wash borings. • Laboratory testing of the soil samples obtained from the drilling, which would include consolidation tests(5), grain size with hydrometer(5), moisture density(40+/-), direct shear testing (2). • Geotechnical evaluation of all data compiled and slope stability analyses of the adjacent Channel wall. Report Preparation. The results of the literature, soil samples, and findings will be summarized in a technical report. The overall format of the report will discuss the existing conditions, geologic/ geotechnical hazards, constraints, and general mitigation concepts for the proposed development. It is anticipated that the data and analyses generated by this study will be sufficient to define impacts and mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA and is not intended for design and construction purposes. 2.8 GROWTH/POPULATION AND HOUSING RBF will provide a project specific analysis of potential growth-inducing impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g). The basis for analysis will be population and housing data from the City of Seal Beach, California Department of Finance, and U.S. Census. The section will consider housing conditions and projections for the area. It is acknowledged that the City does not have a certified Housing Element, which will be considered and addressed in the analysis. The section will discuss ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The analysis addresses growth-inducing impacts in terms of whether the project influences the rate, location, and the amount of growth. Growth-inducing impacts are assessed based on the project's consistency with adopted/proposed plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. Potential growth-inducing impacts from the proposed development will be analyzed as they relate to population, housing and employment factors. 2.9 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION Currently, the site is undeveloped, and may have the potential to contain wetlands as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or California Coastal Commission. A determination of potential waters/wetlands will be conducted utilizing the following methodology: Literature Review. Prior to visiting the project site, RBF Regulatory staff will conduct a thorough literature review of relevant information that supports the site reconnaissance and report preparation. Sources reviewed are anticipated to include topographic maps, soil surveys, historic and current aerial photography, flood maps, hydrology/climate information and watershed data. JN 10-107353 • 13 • August 2, 2010 • • SEA( 9F City of Seal Beach Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment c fit* Environmental Compliance Documentation a4dbr area tributary to the project site will be determined in order to evaluate (1) the watershed area and (2) existing facility requirements. RBF will measure the drainage areas. and the watershed parameters associated with the subareas for the analysis. Existing Hydrologic Conditions Analysis. RBF will prepare preliminary estimate peak runoff rates associated with the existing surface hydrology for area. The tributary off-site areas will be determined utilizing documents obtained from the City. In addition the on-site drainage boundaries and subareas will be delineated, and results of the hydrology analysis will be summarized on a hydrology map. Proposed Development Hydrology. RBF will prepare preliminary developed condition surface hydrology analysis for the project area based upon County hydrology criteria and methodology to quantify the expected runoff rates. RBF will prepare a single rational hydrology analysis for a single proposed specific plan for the property. RBF will provide a qualitative analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic impacts adjacent property owners. Conceptual Water Quality Control Program. 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 specific plan area. Technical Report Preparation. RBF will prepare a written report summarizing the drainage assessment for the project. Report shall include discussions reviewing the drainage constraints,off- site and on-site hydrology, flooding impacts and mitigation, flood protection requirements,and off-site drainage impacts, and water quality impacts. A technical appendix will be prepared which includes all hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the site, and all reference documents. 2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Based on review of preliminary geotechnical conditions for the site, the property contains several features that are anticipated to require engineering and design solutions that would need to be incorporated into the site and building plans for the Project. Specifically, although no recorded faults are present on the site, the property is within a seismically active area and contains soils with expansion characteristics that would require replacement fill. Also, shallow groundwater conditions require the use of special drainage techniques and consideration during grading. RBF has retained Geologist D. Scott Magorien to analyze the stability of the soils and geology in order to support the project and its associated infrastructure. The study will also address the potential for lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, strong seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, and soil erosion. The following tasks are inclusive of the Geotechnical Study: Literature Review. An in-depth review of existing published and unpublished geologic/geotechnical reports will be conducted, as well as other relevant geotechnical/geologic reports on file with the City. Background information pertaining to the construction of the San Gabriel River Channel (Channel) will be researched. Historic stereo-paired, black and white aerial photographs will be reviewed to determine the changes to the pattern of flow at the mouth of the Channel. A review of published reports and geologic maps prepared by the U.S. and California Geological Surveys(USGS and CGS) will also be conducted, as well as any previous consultant's reports in the vicinity of the project area. JN 10-107353 • 12 • August 2, 2010 • S =p4 SEA( BF City of Seal Beach Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment ,o= ?`t Environmental Compliance Documentation v<�B�N SWCA will prepare a cultural resources technical report that will document the results of the study and provide management recommendations for resources located within the project area.The report will meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines and will follow the Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format (ARMR)guidelines.The report will include maps depicting the area surveyed for cultural resources. If the locations of sensitive archaeological sites or Native American cultural resources depicted or described in the report, it will be considered confidential; the report may not be distributed to the public. In order to protect these sensitive resources, the confidential technical report shall be made available only to qualified cultural resources personnel and project management personnel on a "need to know" basis. Paleontological Resources. SWCA will examine records maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) in order to determine whether or not previously recorded paleontological resources occur within the project area and vicinity. Published and unpublished literature and geologic maps will be reviewed in order to thoroughly assess the paleontological resource potential of the project area. Using the results of the geologic map search, locality searches and literature review, the paleontological resource potential (sensitivity) of all geologic units within the project area will be evaluated and analyzed in accordance with professional standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology(SVP) and in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. SWCA will prepare a paleontological resources technical report documenting the results of the paleontological study.The report will describe the geologic units within the project area and vicinity in terms of their paleontological content and sensitivity, present the results of the paleontological sensitivity analysis, summarize and discuss any previously recorded fossil localities within the project area; discuss the significance of previously recorded localities within the project area and elsewhere in the same geologic units; discuss the paleontological requirements of the project and compliance with the requirements of all applicable regulatory frameworks; and present paleontological resource mitigation recommendations. 2.6 DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY The RBF team will review existing hydrology and drainage data for the site area in order to identify any existing drainage and water quality issues. The analysis will address any changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, storm drain improvement and downstream affects. RBF will also evaluate water quality conditions and identify National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) techniques/structures in accordance with local, State and Federal requirements. The potential for the project description to degrade water quality, interfere with groundwater recharge or expose people to water related hazards will be identified. RBF's in-house Drainage/Water Quality Division will address surface hydrology and drainage, associated with project development, in order to satisfy CEQA requirements for review of runoff water quantity, drainage infrastructure and surface water quality. The following tasks are inclusive of the Drainage and Water Quality Study: Review and Research Existing Reports. RBF will provide research and investigation to compile existing literature and reports previously prepared regarding the tributary watershed and drainage systems impacting the Specific Plan project area. Research will include a review of drainage master plans and other available data. This task also includes an initial discussion with City staff regarding the specific drainage requirements for the project and specific criteria for this area. Watershed Boundary Delineation. RBF will prepare analysis of the existing watershed and drainage patterns associated with the proposed project boundary. The local watershed sub-boundaries for the JN 10-107353 • 11 • August 2, 2010 • • of SEA( 9z, City of Seal Beach �t aoansi i Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment * Environmental Compliance Documentation ,cF Indirect Impacts. In response to Executive Order S-13-08 (2009 California Adaptation