Laguna Beach City Council
August 12, 2025

www.csgengr.com
Prepared By

CSG CONSULTANTS
3707 W. Garden Grove Blvd., Suite 100 | Orange, CA 92868 TEL: 714.568.1010 | FAX: 714.568.1028
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 24-012-MRFP 07

SCP CEEEJ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR

LAGUNA BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE II
APRIL 8, 2025

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF

GOVERNMENTS (SCAG)
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR April 8, 2025
Ted Dorjee
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: MRFP 24-012-MRFP 07 SCP CEEEJ Environmental Impact Report Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II, City of Laguna Beach
Dear Mr. Dorjee:

CSG Consultants is pleased to submit this proposal to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to prepare and process an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II. As further detailed in the Project Understanding and Approach subsections of this proposal, it is our understanding that the Specific Plan Phase II addresses opportunities for infill housing, allow unlimited housing density, increase maximum allowable building heights, and allow parcel mergers for affordable housing projects. It is envisioned that the Plan would allow 200 to 400 additional residential units.

The CSG team will be led by Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP, Principal/Director of Environmental Planning. Mr. Lajoie has over 35 years of experience in the environmental and policy planning fields, with a primary focus on environmental assessments for local agency clients. His expertise includes the preparation and management of environmental compliance documents pursuant to both CEQA and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). He has managed a variety of projects ranging from development, infrastructure, and policy environmental clearances. More specifically, Mr. Lajoie has attained a diverse background in the review of downtown and city center projects throughout California, including: the Dana Point Town Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Downtown and Central Long Beach Master Plan EIR; the Downtown Lancaster Specific Plan Program EIR; the North Village EIR in Mammoth Lakes; the Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan EIR; the Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan EIR; and the South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization EIR.

Our Approach to the Assignment, Scope of Work, Qualifications, and Budget are included in this submittal. CSG has partnered with a subconsultant team which includes Michael Baker International, Linscott, Law and Greenspan, CRM TECH and Fuscoe Engineering to provide support on technical studies for this environmental review. Our approach outlines a collaborative process, resulting in thorough, complete, and legally defensible documentation and processing. We are proud of our history of working closely with agency staff to effectively navigate the environmental compliance process while being flexible and responsive. CSG has also gained familiarity over the past two years with Laguna Beach through our on-call services, which has been a great opportunity to learn more about the community.

We are ready to begin the assignment and are committed to completing the CEQA processing for presentation to the decision-making bodies within 11 months of the Notice to Proceed.

Please note that we were thrilled to be selected by the City of Laguna Beach approximately two years ago for this same assignment. We understand the steps that have been taken to secure grant funding and the restart of the consultant procurement under the guidance of SCAG. Our budget estimate at that time is consistent with the budget range that has been identified in the current RFP and Addendum. There are differences and additions to the current work program, as presented in the RFP, which has resulted in cost increases in comparison to our previous bid. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our Scope of Work and Budget Estimate in order to determine any adjustments to scoping and costs, and to once again be considered for this important project for Laguna Beach.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal to SCAG for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II EIR. Please contact Mr. Lajoie at 714.568.1010 (Orange office) or at [email protected] if you have question or need additional information. We look forward to being of service to both SCAG and the City of Laguna Beach.

Sincerely,
Cyrus Kianpour, PE, PLS
President, CSG Consultants, Inc.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS
Cover Letter ......................................................................................................................................i I. Introduction, Project Understanding, and Approach ..................................................................... 3 II. Technical Approach......................................................................................................................... 6 III. Scope of Work............................................................................................................................... 10 IV. Identification of Key Staff and Resumes....................................................................................... 34 VI. CSG Team Sample Environmental Project Experience ................................................................. 47 V. Client References.......................................................................................................................... 51 VI. Required Forms............................................................................................................................. 52 VII. Additional Information ................................................................................................................. 53 CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 3 I. INTRODUCTION, PROJECT UNDERSTANDING, AND APPROACH

FIRM PROFILE
CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) is an employee-owned, California company with headquarters in Foster City, and additional offices in Sacramento, Paso Robles, San Jose, Pleasanton, and Orange. Our office in Orange provides a local presence, as we are within a drive time of 30 minutes from the Laguna Beach City Hall. The majority of the 350+ individuals within our firm have provided public agency services throughout their entire careers. Our talented personnel bring a wealth of ideas and experiences, having held positions with communities facing similar development opportunities as the City.

NAME OF FIRM: CSG Consultants, Inc.

PRIMARY CONTACT: Glenn Lajoie, AICP – Principal & Director of Environmental Planning CONTACT INFO: [email protected] email
LOCAL OFFICE: 3707 W. Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 100, Orange, CA 92868 (714) 568-1010 phone, (714) 568-1028 fax
www.csgengr.com | [email protected]
REGIONAL OFFICES: 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 255, San Jose, CA 95118 3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 141, Pleasanton, CA 94588
2150 River Plaza, Suite 255, Sacramento, CA 95814
930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360
806 9th Street, Suite 2A, Paso Robles, CA 93446
HEADQUARTERS: 550 Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 522-2500 phone, (650) 522-2599 fax
www.csgengr.com | [email protected]
YEARS IN BUSINESS: 34 • Founded in 1991
EMPLOYEES: 350+ (Nationally) 93 (Local Office)
TYPE OF BUSINESS: California Corporation • Incorporated June 15, 2000 • Federal ID: 91-2053749 Our multi-disciplined municipal services staff consists of the following types of professionals:

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 4

INTRODUCTION
CSG is pleased to submit this proposal to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the City of Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Environmental Impact Report (EIR). CSG will serve as the prime consultant, in partnership with our subconsultants which include Michael Baker International, Linscott, Law and Greenspan, CRM TECH, and Fuscoe Engineering, will work closely with staff and project team from contract execution and project inception through to public hearings and completion of the process. The documentation and processing will be in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code 21000-21177), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000-15387), the City of Laguna Beach Environmental Guidelines and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible Public Agency with jurisdiction by law.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is our understanding that the proposed project involves Phase II for the Downtown Specific Plan Update. The city completed Phase 1 for the Downtown Specific Plan, which addressed commercial off-street parking standards, streamlining the land use permit requirements, as well as other changes. Phase II would potentially expand opportunities for infill housing, allow unlimited housing density, increase maximum allowable building heights, and allow parcel mergers for affordable housing projects. It is envisioned that these changes may allow 200 to 400 additional residential units.

The 115-acre study area is overall urban in character and extends along Laguna Canyon Road, to Main Beach, westerly in the vicinity of Cliff Drive, east along Pacific Coast Highway, and within the heart of the Downtown, in the area of Forest and Ocean Avenues. The area features a broad range of commercial uses, including retail shops, resident services, offices, and restaurants. Residential uses are located primarily along Cliff Drive and other residential properties are dispersed throughout the Downtown. Downtown is one of the earliest areas of the city to have been developed and is typified by small lot development patterns, with varied building heights and architectural styles.

Downtown is recognized as the historical center of the City’s business, civic, cultural, and other public activities, and represents much of the identity and heritage of the city. It is important that the Phase II Update preserves these important functions. Because the city would continue to encourage non-residential uses on the ground floor in most areas of the Specific Plan, it is envisioned that most of the latent housing capacity exists in the potential to enlarge existing single story commercial buildings through upper-level additions, that create second and third story rental housing. An existing restriction that limits most downtown buildings to a single story, 12-foot height, is therefore a primary impediment to adding new residential density. The Phase II Update would remove this impediment and provide a new maximum height that considers second and third story housing. Infill housing opportunities could also be created by addressing the zoning constraints that impact the feasibility of converting upper-level commercial space into new housing units. The Phase II Update will need to balance changes to the development standards with the need to preserve the visual character of the downtown. Lastly, because many of the buildings in the downtown were not originally developed with on-site parking, many properties cannot accommodate new uses that would potentially increase the parking requirement. This is another key barrier to housing production in the downtown, which will also be addressed by Phase II.

The Key Actions for the Specific Plan Phase II include:

Changes to height restrictions: Introduce variable maximum heights (12, 24, or 36 feet) based on location. It is anticipated that most areas would be eligible for the 24-foot building height allowance.

Changes to maximum residential density: No proposed maximum density, with a potential exception for the CBD Multiple Family District, where no changes may be proposed.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 5 Changes to lot merger regulations: A new provision would be added to allow lots to be merged for a combined area of over 5,000 square feet on Broadway, in the Arts District, and in the CBD Office District, for affordable housing projects.

Changes to the Urban Design Guidelines: Several revisions are proposed, including new and amended Urban Design Guidelines and new Objective Design Standards.

Changes to the allowed uses: Allow residential uses in the Arts District and Central Bluffs by right, without a Conditional Use Permit. Allow artists live/work units with a Conditional Use Permit in the Visitor Commercial and Multiple Family Residential Zones. Restrict residential uses to above the ground floor in certain areas where pedestrian orientation and the quality of the shopping experience are primary goals.

Changes to parking requirements: One space per market-rate dwelling unit and 0.5 spaces for each affordable dwelling unit, which may be covered or uncovered.

The overall Project Objectives include:

1. Diversify the city's housing stock in terms of cost, size, and type to meet the needs of present and future households. At. Address regulatory barriers to promote affordable housing in the development of smaller multifamily units that are more affordable by design.

2. Encourage. Human scale development and engaging architecture, which will maintain the special character of the downtown.

3. Reduce auto dependency in favor of greater pedestrian accessibility by placing housing near most daily necessities and services.

4. Increase economic opportunities for both residents and downtown businesses.

5. Foster a sense of community by bringing more individuals into shared pedestrian environments that allows them to interact face to face, both socially and professionally.

6. Promote a village style mix of resident serving businesses to serve the larger resident population that would be located within a short walking distance of many commercial uses.

Measurable outcomes resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan include accelerating infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability, affirmatively further fair housing and the reduction of vehicle miles travel (VMT).

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 6 II. TECHNICAL APPROACH

TECHNICAL APPROACH
The CSG work program and overall Scope of Work is centered on the preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Program EIR will serve as the primary CEQA clearance for individual projects referenced in the Project Description. As has been displayed throughout the State, the Program EIR is an excellent tool for CEQA streamlining and carries with it a beneficial shelf life, beginning with the Program EIR certification and throughout the buildout and implementation of the improvements within the Downtown Plan area. Once the Specific Plan Program EIR is certified and is in place, subsequent entitlements can tier, when necessary, from the findings of the Program EIR, in accordance with Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, ensuring environmental compliance under the Program review and streamlining the orientation for further CEQA compliance for individual components and applications. It is important to note that although presented at a program level, the key objective of this CEQA review will focus on a Project level analysis, to the greatest extent possible, further assuring the long-term viability of the clearance.

As the work program is initiated, the CSG team will serve as an extension of SCAG and City staff to ensure that the entire CEQA process is conducted comprehensively and will consider recent CEQA legislation and legal rulings that have implications for the practice of CEQA. CSG will be responsible for the day-to-day management and supervision of the environmental review and will be the direct point of contact for the city. CSG will be responsible for coordinating the environmental review team to ensure a thorough analysis that complies with the CEQA requirements. The CSG Project Manager, Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP will also represent the Project Team at public hearings and other presentations, as necessary. The CSG team includes our technical team of experts, Michael Baker International, Linscott, Law and Greenspan, CRM TECH, and Fuscoe Engineering. The core team has worked together for many years. Mr. Lajoie was a department manager at Baker and that oversight will ensure continuity and understanding of expectations for concise writing styles, analysis, documentation and time management.

It is our understanding that this project is a Co-Applicant partnership with the Kennedy Commission. The Kennedy Commission will focus on amplifying engagement with community members that work and or live in the downtown area, specifically engagement with community members who have not historically been engaged nor had their input heard. The Kennedy Commission will engage organizations serving impacted communities and engage residents as to how affordable housing could be developed to support the community, the Laguna Beach workforce, and the local economy. The Kennedy Commission will amplify equitable engagement by supporting and facilitating several streams of feedback, focus groups and one-on-one engagement. The Kennedy Commission's outreach efforts are anticipated to result in feedback that the city and CEQA compliance team will use to inform in The Downtown Specific Plan Phase II and environmental matters for the Program EIR.

With the authorization to proceed and within one week of the fully executed contract being provided to CSG, the kick-off meeting will occur. We view the Project kick-off meeting as a key component for setting up a successful project review. This meeting will serve as an opportunity to discuss expectations, responsibilities, and communication procedures. The initiation of the CEQA process will involve a review of issues, constraints, and Project goals/objectives, as well as the overall schedule.

Once we confirm that we have complete and current Project information, CSG will draft the Project Description for staff review. It is expected that our team will work collaboratively with City Staff in the development and confirmation of the Project Description, which is exactly how we have approached our initial work for the project in 2023, when we were assigned the Downtown EIR for the City of Laguna Beach. It was our perspective at that time and carries to the current process, of staying flexible, with an eye on navigating analysis and developing an analytical approach that ensures defensibility of the documentation and process.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 7 We understand that the Project Description and related details may continue to evolve as the work program is launched. The CSG team will work closely with SCAG and City staff to recognize and respond to the adjustments in the project details as we move forward. We recommend, as best as possible, that Project information and any background environmental and Project related documentation are forwarded to the CSG team at the time of the Notice to Proceed. The early and continued sharing of information will allow further discussions and clarification at the kick-off.

The initiation of the EIR review and CEQA processing will involve a detailed scoping process, including agency consultations and a public scoping session, to get a better understanding of the concerns of affected agencies and the community. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be circulated for a 30-day review. The NOP review will confirm the screening of topics and level of review for the EIR. During the 30-day review process, the CSG team will engage in agency and stakeholder consultations within and outside of the city. This will include the initiation of the tribal consultations as discussed further in our scope of work.

The CSG team will be preparing the following technical studies once the draft Project Description is confirmed:

Aesthetics/Viewshed, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Historical Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality, Noise/Vibration, and Traffic and Circulation.

The Draft EIR will include the Introduction and Purpose, Executive Summary and Project Description. The Environmental Analysis section will identify the existing conditions baseline for each topic, short-term demolition/construction, and long-term environmental impacts (both individually and cumulative) and the level of significance of those impacts. Feasible mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce the significance of impacts, and the analysis will conclude if any unavoidable significant adverse impacts are identified following the implementation of mitigation.

The review of Alternatives will be consistent with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The range of Alternatives is expected to include the “No Project,” a “Reduced Density Alternative,” and a possible “Design and/or Use Alternative,” subject to further discussions with SCAG and the City. If SCAG and the City require further flexibility, options may be studied further in the Alternatives section. In addition, as an optional task and to address potential project variations, we can prepare a Comparative Summary subsection, which can be incorporated as an Appendix in the Program EIR. Our team members have used this tool while at another firm for the City of Walnut Creek Mixed Use Special District Project. A copy of that subsection has been included as an Appendix for reference.

Following the administrative draft review process with SCAG and City staff, the Draft EIR will then undergo a 45-day public review. CSG will respond to all comments received during the public review process, prepare the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program and draft the necessary Findings and possible Statement of Overriding Considerations under Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The CSG team will be viewed as an integral contributor in the project review, will participate in on going meetings with SCAG and City staff, and will provide presentations, answer questions and provide guidance on all matters related to the documentation and process at the public hearings. The CSG team will assist decision makers and the public in understanding the analysis and conclusions of the environmental review process, as the process continues through the Planning Commission review and on to the City Council for a determination to certify the Program EIR.

We have had great opportunities with recent CEQA review studies and training programs with city staff in Laguna Beach and are proud to support of environmental review and clearances.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 8 Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Area
Legend
Downtown Specific Plan
Boundary
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 9 Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Area Land Uses
Legend
Downtown Specific Plan
Boundary
Arts District
CBD-1 (Resident Serving
CBD-2 (Downtown Commercial)
CBD-Visitor Commercial
CBD-Office
CBD-Multi-Family Residential
CBD-Public Parks
CBD-Central Bluffs
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 10 III. SCOPE OF WORK

1.0 Project Management And Meetings

1.1 Project Management and Invoicing
The CSG Project Manager, Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP and Senior Environmental Project Manager Liza Debies will be responsible for the management and supervision of the EIR Project Team. Mr. Lajoie will direct the preparation of the EIR, ensuring compliance with CEQA requirements, guidelines, and the City of Laguna Beach CEQA procedures.

Documentation will be prepared in a city-approved format and will undergo internal review to ensure that it is of high quality, per industry standards, and meets the expectations of legal defensibility. Mr. Lajoie will coordinate with SCAG, city staff and/or other stakeholder representatives as well as internal technical staff, support staff, and word processing/editing team members to achieve the timely completion of the EIR. Throughout the work program, the CSG team will serve as an extension of SCAG and city staff and serve as a resource on CEQA and environmental review matters for the Project.

Monthly progress reports will be included with invoices, identifying the tasks accomplished, deliverables submitted, anticipated tasks/progress for the next month, any pending issues and proposed solutions to address concerns, will be prepared in accordance with SCAG invoicing and reporting methodologies. Any modifications and/or updates to the schedule will also be provided. Monthly invoices will include the total contract amount, all costs (by task) incurred to date (actual and percentage), estimated completion percentage for each task, and financial information for each task for that billing period. The monthly progress report will include:
 Executive Summary
 Progress Narrative.
 Description of tasks completed
 Project schedule describing the percentage of each task and deliverable milestone  Summary of costs incurred per task and milestone
 Schedule and schedule tracking narrative
 List of deliverable items
 Management issues and Statement of resolution of problems  30 days look ahead.
 Confirmation from the City of Laguna Beach Project Manager that the CEQA Consultants work products for the reporting period are satisfactory.

It is assumed that all documents will be shared via Microsoft 365 (Teams, OneDrive, or SharePoint) and comments will be shared via the same method, using collaborative editing tools available on Microsoft Word, Excel, etc.

1.2 Project Management Plan and Schedule
CSG will prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP), which will include contact information for the key project team members, scope of work, schedule, budget, invoices, progress reporting details, along with document control and quality assurance quality control procedures (QA/QC). The PMP will include the Kennedy Commission deliverables and timelines. The PMP will identify systems for project control, including necessary procedures for conducting the work, managing resources, communications, budget, schedule, monitoring and reporting project status and progress, document control and QA/QC. The PMP will include the safeguards for early identification of issues and their effective resolution. Upon approval by SCAG, the PMP will be the document guiding the progression on the overall work program effort. CSG will notify SCAG as soon as possible about any potential necessary updates to the PMP. Any proposed changes to the overall PMP are subject to approval by SCAG. CSG will deliver the PMP prior to the kick-off meeting.

CSG will develop a schedule showing all work tasks, sub tasks, start dates, activity durations, product submittal dates, key project milestones, and relationships among work tasks, including critical path items. Each task and CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 11 subtask deliverable will be provided identified in the PMP, as it is completed, according to the project scheduled.

The PMP will have a two-week review period at a minimum, for all deliverables. Some deliverables may require additional time for higher level reviews and possible presentations to local boards or commissions. All comments, edits, suggestions, and questions from the PMP will be submitted to the CSG team and edits will be incorporated into a revised schedule of deliverables.

1.3 Project Meetings
Close coordination with staff is essential. CSG will participate in progress/project conference calls and/or meetings with staff. The meetings are anticipated to include the Project Kick-Off Meeting and Public Scoping Meeting during the 30-day Notice of Preparation and meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council. CSG will confirm assumptions before finalizing the agreement for consultant services. Virtual progress meetings will be coordinated with SCAG and the city. Presentations will utilize digital slides and any other presentation materials deemed appropriate.

CSG will conduct monthly check-in meetings, up to 16 meetings, each one hour long, with the project management team (PMT). The meetings will be used to update the PMT on project progress, to identify and plan for upcoming tasks, and to anticipate any concerns or challenges. CSG will provide each meeting agenda at least 48 hours in advance, meeting attendees in order to allow time to review and revise the agenda. CSG will provide meeting notes within 48 hours after each meeting for attendees to ensure each step is documented. CSC will provide presentation materials electronically to attendees no less than 24 hours prior to each meeting. In addition, CSG will be available for phone check-ins with SCAG, City of Laguna Beach, and the Kennedy Commission Project Manager up to a time commitment of 12 hours. The following meetings are assumed:
 Kick-off meeting with SCAG and City staff and stakeholder representatives (included in Task 2.1)  NOP Scoping/Community meeting (included in Task 3.2)
 Planning Commission and/or City Council meeting(s) (budgeting for two EIR certification hearings).  Periodic project update calls and virtual meetings with staff, at a minimum, expected bi-weekly.  Should SCAG and/or the City determine that additional meetings beyond the meetings outlined above are necessary, this scope of work can be modified accordingly.

1.4 Project Close Out Files
At the conclusion of the project assignment, CSG will document and assemble all project deliverables and provide them in accordance with SCAG’s project close out procedures. All deliverables will be provided in accordance with the Project Schedule. CSG will document all project deliverables in an organized fashion and deliver them to the City of Laguna Beach in an electronic format at the end of the project, along with an Excel file documenting location and completion of deliverables. Each task will have its own folder. Within each task there will be a folder with the name of the deliverable and final version within it. Each meeting held will have a folder including agendas, notes, all other relevant materials from that meeting. All deliverables will be provided in accordance with the project schedule.

2.0 Kick-Off and Project Description

2.1 Kick-Off Meeting
Within the first month of receiving the fully executed contract for the assignment and Notice to Proceed, the work program will be initiated with a virtual kick-off meeting with the Project Management Team, which will consist of the SCAG Project Manager, City of Laguna Beach Project Manager, the Kennedy Commission Project Manager and other key staff members to review the project vision, goals and confirm the direction of the scope of work and engagement efforts. CSG will provide the kick-off meeting agenda to attendees at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. This initial meeting is vital to the success of the CEQA process and will be a key milestone to confirm the Project Management Plan, parameters of the analysis, information needs, Potential stakeholders to engage, buildout conditions, scheduling, and overall communications. CSG will lead a discussion on data collection (Task 2.2) and CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 12 discuss the specific metrics and plans for developing baseline data for analysis. Prior to the kick-off, CSG will distribute an agenda and information needs memorandum. Upon completion of the kick-off meeting, CSG will prepare meeting minutes within 48 hours after the kick-off meeting that detail action items for the CSG team, SCAG staff, and City staff to ensure that next steps are documented.

The kick-off meeting is expected to focus on the following:
 Refinements to the Scope of Work and to establish date certain timelines, team roles, and clear lines of communication between SCAG, the City, environmental consultants and Project consultants.  Establish procedures for communication and task completion.  Preview a preliminary list of data needs.
 Confirm a mutual understanding of the key issues to be addressed in the environmental document and to review Project related issues.
 Discuss the conceptual Project Description and Project objectives.  Identify a date certain Project schedule and key milestones, including delivery of and review of technical studies.

With the receipt of detailed Project information and feedback from the kick-off meeting, CSG will draft the preliminary Project Description (Task 2.3) and provide updates to the master schedule for review and approval by SCAG and City staff.

2.2 Data Collection, Existing Conditions Review and Site Visit Following the kick-off meeting, CSG will prepare and submit a data request to obtain any further information needs and/or clarifications related to Project construction and buildout assumptions. Initial review of project materials will include the General Plan and EIR, and related documents. Additionally, CSG will conduct a site visit to assist in describing the environmental setting and to photographically document the site and surrounding area.

CSG will assemble and summarize available data and information to inform an assessment of existing conditions in the Project area. As a first step, CSG will create a data request for SCAG and the City of Laguna Beach that will be initiated at the project kick-off meeting to ensure that data requests and turnaround times do not impact the project schedule. The data requests are anticipated to include GIS data, lists of known historical resources, technical reports such as shoreline geology assessments and parking utilization studies, and information regarding significant projects in the general vicinity of the Downtown Specific Plan area that have not been constructed.

Following the kick-off meeting, CSG will prepare and submit a data request to obtain any further information needs and/or clarifications related to baseline information and other relevant information required for the environmental analysis. This task may include coordination with other agencies for data collection. Additionally, CSG will conduct a site visit to assist in describing the environmental setting and to photographically document the site, the project area and surrounding area. CSG will also obtain and review existing documents available from the city, including policy documents such as the existing Downtown Specific Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, the 6th Cycle Housing Element, city ordinances, and the City’s General Plan, as well as environmental review studies and technical reports prepared for projects within the project area of vicinity.

CSG will also collect and report on a baseline in final measurable outcomes for each of the three eligible criteria for REAP 2.0 (Accelerating infill development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled. The specific metrics and plan for reporting on each of the three categories will be discussed at the project kick-off meeting.

2.3 Project Description
The Project Description will detail the site location, proposed Project characteristics, Project objectives, phasing, and agreements/permits/approvals that are required. The Project Description will present the proposed Specific Plan CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 13 Phase II, land uses, project features, development regulations, design and infrastructure improvements. This section will include a summary of the Project’s local environmental setting, existing General Plan and Zoning designations.

Exhibits depicting the regional and site vicinity will be included in the section along with photographs that are representative of the project area, including building architecture, scale and urban design. CSG will submit the draft Project Description for review and approval. CSG will revise the Project Description to address comments provided by the city and stakeholders and once finalized, the Project Description will be distributed and used by the CSG team and subconsultants. CSG assumes that once finalized, no significant modifications will occur to the Project Description.

3.0 Project Scoping

3.1 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
CSG will prepare the Administrative Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for review. The IS/NOP will include an overview of the Project, Project Objectives, and expected regulatory permitting and discretionary actions.

The IS/NOP will include detailed explanations of all checklist determinations and discussions of potential environmental impacts. The analysis will be in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. This Scope of Work assumes one round of review and revisions for the IS/NOP.

CSG will prepare the distribution list and work with SCAG and City Staff to confirm the distribution list for the NOP.

Once the NOP is signed by the city, CSG will work with the city to determine the appropriate distribution strategy for the NOP in order to begin the 30-day public scoping. CSG we will file the NOP at the Orange County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse on behalf of the City through CEQAnet. The city will print and mail the NOP to the distribution mailing list. Comments received in response to the NOP will be reviewed and incorporated as part of the EIR preparation.

3.2 Scoping/Community Meeting
Upon publication of the NOP (Task 3.1), a public scoping meeting, which can also involve federal, state, and local agencies, will be scheduled during the NOP public review period. The intent of the public scoping meeting is to inform the community of the Project and allow the public to provide comments on environmental concerns. The Scoping Meeting will orient the community on the CEQA review process and will be presented in a manner in which the community can gain a greater understanding of the proposal, the intent of CEQA, and the key issue areas addressed in the EIR. CSG will provide handouts and PowerPoint information to supplement the presentation. Following the presentation, the meeting will be devoted to the public sharing questions and comments. Comment forms will be made available and oral comments will be recorded and become a part of the administrative record. This scope of work assumes one-scoping meeting, however, additional meetings can be arranged and scheduled, subject to further discussions with the city.

During the 30-day public review period for the NOP, CSG will maintain clear communication regarding comments received and any effect on the scope of work. Additionally, CSG will engage with relevant agencies and stakeholders outside of the city, as appropriate. During the 30-day public review period for the NOP, CSG will prepare a distribution list of contacts required to receive Tribal Consultations notification letters in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. CSG will draft the notification letters and distribute via certified mail. Additionally, CSG will assist City staff during any requested consultation with Native American tribes and prepare summary reports documenting the discussions and outcomes of such consultation.

3.3 CEQA Notices
As referenced throughout this scope of work. and in the deliverable’s subsection, CSG will prepare the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Notice of Determination, at the appropriate time frames. CSG will be responsible for mailing the CEQA notices to public agencies, filing with the State Clearinghouse, and filing any documents with the Orange County Clerk's Office.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 14

3.4 Public Project Page and City Eblasts
CSG will provide draft content for a city hosted public project page for the community to learn about the project and stay informed on recent developments or updates. CSG will also develop communication content for the city to release via social media channels and e-mail distribution. The content will be designed to be simple, easy to understand, and promote awareness, attendance at events, and feedback on materials. CSG will work with the Kennedy Commission to translate communication content to Spanish, as deemed necessary by the PMT.

The content will include but not limited to 1) Project introduction language, 2) Project timeline 3) announcement and publicity content for e-mail, community newsletter, and/or social media distribution, and 4) Reminders for public hearings. To ensure consistency of public information about SCAG programs and funded work products, CSG will notify and coordinate with SCAG Project Manager, who will coordinate with SCAG’s Manager of Media and Public Affairs or a specified designee on any media inquiries or plans or proactively providing information to media outlets.

