HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2008 0820 CC REG ITEM 10V10. V,
ITEM,
City Council Meeting
a, —010 �.
�.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
Prepared By: David Lasher, Senior Management Analyst
DATE: August 7, 2008 (CC Meeting of 8/20/2008)
SUBJECT: Consider the Selection of a Consultant for Environmental Review
Services for the Moorpark General Plan Update
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) have been routinely prepared by consultants for
the City of Moorpark. In July of this year, City staff requested proposals for the
production of an EIR associated with the comprehensive General Plan Update. The
Fiscal Year 2008 -2009 City budget has designated $150,000 for preparation of this EIR.
One proposal was received from Christopher A. Joseph and Associates for a not -to-
exceed cost of $149,490. The proposal includes a tentative schedule of 36 weeks to
complete this EIR, including hearings, from the kick -off meeting to the filing of the Notice
of Determination. Staff reviewed the proposal and finds the proposal responsive with
Christopher A. Joseph and Associates well qualified to produce this EIR. A copy of the
request for proposals and draft contract are both attached for reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to sign the negotiated contract for services with Christopher
A. Joseph and Associates for environmental review services, subject to final language
approval by the City Manager and the City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Request for Proposals
2. Draft Contract with Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
July 9, 2008
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
(RFP)
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FOR
THE MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
BARRY K. HOGAN
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA. 93021
805 - 517 -6233
CC ATTACHMENT 1 �'`
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 3
II BACKGROUND 3
III SCOPE OF SERVICES 3
IV LIMITATIONS 4
V PROPOSAL CONTENT & FORMAT 5
VI DUE DATE 6
VII PROPOSAL EVALUATION & SELECTION 7
Attachments:
1. City CEQA Procedures
\ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\ADMINWGMTS \RFP's \Environmental \General Plan EIR \RFP.doc
Lf �r�
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Moorpark is requesting proposals for the preparation of an Initial Study and
Environmental Impact Report and supporting documentation for the project described
below.
I I. BAC KG RO U N D
The project is a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan. The City of Moorpark
Community Development staff is preparing a comprehensive update of all state mandated
general plan elements and some optional elements. The proposed Moorpark General Plan
comprises of six chapters: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation and
Recreation (OSCAR), Housing, Noise and Safety. These six chapters would contain all
seven state mandated general plan elements and three additional optional elements,
Bikeways in the Circulation Chapter, Trails in the OSCAR Chapter, and Recreation in the
OSCAR Chapter. Due to the complexity of the project, it has been determined that the City
should retain an individual or firm (hereafter "consultant ") with expertise and experience in
the preparation of environmental documents, including Initial Studies pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to prepare an Initial Study, Environmental
Impact Report, and supporting documentation for this General Plan update. The Housing
Element would not be included as part of the project description, as it is being updated on
a separate track.
The Moorpark General Plan has not been comprehensively updated since it was adopted
in 1992. The General Plan Update will utilize GIS to map all of the required exhibits
including, but not limited to existing land use, proposed land use, area of interest, parks,
conservation areas, open space areas, seismic areas, and noise contours. All GIS
mapping will be available to the selected consultant. Electronic copies of the 1992 General
Plan EIR will also be supplied to the consultant.
III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The environmental services requested from the City include the preparation of an Initial
Study, Environmental Impact Report, and all necessary background studies and other
supporting documentation for the comprehensive update of the Moorpark General Plan,
consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and State CEQA Guidelines, the
City's CEQA Procedures, and industry standards. This shall include identification of and
consultation with all responsible and trustee agencies, completion of any necessary
technical studies and analysis consistent with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
City's CEQA Procedures, determination of the significance of the environmental effects for
the proposed project based on the City's General Plan and Municipal Code, past practice
of the City, and Sections 15064, 15064.5, and 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
identification of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives where significant impacts are
identified, and determination of significance after mitigation. The City's Initial Study
checklist shall be used as a framework for the preparation of the Initial Study. The City's
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \Environmental \General Plan EIR \RFP.doc , ,
CEQA Procedures are attached. The City has budgeted $150,000.00 for this scope of
work.
IV. LIMITATIONS
1. All reports and pertinent data or materials shall be the sole property of the City of
Moorpark and may not be used or reproduced in any form without the explicit written
permission of the City.
2. The proposer should expect to have access only to the public records and public
files of local government agencies in preparing the proposals or reports. No
compilation, tabulation, or analysis of data, definition or opinion, etc., should be
anticipated by the contractor from the agencies, unless volunteered by a
responsible official of those agencies.
3. This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in
the preparation of the proposal to this request, or to procure or contract for services
or supplies. The City reserves the right at its sole discretion to accept or reject any
or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified
source, or to cancel in part or in its entirely, this RFP, if it is in the best interest of the
City to do so. The City may require the selected consultant to participate in
negotiations, and to submit such price, technical or other revisions of their proposals
as may result from negotiations.
4. The City has the authority to terminate its contract with the private expert at any
time during the period of the study if it is found by the City that the private expert's
performance is not satisfactory.
5. Contract payments will be made on the basis of satisfactory performance by the
Consultant as determined by the City. Final payment to the private expert will only
be made when the City has received the specified number of copies of the final
report in form deemed satisfactory by the City.
6. Responses to this RFP should contain a statement as to what contractual
arrangements — if any — exist or have any time in the past existed between the
responding firm and the applicant.
7. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by the Consultant or their sub -
consultants in preparing the proposal.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \Environmental \General Plan EIR \RFP.doc
4 � d
r r
V. PROPOSAL CONTENT /FORMAT
The organization of the proposal shall follow this general outline:
Introduction - An overall introduction to the proposal, the contents of which be
determined by the particular requirements of the consultant.
2. Project Team — The following information should be included in identifying the
proposed project team that will work on the scope of services:
• Principal(s) of firm, project team members and how long proposed project
team has worked together.
• Experience of firm in providing requested scope of services, specifically
referencing similar consulting services to other agencies, particularly in
Ventura County, along with contact person for an agency that may provide
information regarding the consultant's work.
• A listing of other projects and references that the Consultant believes would
further support their qualifications for this assignment.
• A listing of the consultant's current projects and clients. Please note that the
City's contract requirements do not allow the Consultant to have clients that
currently are processing development projects in the City of Moorpark or
have had projects in the City of Moorpark processed within the last year.
• A listing of all consultants /subconsultants the Consultant proposes to utilize
on this project. The City reserves the right to approve or reject any member
of the Consultant team, including subconsultants proposed by for this project.
After the proposal deadline, substitution of members of the Consultant team,
including subconsultants, may only be made by permission of the City.
Experience of each member of the Consultant team, including
subconsultants, should be identified, along with a list of relevant
projects /references demonstrating their qualifications for this work.
• A listing of any pending or previous litigation over the past five years related
to your firm's work on environmental documentation.
3. Study Plan - The following information should be covered in this section:
• A description of the overall program being submitted including an explanation
of the basic purpose and general focus of the work.
• An explanation of the role of the consultant as related to the role of the City
including primarily any division of work between the consultant and City staff.
• A thorough explanation of the consultant's proposed course of action.
Reference should be made to the requirements of this RFP and an
explanation given of how the consultant proposes to meet these
requirements.
• An itemized description of the products to be produced, including the
proposed time periods for City staff review of draft documents and estimates
for meetings with City staff for the discussion of suggested changes to the
drafted sections.
\\mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \Environmental \General Plan EIR \RFP.doc
5 .SIC, 9
4. Performance Schedule — The Consultant shall provide a proposed schedule of
performance. The City's goal is for the Final EIR to be certified within one year of
contract execution
5. Schedule of Costs - This section shall detail the scheduling of the various studies
and work items described in the study plan and shall define both the total and
detailed costs in performing the total study as well as its major projects and /or end
products including a budget indicating expenditures for personnel and materials for
each work item. This section shall have all subject tasks and sub -tasks listed, along
with minimum time estimates applied to each as well as billing rates and total costs
per task and sub -task. A total "not -to- exceed" cost shall be identified for the entire
proposed scope of services.
6. Program Management - An explanation of the program management system to be
used shall be identified, detailing the operating procedures to be employed and any
other management methods to be used to assure that that project is completed
within the scheduled time frame and that quality will be maintained in the required
products.
7. Statement of Offer and Signature
• The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the
proposer, and shall contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a
firm offer for a 60 -day (or more) period.
• The proposal shall also provide the following information: name, title,
address and telephone number of individuals(s) with authority to negotiate,
and contractually bind the company and also who may be contacted during
the period of proposal evaluations.
• The offer shall include a "not -to- exceed" cost for the entire proposed scope
of services
VI. DUE DATE
The Consultant shall submit four (4) copies of the Proposal on paper and one (1) electronic
copy to:
Barry K. Hogan, Deputy City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA. 93021
TO BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., August 1, 2008
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \Environmental \General Plan EIR \RFP.doc a
�l
6
VII. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION
All proposals properly received before the aforementioned date and time will be evaluated
by a Review Committee. The firms will be ranked and interviews will be scheduled with the
top- ranked firms, if determined necessary. The firm ranked as the most qualified to provide
the requested services may be invited to negotiate a final agreement. If an agreement is
not reached, negotiations may be terminated and commenced with the next most qualified
firm. The City reserves the right to conduct additional interviews after the cost proposals
are opened.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\ADMIN\AGMTS \RFP's \Environmental \General Plan EIR \RFP.doc
7 {"
:.� k.)
PROCEDURES OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK AND MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TO IMPLEMENT THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
ADOPTED JULY 21, 2004
BY MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -2224
ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 15, 2004
BY MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -142
SECTION 1: PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, AND SHORT TITLE
SECTION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITY
SECTION 4: PRELIMINARY REVIEW
SECTION 5: INITIAL STUDY
SECTION 6: NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATIONS
SECTION 7: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
SECTION 8: TIME LIMITS
SECTION 9: REVIEW OF OTHER AGENCY DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1: PURPOSE. AUTHORITY. AND SHORT TITLE
These procedures are adopted to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) — Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (Section 21000 et seq.), and the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA
Guidelines) — Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15000
et seq.), as amended. They may be referred to as the "City CEQA Procedures ". These
City CEQA Procedures are intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 21082 of the
Public Resources Code and Section 15022 of the California Code of Regulations for
both the City of Moorpark and the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Any reference to
"City" in these guidelines shall be inclusive of both the City of Moorpark and Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency unless expressly stated otherwise.
SECTION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
The State CEQA Guidelines, as amended from time to time, are hereby incorporated by
reference as authorized under Section 15022(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If any
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 2
section of the City CEQA Procedures is found,in conflict with any provision of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the State CEQA Guidelines shall control.
SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITY
The Community Development Director or staff member designated by the Community
Development Director shall be responsible for the application and interpretation of these
City CEQA Procedures and the following functions pursuant to the State CEQA
Guidelines for all public and private projects when the City of Moorpark or Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency act as the lead agency:
a) Determination of applicability of CEQA;
b) Review of projects for exemption from CEQA;
c) Review of project applications for completeness;
d) Preparation of Initial Studies and determinations of whether Negative Declarations,
Mitigated Negative Declarations, or Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) shall be
prepared;
e) Preparation and processing of Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative
Declarations and related documents;
f) Preparation and processing of EIRs and related documents, including responses to
public comments and draft findings; and
g) Preparation and filing of applicable notices including Notices of Exemption, Notices
of Preparation, Notices of Completion, and Notices of Determination.
h) Preparation and updating of all forms and applications needed to carry out these
responsibilities.
SECTION 4: PRELIMINARY REVIEW
a) Determination of Applicability of CEQA to an Activity
Each activity that is initiated by the City, is funded in whole or part by the City, or
requires authorization or entitlement from the City is subject to an initial project review to
determine whether the activity is exempt from CEQA or requires an Initial Study.
Eligible exemptions are identified in CEQA and in the State CEQA Guidelines and
include ministerial projects, emergency projects, other statutory exemptions, categorical
exemptions, and general rule exemptions per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3). The determination of CEQA applicability under the initial project review
shall be made by the Community Development Director. Additional information from the
applicant may be required to make this determination.
b) Ministerial Activities
Activities over which the City has only ministerial authority and that are exempt from
CEQA under Section 21080(b)(1) of CEQA and Section 15268 of the State CEQA
Guidelines include but are not limited to:
SACommunity Development\ENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 3
1. Issuance of a Building Permit where no Discretionary Permit (as listed in Chapter
17.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code) is required.
2. Issuance of a Zoning Clearance where no Discretionary Permit (as listed in
Chapter 17.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code) is required.
3. Issuance of a Business License or Business Registration Permit.
4. Issuance of a Home Occupation Permit.
5. Approval of a Final Subdivision Map per Section 66458 of the Government Code.
6. Approval of a Lot -Line Adjustment per Section 66412(d) of the Government
Code.
7. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance per Section 66499.35(a) of the
Government Code.
c) Categorically Exempt Projects
The List of Categorical Exemptions in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall
serve as the City of Moorpark's list of specific categorically exempt activities.
Categorical exemptions shall only be considered where a project has not been
determined to be exempt from CEQA as a ministerial project, an emergency project, or
an otherwise statutorily exempt project.
Special circumstances may exist as noted in Section 21084 of CEQA and Section
15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines that make such projects ineligible for a
categorical exemption. The Community Development Director shall determine if a
project normally eligible for a categorical exemption is not eligible based on exceptions
set forth in Section 21084 of CEQA and Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
including the possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the
environment. The determination of the possibility of a significant effect shall be based
on the same criteria used in an Initial Study, although an Initial Study checklist does not
need to be completed for this determination.
d) Notice of Exemption
i. Preparation and Filinq of Notice: Except as provided in Section 21152.1(a) of CEQA,
the preparation and filing of a Notice of Exemption is not mandatory under CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines. The decision to prepare and file a Notice of Exemption for
a City project shall be determined by the Community Development Director in
consultation with the Director of the responsible department. Notices of Exemption for
private projects shall be prepared and filed by the Community Development Director
only upon request by the project applicant and payment of fees to offset any staff costs,
consultant costs, or filing fees. Notices of Exemption shall be prepared and filed in the
form and manner required by Section 15062 of the State CEQA Guidelines, after
approval or determination to proceed with the project.
ii. Request for Notices: A copy of the Notice of Exemption shall be mailed (or e- mailed if
requested) to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with the City
SACommunity Development\ENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc
J i J c J 6'
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 4
Clerk or Director of Community Development. Requests to receive Notices of
Exemption shall be renewed annually and are subject to a fee which is reasonably
related to the costs of providing this service. Public agencies shall not be required to
pay a fee to receive a copy of a Notice of Exemption.
SECTION 5: INITIAL STUDY
a) Application
If a project has been determined to be subject to the preparation of an Initial Study, the
project applicant shall submit all information necessary for its preparation in a form as
determined by the Community Development Director. Within thirty (30) days of receipt
of the application by the City, a determination on completeness shall be made and the
applicant shall be notified of all information required to complete the application.
b) Fees
L Application Fee: The project applicant shall submit a fee as established by City
Council Resolution for the preparation of the Initial Study at the time of the filing of the
application.
ii. Consulting Services: Consulting services may be necessary to assist City staff in
whole or in part in the preparation of an Initial Study. In such cases for private projects,
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, the Community Development Director
shall notify the project applicant of the required deposit to cover the cost of consulting
services along with City administrative fees.
iii. Application Incomplete if Fees Not Paid: The application shall not be considered
complete unless all fees, including fees for Initial Study preparation, consulting services,
and the processing of any other applications that have been filed for the project, have
been paid in full.
c) Determining Significance of Project's Environmental Effects
i. Use of Initial Study Form: The Community Development Director shall determine,
through the preparation of an Initial Study, if a project may cause a significant effect on
the environment, and whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
or EIR shall be prepared. The Initial Study shall be prepared on a form approved by the
Community Development Director consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. If determined that an EIR will clearly be required for a project, the
preparation of an Initial Study may be waived by the Community Development Director.
ii. Thresholds of Significance: Thresholds for determining the significance of the
environmental effect of a project shall be based on Sections 15064, 15064.5 and 15065
of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City's General Plan, applicable specific plans, the
Municipal Code, the Redevelopment Plan, and any additional information as deemed
necessary by the Community Development Director.
iii. Consultation: Prior to completion of an Initial Study, informal consultation shall be
initiated with known responsible and trustee agencies to obtain the recommendation of
those agencies as to whether an EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative
Declaration should be prepared.