Strategy), RBF will identify and analyze the indirect impacts to the project from anticipated climate change. Such impacts include rising sea levels, public health threat caused by higher temperatures and more smog, damage to agriculture, habitat modification and destruction, higher risk of fires,and increased demand of electricity. Energy Conservation. RBF will analyze the energy implications of the project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. These statutes and guidelines require an EIR to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. The analysis will analyze energy consumption associated with short-term construction activities, long-term operations, buildings,and transportation. Additionally, the assessment of environmental impacts on energy resources will include mitigation measures to reduce inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. 2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES RBF has retained SWCA to conduct a Cultural and paleontological resources assessment for the Specific Plan area. Based upon the sensitivity of the study area, a records search and pedestrian survey will be conducted to document any artifacts or resources of significance. The study will be conducted per the methodology discussed below: Cultural Resources. SWCA will conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search of the project area and a 0.5-mile radius around the project area at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The purpose of the CHRIS records search is to identify any previously recorded cultural resources known to exist within or adjacent to the project area. In addition to the archaeological inventory records and reports, an examination will be made of historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places, the California Inventory of Historical Resources, and the listing of California Historical Landmarks. The records search will also reveal the nature and extent of any cultural resources work previously conducted within the project area, as well as the presence of previously recorded cultural resources within or near the project area. In addition, SWCA will review any local registers to identify any locally designated landmarks that may be located within or near the project area. SWCA will contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of their Sacred Lands File. The NAHC will provide a list of Native American groups and/or individuals that they believe should be contacted for additional information. SWCA will prepare and mail a letter to each of the NAHC-listed contacts, requesting notification if they know of any Native American cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Upon completion of the CHRIS records search, SWCA will conduct a Phase I intensive pedestrian survey of the entire 10.6-acre project area. SWCA archaeologists will conduct the survey using pedestrian transects spaced at maximum intervals of 10 meters. For the purposes of this proposal and cost estimate, SWCA assumes that the survey will be negative for cultural resources (i.e., no previously unrecorded prehistoric or historic resources will be encountered and no previously recorded resources will require updates). Any previously unrecorded cultural resources identified during the survey would require a change order for formal recordation. No testing or excavation will be conducted, nor will any artifacts, samples, or specimens be collected during the survey. JN 10-107353 • 10 • August 2, 2010 • • of�?EA BF City of Seal Beach •`§g+y '�a,��. Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Compliance Documentation \''/\'S»z,� toe: Vim._ from the review of existing literature and discussions with resource experts will be used to identify issues of biological concern within the project site and, if necessary, focus any subsequent field survey efforts. Field Surveys. Field surveys by qualified biologists will include up-to-date vegetation mapping and full floristic surveys to document the plant species present onsite. Based on site photographs reviewed by HWA, it is anticipated that there will be no need for formal protocol surveys for any special-status plant or wildlife species; however, if suitable habitat exists on-site for any special status plant or wildlife species then focused surveys may be required to satisfy agency requirements during the CEQA review process. Field surveys by qualified biologists will include up-to-date wildlife surveys and habitat assessments. Should any regulatory agencies require additional focused protocol surveys for special-status species, HWA will notify the City immediately to determine the preferred course of action. Report Preparation. The results and the analysis, surveys, and recommendations will be compiled into a Biological Constraints Report. Information gathered during the literature review and subsequent surveys will be described, including major plant communities, wildlife resources, and special-status species of the project site. In addition, a detailed discussion of key Federal, State, and local regulations and policies associated with protection of biological resources of the project site will be included, as well as brief discussions of impacts and recommended mitigation. 