Agenda packet, first session — Santa Fe Springs City Council, September 15, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Santa Fe Springs City Parks and City Facilities
SUBJECT: Ejections and Exclusions from City Parks/Facilities Rev: 9/1/2026 I. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The City of Santa Fe Springs provides parks and recreational facilities to enhance public health and to encourage an active lifestyle, improve mental well-being, and to increase community engagement and cultural enrichment. Within the City’s parks and recreational facilities, the City provides not only opportunities for youth and adults alike to participate in both recreational and competitive athletic activities, but we also provide many programs, activities, and special events that promote educational, social, mental, and physical growth.

The City’s goal of providing these facilities and services to all members of the community can be impeded by those persons who refuse or otherwise fail to adhere to applicable laws, rules, and regulations that are designed to ensure the orderly and safe use of the City’s parks and recreational facilities.

Permission to be within the limits of any City Park or City Facility, and to use any building, structure, improvement, or equipment or to participate in any program, activity, or special event within a City Park or City Facility, is conditioned upon persons adhering to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations applicable to the City Park and/or City Facility.

Pursuant to Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code (“SFSMC”) Section 130.04(D), any person who causes or aids and abets in the commission of any Park/Facility Violation (as defined hereinbelow), in addition to any other penalty provided by law, may be subject to the temporary or permanent suspension of the ability to enter or otherwise use City Parks and/or City Facilities (or portions thereof), in accordance with the provisions of this Policy.

II. DEFINITIONS
The definitions set forth in SFSMC Section 130.04(A) shall apply to this Policy. As used in this Policy, the following definitions shall also apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.

Disruptive Activity shall mean any behavior, conduct, or activity that obstructs, disrupts, or interferes with the normal operation of or permitted activities within a City Park or City Facility, or any area immediately adjacent thereto (including public parking lots, sidewalks, roadways, courtyards, or plazas).

Eject or Ejection shall mean an order given by any peace officer or authorized City official directing a person to immediately leave a City Park or City Facility for the remainder of the calendar day and the entirety of the subsequent calendar day.

Policy and Procedure Manual: Ejections and Exclusions from City Parks/Facilities

Page 2 of 6 ends

Enforcement Officer shall mean any of the following:
a) Any peace officer;
b) Any City official whose duties include managing;
c) Any City official authorized to enforce the provisions of SFSMC Section 130.04 (“Unlawful Conduct Within City Facilities and City Parks”) or 136 (“Prohibited Uses of Public Property”), or any other law, rule, or regulation regarding conduct that occurs within a City Park or City Facility; and/or d) Any City official designated by the City Manager in writing to Eject or Exclude persons from a City Park or City Facility.

Exclude or Exclusion shall mean an order made by any peace officer or authorized City official prohibiting a person from entering or remaining in a City Park or City Facility for a specified period of time.

Exclusion Period shall mean the period of time during which a person has been prohibited from entering or remaining in a City Park or City Facility, or portions thereof.

Minor Violation shall mean any Park/Facility Violation that does not constitute a Serious Violation.

Park/Facility Violation shall mean any behavior, conduct, or activity at a City Park or City Facility, or any area appurtenant or immediately adjacent thereto (including public parking lots, sidewalks, roadways, courtyards, or plazas), that would constitute:
a) Violation of any applicable Federal, State, or local law, statute, ordinance, or resolution;
b) Violation of any rule, regulation, or policy applicable to City Parks or City Facilities, including but not limited to SFSMC Section 130.04 and the City’s Facilities Reservation and Use Policy, adopted November 12, 2024 and as may be amended from time to time;
c) Violation of any applicable permit or license authorizing temporary or conditional use of a City Park or City Facility; and/or d) Disruptive Activity.

Serious Violation shall mean any Park/Facility Violation, irrespective of whether it results in a criminal conviction, where the perpetrator’s actions:
a) Included the unlawful and/or unpermitted possession and/or use of alcohol, narcotics, or a dangerous weapon, including but not limited to those substances and items listed in SFSMC Section 130.04(B)(3) and 130.04(B)(18);
b) Included vandalism of City property or the unlawful lighting or maintenance of a fire except as permitted pursuant to SFSMC Section 130.04(B)(8); c) Included violence, harassment, stalking, or a credible threat of violence to any person;
Policy and Procedure Manual: Ejections and Exclusions from City Parks/Facilities

Page 3 of 6 ends

d) Included indecent exposure or any lewd/obscene conduct; and/or e) Resulted in the issuance of a Notice to Appear, an arrest, or the filing of a criminal complaint for any misdemeanor or felony offense.

III. EJECTION AND EXCLUSION FROM CITY PARKS AND/OR CITY FACILITY

AUTHORIZATION
Any Enforcement Officer, may Eject or Exclude any person who, while present in a City Park or City Facility (inclusive of any area appurtenant or immediately adjacent thereto - including public parking lots, sidewalks, roadways, courtyards, or plazas), causes, commits, permits, aids, abets, or suffers any Park/Facility Violation, in accordance with the provisions of this Policy. Any parent, legal guardian, or other adult with authorization for the care or custody of a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years old who commits a Park/Facility Violation may also be subject to Ejection and/or Exclusion from a City Park or City Facility for the same period of time and in the same manner as the minor.

Nothing in this Policy shall be construed to authorize the Exclusion of any person lawfully exercising free speech rights or any other right protected by the Federal or State Constitutions unless that person is also committing a Park/Facility Violation that is not protected by the Federal or State Constitution.

Nothing in this Policy shall prohibit any individual from entering or remaining at City Facilities for purposes of utilizing any service or meeting provided therein that is available or open to the public – however, the City may require a person who has been Excluded from City Hall or the Police Service Center to make an appointment with a designated person before entering City Hall or the Police Service Center (with the exception of an emergency or a public meeting of a City legislative body conducted pursuant to the Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.)).

EJECTION
An Enforcement Officer may issue individuals a verbal or written warning for any Park/Facility Violation prior to an Ejection, however, a verbal or written warning is a courtesy and not required for an Ejection from a City Park or City Facility.

Irrespective of whether a warning has been issued, an Enforcement Officer may Eject any person from the City Park or City Facility by issuing a “Notice of Ejection.” The Notice of Ejection shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) The name of the individual being Ejected;
(ii) The date and time of the Ejection;
(iii) The location(s) from which the individual is being Ejected; (iv) The specific Park/Facility Violation which resulted in the Ejection; (v) A statement that any further Park/Facility Violations may result in the individual being Excluded from the designated City Park(s) and/or City Facility; and (vi) The name and/or signature of the Enforcement Officer issuing the Notice of Ejection.

Policy and Procedure Manual: Ejections and Exclusions from City Parks/Facilities

Page 4 of 6 ends

The Enforcement Officer shall make a reasonable attempt to serve the Notice of Ejection upon the person being Ejected, however, the individual’s refusal or failure to accept or to sign the Notice of Ejection shall not affect the validity of the Ejection. If an individual refused or failed to accept or sign the Notice of Ejection, the Enforcement Officer shall annotate the Notice of Ejection to so indicate.

EXCLUSION
An Enforcement Officer may issue individuals a verbal or written warning for any Park/Facility Violation prior to an Exclusion, however, a verbal or written warning is a courtesy and not required for an Ejection from a City Park or City Facility.

Irrespective of whether a warning has been issued, an Enforcement Officer may Exclude a person from a City Park or City Facility for causing any of the following:
(a) Multiple Minor Violations;
(b) Any Minor Violation within twelve (12) months of any prior Park/Facility Violation that had resulted in the issuance of a warning or Ejection (irrespective of whether the Minor Violations were at the same City Park or City Facility); and/or (c) Any Serious Violation.

The Exclusion from a designated City Park or City Facility shall commence immediately upon service of a “Notice of Exclusion.” The Notice of Exclusion shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) The name of the individual being Excluded;
(ii) The date and time of the commencement of the Exclusion; (iii) The location(s) from which the individual is being Excluded; (iv) The duration of the Exclusion;
(v) The specific Park/Facility Violation and a brief description of the activity(ies) which resulted in the Exclusion;
(vi) If a previous warning or Ejection had been issued, the date of said warning or Ejection;
(vii) Information concerning the right to appeal the Exclusion; and (viii) The name and/or signature of the Enforcement Officer issuing the Notice of Exclusion.

The Enforcement Officer shall make a reasonable attempt to serve the Notice of Exclusion upon the person being Excluded through personal service. If the individual either refuses to accept it or leaves the City Park or City Facility without accepting it, service of the Notice of Exclusion shall be accomplished by mailing the Notice of Exclusion to the individual at the individual’s last known address. Personal service may be accomplished on a later date (within 12 months of the Park/Facility Violation giving rise to the Exclusion) if the individual refused to accept it or left the City Park or City Facility prior to accepting it on the date of the underlying Park/Facility Violation.

Policy and Procedure Manual: Ejections and Exclusions from City Parks/Facilities

Page 5 of 6 ends

LOCATION(S) OF EJECTION AND/OR EXCLUSION
An Ejection shall be limited to the location where the Park/Facility Violation occurred.

An Exclusion for a Minor Violation may be limited to the location where the Park/Facility Violation occurred or, upon a finding of good cause by the Enforcement Officer, may be expanded to all City Parks and City Facilities. Amongst other bases, good cause shall exist if the individual has committed multiple Minor Violations within a 12-month period of time (irrespective of whether the Minor Violations occurred at the same City Park or City Facility).

An Exclusion for any Serious Violation shall be from all City Parks and City Facilities.

DURATION OF EJECTION AND/OR EXCLUSION
An Ejection from a City Park or City Facility shall be for the remainder of the calendar day on which it was issued and the subsequent calendar day.

The Exclusion Period for the first Minor Violation at any City park or City facility within a 12-month period of time shall be for a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of exclusion.

The Exclusion Period for a second (2nd) Minor Violation within a 12-month period of a prior warning/Ejection/Exclusion (irrespective of whether at the same City Park or City Facility) shall be for a period of ninety (90) calendar days from the date of service of the Notice of Exclusion.

The Exclusion Period for a Serious Violation, a third (3rd) Minor Violation within twelve (12) months of a prior warning/Ejection/Exclusion (irrespective of whether at the same City Park or City Facility), or where multiple Minor Violations occurred during a single incident, shall be one (1) calendar year from the date of service of the Notice of Exclusion.

APPEAL
Any person who has been Ejected or Excluded from a City Park or City Facility may appeal the Ejection or Exclusion to the City Manager or designee thereof by filing a written Notice of Appeal with ___________________ (located at ___________________________, Santa Fe Springs) within seven (7) calendar days of service of the Notice of Ejection or Notice of Exclusion.

The Ejection and/or Exclusion Period is not stayed pending an appeal.

The Notice of Appeal shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) The appellant’s name;
(ii) The appellant’s telephone number, and mailing address or e-mail address where the appellant may be reached and to where communications may be directed; (iii) The date, duration, and location(s) of the Ejection and/or Exclusion; (iv) A statement in sufficient detail to explain why the appellant believes the Ejection or Exclusion was invalid or unjustified;
(v) A request that the City Manager (or designee thereof) either schedule a hearing Policy and Procedure Manual: Ejections and Exclusions from City Parks/Facilities

Page 6 of 6 ends

or that the City Manager (or designee thereof) consider the appeal request as the sole evidence to be submitted by the appellant and to make a ruling thereon. Any appeal that does not contain this request shall be deemed a request for a hearing; and
(vi) The signature of the appellant.

If a hearing is requested, the City Manager (or designee thereof) shall consider the testimony of the appellant, the Enforcement Officer, and/or their witnesses, as well as any documentary evidence presented by these persons concerning the Exclusion. Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. Upon review of the evidence submitted, the City Manager (or designee thereof) shall uphold the Ejection and/or Exclusion if a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Excluded person committed the Park/Facility Violation and the Ejection and/or Exclusion is otherwise in accordance with the law and this Policy. The decision of the City Manager (or designee thereof) shall be final and binding.

RELIEF FROM EXCLUSION
Any person who is subject to an Exclusion from any City Park or City Facility, or portion thereof, may seek relief from the Exclusion for good cause by filing a written Request for Relief with ______________________ (located at _______________________, Santa Fe Springs) at any point during the Exclusion Period. The written request shall contain the same information as for an appeal (as set forth hereinabove) – with the exception that it shall contain a statement in sufficient detail to explain why the City Manager (or designee thereof) should grant relief from the Exclusion. The City Manager (or designee thereof) shall consider the request of the Excluded person (including any information or documents submitted in support thereof), as well as any other relevant information. The City Manager (or designee thereof) shall have the authority to modify the period of Exclusion for good cause; however, no period of Exclusion may be decreased by more than fifty percent (50%). The decision of the City Manager (or designee thereof) shall be final and binding. Only one (1) Request for Relief may be submitted and considered during the Exclusion Period.

The City shall maintain an accurate database of those persons Ejected and/or Excluded from City Parks and/or City Facilities, as well as of any appeals and relief granted.

NOTICE OF EJECTION

FROM SANTA FE SPRINGS PARK(S) AND/OR FACILITIES
White – Police Department Yellow – Excluded Person Green – Issuing Div/Dept Pink – Police Services Pursuant to Section 130.04(D) of the Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code (“SFSMC”), the person named hereinbelow (hereinafter, “Subject”) is ejected from the City Park(s) or City Facility(ies)listed hereinbelow – including being prohibited from utilizing any facilities, athletic fields, or recreational features located therein.

Name of Person Ejected: Date of Birth:
__________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ Last First Middle MM/DD/YYYY
☐ Little Lake Park ☐ Los Nietos Park ☐ Lakeview Park
(10900 Pioneer Blvd) (11143 Charlesworth Rd) (10225 Jersey Ave) ☐ Lake Center Ath. Park ☐ Activity Center ☐ SFS Athletic Fields (11641 Florence Ave) (11155 Charlesworth Rd) (9720 Pioneer Blvd) ☐ Other:

Effective immediately, the Subject shall not enter or remain in the above-listed City park(s) and/or facilities for the remainder of the day on which the Notice is issued and the subsequent calendar day (hereinafter, “Ejection Period”).

The Subject shall not re-enter the above-listed City park(s) and/or facilities until hours of operation on the day following the Ejection Period.

Date and Time of Prior Warning/Ejection (if applicable): _____________________ ☐ Verbal ☐ Written The Subject is being ejected from the listed City Park(s) or City Facility(ies), because the undersigned has determined that on ________________________, the Subject committed the following prohibited activities [as set forth in Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code Section 130.04(B)] at __________________________________. ☐ Entering or remaining outside of approved operational hours without a written permit [§130.04(B)(16)] ☐ Camping, sleeping, or lodging without a written permit [§130.04(B)(9)] ☐ Disruptive conduct or harassing language [§130.04(B)(10)] ☐ Conducting any trade, occupation, or business without a written permit [§130.04(B)(14)] ☐ Assemblies in excess of 50 persons without a written permit [§130.04(B)(21)] ☐ Interference with use of any reserved table, space, or facility [§130.04(B)(22)] ☐ Smoking in areas where not explicitly designated a smoking area [§130.04(B)(23)] ☐ Failure to comply with Staff directions and/or Park/Facility regulations[§130.04(B)(33)] ☐ Other applicable law, ordinance, rule, or regulation: __________________________________________

ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE DESIGNATED PARK OR FACILITY CONSTITUTES A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE AND IS SUBJECT TO ARREST AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS EJECTION.
________________________________________________ ___________________________________ ________________________ DR ______________________________________
Name of Issuing Officer/Employee Officer/Employee Number Date of Issuance IMPORTANT –READ CAREFULLY

RIGHT TO APPEAL
Any person who is issued a Notice of Ejection from a City Park or City Facility may appeal the ejection to the City Manager by filing a written request for appeal with __________________________________ [located at _________________________, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670] within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the Notice. The written request for an appeal shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Name, mailing address and/or e-mail address, and telephone number of the person appealing the ejection (hereinafter, “appellant”);

2. The date, duration, and location(s) of the ejection;

3. A statement in sufficient detail to explain why the appellant believes the ejection was invalid or unjustified;

4. A request that the City Manager (or designee thereof) either schedule a hearing or that the City Manager (or designee thereof) consider the appeal request as the sole evidence to be submitted by the appellant and to make a ruling thereon. Any appeal that does not contain this request shall be deemed a request for a hearing; and;

5. The signature of the appellant.

Failure of the appellant to submit a completed written request for an appeal within the required time shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal and the Ejection shall be deemed final and binding.

THE FILING OF AN APPEAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE ISSUANCE OF ANOTHER EJECTION OR

EXCLUSION ORDER OR IMPOSITION OF OTHER PENALTIES FOR NEW VIOLATIONS, NOR DOES THE FILING OF AN APPEAL STAY THE EJECTION.

ADDITIONAL PENALTIES
Any future violations of applicable laws, rules, or regulations in a City Park or Facility, as well as any violation of this ejection, could result in additional and longer periods of exclusion, criminal prosecution, the imposition of administrative fines, and/or any other penalty authorized by law.

For further information about the ejection or this Notice, contact _______________________________ at (562) _____-_________. However, a request for an appeal may only be submitted in writing as set forth hereinabove.
(Rev. 096/2026)
Park/Facility Rules (All Parks and Facilities)
• Motor Vehicles: Operating any electric or motorized vehicle without a permit or authorization [§130.04(B)(1)]
• Riding Horse or Other Animal: Riding any horse or other animal without a permit or authorization [§130.04(B)(1)] • Dog at Large: Allowing a dog to be off a leash or chain [§130.04(B)(2)]
• Leading Animals: Leading or letting loose wild animals, horse, cattle, sheep, swine, bunnies, or fowl [§130.04(B)(2)] • Firearms/Fireworks: Possession or discharge of firearm, fireworks, air gun, or sling shot [§130.04(B)(3)]
• Feeding Non-Domesticated Animal: Feeding, offering
food, or providing food to non-domesticated animals (other than a personal pet) [§130.04(B)(4)]
• Vandalism: Cutting, breaking, injuring, vandalizing,
defacing, damaging any tree, plant, building, sign, bench, structure, apparatus, equipment, or traffic control device [§130.04(B)(5)]
• Disturbance of Landscape: Cut, disturb, insert, or remove any wood, turf, grass, soil, rock, sand, or gravel
[§130.04(B)(6)]
• Handbills and Notices: Distribution of handbills or
circulars, or posting of notice, paper, sign, banner, or advertising device without a permit [§130.04(B)(7)]
• Fire: Making or kindling a fire except in City-provided stoves, without a permit [§130.04(B)(8)]
• Camping: Camping, lodging, or residing without a permit [§130.04(B)(9)]
• Disruptive or Lewd Conduct: Engaging in riotous,
boisterous, threatening, disruptive, lewd, obscene, or
indecent conduct [§130.04(B)(10)]
• Harassing or Intimidating Language: Using abusive,
profane, intimidating, demeaning, or harassing language that amounts to a use of force or a true threat of force [§130.04(B)(10)]
• Harm or Threat of Harm: Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm to another individual or City Staff
[§130.04(B)(11)]
• Unpermitted Vending or Solicitation: Exhibiting, selling, or offering for sale or lease, or soliciting donations for, any object, service, or merchandise without a permit
[§130.04(B)(12)]
• Gambling. [§130.04(B)(13)]
• Unpermitted Business/Circulation of Petitions.
[§130.04(B)(14)]
• Games in Non-Designated Areas. [§130.04(B)(15)]
• Park Hours: Entering or remaining in park when closed [§130.04(B)(16)]
• Littering. [§130.04(B)(17)]
• Alcohol and/or Illegal Controlled Substance: Unlawful and/or unpermitted possession or consumption of any
alcoholic beverage or any illegal or controlled substance, or being under the influence of alcohol or any illegal or
controlled substance [§130.04(B)(18)]
• Drones and Projectiles: Operation of drones, remote
control planes, potato shooters, compressed gas, rocket launchers, smoke bombs or other similar projectiles
[§130.04(B)(19)]
• Loitering in Restroom: Loitering in or about a public toilet designated for the opposite sex (other than single-user restroom facilities) [§130.04(B)(20)]
• Large Gatherings: Conducting activities that will have in excess of 50 persons in attendance without a permit
[§130.04(B)(21)]
• No Gatherings at Heritage Park: No public gatherings of any size at Heritage Park without a permit [§130.04(B)(21)] • Interfering with Reserved and Posted Facility or
Equipment: Interfering with any reserved table, space,
facility, or parks when reservation is properly posted or noticed [§130.04(B)(22)]
• Smoking: Smoking unless in a designated area
[§130.04(B)(23)]
• Excessive or Oversized Canopies: Erecting 4 or more “pop up" canopies per group/party, and no canopy shall exceed 10’x10’. Canopies must be weighed down. [§130.04(B)(24)] • No Canopies at Heritage Park: “Pop-up” canopies are
prohibited at Heritage Park [§130.04(B)(24)]
• Unpermitted Recording: Recording audio and/or video for personal or commercial production of City programs or
activities, or any recording for commercial purposes, is prohibited without permit [§130.04(B)(25)]
• Dress Code: Prohibited to enter City Park or Facility without shoes, shirt/top, and/or bottoms without permit as part of City program or activity [§130.04(B)(26)]
• Unsupervised Children Under 8 Years: Prohibited to leave children under 8 years of age unsupervised, except as part of City event or program[§130.04(B)(27)]
• Pets in Indoor City Facility: Pets in indoor City Facilities prohibited EXCEPT service animals [§130.04(B)(28)]
• Unattended Pets Outdoors: Prohibited to leave pets
unattended outdoors [§130.04(B)(28)]
• Unpermitted Sound Amplification Services: Use of sound amplification equipment for any purpose is prohibited
without a permit [§130.04(B)(29)]
• Employee-Only Areas: It is prohibited to enter employeeonly areas or other areas not open to the public without authorization [§130.04(B)(30)]
• Instructor-Led Activities: Engaging in instructor-led activities or classes (or exchange of services) without a facility use agreement [§130.04(B)(31)]
• Failure to Obey City, State, or Federal Law
[§130.04(B)(32)]
• Failure to Comply with City Order, Regulation, or Policy [§130.04(B)(33)]
• Criminal Street Gang Activity: Loitering by criminal street gang member with intent to: establish dominance over, or intimidate non-members from entering, the park/facility; sell illegal narcotics; or commit another unlawful act
[§130.04(B)(34)]

NOTICE OF EXCLUSION

FROM SANTA FE SPRINGS PARK(S) AND/OR FACILITIES
White – Police Department Yellow – Excluded Person Green – Issuing Div/Dept Pink – Police Services Pursuant to Section 130.04(D) of the Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code (“SFSMC”), the person named hereinbelow (hereinafter, “Subject”) is excluded from the City Park(s) or City Facility(ies) listed hereinbelow – including being prohibited from utilizing any facilities, athletic fields, or recreational features located therein.

Name of Person Excluded: Date of Birth:
__________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ Last First Middle MM/DD/YYYY
☐ Little Lake Park ☐ Los Nietos Park ☐ Lakeview Park
(10900 Pioneer Blvd) (11143 Charlesworth Rd) (10225 Jersey Ave) ☐ Lake Center Ath. Park ☐ Activity Center ☐ SFS Athletic Fields (11641 Florence Ave) (11155 Charlesworth Rd) (9720 Pioneer Blvd) ☐ Other:

Effective immediately, the Subject shall not enter or remain in the above-listed City park(s) and/or facilities until hours of operation on the day following the expiration of the period of exclusion referenced below:
☐ 30 Calendar Days ☐ 90 Calendar Days ☐ 1 Calendar Year (1st MV) (2nd MV w/in 12 mos) (☐ Multiple MVs / ☐ 3rd MV w/in 12 months / ☐ Serious Park Violation)
Date and Time of Prior Warning/Ejection (if applicable): _____________________ ☐ Verbal ☐ Written The Subject is being excluded from the listed City Park(s) or City Facility(ies), because the undersigned has determined that on ________________________, the Subject committed the following prohibited activities [as set forth in Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code Section 130.04(B)] at __________________________________. ☐ Entering or remaining outside of approved operational hours without a written permit [§130.04(B)(16)] ☐ Camping, sleeping, or lodging without a written permit [§130.04(B)(9)] ☐ Disruptive conduct or harassing language [§130.04(B)(10)] ☐ Conducting any trade, occupation, or business without a written permit [§130.04(B)(14)] ☐ Assemblies in excess of 50 persons without a written permit [§130.04(B)(21)] ☐ Interference with use of any reserved table, space, or facility [§130.04(B)(22)] ☐ Smoking in areas where not explicitly designated a smoking area [§130.04(B)(23)] ☐ Failure to comply with Staff directions and/or Park/Facility regulations[§130.04(B)(33)] ☐ Other applicable law, ordinance, rule, or regulation: __________________________________________

ENTERING OR REMAINING IN THE DESIGNATED PARK OR FACILITY CONSTITUTES A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE AND IS SUBJECT TO ARREST AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS EXCLUSION.

DR ______________________________________
________________________________________________ ___________________________________ ________________________ Name of Issuing Officer/Employee Officer/Employee Number Date of Issuance IMPORTANT –READ CAREFULLY

RIGHT TO APPEAL
Any person who is issued a Notice of Exclusion from a City Park or City Facility may appeal the exclusion to the City Manager by filing a written request for appeal with __________________________________ [located at _________________________, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670] within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the Notice. The written request for an appeal shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Name, mailing address and/or e-mail address, and telephone number of the person appealing the exclusion (hereinafter, “appellant”);

2. The date, duration, and location(s) of the exclusion;

3. A statement in sufficient detail to explain why the appellant believes the exclusion was invalid or unjustified;

5. The signature of the appellant.

Failure of the appellant to submit a completed written request for an appeal within the required time shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal and the Exclusion shall be deemed final and binding.

THE FILING OF AN APPEAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE ISSUANCE OF ANOTHER EXCLUSION ORDER

OR IMPOSITION OF OTHER PENALTIES FOR NEW VIOLATIONS,
NOR DOES THE FILING OF AN APPEAL STAY THE EXCLUSION.

ADDITIONAL PENALTIES
Any future violations of applicable laws, rules, or regulations in a City Park or Facility, as well as any violation of this exclusion, could result in additional and longer periods of exclusion, criminal prosecution, the imposition of administrative fines, and/or any other penalty authorized by law.

For further information about the exclusion or this Notice, contact _______________________________ at (562) _____-_________. However, a request for an appeal may only be submitted in writing as set forth hereinabove.
(Rev. 09/2026)
Exclusion
Period Ground(s) for Exclusion
30 Days • First (1st) Minor Violation
90 Days • Second (2nd) Minor Violation within 12-months of a prior warning/ejection/exclusion (irrespective of whether at the same park or facility) 1 Year • Multiple Minor Violations (during the same incident) • A third (3rd) Minor Violation within 12-months of a prior warning/ejection/exclusion
• Any Serious Violation – Any Park/Facility Violation involving:
 Unlawful and/or unpermitted possession and/or use of alcohol, narcotics, or a dangerous weapon
 Vandalism of City property
 Unlawful and/or unpermitted lighting or maintenance of a fire;  Violence, harassment, stalking, or a credible threat of violence  Indecent exposure or any lewd/obscene conduct
 The issuance of a Notice to Appear, an arrest, or the filing of a criminal complaint for any misdemeanor or felony offense
Park/Facility Rules (All Parks and Facilities)
• Motor Vehicles: Operating any electric or motorized vehicle without a permit or authorization [§130.04(B)(1)]
• Riding Horse or Other Animal: Riding any horse or other animal without a permit or authorization [§130.04(B)(1)] • Dog at Large: Allowing a dog to be off a leash or chain [§130.04(B)(2)]
• Leading Animals: Leading or letting loose wild animals, horse, cattle, sheep, swine, bunnies, or fowl [§130.04(B)(2)] • Firearms/Fireworks: Possession or discharge of firearm, fireworks, air gun, or sling shot [§130.04(B)(3)]
• Feeding Non-Domesticated Animal: Feeding, offering
food, or providing food to non-domesticated animals (other than a personal pet) [§130.04(B)(4)]
• Vandalism: Cutting, breaking, injuring, vandalizing,
defacing, damaging any tree, plant, building, sign, bench, structure, apparatus, equipment, or traffic control device [§130.04(B)(5)]
• Disturbance of Landscape: Cut, disturb, insert, or remove any wood, turf, grass, soil, rock, sand, or gravel
[§130.04(B)(6)]
• Handbills and Notices: Distribution of handbills or
circulars, or posting of notice, paper, sign, banner, or advertising device without a permit [§130.04(B)(7)]
• Fire: Making or kindling a fire except in City-provided stoves, without a permit [§130.04(B)(8)]
• Camping: Camping, lodging, or residing without a permit [§130.04(B)(9)]
• Disruptive or Lewd Conduct: Engaging in riotous,
boisterous, threatening, disruptive, lewd, obscene, or
indecent conduct [§130.04(B)(10)]
• Harassing or Intimidating Language: Using abusive,
profane, intimidating, demeaning, or harassing language that amounts to a use of force or a true threat of force [§130.04(B)(10)]
• Harm or Threat of Harm: Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm to another individual or City Staff
[§130.04(B)(11)]
• Unpermitted Vending or Solicitation: Exhibiting, selling, or offering for sale or lease, or soliciting donations for, any object, service, or merchandise without a permit
[§130.04(B)(12)]
• Gambling. [§130.04(B)(13)]
• Unpermitted Business/Circulation of Petitions.
[§130.04(B)(14)]
• Games in Non-Designated Areas. [§130.04(B)(15)]
• Park Hours: Entering or remaining in park when closed [§130.04(B)(16)]
• Littering. [§130.04(B)(17)]
• Alcohol and/or Illegal Controlled Substance: Unlawful and/or unpermitted possession or consumption of any
alcoholic beverage or any illegal or controlled substance, or being under the influence of alcohol or any illegal or
controlled substance [§130.04(B)(18)]
• Drones and Projectiles: Operation of drones, remote
control planes, potato shooters, compressed gas, rocket launchers, smoke bombs or other similar projectiles
[§130.04(B)(19)]
• Loitering in Restroom: Loitering in or about a public toilet designated for the opposite sex (other than single-user restroom facilities) [§130.04(B)(20)]
• Large Gatherings: Conducting activities that will have in excess of 50 persons in attendance without a permit
[§130.04(B)(21)]
• No Gatherings at Heritage Park: No public gatherings of any size at Heritage Park without a permit [§130.04(B)(21)] • Interfering with Reserved and Posted Facility or
Equipment: Interfering with any reserved table, space,
facility, or parks when reservation is properly posted or noticed [§130.04(B)(22)]
• Smoking: Smoking unless in a designated area
[§130.04(B)(23)]
• Excessive or Oversized Canopies: Erecting 4 or more “pop up” canopies per group/party, and no canopy shall exceed 10’x10’. Canopies must be weighed down. [§130.04(B)(24)] • No Canopies at Heritage Park: “Pop-up” canopies are
prohibited at Heritage Park [§130.04(B)(24)]
• Unpermitted Recording: Recording audio and/or video for personal or commercial production of City programs or
activities, or any recording for commercial purposes, is prohibited without permit [§130.04(B)(25)]
• Dress Code: Prohibited to enter City Park or Facility without shoes, shirt/top, and/or bottoms without permit as part of City program or activity [§130.04(B)(26)]
• Unsupervised Children Under 8 Years: Prohibited to leave children under 8 years of age unsupervised, except as part of City event or program[§130.04(B)(27)]
• Pets in Indoor City Facility: Pets in indoor City Facilities prohibited EXCEPT service animals [§130.04(B)(28)]
• Unattended Pets Outdoors: Prohibited to leave pets
unattended outdoors [§130.04(B)(28)]
• Unpermitted Sound Amplification Devices: Use of sound amplification equipment for any purpose is prohibited
without a permit [§130.04(B)(29)]
• Employee-Only Areas: It is prohibited to enter employeeonly areas or other areas not open to the public without authorization [§130.04(B)(30)]
• Instructor-Led Activities: Engaging in instructor-led activities or classes (or exchange of services) without a facility use agreement [§130.04(B)(31)]
• Failure to Obey City, State, or Federal Law:
[§130.04(B)(32)]
• Failure to Comply with City Order, Regulation, or Policy:
[§130.04(B)(33)]
• Criminal Street Gang Activity: Loitering by criminal street gang member with intent to: establish dominance over, or intimidate non-members from entering, the park/facility; sell illegal narcotics; or commit another unlawful act
[§130.04(B)(34)]

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: Gustavo Hernandez, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT:

ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 ART EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM

AWARDS (PARKS AND RECREATION)
DATE: Tuesday, September 15, 2026, 6:00 PM
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council:

1. Authorize the FY 2026-27 award distribution of $72,109.18, as recommended by the Heritage Arts Advisory Committee (HAAC) and staff, to fund the Art Education Grant Program recipients.

2. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Public Art & Art Education Program Activity (2510) is entirely funded by developers’ fees. FY 2026-27 Grant awards will be appropriated to the Public Art & Art Education Program-Contribution/Art Education Grants account (No. 2510-593000).

BACKGROUND
The City’s Heritage Artwork in Public Places Program has supported art education in local schools through the Art Education Grant Program. This long-standing initiative provides financial support to K–12 schools serving Santa Fe Springs residents, enabling projects that foster age-appropriate art education experiences. Funded projects culminate in student exhibitions, performances, demonstrations, or art-related field trips, enriching both students and the community.

In Fiscal Year 2025-26, the City awarded a record $71,833.75 to 29 local schools. The record amount reflected both a growing interest in the program and rising costs for art supplies.

Grant recipients are required to submit a final report by May of the academic year, detailing the use of funds and providing supporting financial documentation. Any unspent funds must be returned to the City upon approval of the final report. To date, all unexpended funds from previous years have been returned in accordance with program requirements.

ANALYSIS
On August 25, 2026, the Heritage Arts Advisory Committee (HAAC) convened a special meeting to review the submissions. The Committee and staff recommends that the City Council approve funding for 26 of the 31 applicants, totaling $72,109.18 (see Attachment A). Six applications were not recommended for funding as these applications contained incorrect itemized budget sheets that did not accurately reflect the proposed project expenses, duplicate applications submitted for the same project or organization, missing documentation to support the amounts listed on the itemized budget sheet, and ineligible supplies were included in the proposed budget.

In accordance with the Art Education Grant Guidelines, only expenses that meet the established eligibility requirements are being recommended for funding. Expenses that do not comply with the guidelines are considered ineligible and have been excluded from the recommended award amounts. Ineligible expenses may include items such as supplies or other costs that are not permitted under the grant guidelines, duplicate requests, expenses without sufficient supporting documentation, and costs that cannot be verified through the required itemized budget information.

ENVIRONMENTAL
N/A

DISCUSSION
The Art Education Grant Program continues to provide meaningful opportunities for Santa Fe Springs students to participate in art education experiences that may otherwise be limited by available school resources. The program supports a variety of projects that encourage creativity, artistic development, cultural awareness, and hands-on learning for K–12 students.

For the 2026–27 grant cycle, staff implemented a digital, online application process to improve the efficiency and accessibility of the grant application process. The new process streamlined application submission and review, reduced staff preparation and administrative processing time, and minimized paper usage associated with the grant program. Feedback from the Heritage Arts Advisory Committee (HAAC) regarding the new process was generally positive. During the initial implementation, staff identified opportunities for further refinement, including instances in which supporting documentation appeared to be missing from submitted applications and was subsequently located and confirmed. Staff will use these observations to make appropriate refinements to the process for future grant cycles and further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. For the 2026– 27 grant cycle, the City received 31 applications requesting a combined total of $91,199.85 in funding. Following its review and evaluation of the applications, HAAC and staff are recommending funding for 26 art grants in the amount of $72,109.18.

During HAAC’s review, one document associated with an application was believed to be missing. The document was subsequently located and reviewed by staff. Upon review of the complete application, staff determined that the application meets all established Art Education Grant Program guidelines and eligibility requirements.

Therefore, staff recommends that the application be accepted and included with the grant applications recommended for funding by the HAAC.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council approval, City staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to process and disburse grant awards to the approved Art Education Grant recipients for the 2026-27 school year. Schools are expected to submit all expenditure reports and receipts by May 14, 2027.

Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - ART Grant Applications Report 26-27 City Council Approval.pdf

HERITAGE ARTWORK IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
ART EDUCATION GRANT APPLICATIONS FY 2026/2027
Date
Received School / Institution Name Applicant Name
Title of Grant
(Purpose)
Grades/ No.
of Children
Amount
Requested
Grant Amount
Approved Denied Comments
6/9/2026 Cresson Elementary School Erin Dunroe Draw Along Art Assemblies and Family Night TK-5th / 80 $2,830.00 $2,650.00 No home supplies Totals: $2,830.00
6/12/2026 Jersey Avenue Elementary School Estela Cervantes In School Opera 4-5th/70 $1,674.00 $0.00 No keyboard ( 16r); no invoice to support itemized budget 6/11/2026 Jersey Avenue Elementary School Jessica Staine Dance Enrichment-Folklórico K-5th/65 $5,000.00 $0.00 Duplicate application to Margaret 6/11/2026 Jersey Avenue Elementary School Margaret Gomez Folklorico K-5th/65 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 6/12/2026 Jersey Avenue Elementary School Carmen Acosta Imagination Machine-Story Time pk-5th / 240 $5,000.00 $0.00 Not itemized correctly; estimates not allowed Totals: $16,674.00
6/3/2026 Lake Center Middle School Susie Luu Sparking Creativity in Early Childhood Education 6th / 132 $4,884.00 $4,884.00 6/11/2026 Lake Center Middle School Jennifer Conorti The Pink Heart Canvas Enrichment Program 6-8th/157 $3,925.00 $3,925.00 6/3/2026 Lake Center Middle School Sabrina Ireland Science Art Murals 6th/ 198 $4,950.00 $4,950.00 Totals: $13,759.00
6/16/2023 Lakeland Elementary School Celia Sanchez Folklorico Enrichment Class at Lakeland Elementary 4-5th / 50 $4,276.00 $3,380.00 Hats/Shirts/Costumes denied Totals: $4,276.00
6/1/2026 Lakeview Elementary School Kelly Love Spanish Classical & Flamenco Music & Dance tk-5th/425 $5,000.00 $3,200.00 Deny optional workshops 6/1/2026 Lakeview Elementary School Raquel Ponce Sparking Creativity in Early Childhood Education TK/42 $4,806.36 $3,010.41 minus Bublemania - workshops &face painting; no
invoice;supply caddy 16q
Totals: $9,806.36
6/12/2026 Santa Fe High School Jessica Guirossian Immersive Studios, Identity, and Wearable Art 9-12th / 200 $4,919.64 $4,919.64 6/12/2026 Santa Fe High School David Kwon Merry-achi Concert 9-12th / 50 $4,050.00 $4,050.00 6/14/2023 Santa Fe High School Jenny Sedo Rose Windows and Art Nouveau Art Projects 9-12th / 160 $4,993.21 $4,993.21 6/16/2023 Santa Fe High School Giao Nguyen Art & Ceramics 9-12th / 160 $4,999.90 $4,999.90 6/11/2026 Santa Fe High School David Kwon Choir Sheet Music 9-12th / 50 $2,000.00 $0.00 Duplicate of Merry-achi Concert 6/15/2023 Santa Fe High School Jaxon Braisher Santa Fe High School Theater Arts 9-12th / 30 $4,010.67 $4,010.67 Totals: $23,012.52
6/3/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Jennifer Senglaub Jr High Performing Arts - Production of Frozen 6-8th/35 $467.30 $467.30 6/3/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Jennifer Senglaub Art Masters Legacy Series 3 Jr High 6-8th/65 $4,402.12 $4,402.12 Document believed to be lost - Staff Recommendnation to approve 6/1/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Denise Valdez Social Studies Projects including holidays 3rd/24 $240.97 $240.97 5/27/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Sharon Powell Mother's Day Craft - DIY Rock Painting Photo Holders 6-8th/72 $276.57 $258.59 5/27/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Adriana Stanphill Pottery through the ages 6-8th/72 $297.18 $297.18 5/21/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Cindy Jarvis Art Masters Legacy Series 3 Elementary Level K-5th/100 $4,402.12 $4,402.12 5/18/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School April Thropay 5TH GRADE CRAFTS 5th/24 $231.66 $231.66 5/14/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Andrea Neely Kindergarten Art Supplies kinder/15 $166.89 $166.89 5/18/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Maria Gomez 4th Grade Art Appreciation 2026-27 4th/24 $146.48 $146.48 5/12/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Shinar Lumahan Second Grade Dinosaurs and Masks 2nd/20 $119.50 $119.50 5/12/2026 Santa Fe Springs Christian School Danielle Michaels Classroom Art Supplies 1st/15 $91.18 $91.18 Totals: $10,841.97
6/10/2026 St. Paul High School Ashley Lynch Rhythm in Motion: Elevating High School Dance Education9-12th / 28 $5,000.00 $2,320.00 No documentation on the itemized budget for the amount
of $2,320
Totals: $5,000.00

Page 1 ends

Page 2 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:

APPROVAL OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL GRANT

FUNDING AGREEMENT (PUBLIC WORKS)
DATE: Tuesday, September 15, 2026, 6:00 PM
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Fiscal Year 2024 Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and accept $400,000 in federal grant funds; and

2. Appropriate $100,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund for the required 20 percent local match; and

3. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated project cost is $500,000. The Federal SS4A award provides $400,000, or 80 percent of the project cost, and requires a $100,000 local cash match, or 20 percent. The agreement identifies no other federal, state, inkind, or other funding.

It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $100,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund to cover the required 20 percent local match.

BACKGROUND
The Safe Streets and Roads for All program was established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to provide competitive federal funding directly to eligible local, regional, and Tribal governments for initiatives that prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. Planning and Demonstration Grants may fund comprehensive safety action plans, supplemental safety planning, and temporary or quick-build demonstration activities used to evaluate potential roadway safety improvements.

The City submitted an application for the FY 2024 Cycle on August 28, 2024, under the title “City of Santa Fe Springs Safety Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan.” On November 15, 2024, the US Department of Transportation announced the final round of FY 2024 Planning and Demonstration Grant selections. The City of Santa Fe Springs was listed as an urban award recipient for $400,000 to develop or update an Action Plan and conduct demonstration or other supplemental planning activities.

ANALYSIS
The proposed project responds to the City's documented roadway safety needs. The application reported 29 roadway fatalities from 2017 through 2021, an average annual fatality rate of 30.2 per 100,000 population and identified a need for data-driven strategies and targeted improvements that benefit all roadway users. The proposed Action Plan will develop strategies for the needed safety improvements.

DISCUSSION
The $400,000 federal award is allocated in the agreement as follows: 1) $50,000 for pre-NEPA work; 2) $75,000 for the Action Plan; 3) $75,000 for supplemental planning; 4) $80,000 for final design; and 5) $120,000 for construction. The first $200,000 is obligated for the Base Phase. Final design and construction are option phases and may not begin until applicable environmental requirements are satisfied and FHWA provides written authorization and obligates the additional funds.

The Base Phase budget period runs from the effective date of the award through December 31, 2029. The agreement anticipates publication of the Action Plan by October 31, 2028, completion of supplemental planning by October 30, 2028, NEPA completion by August 31, 2027, and substantial completion of the demonstration project by October 15, 2030, subject to FHWA authorization of the option phases.

Approval and ratification of the City Manager's execution of the agreement will allow the City to accept the award and proceed with grant administration and the authorized Base Phase activities.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon the approval of the recommended actions, Staff will submit the executed agreement to the FHWA and begin the base phase of the project.

Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - 05a FY 24 SFS_SS4A Draft Agreement.pdf 1 of 19

1. Federal Award No.
693JJ32640245

2. Effective Date
See No. 16 Below

3. Assistance
Listings No.

20.939

4. Award To
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Unique Entity Id.: KKUJE34GR9D5
TIN No.: 95-6005874

5. Sponsoring Office
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
HSSA-1, Mail Drop E71-117
Washington, DC 20590

6. Period of Performance
Effective Date of Award- 60 months

7. Total Amount
Federal Share:

Recipient Share:

Other Federal Funds:

Other Funds:

Total:
$400,000.00
$100,000.00
$0
$0
$500,000.00

8. Type of Agreement
Grant

9. Authority
Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA, Pub. L. 117–58, November
15, 2021)

10. Procurement Request No.

HSA250501PR

11. Federal Funds Obligated
Base Phase Pre-NEPA: $200,000

12. Submit Payment Requests To
See Article 5.

13. Accounting and Appropriations Data
[insert Data]

14. Description of the Project
Base Phase: Develop an Action Plan and complete supplemental planning activities/studies. Option Phases 1 & 2: Complete final design and construct a demonstration project to enhance roadway safety and address the significant motor vehicle-involved fatalities in our jurisdiction.

RECIPIENT

15. Signature of Person Authorized to Sign
__________________________________
Signature Date
Name: Renè Bobadilla, P.E.

Title: City Manager

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

16. Signature of Agreement Officer
____________________________________
Signature Date
Name: Robert S. Miller, II
Title: Agreement Officer

ATTACHMENT A
2 of 19
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

GRANT AGREEMENT UNDER THE
FISCAL YEAR 2024 SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL GRANT PROGRAM This agreement is between the United States Department of Transportation’s (the “USDOT”) Federal Highway Administration (the “FHWA”) and the City of Santa Fe Springs.

This agreement reflects the selection of the Recipient to receive a Safe Streets and Roads for All (“SS4A”) Grant for the City of Santa Fe Springs Safety Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan (LSRP) The parties therefore agree to the following:

ARTICLE 1

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.1 General Terms and Conditions.
(a) In this agreement, “General Terms and Conditions” means the content of the document titled “General Terms and Conditions Under the Fiscal Year 2024 Safe Streets and Roads for All (“SS4A”) Grant Program,” dated November 4, 2025, which is available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/grant-agreements under “Fiscal Year 2024.” Articles 7–33 are in the General Terms and Conditions. The General Terms and Conditions are part of this agreement. (b) The Recipient acknowledges that it has knowledge of the General Terms and Conditions. Recipient also states that it is required to comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.); and Build America, Buy America Act (IIJA, div. G §§ 70901-27). (c) The Recipient acknowledges that the General Terms and Conditions impose obligations on the Recipient and that the Recipient’s non-compliance with the General Terms and Conditions may result in remedial action, termination of the SS4A Grant, disallowing costs incurred for the Project, requiring the Recipient to refund to the FHWA the SS4A Grant, and reporting the non-compliance in the Federal-governmentwide integrity and performance system. 3 of 19
ARTICLE 2

APPLICATION, PROJECT, AND AWARD

2.1 Application.

Application Title: City of Santa Fe Springs Safety Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan (LSRP) Application Date: 08/28/2024

2.2 Award Amount.

SS4A Grant Amount: $400,000.00

2.3 Federal Obligation Information.

Federal Obligation Type: Multiple
Obligation Condition Table
Phase the Project Allocation of
the SS4A
Grant
Obligation Condition
Base Phase:

Pre-NEPA
Action Plan
Supplemental Plan

$50,000
$75,000
$75,000
4 of 19
Obligation Condition Table
Phase the Project Allocation of
the SS4A
Grant
Obligation Condition
Option Phase 1: Final
Design
$80,000 The Recipient shall not expend any funds (Federal or non-Federal) for, seek reimbursement of eligible
costs, or otherwise begin any part of the final
design and construction of an Implementation
Project unless and until:
(1) The requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et
seq.) (“NEPA”), Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470f)
(“NHPA”), and any other applicable
environmental laws and regulations have been
met; and
(2) FHWA, or a State with applicable NEPA
Assignment authority, has approved the NEPA
document for the Project and provided the
Recipient with a written notice that the
environmental review process is complete; and
(3) FHWA has obligated additional funds for this
phase and notified the Recipient in writing that
the Recipient may proceed to the next activity
after NEPA approval, and the Recipient has
acknowledged receipt in writing of FHWA’s
notification. Recipient shall not proceed with
any such activities until (2) and (3) as described
in this section are met. Costs that are incurred
before (2) and (3) as described in this section
are met are not allowable costs under this
agreement.

Extent of activities that are permissible before
NEPA is complete are those activities constituting
“preliminary design” as specified in FHWA Order
6640.1A.
5 of 19
Obligation Condition Table
Phase the Project Allocation of
the SS4A
Grant
Obligation Condition
Option Phase 2:

Construction
$120,000 The Recipient shall not expend any funds (Federal or non-Federal) for, seek reimbursement of eligible
costs, or otherwise begin any part of the
construction or final design and construction of a
Project unless and until:
(1) The requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et
seq.) (“NEPA”), Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470f)
(“NHPA”), and any other applicable environmental
laws and regulations have been met; and
(2) FHWA, or a State with applicable NEPA
Assignment authority, has approved the NEPA
document for the Project and provided the
Recipient with a written notice that the
environmental review process is complete; and
(3) FHWA has obligated additional funds for this
phase and notified the Recipient in writing that
the Recipient may proceed to the next activity
after NEPA approval, and the Recipient has
acknowledged receipt in writing of FHWA’s
notification. Recipient shall not proceed with
any such activities until (2) and (3) as described
in this section are met. Costs that are incurred
before (2) and (3) as described in this section
are met are not allowable costs under this
agreement.

Extent of activities that are permissible before
NEPA is complete are those activities
constituting “preliminary design” as specified
in FHWA Order 6640.1A.

2.4 Budget Period.

Base Phase Budget Period: Effective date of award – December 31, 2029 Option Phase 1 Budget Period: [Reserved]
Option Phase 2 Budget Period: [Reserved]

2.5 Grant Designation.

Designation: Planning and Demonstration
6 of 19
ARTICLE 3

SUMMARY PROJECT INFORMATION

3.1 Summary of Project’s Statement of Work.

The project will be completed in three phases as follows:

The city of Santa Fe Springs plans to utilize the grant funds to 1) prepare Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, 2) to complete supplemental planning activities including a) pedestrian data collection, b) speed studies, c) a Citywide Traffic Management System (TMC) Feasibility Study and d) an Orr & Day Road and Florence Avenue Corridor Safety Concept Plan, and to 3) complete a demonstration project, which will construct safety improvements at the Orr & Day / Florence intersection.

1. Action Plan – Develop/complete a citywide Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, with the goal to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our roads.
a. The plan will include Data Analysis and Baseline Assessment, to understand historical patterns, identifies areas of high risk, and sets baseline metrics to measure progress. b. It will set Strategic Goals and Objectives, by setting specific safety targets, performance metrics, and timelines.
c. Additionally, it will include Action Plans and Strategies to tackle traffic violations, education and outreach programs to raise public awareness, and improvements in emergency response protocols.
d. It will also include an Implementation Plan that outlines the roles and responsibilities of involved parties, recommends resources, and provides a timeline for executing the strategies. e. It will be critical to also include Monitoring and Evaluation procedures to ensure ongoing assessment of progress, such as collecting data, evaluating the effectiveness of implemented measures, and making necessary adjustments based on performance results. f. Lastly, the plan will include Public Involvement and Communication, detailing strategies for engaging stakeholders and maintaining open communication with the public about the plan's progress and outcomes.

2. Supplemental Planning Activities – Grant funds will be used to do the following activities, which will each consistent with the cost allocation for this task, and the data gained may be used to potentially become a new capital improvement program (CIP) project for consideration by the City Council for funding in adoption to improve safety within the city. a. Pedestrian Data Collection - obtain pedestrian counts at intersections and along the Florence and Orr & Day corridor areas shown on the project location map. b. Speed Studies - obtain speed study surveys at the Orr & Day /Florence intersection and along the Florence and Orr & Day corridor.
c. Citywide Traffic Management System (TMC) Feasibility Study & Concept Development Plan - this supplemental planning effort will focus on a way to create or develop, fund, and maintain a synchronized signal system for the intersections throughout the city. This will include the software needs as well as any materials and supplies necessary to quantify the scope, schedule, and cost for the implementation of the system. d. Orr & Day / Florence Area Safety Concept Plan - this supplemental planning effort will develop a Corridor concept plan to improve safety at this intersection, and along the Orr & Day and Florence Corridors, extending north on Orr & Day Road north to Los Nietos Road and along Florence Avenue east to Pioneer. This will include but not be limited to technology-based safety improvement, but also a potential road diet and complete streets improvements. This effort will quantify a scope, schedule, and cost for the implementation of the project, which can be broken into potential phases as well as a demonstration projects, which we propose finding as part of this broader grant application. 7 of 19

3. Demonstration Activities – The Orr & Day / Florence Area Safety Improvement Project will incorporate the results from the supplemental planning activities completed under this agreement and will develop a demonstration project. The project study area will, include plans, specifications, and estimates, within the allowable funding to immediately construct a project focused on the intersection of Orr & Day Road and Florence Avenue. Funding will also be allocated for obtaining pedestrians counts as well as for monitoring the safety of the intersection area, once the project is completed.

3.2 Project’s Estimated Schedule.

Action Plan Schedule
Milestone Schedule Date
Planned Final Plan Publicly Available
Date:
10/31/2028
Planned SS4A Final Report Date: 11/30/2028
Demonstration Activity Schedule
Milestone Schedule Date
Planned NEPA Completion Date: 8/31/2027
Planned Construction Substantial
Completion and Open to Public Use Date:
10/15/2030
Planned SS4A Final Report Date: 11/30/2030
Supplemental Planning Schedule
Milestone Schedule Date
Planned Final Plan Publicly Available
Date:
10/30/2028
Planned SS4A Final Report Date: 11/30/2028

3.3 Project’s Estimated Costs.
(a) Eligible Project Costs
Eligible Project Costs
SS4A Grant Amount: $400,000.00
Other Federal Funds: $0
State Funds: $0
Local Funds: $100,000.00
In-Kind Match: $0
Other Funds: $0
Total Eligible Project Cost: $500,000.00
(b) Cost Classification Table – For Planning and Demonstration Grants with demonstration activities 8 of 19
and Implementation Grants Only
Cost Classification Total Costs
Non-SS4A
Previously
Incurred
Costs
Eligible
Costs
Administrative and legal expenses $25,000 $0 $25,000
Architectural and engineering fees $100,000 $0 $100,000 Other architectural and engineering fees $100,000 $0 $100,000 Construction $275,000 $0 $275,000
Project Total $500,000 $0 $500,00
(c) Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are allowable under this Agreement in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 and the Recipient’s approved Budget Application. In the event the Recipient’s indirect cost rate changes, the Recipient will notify FHWA of the planned adjustment and provide supporting documentation for such adjustment. This Indirect Cost provision does not operate to waive the limitations on Federal funding provided in this document. The Recipient’s indirect costs are allowable only insofar as they do not cause the Recipient to exceed the total obligated funding.

ARTICLE 4

CONTACT INFORMATION

4.1 Recipient Contact(s).

James Enriquez, P.E.

Director of Public Works/ City Engineer
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Rd.
(562) 868-0511
[email protected]

4.2 Recipient Key Personnel.

Name Title or Position
Robert Garcia Assistant Public Works Director
Yvette Kirin Consultant, Project Manager
Vanessa Barrientos Consultant, Public Outreach
Hank Doyle Consultant, Urban Planner
Jose Barrios Sr. Administrative Analyst
Cecilia Amaya Grants Analyst
9 of 19

4.3 USDOT Project Contact(s).

Safe Streets and Roads for All Program Manager
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Safety
HSSA-1, Mail Stop: W56-485
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590
202-366-2822
[email protected]
and
Agreement Officer (AO)
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Competitive Grants and Workforce Programs
HACG-30, Mail Stop W51-232
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590
[email protected]
and
Division Administrator – California
Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR)
FHWA California Division Office
650 Capitol Mall, Ste. 4-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-498-5015
[email protected]
and
Mike Shami
Civil Engineer (Highway)
California Division Office Lead Point of Contact
650 Capitol Mall, Ste. 4-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-498-5853
[email protected]
10 of 19
ARTICLE 5

USDOT ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

5.1 Office for Subaward and Contract Authorization.

USDOT Office for Subaward and Contract Authorization: FHWA Office of Competitive Grants and Workforce Programs

SUBAWARDS AND CONTRACTS APPROVAL
Note: See 2 CFR § 200.331, Subrecipient and contractor determinations, for definitions of subrecipient (who is awarded a subaward) versus contractor (who is awarded a contract).

Note: Recipients with a procurement system deemed approved and accepted by the Government or by the Agreement Officer (the “AO”) are exempt from the requirements of this clause. See 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327.

In accordance with 2 CFR 200.308(f)(6), the recipient or subrecipient shall obtain prior written approval from the USDOT agreement officer for the subaward, if the subaward activities were not proposed in the application or approved in the Federal award. This provision is in accordance with 2 CFR 200.308 (f) (6) and does not apply to procurement transactions for goods and services. Approval will be issued through written notification from the AO or a formal amendment to the Agreement.

The following subawards and contracts are currently approved under the Agreement by the AO. This list does not include supplies, material, equipment, or general support services which are exempt from the pre-approval requirements of this clause.

5.2 Reimbursement Requests
(a) The Recipient may request reimbursement of costs incurred within the budget period of this agreement if those costs do not exceed the amount of funds obligated and are allowable under the applicable cost provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E. The Recipient shall not request reimbursement more frequently than monthly.
(b) The Recipient shall use the DELPHI iSupplier System to submit requests for reimbursement to the payment office. When requesting reimbursement of costs incurred or credit for cost share incurred, the Recipient shall electronically submit supporting cost detail with the SF-270 (Request for Advance or Reimbursement) or SF-271 (Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs) to clearly document all costs incurred.
(c) The Recipient’s supporting cost detail shall include a detailed breakout of all costs incurred, including direct labor, indirect costs, other direct costs, travel, etc., and the Recipient shall identify the Federal share and the Recipient’s share of costs. If the Recipient does not provide sufficient detail in a request for reimbursement, the Agreement Officer’s Representative (the “AOR”) may withhold processing that request until the Recipient provides sufficient detail. (d) The USDOT shall not reimburse costs unless the AOR reviews and approves the costs to ensure that progress on this agreement is sufficient to substantiate payment. (e) In the rare instance the Recipient is unable to receive electronic funds transfers (EFT), payment by EFT would impose a hardship on the Recipient because of their inability to manage an account at a financial institution, and/or the Recipient is unable to use the DELPHI iSupplier System to submit their requests for disbursement, the FHWA may waive the requirement that the Recipient use the DELPHI iSupplier System. The Recipient shall contact the Division Office Lead Point of Contact for instructions on and requirements related to pursuing a waiver. 11 of 19
(f) The requirements set forth in these terms and conditions supersede previous financial invoicing requirements for Recipients.

ARTICLE 6

SPECIAL GRANT TERMS

6.1 SS4A funds must be expended within five years after the grant agreement is executed and DOT obligates the funds, which is the budget period end date in section 10.3 of the Terms and Conditions and section 2.4 in this agreement.

6.2 The Recipient demonstrates compliance with civil rights obligations and nondiscrimination laws, including Titles VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and accompanying regulations. Recipients of Federal transportation funding will also be required to comply fully with regulations and guidance for the ADA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and all other civil rights requirements.

6.3 SS4A Funds will be allocated to the Recipient and made available to the Recipient in accordance with FHWA procedures.

6.4 The Recipient of a Planning and Demonstration Grant acknowledges that the Action Plan will be made publicly available and agrees that it will publish the final Action Plan on a publicly available website.

6.5 The Recipient of a Planning and Demonstration Grant that involves a demonstration activity agrees to provide an assessment of each demonstration activity and update the existing Action Plan, which will incorporate the information gathered in the Action Plan’s list of projects or strategies and/or inform another part of the existing Action Plan. The Recipient also agrees that demonstration activities are temporary in nature and must be removed and/or ended following the conclusion of the project if the assessment of the demonstration activities does not affirm that the activities provide safety benefits.

6.6 The Recipient acknowledges that it is required to conduct certain environmental analyses and to prepare and submit to FHWA, or State with applicable NEPA Assignment authority, documents required under NEPA, and other applicable environmental statutes and regulations before the Government will obligate funds for Option Phase 1 under this agreement and provide the Recipient with a written notice to proceed with Option Phase 1.

6.7 The Government’s execution of this agreement does not in any way constitute pre-approval or waiver of any of the regulations imposed upon Recipient under the applicable Federal rules, regulations and laws regarding SS4A projects undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. The Recipient shall comply with all applicable Federal requirements before incurring any costs under this agreement.

6.8 There are no other special grant requirements.
12 of 19

ATTACHMENT A

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INFORMATION
Study Area: Orr and Day and Florence corridors extending north on Orr and Day Road to Los Nietos Road and along Florence Ave east to Pioneer. Demonstration project will focus on the intersection of Orr and Day Road and Florence Avenue
Baseline Measurement Date: 09/31/2027
Baseline Report Date: 11/30/2027
Table 1: Performance Measure Table
Measure Category and Description
Measurement
Frequency and
Reporting
Deadline
Safety Performance Fatalities: Total annual fatalities in the project location(s)
Annually and
within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
Safety Performance
Serious Injuries: Total annual serious
injuries in the project location(s) [if
available]
Annually and
within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
Safety Performance
Crashes by Road User Category: Total
annual crashes in the project location(s)
broken out by types of roadway users
involved (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorcyclist, passenger vehicle occupant,
commercial vehicle occupant)
Annually and
within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
Costs
Project Costs: Quantification of the cost
of each eligible project carried out using
the grant
Within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
Outcomes and Benefits
Quantitative Project Benefits:

Quantification of evidence-based projects
or strategies implemented (e.g., miles of
sidewalks installed, number of pedestrian
crossings upgraded, etc.)
Within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
Outcomes and Benefits Qualitative Project Benefits: Qualitative description of evidence-based projects or
Within 120 days
after the end of the
13 of 19
Measure Category and Description
Measurement
Frequency and
Reporting
Deadline
strategies implemented (e.g., narrative
descriptions, testimonials, high-quality
before and after photos, etc.)
period of
performance
Outcomes and Benefits
Project Location(s): GIS/geo coordinate
information identifying specific project
location(s)
Within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
Lessons Learned and
Recommendations
Lessons Learned and Recommendations:

Description of lessons learned and any
recommendations relating to future
projects or strategies to prevent death and
serious injury on roads and streets.

Within 120 days
after the end of the
period of
performance
14 of 19

ATTACHMENT B

CHANGES FROM APPLICATION
Describe all material differences between the scope, schedule, and budget described in the application and the scope, schedule, and budget described in Article 3. The purpose of Attachment B is to clearly and accurately document any differences in scope, schedule, and budget to establish the parties’ knowledge and acceptance of those differences. See Article 11 for the Statement of Work, Schedule, and Budget Changes. If there are no changes, please insert “N/A” after “Scope,” “Schedule,” or “Budget.” If there are changes to the budget, please complete the table below. Otherwise, leave the table below blank.

Scope: N/A
Schedule: The original application listed a Proposed Project start and end dates of 07/01/2025 and 06/30/2028 for a total of 35 months. We are requesting the period of performance to be 60 months from the award date due to anticipated delays related to NEPA document, consultant selection, and internal process and the fact that this is a multiple phase project.

Budget: N/A
The table below provides a summary comparison of the project budget.

Fund Source
Application Section 3.3
$ % $ %
Previously Incurred Costs
(Non-Eligible Project Costs)
Federal Funds
Non-Federal Funds
Total Previously Incurred Costs
Future Eligible Project Costs
SS4AFunds
Other Federal Funds
Non-Federal Funds
Total Future Eligible Project
Costs
Total Project Costs
15 of 19

ATTACHMENT C
[RESERVED]
16 of 19

ATTACHMENT D
[RESERVED]
17 of 19

ATTACHMENT E

LABOR AND WORKFORCE

1. Efforts to Support Good-Paying Jobs and Strong Labor Standards The Recipient states that rows marked with “X” in the following table align with the application:

The Recipient or a project partner promotes robust job creation by supporting good-paying jobs directly related to the project with free and fair choice to join a union. (Describe robust job creation and identify the good-paying jobs in the supporting narrative below.)
The Recipient or a project partner will invest in high-quality workforce training programs such as registered apprenticeship programs to recruit, train, and retain skilled workers, and implement policies such as targeted hiring preferences. (Describe the training programs in the supporting narrative below.) The Recipient or a project partner will partner with high-quality workforce development programs with supportive services to help train, place, and retain workers in good-paying jobs or registered apprenticeships including through the use of local and economic hiring preferences, linkage agreements with workforce programs, and proactive plans to prevent harassment. (Describe the supportive services provided to trainees and employees, preferences, and policies in the supporting narrative below.)
The Recipient or a project partner will partner and engage with local unions or other worker-based organizations in the development and lifecycle of the project, including through evidence of project labor agreements and/or community benefit agreements. (Describe the partnership or engagement with unions and/or other worker-based organizations and agreements in the supporting narrative below.)
The Recipient or a project partner will partner with communities or community groups to develop workforce strategies. (Describe the partnership and workforce strategies in the supporting narrative below.) X
The Recipient or a project partner has taken other actions related to the Project to create good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and incorporate strong labor standards. (Describe those actions in the supporting narrative below.)
The Recipient or a project partner has not yet taken actions related to the Project to create good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and incorporate strong labor standards but, before beginning construction of the Project, will take relevant actions described in Attachment B. (Identify the relevant actions from Attachment B in the supporting narrative below.) The Recipient or a project partner has not taken actions related to the Project to improve good-paying jobs and strong labor standards and will not take those actions under this award.