SACommunity Development\EWCity CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc +�
LYi.fw,V
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 5
iv. Project Modification: During or immediately after the preparation of the Initial Study,
the applicant may be consulted to determine the willingness to modify the project to
reduce or avoid potential significant effects. The unwillingness to modify a project to
reduce or avoid potential significant effects may require the preparation of an EIR
unless other mitigation could be identified.
v. Additional Studies: In order to avoid an unnecessary EIR or to focus the analysis of
an EIR, additional information or data may be requested from the applicant in order to
complete the Initial Study. Should the applicant not agree to provide such information,
an Environmental Impact Report may be required unless mitigation or project
modification could address the concerns for which the specific information is requested.
vi. Appeal of Decision: The decision on whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration, or EIR shall be prepared may be appealed by any person,
including a member of the Planning Commission or City Council, following the
procedures and time limits specified in Chapter 17.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
SECTION 6: NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATIONS
a) Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Community Development Director shall cause a proposed Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration to be prepared for a project when the findings in Section
15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines can be met by the project.
b) Public Review
Upon preparation of a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration shall be prepared, published in a newspaper of general circulation, and
distributed for public review in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15072 and
15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The time period for public review shall be
determined by the Community Development Director consistent with these
requirements. The notice may be provided in conjunction with any other required notice
for the project, provided that all requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines are met.
c) Consideration and Adoption of Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative
Declarations
L Advisory Body: The Community Development Director shall present the proposed
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to any advisory body of the
decision - making body for consideration before making its recommendation. The
advisory body shall make a recommendation on the adoption of the proposed Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration at the time of making a recommendation
on the project. For the purposes of the section, "advisory bodies" shall include the
Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission when acting in an
official advisory capacity to the City Council as set forth in the Moorpark Municipal Code
and /or State law and shall not include City Council standing committees or ad -hoc
committees.
SACommunity Development\ENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc k f
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 6
ii. Decision - Making Body: The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration shall be presented to the decision - making body of the City prior to
consideration of the project. The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration may be adopted prior to or concurrent with the approval of the project for
which it was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 15074 of the
State CEQA Guidelines. If the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is
adopted by a non - elected decision- making body, that adoption may be appealed to the
City Council by any person, including a member of the Planning Commission or City
Council, following the procedures and time limits specified in Chapter 17.44 of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
d) Notice of Determination
L Preparation and Filing: After a decision has been made to carry out or approve a
project for which a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
adopted, the Community Development Director shall cause a Notice of Determination to
be prepared and filed in accordance with Section 21152 of CEQA and Section 15075 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. Any fees associated with the filing of the Notice of
Determination or required under Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code shall be
paid by the project applicant upon project approval prior to the filing of the Notice.
ii. Request for Notices: The Notice of Determination shall be mailed (or e- mailed if
requested) to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with the City
Clerk or Community Development Director. Requests to receive Notices of
Determination shall be renewed annually and are subject to a fee which is reasonably
related to the costs of providing this service. Public agencies shall not be required to
pay a fee to receive a Notice of Determination.
SECTION 7: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
a) Use of Consultant to Prepare EIRs for Private Projects
L Requirement for Private Projects: Due to the need for specialized expertise and
resources, a consultant specializing in the preparation of EIRs shall be retained by the
City under contract to prepare an EIR when required for a private project. A consultant
may be used to assist in all stages of EIR preparation including the preparation of the
Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Notice of Completion, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Responses to Comments, Findings, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Notice of Determination, as well as the presentation of
information at meetings and hearings, as determined necessary by the Community
Development Director. This requirement may be waived on projects for which an
agreement exists between the applicant and the City that specifically provides for a
different EIR preparation process.
ii. Selection of Consultant: The Community Development Director shall identify and seek
proposals from at least three (3) consultants that a) meet the qualifications and
restrictions specified in the City's standard professional services agreement, b) have
demonstrated experience in the preparation of EIRs for similar projects, and c) have the
necessary staff and other resources available to prepare an EIR that meets CEQA
SACommunity Development\ENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 7
requirements within established time limits. The request for proposals shall only be sent
to qualified consultants that have indicated that a proposal will be prepared and
submitted. A consultant that does not submit a proposal after committing to submit a
proposal may be disqualified from receiving future requests for proposals. After
receiving proposals, a review committee established by the Community Development
Director shall select the consultant to prepare the EIR based on criteria set forth in the
request for proposals. Interviews of the prospective consultants may be held if
determined necessary by the Community Development Director.
iii. Applicant Payment of Fees and Agreement with City: After selecting a consultant and
agreed upon a scope of work, the applicant shall be notified of the cost to prepare the
EIR, including both consultant costs and City administrative costs. Before any work on
the EIR may be authorized by the City, the applicant shall deposit with the City an
amount of money that will cover all costs specified above, and enter into an agreement
with the City on terms for the completion of the EIR.
iv. Execution of Professional Services Agreement: Prior to executing a professional
services agreement for the preparation of an EIR, the consultant selected by the City
shall file a statement with the City Clerk to confirm no conflicts of interest per contract
requirements, demonstrate possession of liability insurance and statutory workers
compensation coverage acceptable to the City, and secure a City business registration.
v. Contact between Applicant and Consultant: Only information or data submitted by the
applicant that is authorized by the Community Development Director may be used by
the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. Such information or data must be
independently verified by the consultant. Communication between the applicant and
consultant may only occur if preauthorized by the Community Development Director,
and may be conditioned to only take place with the Community Development Director
present. E- mails, video conferencing or other electronic communication involving both
the applicant and consultant shall be coordinated through the Community Development
Director.
vi. Request for Additional Information: During the course of preparation of the Draft EIR,
the Community Development Director may require the project applicant to supply any
additional information needed for its preparation.
vii. Review of Preliminary Draft Materials: The Community Development Director shall
review and approve all reports, notices and any other information related to the EIR
prepared by the consultant prior to release for public review.
b) Notice of Preparation
L Preparation and Filing: After determining that an EIR is required and receiving full
payment of fees for its preparation from the project applicant, the Community
Development Director shall cause a Notice of Preparation of an EIR to be prepared,
filed, and distributed in accordance with Section 21080.4 of CEQA and Section 15082 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. The Community Development Director may extend the
notification beyond that required by the State CEQA Guidelines as needed based on the
SACommunity Development\EWCity CEQA Procedures\City CEQA Procedures.doc !�
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 8
public interest or potential impact area of the project. The Notice of Preparation and
any comments received during the comment period as set forth in the notice shall be
included in the Draft EIR as an appendix.
ii. Request for Notices: The Notice of Preparation shall be mailed (or e- mailed if
requested) to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with the City
Clerk or Community Development Director. Requests to receive Notices of Preparation
shall be renewed annually and are subject to a fee which is reasonably related to the
costs of providing this service. Public agencies shall not be required to pay a fee to
receive a Notice of Preparation.
ii. Scoping Meeting: If not otherwise required by CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines, a
scoping meeting may be held during the Notice of Preparation comment period if
determined necessary by the Community Development Director to assist in the
identification of EIR issues and alternatives.
c) Draft EIR
i. Notice of Completion: As soon as the Draft EIR is completed, the Community
Development Director shall cause a Notice of Completion to be prepared and filed with
the State Office of Planning and Research as set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines.
The time period for review of the Draft EIR shall be determined by the Community
Development Director consistent with the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines.
ii. Consultation: The Community Development Director shall identify, consult with, and
request comments from all agencies and individuals as required under Section 15086 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
iii. Public Review: At the time the Notice of Completion is prepared and filed, the
Community Development Director shall also cause a notice of the availability of the draft
EIR to be published in a newspaper of general circulation and provided by mail to
property owners owning property within one - thousand feet (1,000) of the project site
boundaries along with other individuals and organizations that have requested
notification. The notice shall comply with all requirements of Section 15087 of the State
CEQA Guidelines and may be provided in conjunction with any other required notice for
the project, provided that all requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines are met.
Copies of the Draft EIR and notice of availability shall be made available for public
review at City Hall, the Moorpark Library, and electronically on the City's web site.
Electronic copies of the Draft EIR shall be made available for purchase at City Hall, and
paper copies shall be made available for purchase through an arrangement with a local
copying service.
iv. Public Hearing: A public hearing to solicit oral comments on the Draft EIR shall be
conducted by the Planning Commission for projects where the City is the lead agency,
or by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency where the Moorpark Redevelopment
Agency is the lead agency. The time, date, and location of the public hearing shall be
noticed with the notice of availability of the Draft EIR. The public hearing shall be
scheduled to take place late enough in the Draft EIR comment period to allow sufficient
SACommunity Development\ENMity CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc �.. M
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 9
time for meaningful public review of the Draft EIR as determined by the Community
Development Director. After all individuals and agencies present at the hearing have
had an opportunity to provide oral comments, the public hearing on the Draft EIR shall
be closed and the Planning Commission shall refer all oral comments to the Community
Development Director to be combined with all written comments received during the
Draft EIR comment period for the preparation of responses.
d) Responses to Comments
i. Transmittal of Comments to Consulting Firm: After the review period for the draft EIR
closes, all comments submitted in writing (on paper or through e-mail) and minutes
summarizing oral comments made at the public hearing shall be transmitted to the
consultant for preparation of preliminary draft responses.
ii. Preparation of Revised Draft EIR: After reviewing preliminary draft responses to the
comments received, the Community Development Director shall determine if there are
sufficient changes to the Draft EIR to warrant the preparation of a Revised Draft EIR
that incorporates all the changes. At this time, the Community Development Director
shall also determine if any significant new information will be added to the EIR
warranting recirculation of all or a portion of the EIR pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
iii. Transmittal of Draft Responses to Commentators: At least fourteen (14) days prior to
consideration of certification of the Final EIR, the Community Development Director
shall cause to be sent to each agency and individual that has commented on the EIR
and has provided a legible mailing address in the comment letter the draft responses to
that agency or individual's comments.
e) Preparation of the Final EIR
The Community Development Director shall determine whether the Draft EIR shall be
reprinted with revisions incorporated based on responses to comments received. The
Final EIR shall include the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft, comments received in
writing and a synopsis of .comments made at the public hearing on the Draft EIR, a list
of agencies and individuals who made comments, the Responses to Comments, and
any additional information determined necessary by the Community Development
Director.
f) Certification of the Final EIR:
A draft of the Final EIR shall be presented by the Community Development Director to
any advisory body for the project for a recommendation to the decision - making body on
certification of the Final EIR. The decision - making body of the City shall certify the final
EIR prior to approval of the project for which the EIR was prepared. If the Final EIR is
certified by a non - elected decision - making body, that certification may be appealed to
the City Council by any person, including a member of the Planning Commission or City
Council, following the procedures and time limits specified in Chapter 17.44 of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
SACommunity Development\ENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc t
City CEQA Procedures (712912004)
Page 10
g) Findings for Approval of Project:
i) Preparation of Draft Findings: When staff or an advisory body is recommending
approval of a project, or as directed by the decision - making body, the Community
Development Director shall cause to be prepared draft written Findings consistent with
the requirements in Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for any project for
which the EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects.
ii) Consideration of Findings and Project: The decision - making body shall not approve a
project unless written findings are made for each of the significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. After considering the Final EIR
and in conjunction with making findings, the decision - making body may decide whether
or how to carry out the project. The project for which the EIR was prepared shall not be
approved unless either:
1. the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment; or
2. the City has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible as shown in the Findings and any remaining
significant effects on the environment have been determined to be unavoidable
under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and acceptable due to
overriding concerns as described in Section 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
iii) Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program: When making the findings, the decision -
making body shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
project, which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or
monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation. In preparing the reporting or monitoring program, the City may use the
information contained in the draft monitoring or reporting programs that it receives from
trustee agencies.
iv) Statement of Overriding Considerations: If the benefits of a proposed project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, such effects may be considered
"acceptable." If the City approves a project that allows the occurrence of significant
effects, it shall adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that states specific
reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the
record.
h) Notice of Determination:
i. Preparation and Filing: After a decision has been made to carry out or approve a
project for which a Final EIR has been certified, the Community Development Director
shall cause a Notice of Determination to be prepared and filed in accordance with
Section 15094 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Any fees associated with the filing of the
Notice of Determination or required under Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code
shall be paid by the project applicant upon project approval prior to the filing of the
Notice.
SACommunity DevelopmenAENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc �j$a
City CEQA Procedures (712112004)
Page 11
ii. Request for Notices: The Notice of Determination shall be mailed (or e- mailed of
requested) to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with the City
Clerk or Community Development Director. Requests to receive Notices of
Determination shall be renewed annually and are subject to a fee which is reasonably
related to the costs of providing this service. Public agencies shall not be required to
pay a fee to receive a Notice of Determination.
i) Disposition of Final EIR
The Community Development Director shall be responsible for the distribution and filing
of the Final EIR consistent with Section 15095 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 8: TIME LIMITS
For projects subject to CEQA involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement, where the City of Moorpark is the lead agency, the
following time limits apply, consistent with Section 21151.5 of CEQA. These time limits
are measured from the date the application is deemed complete. A reasonable
extension of time is permitted in the event compelling circumstances justify additional
time and the project applicant consents thereto.
a) One (1) year for completing and certifying Environmental Impact Reports.
b) One hundred eighty (180) days for completing and adopting Negative Declarations.
SECTION 9: REVIEW OF OTHER AGENCY DOCUMENTS
The Community Development Director shall be the point of contact for the review of
CEQA documents prepared for other agencies and shall be responsible for coordinating
City review of other agency documents. When the City acts a Responsible Agency for a
project, the Community Development Director is responsible for complying with the
requirements for a Responsible Agency under Section 15096 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
SACommunity Development\ENV\City CEQA Procedures \City CEQA Procedures.doc
:1 4r
This page left blank intentionally.
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES FOR THE
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
This Agreement is made and entered into in the City of Moorpark on this 20th day
of August, 2008, by and between the City of Moorpark ( "City "), a public body, corporate
and politic, and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, a California corporation providing
consulting services ( "Consultant ").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, City has the need for professional evaluation and analysis regarding
environmental review services within the City of Moorpark; and
WHEREAS, City desires to contract for such services with a private consultant in
anticipation that said private consultant can provide such services in a manner
acceptable to the City; and
WHEREAS, Consultant is experienced in providing such services and has the
proper experience, certifications and background to carry out the duties involved; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to City a Proposal letter dated August 1,
2008 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set
forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Term
This Agreement shall commence on August 20, 2008 and shall remain and
continue in effect until the tasks described herein, and on any amendments hereto, are
completed, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. Services
City hereby retains Consultant in a contractual capacity to perform environmental
review services as set forth in Exhibit A, Proposal, attached hereto and incorporated
herein. If the Proposal is modified by this Agreement, or in the event there is a conflict
between the provisions of the Proposal and this Agreement, the language contained in
this Agreement shall take precedence.
Professional Services Agreement between Page 1 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
r 4 J 4 4
CC ATTACHMENT 2
3. Performance
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his /her
ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall
employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder to meet its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. Responsible Individuals
The individual directly responsible for Consultant's overall performance of the
Agreement provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between
Consultant and City shall be Curtis Zacuto, or designee.
The City Manager, or his designee, shall represent City in all matters pertaining to
the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by
Consultant. The City Manager is authorized to act on City's behalf to execute all
necessary documents which increase the scope of services or change Consultant's
compensation, subject to Section 5 hereof.
5. Payment
a) For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City shall pay and
Consultant shall receive as full compensation a total sum based on fees as shown in
Proposal, in no event shall total compensation for the herein described work exceed that
described in the proposal without prior written authorization from City.
b) In the event that additional work is required of Consultant, beyond the Scope of
Work for this Agreement, Consultant may be authorized to undertake and complete such
additional work only if such authorization is provided in writing, identifying the exact
nature of the additional work required and a "not -to- exceed" fee to be paid by City for
such work.
c) Consultant will submit invoices at the completion of each of the tasks. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of the month, or as soon thereafter
as practical, for services provided. Payment shall be made within 30 -days of receipt of
each invoice as to all non - disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees it
shall give written notice to Consultant within 15 -days of receipt of an invoice of any
disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
Professional Services Agreement between Page 2 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
cj1—iJ
._
6. Incorporation by Reference
All exhibits herein referenced are hereby incorporated into and made a part of the
Agreement.
7. Suspension or Termination of Agreement without Cause
a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of the
termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of
the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City
pursuant to Section 5.
8. Default of Consultant
a) The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms
of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it
shall not be considered a default.
b) If the City Manager or his /her designee determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City
Manager shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default.