2.4 CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS RBF's climate change experts are at the forefront in developing sound scientific regulatory assessments and strategies within the rapidly changing regulatory environment. As the climate change analytical methodologies evolve, RBF continues to offer its Clients/Agencies the highest quality analytical, policy, and business management services. RBF has developed proprietary models for quantifying and analyzing greenhouse gases (GHG) from a variety of direct and indirect sources including construction, vehicular traffic, electricity consumption, water conveyance, and sewage treatment. RBF's analyses recommend innovative greenhouse gas/air pollutant reduction methods during the construction and operation of a project, conduct advanced air dispersion modeling, evaluate the potential impacts of air pollutants on surrounding areas, investigate the use of renewable energy sources/energy efficient products, and quantify the benefits of resource conservation (i.e., electricity usage, recycling, etc.). The following outlines RBF's Climate Change Analysis for the proposed project: Methodology and Approach. RBF will utilize the California Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change White Paper(White Paper)(January 2008)and CARB's Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) (October 2008) to provide background information on the effects of climate change. As there are not any currently adopted thresholds, RBF will utilize the performance standards and reduction percentages specific in the Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32, adopted 2006). Emissions Inventory. RBF will review the land use data associated with the proposed plan. Based on this review, and the data produced through the Traffic Impact Assessment, RBF will prepare an inventory of the GHG emissions (i.e., nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide) from both direct and indirect sources. The emissions inventory will be compiled consistent with the methodology prescribed by GARB in the Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (dated September 28, 2008). JN 10-107353 • 9 • August 2, 2010 • • of SIAt of City of Seal Beach ♦� v9RRWWp 9�, �,�= Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment • t` Environmental Compliance Documentation a 9 - 62i .CpUNiY CP`� Standards and Conditions. A summary of current air quality management efforts will be provided. A summary of the relevant policies, rules, and regulations from the United States Environmental protection Agency (EPA), CARB (i.e., California Clean Air Act, Air Quality Attainment Plans, etc.), and the SCAQMD will also be provided. Sensitive Receptors. An overview of the nature and location of existing sensitive receptors will be provided. The sensitive receptors would include, but not be limited to the residences along Marina Avenue and 1st Street, parks (i.e., Rivers End area, Marina Community Park, Alamitos Park), hospitals, and schools. Construction-Related Emissions. Based upon the development guidelines set forth in the Amended Specific Plan, RBF will develop a set of assumptions for quantifying short-term construction related emissions. Fugitive dust emissions from construction activities will be quantified using URBEMIS2007.The analysis will estimate equipment exhaust emissions utilizing the latest emission factors as prescribed by CARB and the EMFAC2007 and OFFROADS2007 models. RBF will also qualitatively discuss naturally occurring asbestos impacts. Long-Term Emissions. Based upon trip generation data contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF will quantify mobile source emissions and provide a comparison to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Area source assumptions will be derived from land use data contained in the Amended Specific Plan. The emissions will be quantitatively derived utilizing the EMFAC2007 and URBEMIS2007 models. Project consistency with regional air quality plans will be evaluated, including the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (2007 AQMP). Additionally, the analysis will evaluate whether the applicable land use and transportation control measures from the 2007 AQMP have been included in the project design. The consistency analysis will determine if the project would cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard. Should the project traffic warrant Carbon Monoxide Hotspot modeling, RBF will model intersections utilizing the BREEZE ROADS model. The analysis will be consistent with the Transportation Project- Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis. Localized Emissions. Consistent with the SCAQMD environmental justice program and Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodologies, RBF will identify impacts using SCAQMD's mass daily thresholds to identify localized emissions impacts. RBF will identify mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce emissions to less than significant levels. 