HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - AWRD EIR CONTR SAND CYN PROJ (2)Agenda Item: 5
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
0 AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT
CALENDAR City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Jason Smisko
DATE: January 13, 2015
SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR SELECTION OF CONSULTANT TO
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SAND
CANYON MIXED USE PROJECT LOCATED AT NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAND CANYON ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON
ROAD
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City. Council award a contract to Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. in the amount of
$140,765, plus a 10% contingency of $14,076.50 for a total contract cost of $154,841.50, and
authorize the City Manager to execute the contract and associated documents subject to City
Attorney approval.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Sand Canyon Mixed Use project, at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and
Soledad Canyon Road, proposes 580 residential units, 116,000 square feet of commercial
development, and approximately two -million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on the 87 -acre
site. The project site is zoned Mixed Use Neighborhood zone (MXN). This zone is intended for
mixed use development which is encouraged to create neighborhoods that integrate residential
use with complementary commercial uses.
The project is known as Master Case No. 14-077, and includes the following entitlements:
Tentative Tract Map No. 53074, which would create lots for commercial, residential, and
infrastructure land uses. A Hillside Development Review Permit is required because the average
cross slope of the site exceeds 10%. A Ridgeline Alteration Permit is required due to the fact
that a ridgeline is located on the property and would be altered by the project. A Conditional
Use Permit is needed for development in a Planned Development Overlay zone. A Minor Use
Permit is required to permit a commercial floor area ratio of less than 0.2 in the MXN zone. An
Oak Tree Permit is necessary in order for the applicant to impact oak trees on the project site.
A' OWED Packet Pg. 28
I
This property had previous entitlement approvals in 2002 consisting of a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Review, and
Oak Tree Permit that included commercial and residential development, but they have since
expired and no development has occurred on the site other than the existing mobile home park.
In June 2014, staff solicited proposals from qualified firms to prepare this project's Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR). Six fares submitted proposals and all six were selected for
interviews. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. was identified as the recommended firm based
on quality of its proposal, cost effectiveness, and familiarity with the site as its project manager
had previously completed a certified EIR for this property. This will expedite the completion of
the draft EIR and further assist in the completion of the final EIR for the Project.
The total cost to prepare a new draft EIR and complete the final EIR for the project is $140,765.
Staff has included a 10% contingency of $14,076.50, for a total contract of $154,841.50. The
applicant is responsible for the cost of the preparation of the EIR and will deposit the funds into
a trust account maintained by the City.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs associated with the preparation of the environmental document will be the
responsibility of the applicant for the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project and will not have a fiscal
impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project EIR with Contract available in the City Clerk's Reading
File
Page 2
CONTRACTFOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND
TEBO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC.
Contract No. ,
This AGREEMENT is entered into this 10 day of January 2015, by and between the
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, a general law city and municipal corporation ("CITY") and Tebo
Consulting, Inc., a S corporation ("CONSULTANT').
1. CONSIDERATION.
A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the
SCOPE OF SERVICES, below; and
B, As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement; and
As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to
exceed one hundred and fifty four thousand, eight hundred and forty one
dollars and fifty cents ($154,841.50) for CONSULTANT's services. CITY may
modify this amount as set forth below. Unless otherwise specified by written
amendment to this Agreement, CITY will pay this sum as specified in the
attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by reference.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit `B," which is
incorporated herein.
B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical,
administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials,
equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all
tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as
herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper
to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required
of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.
3. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement,
CONSULTANT must submit a detailed invoice to CITY which lists the hours worked and
hourly rates for each personnel category and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit "A")
the tasks performed, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period, the
cumulative percentage completed for each task, the total cost of that work during the preceding
billing month and a cumulative cash flow curve showing projected and actual expenditures
versus time to date.
Revised 1/2011 Page 1 of 10 2)
POLITICAL REFORM ACT. CONSULTANT agrees that it will be considered a public
official subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974 for purposes of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees and warrants that it has no financial interests which may be materially
affected by the project for which the Initial Study, as specified in the SERVICES, is being
prepared. Such financial interests may include, without limitation, interests in business entities,
real property, or sources of income exceeding $500 received within the past year.
CONSULTANT further warrants that, before executing this Agreement, it reviewed the Political
Reform Act of 1974 and the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, including, without
limitation, Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 18700, et seq., in
order to determine whether any conflict of interest would require CONSULTANT to refrain
from performing the SERVICES or in any way attempting to use its official position to influence
the governmental decisions underlying the subject environmental clearances.
4. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK.
A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that CONSULTANT
has:
Thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be
performed; and
ii; Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and
iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending
performance of the services under this Agreement.
B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT represents that
CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted
with the conditions there existing, before commencing the services hereunder.
Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions that may
materially affect the performance of the services, CONSULTANT will
immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at
CONSULTANT's own risk until written instructions are received from CITY.
Although CITY has a duty to the public to independently review any
environmental document, including, without limitation a negative declaration or
draft EIR, prepared by CONSULTANT, that duty to the public, or the breach
thereof, will not relieve CONSULTANT of its duties under this Section or any
representation provided by CONSULTANT in this Agreement.
5. KEY PERSONNEL.
A. CONSULTANT's key personnel assigned to perform work under this Agreement
and their level of responsibility are as follows:
B. The resume of each of the individuals identified in this Section are attached to this
Agreement, collectively, as Exhibit "C," and incorporated by reference.
Revised 1/2011 Page 2 of 10
C. In the event CITY objects to the continued involvement with this Agreement by
any of the persons listed in this Section, CONSULTANT agrees that it will
replace such persons with individuals that are agreed to by CITY.
TERM. The term of this Agreement will be from January 14, 2015, to January 15, 2017.
Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement win
terminate in the following instances:
D. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit `B."
E. Termination as stated in Section 11.
TIME FOR PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this
Agreement until:
F. CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required by this Agreement; and
G. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written Notice to Proceed.
H. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written
authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT's
own risk.
6. TIME EXTENSIONS. Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond
CONSULTANT's control, CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted
services. If delay occurs, CONSULTANT must notify CITY within forty-eight hours (48 hours),
in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay interferes with the
Agreement's schedule. CITY may, but is not required to, extend the completion time, when
appropriate, for the completion of the contracted services.
7. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this
Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the
contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing,
executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in
the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties.
8. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a
Taxpayer Identification Number.
PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and
maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that
may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.
9. PROJECT COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION.
A. Susan Tebo, President, will be assigned as Project Manager and will be
responsible for job performance, negotiations, contractual matters, and
coordination with CITY's Project Manager.
Revised 1!1011 Page 3 of 10 l�"�
B. Jason Smisko, Senior Planner will be assigned as CITY's Project Manager and
will be personally in charge of and personally supervise or perform the technical
execution of the Project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of CITY and will
maintain direct communication with CONSULTANT's Project Manager.
10. WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by
CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's
performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in
this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different
character.
11. TERMINATION.
A. CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause.
B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY's mutual
consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective
termination date.
C. Should termination occur, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT
will, at CITY's option, become CITY's property, and CONSULTANT will
receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up
to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under
Section 1(C).
D. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure
on its own terms services similar to those terminated.
E. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for
damages that might otherwise arise from CITY's termination under this Section.
12. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models,
photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are CITY's
property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired, but
will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of
CONSULTANT's completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement,
or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY's own risk.
13. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service
under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work,
prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or
city without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display
information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely
by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties.
Revised 1/2011 Page 4 of 10
INDEMNIFICATION. CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify and hold CITY harmless from
and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees),
injuries, or liability, arising out of the performance of this agreement by CONSULTANT.
Should CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or
otherwise, arising out of performance by CONSULTANT of services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement, CONSULTANT will defend CITY (at CITY's request and with counsel satisfactory
to CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in
settlement or costs incurred in defense otherwise.
14. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services.
CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's
written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.
15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that
CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the
manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to
be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSULTANT is not an
agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance,
bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that
may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work
or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the
direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.
16. AUDIT OF RECORDS.
A. CONSULTANT agrees that CITY, or designee, has the right to review, obtain,
and copy all records pertaining to the performance of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees to provide CITY, or designee, with any relevant
information requested and will permit CITY, or designee, access to its premises,
upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of
interviewing employees and inspecting and copying such books, records,
accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation
for the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement. CONSULTANT
further agrees to maintain such records for a period of three (3) years following
final payment under this Agreement.
B. Upon inspection, CONSULTANT will promptly implement any corrective
measures required by CITY regarding the requirements of this Section.
CONSULTANT will be given a reasonable amount of time to implement said
corrective measures. Failure of CONSULTANT to implement required corrective
measures will result in immediate termination of this Agreement.
C. CONSULTANT will keep all books, records, accounts and documents pertaining
to this Agreement separate from other activities unrelated to this Agreement.
Revised 1/2011 Page 5 of 10
INSURANCE.
Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this
Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT must procure and maintain the following
types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits
set forth below:
Tvne of Insurance
Commercial general liability:
Professional liability
Business automobile liability
Workers compensation
Limits (combined sinele)
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Statutory requirement
Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of
ISO -CGL Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. The amount of insurance set forth
above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Commercial General
Liability policy will be endorsed to name City, its officials, and employees as
"additional insureds" under said insurance coverage and to state that such
insurance will be deemed "primary" such that any other insurance that may be
carried by City will be excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on
ISO Form No. CG 20 10 1185 or 88. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence,"
not a "claims made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction
except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to City.
Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form
CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto).
Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage
is available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is
provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to maintain the
insurance in effect for a period of three (3) years after this Agreement expires or
is terminated ("extended insurance"). Such extended insurance will have the same
coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this
Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by City arising
out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or
agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.
CONSULTANT will furnish to City duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance
evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement,
endorsements as required herein, and such other evidence of insurance or copies
of policies as may be reasonably required by City from time to time. Insurance
must be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating
equivalent to at least a Rating of "A:VII."
F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance
required by this Agreement, City may obtain coverage at CONSULTANT'S
expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to
Revised 1/2011 Page 6 of 10 `/
G.
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement or terminate. In the alternative, should
cancellation. CONSULTANT must ensure that there is no lapse in coverage,
17. USE OF CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written approval to
use any consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must
approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation.
18. INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY monthly to provide the
status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of
progress during the past month for each major task, a description of the work remaining and a
description of the work to be done before the next schedule update.
19. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made
when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:
CITY
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Fax: (661) 259-8125
CONSULTANT
Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc,
300 Esplanade Dr, Suite 1660
Oxnard, CA 93036
susan@teboconsulting.com
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by
the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly
addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are
to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.
20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest
laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY's Conflict of Interest Code (on file in
the City Clerk's Office). It is incumbent upon the CONSULTANT or CONSULTING FIRM to
notify the CITY pursuant to Section 25. NOTICES of any staff changes relating to this
Agreement.
In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, all officers, employees and/or
agents of CONSULTANT(S), unless as indicated in Subsection B., will be performing a very
limited and closely supervised function, and, therefore, unlikely to have a conflict of interest
arise. No disclosures are required for any officers, employees, and/or agents of CONSULTANT,
except as indicated in Subsection B.
Initials of Consultant
Revised 1/2011 Page 7 of 10 9
In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, CONSULTANT(S) will be
performing a specialized or general service for the CITY, and there is substantial likelihood that
the CONSULTANT'S work product will be presented, either written or orally, for the purpose of
influencing a governmental decision. As a result, the following CONSULTANT(S) shall be
subject to the Disclosure Category "1" of the CITY's Conflict of Interest Code:
Susan Tcbo Collette Morse
21. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor
retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or
secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed
to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting
from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this
warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.
THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is
generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any
other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT's or
CITY's obligations under this Agreement.
22. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this
agreement will be in Ventura County or in the Federal District Court in the District of California
in which Ventura County is located.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire
understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements
expressed or implied, oral or written. There is/are 2 (two) Attachments to this Agreement. This
Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent
successors and assigns.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review
this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a
whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against
either Party.
23. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the
extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so
modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
24. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary
action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to
engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment.
CITY's City Manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.
Revised 1/2011 Page 8 of 10
' 0
25. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement,
agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection
with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by
facsimile transmission. Such facsimile signature will be treated in all respects as having the
same effect as an original signature.
26. COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS. The parties agree that all of the provisions hereof
will be construed as both covenants and conditions, the same as if the words importing such
covenants and conditions had been used in each separate paragraph.
27. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of
reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
28. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood,
explosion, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or
other similar causes beyond the Parties' control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate
without obligation of either party to the other.
29. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence to comply with dates and schedules to be
provided.
30. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT
represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity
to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its
financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability,
personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in
dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the
proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to
satisfy a public agency.
40. PROTECTION OF RESIDENT WORKERS. The City of Santa Clarita actively supports
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes provisions addressing employment
eligibility, employment verification, and nondiscrimination. Under the INA, employers may hire
only persons who may legally work in the United States (i.e., citizens and nationals of the U.S.)
and aliens authorized to work in the U.S. The employer must verify the identity and employment
eligibility of anyone to be hired, which includes completing the Employment Eligibility
Verification Form (I-9). The Contractor shall establish appropriate procedures and controls so
no services or products under the Contract Documents will be performed or manufactured by any
worker who is not legally eligible to perform such services or employment.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Rcvised 1/2011 Page of 10 1`
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and
year first hereinabove written.
FOR CONSULTANT:
Print Name & Title
Date:
FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA:
KENNETH W. STRIPLIN, CITY MANAGER
In
City Manager
Date
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOSEPH M. MONTES, CITY ATTORNEY
By
City Attorney
Date,.
Revised 112011 Page 10 of 10 V
Sand Canyon —
Soledad Canyon
!!/fixed Use Project
Environmental
Impact Report
Submitted To:
City of Santa Cl,arita
Submitted By:
Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc.
In Association With
Morse Planning Group
August g, 204
-
-
kltl9t'
F
r n �
r t.
r
�f
V.
'�
Y
�N.,
r
i:��
1 1 Sv
•.
.
lo�
h
c
I
Susan Tebo
Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc
300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 1660
Oxnard, CA 93036
August 8, 2014
Mr. Jason Smisko
Senior Planner
City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Subject: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Impact Report for the Sand Canyon-Soledad
Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case No. 14-077)
Dear Mr. Smisko:
It is a pleasure to submit this proposal to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Sand
Canyon-Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case No. 14-077). This project will be
managed by Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc, in association with Collette L. Morse, AICP,
Morse Planning Group. I recently started Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. because I wanted
to be more "hands-on" with projects and I wanted to be able to limit my workload so that I
could ensure the best possible product, with a lower and more cost-effective billing rate.
My experience in preparing environmental documentation for the City of Santa Clarita goes
back to 1997 and preparing the Bridgeport EIR and the North Valencia II EIR. I have also
managed the Calgrove EIR, and the Riverpark EIR. Lastly, I also managed the EIR for the Sand
Canyon site about 10 years ago and am very familiar with the issues associated with the project
site, including but not limited to geotechnical and biological resources. We understand that
while the project description has been modified, our attention to detail and adequacy of CEQA
documentation still remains the same.
Collette Morse has also managed a number of EIRs and MNDs in the City of Santa Clarita, the
Lyons Canyon Ranch EIR, the UCLA Film and Television Archives MND, the Soledad Village
EIR, and the Mancara Residential Project EIR.
\j
Mr. Jason Smisko
City of Santa Clarita
August S, 2014
Page Two
We anticipate a 12- to 16 month preparation period for the EIR (including City Council approval). The
four-month leeway is the variable that is attributed to the timeliness of submittal of the technical
reports.
Both Collette and I have the years of experience necessary to prepare an environmental document that
meets both CEQA requirements and the City of Santa Clarita's adopted environmental guidelines. If
you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact either of us at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely, j
62 Ul/u>1ti
Susan Tebo
President
Mr
Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Principal
Morse Planning Group
Proposal for
Environmental Consulting Services
Sand Canyon — Soledad Canyon
Mixed Use Project
Environmental Impact Report
Master Case No. 14-077
Submitted to:
City of Santa Clarita
Submitted by:
Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc.
In Association with:
Morse Planning Group
August S, 2014
\—I
r R't
v
4 � Y
X
}
41,
5 •
d
:.
� r
jl
�. 4r
LR
_ �
-
% V 3
'�`� •�Y.tfi
j
n
$
rf y+_;r
l
ra
s
°d
Y SJ/ F
tj
�
F
liJ4L _AS
YMIt'all
1`
r R't
X
:.
jl
_ �
VAI � •.
j
n
$
rf y+_;r
11 • 9
s
°d
51
-
R
WW
�4,7
riry
i
1 r
ol
IC
M1
t t,
Y
�
ry
X 47,
s
!
r
5
r 4i
BY��fj� _
VPA�r
r •,
i� r�
1.
�
�,
PYA'.
fi
oi�
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
, EIR Proposal
Contents
1. Introduction and Understanding of the Project .................. ....... ....................... __ ..... _._ ....... -.1-1
1.1 Introduction ........ ........... . . ........ .................................. ...........
.................... 1-1
1,2 Unique Capabilities of Team ............. ...... __ ..... . ...... — .......... .......... .................
........... -.1-1
1.3 Understanding of the Project,.... ......... ........ . .............. ..............
............... .1 -3
1.4 Technical Approach ....... — ......... .............. ..... 11 ...
...........................1
2. Scope of Work... ................. . ................. ........ — ........... .................. ........ .....
.............................2-1
Task 1.0 Project Kick -Off Meeting... ...... ..... ___ ............... .. . ..... ........ ... __
... ........ .......... 2-2
Task 2.0 Preliminary Project Description .......................................................................................
2-2
Task3.0 Project Scoping ...................................................................................................................
2-2
Subtask 3.1 Research and Investigation .....................................................................
2-2
Subtask 3.2 Field Reconnaissance....... ................ ........... — .... ......
— .................... -2-3
Subtask 3.3 Notice of Preparation— ................. __ .......... .......... .........................
. . —.2-3
Subtask 3.4 Scoping Meeting........:.. . ... ........ __ ......................
.... _ ..................... -2-3
Task 4.0 Administrative Draft EIR ..................................................................................................
2-3
Subtask 4.1 Executive Summary .............. — ........ ..... __ ....... __ ...
- ........... __ .......... 2-3
Subtask 4.2 Introduction and Purpose . .................. .................. ................
....,....,...2-3
Subtask4.3 Project Description ........ ...................... .............................
......... ........... 2-4
Subtask 4.4 Environmental Analysis ........................................... ..............................
2-4
A. AestheticsNisual Character ....:.................................................:....2-4
B. Air Quality ............................ ....... . ...... .................
__ ......... ___ ... 2-5
C. Biological Resources ............................................
___ ........ __ ..... ..2-5
D. Climate Change ................................................................................
2-5
E. Cultural Resources..,.......— ....... ........ . . . __ ...
....... .......... 2-5
F. Geology and Soils ...................... - . .................
. .........2-5
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...............................................2-5
H. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................:...................................2-6
1. Land Use ...................... ......... ........ .......
........ ____ ... ... 2-6
J. Noise ...... . ...... — ... ..... .................. ...... ...............................
............ 2-6
K. Population, Employment, and Housing .......................................2-7
L. Public Services and Utilities.. .......... ..........
............. .....:.:2-78
Subtask 4,5 Cumulative Impacts.........„ ..... ................ ............................
............. -.2-8
Subtask 4.6 Other CEQA Considerations .......... .................. ...
_ ....... ___ ............ 2-8
Subtask 4.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......................................................2-9
Subtask 4.8 Additional Required CEQA Sections ....................................................2-9
Task5.0 Draft EIR ..... .......... .............. ......................................................................................
2-10
Subtask 5.1 Administrative Draft EIR #2 ........ ........................................................
2-10
Subtask 5.2 Completion of Draft FIR ....................................................
................... 2-10
Task6.0 Final EIR ............................................................................................................................
2-10
Subtask 6.1 Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR ............................2-10
Subtask 6.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................2-11
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Subtask6.3 Final EIR ......... ........................... . .......................
- ....................... ..... 2-11
Task 7.0 CEQA Notices- ......... - ..... ... --- ...... . ... ................ . .. . .............. ......
- ..... -- ...... . ............ 2-11
Task 8.0 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Hearings ...........................................................
2-12
Subtask 8.1 Project Coordination ............................... -- ........
........ ............ ........ — 2-12
Subtask8.2 Project Meetings ..................... .................... - .......
......... 2-12
Subtask8.3 Public Hearings..... ...... ...... ............ ............. ..........
...... ....... -- .... . .... 2-12
Task 9.0 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations .............................................
2-13
3. Program Management .........................................................................................................................
3-1
4. Cost Estimate ................................................................................... ......................
......................... 4-1
5. Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities ........................... --- ............... .................
-- ........ - ............... 5-1
5.1 Project Staffing ........................ ............................. .......... ...............................
........... -.—.5-1
5.2 Team Qualifications .................................... ............... .... -- .... ....... . .............
-- ............. . 5-2
6. Subconsultants .................................................................. ...................................................................
6-1
7. Statement of Offer and Signature ............................ .............. . ...... ........... ........
............ ........... . 7-1
8. Liability Insurance ........ ............................. .......... ............
-- .....................8
Appendix - Resumes
Susan Tebo
Collette Morse
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
1. Introduction and Understanding of the Project
1.1 Introduction
Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. (TEC) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess potential impacts and identify mitigation measures
for the Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project located in the City of Santa Clarita
(City). The Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and associated work products will be prepared in accordance
with the criteria, standards, and provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of
1970 (§21000, et seq. of the California Public Resources Code), CEQA Guidelines (California
Administrative Code §15000), the City's Environmental Guidelines, and the regulations,
requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency with jurisdiction by law.
This proposed Scope of Services has been prepared in accordance with the tasks identified in the
June 25, 2014 Request for Proposal. We have also reviewed information provided with the Request
for Proposal. Our Work Program described in Section 2 is a comprehensive review of potential
issues associated with the proposed project that are known at this time. We welcome the
opportunity to meet with the City to discuss and refine the Scope of Work to meet the City's needs.
1.2 Unique Capabilities of Team
TEC has assembled a Team that is uniquely qualified to successfully and efficiently undertake the
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project EIR. As stated throughout this proposal, the
Team assembled for this project has consistently demonstrated its professional excellence through
staffing capabilities, ability to meet schedules, preparation of quality work products, and by
possessing proven qualifications and experience.
An organization chart on the following page illustrates the organizational approach for the Sand
Canyon-Soledad Canyon Mixed Use EIR Project.
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Management and EIR Preparation
TEBO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
Susan Tebo
President
' TraHic/Ttanspottatlon
Biological Resources
Oak Trees
+ Geotechnical Hazards
• Cultural Resources
• Phase IEnvironmental site
Assessment
• Hydmiogy/Water Quality
• Noise_ ... ..
MORSE PLANNING GROUP
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Principal..
• Climate Change
• UJater Supply Assessment
Visual Simulations.
27-
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Our Strengths and Capabilities
Shown in the table below is a summary of the strengths and capabilities of the Team we offer to
perform the services you need.