The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service of said notice in which to cure the
default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to
cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding
any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice
and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or
under this Agreement.
Professional Services Agreement between Page 3 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
9. Indemnification for Professional Liability
Consultant agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, and
any and all of its officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all losses,
liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs to the
extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or sub - consultants in the
performance of professional services under this Agreement.
10. Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability
Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent
permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, and any
and all of its officials, employees and agents from and against any liability (including
liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings,
regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or
threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and
expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, or are a consequence of, or are in any
way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant
or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not
limited to officers, agents, employees, subconsultants, or contractors and subcontractors
of Consultant.
11. General Indemnification Provisions
Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth here in this Section from each and every subconsultant,
contractor, subcontractor, 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 here, Consultant agrees to be
fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor
compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in
no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend
City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and
shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section.
City does not and shall not waive any rights that it may have against Consultant
by reason of this Section, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of
any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The hold
harmless and indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of whether or not said
insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any losses, liabilities, damages,
costs and expenses described in Sections 9 and 10 of this Agreement.
Professional Services Agreement between Page 4 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
„4
12. Insurance
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B attached to and part of this
Agreement.
13. Independent Consultant
a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Consultant. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control.
Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the
conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as
set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent
that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees,
or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt,
obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
14. Notices
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this
Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by 1) personal service, 2) delivery
by a reputable document delivery service, which provides a receipt showing date and
time of delivery, or 3) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at
any other address as that party may later designate by notice:
City: City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn: City Manager
Consultant: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
30851 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91310
(805) 782 -9708
Professional Services Agreement between Page 5 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Attn:Curtis Zacuto
15. Assignment
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part
thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. It is
understood and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant is uniquely qualified to
perform the services provided for in this Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement
This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by
reference, shall constitute the complete Agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
Agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral Agreement,
understanding, or representation be binding on the parties hereto. Should interpretation
of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, be necessary, it is deemed that this Agreement
was prepared by the parties jointly and equally, and shall not be interpreted against
either party on the ground that the party prepared the Agreement or caused it to be
prepared. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed or shall
constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such
waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provisions. No waiver
shall be binding, unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
17. Anti - Discrimination
In the performance of the terms of this Agreement, Consultant agrees that it will
not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in
discrimination in employment of persons because of the age, race, color, creed, sex,
sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, religion, physical disability, medical
disability, medical condition, or marital status of such persons. Violation of this provision
may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in the Labor Code of the State of
California Section 1735.
18. General Conditions
a) Consultant agrees not to work for any private firm located within the City limits
or its Area of Interest, or for any public agency where its jurisdiction includes all or part of
the City without the prior written consent of the City, during the term of this Agreement.
Furthermore, Consultant agrees to limit its actions related to economic interest and
potential or real conflicts of interest as such as defined by applicable State law to the
same standards and requirements for designated City employees.
Professional Services Agreement between Page 6 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Y f.+49
b) City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of
any salary, wage or other compensation to any person employed by Consultant
performing services hereunder for City.
c) At the time of 1) termination of this Agreement or 2) conclusion of all work, all
original reports, documents, calculations, electronic media, notes, and other related
materials whether prepared by Consultant or its subcontractor(s) or obtained in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of City. Any word processing computer files provided to City
shall use Microsoft Word for Windows software.
d) Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed, construed or
represented by City or Consultant or by any third person to create the relationship of
principal or agent, or of a partnership, or of a joint venture, or of any other association of
any kind or nature between City and Consultant.
e) In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or
the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of any
alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the losing
party, and any judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award
thereof.
f) Cases involving a dispute between City and Consultant may be decided by an
arbitrator if both sides agree in writing on the arbitration and on the arbitrator selected,
with costs proportional to the judgment of the arbitrator.
g) The captions and headings of the various Sections and Exhibits of this
Agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit
or define the content of the respective Sections and Exhibits hereof.
h) If any portion of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will never - the -less continue
in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
i) No officer, employee, director or agent of the City shall participate in any
decision relating to this Agreement which affects the individual personal interest or the
interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is directly or indirectly
interested, or shall any such person have any interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement or the provisions thereof.
Professional Services Agreement between Page 7 of 8
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
e :;
19. Governing Law
The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of
California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement.
This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in Ventura County,
California, and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the interpretation,
enforcement or other action of the terms, conditions or covenants referred to herein shall
be filed in the applicable court in Ventura County, California.
20. Authoritv to Execute this Agreement
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants
and represents that this individual has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf
of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK:
Steven Kueny
City Manager
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
CONSULTANT:
Curtis Zacuto, Sr. Vice President
Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Exhibit "A ": Proposal for Professional Services
Exhibit "B ": Insurance Requirements
Professional Services Agreement between
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Page 8 of 8
e:
3
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections Page
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ ............................... I -1
II. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................ ............................... II -1
III. STUDY PLAN ......................................................................... ............................... ..........................III -1
IV. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE ....................................................................... ............................... IV-1
V. SCHEDULE OF COSTS .................................................................................... ............................... V -1
V1. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... ............................... V I- I
VII. STATEMENT OF OFFER & SIGNATURE .................................................. ............................... VII -1
Tables
Table 1, Proposed EIR Project Schedule ........................................................................ ............................... IV -2
Table2, Proposed Budget for the EIR .............................................................................. ............................... V -3
Figures
Figure 1, Project Team Organization Chart ................................................................... ............................... II -11
Appendices
Appendix A — Project Team Resumes
Appendix B — Recent and Current Projects and Clients
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Table of Contents
City of Moorpark Page i
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
I. INTRODUCTION
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates (CAJA) is pleased to present this proposal to provide
environmental consulting services for the Moorpark General Plan Update to the City of
Moorpark. The proposed consulting services addressed in this proposal will provide
environmental documentation necessary to analyze the impacts of the proposed General Plan
Update. Based on the information provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP), CAJA's primary
objective is to work directly for the City of Moorpark in obtaining environmental clearance for
their General Plan Update in the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes and guidelines.
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates (CAJA) is an environmental consulting firm that specializes
in environmental planning, research, and documentation for public and private sector clients. The
firm operates seven offices in cities throughout California, including Oakland, Petaluma, West
Los Angeles (main office), Downtown Los Angeles, Agoura Hills, Santa Clarita, and Mammoth
Lakes. For the scope of work described in this proposal, CAJA's Agoura Hills office would act
as the project operation center. Information for the Agoura Hills office is as follows:
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates
30851 Agoura Road Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91310
Phone: (805) 782 -9708
Fax: (818) 735 -9708
Project Contact: Curtis Zacuto, Senior Vice President
Company Tax ID: 20- 0511279
For over 19 years, CAJA has offered a broad range of environmental consulting services with a
particular emphasis on CEQA and NEPA documentation. Having provided consulting services
for hundreds of projects, successfully and efficiently guiding them through the environmental
clearance process, the company and staff have earned a reputation for thorough and conscientious
work. In addition to the high caliber work products that CAJA invariably delivers, the company's
status as a well -known and respected leader in the environmental planning field is largely based
on the personalized, accessible, and honest service that CAJA guarantees to each and every client.
CAJA is experienced in preparing the full gamut of CEQA documents, such as Initial Studies,
Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations (ND /MNDs), Environmental Impact
Reports (EIRs) (including Project EIRs, Focused EIRs, Program EIRs, Subsequent EIRs,
Supplemental EIRs, and Master EIRs), and Addenda. In addition to the preparation of CEQA-
and NEPA- related analyses and documentation, CAJA provides specialized environmental
analyses and services to meet each client's individual needs. The company's diverse assortment
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR I. Introduction
City of Moorpark Page 1 -1
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
of services includes the preparation of stand -alone environmental analyses (e.g.,
aesthetics /viewsheds, shade!shadow, air quality, noise, land use /zoning, and baseline
evaluations); environmental review management; preparation and oversight of Mitigation
Monitoring Programs (MMPs); peer review services; expert witness testimony; environmental
constraints analysis; strategic assistance; and project benefit analysis. CAJA's project experience
includes environmental clearance documentation and third -party review for all types of projects
and programs, including industrial, commercial, institutional, residential and mixed -use projects;
entertainment/events projects; and public projects and programs. CAJA is also fully skilled in the
tasks typically associated with the preparation of CEQA documentation, including document
distribution to State and local agencies, public noticing and outreach (including the facilitation of
public scoping meetings and hearings), and coordination of stakeholder interests.
CAJA's carefully selected staff brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to each project.
With educational backgrounds in the fields of environmental studies and management, public
policy and planning, geography, biology, anthropology, and political science (among others), the
staff members are fully prepared to identify and address a wide array of environmental issues.
Led by its reputable project management staff, CAJA's commitment to high - quality, efficient,
and individualized service is carried through to every project.
With seven offices in California, CAJA provides consulting services to public and private sector
clients throughout the entire state, with primary emphasis on projects in the greater Los Angeles
area, the San Francisco Bay region, and Ventura County.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR I. Introduction
City of Moorpark Page 1 -2
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
II. PROJECT TEAM
TEAM ORGANIZATION AND QUALIFICATIONS
CAJA has assembled an experienced and well - qualified project team to prepare the required
environmental documentation for the proposed project in a timely and cost - effective manner.
Resumes including each staff member's qualifications, project experience, educational
background, and professional affiliations are included in Appendix A to this proposal and are
available online at www.cajaeir.com. The project team organizational hierarchy is depicted in
Figure 1, Project Team Organization Chart, located at the end of this section.
The project team has worked together on a variety of projects over the last two to five years.
Several members of the CAJA team have been involved in preparation of programmatic EIRs
including those for general plan updates.
Curtis Zacuto, Principal in Charge
Mr. Curtis Zacuto, Senior Vice President, has over 20 years of diverse experience in planning and
environmental analysis. Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto was a Principal Planner with UCLA
Campus Planning, where he coordinated the environmental review process and was responsible
for the preparation of CEQA documents. He also identified and resolved issues concerning
project schedules and consistency with the UCLA Long Range Development Plan (General Plan).
While at UCLA, the Long Range Development Plan was updated, and Mr. Zacuto managed the
programmatic EIR. Mr. Zacuto also acted both as project manager and principal writer at other
environmental consulting firms for numerous CEQA projects, including general plans, mixed -use
developments, residential subdivisions, institutions (schools, universities, and hospitals), hotels,
and master plans. Mr. Zacuto has managed several programmatic EIRs including general plan
updates for the Cities of Lancaster, South Pasadena, and Sierra Madre. He is currently the
Principal in charge on six programmatic EIRs on six community plan updates for the City of Los
Angeles. Mr. Zacuto's background in public sector planning and private consulting has resulted
in a comprehensive understanding of the complex relationships between land use regulations,
environmental impacts, and project implementation.
Katrina Hardt - Holoch, AICP, Project Manager
Ms. Katrina Hardt - Holoch is a Project Manager at CAJA's Oakland office with eight years of
experience preparing CEQA and NEPA environmental documents. Her project experience ranges
from specific plans and general plan amendments to large -scale master plans, mixed -use and
housing developments, roadway and infrastructure improvements, development of governmental
facilities, business parks, college campus expansions, and new school sitings. She has prepared a
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR H. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page H -1
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
variety of document types including addenda, EIRs (including Project EIRs, Subsequent EIRs,
and Supplemental EIRs), Initial Studies, Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental
Assessments, and joint NEPA /CEQA documents.
Ms. Hardt- Holoch will serve as Project Manager for the proposed scope of work and will act as
the day -to -day contact for City staff. She will be responsible for overseeing the preparation of all
environmental analysis sections and responses to comments by the CAJA team, reviewing all
technical studies prepared by CAJA's subconsultants and the applicant's subconsultants,
coordinating the major milestones in the project schedule, and facilitating and participating in
public scoping meetings and hearings
Stacie Henderson, Senior Environmental Planner
Ms. Stacie Henderson is a Senior Environmental Planner at CAJA. Ms Henderson has a B.A.
degree in Political Science and a J.D. degree. At CAJA, Ms. Henderson is responsible for writing
a variety of environmental sections for EIRs, Negative Declarations, MNDs, and Initial Studies.
Ms. Henderson assists planners with project- related tasks including site photography, land use
surveys, internet research, document management, production, and distribution.
Scott Wirtz, Project Manager /Environmental Scientist
Mr. Scott Wirtz, a Project Manager /Environmental Scientist at CAJA's Agoura Hills office, has
been involved in both the academic and professional fields of environmental analysis since 1998.
Mr. Wirtz's noise monitoring and analysis experience includes, but is not limited to the
Sacramento Rapid Transit (EIR), San Francisco Third Street Redevelopment Plan, UCR Long
Range Development Plan, UCLA Long Range Development Plan, Armstrong Ranch (EIR),
Huntington Beach Block 104/105 Redevelopment Plan, Lynwood Unified School District, City of
Pasadena City Hall Seismic Retrofit, Rose Bowl (EIR), and the Newport Beach General Plan
Update. He has received specialized training in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Transportation Noise Model (TNMv2.5) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Railway
Noise and Vibration Analysis.
Bryan Chen, Senior Environmental Scientist
Mr. Bryan Chen has 10 years of professional experience with human health risk assessments and
air quality issues. Mr. Chen is the lead human health risk assessor at a number of former
California Navy installations including Treasure Island, Concord, and Alameda Point evaluating
potential health risks associated with the sites under various future land use conditions. Mr. Chen
also serves as the human health risk assessment lead on various projects that utilize his
experience with multi - chemical, multi - pathway exposure assessments, air dispersion modeling,
and litigation support.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR IT Project Team
City of Moorpark Page H -2
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Shannon Lucas, Principal of Biological Services
Ms. Shannon Lucas is Principal of Biological Services at CAJA and will serve as the Principal
Biologist and assist with overseeing project implementation, performing quality assurance for all
work products, and maintaining the project budget. Ms. Lucas has over 10 years of experience in
biological resource evaluation and restoration, including impact analysis, and regulatory
permitting. She has conducted and/or managed numerous large- and small -scale vegetation,
botanical and wetland studies throughout northern and southern California, including for national
and state parks and local public agencies. She has been trained in, and has extensive experience,
conducting agency protocol -level surveys for plant communities, sensitive plants and wetlands.
She has managed the preparation of biological resources sections of numerous CEQA documents,
including EIRs and MNDs, as well as other large -scale documents such as Resource Management
Plans, Biological Assessments (under Section 7 of FESA) and biological resource sections of EAs
under NEPA. She has conducted numerous studies and assessments in various habitat types
including freshwater and tidal wetlands, native grasslands, riparian corridors, chaparral, and oak
woodlands.
David Benjamin, Graphics Specialist
Mr. David Benjamin is a Graphics Specialist who will provide graphics expertise to support the
aesthetics analysis for the proposed project. Mr. Benjamin is responsible for providing accurate,
compelling 3D rendered visualizations, photomontages, and shade /shadow analysis. Mr.
Benjamin's graphics responsibilities include proposal graphics and presentation graphics (i.e. base
maps, land use and zoning overlays and aerial photographs). Mr. Benjamin assists in the research
and production of various EIR sections. Mr. Benjamin is also responsible for site surveys,
photography of sites, internet research, and graphics.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES
CAJA has prepared environmental documentation for a variety of General Plan, Specific Plans, and
Master Plans throughout California, making it well qualified to prepare CEQA documentation for
the City of Moorpark General Plan Update. Projects representative of the team's qualifications and
ability to perform the proposed scope of work are listed below. For a comprehensive list of CAJA's
project experience, please visit www.cajaeir.com.
City of Los Angeles New Community Plan Program Boyle Heights, Granada Hills, San Pedro
Sylmar, West Adams, and Westlake Community Plan Areas
CAJA is currently preparing programmatic EIRs for six Community Plans in the City of Los
Angeles. The City of Los Angeles contains 35 Community Plan Areas which comprise the Land
Use Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. The six community plans include: San
Pedro Community Plan, West Lake Community Plan, West Adams Community Plan, Boyle
Heights Community Plan, Sylmar Community Plan and Granada Hills Community Plan. Each
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR H. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page 11 - -3
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Community Plan is intended to promote an arrangement of land uses, streets, and services in the
Community Plan area to encourage economic vitality; social and physical well- being; and general
health, safety, welfare and convenience for the people who live and work in the community. Each
Community Plan proposes changes to zoning designations, amendments to land use plan
designations and establishment of overlay zones, as appropriate. Key Issues for each Community
Plan include traffic/transportation, noise, air quality, hazards, visual resources, biology, cultural
resources, land use, geology, hydrology, population and housing, public services, and utilities. Mr.