2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES RBF has retained Harmsworth Associates (HWA) Environmental Consultants to conduct the biological resources review for the Specific Plan project area. HWA will conduct a review of sensitive species with potential for occurrence within the project area, based on review of relevant reports, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and other pertinent literature. Where necessary, appropriate resource agencies, including California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), will be contacted regarding special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the project vicinity. In addition, resource conservation organizations such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and local County of Orange- approved plant and wildlife biological groups will be consulted, as appropriate. Information obtained JN 10-107353 • 8 • August 2, 2010 • • pV SEA( 9F City of Seal Beach :9 `pPPOq i Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment t P¢� Environmental Compliance Documentation 0.q',rq to- Photosimulations. RBF will utilize the viewshed analysis to select the Key Views for the proposed Specific Plan, in consultation with City staff. Professional photographs will be taken from multiple locations with a Fuji GX617 Panoramic camera, providing a 2.25 x 6 inch film transparency. Back-up shots will be taken using a Nikon D1X digital camera. RBF will provide the City with the preliminary photographs, at which time the City will comment and approve up to three Key View photographs, which will then be simulated for the project. This scope assumes that the photosimulations will illustrate the general massing and heights of potential structures within the Specific Plan area. Site topography, paving, and landscaping will be modeled as masses. Small details such as curb and gutter, drainage swales, and fences will not be included. All objects in the model will be assigned to color to replicate the actual material color. The rendered subject will then be superimposed into the photograph utilizing masking techniques that blend the two together seamlessly. Character/Quality Analysis. The analysis will consider the potential for the modification of the surrounding character/quality. The compatibility of the proposed land uses, building heights and possible building materials, as compared to the surrounding area, will be studied. RBF will incorporate and address the architectural design guidelines for proposed development. Potential visual impacts from the proposed setback requirements and building heights will be reviewed, and buffering/architectural treatments will be recommended if necessary. Light and Glare Analysis. RBF will address the potential for significant impacts to be generated by the introduction of light and glare associated with the development of the Specific Plan Amendment. This analysis will include a light and glare impact discussion on neighboring sensitive uses, from building lighting,vehicle headlights, parking lots, etc. RBF will also recommend mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potential light and glare impacts to the maximum extent possible. 2.2 AIR QUALITY Air quality is often a potentially significant impact for similar type projects in Southern California. RBF's air quality staff will provide a thorough and complete assessment of the Project's air quality impacts. The proposed Project would result in construction-related and operational-related emissions of air pollutants. In recognition of the need to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project's impacts on air quality, RBF's Air Quality Analysis will quantify project emissions and identify mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible. RBF's analysis will primarily follow guidance contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. A detailed discussion of RBF's scope of work for the air quality study is provided below. Climate. Meteorology, and Ambient Conditions. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin),which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD). Baseline and project setting meteorological data developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality. Air quality data from the nearest air quality monitoring stations will be included to highlight existing air quality local to the proposed project site. Other sources such as regulatory documents, professional publications, and RBF experience in the project area will supplement background information. JN 10-107353 • 7 • August 2, 2010 • • o SEA/ et City of Seal Beach �, '`s Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment ai:- 1z ` Environmental Compliance Documentation VS:Tr gy 1.4 INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS AND MEETING WITH CITY STAFF Once the Initial Study is completed, the RBF team will meet with City officials to review and discuss the findings of the Initial Study review. Based upon the results of consultations and, as directed by City officials, the RBF team will proceed forward and initiate CEQA compliance documentation and the processing of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)or Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)in accordance with either Optional Task 3.0 or 9.0. 2.0 FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RBF will conduct a technical environmental review of the proposed project to document baseline conditions, conduct project and cumulative impact evaluations, and determine the level of mitigation for each environmental issue that could potentially lead to a significant environmental impact. Based on consultations with City Staff, RBF assumes that technical studies, development concepts, and baseline evaluations will not be provided by the Applicant team. Upon completion of the environmental evaluated discussed below, RBF will consult with City staff and incorporate the findings into the environmental documentation. 