2. Supporting Narrative. All work for this Project will be conducted consistent with the recipient’s hiring, employment, and procurement standards and thus support good-paying jobs. The Project will allow for free and fair choice to join a union, consistent with applicable law. 18 of 19

ATTACHMENT F

CRITICAL SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESILIENCE

1. Efforts to strengthen the Security and Resilience of Critical Infrastructure against both Physical and Cyber Threats.

The Recipient states that rows marked with “X” in the following table are accurate:

The Recipient demonstrates, prior to the signing of this agreement, effort to consider and address physical and cyber security risks relevant to the transportation mode and type and scale of the activities.

The Recipient appropriately considered and addressed physical and cyber security and resilience in the planning, design and oversight of the project, as determined by the Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Recipient complies with 2 CFR 200.216 and the prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment.

2. Supporting Narrative.

N/A. This grant will not fund the purchase of Information Technology and/or Operational Technology.
19 of 19

ATTACHMENT G
[RESERVED]

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: René Bobadilla, P.E., City Manager
BY: James Enriquez, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:

NORWALK BOULEVARD AT LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT – AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. FOR

ENGINEERING SERVICES (PUBLIC WORKS)
DATE: Tuesday, September 15, 2026, 6:00 PM
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council:

1. Approve the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for a not-toexceed fee of $2,993,843 for civil engineering and related services for the subject project; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.; and

3. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT
On September 3, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution No. 9928 authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for the subject project under the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program. In January 2025, the FRA notified the city that the grant was awarded. The grant is in the amount of $2,640,000 and the total project funding is in the amount of $3,300,000, including $660,000 of local matching funds shared equally by the city and BNSF Railway. The grant agreement was executed in June 2026.

On September 3, 2024, the City Council appropriated the city’s local match of $330,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund. No additional appropriation is recommended at this time.

BACKGROUND
The existing at-grade railroad crossings for the BNSF railroad corridor near the intersection of Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road are very busy in terms of vehicular traffic and rail traffic. This rail corridor is owned and operated by BNSF Railway and serves freight as well as passenger commuter trains, including Amtrak and Metrolink. This rail corridor is also a planned California High Speed Rail alignment. This crossing has significant safety concerns, ranking among the top two crossings with the highest number of safety incidents in the city. Grade separating this crossing will prevent collisions, reduce delays for both roadway users and rail, and enhance overall safety for the community.

In addition to the safety benefits, this Project will directly improve the quality of life for residents. By enhancing connectivity, the project will help create a more livable environment and allow residents and workers better access to jobs and opportunities. Santa Fe Springs is a major job center, with tens of thousands of workers coming into the area daily, including from surrounding disadvantaged communities. Eliminating the crossing will not only allow for better and safer job access but also improve the efficiency of freight movement via trucks on both roadways.

Surrounding communities will also see reduced greenhouse gas emissions when the project is implemented eliminating engine idle time for vehicles stopped by numerous train crossings each day.

ANALYSIS
The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this project was published on PlanetBids on July 20, 2026. On August 20, 2026, one proposal was received from Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. Staff reviewed the proposal in coordination with BNSF staff and deems the proposal acceptable. The scope of services and qualifications of the firm meet the project requirements. The proposed fee was also reviewed and is reasonable for the contemplated services. The proposed fee for the not-to-exceed amount of $2,993,843 is also 9.3% lower than the available project funding of $3,300,000 and leaves $306,157 in contingency funds for any unanticipated services.

The proposed Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.

The Agreement will expire on October 31, 2028 to match the Project Performance Period and Federal Funding Period as defined in the FRA Grant Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL
The recommended action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it involves administrative and contractual activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change to the environment. The recommended consultant services will include an environmental determination and clearance for the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as required prior to construction.

DISCUSSION
The City will coordinate with BNSF in the implementation of this project. The project includes the development of alternative conceptual designs that would be utilized to engage the community as part of the environmental clearance process. Once a preferred alternative is selected, the scope will include development of engineering plans, specifications and a construction estimate to the 35% level of completion. As the design progresses, staff will coordinate with project stakeholders in identifying grant funding opportunities to fund the completion of the design and construction of the project. Staff will return with recommendations to the City Council relating to grant and other funding sources at the appropriate times during the development of the project and as grant funding opportunities become available.

SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS
Upon the approval of the recommended actions by the City Council, the City Manager will execute the agreement with Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. and staff will coordinate the delivery of the project with all project stakeholders.

Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Professional Services Agreement - Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. 1 2026

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(Engagement: Norwalk Boulevard/Los Nietos Road Grade Separation Project Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Clearance Services) (Parties: MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY, INC. and City of Santa Fe Springs)

THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (hereinafter, “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 15TH day of SEPTEMBER 2026 (hereinafter, the “Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS a municipal corporation (hereinafter, “CITY”) and Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “CONSULTANT”). For the purposes of this Agreement, CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to collectively by the capitalized term “Parties.” The capitalized term “Party” may refer to CITY or CONSULTANT interchangeably, as appropriate.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the CITY was awarded funding through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Program to complete preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for the project; and WHEREAS, the CITY has developed a scope of work for the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phases of the project; and WHEREAS, CITY staff has determined that CONSULTANT possesses the qualifications, experience, skills, training, personnel, and equipment necessary to competently provide such tasks and services to CITY; and WHEREAS, the Services include professional engineering and other support services of a technical nature and City desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, The Project is funded in part through an RCE Grant pursuant to FRA Grant Agreement No. 69A36526420710RCECA and is therefore subject to applicable federal statutes, regulations, grant conditions, and contract requirements, including, without limitation, 2 C.F.R Part 200, Appendix II to Part 200 and the federal requirements set forth in Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT was selected following the City’s competitive procurement process and submitted a proposal demonstrated its qualifications to perform the Services in accordance with the City’s Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, this Agreement was approved by the Santa Fe Springs City Council at its Regular Meeting of September 15, 2026, under Agenda Item No. ______.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:

ATTACHMENT A
2 I.

ENGAGEMENT TERMS

1.1 SCOPE OF WORK: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees to provide the tasks and services described in that certain Request for Proposals of CITY entitled “Safety and Access Redefined: Norwalk Boulevard / Los Nietos Road Grade Separation” (hereinafter, “CITY RFP”) and the written proposal of CONSULTANT entitled “Safety and Access Redefined:

Norwalk Boulevard/Los Nietos Road Grade Separation” (hereinafter, the “CONSULTANT Proposal”). The CITY RFP and the CONSULTANT Proposal are attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit “A” and “B,” respectively. The term “Scope of Work” shall be a collective reference to the CITY RFP and the CONSULTANT Proposal. The capitalized term “Work” shall be a collective reference to all the various services and tasks referenced in the Scope of Work.

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the document entitled CITY RFP and the provisions of the document entitled CONSULTANT Proposal, the requirements of the document entitled CITY RFP shall govern and control but only to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency and no further. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the Scope of Work and the provisions of this Agreement to which the Scope of Work is attached, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern and control.

This Agreement is limited to the pilot treatment study and related services. Nothing contained herein obligates the CITY to proceed with the design or construction of a permanent facility. Any permanent facility shall be procured under a separate contract in accordance with applicable law.

1.2 PROSECUTION OF WORK; COMPLETION DATE:

A. Time is of the essence for this Agreement and each and every provision contained herein. The Work shall be commenced within three (3) calendar days of CITY’s issuance of a written notice to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”).

CONSULTANT shall complete the various tasks identified in the Scope of Work and shall complete all of the Work by or before October 31, 2028 (the “Completion Date”). CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to complete the Work, which request must be submitted to the CITY no later than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the Completion Date or any extended Completion Date granted by CITY. The written request for additional time must identify (i) what specific tasks or services remain to be completed by CONSULTANT in order to complete the Work; (ii) how much additional time CONSULTANT requires; (iii) identification of the circumstances that have caused the need for additional time, according to CONSULTANT, including, if applicable, identification of any tasks that must be completed by CITY as prerequisite to CONSULTANT being able to complete any other service or task; and (iv) what proactive steps CONSULTANT has taken up to the date of the request to mitigate the need for additional time, including, if applicable, any effort on the part of CONSULTANT to alert CITY of the need to provide information or complete 3 certain tasks to be performed by CITY. CITY in its sole and absolute discretion may grant, deny, or conditionally grant a request for additional time, provided that no individual grant of additional time may exceed a maximum of fifteen (15) calendar days.

B. CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY and in no manner interfere with the work of CITY, its employees or other consultants, contractors, or agents.

C. CONSULTANT shall not claim or be entitled to receive any compensation or damage because of the failure of CONSULTANT, or its subconsultants, to have related services or tasks completed in a timely manner.

D. CONSULTANT shall at all times enforce strict discipline and good order among CONSULTANT’s employees.

E. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, shall pay all sales, consumer, use or other similar taxes required by law.

1.3 COMPENSATION: CONSULTANT shall perform the Work in accordance with the “Cost Proposal for Project Scope” which is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit “C” (hereinafter, the “COMPENSATION RATE”). The foregoing notwithstanding, CONSULTANT’s total compensation for the performance of all Work contemplated under this Agreement, may not exceed the aggregate sum of Two Million Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-Three dollars ($2,993,843) (hereinafter, the “Not-to-Exceed Sum”) during the Term of this Agreement, unless such added expenditure is first approved by the City Council.

In the event CONSULTANT’s charges are projected to exceed the Aggregate Notto-Exceed Sum prior to the expiration of this Agreement, CITY may suspend CONSULTANT’s performance pending CITY approval of any anticipated expenditures in excess of the Aggregate Not-to-Exceed Sum or any other CITY approved amendment to the compensation terms of this Agreement.

1.4 PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION: The Not-to-Exceed Sum will be paid to CONSULTANT in monthly increments as the Work are completed. Following the conclusion of each calendar month, CONSULTANT will submit to CITY an itemized invoice indicating the services performed and tasks completed during the recently concluded calendar month, including services and tasks performed and the reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. If the amount of CONSULTANT’s monthly compensation is a function of hours worked by CONSULTANT’s personnel, the invoice should indicate the number of hours worked in the recently concluded calendar month, the persons responsible for performing the Services, the rate of compensation at which such services and tasks were performed, the subtotal for each task and service performed and a grand total for all services performed. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of each invoice, CITY will notify CONSULTANT in writing of any disputed amounts included in the invoice.

Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of each invoice, CITY will pay all undisputed amounts included on the invoice. CITY will not withhold applicable taxes or other authorized deductions from payments made to CONSULTANT. 4 1.5 ACCOUNTING RECORDS: CONSULTANT will maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. CITY will have the right to access and examine such records, without charge, during normal business hours. CITY will further have the right to audit such records, to make transcripts therefrom and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities.

1.6 ABANDONMENT BY CONSULTANT: In the event CONSULTANT ceases to perform the Work agreed to under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the undertaking contemplated herein prior to the expiration of this Agreement or prior to completion of any or all tasks set forth in the Scope of Services, CONSULTANT will deliver to CITY immediately and without delay, all materials, records, and other work product prepared or obtained by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Furthermore, CONSULTANT will only be compensated for the reasonable value of the services, tasks and other Work performed up to the time of cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages, costs, or additional expenses which CITY may incur as a result of CONSULTANT’s cessation or abandonment.

II.

PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT

2.1 CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE: The CITY hereby designates James Enriquez (hereinafter, the “City Representative”) to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement. The City Representative or the City Representative’s designee will act on behalf of the CITY for all purposes under this Agreement. CONSULTANT will not accept directions or orders from any person other than the City Representative or the City Representative’s designee.

2.2 CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE: CONSULTANT hereby designates Pat Somerville to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (hereinafter, “Consultant Representative”). Consultant Representative will have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the CONSULTANT for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant Representative or Consultant Representative’s designee will supervise and direct the performance of the Work, using his/her professional skill and attention, and will be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all Work under this Agreement. Notice to the Consultant Representative will constitute notice to CONSULTANT.

2.3 COORDINATION OF WORK; CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS:

CONSULTANT agrees to work closely with CITY staff in the performance of the Services and this Agreement and will be available to CITY staff and the City Representative at all reasonable times. All work prepared by CONSULTANT will be subject to inspection and approval by City Representative or his or her designees.

2.4 STANDARD OF CARE; PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES: CONSULTANT 5 represents, acknowledges, and agrees to the following:

A. CONSULTANT will perform all Work skillfully, consistent with and adhering to its professional standard of care, that is, the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing at the same time and in the same or similar locality;
B. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for all means, methods, techniques, equipment, temporary facilities, and safety precautions associated with installation and operation of the pilot treatment facility.

C. CONSULTANT shall at all times employ such force, plant, materials, and tools as will be sufficient in the opinion of the CITY to perform the Services within the time limits established, and as provided herein. It is understood and agreed that said tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, and material shall be furnished and said Work performed and completed as required by the Agreement, and subject to the approval of the CITY’s authorized representative;
D. CONSULTANT will perform all Work in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the CITY;
E. CONSULTANT will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code §1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code §§81000 et seq.) CONSULTANT shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services. If CONSULTANT performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations, CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom;
F. CONSULTANT understands the nature and scope of the Work to be performed under this Agreement as well as any and all schedules of performance;
G. All of CONSULTANT’s employees and agents possess sufficient skill, knowledge, training, and experience to perform those services and tasks assigned to them by CONSULTANT; and
H. All of CONSULTANT’s employees and agents (including, but not limited to, subcontractors and subconsultants) possess all licenses, permits, certificates, qualifications, and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the tasks and services contemplated under this Agreement and all such licenses, permits, certificates, qualifications, and approvals will be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement and made available to CITY for copying and inspection.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that CONSULTANT will perform, at CONSULTANT’s own cost and expense and without any reimbursement from 6 CITY, any services necessary to correct any errors or omissions caused by CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with the standard of care set forth under this Section or by any like failure on the part of CONSULTANT’s employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and subconsultants. Such effort by CONSULTANT to correct any errors or omissions will be commenced immediately upon their discovery by either Party and, notwithstanding Section 5.2(B), will be completed within seven (7) calendars days from the date of discovery or such other extended period of time authorized by the City Representative in writing and in her sole and absolute discretion. The Parties acknowledge and agree that CITY’s acceptance of any work performed by CONSULTANT or on CONSULTANT’s behalf will not constitute a release of any deficiency or delay in performance. The Parties further acknowledge, understand, and agree that CITY has relied upon the foregoing representations of CONSULTANT, including but not limited to the representation that CONSULTANT possesses the skills, training, knowledge, and experience necessary to perform the Work under the standard of care as articulated under section 2.4(A).

2.5 ASSIGNMENT: The skills, training, knowledge, and experience of CONSULTANT are material to CITY’s willingness to enter into this Agreement. Accordingly, CITY has an interest in the qualifications and capabilities of the person(s) who will perform the services and tasks to be undertaken by CONSULTANT or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. In recognition of this interest, CONSULTANT agrees that it will not assign or transfer, either directly or indirectly or by operation of law, this Agreement, or the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s duties or obligations under this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the CITY. In the absence of CITY’s prior written consent, any attempted assignment or transfer will be ineffective, null and void and will constitute a material breach of this Agreement.

2.6 SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL: CONSULTANT has represented to CITY that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Work under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, CONSULTANT may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of CITY. In the event that CITY and CONSULTANT cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, CITY shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel who fail or refuse to perform the Work in a manner acceptable to the CITY, or who are determined by the CITY to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the CONSULTANT at the request of the CITY. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:

INSERT NAME(S) AND TITLE(S).

2.7 CONTROL AND PAYMENT OF SUBORDINATES; INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR: The Work will be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s strict supervision. CONSULTANT will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the Work subject to the requirements of this Agreement. CITY retains CONSULTANT on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. CONSULTANT reserves the right to perform similar or 7 different services for other principals during the term of this Agreement, provided such work does not unduly interfere with CONSULTANT’s competent and timely performance of the Work contemplated under this Agreement and provided the performance of such services and tasks does not result in the unauthorized disclosure of CITY’s confidential or proprietary information. Any additional personnel performing the Work under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT are not employees of CITY and will at all times be under CONSULTANT’s exclusive direction and control. CONSULTANT will pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel and will assume responsibility for all benefits, payroll taxes, Social Security and Medicare payments and the like. CONSULTANT will be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, workers’ compensation insurance and the like. Notwithstanding any other CITY, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, CONSULTANT and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors performing the Work under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by CITY, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of CITY and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by CITY for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

2.8 REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS: If any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants is determined by the City Representative to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely performance of the tasks assigned to CONSULTANT, a threat to persons or property, or if any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants fail or refuse to perform the Work in a manner acceptable to the CITY, such officer, employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or subconsultant will be promptly removed by CONSULTANT and will not be reassigned to perform any of the Work.

2.9 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: CONSULTANT will keep itself informed of and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws to the extent such laws control or otherwise govern the performance of the Work.

2.10 NON-DISCRIMINATION: CONSULTANT represents that it is an equal opportunity employer, and it shall not discriminate against any subconsultant, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination.

2.11 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS: The Parties acknowledge, understand, and agree that CONSULTANT and all persons retained or employed by CONSULTANT are, and will at all times remain, wholly independent contractors and are not officials, officers, employees, departments, or subdivisions of CITY.

CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for the negligent acts and/or omissions 8 of its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and subconsultants.

CONSULTANT and all persons retained or employed by CONSULTANT will have no authority, express or implied, to bind CITY in any manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt, or liability of any kind on behalf of, or against, CITY, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred by CITY in writing.

2.12 PREVAILING WAGE LAWS: CONSULTANT acknowledges that portions of the Work may constitute public works under CALIFORNIA Labor Code sections 1720 et seq.

CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for determining and complying with all prevailing wage, apprenticeship, contractor registration, certified payroll, Department of Industrial Relations requirements applicable to the Work. If a dispute based upon the prevailing wage laws occurs, CONSULTANT, at its expense, shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, wages, costs, or expenses pertaining to the prevailing wage laws.

2.13 FEDERAL FUNDING; APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: This Agreement is funded, in whole or in part, through the United States Environmental Protection Agency Community Grant Program pursuant to EPA Assistance Agreement No. CG-97T44501-0, awarded under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. CONSULTANT acknowledges that performance of the Services is subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the EPA Assistance Agreement, including the EPA General Terms and Conditions, the Grant-Specific Programmatic Terms and Conditions, and all applicable federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and contract requirements governing the use of federal funds, including, without limitation, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, 2 C.F.R. Part 1500, and other applicable federal authorities. The federal contract provisions applicable to CONSULTANT are set forth in Exhibit D, which is incorporated herein by this reference. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable federal requirements and shall ensure that all required federal provisions are incorporated into each subcontract or lower-tier agreement entered into in connection with this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall cooperate with the CITY in the preparation of all reports, certifications, audits, inspections, and other documentation required by the EPA or any other federal or state agency administering or overseeing the Project.

CONSULTANT shall promptly notify CITY of any actual or suspected noncompliance with any applicable federal requirement affecting the Project.

2.14 CONSULTANT shall certify by signature that CONSULTANT and its principals, as defined in 49 CFR 29.995, and/or affiliates, as defined at 49 CFR 29.905, are not excluded, or disqualified, as defined at 49 CFR 29.940 and 29.945. CONSULTANT may submit proof of non-debarment or suspension by providing a printout or screenshot from the U.S. Government’s official website (www.sam.gov) showing CONSULTANT and its principals are not debarred or suspended prior to the execution of this Agreement.
9 III.

INSURANCE

3.1 DUTY TO PROCURE AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE: Before commencing the Work, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain policies of insurance that meet the requirements and specifications set forth under this Article. CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following insurance coverage, at its own expense:

A. Commercial General Liability Insurance: CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance (“CGL Coverage”) as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 0001) or its equivalent. Such CGL Coverage will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence and Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) in the general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, operations, products and completed operations, and contractual liability.

B. Automobile Liability Insurance: For any owned, non-owned, or hired vehicles used in connection with the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Automobile Liability Insurance as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). Such Automobile Liability Insurance will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

C. Workers’ Compensation Insurance/ Employer’s Liability Insurance: A policy of workers’ compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which will indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both CONSULTANT and CITY against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by CONSULTANT in the course of carrying out the Work contemplated in this Agreement. Such Workers’ Compensation Insurance will have minimum limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

D. Errors & Omissions (Professional Liability) Insurance: For the full term of this Agreement and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to CONSULTANT’s profession. Such coverage will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per claim.

3.2 ADDITIONAL INSURED REQUIREMENTS: The CGL Coverage and the Automobile Liability Insurance will contain an endorsement naming the CITY and CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds.

3.3 REQUIRED CARRIER RATING: All varieties of insurance required under this Agreement will be procured from insurers admitted to write insurance in the State 10 of California and authorized to issue policies directly to California insureds. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere under this Article, all required insurance will be procured from insurers who, according to the latest edition of the Best’s Insurance Guide, have an A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII. CITY may also accept policies procured by insurance carriers with a Standard & Poor’s rating of no less than BBB according to the latest published edition the Standard & Poor’s rating guide. As to Workers’ Compensation Insurance/ Employer’s Liability Insurance, the CITY Representative is authorized to authorize lower ratings than those set forth in this Section. Self insurance shall not be considered in compliance with the insurance requirements under this Section.

3.4 PRIMACY OF CONSULTANT’S INSURANCE: All policies of insurance provided by CONSULTANT will be primary to any coverage available to CITY or CITY’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY or CITY’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers will be in excess of CONSULTANT’s insurance and will not contribute with it.

3.5 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: All insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Agreement will not prohibit CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, agents, subcontractors or subconsultants from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. CONSULTANT hereby waives all rights of subrogation against CITY, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

3.6 VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE: CONSULTANT acknowledges, understands, and agrees, that CITY’s ability to verify the procurement and maintenance of the insurance required under this Article is a material consideration of this Agreement.

Accordingly, CONSULTANT warrants, represents, and agrees that it will furnish CITY with certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required under this Article on ACORD-25 or forms satisfactory to CITY in its sole and absolute discretion. The certificates of insurance and endorsements for each insurance policy will be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and will be on forms provided by the CITY if requested. Before commencing the Work, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with all certificates of insurance and endorsements referenced herein. Upon CITY’s written request, CONSULTANT will also provide CITY with copies of all required insurance policies and endorsements.

3.7 The insurance coverage requirement set forth under this Article 3 are in addition to any coverage requirements set forth under Section 16 (Insurance Requirements) of the CITY RFP.

3.8 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE: In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced immediately so as to avoid a lapse in the required coverage, CITY has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by CITY will be promptly reimbursed by CONTRACTOR or CITY will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, CITY may cancel this Agreement effective 11 upon notice.

3.9 SPECIAL RISKS OR CIRCUMSTANCES: City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. Any amendment to the insurance requirements of this Article shall be memorialized and approved in the form of a written amendment to this Agreement, signed by the Parties. The requirement for written amendments, modifications or supplements cannot be waived and any attempted waiver will be void or invalid.

IV.

INDEMNIFICATION

4.1 INDEMNITY FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those CITY agents serving as independent contractors in the role of CITY officials (collectively , the “City Indemnitees”) from and against any and all injury, damages, claim, causes of action, lawsuit, costs, expenses, , liabilities, litigation costs, liens, penalties, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys, or other professionals and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorney’s fee and costs of defense (collectively, “Liabilities”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, consultants, or their officers, agents, servants, or employees (or any entity or individual for whom CONSULTANT shall bear the liability) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement by a “design professional” as that term is defined under California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c).

4.2 OTHER INDEMNITIES:

A. To the extent CONSULTANT performs services or work other than design professional services, including without limitation furnishing equipment, pilot treatment system installation, field activities, startup, operation, monitoring, maintenance, testing, sampling, transportation, temporary facilities, or removal of pilot equipment, then to the fullest extent permitted by law, including, but not limited to, California Civil Code Section 2778, CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, defend hold harmless, and indemnify CITY and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those CITY agents serving as independent contractors in the role of CITY officials (collectively , the “CITY Indemnitees”) from and against any and all injury, damages, claim, causes of action, lawsuit, costs, expenses, liabilities, litigation costs, liens, penalties, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys, or other professionals and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs of defense (collectively, “Liabilities”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise 12 out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, consultants, or their officers, agents, servants, or employees (or any entity or individual for whom CONSULTANT shall bear the liability) in the performance of this Agreement, including the CITY Indemnitee’s active or passive negligence or breach of the provisions of this Agreement, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY §Indemnitees as determined by court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. CONSULTANT shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities with counsel of the CITY Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. CONSULTANT shall reimburse the CITY Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by Indemnitees in connection therewith. .

B. CITY shall have the right to offset against the amount of any compensation due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, any amount due to CITY from CONSULTANT as a result of CONSULTANT’s failure to either pay CITY promptly for any costs associated with CONSULTANT’s obligations to indemnify the CITY Indemnitees under this Article or related to CONSULTANT’s failure to either (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.

C. The obligations of CONSULTANT under this Article will not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. CONSULTANT expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to CITY and CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

CONSULTANT agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth herein this Article from each and every subcontractor including all lower-tier subcontractors or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. In the event CONSULTANT fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, CONSULTANT agrees to be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and CITY’s elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all claims and losses, costs or expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property resulting from any alleged intentional, reckless, negligent, or otherwise wrongful acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT’s subcontractors or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by counsel of CITY’s choice.

4.3 CITY does not and shall not waive any rights that it may possess against CONSULTANT because of the acceptance by CITY, or the deposit with CITY, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. This hold harmless and indemnification provision shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, 13 damage, liability, loss, cost, or expense.

4.4 This Article and all provisions contained herein (including but not limited to the duty to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless) shall survive the termination or normal expiration of this Agreement and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which the CITY may have at law or in equity.

TERMINATION

5.1 TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience and without cause by giving prior written notice of CITY’s intent to terminate this Agreement which notice shall specify the effective date of such termination. Upon such termination for convenience, CONSULTANT will be compensated only for those services and tasks which have been performed by CONSULTANT up to the effective date of the termination.

CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause as provided under Section 5.2, below. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, CITY may require CONSULTANT to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined in section 6.1 below, and other information of any kind prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of the Work.

CONSULTANT will be required to provide such Documents and Data within fifteen (15) calendar days of CITY’s written request. No actual or asserted breach of this Agreement on the part of CITY pursuant to Section 5.2, below, will operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict CITY’s ability to terminate this Agreement for convenience as provided under this Section.

5.2 EVENTS OF DEFAULT; BREACH OF AGREEMENT:

A. In the event either Party fails to perform any duty, obligation, service, or task set forth under this Agreement (or fails to timely perform or properly perform any such duty, obligation, service, or task set forth under this Agreement), an event of default (hereinafter, “Event of Default”) will occur. For all Events of Default, the Party alleging an Event of Default will give written notice to the defaulting Party (hereinafter referred to as a “Default Notice”) which will specify: (i) the nature of the Event of Default; (ii) the action required to cure the Event of Default; (iii) a date by which the Event of Default will be cured, which will not be less than the applicable cure period set forth under Sections 5.2B and 5.2C below or if a cure is not reasonably possible within the applicable cure period, to begin such cure and diligently prosecute such cure to completion. The Event of Default will constitute a breach of this Agreement if the defaulting Party fails to cure the Event of Default within the applicable cure period or any extended cure period allowed under this Agreement.

B. CONSULTANT will cure the following Events of Defaults within the following time periods:
i. Within ten (10) business days of CITY’s issuance of a Default Notice for any failure of CONSULTANT to timely provide CITY or CITY’s 14 employees or agents with any information and/or written reports, documentation, or work product which CONSULTANT is obligated to provide to CITY or CITY’s employees or agents under this Agreement.

Prior to the expiration of the 10-day cure period, CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CONSULTANT has commenced efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 10-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, CITY will be under no obligation to grant additional time for the cure of an Event of Default under this Section 5.2B.i. that exceeds seven (7) calendar days from the end of the initial 10-day cure period; or ii. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of CITY’s issuance of a Default Notice for any other Event of Default under this Agreement. Prior to the expiration of the 14-day cure period, CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CONSULTANT has commenced efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 14-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, CITY will be under no obligation to grant additional time for the cure of an Event of Default under this Section 5.2B.ii that exceeds thirty (30) calendar days from the end of the initial 14-day cure period.

In addition to any other failure on the part of CONSULTANT to perform any duty, obligation, service or task set forth under this Agreement (or the failure to timely perform or properly perform any such duty, obligation, service or task), an Event of Default on the part of CONSULTANT will include, but will not be limited to the following: (i) CONSULTANT’s refusal or failure to perform any of the services or tasks called for under the Scope of Work; (ii) CONSULTANT’s failure to fulfill or perform its obligations under this Agreement within the specified time or if no time is specified, within a reasonable time; (iii) CONSULTANT’s and/or its employees’ disregard or violation of any federal, state, local law, rule, procedure or regulation; (iv) the initiation of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, reorganization, or similar legislation as relates to CONSULTANT, whether voluntary of involuntary; and/or (v) CITY’s discovery that a statement representation or warranty by CONSULTANT relating to this Agreement is false, misleading or erroneous in any material respect.

C. CITY will cure any Event of Default asserted by CONSULTANT within fortyfive (45) calendar days of CONSULTANT’s issuance of a Default Notice unless the Event of Default cannot reasonably be cured within the 45-day cure period. Prior to the expiration of the 45-day cure period, CITY may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CITY has commenced its efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 45-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, an Event of Default dealing with CITY’s failure to timely pay any undisputed sums to CONSULTANT as provided under Section 1.5, above, will be cured by CITY within five (5) 15 calendar days from the date of CONSULTANT’s Default Notice to CITY.

D. CITY, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also immediately suspend CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement pending
CONSULTANT’s cure of any Event of Default by giving CONSULTANT written notice of CITY’s intent to suspend CONSULTANT’s performance (hereinafter, a “Suspension Notice”). CITY may issue the Suspension Notice at any time upon the occurrence of an Event of Default. Upon such suspension, CONSULTANT will be compensated only for those services and tasks which have been rendered by CONSULTANT to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY up to the effective date of the suspension. No actual or asserted breach of this Agreement on the part of CITY will operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict CITY’s ability to suspend this Agreement as provided herein.

E. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach under this Agreement will constitute a waiver of any other or subsequent Event of Default or breach.

No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party will give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

F. The duties and obligations imposed under this Agreement and the rights and remedies available hereunder will be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights, and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. In addition to any other remedies available to CITY at law or under this Agreement in the event of any breach of this Agreement, CITY, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also pursue any one or more of the following remedies:
i. Upon written notice to CONSULTANT, the CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement in whole or in part;
ii. Upon written notice to CONSULTANT, the CITY may extend the time of performance;
iii. The CITY may proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of the Agreement to recover damages for CONSULTANT’s breach of the Agreement or to terminate the Agreement; or
iv. The CITY may exercise any other available and lawful right or remedy.

CONSULTANT will be liable for all legal fees plus other costs and expenses that CITY incurs upon a breach of this Agreement or in the CITY’s exercise of its remedies under this Agreement.

G. In the event CITY is in breach of this Agreement, CONSULTANT’s sole remedy will be the suspension or termination of this Agreement and/or the recovery of any unpaid sums lawfully owed to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for completed services and tasks.
16 5.3 SCOPE OF WAIVER: No waiver of any default or breach under this Agreement will constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant, warranty, agreement, term, condition, duty, or requirement contained in this Agreement. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party will give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

5.4 SURVIVING ARTICLES, SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS: The termination of this Agreement pursuant to any provision of this Article or by normal expiration of its term or any extension thereto will not operate to terminate any Article, Section or provision contained herein which provides that it will survive the termination or normal expiration of this Agreement.