Zacuto and Ms. Hardt - Holoch are both project managers for these Community Plan Update
programs, managing three community plans each concurrently.
Contact:
John Dugan
Deputy Director
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning
200 N. Spring Street, Suite 525 -D
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213- 978 -1274
City of Lancaster MEA and General Plan 2020 Program EIR
Prior to joining the firm, CAJA staff managed the preparation of the Master Environmental
Assessment and General Plan 2020 Program EIR for the City of Lancaster. Three alternative land
use plans were considered for the city that examined various levels of growth in and contiguous to
the city's existing urban core. This approach helped identify specific requirements for infrastructure
expansion, facility demands, long -term operations and maintenance impacts to the City and impacts
with respect to traffic, air quality, noise and quality of life. This Program EIR is used to tier
subsequent environmental analysis for proposed development projects within the city. Mr. Zacuto
was the project manager for this General Plan Update program.
Contact:
David Ledbetter
Senior Planner
City of Lancaster
44933 North Fern Avenue
Lancaster, CA 93534
661 -723 -6100
Foothill De Anza Community College Facilities Master Plan
CAJA is currently preparing an EIR and an Addendum EIR for projects on the two Foothill De
Anza Community College Districts campuses. The Foothill De Anza Community College District
2007 Facilities Master Plan proposes construction, demolition, renovation and site improvement
projects on the Foothill and De Anza College campuses to upgrade, maintain and replace facilities,
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR H. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page H -4
., ,_ c ..► rte'
Christopher A. Joseph R Associates August 1, 2008
accommodate new students, and keep pace with technology. Construction projects include new
buildings, expansion of parking lots, and ADA upgrades. Many buildings will be renovated to
support program changes and to update building function/systems and aesthetics. Site improvement
projects include resurfacing of parking lots, improved transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and
upgrades to utilities and landscaping at the Colleges. Key environmental issues include traffic
generation, noise, cultural resources, visual resources, and hydrology. Ms. Hardt - Holoch is the
project manager for this EIR and Addendum.
Contact:
Charles Allen
Executive Director, Facilities and Operations
Foothill De Anza Community College District
12345 El Monte Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
650- 949 -6150
OTHER RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
UCLA Long Range Development Plan Program EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto and Mr. Wirtz participated in the preparation and management
of the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) for the University of California, Los Angeles
campus. The LRDP is a land use plan, similar to a General Plan and Specific Plan, in that it guides
the physical development of the campus. The 419 -acre campus is divided into land use categories
allowing growth of the campus up to approximately 1.71 million square feet of additional
development by 2010. A Program EIR was prepared analyzing the future impacts of additional
growth on campus and will be used to tier subsequent environmental analysis for future
development within the remaining 1.71 million square feet allocated under the 2002 LRDP. Mr.
Zacuto was an assistant project manager for this Long Range Development Plan Update program.
City of Healdsburg General Plan Update EIR
CAJA prepared the EIR for the Healdsburg General Plan Update program. The Healdsburg General
Plan is a comprehensive revision and update of the 1987 General Plan and consisted of updates to
the Land Use, Economic Development, Transportation, Public Services, Natural Resources, Safety,
Community Design, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Administration and Implementation
Elements. These revisions included updating the General Plan planning background information,
and changes to General Plan policies, General Plan land use designations, and the General Plan
Land Use Map. Key issues included traffic /transportation, noise, cultural resources, hazards, solid
waste, land use, water supply, sewer services, air quality, housing, and biological resources. Ms.
Hardt - Holoch was the project manager for this General Plan Update Program.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR H. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page II -5
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August], 2008
Antelope Valley Enterprise Zone
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto managed the Program EIR for the Cities of Lancaster and
Palmdale and the County of Los Angeles. As part of the Enterprise Zone designation process, the
Cities were required to prepare an EIR on the proposed zone which encompassed 25,000 acres of
land in the urbanized portions of the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster and the unincorporated Los
Angeles County. After certification, the document was attached as part of the application for the
Enterprise Zone and, subsequently, the Cities and County received the last Enterprise Zone
designation. The Program EIR is used to tier subsequent environmental analysis on proposed
development projects within the Enterprise Zone. Mr. Zacuto was the project manager for this
programmatic EIR.
City of South Pasadena General Plan and EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto managed the preparation of the Land Use Policy analysis for the
Land Use Element and the Program EIR on the entire General Plan Update program for the City of
South Pasadena. The adoption of the General Plan did not result in any physical changes to the
environment. The EIR focused on the land use changes which had a potential for impact if the land
use policy plan was implemented. In general, the overall distribution of land uses in the city did not
change significantly. Residential development continued to be the dominant land use in terms of
land area, followed by commercial, office, manufacturing and community facilities. The EIR
included discussion of the controversial freeway extension proposed by Caltrans for over 30 years
that would bisect the city. This Program EIR is used to tier subsequent environmental analysis for
proposed development projects within the city. Mr. Zacuto was the project manager for this
General Plan Update program.
City of Sierra Madre Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Program EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto managed the preparation of the Master Environmental
Assessment and General Plan Program EIR for the City of Sierra Madre. As a built out city,
General Plan update did not result in any physical changes to the environment. Some minor
adjustments to land use categories and identification of some redevelopment opportunities were the
land use focus of the plan. This Program EIR is used to tier subsequent environmental analysis for
proposed development projects within the city. Mr. Zacuto was the project manager for this
General Plan Update program.
California Lutheran University Master Plan EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto managed the preparation of the EIR on the Master Plan for
California Lutheran University campus located in Thousand Oaks. The Campus Master Plan is a
land use plan, similar to a General Plan or Specific Plan, in that it guides the physical development
of the 278 acre campus based on conceptual land uses. The Program EIR prepared for this project
analyzed additional development of approximately 1.5 million square feet of development by 2015.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR H. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page H -6
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
The Program EIR will be used to tier subsequent environmental analysis for future development
within the 1.5 million square feet. Mr. Zacuto was the project manager for this EIR.
Yuba and Sutter Counties Enterprise Zone EIR
The Yuba -Sutter Enterprise Zone is one of the ten original zones to be designated and is now one of
40 enterprise zones throughout California. An Enterprise Zone is an area in which companies are
eligible for State incentives and programs not available to businesses located outside of the
Enterprise Zone. The Enterprise Zone designation does not authorize any new rural or urban
development that conflicts with existing land use plans, codes, and ordinances of the participating
jurisdictions. The Yuba -Sutter Enterprise Zone was designed on October 15, 1986. Its designation
was scheduled to end on October 14, 2001, but a 5 -year extension was granted to the Zone that
ended on October 2006. The EIR analyzed the impacts of renewing and expanding the Enterprise
Zone. Ms. Hardt - Holoch was the project manager for this programmatic EIR.
Redwood City Downtown Area Plan and Housing Element EIR, California
Prior to joining CAJA, Ms. Hardt - Holoch prepared a combined Environmental Impact Report for
the proposed Redwood City Downtown Area Plan and the Redwood City Draft Housing Element,
1999 -2006. The Downtown Area Plan is a policy -based document intended as a framework to
guide the downtown's revitalization efforts. Housing developed as part of the Downtown Area Plan
contributes to the Redwood City Housing Element's identified housing opportunity sites, intended
to meet the City's share of the regional housing need. An additional component of the project was
the construction of an outdoor event plaza in the Downtown area, adjacent to the historic Redwood
City Courthouse. The EIR assessed the impacts of the demolition of the historically significant
Courthouse Annex, water supply, land use, traffic, air quality, and noise. Ms. Hardt - Holoch was the
project manager for this EIR.
Antioch General Plan Update and EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Ms. Hardt - Holoch prepared the Antioch General Plan Update and EIR. The
updated Antioch General Plan addressed the short-term and long -term issues concerning the
protection of community lifestyles, expansion of the community's economic and employment base,
and the provision of needed public services. Ms. Hardt - Holoch was part of a team responsible for
developing three general management strategies and growth scenarios and presenting them in a
report, updating all elements of the General Plan, preparing the EIR on the Plan, and making the
necessary changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Tasks included data collection, GIS mapping, design
and maintenance of an informative web site, staff and community workshops, and extensive liaison
with a Steering Committee and other agencies. Two of the most important issues addressed in the
General Plan included providing an inventory of land to provide housing and commercial
opportunities, and identifying a realistic strategy for resolving existing and future traffic congestion.
Key issues in the EIR were land use and planning, traffic, aesthetics, public services and utilities,
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR IL Project Team
City of Moorpark Page II -7
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
and cultural resources. Ms. Hardt - Holoch was the assistant project manager for this programmatic
EIR.
Campbell General Plan Update EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Ms. Hardt - Holoch worked on the Campbell General Plan Update EIR. The
City of Campbell, located in Santa Clara County, has a population of approximately 38,000. The
City has limited vacant land available for development, and most new development involves the
reuse or redevelopment of under - utilized sites. The Draft General Plan was written to reflect
current community conditions, and included five primary elements: Land Use and Transportation;
Open Space, Parks and Public Facilities; Health and Safety; Conservation and Natural Resources;
and Housing. The EIR specifically analyzed the effects of changes proposed by the Draft General
Plan on the physical environment including land use compatibility, and changes to population,
employment, and housing within the City of Campbell to determine the effect of these changes on
the City's jobs /housing balance. Ms. Hardt - Holoch was the assistant project manager for this
programmatic EIR.
Alameda Point General Plan Amendment EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Ms. Hardt - Holoch worked on the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment
EIR. Alameda Point is an approximately 1,400 -acre parcel located in the City of Alameda, an island
community with little room for new housing or expansion of business opportunities. The General
Plan Amendment consisted of policies and land use diagrams to guide reuse of the former Naval
Air Station (NAS) Alameda, now referred to as Alameda Point. Proposed land uses at Alameda
Point consisted of light industry/business park/offices, industrial/warehousing, marina - related
industry, civic /institutional, commercial, recreational, and residential uses. Traffic was the largest
issue due to Alameda's limited access points and adjacency to Oakland's Downtown area and
Chinatown, known areas of traffic congestion. The project required close communication and
cooperation between the Cities of Alameda, Oakland, and the EIR consultants to resolve traffic
issues. Ms. Hardt - Holoch was an integral part of the project team, working closely with the traffic
consultants, other subconsultants, and the City of Alameda's Planning Department and Public
Works Department. Other key issues included land use and policy consistency, population,
employment, and housing, aesthetics, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials. Ms. Hardt-
Holoch was the assistant project manager for this programmatic EIR.
NBC Studios Master Plan Facility EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto worked on the preparation of the EIR for the NBC Studios
Master Plan project. The Master Plan defined the maximum amount of development allowed on the
property along with the uses permitted and height and setback standards for new buildings. With
the overall development parameters, flexibility in the location and use of individual buildings were
allowed. The Master Plan did not address specific design features, such as architecture of
individual buildings or detailed landscape plans. The proposed Master Plan allowed the
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR II. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page 11 -8
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
development of 1.25 million square feet of media space with the maximum height of the buildings
of 15- stories.
Warner Bros. Studios Master Plan
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto worked on the preparation of the EIR for the Warner Bros.
Studios Master Plan project. The proposed master plan covered two lots in the City of Burbank, the
Main and Ranch Lots. The master plan did not address specific design features rather individual
building projects under the master plan were subject to review by the City of Burbank for
consistency with development regulations of the approved Planned Development. The master plan
was intended to address the needs of the studio for production and related media space over the next
20 years. On the Main Lot, approximately 2.66 million square feet of new studio facilities could be
developed. Existing building space totaling .37 million square feet would be removed to allow for
new construction. On the Ranch Lot, approximately 1. 15 million square feet of new studio facilities
was planned. Approximately .09 million square feet of existing buildings were to be removed to
allow for new construction.
Santa Monica Studios EIR
Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto prepared an EIR for the City of Santa Monica on a proposed
379,000 square foot studio complex (Santa Monica Studios) that included production office as the
majority of space proposed followed by production stage, food court, restaurant and 66 live /work
studio units. The project site was located on an irregular shaped 6.5 acre site and bounded by noise
sensitive businesses. The project involved demolition of approximately 107,000 square feet of
existing business commercial space. Occupants of the businesses were proposed to be relocated to
other nearby facilities.
CAJA's Project List
A comprehensive list of CAJA's projects and clients is included in Appendix B.
SUBCONSULTANTS
CAJA is teamed on this proposal with transportation consultants Fehr & Peers. Fehr & Peers
specializes in providing transportation planning and traffic engineering services to public and
private sector clients. Fehr & Peers has extensive experience in the planning and development of
city -wide transportation systems and the associated planning tools. The firm is an industry leader in
travel demand forecasting development and application, while initiating research in the areas of
smart growth techniques, direct ridership forecasting, and GIS tools. The firm has conducted
General Plan updates for numerous northern California communities including Los Altos, Petaluma,
San Leandro, Saratoga, Sacramento, Stockton, East Palo Alto, South San Francisco, Citrus Heights,
and El Dorado County. The Fehr & Peers team will include Thomas Gaul and Netai Basu.
Resumes for these team members are located in Appendix A.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR II. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page 11 -9
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Ventura Mobility Plan
Fehr & Peers is currently preparing the Mobility Element for the City of San Buena Ventura. For
this project, Fehr & Peers will be developing a series of GIS tools to assess the impact of land use
and transportation changes on transit, pedestrian and bicycling usage. This, in turn, will influence
auto travel patterns. A major outcome of the study will be to develop alternative mode performance
measures that vary by street function. As an example, the measure of effectiveness for transit -
preferential streets may be transit travel times rather than mixed -flow intersection level of service.
Tiburon General Plan EIR
Fehr & Peers conducted the transportation analysis for the Tiburon General Plan EIR. Fehr & Peers
updated the Town's traffic model to include changes to future land uses, and utilized the resulting
model outputs to develop a forecast of traffic growth resulting form build -out of the General Plan
land uses, including a level of service (LOS) analysis at key intersections on Tiburon Boulevard.
Fehr & Peers also analyzed potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian and transit circulation resulting
from the General Plan.
San Leandro General Plan Circulation Element and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Fehr & Peers updated the General Plan Circulation Element and prepared a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan for the City of San Leandro. The General Plan contains policies and implementation
strategies to proactively address the City's land use and transportation issues, including
neighborhood traffic calming and an emphasis on alternative forms of transportation. The Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan included an inventory of existing bicycle facilities, identifying
constraints, needs, and opportunities, design and engineering, prioritizing candidate projects and
programs, and an implementation plan that included funding strategies. Key issues included
identifying constraint areas and developing design and engineering solutions, including at -grade
railroad crossings; prioritizing candidate projects and programs and developing an implementation
plan that included funding strategies; and proposing a system that includes a BART trail and
utilization of flood control channels. Subsequent to the preparation of the Master Plan, Fehr &
Peers assisted the City with the implementation of about 30 miles of bikeways throughout the City.
Many of the bikeways employ innovative design treatments including the Bancroft Avenue
bikeway that removed travel lanes on a key north -south roadway and the BART Rail - with -Trail
(currently under consideration by Union Pacific).
PENDING OR PREVIOUS LITIGATION
CAJA has been established as a corporation since January 1, 2004, prior to which time it was a
sole proprietorship. Throughout CAJA's 19 -year history, there have been no judgments,
litigations, licensing violations, or other violations, outstanding or resolved, filed against the
company.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR H. Project Team
City of Moorpark Page 11 -10
Z3
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH &ASSOCIATES Figure
Environmental Planning and Research Project Team Organization Chart
Lead Aqen�jy
City of Moorpark
Barry K. Hogan
Deputy City Manager
CEQA Documentation
Christopher A. Joseph &Associates
Curtis Zacuto, Principal-in-Charge
Katrina Hardt-Holoch, Project Manager
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH &ASSOCIATES Figure
Environmental Planning and Research Project Team Organization Chart
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
III. STUDY PLAN
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The project is a comprehensive update of the City of Moorpark's General Plan. The update will
include a comprehensive update of all state mandated General Plan Elements and some optional
elements. The proposed Moorpark General Plan contains six elements: Land Use, Circulation,
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR), Housing, Noise, and Safety. These six
chapters will contain all seven state mandated general plan elements and three additional optional
elements, Bikeways (Circulation Chapter), Trails (OSCAR Chapter), and Recreation (OSCAR
Chapter). The Housing Element will be updated in a separate process and will not be included as
part of the project. The last General Plan Update occurred in 1992 and an update is necessary to
reflect current conditions in the City. The City has prepared GIS maps for the General Plan that
will be available for use in the analysis.