2.1 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE The visual resource analysis will characterize the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources for the site. The analysis will thoroughly discuss the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources, including a discussion of views from surrounding residential areas and recreational resource areas. Visual impacts from construction activities, as well as long-term effects (view blockage, light/glare, etc.) will be discussed and evaluated. Existing Conditions. This section will characterize the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources for the site, including a discussion of views within the site and views from surrounding areas. Particular views to be analyzed include those from the residences along ft Street and Marina Drive. Color site photographs will be provided to illustrate on-site and surrounding views. Construction-Related Impacts. Short-term construction impacts will be studied. Potential impacts to sensitive uses as a result of staging areas and visible earthwork activities will be addressed. Also, construction related haul trucks and activities will be analyzed, if necessary. View Blockage. Residential uses to the east currently have views of the Pacific Ocean and the Los Alamitos Bay area. The analysis will consider the potential for view blockage as a result of potential development within the Specific Plan area. Other view impacts from sensitive uses within 0.5 mile will also be considered. A viewshed analysis will be performed to determine potential areas that future development within the Specific Plan area would be visible from (up to a 1/z-mile radius). This scope assumes that RBF will create a three-dimensional model of potential on-site structures with a maximum building height of 25-to 35-feet, as permitted by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The data for the 0.5-mile viewshed map will be created using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and will include Digital Surface Model (DSM) data, which takes into account view blockage resulting from existing structures and vegetation. When the viewshed is completed, each cell within the viewshed will be given colored value to represent areas that can view the Specific Plan area versus areas that cannot. JN 10-107353 • 6 • August 2, 2010 • • -oCCAt s, City of Seal Beach a y cgE"�^ge, Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment �o¢ Kati Environmental Compliance Documentation VAZ62 ��UNiV.(,P.: 10. SCOPE OF WORK The following Scope of Work has been prepared based upon information received by RBF Consulting. The cost estimate,which is itemized according to task and issue, is included in Section IX of this proposal. 1.0 PROJECT SCOPING 1.1 PROJECT KICK-OFF AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The environmental review work program will be initiated with a kick-off meeting with City Staff to discuss the project in greater detail. This initial meeting is vital to the success of the CEQA process and will be a key milestone in order to confirm the parameters of the analysis, proposed buildout conditions, scheduling and overall communications. Prior to the kick-off, RBF will distribute a kick-off meeting agenda and detailed memorandum, which will identify information needs. Based upon the detailed project information obtained at the project kick-off meeting, RBF will draft a preliminary project description for review and approval by City Staff. 1.2 RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION RBF will obtain and review available referenced data for the project area, including policy documentation from the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, State and Federal agencies, the Southern California Association of Governments and all other agencies which may be affected by the Project. This information, along with environmental data and information available from the City and other nearby jurisdictions,will become part of the foundation of the environmental review and will be reviewed and incorporated into the analysis, as deemed appropriate. This task includes a visit to the project area, which will include a detailed photographic recording of on- and off-site conditions. 1.3 PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study will include detailed explanations of all checklist determinations and discussions of potential environmental impacts. The analysis will be prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The Initial Study will be structured in the same format as Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study will contain a description of the Project,the Project location, and a description of the environmental setting. The main body of the document will consist of a City-approved environmental checklist and an accompanying environmental analysis. This section will denote the appropriate CEQA action based upon the Environmental Checklist/Environmental Analysis. The Project will be analyzed for the potential to create significant environmental impacts in the areas specified on the City's approved environmental checklist. The Initial Study will also include mandatory findings of significance, long-term versus short-term goals,cumulative impacts,and direct and indirect impacts upon human beings. JN 10-107353 • 5 • August 2, 2010 • • Exhibit B Cost Proposal 11 of 11 S7296-0001\1236808v1.doc • • z C. City of Seal Beach ic.- 'oo ei1r Revised Proposal for the DWP Specific Plan Amendment ' Y1 a} Environmental Compliance Documentation r COUMiY,tit,-" IX. BUDGET Total Sub Rego Total TASK 220 200 1$0 136 120 120 210 180 150 65 Hours Consultants Cost 1.0 PROJECT SCOPING 50 1.1 Project KIM-Off and Project Chatacleostics 8 29 32 65,360 1.2 Research anti Invesliraton 12 B 6 2 6_ 34 $5,610 L3 Preparation of the Initial Study 4 2 10 28 8 8 2 2 64 $9,140 14 Initial Study Findings and Meeting with City staff 8 9 12 $2.220 TOTAL HOURS 30 2 48 34 10 14 0 2 2 0 142 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $6.600 $400 $7,200 $4,590 $1200 $1,680 $0 $380 $300 S9 $0 $0 $22,330 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $22.330 2.0 FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 0 60 2.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare 2 82 107 $13,600 22 Air Quality 1 56 88 $8,660 2.3 Biological Resources 3 $4300 $4,820 2.4 Climate Change Analysis 70 74 $9,190 2.5 Cultural Resources 4 $10,075 510,815 2.6 OrainageiWater Quality 100 104 $18.740 2.7 Geology and Soils 5 $50 490 $51,450 2.8 GrownwPopulatbn and Housing 30 33 $4.570 . 2,9 Junadictbnal Wetland Delineation 85 68 $13270 2.10 Land Use and Relevant Planning 60 65 $9,060 2.11 Noise 1 55 73 $9,440 2.12 Parks.Reoreadon and Open Space 24 28 $3,980 2.13 Public Services and UtIlitles 40 44 $5540 2.14 Traffic and Circulation 36 42 $81306 TOTAL HOURS 2 0 7 114 122 181 38 100 85 0 738 'SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS 56,16 50 510.800 $15,390 519,640 $21]20 57,560 $18000 $12,750 SO 564.865 $0 5171.885 $ TOTAL LABOR COSTS $171,1385 3,0 CEQA CLEARANCE OPTION 1: $0 PREPARATION OF ADMIN DRAFT EIR $0 3.1 Notice of Preparation 2 2 $790 3 2 Scoplrg Meeting 6 6 1 $2220 3.3 Inlroduceon and Purpose 2 7 11,490 3.9 Executive Summary 2 7 11,490 3,5 ThresholdS of Significance 2 2 2 1 1 $1340 36 Pmjeta Desonpnon 2 18 2 $3,190 3.7 Cumulative Projects/Analysis 2 8 I 01,640 3,8 Environmental AnalvSls I 16 4 65 89 20 18 $27,270 3.9 Alternatives to the Proposed Anew 3 I 34 36 30 104 $14,420 3.10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 10 12 $1940 3.11 Additional Sections 2 - 9 14 20 $2,930 3.12 Graphic Exhibits 2 4 40 46 53.640 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $62,260 4.0 DRAFT EIR I 0 50 4.1 Preliminary Draft EIR 6 2 50 30 20 , 108 $15,670 4.2 Completion of the Draft EIR 4 1.. 20, 19 39 $5.970' SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $21,640 SO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 $0 5.1 R pone to Comments 6 2 30 29 6 4 2 2 76 St1680 52 Final EIR 6 1 28 35 $5,720 5.3 Findirfs/Statement of Overriding Considerations _ 4 20 _ 24_ $3,880 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS 521,280 6.0 EIR PROJECT COORDINATION AND MEETINGS 0 50 8.1 Coordination 60 4 70 134 f{`4 $24,500 6.2 Meetings 50 50 6 106 1 $39,760 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $99,260 7.0 EIR DELIVERABLES 0 57,000 $7.000 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $7,000 TOTAL HOURS 179 15 435 200 78 0 10 3 3 90 961 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS 539380 $3,000 $85 250 527,000 $9,120 SO $2,100 $540 $450 52,600 $0 87.000 $156,440•TOTAL LABOR COSTS $156.440 80 CEQA CLEARANCE OPTION 2: 1 0 $0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 0 $0 01 Public Review Mitigated Negative Dedarauon 10 2 50 30 20 112 $16550 82 Final Review Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 2 40 20 20 88 $12 820 8.3 CEOA Notices 2 8 10 01,640 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS I $31.010 9.0 MND DELIVERABLES Oj 55.000 55,000 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $5.000 10.0 MND PROJECT COORDINATION AND MEETINGS 0 $0 10.1 Coordination 40 2 50 92 $16,700 10,2 Meetings 40 40 90 $14,600 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $31,500 TOTAL HOURS 98 6 189 50 40 0 0 0 0 0 3821 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $21560 $1200 528200 $6.750 $4,800 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 I $0 55.000 $87,510 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $67,510 (Total Budget for CEOA Clearance Option 1,EIR(Teske 1.01hrougn 7.0)= 0350,6651 lTotal Budget for CEQA Clearance Option 2,MND(Tasks 1.0,2.0,8.0,9.0 and 10.0)- $261,7251 G.L.=Glenn Lelob R.G.=Rita Garcia B.M.=Bob Matson GrA=Graphic Anisl CM.=Colette Morse It .=%nsten Bogue RN.=Rebecca Kinney E.T.=Eddie Torres A.M.=Achilles Melbas R.B.w Rich,Beck Nate.All work will be performed el a'Not to exceed'contract price,=Mid,will become the tvm Sued price upon completion of neaoliadoits wilh the Client. Pm total budget includes at mameaueous costa for travetmdeape.reproduction, reimburse/Wm telephone postal,delivery.reference materials and incidental expenses.RBF WI receive payment either en a percentage beets using Mbetanea or by monthly blllinp,as determined by the Client.The REF protect manager reserves the Nil to make adjustments to staff allocation es necessary within Ilia overall mogul-