VI.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

6.1 DOCUMENTS & DATA; LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: All Documents and Data will be and remain the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use or dissemination by CITY. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Documents and Data” means and includes all reports, analyses, correspondence, plans, designs, notes, summaries, strategies, charts, schedules, spreadsheets, calculations, lists, data compilations, documents or other materials developed and/or assembled by or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement and fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to Documents and Data stored digitally, magnetically and/or electronically. This Agreement creates, at no cost to CITY, a perpetual license for CITY to copy, use, reuse, disseminate and/or retain any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in all Documents and Data. CONSULTANT will require all subcontractors and subconsultants working on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement to agree in writing that CITY will be granted the same right to copy, use, reuse, disseminate and retain Documents and Data prepared or assembled by any subcontractor or subconsultant as applies to Documents and Data prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement.

6.2 CONFIDENTIALITY: All data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and will not be disclosed by CONSULTANT without prior written consent by CITY. CITY will grant such consent of disclosure as legally required. Upon request, all CITY data will be returned to CITY upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement. CONSULTANT will not use CITY’s name or insignia, photographs, or any publicity pertaining to the Work in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of CITY.

6.3 FALSE CLAIMS ACT: CONSULTANT warrants and represents that neither CONSULTANT nor any person who is an officer of, in a managing position with, or has an ownership interest in CONSULTANT has been determined by a court or 17 tribunal of competent jurisdiction to have violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C., §§3789 et seq. and the California False Claims Act, Government Code §§12650 et seq.

6.4 NOTICES: All notices permitted or required under this Agreement will be given to the respective Parties at the following addresses, or at such other address as the respective Parties may provide in writing for this purpose:

CONSULTANT: CITY:

Mark Thomas and Company,
Inc.
515 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor
Attn: Pat Somerville, P.E.

Phone: (213) 592-1570
City of Santa Fe Springs
Department of Public Works
11710 Telegraph Road.

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: (562) 868-0511
Attn: James Enriquez, P.E.

Such notices will be deemed effective when personally delivered or successfully transmitted by facsimile as evidenced by a fax confirmation slip or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit with the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the Party at its applicable address.

6.5 COOPERATION; FURTHER ACTS: The Parties will fully cooperate with one another and will take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as are reasonably necessary, appropriate, or convenient to achieve the purposes of this Agreement.

6.6 SUBCONTRACTING: CONSULTANT will not subcontract any portion of the Work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without the prior written approval of CITY. Subcontracts (including without limitation subcontracts with subconsultants), if any, will contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement, including provisions relating to insurance requirements and indemnification.

6.7 CITY’S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS: CITY reserves the right to employ other independent contractors in connection with the various projects worked upon by CONSULTANT.

6.8 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

A. CONSULTANT warrants, represents, and maintains that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants and represents that it has not paid, nor has it agreed to pay, any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY will have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of CITY, during the term of his or her service with CITY, will have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present 18 or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

B. CONSULTANT may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of CITY or whose business, regardless of location, would place CONSULTANT in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code §81000 et seq.

C. CONSULTANT shall not employ any official or employee of the CITY during the Term of this Agreement or any extension term. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate Government Code §§1090 et seq. CONSULTANT warrants and represents that no owner, principal, partner, officer, or employee of CONSULTANT is or has been an official, officer, employee, agent, or appointee of the CITY within the twelve-month period of time immediately preceding the Effective Date. If an owner, principal, partner, officer, employee, agent, or appointee of CONSULTANT was an official, officer, employee, agent, or appointee of the CITY within the twelve-month period immediately preceding the Effective Date, CONSULTANT warrants that any such individuals did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse the CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code §1090.

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

6.10 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: This Agreement shall be interpreted and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the Parties, venue, without exception, will be in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. If, and only if, applicable law requires that all or part of any such litigation be tried exclusively in federal court, venue, without exception, will be in the Central District of California located in the City of Los Angeles, California.

6.11 ATTORNEYS’ FEES: If either Party commences an action against the other Party, legal, administrative, or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation will be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other costs of such action.

6.12 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Agreement will be binding on the successors and assigns of the Parties.

6.13 NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFIT: There are no intended third-party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. All rights and benefits under this 19 Agreement inure exclusively to the Parties.

6.14 CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement will not be construed in favor of, or against, either Party but will be construed as if the Parties prepared this Agreement together through a process of negotiation and with the advice of their respective attorneys.

6.15 SEVERABILITY: If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions will continue in full force and effect.

6.16 AMENDMENT; MODIFICATION: No amendment, modification or supplement of this Agreement will be valid or binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties, subject to CITY approval. The requirement for written amendments, modifications or supplements cannot be waived and any attempted waiver will be void and invalid.

6.17 CAPTIONS: The captions of the various articles, sections and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement.

6.18 INCONSISTENCIES OR CONFLICTS: In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and any of the exhibits attached hereto, the provisions of this Agreement will control.

6.19 ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, including all attached exhibits, constitutes the entire, complete, final, and exclusive expression of the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, which may have been entered into between CITY and CONSULTANT prior to the execution of this Agreement. Any statements, representations, or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by either Party that is not embodied herein will not be valid or binding on the Parties. No amendment, modification or supplement to this Agreement will be valid and binding unless in writing and duly executed by the Parties pursuant to Section

6.16, above.

6.20 FORCE MAJEURE: The Completion Date for completing the Work may be extended in the event of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control of CONSULTANT and without the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, including but not limited to severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the CITY. CONSULTANT shall within three (3) calendar days of the commencement of such delay notify the City Representative in writing of the causes of the delay. The City Representative shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay and extend the time for performing the services and tasks for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the CITY Representative such delay is justified. The CITY Representative’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall CONSULTANT be entitled to recover damages against the CITY for 20 any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, CONSULTANT’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

6.21 COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement will be executed in three (3) original counterparts each of which will be of equal force and effect. No handwritten or typewritten amendment, modification, or supplement to any one counterpart will be valid or binding unless made to all three counterparts in conformity with Section

6.16, above. One fully executed original counterpart will be delivered to CONSULTANT and the remaining two original counterparts will be retained by CITY.
(SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first appearing in this Agreement, above.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS:

By:

René Bobadilla, City Manager

Date:_______________________

MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY,
INC.:

By:

Name:

Title:

Date:_______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _____

Rick Olivarez
City Attorney
Date:____________________________

EXHIBIT A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation
1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SAFETY AND ACCESS REDEFINED: NORWALK BOULEVARD / LOS NIETOS

ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
The City of Santa Fe Springs (“AGENCY”) is requesting proposals from qualified engineering firms (“CONSULTANT”) to provide Professional Engineering Design and Environmental Services for the Norwalk Boulevard/Los Nietos Road Grade Separation Project (“Project”). The goal for this phase of the Project is to evaluate grade separation alternatives, environmentally clear a preferred alternative and prepare the associated preliminary engineering plans.

Consultant will provide professional engineering and environmental services in support of and in close coordination with the Public Works/Engineering Division staff. The selected CONSULTANT will provide the professional engineering services necessary to complete the work in accordance with the Scope of Services set forth in this Request for Proposals (“RFP”).

The Project is partially funded through the United States Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program pursuant to FRA Grant Agreement No. 69A36526420710RCECA (Attachment C) and is therefore subject to applicable federal statutes, regulations, grant conditions, and contract requirements, including, without limitation, 2 C.F.R Part 200, Appendix II to Part 200. The selected CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, grant conditions, and contract requirements, including the applicable provisions of the FRA Grant Agreement, the Administrative and Programmatic Conditions of the Grant Program as described in Attachment B of this RFP, 2 CFR Part 200, 2 CFR Part 1500, and all other applicable federal requirements. The resulting Professional Services Agreement shall incorporate the applicable federal contract provisions and grant requirements governing CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services.

Procurement activities related to this federally funded Project are subject to applicable federal requirements under 2 CFR Part 200 and 2 CFR Part 1500.

The AGENCY invites proposals from professional engineering firms and will receive such proposals electronically ONLY through PlanetBids at
https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/65093/portal-home no later than 2 PM PDT on Thursday, August 20, 2026. The bid results will be available for viewing on PlanetBids shortly after the closing date.

The AGENCY reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals, to waive any irregularity in any Proposal received, and to be the sole judge of the merits of the Proposal received, and to take all Proposals under advisement for a period of 60 days. The AGENCY will enter into a Professional Services Agreement with CONSULTANT whose Proposal best meets the requirements of the Scope of Work as determined by the AGENCY. The Proposal submitted by the selected CONSULTANT shall be incorporated as part of the Professional Services Agreement.

Procurement under this RFP shall be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition in accordance with 2 CFR §§200.317–200.327. Proposers must disclose any real or apparent conflicts of interest in compliance with 2 CFR §200.318(c). Cost-plus-percentage-of-cost contracts ADDENDUM NO. 1
RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation
1 are prohibited. The selected CONSULTANT’s agreement shall include all applicable federal contract provisions required under 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix II.

All questions regarding this RFP must be submitted in writing via the City’s PlanetBids Portal. To submit questions regarding this RFP, please visit the City’s PlanetBids, locate the associated solicitation, and click the “Q&A” tab. Responses to questions will be posted in an Addendum shortly after the period for receiving questions has passed.

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
SAFETY AND ACCESS REDEFINED:

NORWALK BOULEVARD/ LOS NIETOS ROAD

GRADE SEPARATION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Deadline for Submission: August 20, 2026– 2:00 PM

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS PROJECT MAY BE DIRECTED TO:

James Enriquez, P.E.,
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: (562) 868-0511
[email protected]
RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade
Separation
2 INSTRUCTIONS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

1. PROPOSED SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION DATE/TIME
Request for Proposals Released Monday, July 20, 2026
Deadline to Submit Questions Monday, August 10, 2026 – 2:00 PM Deadline to Receive Proposals Thursday, August 20, 2026 – 2:00 PM The AGENCY reserves the right to modify any element of the timeline should that become necessary.

2. PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING
No Pre-Submittal Meeting has been scheduled for this project.

3. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
All CONSULTANTS for this solicitation must register on PlanetBids at https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/65093/portal-home. Only those CONSULTANTS registered for this solicitation through the City’s website will receive automatic notifications when any update to this solicitation is made. The City does not have an obligation to notify any CONSULTANT other than through the PlanetBids notification system. To be considered, the City must receive the proposal electronically ONLY thru PlanetBids at https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/65093/portal-home by no later than 2 PM PDT on Thursday, August 20, 2026.

RFP and amendments to the RFP, received after the date and time specified above will not be accepted.

4. DISSEMINATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) INFORMATION From time to time, the AGENCY may issue responses to requests for clarifications, questions, comments, and addenda to this RFP, or other material related to this solicitation.

By submitting a Proposal, Consultant is deemed to have knowledge and notice of all information pertaining to this RFP.

5. ADDENDA TO THE RFP
Any change(s) to the requirements of this RFP initiated by the AGENCY will be made via PlanetBids at the link above. Addenda issued pertaining to this RFP shall be incorporated into and made a part of the terms and conditions of any resulting Agreement. The AGENCY will not be bound to any modifications to, or deviations from the requirements set forth in this RFP unless they have been documented by addenda to this RFP.

6. QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS
All questions and requests for clarification regarding this RFP must be submitted via the City’s PlanetBids Portal by no later than by 2:00 p.m. on Monday, August 10, 2026. To submit questions regarding this RFP, please visit the City’s PlanetBids, locate the 10 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation associated solicitation, and click the “Q&A” tab. Responses to questions will be posted in an Addendum shortly after the period for receiving questions has passed. Requests for clarifications, questions and comments received after 2:00 p.m. on Monday, August 10, 2026, will not be responded to.

The AGENCY, in its sole discretion, will respond to requests for clarifications, questions and comments

7. COST OF RFP PREPARATION
Any party responding to this RFP shall do so at their own risk and cost. The AGENCY shall not, under any circumstances, be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any CONSULTANT who elects to submit a Proposal in response to this RFP or by any CONSULTANT that is selected for Professional Services Agreement. Pre-Agreement expenses are defined as expenses incurred by CONSULTANTS in:
• Preparing a Proposal and related information in response to this RFP; • Submitting a Proposal to the AGENCY;
• Negotiations with the AGENCY on any matter related to this RFP; • Costs associated with interviews, meetings, travel or presentations; or • Any and all other expenses incurred by a Consultant prior to the date of award, if any, of a Professional Services Agreement
The AGENCY will provide only the staff assistance and documentation specifically referred to herein and will not be responsible for any other cost or obligation of any kind, which may be incurred by the Consultant.

8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
By responding to this RFP, each CONSULTANT represents to the best of its knowledge that:
• Neither CONSULTANT, nor any of its affiliates, proposed subconsultants, and associated staff, have communicated with any member of the AGENCY since the release of this RFP on any matter related to this RFP except to the extent specified in this RFP;
• Neither CONSULTANT, nor any of its affiliates, proposed subconsultants and associated staff, has obtained or used any information regarding this RFP and the proposed Scope of Work that has not been generally available to all CONSULTANTS, and
• No conflict of interest exists under any applicable statute or regulation or as a result of any past or current contractual relationship with the AGENCY; • Neither CONSULTANT, nor any of its affiliates, proposed subconsultants, or associated staff, have any financial interest in any property that will be affected by any of the potential Agency projects.
• Is in compliance with federal conflict-of-interest requirements under 2 CFR 11 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation §200.318(c).

9. MANDATORY FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
This Project is funded in whole or in part through the United States Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program pursuant to FRA Grant Agreement No. 69A36526420710RCECA. The selected CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, grant conditions, and contract requirements governing this federally funded Project, including the federal contract provisions incorporated into the Professional Services Agreement. The selected CONSULTANT will be required to execute the Professional Services Agreement, including Exhibit D (Federal Contract Requirements).

A. Debarment & Suspension.

The Proposer must certify that neither it nor its principals are debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for participation in federally assisted contracts.

B. Federal and State Labor Standards.

The Proposer is advised that portions of the Work may be subject to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and the California Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code sections 1720 et seq.), as applicable. The selected CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable labor standards including any applicable wage determinations, labor standard provisions, and related contract requirements incorporated into the Professional Services Agreement.

C. Domestic Sourcing Requirements.

The Proposer is advised that materials, equipment, and products furnished under this Project may be subject to applicable domestic sourcing requirements, including the American Iron and Steel (AIS) requirements and the Build America, Buy America (BABA), as determined by the FRA Grant Agreement and applicable federal law. The selected CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable domestic sourcing requirements and shall provide supporting certifications and documentation as required by the AGENCY.

10. KEY PERSONNEL
It is imperative that key personnel proposed to provide services have the background, experience and qualifications to properly undertake all necessary services for the successful completion of the Scope of Work. The CONSULTANT must identify all proposed key personnel in its Proposal.

The AGENCY reserves the right to approve all key personnel individually for any and all projects authorized by the AGENCY as a result of this solicitation. After a Professional Services Agreement has been executed, CONSULTANT may not replace any key staff without written approval from the AGENCY. The AGENCY must approve replacement staff before a substitute person is assigned to a project. The AGENCY reserves the right to require the CONSULTANT to replace a staff person assigned to the contract should the AGENCY consider replacement to be for the good of the project. Replacement staff will 12 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation be subject to the AGENCY’s approval prior to assignment by CONSULTANT.

11. BASIS FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT
The AGENCY intends to select the CONSULTANT on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations. To that end, a Professional Services Agreement will be awarded to the CONSULTANT whose Proposal best meets the requirements of the Scope of Work as determined by the AGENCY. The Proposal submitted by CONSULTANT shall be incorporated as part of the respective Professional Services Agreement.

12. TERM OF AGREEMENT
It is the AGENCY’s intent to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (sample attached to this RFP, Attachment A) with the selected CONSULTANT for up to a three (3) year term.

The AGENCY will compensate the CONSULTANT for actual hours worked by assigned personnel on a monthly basis. The CONSULTANT will provide an invoice clearly documenting the services performed each day and the number of hours worked.

Compensation will be based on the Schedule of Hourly rates.

13. REQUIRED FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS
The AGENCY is requiring all proposals submitted in response to this RFP to follow a specific format. The Proposal, including the Appendices, shall not exceed thirty (30) pages in length, utilizing 8.5" x 11" pages with one-inch margins. As an exception, 11" x 17" pages may be used to display organizational charts. Font size shall not be smaller than 12 point for text or eight (8) point for graphics. Dividers used to separate sections will not be counted.

CONSULTANTS are required to prepare their written proposals in accordance with the instructions outlined below. Deviations from these instructions may be construed as nonresponsive and may be cause for disqualification. Emphasis should be placed on accuracy, completeness, and clarity of content.

The written proposal should be organized as described below. Each section of the written proposal should contain the title of that section, with the response following the title. The following are the required titles with a brief statement as to that section’s desired content:

A. Letter of Offer
The Letter of Offer shall be addressed to James Enriquez, Director of Public Works / City Engineer, City of Santa Fe Springs, and at a minimum, must contain the following:
 Identification of Consulting firm or individual, including name, address and telephone number.
 Name, title, address, and telephone number of Contact Person. 13 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation  Federal Tax ID or Social Security No. for firm or individual.  A statement to the effect that the Proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than 90 calendar days from the date of submittal.
 Identification of all proposed sub-consultants or subcontractors, including legal name of the company, address and contact person.
 Acknowledgement that CONSULTANT is obligated by all addenda to this RFP.  Signature of a person authorized to bind Consulting firm to the terms of the RFP.
 Signed statement attesting that all information submitted with the Proposal is true and correct.

B. Qualifications of the Firm
This section of the Proposal shall explain the ability of the CONSULTANT to satisfactorily perform the Scope of Work. More specifically, in this section, the CONSULTANT shall:
• Provide a profile of the CONSULTANT including the types of services offered; the year founded; form of organization (corporate, partnership, sole proprietorship); number, size and location of offices; number of employees. • Provide a detailed description of CONSULTANT’s financial condition, including any conditions (e.g., bankruptcy, pending litigation, outstanding claims more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for or against the firm; planned office closures or mergers that may impede CONSULTANT’s ability to provide on-call engineering and professional consulting services. • Provide a list of previous projects in which the CONSULTANT and subconsultants have worked together. The list should clearly identify the previous projects and include a summary of the roles and responsibilities of each party.
• Provide information on the strength and stability of the CONSULTANT; current staffing capability and availability; current workload; and proven record of meeting schedules on similar types of projects.

C. Proposed Staffing
This section should identify key personnel to be assigned and their qualifications and experience. The Proposal should include brief resumes, not more than two (2) pages for each individual.

A statement that key personnel will be available to the extent proposed for the duration of the Professional Services Agreement and an acknowledgement that no person assigned to a project shall be removed or replaced without the prior written concurrence of the AGENCY.

D. CONSULTANTS and/or Sub-consultants
14 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation The AGENCY desires to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with a CONSULTANT that will be responsible for all work, products, and services. There is to be no assignment of any aspect of assigned projects without the prior written authorization of the AGENCY. If the CONSULTANT plans on using subcontractors, then company profile, name, address, and telephone for all subcontractors providing support during the term of the Professional Service Agreement is required. Define the responsibilities and give a description of services to be provided by subcontractors. Describe the CONSULTANT’s business and reporting relationship with any subcontractors. Include references and resumes for all third- party Firms in the RFP. The AGENCY has the right to accept or reject any changes made to the proposed project team members, including the use of subcontractors.

E. Work Approach
This section of the Proposal shall include a narrative that addresses the Scope of Work and demonstrates that CONSULTANT understands the Scope of Work. More specifically, the Proposal should include the CONSULTANT’s general approach for providing the services specified in the Scope of Work. Additionally, the CONSULTANT shall demonstrate that the work approach is consistent with the requirements of the FRA RCE Grant Program as described in Attachment B. The work approach shall be of sufficient detail to demonstrate CONSULTANT’s ability to accomplish AGENCY’s objectives as defined in the Scope of Services section of this RFP.

F. Client References
List the three (3) most recent similar clients (including name, address, contact person, and phone number). For each client provide a description of projects completed and their location. The AGENCY is most interested in California municipality clients and may randomly select agencies to contact from the list as part of the evaluation process.

G. Rights to Materials
All responses, inquiries, and correspondence relating to this RFP and all reports, charts, displays, schedules, exhibits, and other documentation produced by the CONSULTANT that are submitted as part of the Proposal and not withdrawn shall, upon receipt by AGENCY, become property of AGENCY.

H. Required Forms & Certifications
The six forms and certifications listed below and attached to this RFP in Attachment B shall be signed and submitted with the consultant’s proposal as appendices:

Attachment B1: Levine Act Disclosure Statement
Attachment B2: Debarment Certification
Attachment B3: Lobbying Certification
15 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation Attachment B4: Non-Collusion Affidavit
Attachment B5: Conflict of Interest Statement
Attachment B6: Title VI Non-Discrimination Assurance
I. City’s Standard Public Works Agreement (see Attachment A. Sample Professional Services Agreement)
The referenced attachment is the City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement, which will be executed by the selected consultant. Proposers shall review the Agreement and provide a statement that they will comply with all aspects of the Agreement or provide any comments that they would like the City to consider.

Please note that the City does not guarantee that any revisions to the contract will be accepted. The selected consultant shall be prepared to execute the contract as is, if the City does not accept any changes provided by the consultant.

J. Cost Proposal
All Proposers are required to submit a Cost Proposal which shall be submitted separately and concurrently with the technical proposal, uploaded as a separate electronic filed in PlanetBids. Costs should be clearly defined in a matrix by task and subtask, with hours for each job classification to ensure fees proposed can be evaluated. This shall include the firm’s Standard Hourly Fee Schedule and the full scope of services proposed by the Consultant.

14. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA
A. GENERAL
The Proposal will be evaluated based on the information and qualifications presented, reference checks, and other information, which may be gathered independently. Requests for clarification and/or additional information from any CONSULTANT may be requested at any point in the evaluation process. Pricing (hourly rates) will be an important criterion; however, the AGENCY reserves the right to select a firm that presents the best qualifications, but not necessarily the lowest price.

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA (100 points maximum)

1. Completeness of Proposal. (10 points)

2. CONSULTANT and key personnel’s experience in performing similar work. (20 points)

3. CONSULTANT’s demonstrated understanding of the Scope of Work. (40 points)

4. Quality of work previously performed by the firm as verified by reference checks. (15 points)

5. Relevant project experience. (15 points)
16 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation C. EVALUATION PROCESS
After evaluating all Proposals received, the AGENCY will rank the firms, and the most qualified firms will be invited to an interview, if necessary, with the AGENCY evaluation committee.

D. INTERVIEW
For the interview, if necessary, the CONSULTANT should have available the project manager and key personnel to discuss the following:

1. Major elements of the Proposal

2. Description of related experience for CONSULTANT

3. Description of related experience for key personnel
E. FINAL SELECTION
The final selection will be the CONSULTANT which, as determined by the AGENCY, is the most responsive and responsible, meets the AGENCY’s requirements in providing the Scope of Services of this RFP, and is in the AGENCY’s best interest. The AGENCY maintains the sole and exclusive right to evaluate the merits of the Proposals received.

15. EXCEPTIONS OR ADDITIONS
The Proposal shall include a detailed description of all the exceptions to the provisions and conditions of this RFP upon which the CONSULTANT’s submittal is contingent and which shall take precedence over this RFP.

16. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to executing a Professional Services Agreement, the CONSULTANT will be required to submit to the City the required insurance certificates.

The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold AGENCY and its officers, agents, employees, and assigns harmless from any liability imposed for injury whether arising before or after completion of work hereunder or in any manner directly or indirectly caused, occasioned, or contributed to, or claims to be caused, occasioned, or contributed to, in whole or in part, by reason of any act or omission, including strict liability or negligence of CONSULTANT, or of anyone acting under CONSULTANT’s direction or control or on its behalf, in connection with, or incident to, or arising out of the performance of the Professional Services Agreement.

The CONSULTANT selected will be required to maintain the following levels of insurance coverage for the duration of the services provided, as well as any sub-consultants hired by the CONSULTANT:
17 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation • Worker’s Compensation insurance with statutory limits, and employer’s liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per accident • Commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence
• Business automobile liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles.
• Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance, with a combined single limit of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence.

17. RIGHTS OF THE AGENCY
The AGENCY reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without prior notice, to terminate this RFP; to issue subsequent RFPs; to procure any project-related service by other means; to modify the Scope of Work; to modify the AGENCY’s obligations or selection criteria; or take other actions needed to meet the AGENCY’s goals. In addition, the AGENCY reserves the following rights:
• The right to accept or reject any, and all Proposals, or any item or part thereof, or to waive any informalities or irregularities in any Proposal. • The right to amend, withdraw or cancel this RFP at any time without prior notice. • The right to request or obtain additional information about any, and all Proposals. • The right to conduct a back-ground checks of any CONSULTANT. This may include, but is not limited to, contacting individuals and organizations regarding capabilities and experience of the CONSULTANT.
• The right to waive minor discrepancies, informalities and/or irregularities in the RFP or in the requirements for submission of a Proposal.
• The right to modify the response requirements for this RFP. This may include a requirement to submit additional information; an extension of the due date for submittals; and modification of any part of this RFP, including timing of RFP decisions and the schedule.
• The right to disqualify any CONSULTANT on the basis of real or perceived conflict of interest that is disclosed or revealed by information available to the AGENCY. • The right at any time, subject only to restrictions imposed by a written contractual agreement, to terminate negotiations with any CONSULTANT and to negotiate with other CONSULTANTS who are deemed qualified.
• Although cost is an important factor in deciding which CONSULTANT will be selected, it is only one of the criteria used to evaluate Proposals. The AGENCY reserves the absolute right, in its sole discretion, to award a Professional Services Agreement, if any, which under all the circumstances will best serve the public interest. • The AGENCY reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals or to make no award at all, to determine whether any alternate Proposals are equal to the specifications and 18 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation general requirements, and to accept Proposals with minor variations from the RFP and/or conditions. The AGENCY reserves the right to negotiate for a higher level, lower level or additional Scope of Work.

This RFP is not a contract or commitment of any kind by the AGENCY. This RFP does not commit the AGENCY to enter into negotiations with any CONSULTANT and the AGENCY makes no representations that any Professional Services Agreement will be awarded to any CONSULTANT that responds to this RFP. Proposals received by the AGENCY are public information and will be made available to any person upon request after the AGENCY has completed the Proposal evaluation process. Submitted Proposals are not to be copyrighted.

Should a Professional Services Agreement be subsequently entered into between the AGENCY and CONSULTANT, it shall be noted that entering into such an Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and given effect in all respects according to the laws of the State of California.

Waiver of Proposals
Proposals may be withdrawn by submitting written notice to the AGENCY’s Contact Person at any time prior to the submittal deadline. Upon submission, the Proposal and all collateral material shall become the property of the AGENCY.

18. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT DISCLOSURES
The CONSULTANT acknowledges that all information submitted in response to this RFP is subject to public inspection under the California Public Records Act unless exempted by law. If the CONSULTANT believes any information submitted should be protected from such disclosure due to its confidential, proprietary nature or other reasons, it must identify such information and the basis for the belief in its disclosure. Any Proposal submitted with a blanket statement or limitation that would prohibit or limit such public inspection shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected. Notwithstanding that disclaimer, it is the intention of the AGENCY to keep all submittals confidential until such time as negotiations are successfully concluded.

19. PREVAILING WAGE RATES
Depending upon the scope of work, the required contract provisions may include the California State Prevailing Wages (Federal Payment of Predetermined Minimum Wage applies only to federal-aid construction contracts). Prevailing wages will apply if the services to be performed will involve land surveying (such as flag persons, survey party chief, rodman or chainman), materials sampling and testing (such as drilling rig operators, pile driving, crane operators), inspection work, soils or foundation investigations, environmental hazardous materials and so forth.

California State Prevailing Wage information is available through the California Department of Industrial Relations websites below. The selected Consultant will need to provide its Prevailing Wage Policy if their participation on the project includes prevailing 19 RFP 2027-2 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation wage work. The policy will include information on the accounting treatment of delta base and delta fringe and verify the accounting treatment is consistent every year.

DIR FAQ Website: http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/FAQ_PrevailingWage.html DIR Wage Determination website:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm
Caltrans Prevailing Wage Interpretive Guidance:
https://ig.dot.ca.gov/resources/interpretive-guidance
20 SCOPE OF SERVICES
SAFETY AND ACCESS REDEFINED:

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
The City of Santa Fe Springs (AGENCY) has obtained federal funding through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program (RCE) to commence the project development phase to grade separate the existing railroad crossings at Norwalk Boulevard (DOT Crossing No. 027649P) and Los Nietos Road (DOT Crossing No. 027650J) along the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Subdivision. The grade crossing on Norwalk Boulevard and the UPRR tracks (DOT Crossing No. 761621V) shall remain as an at-grade crossing. This phase of work will include the alternatives analysis, environmental clearance and preliminary engineering. The total grant award is $3.3M for this phase of work and was prepared in cooperation with the BNSF Railway (BNSF) and California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSR).

The CAHSR has released their draft Environmental Document (ED) for the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment, which includes the two crossings at Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road.

The ED reflects two roadway underpass structures to provide the grade separated crossings. The AGENCY is interested in advancing this project forward in parallel with CAHSR, including the evaluation of additional alternatives to achieve the goal of grade separating the crossings while providing for the future CAHSR, selecting a preferred alternative and obtaining environmental compliance through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The following scope of services provides the general framework and expectations for the completion of this Project phase of work. It is expected that the Consultant will expand and further detail the services the Consultant deems necessary to successfully complete this phase.

Task 1 – Project Management and Administration

1.1 Project Management
The Consultant shall establish an organization structure coordinating the efforts of the Consultant’s Team. The roles of the key members of the team shall be clearly identified within the organization chart, proposed budget, and in the Proposal.

The Project Manager shall conduct, oversee and manage the performance of the work including the Coordination of the development of the overall work tasks, management of the schedule, budget, staff resources and reporting work progress and schedule updates monthly to City’s Project Manager

1.2 Project Meetings
The Contractor shall organize and facilitate regular project team meetings throughout the project. Regular meetings shall be facilitated monthly with the Project Development Team (PDT). Contractor shall record and document the discussions, decisions and actions agreed to at these meetings and provide in written meeting minutes. Intermittent status meetings will be conducted on an as-needed basis with the City.

1.3 Schedule
The Contractor shall submit a baseline schedule at the start of the work. The baseline schedule will serve as the basis for monitoring and controlling project activities. The baseline schedule will be reviewed and approved by the City. The schedule shall show the 21 relationship of the project tasks, expected sequence of design, milestone submittals and the effect of any impacts to the overall schedule.

The Contractor is required to update the master schedule regularly through the completion of the design. The Contractor shall furnish a monthly schedule update for each task to the City with sufficient detail to show the actual versus scheduled progress on tasks and subtasks. The schedule shall highlight critical path items.

1.4 Project Reporting
The Consultant shall provide monthly progress reports as part of the monthly invoice. The progress reports shall address activities and progress within the recent billing cycle by task, identify any issues or concerns and provide upcoming deliverables and work to be performed in the subsequent cycle.

1.5 Third Party Coordination
Third party coordination will be required throughout the duration of the project. This may include, but not be limited to, the BNSF, CAHSR, SCRRA/Metrolink, CPUC, LA Metro, and the County of Los Angeles. Consultant will be responsible scheduling of meetings, preparing exhibits and meeting minutes.

1.6 Community Outreach
The City will lead the community outreach efforts, including stakeholder meetings. The Consultant will support this effort, preparing and providing all technical information, exhibits and presentation materials. Attendance at up to two (2) community meetings, format to be determined, and five (5) stakeholder meetings are anticipated. Results from these meetings will be used as feedback in generating the project alternatives and resulting preferred alternative.

Task 2 – Alternatives Analysis

2.1 Data Collection
Consultant will conduct field reviews, with documented photo log. Consultant will collect existing topographic maps, record drawings, reports, right of way documents and other available materials from BNSF, City, County and other agencies, as appropriate.

Deliverables:
• Photo Log (PDF)

2.2 Aerial Topography
Consultant will provide aerial photography and topographic mapping in accordance with the National Map Accuracy. Horizontal and vertical aerial control panels will be set to meet aerial triangulation requirements and tied into the project control established for the project.