City of Santa Clarita
Sand Canyon — Soledad. Canyon Mixed Use Project EIR
Strengths and Capabilities of the Tebo Consulting Team
Project Requirements
TEC Consulting Team
Experience in Santa Clarita
Mixed Use Project Experience
Responsiveness to Client's Needs
Completion of Projects Within Specified Timeframes
Controversial And Complex Project Experience
CEQA Expertise
Successful CEQA Compliance And Litigation
Performance
TEC takes performance very seriously and will serve as an extension of City staff to assure that the
entire CEQA process is conducted in a comprehensive manner, which will include consideration of
recent CEQA legislation and requirements of reviewing agencies. The Team, led by Ms. Susan
Tebo, will provide communication and updates to City staff on progression of the work program
and status of the analysis. The objective is to provide premium service to our clients along with
highly accurate technical documentation and impact determinations.
Efficiency, Responsiveness and Timeliness
The Team is committed to assisting the City in completing the Sand Canyon — Soledad Canyon
Mixed Use Project EIR within 16 months of authorization to proceed. The timeframe is one that can
be met based upon our prior experience with similar projects.
1.3 Understanding of the Project
The Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC is proposing a mixed use development on 87 acres located on the
northeast corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, and north of the State Route 14
Freeway.
1-3
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
The project site is zoned MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone), which is intended for mixed use
development to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary
commercial uses. The MXN zone allows a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. A
portion of the project site is currently developed with a mobile home park consisting of 160 units
that are currently being rented.
The project includes the removal of existing on-site residential uses and the redevelopment of the
property with a mixed-use community consisting of five Planning Areas for a total of 580
residential units and 116,000 square feet of commercial uses:
• Planning Area 1 (Commercial) — approximately 116,000 square feet of commercial floor
including 39,000 square feet of general retail, 17,000 square feet of restaurants, and a
60,000 -square -foot hotel on 10 acres
• Planning Area 2 (Apartments) — 312 apartment units on 11 acres
• Planning Area 3 (Townhomes) -120 townhomes on 11 acres
• Planning Area 4 (Single Family Neighborhood A) — 71 single-family homes on 10 acres
• Planning Area 5 (Single Family Neighborhood B) — 77 single-family homes on 13 acres
To process the project, the applicant has requested the following entitlements:
• Master Case No. 14-077
• Tentative Tract Map 53074
• Hillside Development Review 14-001
• Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001
• Minor Use Permit 14-016
• Oak Tree Permit 14-008
• Minor Use Permit 14-016 to permit a commercial FAR of less than 0.2 in the MXN zone
• Conditional Use Permit for development in a Planned Development Overlay
1.4 Technical Approach
TEC will work closely with City staff to assure that the environmental review process accurately
addresses the project impacts and complies with the state and City environmental and
development review processes. Refer to Section 4, Program Management.
The Scope of Work has been developed by the Team to ensure that the documents are legally
comprehensive, objective, technically accurate, and complete. TEC is excited about the potential
opportunity of participating in this process. The Team has the professional experience and is
looking forward to making the commitment to help the City in the completion of the
environmental documentation.
14
s
2�A
Sand Canyon — Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
2. Scope of Work
The following Scope of Work has been prepared pursuant to the information contained in the
City's Request for Proposal and information received from the City and Applicant.
The Request for Proposal has preliminarily identified the following issue areas to be reviewed in
the EIR: Air Quality; Biological Resources; Geotechnical Hazards; Land Use; Water Service; Solid
Waste Disposal; Education, Library Services; Fire Services; Sheriff Services; Human Made Hazards;
Visual Resources; Population/Employment/Housing; Cultural Resources; Agricultural Resources;
Wastewater; Hydrology/Water Quality; Noise; Transportation/Access; Climate Change, and Parks
and Recreation.
Exceptions to Request for Proposal
1. The TEC Team agrees with the City s preliminary list of topics for the EIR.
2. The Request for Proposal notes on page 4 that the consultant and/or City Staff will provide a
peer review of studies to be provided by the Applicant. The TEC Team will provide a peer
review of the technical studies to ensure that the reports provide the information and
analysis relevant to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is also
assumed that City Staff will provide peer review on geotechnical hazards, traffic;
hydrology/water quality; and oak tree technical studies. Finally, due to the complexity of the
subject matter TEC will be retaining a noise specialist to review the noise technical report.
Assumptions
1. The Applicant is preparing the following technical studies;
• Traffic/Transportation
• Biological Resources
• Oak Trees
• Geotechnical Hazards
• Cultural Resources
• Phase I Environmental Site
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Climate Change
• Visual Simulations
Assessment
The Applicant will provide the City and the Team with one copy (both electronic files and
hard copy) of any documents/studies prepared for the project.
2. The TEC Team has assumed that no modifications to the project description would occur
after the development of the project description as part of Task 2.0. Any modifications to the
project description after it has been approved by City Staff would constitute a change in the
work program, and would require a modification to the scope and fee. Any modifications to
2-1
2�
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
the work program would be performed on a time and materials basis as extras to the
contract.
Task 1.0 Project Kick -Off Meeting
The work program will be initiated with a formal kick-off meeting with City Staff and the
Applicant Team to discuss the project features in greater detail. This initial meeting is vital to the
success of the CEQA and entitlement process and will be a key milestone to confirm the
parameters of the analysis, project construction program assumptions, proposed buildout
conditions, scheduling, and overall communications. Prior to the kick-off meeting, a kick-off
meeting agenda and a memorandum will be distributed, which will identify information needs for
the planning and environmental efforts.
Task 1.0 Output
Kick -Off Meeting
Meeting Agenda and Memorandum
Task 2.0 Preliminary Project Description
Based upon the project information obtained at the project kick-off meeting, a preliminary project
description will be drafted for review by the Applicant Team, and review and approval by City
Staff.
Task 2.0 Output
Preliminary Project Description
Task 3.0 Project Scoping
Subtask 3.1 Research and Investigation
The Team will obtain and review available data for the project area, as well as policy documenta-
tion from the City of Santa Clarita, the County of Los Angeles, the Southern California Association
of Governments, local, state and federal agencies, and all other agencies that may be affected by
the proposed project. This information, along with environmental data and information available
from the City, will become part of the foundation of the EIR and will be reviewed and
incorporated into the analysis, as deemed appropriate.
Itf
2-2
1(c)
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Subtask 3.2 Field Reconnaissance
As a part of the early scoping for the project, the Team will conduct a field study of the site, review
existing land use and environmental conditions, and conduct a photographic recording of on-site
and surrounding uses.
Subtask 3.3 Notice of Preparation
The Team will prepare and file the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR, Comments received in
response to the NOP will be evaluated during the preparation of the EIR.
Subtask 3.4 Scoping Meeting
A public scoping meeting, which can also involve federal, state, or other local agencies, will be set
up as a brief project overview presentation, so that the community can gain an understanding of
the proposed project and make comments based upon accurate knowledge of the proposed project.
The Scoping Meeting will emphasize the review process and will be presented so that the
community can gain a greater understanding of the proposed project, as well as the intent and
requirements of CEQA. Following the presentation, the meeting will be devoted to public
participation, questions, and comments. The Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc, team will
provide written comment forms and sign -in sheets that will be provided for this purpose, and
these comments, along with verbal comments, will become a part of the administrative record.
Task 3.0 Output
• Team Research of Available Materials
• Team Tour of Project Site
• 1 Electronic Copy of Notice of Preparation Scoping Meeting
• Scoping of Agency Issues
Task 4.0 Administrative Draft EIR
Subtask 4.1 Executive Summary.
The Executive Summary will include a project summary, an overview of project impacts,
mitigation measures, and levels of significance after mitigation, and a summary of project
alternatives. The Executive Summary will be prepared and submitted as part of the Second
Administrative Draft EIR submittal to the City.
Subtask 4.2 Introduction and Purpose
The Introduction will cite the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Santa
Clarita CEQA hnplementation procedures to which the proposed project is subject. This section
c
23
I -D
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
will identify the purpose of the study and statutory authority, document scoping procedures,
provide a summary of the EIR format, provide a listing of responsible and trustee agencies, and
provide a listing of documentation incorporated by reference.
Subtask 4.3 Project Description
The Project Description section will detail the project location, background and history of the
project, discretionary actions, characteristics, goals and objectives, phasing, agreements, and
permits and approvals that are required for the proposed project based on available information.
This section will also include a summary of the local environmental setting for the proposed
project.
Subtask 4.4 Environmental Analysis
The Team 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 (NOP
responses, Scoping Meeting comments, 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 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. This section will
include analysis for the following environmental issue areas identified in the following
paragraphs.
A. AestheticsNisual Character
This section will characterize the existing aesthetics environment and visual resources, including a
discussion of views within the site and views from surrounding areas to the site, particularly from
the adjacent uses. Project construction impacts will be addressed based on changing on-site
aesthetics visible from surrounding roadways and locations. The section will include a discussion
of architectural and design specifications for the project provided by the Applicant. Mitigation
measures such as perimeter landscaping, screening, and setbacks may be recommended to reduce
the significance of potential visual impacts. Color site photographs will be provided that will show
on-site and surrounding views. This section will incorporate the visual simulations to analyze
potential view impairments (if any) to adjacent uses as a result of project implementation. The
compatibility of the project's architectural features, height, and building materials with the on-site
uses and the surrounding area will be studied.
RI
2-4
2E
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
This section will also address potentially significant impacts generated by the introduction of light
and glare associated with the development of the proposed project. This analysis will include a
light and glare impact discussion on neighboring sensitive uses from such things as streetlights,
vehicle headlights, and building lights. The Team will review and incorporate existing City
policies and guidelines regarding light and glare, and dark sky for inclusion within the EIR. The
Team will recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential aesthetic and light and glare
impacts to the maximum extent possible.
B. Air Quality
The Air Quality Technical Study provided by the Applicant will be reviewed and if satisfactory
incorporated into the EIR section.
C. Biological Resources
The Biological Resources Technical Study and Oak Tree Report provided by the Applicant will be
reviewed and if satisfactory incorporated into the EIR.
D. Climate Change
The Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study provided by the Applicant will
be reviewed and if satisfactory incorporated into the EIR.
E. Cultural Resources
The Cultural Resources Technical Study provided by the Applicant will be reviewed and if
satisfactory incorporated into the EIR.
F. Geology and Soils
The Geotechnical and Soils Studies provided by the Applicant will be reviewed and if satisfactory
incorporated into the EIR.
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment provided by the Applicant will be reviewed and if
satisfactory incorporated into the EIR. The section will evaluate potential hazards that could
impact or be generated by future development, including hazardous and toxic materials, high fire
hazards, and emergency evacuation and/or emergency response.
,. 2-5
T�
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Studies provided by the Applicant will be reviewed
and if satisfactory incorporated into the EIR.
I. Land Use
The Team will evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed project Plan in consideration of on-site
and surrounding land uses and will analyze the relationship of the project to all applicable
planning policies. These policies will be identified from the General Plan, Unified Development
Code, including Hillside Development Review, and other City regulations. The EIR will evaluate
the proposed plan with regard to compatibility of existing and proposed land uses. Impacts to
existing and potential future land uses in the planning area will be assessed for both construction
(short-term) and operational (long-term) phases. The Team will discuss the potential
intensification of uses in the project area and identify possible impact to nearby residences,
businesses, and other uses.
The proposed project will be evaluated in consideration of the nearby and adjacent residential
uses. The Team will analyze the relationship of the proposed project and associated entitlements to
applicable planning policies and ordinances. City reference documents are anticipated to include
the General Plan and Unified Development Code. The regional planning review will include
consistency with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide policies and the principles of
the SCAG Southern California Compass Growth Visioning Program. Given the site's location and
proximity/type of adjacent uses, a review of compatibility will be conducted.