CSG will also be responsible for crediting SCAG as a funder. All public facing communications materials produced under this contract will acknowledge and give credit to SCAG, whether with a logo or with language. Communication materials include, but are not limited to, site signage, printed information materials, print and online publications, websites, advertisements, video, public service announcements, social media postings, events, media advisories, news releases, and all other related materials. The project Website must provide acknowledgement of SCAG as the agency funding this planning effort.

4.0 Technical Analysis and Studies to be Prepared by the CSG Team Pursuant to SCAG’s RFP, the CSG technical team will prepare the following studies:

4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Study
CSG has retained Michael Baker to provide the technical review for Aesthetics and Visual Study. The scope of work is as follows:

Visual Impact Assessment: The existing public views, visual resources, and on-site structures and surrounding development will be characterized. A visual inventory of the project area will be conducted in order to verify the visual character and viewshed, including views of the project site and open waters and beach areas. A discussion of the existing on-site conditions and surrounding structures will be detailed. Color site photographs will be provided to illustrate on-site and surrounding views.

Short-term construction impacts will be studied, including consideration of dust and haul trucks. Michael Baker staff will confirm whether or not existing scenic views to beach or open ocean, as well as other visual resources in the area, will be impacted by the potential building heights. Michael Baker will incorporate the photo simulations prepared as part of this scope of work in order to depict potential view impacts, if any. Michael Baker staff will also consider the potential for conflict with a plan/policy or regulation governing scenic quality, including consistency with the visual resource policies of the City’s General Plan and California Coastal Act. Michael Baker will address the potential for significant impacts to be generated by the introduction of light and glare associated with the increased development of the project. Consideration of the City’s existing outdoor lighting standards established by the existing City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code will be evaluated. If potential significant impacts rise, recommended mitigation measures will be included in order to reduce impacts to the extent feasible.

Viewshed Mapping: One viewshed analysis will be performed to determine potential areas that the proposed building height increases could be visible from within a one-mile radius of the downtown area. The data for the viewshed map will be created using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and will include Digital Surface Model (DSM) data, which considers view blockage resulting from existing structures and vegetation. When the viewshed is completed, each cell within the viewshed will be given a colored value to represent areas that can view the project site versus areas that cannot view the project site.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 15 Shade/Shadow Diagrams: Michael Baker will perform a shade and shadow analysis of the project in order to analyze the shadow-related impacts. The project would involve allowing additional Building height (up to three stories) within the downtown area. As such, based upon the Project Description, Michael Baker will use the 3D model developed as part of other tasks for this scope of work, to prepare shade and shadow drawings for time intervals throughout the day on the summer solstice, vernal/autumnal equinoxes, and winter solstice. The analysis will reflect both existing and project build-out conditions.

Photosensitive uses in the area will be analyzed. A description of the summer and winter solstice, the most extreme conditions at the project site, will be provided. Michael Baker will prepare a written analysis of the shade and shadow effects, along with supporting graphics addressing potentially significant impacts generated by the proposed project on the surrounding area.

Photo Simulations: Michael Baker will prepare up to ten (10) photosimulations to support the environmental compliance documentation for the project. Upon project kick-off, Michael Baker will schedule site reconnaissance. At this time, professional photographs will be taken. Michael Baker will utilize a Nikon D1X digital camera with a 50mm lens; photographs will be used in high resolution electronic (jpg) format. Photograph locations will be documented with global positioning system (GPS) technology. Both on-site and off-site client specified locations will be included, as agreed upon with City staff prior to site reconnaissance. The photographs will be used to illustrate the addition of taller buildings allowed as part of the new regulations and impacts on views of the public from scenic public viewing locations. Additional reference photographs will also be taken for use to aid in the creation of the computer model and inclusion into the surrounding context. Of the photographs taken, Michael Baker will use up to ten (10) photographs to simulate the proposed project. Note that this scope of work assumes all photographs will be taken during one site visit. Should any additional site work be required to take additional photographs, such activities can be done on a time and materials basis, if requested by the Client.

One (1) three-dimensional (3D) computer model will be prepared to simulate the project from up to ten (10) Key Views, as well as for use in other modeling efforts described in this scope of work. The computer model will include a massing model of the ground and all buildings in and around the downtown area. The model will be enhanced where necessary to illustrate the areas most impacted by the proposed new regulations. The level of detail will increase as the focus narrows. We assume five areas of primary focus. The enhanced portion of the overall model will include existing ground floor, proposed second and third floor additions, parking and street alterations, as well as new landscaping.

The Client supplied landscape plans or design concepts will be utilized for the depiction of all planting and materials in and around the project. The landscaping will, as much as possible, be incorporated into the computer model. This will ensure continuity from one viewpoint to another. Some fine tuning of the landscaping will be done during the photograph compositing stage. The rendered subject will then be superimposed into the selected photographs utilizing masking techniques that blend the two together seamlessly. This scope of work assumes the subject rendered will depict architectural level detail, as provided by the Client.

Drive-Thru Animations: Michael Baker will use the 3D model developed as part of this scope of work in order to prepare up to two (2), two-minute animated street level animations depicting the existing downtown development with the new improvements. The two street segments to be stimulated will be determined by the client in consultation with Michael Baker staff recommendations. This scope of work assumes the subject rendered will depict architectural level detail, as provided by the Client. The subject file will then be saved into an electronic media format for use by the city.

4.2 Air Quality Evaluation
Michael Baker technical specialists will prepare the Air Quality Analysis. The Baker scope of work is as follows:

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 16 Existing Conditions/Regulatory Framework: The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Baseline meteorological and air quality data developed through the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality. Air quality data from the nearest air quality monitoring station will be included to help highlight existing air quality local to the project area. The analysis will also describe and address the requirements set forth by the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Construction-Related Emissions: Based on data provided by the project applicant, emissions generated during earthwork, paving, and building activities will be quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). A general description of the major phases of construction and their timing will be required. The air pollutant emissions during construction will be compared to the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds of Significance.

Naturally occurring asbestos impacts will also be qualitatively discussed.

Long-Term Emissions: Operational (i.e., area, mobile, and energy source) emissions will be quantified and compared to the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. The emissions will be quantitatively derived utilizing CalEEMod.

Emission reductions due to project design features will be incorporated into the operational emissions inventory.

Primary sources of emissions will be related to area sources and local/regional vehicle miles traveled. Project consistency with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) will also be addressed.

Localized Emissions: The project is located within the SCAQMD’s Source Receptor Area (SRA) 20 (Central Orange County Coastal). Based on localized meteorological data for SRA 17, Michael Baker will analyze localized impacts based upon the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) methodology.

Air Emissions Health Impacts. As a result of the California Supreme Court decision for Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch L.P.), the resultant human health impacts from the project’s short-term construction and long-term operational air emissions will be analyzed.

4.3 Biological Resources Assessment
Michael Baker Biological Specialists will prepare the Biological Assessment. The Baker scope of work is as follows:

Literature Review: Michael Baker will conduct a high-level, primarily desktop-based biological resources analysis of the City’s Downtown Specific Plan area (DSP area) to determine its baseline conditions and verify existing data from the current Specific Plan. Michael Baker will conduct a database search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California listings, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation online system and Critical Habitat mapper to identify special status biological resources known to occur within the City. In addition, Michael Baker will review U.S. Department of Agriculture soil data, historic/current aerial photographs, and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps to further assess the ecological conditions within the project site. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper, U.S.

Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, and other sources will also be reviewed to identify aquatic resources within the DSP area that may fall under federal and/or state regulatory jurisdiction. Michael Baker will also conduct a review of the Central/Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) to confirm the location of any existing biological constraints (i.e., Reserves, Special Linkages) and identify any requirements that would be needed for the Specific Plan Update to be consistent with the conservation goals and objectives of the NCCP/HCP.

Field Reconnaissance: Following the literature review, Michael Baker will visit strategic and accessible open space areas within the DSP area to record the presence of any natural vegetation communities and the extent of land cover types. This field reconnaissance will primarily focus on areas that could not be verified to a certainty through Google Earth aerial and Street View imagery. The location of any special-status biological resources, if detected (i.e., plants, wildlife, vegetation communities, jurisdictional features), will be recorded. The field reconnaissance will not include CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 17 any comprehensive documentation of plant and wildlife species except as may be needed to help characterize existing vegetation communities. This field reconnaissance will provide a general understanding of the biological resources occurring within City’s DSP area and is expected to include up to two (2) field days following the literature review. The field reconnaissance survey does not include formal jurisdictional delineation or focused surveys for plant or wildlife species.

Report: A biological resources letter report will be prepared to present the results of the literature review and field reconnaissance. This report will document vegetation communities/land cover types occurring within DPS area, will note, on a general level, the special-status and non-special-status plant and wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the DSP area, and will identify the presence of major aquatic/hydrological features (e.g., streams, lakes) that occur within the DSP area and that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW. The report will include photographs and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) figures to enhance written text and visually depict specific biological information documented within the DSP area. GIS figures are anticipated to consist of aerial photographs that depict the DSP area boundaries; USDA soils; vegetation communities and land uses; aquatic features, and the locations of any NCCP/HCP Reserves and Special Linkages, if present in or adjacent to the DSP area. In addition, the report will analyze potential impacts of the proposed Phase II Specific Plan related to changes in building height restrictions, housing density, and lot mergers to biological resources, and identify any biological surveys, mitigation measures, regulatory approvals, and/or NCCP/HCP requirements that may be required in order to ensure the analysis of biological resources is compliant with current standards under CEQA.

4.4 Cultural, Historical and Tribal Resources Phase 1 Assessment CRM TECH will prepare the asessment for cultural and historical resources. The CRM TECH scope of work is as follows:

1. Produce maps of the planning area on appropriate current, historical, and geologic maps for use during the records search, historical background research, Native American scoping, and field inspection, as well as for inclusion in the final report.

2. Conduct a historical/archaeological resources records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center for a complete inventory of known cultural resources within the planning area.

3. Request a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission and prepare draft letters to the pertinent Native American tribes on behalf of the City of Laguna Beach in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements.

4. Conduct background research to establish a historical overview of the planning area and historical, ethnohistorical, and archaeological contexts for future evaluation of potential “historical resources.”

5. Consult with the City and Client to compile a list of existing buildings within the planning area that are considered potential “historical resources” under CEQA guidelines, including street addresses, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, and construction dates on record. (Notes: As this is a programmatic-level study, CRM TECH will not formally record or evaluate these properties.)

6. Perform a reconnaissance-level field survey of the planning area to document all potential “historical resources” and document their current conditions.

7. Prepare a final report to summarize the methods ad results of all research procedures listed above, identifying areas of different historical sensitivity, present the list of potential “historical resources” identified, and recommend subsequent courses of action in the CEQA-compliance process.

Additional services subsequent to the conclusion of the study, such as attendance and/or presentation at public hearings and written response to public comments, will be provided as needed.

4.5 Energy
Michael Baker will prepare the Energy Analysis; the scope of work is as follows:

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 18 Michael Baker will analyze the energy implications of the project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. These statutes and guidelines require a project to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. In addition, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consistency analysis with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The analysis will qualitatively discuss the effects of the project on regional and local energy supply, demand, and resources, and the project’s consistency with energy standards and requirements.

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Evaluation
Michael Baker Technical Specialists will prepare the Greenhouse Gases Evaluation. The Baker scope of work is as follows:

Michael Baker will review the land use data and will prepare an inventory of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (i.e., nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide) from both direct (i.e., area and mobile sources) and indirect sources (i.e., energy/water consumption and wastewater/solid waste generation). In addition, total GHG emissions from construction activities will be amortized into the GHG emissions inventory. CalEEMod will be used to quantify GHG emissions. Reductions from recently adopted programs and regulations will be included, such as improvements in fuel efficiency, State building code energy efficiency, and water efficiency. The analysis will review project consistency with applicable plans for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, such as the California Air Resources Board 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Governments 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020–2045 RTP/SCS). Mitigation measures will be identified and incorporated, as necessary, to reduce potentially significant GHG impacts of the proposed project.

4.7 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality Assessment
Fuscoe Engineering will prepare the Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality Assessment. The Fuscoe scope of work is as follows:

Project Kick-Off / Site Tour: Attend the project kick-off meeting and site tour with SCAG and City staff and consultant team staff and prepare data needs list.

Research and Data Acquisition and Review: Research and compile Phase I documentation, master plans of drainage, sewer and water and any regional infrastructure studies within the specific plan area. GIS data is preferred for utility layers. Work with SCAG/City staff and consultant team to define the limits of evaluation related to existing floodplains (Zone AE & VE), FEMA requirements and on-going sea level rise planning and adaptation strategies.

Assumptions: All existing and proposed hydrology evaluations assume the existing FIRMs maps are applicable (2019), and no additional FEMA analysis or floodplain analysis will be performed. If additional hydrology and/or hydraulic analysis is required, a separate proposal will be prepared for authorization.

Existing Condition Memorandum: Based on the master plans and regional studies provided by the City, prepare an infrastructure assessment and memorandum highlighting any major significant deficiency or capacity issues within the study area or any significant data gaps that require future analysis. Summarize any plans for improvements including funding status and anticipated schedule. Identify how existing FEMA standards and floodplain requirements are being applied for new development projects.

Proposed Condition Evaluation for Storm Drain, Water, and Sewer: Evaluate the proposed land use changes against the existing drainage, water and sewer systems. If anticipated changes in land use are provided, prepare proposed water and sewer demands using locally accepted generation values to identify potential increases in demand. In coordination with City staff and utility departments, qualitatively evaluate potential impacts on each of the infrastructure systems.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 19 Fuscoe will coordinate with City Public Works and OC Flood Control District staff to identify any future flood control projects to reduce downtown flooding. Incorporate the most current strategies and policies for sea level rise adaptation. Summarize the findings including CEQA Thresholds Analysis into a technical memorandum for inclusion as a technical appendix to the program level EIR.

Note: Water and Sewer evaluations do not include any hydraulic modeling or use of existing city-wide water and sewer hydraulic models. If Public Works requires updating their models for assessing impacts, Fuscoe will provide updated input parameters (proposed demands) for use within the model(s).

Meetings and Coordination: Attend meetings and hearings as requested; coordinate with CSG Consultants, Inc. and SCAG/City staff as needed. Coordinate with external agencies as requested. Budget allows up to 24 hours.

4.8 Noise and Vibration Analysis
Michael Baker Technical Specialists will prepare the Noise and Vibration Analysis. The Baker scope of work is as follows:

Existing Conditions/Regulatory Framework: Michael Baker will review applicable noise and land use compatibility criteria for the project area. Noise standards regulating noise impacts will be discussed for land uses on and adjacent to the project site. Michael Baker will conduct a site visit throughout the project site. During the site visit, Michael Baker will conduct short-term noise level measurements throughout the project area. The noise monitoring survey will be conducted at up to three separate locations to establish baseline noise levels in the project area. The noise analysis will be structured to address the applicable questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Construction-Related Noise and Vibration: Construction would occur during the implementation of the proposed project. Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed based on the anticipated equipment to be used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. The construction noise impacts will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax) and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq) and the frequency of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations.

Operational Noise Sources: The project-generated off-site traffic noise levels will be compared to the applicable Noise Ordinance specifications and/or land use compatibility criteria for off-site uses. On-site noise generating activities (e.g., stationary sources, parking lot activities, etc.) will also be addressed and analyzed for potential impacts to the adjacent uses and will be assessed against the Noise Ordinance specifications. Compliance with applicable noise standards will be evaluated, with recommended mitigation measures included where appropriate.

4.9 Traffic and Transportation Study
Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LL&G) will prepare the Traffic and Circulation Study. The LL&G scope of work is as follows:

The Traffic Study and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis will be prepared according to City of Laguna Beach requirements. Since the extent of the traffic study area cannot be determined at this time, this scope of work is based on the analysis of up to fifteen (15) intersections. At the appropriate time, City of Laguna Beach staff will be contacted to confirm the number and location of the study intersections.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 20

4.9.1 Project Mobilization:
• Confirm the development description with the project team, SCAG, and City of Laguna Beach staff, work schedule, and assumptions to be utilized in the Traffic Study and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis. Obtain a plan that illustrates the locations of the additional residential units to be added within the Downtown Specific Plan Area in both hard copy and digital formats. • Contact City of Laguna Beach staff to discuss the project and analysis criteria, confirm the study approach, identify pertinent traffic issues and concerns, and formalize the Scope of Work for the Traffic Study and the VMT analysis.
• In consultation with SCAG and City of Laguna Beach staff, prepare a scope of work agreement detailing the study area, assumptions and overall traffic study requirements (including VMT), and submit to SCAG and City staff for review and approval.

4.9.2 Data Collection and Research:
• Visit the project study area to inventory existing conditions with respect to current site conditions, local area development, pedestrian and bike facilities, parking use, and areas of congestion in order to verify our overall understanding of traffic and parking conditions in the area that might affect this project. • In conjunction with the above item, inventory existing roadway striping, traffic control measures, curbside parking restrictions, adjacent intersection configurations, and other pertinent roadway features within the study area. Research existing transit service provided within the project study area. • Conduct AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) manual turning movement counts at up to fifteen (15) key study intersections in the project vicinity. Should staff request additional traffic counts and/or analysis at additional study intersections beyond a total of fifteen (15) locations, an amendment to our contract will be necessary.

4.9.3 Trip Generation, Distribution, Assignment and Traffic Forecasting:
• Prepare trip generation forecasts for the proposed Project (i.e., for the additional residential units) for a typical weekday over a 24-hour period, as well as for the commuter AM and PM peak hours. The trip generation forecasts will be derived from trip rates listed in Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2021. • Utilizing OCTAM 5.1 model files, prepare computer traffic model runs for Baseline conditions and Buildout conditions (without the project modifications) for the AM and PM peak periods. Buildout traffic volume forecasts will be determined through utilization of the OCTAM output via the following methodology:
a) Calculate the difference between the Baseline and the Buildout peak period traffic volumes and convert to AM and PM peak hour (i.e., one-hour) link traffic volumes. b) Link traffic volumes (i.e., two-way directional traffic volumes on each roadway segment) will be postprocessed using the County/City approved “b-turns” program and the relationship of the base year validation model run output to the base year "ground" traffic counts.

The link traffic volumes will be post-processed to determine AM peak hour and PM peak hour Buildout traffic volumes (without the project modifications) for up to fifteen (15) intersections. • Assign the forecasted AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the proposed project (i.e., the additional residential units within the Downtown Specific Plan) to the study intersections based on existing and anticipated traffic patterns to and from the project areas, and input from SCAG and City staff. The assumed distribution pattern will be submitted for review and approval by SCAG and City staff prior to finalization.
• Utilizing the traffic volume data compiled as part of Tasks 3.2 and 3.3, develop AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes for “Buildout traffic conditions” and “Buildout plus Project traffic conditions” for up to fifteen (15) intersections.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 21

4.9.4 Project Evaluation and Mitigation Analysis:
• Prepare AM peak hour and PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) calculations at up to fifteen (15) key intersections to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project. The following traffic analysis scenarios will be prepared:
a) Existing traffic conditions,
b) Buildout traffic conditions, and
c) Buildout plus project traffic conditions.
• The LOS calculations will be based on City-approved and Caltrans-approved capacity analysis methodologies (i.e., Highway Capacity Manual method for signalized and unsignalized intersections). • Assess the impact of the project based on the results of the peak hour intersection analyses, the City’s LOS standards and application of the City’s significance criteria. Based on this assessment, determine which intersections (if any) will require improvements to improve potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project to less than significant levels. • Provide recommended mitigation measures which may include intersection and/or signalization improvements, striping modifications, the addition of auxiliary turn lanes, traffic control/limitations at site access points, etc. Please note that this proposal assumes the recommended improvement measures can be adequately described within the text of the report. Should the City request preparation of plans to further demonstrate the feasibility of the mitigation measures, an amendment to our contract will be necessary.

4.9.5 Preparation of the Traffic Impact Study:
• Prepare a Draft Traffic Report that details all of the above-mentioned items including our analysis, findings and conclusions. The Draft Traffic Report will be suitably documented with tabular, graphic and appendix material. The report will be submitted for screencheck review by the appropriate members of the project team/City staff.
• If necessary, revise the Draft Traffic Report to address project team and SCAG/City staff comments and provide a Final Traffic Report for inclusion into the project’s Environmental Document. The Final Traffic Report will be suitably documented with all tabular, graphic and appendix materials.

4.9.6 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum:
• Coordinate with City of Laguna Beach staff to define the study area as the size and shape of the study area can affect the analysis. Determine the analysis scenarios and confirm the approach for the VMT analysis.
• Assuming the use of the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM), conduct with and without project VMT model runs. The without project scenario will assume existing or community plan/general plan land uses.
• Compare the project VMT for the project against the threshold (i.e., either the City VMT or County VMT).

Determine the project impact based on City of Laguna Beach Guidelines, if available and/or the OPR Technical Advisory.
• If necessary, recommend appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impact. Provide the project team a toolbox of potential mitigation or project alternatives for consideration in the analysis. • Utilize the most current California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) standards or the local guidelines and determine if the selected mitigation measures reduce the project’s VMT impacts to less than significant.
• Prepare a draft technical memorandum, which details all the above-mentioned items, our findings and conclusions. The memorandum will be suitably documented with appropriate text, tabular, graphic, and appendix materials. The draft memorandum will be submitted for review by appropriate members of the project team/City staff.
• If necessary, update the draft technical memorandum based on project team, SCAG and City staff comments, and submit a final VMT analysis memorandum.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 22

4.9.7 Attendance at Meetings:
• This proposal assumes preparation for and attendance by LLG at up to two (2) Project team meetings and/or City meetings. This proposal allocates three (3) hours of preparation and participation by the Project Manager at each of these meetings.

4.9.8 Response to Comments:
• Coordinate with the Project team and/or City staff regarding traffic-related comments received during the circulation of the Environmental Document.
• Prepare and submit written responses to traffic-related comments received on the Traffic Section of the Environmental Document during the public review process. Update the responses if necessary, based on City and/or Project team comments and submit final written responses for inclusion in the Final Environmental Document (8 hours of Senior Transportation Engineer support and 4 hours of Principal Engineer support is allocated for this task).

4.9.9 Attendance at Public Hearings:
• Prepare for and attend two (2) City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission meetings and two (2) City of Laguna Beach City Council meetings. This component includes preparation of specific presentation materials on traffic issues. For budgeting purposes, the length of each meeting is assumed to be five (5) five hours and will be attended by the Project Manager.

5.0 Administrative Draft EIR
CSG will prepare a comprehensive, accurate, and objective Program EIR for the project, ensuring full compliance with the CEQA requirements and guidelines, and all applicable guidance and procedures established by the City of Laguna Beach for environmental review. The Administrative Draft EIR will also provide a thorough and detailed analysis of the project’s environmental impacts. Each section of the EIR will clearly describe the methodology and criteria used to assess project impacts, including any assumptions, models, or modeling techniques applied in the analysis.

5.1 Executive Summary
The Executive Summary will summarize the Project Location, Project Description, Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved and Alternatives. The summary of impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation will be presented in a columnar format.

5.2 Introduction and Purpose
The Introduction and Purpose will cite the provisions of CEQA, the City of Laguna Beach CEQA Implementing Procedures, Project background and history, the purpose of the EIR, scoping efforts, environmental issues assessed in the EIR, the environmental review process, organization of the EIR, responsible and trustee agencies and documentation incorporated by reference.

5.3 Project Description
The Project Description section will incorporate the completed Description referenced in Task 2.3.

5.4 Thresholds of Significance
This section will provide a comprehensive description of thresholds of significance for each issue area of environmental analysis. The significance threshold criteria will be described and will provide the basis for conclusions of significance. Primary sources to be used in identifying the criteria include the CEQA Guidelines, as well as local, State, Federal and other standards applicable to an impact category. The thresholds along with standard conditions for approval will also be referenced in the impact analysis section for each environmental topic.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 23

5.5 Cumulative Projects/Analysis
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the environmental review for each topical issue will address cumulative considerations. A cumulative Projects list will be referenced pursuant to information available from the City of Laguna Beach, County of Orange, and local agencies in proximity to the site. The purpose of this review is to present a listing and description of projects, past and present, and those anticipated in the reasonably foreseeable future. The potential for impacts and level of significance are based upon the radius or area of interaction with the Project area. The cumulative projects will be listed by name, location and description and will be the basis for the cumulative impact analysis for each environmental topic.

5.6 Environmental Topical Areas of Study
Topical EIR sections will contain a review of existing conditions, the regulatory framework, applicable Project design standards and features, potentially significant Project and cumulative environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions of significance of impacts following mitigation.

5.6.1 Aesthetics
CSG will incorporate the technical analysis prepared by Baker under task 4.1. The Aesthetics analysis will be based on thresholds established and referenced in Appendix G, Section I, Aesthetics, of the CEQA Guidelines. The review will consider sensitive locations/uses that are in proximity to the Specific Plan area. The study of impacts will thoroughly address existing conditions, identify potential view/aesthetic effects resulting from increased building heights, and potential increases in densities and changes within the Project area. The analysis will consider designated scenic vistas that may occur in the vicinity, nearby view vantage points, analyze character and quality considerations and study potential light and glare impacts.

This section will characterize the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources in the project area, including views from surrounding public locations and right of way. A visual inventory of the Project area will be conducted to verify the visual character and viewshed. The section will include a discussion of the existing massing and building heights in the Plan area. A photo inventory will illustrate on-site and surrounding views.

The city has identified public scenic view locations throughout the community, including views along scenic transportation corridors, such as Laguna Canyon Road, as well as along Pacific Coast Highway. View locations are also depicted from vantage points extending from the hillside, open space areas and along the beachfront. Potential public scenic views of these resources, that also capture the project area, will be considered, and analyzed. Project implementation would allow increased building heights, when compared to the existing condition. The project’s potential for view blockage of scenic resources will be studied with a series of exhibits to support the analysis and conclusions for significance of impacts.

The analysis will consider the potential effects on the Character and Quality of the Project area. The compatibility and introduction of higher density of uses, when compared to the surrounding area, will be studied. The Project’s consistency with the character and quality of the local area will be considered. Consistency with applicable Municipal Codes, Standards and Regulations, as they pertain to aesthetic considerations, will be reviewed.

The potential for significant impacts to be generated by the introduction of light and glare associated with new development within the project area will be addressed. Existing lighting conditions will be identified and future lighting conditions (e.g., interior lighting, exterior security lighting, landscape lighting, and potential increases in vehicular headlights in the vicinity of project ingress and egress locations) will be considered. Existing City policies and guidelines regarding light and glare will be reviewed for inclusion within the EIR.

For each of the subtopics for Aesthetics, the analysis will conclude the level of significance for impacts and mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 24

5.6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Based on a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photography, and thresholds established in Appendix G, Section II of the CEQA Guidelines, it is confirmed that no agricultural uses or forestry resources exist on site. The review has been further verified through additional research involving the City of Laguna Beach policy documents, the National Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey, the California Department of Conservation Farmland Monitoring and Mapping program, and Williamson Act Maps. The conclusion of no potential impacts is anticipated to be presented in the Effects Found Not to Be Significant section.

5.6.3 Air Quality
Baker will prepare the Air Quality Evaluation as referenced in Task 4.2. CSG will incorporate the technical report into the EIR section. The analyses will be structured to address the applicable questions from Appendix G, Section III of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis will present the existing conditions and regulatory framework. Construction and longterm emissions will be studied.

5.6.4 Biological Resources
Baker will prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) based on Appendix G, Section IV, of the CEQA Guidelines.

The results of the BRA, as referenced in task 4.3, will be incorporated into the EIR. The section will 1) describe the methodology used to conduct the biological assessment; 2) provide a general description of the existing vegetation and associated wildlife resources within the Project area; 3) identify potential impacts from Project development; and 4) recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

5.6.5 Cultural, Historical, Paleontological and Tribal Resources CRM TECH will prepare the cultural, historic and tribal resources review in accordance with Appendix G, Sections V and XVIII of the CEQA Guidelines. The results of the CRM TECH Phase I CRA, as referenced in task 4.4, will be incorporated into the EIR. The research, field surveys, historical evaluations, and tribal correspondence will be compiled and described. The EIR will include resource information, associated regulations and a discussion of the Projects’ cultural and tribal context. If potential significant impacts to resources are identified, CSG will recommend mitigation measures to address those impacts.

For the Paleontological review, CSG will request a paleontological resources records search and literature review for the proposed project area from the Vertebrate Paleontological section of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. The Natural History Museum provides a letter summarizing information on geological formation and known paleontological localities (if any) near the project area, and a determination of the paleontological sensitivity of the geological units that underly the area. In addition, environmental studies that have been prepared in proximity to the Downtown Plan area and the 2045 will be utilized and referenced.