Final aerial mapping will consist of 40-scale with contours at 1-foot intervals. Mapping will extend a minimum of 150 feet beyond existing right-of-way (ROW) but encompassing the entire parcels adjacent to Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road. The approximate limits of the mapping are:
• Norwalk Boulevard – Burke Street to Pacific Street
• Los Nietos Road – 2000 feet west of Norwalk Blvd to Dice Road. • BNSF – 2000 feet northwest of Norwalk Blvd crossing and 1500 southeast of Los Nietos Road crossing.
• UPRR – 1500 feet west and 1000 feet east of Norwalk Boulevard 22 Color digital orthophotography shall be provided in accordance with standard mapping practice, images will be rectified at ground level. The digital orthophotos will be georeferenced to the project horizontal datum.

Consultant shall also provide drone imagery of the project site for use in developing graphics and renderings to support the project through the outreach efforts and project development.

Deliverables:
• Aerial mapping in CAD
• Digital orthophoto in CAD
• Drone imagery

2.3 Right of Way
Cadastral research will be performed by the Consultant within the City and County and other applicable entities for existing centerline and right-of-way files and/or available cadastral records in support of the centerline and street rights-of-way, the BNSF right of way, and parcel lines within the project limits. Cadastral records include Assessor Parcel Maps, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps and/or Record of Surveys will be utilized for this effort.

2.4 Utility Coordination
Initial request letters (Letter “A”) will be developed for City approval. These letters will distributed by the Consultant and request information depicting facility locations for each utility company as well as existing rights (franchise, easement, prior rights, etc.) within project limits. A master list of utility companies will be developed from current lists available from the Authority, City, and County as well as an Underground Service Alert query. A master utility matrix will be developed and maintained throughout the life of the project.

Based upon the utility company information received, a master base map of existing utilities will be developed for the project study area and will be used for analysis in determining impacts for each of the project alternatives.

Ongoing coordination will be provided including oversight of concept development, developing and reviewing potential utility impacts, initiating rights discussions (franchise, prior rights, easements, etc) and potential relocation costs.

Deliverables:
• Copies of initial request letters and responses
• Master Utility Matrix
• Utility Mapping

2.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum
Consultant will conduct a site visit to observe the topography and visualize the proposed improvements at the project location. Consultant will review available subsurface data from nearby structures or published geologic maps, to determine general subsurface conditions at the project site including historical and current groundwater levels from record data. Findings will be provided in a Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum.

Deliverables:
• Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum (PDF)

2.6 Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Report
23 Consultant shall prepare and submit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to support any required storm drain relocation and realignment. Research at the City and County is required to establish the areas tributary to the project site. Identification of existing drainage channels and storm drain systems shall be provided. Analysis shall be per the County of Los Angeles requirements. Preliminary pump station sizing shall be included, if necessary.

Deliverables:
• Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Report (PDF)

2.7 Traffic Study
Consultant shall prepare a traffic study for the project area and vicinity, generally bounded by Slauson Avenue, Santa Fe Springs Road, Telegraph Road and Pioneer Boulevard. Study shall evaluate of existing peak hour intersections volumes, traffic forecasts for a 20-year horizon, performance of intersection level of service calculations for key arterials and intersections in the area and traffic operations analyses of the recommended alternative to determine geometric requirements. Differing intersection configurations for Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road will be required. Potential detour routing shall be considered for a full closure of the roadways during construction.

Intersection vehicular traffic counts, including pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and trucks shall be collected. A 72-hour count shall be conducted at both grade crossings with all necessary classifications identified, including buses, trucks by number of axles, hazardous material carrying trucks, pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. Train counts will be conducted and broken out between freight and passenger. This information will be used in future grant applications and Section 190 Application with CPUC.

Deliverables:
• Traffic Study (PDF)

2.8 Alternatives Analysis
The Contractor shall evaluate all existing and previous work on the Project that may previously been prepared by the City, BNSF and CAHSR.

Initial Concept Development: Consultant shall develop a concept alternative analysis with up to four build alternatives, including both roadway underpass and overpass solutions. These concepts will support the workshops to be conducted with the City, BNSF and CAHSR, or other agents or personnel deemed necessary. Parameters of each concept shall be documented, including, but not limited to, the roadway horizontal and vertical geometry, lane configuration, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, railroad shoofly, utility impacts and potential right of way impacts.

Workshops: Consultant will conduct up to two workshops with City, BNSF and CAHSR staff to review the project, and report its findings. The roadway and track design criteria will be evaluated and agreed upon. Following the workshops, it is anticipated that a preferred build concept will be selected.

Concept Refinement: Based upon direction and parameters received at the workshops the selected concept geometrics and profile, shoofly (if applicable) will be refined to establish the project footprint.

Renderings: Consultant shall prepare up to two oblique view renderings using the drone imagery for the selected alternative. Two additional street level renderings will be required, one for each roadway.
24 Alternatives Report: Consultant shall prepare an Alternatives Report which will document the build alternatives generated. Report shall include an Executive Summary, Background, Purpose and Need, Design Criteria, Existing Conditions, and Alternatives will be described and exhibits shown reflecting the plan and profile views, shoofly layout (as needed), structure general plan(s), utility impacts, right of way impacts, and rough order of magnitude cost and potential construction duration.

Deliverables:
• Agenda, Exhibits and Minutes from Workshops
• Renderings (four total)
• Alternatives Report (PDF)

2.9 BNSF Concept Plan Submittal
Consultant shall prepare a concept submittal package for the selected alternative. Submittal contents as required under Section 3.10 of the UPRR/BNSF Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. Consultant shall include an initial concept submittal and two resubmittals to obtain BNSF approval.

Deliverables:
• BNSF Concept Submittal
• Concept Resubmittals, as required.

Task 3 – Environmental Clearance
Upon selection of the preferred alternative, the Consultant will prepare a thorough project description defining the limits of project-related activities, which will be used as the basis for environmental technical studies conducted for this project.

3.1 CEQA Compliance
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, railroad grade separations shall be statutorily exempt from CEQA documentation and public disclosure requirements. Consultant shall prepare a Notice of Exemption (NOE) and provide it to the City for approval and submittal to the County of Los Angeles for recordation and State Clearinghouse.

Deliverables:
• CEQA Notice of Exemption

3.2 NEPA Compliance
The Project will receive federal funds and therefore NEPA compliance is required, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will be lead agency. The Consultant will be responsible for the full preparation of the appropriate level NEPA document and associated technical memorandums or studies, including coordination with FRA for the review and approval of the documents. Consultant to clearly define the anticipated document type and include all necessary services, including public review period, through completion and acceptance by FRA.

Deliverables:
• NEPA Compliance Document

3.3 Technical Studies
The Consultant shall clearly identify the anticipated technical studies, memorandums or reports to support the NEPA document. These may include, but not be limited to, traffic, biological, cultural resources, air quality, noise study and hazardous materials. Efforts to 25 include necessary review cycles by FRA.

Deliverables:
• Technical Studies
Task 4 – Preliminary Engineering
With the BNSF approval of the Concept Submittal, Consultant shall commence preliminary engineering to refine the selected alternative prepare 35% plans and project cost estimate, including right of way impact map.

4.1 Roadway Plans
Consultant will prepare preliminary plan and profile sheets at 20 scale and shall include the following:
• Title Sheet
• General Notes
• Typical Sections
• Plan and Profile
• Site Improvements, reestablishment of access, site modifications • Storm Drains
• Utilities, with identification of impacted utilities
• Construction Staging

4.2 Traffic Plans
Consultant will prepare preliminary traffic sheets, including the following:
• Signing and Striping
• Traffic Signals
• Detour Routing

4.3 Structures
Consultant will prepare an Advance Planning Study (APS) for the bridge(s) and retaining wall layouts including the recommended wall type. The APS shall consider alternative structure types, including pros and cons, constructability, maintenance and aesthetics.

Bridges shall adhere to the appropriate requirements of BNSF, AREMA, CPUC and Caltrans (vehicular bridges only).
• Advance Planning Study
• Bridge General Plan(s)
• Retaining Walls, layouts and elevation

4.4 Track
Consultant will prepare the necessary track-related plans for the project, in accordance to BNSF, UPRR, CPUC and AREMA requirements, including the following:
• BNSF Shoofly, if required
• BNSF Permanent track modifications, if required
• UPRR Permanent track modifications, if required
• Modified at-grade UPRR crossing

4.5 Right of Way
Consultant will prepare a right of way impact map that shall include the potential acquisitions, full and partial, temporary construction easements, utility easements along with cost estimate.
26 • Right of way impact map
• Right of way cost estimate

4.6 Project Cost
Consultant shall prepare a preliminary cost estimate for the proposed improvements, inclusive of construction, right of way and programming costs for future phases of work.

Task 4 Deliverables:
• 35% Plans, PDF
• Right of Way Impact Map, PDF
• 35% Estimate, PDF

EXHIBIT B

CONSULTANT PROPOSAL
PREPARED FOR:

City of Santa Fe Springs
August 20, 2026
Proposal
SAFETY AND ACCESS REDEFINED:

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD

GRADE SEPARATION

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 2 ends

CONTENTS
A. Letter of Offer
B. Qualifications of the Firm 1
C. Proposed Staffing 8
D. Consultants and/or Subconsultants 12
E. Work Approach 14
F. Client References 28
G. City’s Standard Public Works Agreement 29
Appendices
Appendix A: Resumes A-1
Appendix B: H. Required Forms & Certifications B-1
Levine Act Disclosure Statement
Debarment Certification
Lobbying Certification
Non-Collusion Affidavit
Conflict of Interest Statement
Title VI Non-Discrimination Assurance
August 20, 2026
City of Santa Fe Springs
Department of Public Works
Attn: James Enriquez, PE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Subject: Proposal for Professional Engineering and Environmental Services Norwalk Boulevard / Los Nietos Road Grade Separation Project Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Clearance
Dear Mr. Enriquez:

Grade separation projects require more than strong engineering. They require a team that understands the technical challenges, the rail environment, and the coordination needed to keep a project moving forward. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. (Mark Thomas) brings that experience to the Project.

Our team has delivered more than 100 grade separation projects throughout California, including 40 in Southern California. We have direct experience with solutions similar to those being considered for Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road, as well as the coordination required to advance complex projects through railroad approvals, environmental clearance and preliminary engineering.

EXPERIENCE THAT DIRECTLY ALIGNS WITH THIS PROJECT. The Mark Thomas team has extensive experience delivering grade separation projects throughout California. Our experience includes projects in complex urban environments and direct coordination with railroads, public agencies, and other stakeholders.

We understand that successfully advancing a grade separation requires more than developing a technically sound design. Early decisions can affect constructability, cost, environmental clearance, right of way, rail coordination, and the City’s ability to move the project into the next phase. Our experience allows us to identify these issues early and work with the City to address them, as our core team did on the recently completed Rosecrans/Marquardt grade separation for the City.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED PROJECT MANAGER. Our team will be led by Pat Somerville, PE. Pat has built his career around the planning and delivery of grade separation projects throughout Southern California. He has been involved in 28 grade separation projects, including both overpasses and underpasses similar to those being considered for Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road, and has served as the overall contract project manager for 14 grade separations.

A. LETTER OF OFFER
(213) 592-1570
515 S. FLOWER STREET, 18TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 MARKTHOMAS.COM
(213) 592-1570
515 S. FLOWER STREET, 18TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 MARKTHOMAS.COM
Pat brings a detailed understanding of geometric design and grade separation requirements, including the integration of Complete Streets and active transportation elements. He also brings the project understanding and consensus-building skills needed, as he has already demonstrated in developing the concepts for the Federal Railroad Administration grant application that garnered approval of the City, BNSF Railway and the CHSR Authority.

Pat’s experience will allow him to anticipate challenges, keep the team focused on the City’s priorities, and help move the project forward through preliminary engineering and environmental clearance.

A TEAM BUILT WITH EXPERIENCE AND A HISTORY OF DELIVERY. Pat will be supported by a team of inhouse experts and teaming partners with experience in grade separation projects, bridge and structures design, roadway improvements, rail, environmental clearance, and agency coordination.

Biggs Cardosa Associates will provide bridge and structures expertise, while HDR will support rail, environmental, and additional technical support. Both firms bring experience that complement Mark Thomas’ grade separation and roadway expertise. Together, this team provides the right technical depth and project experience needed to advance the Project. Mark Thomas has successfully worked with both subconsultants on numerous similar projects for local agencies, providing an established team dynamic and proven understanding of the technical coordination required for complex transportation projects.

Subconsultant Information
As an Associate Principal of the firm, I am attest that all information in this proposal is true and correct. I am authorized to negotiate the terms of the proposal and execute a contract with the City in accordance with the provisions of this RFP. We acknowledge the receipt of Addendum 1 dated August 17th, 2026 respectively. The Proposal submitted herein shall remain valid for a period of not less than 90 calendar days from the date of submittal, as required by the RFP. Our Federal Tax Identification Number is 94-1451490. If you have any questions about our proposal, please contact me by email at [email protected], by phone at (714) 815-5222, or at the address listed below.

Sincerely,
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC.

Pat Somerville, PE
Associate Principal + Division Manager/Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR)
3220 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Contact Person
David Eames, PE, CPM, LEED AP, ENV SP
Phone: (714) 442-2826
Email: [email protected]
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA)
500 S. Main Street, Suite 1200
Orange, CA 92868
Contact Person
Eric Pheifer, PE
Phone: (714) 352-8312
Email: [email protected]

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 1 ends

ABOUT MARK THOMAS
Founded in 1927, Mark Thomas is California’s premier transportation engineering consultant, with core services including civil and structures engineering, landscape architecture, transportation planning, construction management, grant funding, and surveying services. As a California corporation, our stability throughout the years is founded on our client service focus and delivering projects with a tailored approach to meet clients’ goals.

Our firm provides sound, innovative engineering solutions and focused, highquality customer service for our local agency clients. Our approach integrates mobility and Complete Streets methodology for all users. Our holistic, creative and often “out-of-the-box” solutions have benefited all types of projects throughout Southern California with our multi-disciplinary approach on project delivery.

Grade Separation Experience
The Mark Thomas team excels in planning, design, and support of grade separation projects. No other team matches our depth of experience, especially as the prime consultant leading these crucial projects to success.

From this experience,
we understand
potential challenges
and know how to
proactively address
them to deliver
your project. Our
staff has intimate
knowledge of the
Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR)/BNSF Grade
Separation Guidelines
and their Public
Projects Manuals.

We are deeply
knowledgeable
about railroad
operations and their
requirements, and will
implement solutions
that will facilitate the
railroad operators’
approvals and
agreements.

B. QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM

VALUE TO THE CITY
With over 100 grade separation projects
statewide, the Mark Thomas team can
quickly assess and rely on our experience
to develop timely, proven and costeffective solutions to advance the project.

INTERSTATE
205

INTERSTATE
5 INTERSTATE
80 INTERSTATE
580

INTERSTATE
15 INTERSTATE
10 INTERSTATE
805
US
156
US
101
99 Sacramento
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Jose
99 years in business
500+
team members
11 California offices
100%
employee-owned
#12
ENR civil engineering firm
100+
grade separations delivered

OFFICE LOCATIONS AND

NUMBER OF STAFF
• Ontario (51)
• Irvine (74)
• Long Beach (12)
• Los Angeles (2)
• Fresno (29)
• San Jose (34)
• Cupertino (24)
• Walnut Creek (49)
• Oakland (22)
• Sacramento (137)
• Roseville (30)
• Out of State (29)

FINANCIAL STABILITY
Our Dun & Bradstreet rating
is strong, with no history of
borrowing, no receivership or
financial difficulties, and a steady
revenue growth of $50 million on
average over the last five years. No
pending litigations to note.

Map of Mark Thomas
Grade Separation
Projects

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 2 ends

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Mark Thomas’ capabilities are well matched
to the needs of the City for this project. We
have been providing alternative analysis,
environmental clearance, preliminary
engineering, survey, and final design plans,
specifications, and estimates for transportation
projects over the last century. Collectively,
the team members proposed for this project
have been working together for more than two
decades. We possess technical resources with
full-service expertise and specialized capabilities
to efficiently deliver this project. Mark Thomas’
project delivery services include:
» Railroad Grade Separations
» Bridges, Retaining Walls, and Structures
» Survey, Mapping, and Right of Way
» Local and Arterial Street Improvements
» Transportation and Environmental Planning
» Constructability
Subconsultant Partners
Mark Thomas aligns the right people in the right
roles to successfully deliver best results for our
clients. This means using the right subconsultant
even if we can provide the service in-house.

This is our ‘client-first’ approach, which we
will utilize for your project. We have assembled a
trusted team of subconsultants that will support
us in delivering this project. We have worked with
each firm for over two decades, and each have
also worked previously with the City and/or on
other projects within City limits.

BCA: A 30-year relationship, together delivering
the Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation
(City of Santa Fe Springs), Firestone Boulevard
Grade Separation Widening (City of Norwalk),
and McKinley Street Grade Separation (City of
Corona).

HDR: A nearly 30-years relationship delivering
the State College Boulevard Grade Separation
(City of Fullerton), I-710 Central Segment Study
(LA METRO), I-10/Highland Springs PA&ED,
(Riverside County Transportation Commission),
MLK Boulevard Underpass (City of Stockton).

BENEFITS TO THE CITY

CLIENTS TRUST US TO DELIVER

THE MOST COMPLEX PROJECTS
Not many firms have delivered a CPUC
top-ranked grade separation in the state;
our team has delivered three.

THE RIGHT TEAM WITH

THE RIGHT APPROACH
Our team offers a deep bench and
scalable resources allowing us to deliver
this critical phase of work in a timely
manner. Proactive weekly resource
planning with a six‑month outlook,
combined with a proven record of
delivering schedule-driven projects will
position the City for funding to make this
project a reality.

OUR RELATIONSHIPS
We will continue to leverage our
relationships with BNSF, UPRR,
Metrolink and CAHSR to facilitate
acceptance and approvals.
“From concept through final design, Pat
Somerville and Eric Pheifer (BCA) led
the efforts on the $150M Rosecrans/
Marquardt grade separation project that
was ranked #1 in the CPUC Section 190
grade separation priority list. They were
consistently ready with solutions that built
consensus amongst the numerous project
stakeholders. Their ability to navigate
through the railroad approvals was
critical to delivering this important safety
project. The project recently completed
construction on time and on budget, a
testament to the quality of their products.”
Dan Mahgerefteh
Director of Engineering
LA Metro
“

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 3 ends

McKinley Street Grade Separation
Corona
The McKinley Street Grade Separation project constructed a new four-lane overhead grade separation at the BNSF Railway double tracks near the McKinley Street intersection with Sampson Avenue. This project added a new loop road across from the SR 91 westbound ramps to connect McKinley Street to Sampson Avenue. The project also modified the eastbound off-ramp, eastbound loop on-ramp, and the eastbound slip on-ramp at the SR 91 freeway. Mark Thomas provided
project management services for this project. We provided coordination with utility providers and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for Senate Bill (SB) 132 funding reimbursement. Mark Thomas developed grant
funding applications for TCEP and Section 190 programs. We coordinated with RCTC and WRCOG to gain their support for the applications. Our efforts were successful in securing $18.1 million from these two programs.

We have also provided funding management, submitting funding allocation extensions and authorizations to the CTC and working with RCTC to secure additional funds.

As the City-contracted project manager, Mark Thomas also prepared funding allocation requests, monthly progress reports for each funding source since 2021, the construction contract award documentation, invoice coordination, as necessary meetings and coordination with Caltrans/ CPUC/CTC staff. Our team also prepared the closeout documentation when construction was completed with regards to the TCEP, CPUC Section 190, and HRCSA funds.

CLIENT
City of Corona

PROJECT VALUE
$133 million

KEY STAFF
Josh Cosper
Eric Pheifer (BCA)
Pat Somerville
Ryan Bissegger

RELEVANCE
• BNSF Railway Corridor
• Overpass
• Innovative Structure
• Grant Application
#2 CPUC Section 190
Priority List

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 4 ends

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation
Santa Fe Springs
This at-grade crossing was ranked #1 as the
most hazardous in the state as part of the CPUC
Section 190 grade separation priority list. Situated
at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and
Marquardt Avenue, the project addresses the
challenges posed by the diagonal crossing of the
BNSF right of way, which sees over 110 trains and
more than 45,000 vehicles daily.

While at another firm, Pat Somerville, our
proposed project manager, served as the
civil lead for this project. Supported by Xavier
Espinosa and Kimberly Barling, he led the
alternatives analysis, geometric design, all of
the roadway and site components of the project
and managing the drainage and utility relocation
efforts. BCA, serving as the prime consultant
and structures lead, with Eric Pheifer as Project
Manager, led the bridge and structures design
for the grade separation. The team’s collaboration
ensured effective construction staging and
seamless coordination with BNSF Railway.

This $150 million project employed Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls to minimize the
footprint, shifting Rosecrans Avenue 125 feet
to the south to maintain traffic flow during
construction and reduce utility impacts. New
connections and circulation routes were
established to ensure continued access for
businesses and residents. Coordination with
Southern California Edison (SCE) was essential
to relocate and elevate two 66kV circuits and a
12kV circuit over the new overpass structure. The
bridge construction is complete, with the overall
project substantially finalized in September 2024.

Project close-out activities are nearly complete.

The project also involved extensive collaboration
with various stakeholders, including Metro,
the Cities of Santa Fe Springs and La Mirada,
the Federal Railroad Administration, and the
California High-Speed Rail Authority, which
contributed $77 million in funding. BCA assisted
in securing a $15 million TIGER grant and worked
closely with the FRA to meet grant funding
requirements.

CLIENT
LA Metro

PROJECT VALUE
$150 million

KEY STAFF
Pat Somerville
Eric Pheifer (BCA)
Xavier Espinosa
Kimberly Barling
Jesseca Martinez
Dave Eames (HDR)

RELEVANCE
• Santa Fe Springs
• BNSF Railway Corridor
• Overpass
• CAHSR Coordination
• FRA Coordination
• Alternatives Analysis
• CEQA/NEPA
• Final Design
#1
CPUC Section 190
Priority List

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 5 ends

Santa Ana Boulevard Grade
Separation
Santa Ana
Mark Thomas is providing grant writing and
engineering design services for the City’s
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation adjacent
to the Metrolink station. We evaluated more
than 20 different regional, state, and federal
funding programs and identified a plan to pursue
various grant programs and potential funding
requests. We were tasked with providing value
engineering to reduce overall project costs
and develop a solution that was fundable. This
effort resulted in an overall project cost savings
of over $90M with a substantial reduction in right
of way.

The project has been awarded $7 million for
final design from TIRCP and $25 million from
RAISE for right of way and construction. Mark
Thomas was recently selected to provide the
environmental revalidation, right of way and final design services for this project.

CLIENT
City of Santa Ana

PROJECT VALUE
$125 million

KEY STAFF
Pat Somerville
Eric Pheifer (BCA)
Xavier Espinosa
Kimberly Barling
Ryan Bissegger

RELEVANCE
• Concept Refinement
• Grant Application
• Federal Funding
• CEQA/NEPA
• Final Design
• Utility Relocation
• Right of Way
Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade
Separation
Santa Fe Springs
Mark Thomas provided conceptual
engineering and funding support for the
preparation of an application for the federal
Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Program
that also includes 10% concept design and cost
estimates for the future railroad grade separation
at Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road. The
City was successful in receiving $3.3M in RCE
funding for the preliminary engineering and
environmental phases of the project.

Scope of work included developing a grant
application outline and needs chart, preparing
supporting graphics and exhibits, drafting a letter
of support template, and coordinating closely
with BNSF and CAHSR throughout the process.

Concept grade separation alternatives for the project included both an overpass and underpass options which also accommodates the future high-speed rail. The design included a layout plan, profile, and typical cross section of proposed conditions prepared with aerial photography. The concept design included utility and right of way information from existing mapping.

CLIENT
City of Santa Fe Springs

PROJECT VALUE
$150 million+

KEY STAFF
Pat Somerville
Xavier Espinosa
Ryan Bissegger

RELEVANCE
• BNSF Coordination
• CAHSR Coordination
• Concept Development
• Grant Application
• Federal Funding

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 6 ends

Orange County (OC) Bridges Program
Orange County
Mark Thomas, Pat Somerville, and Eric Pheifer collectively led the design effort on five of the eight OC Bridges grade separation projects, with Pat supporting construction on a sixth, all of which are on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. Three of the projects were overpasses, and two were underpasses.

State College Boulevard, Fullerton
Mark Thomas led final design services for this project. This project constructed a new roadway underpass at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the BNSF Railway. The new lowered roadway between Santa Fe Avenue to the north is approximately 500-feet south of Valencia Drive to the south. The rail bridge was designed to BNSF and AREMA requirements.

Placentia Avenue, Placentia and Fullerton
Mark Thomas provided led final design to lower Placentia Avenue, approximately 25-feet under the BNSF railroad in the cities of Placentia and Fullerton. The project included geometric alignment alternatives, additions of right-turn lanes at intersections, new signals, and signal modifications, signing and stripping, and ADA corridor improvements.

The rail bridge was designed to BNSF and AREMA requirements.

Raymond Avenue, Fullerton
Pat Somerville was the prime consultant project manager for this grade separation at the BNSF railroad tracks. Initial phase of work involved the planning, development, and analysis of alternatives in an effort to determine the most cost-effective option. The second phase of work included the final design, utility coordination and right of way acquisition, Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia and Anaheim
Pat Somerville was the prime consultant project manager for preliminary engineering and final design for the grade separation of Orangethorpe and the BNSF tracks raising Orangethorpe over the tracks. His team developed an innovative and cost-effective approach to the bridge, addressing the 70-degree skew to provide BNSF with better use of their right of way while minimizing impacts to surrounding properties.

Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive, Placentia and Anaheim
BCA led the project from feasibility development to the final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) design phase. The project includes a three-span overhead structure along with multiple concrete, masonry and MSE retaining walls totaling over 4,500 feet in length. BCA worked closely with all of the project stakeholders which include the Cities of Anaheim and Placentia, BNSF, MWD and OCFCD during the various design stages.

CLIENT
Orange County
Transportation
Authority (OCTA)

PROJECT VALUE
$493 million Combined

KEY STAFF
Pat Somerville
Eric Pheifer (BCA)
Xavier Espinosa
Kimberly Barling

RELEVANCE
• BNSF Railway
Corridor
• Overpass
• Underpass
• FRA Coordination
• Alternatives
Analysis
• CEQA/NEPA
• Final Design
State College Boulevard
Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive
Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia Avenue
Raymond Avenue

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 7 ends

BNSF On-Call
Nationwide
HDR has been providing professional
services to BNSF for more than 25 years.

Their successful business relationship is built
on consistency of service delivery and valueadded solutions. They understand BNSF operations, needs, and preferences; and
provide an unmatched understanding that
is gained from work on thousands of BNSF
projects and programs across their network.

They bring firsthand knowledge of BNSF
goals and priorities, and operate as a true
extension of BNSF staff, as evidenced by
continued Master Service Agreement, which
has remained in place since 2013; along with
16 additional stand-alone contracts to provide
specialized service across the BNSF network.

Over the course of the past ten years, HDR
has delivered nearly 3,500 BNSF projects
under our agreements; along with thousands
of projects to transit and agency clients working
along or near BNSF rail corridors.

Their services span the entire life cycle of
railroad projects. Our understanding includes
railroad standards, engineering requirements,
the day-to-day challenges and safety
requirements of working on and near active rail
operations.

Coupled with the complete total cost of
ownership of rail projects results in costeffective, scalable approach methods that incorporate a holistic understanding of planning,
design, and construction management that
manages risk and controls costs so their clients
can focus on keeping trains moving. This allows
their team to work with you to properly evaluate
needs, costs, and risks.

CLIENT
BNSF Railway

CONSULTANT
HDR

KEY STAFF
Andrew Osvalds (HDR)

RELEVANCY
• BNSF Freight/Rail
• At-Grade Crossings
• Pedestrian Crossings
• Rail Coordination
• Design
• Environmental
• Permitting

SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION
Third Street Grade Separation, City of
Riverside
HDR prepared the preliminary engineering,
environmental clearance, and final design for
this grade separation which is now out to bid.

Mark Thomas successfully secured $47M in
funding to help make this project a reality.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 8 ends

ORGANIZATION CHART
We assembled a team that is purposefully suited to address the specific challenges in this project. The City can rely on our hand-picked key staff who offer decades of experience delivering grade separation projects. Key team members assigned to this project will not be removed, replaced, or changed during the course of the project without prior written concurrence of the City.

Structured to Deliver
The adjacent organization chart clearly defines key
responsibility areas for the delivery of this project. Our team will be led by Pat Somerville, who has unparalleled experience designing grade separations. His strong
leadership will direct three key deliverable areas:

Engineering Services led by Xavier Espinosa; Rail led
by Andrew Osvalds (HDR); Structures lead by Eric
Pheifer (BCA); and Environmental Clearance managed
by Brianna Bohonok Each of these areas have the ability to affect the critical path to project delivery, therefore this approach provides the necessary attention where it is
needed most.

A Team With a History of Delivery
We provide a team that has a proven track record, having delivered 40 grade separations in Southern California.

Most importantly, our core team was assembled based on
their experience of working and delivering projects
together, including grade separations. Pat’s working
relationship with some of our team members, such as Eric Pheifer and Dave Eames span over a decade.

For LA Metro’s Doran Street Grade Separation project,
now entering construction phase, those involved on the
design phase of the project included Pat Somerville,
Xavier Espinosa, Kimberly Barling, Josh Cosper, Ricky
Chan, Lynn Odgiiv, and Tai Goto.

BENEFIT TO THE CITY
Our team delivers the right leadership,
structure, and depth of resources the City
needs to meet the project’s demands. Our
tight-knit team will effectively navigate the
process to position your project for the final
design phase.

C. PROPOSED STAFFING

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
James Enriquez, PE

STRUCTURES LEAD
Eric Pheifer
BCA

RAIL BRIDGE
Tom Densford, PE
BCA

ROADWAY BRIDGE
Devin Chagniot, PE
BCA

RETAINING WALLS
Lynn Odgiiv, SE, PE

AESTHETICS
Tai Goto, PLA, LEED AP

STRUCTURES

CIVIL LEAD
Xavier Espinosa, PE

ROADWAY
Kimberly Barling, PE
Jesseca Martinez Tobon, EIT

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/SITE

MODIFICATIONS
Dave Eames, PE, CPM, LEED AP
HDR

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Ricky Chan, PE, TE, PTOE

STORM DRAIN
Nich Eng, PE

UTILITIES
Madison Hall, EIT

ENGINEERING

ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD
Brianna Bohonok

CEQA/NEPA
Danielle Keith

AIR QUALITY
Victoria Hsu
HDR

NOISE & VIBRATION
Gina Jarta, LEED AP BD+C
HDR

BIOLOGICAL
Daniel Smith
HDR

CULTURAL
David Clinnick, RPA
HDR

GEOLOGY & SOILS
Sreekar Pulijala, PE, GE
HDR

ENVIRONMENTAL

SURVEYING & MAPPING
Chris Riehle, PLS

RIGHT OF WAY MAPPING
Sereyna Cagle, PLS

TRAFFIC STUDY
Douglas Smith, PE, RSP1
HDR

RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATING
Danny Mendoza
HDR

GEOTECHNICAL
Sreekar Pulijala, PE, GE
HDR

DRAINAGE STUDY
Bill Flores, PE, QSD
HDR

OUTREACH SUPPORT
Marina Ramirez, LCI

FUNDING STRATEGY
Ryan Bissegger

PROJECT SUPPORT

PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE/

PROJECT MANAGER
Pat Somerville, PE

RAIL LEAD
Andrew Osvalds, AIA
HDR

RAIL COORDINATION
Andy Osvalds, AIA
Patrick Halsted
HDR
TRACK
Bob Ryan, PE
HDR

PHASING
Elias Clark, PE
HDR
RAIL

QUALITY MANAGER
Josh Cosper, PE, PLS, QSD
= Key Staff

PROVEN DELIVERY
Our Rosecrans/Marquardt team, featuring, Pat,
Eric, Xavier, Kimberly, and Dave Eames, delivered
end-to-end success, from alternatives analysis
through CEQA/NEPA and final design

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 9 ends

MEET YOUR PROJECT MANAGER
Pat Somerville, PE
Our team will be lead by Pat Somerville, PE. With 40 years of experience managing the delivery of complex Southern California infrastructure, Pat offers the City a uniquely qualified project manager, one who serves as a single, accountable point of contact. His technical depth spans every aspect necessary to deliver a successful grade separation project. What sets Pat apart are the following differentiators:

Unmatched Grade Separation Expertise
Pat’s experience in grade separation delivery is unparalleled. He has contributed to 28 grade separation projects, including 14 as the prime contract project manager. Of these 28 grade separations, 16 have been constructed, 5 are in construction or bidding, which demonstrates his ability to successfully develop solutions and advance projects forward. This depth of hands-on experience uniquely equips him to navigate the complexities of the Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade Separation.

