ATTACHMENT 1-1
FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
DATE: November 1, 2022
PARTIES: "CITY"
THE CITY OF BURBANK, a municipal corporation
Designated Official: Name: Patrick Prescott
Title: Community Development Director
Telephone: (818) 238-5176
Mailing Address: 275 E. Olive Avenue
P. O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510
"CONSULTANT"
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Representative: Name: Charlene Dekker
Title Vice President
Telephone: (213) 330-7259
Mailing Address: 300 South Grand Avenue, 10
th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
TERM: Original Commencement Date: August 10, 2016
Original Completion Date: August 31, 2018
First Amended Completion Date: August 31, 2019
Second Amended Completion Date: August 31, 2020
Third Amended Completion Date: December 31, 2021
Fourth Amended Completion Date: No Change
Fifth Amended Completion Date: December 31, 2023
COST OF SERVICE:
Original Cost of Service: $1,189,000.00
First Amendment to Cost of Service: No Change
Second Amendment to Cost of Service: No Change
Third Amendment to Cost of Service: $ 31,000.00
Fourth Amendment to Cost of Service: $ 111,000.00
Fifth Amendment to Cost of Service $ 130,000.00
Revised Cost of Service: $1,461,000.00
ATTACHMENT 1-2
THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is made and entered into on the date listed above (the “Effective Date”), by and between THE CITY OF BURBANK, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (the “Consultant”). The City and the Consultant are herein referred to, individually, as a “Party”, and, collectively, as the “Parties”.
1.0 Purpose; Definitions. City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated August 2, 2016 (“Agreement”), as amended by that certai n First Amendment, dated August 23, 2018, as amended by that certain Second Amendment, dated March 1, 2020, as amended by that certain Third Amendment, dated May 1, 2020, as amended by that certain Fourth Amendment dated September 28, 2021 collectively the “Agreement”) for Consultant to prepare the Golden State Specific Plan and to conduct the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Now City and Consultant desire to again amend the Agreement with this Amendment in order to provide extend the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2023 and to further supplement the project budget, to account for additional work necessary for completion of the specific plan document and the associated environmental analysis.
2.0 Amendment to Services. In addition to the services to be performed in the Agreement, Consultant, as an independent Contractor, agrees to perform during the term of the Agreement, each and every of the additional services set forth on the " Amended Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit A -5. The initiation of Service by the Consultant will commence upon receipt of a written notice from the Designated Official or Project Manager authorizing Consultant to proceed, and only to the extent of such authorization. The services of the Consultant shall include the making of all investigations, studies, and analysis required by th e conditions involved in each request of the Designated Official or Project Manager.
3.0 Amendment to Compensation. The total compensation payable by th e City to the Consultant as set forth in Section 3.0 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to a not to exceed amount of $1,461,000.00. The City shall pay for the amended services of Consultant set fort h in Exhibit A -5 as indicated on the “Amended Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit B-5.
4.0 Amendment to Term . The Parties hereby agree, as provided in Section 2.1 of the Professional Services Agreement, that the Term is hereby extended to December 31, 2023.
5.0 Execution Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts and each such duplicate counterpart shall constitute an original, any one of which may be used for any purpose without the production of its duplicate counterpart. Moreover, each counterpart shall be deemed for all purposes to be an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument, binding on all Parties hereto.
Transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, and/or other validated instantaneous electronic transmission to one Party of a true copy of a counterpart duly executed by the other Party shall constitute valid delivery of such counterpart, and shall be valid, binding and effective ATTACHMENT 1-3
for all purposes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the authority under this Section to execute this Amendment with an electronic signature shall be limited to a physical (“wet ink”) signature placed on a counterpart to this Amendment by a Party, and transmitted electronically as described in this Section to the other Party.
6.0 Ratification of Professional Services Agreement. All other provisions of the Agreement, not inconsistent with this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect and are specifically incorporated herein.
[Signature Page on the Following Page]
ATTACHMENT 1-4
In recognition of the obligations stated in this Amendment, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date indicated above.
“CONSULTANT” “CITY”
________________________________ By: _____________________________ Signature Signature
________________________________ ________________________________ Name (please print) Name (please print)
________________________________ ________________________________ Title Title
If Consultant is a Corporation or LLC, a Approved as to Form second signature is required. Office of the City Attorney
________________________________ By: _____________________________ Signature Signature
________________________________ ________________________________ Name (please print) Name (please print)
________________________________ ________________________________ Title Title
ATTEST:
Office of the City Clerk
By: _____________________________
Signature
________________________________
Name (please print)
________________________________
Title
ATTACHMENT 1-5
EXHIBIT A-5
AMENDED SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the following additional services for the benefit of the City:
Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) and High Speed Rail Station Area Plan, and Environmental Impact Report
TASK 1: Project Management, Organization, and Work Plan
Subtask 1.1: Partnering Session and On-going Project Management
AECOM will conduct a project kick -off meeting and partnering session with City staff within a month of receiving the NTP. The purpose of the workshop will be to gain an understanding of City expectations and goals; discuss the work plan, schedule, and relevant issues and concerns; review and learn about concurrent and related studies and plans; discuss roles and responsibilities; agree upon a schedule for ongoing meetings, and confirm appropriate contacts.
By gaining a clear understanding of your expectations at the project outset, AECOM will avoid rework and delays and deliver a Specific Plan and EIR that explicitly responds to your needs. The partnering session provides the project team a fo rum to share aspirations and establish relationships that will last through the life of the project.
This subtask also includes ongoing project management time for weekly check-in meetings, budget and schedule review, invoicing, and management of subconsultants.
Subtask 1.1 Deliverables:
• D1 – Clarification of roles and responsibilities
• D2 – Project Kick-off Meeting
Subtask 1.2: Work Plan
Within a month of receiving the Notice to Proceed (NTP), AECOM will develop a Project Work Plan (WP), which will provide a detailed breakdown of the team member roles and responsibilities, detailed scope of work, deliverables, cost, and an overall work flow chart with critical milestones, work activities, and relationships between those activities identifi ed. The WP will provide a road map for the project from start to finish. AECOM will utilize the WP as a living document throughout the duration of the assignment to monitor schedule and budget adherence, and communicate early, often, and proactively with the City to keep the project on track.
Subtask 1.2 Deliverables:
• D3 – Interim Report (Comprised of a cover page, the revised scope of work, schedule, and budget)
• D4 – Prepare Meeting Agendas and Minutes
• D5 – Project Work Plan
ATTACHMENT 1-6
Subtask 1.3 Technical Working Group
AECOM is aware and familiar with the multiple stakeholders and agencies with interests and authority over the GSSP and SAP. We will assist in the establishment of a Technical Working Group (TWG) to manage roles and responsibilities and coordinate planning efforts. The TWG will consist, at minimum, of representatives from the City, Authority, and Metro. Rather than simply presenting information to the TWG, we envision working with them in a hands -on fashion to develop draft materials and incorporate collaborative partnerships and sustainability goals. We will meet with the TWG at up to four key milestones during the project to receive input on early strategies, internal drafts, and public release drafts. The TWG briefings will be used as a sounding board to present ideas on the content and to solicit input on the plan direction and focus.
Subtask 1.3 Deliverable:
• D6 – Establish technical working group (TWG)
Subtask 1.4 Additional Technical Time
AECOM will perform additional technical work i n support of the Specific Plan and/or EIR development and adoption. Specific tasks will be agreed upon in writing prior to work commencement and will be billed on a time and materials basis up to a maximum of $41,100.
Task 1 Deliverables
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D1 – Clarification of roles and
responsibilities X X
D2 – Project Kick-Off Meeting X X X
D3 – Interim Report (Comprised of a
cover page, revised scope of work,
schedule, and budget)
X
X
D4 – Prepare Meeting
Agendas and Minutes X X X
D5 – Project Work Plan X X X
D6 – Establish technical working
group (TWG) X X
TASK 2: Public Participation and Outreach, Stakeholder Education and Engagement
Community engagement is at the heart of successful planning. While a sound technical approach is necessary to produce accurate, meaningful content for the Plan, the process used to arrive at key decisions is equally important. It is important that the planning process builds support develops social capital and extends participation throughout and beyond the life of the project.