Noise
The Acoustical Technical Study provided by the Applicant will be reviewed and if satisfactory
incorporated into the EIR. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) will peer review the noise impact analysis
prepared for the project to ensure that it is consistent with applicable procedures and
requirements. LSA will review the noise study to ensure that applicable noise and land use
compatibility criteria in the current General Plan Noise Element of the City are used in the noise
study, and the existing and future traffic noise levels on roadway segments along major arterials in
the project vicinity are calculated correctly. LSA will review the noise study to ensure that noise
impacts from construction sources and other on-site stationary sources are evaluated for their
potential impacts on sensitive uses in the project study area. Noise levels associated with the
cumulative conditions will be reviewed to ensure that they are evaluated adequately for their
potential impacts on the proposed on-site uses. Noise mitigation measures will be reviewed to see
if they are necessary. A memorandum will be prepared to summarize LSA's review comments and
suggested changes for the technical noise study, if any.
2-6
IDV
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
K. Population, Employment, and Housing
The EIR section will discuss the removal of the existing mobile home residential units, and identify
the existing population, employment, and housing within the City and project area, along with
projected trends. The analysis will include a discussion of the potential for new housing and
employment. The section will analyze the project's impact upon the City and County population,
employment, and housing base. A jobs/housing balance will be conducted to determine the
potential balance/imbalance between residential and employment uses within the City.
L. Public Services and Utilities
Potentially affected agencies will be contacted to identify relevant existing conditions, project
impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. The discussion will focus on the potential
alteration of existing facilities, extension or expansion of new facilities, and the increased demand
on services based on the proposed land uses. The section will evaluate the ability of the project
area to receive adequate service based on City and/or County standards and, where adequate
services are not available, will identify the effects of inadequate service and recommended
mitigation measures. The following issues are expected to be discussed in the EIR.
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.
The proposed project's compliance with AB 939 will also be addressed.
• Fire. The fire services review will include a review of existing services/facilities in the
area, response times to the site (which includes hazardous material responses to
emergencies), available fire flow, project impacts, and required mitigation.
• Sheriff. The sheriff service review will focus upon response times to the site, available
personnel, overall protection services, project impacts, and required mitigation.
• Schools. Potential impacts to schools focusing on existing conditions, student capacities,
current enrollment and facility locations. The number of students generated by the
proposed project will be the basis for the impact analysis. The potential for
overcrowding and facility deficiencies and required mitigation will be identified.
• Libraries. The review will include existing facilities and the impacts the project may
have on the library system.
• Parks and Recreation. The review will include overall parkland conditions and
recreational facilities in the City and impacts the project may have on the City park
system.
2-7
N
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Public Utilities:
Water. The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Santa Clarita Water Division of
Castaic Lake Water Agency will be incorporated into the EIR. The section will focus on
existing capacities, infrastructure connection, easements modifications, and necessary
mitigation.
Wastewater. Wastewater generation numbers for the project consistent with Los
Angeles County Sanitation District's standards will be incorporated into the EIR. The
section will focus on existing capacities, infrastructure connection, easements
modifications, and necessary mitigation.
Electricity and Natural Gas. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure location
and/or relocation, easements, and necessary mitigation will be discussed.
M. Traffic
The Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the Applicant will be reviewed and if satisfactory
incorporated into the EIR.
Subtask 4.5 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area identified above will be discussed, focusing
on cumulative impacts and levels of severity in the project area at a quantitative and qualitative
level. The analysis will include a review of regional affects to the project area. The analysis will
focus upon cumulative impacts from recently approved and/or pending projects in proximity.
Subtask 4.6 Other CEQA Considerations
Potential growth -inducing impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.2 and energy
conservation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F will be discussed. The growth -inducing
analysis in this section will be based on data from the City of Santa Clarita, the California
Department of Finance, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the U.S. Census.
The section discusses 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, the 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. The energy conservation analysis will discuss
the potential energy impacts of the proposed project including a description (where relevant) of
any wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy that may result from the
proposed project.
2-8
4
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Subtask 4.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the Team will provide an analysis of five alternatives,
comparing environmental impacts of each alternative in each impact area to the project. Each
alternative will be selected in an effort to reduce any identified significant impacts to less than
significant. The RFP states that the alternatives must be substantially different than the proposed
project. The TEC Team will work with City staff to determine the final selection of alternatives.
For each alternative, the Team will provide an analysis of impacts to environmental resources. One
important element of the Alternatives section will be an impact matrix that 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 CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 and to recent and
applicable court cases. The Team 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. A summary of the various alternatives and associated impacts will be provided
as part of the Executive Summary. Four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative required
by CEQA, will be analyzed. The Alternatives section will culminate with the selection of the
environmentally superior alternative in accordance with CEQA requirements.
Subtask 4.8 Additional Required CEQA Sections
The following additional sections will be included in the EIR to meet CEQA and City requirements
including the following:
A. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In the Proposed
Action Should It Be Implemented. Changes in the environment and uses on non-renewable
resources that will occur as a result of the proposed project and that can be considered
irreversible or irretrievable will be evaluated and discussed within this section of the EIR.
B. Significant Unavoidable Impacts. This section will be a comprehensive list of significant
unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project.
C. Organizations and Persons Consulted/Bibliography. Any federal, state, or local agencies,
other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the EIR will be listed in
this section, along with a complete list of reference materials used in preparation of the EIR.
Task 4.0 Outputs
5 Printed Copies of Administrative Draft EIR for City Staff review
1 Electronic Copy of Administrative Draft EIR (to be provided on CD)
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Task 5.0 Draft EIR
Subtask 5.1 Administrative Draft EIR /t2
The Team will respond to one complete set of City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. If
desired by the City, the Team will provide the Administrative Draft EIR #2 with all changes
highlighted to assist in the final check of the document.
Subtask 5.2 Completion of Draft EIR
The Team will respond to a review of the Administrative Draft EIR #2 by City Staff and will
prepare the Draft EIR for the required 45 -day public review period. In addition, the Team will
prepare the Notice of Completion (NCQ for submittal to the Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), and the Notice of Availability (NOA). The Team will also work with the City to develop a
distribution list for the NOC and Draft EIR.
Task 5.0 Outputs
• 5 Printed Copies of Preliminary Draft EIR #2 for City Staff review
• 1 Electronic Copy of Preliminary Draft EIR #2 (to be provided on CD)
• 3 Printed Copies of the Technical Appendices of the Preliminary Draft EIR #2
• 1 Electronic Copy of Technical Appendices (to be provided on CD)
• 20 Printed Copies of Draft EIR
1 Reproducible Master of Draft EIR
5 Printed Copies of Draft EIR Technical Appendices
150 Copies of Draft EIR and Technical Appendices on CD
Notice of Availability/Completion (NOA/NOC)
1 Copy of State Clearinghouse Notice of Completion Transmittal
Task 6.0 Final EIR
Subtask 6.1 Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR
The Team will respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review
period, and additional comments raised during public hearings. The Team will prepare thorough,
reasoned, and sensitive responses to relevant environmental issues. This task includes written
responses to written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR (including 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, the Team will finalize this section for
inclusion in the Administrative Final EIR. For budgeting purposes, we have assumed a total of
80 hours to prepare the Responses to Comments. If the comments are excessive and require more
than the budgeted time, this task would be re -scoped. Time would be billed on a time and
materials basis under a separate contract.
2-10
3`�
Sand Canyon — Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Subtask 6.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
To comply with the California Public Resources Code §21081.6, the Team will prepare a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program to be defined through working with City Staff to identify
appropriate monitoring steps/procedures and 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 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Checklist indicates the mitigation measure number as outlined in the EIR, the
monitoring milestone (at what agency/department responsible for verifying implementation of the
measure), method of verification (e.g., documentation, field checks), and a verification section for
the initials of the verifying individual, the date of verification, and pertinent remarks.
Subtask 6.3 Final EIR
The Hearing Draft Final EIR for distribution to the Planning Commission and the City Council for
hearings will consist of the revised Draft EIR text, as necessary, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and the Responses to Comments section. The Draft EIR will be revised in
accordance with the responses to public comments on the EIR in the Final EIR, which will be
prepared following EIR certification. The Team will also prepare the Notice of Determination
(NOD) for City filing within five days of EIR certification.
Task 6.0 Outputs
• 10 Printed Copies of Preliminary Final EIR
10 Printed Copies of Final EIR
• 50 Printed Copies of Final EIR and Technical Appendices on CD
1 Reproducible Master of Final EIR
1 Copy of Notice of Determination
Task 7.0 CEQA Notices
The Team will prepare, submit, and mail all CEQA public notices required for the proposed
project. Public notices are anticipated to include:
Notice of Preparation: The Team will prepare the NOP for the proposed project to initiate the 30 -
day NOP public review period. The Team will distribute the NOP to appropriate agencies, parties,
and individuals (including the State Clearinghouse). The Team will also post the NOP at the Office
of the County Clerk.
Notice of Availability: The Team will prepare a Notice of Availability (NOA) to be distributed at
the onset of the 45 -day public review period for the project. The NOA will include required project
'�>5
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
information, such as a brief project description, the start/end dates of the public review period,
locations where the EIR is available for review, and contact information for City Staff.
Notice of Completion: The Team will prepare a Notice of Completion for submittal to the State
Clearinghouse at the onset of both the 30 -day NOP public review period and the 45 -day EIR public
review period. The NOC will follow the format recommended by the State Clearinghouse.
Notice of Determination: The Team will prepare a Notice of Determination, to be filed with the
County Clerk and sent to the State Clearinghouse within five days of EIR certification. This scope
of work excludes payment of any CDPG filing fees, if applicable.
This scope assumes that the City would be responsible for any radius mailing lists and/or
newspaper notices required for the proposed project.
Task 7.0 Outputs
Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion, Notice of
Determination (see previous tasks for number of copies)
Task 8.0 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Hearings
Subtask 8.1 Project Coordination
Ms. Susan Tebo will assume primary responsibility for management and supervision of the Team,
as well as consultation with the City Staff. Ms. Collette Morse will be intrinsically involved in all
aspects of preparation of the EIR and will assume project management responsibility when
needed. Ms. Tebo will undertake consultation and coordination of the project and review the
technical reports and EIR for compliance with CEQA requirements and guidelines and City CEQA
procedures. Ms. Tebo and Ms. Morse will coordinate with all technical staff, consultants, support
staff, and word processing toward the timely completion of the EIR.
Subtask 8.2 Project Meetings
The Team anticipates several meetings with City Staff, including two staff meetings during the
process, as deemed necessary by City Staff. Vor budgeting purposes, it is assumed that two senior
staff members would attend each meeting, and each meeting is programmed at six hours.
Subtask 8.3 Public Hearings
Ms. Tebo and Ms. Morse will represent the Project Team at public hearings and make
presentations, as necessary. The Team has budgeted for attendance at three Planning Commission
meetings and two City Council meetings. If the City determines that additional meetings beyond
the five hearings are necessary, services will be provided under a separate scope of work on a time
and materials basis.
2-12
3 �
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Task 8.0 Outputs
• Ongoing project coordination with City Staff and Applicant Team
• Four Meetings with City Staff (scoping, site visit, and two other meetings) to provide
written and oral progress reports, resolve issues, review comments on Administrative
documents, and receive any necessary direction from City Staff
• Three Planning Commission hearings with presentations as necessary, as determined
by City Staff
• Two City Council hearings with presentations as necessary, as determined by City Staff
Task 9.0 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Team will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process, including the
preparation of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings for City use in the project
review process. The Team will prepare the Findings in accordance with the provisions of CEQA
Guidelines §15091 and §15093 and in a form specified by the City. The Team will submit the Draft
Findings for City review and will respond to one set of City Staff comments.
Task 9.0 Outputs
5 Copies of Draft Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
1 Reproducible Master of Final Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2.�8
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
3. Program Management
Individuals assigned to this project are experienced in the preparation of EIRs involving mixed use
development projects. Tebo Consulting Inc.'s (TEC) proposed approach to this project reflects this
experience. The Team is very knowledgeable regarding the legal requirements associated with the
preparation of this type of environmental document. Further, TEC has applied the Team's
collective CEQA expertise to the development of impact analysis methodologies that ensure
comprehensiveness, legal adequacy of the EIR, and usefulness for project monitoring.
The Team will be looked upon as an integral component in the review of the project and will
participate in meetings with City Staff and public hearings, as required by the City. TEC will be
available to work in tandem with the City at appropriate project milestones and participate in
concurrent planning and environmental processes. As the City's environmental consultant, TEC
will help anticipate issues, devise solutions, and provide expert counsel on how to achieve
environmental compliance. Achieving agency concurrence requires an iterative process where
impact analysis and preliminary mitigation recommendations are presented to the responsible and
trustee agencies for their comment and informal acceptance before the EIR is finalized for
circulation. TEC will complete the environmental review process, respond to comments received
during the 45 -day review period, and prepare the mitigation monitoring program. 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. To ensure a successful CEQA review process and preparation of a high-quality EIR,
TEC's work program includes the components identified below.
Identification of the individual, cumulative, and growth -inducing impacts on the
environment that might result from implementation of the proposed project.
• Commitment of senior management personnel to the project to provide close
coordination with the City, ensure technical accuracy, and carefully monitor budget
and schedule compliance.
• Responsiveness to any significant issues of concern raised by responsible and
regulatory agencies and the public.
• Implementation of scheduling systems designed to meet the City's deadlines. TEC will
ensure that resources are allocated to meet all client due dates, regardless of their
timing or the number of deadlines within a given period. The Team's objective is to
meet or exceed the City's schedule for completion of the environmental documentation
process. The Team is fully prepared to immediately initiate the preparation of the
environmental review and planning process.
TEC's approach is designed to allow for regular interaction between City Staff and other
interested/responsible governmental agencies and parties, which allows for frequent information
sharing among all project members. This approach will assist in data exchange without loss of time
3-1
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
or resources and will give City Staff advance input on issues that arise. Such participation by the
consultant minimizes duplication of research effort, improves the technical quality and accuracy of
analysis, and ultimately reduces the cost of services. It also allows the Project Team to offer expert
advice and counsel to the City and other interested parties, particularly regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction over key elements of the project.
3-2
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
4. Cost Estimate
The cost proposal for the Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project EIR is provided on
the following page. A Statement of Offer is found in Section 8.
4-1
y�
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
StafffCatettory Hours
Collette Graphic Publications
Research
4
4
$1,300
Field Reconnaissance
6
6
$1,950
Scoping Meeting
12
6
$3,000
Task 3 Subtotal
$6,250
Task 4: Administrative Draft EIR
Introduction
4
$700
Executive Summary
1
10
$1,675
Project Description
8
$1,400
Aesthetics
2
14
$2,450
Air Quality
2
12
$2,150
Cultural Resources
6
$1,050
Geology and Soils
12
$2,100
Greenhouse Gases
2
8
$1,550
Hazards
10
$1,750
Hydrology and Water Quality
10
$1,750
Land Use and Planning
2
14
$2,450
Noise
8
$1,400
Population and Housing
2
8
$1,550
Public Services
2
16
$2,750
Recreation
2
8
$1,550
Transportation and Traffic
12
$2,100
Utilities
2
16
$2,750
Alternatives
4
32
$5,500
Additional CEQA Sections
12
12
$3,900
Document Production
44 40
$9,660
Subconsuitant, Third Party Noise Review (LSA)
$2,460
Task 4 Subtotal
$52,645
Task 5: Draft EIR
Administrative Draft EIR #2
24
12
4 12
$7,840
Draft EIR
12
12
8 16
$6,660
Task 5 Subtotal
314500
Task 6: Final EIR
Responses to CommentslScreencheck Final EIR
40
40
8
$13,460
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2
8
2
$1,780
Project Coordination 40 $7,000
Meetings (2)' 12 12 $3,900
Public Hearings (5)" 40 40 $13:000
Attendance at
4
on a
4-2
L�1
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
5. Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities
5.1 Project Staffing
Tebo Consulting Inc. places a high priority on staff commitment to its clients and assigns senior
management to direct projects to ensure excellence. Ms. Susan Tebo will serve as the Team's
Project Manager. Additional key team members would provide staff support and technical
analyses. Brief profiles of the project staff are provided below. Refer to Appendix A of this
submittal for complete resumes of the individual Team members.
Susan Tebo
Project Assignment: Project Manager
Ms. Tebo serves as President for Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Ms. Tebo has 30+ years of
professional experience in environmental review, resource management, and land use planning.
She has managed and prepared environmental documents in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ms. Tebo is well versed in environmental document
preparation, agency consultation, project scheduling, budget supervision and control,
subconsultant coordination, client contacts, and presentation and testimony before public agencies
and private groups. Ms. Tebo is currently not working on any projects within the City of Santa
Clarita, and she is able to give her full attention to the project.
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Project Assignment: Senior Environmental Analyst
Collette Morse has a B.A. in Geography/Ecosystems from UCLA. She is directly responsible for the
management, preparation, and coordination of environmental studies prepared in accordance with
CEQA and NEPA. She has been involved in the preparation of hundreds of environmental
documents, including EIRs, Negative Declarations, and Environmental Assessments, for public
and private sector clients in her 25+ years of environmental planning experience. For the City of
Santa Clarita, she managed the Lyons Canyon Ranch EIR, the UCLA Film and Television Archives
MND, the Soledad Village EIR, and the Mancara Residential Project EIR. She is currently working
on or has recently completed the Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel EIR, the Fox Plaza EIR
(mixed use residential/ commercial project) in Riverside, the Redlands Malls Redevelopment
Project EIR (mixed use project: 220 du, 220,000 sf retail), the San Gabriel Center EIR (mixed use: 159
du, 18,000 sf retail), the Alexan Pacific Grove MND (mixed use project: 280 luxury apartments and
4,200 square feet of retail) in Orange, the CenterStone Specific Plan and Initial Study (33 du project)
in Cypress, the Wicker Drive Specific Plan and Initial Study (42 du project) in Cypress, and the
Grindlay/Orange Specific Plan and Initial Study (9 du and office building project) in Cypress. In
addition, she is a Past President of the APA California Chapter and former AICP Commissioner for
Region VI.
5-1
L�3
Sand Canyon — Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
5.2 Team Qualifications
Summary of Key Project Experience
This section includes a summary of the Team's background involving similar projects. We have
also included a listing of additional projects for consideration.
Local Experience
Riverpark EIR
City of Santa Clarita
Susan Tebo managed the Riverpark EIR prepared for the City of Santa Clarita, California, which
assessed the potential impacts associated with the development of 695.4 acres of land for single -
and multi -family uses and commercial uses. The project consists of 1,183 dwelling units
(439 single-family and 744 multi -family units), a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial
uses, a trail system (Santa Clara River Trail, Newhall Ranch Road, and Santa Clarita Parkway
Class I trails, and trail connections from the interior planning areas), and a 29 -acre active/passive
park along the Santa Clara River. The project would also provide for utility easements (e.g.,
electric, water, wastewater), public street eights -of -way, and roughly 442 acres of open space,
which includes most of the Santa Clara River. Buildout of the project necessitates the extension of
Newhall Ranch Road, (full grading, four to six lanes) including the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden
Valley Road Bridge over the Santa Clara River, to the Golden Valley Road/Soledad Canyon Road
flyover.
North Valencia No. 2 EIR
City of Santa Clarita
Susan Tebo managed the North Valencia No. 2 EIR project for the City of Santa Clarita, California.
Assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the annexation of 596.2 acres of land
and the entitlement to develop the undeveloped portion of the annexation area (391.2 acres). The
proposed project includes development of 1,900 dwelling units, 210,000 square feet of commercial
uses, a 15.9 -acre community park site, a 20 -acre school site, 4.1 acres of private neighborhood
parks, 93.4 acres of natural open space and over 9 miles of trails and paseos. This project is located
adjacent to San Francisquito Creek, and portions of the project site are within Los Angeles
Significant Ecological Area 19.
5-2
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Valley Street/Calgrove Boulevard Amendment to the Circulation Element of the
General Plan and Cul -de -Sac Project EIR
City of Santa Clarita
Susan Tebo managed the Valley Street/Calgrove Boulevard Amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan and Cul -de -Sac Project in Santa Clarita, California. Responsibilities
consisted of amending the Circulation Element of the General Plan to remove the secondary
highway designation from a portion of Calgrove Boulevard and Valley Street between Creekside
Drive and Maple Street. The project will formalize the existing barricade condition with the
installation of two terminus -abutting cul-de-sacs to be located approximately between the existing
barricades. The barricades would be removed and no vehicular access to the Hidden Valley private
gate would be permitted. The proposed project was extremely controversial.
North Valencia No.1 (Bridgeport) EIR
City of Santa CIarita
Susan Tebo managed the North Valencia Annexation EIR in Santa Clarita, California. The project
applicant requested the approval of the annexation of 872 acres of land into the City of Santa
Clarita and the entitlement to develop the undeveloped portion of the annexation area. The
applicant also requested approval of a Specific Plan, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51931,
a General Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement, and an Oak Tree Permit, which govern a
series of development activities on the project site. Many technical studies were completed as part
of the EIR, including a traffic and access study, a master geotechnical/soils analysis, a noise and air
quality modeling analysis, a biological analysis, and a master drainage analysis. Particular effort
was expended studying the issues of floodplain management, biological resource management
and conservation, population and housing, and vehicular traffic access.
Mancara at Robinson Ranch EIR
City of Santa Clarita
Collette Morse and RBF Consulting are currently preparing an EIR for the Mancara at Rdbinson
Ranch project. The proposed project is a rural residential equestrian -based community that
involves the development of 103 single-family residential units and open space areas within 108
lots on approximately 185 gross acres of land. The project site is located at the southeast corner of
the intersection of Oak Spring Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, and is roughly bounded by
the Santa Clara River to the north, Oak Spring Canyon Road to the west, the Robinson Ranch Golf
Club to the south, and the Angeles National Forest to the east. The EIR is analyzing a number of
topics, including aesthetics, light and glare; biological resources; traffic and circulation; air quality;
noise; hydrology and water quality; geology; and public services and utilities.
53
1�,
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Soledad Village EIR
City of Santa Clarita
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed an EIR for the Soledad Village
mixed-use project. The proposed project will develop residential, commercial, and recreational
uses (common and private open space areas) and on-site private roads on approximately 30 acres
located along the north side of Soledad Canyon Road adjacent to the Santa Clara River, between
Bouquet Canyon Road and Golden Valley Road. A total of 437 residential units will be developed
including 275 attached townhomes and 162 triplexes. An 8,000 -square -foot retail building will be
located at the northeast corner of Gladding Way and Soledad Canyon Road.
UCLA Film and Television Archive Preservation Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Santa Clarita
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the UCLA Film Archive and Preservation Center to be located on the 65 -acre site at
McBean Parkway and the Interstate 5 freeway. To serve the public and enrich the culture, the
Packard Humanities Institute is proposing to develop a Preservation Center that will provide the
UCLA Film and Television Archive with a state-of-the-art storage, preservation, and access
facilities for its collections and activities. A total of seven buildings totaling approximately 350,000
square feet are proposed.
Lyons Canyon Ranch EIR
City of Santa Clarita
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed an Administrative Draft EIR for
this proposed Specific Plan, which is proposing a mixed use development incorporating 416 single-
family residential units, 216 multi -family units, 203 senior housing units, two passive parks
totaling 16.9 acres, a 0.6 -acre neighborhood park, 197.8 acres of open space, and 7.1 acres of
commercial. To accommodate the development, the applicant is proposing to excavate 5.8 million
cubic yards of earth and construct two access points off The Old Road. In addition, the applicant
inventoried approximately 2,862 oak trees of which 136 are heritage oaks. The applicant is
proposing to remove 335 oak trees, leaving 2,507 trees of the inventoried trees undisturbed.