Pat has demonstrated experience providing a value engineering approach on his projects. He has a thorough understanding of design criteria for grade separations and actively identifies opportunities to enhance the design and reduce costs. His efforts have resulted in $50 million in cost reductions on the Doran Street Grade Separation, $18 million on the Fullerton Street Grade Separation, and $17 million on the Montebello Corridor Grade Separation.

Strong Understanding of Railroad Requirements
Through his years working on grade separation projects, Pat has developed a strong understanding of the railroad standards, guidelines, operations, maintenance and access needs. His well rounded grade separation experience includes working with BNSF (13 projects), UPRR (16 projects), Metrolink (21 projects) and CAHSR (three projects). Of the BNSF grade separations, nine of those have been on this same San Bernardino Subdivision. This allows Pat to guide his team forward on solutions that will achieve the needed railroad approvals in order to advance your project forward.

Passion and Technical Excellence
Pat’s commitment to improving grade crossing safety began 30 years ago with the Highland Avenue Grade Separation in Fullerton. Since then, his passion for reconnecting communities, enhancing safety and mobility, and solving complex engineering challenges has been a defining force in his career. Combined with his strong consensus building skills, dedication, and persistence, Pat brings the leadership and commitment required to successfully deliver the Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade Separation and realize the City’s long-term vision.

Nogales Street (LA Sub),
Industry
Orangethorpe Avenue,
Placentia & Anaheim
Raymond Avenue, Fullerton
Highland Avenue, Fullerton
Rosecrans/Marquardt,
Santa Fe Springs

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 10 ends

MEET OUR KEY TEAM MEMBERS
Pat selected the following key team members whose skills and expertise are well aligned with the project’s needs and objectives. Most of our key team members have been working with BNSF, UPRR, Metrolink, CAHSR, and the CPUC for years. They have a thorough understanding of the standards, guidelines, and processes of these agencies. Resumes for key personnel and a staff qualification matrix is available in the Appendix.

XAVIER ESPINOSA, PE | Civil Lead
BS Civil Engineering | CA PE 67659 | 13 years of experience | 70% available Xavier will lead the civil/roadway design for this project. He has experience in the design and coordination of local arterial facilities, grade separations, highways and interchanges, atgrade rail crossings, and roadway improvements. He has led project teams and supported the design in other disciplines such as rail, utilities, and storm drain design. His expertise ranges from preparing preliminary studies to developing the final PS&E for roadway projects.

Project Experience:
» Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade
Separation, Santa Fe Springs
» Doran Street Grade
Separation, Los Angeles
» Turnbull Canyon Road Grade
Separation, Industry
JOSH COSPER, PE, PLS | Quality Manager
BS Civil Engineering | CA PE 71667 | CA PLS 8774 | 22 years of experience | 45% available Josh will be the quality manager for this project. He extensive transportation and municipal engineering experience, including over 50 miles of transportation corridor improvements
throughout Southern California. He understands the complexity of a grade separation project, having worked on the City of Corona’s McKinley Street Grade Separation as the program manager. Josh saved $5 million in program costs by identifying numerous acquisition and utility relocation strategies.

Project Experience:
» McKinley Street Grade
Separation, Corona
» Doran Street Grade
Separation, Los Angeles
» Limonite Gap Closure, Eastvale
BRIANNA BOHONOK | Environmental Lead
MS Urban Planning and Policy; BA Architecture | 13 years of experience | 45% available Brianna has extensive experience as both a CEQA practitioner and land use planner. She has managed CEQA and NEPA
documents for projects across the state, including highway/ roadway projects, transit line extensions, mixed-use
development, and land use projects. Her work is enriched by her experience as an environmental planner at Caltrans District 4 and on major CAHSR NEPA projects delivered through FRA.

Project Experience:
» Brightline West High-Speed
Rail, Victor Valley to Rancho
Cucamonga
» Palmdale to Burbank HighSpeed Rail, Palmdale and
Burbank

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 11 ends

ERIC PHEIFER, PE | Structures Lead
BS Civil Engineering | CA PE 67659 | 15 years of experience | 65% available Eric will lead the bridge design for this project. He has a variety of experience in the design and management of
bridge structures, including railroad, roadway, and pedestrian bridges, retaining walls, flood control channels, and other structures. Eric’s experience also includes design and analysis of specialized structures, including design of arch bridges, movable bridges, truss bridges, and bridges constructed using Accelerated Bridge Construction techniques. He has led some of Southern California’s most complex bridge projects.

Project Experience:
» Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade
Separation, Santa Fe Springs
» McKinley Street Grade
Separation Project, Corona
» Fullerton Grade Separation,
City of Industry
ANDREW OSVALDS, AIA | Lead Rail Coordinator
BA Architecture | IL AIA 001021397 | 21 years of experience | 10% available Andy is HDR’s Freight Rail Market Sector Leader in Southern California. He has served the Class I freight rail industry for the past eleven years, the last nine of those years in California.

Notable contributions to the industry include managing
numerous intermodal expansion and modernization projects, including ARRA- and state-funded triple- and double-track capacity enhancements, as well as providing constructionphase support for multiple public and third-party grade separation projects.

Project Experience:
» Valley View Grade
Separation, Santa Fe Springs
and La Mirada
» Needles Third Main Track
Expansion - Segments 1-4,
Needles
» Atwood to Esperanza Third
Main Track Expansion,
Orange County
DAVE EAMES, PE, CPM, LEED AP | Alternative Analysis
BS Civil Engineering | CA PE 55501 | CA PLS 8774 | 32 years of experience | 75% available Dave has over 32 years of experience in Southern California working on a wide range of transportation projects with a focus on developing Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Document for large, complex grade separation projects. His experience includes managing various aspects of project development, including environmental impact analysis,
utility relocation, project design, project management, and construction management on projects located throughout
Southern California.

Project Experience:
» Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade
Separation, La Mirada and
Santa Fe Springs
» Pennsylvania Avenue Grade
Separation, Riverside County
» Turnbull Canyon Road Grade
Separation, Industry

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 12 ends

D. SUBCONSULTANTS
Mark Thomas fosters strong, collaborative relationships with our subconsultants, built on a foundation of trust, performance, and shared commitment to client success. Through our extensive experience working together, these partners have consistently delivered high-quality services and demonstrated exceptional responsiveness to client needs. For this proposal, we have supplemented our team with subconsultants with whom we have long-standing relationships and a proven track record of success, including specialized experience with BNSF requirements and grade separation project delivery. We have included resumes for our subconsultants in the Appendix.

Our combined team has delivered 13 grade separations on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, including five overpasses and eight underpasses.

Firm Added Value Firm Information
Structures
500 S. Main Street
Suite 1200
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 550-4665
» Strong railroad grade
separation experience
in California, including
over 20 grade
separation projects
» Highly innovative
structural approach
and solutions, resulting
in some of the most
unique bridges
that minimized risk,
reduced cost, improved
constructability, and/or
expedited schedule
BCA brings significant statewide grade
separation and rail structure experience,
including innovative accelerated bridge
construction design. They have been a
partner of Mark Thomas for over 30 years.

Mark Thomas’ experience with BCA includes:
» Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation, Metro/
Santa Fe Springs
» McKinley Street Grade Separation, Corona
» Firestone Boulevard Grade Separation Widening,
Norwalk
» Garden River Bridge, Glendale
Rail Coordination,
Track Design,
Environmental,
Geotechnical
350 South Grand
Avenue
Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 239-5800
» Worked on 70+ BNSF
task orders year to date
» Prepared the
environmental
documents for BNSF on
previously completed
grade separation and
third main track through
this project location
Founded in 1917, HDR is an engineering,
architecture, and consulting firm. HDR brings
in-depth experience in grade separation
design and BNSF Railway projects. There
is no team more familiar with expediting
design approvals with railroads.

Mark Thomas has worked with HDR on over 30
projects state-wide, including:
» State College Boulevard Grade Separation,
Fullerton
» I-710 Central Segment Study, Metro
» I-10/Highland Springs PA&ED, RCTC
» MLK Boulevard Underpass, Stockton

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 13 ends

SUBCONSULTANT REFERENCES
Project Reference
BCA
McKinley Grade Separation, Corona Javier “Javy” Luna, PE City of Corona
Acting Public Works Director
(951) 817-5765
[email protected]
Rosecrans Grade Separation, Santa Fe
Springs
Dan Mahgerefteh, PE
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Director of Engineering (Regional Rail)
(213) 418-3219
[email protected]
HDR
Atwood to Esperanza Third Main Track
Expansion, Orange County
Mary Danielson
BNSF
Project Manager
(817) 948-0012
[email protected]
Needles Third Main Track Expansion –
Segments 1-4 (Design and CM), Needles
Jason Sanchez
BNSF
Manager of Engineering
(909) 386-4470
[email protected]
Mark Thomas and BCA partnered to deliver the
McKinley Street Grade Separation in Corona

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 14 ends

E. WORK APPROACH

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The City seeks to use funds allocated from the Federal Highway Administration’s Crossing Safety Program/Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program to advance grade separating two adjacent BNSF-owned crossings along Norwalk Boulevard (CPUC 002-153.10/DOT No. 027649P) and Los Nietos Road
(CPUC 002-153.40/DOT No. 027650J). As the adjacent land use is commercial/industrial, the grade separations will improve safety, reduce delays and provide reliable access to businesses.

Over 90 trains traverse the two crossings daily. The BNSF rail corridor also serves Metrolink, Amtrak and is planned to serve CAHSR, making it a critical connection for goods movement and passengers to destinations such as the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and Los Angeles Union Station. Both crossings have accidents on file, exceeding the California statewide average.

Approximately 600 feet north of the BNSF crossing on Norwalk Boulevard is the UPRR Brea Chemical Industrial Lead track crossing (CPUC 001BBJ-497.28/DOT No. 761621V). This is a single, low speed track, serving two switching trains daily.

Norwalk Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial which traverses north-south through the City. Los Nietos Road is a four-lane facility on the approaches to Norwalk Boulevard, but two lanes further to the east and west. Both Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road do not have weight restrictions making them primary routes for goods movement throughout the City.

This phase of the project will evaluate grade separation alternatives, select a preferred alternative and advance that through environmental clearance and preliminary engineering.

This will better position the project for future funding.

The project will meet City’s goals to improve safety and mobility for all modes of travel, enhance economic development, and address the future rail corridor needs.

Project Challenges
Our team knows this project intimately through our
preparation of the RCE grant for this phase of work, in coordination with the City, BNSF, CAHSR and LA Metro.

Additionally, our core team members have been tracking this project for nearly 10 years.

On the following pages, we have identified the key challenges and our approach to successfully advance this project.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 15 ends

Exhibit 1. Project Challenges
1 2
6 6
6 6
4 5
6 6
3 BNSF
UPRR

LOS NIETOS RD

NORWALK BLVD
89/218

NORWALK
BLVD

LOS NIETOS
RD
147/385
46/59
35/72
136/118
122/63
43/90
246/840
46/64
27/74
472/404
102/81

PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION

COUNT (AM/PM)
2024 ADT = 18,880
2024 ADT = 16,631
2024 ADT = 9,614
2024 ADT = 17,786

BNSF RAILWAY OPERATIONS

UPRR INDUSTRY TRACK

NORWALK BOULEVARD

LOS NIETOS ROAD

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

RIGHT OF WAY
Grade separations generally have considerable right of
way impact in a fully developed corridor. Primary
challenge is maintaining access, both during and post
construction. Our alternatives analysis applies realistic solutions for access to the adjacent parcels and will also evaluate the use of frontage roads.

Existing and future traffic operations will be evaluated for the intersection of Norwalk Blvd and Los Nietos Road to configure the intersection for an acceptable level of
service. Offset intersection configuration will also be considered to benefit the overall geometric configuration.

With this roadway running parallel to the BNSF tracks,
the horizontal and vertical alignments are challenging to provide adequate sight distance through the grade
separation structure with the horizontal curves. Offset alignments will be considered to address these challenges.

Both underpass and overpass alternatives will be
evaluated. Alternative roadway alignments and structure types, including offsetting the horizontal alignment, will be considered that will benefit access to adjacent parcels, utilities, staging, and avoidance of the UPRR track.

Re-profiling of Norwalk Boulevard may impact this UPRR
track. Any raising or lowering of this track is further complicated by spur tracks in close proximity and the
need to include a temporary shoofly. Our roadway profile solutions will focus on avoiding any impact to this track.

Maintaining railroad operations is critical. All three BNSF tracks must remain in use and any temporary shoofly will need to meet current track speeds. The triple diamond at the UPRR track should be avoided. The ultimate condition must also accommodate the future CAHSR facilities.
6 5
4 3
2 1

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 16 ends

ROADWAY
Mark Thomas will evaluate several horizontal alignment and reprofiling opportunities to help the City and other stakeholders identify the preferred
alternative to advance through final design. Both under and overpass solutions will be evaluated. The keys to this analysis include the following items.

Design Criteria. One of our first tasks will include the establishment of the project design criteria. Critical
elements include the design speed. Both Norwalk
Boulevard and Los Nietos Road have a posted 40 mph
speed limit. Consideration for lowering the posted speed to 35 mph through the project limit has considerable
benefit for both the horizontal and vertical alignments.

The City can invoke Assembly Bill 43 which provides the City the ability to lower the posted speed lower than the 85th percentile speed.

Additionally, selection of the use of the AASHTO
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
or Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) to arrive
at the best solutions for the project. Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and Public Right-ofWay Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) will be applied throughout the project limits.

Horizontal Alignments. Considerations for a horizontal
shift in the roadway alignments may yield benefits to
the project, providing space for utility relocations and improving access to adjacent parcels. An easterly
offset in the Norwalk Boulevard alignment will lengthen the distance between the BNSF and UPRR crossings,
potentially eliminating any vertical adjustment of the
UPRR track.

In addition, frontage roads could maintain at-grade
access to adjacent parcels, significantly reducing right of way impacts.

Proposed structures and retaining walls may impede
sight distance, especially at the intersections and
through the horizontal curves on Los Nietos Road. This is a critical item to verify.

Vertical Alignments. The raising or lowering of the
roadway has a direct impact on the adjacent properties, therefore optimizing the vertical alignments is beneficial.

As the project is off the state highway system, the use of AASHTO vertical curve criteria is recommended in lieu of Caltrans. This provides a significant benefit by shortening the length of vertical curves, resulting in a decrease in overall project footprint and impacts on private parcels.

SUCCESS STORY
Developing Grade Separation
Solutions
Pat, along with Xavier Espinosa,
Kimberly Barling, Jesseca Martinez
and Dave Eames, led the roadway
efforts on the following grade
separations, demonstrating their
ability to develop innovative
solutions.

The Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade
Separation, utilized an offset alignment
to reduce overall right of way impacts.

This offset, coupled with AASHTO
vertical curve criteria, avoided the
need to reconstruct the bridge over the
Coyote Creek.

The Turnbull Canyon Road Grade
Separation, currently in construction,
includes frontage roads that maintained
access to adjacent parcels, significantly
reducing right of way

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 17 ends

TRAFFIC
A full traffic analysis will be prepared that will evaluate the existing traffic volumes and a forecast for the future year.

Modeling for the surrounding street network will also be included to understand potential impacts for a partial or full closure of the roadways as well as permanent modifications to lane configurations. As an example, Los Nietos Road has four lanes only from west of Norwalk Boulevard to Dice Road, and is two-lanes beyond in each direction. Holding to two lanes through the project limits would prove beneficial to limit right of way impacts as long as an acceptable level of service is maintained.

The analysis will closely evaluate the Norwalk Boulevard/Los Nietos Road intersection to ensure the configuration meets the future needs, particularly due to the amount of bridge and retaining walls that would preclude future widening. Additionally, the intersection analysis will consider the decoupling of east and west Los Nietos Road. This configuration could be advantageous for the project geometrics and result in a reduction in the amount of structures needed.

Our team has 2024 traffic and intersection counts used for the RCE grant application. These will be updated upon commencing work on this phase and will include truck classifications. The volumes, as shown in our alternatives, are favorable for the alternatives shown within this proposal.

STRUCTURES
The overpass and underpass alternatives will need to
strictly adhere to the UPRR/BNSF Grade Separation
Guidelines. With the overall site geometry, one key factor for all alternatives is to reduce the rail/roadway skew angle to the greatest extent possible to facilitate approvals and reduce project costs.

Roadway Bridges. No structures will be allowed to be
located within the railroad right of way, so all alternatives will need to span the BNSF right of way in its entirety.

Precast superstructures are preferred to avoid temporary falsework over the operating rail. With the roadway/rail skews, creative solutions will need to be considered.

Rail Bridges. The underpass solutions will focus on the BNSF preferred structure type, steel rolled beams with
steel plate deck. Using this structure type facilitates approvals. The bridge width will match the right of way width to maximize the railroads use of their property. We commonly use an exterior concrete girder fascia to provide an aesthetic benefit to the bridge.

Retaining Walls. A significant amount of retaining walls will be required for this project. Cost-effective solutions will be evaluated, particularly wall types that minimize the wall footprint and may protect adjacent parcels.

SUCCESS STORY
Innovative Structure
Solutions
Pat was the Project Manager for
the Orangethorpe Avenue Grade
Separation with the BNSF rail
corridor that used a structural
solution that ran parallel with the
rail corridor, instead of the road
to address the high skew. This
resulted in a considerably lower
roadway profile that reduced the
project footprint, right of way
impact and overall project cost.

Intersection operations will benefit
from the grade separation

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 18 ends

RAIL
Our team’s trusted relationship with BNSF helps facilitate coordination and concurrence to keep the project moving forward. BNSF is concerned about loss of its own capacity and flexibility and primarily wishes to maintain and improve safety for the public, passengers, and its employees. Mark Thomas provides strong experience on major public and
capital improvement projects with BNSF.

We will leverage long-term local and national relationships with BNSF staff to benefit the project, including critical intel on railroad operations, contractual obligations for the service providers as they relate to working around active tracks, scheduling considerations of work windows on active rail lines, seasonal impacts to overall construction progress (i.e., moratoriums and annual track maintenance considerations), and railroad expectations regarding safety, and operationally critical procedures.

BNSF strongly prefers an overpass solution as it avoids significant impact to their operations during construction.

In the underpass alternatives, a temporary shoofly will be required for all three BNSF tracks. The shoofly will need to match existing track speeds of 70mph for passenger, 50mph for freight. Our team will layout the conceptual shoofly to determine its limits and understand the overall impact and cost. One major constraint is the triple diamond Northwest of Norwalk Boulevard, where the BNSF tracks cross the UPRR Industry track. The staging and relocation of these diamonds, and associated signaling equipment in this proximity, is significant and should be avoided.

Proposed CAHSR improvements and track configuration through the corridor will be accounted for in each alternative. We worked with CAHSR through the RCE Grant preparation and look forward to continuing to advance this project forward with their team. Although the CAHSR current draft environmental document indicates an underpass solution, they also acknowledged the benefit of the overpass solution that was favored by BNSF and the City.

Lastly, coordination will also be provided with the UPRR depending upon the extent of anticipated work on their Industry track. If a vertical adjustment is required due to the Norwalk Boulevard profile, a shoofly track will also be required. Fortunately, this is a low-speed track, with a timetable speed of 10mph. However, there are spur tracks to the east that must remain in service.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Factoring in the roadway, structures and rail elements, our team has provided the evaluation of four potential grade separation solutions on the following pages. These include the CAHSR and RCE grant underpasses, the RCE grant overpass and a new overpass alternative. This provides our team a solid starting point for the alternatives analysis.

Our alternatives analysis will evaluate the roadway horizontal and vertical geometrics, utility and right of way impacts, railroad shoofly and impact to operations and overall project costs.

Our team has delivered 13 grade
separations along this BNSF subdivision,
8 underpasses and 5 overpasses.

The triple “diamond” where the BNSF
tracks intersect the UPRR track is a
significant constraint.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 19 ends

UPRR

PIKE ST

LOS NIETOS RD

NORWALK BLVD
BNSF
CAHSR
UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE 1
CAHSR Alternative
The current CAHSR alternative is an underpass with two
complex rail bridge structures. The structure on Los Nietos Road does not provide adequate sight distance around the horizontal curve. Right of way impacts will be considerably larger than shown related to access, profiles and shoofly.

Benefits
» Maintains existing street
alignments
» Single intersection
Challenges
» Rail shoofly feasibility
» Insufficient sight
distance
» Significant right of way
impacts
» Two complex structures
Temporary
Shoofly Tracks

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 20 ends

R R R R
UPRR

PIKE ST

LOS NIETOS RD

NORWALK BLVD
BNSF
CAHSR
UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE 2
Offset Intersection
This underpass provides the most efficient use of space and a single rail structure. A rail shoofly would still be required and may not be feasible due to impact on triple diamond. The offset intersection will require analysis and may require right turn lanes on Norwalk Boulevard to
facilitate movements.

Benefits
» Smaller overall footprint
» Single rail bridge
» Los Nietos realignment
addresses sight distance
issues
Challenges
» Rail shoofly feasibility
» Intersection operations
» Construction staging

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 21 ends

STOP
STOP

R R R R
UPRR

PIKE ST

LOS NIETOS RD

NORWALK BLVD
BNSF
CAHSR

LOS NIETOS RD
OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE 1
Single Intersection
This alternative provides an efficient bridge structure aligned with the railroad resulting in a lower roadway
profile. The street intersection is maintain over top of this structure and frontage roads to the west and south maintain access to adjacent properties.

Benefits
» Cost effective
structure
» No rail shoofly
required
» Joins UPRR track
» Maintains intersection
Challenges
» Right of way impacts

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 22 ends

R R R R
STOP
STOP
UPRR

PIKE ST

LOS NIETOS RD

NORWALK BLVD
BNSF
CAHSR
OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE 2
Offset Intersection
This overpass provides a traditional two-span roadway
bridge over the railroad. A pre-cast bridge solution
would avoid falsework over the operating railroad. The
offset intersection requires analysis to verify the needed lane configuration. Frontage roads are included on this alternative as well.

Benefits
» Common roadway
structure
» No rail shoofly required
» Less right of way
impacts
Challenges
» Higher roadway profile
» Requires raising UPRR
track
» Intersection operations

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 23 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL
The proposed grade separation at Norwalk Boulevard and
Los Nietos Road aims to improve safety, reduce vehicle delay, and enhance rail and roadway operations. Both CEQA and
NEPA have exemptions specifically designed to streamline environmental clearance for projects of this nature, where impacts are predictable, localized, and largely assumed to be construction related. The City of Santa Fe Springs, serving as the CEQA Lead Agency, and the FRA, serving as the NEPA Lead Agency.

The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21080.13, as: “Construction of a railroad grade separation project to eliminate an existing grade crossing.” For NEPA, it is anticipated to qualify for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). To support the CE, our approach in the environmental analysis will emphasize issue areas most relevant to this type of improvement (e.g., traffic operations, noise, air quality, and/or hazardous materials), while efficiently confirming minimal potential for impacts to resources such as cultural resources. This up-front validation reduces the risk of late-stage changes to the environmental clearance strategy.

Technical documentation is included to evaluate project-specific conditions and validate the anticipated level of environmental review. Our teaming partner, HDR, will prepare focused technical memoranda that clearly demonstrates the absence of significant impacts and shows that no unusual circumstances apply.

Our team maintains close coordination with FRA to confirm expectations for documentation and appropriate level of NEPA review. We will establish a coordinated review process early in the project to align agency expectations, document requirements review schedules, and approval milestones. Through regular coordination with both FRA and the City, we will proactively identify and resolve issues before formal submittals. By balancing FRA review timelines and approval requirements with the City’s CEQA review process, our team will minimize redundant review cycles, maintain schedule alignment between NEPA and CEQA compliance efforts, and support timely environmental clearance.

OUTREACH
We fully understand the importance of community
acceptance in the success of the project. The Mark
Thomas team will support the City-led community
outreach efforts, including technical support as well as from our own internal outreach team that will assist in these efforts. This includes the preparation of exhibits, collateral materials and presentations.

We have full in-house graphics capabilities,
including the preparation of high-quality renderings,
photosimulations and fly-through videos to help
the public visualize the proposed project. Our team
is proficient in outreach events, engaging the community and discussing the proposed project.

Our project manager, Pat is comfortable making public presentations, including elected officials, Boards, City Council and Commissions.

Pat, shown here making a City Council
presentation, will lead our outreach support.

Our technical efforts will include
hazardous materials in support of
the NEPA Categorical Exclusion.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 24 ends

UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE
Mark Thomas understands that utility coordination is a key component of grade separations. Our team has already identified several existing utilities throughout the Norwalk Boulevard and Los Nietos Road corridor that will be affected by the project.

Mark Thomas has extensive experience of coordinating
with utility owners, which starts with early identification of impacted facilities. Our approach for this phase of work is to identify all utilities within the project footprint through “A” letter correspondence to obtain facility maps and plans from utility owners as well as request their rights, such as franchise, prior rights or easement.

We will track and log all correspondence with owners through a Utility Tracking Matrix. All available information will be utilized to map utilities and confirmed with a field walk by the Mark Thomas team. Mapping existing utilities will allow us to identify facilities that could be protected in place and develop relocation concepts for those impacted by the alternatives. These findings will be critical to overall project success through construction and will be documented in the alternatives analysis.

For drainage, the existing site does not have any existing storm drain facilities in proximity. Major systems in proximity include the San Gabriel River to the west and the County BI-0015 C-2 Sorenson Avenue system to the east. Surface flows within the project limits generally flows north to south and east to west.

Overpass alternatives will potentially trap surface runoff at the northerly and easterly project limits.

With no existing storm drain systems in proximity, alternative solutions to maintain surface flow around the overpass, such as on frontage roads, will be evaluated.

Underpass alternatives will require a pump station to discharge stormwater. The pump station will require a site and access for maintenance personnel. Operations and maintenance is a key factor, particularly if the City is interested in transferring this responsibility to the County of Los Angeles.

Preliminary pump station sizing and site configuration will be shown on the underpass alternatives.

RIGHT OF WAY
The challenge with grade separations is maintaining access to the parcels adjoining the roadway that is being raised or lowered.

Consideration must be given to temporary access during
construction, which might be a larger constraint than the permanent configuration.

With our vast experience on grade separations, we can quickly assess what will, and won’t work, in protecting the adjacent parcels, buildings and access. We will apply this for each alternative being considered. Utilities are another key element that will be accounted for, particularly easements on private parcels required for the relocation efforts. The team will document the right of way impacts for each concept as well as an order of magnitude estimate to include in the alternatives analysis.

UTILITY IMPACTS
The following utilities have
been identified within the
project limits:
» Water (City, Central
Basin MWD)
» Sewer (City & County)
» Gas (SCG)
» Power (SCE)
» Oil (Crimson)
» Telecommunication
(AT&T, MCI/Verizon
Business, Spectrum,
Frontier)
Maintaining access to driveways
is critical in determining right of
way impacts.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 25 ends

POSITIONING FOR FUTURE FUNDING
Completing this coming phase of the project, with environmental approvals, vastly improves the project readiness and the ability to secure additional funding. The project aligns well with both federal and state transportation policies and funding opportunities. This is evident by the success the City, with Mark Thomas' support, had securing RCE funding to advance the project.

We can leverage the federal investment to secure additional state and federal funding sources to funding final design, right of way, and construction. Mark Thomas has implemented similar funding strategies for other high-profile transportation and grade separation projects, including the Santa Ana Grade Separation in Santa Ana, Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation in Beaumont, and the Third Street Grade Separation in Riverside. In total, we have secured more than $330 million in competitive funds for grade separations.

Mark Thomas has identified the following grant programs for further evaluation to fund the project. » Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE): The most recent RCE funding round prioritized awards to projects that have secured previous RCE funds. Additionally, the project focuses on improving goods movement and eliminating train involved collisions. All of which align with the project. » SCAG Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG): SCAG, with input from LA Metro, administer these federal formula funds in the region. The project aligns with prior goals for goods movement and multimodal transportation elements.
» Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP): The CTC administers this program that funds final design, right of way, and construction for goods movement projects. Upcoming changes in the program will prioritize projects that do not increase VMT and provide multimodal facilities to reduce freight impacts and align with state climate goals. » Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD): USDOT administers this program and prior awards have went to grade separation projects such as the Santa Ana Grade Separation and Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation.
» Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP): The CTC administers this program that funds projects that provide the opportunity for commuters to opt out of transit. The project provides multimodal facilities and supports future HSR expansion.

SUCCESS STORY
Santa Ana Boulevard
Grade Separation
Mark Thomas value
engineered the concept
that reduced projects
costs by over $100M and
avoided the full acquisition
of seven parcels that were
previously identified. We
have also been successful
in obtaining $32M in grant
funding through TIRCP and
RAISE grants for the City to
advance the project.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 26 ends

SCHEDULE
We have developed our schedule based upon our
previous experience preparing alternatives analysis,
CEQA/NEPA environmental clearance and preliminary
engineering plans for grade separation projects.

This is a realistic schedule to complete this phase of work within 20 months and will be delivered ahead of the FRA funding milestone dates, including the following:

Project Planning Completion March 31, 2027
Final NEPA Documentation June 30, 2028
PE Design Set Completion June 30, 2028
Final Performance Report October 31, 2028
There are several FRA related tasks that drive the
schedule. This includes the preparation of a Project
Management Plan (PMP), Item 5 on the schedule, which
requires FRA review and approval prior to performing
work on subsequent tasks. We will expedite the
preparation of the PMP in order to advance work into Task 2, the alternatives analysis.

The next milestone is the submittal of the FRA Project
Planning Package, Item 46 on the schedule, that is
required at the completion of the Alternatives Analysis.

The FRA review and approval of this document is required prior to starting Task 3, the environmental compliance
phase of work. The overall project critical path runs
through this environmental task.

Prior to starting Task 4, Preliminary Engineering, a Basis of Design Report must be submitted to the FRA. This
document is for information only and does not require
review and approval. The preparation of the preliminary engineering plans may be prepared concurrently with the environmental documentation.

Lastly, upon completion of the NEPA environmental
documentation and preliminary engineering plans, a Final Performance Report will be prepared and submitted to the FRA. This document describes the cumulative activities of the project and conformance with the project objectives and milestones.

We are confident in our approach to not only meet, but to deliver ahead of the FRA milestone dates.