Perhaps most important is that people feel that they have had an opportunity to have their voices heard and that they see their hopes, concerns, and priorities reflected in the Plan. The City of Burbank has already laid the groundwork for collaboration through the linkBURBANK planning process and other ongoing projects. The charge of this effort is to build on that strong foundational effort and create a platform for continued dialogue, partnerships, and engagement.
ATTACHMENT 1-7
Subtask 2.1: Public Outreach Plan
AECOM will prepare, within the first month of receiving Notice to Proceed (NTP), an Outreach Strategy and Engagement Strategy that establishes overall goals, messaging themes, meeting and community event schedules and formats, identifies stakeholders, outlines content for input activities, describes staffing and notification responsibilities. We will maintain the Outreach Strategy as a flexible, working document with periodic review of goals and results to refine outreach approaches.
Task 2.1 Deliverable:
• D7 – Outreach Strategy and Engagement Plan
Subtask 2.2: Branding/Messaging
AECOM and team member Selbert Perkins Design (SPD) will collaborate at an early stage with the City to develop a brand that unifies all associated materials, while conveying their unique qualities. Branding and messaging will be used for meeting and event materials, documents, and media communications. Branding elements should build on the efforts and messaging of linkBURBANK. Messaging, images, and graphic styles should form a related and consistent visual and thematic palette that runs through all printed and electronic products. In our prior work, we have emphasized the use of fun, simple, and accessible graphics, including a primary logo, along with infographics to convey technical information, icons to reinforce key themes, and messaging that relates the planning purpose to every day, quality of life issues.
Task 2.2 Deliverable:
• D8 – Outreach Materials and Graphics (One branding and messaging package with color palette, logos, and fonts)
Subtask 2.3: Online Engagement
AECOM proposes to continue utilizing the linkBURBANK.com portal and update with new layout and graphics as necessary (within three months of receiving NTP). We understand that we will collaborate with the City to develop appropriate content for the selected online tools. AECOM will also provide content for Facebook and prepare content for “e- Blasts” for the City to send out to announce opportunities to provide public input or when there are project milestones.
Task 2.3 Deliverables:
• D9 – Update website and Facebook page with new layout, graphics, and content • D10 – Prepare content for “e- Blasts” for the City to send out to announce community workshops #1, #2, and #3
Subtask 2.4: Stakeholder Education (Outreach)
AECOM will evaluate and research areas similar to Burbank that have or plan on integrating high- speed rail into their respective city plans. The focus of the session will be to share best-practices, case study examples, and other research that can be used to build support for the plan and ATTACHMENT 1-8
understanding of the importance within Burbank. The research will be shared with key City staff, stakeholders, and possibly City Council.
In addition, AECOM and the City will host one round of meetings with key stakeholders in the study area. Stakeholders will include local property and business owners, brokers , architects, developers, and any relevant community groups. The purpose of these meetings will be to uncover property and business owner future plans and existing activity, desires for the area, and on-the-ground insights. Brokers, architects, and developers will provide important market information, as well as insights about challenges related to existing regulations.
Task 2.4 Deliverables:
• D11 – Memo or presentation summarizing research of other HSR station areas • D12 – Attendance at up to ten (10) stakeholder meetings, agendas, and meeting notes
Subtask 2.5: Community Workshops
Workshops represent significant opportunities to share information and obtain structured input from residents. Our philosophy is that these meetings must feature interactive elements to engage participants and provide relevant, timely feedback for developing the plan and urban design framework. AECOM will host the initial workshop (of three total workshops) following the NTP.
The first workshop shall serve as a visioning and listening forum. Two additional workshops will be held at strategic milestones during the process, punctuating generally the development of alternatives and presentation of the preferred plan. AECOM will organize, staff, and facilitate all sessions, including scheduling and coordination, preparation of materials, meeting logistics, notification, and workshop notes. We will also make meeting content available online and work to leverage online tools for public engagement to ensure that everyone is able to provide input even if they cannot attend a community workshop. Because large workshops can require the support of 10 or more staff, AECOM has assumed that the City will provide at least five staff at each public workshop.
Task 2.5 Deliverable:
• D13 – Organize, facilitate, and staff three (3) Community Workshops, plus summary notes
Subtask 2.6: Briefings to Commission, Council, Staff Committees
During the land use alternative development process it is anticipated that AECOM staff will be requested to assist with briefings of the City Council and Planning Commission, as well as staff committees or key staff, such as the City Manager. AECOM has assumed budget for up to five (5) briefings.
Task 2.6 Deliverables:
• D14 – Powerpoint presentations and attendance at up to five (5) briefings
Task 2 Deliverables
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
ATTACHMENT 1-9
D7 – Outreach and Engagement Strategy
Plan
X X X
D8 – Outreach Materials and Graphics
(One branding and messaging package
with color palette, logos, and fonts)
X X X
D9 – Update website and Facebook page
with new layout, graphics, and content X X
D10 – B. Prepare content for “e-Blasts” for
the City to send out to announce
community workshops #1, #2, and #3
X
D11 – Memo or presentation summarizing
research of other HSR station areas X X
D12 – Attendance at up to ten (10)
stakeholder meetings, agendas, and
meeting notes
X X
D13 – Organize, facilitate, and staff three
(3) Community Workshops, plus summary
notes
X X X
D14 - Powerpoint presentations and
attendance at up to five (5) briefings X
TASK 3: Defining the HSR Station Area and Golden State Specific Plan Vision
Over the past few years, our team has come to know Burbank very well. Our work on the Burbank2035 General Plan and linkBURBANK has afforded us invaluable insight into the character of the Burbank community and its aspirations for future growth. Having this wealth of past knowledge and experience, we will approach crafting a vision for the future with both familiarity and renewed novelty to build on the success of past efforts and not to duplicate progress already made.
Sub-task 3.1 Station Area Visioning
Our analytical process is one of listening and discovering. We begin the process with an open mind and we establish a dialogue with all of the interested stakeholders, and guide the discovery process, all culminating with a clear set of agreed upon goals, as well as design principles which will frame the subsequent stages of our work. For Task 3.1, AECOM will work with City departments and the TWG to create a vision statement or set of principles to guide the development of the Specific Plan. This vision wi ll be vetted with the community as part of the second community workshop.
Task 3.1 Deliverable:
• D15 – Draft and Final Vision Statement or Principles
Sub-task 3.2 Land Use and Urban Design Existing Conditions Analysis
ATTACHMENT 1-10
AECOM will analyze existing land use and urban design conditions in the study area, including:
• Existing zoning and General Plan Land Use
• Existing urban form, including physical characteristics of buildings, site planning, setbacks, height
• Existing land and building uses
• Existing street and public realm characteristics
This analysis will be detailed in a Land Use and Urban Design Existing Conditions Report.
Task 3.2 Deliverable:
• D16 – Land Use and Urban Design Existing Conditions Report
Subtask 3.3 Urban Design Concept and Visualizations
AECOM will create an urban design concept for the district that highlights the overall approach to urban design, including street and paseo networks, public open space opportunities, approach to heigh and scale, mobility hubs, and setbacks. AECOM will review this with the City for one round of feedback and will serve as the basis of the urban design regulations in the Specific Plan. This task also includes the creation of up to two 3D visualizations or sketches of the Plan area or subareas within the Plan area for inclusion in the final Specific Plan document.
Task 3.3 Deliverable:
• D17 – Urban Design Concept deck
• D18 – Develop up to two (2) urban design graphics to support for the Specific Plan area including renderings, simulated illustrations, or vision graphics
Subtask 3.4: Physical Feasibility Testing
AECOM will perform physical feasibility testing of up to three parcels (or consolidated parcels) within the study area. This testing allows us to create prototypical development typologies that conform to the proposed development standards, such as FAR, density, height, setbacks, and open space requirements. Feedback from this testing will help to inform refinements to the development standards.
Task 3.4 Deliverable:
• D19 – Up to three (3) physical feasibility tests, including 3D massing diagrams
Task 3 Deliverable:
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D15 – Draft and Final Vision Statement or
Principles X X
D16 – Land Use and Urban Design
Existing Conditions Report X X
ATTACHMENT 1-11
D17 – Urban Design Concept deck X X
D18 - Develop up to two (2) urban design
graphics to support for the Specific Plan
area including renderings, simulated
illustrations, or vision graphics
X X
D19 – Up to three (3) physical feasibility
tests, including 3D massing diagrams X X
TASK 4: Multimodal Connectivity, Streetscape Plan, Station Access, Parking Analysis, and Land Use and Overlay Assessment
Subtask 4.1: Existing Conditions (Infrastructure)
The existing conditions analysis for Land Use and Urban Design will be performed as part of Task
3.2. As part of this Task 4.1, the infrastructure existing conditions analysis will be performed and summarized in a technical report. The transportation existing conditions analysis will be performed as part of Task 4.3.1.
Task 4.1 Deliverable:
• D20 – Infrastructure Existing Conditions Report
Subtask 4.2: Define Land Use Alternatives
In the previous linkBURBANK effort, four land use alternatives were developed for the study area, ranging along the spectrum between “status quo” (the maximum preservation of industrial land) and “maximum change” (truly leveraging the assets of transit and airpo rt-adjacency to position the study area as a precedent setting cluster of transit-adjacent industrial flex use). Our team will evaluate the linkBURBANK alternatives and develop a new or further as necessary in light of new/ updated information relevant to the study area and evaluate how they address and perform against the guiding principles established in Task 4.1, as well as the transportation, TOD, and streetscape strategies developed in Tasks 4.3 and 4.4 and the market demand analysis in Task
5.2. The development of alternatives will be an iterative process (performed in conjunction with Task 3.2) and based on engaging stakeholders at workshops and through other engagement opportunities. The alternatives will be shown as concept maps with companion table summarizing key regulations.
A development capacity assessment will be completed for key areas expected to experience increased development resulting from TOD or mixed-use designation. Capacity assessments will be modeled to determine estimated conceptual order-or-magnitude physical building capacity (in square footage for commercial uses, and number of housing units for residential uses) under the potential maximum development regulations. The assessment is intended to determine the reasonability of proposed maximum intensities, and w hether the maximum capacity can be reasonably achieved given existing site constraints. The assessment will be design to estimate physical building capacity without regard to other considerations or limitations such as off -site impacts that will need to be mitigated. The assessment will not address single-use areas such as residential, industrial, or hotel.
Task 4.2 Deliverables:
ATTACHMENT 1-12
• D21 – Draft and Final Land Use Alternatives (concept maps and summary tables of regulations)
Subtask 4.3: Transportation
Transportation and Land Use planning go hand in hand for the Study Area, with transportation access defining current and future land use possibilities and current and future land uses determining transportation needs. The Golden State Specific Plan area contains a rapidly evolving transportation network that matches its rapidly evolving land uses. While the GSSP area is quickly changing from an aerospace manufacturing focus to a media focus, its transportation system is also rapidly evolving from an auto focus to a multi -modal focus. This study will help determine how this transportation evolution continues, defining how the Study Area will be even further transformed when High- Speed Rail service commences. Our team’s approach to defining the GSSP transportation element is described below.
Subtask 4.3.1: Existing Conditions:
Our first step in defining transportation improvements in the GSSP area is to ensure that we have a current and accurate catalogue of the conditions on the ground today. While this task may seem simple, it takes a long-time exposure the facts on the ground in an area to truly understand how a transportation system works. Therefore, it is a huge asset to the City of Burbank that the AECOM team brings an intimate knowledge of the Study Area through recent involvement in the Burbank2035, LinkBURBANK, and Bob Hope Airport Pedestrian Bridge studies, amongst others.
This will allow us to build upon our strong base of knowledge in the area with any updates that have recently happened and ensure that there is an accurate overall picture of the transportation system in the area that is produced for this deliverable.
We will determine the current accessibility to the HSR station site and the specific plan area by active transportation, transit, and motorized vehicles. A field examination shall document existing transportation facilities that currently serve the specific plan area and the proposed HSR station area. This field examination should identify existing deficiencies in all modes of potential access.
Existing conditions review shall include the following:
Roadway
o Existing roadway street classifications, right -of-way and street widths, lane configurations, and presence of on-street parking for all major arterials, secondary, arterials, and collector roadways in the specific plan study area. o Average Daily traffic counts on up to 150 street segments throughout the City (City will provide counts for an additional 50 segments bringing the total street segment count to 200).
o Three (3) hour AM and three (3) hour PM period intersection turn movement counts at up to 50 locations (the City will provide turn movement count for 25 locations to bring the total intersection count to 75 locations). We will verify the counts taken against counts taken for other studies in the project study area to ensure consistency with other environmental documents.
o Average daily traffic counts on all Caltrans ramps located within the study area, and on freeway mainline locations identified as monitoring locations in the Metro Congestion Management Program that could be influenced by land use changes contemplated in the Golden State Specific P lan. AECOM is not proposing to generate original data from Caltrans’ facilities (doing so will require an encroachment permit). Secondary data will be collected from Caltrans’ Performance Measurement ATTACHMENT 1-13
System (PeMS).
Transit
o Inventory of all existing local bus, rapid bus, Metrolink, and other transit systems that serve the study area. Inventory should include ridership, hours of operation and frequency of service.
Active Transportation
o Inventory of all existing Class I, II, III, and IV bicycle facilities in the study area o Sidewalk inventory of all existing sidewalks and their widths within the study area.
Emphasis of this inventory should be placed on all sidewalks and other pedestrian paths of travel within ½ mile of any current or proposed HSR station, Metrolink Station, airport terminal, or parking facility within the study area.
Parking
o Inventory of all existing public and private parking lots within the study area. This parking information is cataloged in addition to the on-street parking identified under the roadway inventory, above.
Streetscape
o Inventory of all current streetscape improvements
First-Last Mile
o The AECOM Team will conduct a first/last mile analysis of the project area to identify linkages to the two Metrolink Stations, key access points, and destinations.
Our team will conduct an in-the-field walk audit of the station areas using the Metro first/last mile methodology and will examine the current walking and rolling experience. The AECOM Team will then develop a recommended pathway network that will link the stations to their surroundings. The first/last mile package will include a recommended network comprised of Arterials, Collectors, and Cut Through pathways, as well as a recommended district-wide signage map.
• Subtask 4.3.2: Define Future Transportation: While the existing transportation system already has many options in the Study Area, there are also a number of transformational improvements in various stages of project development. Many of these plans and projects are being led by AECOM team members, which mean that their implications and complexities can be easily understood and integrated as part of this project. The key state and regional documents that will impact Burbank HSR station deci sion-making are: the Draft 2016 Business Plan released by the CHSRA in February 2016; the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) approved by the SCAG Regional Council in April 2016; and any Burbank and airport -related transportation projects proposed by M etro as part of a Los Angeles County transportation sales tax measure on the November 2016 ballot and the on-going development of a 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). In addition, the CHSRA has identified three (3) alignment alternatives for the P almdale to Burbank connection that are in the environmental review process, which will impact Burbank HSR specific plan transportation and land use decisions. Locally, the City’s proposed Burbank Bob Hope Airport Plan to rebuild the 14 -gate terminal will impact transportation access plans. We will distill the effects to the future transportation network that are expected once these projects are implemented, with the end product being an accurate future model of how the area’s transportation system will function.