5.6.6 Energy
Baker will prepare the Energy analysis technical review, as referenced in Task 4.5. CSG will analyze the energy consumption implications of the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F and Appendix G, Section VI, of the CEQA Guidelines.

5.6.7 Geology and Soils
Based upon available geotechnical analysis prepared in the local area, other available studies, and related references, this section will include a review of existing regional and local geology and soils constraints (such as compressible soils, landslide hazards, disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-covering of soil and areas subject to subsidence) and overall seismic hazards. The Project will be evaluated based on Appendix G, Section VII, of the CEQA Guidelines. The evaluation will include the potential to directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction). The section will address existing conditions and impacts caused by the Project and recommend mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts resulting from the construction and buildout of the Project.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 25

5.6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Michael Baker will prepare the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report as presented in Task 4.6. The analyses will be structured to address the applicable questions from Appendix G, Section VIII of the CEQA Guidelines. CSG will incorporate the report into the EIR section.

5.6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The EIR section will be based on Appendix G, Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the CEQA Guidelines. A review of the Department of Substance Control (DTSC) EnvirStor database will be conducted to confirm any hazardous condition sites occurring within the Project area. The section will summarize information provided in regulatory agency databases, confirming current and past hazardous conditions. The section will address existing conditions and impacts, with recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts resulting from the construction and buildout of the Project.

5.6.10 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality
Based on the Fuscoe Engineering technical study referenced in Task 4.7, and available references provided by the City, the section will include a review of existing regional and local hydrologic, drainage and water quality conditions. The EIR evaluation will be based on Appendix G, Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the CEQA Guidelines. The local setting, topography, climate, surface waters, watershed, regional streams and water bodies will be identified.

Existing and proposed hydrology/drainage and water quality conditions will be addressed for the Project. Based on available technical information, including the Hydrology Study and Water Quality Assessment, the analysis will consider the potential for changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, storm drain improvements, and downstream effects associated with the Project. The potential for the Project to degrade water quality, interfere with groundwater recharge or expose people to water-related hazards will be identified. The section will recommend mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts resulting from construction and build out.

5.6.11 Land Use and Planning
The downtown is recognized by distinguished characteristics in each of the areas, including Forest Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Broadway, Lower Cliff Drive, Coast Highway, Main Beach Park, Central Bluffs,Glenneyre Street, Second,Third and Mermaid Streets, City/Village Entrance and Laguna Canyon Road. Existing land uses involve a broad range of businesses, including retail shops, resident services, offices, restaurants and specialty stores. Residential uses are located primarily on Lower Cliff Drive, although there are other properties throughout the downtown that support residential uses. Within the downtown area, the General Plan land use designation is Central Business District and other land use designations which apply include Commercial and Tourist Corridor, Local Business/Professional, Public/Institutional, and Village High Density.

CSG will evaluate the proposed Project in consideration of uses within the Plan area and surrounding land uses and will analyze the relationship of the Project to applicable planning policies and standards. The review will be based on Appendix G, Section XI, Land Use and Planning, of the CEQA Guidelines which refers to review of a proposed action to determine if it can cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. The analysis will consider adjacent and nearby land uses and determine any implications that may arise out of implementation of the Specific Plan. The review will include regional policy considerations including consistency with SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide policies.

5.6.12 Mineral Resources
There are no known Mineral Resource conditions onsite. Pursuant to Appendix G, Section XII, Mineral Resources, of the CEQA Guidelines, CSG will document that there is not a known loss of availability of known resources or an important mineral recovery site. The results of the review are expected to be presented in the Effects Found Not to Be Significant section.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 26

5.6.13 Noise
Baker will prepare the Noise technical report as presented in Task 4.8. The analysis will be structured to address the applicable questions from Appendix G, Section XIII of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis will consider potential mitigation to reduce construction and operation impacts. If construction and/or buildout noise emissions exceed City of Laguna Beach thresholds of significance, CSG will work with the City to determine feasible mitigation measures.

The results will be provided in the EIR and include summaries of noise terminology, applicable noise regulations, ambient noise environment, and increases in existing noise levels.

5.6.14 Population, Housing and Growth Inducement
The section will be based on Appendix G, Section XIV, Population and Housing, as well as Section 15126.2 (d), Growth Inducement, of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis in this section will be based on data from the City of Laguna Beach, County of Orange, the California Department of Finance, and U.S. Census. The section will discuss ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

Potential growth-inducing impacts from the Project will be analyzed as they relate to population, housing and employment factors. The analysis will address growth-inducing impacts in terms of whether the Project influences the rate, location and amount of growth. Growth-inducing impacts will be assessed based on the Project’s consistency with adopted/proposed plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint.

5.6.15 Public Services and Recreation
CSG will contact public service providers to confirm relevant existing conditions and potential Project impacts. The discussion will focus on potential alterations of existing facilities, extension or expansion of new facilities and any possible increase in demand for services. The evaluation will include potential impacts for proposed/required new or physically altered government facilities, fire safety, police protection, schools, parks, recreational and other facilities.

The section will be based on Appendix G, Sections XV, Public Services, and Section XVI, Recreation, of the CEQA Guidelines. The Section will address existing conditions and impacts caused by the Project and recommend measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts resulting from construction and buildout of the Project, as applicable.

5.6.16 Traffic and Transportation
The traffic and transportation study to be prepared by LL&G and referenced in Task 4.9 will be incorporated into this section. The EIR section will be based on Appendix G, Section XVII of the CEQA Guidelines.

5.6.17 Utilities and Service Systems
CSG will contact affected service providers to confirm relevant existing conditions and potential effects. The analysis will address both wet (water, sewer, and stormwater) and dry (electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication) utility infrastructure. The discussion will include on and off-site utility line upgrades, existing capacities, and availability of supply to meet demand. The analysis will also address whether the Project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources and new or expanded facilities would be needed. Landfill capacity and compliance with solid waste regulations will be addressed.

The section will be based on Appendix G, Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of the CEQA Guidelines. The section will address existing conditions, impacts caused by the Project and recommend measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts resulting from the construction and buildout of the Project.

5.6.18 Wildfire
The Wildfire analysis will be based on thresholds established and referenced in Appendix G, Section XX, Wildfire, of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risks will be reviewed. Pursuant to existing regulations, new electrical lines would be required to be underground. Existing regulations and standards of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Hazard Mitigation Plan, and Emergency Operations Plan, and the standards and codes of the Orange County Fire Authority will be reviewed and referenced.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 27 This section will analyze potential effects to evacuation routes and capability within the Project area, as a result of the proposed increase in human activity and vehicle traffic at the site, and the introduction of habitable structures. Our scope of work includes an optional detailed review of evacuation impacts resulting from project implementation, subject to further discussions with SCAG and the City of Laguna Beach. Refer to Optional Task 8.1 for additional information.

For each of the subtopics for Wildfire, the analysis will conclude the level of significance for impacts and mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts.

5.6.19 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
In coordination with SCAG and City Staff, CSG will develop project alternatives designed to avoid and/or substantially reduce impacts. Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the range of Alternatives is expected to include the “No Project,” a “Reduced Density Alternative,” and a possible “Design and/or Use Alternative,” subject to further discussions with SCAG and the City.

In addition, as an optional task and to address potential project variations, we can prepare a Comparative Summary subsection, which can be incorporated as an Appendix in the Program EIR. Our team members have used this tool while at another firm for the City of Walnut Creek Mixed Use Special District Project. A copy of that subsection has been included in this proposal for reference. Refer also to Optional Task 8.2.

5.6.20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
In order to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 32180), CSG will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP checklist will serve as the foundation of the MMRP. The checklist will outline the mitigation measure number, as referenced in the EIR, the mitigation measure/condition of approval, the Monitoring Milestone (what agency/department is responsible for verifying the implementation of the measure), the Method of Verification (documentation, field checks, etc.), and a verification section for the initials of the verifying party, date of verification, and pertinent remarks. A draft MMRP will be prepared for review by staff and CSG will respond to one set of City Staff comments in order to finalize the MMRP.

5.6.21 Additional CEQA Sections
CSG will provide additional EIR sections to meet CEQA and City requirements, including the following: Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; Effects Found Not to Be Significant; Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Organizations and Persons Consulted and Prepares of the EIR.

5.6.22 Graphic Exhibits
The EIR will include graphic exhibits to enhance the written text and clarify the Project and potential impacts. For the purpose of budgeting, it is anticipated that up to 30 exhibits will be created. CSG will use state-of-the-art computer design equipment and techniques to create professional quality black and white and/or full-color exhibits, dividers, and cover for the EIR document.

6.0 Screencheck and Public Review Draft EIR

6.1 Screencheck Draft EIR
CSG will respond to one complete set of comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. CSG will revise the document and will provide the Screencheck Draft EIR as a WORD file, with all changes presented in track changes to assist with the final check of the document. A PDF of the Screencheck Draft EIR will also be provided, including all exhibits.

6.2 Completion of the Public Review Draft EIR
Following one complete set of comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR, CSG will revise the document and prepare the Public Review Draft EIR for distribution. This task assumes that all substantive comments will have been raised as a part of Task 6.1 above. CSG will prepare the Draft EIR for the 45-day public review period. This scope of work assumes CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 28 that CSG will provide the Draft EIR electronically to SCAG and the City, for local distribution. CSG will log the Public Review Draft EIR into the State Clearinghouse and file the Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Notice of Completion (NOC). CSG will also file the document with the Orange County Clerk and Recorder. It is assumed that the SCAG and the city will be responsible for any distribution, radius mailing, site postings, and newspaper noticing required for the Project. Should the SCAG and the City request that CSG coordinate any of those activities, the scope of work and budget can be modified prior to entering into a consultant's agreement.

7.0 Final EIR

7.1 Responses to Comments
CSG will respond to all written comments received on the Draft EIR and all testimony received at the Planning Commission public hearing during the 45-day public review period. CSG will prepare thorough, reasoned, and sensitive responses to relevant environmental issues. The Draft responses to comments will be prepared by CSG, in partnership with our consulting technical team, for review by SCAG and City staff.

This task also includes the preparation of a matrix of comments, which shall include the comment letter, the comment number within the comment letter, the issue area to which it applies, and whether the response will be an individual response or a topical/master response. All comments will be numbered (to indicate comment letter and comment number), and the responses to those comments will be similarly numbered to allow easy correlation. CSG will address one complete set of comments from SCAG and City staff and will provide revisions in track changes for ease of review. The updated Response to Comments section will be incorporated as a section into the Final EIR.

The extent of public and agency comments that will result from the public review process is unknown at this time.

Should the extent of responses to comments exceed the budget estimate, additional funding may be required. The scope of work does not assume any further supplemental technical studies or extensive analysis will be required for the response to comments. If it is determined that supplemental technical analysis is required, CSG will work with SCAG and City staff to determine the associated scope of work and additional funding required.

7.2 Administrative, Screencheck, and Public Final EIR
The Administrative Final EIR will consist of the Response to Comments, MMRP, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Task 7.3) and revisions to the Draft EIR text, as determined necessary. To facilitate the review, CSG will format the Final EIR with bold/underline text for any new or modified text, and “strike out” any deleted text. The Administrative Final EIR will be provided for review.

CSG will respond to one complete set of comments on the Administrative Final EIR. CSG will revise the document and will provide the Screencheck Final EIR as a WORD file, with all changes presented in track changes to assist with the final check of the document. A PDF of the Screencheck Final EIR will also be provided, including all exhibits.

CSG will respond to editing requests to finalize the Final EIR and provide it as a PDF for distribution approval. It is assumed that CSG will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD) and file with the State Clearinghouse and County Clerk within five days of EIR certification.

7.3 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations CSG will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process including the preparation of the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, if required, for use in the project review process. The Findings will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093 and in a City specified format.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 29

8.0 Optional Tasks
The following are additional tasks that may be incorporated into the work program, subject to further discussions with SCAG and the City of Laguna Beach. Budgeting for the optional tasks is not included at this time but may be provided as directed by the client.

8.1 Evacuation Review

8.1.1 Confirm the fire scenarios with City of Laguna Beach staff and/or City Fire Department staff. Based on the provided fire scenarios, obtain the evacuation area for the worst case fire scenario from the Fire Consultant. The evacuation area will be confirmed with City of Laguna Beach staff.

8.1.2 Coordinate with City of Laguna Beach staff to determine the evacuation routes and the roadway capacities for all roadways that will be utilized as part of the evacuation area routes.

8.1.3 Develop “Peak Condition Traffic Evacuation Volumes” for without and with project traffic conditions. It should be noted that these traffic volumes will be consistent with the traffic analysis project area.

8.1.4 Utilizing TransModeler simulation software, determine the travel time for the evacuation area without and with the project. The difference between the two will be the travel time increase with the project and represents the impact threshold. The travel time impact threshold will be determined in conjunction with City of Laguna Beach staff.

8.1.5 Prepare a draft technical memorandum, which details all the above-mentioned items, our findings and conclusions. The memorandum will be suitably documented with appropriate text, tabular, graphic, and appendix materials. The draft memorandum will be submitted for review by appropriate members of the project team/City staff.

8.1.6 If necessary, update the draft technical memorandum based on project team/City staff comments, and submit a final Evacuation Analysis memorandum to SCAG/City of Laguna Beach for incorporation into Draft EIR being prepared by the Environmental Consultant.

8.2 Preparation of Comparative Summary of Potential Impacts As stated in task 5.6.18, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, CSG will develop a comparative summary of potential impacts resulting from the proposed project, in comparison to alternatives. This optional task will address potential project variations through the tool of a comparative summary subsection. Our team has used this tool for the City of Walnut Creek Mixed Use Special Districts project. A copy of that subsection is included with this proposal.

DELIVERABLES
For budgetary purposes, the following is a breakdown of all deliverables pursuant to the Request for Proposal. The listing can be adjusted, as requested by SCAG and the City of Laguna Beach. CSG can also provide costs per document and can provide billing on a time and material basis, as requested.

Project Management

1. Monthly Progress reports and Invoices

2. Project Close out files and Excel files
Project Meetings

1. Meeting agendas for up to 16 PMT meetings

2. Meeting notes with list of attendees (up to 16)

3. Meeting materials, including presentations or handouts (up to 16)

4. Additional check-ins (up to 12 hours)
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 30 Project Kick-Off

1. Electronic submittal of project kick-off meeting agenda

2. Attendance at project kick-off meeting

3. Electronic submittal of project kick-off meeting minutes

4. Kick-off presentation and handout materials

5. Project Work Plan

6. Date Certain Project Schedule
Data Review and Needs Request

1. Electronic submittal of a Data Needs Request document

2. Photograph database organized by category

3. Baseline evaluation and reporting of identified REAP 2.0 measurable outcome.

Project Description

1. Draft Project Description submittal including two rounds of review/comments Initial Study/Notice of Preparation

1. Electronic submittal in MS Word or Excel format of the NOP Distribution list

2. Electronic submittal of the Administrative Draft NOP

3. Electronic submittal of the Public Review NOP to the City and State Clearinghouse CEQAnet web portal, and hardcopy submittal to the County Clerk.

Conduct a Scoping Meeting

1. Presentation materials, agenda, sign-in sheet, comment cards

2. One public scoping meeting to be hosted by SCAG/City and facilitated by the CSG

3. Electronic submittal of Scoping Report summarizing comments and responses Agency/ Non-Agency Consultation and Response to Comments

1. A summary of comments shall be provided and incorporated into the Draft EIR Tribal Consultation

1. Electronic submittal of Tribal Consultation Notification Distribution List

2. Electronic submittal of Tribal Consultation Notification Letters, as required, for consultants to send via certified mail.

Prepare Technical Analyses/Reports:

Aesthetics

1. Visual Impact Assessment.

2. Existing Condition Shade/Shadow Diagrams on the summer solstice, vernal/autumnal equinoxes, and winter solstice.

3. Proposed Condition Shade/Shadow Diagrams on the summer solstice, vernal/autumnal equinoxes, and winter solstice.

4. Up to five (5) photorealistic ground level photosimulations within the downtown area.

5. Up to five (5) photorealistic ground level photosimulations from selected off-site public scenic view locations.

6. Two (2), two-minute animated street level animations depicting the existing downtown development with the new improvements. The electronic format deliverable can be posted by City staff to a public website.

Air Quality

1. Michael Baker will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Biological Resources

1. Michael Baker will provide the analysis in a standalone report.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 31 Cultural/Historical/Tribal

1. CRM TECH will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Energy

1. Michael Baker will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1. Michael Baker will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality

1. Fuscoe Engineering will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Noise and Vibration

1. Michael Baker will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Traffic and Transportation

1. Linscott, Law and Greenspan will provide the analysis in an EIR section format to be provided by CSG.

Prepare Administrative Draft EIR

1. Electronic submittals of each Administrative Draft EIR section, to be provided separately in Word and PDF to SCAG and the City for edits and comments via OneDrive or SharePoint, as directed by SCAG and the City.

2. Provided to SCAG and the City.

Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR

1. One electronic submittal of the Screencheck Draft EIR in Word and PDF to SCAG and the City for distribution approval.

Prepare and Distribute Public Draft EIR, Notice of Availability, and Notice of Completion

1. One electronic copy and three hard copies of the Public Review Draft environmental review document, NOA, NOC, and Summary Form, as required.

2. Complete electronic submittal to the State Clearinghouse CEQANet portal; SCAG/City is responsible for distributing hard copies for public review as required and NOA to the newspaper, agencies, and interested persons by certified mail as required.

Prepare Response to Comments

1. A matrix of comments, which shall include the comment letter, the comment number within the comment letter, the issue area to which it applies, and whether the response will be an individual response or a topical/master response. All comments will be numbered (to indicate comment letter and comment number), and the responses to those comments will be similarly numbered to allow easy correlation.

2. If required, a final response to comments shall be prepared and conveyed to commenters/ agencies via email at least 10 days prior to final certification, as required by CEQA.

Prepare Administrative Final EIR

1. Electronic submittals of each Administrative Final EIR section, to be provided separately in Word and PDF to SCAG and the City for edits and comments via OneDrive or SharePoint, as directed by SCAG and the City.

Prepare Screencheck Final Environmental Impact Report

1. One electronic version of the Screencheck Draft Final EIR in Word and PDF to SCAG and the City for distribution
Prepare Public Final Environmental Impact Report

1. One electronic copy and one hard copy of the Public Review Final EIR.

2. One electronic copy submitted by CSG to the State Clearinghouse CEQAnet portal; SCAG/City to post on the website and distribute hard copy public review documents as required.

Notice of Determination

1. Electronic copy of the NOD provided to the city for signature. CSG will submit the final version of the Notice of Determination (NOD) to the County Clerk.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 32 Project Management and Public Hearings Project Coordination and Project Management

1. On-going weekly or bi-weekly one-hour calls to discuss Project status.

Attendance at Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.

1. Attendance and participation in two public hearings before the Planning Commission and two City Council meetings.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 33

PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
CSG’s proposed schedule is provided below. Our breakdown of hours for each task are provided within CSG’s budget and fee schedule, which has been uploaded as a separate attachment.

Tasks Timeline/Month
Task 1: Project and Monthly Progress Reports Monthly
Task 1: Master Schedule 1
Task 2: Kick-Off Meeting 1
Task 2: Data Needs Request 1
Task 2: Administrative Draft Project Description 1
Task 2: Review of Administrative Draft Project Description 1 Task 2: Draft Project Description 1-2
Task 3: Administrative Draft Notice of Preparation/Initial Study 1-2 Task 3: City Review of Administrative Draft Notice of Preparation/Initial Study 2
Task 3: Draft Notice of Preparation/Initial Study 1-2
Task 3: 30 Day Notice of Preparation Public Review 2-3
Task 3: Public Scoping Meeting During the 30-day NOP review During 30 Day NOP Public Review Period Task 4: Preparation of Technical Studies 1-4
Task 5: Administrative Draft EIR Preparation 2-5
Task 5: Review of the Administrative Draft EIR 6
Task 6: Screencheck Draft EIR Preparation 7
Task 6: Review of Screencheck Draft EIR 7
Task 6: Public Review Draft Completion 7
45 Day Draft EIR Public Review 7-9
Public Meeting During the 45-day Public Review During 45 Day Public Review Period Task 7: Administrative Draft Responses to Comments 9-10 Task 7: Review of the Administrative Draft Responses to Comments 10 Task 7: Draft Responses to Comments 10
Task 7: Administrative Final EIR 11
Task 7: Review of the Administrative Final EIR 11
Task 7: Screencheck Final EIR 11
Task 7: Final EIR Completion 11
Task 7: Final EIR to SCAG and the City 11
Task 7: Administrative Draft Findings and Overriding Considerations 11 Task 7: Review of the Administrative Draft Findings and Overriding Considerations 11
Task 7: Findings and Overriding Considerations Completion 11 Hearings To Be Determined
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 34 IV. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY STAFF AND RESUMES
Figure 1. Organizational Chart

CSG ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF
Liza Debies
Senior Environmental Planner
Kelli Allen
Associate Environmental Planner
Colby Gonzalez
Assistant Environmental Planner
Glenn Lajoie, AICP
Principal & Director of Environmental Services

PROJECT MANAGER/QA MANAGER

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
Eddie G. Torres
Environmental Specialist
Kristen Bogue
Environmental Specialist
Arthur Popp
Technical Manager – Natural Resources

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN

ENGINEERS
Keil Maberry
Principal - Transportation and Traffic

CRM TECH
Bai ‘Tom’ Tang
Cultural & Tribal Consultation

FUSCOE ENGINEERING
Ian Adam
Vice President, Specialty Practices/
Stormwater Manager

SUBCONSULTANTS
Ethan Edwards, AICP
Vice President of Planning Services

PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 35 OVERVIEW OF CSG’S ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES
CSG has the environmental staff resources to manage and prepare clear, concise, and legally defensible environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects of all types, including development, infrastructure improvements, and policy adoption documents, such as General Plans and Specific Plans. CSG will serve as an extension of Agency staff to ensure that the entire environmental review process is conducted in a comprehensive manner. CSG will consider recent legislation, court decisions pertaining to CEQA and NEPA and agency requirements. Our objective is to provide premium services to our clients, along with highly accurate technical documentation and impact determination. Our approach entails an efficient process to ensure that studies are comprehensive, objective, technically accurate, and complete, while maintaining a focus on the schedule established for the review. Our approach includes consistent and regular interaction and communication between staff, our team and other interested/responsible governmental agencies and parties, as appropriate, allowing for frequent exchange of information without loss of time or resources.

Our range of types of CEQA studies includes Categorical Exemptions, Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, Project/Program/Focused/Supplemental/Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports (EIR’s), Addenda to previously prepared environmental documents, consistency checklists, as well as mitigation monitoring programs. CSG can lead the preparation of response to comments and any required findings of facts/statement of overriding considerations. We are also ready to assist the Agency with project stakeholder coordination, filing public notices, participation in public hearings and complete project management services throughout the environmental review process.

Approach to Environmental Planning
CSG planners are environmental stewards for our natural and built environments. CSG’s approach to any environmental documentation is to understand and analyze each project based on the environmental issues that are pertinent to a project. CSG’s approach to environmental documentation emphasizes technically solid, impartial analysis, and active management to keep projects on schedule and within budget. We pride ourselves on our ability to turn products around quickly and effectively without sacrificing quality and accuracy.

Additionally, and more specifically, we embrace the following steps in the review process:
 Establish a communications protocol and technical leads, including subconsultants and other key team members to ensure project critical information is efficiently and accurately conveyed across the team.  Ensure roles/responsibilities are clear for efficient management of assignments and quality control of services and deliverables.
 Determine key project description details with the Agency early to facilitate accurate and consistent reviews and analysis.
 Agree on initial project schedule and budget and a protocol for updating status during project phases.  Verify that the technical approach/scope of services, as conveyed in the proposal, meets the Agency’s expectations following completion of the Project Description.  Collaborate upfront with the Agency on standard templates for project deliverables, including peer review technical memoranda and CEQA document components.

Communications and Techniques: Our management style includes consistent and regular interaction and communications between staff, the CSG team, and other interested/responsible governmental agencies and parties, as appropriate, allowing for frequent exchange of information without loss of time or resources. If we encounter a constraint or challenge, we will immediately notify the Agency and provide short and/or long-term solutions for any difficulties we encounter. We pride ourselves on our ability to turn products around quickly and effectively without sacrificing quality and accuracy.

Preparing Initial Studies: The Initial Study provides a screening and threshold review for each topical area to confirm the appropriate CEQA clearance. An Initial Study is the common supporting review documentation for a (mitigated) negative declaration determination. In this case, we understand the Agency is requesting preparation of an EIR. To CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 36 save time and reduce costs, we may recommend the preparation of an EIR without an Initial Study. However, it may be beneficial to prepare an Initial Study to help focus the EIR on the potentially significant impacts. CSG can assist the Agency in making this determination for the Project.

Preparing EIRs: CSG possesses the technical capabilities and expertise to assist our agency clients in preparing an EIR, including, but not limited to:
 Defining the project description,
 Identifying stakeholders and affected agencies,
 Maintaining the administrative record,
 Preparing and distributing the notice of preparation for a 30-day review,  Conducting a scoping meeting,
 Preparing supporting technical reports and Administrative Draft EIR for internal review,  Preparing and circulating the Public Review Draft EIR for a 45-day review period,  Drafting responses to comments,
 Preparing the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,  Preparing Findings of Facts, and, as necessary, preparing a Statement of Overriding Considerations to support a lead agency’s final decision on a project,
 Attending public hearings, and
 And preparing and filing required notices.

Public Input Process and Dissemination of Information: Given our unique background providing comprehensive municipal services, we have ample experience interfacing with the public and have a deep understanding of the public input process and challenges that can arise. CSG can collaborate with the Agency in preparing community outreach plans that include ongoing public engagement opportunities, and we can attend public hearings and meetings to address questions on the Agency’s behalf and/or present our conclusions to the decision-making body.

Ensuring Compliance with Processing and Legal Requirements: The CSG team has prepared CEQA documentation for controversial projects, including for mixed use projects, and we have an exemplary record of legal defensibility for the documentation we prepare. We understand that projects that include housing can be controversial, and we have experience addressing community concerns in this regard, including responding to public comment as part of the CEQA public review process. Our documents contain thorough environmental analysis and provide clear documentation for all research contacts and data sources, which reduces the potential for successful legal challenges; we can also assist the Agency in preparing the administrative record. We keep abreast of regulatory updates and court decisions, which are then incorporated into our environmental analysis, as appropriate.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control: CSG is committed to providing high quality documentation that engenders client satisfaction, meets the needs of the project, and withstands legal scrutiny. Therefore, a critical part of our delivery of technically sound and legally defensible documents includes conducting in-house QA/QC reviews concurrently with the preparation of documents. Our approach to providing quality, technically sound, and legally defensible reports includes the following steps: we assign staff members who have the appropriate technical expertise to complete the work; upon completion of the first internal draft of a document, it is reviewed by the project manager for consistency with the project description, compliance with the approved scope of work, and technical accuracy. Once the work product has been revised and updated to the satisfaction of the project manager, it is sent to our Publications Specialist for review of grammar, proper nomenclature, references, and methodologic consistency. The last step before the document is submitted to the Agency is a thorough and complete word processing review that produces a correctly formatted document, with accurate references to tables, exhibits, appendices, and the table of contents.

Only then is a document submitted to the Agency for review.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 37 Ethan Edwards, AICP

VICE PRESIDENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Mr. Edwards currently serves as the Vice President of Planning Services at CSG Consultants. In this role, he leverages over 25 years of progressively responsible experience in land use planning and management across Orange and Los Angeles Counties, Northern California, and Oregon. His expertise encompasses current and advanced planning, design review, coastal development review, CEQA compliance, project and staff management, and professional practice development. Before joining CSG, Mr. Edwards held planning positions in both the public and private sectors, including leadership roles as Community Development Director, Planning Manager, and Principal Planner.

CSG Relevant Experience
Acting Community Development Director/Planning Manager | City of Carson, CA. As Acting Planning Manager and Community Development Director for the City of Carson, Mr. Edwards oversaw the Planning Department, including CSG staff, and managed project scheduling, budgeting, and agenda preparation. He also participated in public hearings, managed the City's on-call environmental and design consultants, and provided strategic direction for the comprehensive General Plan Update.

Principal Planner | City of El Segundo, CA. In his role as a contract Principal Planner, Mr. Edwards managed complex discretionary and administrative permits, including Development Agreement negotiations and environmental impact report management. He also prepared agendas, reviewed and authored reports, and delivered presentations to elected officials, commissions, and community groups.