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Rd Grade Separation 425 days Mon 10/5/26 Fri 5/19/28 2 Notice to Proceed & Kickoff Meeting 0 days Mon 10/5/26 Mon 10/5/26 3 Design Schedule 425 days Mon 10/5/26 Fri 5/19/28
4 Task 1 - Project Management & Adminstration 410 days Mon 10/5/26 Fri 4/28/28 5 FRA Project Management Plan 10 days Mon 10/5/26 Fri 10/16/26 6 FRA Review & Approval 20 days Mon 10/19/26 Fri 11/13/26 7 Project Management/Admin/Reporting 19 mons Mon 11/16/26 Fri 4/28/28 8 PDT Meetings 280 days Wed 11/11/26 Wed 12/8/27
23 Third Party Coordination 19 mons Mon 11/16/26 Fri 4/28/28 24 Community Outreach 115 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 4/23/27 25 POP 20 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 12/11/26
26 Notifications, Graphics, Collatoral Materials 20 days Mon 12/14/26 Fri 1/8/27 27 Community Meeting 1 0 days Wed 1/13/27 Wed 1/13/27
28 Community Meeting 2 0 days Fri 4/23/27 Fri 4/23/27
29 Task 2 - Alternatives Analysis 180 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 7/23/27 30 Data Collection 15 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 12/4/26
31 Aerial Topography 25 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 12/18/26
32 Right of Way Base Mapping 20 days Mon 11/23/26 Fri 12/18/26 33 Initial Utility Coordination 55 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 1/29/27 36 Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum 20 days Mon 12/21/26 Fri 1/15/27 37 Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Memo 30 days Mon 12/21/26 Fri 1/29/27 38 Traffic Study 50 days Mon 12/7/26 Fri 2/12/27
39 Alternatives Analysis 145 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 6/4/27 40 Initial Concept Development 25 days Mon 11/16/26 Fri 12/18/26 41 Workshops 20 days Mon 12/21/26 Fri 1/15/27
42 Concept Refinement 35 days Mon 12/21/26 Fri 2/5/27
43 Renderings 20 days Mon 2/8/27 Fri 3/5/27
44 Alternatives Report 25 days Mon 2/8/27 Fri 3/12/27
45 Select Preferred Alternative 0 days Fri 3/26/27 Fri 3/26/27 46 FRA Project Planning Package 15 days Mon 3/8/27 Fri 3/26/27 47 FRA Review and Approval 20 days Mon 3/29/27 Fri 4/23/27 48 FRA Basis of Design Report 20 days Mon 4/26/27 Fri 5/21/27 49 FRA Acknowledgement of BODR Receipt 10 days Mon 5/24/27 Fri 6/4/27 50 BNSF Concept Plan Submittal 85 days Mon 3/29/27 Fri 7/23/27 51 Concept Submittal 25 days Mon 3/29/27 Fri 4/30/27
52 BNSF Review 20 days Mon 5/3/27 Fri 5/28/27
53 Revise/Resubmit/Approval 40 days Mon 5/31/27 Fri 7/23/27 54 Task 3 - Environmental Compliance 260 days Mon 4/26/27 Fri 4/21/28 55 FRA Consultation 30 days Mon 4/26/27 Fri 6/4/27
56 Technical Studies 140 days Mon 6/7/27 Fri 12/17/27
57 CEQA Compliance 0 days Fri 12/31/27 Fri 12/31/27
58 FRA NEPA Review (inc. revisions to documents)90 days Mon 12/20/27 Fri 4/21/28 59 FRA Class of Action 0 days Fri 4/21/28 Fri 4/21/28
60 Task 4 - Preliminary Engineering 215 days Mon 7/26/27 Fri 5/19/28 61 Roadway Plans 80 days Mon 7/26/27 Fri 11/12/27
62 Traffic Plans 25 days Mon 10/11/27 Fri 11/12/27
63 Structures Advance Planning Study 70 days Mon 8/9/27 Fri 11/12/27 64 Right of Way Impacts Map & Analysis 30 days Mon 11/15/27 Fri 12/24/27 65 Cost Estimate 20 days Mon 12/27/27 Fri 1/21/28
66 QA/QC 10 days Mon 1/24/28 Fri 2/4/28
67 35% Preliminary Plan Submittal 0 days Fri 2/4/28 Fri 2/4/28 68 Final Performance Report 20 days Mon 4/24/28 Fri 5/19/28 69 Submit Final Performance Report 0 days Fri 5/19/28 Fri 5/19/28 10/5
1/13
4/23
3/26
12/31
4/21
2/4
5/19
M-1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 2027 2028
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Critical
Critical Split
Progress
Manual Progress
FRA Action
FRA Action (Critical)
Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade Separation
Draft Schedule

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 27 ends

SCOPE OF WORK MATRIX
Based on the RFP, we have further developed the scope of work for this phase of the project. We expanded the tasks to provide additional context for the work that will be performed, including task lead and a list of the deliverables. The full scope is included with our cost proposal.

Tasks Task Lead(s) Deliverables
Task 1 | Project Management & Administration

1.1 Project Management

1.2 Project Management Plan (PMP)

1.3 Project Meetings

1.4 Schedule

1.5 Project Reporting

1.6 Third Party Coordination

1.7 Community Outreach Support

1.8 Funding Strategy
Somerville
Somerville
Somerville
Espinosa
Espinosa
Espinosa
Somerville
Bissegger
» Project Management Plan (PMP)
» Monthly schedule updates
» Monthly Project Status Reports
» PDT & Coordination meeting agendas,
minutes and exhibits
» Visualizations, renderings, supporting
materials for outreach efforts
» Funding Strategy Memo
Task 2 | Alternatives Analysis

2.1 Data Collection

2.2 Aerial Topography

2.3 Right of Way Mapping

2.4 Utility Coordination

2.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum

2.6 Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Report

2.7 Traffic Study

2.8 Alternatives Analysis

2.9 BNSF Concept Submittal

2.10 FRA Documentation
Espinosa
Riehle
Riehle
Espinosa
HDR/ Pulijala
HDR/ Flores
HDR/Smith
Somerville
Espinosa
» Photo log
» Aerial mapping and digital orthophoto
» Drone imagery
» Initial utility request letters & matrix
» Utility mapping
» Preliminary geotechnical memorandum
» Preliminary hydrology/hydraulics report
» Traffic study
» Agendas, minutes and exhibits
» Alternatives Analysis report
» BNSF concept submittal
» Project Planning Documentation
» Basis of Design Report
Task 3 | Environmental Clearance

3.1 CEQA Compliance

3.2 NEPA Compliance

3.3 Technical Studies

3.3.1 Air Quality

3.3.2 Noise and Vibration

3.3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.4 Cultural Resources

3.3.6 Geology and Soils

3.3.7 Phase 1 ESA/Hazardous Waste

3.3.8 Visual/Aesthetics
Bohonok
Bohonok
HDR/Hsu
HDR/Jarta
HDR/Smith
HDR/Clinnick
HDR/ Pulijala
HDR/ Pulijala
Goto
» CEQA Statutory Exemption (SE) Form
» NEPA Compliance Document (CE)
» Draft and Final Technical Studies in PDF
form
Task 4 | Preliminary Engineering (35%)

4.1 Roadway Plans

4.2 Traffic Plans

4.3 Structures Plans

4.4 Track Plans (As-Needed)

4.5 Right of Way Impact Map

4.6 Project Cost Estimate

4.7 FRA Final Performance Report
Espinosa
Chan
BCA/Pheifer
HDR/Osvalds
Espinosa
Espinosa
Somerville
» Roadway Plans
» Traffic Plans
» Structures Plans
» Track Plans (as-needed)
» Right of Way Impact Map
» Project Cost Estimate
» Final Performance Report

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 28 ends

F. CLIENT REFERENCES
We invite the City to contact other public agencies with whom we have partnered to plan, fund, environmentally clear, design, and manage the construction of similar grade separation projects. We are confident that they will attest to our team’s professionalism, quality of work, and commitment to excellence.

James Enriquez
City Engineer
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(562) 409-7540
[email protected]
Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade Separation
Mark Thomas provided conceptual engineering and funding support for 10% concept design and cost estimates for a railroad grade separation. We developed concepts for an overpass and underpass accommodating future California High-Speed Rail. Design included layout plan, profile, and typical section, with utility and right of way information from existing mapping.

Project Size: $175 million
Period of Performance: 2/2024–12/2024
Dan Mahgerefteh, PE
Deputy Executive Officer
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
1 Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 922-3662
[email protected]
Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation
Pat Somerville, and Biggs Cardosa, led the alternatives analysis, geometric design, all roadway and site components, and managed the drainage and utility relocation efforts at one of California’s most hazardous rail crossings.

The project shifted Rosecrans Avenue 125 feet to the south to maintain traffic flow during construction and reduce utility impacts.

Project Size: $150 million
Period of Performance: 6/2015–9/2024
Javier “Javy” Luna, PE
Acting Public Works Director/City
Engineer
City of Corona
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
(951) 817-5765
[email protected]
McKinley Street Grade Separation
Mark Thomas, with Biggs Cardosa, provided comprehensive project management services for this project that grade separated McKinley Street over the BNSF tracks, Sampson Avenue, and a flood control channel south of SR 91. Our services included overseeing the progress of the project; coordinating between various agencies, utility companies and other key stakeholders; pursuing and securing additional funding sources; and identifying grant opportunities and preparing grant applications.

Project Size: $133 million
Period of Performance: 7/2019–Present

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS

Page 29 ends

G. RIGHTS TO MATERIALS
Mark Thomas understands that all responses, inquires, and correspondence relating to this RFP and all reports, charts, schedules, exhibits, and other documentation produced by us are submitted as part of our proposal and not withdrawn.

H. REQUIRED FORMS & CERTIFICATIONS
We have included our forms and certifications in Appendix B.

I. CITY AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS
Mark Thomas has reviewed the City of Santa Fe Springs’ Standard Professional Services Agreement included as Attachment A to this RFP. We accept and agree to comply with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the Agreement and do not take exception to its provisions. Mark Thomas understands that the City does not guarantee acceptance of any requested revisions and is prepared to execute the Agreement as provided by the City.

J. COST PROPOSAL
Per the RFP, our scope of services and cost proposal have been submitted separately.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs
Appendix A

RESUMES

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-1

PAT SOMERVILLE, PE
Project Manager

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, California State University, Long Beach

REGISTRATION
CA PE C56141
Pat has 40 years of experience in civil engineering and management with a focus on municipal transportation and other complex capital improvement projects. He brings proven consensus building skills. He is adept at public presentations at City Council, Commission or community outreach meetings. He actively engages third parties, including regulatory agencies, utility companies, Class I and commuter rail and CPUC, coordinating early and often through the project life cycle. These relationships and this approach will lead to project approvals and on-time project delivery. He has unparalleled experience on grade separation projects, which allows him to quickly assess and address the issues on a project of this nature.

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
Doran Street Grade Separation, Glendale
Project manager for the alternatives analysis,
project report, environmental clearance and
PS&E for this project considering the closure of
both the Doran Street and the Brazil/Broadway
at-grade crossings with the Metrolink corridor.

A multitude of alternatives have been
considered that will achieve these closures,
and these alternatives have been included as
part of an extensive outreach effort. Under
Pat’s guidance, the team also developed two
additional active transportation features to
benefit community access to the Los Angeles
River Trail. These benefits close the gaps in the
existing active transportation network.

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation,
Santa Fe Springs
Civil task manager for the grade separation
overpass structure that will span the entire
railroad right of way, Pat managed all of
the civil elements of the project including
overseeing the subconsultant team. Developed
the utilization of a frontage road concept to
maintain connectivity. Rosecrans Avenue
is shifted 125-feet to the south to facilitate
maintenance of traffic during construction and
significantly reducing impacts on utilities. The
overpass structure will span over Marquardt
Avenue and Stage Road. This necessitated
new connections and circulation routes to
maintain access to businesses and residents.

Close coordination is being provided with SCE
to relocate and elevate two 66kV circuits and a
12kV circuit over the new overpass structure.

Orangethorpe Grade Separation, Orange
County
Project manager for preliminary engineering
and final design for the grade separation of
Orangethorpe and the BNSF tracks raising
Orangethorpe over the tracks. His team
developed an innovative and cost-effective
approach to the bridge, addressing the
70-degree skew to provide BNSF with better
use of their right of way while minimizing
impacts to surrounding properties. Work
entailed significant utility relocation, including
small and large diameter sewers (City and OC
Sanitation District), water distribution facilities
(City and Golden State Water), distribution and
transmission gas mains (SCG), underground

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-2
and overhead distribution and overhead
transmission electrical (SCE), as well as
communication facilities (AT&T). A hydrology
and hydraulic analysis along with a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) were
prepared. Extensive coordination with OCFCD
was required due to modifications to three
drainage channels.

Jurupa Road Grade Separation, Jurupa Valley
Project manager who led the planning and
design of RCTD’s grade separation of Jurupa
Road from the UPRR tracks and Van Buren
Blvd. His expertise and approach accelerated
the preliminary and final design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction. A new road will
be built to maintain the connection between
Jurupa Road and Van Buren Blvd. The project
will include a multi-use trail for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and equestrians. Senate Bill 132
funding requires this project go from project
initiation to completion of construction in a little
over five years. This project is currently under
construction.

Nogales Street (Alhambra Subdivision)
Grade Separation, Los Angeles County
Project manager for the PS&E preparation for
SGVCOG - Alameda Corridor East Project’s
Nogales Street Grade Separation at the UPRR
tracks and Valley Boulevard. He led the civil
design elements, including roadway, drainage,
sewer, and utility relocations. Pat was also
responsible for the overall coordination efforts
with all structural components, elements of the
project designed by the subconsultant, and
agency interaction. Additionally, he coordinated
with the 12 utility companies affected by the
civil improvements.

Brea Canyon Road Grade Separation,
Cities Of Industry and Diamond Bar
Project manager who led the PS&E preparation
for this grade separation project at the UPRR
Los Angeles Subdivision tracks, including
the civil design elements, including roadway,
drainage, sewer, and utility relocations.

Extensive work was required at the adjacent
Metrolink station. He was also responsible for
the overall coordination efforts with UPRR,
agencies and utilities, including major regional
facilities including MWD, whose main feeder
line required relocation.

Nogales Street (Los Angeles Subdivision)
Grade Separation, Los Angeles County
Project manager involved in PS&E preparation
for the Nogales Street Grade Separation (Los
Angeles Subdivision). Responsible for roadway
alignments, identifying existing substructures,
preparing concept plans for proposed utilities,
conducting hydrology studies, and design of
storm drain and sanitary sewer systems, detour
roads and site improvement plans. The design
conformed to LACDPW, APWA, and LACSD
standards. For the Alhambra subdivision, pat
managed the alternatives analysis and final
design elements, including roadway, drainage,
sewer, and utility relocations. Also, he was
responsible for the overall coordination efforts
with all structural components, elements of
the project designed by the subconsultant,
and agency interaction. Additionally, Pat
coordinated with the 12 utility companies
affected by the project improvements.

East Turnbull Canyon Road Grade
Separation, Los Angeles County
Project manager for a two-lane elevated viaduct
over the crossing of the UPRR and Metrolink
tracks. The concept includes frontage roads
to minimize right of way impacts and provide
access to adjacent properties. Extensive utility
coordination is required including the relocation
of SCE 66kV overhead utilities. Right of way
needs are being determined and modifications
to off-site parking lots are required.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-3

XAVIER ESPINOSA, PE
Civil Lead

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, California State University, Los Angeles

REGISTRATION
CA PE C88927
Xavier has 11 years of experience in small and large transportation projects in the Southern California. He has experience in the design and coordination of at-grade rail crossings, local arterial facilities, highways and roadway improvements. He has led project teams and supported the design in other disciplines such as rail, utilities, and storm drain design. His project experience includes redesign of at-grade rail crossings, grade separations, roadway realignment, highway widening, street rehabilitation, and parkway improvements.

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation,
Santa Fe Springs
Project engineer for the alternatives analysis,
environmental clearance, and the delivery of
the PS&E for a grade separation at the BNSF
tracks. Lead designer for the civil design that
included roadway, off site parcel re-grading,
signing and striping, stage construction, traffic
handling, and utility coordination.

Doran Street Grade Separation, Glendale
Project engineer who provided alternatives
analysis, project study report, and geometric
approval drawing for this LA Metro project. He
was also a part of the delivery of PS&E that
entailed the closure of the Doran Street and the
Broadway/ Brazil Street at-grade crossing at
the Metrolink tracks. In addition, Xavier led the
project design meetings with the client and the
agencies involved and the comment resolution
meetings.

Turnbull Canyon Road Grade Separation,
City of Industry and Los Angeles County
Roadway engineer for the delivery of PS&E,
alternative analysis, and environmental
clearance of the this at-grade crossing
project at Union Pacific tracks. Xavier was
also responsible for the quality control checks
during various stages of the project, to provide
successful submittal of PS&E.

Jurupa Road Grade Separation, Jurupa
Valley
Roadway engineer for the grade separation at
Jurupa Road from the UPRR tracks and Van
Buren Blvd. The project included a multi-use
trail for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians.

OC Loop Segments O, P, & Q, Orange
County
Project engineer for this project to bridge the

2.7-mile gap in the existing Coyote Creek
Bikeway to provide safe, off-road bikeway
connections that is west to the beach, north
to Santa Fe Springs and east to La Habra.

Segment O has grade separated crossings
at Valley View Avenue and Artesia Boulevard;
Segment P has grade separated crossings at
Firestone Boulevard, I-5 and the rail tracks; and
Segment Q has grade separated crossings at
both rail tracks and Stage Road. It will connect
the adjacent neighborhoods to work, school
and regional amenities while providing safe
crossings of freeways, waterways, and arterial
roadways.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-4

JOSH COSPER, PE, PLS, QSD
Quality Manager

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine

REGISTRATION
CA PE C71667
CA PLS 8774
CA QSD 00709
Josh has 21 years of experience in the design of transportation and public works improvement projects including plan preparation, design report/memorandum preparation, plans and specifications, engineering calculations, estimate preparation, coordination with agencies for approval, and managing design engineers and field technicians. Josh brings a uniquely diverse set of skills, including the project management of the McKinley Street Grade separation, design and delivery of over 50 roadway/trail/sidewalk improvement projects, program management of right of way and utilities for transportation corridors, and multi-modal integration into several of his projects. Having experienced all phases of a project from feasibility study through construction in conjunction with his diverse background, Josh brings a holistic approach to each project he leads, with an emphasis on how each project will be perceived and utilized by members of the community.

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
McKinley Street Grade Separation, Corona
Program manager responsible for management
of the design and right of way consultant firms
developing improvement plans for a grade
separation over the existing at-grade BNSF
railroad crossing. This $145 million project
includes a steel tied arch bridge crossing the
BNSF railroad. Project includes management of
over 10 complex partial property acquisitions,
coordination with utility companies/CPUC/
BNSF, securing over $15 million in funding and
the delivery of the overall project. Josh was also
responsible for identifying numerous acquisition
and utility relocation strategies saving the City
over $5 million in program costs.

Doran Street Grade Separation, Glendale
Right of way survey manager responsible for
the preparation of the right of way estimate
for three alternative design layouts to improve
traffic circulation along Fairmont Street, Doran
Street, and San Fernando Road along the City
of Glendale and LA border. Tasks included
preparation of a cost estimate including the
acquisition, relocation, site improvements,
demolition, cost to cure, severance, and
support costs for each alternative.

Limonite Avenue Gap Closure and Bridge,
Eastvale
Project manager responsible for the preliminary
design, CEQA clearance, and final design to
close the gap in the existing corridor of Limonite
Avenue. The project included over one mile of
4-lane roadway, Class I trail, wide sidewalks, new
bridge over the creek channel, bridge aesthetics,
and landscape architecture. The project also
included coordination with numerous high profile
developers, regulatory permits, and development
of a multi-lane roundabout. Josh was responsible
for identifying an alternative design that reduced
approximately 100 feet less of the bridge length
saving the City nearly $5 million.

North Verdugo Road Multi-modal
Improvements, Glendale
Project manager responsible for preliminary
and final design of integrating over 4 miles of
complete streets and multimodal elements
along North Verdugo Road between Monterey
Road to Honolulu Avenue. Josh also assisted
the City in obtaining over $28 million in CMAQ
funding for construction.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-5

BRIANNA BOHONOK
Lead Environmental

EDUCATION
MS in Urban Planning and Policy, University of Illinois, Chicago, 2012 BA in Architecture, Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, 2010 Brianna has more than 13 years of experience as both a CEQA practitioner and land use planner.

She has managed CEQA and NEPA documents for projects across the state, including highway/ roadway projects, transit line extensions, mixed-use development, and land use projects. Her work is enriched by her experience as an environmental planner at Caltrans, District 4 and on major BART projects. Brianna has worked from the project initiation and programming phase through the final design and permitting phase of project approval. Her diverse experience allows her to be particularly effective in strategizing on the most efficient and defensible approach to environmental review. She offers flexible and thoughtful strategies based on the latest legislation, case law, emerging trends, and best practices.

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
BrightlineWest High-Speed Passenger Train
Environmental Review, Victorville to Las
Vegas
With a previous firm, as principal for the handson program management, with attunement to strategic oversight and direction, helping
FRA to achieve an efficient, thorough, and
responsive environmental review process.

The team directed and executed innovative
approaches to the assessment of biological
and cultural resources, the review of ridership
projections, and economic impact analysis.

The team further assisted FRA in coordinating
the efforts of other federal and state agencies,
including federal cooperating agencies
(Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
Federal Highway Administration) and numerous
stakeholder agencies.

Rail Safety Enhancement Program,
Alameda CTC
With a previous firm, principal in charge
responsible for orchestrating the production
of 3 CEQA Categorical Exemptions and 3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations.

Brianna played a pivotal role in defining the
environmental strategy that would minimize
schedule risk while maintaining legal
defensibility. Brianna also maximized efficiency
in the production of these documents by
organizing the team to minimize duplication
of efforts in the 6 related environmental
documents. Brianna is currently overseeing
preparation of two NEPA CEs for the Phase A
crossings.

Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS
California HSR, Palmdale and Burbank
With a previous firm, technical task leader
conducting the environmental analysis for
the Palmdale to Burbank segment of the
California HSR system. The Palmdale to
Burbank segment traverses some of the most
substantial physical environmental challenges
of the proposed system’s entire route. Brianna
is leading preparation of the Noise, Section 4(f),
and Parks and Recreation analysis.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-6
Eric Pheifer, PE
Structures Manager, Biggs Cardosa
Eric has a variety of experience in the design and management of bridge structures, including roadway, railroad, and pedestrian bridges. Eric’s experience also includes design and analysis of specialized structures, including design of arch bridges, movable bridges, truss bridges, and bridges constructed using Accelerated Bridge Construction techniques.

Along with design and management responsibilities, Eric is also responsible for the production of Biggs Cardosa’s design visualizations, including renderings, animations, and other interactive content. Eric has delivered several high-profile grade separation projects in Southern California as the Principal-in-Charge, Project Manager, and/or Structures Manager. He knows how to develop “win-win” solutions for local agencies and the railroads that are readily approvable and constructable.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation, City of Santa Fe Springs, CA: Project Manager for the $160M grade separation of Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue and the BNSF right of way. As the most hazardous at-grade crossing in the State, this grade separation project alleviated traffic impacts and hazards posed by the existing at-grade rail crossing.

It was the No. 1 grade separation project on CPUC’s Grade Separation Priority List. Eric was responsible for the development of an Alternatives Analysis report, PS&E documents, utility coordination, railroad coordination, right of way and environmental coordination, and project management. Structures include a three-span, 580-foot long precast/prestressed spliced “wide-flange” girder bridge and retaining walls. Awards: 2025 ACEC California EEA Honor Award in Transportation Category; 2025 ASCE MLAB Transportation Award; 2025 ASCE LA Section – Outstanding Transportation Project; 2025- 2026 ASCE Region 9 (California) Outstanding Transportation Project.

McKinley Street Grade Separation, Corona, CA: Project Manager for the $150M grade separation of McKinley Street and BNSF Railway. The project consisted of elevating McKinley Street and constructing a bridge over BNSF Railway. The project involved significant coordination with BNSF Railway, CPUC, Caltrans District 8, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and other agency stakeholders. The project site was highly constrained. Eric developed an innovative concept to use a network tied-arch bridge (the first of its kind in California) to clear span BNSF’s right of way, a flood control channel, and an adjacent roadway. The bridge was built in a staging area and moved into place overnight in August 2024 using Self-Propelled Modular Transports, an Accelerated Bridge Construction technique. Awards: 2026 ACEC California EEA Honor Award in Transportation Category; 2026 APWA Southern California BEST Awards Project of the Year winner in Traffic, Mobility and Beautification Category.

Central Avenue Bridge over UPRR/Amtrak/Metrolink, Montclair, CA: Project Manager leading a multidisciplinary team and providing project management, state and federal funding assistance, right of way engineering, environmental documentation and PS&E. Biggs Cardosa designed a parabolically haunched (variable depth) steel girder bridge alternative, which reduced the amount the roadway profile had to be raised, limiting impacts to adjacent businesses. The project will replace the existing 450-foot-long aging bridge that spans over multiple UPRR, Amtrak, and Metrolink tracks.

Fullerton Road Grade Separation, City of Industry, CA: Principal-in-Charge responsible for the design of a UPRR railroad bridge, roadway bridge, and retaining walls. The railroad bridge is a two-span, 140-foot-long ballasted steel deck plate girder bridge. The roadway bridge is a two-span, 140-foot-long cast-in-place, post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge.

Eric developed memorandums and reports in support of gaining UPRR’s acceptance of a proprietary T-Wall® Retaining Wall System. He was responsible for supporting right of way acquisition efforts through exhibits, descriptions of temporary construction easement uses, and renderings of the proposed conditions for affected parcels.

REGISTRATION
Professional Engineer
(Civil) CA C83026

EDUCATION
B.S. Civil Engineering,
Tufts University,
Massachusetts
M.S. Structural
Engineering, Tufts
University, Massachusetts

EXPERIENCE
Years with Firm - 13,
Total 16

AFFILIATIONS
ASCE OC Branch:

President (25–26)
AWARDS
2023 ENR Top 20 Young
Professionals in California
2024 ASCE Los Angeles
Section Outstanding
Branch Officer

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-7
1 EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering,
California State Polytechnic
University, San Luis Obispo

REGISTRATIONS
Professional Engineer -
Civil, CA, No. 55501
Certified Project Manager
(CPM)
Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design
Accredited Professional
(LEED AP)
Envision Sustainability
Professional (ENV SP)

INDUSTRY TENURE
32 Years

HDR TENURE
<1 Years
David Eames, PE, CPM, LEED AP, ENV SP
Alternative Analysis
David has 32 years of experience in Southern California working on a wide range of transportation projects with a focus on developing Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&Es) for large, complex grade separation projects. His experience includes managing various aspects of project development, including environmental impact analysis, utility relocation, project design, project management, and construction management on projects located in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties. He has worked extensively with public agencies all over Southern California, including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Port of Long Beach (POLB), and the Cities of Los Angeles, Tustin, Irvine, Santa Fe Springs, Ventura, Industry, Pico Rivera, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Upland.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
RCTC, Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation PS&E, Riverside County, CA.

Quality Checker. David is currently providing quality review checking the 65% level design plans, specifications, and estimate. Project improvements include a new grade separation bridge structure on Pennsylvania Avenue in the City of Beaumont.

Project includes improvements to a Caltrans interchange, UPRR track shoofly, regional storm drains improvements, sewer and waterline relocations, and SCE overhead distribution relocations.

LA Metro, Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project, La Mirada and Santa Fe Springs, CA. Civil Design Manager. David oversaw the civil design and coordinated with the preparation of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) design efforts with other consultant designers. His responsibilities also included coordinating with third-party utilities for the review and approval of their relocation designs. David’s design responsibilities included roadway, grading, site improvements, drainage, and construction staging. The overpass structure spanned the BNSF Railway (BNSF) railroad right-of-way in the City of Santa Fe Springs. This at-grade crossing was ranked as the most hazardous in the state as part of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 priority list.

SGVCOG, Turnbull Canyon Road Grade Separation Project, Industry, CA.

Design Project Manager. David oversaw the final design of this project. The project included a grade separation of the existing Turnbull Canyon Road at-grade rail crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railroad right-of-way in the City of Industry. The project included designing the widening of Turnbull Canyon Road to accommodate a two-lane overpass viaduct along with frontage roads on each side to maintain direct access to the adjacent properties. The existing bridge over the San Jose Creek is to be removed and replaced with a widened bridge structure. Extensive private property site modifications were required to mitigate impacts on businesses and residents. This project began construction in 2025.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-8
1 EDUCATION
Bachelor of Architecture,
Illinois Institute of
Technology

REGISTRATIONS
Licensed Architect, IL, No.
001021397
Licensed Architect, LA, No.
8026

INDUSTRY TENURE
21 Years

HDR TENURE
8 Years
Andy Osvalds, AIA
Rail Lead | Rail Coordination
Andy has worked almost exclusively for BNSF Railway (BNSF) since joining the freight rail industry in 2008 and has been involved in more than 150 BNSF projects in Southern California over the last 16 years (as well as numerous other locations across the BNSF system). He has managed large project teams and knows how to engage the right expertise at the right time including BNSF staff and key stakeholders. Some applicable project types that Andy has worked on for BNSF include intermodal (including wide span cranes), line expansion, public and ARRA funded projects, fueling, industrial wastewater, bridges (rail and highway), and buildings. He is currently serving as the Principal-in-Charge on the Surprise Intermodal Facility and Project Manager on the Needles Third Main Track Project Segments 1 – 4. Andy has served BNSF as an embedded Project Engineer on the Mechanical Revitalization Program and serves as HDR’s Client Account Manager for BNSF.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
BNSF, Public Project Grade Separations, CA and WA. Project Manager. Andy oversaw all aspects of construction adjacent to, over, under, or with the potential to impact the longterm performance of BNSF Operations. • Valley View Avenue Underpass, Santa Fe Springs, CA
• Highway 99 Underpass, Stockton, CA
• Navy Drive Widening Underpass, Stockton, CA
• State College Underpass, Fullerton, CA
• Raymond Avenue Underpass, Fullerton, CA
• Hageman Road Underpass, Bakersfield, CA
• Allen Road Underpass, Bakersfield, CA
• Bradley (SR-140) Overpass, Merced, CA
• Wilbur Avenue Overpass Seismic Retrofit, Antioch, CA
• SR-4 Crosstown Freeway Extension Overpass, Stockton, CA • SR-91 HOV Overpass Widening (7 bridges), Corona, CA
• SR-15 Overpass Widening, Victorville, CA
• I-5 HOV Overpass Widening, Tacoma, WA
BNSF, Valley View Grade Separation, Santa Fe Springs and La Mirada, CA. CM and Inspector Project Manager. Andy managed several inspectors and coordinators for BNSF to verify best practices were followed and BNSF track and signal standards were adhered to. He also coordinated work windows and BNSF construction teams.

BNSF Railway (BNSF), Needles Third Main Track (3MT) Expansion - Segments 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Design and Construction Management), Needles, CA. Project Manager. Andy served as Project Manager responsible for the design of the project. He also served as the Principal-in-Charge for the construction management services of the project. The project involves the design of approximately 31 miles of new third main track civil and structural improvements between CP West Needles and CP Goffs on the BNSF Needles Subdivision.

In addition to designing the main line track alignment, profile, and embankment, HDR performed all H&H analysis to support the BNSF design of approximately 60 railroad bridges, providing design for several culvert and arch extensions of diverse types, geometries, spans, and materials. HDR also coordinated with BNSF's Environmental Permitting consultant to minimize environmental impacts of the project.