SCOPE OF WORK
CAJA's understanding of the proposed project is based on our review of the Request for
Proposals (RFP) and consultation with City of Moorpark staff. Our scope of work is divided into
two key phases. The first phase includes the tasks that involve our initial start-up tasks for the
Project pursuant to CEQA. Phase I will involve preparing and circulating the Notice of
Preparation and conducting a public Scoping Meeting. Phase II will involve preparation of the
Draft EIR and the Final EIR.
Because the project is an update to all of the Elements (other than Housing) of the existing City of
Moorpark General Plan, it is anticipated that the. EIR will be a full spectrum EIR and that all
CEQA Checklist topics will be analyzed. Therefore, CAJA recommends that the City not prepare
an Initial Study for the project; thereby shortening the EIR schedule and preserving the budget.
Based on our understanding of the project, CAJA proposes the following scope of work to
prepare an EIR for the project.
Phase I
Task 1: Attend Kick -Off Meeting
Curtis Zacuto and Katrina Hardt - Holoch and other project team members (as needed) will attend
a kick -off meeting with City staff. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1) introduce the project team
to City staff, 2) collect all relevant reports and planning documents (or identify relevant
documents for copying); 3) discuss the desired format of the required environmental document(s);
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -1
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
4) resolve issues regarding overall assumptions; 5) identify other key contacts at the City; and 6)
discuss communication protocols.
Task 2: Prepare and Circulate Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Following the kick -off meeting CAJA will prepare an administrative draft Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for review by the City.' The NOP will be prepared using the City's preferred format and
will satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Upon receipt of the
City's comments on the administrative draft NOP, CAJA will revise and submit a Screencheck
NOP to the City to confirm that all City comments have been incorporated. Following the City's
approval of the Screencheck NOP, CAJA will finalize and circulate the NOP to the State
Clearinghouse, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, County Clerk, and others. The City will
provide additional distribution to interested parties. Direct costs associated with noticing
requirements (i.e., certified mailing, County posting fees, radius map and mailing list fees,
publishing fees for the local newspaper, etc.) are not a part of our budget estimate and are
assumed to be covered via direct payment by the client.
Deliverables: Electronic (Word and PDF) versions of the Draft, Screencheck, and Final NOP..
Task 3: Attend Public Scoping Meeting
During the public review period of the NOP, CAJA staff will assist the City in conducting a
public scoping meeting. CAJA will present the proposed scope of work and will record all
comments received. After the close of the NOP circulation period, CAJA will review and
summarize all oral and written responses to the NOP and will consult with City staff to confirm
that the proposed scope of work addresses all CEQA - related topics raised by commenters that
have not already been considered and discussed with the City. If any deficiencies in the scope of
work are identified, a contract amendment may be requested.
Task 4: Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
CAJA staff will review all available documentation related to the project, including but not
limited to: the City of Moorpark's existing and Draft General Plan, City of Moorpark Zoning
Code, the City's existing General Plan EIR, any other environmental documents for projects in
the area, Planning Commission and City Council Reports, and technical studies that have already
been prepared for the project.
Because the EIR will include a discussion of each of the environmental. topics included in Appendix G
of the CEQA Guidelines, CAJA recommends that an Initial Study not be prepared and that
environmental topics not requiring detailed study (mineral resources) be addressed in Impacts Found
to be Less Than Significant.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -2
s
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
CAJA will prepare the Administrative Draft EIR. The EIR will be prepared in accordance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The primary sections of the EIR are proposed as
follows:
• Introduction /Summary
The Introduction/Summary will include an introduction to the EIR that identifies the
project applicant and lead agency; a summary of the project description and
alternatives; a background discussion of the environmental review and the project
approval process; an outline of the EIR's organization; and a tabular summary of
potential environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of
significance after mitigation.
• Environmental Setting
The Environmental Setting section will provide a general physical description of the
City and the surrounding area. Graphics will be presented, including (but not limited
to) a local and regional location map, existing site photos, and aerial photo. A
discussion and tabular list of related projects /cumulative development in the City will
be presented, and the location of such development will be plotted on an area map.
CAJA recommends that a related projects "list- based" approach be used, in
accordance with Section 15130(b)(1)(A) of the State CEQA Guidelines, to analyze
the potential cumulative impacts of the project in combination with other projected
growth in the area.
• Project Description
CAJA will review all relevant project description materials and will prepare a
preliminary version of the project description that will be used in the required
environmental document(s). The project description will include discussions of the
following: 1) the project site's regional and local location; 2) project objectives and
goals; 3) project characteristics, including but not limited to descriptions of proposed
land use definition changes, land use map revisions, and General Plan policy
revisions; and 4) required discretionary actions.
• Environmental Impact Analysis
Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant. The Environmental Impact Analysis
section will begin with a subsection listing each environmental impact area
determined not to have a potentially significant impact on the environment, with an
accompanying discussion of the reasons for the determination. The Impacts Found to
be Less Than Significant section will discuss the rationale behind scoping out any
topics for which there are no impacts from analysis and will provide greater visibility
of the reasoning behind why certain issues are not analyzed in depth in the EIR,
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -3
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
ultimately strengthening the reviewer's 1) understanding of the project's potential
impacts and 2) ability to navigate the analysis.
CAJA's anticipated approach to analyzing the project's environmental impacts under
each topic in the CEQA Checklist is based on our preliminary understanding of the
project. Our approach has been formulated to provide a basis for the cost and
schedule proposal, and may be refined based on City input and /or public comments
received during the NOP scoping period (including comments from responsible
agencies, service providers, etc). While some changes to the proposed approach can
be covered under the current cost and schedule proposal, others, such as adding an
analysis to the EIR that would have otherwise been "scoped out ", would require a
supplementary budget, which CAJA can prepare at the City's request.
Impacts Found to be Potentially Significant. This section will include a detailed
analysis for each of the environmental issues for which the project could result in
potentially significant impacts, as determined by the analysis and based on public
comments received on the NOP. Each topic will be addressed in its own respective
section and will include a description of the existing conditions, a discussion of the
potential environmental impacts associated with the project (during both construction
and operation), a discussion of potential cumulative impacts, recommended
mitigation measures for any significant project - specific and cumulative impacts, and
the level of impact significance after implementation of mitigation. The existing City
of Moorpark General Plan also be used wherever appropriate to establish the baseline
conditions, cumulative impacts, and related matters. The major discussions in each
analysis will include:
1. Existing Conditions. Analysis of the existing environmental setting is
necessary in order to compare those conditions to any changes created and
produced by the project, and to identify any significant environmental
impacts of the project. For purposes of the EIR environmental analysis, the
environmental setting is usually defined as the physical conditions in the
affected area as they exist at the time the NOP is published (Section 15126.2
of the State CEQA Guidelines). The Existing Conditions section will also
include a discussion of the Regulatory Setting, which will identify and
describe the applicable laws, regulations, and adopted plans that guide
development on the project site, including those at the federal, State,
regional, and local level.
2. Thresholds of Significance. The specific criteria or threshold of
significance for determining the level of significance for a particular subject
area will be identified in each issue discussion, and will be consistent with
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page 111 -4
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
the criteria set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines and City General Plan
standards, among others.
3. Environmental Impacts of the Project. Applying the applicable
thresholds, each environmental subject area will be evaluated to determine
the level of impact significance. Under CEQA, a significant impact is
defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the
physical environment. The impact analysis will include short-term
construction related impacts, operational impacts, and cumulative impacts for
all environmental topics. This discussion will begin with a brief reiteration
of the checklist questions within the overall subject area that for which there
are no impact and will not be discussed further in the EIR (if any).
4. Mitigation Measures. Should it be found that the project (General Plan
policies or other code - required measures) fail to mitigate identified
significant impacts, mitigation measures will be presented in each respective
environmental subject area and may fall into one of the following
classifications:
• Mitigation Measures — required to reduce an identified significant
impact to a less- than - significant level.
• Recommended Measures — recommended (but not required) to
further enhance environmental conditions within the project and
surrounding locale, and which can reduce an identified non-
significant impact.
• Code - Required Measures — required by local, regional, State and /or
federal regulations and statutes that must be imposed as conditions of
approval. Such code - required measures will be listed even though
they are not necessarily required to reduce identified impacts.
5. Cumulative Impacts. The project's impacts in combination with the
potential impacts of the identified related development /cumulative growth in
the City will be discussed. The discussion will note where mitigation is
likely to be required of related projects to reduce cumulative impacts.
6. Level of Significance after Mitigation. A clear, concise statement of the
level of significance after the incorporation of mitigation measures will be
presented. Net impacts will be defined as either "significant" or "less than
significant."
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page 111 -5
,..�, f
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
At this point in the environmental review process it is anticipated that the following
environmental topics will need to be examined in detail in the EIR (listed in
corresponding order with the CEQA Checklist):
• Aesthetics: The City of Moorpark is located in the southeastern part of
Ventura County near the Los Padres National Forest. The City has
significant scenic resources and scenic vistas exist throughout the City,
including views of Big Mountain and Happy Camp Canyon. CAJA will
evaluate the potential for the General Plan Update to have a substantial
adverse affect on scenic vistas and visual character of the City. CAJA
will also evaluate the potential development under the General Plan
Update to create a new source of light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. CAJA will apply goals and
policies from the OSCAR Element to help mitigate any identified
impacts.
• Air Quality: The proposed project is in the located within the South
Central Coast Air Basin (Basin), which exceeds national and State
ambient air quality standards for ozone (03), respirable particulate
matter (PM 10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) is the agency principally
responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. Primary
air quality issues anticipated with the General Plan Update include
impacts to regional air quality from indirect sources (i.e., project traffic
generation), and temporary emissions of dust and diesel exhaust from
construction activates.
The traffic generated by the General Plan Update will require a detailed
study. Therefore, this scope of work includes a quantitative air quality
analysis conducted in -house by CAJA specialists. Additionally, the
proposed project would generate emissions that have been classified as
greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
While no single anthropogenic source can generate enough GHGs to
affect climate change, the combined emissions from all the sources in a
region can and must be addressed. These emissions do not currently have
established thresholds at the federal, state or local levels. However, it is
likely that established thresholds will be established in the near future
and that air agencies will require that projects consistency with these
established thresholds. Therefore, we recommend that the analyses also
discuss the generation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -6
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
CAJA will: identify existing regional emissions for the past three years
using information obtained from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB); calculate existing localized emissions of carbon monoxide
using data from the traffic report; recommend the appropriate VCAPCD
measures that would reduce any identified construction - related
significant impacts to a less - than - significant level; identify the thresholds
of significance recommended by the VCAPCD for operational
emissions; calculate operational mobile and area source emissions using
the URBEMIS 2007 model recommended for use by the VCAPCD;
compare the predicted emissions to the thresholds of significance
recommended by the VCAPCD; calculate future localized carbon
monoxide concentrations at intersections in the project vicinity that
would be most affected by project - generated traffic; compare the
resulting emissions to state and national ambient air quality standards;
discuss the consistency of the project with the current Ventura County
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); generally characterize the
potential health risks associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs)
emissions generated by the General Plan Update; if feasible, identify
mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any potential project - specific or
cumulative impacts to air quality, and quantify their effectiveness based
on methodologies available from VCAPCD and other sources; and
calculate the rate and quantity of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of the
General Plan Update.
The emission of carbon dioxide is presented as the global warming
potential (GWP) as described by the CCAR protocol. The natural gas use
and energy demand of the GPU will be calculated using the URBEMIS
2007 model and GHG emission factors from the CCAR Protocol will be
applied to the respective consumption rates in order to calculate annual
GHG emissions in metric tons. Additionally, motor vehicle emissions
will be calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model and emission factors
from the CCAR Protocol. CAJA will also conduct a comparative
analysis of the GHG reduction strategies outlined in the Climate Action
Team's (CAT) Report, which was prepared for Governor
Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature (2006); the comparative
analysis will weigh the recommended state wide strategies against the
updated general plan strategies that may reduce the emission of GHGs, in
addition to incorporating any information from the VCAPCD's Rules
and Regulations.
CAJA will apply policies from the Conservation Element to mitigate or
reduce impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan Update.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -7
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Biological Resources: CAJA will assess the distribution of special status
species, as well as sensitive habitats such as marshlands and riparian
corridors and analyze the impact of the implementation of the General
Plan Update on these resources. CAJA will asses the potential for
impacts to identified species and will analyze impacts to biological
resources resulting changes in land use. Where appropriate, alternatives
or additional General Plan policies will be recommended. CAJA will
apply policies from the Conservation Element to mitigate or reduce
impacts to biological resources associated with buildout of the General
Plan Update.
• Cultural Resources: This section of the EIR will provide analysis of
anticipated impacts associated with cultural resources as a result of
implementation of the General Plan Update. CAJA will rely upon
existing data such as existing conditions information gathered during the
preparation of the General Plan Update for initial identification of
cultural resources. CAJA will contact the local Native Americans for
consultation on potential Native American sacred sites. Archival search
will be conducted utilizing the Center for Public Archeology at
California State University Fullerton for archaeological and
paleontological records search. CAJA will ensure that the EIR complies
with the requirements of SB 18. CAJA will apply policies from the
OSCAR Element to mitigate or reduce impacts to cultural resources
associated with buildout of the General Plan Update.
• Geology and Soils: Based largely on the information collected to prepare
the existing conditions for the General Plan Update, CAJA would
prepare an analysis of potential impacts related to geology, soils, and
seismicity that may result from implementation of the General Plan
Update. A significant seismic event on one of the several active faults
within the region (which would almost certainly occur at some time over
the lifetime of the project) may result in direct (e.g., shaking- related
damage to buildings and other improvements) and /or indirect impacts
(e.g., earthquake- induced settlements or liquefaction) in the area. The
analysis would describe the existing regional and local geologic setting,
evaluate potential impacts using CEQA significance criteria, and present
practical mitigation measures to address identified significant impacts,
where appropriate. Based on our understanding of the project area, other
anticipated impacts relating to geology, soils, and seismicity may include
liquefaction, erosion, slope stability, and differential settlement. CAJA
will apply policies from the Safety Element to mitigate or reduce impacts
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -8
J,
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
related to geology and soils associated with buildout of the General Plan
Update.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Based largely on the information
collected to prepare the existing conditions for the General Plan Update,
CAJA will prepare the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the
EIR, which will evaluate potential threats to public health and safety
from hazardous materials and other hazards that could result from
implementation of the General Plan Update. Potential impacts will be
evaluated using CEQA significance criteria, and practical mitigation
measures in the form of policies and implementation measures will be
drafted to mitigate identified significant impacts, where appropriate.
CAJA will review available environmental database reports and describe
emergency and response evacuation plans, regulatory framework, and
existing policies. Potential impacts will be assessed for implementation
of the General Plan Update development. This analysis will include an
evaluation of the potential for contaminants to be present in soil and
groundwater of Moorpark (for example, from past land - filling activities
or land uses) which could be released during construction activities or
cause potential health hazards to site users following construction.
Practical mitigation measures will be developed, if warranted, to address
any identified significant impacts in the form of additional policies
and /or implementation measures. Mitigation may include
recommendations of environmental investigations at future development
sites in Moorpark, collection and analysis of samples from future sites,
implementation of construction worker health and safety and risk
management plans (for protection of workers and the surrounding
community), implementation of best management practices for
hazardous materials storage during construction to minimize the potential
for releases to occur, in addition to compliance with local, state, and
federal hazardous materials regulations during construction. CAJA will
apply policies from the Safety Element to mitigate or reduce impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials associated with buildout of
the General Plan Update.
• Hydrology and Water Quality: Based largely on the information
In
collected to prepare the existing conditions for the General Plan Update,
CAJA will prepare an analysis and evaluate the hydrology and water
quality environmental impacts of the General Plan Update. The City of
Moorpark could potentially generate a substantially greater volume of
stormwater runoff during peak flows compared to the existing conditions
if new development results in increased impervious surface area in the
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -9
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
City. Drainage patterns and associated water quality may be altered.
CAJA will describe hydrologic conditions, existing water quality
conditions, and requirements of existing stormwater regulations. Based
on review of available information, it is anticipated that due to an
increase in total impervious area, impacts relating to hydrology and
water quality may include an increase in runoff volume, erosion, and
degradation of runoff water quality unless appropriate mitigation
measures are implemented. CAJA will evaluate the increase in runoff
volume and describe any potential degradation of water quality that
would result from buildout of the General Plan Update. Practical
mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate any identified
potential impacts related to hydrology, storm drainage, and water quality
would be identified. Additional mitigation may focus on incorporating
source control (designed to eliminate exposure of runoff to pollutants)
and treatment control (designed to treat runoff that may contain
pollutants). BMPs in future development proposals to minimize impacts
to water quality. CAJA will apply policies from the OSCAR Element to
mitigate or reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality
associated with buildout of the General Plan Update.