• Subtask 4.3.3: Develop Mobility Concept: Using the list of transportation improvements identified in Task 4.3.2, we will develop a transportation access scenario to serve the GSSP area and future HSR station. The concept will consider the following variables:
ATTACHMENT 1-14
o Proposed Land Use Plan developed in Section 4.2, along with consideration of proposed development and infrastructure phasing.
o Location of the proposed HSR station as identified in the three refined alignment alternatives being environmentally cleared by the CHSRA. While the future Burbank station remains generally in the same location for all three of the underground alignment alternatives, the Refined E2 option enters the station at a different angle and will run diagonally under the properties to the east of Hollywood Way. Interface of the proposed HSR station with new Burbank Metrolink station will also be considered.
o Existing and future transportation improvements identified in Task 4.3.2, including consideration of the revised HSR project delivery process and timing as identified in the Draft 2016 Business Plan, and evolving travel options such as Uber, Lyft, neighborhood electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, and other options. o Existing and future location of the Burbank Bob Hope Airport terminal and related access facilities. The identified access scenarios will balance between automobile, transit, and active transportation access to best leverage the HSR investment and other transportation investments for the City. For the Fresno HSR station, the CHSRA produced station-specific modal access information from their ridership model. The provided information was for opening year of the station and with completion of the Phase 1 HSR system, and was broken into auto (drop- off/pick-up, park, taxi, and rental car), transit (bus and rail), and walk/bike access categories. This information will provide a good framework for understanding how people will travel to and from the Burbank HSR station, with expansion to possibly include air access for the Los Angeles region’s first air -rail station. The challenge will be to change passenger airport access patterns from predominately automobile access today to more multi- modal access with implementation of HSR service and a new Metrolink station.
Similar to the City of Burbank, the CHSRA places a high value on non-auto access to minimize station area traffic and related greenhouse gas emissions. The Burbank Bob Hope Airport has a strong foundation of transit usage to build on with Amtrak, Metrolink, BurbankBus, and Metro bus service. Future land use decis ions and infrastructure investments can encourage pedestrian and bicycle access.
The mobility concept will be developed to reflect the following challenges and opportunities:
o HSR service and ridership changes – while the Draft 2016 Business Plan clearl y identifies how the Initial Operating Segment between San Jose and Bakersfield will be in operation by 2025, the plan is unclear on how future segments south from Bakersfield will be constructed and operated beyond stating that the goal is to expand “service to the entire route from San Francisco/Merced to Los Angeles/Anaheim by 2029.” Phased implementation of HSR service will result in increasing ridership and activity at the Burbank station, and the scenarios will reflect increasing access needs. o Supporting transportation infrastructure improvements, including the planned Burbank Metrolink station, changes to the airport configuration, future rail and bus improvement projects, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements, which may result in increasing multi-modal access patterns.
o Specific Plan land uses and development phasing, which will impact non-HSR travel patterns. In addition, development of the scenarios will consider a range of community impacts and benefits, such as but not limited to the following:
Fit with the specific plan land use and urban design goals Adjacent community benefits and impacts
Resulting quality of passenger, visitor, employee, and resident experience.
ATTACHMENT 1-15
Modal access breakdown goals
Traffic and roadway impacts
Implementation feasibility – cost and funding availability (even if not secured).
The mobility concept will be presented in text and graphic format suitable to present to elected officials, stakeholders, and the public. Each scenario will consider two levels of transportation improvement funding: 1) constrained reflecting committed and planned funding sources identified in the HSR Burbank station plans, SCAG 2016 RTP, Metrolink plans, the Metro LRTP, City of Burbank plans, Burbank Bob Hope Airport plans, BurbankBus service plans, and other plans to be identified; and 2) unconstrained with funding sources to be identified, such as those available from the CHSRA, future sales tax measures, infrastructure districts, transit districts, additional state or federal transportation investment, private sector investment, and other outside funding.
The AECOM team has a great set of potential access scenarios to build off from their work formulating a transportation vision for the area as part of the linkBURBANK study. For that work, the AECOM team also formulated four access scenarios for the station area, with a focus on both local and regional connections, and all potential modes. Key features of the scenarios that will be relevant for this work include:
Terminal Connections: Both the existing terminal location and the replacement terminal location were considered in the linkBURBANK study. The proposed replacement terminal would be located closer to the proposed Hollywood Way Metrolink Station and HSR station, but further from the current Bob Hope Airport Metrolink/Amtrak Station and the new RITC. Bus and APM connection options from the terminals to the GSSP area and key transit hubs were analyzed in the linkBURBANK study.
Roadways: The Metrolink Antelope Valley Line and Ventura County Line tracks act as a barrier to the north, east and south of the GSSP area (with Bob Hope Airport acting as a barrier to the west). New roadway connections across the tracks, especially in the Buena Vista/Winona area, the Buena Vista/ Vanowen, and Clybourn/Vanowen areas can greatly assist auto access into the Study Area.
Regional Transit Connections: Connections to the Metro bus and rail system at North Hollywood and in Pasadena will greatly assist transit access into the GSSP area. An all-day bus connection from North Hollywood to the GSSP area has already been implemented by Burbank bus, and an enhanced connection from North Hollywood to Pasadena has recently been implemented by Metro. LinkBURBANK looked at further enhancements, to connect the GSSP area to NoHo and Pasadena, including Metro Orange Line and Red Line extensions and new BRT and LRT service to the east.
Transit Schedules/Headways: While there are two major commuter and regional rail corridors running past the GSSP area and a larg e number of BurbankBus and Metro bus lines, their schedules don’t always serve the needs of travelers in the area. The Metrolink schedule is especially constrained, with most service in the peak hours and peak directions (into downtown Los Angeles). Modified schedules were considered as part of the linkBURBANK study to better provide reliable transit service throughout the day, with modified Metrolink Antelope Valley Line operations already being implemented to better serve that corridor.
Active Transportation Connections: There is a basic sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure already in the GSSP area. LinkBURBANK looked at building on top of this base with new streetscapes, better bike/ped connections across major barriers such as the two rail lines, and ATTACHMENT 1-16
revised land uses which are better suited for bike/ped trips.
Task 4.3 Deliverables:
• D22 – Transportation Existing Conditions Report (including Define Future Transportation) • D23 – Mobility Concept
Subtask 4.4: Transportation Analysis
The City of Burbank has been working with a separate consultant (Fehr & Peers) on developing a new citywide travel demand forecasting model that incorporates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and other relevant updates for use in general transportation planning. AECOM has been coordinating with the City and Fehr & Peers on providing additional GSSP-specific information to finalize the new model, including land use assumptions for the GSSP plan area and the HSR station parcels and ridership assumptions for the HSR station. Through these coordination efforts, AECOM understands that the final model being developed by Fehr & Peers and to be provided to AECOM for transportation-related analysis of the GSSP will incorporate the effects of HSR, GSSP, the concurrent Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan, and other future land use and transportation plans and projects that would be relevant for GSSP or the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan. As such, adjustments to the City’s travel demand forecasting model as originally assumed in the approved scope, including research for and development of GSSP-specific trip generation rates (originally Subtask 4.4.1: Develop TOD- Specific Trip Generations Rates) and updates to the model’s roadway network (originally Subtask
4.4.5: Burbank TDM Model Update), are no longer necessary.
Subtask 4.4.1: Travel Market Analysis
AECOM will evaluate the travel markets of existing and future transportation and land use scenarios to determine the effectiveness of TOD, including current trip patterns, transit usage, bicycle and pedestrian access and collisions, TDM, and parking. We will identify the current and future trips to and from the TOD area by all modes and for various purposes (all trips versus work trips). Transit usage will be evaluated using Metro and Metrolink data from passenger surveys, boarding/alighting, and ticket sales. Additionally, we will identify major employment destinations and trip generators under existing and future conditions utilizing the Southern California Association of Government’s socio-economic data. Worker trips patterns will be evaluated using the U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics survey. Bike and pedestrian access to and from the TOD area will be evaluated based on the existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure available, collision data (from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System), and bicycle and pedestrian access plans. The results of the travel market analysis will be presented in a series of maps and graphic illustrations to convey information in a clear and compelling way as part of the Transportation Analysis Report.
Subtask 4.4.2: Parking Policy Review and Recommendations In order to inform new Specific Plan parking standards or modifications to citywide standards, AECOM will first review existing City parking standards, in comparison with other similar cities, as well as best practices for TOD areas. This step will assist in identifying standards that may impede future development or would result in over-parking within the area. AECOM will also analyze the feasibility of parking strategies intended to make more efficient use of parking supply, such as shared parking, valet programs, and “Park Once” programs. AECOM will then propose parking standards for key uses expected to develop in the area, as well as provide parking policy recommendations. Note that a parking supply and demand inventory of the study area will not be performed as part of this task.
ATTACHMENT 1-17
Subtask 4.4.3: Transportation Demand Management Recommendations AECOM will review the City’s existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and Transportation Management Organization (TMO) practices, in addition to TDM best practices.
Following this review, AECOM will identify opportunities for trip reduction within the study area, as well as potential enhancement or improvements to the City’s TDM and TMO programs. In addition, AECOM will work with the City to identify a “Transit Priority Area” as defined by SB 743 and identify potential methods for incentivizing developers to build active transportation infrastructure.
Subtask 4.4.4: Analyze Scenarios
The GSSP effort will develop two land use alternatives: Alternative 1 (Balanced Approach) and Alternative 2 (Housing Priority). It is assumed that the City and Fehr & Peers will provide one travel demand model for the whichever is the “preferred” alternative for GSSP (as this will be the same model carried over for use in the analysis of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan). For the remaining GSSP land use alternative, AECOM will prepare a separate, modified version of the model to allow both GSSP land use alternatives to be evaluated on equal footing for the purposes of the CEQA analysis.
The evaluation of the scenarios will include the City’s existing LOS performance measures using post-processed travel demand model turn movement volumes at the 30 identified study intersections, and the City’s new Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds developed by Fehr & Peers. The traffic data for the 30 study intersections will be obtained from the City. The study intersections will be analyzed with Synchro software using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies.
Based on direction from the City, the selected study intersections are listed and mapped below.
Please note that the locations indicated with red or green circles are study intersections. The location shown in orange will not be studied because there is no turning movement count data available, and the North Hollywood Way / West Magnolia Boulevard location will be analyzed instead.
1. North Clybourn Avenue (SCRRA Grade Crossing / West Empire Avenue) / Vanowen Street
2. North San Fernando Boulevard (West) / Cohasset Street
3. North Hollywood Way / Tulare Avenue
4. North Hollywood Way / Winona Avenue
5. North Hollywood Way / Thornton Avenue
6. North Hollywood Way / Avon Avenue
7. North Avon Street / West Empire Avenue
8. North Hollywood Way / West Victory Boulevard
9. North Hollywood Way / West Burbank Boulevard / North Cordova Street
10. North Hollywood Way / West Magnolia Boulevard
11. North Ontario Street / Winona Avenue
12. North Ontario Street / Thornton Avenue
13. North Ontario Street / West Empire Avenue
14. North San Fernando Boulevard (East) (Little San Fernando Boulevard) / I-5 Southbound Ramps
15. North San Fernando Boulevard (West) / Winona Avenue
16. North Buena Vista Street / North Glenoaks Boulevard
17. North Buena Vista Street / I-5 Northbound Ramps
18. North Buena Vista Street / Winona Avenue
19. North Buena Vista Street / North San Fernando Boulevard ATTACHMENT 1-18
20. North Buena Vista Street / Thornton Avenue
21. North Buena Vista Street / West Empire Avenue
22. North Buena Vista Street / Vanowen Street
23. North Buena Vista Street / West Victory Boulevard
24. North Buena Vista Street / West Burbank Boulevard
25. North Lincoln Street / North San Fernando Boulevard / North Victory Place
26. North Lincoln Street / West Empire Avenue
27. I-5 Southbound Ramps / West Empire Avenue
28. I-5 Northbound Ramps / West Empire Avenue
29. North Victory Boulevard / West Burbank Boulevard / North Victory Place
30. North Victory Boulevard / West Magnolia Boulevard
VMT will be estimated using the City’s new travel demand forecasting model.
For the “Burbank Housing Element Update Transportation Assessment”, City staff have determined a set of three VMT significance thresholds to apply in the Housing Element Update Project, consistent with standard Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance (see below). For the GSSP analysis, however, baselines will be estimated based on existing citywide averages instead of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) regional model.
ATTACHMENT 1-19
• Threshold 1 - VMT per Capita: The Project’s VMT per capita must not exceed 15 percent below the baseline citywide average VMT per capita.
• Threshold 2 - VMT per Employee: The Project’s VMT per employee must not exceed 15 percent below the baseline citywide average VMT per employee.
• Threshold 3 - Total VMT per Service Population: The Project’s total VMT per service population must not exceed 15 percent below the baseline citywide average total VMT per service population. Total of resident population and employees within the project area would be used to estimate the service population. VMT due to all resident and employee plus other trip types including visitor and freight trips would be used for the VMT calculation.
Subtask 4.4.5: Streetscape Framework and Sidewalk Minimums The Streetscape Framework task will start with a review of the City’s Complete Streets cross- sections for typical street types in the City. AECOM will work with the City to determine the appropriateness of the citywide standards to streets within the GSSP area. In some cases, AECOM may recommend sidewalk cross-sections that differ from citywide standards in order to enable a more robust public realm. If custom cross-sections are recommended, AECOM will produce new prototypical cross sections for relevant corridors. AECOM will also create a map of recommended sidewalk minimum widths within the GSSP area, which will serve as a foundation for public realm standards in the Specific Plan.
Task 4.4 Deliverables:
• D24 – Updated Travel Demand Model for Each GSSP Land Use Alternative • D25 – Transportation Analysis Report (including Travel Market) • D26 – Parking Recommendations Memo
• D27 – Transportation Demand Management Recommendations Memo • D28 – Streetscape Framework and Sidewalk Minimum Widths Map • D29 – First Last Mile Analysis
Subtask 4.5: Select a Preferred Strategy
AECOM, under guidance from the City, will select a preferred mobility strategy that represents the overall approach to mobility improvements in the study area in map form, which can be used in the Specific Plan and to communicate the mobility strategy with the public.
Task 4.5 Deliverables:
• D30 – Preferred Transportation Strategy map
Subtask 4.6: Health Risk Assessment
Since the GSSP would include industrial, commercial and residential land uses, as well as be located near Bob Hope Airport, the UPRR rail line, and/or major freeways or arterials, the project has the potential to result in health risks for sensitive receptors in the planning area. AECOM will provide health risk assessment (HRA) services to the City of Burbank to evaluate risks for sensitive land uses ATTACHMENT 1-20
within the GSSP area. This will be incorporated into the environmental documentation and mitigations will be identified, if necessary. AECOM will evaluate available feasible mitigation measures for future development and provide screening tables and buffer zone requirements for various sensitive land uses and activity rates. In addition to the guidance prescribed by California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, as referenced in the General Plan and the RFP.AECOM will consult with the City to determine the overall scope and approach to evaluate health risks within the planning area.