Relevant Previous Experience
Planner | City of Huntington Beach, CA. At the City of Huntington Beach, Mr. Edwards managed discretionary and administrative permits, mentored staff, prepared and reviewed agendas and reports, and interpreted zoning regulations as the Zoning Administrator Liaison. He also supervised environmental consultants and developed strategies for streamlining permit processing and enhancing customer service.

Planning Manager | Baysinger Partners Architecture, Portland, OR. As Planning Manager at Baysinger Partners Architecture, Mr. Edwards supervised the planning and entitlement division, managed staff priorities and the department budget, and handled public and private development project applications. He also provided contract Planning Director services, coordinated with consultants and provided project management and professional practice development.

Planner | City of Beaverton, OR. Mr. Edwards managed current planning projects, assisted with design review code revisions, and delivered presentations to elected officials, commissions, and community groups. He also served as the City staff liaison for an inter-jurisdictional commuter rail project and committee.

Associate Planner | City of Santa Monica, CA. While at the City of Santa Monica, Mr. Edwards presented to the zoning administrator, planning commission, and architectural review board. He also prepared reports for various entitlement projects and provided customer service assistance to the public.

Education
Bachelor of Science, Urban and
Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State
University,
Pomona, California
Masters Coursework, Public Policy
& Administration, California State
University, Long Beach, California
Professional Affiliations
American Planning Association
(APA)
▪ Orange County Chapter
▪ Los Angeles Chapter
▪ Northern Chapter
▪ Central Chapter
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
International City/County
Management Association
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 38 Glenn Lajoie, AICP

PRINCIPAL, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Mr. Lajoie has over 35 years of experience in the practice of CEQA/NEPA environmental review and Community Planning for clients and agencies throughout California. His range of environmental review studies has included policy, land development and infrastructure projects. Along with an extensive background in CEQA/NEPA, his practices have also encompassed policy planning programs, such as General Plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood studies and due diligence analysis. Mr. Lajoie’s skill set includes project and budget management, quality assurance, meeting facilitation, agency staff service assistance, and third party/peer review verification of analysis and findings. His primary objective as a professional planner has always focused on assuring integrity, quality and legal defensibility of analysis and processes, culminating in win-win solutions for clients and communities.

Mr. Lajoie has an extensive background with local and regional agencies throughout California. The geographic context is wide ranging including:
resort and destination projects in the Town of Mammoth Lakes; numerous infrastructure and water availability/desalination project reviews in the Community of Cambria; city center and neighborhood revitalization opportunities in Lancaster: over two million square feet of expansion for the Raytheon Corporate facility in El Segundo; Long Point (Terranea Resort) in Rancho Palos Verdes; downtown high rise and mixed-use proposals in Long Beach; The 2035 General Plan Update for Buena Park; buildout of the Cypress Business Park Master Plan in Cypress.

Relevant Project Experience
 Amazon Delivery Station IS/MND, West Covina
 Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Mixed Use Project EIR  Brookhurst/Adams Intersection Improvements EIR, Huntington Beach  Dana Point Town Center IS/MND, Dana Point
 Downtown Fairfield Justice Center Campus IS/MND, Solano County  Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan/EIR, Upland
 Hyundai North American Corporate Campus EIR, Fountain Valley  In-house CEQA Training, Laguna Beach
 Janss Marketplace Hotel EIR, Thousand Oaks
 Lincoln (Nelles) Specific Plan EIR, Whittier
 Mammoth Yosemite Airport Regional Air Service IS/MND, Mammoth Lakes  Manteca Marketplace Section 15183 CEQA Consistency Checklist, Manteca  Oasis Road Specific Plan Master EIR, Redding
 On-call Environmental Planning Service, Calaveras County  Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan/EIR, Palmdale
 Piercy Road Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, San Jose
 Robinson Ranch North EIR, Yucaipa
 South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization Project EIR, South Pasadena  South San Francisco 2040 General Plan Update EIR
 Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Program EIR, Fresno Education
Master’s Degree in Public Policy
and Administration,
California State University,
Long Beach, California
Bachelor of Arts, Geography/
Urban Studies,
California State University,
Long Beach, California
Professional Affiliations
American Planning Association
(APA)
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 39 Liza Debies

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
Liza Debies has more than 12 years of professional experience and more than 8 years of experience in managing preparation and peer review of CEQA and NEPA documents, including EIRs, IS/MNDs, Addenda, Environmental Assessments (EAs), and Categorical Exemptions and Categorical Exclusions.

She has completed CEQA and/or NEPA documentation for electronic billboards, public infrastructure, materials recovery facilities, mixed-use developments, residential, commercial, retail, transportation, industrial, recreational, and institutional projects. She has expertise in aesthetics, land use and planning and land use compatibility, transportation and circulation, utilities and services systems, and alternatives analysis, as well as in evaluating large public infrastructure projects.

CSG Relevant Experience
Janss Marketplace Specific Plan Project Environmental Documentation | City of Thousand Oaks, CA. Ms. Debies provided senior review of the Janss Marketplace Specific Plan environmental documentation for the City of Thousand Oaks to assist the City in determining further environmental and technical analysis necessary pursuant to CEQA. The Specific Plan describes allowable future land uses, infrastructure, and implementation requirements for projects within the bounds of the Specific Plan area.

Relevant Previous Experience
Walnut Creek | Mixed Use Special District Project Supplemental EIR, City of Walnut Creek, CA. Ms. Debies managed the preparation of a Supplemental EIR for the Mixed Use Special District Project in the City of Walnut Creek. The project would create an Auto Sales–Custom Manufacturing Mixed Use Special District overlay on approximately 6.2 acres owned or controlled by Toyota Walnut Creek.

At the time of environmental review, the applicant was seeking City approval of the necessary legislative entitlements to facilitate the development of the proposed project, consisting of the proposed amendments to the North Downtown Specific Plan (NDSP) and no specific individual development proposal had been submitted. Any redevelopment proposal under the NDSP (as amended) would require the applicant to enhance its auto sales, service, and ancillary facilities in accordance with the applicable criteria and policies set forth in the NDSP (as amended) and the related development agreement entered into between the applicant and the City. Ms. Debies worked with the City and the City’s attorney to prepare a comparative analysis of scenarios, which allowed flexibility by evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the reasonable worst-case scenario for each environmental topic area.

Oak Park Properties Specific Plan EIR | City of Pleasant Hill, CA. As Project Manager, Ms. Debies managed the preparation of an EIR for a 15-acre Program Area, which included a new public library, housing, and athletic fields. Key issues included lighting impacts associated with the stadium lighting for the athletics fields. Ms. Debies managed the completion of a lighting study to confirm the light emitted from the stadium lights would not exceed the City’s nighttime lighting thresholds.

Education
Bachelor of Arts,
Environmental Studies
Minor in Anthropology, with
Honors, Pitzer College, Claremont,
California
Study Abroad, visiting student in
Biotechnology, Athlone Institute of
Technology, Ireland, 2011
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 40 Kelli Allen

ASSOCIATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
Ms. Allen serves as an Associate Environmental Planner for CSG Consultants and is currently providing staff support to CSG clients. Ms. Allen has experience in the preparation of CEQA and NEPA documents, including EIRs, IS/(M)NDs, Categorical Exclusions, and safety elements. Ms. Allen has completed CEQA documentation for mixed-use developments, residential, commercial, retail, and industrial projects, and has conducted peer reviews of EIRs and ISMNDs for commercial and residential development projects.

Ms. Allen has experience drafting presentations and writing administrative CEQA documents, including Project Descriptions, Notices of Availability, Preparation, and Determination, and OPR summary documents.

Relevant Project Experience
Janss Marketplace Hotel Project EIR | City of Thousand Oaks, CA. Ms. Allen assisted in the preparation of an EIR to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the development of a hotel at 225 North Moorpark Road in Thousand Oaks. The proposed project includes demolition of the current two-story retail building, to be replaced by a five-story dual hotel and retail pad, the creation of a map to designate airspace rights, and a zoning change to the footprint of the hotel to increase the building’s height limitation.

ARCO Commercial Center and Car Wash Project IS/MND | City of Plymouth, CA. Ms. Allen assisted in the preparation of an IS/MND to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the development of a commercial store, gas station, and car wash at 18725 CA 49 in Plymouth.

The proposed project includes development of the currently vegetated site to construct a fuel canopy, car wash, convenience store, and parking lot, a general plan amendment, and a zoning change to accommodate the hightraffic commercial use in the downtown area. 1890 South Coast Highway IS/MND | City of Laguna Beach, CA. Ms. Allen is assisting in the preparation of an IS/MND to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the development of a mixed-use retail and residential project at 1890 South Coast Highway in Laguna Beach. The proposed project involves the demolition of an existing car wash facility to be replaced by a mixed-use retail and residential complex with a subterranean garage and approximately 5,200 square feet of deck area.

M&J Pallet Building IS/MND | County of San Bernardino, CA. Ms. Allen assisted in the preparation of an IS/MND to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the development of a pallet building warehouse in the County of San Bernardino. The proposed project involves the demolition of all existing on-site improvements, to be replaced by an approximately 22,267 square foot commercial warehouse and parking and circulation system improvements.

Education
Bachelor of Arts Degree,
Geography/Environmental Studies
and Political Science with
International Relations
Concentration,
University of California,
Los Angeles
Minor in Global Studies,
University of California,
Los Angeles
Wildlands Studies Belize Program
Concentration in Environmental
Conservation
Environmental Wildlands Studies
Environmental Field Survey
Wildlands Environment and
Culture,
Western Washington University
Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals Member
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 41 Colby Gonzalez

ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
Colby Gonzalez has 2 years of professional experience in working with CEQA documents, including EIRs, IS/MNDs, Addenda, and Categorical Exemptions. He has worked as a paralegal on behalf of local labor unions on CEQA lawsuits for a variety of different types of projects throughout the state.

Relevant Experience
Pritchard Field Improvement Project | City of Bell, CA. Mr. Gonzalez prepared the environmental assessment required by the National Environmental Policy Act for a community park project in the City of Bell which would include two new playgrounds, a dog park, and picnic area in a severely underserved community.

Iron Planet Auction | San Bernardino County, CA. Mr. Gonzalez performed a peer review of the IS/MND prepared for a surplus military grade equipment auction project in Yermo and created a memorandum detailing suggestions and revisions which should be incorporated in the final CEQA document. Mr. Gonzale’s peer review concluded that the project was located on a former leaking underground storage tank site which was not disclosed in the IS/MND.

Starbucks Project Peer Review | City of Bell, CA. Mr. Gonzalez performed a peer review of a Class 32 CEQA exemption for a Starbucks coffee shop with drive-thru in the City of Bell. Mr. Gonzalez found an issue with the project’s noise study which did not assume that the project would be open 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, and notified the preparer that the project could not include mitigation measures if the project were to be exempt from CEQA with a categorical exemption.

Ronan Infill Exemption | City of Gilroy, CA. Mr. Gonzalez prepared the environmental review for an 8,393-square foot multi-family unit apartment building project in the City of Gilroy. The proposed project included removal of an existing single-family residence and construction of a two-story apartment building with six units. He confirmed that the project qualified for a Class 3 CEQA exemption. The focus of environmental considerations included tribal cultural resources due to the site testing positive on a sacred lands file search with the NAHC and biological resources due to the potential for bats to roost on site.

Loma Linda University School of Nursing Addition Project | City of Loma Linda, CA. Mr. Gonzalez is currently preparing the environmental documentation for the Loma Linda University School of Nursing Addition Project in the City of Loma Linda. The project would remove an existing academic building and replace it with a new three-story, 58,750-square foot academic building.
9505 Baseline Road Exemption | Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Mr. Gonzalez is currently preparing a Class 32 CEQA exemption for fifty three-story for sale dwellings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The focus of environmental considerations has been on potential impacts to biological resources and geotechnical impacts.

Education
Bachelor of Arts in
Environmental Studies,
Graduated Magna Cum Laude
Montana State University,
Bozeman, Montana
Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP) member
since 2024
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 42

SUBCONSULTANTS
Michael Baker International Founded in 1940 and celebrating more than 75 years of supporting our local communities, Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) is a leader in environmental, planning, engineering, consulting, and technical/professional services with a local focus and global expertise. We offer a full continuum of innovative solutions in construction, survey, planning, architectural, environmental, program management and life cycle support, as well as information technology and communications services.

Michael Baker is a multi-disciplinary planning and engineering firm with more than 6,000 employees in over 90 offices located across the U.S. and internationally. With nine local offices in Southern California our firm is prepared to assist clients with planning and engineering challenges throughout the region.

Michael Baker has in-house expertise in disciplines including Environmental Analysis, Planning, GIS Services, Surveying, Aerial Photogrammetry, Mapping, Real Estate Assessments, Transportation/Traffic Engineering, Civil Engineering (including Grading, Public Works, Water/Wastewater, Hydrology), Mechanical/Electrical/Energy Services, Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) and Media Services. More than 200 professionals are dedicated to Environmental, Planning, and Urban Design services company-wide.

As a leader in the environmental consulting field, Michael Baker offers an extensive array of services associated with environmental compliance and documentation. Michael Baker provides evaluation for the full spectrum of environmental effects for all types of projects, including California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, air quality and health risk assessments, greenhouse gas analyses, noise studies, regulatory agency permitting, biological resources, visual assessments and photosimulations, traffic studies, drainage/water quality assessments, community/socioeconomic analyses, and biological mitigation/monitoring.

Air Quality Studies/Health Risk Assessments
Michael Baker utilizes air quality models that are developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, and local Air Pollution Control Districts.

Michael Baker’s air quality services include project-specific analysis of regulatory impacts, short-term construction emissions, long-term operational emissions, and computer modeling of source-specific pollutant emissions and dispersion analysis. Additionally, Michael Baker has carried out mitigation programs for commercial, transportation, and industrial projects, as well as General Plan Air Quality Elements.

Greenhouse Gas Studies
Michael Baker’s climate change experts are at the forefront in developing sound scientific regulatory assessments and strategies within the rapidly changing regulatory environment. We advise both government and private industry on greenhouse gas (GHG) policies and methodologies and the impact that they have on the new carbon constrained business future. To ensure a sustainable future, there is a great need to understand and manage GHG emissions in ways that promote economic growth. As the climate change debate and private sector market solutions evolve, Michael Baker continues to offer its clients unparalleled analytical, policy, and business management services.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 43 Biological/Regulatory Resources
Our team also includes a range of environmental permitting staff whose focus is on resource agency permits required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Our vast experience allows us to leverage agency relationships in preparing and processing USACE Section 404 permits, RWQCB Section 401 certifications, and CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreements for impacts to Waters of the U.S. and State.

Key regulatory permitting tasks include regulatory kick-off, a due-diligence review (wetland delineation, biological constraints survey), pre-application agency coordination and site reconnaissance, and preparation/processing of permit applications. Our primary goal when applying for project permits is to fully streamline the process. Michael Baker expedites the permit process by utilizing existing relationships with agency staff, proactively coordinating with the agencies through pre-application field meetings, submitting complete application packages, and maintaining a responsive regulatory staff that works directly with agency representatives and the applicant.

Hazardous Materials/Environmental Site Assessment
Michael Baker provides a range of Hazardous Materials Assessments to meet our clients’ needs for various project types. Michael Baker has prepared hundreds of Hazardous Materials Assessments for a variety of projects throughout California utilizing the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) standards for commercial real estate transactions (E1527-05 and E1528-06), All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI), as well as appropriate protocol from lending institutions and regulatory agencies. The comprehensive capabilities and professional experience of our in-house staff allows Michael Baker to effectively and efficiently complete Hazardous Materials Assessments for any type of property.

Noise and Vibration
Michael Baker’s acoustical services include instrument-assisted noise and vibration field surveys, commercial and industrial stationary sources noise impact analyses, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) computer modeling of motor vehicle noise impacts for roadway and freeway projects, and rail noise impact analysis.

Michael Baker’s acoustical staff also evaluates sound insulation performance, manufacturing and industrial noise impact mitigation, building exterior and interior sound and vibration isolation analysis, room acoustics, and prepares General Plan Noise Elements. Services typically provided include technical analysis for NEPA or CEQA documents, or focused studies used in planning and civil design projects.

MICHAEL BAKER KEY STAFF
EDDIE G. TORRES, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
Mr. Torres oversees and prepares Environmental and Planning studies for public and private sectors clients, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mr. Torres' responsibilities also include staff training, public hearing presentations, and coordination of our extensive in-house team of experts as well as various subcontractors. Mr. Torres draws on his broad background and understanding of environmental constraints to provide technical and CEQA compliance review and environmental documentation, in addition to research, analysis, and writing. Mr. Torres has managed a wide range of environmental planning projects, including environmental documents for major infrastructure and land development projects, air quality and noise studies, , and coastal development projects.

Mr. Torres also serves as the Director of Technical Studies, with a specialty in Acoustics, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Visual Impact Assessments.. In addition to analyzing climate change impacts, Mr. Torres has led the development of numerous greenhouse gas inventory models which calculate greenhouse gas emissions from such sources as vehicular traffic, stationary sources, electricity consumption, water consumption, wastewater treatment, and construction processes.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 44

KRISTEN BOGUE, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
Ms. Bogue is a senior project manager and assists in the preparation of environmental and planning studies, with a focus on due diligence planning activities. Ms. Bogue has experience in the research, analysis, and writing of CEQA/NEPA documentation. Ms. Bogue's Project Management background includes a variety of projects involving mixed-use, hotel/resort, residential, commercial, redevelopment, infrastructure, and industrial uses for both public and private sector clients. In addition to being a CEQA/NEPA generalist, she specializes in the preparation of hazardous materials studies and visual analysis services. Other visual services Ms. Bogue has prepared include photosimulations, shade/shadow studies, viewshed mapping, and light and glare studies.

As a specialist in these specific environmental topic areas, Ms. Bogue has extensive experience with projects involving sensitive planning and environmental issues including aesthetics/light and glare, shade/shadow, and hazards and hazardous materials considerations.

ARTHUR POPP, BIOLOGIST
Mr. Popp’s qualifications as a Natural Resource technical manager includes 27 plus years of experience as a biologist and project manager. Mr. Popp has experience in conducting general plant and wildlife surveys, focused surveys for sensitive plant species, aquatic bioassessments, and wetland determinations. He has assisted clients in understanding and complying with regulations that govern impacts to sensitive biological resources and provided options that may avoid or minimize such impacts, permitted the activities that propose impacts, and coordinated mitigation projects that satisfy both the client and regulatory agencies.

Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers provides transportation planning, traffic engineering and parking consulting services to public agencies and the private sector. LLG is a wellrespected firm of medium size, comprised of over fifty-five dedicated professionals, many with Professional Registration in Traffic Engineering, Civil Engineering, and/or both. LLG offices located in Pasadena, Irvine, and San Diego serve their clients on a wide variety of complex issues. Since our founding in 1966, in excess of 15,000 engagements have been completed involving a wide variety of projects throughout the United States and Overseas, with the core of our practice in Southern California.

LLG’s specialties include:
• Traffic Impact Analysis Reports for
CEQA Documents
• Traffic Impact Analysis Reports
• SB 743/VMT Analyses
• Travel Demand Modeling
• Site Access and Circulation
• Multimodal Planning and Analysis
• Complete Streets Consultation and Active
Transportation Plans
• Traffic Planning, Operations, and Simulation Study
• Circulation Elements for General Plans and
Specific Plans
• Preliminary/Conceptual Engineering
• Traffic Signal Design
• Traffic Signing and Striping Design
• Traffic Signal Warrant Studies
• Construction Zone Traffic Control Plans
• Shared Parking Demand Forecasting
• Parking Design and Planning

LINSCOTT, LAW AND GREENSPAN KEY STAFF

KEIL MABERRY, PE, PRINCIPAL TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Mr. Keil D. Maberry has over 30 years of experience in the preparation of transportation planning analysis, traffic impact studies and parking studies. He is a licensed Traffic Engineer in the state of California. Mr. Maberry holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland. He has extensive experience in the preparation of traffic impact studies for a variety of land uses, site access and operational plans, simulation studies, parking studies, traffic and parking management plans, school operational plans and suggested route to school plans.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 45 In addition, Mr. Maberry has provided on-call traffic and transportation engineering consultation services to the City of Anaheim (currently), City of Corona, City of Irvine and the City of Dana Point.

DANIEL KLOOS, PE, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER
Daniel A. Kloos is a licensed Traffic Engineer in the state of California. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Irvine and has over 20 years of experience working on traffic engineering projects throughout the Southern California region. Mr. Kloos has extensive experience in the preparation of traffic impact studies for a variety of land uses, site access and operational plans, parking studies and parking management plans. In addition, he currently provides on-call traffic and transportation engineering consultation services to the City of Anaheim, the City of Dana Point and the City of Long Beach. His expertise in traffic engineering helps LLG continue its tradition of excellence in the region.

CRM TECH is pleased to provide CSG Consultants with program-level historical/archaeological resources study for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update. The City of Laguna Beach is updating the Downtown Specific Plan EIR to eliminate the need for project-specific environmental review and thereby streamline housing production in the 115-acre study area. The proposed program-level study is designed to provide the Client and the City with the necessary information and analysis to identify all potential “historical resources,” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as guidelines on future steps to ensure CEQA compliance regarding such resources.

CRM TECH is a California corporation and a certified Small Business Enterprise (No. 33183; DIR 1000044896) that has been providing the full range of cultural resources management services to federal, state, and local public agencies; real estate developers; environmental firms; other private enterprises.

Services provided by CRM TECH include all phases of historical, archaeological, and paleontological investigations, including record searches; literature reviews; consultation with public agencies, local community representatives, and Native American representatives; historical and ethnohistorical background research; field surveys of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources; resource recordation; historic building evaluations; evaluative and mitigative excavations at archaeological and paleontological sites; adaptive use studies and mitigative documentation on historic buildings; monitoring of earth-moving operations to protect archaeological and paleontological resources; and peer reviews of previous reports.

CRM TECH KEY STAFF
BAI "TOM" TANG AND MICHAEL HOGAN HEAD CRM TECH
These two co-owners and Principal Investigators bring over 50 years of combined CEQA/NHPA expertise in southern California Archaeology, History, Architectural History, Ethnohistory, Ethnography, Anthropology, and Paleontology.

Besides these two Principal Investigators, CRM TECH also has Project Directors, Field Directors, Principal Paleontologist, professional archaeological/paleontological technicians, and an administrative assistant on staff, and other professional Paleontologists who work on an as-needed basis.

The Principal Investigators and Project Directors are responsible for ensuring that all paleontological resources studies are completed in an efficient and timely manner, and that all proper methods and guidelines are followed throughout all phases of a project. Staff archaeologists/paleontologists are involved in background research, fieldwork, documentation of findings, preparation of the standard site records, and preparation of final reports. The GIS and graphics specialists generate maps, figures, shape files, and other visual aids for use in the field and for inclusion in study documents.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 46 Fuscoe Engineering provides civil engineering for land development, public infrastructure and General & Specific Plan EIRs, using an eco-adaptive® approach. Specialty practices include survey & mapping services; water quality assurance; sustainable engineering; and geospatial technology.

Fuscoe has delivered a broad range of services for numerous General Plan & Specific Plan EIRs for Southern California agencies. Project assignments have included these services:
• Identifying opportunities and feasibility of proposed land uses and revitalization projects in urban, suburban and rural settings
• Evaluating zoning and land use changes
• Identifying measures to reduce potential impacts of proposed developments for construction and postconstruction conditions • Providing infrastructure analysis, identifying infrastructure system deficiencies and offering recommendations • Preparing hydrology, flood control, sewer and water quality technical studies related to proposed land use changes
• Prepare Water Supply Assessments and coordinate findings with local and regional wholesale water providers.

Evaluate implications of mandatory RHNA housing units on local and regional water supply providers and assess impacts on local and regional wastewater treatment providers • Drainage, sewer and water master planning
• Crafting innovative designs for preserving and stabilizing water courses while enabling mixed-use, TOD and infrastructure uses
• Developing storm water runoff management, grading and infrastructure plans • Devising low impact development (LID) strategies for land and water quality protection • Providing impact assessments for CEQA compliance

FUSCOE ENGINEERING KEY STAFF

IAN ADAM, MESM, CPSWQ, QSD, VICE PRESIDENT, SPECIALTY PRACTICES/STORMWATER MANAGER Ian Adam is Vice President, Specialty Practices and Fuscoe’s Stormwater Management team leader. His specialty is water resources, with an emphasis in water quality regulations, sea-level rise policy, Clean Water Act Citizen Suits and resource agency negotiation. Since joining Fuscoe in 2001, Ian has served as an effective leader and technical resource for numerous projects and clients. Ian has worked on over 60 General Plan Updates and Specific Plans throughout California to assist municipalities and developers with infrastructure assessments, zoning approvals, EIR technical support and long-term capital improvement planning.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 47 VI. CSG TEAM SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Our team’s record of success with our clients is outstanding. The following is a small sampling of the CSG team’s Downtown and city center CEQA review experience in California communities. Additional examples and references are available upon request.

Center City Corridors Specific Plan Program EIR, Anaheim, CA:

The plan area consists of approximately 2,6oo acres in the central area of Anaheim. The specific plan is intended to guide future development by establishing a community driven vision, focusing on the corridors that traverse the area. Six newly established development areas would establish land use direction, allow for a range of residential and commercial mixed-use development and establish unique standards and allowable uses for properties. The EIR includes a comprehensive review of all topical areas, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Dana Point Town Center Plan IS/MND, Dana Point, CA:

The Town Center Plan proposed to establish a more vibrant, communityoriented Town Center for residents and visitors. Project characteristics included traffic and circulation improvements, pedestrian walkways, design enhancements, development standards, and historic preservation measures. Potential impacts as a result of the project were analyzed for short-term construction activities as well as long-term operations.

Mitigation measures included compliance with SCAQMD regulations, historic preservation measures, preparation of a water quality management plan, compliance criteria with the Noise Ordinance and a traffic signal-timing plan.

Doheny Village Plan Program EIR, Dana Point, CA:

Michael Baker International assisted the City of Dana Point with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Doheny Village Zoning District Update. The purpose and intent of the proposed project was to preserve and enhance the eclectic combination of commercial, light industrial, and residential mixed uses in Doheny Village. The zoning district update provides the following three new zoning districts specific to the project area:

Village Commercial/Industrial; Village Commercial/Residential; and Village Main Street.

Doheny Village Zoning District Update EIR, Dana Point, CA:

Michael Baker International prepared an EIR for the Doheny Village Zoning District Update. The purpose and intent of the proposed project is to preserve and enhance the eclectic combination of commercial, light industrial, and residential mixed uses in Doheny Village.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 48 The zoning district update provides the following three new zoning districts specific to the project area: Village Commercial/Industrial; Village Commercial/Residential; and Village Main Street. As part of the proposed project, allowed uses, development standards (e.g., lot size, setback, density, open space, landscaping requirements), special development standards (e.g., maximum density, accessory uses and structures, parking requirements, sign programs, and art-in-public-places program), and special use standards are also proposed.

Downtown Lancaster Revitalization Specific Plan and EIR, Lancaster, CA: The Specific Plan emphasizes the City’s goals to revitalize the unique Business Improvement District, to improve aesthetics, update infrastructure, attract new businesses, and improve the livability of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Specific Plan includes a Transit District, which is located adjacent to the City’s Metrolink Station. The Specific Plan process included an extensive community participation process, as well as economic and market analysis to arrive at a single vision for Downtown Lancaster. The plan includes form-based development regulations, which were specifically designed to implement the community-based vision for the Downtown. The Program EIR served as the master environmental document/clearance for future project applications within the Specific Plan area.

Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan EIR, Upland, CA:

The Specific Plan included nine districts, consisting of 210 acres, and provided a clear framework for future development and public improvements in Downtown Upland. The Specific Plan serves as a tool for the City to encourage economic revitalization and create a walkable, vibrant, transit-oriented downtown for Upland. The environmental review involved aesthetics/light and glare, air quality, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, and traffic and parking.

Long Beach Redevelopment EIR, Long Beach, CA:

A Master EIR was prepared for 10 non-contiguous areas located within the downtown and central Long Beach. The proposed project involved removal of existing uses for development, adaptive reuse of existing uses and development of new uses on vacant sites. The proposed development of residential, retail, mixed-use
residential/retail and/ or office uses, an Art Exchange, live/work units and parking uses were consistent with the City Strategic Action Plan for the area. Environmental review focused on aesthetics/light and glare, traffic, air quality, noise, historic resources and water supply.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 49 North Village Specific Plan Amendment Program EIR, Mammoth Lakes, CA: The project involved development of a destination resort facility, including lodging, commercial and residential uses on 64.1 acres.