• Land Use and Planning Policy: CAJA will analyze the land use changes
that would occur under the General Plan Update and identify potential
conflicts between existing and proposed uses. This section will also
discuss agricultural lands within the City or adjacent to the City
boundaries, including Williamson Act lands. If appropriate, CAJA will
prepare a neighborhood -by- neighborhood discussion and analysis of
these changes including land use compatibility between areas of
proposed changes and surrounding land uses. CAJA will also analyze
consistency of the General Plan Update with applicable land use plans,
policies, and regulations, including Ventura Council of Governments,
Ventura County Transportation Commission, the City's Zoning Code,
and other relevant planning documents. CAJA will evaluate impacts to
loss of agricultural lands either directly or indirectly though development
pressures or cancellation of Williamson Act contracts.
• Noise: This section of the EIR will provide analysis of the anticipated
impacts associated with land use changes of the General Plan Update.
Impacts may result from short -term construction activities, long -term
traffic generated by changes in the land use map and locating of land
uses near stationary noise sources will be discussed. The General Plan
Update could result in an increase in the population of Moorpark
resulting in a proportional increase in the amount of daily traffic trips
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -10
...felt V
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
traveling on the City's circulation system. The increase in traffic could
proportionally increase the overall ambient noise levels city wide. CAJA
will utilize the project team's transportation consultants' traffic study for
the noise analysis. CAJA will apply policies from the Noise Element to
mitigate or reduce impacts related to noise associated with buildout of
the General Plan Update.
• Population and Housing: Although CEQA does not require the
inclusion of socio- economic analysis in EIRs, the effects on population
and related issues are useful considerations in evaluating the magnitude
and significance of proposed land use changes. This section of the EIR
will address the potential population impacts as a result of changes in the
land use map due to implementation of the General Plan Update. CAJA
will utilize the demographic information from the U.S. Census,
California State Department of Finance, and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) for characterizing the existing and
future population of the city as well as rely upon existing data complied
during the General Plan Update. CAJA will apply policies from the
Housing Element to mitigate or reduce impacts related to population and
housing associated with buildout of the General Plan Update.
• Public Services/Utilities: Implementation of the General Plan Update
could result in changes in the land use map with a potential population
increase in residents as well as daytime visitors in commercial /retail
areas. Land use changes could result in an increased demand for fire,
police, school, recreational services, as well as additional demands on
water, sewage, and solid waste. CAJA will use existing data complied
during the General Plan Update in identifying the public services and
utility providers. CAJA will contact the Fire Department, Police
Department, School District, Parks Department, Water, Sewage, and
Solid waste providers by telephone or letter to obtain information
assessing the potential impacts of the General Plan Update. CAJA will
apply policies from various General Plan Elements to mitigate or reduce
impacts to cultural resources associated with buildout of the General Plan
Update.
• Transportation/Traffic: CAJA has retained the firm of Fehr & Peers to
prepare a traffic analysis for the General Plan Update. The following
describes the proposed scope of work for Fehr & Peers participation in
the City of Moorpark General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -11
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Project Initiation and Existing Conditions
Project Initiation and Coordination
At the outset of the study, discussions will be held with City of Moorpark
staff to finalize and confirm the scope of services and key parameters for
the traffic and circulation study. The study approach, study analysis
locations (intersections and /or roadway links), forecasting methodologies
and key assumptions will be discussed and confirmed with city staff.
For the purposes of this proposal, the following study parameters are
assumed:
• The traffic study will quantify potential impacts of the proposed
General Plan land uses for inclusion in the EIR impact analysis.
• The study will utilize the city's traffic model and its associated
database as the tool for analysis of existing and future traffic
conditions.
• Roadway link analysis is traditionally the level of detail used in
long -term programmatic analyses such as those for general plan
elements. Intersection analysis is at once more detailed but also
more speculative over a long planning horizon because of the
lack of detail in the preparation of land use schemes associated
with the development of general plans. Based on previous
experience, it is recommended that the roadway links option be
used in the study. It is anticipated that up to 20 key roadway
links would be analyzed the study.
Data Collection
City files will be researched to determine the availability of recent traffic
count data for the roadway links identified for analysis in the study. The
proposed scope of work and budget does not include the collection of
new traffic counts.
Information will be collected regarding street system characteristics,
existing transit services and planned transportation system improvements
within the study area. Data collected by the city in support of any
previous planning studies will also be obtained and reviewed during this
task.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -12
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Existing Conditions
An assessment will be made of existing operating conditions and
constraints within the city. PM peak hour levels of service will be
quantified at the study roadway links. Existing traffic operational
problems and congested areas will be identified. Existing transit service
serving the city (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority [Metro] and any other relevant service) will be identified. The
existing bicycle and pedestrian systems serving the city will be
described. Existing conditions data and analyses from any other relevant
traffic study previously conducted in the city will be incorporated into
this task. This task assumes that the General Plan Circulation Element
has already been prepared by City staff and is available as a resource for
the transportation section of the EIR.
Impact Analysis
Forecast Future Traffic Conditions
The proposed approach to the traffic analysis for the City of Moorpark
General Plan Update is to utilize the city's traffic model as the source for
traffic projections with future projections limited to the following:
• Future Base (no project) Conditions. Future base conditions
will include background traffic growth and anticipated
cumulative developments throughout the city that would occur
without the implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update. It is anticipated that a standard list of future
development projects to be used in this study will be provided by
the city staff and the city's traffic model will be used to develop
required traffic forecasts.
• Traffic Forecasts with Project. Traffic forecasts will be
prepared for the proposed land use plan for use and incorporation
into the EIR impact analysis.
Traffic Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures
An assessment will be made of projected operating conditions, and
traffic impacts will be identified for the proposed land use element to be
quantitatively evaluated. This assessment will concentrate on impacts at
the roadway links to be identified during project initiation (up to 20
roadway segments). Levels of service will be projected for the roadway
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page 111 -13
, 9
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
links. Significance of project impacts will be assessed in accordance
with City of Moorpark criteria.
Mitigation measures to alleviate negative traffic impacts will be
determined. Any unavoidable impacts will be identified.
Impact Analysis Documentation
A technical report will be prepared that presents the methodology, results
and recommendations of the transportation impact analysis. The report
will be submitted in draft form for review and comment and will be
finalized after receipt of comments. The report will suitable for use as an
appendix to the EIR.
Response to Comments
Responses will be prepared to the public comments received on the draft
EIR pertaining to traffic and transportation. The draft responses will be
submitted to city staff for review and will be finalized upon receipt of
city comments. The final responses will be incorporated into the final
EIR.
Meetings
Fehr & Peers will attend up to two meetings during the course of the
study (potentially including any combination of project team meetings,
public scoping meetings, public workshops, community or neighborhood
meetings, Planning Commission hearings, and/or City Council hearings).
Assumptions:
This proposal does not include preparation of preliminary geometric
design drawings of any mitigation measures that may be proposed in the
study.
This proposal includes attendance of Fehr & Peers personnel at up to
two public workshops, meetings or hearings. If additional meetings are
required, they could be arranged on a time -and- materials basis.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page 111 -14
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• General Impact Categories
To satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, this section of the
EIR will summarizes the significant and unavoidable impacts (if any) that were
identified in the Environmental Impact Analysis; the growth- inducing impacts of the
project; and the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the
project.
• Alternatives to the Project
CAJA will prepare an analysis of alternatives to the project for inclusion in the EIR.
The alternatives analysis will be crafted both to meet CEQA requirements and as a
means to provide flexibility in terms of alternative scenarios to the Project. As
stipulated in the RFP, it is anticipated that two alternatives will be developed in
addition to the required "No Project" Alternative. These may include modified land
use map changes or policy revisions The alternatives analysis for traffic, air, and
noise will be quantitative in nature to allow a thorough comparison of the impacts for
these specific environmental topics. However, alternative impacts to all other
environmental topics will be evaluated qualitatively.
The requirements for the alternatives analyses are based on the "rule of reason" as set
forth in CEQA, and reflect the needs of each particular project site. Specific
alternative schemes will be determined upon consultation with City staff. It is
important to note that several recent court cases have been decided in California that
can affect the scope of project alternatives in EIRs. The resulting court decisions
have made the alternatives analyses in EIRs more vulnerable to legal challenges and,
thus, modified the standards for such analyses. In general, the goal in identifying the
range of alternatives should be to develop alternatives that can reduce any significant
impacts associated with the proposed project to a less - than - significant level.
• Preparers of the EIR and Persons Consulted
This section will identify the lead agency staff, project applicant, EIR consultant and
subconsultant staff, and all agency personnel consulted during the preparation of the
EIR.
Deliverables: Six (6) hard copies and one (1) electronic (word) copy of the Administrative
Draft EIR for review and comment.
Task 5: Prepare Draft EIR and NOA/NOC
Based on the City's comments, CAJA will revise the Administrative Draft EIR and will submit a
Screencheck Draft EIR so that the City can confirm that all requested changes have been made. It
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -1 S
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
is anticipated that the comments of the Screencheck Draft EIR will focus on typographical errors,
formatting, and other minor edits only.
Once the City staff have received and approved the Screencheck Draft EIR, CAJA staff will
produce the Draft EIR for public review. CAJA will assume all reproduction and circulation
responsibilities, including State Clearinghouse notification. The distribution list will be provided
by the City. CAJA will also prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability
(NOA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087 using the City's preferred
format, and will file and publish the NOC/NOA in accordance with City and State standard
noticing procedures. Additionally, CAJA will coordinate with the City in providing web -ready
documents for publication on the City's web site.
Should the City wish to coordinate the public circulation internally, CAJA will forward the
required deliverables directly to the City.
Deliverables: Three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR
for review and comment. Twenty -five (25) hard copies of the Draft EIR (includes 15 copies for
submittal to the State Clearinghouse) and fifty (50) electronic copies on CD -ROM. Copies of the
NOCINOA as needed to fulfill the distribution.
Task 6: Attend Public Hearings on Draft EIR
CAJA will be available to present the findings of the Draft EIR at a public hearing during the 45-
day review period. City staff will schedule the hearings, provide public notice, and prepare staff
reports. CAJA will summarize the comments and identify topics not already addressed in the
EIR. These hearings are assumed to be completed during the public review period. CAJA
recommends that the City arrange for a court reporter to be present to record all comments.
Task 7: Prepare Administrative Draft Final EIR
CAJA staff will prepare responses to all written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR and
will make any necessary changes to the Draft EIR resulting from comments. The Administrative
Final EIR will include:
1. Introduction: Summarizes the project description, CEQA's requirements for the Final
EIR, the chronology of the project's CEQA review process, and other related discussions
of importance to the Lead Agency.
2. List of Commenters: Required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(c).
3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR: The Final EIR will include additions and
deletions to corrected pages shown in redline - strikeout.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -16
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
4. Response to Comments: Contains responses to all written and oral comments received
on the Draft EIR. For topics that are raised repeatedly in the comments, topical
responses will be prepared and cross referenced as appropriate throughout the individual
responses.
5. Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP): CAJA will prepare the MMP using the City's
preferred format to satisfy the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section
15097. The MMP will be responsive to AB 3180 and subsequent legal interpretation,
and the implementation approach will be organized around the City's enforcement
policies and procedures. In order to meet the requirements of AB 3180, the program
will: 1) list project mitigation measures; 2) correlate the mitigation measures to the
various governmental actions that the implementation of the project would require; and
3) identify other governmental offices or departments that would monitor the execution
of the mitigation measures.
The extent of work necessary to complete the Administrative Draft Final EIR is dependent upon
the amount and nature of comments that are received on the Draft EIR. We have included an
estimate of approximately 150 hours for responding to comments. This estimate is based on
receiving a moderate number of comments of average complexity. If new analysis, alternatives,
or substantial project changes need to be addressed to adequately respond to comments, or if
anticipated effort exceeds the budgeted amount because of the number or complexity of
responses, a contract amendment will be requested.
Deliverables: Six (6) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Final
EIR.
Task 8: Prepare Final EIR
After the City's review of the document, CAJA staff will address all City staff comments and will
prepare and submit the Screencheck Draft Final EIR so that the City staff can confirm that all
requested changes have been made. Once the Screencheck Draft Final EIR is approved by the
City, CAJA will produce the Final EIR and deliver the required number of copies to the City. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15075, CAJA will prepare the NOD using the City's
preferred format.
Deliverables: Twenty -five (25) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Final EIR and
Findings.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR 111. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page III -17
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Task 9: Attend Public Hearings on the Certification of the Final EIR
Principal Curtis Zacuto (and other CAJA staff and subconsultants, as appropriate) will attend up
to two public hearings on the Final EIR and will present the findings (if requested) to the
decision - making bodies. Project team members will be available to answer questions.
Task 10: Attend Other Meetings
This scope of work includes attendance at one project team kickoff meeting, one public scoping
meeting, one public hearing on the Draft EIR, and one public hearing on the Final EIR. Principal
Curtis Zacuto (and other CAJA staff and subconsultants, as appropriate) can attend additional
community meetings and /or additional meetings with City staff. Mr. Zacuto can be available to
attend other meetings at a cost of $800 per meeting based on the assumption of 4 hours (including
travel and meeting time) at a rate of $200 per hour. Other CAJA staff and subconsultants are
available per their billing rates. The proposed budget allows for two additional meetings within
this task.
Task 11: Project Management
CAJA staff will provide management and oversight of all technical subconsultants. CAJA's
management will communicate, as necessary, with the EIR project team members and City staff
to ensure compliance with the schedule, scope of work, and budget. The Project Manager will
coordinate the team's work and provide management liaison between the project team and the
City for communication of issues, transmittal of comments, financial management, and other
project management matters, such as contract processing. This task also includes occasional
status meetings and conference calls with City staff.
CAJA will communicate with the City at every step in the environmental review process to
inform the City of any issues that may require efforts not anticipated in this scope of work.
CAJA will provide the City with status updates on a monthly basis, or in the case of potential out
of scope work, as soon as the need arises. The management approach described above allows
regular interaction between the project team and City staff, and requires frequent information
sharing among team members. This approach will foster efficient data acquisition and give City
staff advance input on environmental findings and any potential out of scope work. Such
participation will minimize environmental impacts and duplication of research efforts, improve
the technical quality and accuracy of the environmental analysis, and ultimately assist in the
preparation of a successful EIR. In the event out of scope work is anticipated, CAJA will notify
the City and explain the rationale behind the anticipated work, but would not undertake that work
until authorized by the City. In the interest of the schedule however, CAJA will also discuss
methods of moving forward with the analysis until the additional work is authorized. Charges for
out of scope work would be on a time and materials basis consistent with hourly rates as
established in the project budget.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR III. Study Plan
City of Moorpark Page 111-18
T
C �►
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
IV. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
CAJA proposes the following schedule to prepare the EIR for the proposed project (see Table I on page
IV -2). As shown, CAJA anticipates the project will be completed within 36 weeks of receiving
authorization to proceed.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR IV. Performance Schedule
City of Moorpark Page IV -1
Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Table L• Project Schedule
TASK
WEEK
August 1, 2008
1
Key:
CAJA Tasks =
Review Periods =
CityTasks =
Moorpark General Plan Update
Proposal to Provide Environmental Consulting Services for the City of Moorpark
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
V. SCHEDULE OF COSTS
CAJA proposes the following budget to prepare the EIR for the proposed project (see Table 2 on page V -3).
As shown, the not -to- exceed budget for the proposed scope of services is $149,490. CAJA's current fee
schedule is as follows:
FEE SCHEDULE
(Effective January 1, 2008)
HOURLY RATES
• Principal
$200.00/hour
• Project Manager
$175.00/hour
• Senior Environmental Planner
$150.00/hour
• Environmental Planner
$135.00 /hour
• Biologist
$125.00 /hour
• Associate Environmental Planner
$110.00 /hour
• Graphics
$75.00 /hour
• Word Processing
$50.00/hour
DIRECT EXPENSES
Direct expenses, including but not limited to those items presented below, will be billed at 110 percent of
actual costs:
• Purchases of project materials.
• Technical subconsultants.
• Reproduction, printing and photographic costs.
• Postage, messenger and overnight mailing.
• Travel, telephone, Internet access and research fees and other miscellaneous costs.
The fees include costs for all for printing /reproduction, graphics, and other miscellaneous direct expenses.