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-9
Team Member, Role
& Location
Years of
Experience License Relevant Experience
Kimberly Barling, PE
Roadway
10 CA PE C92279 » McKinley Street Grade Separation, Corona » Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation,
Santa Fe Springs
» Jurupa Road Grade Separation, Jurpura
Valley
Jesseca Martinez
Tobon, EIT
Roadway
10 EIT 156128 » San Fernando Road Beautification and
Multimodal Improvements, Glendale
» Yorba Linda Boulevard Widening and Savi
Ranch Parkway Widening Projects, Yorba
Linda
» Jeffrey/Irvine Center Drive Improvements,
Irvine
Ricky Chan, PE, TE,
PTOE
Traffic Engineering
25 CA PE C71389
CA PTOE 3658
CA TE 2673
» Firestone Boulevard Widening, Norwalk
» Campus Avenue At-Grade Railway Crossing
Safety Improvements, Ontario
Ninh Eng, PE
Storm Drain
7 CA PE C95184 » Decoto Road Corridor Improvements,
Fremont
» OCTA Bus Stop Safety Plan, Orange County
» Navy Way/Seaside Avenue Interchange,
Port of Los Angeles
Madison Hall, EIT
Utilities
6 EIT » McKinley Street Grade Separation, Corona
» Ontario Avenue Widening, Corona
» SR-241/Bee Canyon Road PSR-PDS, Irvine
Lynn Odgiiv, SE, PE
Retaining Walls
15 CA SE 6838
CA PE 86869
» OC Loop Segments O, P, and Q, Orange
» Nuevo Road Bridge Rehabilitation, Riverside
» North Verdugo Road Multimodal
Improvements, Glendale
Tai Goto, PLA, LEED
AP
Aesthetics
31 LEED AP
0010022359
RLA CA 4983
» San Fernando Road Beautification and
Multimodal Improvements, Glendale
» Osborne Street: Path to Park Access Project,
Los Angeles
» Yorba Linda Boulevard Widening and Savi
Ranch Parkway Widening Projects, Yorba
Linda
Additional Staff Experience Matrix

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-10
Team Member, Role
& Location
Years of
Experience License Relevant Experience
Danielle Keith

CEQA/NEPA
6 N/A » CAHSR Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/
EIS, Los Angeles County
» I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange
Improvement, Alameda County
» I-880/Winton Avenue and A Street
Interchange Improvements, Alameda
County
Chris Riehle, PLS
Surveying & Mapping
24 PLS CA 9453 » Osborne Street: Path to Park Access Project, Los Angeles
» Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation
(SAGS), Santa Ana
Sereyna Cagle, PLS
Right of Way Mapping
26 PLS CA 8175 » As‑Needed Services, Montebello
» On‑Call Surveying Services for Southern
California Edison,
Various Locations
» On-Call Surveying Services for PG&E, South
Valley Transmission, Various Locations
Marina Ramirez, LCI
Outreach Support
10 LCI 6078 » Osborne Street: Path to Park Access Project, Los Angeles
» Mission Viejo - SS4A Grant, Mission Viejo
Ryan Bissegger
Funding Strategy
22 N/A » McKinley Street Grade Separation, Corona
» Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation,
Santa Fe Springs
» Santa Ana Grade Separation (SAGS) Grant
Applications, Santa Ana
» Beaumont-Penn Avenue/UPRR Grade
Separation Grant, Beaumont
Patrick Halsted
Rail Coordination
30 N/A » Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation
PS&E, Riverside
» 7th Street Grade Separation East, Oakland
» I-15 Express Lanes Project PS&E, Rancho
Cucamonga
Bob Ryan, PE
Track
19 PE CA 79835 » Vineyard Avenue Grade Separation, Ontario » Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation PA&ED
and Separation PS&E, Riverside
» California Street Grade Crossing
Improvements, Ventura

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-11
Team Member, Role
& Location
Years of
Experience License Relevant Experience
Elias Clark, PE
Phasing
21 PE CA 80876 » West Bank Yard Reconfiguration, Malabar Yard, and LAJ Connector Segment Project
of the CHSRA Southern California Mitigation
Program, Los Angeles
» Needles Third Main Track Segments 1, 2, 3,
and 4, Needles
Tom Densford, PE
Rail Bridge
40 PE CA C95918 » Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation, Santa Fe Springs
» Mount Vernon Viaduct Replacement Project,
San Bernardino County
» California High-Speed Rail Merced to
Madera Segments, Merced County
Victoria Hsu
Air Quality
17 N/A » Metro, I-405 from Wilmington Avenue to
Main Street Improvements PA&ED, Los
Angeles
» I-15/ SR 74 (Central Avenue) Interchange
Improvement Project, Lake Elsinore
Gina Jarta, LEED AP
BD+C
Noise & Vibration
18 LEED AP
10583473
» Hobson Yard Noise Mitigation, Lincoln, NE
» SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV
Program General Engineering Consultant,
Bellevue, WA
» Dickinson Bypass Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Design of Interim and
Final Bypasses and Interchange, Dickinson,
ND
Daniel Smith
Biological
19 N/A » Needles Third Main Track Expansion -
Segments 1, 2, 3, and 4, Needles
» Bridge 7600-34.1 Replacement Project,
Victorville
» Cajon Third Main Track Project, San
Bernardino County
David Clinnick, RPA
Cultural
23 RPA CA 5212 » Knights Landing Flood Management Project – Sacramento River Levee Improvements,
Yolo County
» Small Communities Flood Risk Reduction
Phase 2 Knights Landing Flood
Management Project, Yolo County

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs

MARK THOMAS
Page A-12
Team Member, Role
& Location
Years of
Experience License Relevant Experience
Sreekar Pulijala, PE,
GE
Geology & Soils
20 PE CA 82535
GE CA 3294
» I-15/SR 74 (Central Avenue) Interchange
Improvement Project, Lake Elsinore
» Riverside Avenue Overhead Widening
Project, San Bernardino County
» Northbound SR 57 Widening from Katella to
Lincoln Avenue, Orange County
Douglas Smith, PE,
RSP1
Traffic Study
47 PE CA 43549
RSP1 1590
» SR 134/San Fernando Road Grade
Separation PS&E, Glendale
» Orange/Olive Grade Crossing Study, Orange
County
» Hellman Avenue at 8th Street AtGrade Crossing Improvements, Rancho Cucamonga
Danny Mendoza
Right of Way Estimating
25 N/A » Turnbull Canyon Road Grade Separation,
Industry
» Montebello Boulevard Grade Separation,
Montebello
» SR 1/Sepulveda Bridge Widening PA&ED
and PS&E, Manhattan Beach
Bill Flores, PE, QSD
Drainage Study
40 PE CA 45181 » Vineyard Avenue Grade Separation Project, Ontario
» Jurupa Avenue Underpass-Phase II
Construction Management, Riverside
» Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation Project,
Riverside

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
City of Santa Fe Springs
Appendix B

REQUIRED FORMS AND

CERTIFICATIONS

MARK THOMAS
Page B-2

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
SB 1439 California Levine Act Disclosure Statement
Cal. Govt. Code § 84308
The Levine Act requires a Party in a proceeding pending before the City of Santa Fe Springs that involves any action related to their contract, license, permit, or use entitlement to disclose any campaign contributions to City elected or appointed officials totaling more than $500 within the twelve (12) months prior to the City decision. A participant in a proceeding may voluntarily report a campaign contribution on this form.

1. Have you or your company/organization, or any agent on behalf of you or your company/ organization, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any Santa Fe Springs City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the anticipated date of any Council action related to this contract, license, permit, or other use entitlement? □ YES □ NO

2. If yes to 1, please identify:
a. Meeting Date:
b. Agenda item number:
c. Brief Agenda Description (e.g., contract, license, permit, use entitlement):

3. If yes to 1, please identify the Council Member(s):

Answering yes to question #1 does not preclude the Santa Fe Springs City Council from taking action on the license, permit, or other use entitlement. It does, however, preclude the identified Council Member(s) from participating in the actions.

Verification
I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this Disclosure Statement. I have reviewed this Disclosure Statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained in this statement is true and complete. I declare under penalty under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature of Authorized Individual Date
Name of Authorized Individual:

Name of Company/Organization:
07/20/2026
Pat Somerville, PE
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-3

2. If yes to 1, please identify:
a. Meeting Date:
b. Agenda item number:
c. Brief Agenda Description (e.g., contract, license, permit, use entitlement):

3. If yes to 1, please identify the Council Member(s):

Signature of Authorized Individual Date
Name of Authorized Individual:

Name of Company/Organization:

ATTACHMENT B1
X
August 18, 2026
Eric Pheifer, Principal / Vice President
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-4
CITY OF 6$17$)(635,1*6
SB 1439 California Levine Act Disclosure Statement
Cal. Govt. Code § 84308
ēôϙ[ôŽĖĲôϙèťϙŘôŗŪĖŘôŜϙÍϙÍŘťƅϙĖĲϙÍϙŕŘĺèôôîĖĲČϙŕôĲîĖĲČϙæôċĺŘôϙťēôϙ ĖťƅϙĺċϙÍĲťÍϙ>ôϙŕŘĖĲČŜϙťēÍťϙ
ĖĲŽĺīŽôŜϙ ÍĲƅϙ ÍèťĖĺĲϙ ŘôīÍťôîϙ ťĺϙ ťēôĖŘϙ èĺĲťŘÍèťϠϙ īĖèôĲŜôϠϙ ŕôŘıĖťϠϙ ĺŘϙ ŪŜôϙ ôĲťĖťīôıôĲťϙ ťĺϙ îĖŜèīĺŜôϙ ÍĲƅϙ èÍıŕÍĖČĲϙ èĺĲťŘĖæŪťĖĺĲŜϙ ťĺϙ
Ėťƅϙ ôīôèťôîϙ ĺŘϙ ÍŕŕĺĖĲťôîϙ ĺċċĖèĖÍīŜϙ ťĺťÍīĖĲČϙ ıĺŘôϙ ťēÍĲϙ щ͔͏͏ϙ ſĖťēĖĲϙ ťēôϙ ťſôīŽôϙ ϼ͐͑Ͻϙ ıĺĲťēŜϙ ŕŘĖĺŘϙ ťĺϙ ťēôϙ Ėťƅϙ îôèĖŜĖĺĲϟϙ ϙ ŕÍŘťĖèĖŕÍĲťϙ ĖĲϙ Íϙ
ŕŘĺèôôîĖĲČϙıÍƅϙŽĺīŪĲťÍŘĖīƅϙŘôŕĺŘťϙÍϙèÍıŕÍĖČĲϙèĺĲťŘĖæŪťĖĺĲϙĺĲϙťēĖŜϙċĺŘıϟϙ Have you or your company/organization, or any agent on behalf of you or your company/ organization, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any ÍĲťÍϙ>ôϙŕŘĖĲČŜ

Ėťƅϙ
ĺŪĲèĖīϙaôıæôŘϙĖĲϙťēôϙ͐͑ϙıĺĲťēŜϙŕŘôèôîĖĲČϙťēôϙÍĲťĖèĖŕÍťôîϙîate of any Council action related to this contract, license, permit, or other use entitlement? Ң YES Ң NO If yes to 1, please identify:

D Meeting Date:

E Agenda item number:

F Brief Agenda Description (e.g., contract, license, permit, use entitlement):

3. If yes to 1, please identify the Council Member(s):
ĲŜſôŘĖĲČϙƅôŜϙťĺϙŗŪôŜťĖĺĲϙϭ͐ϙîĺôŜϙĲĺťϙŕŘôèīŪîôϙťēôϙÍĲťÍϙ>ôϙŕŘĖĲČŜϙ Ėťƅϙ
ĺŪĲèĖīϙċŘĺıϙťÍħĖĲČϙ
ÍèťĖĺĲϙ ĺĲϙ ťēôϙ īĖèôĲŜôϠϙ ŕôŘıĖťϠϙ ĺŘϙ ĺťēôŘϙ ŪŜôϙ ôĲťĖťīôıôĲťϟϙ Iťϙ îĺôŜϠϙ ēĺſôŽôŘϠϙ ŕŘôèīŪîôϙ ťēôϙ ĖîôĲťĖċĖôîϙ
ĺŪĲèĖīϙaôıæôŘϼŜϽϙċŘĺıϙŕÍŘťĖèĖŕÍťĖĲČϙĖĲϙťēôϙÍèťĖĺĲŜϟ
Verification
I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this Disclosure Statement. I have reviewed this Disclosure Statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained in this statement is true and complete. I declare under penalty under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature of Authorized Individual Date
Name of Authorized Individual:

Name of Company/Organization:

ATTACHMENT B1
California that the fo
August 18, 2026
Thomas T. Kim
HDR Engineering, Inc.
✔

MARK THOMAS
Page B-5
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS.
2 CFR Part 180, as adopted by DOT at 2 CFR Part 1200
The Bidder, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, certifies that, except as noted below, he/she or any other person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, manager:
 is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any Federal agency;
 has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded or determined ineligible by any Federal agency within the past 3 years;
 does not have a proposed debarment pending; and
 has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past 3 years.

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 bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of action.

The above Certification is part of the Bid Proposal. Signing this Bid Proposal on the signature page thereof shall also constitute signature of this Certification.

Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-6
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

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

The above Certification is part of the Bid Proposal. Signing this Bid Proposal on the signature page thereof shall also constitute signature of this Certification.

Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution
ATTACHMENT B2
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-7
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS.
2 CFR Part 180, as adopted by DOT at 2 CFR Part 1200
The Bidder, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, certifies that, except as noted below, he/she or any other person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, manager:
is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any Federal agency;
has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded or determined ineligible by any Federal agency within the past 3 years;
does not have a proposed debarment pending; and
has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past 3 years.

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

The above Certification is part of the Bid Proposal. Signing this Bid Proposal on the signature page thereof shall also constitute signature of this Certification.

Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution
ATTACHMENT B2
HDR Engineering, Inc.

N/A

MARK THOMAS
Page B-8
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
The undersigned certifies, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, 'Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,' in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code.

Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Signature: ___________________________________________
Name: _______________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________ Firm/Company: _______________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________ 07/20/2026 Pat Somerville, PE
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Associate Principal + Division Manager

MARK THOMAS
Page B-9
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
The undersigned certifies, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Eric Pheifer
Principal / Vice President
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

August 18, 2026

MARK THOMAS
Page B-10
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
The undersigned certifies, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Signature: ___________________________________________
Name: _______________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________ Firm/Company: _______________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT B3
han $10,000 and not
___________________
HDR Engineering, Inc.

Thomas T. Kim
Senior Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.

August 18, 2026

MARK THOMAS
Page B-11

10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant:

9. Award Amount, if known:
$
* Street 1
* City State Zip
Street 2
* Last Name
Prefix * First Name Middle Name
Suffix

DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C.1352 OMB Number: 4040-0013 Expiration Date: 06/30/2028

1. * Type of Federal Action:
a. contract
b. grant
c. cooperative agreement
d. loan
e. loan guarantee
f. loan insurance

2. * Status of Federal Action:
a. bid/offer/application
b. initial award
c. post-award

3. * Report Type:
a. initial filing
b. material change

4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity:

Prime SubAwardee
* Name
* Street 1 Street 2
* City State Zip
Congressional District, if known:

5. If Reporting Entity in No.4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:

6. * Federal Department/Agency: 7. * Federal Program Name/Description:

Assistance Listing Number,
if applicable:

8. Federal Action Number, if known:
b. Individual Performing Services (including address if different from No. 10a) Prefix * First Name Middle Name
* Street 1
* City State Zip
Street 2

11. * Last Name Suffix
Information requested through this form is authorized by title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed by the tier above when the transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to the Congress semi-annually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. * Signature:

Completed on submission to Grants.gov
Completed on submission to Grants.gov
*Name: Prefix * First Name Middle Name
* Last Name Suffix
Title: Telephone No.: Date:

Federal Use Only: Authorized for Local Reproduction
Standard Form - LLL (Rev. 7-97)

NOT APPLICABLE

MARK THOMAS
Page B-12

10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant:

9. Award Amount, if known:
$
* Street 1
* City State Zip
Street 2
* Last Name
Prefix * First Name Middle Name
Suffix

DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C.1352 OMB Number: 4040-0013 Expiration Date: 06/30/2028

1. * Type of Federal Action:
a. contract
b. grant
c. cooperative agreement
d. loan
e. loan guarantee
f. loan insurance

2. * Status of Federal Action:
a. bid/offer/application
b. initial award
c. post-award

3. * Report Type:
a. initial filing
b. material change

4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity:

Prime SubAwardee
* Name
* Street 1 Street 2
* City State Zip
Congressional District, if known:

5. If Reporting Entity in No.4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:

6. * Federal Department/Agency: 7. * Federal Program Name/Description:

Assistance Listing Number,
if applicable:

8. Federal Action Number, if known:
b. Individual Performing Services (including address if different from No. 10a) Prefix * First Name Middle Name
* Street 1
* City State Zip
Street 2

Completed on submission to Grants.gov
Completed on submission to Grants.gov
*Name: Prefix * First Name Middle Name
* Last Name Suffix
Title: Telephone No.: Date:

Federal Use Only: Authorized for Local Reproduction
Standard Form - LLL (Rev. 7-97)
Biggs Cardosa does not have any
lobbying activities to disclose.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-13

10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant:

9. Award Amount, if known:
$
* Street 1
* City State Zip
Street 2
* Last Name
Prefix * First Name Middle Name
Suffix

DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C.1352 OMB Number: 4040-0013 Expiration Date: 0//202

1. * Type of Federal Action:
a. contract
b. grant
c. cooperative agreement
d. loan
e. loan guarantee
f. loan insurance

2. * Status of Federal Action:
a. bid/offer/application
b. initial award
c. post-award

3. * Report Type:
a. initial filing
b. material change

4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity:

Prime SubAwardee
* Name
* Street 1 Street 2
* City State Zip
Congressional District, if known:

5. If Reporting Entity in No.4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:

6. * Federal Department/Agency: 7. * Federal Program Name/Description:

Assistance Listing Number,
if applicable:

8. Federal Action Number, if known:
b. Individual Performing Services (including address if different from No. 10a) Prefix * First Name Middle Name
* Street 1
* City State Zip
Street 2

Completed on submission to Grants.gov
Completed on submission to Grants.gov
*Name: Prefix * First Name Middle Name
* Last Name Suffix
Title: Telephone No.: Date:

Federal Use Only: Authorized for Local Reproduction
Standard Form - LLL (Rev. 7-97)
Not Applicable for HDR Engineering, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-14
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
(Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code Section 7106) To the CITY of SANTA FE SPRINGS
In conformance with Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code 7106 the bidder declares that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid.

The above Non-collusion Affidavit is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Non-collusion Affidavit.

Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution.

Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-15
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

The above Non-collusion Affidavit is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Non-collusion Affidavit.

Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution.

ATTACHMENT B4
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-16
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
(Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code Section 7106) To the CI´ϙĺċϙbϙ>(ϙIb@
In conformance with Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code 7106 the bidder declares that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid.

The above Non-collusion Affidavit is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Non-collusion Affidavit.

Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution.

ATTACHMENT B4
HDR Engineering, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-17
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
This Conflict of Interest Statement is submitted in connection with the proposal for the project titled _________________________________________, funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that no actual or potential conflict of interest exists with regard to the work to be performed under this procurement, and that:

1. No officer, employee, or agent of the awarding agency who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of this project has a financial or other interest in the firm submitting this proposal.

2. The firm, its employees, or its subcontractors have not offered, given, or agreed to give any gift, contribution, or other consideration to any employee or representative of the awarding agency as an inducement for the award of this contract.

3. The firm has disclosed and will disclose any relationships, financial or otherwise, that may pose a potential conflict of interest during the performance of this contract. ☐ No conflicts of interest are known at this time.
☐ The following potential conflicts of interest are disclosed (attach additional pages if necessary):

The undersigned agrees to notify the awarding agency immediately if any actual or potential conflict of interest arises during the course of this procurement or the performance of any resulting contract.

Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Associate Principal + Division Manager
Norwalk Boulevard/Los Nietos Road Grade
Separation Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Clearance

MARK THOMAS
Page B-18
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

Principal / Vice President
Eric Pheifer
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

August 18, 2026
Safety and Access Redefined: Norwalk Boulevard
/ Los Nietos Road Grade Separation
X

MARK THOMAS
Page B-19
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

3. The firm has disclosed and will disclose any relationships, financial or otherwise, that may pose a potential conflict of interest during the performance of this contract.

Ч No conflicts of interest are known at this time.

Ч The following potential conƲicts of interest are disclosed (attach additional pages if necessary):

Signature: ___________________________________________
Name: _______________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________ Firm/Company: _______________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT B5
ce o a y esu g co
___________________
HDR Engineering, Inc.

Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Road Grade Separation
Thomas T. Kim
Senior Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.

August 18, 2026
✔

MARK THOMAS
Page B-20
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

TITLE VI NON-DISCRIMINATION ASSURANCE
_____________________________, hereinafter referred to as the 'Consultant,' agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (49 CFR Part 21).

ASSURANCE
The Consultant assures that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or low-income status, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

The Consultant further assures that it will include the following assurance in every contract subject to Title VI: The contractor, sub-recipient, or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or low-income status in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by 49 CFR Part 21, including employment practices when a program covers employment.'

COMPLIANCE
The Consultant agrees to take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with Title VI and related nondiscrimination requirements, including but not limited to: appointing a Title VI Coordinator, conducting regular reviews of its programs and activities, and maintaining records demonstrating compliance.

Authorized Representative: _______________________________ Title: _________________________________________________ Company: _______________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________ 07/20/2026 Pat Somerville, PE
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Associate Principal + Division Manager
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

MARK THOMAS
Page B-21
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

Eric Pheifer
Principal / Vice President
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

August 18, 2026

MARK THOMAS
Page B-22
BIDDER’S NAME: ___________________________
(Submit with Bid Proposal)

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Thomas T. Kim
Senior Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.

August 18, 2026

EXHIBIT C

COMPENSATION RATE

LOS ANGELES
515 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 592-1570
COST PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT SCOPE - City of Santa Fe Springs: Norwalk Blvd/Los Nietos Road Grade Separation Sr. Engineering Manager Pat Somerville (Project Manager) Sr. Project Manager Sr. Technical Lead Project Manager Project Engineer Design Engineer II Design Engineer I Sr. Technician Sr. Project Manager - PLProject Manager - PL Sr. Planner Planner II LAUD Project Manager Landscape Designer IILandscape Designer I Funding Manager Sr. Funding Specialist Survey Manager II Project Surveyor II Asst Surveyor II Survey Specialist II Survey Technician II 2-Person Crew (OE12) Sr. Project Accountant Sr. Asst Project Manager Sr. Graphic Manager Sr. Graphic Designer Graphic Designer BIGGS CARDOSA HDR $458 $302 $274 $245 $173 $158 $115 $173 $274 $202 $173 $130 $216 $130 $101 $360 $245 $274 $202 $144 $173 $115 $403 $187 $158 $202 $158 $130 PW

1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION

1.1 Project Management 160 80 80 32 40 392 $119,031 $2,381 $121,411 $6,200 $27,142 $154,753

1.2 Project Management Plan (PMP) 40 40 24 104 $32,262 $645 $32,908 $32,908

1.3 Project Meetings 60 60 60 100 36 36 4 356 $81,792 $1,636 $83,428 $5,805 $41,992 $131,225

1.4 Schedule 32 20 40 8 100 $27,733 $555 $28,288 $28,288

1.5 Project Reporting 20 20 40 80 $20,968 $419 $21,388 $21,388

1.6 Third Party Coordination 40 60 60 32 20 212 $50,747 $1,015 $51,762 $1,540 $30,944 $84,245

1.7 Community Outreach Support 40 60 60 32 20 16 16 244 $56,275 $1,125 $57,400 $57,400

1.8 Funding Strategy 16 24 40 80 $25,757 $515 $26,273 $26,273 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $4,640 $4,640 $203 $500 $5,343
Subtotal Phase 1 408 0 0 340 364 64 140 0 36 36 0 0 16 16 0 24 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 52 0 0 0 1568 $419,205 $8,291 $427,496 $13,748 $100,578 $541,822

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

2.1 Data Collection 8 16 40 20 40 124 $22,265 $445 $22,710 $12,855 $35,565

2.2 Aerial Topography 2 4 8 7 12 24 8 40 4 109 $29,204 $584 $29,788 $29,788

2.3 Right of Way Mapping 2 4 8 27 100 200 8 40 40 4 433 $82,353 $1,647 $84,000 $84,000

2.4 Utility Coordination 4 12 40 16 80 12 24 188 $31,545 $631 $32,176 $32,176

2.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum 2 4 8 14 $3,277 $66 $3,343 $52,825 $56,168

2.6 Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Report 4 4 8 16 $4,194 $84 $4,278 $69,254 $73,532

2.7 Traffic Study 4 12 12 28 $6,842 $137 $6,979 $91,822 $98,801

2.8 Alternatives Analysis 80 40 16 120 408 320 400 2 4 39 48 96 20 80 80 1753 $302,443 $6,049 $308,492 $96,504 $85,164 $490,160

2.9 BNSF Concept Submittal 40 120 120 120 240 640 $115,067 $2,301 $117,368 $13,984 $24,400 $155,752

2.10 FRA Documentation 40 60 80 180 $46,831 $937 $47,768 $47,768 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $37,328 $37,328 $3,286 $40,614
Subtotal Phase 2 186 40 16 356 732 476 760 0 14 28 0 0 39 48 96 0 0 34 112 224 16 40 80 0 8 20 80 80 3485 $681,349 $12,880 $694,229 $110,488 $339,608 $1,144,325

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

3.1 CEQA Compliance 8 8 12 10 15 30 2 85 $17,658 $353 $18,011 $18,011

3.2 NEPA Compliance 32 40 80 40 60 80 120 65 4 521 $106,636 $2,133 $108,769 $12,810 $121,579

3.3 Technical Studies 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3.3.1 Air Quality 4 6 10 $2,303 $46 $2,349 $27,881 $30,231

3.3.2 Biological Resources 6 12 12 30 $6,133 $123 $6,255 $44,407 $50,662

3.3.3 Cultural Resources 10 20 30 $6,766 $135 $6,901 $87,361 $94,262

3.3.4 Geology and Soils 4 6 10 $2,303 $46 $2,349 $17,714 $20,064

3.3.5 Hazardous Wastes and Materials 4 6 10 $2,303 $46 $2,349 $28,578 $30,927

3.3.6 Visual/Aesthetics 24 40 80 24 168 $30,173 $603 $30,777 $30,777

3.3.7 Section 4(f) 12 25 45 82 $14,151 $283 $14,434 $14,434

3.3.8 Noise and Vibration 4 6 10 $2,303 $46 $2,349 $81,911 $84,260 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 $0 $4,900 $4,900
Subtotal Phase 3 40 0 0 48 92 40 60 0 158 256 12 220 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 956 $190,730 $3,815 $194,545 $0 $305,562 $500,107

4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (35%)

4.1 Roadway Plans 80 200 320 480 480 1560 $272,169 $5,443 $277,612 $16,860 $294,472

4.2 Traffic Plans 8 40 24 80 120 272 $44,089 $882 $44,970 $44,970

4.3 Structures Plans 8 40 12 100 60 140 4 364 $70,634 $1,413 $72,047 $67,816 $5,696 $145,559

4.4 Track Plans (Not Required) 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4.5 Right of Way Impact Map 24 40 160 120 344 $62,245 $1,245 $63,490 $30,277 $93,767

4.6 Project Cost Estimate 20 80 240 220 280 840 $137,285 $2,746 $140,031 $9,044 $41,326 $190,401

4.7 FRA Final Performance Report 20 60 80 160 $37,667 $753 $38,421 $38,421 Subtotal Phase 4 160 40 12 420 924 840 1000 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3540 $624,089 $12,482 $636,571 $76,860 $94,159 $807,590 TOTAL HOURS 794 80 28 1164 2112 1420 1960 140 208 320 12 220 79 64 96 24 40 34 112 224 16 40 80 32 70 20 80 80 9549 0 0 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $41,968 $41,968 $203 $8,686 $50,857
TOTAL COST $363,800 $24,185 $7,659 $284,862 $364,845 $224,861 $225,725 $24,185 $56,892 $64,493 $2,073 $28,503 $17,059 $8,292 $9,674 $8,637 $9,789 $9,300 $22,572 $32,246 $2,764 $4,607 $32,246 $5,989 $11,085 $4,031 $12,668 $10,365 $1,915,373 $37,468 $1,952,841 $201,096 $839,906 $2,993,843

KEY STAFF
*Please note that rates shown are for estimating purpose only. See Rate Schedule for actual rates/ranges.

Escalati
on
Total MT
Cost
TOTAL
MT Cost COST
Mark Thomas
Total
Hours
Subconsultants
Please note that the rates shown are for estimating purposes only. See rate schedule for actual rates/ranges.

MT Fee (Cost Estimate Rates)
8/20/2026
Engineering Surveying
Intern $60 - $105 Survey Technician I-III $60 - $165
Technician $105 - $150 Asst Surveyor I-III $120 - $195
Design Engineer I $120 - $175 Survey Specialist I-III $120 - $240 Design Engineer II $135 - $215 Lead Survey Technician $135 - $150 Sr. Technician $155 - $210 Project Surveyor I-III $165 - $240 Civil Engineering Designer $155 - $245 * Chief of Party $195 - $225 Project Engineer $155 - $225 * Chainperson $165 - $185
Sr. Project Engineer $195 - $280 * Apprentice $105 - $150 Sr. Technical Engineer $200 - $250 * 2-Person Crew $380 - $410 Technical Lead $230 - $280 * 3-Person Crew $555 - $595
CADD Manager $235 - $295 * Utility Locator $190 - $260
Sr. Technical Lead $265 - $335
Transportation Project Director $340 - $430 Project Management & Oversight Design Manager $350 - $390 Project Manager $180 - $310
Engineering Manager $350 - $420 Survey Manager I-II $240 - $300 Sr. Engineering Manager $365 - $495 Sr. Project Manager $240 - $375 SUE Program Manager $255 - $270
Construction Management Division Manager $285 - $430
* Asst. Resident Engineer $175 - $195 Principal $485 - $550 Office Engineer $175 - $265
* Building/Construction Inspector $175 - $305 Project Support Resident Engineer $245 - $340 Project/Sr. Project Assistant $85 - $185 Sr. Resident Engineer $275 - $340 Survey Coordinator $115 - $135 Area Manager - CM $260 - $325 Technical/Sr. Technical Writer $120 - $180 Asst Project Manager / Sr. Asst Project Manager $125 - $210 Planning Project/Sr. Project Accountant $125 - $225
Planner I $105 - $140 Graphic/Sr. Graphic Designer $125 - $230 Planner II $140 - $170 Sr. Graphic Manager $195 - $260
Economist $145 - $200 Project Delivery Manager $220 - $275 Sr. Planner $165 - $230 Project Accountant Manager $230 - $290 Safety Manager $255 - $320
Landscape Architecture/Urban Design
Landscape Designer I $105 - $140 District Management
Landscape Designer II $120 - $165 * Inspector - Apprentice $95 - $120 Landscape Architect $155 - $200 * Inspector/Sr. Inspector $105 - $180 Sr. Landscape Architect $195 - $255 * Lead Inspector $150 - $195 Assistant/Associate Sanitary Engineer $180 - $240
Grant Writing Sanitary/Sr. Sanitary Project Engineer $210 - $285 Funding Specialist $195 - $255 Operations/Deputy District Manager $270 - $435 Sr. Funding Specialist $225 - $285 District Manager-Engineer $390 - $495 Funding Manager $330 - $405
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. RATE SCHEDULE
EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2027
Reimbursables including, but not limited to; reproductions, delivery and filing fees; outside consultant fees; and survey field expenses will be billed At Cost or Cost Plus 5% . Mileage will be billed per current IRS Rate. Units will be billed per agreed upon Unit price.

Additional promotional steps exist within various rate categories.

This rate schedule expires June 30, 2027; rates are subject to escalation with new hourly rate schedule as of July 1, 2027. * These charge rates are subject to Prevailing Wage laws and Union contract; including Overtime, Double Overtime, and Shift rate changes.

RATE SCHEDULE (C) | PAGE 1 OF 1
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Senior Principal $346.00 $401.00 $353.00 $409.00
Principal $319.00 $332.00 $328.00 $342.00
Associate $219.00 $299.00 $230.00 $314.00
Engineering Manager $222.00 $253.00 $233.00 $266.00
Senior Engineer $196.00 $227.00 $207.00 $241.00
Project Engineer $167.00 $190.00 $177.00 $201.00
Staff Engineer $148.00 $168.00 $158.00 $180.00
Assistant Engineer $126.00 $144.00 $136.00 $155.00
Junior Engineer $100.00 $114.00 $105.00 $120.00
Intern $80.00 $91.00 $84.00 $96.00
Senior CAD / BIM Specialist $157.00 $191.00 $164.00 $200.00 CAD Drafter II $128.00 $157.00 $135.00 $164.00
CAD Drafter I $100.00 $128.00 $105.00 $135.00
Administrative Director $282.00 $296.00 $293.00 $308.00 Senior Project Administrator $219.00 $234.00 $230.00 $245.00 Project Administrator $179.00 $185.00 $188.00 $194.00
Project Coordinator $134.00 $137.00 $141.00 $144.00
Administrative Assistant $68.00 $120.00 $72.00 $126.00
Construction Manager $299.00 $328.00 $314.00 $344.00
Senior Structural Representative $271.00 $285.00 $284.00 $299.00 Structural Representative $228.00 $242.00 $239.00 $254.00 Assistant Structures Representative $214.00 $228.00 $224.00 $239.00 Senior Bridge Inspector $157.00 $177.00 $164.00 $185.00 • Expense Rates:
• Notes:
* The Fiscal Years specified are from October 1 thru September 30.

Classification

CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE
2026 / 2027 2027 / 2028
Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rates per Fiscal Year *
Subconsultants: At Cost
Expenses: At Cost
500 S. Main Street, Suite 1200, Orange, CA 92868 | 714.550.4665 | www.biggscardosa.com Classification
Admin/Coordinator $ - 150.00$ 100.00
PIC/PM 400.00$ - 475.00$
Project Engineer 150.00$ - 225.00$
Sr. Project Engineer 225.00$ - 300.00$
Project Professional I 150.00$ - 200.00$
Project Professional II 200.00$ - 250.00$
Project Professional III 250.00$ - 300.00$
Project Professional IV 300.00$ - 350.00$
Project Professional V 350.00$ - 400.00$
Expense Item
Plots (Mylar)
Plots (Bond)
Copies (8.5x11 B&W)
Copies (8.5x11 Color)
Copies (11x17 B&W)
Copies (11x17 Color)
Travel Costs
Meals, Fuel
Outside Expenses At Cost
2026 HDR Engineering Rates
At Cost
At Cost
At Cost
At Cost
IRS allowable/at cost
Per Diem/At Cost
2026 Rate Range
Rate
At Cost
At Cost

NORWALK BOULEVARD/LOS NIETOS ROAD GRADE SEPARATION
City of Norwalk

Page 1 of 16 ends

Santa Fe Springs City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Santa Fe Springs City Council
September 15, 2026