The proposed amendment includes circulation and parking modifications, changes to height limitation and setbacks, changes to development standards, establishment of design guidelines, modifications to public facilities, and modified housing requirements. The EIR evaluation included the development application for Phase 1 of the Specific Plan. Key issues included traffic generation, aesthetics, noise and water quality, which also included a review of compliance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR, Palmdale, CA: The project consisted of approximately 110 acres, generally located between Technology Drive and Avenue Q-3, and between 3rd Street East and the Metrolink Railroad tracks, adjacent to Sierra Highway.

With construction of the Transportation Center, the Specific Plan focused on opportunities to link land use planning policies and programs within the area. The Transportation Center anchored the opportunity to create a mix of uses surrounding a transit facility, where streets have a high level of connectivity, blocks are relatively small, and streetscapes, buildings and uses that cater to the pedestrian. Key environmental issues included traffic and air quality impacts, cultural and biological impacts.

Perris Downtown EIR, Perris CA: With the changing community and future operation of the Metrolink Station in the downtown, the City initiated an update to their Downtown Specific Plan, which established a Regulating Code, containing development specifications, regulations and design standards and guidelines for all development in the Plan area. The Regulating Code focused on the form, placement, and appropriate use of buildings. The downtown plan would allow for residential, commercial, retail, office, industrial and public uses within the area. Key environmental issues that were addressed included land use, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gases and hazardous materials.

South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization Project EIR, South Pasadena, CA: The project proposed a mix of uses on five separate building sites within the downtown, with approximately 60 condominium dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses (restaurant, bank and office uses). A variety of residential units were proposed including senior housing and studio lofts. The project included subterranean and surface parking along with a town square and several smaller gathering spaces within a plaza setting. The existing on-site uses, including a bank and former nursery site, would be demolished as part of the project. Due to the site location within the downtown, aesthetics, parking and traffic issues were a primary concern, along with historic resources due to the site’s proximity to the Rialto Theater.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 50 Village Entrance Project, City of Laguna Beach, CA: Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Laguna Beach Village Entrance project (project). As a primary entryway and gateway into the City of Laguna Beach, the City proposes improvements at and surrounding Laguna Canyon Road, Forest Avenue, and City Hall to beautify the project area, enhance pedestrian connectivity, and maintain existing levels of vehicular parking. The project has been designed to be a pedestrianoriented area that links the art festival activity areas to the downtown village and Main Beach. The project includes surface parking improvements, landscape/aesthetic enhancements, pathway facilities, and center median improvements along Laguna Canyon Road. Ancillary improvements would include security lighting, vehicular/pedestrian creek crossings, and seating areas. Key issues addressed within the IS/MND air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and biological and cultural resources.

CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 51 V. CLIENT REFERENCES
Our track record of success with our clients is outstanding, and we encourage you to contact our references. The following is a partial list of references for which CSG has provided similar environmental services.

City of Laguna Beach
Anthony Viera
Planning Manager
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 497-0398
[email protected]
On-Call Environmental Services
2022-Ongoing
Project Manager: Glenn Lajoie
Key Staff Involved: Liza Debies, Kelli Allen
City of Palos Verdes Estates
Sheryl Brady
Community Development Director
340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
(310) 750-9807
[email protected]
On-Call Planning and Environmental Services
2024-Ongoing
Project Manager: Liza Debies
Key Staff Involved: Glenn Lajoie, Kelli Allen, Colby Gonzales City of Carson
Saied Naaseh
Community Development Director
701 E. Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
(310) 952-1761 x13654
[email protected]
On-Call Planning and Environmental Services
2016-Ongoing
Project Manager: Glenn Lajoie
Key Staff Involved: Liza Debies
City of Thousand Oaks
Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2319
[email protected]
Planning Staff Augmentation and Environmental Services
2021-Ongoing
Project Manager: Glenn Lajoie
Key Staff Involved: Liza Debies, Kelli Allen, Colby Gonzalez City of San Bernardino
Gabriel Elliot
Community Development Director
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(909) 384-7272 ext. 3329
[email protected]
On-Call Planning and Environmental Services
2024-Ongoing
Project Manager: Glenn Lajoie
Key Staff Involved: Kelli Allen
City of Orange
Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director
300 E. Orange
Orange, CA 92866
(714) 744-7228
[email protected]
CEQA Peer Review Services
2023 – Ongoing
Project Manager: Glenn Lajoie
Key Staff Involved: Glenn Lajoie
CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 52 VI. REQUIRED FORMS

CSG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Per the City’s request, CSG’s Required forms are on the following pages.

Attachment 5
31 rev 11/15/24
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
RFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must complete this certification and certify, under penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:
a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction, violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes, or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for cause or default. 2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to SCAG.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award but will be considered in determining proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of actions. _________________________________
Name of Firm
_________________________________
Signature (original signature required)
_________________________________
Date
Attachment 6
32 rev 11/15/24

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
MRFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS
All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict of Interest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online.

The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located at https://scag.ca.gov/contract-vendor-opportunities.

The list of SCAG staff may be found at https://scag.ca.gov/employee-directory.

The list of Regional Council members can be viewed at https://scag.ca.gov/rc-members-list.

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCAG’s Legal Division, especially if you answer “yes” to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal Name of Firm:

Name of Preparer:

Project Title:

MRFP No: Date Submitted:

SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees of SCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Council members held any investment (including real property) in your firm? YES NO
If “yes,” please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name Nature of Financial Interest
Attachment 6
33 rev 11/15/24

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee of SCAG or served as a member of the SCAG Regional Council within the last twelve (12) months? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, position, and dates of service:

Name Position Dates of Service

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is considering your proposal?
YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member of the SCAG Regional Council hold a position at your firm as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship
Attachment 6
34 rev 11/15/24

5. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly), or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or gifts to any current employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (including contributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name Date Dollar Value
SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT
This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION
I, (printed full name) _________________________________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) ______________________________ of (firm name) ______________________________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ___________________ is correct and current as submitted.

I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer
(original signature required)
Date
NOTICE
A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award
Attachment 7
Vendor Information
(to be completed by the prime consultant and all sub-consultants) 35 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 1. GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION
Primary Contact
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.

E-mail Address
Company Website Address
SECTION 2. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM FORM W-9) Company Name
Address
City State Zip Code
Telephone No. Fax No.

SECTION 3 PROPOSER’S/BIDDER’S LIST INFORMATION (REQUIRED) Is your firm a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE)?
Yes No
As defined in Title 49 Part 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, complete the required information below regardless of whether your firm is a DBE or non-DBE:

Age of Firm:

Annual Gross Receipts (select one):

Less than $1 Million $5 Million – $10 Million $15 Million – $17.4 Million $1 Million – $ 5 Million $10 Million – $15 Million $17.4 Million + A COPY OF THE FIRMS DBE CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO QUALIFY AS A DBE.

For vendors located within the Southern California region, certification must be from one of the agencies listed below.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Civil Rights MS 79, 1823 14th Street ,Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 324-1700 or (866) 810-6346, Fax: (916) 324-1862, website: caltrans.ca.gov

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Office of Contract Compliance, Centralized Certification 1149 S. Broadway Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone:(213) 847-6480, Fax: (213) 847-5566, website: bca.lacity.org

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Diversity and Economic Opportunity Department
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 922-2600, Fax: (213) 922-7660, website: mta.net If you believe you qualify as a DBE but are not certified, you may want to contact one of the certifying agencies listed at Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/civilrights/documents/f0003463-agency-roster-a11y.pdf to initiate the certification process.

Attachment 7
36 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 4. COMMODITY CODE
Check all boxes of the commodity codes that apply to your company’s particular areas of expertise.

General Goods & Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60001 Painters 60204 Telecommunications 60720 Paper, Fine 60007 Electrical 60233 Appliances 60730 Trophies & Awards 60008 Plumbing 60400 Audio Visual Equipment 60863 Temporary Staffing 60009 Small General Contractors 60401 Audio Visual Supplies 60875 Registrations (Training/Seminars) 60016 Security Systems 60402 Video Equipment 61000 Office Supplies 60017 H V A C Contractors 60545 Moving & Storage 90640 Graphic Design Services 60030 Sound Systems & Electronics 60637 Lease – Equipment 90640.1 Image Setting 60102 Postage & Courier Services 60637.1 Lease – Building 90640.2 Premium/Promotional Items 60102.1 Postage Machines 60638 Maintenance Agreement 96600 Printing & Related Services 60104 Memberships(Professional) 60640 Copiers/Mimeo/Dupl. 96115 Catering & Concessions 60105 Subscriptions (Periodicals) 60670 Furniture – Office 96115.1 Coffee & Tea Services 60200 Computer Hardware 60700 Typewriters & Supplies 96115.2 Bottled Water 60201 Computer Software 60701 Office Machines 96618 Copying/Reproduction Services 60202 Computer Supplies 60702 Office Machine Supplies 91528 Mailing Services & Electronic Info. 60203 Computer Services 60710 Stationary Supplies
Other
Professional/Consulting Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60012 Architects, Engineer 91840 Employee Benefits Consulting 91892.1 Growth Visioning Planning 90868 Project Management 91843 Environmental Consulting 91893 Security/Safety Consulting 91804 Accounting/Auditing/Budgeting 91846 Feasibility Studies 91894 Traffic Consulting 91804.1 Organizational, Financial, & Performance
Audits/Project Management Services
91849 Finance/Economic Consulting 91895 Telecommunications Consulting 91858 Government Consulting 91896 Transportation Planning Consulting 91806 Administrative Consulting 91858.1 Government Relations 91896.1 Highway Corridor Analysis 91806.1 Administrative Services 91858.2 Institutional Analysis 91896.2 Rail Planning & Analysis 91812 Modeling-Analytical Studies & Surveys 91863 Housing Consulting 91896.3 Transit & Non-motorized Planning & Analysis 91812.1 Survey and Data Collection 91865 Human Relations Consulting 91812.2 Travel Demand Model Improvement 91866 Human Resources Consulting 91896.4 Transportation Management & Coordination 91812.3 Geographic Information System 91866.1 Executive Search 91812.4 Software Support for Studies & Surveys 91866.2 Insurance Broker Services 91896.5 Truck Lane Analysis/GoodsMovement
91812.5 Regional Data Systems 91874 Legal Consulting 91896.6 Transportation Financing 91817 Aviation Consulting 91874.1 Legislative Services 91896.7 Transportation & Economic Development
91826 Communications: Public Relations
Consulting
91874.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution 91896.8 Transportation Investment Analysis 91828 Computer Hardware Consulting 91875 Management Consulting 91896.9 Transportation Modeling Support 91828.1 Computer Service Center 91875.1 Organization & Staff Development 91897 Gas, Water, Electric Consulting 91829 Computer Software Consulting 91876 Marketing Consulting 91897.1 Air Quality Planning & Modeling 91829.1 Information Systems 91876.1 Social Economic Impact Analysis 91897.2 Water Supply Analysis 91829.2 Unix Systems Support 91876.2 Social Justice/Equity Analysis 96175 Translation Services 91829.3 Macintosh Computer Technical Support 91879 Minority & Small Business Consulting 91892 Urban Planning Consulting 91837 Economy Analysis Consulting 91883 Organizational Development Consulting 91838 Education & Training Consulting 91885 Personnel/Employment Consulting Other
SECTION 5. F O R M SUBMISSION
Include this form in your proposal
Attachment 8
37 rev 11/15/24
Notice Regarding California Public Records Act
Section ❶ - Summary
A proposal submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et. seq., (the “Act”). The Act provides generally that all records relating to a public agency's business are open to public inspection and copying, unless specifically exempt from public disclosure under one of several exemptions set forth in the Act. If you believe that any portion of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, you must: 1).

Mark such portion “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” within your proposal; 2). Complete Section ❷ below, and 3). Include this Attachment 9 in your submittal, or your proposal will be subject to public disclosure under the Act. Proposals marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” in their entirety will not be honored, and SCAG will not deny public disclosure of proposals so marked. By submitting a proposal with specific material marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” you represent you have a good faith belief that the material is exempt from disclosure under the Act; however, such designations will not necessarily be conclusive. You may be required to further justify in writing why such material should not, upon request, be disclosed by SCAG under the Act. Fee and pricing proposals are not considered “TRADE SECRETS”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY”.

If SCAG denies disclosure, then by submitting your proposal you agree to reimburse SCAG for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SCAG, its officers, fiduciaries, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs of any nature whatsoever (collectively, “Claims”) arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s non-disclosure. By submitting your proposal, you also agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless SCAG from and against any and all Claims arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s public disclosure of any such designated portions of your proposal if SCAG reasonably determines disclosure is deemed required by law, or if disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section ❷ - Exemption Request
Page Number of
Proposal Brief Explanation for the Exemption Under the Act and any Other Comments Attach additional pages as necessary
Check here if proposer claims no exemption
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Attachment 5
31 rev 11/15/24
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
RFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must complete this certification and certify, under penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:
a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction, violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes, or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for cause or default. 2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to SCAG.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award but will be considered in determining proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of actions. _________________________________
Name of Firm
_________________________________
Signature (original signature required)
_________________________________
Date
Attachment 6

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
MRFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS
All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict oflnterest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCA G's Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online.

The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located at https://scag.ca.gov/contract-vendor-opportunities.

The list of SCAG staff may be found at https://scag.ca.gov/employcc-directory.

The list of Regional Council members can be viewed at https://scag.ca.gov/rc-members-list.

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCA G's Legal Division, especially if you answer "yes·' to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal Name of Firm: Michael Baker International, Inc.

Name of Preparer: Todd P. McIntyre, Vice President
Project Title: Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase 11.

MRFP No: ------------ 24-012 MFRP 07 Date Submitted: 3/31/25 ----------- SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees of SCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Council members held any investment (including real property) in your firm? □ YES �NO
If "yes,'· please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name
Not Applicable
Nature of Financial Interest
Not Applicable
32 rev 11/15/24
Attachment 6

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee or SCAG or served as a member of the SCAG Regional Council within the last twelve(] 2) months? □ YES � 0
If "yes,'' please I ist name, position, and dates of service:

Name
Not Applicable
Position
Not Applicable
Dates of Service
Not Applicable

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is considering your proposal?
□ YES [){]NO
Ir "yes," please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name
Not Applicable
Relationship
Not Applicable

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member or the SCAG Regional Council hold a position al your firm as a director, officer, pa11ner, trustee, employee, or any position of management? □ YES
If''yes,'' please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name
Not Applicable
Relationship
ot Applicable
33 re\' 11 '15,24
Attachment 6

5. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly), or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or gifts to any currenl employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (including contributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)? □ YES �NO
If "yes," please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name
Not Applicable
Date
Not Applicable
Dollar Value
Not Applicable
SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT
This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION
I, (printed full name) _Todd P. McIntyre______________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) _ Vice President_____________ of (firm name) _Michael Baker International, Inc._____________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ____3/31/25_____ is correct and current as submitted. I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer
(original signature required)
NOTICE
3/31/25
Date
A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award
34 re,. 11/1�/24
Attachment 7
Vendor Information
(to be completed by the prime consultant and all sub-consultants) 35 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 1. GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION
Primary Contact
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.

E-mail Address
Company Website Address
SECTION 2. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM FORM W-9) Company Name
Address
City State Zip Code
Telephone No. Fax No.

SECTION 3 PROPOSER’S/BIDDER’S LIST INFORMATION (REQUIRED) Is your firm a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE)?
Yes No
As defined in Title 49 Part 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, complete the required information below regardless of whether your firm is a DBE or non-DBE:

Age of Firm:

Annual Gross Receipts (select one):

Less than $1 Million $5 Million – $10 Million $15 Million – $17.4 Million $1 Million – $ 5 Million $10 Million – $15 Million $17.4 Million + A COPY OF THE FIRMS DBE CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO QUALIFY AS A DBE.

For vendors located within the Southern California region, certification must be from one of the agencies listed below.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Civil Rights MS 79, 1823 14th Street ,Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 324-1700 or (866) 810-6346, Fax: (916) 324-1862, website: caltrans.ca.gov

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Office of Contract Compliance, Centralized Certification 1149 S. Broadway Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone:(213) 847-6480, Fax: (213) 847-5566, website: bca.lacity.org

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Diversity and Economic Opportunity Department
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 922-2600, Fax: (213) 922-7660, website: mta.net If you believe you qualify as a DBE but are not certified, you may want to contact one of the certifying agencies listed at Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/civilrights/documents/f0003463-agency-roster-a11y.pdf to initiate the certification process.

Attachment 7
36 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 4. COMMODITY CODE
Check all boxes of the commodity codes that apply to your company’s particular areas of expertise.

General Goods & Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60001 Painters 60204 Telecommunications 60720 Paper, Fine 60007 Electrical 60233 Appliances 60730 Trophies & Awards 60008 Plumbing 60400 Audio Visual Equipment 60863 Temporary Staffing 60009 Small General Contractors 60401 Audio Visual Supplies 60875 Registrations (Training/Seminars) 60016 Security Systems 60402 Video Equipment 61000 Office Supplies 60017 H V A C Contractors 60545 Moving & Storage 90640 Graphic Design Services 60030 Sound Systems & Electronics 60637 Lease – Equipment 90640.1 Image Setting 60102 Postage & Courier Services 60637.1 Lease – Building 90640.2 Premium/Promotional Items 60102.1 Postage Machines 60638 Maintenance Agreement 96600 Printing & Related Services 60104 Memberships(Professional) 60640 Copiers/Mimeo/Dupl. 96115 Catering & Concessions 60105 Subscriptions (Periodicals) 60670 Furniture – Office 96115.1 Coffee & Tea Services 60200 Computer Hardware 60700 Typewriters & Supplies 96115.2 Bottled Water 60201 Computer Software 60701 Office Machines 96618 Copying/Reproduction Services 60202 Computer Supplies 60702 Office Machine Supplies 91528 Mailing Services & Electronic Info. 60203 Computer Services 60710 Stationary Supplies
Other
Professional/Consulting Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60012 Architects, Engineer 91840 Employee Benefits Consulting 91892.1 Growth Visioning Planning 90868 Project Management 91843 Environmental Consulting 91893 Security/Safety Consulting 91804 Accounting/Auditing/Budgeting 91846 Feasibility Studies 91894 Traffic Consulting 91804.1 Organizational, Financial, & Performance
Audits/Project Management Services
91849 Finance/Economic Consulting 91895 Telecommunications Consulting 91858 Government Consulting 91896 Transportation Planning Consulting 91806 Administrative Consulting 91858.1 Government Relations 91896.1 Highway Corridor Analysis 91806.1 Administrative Services 91858.2 Institutional Analysis 91896.2 Rail Planning & Analysis 91812 Modeling-Analytical Studies & Surveys 91863 Housing Consulting 91896.3 Transit & Non-motorized Planning & Analysis 91812.1 Survey and Data Collection 91865 Human Relations Consulting 91812.2 Travel Demand Model Improvement 91866 Human Resources Consulting 91896.4 Transportation Management & Coordination 91812.3 Geographic Information System 91866.1 Executive Search 91812.4 Software Support for Studies & Surveys 91866.2 Insurance Broker Services 91896.5 Truck Lane Analysis/GoodsMovement
91812.5 Regional Data Systems 91874 Legal Consulting 91896.6 Transportation Financing 91817 Aviation Consulting 91874.1 Legislative Services 91896.7 Transportation & Economic Development
91826 Communications: Public Relations
Consulting
91874.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution 91896.8 Transportation Investment Analysis 91828 Computer Hardware Consulting 91875 Management Consulting 91896.9 Transportation Modeling Support 91828.1 Computer Service Center 91875.1 Organization & Staff Development 91897 Gas, Water, Electric Consulting 91829 Computer Software Consulting 91876 Marketing Consulting 91897.1 Air Quality Planning & Modeling 91829.1 Information Systems 91876.1 Social Economic Impact Analysis 91897.2 Water Supply Analysis 91829.2 Unix Systems Support 91876.2 Social Justice/Equity Analysis 96175 Translation Services 91829.3 Macintosh Computer Technical Support 91879 Minority & Small Business Consulting 91892 Urban Planning Consulting 91837 Economy Analysis Consulting 91883 Organizational Development Consulting 91838 Education & Training Consulting 91885 Personnel/Employment Consulting Other
SECTION 5. F O R M SUBMISSION
Include this form in your proposal
Attachment 8
37 rev 11/15/24
Notice Regarding California Public Records Act
Section ❶ - Summary
A proposal submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et. seq., (the “Act”). The Act provides generally that all records relating to a public agency's business are open to public inspection and copying, unless specifically exempt from public disclosure under one of several exemptions set forth in the Act. If you believe that any portion of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, you must: 1).

Mark such portion “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” within your proposal; 2). Complete Section ❷ below, and 3). Include this Attachment 9 in your submittal, or your proposal will be subject to public disclosure under the Act. Proposals marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” in their entirety will not be honored, and SCAG will not deny public disclosure of proposals so marked. By submitting a proposal with specific material marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” you represent you have a good faith belief that the material is exempt from disclosure under the Act; however, such designations will not necessarily be conclusive. You may be required to further justify in writing why such material should not, upon request, be disclosed by SCAG under the Act. Fee and pricing proposals are not considered “TRADE SECRETS”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY”.

If SCAG denies disclosure, then by submitting your proposal you agree to reimburse SCAG for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SCAG, its officers, fiduciaries, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs of any nature whatsoever (collectively, “Claims”) arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s non-disclosure. By submitting your proposal, you also agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless SCAG from and against any and all Claims arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s public disclosure of any such designated portions of your proposal if SCAG reasonably determines disclosure is deemed required by law, or if disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section ❷ - Exemption Request
Page Number of
Proposal Brief Explanation for the Exemption Under the Act and any Other Comments Attach additional pages as necessary
Check here if proposer claims no exemption
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Attachment 5
31 rev 11/15/24
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
RFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must complete this certification and certify, under penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:
a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction, violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes, or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for cause or default. 2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to SCAG.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award but will be considered in determining proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of actions. _________________________________
Name of Firm
_________________________________
Signature (original signature required)
_________________________________
Date
LG2WB Engineers, Inc. dba Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4/1/2025
Attachment 6
32 rev 11/15/24

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
MRFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS
All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict of Interest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online.

The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located at https://scag.ca.gov/contract-vendor-opportunities.

The list of SCAG staff may be found at https://scag.ca.gov/employee-directory.

The list of Regional Council members can be viewed at https://scag.ca.gov/rc-members-list.

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCAG’s Legal Division, especially if you answer “yes” to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal Name of Firm:

Name of Preparer:

Project Title:

MRFP No: Date Submitted:

SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees of SCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Council members held any investment (including real property) in your firm? YES NO
If “yes,” please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name Nature of Financial Interest
LG2WB Engineers, Inc. dba Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers RFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07 4/1/2025
SCP CEEEJ Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II
Keil Maberry, P.E., Principal
Attachment 6
33 rev 11/15/24

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee of SCAG or served as a member of the SCAG Regional Council within the last twelve (12) months? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, position, and dates of service:

Name Position Dates of Service

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is considering your proposal?
YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member of the SCAG Regional Council hold a position at your firm as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship
Attachment 6
34 rev 11/15/24

5. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly), or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or gifts to any current employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (including contributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name Date Dollar Value
SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT
This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION
I, (printed full name) _________________________________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) ______________________________ of (firm name) ______________________________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ___________________ is correct and current as submitted.

I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer
(original signature required)
Date
NOTICE
A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award
Keil Maberry
Principal LG2WB Engineers, Inc.
4/1/2025
4/1/2025
Attachment 7
Vendor Information
(to be completed by the prime consultant and all sub-consultants) 35 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 1. GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION
Primary Contact
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.

E-mail Address
Company Website Address
SECTION 2. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM FORM W-9) Company Name
Address
City State Zip Code
Telephone No. Fax No.

SECTION 3 PROPOSER’S/BIDDER’S LIST INFORMATION (REQUIRED) Is your firm a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE)?
Yes No
As defined in Title 49 Part 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, complete the required information below regardless of whether your firm is a DBE or non-DBE:

Age of Firm:

Annual Gross Receipts (select one):

Less than $1 Million $5 Million – $10 Million $15 Million – $17.4 Million $1 Million – $ 5 Million $10 Million – $15 Million $17.4 Million + A COPY OF THE FIRMS DBE CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO QUALIFY AS A DBE.

For vendors located within the Southern California region, certification must be from one of the agencies listed below.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Civil Rights MS 79, 1823 14th Street ,Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 324-1700 or (866) 810-6346, Fax: (916) 324-1862, website: caltrans.ca.gov

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Office of Contract Compliance, Centralized Certification 1149 S. Broadway Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone:(213) 847-6480, Fax: (213) 847-5566, website: bca.lacity.org

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Diversity and Economic Opportunity Department
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 922-2600, Fax: (213) 922-7660, website: mta.net If you believe you qualify as a DBE but are not certified, you may want to contact one of the certifying agencies listed at Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/civilrights/documents/f0003463-agency-roster-a11y.pdf to initiate the certification process.

Keil Maberry
Principal
949-825-6175
[email protected]
llgengineers.com
65 years
Attachment 7
36 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 4. COMMODITY CODE
Check all boxes of the commodity codes that apply to your company’s particular areas of expertise.

General Goods & Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60001 Painters 60204 Telecommunications 60720 Paper, Fine 60007 Electrical 60233 Appliances 60730 Trophies & Awards 60008 Plumbing 60400 Audio Visual Equipment 60863 Temporary Staffing 60009 Small General Contractors 60401 Audio Visual Supplies 60875 Registrations (Training/Seminars) 60016 Security Systems 60402 Video Equipment 61000 Office Supplies 60017 H V A C Contractors 60545 Moving & Storage 90640 Graphic Design Services 60030 Sound Systems & Electronics 60637 Lease – Equipment 90640.1 Image Setting 60102 Postage & Courier Services 60637.1 Lease – Building 90640.2 Premium/Promotional Items 60102.1 Postage Machines 60638 Maintenance Agreement 96600 Printing & Related Services 60104 Memberships(Professional) 60640 Copiers/Mimeo/Dupl. 96115 Catering & Concessions 60105 Subscriptions (Periodicals) 60670 Furniture – Office 96115.1 Coffee & Tea Services 60200 Computer Hardware 60700 Typewriters & Supplies 96115.2 Bottled Water 60201 Computer Software 60701 Office Machines 96618 Copying/Reproduction Services 60202 Computer Supplies 60702 Office Machine Supplies 91528 Mailing Services & Electronic Info. 60203 Computer Services 60710 Stationary Supplies
Other
Professional/Consulting Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60012 Architects, Engineer 91840 Employee Benefits Consulting 91892.1 Growth Visioning Planning 90868 Project Management 91843 Environmental Consulting 91893 Security/Safety Consulting 91804 Accounting/Auditing/Budgeting 91846 Feasibility Studies 91894 Traffic Consulting 91804.1 Organizational, Financial, & Performance
Audits/Project Management Services
91849 Finance/Economic Consulting 91895 Telecommunications Consulting 91858 Government Consulting 91896 Transportation Planning Consulting 91806 Administrative Consulting 91858.1 Government Relations 91896.1 Highway Corridor Analysis 91806.1 Administrative Services 91858.2 Institutional Analysis 91896.2 Rail Planning & Analysis 91812 Modeling-Analytical Studies & Surveys 91863 Housing Consulting 91896.3 Transit & Non-motorized Planning & Analysis 91812.1 Survey and Data Collection 91865 Human Relations Consulting 91812.2 Travel Demand Model Improvement 91866 Human Resources Consulting 91896.4 Transportation Management & Coordination 91812.3 Geographic Information System 91866.1 Executive Search 91812.4 Software Support for Studies & Surveys 91866.2 Insurance Broker Services 91896.5 Truck Lane Analysis/GoodsMovement
91812.5 Regional Data Systems 91874 Legal Consulting 91896.6 Transportation Financing 91817 Aviation Consulting 91874.1 Legislative Services 91896.7 Transportation & Economic Development
91826 Communications: Public Relations
Consulting
91874.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution 91896.8 Transportation Investment Analysis 91828 Computer Hardware Consulting 91875 Management Consulting 91896.9 Transportation Modeling Support 91828.1 Computer Service Center 91875.1 Organization & Staff Development 91897 Gas, Water, Electric Consulting 91829 Computer Software Consulting 91876 Marketing Consulting 91897.1 Air Quality Planning & Modeling 91829.1 Information Systems 91876.1 Social Economic Impact Analysis 91897.2 Water Supply Analysis 91829.2 Unix Systems Support 91876.2 Social Justice/Equity Analysis 96175 Translation Services 91829.3 Macintosh Computer Technical Support 91879 Minority & Small Business Consulting 91892 Urban Planning Consulting 91837 Economy Analysis Consulting 91883 Organizational Development Consulting 91838 Education & Training Consulting 91885 Personnel/Employment Consulting Other
SECTION 5. F O R M SUBMISSION
Include this form in your proposal
Attachment 8
37 rev 11/15/24
Notice Regarding California Public Records Act
Section ❶ - Summary
A proposal submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et. seq., (the “Act”). The Act provides generally that all records relating to a public agency's business are open to public inspection and copying, unless specifically exempt from public disclosure under one of several exemptions set forth in the Act. If you believe that any portion of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, you must: 1).

Mark such portion “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” within your proposal; 2). Complete Section ❷ below, and 3). Include this Attachment 9 in your submittal, or your proposal will be subject to public disclosure under the Act. Proposals marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” in their entirety will not be honored, and SCAG will not deny public disclosure of proposals so marked. By submitting a proposal with specific material marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” you represent you have a good faith belief that the material is exempt from disclosure under the Act; however, such designations will not necessarily be conclusive. You may be required to further justify in writing why such material should not, upon request, be disclosed by SCAG under the Act. Fee and pricing proposals are not considered “TRADE SECRETS”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY”.

If SCAG denies disclosure, then by submitting your proposal you agree to reimburse SCAG for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SCAG, its officers, fiduciaries, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs of any nature whatsoever (collectively, “Claims”) arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s non-disclosure. By submitting your proposal, you also agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless SCAG from and against any and all Claims arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s public disclosure of any such designated portions of your proposal if SCAG reasonably determines disclosure is deemed required by law, or if disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section ❷ - Exemption Request
Page Number of
Proposal Brief Explanation for the Exemption Under the Act and any Other Comments Attach additional pages as necessary
Check here if proposer claims no exemption
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________________ 4/1/2025 Attachment 5
31 rev 11/15/24
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
RFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must complete this certification and certify, under penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:
a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction, violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes, or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for cause or default. 2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to SCAG.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award but will be considered in determining proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of actions. _________________________________
Name of Firm
_________________________________
Signature (original signature required)
_________________________________
Date
Attachment 6
32 rev 11/15/24

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
MRFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS
All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict of Interest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online.

The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located at https://scag.ca.gov/contract-vendor-opportunities.

The list of SCAG staff may be found at https://scag.ca.gov/employee-directory.

The list of Regional Council members can be viewed at https://scag.ca.gov/rc-members-list.

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCAG’s Legal Division, especially if you answer “yes” to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal Name of Firm:

Name of Preparer:

Project Title:

MRFP No: Date Submitted:

SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees of SCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Council members held any investment (including real property) in your firm? YES NO
If “yes,” please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name Nature of Financial Interest
24-012-MRFP 07
Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II
April 3, 2025
Attachment 6
33 rev 11/15/24

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee of SCAG or served as a member of the SCAG Regional Council within the last twelve (12) months? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, position, and dates of service:

Name Position Dates of Service

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is considering your proposal?
YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member of the SCAG Regional Council hold a position at your firm as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship
Attachment 6
34 rev 11/15/24

5. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly), or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or gifts to any current employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (including contributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name Date Dollar Value
SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT
This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION
I, (printed full name) _________________________________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) ______________________________ of (firm name) ______________________________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ___________________ is correct and current as submitted.

I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer
(original signature required)
Date
NOTICE
A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award
Michael Hogan
Principal Investigator/ Archaeologist
Attachment 7
Vendor Information
(to be completed by the prime consultant and all sub-consultants) 35 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 1. GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION
Primary Contact
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.

E-mail Address
Company Website Address
SECTION 2. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM FORM W-9) Company Name
Address
City State Zip Code
Telephone No. Fax No.

SECTION 3 PROPOSER’S/BIDDER’S LIST INFORMATION (REQUIRED) Is your firm a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE)? Yes No
As defined in Title 49 Part 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, complete the required information below regardless of whether your firm is a DBE or non-DBE:

Age of Firm:

Annual Gross Receipts (select one):

Less than $1 Million $5 Million – $10 Million $15 Million – $17.4 Million $1 Million – $ 5 Million $10 Million – $15 Million $17.4 Million + A COPY OF THE FIRMS DBE CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO QUALIFY AS A DBE.

For vendors located within the Southern California region, certification must be from one of the agencies listed below.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Civil Rights MS 79, 1823 14th Street ,Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 324-1700 or (866) 810-6346, Fax: (916) 324-1862, website: caltrans.ca.gov

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Office of Contract Compliance, Centralized Certification 1149 S. Broadway Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone:(213) 847-6480, Fax: (213) 847-5566, website: bca.lacity.org

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Diversity and Economic Opportunity Department
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 922-2600, Fax: (213) 922-7660, website: mta.net If you believe you qualify as a DBE but are not certified, you may want to contact one of the certifying agencies listed at Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/civilrights/documents/f0003463-agency-roster-a11y.pdf to initiate the certification process. [email protected]
Principal Investigator/Archaeologist (Co-Owner)
909-824-6400
Attachment 7
36 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 4. COMMODITY CODE
Check all boxes of the commodity codes that apply to your company’s particular areas of expertise.

General Goods & Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60001 Painters 60204 Telecommunications 60720 Paper, Fine 60007 Electrical 60233 Appliances 60730 Trophies & Awards 60008 Plumbing 60400 Audio Visual Equipment 60863 Temporary Staffing 60009 Small General Contractors 60401 Audio Visual Supplies 60875 Registrations (Training/Seminars) 60016 Security Systems 60402 Video Equipment 61000 Office Supplies 60017 H V A C Contractors 60545 Moving & Storage 90640 Graphic Design Services 60030 Sound Systems & Electronics 60637 Lease – Equipment 90640.1 Image Setting 60102 Postage & Courier Services 60637.1 Lease – Building 90640.2 Premium/Promotional Items 60102.1 Postage Machines 60638 Maintenance Agreement 96600 Printing & Related Services 60104 Memberships(Professional) 60640 Copiers/Mimeo/Dupl. 96115 Catering & Concessions 60105 Subscriptions (Periodicals) 60670 Furniture – Office 96115.1 Coffee & Tea Services 60200 Computer Hardware 60700 Typewriters & Supplies 96115.2 Bottled Water 60201 Computer Software 60701 Office Machines 96618 Copying/Reproduction Services 60202 Computer Supplies 60702 Office Machine Supplies 91528 Mailing Services & Electronic Info. 60203 Computer Services 60710 Stationary Supplies
Other
Professional/Consulting Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60012 Architects, Engineer 91840 Employee Benefits Consulting 91892.1 Growth Visioning Planning 90868 Project Management 91843 Environmental Consulting 91893 Security/Safety Consulting 91804 Accounting/Auditing/Budgeting 91846 Feasibility Studies 91894 Traffic Consulting 91804.1 Organizational, Financial, & Performance
Audits/Project Management Services
91849 Finance/Economic Consulting 91895 Telecommunications Consulting 91858 Government Consulting 91896 Transportation Planning Consulting 91806 Administrative Consulting 91858.1 Government Relations 91896.1 Highway Corridor Analysis 91806.1 Administrative Services 91858.2 Institutional Analysis 91896.2 Rail Planning & Analysis 91812 Modeling-Analytical Studies & Surveys 91863 Housing Consulting 91896.3 Transit & Non-motorized Planning & Analysis 91812.1 Survey and Data Collection 91865 Human Relations Consulting 91812.2 Travel Demand Model Improvement 91866 Human Resources Consulting 91896.4 Transportation Management & Coordination 91812.3 Geographic Information System 91866.1 Executive Search 91812.4 Software Support for Studies & Surveys 91866.2 Insurance Broker Services 91896.5 Truck Lane Analysis/GoodsMovement
91812.5 Regional Data Systems 91874 Legal Consulting 91896.6 Transportation Financing 91817 Aviation Consulting 91874.1 Legislative Services 91896.7 Transportation & Economic Development
91826 Communications: Public Relations
Consulting
91874.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution 91896.8 Transportation Investment Analysis 91828 Computer Hardware Consulting 91875 Management Consulting 91896.9 Transportation Modeling Support 91828.1 Computer Service Center 91875.1 Organization & Staff Development 91897 Gas, Water, Electric Consulting 91829 Computer Software Consulting 91876 Marketing Consulting 91897.1 Air Quality Planning & Modeling 91829.1 Information Systems 91876.1 Social Economic Impact Analysis 91897.2 Water Supply Analysis 91829.2 Unix Systems Support 91876.2 Social Justice/Equity Analysis 96175 Translation Services 91829.3 Macintosh Computer Technical Support 91879 Minority & Small Business Consulting 91892 Urban Planning Consulting 91837 Economy Analysis Consulting 91883 Organizational Development Consulting 91838 Education & Training Consulting 91885 Personnel/Employment Consulting Other
SECTION 5. F O R M SUBMISSION
Include this form in your proposal
Attachment 8
37 rev 11/15/24
Notice Regarding California Public Records Act
Section ❶ - Summary
A proposal submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et. seq., (the “Act”). The Act provides generally that all records relating to a public agency's business are open to public inspection and copying, unless specifically exempt from public disclosure under one of several exemptions set forth in the Act. If you believe that any portion of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, you must: 1).

Mark such portion “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” within your proposal; 2). Complete Section ❷ below, and 3). Include this Attachment 9 in your submittal, or your proposal will be subject to public disclosure under the Act. Proposals marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” in their entirety will not be honored, and SCAG will not deny public disclosure of proposals so marked. By submitting a proposal with specific material marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” you represent you have a good faith belief that the material is exempt from disclosure under the Act; however, such designations will not necessarily be conclusive. You may be required to further justify in writing why such material should not, upon request, be disclosed by SCAG under the Act. Fee and pricing proposals are not considered “TRADE SECRETS”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY”.

If SCAG denies disclosure, then by submitting your proposal you agree to reimburse SCAG for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SCAG, its officers, fiduciaries, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs of any nature whatsoever (collectively, “Claims”) arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s non-disclosure. By submitting your proposal, you also agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless SCAG from and against any and all Claims arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s public disclosure of any such designated portions of your proposal if SCAG reasonably determines disclosure is deemed required by law, or if disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section ❷ - Exemption Request
Page Number of
Proposal Brief Explanation for the Exemption Under the Act and any Other Comments Attach additional pages as necessary
Check here if proposer claims no exemption
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________________ April 3, 2025 Attachment 5
31 rev 11/15/24
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
RFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must complete this certification and certify, under penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:
a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction, violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes, or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for cause or default. 2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to SCAG.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award but will be considered in determining proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of actions. _________________________________
Name of Firm
_________________________________
Signature (original signature required)
_________________________________
Date
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.

April 1, 2025
Attachment 6
32 rev 11/15/24

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
MRFP No. 24-012-MRFP 07
SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS
All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict of Interest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online.

The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located at https://scag.ca.gov/contract-vendor-opportunities.

The list of SCAG staff may be found at https://scag.ca.gov/employee-directory.

The list of Regional Council members can be viewed at https://scag.ca.gov/rc-members-list.

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCAG’s Legal Division, especially if you answer “yes” to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal Name of Firm:

Name of Preparer:

Project Title:

MRFP No: Date Submitted:

SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees of SCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Council members held any investment (including real property) in your firm? YES NO
If “yes,” please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name Nature of Financial Interest
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
24-012-MRFP 07 April 1, 2025
SCP CEEEJ Environmental Impact Report for Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II Ian Adam, Principal & VP, Specialty Practices
Attachment 6
33 rev 11/15/24

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee of SCAG or served as a member of the SCAG Regional Council within the last twelve (12) months? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, position, and dates of service:

Name Position Dates of Service

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is considering your proposal?
YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member of the SCAG Regional Council hold a position at your firm as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship
Attachment 6
34 rev 11/15/24

5. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly), or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or gifts to any current employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (including contributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)? YES NO
If “yes,” please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name Date Dollar Value
SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT
This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION
I, (printed full name) _________________________________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) ______________________________ of (firm name) ______________________________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ___________________ is correct and current as submitted.

I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer
(original signature required)
Date
NOTICE
A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award
April 1, 2025
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.

Ian Adam
April 1, 2025
Principal & VP, Specialty Practices
Attachment 7
Vendor Information
(to be completed by the prime consultant and all sub-consultants) 35 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 1. GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION
Primary Contact
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.

E-mail Address
Company Website Address
SECTION 2. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM FORM W-9) Company Name
Address
City State Zip Code
Telephone No. Fax No.

SECTION 3 PROPOSER’S/BIDDER’S LIST INFORMATION (REQUIRED) Is your firm a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE)?
Yes No
As defined in Title 49 Part 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, complete the required information below regardless of whether your firm is a DBE or non-DBE:

Age of Firm:

Annual Gross Receipts (select one):

Less than $1 Million $5 Million – $10 Million $15 Million – $17.4 Million $1 Million – $ 5 Million $10 Million – $15 Million $17.4 Million + A COPY OF THE FIRMS DBE CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO QUALIFY AS A DBE.

For vendors located within the Southern California region, certification must be from one of the agencies listed below.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Civil Rights MS 79, 1823 14th Street ,Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 324-1700 or (866) 810-6346, Fax: (916) 324-1862, website: caltrans.ca.gov

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Office of Contract Compliance, Centralized Certification 1149 S. Broadway Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone:(213) 847-6480, Fax: (213) 847-5566, website: bca.lacity.org

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Diversity and Economic Opportunity Department
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 922-2600, Fax: (213) 922-7660, website: mta.net If you believe you qualify as a DBE but are not certified, you may want to contact one of the certifying agencies listed at Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/civilrights/documents/f0003463-agency-roster-a11y.pdf to initiate the certification process.

Ian Adam
(714) 655-5835 (Ext. 4318)
[email protected]
www.fuscoe.com
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
15535 Sand Canyon Ave., Suite 100
Irvine CA 92618
(949) 474-1960
32 Years
Principal & VP, Speciality Practices
(949) 474-5315
(949) 474-5315
Attachment 7
36 rev 07/24/22
SECTION 4. COMMODITY CODE
Check all boxes of the commodity codes that apply to your company’s particular areas of expertise.

General Goods & Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60001 Painters 60204 Telecommunications 60720 Paper, Fine 60007 Electrical 60233 Appliances 60730 Trophies & Awards 60008 Plumbing 60400 Audio Visual Equipment 60863 Temporary Staffing 60009 Small General Contractors 60401 Audio Visual Supplies 60875 Registrations (Training/Seminars) 60016 Security Systems 60402 Video Equipment 61000 Office Supplies 60017 H V A C Contractors 60545 Moving & Storage 90640 Graphic Design Services 60030 Sound Systems & Electronics 60637 Lease – Equipment 90640.1 Image Setting 60102 Postage & Courier Services 60637.1 Lease – Building 90640.2 Premium/Promotional Items 60102.1 Postage Machines 60638 Maintenance Agreement 96600 Printing & Related Services 60104 Memberships(Professional) 60640 Copiers/Mimeo/Dupl. 96115 Catering & Concessions 60105 Subscriptions (Periodicals) 60670 Furniture – Office 96115.1 Coffee & Tea Services 60200 Computer Hardware 60700 Typewriters & Supplies 96115.2 Bottled Water 60201 Computer Software 60701 Office Machines 96618 Copying/Reproduction Services 60202 Computer Supplies 60702 Office Machine Supplies 91528 Mailing Services & Electronic Info. 60203 Computer Services 60710 Stationary Supplies
Other
Professional/Consulting Services
✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION ✓ NIGP DESCRIPTION 60012 Architects, Engineer 91840 Employee Benefits Consulting 91892.1 Growth Visioning Planning 90868 Project Management 91843 Environmental Consulting 91893 Security/Safety Consulting 91804 Accounting/Auditing/Budgeting 91846 Feasibility Studies 91894 Traffic Consulting 91804.1 Organizational, Financial, & Performance
Audits/Project Management Services
91849 Finance/Economic Consulting 91895 Telecommunications Consulting 91858 Government Consulting 91896 Transportation Planning Consulting 91806 Administrative Consulting 91858.1 Government Relations 91896.1 Highway Corridor Analysis 91806.1 Administrative Services 91858.2 Institutional Analysis 91896.2 Rail Planning & Analysis 91812 Modeling-Analytical Studies & Surveys 91863 Housing Consulting 91896.3 Transit & Non-motorized Planning & Analysis 91812.1 Survey and Data Collection 91865 Human Relations Consulting 91812.2 Travel Demand Model Improvement 91866 Human Resources Consulting 91896.4 Transportation Management & Coordination 91812.3 Geographic Information System 91866.1 Executive Search 91812.4 Software Support for Studies & Surveys 91866.2 Insurance Broker Services 91896.5 Truck Lane Analysis/GoodsMovement
91812.5 Regional Data Systems 91874 Legal Consulting 91896.6 Transportation Financing 91817 Aviation Consulting 91874.1 Legislative Services 91896.7 Transportation & Economic Development
91826 Communications: Public Relations
Consulting
91874.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution 91896.8 Transportation Investment Analysis 91828 Computer Hardware Consulting 91875 Management Consulting 91896.9 Transportation Modeling Support 91828.1 Computer Service Center 91875.1 Organization & Staff Development 91897 Gas, Water, Electric Consulting 91829 Computer Software Consulting 91876 Marketing Consulting 91897.1 Air Quality Planning & Modeling 91829.1 Information Systems 91876.1 Social Economic Impact Analysis 91897.2 Water Supply Analysis 91829.2 Unix Systems Support 91876.2 Social Justice/Equity Analysis 96175 Translation Services 91829.3 Macintosh Computer Technical Support 91879 Minority & Small Business Consulting 91892 Urban Planning Consulting 91837 Economy Analysis Consulting 91883 Organizational Development Consulting 91838 Education & Training Consulting 91885 Personnel/Employment Consulting Other
SECTION 5. F O R M SUBMISSION
Include this form in your proposal
Attachment 8
37 rev 11/15/24
Notice Regarding California Public Records Act
Section ❶ - Summary
A proposal submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et. seq., (the “Act”). The Act provides generally that all records relating to a public agency's business are open to public inspection and copying, unless specifically exempt from public disclosure under one of several exemptions set forth in the Act. If you believe that any portion of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, you must: 1).

Mark such portion “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” within your proposal; 2). Complete Section ❷ below, and 3). Include this Attachment 9 in your submittal, or your proposal will be subject to public disclosure under the Act. Proposals marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” in their entirety will not be honored, and SCAG will not deny public disclosure of proposals so marked. By submitting a proposal with specific material marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” you represent you have a good faith belief that the material is exempt from disclosure under the Act; however, such designations will not necessarily be conclusive. You may be required to further justify in writing why such material should not, upon request, be disclosed by SCAG under the Act. Fee and pricing proposals are not considered “TRADE SECRETS”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY”.

If SCAG denies disclosure, then by submitting your proposal you agree to reimburse SCAG for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SCAG, its officers, fiduciaries, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs of any nature whatsoever (collectively, “Claims”) arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s non-disclosure. By submitting your proposal, you also agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless SCAG from and against any and all Claims arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s public disclosure of any such designated portions of your proposal if SCAG reasonably determines disclosure is deemed required by law, or if disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section ❷ - Exemption Request
Page Number of
Proposal Brief Explanation for the Exemption Under the Act and any Other Comments Attach additional pages as necessary
Check here if proposer claims no exemption
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________________ April 1, 2025 CSG Consultants – Proposal for the Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, Phase II, Program EIR 53 VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A sample Comparative Summary of Potential Impacts as referenced in the scope of work is provided for the City’s reference.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix B:

Comparative Summary of Potential Impacts

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Comparative Summary of Potential Impacts
As discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Applicant is requesting that the City of Walnut Creek (“City”) approve amendments to the North Downtown Specific Plan (NDSP) (along with conforming amendments to the Walnut Creek General Plan [General Plan] and Municipal Code to ensure consistency) as well as a development agreement in order to create a new Mixed Use Special District that would allow for auto sales, service and ancillary uses as well as a range of additional potential, compatible uses such as commercial office, hotel, and/or multi-family residential. At this time, no application for a individual specific development proposal for the project site has been formally submitted to the City; therefore, the final specific allocation, configuration, and mix of uses is not currently known. Nevertheless, the basic characteristics of the proposed project would be consistent throughout regardless of the final specific allocation and mix of uses ultimately developed; i.e., its location; sustainable design features; vehicular access; utility provision; its infill, urban, mixed use nature (involving a new and enhanced auto sales dealership/service and sale facility in any development scenario, and other compatible uses); the contemplated demolition of all existing structures; and its overall scope (which would involve substantially the same building footprint based on the reasonable maximum development from an intensity/density perspective).

Accordingly, for purposes of evaluating the potential impacts that could result if the City approves the proposed project, this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) considers three potential development scenarios that reflect a reasonable mix, configuration, and allocation of uses that could occur under the proposed amendments to determine which one would reflect the reasonable worst-case scenario for each environmental topic area. In so doing, this ensures a conservative analysis, facilitates meaningful public participation, and helps to ensure that this SEIR, when considered as a whole, provides a reasonable, good faith disclosure and analysis of environmental impacts, and includes sufficient information to allow decision-makers and the public to understand the environmental consequences of the proposed project.

The following narrative presents a preliminary comparative analysis of three development scenarios (referred to herein as Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, respectively) to inform the selection of a reasonable worstcase scenario for study in the Draft SEIR for each environmental topic area. Based on information and reasonable assumptions provided by the Applicant, the following three Scenarios have been identified for comparison (development assumptions associated with buildout for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are provided in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, respectively) in order to articulate the potential project variations and fully disclose the maximum potential scope of the proposed project. Figure 1 depicts the proposed intensity (i.e., maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and building height set forth in the NDSP (as amended).

Table 1: Scenario 1 Development Assumptions
Scenario New End Use
Development Potential
(approx.) Maximum Height1
1 Auto Sales and Service 142,094 square feet 35 feet
Office 40,546 square feet 35 feet
Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Scenario New End Use
Development Potential
(approx.) Maximum Height1
Office 97,221 square feet 35 feet
Office 375,727 square feet 50 feet
Notes:

1. The NDSP sets forth a maximum height of 35 feet except for those lands on a portion of Site A where the NDSP sets forth a maximum height of 50 feet (see Figure 1).

Table 2: Scenario 2 Development Assumptions
Scenario New End Use
Development Potential
(approx.) Maximum Height1
2 Auto Sales and Service 142,094 square feet 35 feet
Office 40,546 square feet 35 feet
Multi-Family Residential 132 dwelling units 35 feet
Hotel 723 keys 50 feet
Notes:

1. The NDSP sets forth a maximum height of 35 feet except for those lands on a portion of Site A where the NDSP sets forth a maximum height of 50 feet (see Figure 1).

Table 3: Scenario 3 Development Assumptions
Scenario New End Use
Development Potential
(approx.) Maximum Height1
3 Auto Sales and Service 142,094 square feet 35 feet
Office 40,546 square feet 35 feet
Multi-Family Residential 132 dwelling units 35 feet
Multi-family Residential 526 dwelling units 50 feet
Notes:

1. The NDSP sets forth a maximum height of 35 feet except for those lands on a portion of Site A where the NDSP sets forth a maximum height of 50 feet (see Figure 1).

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Figure 1: Proposed Intensity and Building Height, North Downtown Specific Plan as amended)
The following preliminary evaluation of potential impacts for comparative purposes that could result from each of the three Scenarios is organized into three categories for discussion:
• Category 1: Topical areas proposed to be scoped out of the Draft SEIR • Category 2: Topical areas for which grading and development of the project site would have substantially the same levels of impact among the each of the Scenarios • Category 3: Topical areas where the Scenarios could have differing levels of potential impact Category 1: Topical areas to be scoped out of the Draft SEIR The Notice of Preparation (NOP) identified three topical areas that would be less than significant under all of the Scenarios and would not require further environmental review: agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, and wildfire. These topical areas would have substantially the same potential effect regardless of the Scenario selected, and are not evaluated further in the Draft Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
SEIR, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.0, Effects Found not to be Significant. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics (see further discussion under Category 3), to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when all of the Scenarios would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.”
Category 2: Topical areas for which grading and development of the project site would have equal levels of impact
A number of topical areas have impacts based on grading and other ground disturbance activities of the project site, as well as removal of existing structures. To evaluate a reasonable worst-case scenario, each Scenario is assumed to require removal of all structures as well as grading, other ground disturbance and construction across the full extent of each parcel. Because each of the Scenarios is based on reasonable assumptions of the maximum development potential that could occur on the project site, the amount of grading and other ground disturbance and demolition would be substantially the same under all Scenarios. Accordingly, for purposes of the topical areas listed below, potential impacts associated with grading, ground disturbance, and demolition would be substantially the same under each Scenario. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics (see further discussion under Category 3), to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when all of the Scenarios would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Therefore, the following impact areas are evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Aesthetics
Utilizing the guidance in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to aesthetics, light and glare would be significant, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the proposed project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As noted above, aesthetic impacts relate to the nature of the site upon which the project would be Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
developed as well as the nature of the specific development proposed (in terms of scale, massing, surrounding uses, etc.) with respect to visual resources as well as overall consistency with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The project site is infill in nature, is already developed with urban uses, and is located within an urbanized area that is surrounded by other existing urban development; once the proposed project is developed, views of the project site and vicinity would be substantially the same regardless of the Scenario. Each Scenario would be built across the entirety of the project site (without a shift in overall location) and would involve buildings that would be constructed to maximize the intensity and/or density of development in accordance with the applicable development standards including, among others, height, and FAR. Consistent therewith, under each Scenario, this analysis assumes that the project site would be developed to the maximum FAR of 2.5/2.8 (by right). Also, for purposes of this analysis, reasonable assumptions have been made as to the configuration of various uses on-site. Nevertheless, while the building/site configurations under each Scenario would vary to a certain degree, overall development under all of the Scenarios would have substantially the same impact on scenic vistas and scenic highways given the overall massing and scale of the assumed development as well as other considerations such as other intervening urban development in the vicinity and nearby trees and vegetation. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas and scenic highways would be substantially the same under all Scenarios.

For purposes of the CEQA threshold dealing with overall scenic quality, because the project site is considered “urbanized,” the impact question focuses on consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Development under all Scenarios would be governed by the same regulatory framework; i.e., the General Plan (as amended), the NDSP (as amended), the Municipal Code (as amended), a development agreement; as well as all other applicable laws and regulations and would be required to adhere to, and not conflict with, the foregoing. This would ensure that impacts in this regard would be substantially the same under all three Scenarios.

Because each Scenario anticipates a mix of uses that would be urban in nature, reflect the reasonable maximum density/intensity of uses that could occur on the project site, and would be required to adhere to the applicable development standards and design guidelines governing light and glare, each would result in substantially the same amounts of light and glare. For example, under all three Scenarios, there would be substantially the same daytime glare, for instance, from direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces. In addition, under all three Scenarios, there would be substantially the same nighttime lighting and glare from structure lighting and decorative landscaping, lighted signs, solar panels (if any), and streetlights, and mobile sources of lighting primarily from headlights from motor vehicles.

Nighttime lighting and glare would be governed by the applicable standards and guidelines, and all of which would be required to take into appropriate account safety, security, decorative and convenience considerations.

Biological Resources
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to biological resources are Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan? As noted above, biological resource impacts relate primarily to the scope and extent of demolition of existing structures, grading, and other ground disturbance.

The project site is infill in nature, is already developed with urban uses and is located within an urbanized area that is surrounded by other existing urban development. Each Scenario would require the removal of existing structures, would be built across the entirety of the project site, and would be constructed to maximize the intensity and/or density of development in accordance with the applicable development standards including, among others, the maximum FAR of 2.5/2.8 pursuant to the NDSP (as amended). Therefore, under all Scenarios, it is assumed that the amount of grading, ground disturbance, and demolition would be substantially the same.

Based on available information, the extent of biological resources across the project site consists of ornamental trees that could potentially provide habitat for nesting birds, as well as structures that could provide habitat for roosting bats. No wetlands or other sensitive natural communities are present. Accordingly, development of any of the Scenarios, since each would involve removal of all on-site structures and substantially the same amount of grading and other ground disturbance over the entirety of the project site, would have substantially the same effect. Accordingly, potential impacts to biological resources would be substantially the same across all Scenarios and thus would trigger substantially the same requirements with respect to mitigation.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
As noted above, cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) impacts relate primarily to the scope and extent of demolition of existing structures, grading, and other ground disturbance.