Should the scope of work or number of EIR sections increase or change, the City of Moorpark understands
that the consultant fee could exceed this amount. Such changes include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR V Schedule of Costs
City of Moorpark Page V -I
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Additional environmental impact categories added as a result of comments received from the
public, governmental agencies and/or other interested parties during the scoping and Notice of
Preparation period.
• Additional analysis required as a result of project modification or delays in receiving project
materials.
• Changes and/or modifications in State CEQA Guidelines or legislation for preparation of EIRs.
• Additional environmental issues to be analyzed in the EIR based on letters submitted to the City in
response to the Notice of Preparation.
• Additional hours required to complete the Final EIR or attend project meetings, public hearings or
community meetings beyond that described in this proposal. The cost estimate for preparation of
the response to public comments is our best estimate at this time. The cost estimate is based on a
reasonable range of comments. If additional hours are required beyond the cost estimate to respond
to comments raised, then CAJA will consult with City staff.
• Preparation of the response to comments assumes that the authors of the technical studies are
available for preparation of response to comments. If these authors are not available, then CAJA
will consult with City staff.
• Any changes to assumptions and/or understandings contained herein regarding preparation of the
Draft and Final EIR.
• Such authorized additional services would be billed on a time and materials basis.
If a comparison of cost proposals of the competing consultants becomes the determining factor in your
selection process, we would be willing to review and/or modem our price. Any changes to our cost proposal
would be based on further discussion and negotiation between CAJA and the City of Moorpark and would
include full disclosure of cost proposals from all consultants competing to prepare this EIR.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR V. Schedule of Costs
City of Moorpark Page V-2
C pp
.Y 0
,y r.
i
w
Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Table 2
Proaosed Budoet
Tasks
CAJA
Staff
O
U
R
N
N
U
.c
0
S
S
N
`
Y
0
as
C
61
U
;v
N
C
J�
C.1
m
m
yN
C
�
v
'A
N
U
JC
C
O
C
N
C
E
m
o
O
�
C
N
U
O
C
c
$50
N
=
Y
N
F
W
a
N
°
Total Cost
$200
$175
$150
$150
$150
$125
L $75
Start Up and Scoping Tasks
$6,450
Task 1
IAttend Kick-Off Meeting
4
8
8
0
0
0
2
0
22
$3,550
Task 2
Prepare and Circulate Notice of Preparation (NOP)
1
2
4
0
0
0
2
2
11
$1,400
Task 3
Attend EIR Public Scopin Meeting 1
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
$1,500
Draft EIR Tasks
$73,000
Task 4
Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
Ilntroduction/Summa
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
1
8
$1,200
ll. Environmental Setting
1
2
6
0
0
0
0
1
10
$1,500
lll. Pi 'ect Description
2
8
16
0
0
0
0
1
27
$4,250
IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
A. tm acts Found to be Less Than Significant
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
7
$1,025
B. Aesthetics
1
16
4
0
0
0
2
1
24
$3,800
C. Air Quality
1
2
4
50
0
0
0
1
58
$8,700
D. Biological Resources
1
2
0
0
0
24
2
1
30
$3,750
E. Cultural Resources
1
2
8
0
0
0
2
1
14
$1,950
F. Geology& Soils
1
2
10
0
0
0
1
1
15
$2,175
G. Hazards & Hazadous Materials
1
2
10
0
0
0
1
1
15
$2,175
H. Hydrology& Water Quality
1
2
10
0
0
0 1
1
1
15
$2,175
1. Land Use & Plannir q Policy
1
24
4
0
0
0
2
1
32
$5,200
J. Noise
1
2
0
0
50
0
1
1
55
$8,175
K. Population & Housing
1
12
6
0
0
0
0
1
20
$3,250
L. Public Services/Recreation
1
2
24
0
0
0
1
1
29
$4,275
M. Trans oranor✓Trathc
1
6
0
0
0
0
2
1
10
$1,450
N. Utilities & Service Systems
1
2
24
0
0
0
1
1
29
$4,275
V. General Impact Cate cries
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
6
$900
Vl. Alternatives to the Pmlect
2
6
24
0
0
0
0
1
33
$5,100
Vll. Pre revs of the EIR and Persons Consulted
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
5
$575
Task 5
Prepare Draft EIR and NOAINOC
4 1
8
20
0
0
0
2
5
39
$5,600
Task 6 JAttend
Public Head on Draft EIR
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
8
$1,500
Final EIR Tasks
$25,850
Task 7 IPrepare
Administrative Draft Final EIR
5
32
50
8
8
5
5
4
117
$17,700
Task 8
Prepare Final EIR
2
8
25
2
2
2
2
2
45
$6,650
Task 9 JAttend
Public Hearing on the Certification of the Final EIR
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
$1,500
Mlsc. Tasks
$5150
Task 10
Attend Other/Team Meetings (2)
8 8
0 1 0 0
0 0
0
16
$3,000
Task 11
Project Management
� 1 t 3? w ��ti ^
+T rS cC{, i1 M'nw �'�
Reproduction, Mailing/Shipping, Mileage, Communications, Etc.
2 10
? .,r%Sft a4f G`u
0 0 0 0 0 0
'�P K. m"ki �Y1•.�it `�
12
� �✓fiP:�C ie"
$2,150
.x
Y � fi, ",:
$2,000
10% Administrative Fee
$200
Total CAJA Costs
Fehr & Peers
$36,840 V
$112,650
GRAND TOTAL $149,490
Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the City of Moorpark General Plan Update
August I, 2008
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
VI. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
CAJA's project management approach is based on our understanding that each project presents a unique
set of challenges based on the level of detail proposed in the project plans, available site - specific
information, perceived public controversy, and proposed timing of project implementation. CAJA's
overall approach to project management is based on clear communication. As the leader of the
environmental team, CAJA will communicate all project milestones, issues, and pending processes with
EIR project team members and City staff to ensure compliance with the schedule, scope of work, and
budget.
Our experience in managing projects of large and small scale and complexity has shown that working
meetings combined with "telecommunicating," including communicating via email and memorandum,
provide the most effective type of communication. Through these avenues, the project manager will
coordinate the team's work and provide management liaison between the project team and the City for
communication of issues, transmittal of comments, and other project management matters.
The management approach described above allows regular interaction between the project team, City
staff, and the other consultants; and it requires frequent information sharing among team members. This
approach will foster efficient data acquisition and give City staff advance input on environmental
findings. Such participation will minimize environmental impacts and duplication of research efforts,
improves the technical quality and accuracy of the environmental analysis, and ultimately assists in the
preparation of a quality and therefore, a technically accurate EIR.
We review all project communications and technical reports in a timely fashion to ensure that issues are
recognized early in the process, communicated to appropriate parties, and an action plan formulated for
resolving issues. This ensures that the environmental review focuses appropriately on environmental
issues of most controversy and importance, that all environmental review is conducted to the highest
standards and considers all appropriate environmental thresholds, and that all agency and public concerns
are addressed appropriately.
Regarding specific issues related to scoping projects and estimating costs, CAJA's approach is to review
the project description, background reports, and appropriate planning documents to determine the
appropriate level of analysis and propose an efficient, cost - effective scope of work to complete the
environmental review process. Our review and research will allow us to propose which environmental
topics can be appropriately focused out and which topics should be fully analyzed. CAJA will review all
project - related information and work with the City on the scope of work and budget.
Our expertise in scoping projects and communicating the potential budget requirements to adequately
address tasks translates directly to efficient management of the project budget thereby avoiding cost
overruns and unforeseen out of scope work. Research during the project initiation phase, will allow
CAJA to propose a cost effective environmental review process at the beginning of the project.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR VI. Program Management
City of Moorpark Page VI - -1
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
Additionally, our frequent team communications allows us to anticipate issue areas that could create
schedule delays. Our expertise in this area will allow the project team to know when to move forward in
the analysis to maintain the project schedule, what assumptions may need to be made to keep the project
moving forward, and when to hold back on the analysis while certain project details are finalized. This
expertise avoids duplication of effort and out of scope costs, while maintaining the overall project
schedule.
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR VI. Program Management
City of Moorpark Page VI -2
Of
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
VII. STATEMENT OF OFFER AND SIGNATURE
CAJA proposes a not -to- exceed budget for the scope of services of $149,490. This proposal represents a
firm offer for up to 60 days.
I certify that I am authorized by CAJA to contractually bind the company with this proposed scope of work.
To discuss the proposed scope of work and budget please contact:
Curtis Zacuto, Senior Vice President
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates
Agoura Hills Office
30851 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Phone: (805) 782 -9708 or (818) 735 -8838
Fax: (818) 735 -8858
Curtis Zacuto, Senior Vice President
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR VII. Statement of Offer and Signature
City of Moorpark Page VII -1
Experience Surmmary
Mr. Curtis Zacuto, Senior Vice President, has more than 20 years of diverse experience in planning and environmental analysis. Prior
to joining CAJA, Mr. Zacuto was a Principal Planner with UCLA Campus Planning, where he determined the appropriate level of
environmental documentation required for project approval and proactively incorporated environmental considerations during project
formulation. Mr. Zacuto also acted both as project manager and principal writer at other environmental consulting firms for numerous
CEQA projects, including mixed -use developments, residential subdivisions, institutions, hotels, master plans, and general plans. Mr.
Zacuto's background in public sector planning and private consulting has resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the complex
relationships between land use regulations, environmental impacts, and project implementation.
r:.-r� U S,T .. '
Project Experience
■
Antelope Valley Enterprise Zone (EIR) ■
Magnolia Avenue Condominium Project (EIR)
■
California Lutheran University Master Plan (EIR) ■
Mountain Gate Residential Subdivision (EIR)
■
California NonoSystems and Engineering Facilities Plan ■
NBC Studios Master Plan (EIR)
(EIR) ■
Northwest Housing Infill Project (EIR)
■
Century Landmark Condominium Project (EIR) ■
Oxford Avenue Apartment Project (EIR)
■
City of Lancaster Master Environmental Assessment and ■
Santa Monica Studios Master Plan (EIR)
General Plan (EIR) ■
Southwest Campus Housing and Parking Project (EIR)
■
City of Sierra Madre Master Environmental Assessment ■
UCLA long Range Development Plan Update (Plan and EIR)
and General Plan (EIR)
■
City of South Pasadena (General Plan and EIR) ■
Warner Bros Studios Master Plan (EIR)
■
Intramural Field Parking Structure (EIR) ■
Acosta Athletic Training Center (IS /MND)
■
Luck Research Center and Related Facilities — LaKretz Hall ■
UCLA Stunt Ranch (IS /MND)
(Addendum)
Educational Background and Professional Affiliations
■
M.U.R.P. (Master of Urban and Regional Planning) - California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona
■
B.A. in Sociology- University of California, Los Angeles
■
American Planning Association - Former Vice President, Membership of the Los Angeles Section of APA
■
Former editor of The Dispatch, newsletter of the Los Angeles Section of APA
r:.-r� U S,T .. '
STACIE HENDERSON
Project Experience
■ Bellwood lofts (EIR)
■ LA lofts Chinatown (EIR)
■ District la Brea (EIR)
■ Garden Grove Wal -Mart (EIR)
■ KTLA Entertainment Center and Studio Expansion
(Addendum)
■ Marina Del Rey Tower (EIR)
■ Paseo Plaza Hollywood (EIR)
■ Ridgecrest Wal -Mart Supercenter (EIR)
■ Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan (EIR)
■ Yucca Street Condos (EIR)
■ Argyle lofts (IS /MND)
■ Aqua Vista Condominium Project (IS /MND)
■ Bonnie Brae Apartments (IS /MND)
■ Community Recycling & Resource Recovery (IS)
■ Hotel Ray (IS /MND)
■ Madame Tussauds Hollywood (Subsequent IS /MND)
■ Red Oak Vermont (IS /MND)
■ The Village at Tarzana (IS /MND)
Educational ck ro n and Professional Affiliations
■ J.D. - Loyola law School
■ B.A. in Political Science - University of California, Berkeley
"rw - ��b F" z rte_. n : r- -, t °�
., . L �x �:. n h.� i .. x. :. +;. - .r _K ._,� _. _ ._� ,' � _._t'i.._ ... t _..r L �. y,.��.b Cvi A ..,. t......',�?
w
Mr. Bryan Chen is a Senior Environmental Scientist with over ten years of environmental consulting experience focusing on air quality
analyses and human health risk assessments. Prior to joining CAJA, Mr. Chen served as a senior toxicologist at Tetra Tech EMI and was
the lead risk assessor for Naval installations located in California. In addition, Mr. Chen was the air quality specialist for a number of
private and public sector projects that utilized air quality tools such as HARP, ISCST3, and URBEMIS. Mr. Chen has a Bachelor's degree in
Chemistry from Pomona College and a Master's degree from the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering at Johns
Hopkins University.
Project Experience
■ Mammoth Crossing (EIR) ■ World Oil (EIR)
■ Home Depot Sunland (EIR) 0 Community Recycling- Resource Recovery (EIR)
■ la Cienego Elder Care facility (EIR) ■ Verdugo Hills (EIR)
■ Yula Boy's High School (EIR) ■ Campbell Hall School Expansion Project (MND)
■ Museum of Tolerance (EIR) ■ Target at Sunset and Weston (MND)
Educational Background and Professional Affiliations
• Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry, Pomona College
• Master's Degree in Geography and Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University
k% L
DAVID, BENJAMIN
nmlw_� Ift
Experience Summary
Mr. David Benjamin is the Graphics Specialist for the Southern California CAJA offices, working under the direction of Scott Johnson.
Mr. Benjamin is responsible for maintaining graphics standards in the two Southern California offices. Based on several years' 3D
modeling and Photoshop experience, he is responsible for creating photo- composite simulations, shade /shadow graphics, and training
other staff members to assist in graphics production.
Project Experience
• Ambrose Venice (EIR)
• Caruso Arcadia (EIR)
• Continental -Gomel (EIR)
• DS Ventures (EIR)
• Dutra Haystack landing, Petaluma (EIR)
• Garden Grove Walmart (EIR)
• Laguna Beach Village Entrance Project (EIR)
• liberty Canyon (EIR)
• Paseo Plaza Hollywood EIR
• Platt Marina (EIR)
• Ridgecrest Walmart (EIR)
• Sears (EIR)
• Triangle Ranch (EIR)
• Vibiana Lofts (EIR)
• Wildlife Waystation (EIR)
• Yucca St. Condos (EIR)
■ 1800 Argyle (IS /MND)
■ Aqua Vista (Vogel Volley) (ISMND)
■ Bonnie Brae (IS)
■ Chinatown Gateway (ISMND)
■ Hobart Blvd. (IS /MND)
■ Madame Tussauds Hollywood (Subsequent IS /MND)
■ Red Oak Vermont (IS /MND)
■ Universal City (Universal Vision Plan) (IS /MND)
■ Van Nuys Airport (IS)
■ 9th & Flower Project (MMRP)
■ Centre Street lofts (MMRP)
• Siffin Panorama City Shade /Shadow Analysis
■ SunCal Shade /Shadow Analysis
■ Yucca Street (MMRP)
■ Universal Vision Plan
E ucat-4L.cnal Background and Professional Affiliations
• B.A. in Music with a minor in English- University of California, Davis
• Courses in Traditional Art, 3D Animation & Modeling, and Sculpting - Cogswell College, Sunnyvale, California
A_ILIC-�UST 2009
f�
FEHR &_ PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
FEHR &PEERS FIRM DESCRIPTION
Fehr & Peers specializes in providing transportation planning and traffic
engineering services to public and private sector clients. We emphasize the
development of creative, cost - effective, and results- oriented solutions to
Manning and design problems associated with all modes of transportation.
PECIALIZED SERVICES
ether than trying to offer a multi - disciplined approach, we choose to focus
i being the best traffic engineering and transportation planning consulting
m. We offer specialized expertise in the following areas:
• Travel Demand Forecasting
• Traffic Operations and Simulation
• Intel ligent Transportation Systems
• Traffic Calming
• Bicycle /Pedestrian Planning and Design
• Transportation Systems Planning
• Transit Operations and Simulation
• Land Use/Transportation Planning
• Smart Growth Planning
• Transportation Impact Analysis
• Traffic Engineering Design
Maintaining this singular focus on transportation enables us to provide
state -of -the- practice expertise to our clients. We are nationally- recognized
experts in these areas as evidenced by the fact that we routinely publish
many professional papers, serve on national committees, and teach
courses to others in the industry.