Approximately 27 of the 136 oak tree removals will be heritage oak trees. Roughly 200 oak trees
and 40 heritage oak trees will be encroached upon as a result of the project. The EIR addressed all
CEQA topics. The project applicant stopped processing the project in the City to process the
development applications through Los Angeles County.
4 5-4
son
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Additional Relevant Experience
This section includes a summary of the Team's background involving environmental projects with
varying degrees of controversy. The following is a brief listing of relevant projects that exemplify
the Team's experience.
Mission Village EIR
City of Santa Clarita
Susan Tebo served as Project Manager for the Mission Village EIR to develop 1,252.27 acres of
property located within the northeastern comer of Newhall Ranch in western unincorporated Los
Angeles County, south of the Santa Clara River and State Route 126, and west of Interstate 5 in
California. The project requests approval of 5,331 residences (291 single-family homes, and 5,040
multi -family units), 1.299 million square feet of commercial/mixed uses, an 8.97 -acre elementary
school, 46.98 acres of parks, public, and private recreational facilities, trails, and road
improvements on the Mission Village site within the boundary of the approved Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan.
Northern Foothills Implementation Program EIR
City of San Dimas
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed an EIR for this 3,000 -acre project
area in the San Gabriel Mountain foothills. The project involved a General Plan Amendment and a
Zone Change/Specific Plan to create a "Northern Foothills" land use designation, which would
permit a maximum of 127 dwelling units on the 972 vacant acres in the project area, as opposed to
the 195 dwelling units permitted under the existing General Plan. Significant environmental issues
analyzed in the Program EIR included access/circulation, fire protection services, landform
alteration, biological resources, hydrology and drainage, geology and seismicity, and land use and
relevant planning. A unique feature of the project was the development of mitigation measures
that served as development standards, and many were included as such in the Specific Plan. In
addition, the Program EIR was completed within seven months to meet the City's deadline of
completion of the GPA, the Zone Change/Specific Plan, and the Program EIR prior to July 1999
expiration of the City's moratorium on development in the northern foothills area.
The Colonies at San Antonio Specific Plan EIR
City of Upland
While with another firm, Collette Morse prepared the Specific Plan Amendment EIR for the
Colonies at San Antonio. The project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City of
Upland, near the Upland - Rancho Cucamonga city boundaries, and is bisected by the new
Interstate 210 freeway. The EIR analyzes the comprehensive amendment to the approximately 450 -
acre Specific Plan area. Key issues evaluated include land use and relevant planning,
0.... 5-5
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
aesthetics/light and glare, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, biological resources, geology
and soils, hydrology and drainage, and public services and utilities.
Robinson Ranch North Environmental Impact Report
City of Yucaipa
While with another firm, Collette Morse prepared the Environmental Impact Report for Robinson
Ranch North. The project consists of 159 acres located north of Interstate 10 and east of Oak Glen
Road in Yucaipa. It comprises two separate development plans: a Preliminary Development Plan
(PDP) on 159 acres, which requires a General Plan Amendment to adopt the proposed Land Use
Plan; and a Final Development Plan (FDP) on 90 acres at the western portion of the project area,
which includes Oak Ridge Village, a 695,000 -square -foot commercial center. The remaining 69
acres, the Wildwood Center, comprises 24 single-family residential units on 6 acres and 216
multiple -family units on 27 acres, general commercial uses on 24 acres, and 12 acres of natural
open space. The General Plan designates the sites as within the Planned Development (PD) Land
Use District. The project proposes an amendment to the General Plan to adopt a Land Use Plan for
114 acres of commercial uses and 240 residential dwelling units. The PD Land Use District
designation would be retained on both sites.
The project was highly controversial, which was exemplified by over 400 residents who attended
the EIR Certification Hearing. Key areas of concern raised by area residents and reviewing
agencies included the project's consistency with City regulations for hillside development, impacts
associated with flood zones for Yucaipa Creek, consistency with seismic safety requirements, area -
wide traffic impacts, compatibility with neighboring land uses, and alternatives. The EIR provided
an in-depth review of all subject areas of concern and concluded the need for a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for land use, air quality, and noise. The work program included a peer
review of several applicant -generated studies by the RBF Team.
Rancho Del Oro Village XII Program EIR
City of Oceanside
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed a Program EIR for the proposed
Rancho Del Oro Village XII. The project proposes an amendment to a specific plan and master plan
to change the land use designations from office/professional and industrial to residential. The
applicant proposes 850 dwelling units on the 152 -acre project site. Key issues include land use
compatibility, compliance with the city's hillside ordinance, aesthetics/landform alteration, and
traffic.
W1
5-6
q
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel EIR
City of Beverly Hills
While with another firm, Collette Morse completed a Revised Sections/Additional Alternatives to
the Draft EIR that was circulated for a 45 -day review period by the City of Beverly Hills. The
Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel is a 228 -room hotel with 25 residential units and
ancillary retail, dining, banquet, and spa facilities; 33,000 square -foot public gardens space,
subterranean parking with up to 1,508 spaces; and a building lining the public garden space with a
mix of commercial space and habitable units. The public review process is continuing through the
summer of 2004.
Fox Plaza EIR
City of Riverside
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed the EIR for the Fox Plaza project
in downtown Riverside. The site occupies 4.9 acres, and on-site uses include commercial uses,
surface parking, and historic structures. The proposed activities include the acquisition and
relocation of existing uses, the demolition of existing structures, and the development of a mixed
use urban scale project consisting of up to 45,039 square feet of restaurant and retail space, 327
residential condominium units, 147 live/work loft units, a hotel containing up to 140 rooms, and
1,122 parking stalls located within subterranean parking structures and surface parking lots. The
EIR is analyzing traffic, parking, air quality, noise, cultural resources, aesthetics, geology, fire
protection, police protection, water supply, and recreation.
The Village at Redlands EIR (Redlands Mall Redevelopment Project)
City of Redlands
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed the EIR for The Village at
Redlands project in downtown Redlands. The site occupies 12.3 acres and is developed with the
existing Redlands Mall, The project proposes to redevelop the entire site from commercial uses to a
mixed-use development with commercial and residential uses. All on-site uses, with the exception
of the existing Gottschalks department store, would be demolished. The proposed new
construction includes expansion of the Gottschalks department store, a drug store, a bank, various
retail shops, sit down restaurants, multi -family residential units, and two parking structures. In
total, the proposed project will provide for 230 multi -family dwelling units and 220,000 square feet
of retail. The EIR analyzes land use, aesthetics, traffic and parking, air quality, noise, geology,
drainage, hazards, cultural resources, and public services and utilities.
5-7
f
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
San Gabriel Center EIR
City of San Gabriel
While with another firm, Collette Morse managed and completed the EIR for the San Gabriel
Center project. The approximately 2.9 -acre project site is currently developed with 37,000 square
feet of commercial uses and one dwelling unit. The proposed project would redevelop the project
site with a mixed-use development consisting of 18,000 square feet of commercial space and 159
dwelling units. The proposed project would be a four-story mixed-use development, with three
floors of residential uses above one floor of street level retail and restaurant uses. Additionally, two
levels of subterranean parking for the residential uses and one level of at -grade parking for the
commercial uses are proposed. The EIR analyzes impacts related to land use, traffic, air quality,
noise, hydrology and drainage, aesthetics, and public serviced utilities.
4 5-8
0
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
6. Subconsultants
No primary subconsultants will be required for preparation of the Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon
Mixed Use Project, as the project applicant will be supplying all technical reports necessary for the
EIR which will be peer reviewed by TEC and City Staff for adequacy and compliance with CEQA.
v� 61
51
i..
i -
r
a
t
u
�
i
s^',S
t
s�{,y
r4RnF
i
'Y ' i. 2 ✓�.. Bei.
_
- `?h �l.
e
A
y
Ytte �_....
Stili✓ .Y:Si..
._.:i
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
7. Statement of Offer and Signature
The cost proposal for the Sand Canyon — Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project EIR is provided in
Section 5 of this proposal. The proposal shall be valid for a period of 60 days.
Deviations or modifications from the Scope of Work will result in potential re-evaluation of the
associated fees. Items not specifically stated in the proposal will be considered an additional work
item.
Progress billings will be forwarded to the City. These billings will include the fees earned for the
billing period. The City shall make every reasonable effort to review invoices within 15 working
days from the date of receipt of the invoices and notify Consultant in writing of any particular item
that is alleged to be incorrect.
All work will be performed at a "Not to Exceed" contract price, which will become the fixed price
upon completion of negotiations with the City Staff authorized to negotiate an agreement. The
total budget includes all miscellaneous costs for travel/mileage, reproduction, telephone, postal,
delivery, reference materials, and incidental expenses.
If the City requires additional copies of the Administrative Draft EIR, the Draft EIR, and Final
documents, Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. will provide a cost estimate to the City and
provide direct cost billing.
The budget provides a breakdown of our estimated cost of performing the services described in
this Scope of Work. The Scope of Work and its associated cost are based on several key
assumptions, including the following:
1. All aspects of TEC's proposal, including costs, have been determined independently, without
consultation with any other prospective Consultant or competitor for the purpose of
restricting competition.
2. All declarations in Tebo Consulting's proposal and attachments are true and constitute a
warranty, the falsity of which shall entitle the City to pursue any remedy by law.
3. The Tebo Consulting Team agrees to provide the City of Santa Clarita with any other
information that the City determines to be necessary for an accurate determination of the
Consultant's ability to perform services as proposed.
4. As with any and all agreements TEC enters into with an agency/client, if TEC is selected for
this and all other assignments with the City, Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. will comply
with all applicable rules, laws, and regulations.
5. The City will develop the mailing list for distribution and noticing. The City will be
responsible for newspaper cost of publication of notices, which will be billed directly to the
City, so they are not included in the proposed budget.
53
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
6. Photocopy costs included in the proposal are for the specified number of copies of
deliverables and reasonable incidental and in -team photocopying. If additional copies of
deliverables are needed, they can be provided with an amendment to the proposed budget.
7. Review cycles for preliminary documents are presented in the scope of work. Additional
review cycles or additional versions of administrative drafts are assumed to not be needed.
8. The proposed work addresses CEQA requirements of the proposed action. Work related to
NEPA compliance, Section 404 compliance, or other permitting processes is not included
(although these can be added, as needed, with a contract amendment). Work concludes at the
acceptance by the City of the final deliverable.
9. The budget is based on completion of work within an agreed upon schedule. If substantial
delay occurs, an amendment of the budget would be warranted to accommodate additional
project management time and other costs. Substantial delay is normally defined as 90 days or
more.
10. Costs are included for the number of meetings specified in the scope of work. If additional
meetings are needed, they can be included with an amendment of the budget.
11. The extent of public comment is not predictable. The proposed budget includes a reasonable,
preliminary estimate of time to respond to comments. TEC will consult with the City after the
valuation of the comments to determine if the preliminarily estimated budget is sufficient.
12. Costs have been allocated to tasks to determine the total budget. TEC may reallocate costs
among tasks, as needed, as long as the total budget is not exceeded.
Susan Tebo, President
i2
� x
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
8. Liability Insurance
Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. carries the necessary liability and errors and omissions
insurance as required by the City of Santa Clarita.
1
8-1
w
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Appendix — Resumes
- Susan Tebo
- Collette Morse
Appendix -1
r�
!t
n
4i.! COY
_vt
M
ir4 YJ
(.i
It=^
Y
r�L
)t
L
.:
,6
a
i h X
la
A
`
) -
x> G
S.W,
�Yrr 14
4
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Susan Tebo
President, Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc.
Education Ms. Tebo serves as President for Tebo Environmental
Master of Public Administration
California State University, Long Beach
Bachelor of Science
Environmental Studies, with emphasis
on Urban Planning
San Jose State University
Professional Affiliations
Consulting, Inc. Ms. Tebo has 30+ years of professional
experience in environmental review, resource management, and
land use planning. She has managed and prepared
environmental documents in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ms. Tebo is well versed in
environmental document preparation, agency consultation,
project scheduling, budget supervision and control,
subconsultant coordination, client contacts, presentation and
American Planning Association testimony before public agencies and private groups.