The project site is infill in nature, is already developed with urban uses, and is located within an urbanized area that is surrounded by other existing urban development. Each Scenario would be built across the entirety of the project site; would involve the demolition of all on-site structures; and would be constructed to maximize the intensity and/or density of development in accordance with the applicable development standards including, among others, the maximum FAR of 2.5/2.8.

Therefore, under all Scenarios, it is assumed that the amount of grading, ground disturbance, and demolition would be substantially the same.

Based on available information, the extent of cultural resources and TCRs across the project site consists of the potential for historicity of certain existing structures, as well as the potential for discovery of previously unrecorded cultural resources during construction activities requiring ground disturbance. Accordingly, since development of any of the Scenarios would require removal of all onsite structures and substantially the same amount grading and other ground disturbance over the entirety of the project site, would have substantially the same effect. Accordingly, potential impacts Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
to cultural resources and TCRs would be substantially the same across all Scenarios and thus would trigger substantially the same requirements with respect to mitigation.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As noted above, geology, soil, and seismicity impacts relate to the nature of the project site (e.g., underlying soils, proximity to any faults, etc.) and the scope and extent of grading and other ground disturbance.

The project site is infill in nature, is already developed with urban uses, and is located within an urbanized area that is surrounded by other existing urban development. Each Scenario would be built across the entirety of the project site; would involve the demolition of all on-site structures; and would be constructed to maximize the intensity and/or density of development in accordance with the applicable development standards including, among others, the maximum FAR of 2.5/2.8.

Therefore, under all Scenarios, it is assumed that the amount of grading, ground disturbance, and demolition would be substantially the same.

Geologic impacts, including impacts related to underlying soils; seismicity; and any potential related hazards such as ground shaking, landslides, erosion, liquefaction, expansive soils, etc., across the Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
project site would be substantially the same because it is assumed that under each Scenario, development would occur over the entirety of project site, and thus underlying soils and related geologic and seismicity conditions would remain constant. Moreover, development under all Scenarios would be governed by the same regulatory framework, i.e., the General Plan (as amended), the NDSP (as amended), the Municipal Code (as amended), the Building Code, the Fire Code, as well as all other applicable laws and regulations and would be required to adhere to the foregoing. Accordingly, the development of any of the Scenarios, since each would require removal of all on-site structures and the same amount of grading and other ground disturbance over the entirety of the project site, would have substantially the same effect. Accordingly, potential impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity would be substantially the same across all Scenarios and thus would trigger substantially the same requirements with respect to any mitigation.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to hydrology and water quality would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As noted above, hydrology and water quality impacts relate primarily to the scope and extent of grading and other ground disturbance, the nature of the proposed development, the location of the project site, and potential reliance on groundwater supplies.

As the project site is infill in nature, and is already developed with urban uses, including substantial amounts of impervious surfaces, the existing hydrology and stormwater runoff is already managed.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Each Scenario would be built across the entirety of the project site (and would not shift in location); would involve substantially the same amount of demolition, grading, and other ground disturbance; would be constructed to maximize the intensity and/or density of development in accordance with the applicable development standards including, among others, the maximum FAR of 2.5/2.8 (pursuant to the NDSP as amended); would contain substantially the same amount of impervious surfaces; and would be required to adhere to all applicable laws, regulations, standards and requirements with respect to the handling of stormwater runoff and related water quality issues.

Accordingly, potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be substantially the same across all Scenarios and thus would trigger substantially the same requirements with respect to any mitigation.

Land Use and Planning
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to land use and planning would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? As noted above, land use and planning impacts relate to the location, scope, and nature of the proposed development.

The redevelopment of the project site with the proposed uses under any Scenario would occur in the same location in the City of Walnut Creek and would involve substantially the same type of infrastructure to support the proposed uses, and thus any impacts associated with the potential to physically divide an established community would be substantially the same under all Scenarios.

Moreover, development under all three Scenarios would be required to adhere to all applicable laws, regulations, standards and requirements including those set forth in the NDSP (as amended), the Walnut Creek General Plan (General Plan) (as amended), and the Zoning Code (as amended), as well as any other relevant land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Accordingly, potential impacts with respect to land use and planning would be substantially the same across all Scenarios and thus would trigger the same requirements and adherence to the same applicable regulations.

Category 3: Topical Areas Where the Scenarios Could Have Differing Levels of Potential Impact
As explained more fully below, the Scenarios could result in materially different potential impacts for the following topical areas: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
A comparison of each Scenario with respect to potential impact for each topical area is presented below.

Air Quality
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to air quality would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

As noted above, air quality impacts relate to the amount and nature of emissions generated during construction and operation, which, in turn, relate primarily to the scope and extent of demolition, grading and other ground disturbance as well as the nature of the proposed uses and proximity of sensitive receptors.

Though the grading and ground disturbance for each Scenario would be similar, each Scenario would result in a different building footprint and size, which would result in different construction and operational emissions. Given the land uses proposed to be included with each Scenario, associated construction emissions based on the proposed building types, and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimated to be associated with each potential Scenario, the Scenario that would be expected to have the highest criteria pollutant emissions, and therefore the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to air quality, is Scenario 2.

With respect to attainment of air quality standards, the Scenario with the highest construction emissions would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario because that Scenario would have the greatest impacts with respect to air quality attainment standards and associated emissions standards. Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 2.

With respect to cumulative criteria pollutant emissions for both construction and operation and sensitive receptors exposure to pollutant concentrations during construction, because Scenario 2 would result in the greatest generation of maximum annual construction emissions as well as the greatest long-term operational emissions, it would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario for these impacts.

Impacts related to objectionable odors exposure would be substantially the same across all Scenarios during construction because the odors resulting from construction activities (i.e., from Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coating) would be substantially the same in nature regardless of the Scenario. Therefore, as noted above, because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Impacts related to objectionable odors exposure for off-site sensitive receptors would be substantially the same across all Scenarios during operation because the odors resulting from mixed use activities would be substantially the same in nature regardless of the Scenario. Therefore, because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” The following comparative analysis provides the reasonable worst-case scenario by significance criteria, which is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Reasonable Worst-Case Scenario Per Environmental Topic Area for Air Quality Environmental Topic Area Reasonable Worst-Case Scenario Consistency with Air Quality Plan Scenario 2 (auto sales and service, office, multi-family residential, and hotel)
Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions (during
construction)
Scenario 2 (auto sales and service, office, multi-family residential, and hotel)
Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions (during
operation)
Scenario 2 (auto sales and service, office, multi-family residential, and hotel)
Sensitive Receptors Exposure to Pollutant
Concentrations
Scenario 2 (auto sales and service, office, multi-family residential, and hotel)
Objectionable Odors Exposure (during construction) Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Objectionable Odors Exposure (during operation) Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Energy
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to energy would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
As noted above, energy impacts relate to the amount of energy consumed during construction and operation, which, in turn, relate primarily to the scope and extent of demolition, grading and other ground disturbance as well as the nature of the proposed uses.

As the ultimate land use and site plan are not currently known and there are various ways in which the project site could ultimately be developed under the NDSP (as amended), the three Scenarios were evaluated based on a number of factors, including electricity use and transportation fuels. VMT is used herein as a surrogate indicator for how much transportation fuel would be consumed during operation. It should be noted that because each Scenario would include the same project design features and would be located in the same location (i.e., the project site), each would be expected to have substantially the same degree of consistency with applicable State and local plans with regards to energy efficiency. Based on the energy intensity (evaluated considering both construction and operation) of the land use types proposed under each Scenario, Scenario 2 would result in the greatest consumption of energy resources and generation of VMT, which is related to the hotel and residential uses. These uses together are anticipated to generate more operational VMT than the other proposed uses, resulting in the highest consumption of transportation fuel during operation.

Therefore, Scenario 2 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to energy usage.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Construction
For construction-related GHG emissions, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) does not recommend quantification; instead BAAQMD recommends incorporation of construction best management practices (BMPs) that would contribute to reductions in GHG emissions during project construction and support the proposed project’s contribution to its “fair share” in GHG emission reductions during construction toward the State’s long-term climate goals. Development under all three Scenarios would be required to adhere to all applicable BAAQMD BMPs during construction. However, because Scenario 2 would result in the greatest generation of maximum annual construction emissions associated with the construction footprint, Scenario 2 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario. Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 2.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Operation
The BAAQMD has recently adopted new advisory recommendations for GHG significance thresholds which focus on the qualitative design of a project to determine impact significance based on the presence of legacy emission sources. According to the BAAQMD-recommended significance thresholds, which the City, in its discretion, has elected to utilize in this analysis, if a project cannot demonstrate compliance with Criterion A (which is the case here because the City’s Climate Action Plan does not meet the criteria as a qualified CAP) or Criterion B, it would be considered to result in potentially significant impacts, resulting in the need for mitigation.

A. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), or
B. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements. a. Buildings:
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
b. Transportation:
i. Achieve compliance with electric vehicle (EV) requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
ii. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:

1. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita.

2. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee.

3. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT.

Given the requirements in Criterion B, this impact is heavily tied to project design features. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 would include the same sustainable design features, as described in detail in Chapter 2, Project Description. The proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect GHG emissions from mobile sources (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks), energy (e.g., purchased electricity), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. As discussed above under air quality, Scenario 2 would result in the greatest long-term operational emissions. Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 2.

Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation that Reduces Emissions With respect to conflicting with a plan, policy, or regulation that reduces emissions, the Scenario with the greatest generation of maximum annual construction emissions and the greatest long-term operational emissions would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario. Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 2.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As noted above, hazards and hazardous materials relate primarily to the nature of the project site and surrounding uses (e.g., any underlying contamination), the scope and extent of demolition, grading and other ground disturbance, and the nature of the proposed uses.

The project site is infill in nature, is already developed with urban uses, and is located within an urbanized area that is surrounded by other existing urban development. Each Scenario would be built across the entirety of the project site; would involve the demolition of all on-site structures; would involve substantially the same amount of grading and other ground disturbance; would be constructed to maximize the intensity and/or density of development in accordance with the applicable development standards including, among others, the maximum FAR of 2.5/2.8 pursuant to the NDSP (as amended); and would be governed by the same regulatory framework.

The extent of hazards and hazardous materials across the project site would consist of any known or unknown contamination of groundwater and/or soils as well as the potential for asbestos and/or lead based paint in existing structures proposed for demolition. Accordingly, the development of any of the Scenarios could result in exposure to hazards and hazardous materials. However, residential uses are subject to more stringentscreening level for contaminants, as extended exposure to hazardous materials could result in more severe health impacts. Therefore, to the extent any remediation is Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
required under applicable laws and regulations, it is likely that both Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 could require additional remediation to meet these more stringent regulatory standards, as compared to Scenario 1 (which does not involve any residential uses). A greater number of residents, as anticipated with development of Scenario 3, would result in more sensitive receptors that could be exposed to hazardous materials. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario because it would include the most residential units and the most residents.

Noise
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to noise would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed project:
a) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
c) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
It should be noted that the significance criteria Impact (a), above, is from the Land Use and Planning section of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist questions. However, this question addresses impacts related to conflicts with land use plans, which would include project-related conflicts to the noise land use compatibility standards of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Therefore, these impacts are addressed with respect to noise in addition to land use and planning.

With respect to noise, the reasonable worst-case scenario would be different dependent on the impact area being evaluated as discussed in detail by topic below.

Conflict with Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Traffic noise is the primary noise source affecting the ambient noise environment on the project site and in the vicinity (see Section 3.11, Noise, for additional information). The City has determined, in its discretion, that Scenario 1 would be the reasonable worst-case scenario for purposes of evaluating potential traffic noise impacts related to land use/noise compatibility conflicts because it is the Scenario that would generate the highest average daily trips on average (see Table 5) for roadway segments on the project site and in the vicinity, and therefore would result in the highest projectrelated traffic noise levels.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
Construction
Construction-related noise impacts are triggered by both stationary and mobile sources (i.e., construction trips and construction equipment) as well as proximity of sensitive receptors. Both stationary and mobile sources are discussed in more detail below.

Construction-related Traffic Noise
Though the demolition, grading and ground disturbance for each Scenario would be substantially the same, each Scenario would result in a different building footprint and size, which would result in different construction emissions resulting, in part, from construction trips. Scenario 2 would result in the greatest maximum annual construction emissions, and is, therefore, the reasonable worst-case for this impact criteria because it is assumed it would result in the greatest number of construction trips.

Construction Equipment Operation Noise
Construction of all Scenarios is anticipated to utilize substantially the same construction equipment.

Therefore, the construction equipment and related noise to operate that equipment would be substantially the same for all Scenarios. In addition, as a conservative assumption, it was assumed that all construction could occur up to the project boundary. Therefore, each Scenario would result in substantially the same impact to the nearest off-site sensitive receptor. Because development could be phased such that on-site residences could be occupied during construction of other uses, the Scenario with the most potential on-site sensitive receptors is considered the reasonable worstcase. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario because it would include the most residential units, resulting in the most residents and the most potential sensitive receptors.

Operation
Operation-related noise impacts are triggered by both mobile and stationary sources (i.e., noise associated with project-related trips and noise from parking lot activities, landscaping, truck loading/unloading activities, and new exterior mechanical equipment sources). Both mobile and stationary sources are discussed in more detail below.

Operation-related Traffic Noise
Operational-related noise impacts are triggered by mobile sources as well as proximity of sensitive receptors and the nature of the proposed uses in relationship to existing surrounding uses.

Therefore, to determine which Scenario would represent the reasonable worst-case, this preliminary assessment considered whether mobile source noise could be different depending on the amount and nature of trips under each Scenario. The trip generation for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3 are summarized in Table 5, including total trip generation and trip generation with deductions taken for non-auto modes (walking, biking, transit) and for the existing land uses.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Table 5: Trip Generation Summary
Scenario
No Deductions With Deductions
Daily Trips
Peak-hour Trips
Daily Trips
Peak-hour Trips

AM PM AM PM
1 7,802 759 820 5,952 635 658
2 7,198 588 613 5,348 464 451
3 6,874 477 590 5,024 353 428
Source: W-Trans. 2022. CEQA Only Transportation Analysis for the Walnut Creek North Downtown Specific Plan Supplemental EIR. November 29.

As shown in Table 5, Scenario 1 would result in the highest trip generation, which would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to traffic noise.

Stationary Source Operational Noise Impacts
With respect to stationary sources, it is anticipated that the proposed project would generate noise from parking lot activities, new exterior mechanical equipment sources, such as rooftop ventilation systems on proposed uses, landscaping equipment, and truck loading and unloading activities.

Moreover, it is assumed that the proposed project could involve phasing such that new on-site sensitive receptors (e.g., multi-family residential uses) could be located such that they would be impacted by stationary noise during project operations. Therefore, the Scenario with the most potential on-site sensitive receptors is considered the reasonable worst-case. For that reason, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario because it would include the most residential units, resulting in the most residents and the most potential sensitive receptors.

Groundborne Vibration/Noise Levels
Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts to On-site or Off-site Receptors Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment used on-site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of construction respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels to slight damage at the highest levels. With respect to ground borne vibration during construction, it is reasonable to assume that impact pile drivers would be utilized, but pre-drilling would be employed to reduce the impacts thereof. Assuming they are used in the foundation construction phase of development, this would produce the greatest ground borne vibration levels. It is assumed that the proposed project could involve phasing such that new on-site sensitive receptors (e.g., multi-family residential uses) could be located such that they would be impacted by ground borne vibration during construction. Therefore, the Scenario with the most potential on-site sensitive receptors is considered the reasonable worst-case. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worstcase scenario because it would include the most residential units, resulting in the most residents and the most potential sensitive receptors.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Operational Vibration Impacts to On-Site or Off-site Receptors It is assumed that the proposed project could involve phasing such that new on-site sensitive receptors (e.g., multi-family residential uses) could be located such that they would be impacted by ground borne vibration during operation. Therefore, the Scenario with the most potential on-site sensitive receptors is considered the reasonable worst-case. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario because it would include the most residential units, resulting in the most residents and the most potential sensitive receptors.

Excessive Noise Levels from Airport Activity
Given that all Scenarios would be developed in the same location (i.e., on the project site), they would be the same distance from the nearest private airstrip or public airport (i.e., Buchanan Field Airport or the John Muir Medical Center helipad). Accordingly, potential impacts with respect to excessive noise levels from airport activity would be substantially the same across all Scenarios.

Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” The following comparative analysis provides the reasonable worst-case scenario by significance criteria, which is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Reasonable Worst-Case Scenario Per Environmental Topic Area for Noise Environmental Topic Area Reasonable Worst-Case Scenario Conflict with Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Scenario 1 (auto sales and service and office) Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
(Construction-related Traffic Noise)
Scenario 2 (auto sales and service, office, multi-family residential, and hotel)
Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
(Construction Equipment Operation Noise)
Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
(Operation-related Traffic Noise)
Scenario 1 (auto sales and service and office)
Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
(Stationary Source Operational Noise Impacts)
Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Ground borne Vibration/Noise Levels (Short-term
Construction Vibration Impacts to On-site or Off-site
Receptors)
Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Ground borne Vibration/Noise Levels (Operational
Vibration Impacts to On-Site or Off-site Receptors)
Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Excessive Noise Levels from Airport Activity Scenario 3 (auto sales and service, office, and multifamily residential) Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Population and Housing
Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to population and housing would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As noted above, population and housing impacts relate to the scope and nature of the proposed development (i.e., proposed uses, potential for displacement, and consistency of proposal with relevant land use growth projections).

Given the nature of the project site and existing nonresidential uses, none of the three Scenarios would result in any significant displacement of existing people or housing. Therefore, this preliminary assessment took into consideration the amount of population growth that could occur either directly or indirectly. The 2020 Census includes an average household size of 2.18 persons for Walnut Creek.
1 Table 7 provides total estimated residents associated with Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.

Table 7: Average Household Size and Total Estimated Residents Scenario Average Household Size Total Estimated Residents Scenario 1 (no residential uses) 2.18 person/residential unit 0 Scenario 2 (132 multi-family units) 2.18 person/residential unit 288 Scenario 3 (658 multi-family units) 2.18 person/residential unit 1,435 Source: United States Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts: Walnut Creek, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/walnutcreekcitycalifornia/PST045219. Accessed: November 4, 2021.

Table 8 provides the net new employment projections for the proposed project.2 Scenario 1 is projected to result in approximately 2,207 net new employees, Scenario 2 is projected to result in approximately 967 net new employees, and Scenario 3 is projected to result in approximately 316 net new employees.
1 United States Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts: Walnut Creek, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/walnutcreekcitycalifornia/PST045219. Accessed: November 4, 2021. 2 Employment projections in the 2019 NDSP EIR were calculated using standard assumptions of one job per 500 square feet of retail space, one job per 250 square feet of office space, 0.9 jobs per hotel room, one job per 463 square feet of general light industrial, and one job per 600 square feet of auto retail or service.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Table 8: Employment Projection Per Scenario (Net)
Scenario Development Potential Employment Projection
Total Estimated Employees
(Net)
1 Proposed Project
Auto Sales and Service:
142,094
1 job/600 square feet 237
Office: 513,494 1 job/250 square feet 2054
Total 2,291
Existing Uses
Auto Sales and Service:
50,407
1 job/600 square feet 84
Total 2,207
2 Proposed Project
Auto Sales and Service:
142,094
1 job/600 square feet 237
Office: 40,546 1 job/250 square feet 163
Multi-Family
Residential: 132
dwelling units
— —
Hotel: 723 rooms 0.9 jobs/hotel room 651
Total 1,051
Existing Uses
Auto Sales and Service:
50,407
1 job/600 square feet 84
Total 967
3 Proposed Project
Auto Sales and Service:
142,094
1 job/600 square feet 237
Office: 40,546 1 job/250 square feet 163
Multi-Family
Residential: 658
dwelling units
— —
Total 400
Existing Uses
Auto Sales and Service:
50,407
1 job/600 square feet 84
Total 316
Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Scenario Development Potential Employment Projection
Total Estimated Employees
(Net)
Notes:

The existing uses calculations do not include vacant buildings or parking lots.

Sources:

LSA. 2018. North Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, page 3-24. June.

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2022.

With respect to employment, the 2023-2031 Housing Element notes that the City’s population increases during the typical workweek, which indicates that many people commute into the City from elsewhere to work. Because of high housing costs in Walnut Creek, many professionals that work within the City live outside of the City where homes are more affordable. Therefore, though the proposed project would result in employment opportunities, it is anticipated that most of the employees associated with the proposed project would not relocate to the City. None of the Scenarios are anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth indirectly since none of the Scenarios involve the extension of roads or other significant infrastructure. Therefore, Scenario 3, the Scenario that would result in the most residents, would represent the reasonable worst-case with respect to population and housing.

Public Services and Recreation–Police, Fire, Parks, and Student Generation Utilizing the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to public services and recreation are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed project:
. . . result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities (i.e., library facilities)?
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
As noted above, public services and recreation impacts relate to the scope and nature of the proposed development (i.e., proposed uses and related population growth).

Police and Fire
All proposed uses under all Scenarios could result in additional calls for service. However, based on historical data, residential uses result in additional calls for service as compared with automotive, hotel, and office uses. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Scenario with the greatest number of residents would result in the most additional calls for service. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to police and fire.

Libraries, Parks, and Recreation
It is anticipated that the Scenario with the greatest number of residents would result in the highest level of demand for parks, recreation, and library facilities because residents are more likely to use regional and local parks and other public services (such as libraries) at a higher rate than employees in an office or other nonresidential uses or people staying at a hotel. As shown in Table 7, Scenario 1 would not include any dwelling units, and, therefore, would not result in any additional residents.

Scenario 3 would result in a greater number of residents than Scenario 2 and would therefore represent the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to parks and recreation.

Schools
It is anticipated that the Scenario with the greatest number of residents would result in the reasonable worst-case impact to schools because new residential units would result in the generation of new students within a school district where hotel, office, or other nonresidential uses would not result in any appreciable increase in demand in this regard. Table 9 provides the number of kindergarten, middle school, and high school students anticipated for each Scenario. As shown in Table 9, Scenario 3 is anticipated to result in the greatest number of students: 132 elementary and middle school, and 112 high school students. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to schools.3,4
Table 9: Student Generation Rates
Scenario Student Generation Rate/unit Total Estimated Students Scenario 1
(no residential uses)
• 0.2 Elementary and Middle School
• 0.17 High School
• 0
Scenario 2
(132 multi-family units)
• 0.2 Elementary and Middle School
• 0.17 High School
• 27 Kindergarten, Elementary,
and Middle School
• 23 High School
Scenario 3
(658 multi-family units)
• 0.2 Elementary and Middle School
• 0.17 High School
• 132 Elementary and Middle
School
• 112 High School
3 For planning purposes, the Walnut Creek School District recommends using a rate of 0.2 students per dwelling unit to estimate enrollment increase for new development for kindergarten, elementary, and middle school (0.2 X 658 units = 131.6 students) and the Acalanes Unified High School District recommends using a rate of 0.17 students for high school (0.17 x 658 units = 111.86 students). 4 City of Walnut Creek. 2018. North Downtown Specific Plan Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report: Chapter 10, Public Services and Recreation. June.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Transportation
Utilizing the guidance in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to transportation would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As noted above, transportation impacts relate to the nature and scope of the proposed development as well as its location in proximity to major transportation corridors, public transit, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Consistency with Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing Circulation System Under all three Scenarios, the proposed project would involve transit-oriented development across the entirety of the project site, which would be located in close proximity to existing and planned public transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Moreover, under all three Scenarios, the proposed project would be required to adhere to and thus ensure consistency with all relevant laws, regulations, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system, including, among others, the provisions of appropriate and adequate roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.

Therefore, the relative impact of each of the Scenarios with respect to the circulation system would be substantially the same across all Scenarios because substantially the same improvements would be involved and all assume maximum development across the project site from an intensity/density perspective. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Therefore, impacts with respect to consistency with program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation systems are evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Roadway Safety Hazards and Emergency Access
The relative impact of each Scenario with respect to any potential roadway safety hazards and emergency access would be substantially the same across all Scenarios because the project site is already developed and would be accessed off the same streets as existing conditions regardless of the final design resulting in similar safety hazards across all Scenarios. In addition, because the proposed project would be located in the same location under all Scenarios; would involve the maximum development across the project site from an intensity/density perspective; and would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and requirements with respect to emergency access, Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
impacts in this regard would be substantially the same for all Scenarios. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Therefore, impacts with respect to roadway safety hazards and emergency access are evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
With respect to VMT impacts, this relates to the nature and scope of the proposed uses as well as the location of the proposed development.

In October 2020, the City adopted VMT thresholds of significance and local criteria for analysis in Resolution No. 20-70 (Resolution).5 The Resolution defines the following project types and metrics:
• Residential–Use the Home-based VMT per resident;
• Employment (e.g., office)–Use the Home-to-work “commute” VMT per employee; • Regional-serving (e.g., retail)–Based on the Total VMT per service population; • Mixed-use projects–Assess each component individually, or base it on the dominant use; and • Non-standard projects–Analyze each component per the metrics above, such as for hospitals using VMT per employee the above metric for employees, and VMT for patients using the regional-serving metric above.

The Resolution then defines the following thresholds of significance regarding VMT:
• Residential–Home-based VMT is higher than 85 percent of the existing Countywide average; • Employment (e.g., office)–Home-work VMT is higher than 85 percent of the existing ninecounty Bay Area average; • Regional-serving (e.g., retail)–VMT per service population is higher than 85 percent of the existing Countywide average;
• Mixed-use projects–Thresholds are per the component land uses above, or the dominant use; and
• Non-standard projects–Thresholds are per each component as measured against the above thresholds.

The Resolution defines a variety of screening thresholds; projects that meet such thresholds may be exempt from the requirement to include a VMT analysis, as the impact to VMT would be presumed to be less than significant. Such pre-screened projects include those fulfilling at least one of the following conditions. The conditions that are pertinent to the proposed project are bolded. 5 City of Walnut Creek. 2020. Resolution No. 20-70: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Walnut Creek Adoption “Vehicle Miles Traveled” Thresholds of Significance and Local Criteria for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. October.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
• Any project that is exempt from CEQA.
• Projects with less than 10,000 square feet of nonresidential space or 20 or fewer residential units, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. • Retail uses smaller than 30,000 square feet and without a drive-through component. • Projects located within a transit priority area, which includes areas within 0.5-mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. This exemption does not apply to projects that:
- Have a FAR of less than 0.75;
- Include parking in excess of City requirements;
- Are not consistent with applicable Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS), 6 or
- Result in a net reduction of multi-family units.
• Residential projects within areas that have existing residential VMT more than 85 percent below the existing Countywide average, and employment projects within areas with employee VMT more than 85 percent below the existing regional average. • Residential projects that would provide 100 percent affordable housing.

The City’s VMT analysis document, entitled “Citywide TDM Requirements”7 includes VMT screening maps that show VMT per employee compared to the regional average, and VMT per resident compared to the Countywide average, including transportation analysis zones (TAZs) split into TAZs with 85 percent or less of the regional or Countywide average, between 85 and 100 percent of the average, and those that are above average VMT. The project site is split across TAZ 20205 and 20206, which are collectively bound by Parkside Drive, North Civic Drive, Ygnacio Valley Road, and North Main Street. Both TAZs are depicted as having VMT equal to or less than 85 percent of the regional or Countywide average for employees and residents, respectively. This means that Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 would be exempted (or screened out) from the need to conduct a detailed VMT analysis based on the screening for projects in areas with VMT 85 percent or less of the regional or Countywide average, as Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 consist entirely of residential and/or employment uses; accordingly, VMT impacts are presumed to be less than significant.

Because Scenario 2 includes a hotel use, additional consideration is required to determine whether such a scenario could be screened out under the threshold. The Citywide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Requirements depict a half-mile radius around the Walnut Creek BART station.

The Walnut Creek BART station radius covers the project site, which means that Scenario 2 would be exempt (or screened out), if the exceptions to the exemption, outlined (and bolded) above, do not apply. For Scenario 2, given the development parameters incorporated into the proposed project, the FAR would be at least 0.75 and no excess parking over what is required by the Municipal Code would be provided, which would be confirmed during project approval. Scenario 2 would also comply with Plan Bay Area 2050 (see Section 3.14, Transportation, for additional details) and would not result in a reduction of multi-family housing because no housing currently exists on-site. 6 For the City of Walnut Creek, the relevant SCS document is the Plan Bay Area 2050, Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, May 2021. 7 City of Walnut Creek. 2021. Citywide TDM Requirements. October.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Therefore, because impacts to VMT would be presumed to be less than significant for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, impacts in this regard would be substantially the same for all Scenarios.

Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Therefore, this analysis is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3. Therefore, impacts with respect VMT are evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Utilities and Service Systems
Utilizing the guidance in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and as analyzed in the 2019 NDSP EIR, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to utilities and service systems would be significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage facilities, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? As noted above, utilities and service systems impact relate to the scope and nature of the proposed development and the related demand generated therefrom.

Stormwater
Substantially similar on-site storm drainage facilities, which would consist of bioswales, inlets, underground piping, and basins, would be installed as part of stormwater infrastructure for all Scenarios and all Scenarios would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and requirements for purposes of stormwater improvements. The Conceptual Hydrology Analysis prepared by Kier and Wright on December 6, 2021, concluded that predevelopment peak runoff, approximately 20.42 cubic feet per second (cfs), would be reduced to a peak runoff rate of approximately 18.05 cfs under project conditions for all Scenarios.
8 Therefore, stormwater would be detained and released at a rate no greater than the predevelopment condition pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, which would ensure that the existing infrastructure could handle post-development flows. Given the 8 Kier and Wright. 2021. Toyota Walnut Creek-Conceptual Hydrology Analysis. December 6.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
location of existing stormwater infrastructure, it is anticipated that connections thereto would occur either on-site or within adjacent existing public right-of-way, and that the existing infrastructure would be able to accommodate the flow associated with the proposed project. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be substantially the same for all Scenarios. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Energy
All Scenarios would include an all-electric building design, and would be served with electricity service provided by both Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). All Scenarios would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and requirements with respect to electric facilities and could be served be existing infrastructure. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be substantially the same for all Scenarios. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario.” Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Telecommunications
There are existing telecommunications facilities located on the project site. Because the proposed project would be located in the same location under all Scenarios; would involve the maximum development across the project site from an intensity/density perspective; and would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and requirements with respect to telecommunications, the relative impact of each of the Scenarios with respect to the telecommunications would be substantially the same. Because Scenario 3 is assumed to result in the greatest impact for most of the environmental topics, to provide consistency in the analysis within the Draft SEIR, when a Scenario would result in substantially the same effects, this Draft SEIR evaluates impacts assuming development of Scenario 3, the Scenario that is most often the “reasonable worst-case scenario”.

Therefore, this impact is evaluated assuming development of Scenario 3.

Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste
Table 10 provides consumption/generation rates for water, sewer, and solid waste and provides a comparison of those rates for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. As shown in Table 10, Scenario 3 would result in the highest water and sewer demand. Therefore, Scenario 3 would represent the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to water and sewer.

With respect to solid waste, Table 11 shows the construction and demolition amounts associated with Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. As a conservative estimate, the total anticipated construction and demolition debris for each Scenario, has been added to the estimated first annual solid waste generation, for a total maximum solid waste generation of 61,429 cubic yards for Scenario 1, 60,715 cubic yards for Scenario 2, and 61,309 cubic yards for Scenarios and 3.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Therefore, though the waste generation for all three Scenarios is relatively similar, Scenario 1 is slightly higher and is therefore considered the reasonable worst-case scenario with respect to solid waste.

Table 10: Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Generation Rates Scenario
Residents Plus
Net New
Employees
Total Estimated
Daily Water
Demand
(gallons)1,2
Total Estimated
Daily Sewer
Demand
(gallons)1,2
Total Estimated
Daily Solid
Waste
(ton)2
Total Estimated
Annual Solid
Waste (ton)1,2
Total Estimated
Annual Solid
Waste
(Cubic Yard)1,2
1 2,207 9,106 9,106 5.19 1,893 2,650
2 1,255 78,294 78,294 2.95 1,078 1,507
3 1,750 119,806 119,806 4.11 1,501 2,101
Notes:

1. Rounded to the nearest whole number. 2. The existing uses were netted out.

Water Consumption Rates:

Water consumption rates are from the Water Supply Assessment prepared by Balance Hydrologics in April 2022 and approved by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) on February 28, 2023.

Sewer Generation Rate:

It was conservatively assumed that all domestic water would ultimately be discharged to Central Sans wastewater system.

Solid Waste Generation Rate:

Pursuant to State Law Senate Bill 1016, Walnut Creek targets a disposal rate of 4.7 pounds per person per day.9 The 2019 disposal rate for Walnut Creek was 4.0 pounds per person per day. Therefore, the Draft SEIR conservatively assumes a solid waste disposal rate of 4.7 pounds per person per day. 1 ton = 2,000 pounds
1 ton = 1.4 cubic yards
Sources:

Balance Hydrologics. 2022. Water Supply Assessment for Toyota Walnut Creek Mixed Use Special District Project. April.

Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority (RecycleSmart). 2020. Annual Diversion Report for Calendar Year 2019:

Agenda Item No. 4, Table 1. Website: https://www.recyclesmart.org/filebrowser/download/4900371. Accessed December 6, 2021.

Table 11: Construction and Demolition Debris
Scenario Activity Waste Generation Rate
Total Estimated Solid Waste Generation2
Square
Feet Pounds Tons Cubic Yards
1 Demolition
Demolition calculations are taken
from the Demolition Debris
Calculations sheet provided as part
of Appendix C.
— 29,190,000 14,5951 54,056
Construction Residential 4.38 pounds/square
feet — — — —
9 Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority (RecycleSmart). 2020. Annual Diversion Report for Calendar Year 2019: Agenda Item No. 4, Table 1. Website: https://www.recyclesmart.org/filebrowser/download/4900371. Accessed December 6, 2021.

Walnut Creek–Mixed Use Special District Project
Draft Supplemental EIR Appendix B
FirstCarbon Solutions
Scenario Activity Waste Generation Rate
Total Estimated Solid Waste Generation2
Square
Feet Pounds Tons Cubic Yards
Nonresidential: 3.89
pounds/square feet 655,588 2,550,237 1,275 4,723
Total 31,740,237 15,870 58,779
2 Demolition
Demolition calculations are taken
from the Demolition Debris
Calculations sheet provided as part
of Appendix C.
— 29,190,000 14,5951 54,056
Construction
Residential 4.38 pounds/square
feet 472,948 2,071,512 1,036 3,836
Nonresidential: 3.89
pounds/square feet 182,640 710,470 355 1,316
Total 31,971,982 15,986 59,208
3 Demolition
Demolition calculations are taken
from the Demolition Debris
Calculations sheet provided as part
of Appendix C.
— 29,190,000 14,5951 54,056
Construction
Residential 4.38 pounds/square
feet 472,948 2,071,512 1,036 3,836
Nonresidential: 3.89
pounds/square feet 182,640 710,470 355 1,316
Total 31,971,982 15,986 59,208
Notes:
1 Demolition calculations are taken from the Demolition Debris Calculations sheet provided as part of Appendix C. 2 Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

It was conservatively assumed that auto sales, service and ancillary uses and retail and office uses would fall under the nonresidential waste category and the multi-family residential and hotel uses would fall under the residential waste category for purposes of estimating construction and demolition solid waste because hotel units would produce construction debris most similar to residential units.
1 ton = 2,000 pounds
1 ton = 1.4 cubic yards
Sources:

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1998.

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2022.

Foster City • Orange • Sacramento • Pleasanton • San Jose • Newman • Paso Robles Glenn Lajoie | Director of
Environmental Services
CSG Consultants
3707 W. Garden Grove Blvd., Suite 100
Orange, California 92868
Tel: 714.568.1010
Fax: 714.568.1028
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.csgengr.com

PROJECT CONTACT
CSG Consultants
3707 W Garden Grove Blvd.

Orange, CA 92868 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
714-568-1010 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Principal, Director of Environmental Planning 112.57 65.00 $ 7,317.05 10.00 $ 1,125.70 6.00 $ 675.42 0.00 $ - 40.00 $ 4,502.80 8.00 $ 900.56 8.00 $ 900.56 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 137.00 $ 15,422.09 Senior Environmental Planner 82.29 34.00 $ 2,797.86 10.00 $ 822.90 5.00 $ 411.45 0.00 $ - 50.00 $ 4,114.50 14.00 $ 1,152.06 16.00 $ 1,316.64 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 129.00 $ 10,615.41 Associate Environmental Planner 38.79 0.00 $ - 30.00 $ 1,163.70 14.00 $ 543.06 0.00 $ - 150.00 $ 5,818.50 30.00 $ 1,163.70 30.00 $ 1,163.70 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 254.00 $ 9,852.66 Assistant Environmental Planner 30.45 0.00 $ - 20.00 $ 609.00 20.00 $ 609.00 0.00 $ - 150.00 $ 4,567.50 36.00 $ 1,096.20 52.00 $ 1,583.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 278.00 $ 8,465.10 GIS Manager 63 0.00 $ - 6.00 $ 378.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 35.00 $ 2,205.00 3.00 $ 189.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 44.00 $ 2,772.00 Document Publications Specialist 46.2 0.00 $ - 5.00 $ 231.00 8.00 $ 369.60 0.00 $ - 32.00 $ 1,478.40 6.00 $ 277.20 12.00 $ 554.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 63.00 $ 2,910.60

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 99.00 $ 10,114.91 81.00 $ 4,330.30 53.00 $ 2,608.53 0.00 $ - 457.00 $ 22,686.70 97.00 $ 4,778.72 118.00 $ 5,518.70 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 905.00 $ 50,037.86 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 62.59% $ 6,330.92 $ 2,710.33 $ 1,632.68 $ - $ 14,199.61 $ 2,991.00 $ 3,454.15 $ - $ - $ - $ 31,318.70 Fringe 57.00% $ 5,765.50 $ 2,468.27 $ 1,486.86 $ - $ 12,931.42 $ 2,723.87 $ 3,145.66 $ - $ - $ - $ 28,521.58 $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ 12,096.42 $ 5,178.61 $ 3,119.54 $ - $ 27,131.02 $ 5,714.87 $ 6,599.81 $ - $ - $ - $ 59,840.28 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 10.00% $ 2,221.13 $ 950.89 $ 572.81 $ - $ 4,981.77 $ 1,049.36 $ 1,211.85 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,987.81 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ 1,800.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ - $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,700.00 Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ 200.00 $ - $ 400.00 $ - $ 700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,400.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,700.00 Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ 300.00 $ - $ 300.00 $ - $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500.00 Graphics $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Information Center Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Traffic Counts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - ODC's $ 2,300.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ - $ 1,400.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,200.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 8,900.00 Subconsultant(s)
Michael Baker International, Inc. 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 CRM TECH 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 46,134.65 32.00 $ 9,311.08 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 55,445.73 Fuscoe Engineering, Inc 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 Sub 5 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 6 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 7 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 8 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 9 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 1190.00 $ 227,938.47 32.00 $ 9,311.08 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 1222.00 $ 237,249.55 GRAND TOTAL 99.00 $ 26,732.46 81.00 $ 10,759.80 53.00 $ 7,300.88 1190.00 $ 227,938.47 489.00 $ 65,510.58 97.00 $ 13,242.95 118.00 $ 15,530.36 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 2127.00 $ 367,015.50 Check Totals 99.00 $ 26,732.46 81.00 $ 10,759.80 53.00 $ 7,300.88 1190.00 $ 227,938.47 489.00 $ 65,510.58 97.00 $ 13,242.95 118.00 $ 15,530.36 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 2127.00 $ 367,015.50 Variance 0.00
Grand Total (All
Tasks)
Task 7
Final EIR
Task 8
Task Name
Task 9
Task Name
Task 10
Cost Categories Task Name

LINE ITEM BUDGET
SCPJ Laguna Downtown Specific Plan II EIR
24-012-MRFP 07
Technical Studies
Task 5
Admin Draft EIR
Task 2
Kickoff/Project Des
Task 3
Project Scoping
Task 1 Task 4
Project Mgmt & Mtgs
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
SCPJ Laguna Downtown Specific Plan II EIR
24-012-MRFP 07
Task 6
Screencheck, Draft EIR
Revised 11/05/19
Michael Baker International, Inc.
5 Hutton Centre
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
949-855-3612 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Project Manager 116.7 $ - $ - $ - 42.00 $ 4,901.40 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 42.00 $ 4,901.40 Senior Tech 70.67 $ - $ - $ - 27.00 $ 1,908.09 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 27.00 $ 1,908.09 Tech Specialist 55.72 $ - $ - $ - 148.00 $ 8,246.56 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 148.00 $ 8,246.56 Tech 2 47.13 $ - $ - $ - 50.00 $ 2,356.50 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 50.00 $ 2,356.50 Graphics 54 $ - $ - $ - 44.00 $ 2,376.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 44.00 $ 2,376.00 Bio Lead 105 $ - $ - $ - 8.00 $ 840.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8.00 $ 840.00 Snr Biologist 74 $ - $ - $ - 45.00 $ 3,330.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 45.00 $ 3,330.00 Biologst 2 51 $ - $ - $ - 24.00 $ 1,224.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 24.00 $ 1,224.00 Biologist 1 59 $ - $ - $ - 12.00 $ 708.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 12.00 $ 708.00 Tech Editor 49 $ - $ - $ - 4.00 $ 196.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.00 $ 196.00 Snr Visual 95.14 $ - $ - $ - 60.00 $ 5,708.40 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 60.00 $ 5,708.40 Visual Tech 45.92 $ - $ - $ - 135.00 $ 6,199.20 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 135.00 $ 6,199.20 GIS 45.15 $ - $ - $ - 24.00 $ 1,083.60 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 24.00 $ 1,083.60 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 39,077.75 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 39,077.75 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 94.79% $ - $ - $ - $ 37,042.97 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,042.97 Fringe 46.07% $ - $ - $ - $ 18,001.95 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,001.95 $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ 55,044.92 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,044.92 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 10.00% $ - $ - $ - $ 9,412.27 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,412.27 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ 450.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 450.00 Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Graphics $ - $ - $ - $ 29,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ 29,950.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,950.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94

0.00 24-012 24-012
Variance
Task 4 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total (All
ached Mbaker Worksheet for bre Tasks)

LINE ITEM BUDGET
Laguna Beach Downtown SP Phase II Laguna Beach Downtown SP Phase II Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8
Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Michael Baker International, Inc.
5 Hutton Centre
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
949-855-3612 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Project Manager $116.70 8.00 $ 933.60 6.00 $ 700.20 10.00 $ 1,167.00 4.00 $ 466.80 4.00 $ 466.80 10.00 $ 1,167.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 42.00 $ 4,901.40 Senior Tech $70.67 8.00 $ 565.36 5.00 $ 353.35 8.00 $ 565.36 6.00 $ 424.02 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 27.00 $ 1,908.09 Tech Specialist 55.72 50.00 $ 2,786.00 35.00 $ 1,950.20 55.00 $ 3,064.60 8.00 $ 445.76 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 148.00 $ 8,246.56 Tech 2 $47.13 6.00 $ 282.78 8.00 $ 377.04 12.00 $ 565.56 24.00 $ 1,131.12 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 50.00 $ 2,356.50 Graphics $54.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 44.00 $ 2,376.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 44.00 $ 2,376.00 Bio Lead $105.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - 8.00 $ 840.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 8.00 $ 840.00 Snr Biologist $74.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - 45.00 $ 3,330.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 45.00 $ 3,330.00 Biologst 2 $51.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - 24.00 $ 1,224.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 24.00 $ 1,224.00 Biologist 1 $59.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - 12.00 $ 708.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 12.00 $ 708.00 Tech Editor 49 $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.00 $ 196.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 4.00 $ 196.00 Snr Visual 95.14 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 60.00 $ 5,708.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 60.00 $ 5,708.40 Visual Tech 45.92 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 135.00 $ 6,199.20 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 135.00 $ 6,199.20 GIS 45.15 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 24.00 $ 1,083.60 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 24.00 $ 1,083.60 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 72.00 $ 4,567.74 54.00 $ 3,380.79 85.00 $ 5,362.52 42.00 $ 2,467.70 97.00 $ 6,764.80 273.00 $ 16,534.20 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 39,077.75 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 94.79% $ 4,329.90 $ 3,204.75 $ 5,083.29 $ 2,339.21 $ 6,412.56 $ 15,673.26 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,042.97 Fringe 46.07% $ 2,104.22 $ 1,557.43 $ 2,470.35 $ 1,136.80 $ 3,116.34 $ 7,616.81 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,001.95 $ -
ubtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ 6,434.12 $ 4,762.18 $ 7,553.65 $ 3,476.00 $ 9,528.90 $ 23,290.07 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,044.92 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 10.00% $ 1,100.19 $ 814.30 $ 1,291.62 $ 594.37 $ 1,629.37 $ 3,982.43 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,412.27 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ 200.00 $ - $ 250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 450.00 Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Graphics $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,500.00 ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ - $ 250.00 $ 29,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,950.00 Subconsultant(s)
Sub 1 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 2 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 3 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 4 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 5 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 6 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 7 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 8 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 9 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Sub 10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 72.00 $ 12,102.04 54.00 $ 8,957.27 85.00 $ 14,407.78 42.00 $ 6,538.07 97.00 $ 18,173.07 273.00 $ 73,306.70 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 Check Totals 72.00 $ 12,102.04 54.00 $ 8,957.27 85.00 $ 14,407.78 42.00 $ 6,538.07 97.00 $ 18,173.07 273.00 $ 73,306.70 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 623.00 $ 133,484.94 Grand Total (All

4.6 Energy 4.3 Bio 4.1 & 4.9 Aesthetics Tasks)
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10
Cost Categories Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

4.2 Air Quality 4.2 GHG 4.5 Noise
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
Laguna Beach Downtown SP Phase II Laguna Beach Downtown SP Phase II 24-012 24-012
Revised 11/05/19

CRM TECH
Address 1016 E. Cooley Drive Suite B
Address: Colton, CA 9234 Title of Project: Title of Project:
email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-824-6400 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Principal Investigator 120 $ - $ - $ - 10.00 $ 1,200.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.00 $ 1,200.00 Historian II 90 $ - $ - $ - 70.00 $ 6,300.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.00 $ 6,300.00 GIS 90.00 $ - $ - $ - 10.00 $ 900.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.00 $ 900.00 Staff 80 $ - $ - $ - 26.00 $ 2,080.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 26.00 $ 2,080.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 10,480.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 10,480.00 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ 1,780.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,780.00
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ 100.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100.00 Graphics $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Information Center Charges $ 1,300.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,300.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ 3,180.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,180.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00

0.00 24-012-MRFP 07 24-012-MRFP 07
Variance
Task 4 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total (All
See CRM Tech Breakdown Tasks)

LINE ITEM BUDGET
SCP CEEEJ Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase SCP CEEEJ Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phas Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8
Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Sub 1: CRM TECH
Address 1016 E. Cooley Drive Suite B
Address: Colton, CA 9234 Title of Project: Title of Project:
email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-824-6400 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Principal Investigator 120 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 1,200.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 1,200.00 Historian II 90 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 30.00 $ 2,700.00 40.00 $ 3,600.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 6,300.00 GIS 90.00 10.00 $ 900.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 900.00 Staff 80 0.00 $ - 8.00 $ 640.00 6.00 $ 480.00 12.00 $ 960.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 26.00 $ 2,080.00 Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 10.00 $ 900.00 8.00 $ 640.00 6.00 $ 480.00 12.00 $ 960.00 30.00 $ 2,700.00 50.00 $ 4,800.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 10,480.00 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ 890.00 $ - $ 890.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,780.00 Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ 100.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100.00 Information Center Charges $ - $ 1,300.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,300.00 ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ 100.00 $ 2,190.00 $ - $ 890.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,180.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 10.00 $ 1,000.00 8.00 $ 2,830.00 6.00 $ 480.00 12.00 $ 1,850.00 30.00 $ 2,700.00 50.00 $ 4,800.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 Check Totals 10.00 $ 1,000.00 8.00 $ 2,830.00 6.00 $ 480.00 12.00 $ 1,850.00 30.00 $ 2,700.00 50.00 $ 4,800.00 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 116.00 $ 13,660.00 Variance 0.00
Grand Total (All
Field Inspection Historical Research Report Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Tasks) Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10
Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Mapping Records Search Native Am Consult
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 0
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
2 Executive Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
949-825-6175 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Keil Maberry 119.64 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 4.00 $ 478.56 10.00 $ 1,196.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 14.00 $ 1,674.96 Daniel Kloos 95.71 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 12.00 $ 1,148.52 14.00 $ 1,339.94 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 26.00 $ 2,488.46 Zawwar Saiyed 78.55 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 785.50 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 785.50 Angela Besa 57.22 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 32.00 $ 1,831.04 8.00 $ 457.76 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 40.00 $ 2,288.80 Yi Li 45.37 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 60.00 $ 2,722.20 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 60.00 $ 2,722.20 Christy Kopulsky 42.03 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,942.10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,942.10 Pengxiang Zhang 41.07 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,874.90 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,874.90 Henry Aguilar 42.5 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 15.00 $ 637.50 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 15.00 $ 637.50

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 13,420.32 32.00 $ 2,994.10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 16,414.42 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 120.58% $ - $ - $ - $ 16,182.22 $ 3,610.29 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,792.51 Fringe 62.13% $ - $ - $ - $ 8,338.04 $ 1,860.23 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,198.28 $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ 24,520.27 $ 5,470.52 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,990.79 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 10.00% $ - $ - $ - $ 3,794.06 $ 846.46 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,640.52 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Graphics $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Information Center Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Traffic Counts $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 46,134.65 32.00 $ 9,311.08 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 55,445.73 Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 46,134.65 32.00 $ 9,311.08 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 55,445.73

0.00 Proposal (MRFP) No. 24-012-MRFP 07 Proposal (MRFP) No. 24-012-MRFP 07 Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total (All Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Tasks) Variance
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
2 Executive Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
949-825-6175 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Keil Maberry 119.64 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 4.00 $ 478.56 10.00 $ 1,196.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 14.00 $ 1,674.96 Daniel Kloos 95.71 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 12.00 $ 1,148.52 14.00 $ 1,339.94 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 26.00 $ 2,488.46 Zawwar Saiyed 78.55 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 785.50 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 785.50 Angela Besa 57.22 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 32.00 $ 1,831.04 8.00 $ 457.76 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 40.00 $ 2,288.80 Yi Li 45.37 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 60.00 $ 2,722.20 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 60.00 $ 2,722.20 Christy Kopulsky 42.03 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,942.10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,942.10 Pengxiang Zhang 41.07 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,874.90 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 70.00 $ 2,874.90 Henry Aguilar 42.5 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 15.00 $ 637.50 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 15.00 $ 637.50 Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 13,420.32 32.00 $ 2,994.10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 16,414.42 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 120.58% $ - $ - $ - $ 16,182.22 $ 3,610.29 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,792.51 Fringe 62.13% $ - $ - $ - $ 8,338.04 $ 1,860.23 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,198.28 $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ 24,520.27 $ 5,470.52 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29,990.79 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 10.00% $ - $ - $ - $ 3,794.06 $ 846.46 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,640.52 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Traffic Counts $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,400.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 46,134.65 32.00 $ 9,311.08 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 55,445.73 Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 273.00 $ 46,134.65 32.00 $ 9,311.08 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 305.00 $ 55,445.73 Variance 0.00
Grand Total (All
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Tasks) Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10
Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan Phase II Proposal (MRFP) No. 24-012-MRFP 07 Proposal (MRFP) No. 24-012-MRFP 07 Fuscoe Engineering, Inc
15535 Sand Canyon Ave
Ste #100 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
714-655-5835 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Vice President 111.42 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 20.00 $ 2,228.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 20.00 $ 2,228.40 Technical Manager 64.53 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 47.00 $ 3,032.91 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 47.00 $ 3,032.91 Associate Project Manager 52.05 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 89.00 $ 4,632.45 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 89.00 $ 4,632.45 Stomwater Engineer 45.67 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 456.70 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 456.70 Stomwater Specialist 41.83 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 8.00 $ 334.64 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 8.00 $ 334.64 Information Coordinator 32.45 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 4.00 $ 129.80 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 4.00 $ 129.80 Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 10,814.90 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 10,814.90 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 184.00% $ - $ - $ - $ 19,899.42 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,899.42 Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ 19,899.42 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,899.42 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 12.40% $ - $ - $ - $ 3,808.58 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,808.58 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ 136.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 136.00 Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ 136.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 136.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89

0.00 24-012-MRFP 07 24-012-MRFP 07
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
SCP CEEJ Laguna Beach Dowtown Specific Plan Phas SCP CEEJ Laguna Beach Dowtown Specific Plan Phase II Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total (All Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Tasks) Variance
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc
15535 Sand Canyon Ave
Ste #100 Title of Project: Title of Project:
[email protected]
714-655-5835 RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Vice President 111.42 2.00 $ 222.84 4.00 $ 445.68 4.00 $ 445.68 5.00 $ 557.10 5.00 $ 557.10 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 20.00 $ 2,228.40 Technical Manager 64.53 2.00 $ 129.06 5.00 $ 322.65 9.00 $ 580.77 23.00 $ 1,484.19 8.00 $ 516.24 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 47.00 $ 3,032.91 Associate Project Manager 52.05 6.00 $ 312.30 13.00 $ 676.65 28.00 $ 1,457.40 34.00 $ 1,769.70 8.00 $ 416.40 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 89.00 $ 4,632.45 Stomwater Engineer 45.67 0.00 $ - 2.00 $ 91.34 4.00 $ 182.68 4.00 $ 182.68 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 10.00 $ 456.70 Stomwater Specialist 41.83 0.00 $ - 2.00 $ 83.66 2.00 $ 83.66 4.00 $ 167.32 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 8.00 $ 334.64 Information Coordinator 32.45 1.00 $ 32.45 1.00 $ 32.45 1.00 $ 32.45 1.00 $ 32.45 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 4.00 $ 129.80 Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 11.00 $ 696.65 27.00 $ 1,652.43 48.00 $ 2,782.64 71.00 $ 4,193.44 21.00 $ 1,489.74 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 10,814.90 Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 184.00% $ 1,281.84 $ 3,040.47 $ 5,120.06 $ 7,715.93 $ 2,741.12 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,899.42 Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ 1,281.84 $ 3,040.47 $ 5,120.06 $ 7,715.93 $ 2,741.12 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,899.42 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 12.40% $ 245.33 $ 581.92 $ 979.93 $ 1,476.76 $ 524.63 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,808.58 Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ 54.00 $ 28.00 $ - $ - $ 54.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 136.00 Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ 54.00 $ 28.00 $ - $ - $ 54.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 136.00 Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 11.00 $ 2,277.82 27.00 $ 5,302.82 48.00 $ 8,882.63 71.00 $ 13,386.13 21.00 $ 4,809.49 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 Check Totals 11.00 $ 2,277.82 27.00 $ 5,302.82 48.00 $ 8,882.63 71.00 $ 13,386.13 21.00 $ 4,809.49 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 178.00 $ 34,658.89 Variance 0.00
Grand Total (All
Proposed Cond. Memo Meetings & Coord. Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Tasks) Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10
Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Kick Off / Data Needs Research and Data Review Existing Cond. Memo Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
SCP CEEJ Laguna Beach Dowtown Specific Plan Phase SCP CEEJ Laguna Beach Dowtown Specific Plan Phase II 24-012-MRFP 07 24-012-MRFP 07
Sub 5
Address
Address Title of Project: Title of Project:
email
Phone RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 0
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name (All Tasks) Variance
Sub 6
Address
Address Title of Project: Title of Project:
email
Phone RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 0
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name (All Tasks) Variance
Sub 7
Address
Address Title of Project: Title of Project:
email
Phone RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 0
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name (All Tasks) Variance
Sub 8
Address
Address Title of Project: Title of Project:
email
Phone RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 0
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name (All Tasks) Variance
Sub 9
Address
Address Title of Project: Title of Project:
email
Phone RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 0
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name (All Tasks) Variance
Sub 10
Address
Address Title of Project: Title of Project:
email
Phone RFP Number: RFP Number:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Direct Labor Classification(s)
Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Personnel Classification 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Subtotal - Direct Labor 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A)
Overhead 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fringe 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal - Overhead & Fringe (inc. G & A) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Direct Costs (ODC's)
Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Printing - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies & Materials - Directly Chargeable only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC Description $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal - ODC's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subconsultant(s)

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Subtotal - Subconsultant(s) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - GRAND TOTAL 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Check Totals 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ -

0.00 0
Task 4

LINE ITEM BUDGET
0 Cost Categories
Maximum
Hourly
Rate
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name
Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Grand Total
Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name Task Name (All Tasks) Variance