THOMAS P. GAUL
Principal
fp
FEHR &t PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
EXPERIENCE I WORK EXPERIENCE
Transportation Planning
. Years of Experience — 24
• Years with Fehr & Peers — 22
Task manager for the Los Angeles County HOV Performance
Program and the HOV System Integration Plan studies. Project
EDUCATION
manager for transportation elements of the Los Angeles Community
Plan Update and Revision Programs, Glendale Downtown Strategic
. Graduate Course Work,
Plan, Redondo Beach General Plan update, Los Angeles County
University of California, Berkeley,
Congestion Management Program EIR, and Los Angeles EIR
1982
Manual. Project manager for development of the Oahu Regional
. Bachelor of Science, Civil
Transportation Plan, Ewa Transportation Master Plan and
Engineering, Massachusetts
North /South Road MIS, and Hawaii Statewide Plan. Managed
Institute of Technology, 1981
development of transportation improvement programs for the
Warner Center and Westwood/West LA areas of Los Angeles, the
Tri- Cities area of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles and West Hollywood,
AFFILIATIONS
and Waikiki, Hawaii. Conducted alternatives analysis for the Route
30 Freeway. Developed methodologies and computer software for
Institute of Transportation
statewide highway needs studies for Alabama and Arizona.
Engineers
Transit Planning
PUBLICATIONS
Managed studies analyzing guideway and station impacts of the
0 The Making of Iniki Express (The
Honolulu Rapid Transit Program and the Northern San Gabriel -San
Kauai Emergency Bus System),
Bernardino Valley Rail Transit Corridor. Participated in development
1993 ITE District 6 Annual
of transit improvement plans for the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, and
Meeting
Maui, Hawaii. Assisted Kauai County with implementation of
• Warner Center. A Plan for the
emergency Iniki Express bus system in the aftermath of Hurricane
21St Century, 1993 ITE District 6
Iniki. Prepared transit development plans for various communities in
Annual Meeting
Kern County, California. Evaluated proposed people -mover system
. Planning in Motion: The 2030
in Mammoth Lakes, California. Assisted with the Union Station
Oahu Regional Transportation
Transportation Plan and Metrorail station area plans in Los Angeles.
Plan, 2006 ITE District 6 Annual
Meeting
Traffic Engineering
Conducted numerous traffic impact, circulation and site access
studies for residential, commercial, institutional, industrial,
waterfront, recreation /entertainment and mixed -use developments
throughout California, Arizona, Hawaii and Nevada. Conducted
circulation studies for redevelopment projects in Bakersfield,
Carlsbad, Inglewood and various areas of Los Angeles, California.
Evaluated circulation options for downtown Phoenix, Arizona, as
part of the Phoenix Municipal Government Center Master Plan.
Prepared internal access plan for Playa Vista, a proposed large
multi -use development in Los Angeles. Managed preparation of
Caltrans Project Study Reports and /or Project Reports for SR 1 and
SR 90 improvements in Los Angeles and 1- 5/Westem and SR
134 /San Fernando interchanges in Glendale. Conducted study of
proposed Metrolink grade crossing closures in Glendale.
1-
_ C..1'_I Is
f�
FEHR & PEERS
7RA!,SFCRIAiIC-N "0NSJ_IAN7S
LAND USE& TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Fehr & Peers prepares transportation plans with an emphasis on integrating
land use decisions with transportation investments. We believe that
the most effective transportation plans are those where transportation
improvements provide desired operating conditions while also facilitating the
ocation, pattern, and design of land use development. We have prepared the
,ansportation elements of numerous general, comprehensive, and specific
lans throughout the western United States. We work closely with public
gency staff and planning /urban design firms to develop transportation
olutions for these communities. Our services include:
• Opportunities /constraints analysis
• Data collection and analysis
• Travel demand modeling
• Traffic and transit operations analysis
• Policy development
• Transportation elements for general, comprehensive,
and specific plans
• Alternatives analysis
• Transit, pedestrian and bikeway planning
• Public participation facilitation
• EIR /EIS transportation impact analysis
OUR ADVANTAGES IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FOR GENERAL, COMPREHENSIVE AND SPECIFIC PLANS:
Comprehensive Services - We have expertise in all modes of transportation planning, including state of the art modeling capabilities,
specialized bikeway /trail planning, traffic engineering practices, and sophisticated simulation techniques. Our modeling capabilities include
travel demand models that incorporate methods to quantify the effects of smart growth land use principles. Our balanced focus on all travel
modes is reflected in our use of traffic simulation models and the use of transportation system performance measures such as person -delay
and multi -modal LOS.
Pedestrian and Transit - Friendly Services - Fehr & Peers is at the forefront of neo- traditional and non -auto mode planning. We incorporate
transit- oriented planning concepts into many of our specific and general plan projects.
Public Participation Services - We have a reputation for building a consensus among stakeholders with divergent interests. We support
early public involvement, through workshops and public hearings. We have experienced great success in conveying transportation issues
and tradeoffs, especially with the assistance of today's technology such as 3 -D GIS models, visualization, and simulation. : r
yA '
;Piz
DOWNTOWN MOBILITY STUDY - BOISE, ID
The purpose of this project was to develop a comprehensive approach to mobility
within downtown Boise and for people traveling from, to, and through the downtown
area. Project aspects included:
• An urban, pedestrian- oriented place characterized by ease of movement and
freedom from congestion for people and manageable congestion for vehicles.
• A vibrant mix of uses including housing, offices, services, retail, restaurants, hotels,
public spaces, and cultural, entertainment, research and learning opportunities.
• An interconnected, multi-modal system of transportation that sustains this character
and connects downtown Boise to the larger region.
• Smooth connectivity between various activity centers within the study area such as
the downtown core, the cultural district, State Capitol and state offices, Ada County
Courthouse, Boise State University, Idaho Place /Idaho Water Center, St. Luke's
Medical Center, 25th & Fairview park- and -ride, and proposed multi -modal stations
through an effective transportation center.
The study recommendations included innovative ways to solve the negative impacts
that usually accompany metropolitan growth, and to sustain a livable community now
and in the future. It assured that the pattern of development and the transportation
system integrate so that downtown Boise remains the heart of the community's social,
cultural, business, governmental, and educational life, and provides a vital center to the
region's economy.
DOWNTOWN MOBILITY AND ACCESS PLAN (DMAP) - DENVER, CO
The overall vision, goals, and desired outcomes associated with a Downtown Multi -Modal
Access Plan focus on enhancing Downtown accessibility through the year 2025. Major
components of the study include development of a comprehensive plan for vehicular,
pedestrian, bicycle and transit access into and throughout Downtown Denver. Additional
considerations include long -term land use planning, infrastructure improvements, and
streetscape elements needed to ensure quality Downtown connections.
SACOG BLUEPRINT STUDY - SACRAMENTO, CA
Fehr & Peers developed a locally -valid means of predicting the effects of smart growth
planning policies on reducing per- capita vehicle travel within the Sacramento Region.
The work involved integrating the 4 -D's (density, design, diversity, and destinations)
into the SACMET model, as well as identifying other improvements that would make
the model more sensitive to local smart growth initiatives.
-f
BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS 2002 - SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Fehr & Peers was selected as a member of the transportation team to complete Specific
Plans for three key areas within San Francisco: Central Waterfront, Market /Octavia
(Central Freeway), and Balboa Park BART Fehr & Peers worked collaboratively with City
staff and other disciplines of the Better Neighborhoods team including urban design
and economics. The work included more than 20 meetings in each neighborhood
to develop and refine the Specific Plans. The transportation analysis for this project
differed significantly from traditional transportation analysis. Some of the unique
aspects were:
• A traffic impact analysis focused on reducing traffic impacts by encouraging
non -auto travel
• Parking analysis that set maximum parking limits rather than minimum
parking requirements
• Detailed assessment of transit accessibility and efficiency
• Detailed assessments of bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and convenience
Subsequent to completion of the Specific Plans, Fehr & Peers also prepared the
transportation sections of the environment document for each Specific Plan.
URBAN AREA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - TRACY, CA
Fehr & Peers prepared the Circulation Element and the transportation sections of the
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tracy General Plan. The effort included an
update to the Tracy citywide traffic model, public planning workshops, coordination
with responsible agencies, transportation issues summary document, development of
land use alternatives, urban design elements related to street and network standards
and impact reduction, guidelines for context sensitive design and traffic calming,
preparation of a multi -modal circulation element, and preparation of draft and final
EIR.
f�
FEHR & DEERS
EL DORADO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN- EL DORADO, CA
Fehr & Peers assisted El Dorado County to update its General Plan EIR and Traffic Impact
Fee Program afterthe passage of a local traffic growth control measure, which was passed
by almost 2/3 of County voters, and in light of a recent legal decision that determined
the County's General Plan EIR was not adequate. Our role was to develop a new travel
demand forecasting model for the County that is linked to the regional SACMET model.
In addition, we tested various land use scenarios with this model to determine potential
implications for the traffic impact fee program. Important issues addressed by our work
included establishing new thresholds for what constitutes a significant traffic impact
under CEQA, the potential impacts of development associated with existing entitled
land, and the extent to which the County will be able to approve new development.
1- 25 /BELLEVIEW TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - DENVER, CO
Fehr & Peers was part of a multi - disciplinary team for a 46 -acre, 4.6 million square -foot
transit oriented development located at 1 -25 and Belleview in Denver, Colorado. The
proposed project includes 1.8 million square feet of office, 336,000 square feet of retail
space, and 1,320 dwelling units. The development will create a downtown urban core
encompassing a future RTD Light Rail Station for the surrounding Denver Technological
Center. Fehr & Peers' role includes the preparation of sophisticated trip generation
assumptions based on state -of- the -art techniques applicable to multi - modal, mixed -
use developments.
ENVISION UTAH TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES MANUAL
Fehr& Peerswas part ofamulti- disciplinaryteamforthisaward- winning project sponsored
by Envision Utah, which culminated in a published manual for TOD development and
design standards for distribution throughout Utah. The project focused on developing
TOD land use scenarios using the charette process for several pilot locations in the Salt
Lake Val ley.This was followed by transportation analysisand recommendations to ensure
the preferred scenarios could be implemented. These recommendations will form the
basis for future TOD in the Salt Lake Valley. A second part of the project was to assist in
developing the Manual for Envision Utah. The experiences from the pilot project sites
provided the basis for many of the recommendations contained in the Manual.
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Fehr & Peers provided consulting services regarding the traffic operational effects of
modifying the proposed street cross - sections near the South San Francisco Bay Area
Rapid Transit (BART) Station. Conceptual plans for a transit village near the station
were developed to make the area more pedestrian - friendly. Key elements of the plan
included reducing Mission Street from four to three lanes, reducing McLellan Extension
from six to four lanes, reducing curb radii in many locations near the BART station, and
adding traffic calming devices in the nearby neighborhood. Fehr & Peers completed the
analysis of these proposed changes to ensure that adequate traffic operations would be
maintained.
f?
FEIiR & PEERS
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
RECENT AND CURRENT PROJECTS AND CLIENTS
Campus/Institutional
• Carlthorp School Expansion, EIR, City of Santa Monica
• Chabad School Expansion, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Colburn School of Performing Arts Expansion Project, IS, City of Los Angeles
• Corsair SMC, EIR, City of Santa Monica
• Crespi High School Expansion, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• CSUN Central Plant and Utilities Infrastructure I Project at California State, IS, Northridge
• De Anza Foothill Community College, EIR and EIR Addendum, City of Los Altos Hills
• FIDM, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles Trade -Tech College Parking Structure, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles Trade -Tech College 30 -Year Master Plan, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Maimonides Academy Expansion, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Maria Carillo High School, EIR, City of Santa Rosa
• Marlborough School Faculty Parking Lot, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• Marlborough School Expansion, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Montgomery High School, EIR, City of Santa Rosa Schools
• Napa Valley College Master Plan, EIR, Napa Valley
• New Roads School, Peer Review, City of Santa Monica
• Santa Monica College Bundy Campus Master Plan, EIR, City of Santa Monica
• Santa Monica College Municipal Pool Replacement, EIR/EA, City of Santa Monica
• Santa Monica Liberal Arts Building Project, IS, City of Santa Monica
• Sonoma State University Offsite Housing, EIR, Sonoma State University
• Temple Israel, Focused EIR, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 1
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• UCLA Family Student Housing Redevelopment Project, EIR, West Los Angeles
• UCLA Northwest Campus Housing Project, EIR, West Los Angeles
• UCLA University Village Expansion Plan, EIR, West Los Angeles
• University Commons, EIR, City of Azusa
• Viewpoint School Modernization Project, EIR, City of Calabasas
• Wisebum School District, IS /MND, E1 Segundo
• Civic Center Projects
• Chino Hills Town Center Project, EIR, City of Chino Hills
• Laguna Beach Community Senior Center, EIR, City of Laguna Beach
• Malibu Civic Center - La Paz Development Project, EIR, City of Malibu
• The Grand Avenue Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
Commercial Projects (including office and medical buildings)
• 6904 Hollywood, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• 959 Seward Street, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• American Canyon Big Easy Car Wash, IS /MND, City of American Canyon
• Brentwood Park Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Bristol Farms Retail Project, EIR, City of West Hollywood
• Burbank Media Studios North, Focused EIR, City of Burbank
• Camarillo Promenade Project, EIR, City of Camarillo
• CIM 1800 North Highland, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Costco Inglewood, IS, City of Inglewood
• Garden Grove Wal -Mart, EIR, City of Garden Grove
• Gateway Chintatown, EIR, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 2
a A
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Gilroy Chinatown, LLC Shopping Center, IS /MND, City of Gilroy
• Hollywood and Highland Project, Addendum to the FEIR, City of Los Angeles
• Howard Hughes Center, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Manchester - Vermont Village, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Los Altos Drive -In Theater, EIR, City of Long Beach
• MBS- Taylor Yard, IS, City of Los Angeles
• Modified Hollywood Orange Building, Subsequent IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Murrieta Commons, IS /MND, City of Murrieta
• Olympic and Bundy Medical Park, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Petaluma Deer Creek Plaza, EIR, City of Petaluma
• Plaza El Segundo Phase II, Subsequent EIR, City of El Segundo
• Price - Costco, EIR, Culver City
• Primestor El Zocalo, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Ridgecrest — Walmart, EIR, City of Ridgecrest
• Sakioka Farms, EIR, City of Oxnard
• Santa Monica Chevrolet Auto Dealership, EIR, City of Santa Monica
• Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development, EIR, City of El
Segundo
• Silverstein - Beverly Hills, EIR, City of Beverly Hills
• Suites at the L.A. Mart, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Sunquest Business Park, IS /EA, City of Los Angeles
• Sunset & Vine, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Village Shopping Center, Addendum, City of Inglewood
• Walgreens Drug Store with Drive Through Pharmacy, IS, in San Pedro
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 3
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Walgreens North Hollywood, IS, City of Los Angeles
• West Covina Kmart, IS /MND, City of West Covina
Hotel /Motel (including mixed -use) Projects
• CIM Highland and Hawthorne, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• El Segundo Corporate Campus (Media Center), EIR, City of El Segundo
• Harbor Gateway Center Project, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Hollywood and Highland/Renaissance Hotel Renovation, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Hollywood & Vine, Addendum, City of Los Angeles CRA
• LAAFB Land Conveyance, Construction and Development Project, EIS /EIR, City of El Segundo
• Lake County — Cristallago, EIR, County of Lake
• Legacy - Hollywood, EIR Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Lyndon Hotel, Categorical Exemption, City of Los Angeles
• Maguire 777 Figueroa, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Malibu Forge Lodge, EIR, City of Malibu
• Malibu Valley Inn and Spa, EIR, Los Angeles County (near the City of Calabasas)
• Metlox Development /Civic Center, EIR, City of Manhattan Beach
• Plaza El Segundo Phase II, Subsequent EIR, City of El Segundo
• Santa Monica Hotel, Viewshed Use Study, City of Santa Monica
• Sunset Millennium Project, Peer Review, City of West Hollywood
• Weston Doubletree, Expert Witness, City of Santa Monica
Other
• Auto Dealerships, Peer Review, City of Santa Monica
• California Hospital Medical Center Seismic Upgrade, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• City of Hope / "CITI" Building, IS /MND, City of Duarte
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 4
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Community Recycling- Resource Recovery, Focused EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Crobar Hollywood, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Dutra Asphalt and Aggregate Plant, EIR, Sonoma County
• FBO Van Nuys Airport, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Master Plan, City of Los Angeles
• Haun & Scott Industrial Project, EIR, County of Riverside
• Kinder - