Bellflower City Council
May 27, 2025

14-K

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager

FROM: Brian McNerney, Director of Public Safety

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to award a contract to Emergency Planning Consultants (“EPC”), for the development of an updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 381.2 with EPC, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

DATE: May 27, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This action would award a contract to EPC, to perform all necessary work to produce an updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan satisfying Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) and California Office of Emergency Services (“CalOES”) requirements and concluding with formal approval by these agencies (the “Project”).

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Award a contract to EPC to update our Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 381.2 in a form approved by the City Attorney; or

2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Project cost as submitted by EPC is $182,000. A grant provided by CalOES will fund 75% ($136,500) of the Project and the City will be responsible for the remaining 25% ($45,500). Sufficient funding has been allocated in the Public Safety Department’s (“Department”) emergency management account to cover this cost starting in fiscal year 25/26 (Account No. 010-42222-2400).

o“ 01: BELLFLO
“ s a
"o ROWING TOGETk‘YFS t f t
1 Staff Report – Award of Contract – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan May 27, 2025

DISCUSSION

FEMA requires municipal governments to have a local hazard mitigation plan for public assistance funding eligibility. Local hazard mitigation plans describe in detail what threats a community is at risk for, such as earthquakes, flooding, droughts, or terrorism. The plan seeks to establish what actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks caused by hazards.

On May 28, 2024, the City Council approved the submission of a sub-application for grant funding with CalOES. This sub-application was approved by CalOES in October of 2024, and it provides funding for 75% of project costs with the City being responsible for the remaining 25%.

A request for proposals seeking solicitations from interested and qualified providers was released on February 27, 2025 (“RFP”). The RFP was posted on the City website and directly sent to companies. A total of 11 proposals were received and they are listed below.

PROPOSAL AMOUNT
Risk Management Professionals (non-responsive) $64,883
Witt O'Brien LLC (non-responsive) $113,410
Stantec Consulting Services (non-responsive) $126,900
Task Force Seven (non-responsive) $141,200
IEM International Inc. (non-responsive) $159,633
Dynamic Planning (non-responsive) $161,349
Jacob Green and Associates (non-responsive) $174,080
Constant Associates $174,701.70
Emergency Planning Consultants $182,000
Chloeta (non-responsive) $182,878.26
Integrated Solutions Consulting (non-responsive) $209,550

PROPOSAL ANALYSIS

After an extensive analysis of all bids received, the Director of Public Safety determined nine proposals were non-responsive. Of the non-responsive proposals, seven failed to include a description of the firm’s financial condition and/or did not include pricing requirements related to past similar projects, one included no examples of similar past projects, and one did not meet insurance requirements. EPC and Constant Associates were the only responsive proposals received.

Of the two responsive proposals, the Director of Public Safety determined EPC demonstrated the most knowledge and experience creating Local Hazard Mitigation Plans specifically for municipal level governments within the Southern California region.

EPC submitted a thorough proposal, is qualified to perform the work to fulfill the requirements set forth in the RFP and has numerous examples of authoring FEMA/CalOES approved local hazard mitigation plans. It is recommended to award a contract to EPC.

ATTACHMENT:

Agreement File No. 381.2
2

AGREEMENT FILE NO. 381.2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER AND
CAROLYN J. HARSHMAN, DBA EMERGENCY PLANNING CONSULTANTS

FOR LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 27th day of May 2025, by and between the CITY OF BELLFLOWER, a municipal corporation and charter city (“CITY”) and CAROLYN J. HARSHMAN, DBA EMERGENCY PLANNING CONSULTANTS, a sole proprietorship (“CONSULTANT”).

1. CONSIDERATION.

A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, below;

B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;

C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to exceed 182,000.00 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 “B,” which is incorporated by reference.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.

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 Ag reement.

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. While performing this Agreement, CONSULTANT will use the appropriate generally accepted professional standards of practice existing at the time of performance utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services. CITY will continuously monitor CONSULTANT’s services. CITY will notify CONSULTANT of any deficiencies and CONSULTANT will have fifteen (15) days after such notification to cure any shortcomings to CITY’s satisfaction. Costs associated with curing the deficiencies will be borne by CONSULTANT.

3 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

4. 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 “B”) 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 a ctual expenditures versus time to date.

5. NON-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments due and payable to CONSULTANT for current services are within the current budget and within an available, unexhausted and unencumbered appropriation of the CITY. In the event the CITY has not appropriated sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement will cover only those costs incurred up to the conclusion of the current fiscal year.

6. ADDITIONAL WORK.

A. CITY’s city manager (“Manager”) may determine, at the Manager’s sole discretion, that CONSULTANT must perform additional work (“Additional Work”) to complete the Scope of Work. If Additional Work is needed, the Manager will give written authorization to CONSULTANT to perform such Additional Work.

B. If CONSULTANT believes Additional Work is needed to complete the Scope of Work, CONSULTANT will provide the Manager with written notification that contains a specific description of the proposed Additional Work, reasons for such Additional Work, and a deta iled proposal regarding cost.

C. Payments over $182,000.00 for Additional Work must be approved by CITY’s city council. All Additional Work will be subject to all other terms and provisions of this Agreement.

7. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK.

A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees that it has:

i. Carefully investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed;

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.

4 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT agrees 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.

8. TERM.

A. The term of this Agreement will be from June 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027.

Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will terminate in the following instances:

B. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit “A”; and

C. Termination as stated in Section 16.

9. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE.

A. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this Agreement until:

i. CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 23 of this Agreement; and

ii. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed.

B. 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.

10. 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 the Manager 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. The Manager will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the completion of the contracted services.

11. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached Exhibits; this Agreement supersedes any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order in which the Exhibits appear below:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule

5 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

12. 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.

13. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. TERMINATION.

A. Except as otherwise provided, 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. Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease performance under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice. Except as otherwise provided in the termination notice, any additional work performed by CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be performed at CONSULTANT's own cost; CITY will not be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT for such work.

D. 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).

E. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated.

6 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

F. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for damages that might otherwise arise from CITY’s termination under this Section.

17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS; EXCEPTIONS; WARRANTY. Except as otherwise provided below, all documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT (collectively, “Documents”) under this Agreement are CITY’s property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of such Documents 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. CONSULTANT warrants that all Documents it drafts and completes pursuant to this Agreement constitutes original work. Specifically, CONSULTANT understands and agrees that use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools including, without limitation, ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing Chat, Google’s Bard, and Meta’s LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI), in the performance of this Agreement does not constitute an original work, i.e., submitting Documents generated by such AI tools to CITY and representing it as CONSULTANT’s original work constitutes a material breach of this Agreement, constitutes a false claim, and may also violate applicable intellectual property right laws including, without limitation, United States Copyright Law. Accordingly, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement as to ownership, CITY specifically rejects ownership of such Documents. CONSULTANT is required to indemnify and defend CITY to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law should it violate this Section.

18. 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 public 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.

19. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following:

i. Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save harmless and indemnify and at CITY’s request reimburse defense costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, or claims, of any character whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property resulting or arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s officers, agents,
employees, or representatives, in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct.

7 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

ii. Indemnification for other Damages. CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney’s fees), injuries, or liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance , except for such loss or damage arising from CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. Should CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of this Agreem ent, or its performance, 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 otherwise.

B. For purposes of this section “CITY” includes CITY’s officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers.

C. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive termination of this Agreement.

D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 23, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. CITY will have free access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities. CONSULTANT will retain such financial and program service records for at least three (3) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.

8 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

23. INSURANCE.

A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below:

Type of Insurance Limits

Commercial General Liability $2,000,000

Professional Liability $1,000,000

Business Automobile Liability $500,000

Workers’ Compensation Statutory requirement

B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of the most recent ISO-CGL Form. 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. Liability policies will be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and emp loyees 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 11 85 or 88, or equivalent. 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.

C. 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 renew the insurance for a period of three (3) years after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such 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.

D. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto).

E. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement 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.”
9 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT’s expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to Section 16.

G. Self-Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement must allow CITY, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-insured retention (“SIR”) and deductible of the policy in lieu of CONSULTANT (as the named insured) should CONSULTANT fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible is subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONSULTANT as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should CITY pay the SIR or deductible on CITY’s behalf upon the CONSULTANT’S failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, CITY may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONSULTANT for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by CITY due to the breach.

24. USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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:

If to CONSULTANT:

If to CITY:

Attention: Carolyn J. Harshman Attention: Brian McNerney President Director of Public Safety
Emergency Planning Consultants City of Bellflower
3665 Ethan Allen Avenue 16615 Bellflower Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92117 Bellflower, CA 90706
(858) 922-6964 (562) 925-0124, ext. 2532
[email protected] [email protected]

10 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

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.

27. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY’s conflict of interest regulations.

28. ☐ This Section applies only if box is checked. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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 Los Angeles County.

32. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws applicable to this Agreement.
11 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

33. 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 are two (2) 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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 Manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.

37. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties on any number of separate counterparts, and all such counterparts so executed constitute one agreement binding on all the Parties notwithstanding that all the Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. In accordance with Government Code §16.5, 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 electronic transmission. Such electronic signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

38. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.

39. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

40. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood, explosion, acts of terrorism, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties’ reasonable control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other.

12 City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 381.2
Emergency Planning Consultants

41. 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 CITY.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF BELLFLOWER CAROLYN J. HARSHMAN, DBA

EMERGENCY PLANNING

CONSULTANTS

_____________________________ ______________________________ Ryan Smoot, City Manager Carolyn J. Harshman, President

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Fee Schedule
13 CITY OF BELLFLOWER
AGREEMENT FILE NO. 381.2

EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF SERVICES

[BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE]
ㄴ

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
l A
Emergency Planning
Consultants
Cover Letter
April 11, 2025
This proposal from Emergency Planning Consultants (EPC) responds to a request from Director of Public Safety Brian McNerney to update the City of Bellflower’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). It has been my honor to have written more than 150 FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plans. Most importantly, EPC authored Bellflower’s 2006 and 2018 LHMPs as well as the 2017 General Plan Safety Element. Additionally, EPC updated the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and delivered associated training in 2018. In addition, EPC recently completed MJHMP Rowland Water District which includes the Bellflower-Somerset Mutual Water Company Water District. Also, EPC is proud to have received Cal OES and FEMA approvals on four plans under the 2023 FEMA regulations: City of Rosemead, City of Hermosa Beach, City of Monterey Park, and Town of Yucca Valley.

Hazard mitigation planning has been at the very core of “recovery planning” for decades but the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 elevated the importance of developing pre-disaster mitigation activities. Mitigation activities include projects, programs, and plans that assist with minimizing or eliminating threats associated with hazards. Since the passage of DMA 2000 there have been numerous case studies proving that the steps taken ahead to minimize and/or eliminate risks have greatly reduced damage and loss of life. Like wearing a seat belt in a car, mitigation has revolutionized disaster outcomes. Whether thought of as “insurance” or a “good investment”, there is no doubt that mitigation is the right thing to do. If that’s not enough incentive, federal regulations require public jurisdictions to maintain a FEMA-approved LHMP in order to be eligible for post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds. Additionally, recently there has been considerable discussion among other federal agencies about the future need for LHMPs to qualify for other types of post-disaster funding.

EPC maintains the outstanding qualifications required to conduct hazard research and mapping, facilitate a robust planning process, actively encourage public involvement, negotiate with the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) during the formal review process. and garner adoption by the City Council.

EPC President Carolyn Harshman has enjoyed two careers: City Planning and Emergency Management. Both careers required continued improvement in professional skills of research, data collection, mapping, stakeholder involvement and community outreach, technical writing, public speaking, training design and delivery.

Without a doubt, Emergency Planning Consultants is the subject matter expert in the field of hazard mitigation in California having written the most FEMA-approved plans in California.
15 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Carolyn J. Harshman is the sole proprietor of the woman-owned business known as Emergency Planning Consultants. The DBA (Doing Business As) is maintained through the County of San Diego, California and with client jurisdictions as required.

This proposal is valid for a period of one year and is signed by the sole proprietor of Emergency Planning Consultants.

This proposal recognizes RFP # PS-2025-01 and Response to Request for Information #1.

Respectfully,
MAX/“1"
Carolyn J. Harshman, MPA, CEM
President
Emergency Planning Consultants
3665 Ethan Allen Avenue
San Diego, CA 92117
Cell: 858-922-6964
[email protected]
www.carolynharshman.com
16 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Table of Contents
Part I — Technical Proposal
Introduction Page 3
Project Analysis Page 4
Objective, Scope, Nature of Proposed Program Page 5
Scope of Work Page 6
Methodology Page 12
Project Management Page 12
Assigned Personnel Page 13
Schedule Page 17
Program Monitoring Page 18
City Resources Page 18
Subconsultants Page 19
Consultant Capability Page 19
Alternative Proposals Page 21
Conflict of Interest Page 21
Sample of Work Product Page 21
Attachments
RFP Proposal Form
Exhibit A Insurance Requirements
Exhibit B Signature Verification Form
Exhibit D Sample Work Product (See flash drive)
Part II — Cost Proposal (separate)
Exhibit Cost Proposal
introduction
A FEMA—approved LHMP will continue to provide the City of Bellflower with eligibility to compete for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds which are made available to jurisdictions within ' declared area following a Presidential Disaster Declaration. Mitigation activities include projects, programs, and plans that assist with minimizing or eliminating threats associated with hazards. Since the passage of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), there have been numerous case studies proving that the steps taken ahead to minimize and/or eliminate risks have greatly reduced damage and loss of life. in addition to the incentive to access federal grant funds, the National Institute of Building Sciences in 2019 issued an update to its landmark report “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves”. The study analyzed the benefit cost ratio of a range of mitigation activities including mitigation planning and building retrofits. The findings revealed a dramatic return on . investment. For mitigation activities, every dollar spent _ _ . J yielded a six dollar return on avoided losses in the future.

E For building retrofits, every dollar spent yielded a four dollar return on avoided losses in the futur .

The planning approach identified in this proposal is considerably different than the approach followed by EPC since the early days of DMA 2000. The work now requires robust research into 3 17

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
hazard vulnerability and impacts, increased community outreach, vulnerability of assets to hazards, and integration of a jurisdiction’s governing documents. Since the release of FEMA’s updated Guide, EPC has made every effort to read, interpret, and update research and community outreach efforts to maximize the intent of FEMA new standards. In addition to the Guide and supplemental Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (Handbook), the EPC Team has participated in numerous FEMA webinars focused on techniques and samples of research on climate change and special considerations regarding the needs and vulnerabilities of the underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations. In addition, we have attended a long list of Cal OES and FEMA courses, briefings, and technical assistance sessions regarding the new regulations.

The Scope of Work will be accomplished by following FEMA’s recommended overall planning process: 1) Organize the Planning 5- ‘ -, ' Process and Resources; 2) Assess Risks and Capabilities; 3) Develop a - -;« -‘ i ii ”(in "a 11".

Mitigation Strategy; and 4) Adopt and Implement the Plan. Specifically, WW EPC will organize the HMP update into the following chapters: , ‘ '3 g > Executive Summary (English and Spanish) k - .'
City Profile Local Mitigation Risk Assessment (Hazard Profiles, Capability Assessment, Planning Handbook Hazard-specific Maps, HAZUS)
Vulnerability and Impacts (Social Vulnerability, Assets) Mitigation Strategies (Goals, Mitigation Actions Matrix) Plan Maintenance (including plan integration)
Plan Review, Adoption and Approval
VV
V
V

VV

Even though EPC has written more than 150 FEMA-approved mitigation plans, the new FEMA regulations put a burden on jurisdictions to design and execute effective community outreach materials and related activities. EPC stands ready to develop and facilitate the community outreach strategy utilizing the existing communications Bellflower resources including social media, press releases, alerts, newsletters, and public forums. EPC will develop and utilize content for all these mediums. Additionally, due to the sweeping changes in the FEMA regulations and the need for additional data, EPC has worked hard to revitalize the way we write plans to now include more charts, graphs, tables, and maps to enhance the user experience.

Proof of our dedication to excellence is the fact EPC already has four LHMPs approved under the new regulations. These plans include the City of Rosemead, City of Hermosa Beach, City of Monterey Park, and Town of Yucca Valley. Plans presently under review with Cal OES or FEMA include the MJHMP Rowland Water District and the LHMP for the City of Signal Hill.

Proiect Analysis
EPC provides government entities with emergency management consulting services including plans, training, and exercises. Over the years, EPC’s spectrum of offerings included plans - Emergency Operations Plan, Continuity of Operations Plans, Recovery Plans, and Hazard Mitigation Plans. Relating to training, EPC has delivered hundreds of incident command and emergency management courses to a long list of government entities. Exercises have ranged from tabletop to full-scale/field exercises for organizations ranging from small to large.

All that said, EPC now focuses exclusively on Hazard Mitigation Plans. Partly because we enjoy mitigation planning the most but also because the new FEMA regulations demand a high level of expertise and knowledge in order to write approvable plans. Although the regulations 18 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
provide solid guidelines, the formal review process with Cal OES and FEMA is like a “moving target" as rule interpretations change on a regular basis. A recent example took place on April 9, 2025, when FEMA issued an Advisory relating to the Planning Policy Guide. Specifically, FEMA is now waiving requirements in certain sub-elements in A, B, C and E that relate to underserved communities, socially vulnerable populations and climate change. That said, as long as a jurisdiction satisfies the PRT requirements, it is still free to include any other content it chooses.

Objective
The approach and plan writing will integrate the new
guidelines identified in Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide that became effective on April 19, 2023. FEMA has also
released an updated FEMA Plan Review Tool to coincide
with the new Planning Policy Guide.

Preparation of a mitigation plan incorporates all of the federal requirements relating to local hazard mitigation plans. EPC’s hazard mitigation planning approach has been perfected
since 2005 when the federal government first required plans Policy Guide . for local jurisdictions. Since that time great effort and time ‘ ""‘°°°‘ ., has gone into tracking the changes of “interpretations” by the ‘W ”mommy“ . regulatory agencies of the DMA 2000 legislation. Without publishing updates to the originating legislation, FEMA 9 FEMA instead has published guidelines and has amended the FEMA Plan Review Tool which is used to judge the
adequacy of plans. Understanding all the changes in
interpretation is critical to writing a plan that can go through the state and FEMA reviewers with only minor revisions. The State of California and FEMA have both made significant staffing changes over the past year resulting in more consistent reviews and fewer unjustified requested changes.

Recently, F EMA review staff have worked closely with state review staff to better understand the requirements in order to streamline the review process. With so many FEMA approved plans, obviously EPC clearly understands both the regulations and “interpretations" so goes into the review process as aligned as possible. All said, the key to an efficient and successful review is to be absolutely certain that every required component is clearly indicated in the plan.

EPC accomplishes this through the use of “milestones" throughout the plan indicating the exact FEMA Plan Review Tool reference.

Nothing can replace EPC’s years of experience and track record at facilitating and writing FEMA-approved Mitigation Plans. This experience has also prepared us for any unexpected challenges with other aspects of the planning process — Planning Team meetings, community outreach, facilitating the formal review, and participating in the adoption meeting. EPC prides itself on working closely with the City’s Point of Contact to bend and adjust to the content, format, and scheduling needs.

In addition to meeting all of the federal standards contained in the FEMA Guide, Handbook, Plan Review Tool, and interpretations from state and federal reviewers, the plan update will include language and findings required in California’s Assembly Bill 2140 and Senate Bill 379. 19 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Scope of Work
. EPC Is proud to have served as the City’s consultant on the 2006 and 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plans. Also, we prepared the 2017 update to the City’s General Plan Safety Element as well as the 2018 Emergency Operations Plan. In short, over the last 20 years, EPC has played an integral role in the City’s commitment to emergency management.

Task 1 Planning Process
The project will be supported by the involvement of three groups. 1) City of Bel/flower (FEMA refers to the host as the ‘planning participant”), 2) Stakeholders including the members of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, and a spectrum of other stakeholders as required by FEMA, and 3) the Public. The purpose and commitments are delineated in Task 6 - Community Outreach later in the proposal.

Planning Team
EPC looks fonNard to working with the departments represented during the 2018 LHMP planning process including the Public Safety, Planning, Finance, City Manager’s Office, Human Resources, Public Works, and Building/Safety. As participants are selected for the Team, it’s important to keep in mind that hazard mitigation focuses on regulatory controls as well as construction and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. » EPC will provide agendas, handouts, minutes, and PowerPoints for each meeting. EPC President Carolyn Harshman will facilitate each of the meetings. Only the Planning Team will be invited to attend the Kick-Off Meeting where the preparatory project details will be discussed.

Most importantly, the initial hazard ranking and stakeholder list will be discussed and finalized.

Stakeholders and the public will be invited and welcomed to attend all six (6) of the Planning Team meetings. Those meetings are. identified with an asterisk (*) in the narrative below.

All of the meetings will be delivered virtually. EPC maintains a Zoom account. Should the City choose a different medium for conducting meetings, EPC will accommodate those requests.

Additionally, should the City decide on the need for additional meetings, EPC will accommodate those requests. As an example, it’s common for a Planning Team to request a private meeting to discuss the status of the existing mitigation action items or conversations about budget- related matters. It’s also possible that the City may desire to hold public outreach meetings separate from the Planning Team meetings. To ensure accessibility to all interested parties, EPC will adapt the planning approach and meeting strategy to best fit the needs of the community.
- Kick-Off Meeting (2 hours)
- The purpose of this meeting will be for the Planning Team to meet for the first time to review the project approach, schedule, community outreach strategy, and an initial hazard ranking. EPC will share the proposed Stakeholder List and outreach materials for review by the Planning Team. Following the Kick-Off Meeting, the Stakeholder List will be utilized to announce and encourage participation in future Planning Team meetings. The same announcements will be shared with the public.
- Planning Team Meeting #1 (2 hours) *
- The purpose of the first meeting will be to summarize the Kick-Off meetings decisions relating to project approach, schedule, and community outreach strategy. Also, the plan goals will be discussed with consideration to the 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan goals. Next, we will review concepts and standards contained in the 2023 FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide, 2023 FEMA 6 20

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, and updated FEMA Plan Review Tool.

Also, the draft Mitigation Survey will be provided for consideration. Following any revisions, the Survey will be distributed immediately to the public and stakeholders in order to share results at Planning Team Meeting #2.

Planning Team Meeting #2 (2 hours) *
- The purpose of the second meeting is to finalize the hazard identification and rankings. A range of hazard resources including the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, City's existing Hazard Mitigation Plan and the City’s General Plan Safety Plan will be considered. To assist with the discussion, hazard-specific maps and HAZUS maps and reports will be shared and input gathered. Also, the draft updated Capability Assessment will be shared and input gathered.

Planning Team Meeting #3 (2 hours) *
- The purpose of the third meeting is to begin capturing the status of the 2018 Mitigation Action Items. The core of the Strategy is mitigation action items for each of the hazards profiled in the 2018 LHMP. This includes a total of 43 actions by the following hazard categories: multi-hazard (27), earthquake (4), dam failure (2), flood (2), windstorms (3) and drought (5).

Planning Team Meeting #4 (2 hours) *
- The purpose of the fourth meeting is to develop new mitigation action items — including new mitigation activities that have taken place since the 2018 LHMP.

EPC will work in advance of the meeting to review the City’s Capital Improvement Program and General Plan Safety Element to capture any mitigation-related projects or policies that can be included as mitigation actions.

In the event the Team is challenged to develop new action items, EPC will distribute a planning tool containing a comprehensive list of mitigation actions from a wide variety ofjurisdictional plans.

Planning Team Meeting #5 (2 hours) *
- The purpose of the fifth meeting will be to review the Initial Draft Plan. A copy will be distributed to the Planning Team in advance of the meeting. The meeting will provide an opportunity for the Planning Team to contribute to the First Draft Plan.

Also, this meeting will include a discussion on final preparations and logistics for soliciting input from the public and stakeholders on the First Draft Plan.

Planning Team Meeting #6 (2 hours) *
- The sixth and final Planning Team meeting will be preceded by the distribution of a summary of public and stakeholder comments on the First Draft Plan. The Team will resolve how the comments will be incorporated into the Second Draft Plan.

Task 2: Hazard Identification
The Mitigation Plan will be completed in compliance with the requirements of the federal government Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and FEMA’s 2023 Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. Building on those materials and other FEMA mitigation “how-to guides”, the following methodology will be utilized: ‘
0 Hazard Identification will be developed utilizing the City’s 2017 General Plan Safety Element, 2018 LHMP, and the County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (AHMP). In that regard, it’s important to note that Cal OES and FEMA will be .m I.

Local Mitigation Pianning
Policy Guide
21 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
looking for natural hazards since that is the purpose of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the category of hazard events that are eligible for a wide range of pre- and post-disaster grants.

Also, Cal OES will focus on whether or not the City’s LHMP hazards are aligned with the County of Los Angeles AHMP and the California’s State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). At that point, the Team will discuss whether they choose to add or eliminate any hazards. All of the ratings and discussions will be documented in the plan.

Task 3: Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment chapter will include a discussion on the “hazard identification” followed by an analysis of location, extent, vulnerability, and probability of the various hazards. Also, the prioritized hazards will be “profiled” utilizing information from the County’s AHMP and the City’s General Plan Safety Element. In addition, EPC will research contemporary hazard events, investigate changes in the risks and vulnerabilities, and outline impacts of hazards on the City’s assets. During the second Team meeting, the hazards will be discussed, and EPC will provide recommendations on a final hazards list. The Risk Assessment chapter will include EPC-produced hazard-specific maps and HAZUS-MH maps and reports (see below).

Hazard Mapping resources within the jurisdiction, state, and federal governments will be utilized by EPC to assist the reader in understanding the location and vulnerability to hazards. Hazard-specific maps indicating the City’s critical and essential facilities will ,be produced, similar to the one on the right from LA Metro’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. .{ . , . ,. Santa-young
‘ Mogmolns 3}
. N'F'QM‘” i ..‘ . .,
22 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
HAZUS will be used to estimate , » , W .
potential losses. HAZUS-MH (Hazards “h? d ”N". on“ "WW" "WWW" “”1"! United States-Multi-Hazard) is a ' ' ” 3 f“? M" "‘°"'"' "°"' ' '. software produced by FEMA designed
to estimate loss projections for
earthquake, hurricane, flooding, and
tsunami. EPC will prepare a minimum
of three HAZUS-MH Level 2 maps and
reports. The specific scenarios will be
selected in coordination with the Team.

The maps will indicate the location of
the City’s critical facilities. HAZUS-MH
utilizes data from the most recent U.S.

Census. That information is overlaid
with a hazard scenario (e.g., San
Andreas Fault). In the case of an
earthquake scenario, the HAZUS-MH
output is a map showing shaking ,,
intensities along with a detailed report _ L___;___;
on impacts on people, structures, - v .
infrastructure, and utilities. An j “mm I max-Inn earthquake scenario sample HAZUS- , _ ”MM“, - mmm-uw MH prepared by EPC is shown on the ' a tum-w» - “MW-“W _ ht - ”(14.11”, - V'htOl-lflflu) ”Q - - mm-uul - ““9”"! The Capability Assessment includes a list of the programs (departments, strategic plans, budgets, facility improvement plans), policies, and personnel available within the jurisdiction to complete the Mitigation Strategy.

The Vulnerability and Impacts Assessment chapter will specifically identify each of the City-owned essential and critical facilities as to hazard vulnerability. The Assessment also addresses vulnerability and impacts to other assets including people, structures, economy, and other resources important to the community.

The City Profile chapter will be developed using the City’s boundaries. More than just demographics and organizational structure, the Profile will reflect the history and unique characteristics of the community.

Task 4: Mitigation Strategy
Hazard Mitigation Goals will be confirmed during the first Planning Team meeting.

Hazard Mitigation Actions Items are the very core of the mitigation plan. The mitigation actions will be built off of the Capital Improvement Program, General Plan Safety Element, as well as ongoing mitigation activities. In addition to the action itself, the FEMA regulations require additional detail in describing the various action items. Each mitigation action item will be accompanied with a timeline, assigned department, goals accomplished, linkage to building/infrastructure, cost, benefit, priority, and indication of whether the action will directly impact underserved and/or socially vulnerable populations. The entire Mitigation Strategy will be prepared to comply with all contemporary FEMA standards. During the third and fourth Team meetings the focus will be on capturing the status of 2018 mitigation actions as well as developing new action items. During this process, members will be encouraged to think through the various hazards and come up with projects and programs that could be 23 PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
funded through the federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and other state and federal pre- and post-disaster funding mechanisms. EPC will present simple tools for ranking cost, benefit, and priorities. Prior to both of the meetings, EPC will prepare and distribute materials that will streamline discussions during the meetings.

Task 5: Plan Preparation and Drafting
Initial Draft Plan - Plan writing begins before the first Team meeting as the hazard overview is prepared and contemporary research conducted. Additional information for the Initial Draft Plan will be gathered during meetings and EPC research and presented to the Team one week in advance of Meeting #5. During that meeting, any missing information will be gathered and questions addressed. The information will be inserted into the First Draft Plan.

First Draft Plan - EPC will assist in preparing a distribution list for the announcement of the First Draft Plan. Emails will be developed by EPC and fonrvarded by the City’s Point of Contact to stakeholders as well as social media and other announcements to the public. Task 1: Planning Process identifies a variety of venues and methods for engaging the whole community.

Task 6: Community Outreach
Public and Stakeholder Involvement will be the backbone of the Community Outreach portion of the project and the options for involving the public even before the first Planning Team meeting. In order to comply with FEMA requirements, it is critical that individuals and organizations outside of the Planning Team have access to the plan during the “planning process”. The initial . . outreach will be developed and facilitated by em °F “55“” EPC in coordination with the City’s Point of LOCAL HAZARD Contact. EPC will create outreach materials
for use in social media, City’s website, and MITIGATION PLANILWI” public forums. These materials will include a " 1' ff» The Ch, of non-nun Is mm in Local scripted/recorded PowerPoint, Mitigation Wtflflmfi;fliil Survey, Flyer (with QR code to website), mm mffliw'lfltJiii - w- I 6 "MM Music's, press release, and newsletter articles. Also, 7;.» «mt-1.3““. I... lame m nu Iii-d I um“ In: and ptooeflv
mmmmflwmm My: EPC will provide all of the posting language and documents for the website including To turn MOI. Of "IV. questions interactive hazard-specific maps, draft plans, wmmdmmm" _ , _ panning, phase ruch out to Mandy the Planning Team meeting minutes and WOMEDIICSITflVSonervisorzit . 0f handouts, and all other preject-related “amalgam-aim“. materials. As for distribution of outreach SCAN ME,
materials, it’s of critical importance that the Please scan m. on me lo ' ' ' ' In Ight I it the URI. II led . ‘. Planning Team fully utilize internal resources “70;, ”WSW,” ,n‘m . _ to distribute information about the hazard survey.
mitigation planning project. The City ‘ ‘ .
maintains commissions, committees, and " ”I ‘
boards that meet on a regular basis with time dedicated to announcements. These public forums will be perfect venues for distributing information to a broad range of interested in the resilience of the City of Bellflower. Also, the E-Citizen newsletter will be utilized to spread news about the project and provide updates. The second community outreach will announce the availability of the First Draft Plan along with encouragement to provide input to the plan.
hitps //wm~ surveymonkey.comlr/HY3N5WB
10 24

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
0 Home and Business Mitigation will be encouraged to participate in the project with EPC community outreach tools:
0 Posting of EPC-produced handouts sharing :j:‘,;;”;";,‘;j‘;,";:
mitigation techniques available to residents and
businesses. Also, numerous links will be provided
for home and business owners to gather information
about retrofitting methods and other mitigation
techniques.
0 State of California’s MyPIan 2.0 is a powerful new
tool that empowers Californians to better understand
natural hazard risks in their counties. Designed for
both local government officials and the public, this
interactive application provides easy access to key
insights from the State Hazard Mitigation Plan's risk
assessment and hazard data used in the ,
assessment. The tool highlights the populations, equity-priority communities, state- owned and leased properties, critical infrastructure, community lifelines, and buildable areas across the state that may be impacted by natural hazards, such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes, and landslides. With its user-friendly interactive map, detailed charts, and downloadable data by county, the MyPIan 2.0 makes it simple to visualize hazard areas and evaluate risks specific to each county. MyPIan 2.0 was developed during the 2023 update to the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. 0 State of California’s MyHazards allows the user to insert an address (work, home, school, etc.) to see the proximity of a range of hazards. This online tool is a rich resource that will be promoted throughout the project. It brings hazards into a very specific focus on an individual level.
0 Once gathered information is shared with the Planning Team, EPC will facilitate preparation of an Initial Draft Plan. Following the Team’s review of the Initial Draft Plan, their input will be integrated into the First Draft Plan and announced to the public and stakeholders utilizing the website, social media, and other mediums.

Stakeholders will be invited to provide input to the First Draft Plan via mail or email including a link to the posted First Draft Plan. Next, all information gathered will be included and addressed in a Second Draft Plan that will be submitted to Cal OES and FEMA.
o In light of the City’s high Hispanic population (52%), EPC will prepare all outreach materials in English and Spanish. However, the Executive Summary of the plan will be the only portion in Spanish. There are no FEMA regulations regarding language but given high percentage of Hispanic residents, EPC recommends the sharing of outreach materials to ensure we gather as much hazard-related information as possible.

Task 7: Plan Review, Adoption, and Approval
. Second Draft Plan — EPC will prepare a FEMA Plan Review Tool to accompany the Second Draft Plan submission to Cal OES. EPC will lead communications with Cal OES to address any questions or concerns. Changes will be made as mandated in the DMA 2000 regulations. Once Cal OES deems the plan complete, it will be scheduled for meeting with the Planning Commission later followed by a City Council adoption 11 25

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
meeting. Simultaneously, FEMA will review the plan and issue an Approvable Pending Adoption. Final Draft Plan — EPC will incorporate FEMA’s letter of Approvable Pending Adoption into the Final Draft Plan as well as prepare a staff report and presentation materials for the City Council meeting to adopt the plan. EPC President Carolyn Harshman will be available for a virtual presentation. Following the Council meeting, EPC will toward the proof of adoption to FEMA. FEMA will then send an email and Letter of Approval. EPC will incorporate the Letter of Approval into the Final Plan. EPC will continue to lead the planning process until the Letter of Approval is received from FEMA and incorporated into the Final Plan. Altogether, the review of the Second Draft Plan will take approximately 4-6 months.
0 The Plan Maintenance chapter of the LHMP will include information on Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating which will include identification of the timing and tasks involved in implementing the FEMA—approved LHMP. While the Mitigation Actions Matrix itself will contain all of the FEMA-mandated and practical information required to implement, the Plan Maintenance chapter will outline the schedule and process for implementing the Matrix. The Plan Maintenance chapter will include an Implementation Plan for tracking progress on a quarterly/annual basis.
0 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms is particularly important if mitigation is to be achieved successfully. It's common for a City’s regulatory documents to be closely associated with many of the mitigation actions items. FEMA wants to ensure that the mitigation plan is not a stand-alone document but rather part of a comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation.
. Continued Public Involvement is another important component of the Plan Maintenance chapter. As with the writing of the plan, it’s critical that steps be in place to ensure . access to the plan along with an opportunity to comment on the status of mitigation action items, summaries of Planning Team implementation meetings, announcement of seeking/winning mitigation-related grants, and news of plan updates.

Methodology
EPC methodology is based on a dedication to continuous learning and improvement. Every mitigation plan is a mix of a community’s prdfile and hazards. This is balanced with the federal regulations and planning directives from the State of California. As each EPC mitigation plan is written it is tempered by lessons learned about hazards and recent interpretations by the Cal OES and FEMA reviewers. To ensure compliance with the federal regulations, the plan will include “milestones” indicating the location of required content. The project objectives will be met by following EPC rigid process of data collection, hazard research, meeting management, and mastery of the regulations guiding the development of hazard mitigation plans.

Although the plan’s approval is certainly the goal, the focus on the project approach is to create a planning process that will imprint and motivate the Planning Team throughout the implementation phase. EPC takes great pride in building a culture of awareness regarding hazard mitigation.

Project Management
As identified below, the EPC Project Manager and EPC Support Team will communicate at least once each week and any other time as needed. The EPC Project Manager will communicate with the City’s Point of Contact on a monthly basis or more frequently as necessary. The majority of the communication will be with the full Planning Team while special requests for resources (mapping, data, documents) will go to the City's Point of Contact. The preferred method of communication is email in order for the EPC Project Manager to maintain documentation of all conversations. Meetings will be conducted over EPC’s Zoom account. 12 26

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Organizational Chart
Bellflower Contract Manager
Project Manager
Carolyn J. Harshman, CEM
Lead Hazard Mitigation Analyst
Jill Caputi, CEM
Research & Mapping Analyst
Israel Estrada, CEM
Outreach & Graphic Design Specialist
Meg Lowe
Plan Writing Analyst
Megan Fritz/er
Assigned Personnel
The EPC Team selected for this project is the perfect balance of subject matter history, expertise, background, and local knowledge.

Name: Carolyn J. Harshman, CEM
Education: Master of Public Administration
Professional Affiliations: International Association
of Emergency Managers, California Emergency
Services Association, National Hazard Mitigation
Association
Professional Licenses and Certifications:

Certified Emergency Manager
Carolyn Harshman, CEM is the sole proprietor
Owner and President of Emergency Planning
Consultants and will serve as the EPC Project Manager and Principal Planner. Preparing a Hazard Mitigation Plan requires subject matter expertise in the areas of emergency response planning, hazard mitigation planning, mapping, and land use planning. With backgrounds in both land use planning and emergency management, Ms. Harshman is the right fit for facilitating the planning project. Ms. Harshman will serve as the EPC Project Manager to the City Project Manager and maintains responsibility for all aspects of the contracted services. Monthly status updates will be provided to the City Project Manager including budget and work progress.

Invoices will be submitted according to the terms of the contract. As Principal Planner, Ms. 13 27

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Harshman will lead the project by facilitating and participating in all Planning Team meetings, community outreach activities, the Planning Commissibn meeting, and the City Council meeting.

She will serve as the principal author and maintain quality control over the document at all times. Ms. Harshman will also manage relationships and work products with the EPC Support Team, ensuring quality control and continuous improvement by conducting weekly meetings with the EPC Support Team
Prior to working in the field of emergency management, Ms. Harshman enjoyed a combined 20- year career as a city, regional, and redevelopment planner for the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and Southeastern Economic Development Corporation. In her role as a land use planner Ms. Harshman prepared General Plan Amendments, Community Plans, Zoning Ordinance revisions, and conducted hundreds of community meetings. As a local government staff member for so many years, Carolyn is very familiar with the organization, roles, and responsibilities of government entities. Ms. Harshman began work in the field of emergency management in 1984 when she was hired as a hazard planner for the County of San Diego’s Office of Disaster Preparedness. There she updated the County’s Emergency Operations Plan and also served as the Hazards Officer. Responding to requests from other jurisdictions to provide consulting services, Carolyn began part-time work as a consultant in 1986 writing Multi- Hazard Functional Plans (now known as Emergency Operations Plans) and providing training.

In 1997, she ended her career with local government and established Emergency Planning Consultants.

Ms. Harshman has been a member of FEMA’s Emergency Management lnstitute’s Planning , Advisory Board since 2005, involved in each update to the Emergency Planning Course (6235).

Also, she taught FEMA’s pilot course deliveries for the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101. The revised CPG 101 regulations provide guidance on styles and content for emergency operations plans, placing emphasis on engaging the “whole community” — including those with access and functional needs, children, and those with household pets and service animals.

Carolyn has completed and teaches FEMA Master Trainer Program courses as well as a variety of other courses at the Emergency Management Institute, California Specialized Training Institute, and as an adjunct instructor at a variety of educational facilities. Ms. Harshman holds a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from San Diego State University and is a Certified Emergency Manager (CEM), as conferred by the International Association of Emergency Managers.

Actively engaged in professional development, Ms. Harshman was in FEMA’s first cohort of the National Emergency Management Executive Academy as well as FEMA’s first cohort of the Vanguard Crisis Leadership Fellows Program. Ms. Harshman is an active leader in the six thousand member International Association of Emergency Managers, serving as Chair of the Conference Committee, Chair of the Leadership Symposium, Chair of the Membership & Marketing Committee, President of lAEM-USA Region 9 (California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, and Pacific Territories), Second Vice President of IAEM-USA, First Vice President of lAEM- USA, 2021-2022 President of IAEM-USA, and 2022-2023 Immediate Past President of lAEM- USA.
14 28

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
EPC Support Team
Name: Jill N. Caputi, CEM
Education: Master of Science — Emergency Management
Jill Caputi is a part-time independent contractor serving as Lead Research and Mapping Analyst. She is responsible for hazard and demographic research and writing in support of hazard mitigation plans. Since 2023, Jill has assisted with the preparation of a multi- jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan for the Public Water Agencies Group as well as single jurisdiction plans for the City of Rosemead, Town of Yucca Valley, City of La Puente, City of Hermosa Beach, City of Monterey Park, City of Signal Hill, and Rubidoux Community Services District.
‘ Name: Megan R. Fritzler
Education: Bachelor of Arts — Liberal Studies
Megan Fritzler is an independent contractor serving as the Plan Writing Analyst. She is responsible for gathering information from the Planning Team and EPC Team required to write hazard mitigation plans. Since 2018, Megan has assisted with the preparation of IoCaI government hazard mitigation plans including three FEMA—approved multi-jurisdictional plans (City of Walnut, Mt. San Antonio Community College District, Walnut Union High School District) and City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City of Rolling Hills Estates) as well as a MJHMP for Sonoma County Office of Education. Also, single jurisdiction plans for seven jurisdictions including Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Name: Israel Estrada, CEM
Education: Master of Science — Emergency Management
Background: Israel Estrada is a part-time independent contractor serving as the Research and Mapping Analyst. Since 2019, Israel has assisted with the preparation of hazard mitigation plans for the City of Compton, City of La Habra Heights, and Sonoma County Office of Education (MJHMP).

Professional Affiliations: International Association of Emergency Managers
Professional Licenses and Certifications: Certified Emergency Manager (CEM)
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Estrada will lead the preparation of hazard-specific maps, HAZUS maps and reports.
15 29

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Name: Meg Lowe-Thibado
Education: Master of Arts
Background: Meg Lowe-Thibado is a part-time independent contractor serving as the Outreach and Graphic Design Specialist.

Meg joined the team in September 2024 to facilitate a robust community outreach while leading the creation of graphics, social media, and surveys.

Project Responsibilities: Ms. Lowe-Thibado will integrate her skills into all outreach and presentation materials. This will include creating texts, tables, and maps to improve the user experience. 16 30

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Schedule
Planning Process
Finalize Scope of Work
Prepare Stakeholder List
Initial Community Outreach
Identify Planning Team
Begin Update to 2018 LHMP
Hazard Identification
Prepare City Profile
>

<

Plan Preparation and Drafting
Prepare Initial Draft Plan
Community Outreach (includes
Planning Team Meetings)
Project Kick-Off Meeting
Second Community Outreach —
Mitigation Survey, Mapping
Resources and Home/Business
Mitigation Opportunities
Planning Team Meeting #1 -
Recap of Kick-Off Meeting,
Community Outreach Strategy,
Review Results of Mitigation
Survey
Planning Team Meeting #2 -
Initial Hazard Overview, Review
HAZUS and Capability
Assessment
17 31

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Planning Team Meeting #3 - -
Status on 2018 Mitigation Action X
Items
Planning Team Meeting #4 - New X
Mitigation Action Items
Planning Team Meeting #5 - X
Review Initial Draft Plan
Third Community Outreach -
Public and Stakeholder Input to X
First Draft Plan
Planning Team Meeting #6 -
Review Input Gathered from X
Public and Stakeholders on First
Draft Plan
Plan Review, Adoption, and
Approval
Submit Second Draft Plan to Cal
OES. Complete Mandated X X X X
Revisions. .

Cal OES forwards Second Draft .

Plan to FEMA for review and X
Approvable Pending Adoption
Present Second Draft to Planning X
Commission.

Conduct City Council Meeting to X
Adopt the Final Draft Plan
Submit Proof of Adoption to j - X
FEMA
Receive FEMA Final Approval X
Incorporate FEMA Final Approval X
into Final Plan
Program Monitoring
As identified in the detailed project approach and schedule later in the proposal, EPC Project Manager Carolyn Harshman will have eyes on the project at all times including facilitating each of the Planning Team meetings, the Community Outreach activities, and the City Council meeting. She will also be the sole contact for the City’s Point of Contact and will lead the EPC Support Team through daily communications. Her most important role will be as the Principal Planner as she weaves the work of the EPC Support Team and Planning Team’s contributions into the plan’s writing.

City Resources
The most common obstacle in the planning process is the lack of time on the part of the jurisdiction’s Planning Team members. EPC totally understands how local government staff are stretched to the limit. That’s the reason we take so much pride in “doing the heavy lifting". We do research and develop tools to make the planning process easy and hopefully even fun. In total, the Team can expect to spend no more than 15 hours on the entire project. There are 5 2- hour meetings and 5 hours will be needed to review the Initial Draft Plan and participate in the decision maker meeting. As for the City’s Point of Contact, more time will be required for EPC communications, information requests, participating in the Community Outreach process and 18 32

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
the City Council meeting. In total, the City’s Point of Contact can expect to spend approximately 30 hours on the project. .

Subconsultants . ._
EPC will not be using any subconsultants in this contract. Instead, we have engaged Certified Emergency Managers and publishing professionals who aspire to work as consultants in the future.

Consultant Capability
The steps identified above have been followed by EPC since the early days of DMA 2000.

However, the work required since the introduction of FEMA’s April 19, 2023, Planning Guide now requires considerably more societal research, community outreach, and knowledge of climate change impacts. Each aspect focuses on the importance of understanding underserved ' _ and socially vulnerable populations. Since the release of FEMA’s updated guide, every effort has been made by EPC to read, interpret, and update research and community outreach efforts to maximize the-intent of FEMA new standards. In addition to the FEMA Guide and associated Handbook, EPC staff will continue to participate in numerous webinars and courses focused on techniques and samples of research on climate change and special considerations regarding the needs and vulnerabilities of the underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations.

Below is the list of the more recent hazard mitigation plans (2020-present). Ms. Harshman either serves or has served as the EPC Project Manager and Principal Planner for each of these projects.

Cities of Rancho Palos Ver es and Rolling Hills Estates - EMA App 020 - Planning Departments
City of Compton — Fire Department FEMA Approved 2023
City of Covina — Police Department FEMA Approved 2020
City of Duarte — Planning Department FEMA Approved 2020, , PlanninLProcess 2025
City of Hermosa Beach — City Maflger’s Office FEMA Review 2025 City of La Habra Heights — City Manager’s Office FEMA Approved 2022 City of La Puente — Community Development Department Planning Process 2025 City of Monterey Park — Fire Department FEMA Review 2025 City of Rosemead — Public Safety Department FEMA Approved 2025 " City of Santa Ana — Homeland Security Department FEMA Approved 2022 City of San Fernando — Public Works Department FEMA Approved 2021 City of Signal Hill 4 Police Department Cal OES Review 2025 City of Sierra Madre — Fire Department FEMA Approved 2020, Planning Process 2025
City of South El Monte — PublicWorks Department FEMA Approved 2021 City of Walnut, Mt. San Antonio Community College District, FEMA Approved 2020 Walnut Valley Unified School District— Various Departments Jurupa Community Services District— Safety & Emergency FEMA Approved 2021 Management Department
19 33

PART I — TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (LA Metro) FEMA Approved 2023 — Homeland Security & Emergency Managment Department
Morongo Unified School District — Maintenance & Operations FEMA Approved 2020 Department '
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority — Planning F EMA Approved 2022 Department
Public Water Agencies Group — General Managers Cal OES Review 2025 Rubidoux Community Services District Planning Process 2025 Sonoma County Office of Education (Multi-Jurisdictional FEMA Approved 2023 Hazard Mitigation Plan) — Business Services Department
Town of Yucca Valley ,, FEMA Review 2025
The following are references to verify experience of working with and gaining FEMA approval on recent hazard mitigation projects prepared by Emergency Planning Consultants.

Reference #1
a. Name of client; project title, and address: City of Rosemead, 2024 Hazard Mitigation Plan, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770
b. Name and telephone number of contact person for client: Mandy Wong, (626) 569- 2168
c. Name of project manager(s): Carolyn Harshman
d. Project description: Update 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by EPC. e. Amount of original contract and actual fees paid by client: $45,000 f. Actual time to complete the process (from contract award to document completion):
2022-2024 (schedule impacted by release of 2023 FEMA Guidance) Reference #2
a. Name of client; project title, and address: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO), Local All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
b. Name and telephone number of contact person for client: Moniek Pointer, (213) 264- 0858
c.- Name of project manager(s): Carolyn Harshman
d. Project description: Prepared METRO’s first hazard mitigation plan e. Amount of original contract and actual fees paid by client: $83,200 f. Actual time to complete the process (from contract award to document completion):
2019-2022 (schedule significantly impacted by COVID)
Reference #3
a. Name of client; project title, and address: Sonoma County Office of Education, Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (included Office of Education and 42 school districts), 5340 Skylane Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 b. Name and telephone number of contact person for client: Bonnie Brown, (707) 524- 2605
c. 'Name of project manager: Carolyn Harshman
d. Project description: Prepared SCOE’s first hazard mitigation plan 20 34

PART I— TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
e. Amount of original contract and actual fees paid by client: $185,000 f. Actual time to complete the process (from contract award to document completion):
2020-2023 (schedule significantly impacted by COVID and wildfires) Alternative Proposals
EPC recognizes that the City of Bellflower has put a great deal of effort and thought into pursuing the grant and preparing the request for proposal. We believe that all the important aspects of an excellent plan have been addressed. Therefore, we do not have any alternative recommendations.

Conflict of Interest
EPC has no conflicts of interest with the City of Bellflower.

Financial Stabiliy
EPC owner maintains financial stability with no blemishes whatsoever. 21 35

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
AGREEMENT FILE NO. 381.2

EXHIBIT B – FEE SCHEDULE

item , ‘ , , J ., , . Estimated «UnitPrlee‘f Estimated r - No. 3 Task. . - -. .. q : ' - Quantity i -. . G081 = - 123$“ ‘ .__ -, ' ’ (hoursl ' '- ' '- 1 Planni‘ng Process $24,750 50 ' $250 $12,500
75 $150 $11,250
10 $100 $1,000
' 2 Hazard Identification $23,250
~ 25 $250 $6,250
100 $150 $15,000
20 $100 $2,000 1
3 Risk Assessment $35,000
70 $250 $17,500
100 $150 $15,000
25 $100 $2,500
4 Mitigflon Strategy $19,000
60 $250 $15,000
40 $100 $4,000
5 Plan Preparation and Drafting ‘ - $3°'°°°
50 $250 $12,500
50 $150 $7,500
100 $100 $10,000 .\
6 Community Outreach $30,000
50 $250 $12,500
50 $150 $7,500
100 $100 $10,000
7 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Review, Adoption, and $20,000
Approval
68 $250 $17,000
20 $150 $3,000
Tm“ $182,000.00
Hourly Rates:

Carolyn Harshman, CEM $250
Jill Caputi, CEM $150
Israel Estrada, CEM $150
Megan Harshman $100
Meg Lowe-Thibado $100
36