Task 4.6 Deliverable:
• D31 – Health Risk Assessment
Task 4 Deliverables
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D20 – Infrastructure Existing Conditions
Report X
D21 – Draft and Final Land Use Alternatives
(concept maps and summary tables of
regulations)
X X X
D22 – Transportation Existing Conditions
Report (including Define Future
Transportation)
X X
D23 – Mobility Concept X X X
D24 – Updated Travel Demand Model for
Each GSSP Land Use Alternative X
D25 – Transportation Analysis Report
(including Travel Market) X X X
D26 – Parking Recommendations Memo X X X
D27 – Transportation Demand Management
Recommendations Memo X
D28 – Streetscape Framework and Sidewalk
Minimum Widths Map X X
D29 – First Last Mile Analysis
D30 – Preferred Land Use and Transportation
Strategy X X X
D31 – Health Risk Assessment X
TASK 5: Economic, Real Estate, Fiscal and Financial Planning
Subtask 5.1: Economic Development Existing Conditions
Our team will review and build on the economic analysis conducted via linkBURBANK. Specifically, we will review the area characteristics and focus on existing land uses, newer developments, proposed projects and also pay particular attention to the businesses located within and adjacent to the project area. Also, as part of Task 5.1, AECOM will collect and analyze data from a variety of ATTACHMENT 1-21
sources including but not limited to LoopNet, CoStar, ESRI, City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, State of California, U.S. Census, SitesUSA, STR, and various real estate brokerage and investment firms. Given the breadth of services provided by AECOM, we will also access appropriate data from our Leisure & Culture, Commercial, and Hospitality teams. Given the range of potential viable land uses, it is critical that the selected team have access to as diverse set of data as possible and not just rely on the traditional datasets.
Once the initial site visit and data collection are complete, AECOM will work with City staff to organize, schedule and conduct meetings with City staff, external stakeholder and focus groups.
The purpose of these meetings will be to clearly identify elements of the existing conditions of the City and project area to help understand what types of economic development strategies will be most effective to help advance the planning efforts of the HSR station.
Task 5. 1 Deliverable:
• D32 – Economic Development Existing Conditions Report
Subtask 5.2: Market Demand Analysis and Creation of Alternatives
In conjunction with other Task 5 efforts, AECOM will prepare a market demand analysis to assess future development potential for office, retail, residential and hotel uses in the HSR project area. This task will rely on the data analysis as part of Task 5.1, specifically the demographic, employment and other existing trends around TOD/HSR locations. Next, AECOM will review all applicable planning, real estate and economic development documents that the City may already have from the past two to three years. After this review effort, AECOM will interview real estate developers and brokers, including those active in the City as well as adjacent markets. Based on a review of existing documentation, socioeconomic data, and developer/broker interviews, AECOM will determine a quantifiable basis for “right sizing” the desired development options; in other words, determining a realistic and achievable development scale for the HSR station area plan from the outset of the planning process. This will help ground truth development aspirations with market realities based on near-, mid-, and long-term projections. As part of Task 5.2, AECOM will also help the City identify various building and development types that are likely to have the greatest level of success in the GSSP and the HSR station area. This assessment will also include a competitive analysis to help identify barriers to development for each proposed land use in the GSSP/HSR area.
Task 5.2 Deliverable:
• D33 – Draft and Final Market Demand Analysis
Subtask 5.3: Gain Feedback from Development Community on Real Estate Development Potential
In order to capture development and feasibility potential, AECOM will coordinate meetings with developers to help assess market feasibility in the near term and the long term after HSR service connects Los Angeles and San Francisco. AECOM will look to the City in order to jointly develop a list of the most qualified groups to include in these interviews. While the conversations can include a wide range of development scenarios, the main land uses to include in these feasibility conversations will include: office, market rate and affordable housing, mixed-use residential (for sale and rental), multifamily rental, recreation and open space, retail development, and educational and workforce development.
After the market demand is identified in Task 5.2 and the developer interviews are completed under ATTACHMENT 1-22
Task 5.3, AECOM will then employ its financial model and analyze the development pro forma of up to three land use concepts. This analysis may show that in the near term a subsidy is required to induce the type of quality development desired by the City. We will assess development standards and other incentives to assure financial feasibility. Successful near -term development will likely revise and improve the real estate development community’s perception of the City’s GSSP and HSR areas, and build momentum toward a more successful long-term future.
Task 5.3 Deliverable:
• D34 – Agenda and meeting notes from developer interviews
Task 5.4 Deliverable:
Subtask 5.5: Fiscal Impact Analysis
Upon completion of Tasks 5.1 through 5.3 which will address real estate demand potential and economic development opportunities, AECOM will then assess the likely fiscal impacts for the proposed land use scenario. AECOM will build a static fiscal impact model to measure the costs and revenues for the City’s General Fund. This will include the following sub-tasks:
o Development of assumptions for analysis – AECOM will collect current fiscal and demographic data, including the City’s budget for the most recent fiscal years, and additional tax and revenue information such as sales tax and property tax rates. o Analysis of ongoing revenues to the city – AECOM will estimate major revenues generated from the identified development scenarios, including property tax, transfer tax, vehicle license fees, and sales tax.
o Analysis of ongoing costs to the city – AECOM will calculate the additional General Fund costs generated from providing municipal services to the new development for each scenario.
To assess costs, we will use a per/capita basis derived from the budget and the Certified Financial Annual Report to forecast incremental costs associated with net new development.
Task 5.5 Deliverable:
• D35 – Fiscal Impact Analysis one land use development scenarios
Subtask 5.6: Multi-family feasibility analysis
AECOM will explore the feasibility of developing new housing at three prototypical infill sites within the area bound by Empire to the south, Ontario to the east, Buena Vista to the west, and Thornton to the north. The three sites will be established upon consultation with the Community Development Department. However, they may include (1) a single improved residential lot, (2) two single improved residential lots consolidated into one development parcel, and (3) Empire Boulevard lot with legacy single-story light industrial uses that have been adaptively reused for media production.
As an initial step, AECOM will perform a market and site analysis that will include a review of zoning standards, inclusionary requirements, and density bonus parameters. AECOM will also research the type and location of new residential development, as well as historical and pipeline data, in addition to market rents, market sales prices, and land values.
For each of the three sites, AECOM will develop up to four prototype models, which will likely include a for-rent and for-sale model at both base and bonus densities. AECOM anticipates the need for ATTACHMENT 1-23
sensitivity testing of rent/sale price changes, land cost changes, different density bonus/affordable set-aside combinations, and parking provisions.
In order to understand the physical feasibility of these three sites, AECOM will develop up to 6 massing models (2 per site) to test develop standards, such as height, setbacks, parking, and open space, which will guide the objective development standards in the GSSP.
Using the findings from the physical feasibility assessments, AECOM will create Design Guidelines for potential inclusion in the Specific Plan, which will include up to six pages of diagrams and photos showing design best practices for the typologies explored in order to provide additional education and guidance for property owners and developers. For budgeting purposes, AECOM has assumed that the Design Guidelines are intended to complement the design standards developed for the Specific Plan and will therefore not be developed as a stand-alone document.
Task 5.6 Deliverable:
• D36 – Proforma tests for three sites, including sensitivity tests, in PowerPoint format with technical appendices
• D37 – Physical Feasibility testing of three sites, including 3D massing models • D38 – Design guidelines, including diagrams and photos showing design best practices for the typologies explored
Task 5 Deliverables
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D32 – Economic Development Existing
Conditions Report X
D33 – Draft and Final Market Demand
Analysis X
D34 – Agenda and meeting notes from
developer interviews X
D35 – Fiscal Impact Analysis for land use
development scenarios X X
D36 – Proforma tests for three sites, including
sensitivity tests, in Powerpoint format with
technical appendices
X
D37 – Physical Feasibility testing of three sites,
including 3D massing models
X
D38 – Design guidelines, including diagrams
and photos showing design best practices for
the typologies explored
X
TASK 6: Specific Plan Drafts
ATTACHMENT 1-24
The GSSP presents the opportunity to take the recommendations, vision, and strategy guidance of linkBURBANK, and translate them into a regulatory framework to guide future development. We are already familiar with the opportunities and constraints for supporting TOD in the area through our work in linkBURBANK. We will focus our efforts for the GSSP on identifying regulatory barriers to implement the linkBURBANK and HSR station area plan recommendations and developing a Specific Plan that is actionable, implementable, and consistent with State requirements.
Subtask 6.1: Specific Plan Drafts
We understand how to create Specific Plans that are concise, graphically rich, well-integrated, and user-friendly, ensuring ease of use for staff, property owners, and decision makers alike. This ease of use can help the Specific Plan serve as a marketing tool, ensure a streamlined development process, and position the GSSP area for implementation and funding opportunities.
Based upon the work in prior tasks, AECOM will prepare a coordinated Administrative Draft Specific Plan for review and comment by City staff. The Specific Plan will be consistent with State of California requirements and will establish the regulatory framework to realize the preferred land use and transportation scenario identified in Task 4. Plan elements will include land use, urban design, infrastructure, streetscape and street design, mobility, and, implementation.
Based upon City staff comments, AECOM will prepare a Public Review Draft Specific Plan, which will be publicly circulated for comment. After the Public Review Process, AECOM will work with the City to develop a refined Hearing Draft Specific Plan for presentation and review at public hearings.
Finally, AECOM will make revisions to the Hearing Draft Specific Plan based on comments from the City Council and the Specific Plan will be finalized.
Task 6.1 Deliverables:
• D39 – Administrative Draft Specific Plan
• D40 – Public Review Draft Specific Plan
• D41 – Hearing Draft Specific Plan (aligned with Public Review Draft EIR) • D42 – Final Specific Plan
Subtask 6.2: Consistency and Regulatory Amendments
Complete a General Plan consistency analysis matrix aligning the goals and policies Specific Plan with the policies of the General Plan.
To enable single-action adoption of the Specific Plan, AECOM will provide a list of recommended supporting amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, if appropriate. This list will be high-level and will not include specific zoning text changes.
Task 6.2 Deliverable:
• D43 – General Plan Consistency Matrix
• D44 – Recommended Supporting Amendments
Task 6 Deliverables
Deliverables Deliverable to:
ATTACHMENT 1-25
HSR Metro City
D39 – Administrative Draft Specific Plan X X X
D40 – Public Review Draft Specific Plan X X X
D41 – Hearing Draft Specific Plan (aligned with
Public Review Draft EIR) X X X
D42 – Final Specific Plan X X X
D43 – General Plan Consistency Matrix X
D44 – Recommended Supporting Amendments X
TASK 7: Specific Plan Implementation
Given the complexity of the GSSP goals, which incorporate major land use/development and air/HSR/intercity rail transportation improvements, infrastructure improvements will require implementation over time through a phasing strategy. In Task 7 AECOM will develop an Implementation Chapter for the Specific Plan with implementation strategies for the GSSP focused on future planning programs and capital improvements. For each implementation action and strategy, AECOM will identify the potential timeframes for implementation (short, medium, or long term), priority and potential responsible parties, and potential performance measure to be used for ongoing tracking.
Task 7 Deliverable:
• D45 – Specific Plan Implementation Chapter (Administrative Draft, Public Review Draft, Hearing Draft Specific Plan, and Final Specific Plan)
Task 7 Deliverable
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D45 – Framework for Monitoring, Reporting and
Implementation X X
TASK 8: Environmental Analysis
Subtask 8.1: NOP/Scoping Meeting
AECOM will file a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the Los Angeles County Clerk commencing the NOP scoping period. The NOP filing fee ($75.00 for 2016) will be paid by the City. The NOP will indicate that all environmental issue areas will be addressed in the EIR and therefore, an Initial Study will not be prepared. AECOM will distribute the NOP to those public agencies and organizations that may be affected by the proposed project, per a mailing list developed in coordination with the City.
Native American consultation would also be conducted as part of the NOP scoping process. One public scoping meeting will be held to solicit comments on the environmental process from the community. Comments received during the NOP scoping period will be included in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 1-26
Task 8.1 Deliverable:
• D46 – Notice of Preparation, EIR Scoping Meeting notes • D47 – Printing and Mailing of NOP meeting notices to surrounding property owners, occupants, and agencies
Subtask 8.2: Administrative Draft EIR
As an Initial Study is not being prepared, the EIR will focus on each of the issues included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, along with sections addressing alternatives, growth inducement, and cumulative impacts. The effects of the GSSP, including th e HSR station area and related development potential on the environment will be analyzed and significant impacts will be identified.
Each technical analysis in the EIR will include sections for existing setting, thresholds of significance used to determine the level of significance of any given impact, an analysis of project-related impacts, and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. During preparation of the EIR, AECOM will work with the project team to identify project features and/or mitigation measures that may be necessary to reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Upon completion, AECOM will conduct an internal quality assurance review to ensure the document meets CEQA requirements and is well written. AECOM will provide the Administrative Draft EIR to the City for review. AECOM will meet with the City to review the comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. AECOM assumes two rounds of team revisions. Upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIR, the document will be submitted to the City for review and approval. AECOM will meet with the City to review the comments on the revised Administrative Draft EIR. AECOM assumes one final round of team revisions. The EIR will fully address all environmental resource areas; however, it is assumed that the following environmental resource areas will require an in-depth analysis: aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation/ traffic. AECOM will prepare CEQA-related technical reports for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. This scope of work assumes that no additional studies would be prepared per the RFP. The technical reports will be included in the appendices to the EIR.
Task 8.2 Deliverable:
• D48 – Administrative Draft EIR (up to five hard copies)
Subtask 8.3: Public Review Draft EIR
Based on comments received, AECOM will revise the Administrative Draft EIR, prepare additional EIR graphics/ figures, and prepare a Notice of Availability (NOA) for review by the City. The Public Review Draft EIR and NOA will be submitted to the City for review. This scope of work assumes that the EIR will require two rounds of revisions. A Final Screencheck Draft EIR and NOA will be provided to the City electronically for review prior to publication. AECOM will file the Executive Summary, along with the Notice of Completion (NOC) and NOA, with the State Clearinghouse. AECOM will file the NOA with the County Clerk and City will pay the associated filing fee ($75.00 for 2016) and distribute the NOA, along with a copy of the Draft EIR to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and to those public agencies and organizations that may be affected by the proposed project, per the mailing list developed in coordination with the City. It is assumed that the City will post the notice in local newspapers. The City will distribute the NOA to the list of nearby property owners and occupants, based on the list developed in coordination with the City.
ATTACHMENT 1-27
Task 8.3 Deliverable:
• D49 – Public Review Draft EIR (15 hard copies of full EIR, 15 copies of Executive Summary, and 50 CDs)
• D50 – Hard copy printing and distribution of NOA to surrounding property owners, occupants, and agencies
Subtask 8.4: Public Hearing on Public Review Draft Specific Plan + EIR
A 45-day public review period is assumed for the Public Review Draft Specific Plan and EIR. AECOM assumes that one public meeting will be held for the project during the public review period, in conjunction with the meeting on t he specific plan ordinance and, if necessary, a General Plan Amendment. AECOM will work with the City to prepare the meeting materials, including a meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation, and comment cards. The AECOM Project Manager will attend the meeting along with one additional staff person and be available to present a portion of the PowerPoint or answer questions, as requested by the City. AECOM assumes that the City will secure a meeting location and obtain translation services and audio/video equipment rental, if necessary. AECOM will summarize the public comments received at the public meeting. No court reporter or transcript services are included in our scope of work.
Task 8.4 Deliverable:
• D51– Public Hearing: Notice of community meeting, handouts and meeting materials
Subtask 8.5 – Notice of Determination/Final EIR
Following the close of the public review period, AECOM will consolidate all of the comments received during the Draft EIR public review period and meet with the City to review the general approach to responding to these comments. Based on the input received from the City, we will then prepare responses to each substantive environmental comment (up to thirty (30) comment letters are assumed). Subsequent to completing the responses to comments, AECOM will revise the text of the Draft EIR and appendices consistent with the changes resulting from the response to comments.
AECOM will prepare the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP will be incorporated into the Final EIR and will (1) identify the department(s) of the City or other agencies that will certify compliance with each mitigation measure; and (2) identify when in the implementation of the project this certification will occur.
AECOM will prepare written findings for each of the significant effects identified in the EIR in a form specified by the City. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will also be required if there are any significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened and if the City determines that there are specific economic, social, or other considerations that override any unmitigated environmental effects.
The Administrative Draft Final EIR, MMRP, and Findings/ Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared and provided to the City for review. AECOM will revise the Administrative Draft Final EIR based on the City’s comments and will provide the Revised Final EIR. A Final Screencheck Final EIR will be provided to the City electronically for review prior to publication.
AECOM will distribute a CD of the Final EIR to those parties that commented on the Draft EIR.
Following project approval, AECOM will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD). AECOM will file ATTACHMENT 1-28
the NOD with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk within five (5) days of EIR certification. The City will pay the associated County Clerk and California Department of Fish and Game filing fees ($75.00 and $3,070.00 for 2016, respectively).
Task 8.5 Deliverable:
• D52 – All required CEQA documents included in the Notice of Determination Final EIR (Five hard copies)
Subtask 8.6 – Water Supply Assessment
AECOM will first prepare the existing and future demand analysis including:
• Data collection. AECOM will collect base data and assumes data from other stakeholders will be provided by the City.
• Review of existing documentation such as Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and project information for BWP and MW
• Review project demand provided by City. AECOM assumes demand data for GSSP will be provided by the City in a usable format.
• Confirm accountability of project in Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) • Demand coordination meeting with BWP
• Refinements to demand analysis
Next, AECOM will review SB610 applicability and assume a single land use scenario for GSSP. To complete the Water Supply Assessment, AECOM will:
• Update water supply sources documentation (assumes GSSP will be included in UWMP 2020 update by BMP and MWD)
• Conduct impact analysis
• Evaluate water supply reliability
• Evaluate future water supply projects (assumes that information for future improvement projects will be provided by BWP and MWD)
Task 8.6 Deliverable:
• D53 – Draft and Final Water Supply Assessment
ATTACHMENT 1-29
Task 8 Deliverables
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D46 – Notice of Preparation, EIR scoping meeting notes X X X D47 - Printing and Mailing of NOP meeting notices to
surrounding property owners, occupants, and agencies X X X D48 – Administrative Draft EIR (up to five hard copies) X X X D49 – Public Review Draft EIR (15 hard copies of full EIR, 15 copies of Executive Summary, and 50 CDs) X X X
D50 – Hard copy printing and distribution of NOA to
surrounding property owners, occupants, and agencies X X X D51 – Public Hearing: Notice of community meeting and
handout and meeting materials X X X
D52 – All required CEQA documents included in the Notice of Determination Final EIR (five hard copies) X X X
D53 – Draft and Final Water Supply Assessment X X X
TASK 9: Adoption Process
AECOM will complete and distribute the Public Review Draft Specific Plan (in conjunction with Task 6). As a part of this process, AECOM will present the Public Review Draft at a study session with the Planning Board prior to presenting the Hearing Draft Specific Plan for adoption. AECOM will prepare presentation materials that are graphically-engaging in order to share key recommendations and findings with the Planning Board, City Council, and members of the public; will provide oral presentations; and will be available to respond to any questions that arise at public hearings.
Once the Planning Board, City Council, staff, and public comments have been provided, AECOM will work with City staff to address comments and produce the Hearing Draft Specific Pla n, for presentation at adoption hearings.
Up to two (2) senior AECOM team members will participate in one Planning Board study session, one (1) Planning Board hearing, and two (2) City Council hearings.
Task 9 Deliverable:
• D54 –Hearing Draft Specific Plan for adoption
• D55 – Attendance by two senior AECOM team members, including CEQA staff, at one (1) Planning Board study session, one (1) Planning Board hearing, and up to (2) City Council hearings
• D56 – PowerPoint presentation for one (1) Planning Board study session, one (1) Planning Board hearing, and up two (2) City Council hearings
• D57 – Final Specific Plan
Task 9 Deliverables
ATTACHMENT 1-30
Deliverables Deliverable to:
HSR Metro City
D54 – Hearing Draft Specific Plan for adoption
X X X
D55 – Attendance by two senior AECOM team
members at one (1) Planning Board study
session, one (1) Planning Board hearing, and
up to two (2) City Council hearings
X X X
D56- PowerPoint presentation for one (1)
Planning Board study session, one (1) Planning
Board hearing, and up to two (2) City Council
hearings
X X X
D57 – Final Specific Plan
X X X
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Includes direct costs for:
A. Printing of draft project materials, draft reports, and final reports. AECOM will provide:
Five (15) hard copies of Public Review Draft EIR, 50 CDs NOP and NOA notification mailings
Five (5) hard copies of Final EIR to the City
Five (5) hard copies of Draft Specific Plan (incorporates HSR station area plan) Five (5) hard copies of Final Specific Plan (incorporates HSR station area plan) B. Production and printing exhibits for workshops
C. Logistics and materials for workshops including easels, flipcharts, stationary, etc. This does not include materials for any outdoor outreach (including furniture, props for pop -up community events, and materials to stage tactical urbanist events).
D. Travel and mileage for meetings and study visits to project area.
E. Purchase of economic and real estate data from CoStar and other sources.
F. Postage and delivery of project materials.
ATTACHMENT 1-31
EXHIBIT B-5
AMENDED SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
For the services outlined in Amended Scope of Services above, the Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant shall earn its compensation according to the following method:1
□ Time and Materials: The City shall pay for the services on a time-and-material basis.
Consultant shall invoice the City for all actual hours of work performed in accordance with this Fifth Amendment at the following rates:
ATTACHMENT 1-32
Schedule of Fees and Charges (Rate Table)
Burbank High Speed Rail Station Area Plan
The following describes the basis for compensation for services performed until September 30, 2024.
AECOM
Project Management and Support Staff
Project Director 230$ 310$
Project Manager 200$ 260$
Deputy Project Manager 110$ 160$
Contract Manager 90$ 170$
Admin Support 80$ 120$
Technical Staff
Principal 230$ 310$
Senior Economist 190$ 250$
Economist 120$ 190$
Outreach Manager 160$ 220$
CEQA/EIR Task Manager 190$ 260$
Senior Environmental Planner 140$ 190$
Environmental Planner II 105$ 140$
Environmental Planner I 70$ 105$
Senior Urban Designer 120$ 200$
Urban Designer 90$ 120$
Junior Urban Designer 70$ 90$
Senior Urban/Transportation Planner 130$ 150$ Urban/Transportation Planner II 90$ 120$ Urban/Transportation Planner I 70$ 90$
GIS Specialist 90$ 180$
Outreach Specialist 120$ 180$
Senior Architect 140$ 250$
Architect II 90$ 140$
Architect I 65$ 90$
Transportation Modeler 110$ 240$
Senior Transportation Modeler 240$ 300$
Senior Civil Engineer 150$ 220$
Civil Engineer II 110$ 150$
Civil Engineer I 70$ 110$
Hourly Rate Range
Hourly Rate Range
ATTACHMENT 1-33
STV
Selbert Perkins
Here LA
Position Hourly Rate Range
Planning Director 250 350
Planning Lead 200 250
Senior Planner 150 200
Planner 100 150
Junior Planner 65 100
Senior Engineer 200 280
Engineer 150 200
Designer 100 150
CADD/GIS 80 100
Staff Category Hourly Rate
Design Partner 275$ 300$
Design Principal 175$ 225$
Design Director 160$ 190$
Project Manager 140$ 180$
Production Manager 140$ 180$
Sr. Designer 130$ 170$
Sr. CAD Designer 130$ 170$
Asst. Project Manager 120$ 160$
Designer 120$ 150$
CAD Designer 120$ 150$
Design Assistant 90$ 110$
Admin Support 90$ 110$
Project Accountant 90$ 110$
ATTACHMENT 1-34