Representative Project Experience
• Served as Project Director/Manager for the Yorba Linda Town Center EIR Ms. Tebo worked closely
with the City of Yorba Linda and RRM Design, who prepared the Specific Plan for the project. The
main issues associated with the project included traffic/circulation, air quality, cultural resources,
and land use. The project was approved with no legal action taken.
• Served as Project Director/Manager for a Mitigated Negative Declaration for affordable housing
units located in Savi Ranch. Primary issues associated with the project included air quality and
noise. The project was approved with no legal action taken.
• Served as Project Director for the Rose Bowl Stadium to be used as a temporary location for a
professional football team prior to construction of the permanent stadium in downtown Los
Angeles. The EIR focused on impacts to traffic/circulation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, recreation, and public services. The project was very contentious and was litigated. The
court determined that there was no merit to the appellant's lawsuit and upheld the EIR. This
decision is under appeal.
• Served as Project Manager for the Mission Village EIA to develop 1,252.27 acres of property located
within the northeastern corner of Newhall Ranch in western unincorporated Los Angeles County,
south of the Santa Clara River and State Route 126, and west of Interstate 5 in California. The project
requests approval of 5,331 residences (291 single-family homes, and 5,040 multi -family units), 1.299
million square feet of commercial/mixed uses, an 8.97 -acre elementary school, 46.98 acres of parks,
public and private recreational facilities, trails, and road improvements on the Mission Village site
within the boundary of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
• Served as Project Director for the Robinsons -May EIR located in the City of Beverly Hills,
California. The project as proposed involves the redevelopment of the property located at 9900
Wilshire Boulevard. The existing Robinsons -May department store building and associated parking
structure would be replaced with 252 luxury condominium residences in four separate buildings,
approximately 19,856 square feet of commercial space fronting Santa Monica Boulevard, a two-level
subterranean parking garage containing a 949 parking spaces, and landscaped gardens and other
Appendix — 3
0
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
open space throughout the project site. The landscaped gardens would cover the majority of the
project site and include an approximately 0.5 -acre entry garden with public access fronting Wilshire
Boulevard. The project would incorporate environmentally sensitive and sustainable design features
such that the project would potentially qualify for the LEED Gold certification from the US Green
Building Council.
Served as Project Manager for the Fire Station 128 Environmental Assessment. The Los Angeles
County Fire Department applied to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for federal financial assistance (federal action) to construct a new fire
station (Grantee's Proposed Project) at 28450 Whites Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles
County, California. The assistance would be provided to the District through the Assistance to Fire
Fighter's Grant program pursuant to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The project involved the construction of a 7,040 -square -foot firehouse for general house operations
(e.g., administrative, training, dorm/living areas) and an approximately 2,960 -square -foot apparatus
bay for storage of four vehicles, including a fire engine, a paramedic squad, a reserve patrol, and a
reserve squad on a 1.34 -acre site. The new station would improve the level of fire protection,
emergency medical, and other life safety services for the Santa Clarita Valley.
All discussion, analysis, and findings related to the potential impacts of construction and operation
of the Fire Department's proposal (including identified mitigation) were independently reviewed by
FEMA. In addition, FEMA verified documentation provided by agencies with jurisdictional
responsibilities mandated by law. In reviewing the indicators of significance, it has been determined
the Fire Department's proposed project to construct and operate a new fire station and FEMA's
financial support of it does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment. Any identified negative impacts associated with construction and
operation activities for the fire station are anticipated to be minor and short-term. However,
adherence to local, state, and federal requirements pertaining to standard construction design and
operation practices would mitigate any potential negative impact along with the Fire Department's
commitment to obtain and comply with all necessary permits to minimize potential environmental
impacts. All preparatory site work facility design, and construction must comply with federal, state
and local environmental codes, ordinances and laws. Furthermore, the facility operation shall
comply with all state laws and local codes and ordinances.
Pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190), regulations
issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508), and in accordance with
FEMA's regulations in 44 C.F.R. §10 (2008) (Environmental Considerations) and Executive Orders
11988 (Floodplain Management), 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 12898 (Environmental Justice a
conclusion was reached by FEMA resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact. The action in and
of itself will not adversely affect the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will not be required.
This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the analysis and conditions contained in the Fire
Station 128 Draft Environmental Assessment dated July 2010.
• Served as Project Director for the proposed Beverly Hilton Oasis project in Beverly Hills, California,
which would redevelop and reconfigure the Beverly Hilton property through the introduction of 104
new condominium -hotel units, 96 new condominium units, 96 new hotel rooms, new hotel retail and
Appendix - 4
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
office facilities, a conference center, a restaurant, and outdoor landscaped areas. Project
implementation would remove 181 existing Palm/Oasis Court hotel rooms and 36 existing Lanai
Rooms. The three -winged Wilshire Tower containing 352 guestrooms would remain.
Served as Project Director/Project Manager for The Residences at Saks Fifth Avenue EIR project in
Beverly Hills, California, which will be analyzed in two different scenarios: development of Parcel B
only and development of Parcels A and B combined, Components of both projects would include the
vacation and realignment of alleys on Parcel B, landscape and streetscape improvements, open
spaces, architectural and security lighting, building signage, and necessary upgrades to utility
systems. As proposed, Parcel B of the project includes an approximately 99,500 -square -foot
residential development containing 40 luxury residential condominium units. Parcel A of the project
includes an approximately 87,600 -square -foot mixed-use project containing 20 luxury condominium
units and approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial/retail space.
Serves as Project Director for the Whole Foods Plaza project in Malibu. The Whole Foods at the Park
project would add to the range of commercial services available on Cross Creek Road in Malibu. The
6 -acre project site is in a key location at the intersection of Civic Center Drive and Cross Creek Road
adjacent to existing and approved commercial uses and just east of the Civic Center and the City's
Legacy Park. This new center would include a Whole Foods Market and four small commercial
buildings.
The site is designated for Commercial Visitor Serving uses in the City's Local Coastal Program
(LCF), and approval of a coastal development permit and a series of related discretionary actions are
being requested. The applicant's project team prepared and submitted a variety of technical studies
and information to the City for use in the environmental review of the project. After reviewing the
project and this information, the City has determined preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The project site has been previously disturbed and is relatively small. The proposed uses are
consistent with the City's LCP. Given the characteristics of the site and the proposed uses, standard
analysis of many of the potential impacts of the project is required in the City's EIR.
One aspect of the site requires special treatment in the City's EIR. The project site is located in a
portion of the City of Malibu where wastewater treatment services are not currently available. In
November 2009, the Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board amended the Basin Plan for the area
to prohibit the use of on-site wastewater treatment systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area. While
the City is planning a wastewater treatment facility to serve the Civic Center Area, the design of this
new facility is not complete. As this proposed project would be served by the City's planned
treatment facility, the City's EIR will need to include thorough analysis of the options for providing
wastewater treatment service to this site. Over the past several years a substantial amount of
information related to wastewater treatment options has been generated by the City of Malibu and
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. This information will need to be
incorporated into this EIR as appropriate to provide adequate analysis of the environmental impacts
of providing wastewater treatment services to this project.
• Served as Environmental EIR Coordinator for The Malibu Bay Company (MBC, Applicant) project,
which proposed land use designation and development over some of its 12 properties (together, the
"Collective Projects") within the City of Malibu. These properties are clustered into three general
Appendix - 5
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
locations: the Malibu Civic Center, Point Dume, and the base of Trancas Canyon. Development of
these properties will be governed by a Development Agreement (DA) between the City of Malibu
(lead agency) and MBC. The DA will establish and implement 20 years of land use entitlements and
requirements for the Collective Projects.
The DA will implement the land use entitlements and requirements for the Collective Projects,
which cover a total of 110.71 acres. Of this total, 78.60 acres are commercially zoned property, and
32.11 acres are residentially zoned property. The Collective Projects will add 290,624 square feet of
net new commercial floor area with an overall FAR of 0.10, and 20 homes. Portions of the sites
totaling 25.54 acres will remain as undeveloped open space. These projects are clustered into three
general locations: the Malibu Civic Center, Point Dume, and the base of Trancas Canyon. In
addition, under the Donation Agreement, MBC will give the 18.87 -acre Point Dome Site to the City
for use as a City Park, and will also donate $5,000,000 for the development of the park, which is to
include athletic fields and a 15,000 -square -foot community/senior/teen center.
While the total buildout will occur by 2023, most of the sites are planned for development by 2013,
within the first 10 years (Phase I) of the DA timeframe. Two of the sites, the Chili Cook -off and the
Small Island Sites, will be delayed for 10 years and completed between 2013 and 2023 (Phase II).
• Served as Project Director for two mixed-use EIR projects located a block apart and proposed by one
applicant in the City of West Hollywood. Both projects are located in the City's East Side
Redevelopment Area. Both projects are prominently located on La Brea Avenue, the City's eastern
boundary. The proposed Fountain and La Brea Mixed Use Project is a mixed-use residential and
commercial development that would contain 187 residential rental units (including an affordable
housing component) approximately 19,559 square feet of commercial space, at -grade parking, a
2 -level subterranean parking garage, and recreation and open space amenities. The project site is
currently designated by the General Plan for commercial use, and zoned Commercial, Arterial (CA),
The CA zone permits mixed-use development. The proposed Santa Monica and La Brea Mixed Use
Project is a mixed-use residential and commercial development that would contain 184 residential
rental units, approximately 13,350 square feet of commercial space, at -grade parking, a 2 -level
subterranean parking garage, and recreation and open space amenities. The project site is currently
designated by the General Plan for commercial and residential use, and zoned Commercial, Arterial
(CA) and Multi -Family Medium Density (R3C). The CA and R3C zones permit mixed-use
development. A General Plan Amendment and a Zone Text Amendment are required. The primary
issues for both EIRs included traffic, circulation and parking; aesthetics; shade and shadow, land use
consistency; and construction -related air quality and noise impacts.
• Served as Project Director for the Santa Monica Boulevard (SMB20) Mixed Use Project in the City
of West Hollywood. The project is a proposal to redevelop a commercial/retail site with 20
apartment units (including an affordable housing component), a 13,392 -square -foot drug store, 1,970
square feet of ground floor retail space, and 90 parking spaces located in a parking garage with one
subterranean level (project plan) Project. The primary issues include hazards due to existing on-site
soil contamination; traffic, circulation and parking; aesthetics; land use consistency; and
construction -related air quality and noise impacts.
• Served as Project Manager for the 292.6 -acre Landmark Village tract map site located in the first
phase of the River Wood Village within the boundary of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan
in unincorporated Los Angeles County, California. To facilitate development of the Landmark
Appendix — 6
�2
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Village tract map site, several off-site project -related components would be developed on an
additional 750.9 acres of land that, for the most part, is within the approved Specific Plan boundary.
The entire project site comprises approximately 1,044 gross acres.
• Managed the Riverpark EIR prepared for the City of Santa Clarita, California. Assessed the potential
impacts associated with the development of 695.4 acres of land for single- and multi -family uses and
commercial uses. The project consists of 1,183 dwelling units (439 single-family and 744 multi -family
units), a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial uses, a trail system (Santa Clara River Trail,
Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway Class I trails, and trail connections from the interior
planning areas), and a 29 -acre active/passive park along the Santa Clara River. The project would
also provide for utility easements (e.g., electric, water, wastewater), public street rights-of-way, and
roughly 442 acres of open space, which includes most of the Santa Clpra River. Buildout of the
project necessitates the extension of Newhall Ranch Road, (full grading, four to six lanes) including
the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road Bridge over the Santa Clara River, to the Golden
Valley Road/Soledad Canyon Road flyover.
• Managed the North Valencia No. 2 EIR project for the City of Santa Clarita, California. Assessed the
potential environmental impacts associated with the annexation of 596.2 acres of land and the
entitlement to develop the undeveloped portion of the annexation area (391.2 acres). The proposed
project includes development of 1,900 dwelling units, 210,000 square feet of commercial uses, a
15.9 -acre community park site, a 20 -acre school site, 4.1 acres of private neighborhood parks, 93.4
acres of natural open space and over 9 miles of trails and paseos. This project is located adjacent to
San Francisquito Creek and portions of the project site are within Los Angeles Significant Ecological
Area 19.
• Managed the Valley Street/Calgrove Boulevard Amendment to the Circulation Element of the
General Plan and Cul-de-sac Project in Santa Clarita, California. Responsibilities consisted of
amending the Circulation Element of the General Plan to remove the secondary highway
designation from a portion of Calgrove Boulevard and Valley Street between Creekside Drive and
Maple Street. The project will formalize the existing barricade condition with the installation of two
terminus -abutting cul-de-sacs to be located approximately between the existing barricades. The
barricades would be removed and no vehicular access to the Hidden Valley private gate would be
permitted. The proposed project was extremely controversial.
• Managed the North Valencia Annexation EIR in Santa Clarita, California. The project applicant
requested the approval of the annexation of 872 acres of land into the City of Santa Clarita and the
entitlement to develop the undeveloped portion of the annexation area. The applicant also requested
approval of a Specific Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 51931, a General Plan Amendment,
a Development Agreement, and an Oak Tree Permit, which govern a series of development activities
on the project site. Many technical studies were completed as part of the EIR, including a traffic and
access study, a master geotechnical/soils analysis, a noise and air quality modeling analysis, a
biological analysis, and a master drainage analysls. Particular effort was expended studying the
issues of floodplain management, biological resource management and conservation, population
and housing, and vehicular traffic access.
• Managed preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Woodland Community
(Greystone Homes) in Los Angeles County, California. The project requested development of the 15 -
Appendix — 7
5 -
Appendix -7
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
acre site into 125 single-family residential lots. Major issues associated with development of the site,
included traffic, drainage, and noise.
• Managed the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Emerald Square project
(Greystone Homes) in Gardena, California. The project included 159 single-family detached homes
along with 5 common areas and landscaping lots (totaling 164 lots). Major issues associated with the
project included traffic, noise, and energy efficiency.
• Managed a focused EIR on a proposed Middle School for the Manhattan Beach Unified School
District in Manhattan Beach, California. The topics analyzed in this focused EIR included
transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, and recreation. Key issues included the impact of
the loss of a lighted baseball field and central play field areas used by local soccer and baseball
programs, additional traffic generated by the project impacting the surrounding neighborhood, and
associated air quality and noise impacts.
• Managed the Warner Bros. Studios Main and Ranch Lots Addendum EBR for a three story parking
facility in the Burbank, California. The key environmental issues included impacts resulting from
changes to visual perspectives, traffic, and noise. The construction of the parking structure was
particularly sensitive due to its location immediately adjacent to residential units.
• Managed the Supplemental EBR for the San Marcos Landfill Expansion in San Diego County,
California. Key issues included geology, hydrology, air quality, and noise. Intensive project
coordination with many agencies included County of San Diego Department of Public Works,
California State Regional Water Quality Control Board, California State Integrated Waste
Management Board, Air Pollution Control District, and the County of San Diego Department of
Health Services.
• Served as staff to the City of Gardena, California, preparing numerous Initial Studies and staff
reports for projects located within the City. Many of the projects have been complex and
controversial, including a drug -rehabilitation facility as well as a casino signage program.
Ms. Tebo was also a public sector City Planner for over Il years at the start of her career.
In addition, Ms. Tebo is a regular guest speaker at UCLA Extension course as well as state American
Planning Association conferences.
Appendix - S
UL\
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Principal, Morse Planning Group
Registration
1996, American Institute of Certified
Planners, 12382
Years of Experience
28
Education
EIR Proposal
Ms. Morse is a recognized leader in policy planning, CEQA and
NEPA studies, and community involvement for both public agencies
and private developers in California and Arizona. Ms. Morse has
considerable project management experience on a diverse range of
policy, environmental, and private development projects, many of
which were controversial and/or high-profile projects, during her 28
years of working for private consulting firms.
B.A., GeographylEcosystems Her project -related responsibilities include analysis, technical review
UCLA and management of environmental documents for CEQA
compliance, staff support for public agencies, and assistance to
private sector clients in meeting governmental agency requirements.
Representative Project Experience
Mixed Use/Infill
• Alhambra Place Specific Plan Amendment Addendum, Alhambra (2013-2014)
• Duarte Station Specific Plan (TOD) and EIR., Duarte (2013)
♦ Vantis Specific Plan Second Amendment Addendum, Aliso Viejo (2013)
♦ 416 E. Las Tunas Boulevard Mixed Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Gabriel
(2013)
• Valley/Del Mar Hotel Projects Technical Analyses, San Gabriel (2013)
• Alessandro Boulevard Corridor Implementation Project, Mixed Use Zoning Overlay Mitigated
Negative Declaration, SCAG & Moreno Valley (2013)
• The Gateway Project Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, Temple City (2011)
• Centro Pacific Mixed Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Huntington Park (2009)
• Mission 261 Village Project Supplemental EIR, San Gabriel (2009)
• San Fernando Parking Lots (Mixed Use Projects) EIR, San Fernando (2008-2009)
• Fox Plaza Project EIR Riverside (2008)
• 231-265 North Beverly Drive (William Morris Agency) Project EIR, Beverly Hills (2007)
e San Gabriel Center EIR, San Gabriel (2007)
♦ Soledad Village Project EIR, Santa Clarita (2006)
• The Village at Redlands (Redlands Mall Redevelopment Project) EIR, Redlands (2006)
• The Shoppes at Chino Hills, and Chino Hills Community Park and Civic Center Project EIR
Chino Hills (2005)
• Uptown Orange Mixed Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2004)
• Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Mixed Use Project EIR, Beverly Hills (2004)
• Amendment No 1 to the Grindlay/Orange Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Cypress (2003)
aS Appendix - 9
cc�b
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Mixed Use/Greenfield
• Lyons Canyon Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Santa Clarita (2005-2006)
• University Village/Orchard Park Specific Plans Program EIR, Loma Linda (2005)
• Robinson Ranch North Program EIR Yucaipa (2004)
• The Colonies at San Antonio EIR, Upland (2002)
• Pueblo Serra EIR, San Juan Capistrano
Residential
• Mackay Place Project Specific Plan and EIR, Cypress (2014)
• Harmony 2015 Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2014)
• Park Villas at El Corazon Specific Plan Amendment and Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Oceanside (2013-2014)
• Mancare at Robinson Ranch EER (2006-2013)
• Hi Hope Ranch Supplemental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Oceanside (2007)
• Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 303 (SP303A2), Tract Map No. 33487 (IR33487), and
Change of Zone No. 7216 (CZ7216) Environmental Assessment Form/Initial Study, Riverside
County (2006)
• St. Cloud Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Oceanside (2005)
• Cypress Park Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2005)
• Cinnamon Square Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration (2004)
• St. Cloud General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Mitigated Negative Declaration, Oceanside
(2004)
• Grindlay/Orange Specific Plan Amendment and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2003)
• Nevis Homes 61 -Unit Condominium Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2003)
• The Olson Company 12 -Unit Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2002)
• CenterStone Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2002)
• Wicker Drive Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2002)
• Rancho Del Oro Village XII Program EIR, Oceanside (2000)
• Northern Foothills Implementation Program EER, San Dimas (1999)
• Rancho San Juan ADC Specific Plan EER, Monterey County
• Rush Creek Estates EIR, Marin County
• Emerald Village Senior Housing Development Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cerritos
• Pioneer Villas Senior Housing Development Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cerritos
• Center Pointe Specific Plan (SP. No. 255) EIR Riverside County
• Western Pacific Housing Mitigated Negative Declaration, Stanton
• North Star Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Riverside County
• Tentative Tract No. 37396 EER, Los Angeles County
�. Appendix -10
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Retail/Entertainment
• 13 -Acre Retail/Commercial Project (Northwest Corner of Katella Ave/Winners Circle) Mitigated
Negative Declaration (2008)
• Vacation Village Resort Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2008)
• El Centro de Huntington Park EIR Huntington Park (2006)
• Mariners Mile Gateway Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Newport Beach (2006)
• Addendum to the Final EBR for the Tyler Mall Renovation and Expansion Project, Riverside
(2004)
• Katella/Siboney Commercial Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2003)
• Walker/Katella Retail Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2002)
• EI Pollo Loco Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2002)
• Marriott Residence Inn Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress (2000)
• Westminster Gateway Center (Wal-Mart) EIR, Westminster
• Wal-Mart Development Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Industry
• Automobile Dealership at City Yard EIR, Fountain Valley
• Whittier Boulevard Car Wash Initial Study, Whittier
• Atrium Garden Car Wash Mitigated Negative Declaration, Industry
• Babies "R" Us Initial Study, Westminster
Professional Affiliations
• Commissioner, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) for Region VI, 2006 - 2010
• Past President, California Chapter, American Planning Association, 2005
• President, California Chapter, American Planning Association, 2003 to 2004
• President -Elect, California Chapter, American Planning Association, 2002
• Vice President of Public Information, California Chapter, American Planning Association, Board
of Directors, 2000 to 2001
• Conference Co -Chair, 1998 California Chapter APA State Conference, Orange Section
• Marketing Director, California Chapter, American Planning Association Board of Directors, 1992
to 1999
• Legislative Review Team Member, California Chapter, American Planning Association, 1990 to
Present
• Section Director, Orange Section, California Chapter, American Planning Association, 1989 to
1992
• Member, American Planning Association, 1986 to Present
oql_
Appendix -11
\Cl
Sand Canyon - Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project
EIR Proposal
Speaking Engagements
• Speaker, Being a Better Project Manager from Both Sides of the Counter, American Planning
Association, California Chapter (Visalia, CA, October 6, 2013)
• Speaker, CEQA/NEPA Implementation 6 Updates, Association of Environmental Professionals,
California Chapter (Sacramento, CA, May 8, 2012)
• Speaker, CEQA: Explained and Applied, South Bay Cities Council of Governments Livable
Communities Working Group (September 21, 2011)
• Speaker, No Shoe -Phone Gimmicks Here! Tips to Avoid CEQAINEPA Meetings with Your Attorney,
American Planning Association, California Chapter (Santa Barbara, CA, Septemberl2, 2011)
• Speaker, CEQA Trouble: How Little and Big Things Get You There and How to Avoid It, American
Planning Association, California Chapter (Carlsbad, CA, November 3, 2010)
• Speaker, You Be the Ethics and Judge and Jury, American Planning Association, California Chapter
(Carlsbad, CA, November 3, 2010)
• City of Carlsbad Staff Training, Reviewing Traffic Impact Assessments 6 Understanding CEQA
(Carlsbad, CA, February 3, 2009)
• Speaker, CEQA Jeopardy or Something Like It, American Planning Association, California Chapter
Conference (Hollywood, CA; September 23, 2008)
• Speaker, Developing Successful RFPs, American Planning Association, California Chapter
Conference (Hollywood, CA; September 23, 2008)
• Speaker, So You Think You Know CEQA.... Really?, American Planning Association, California
Chapter, Inland Empire Section Workshop (Riverside, CA, June 20, 2007)
Awards
• Comprehensive Planning: Large Jurisdiction — Murrieta General Plan 2035, American Planning
Association, California Chapter, Inland Empire Section, 2012
• Distinguished APA Service Award, American Planning Association, California Chapter, 2010
• Best Public Participation Program — Prescott Valley General Plan 2020, American Planning
Association, Arizona Chapter, 2002
• Distinguished APA Service Award, American Planning Association, California Chapter, Orange
Section, 1997
S
Appendix —12
F.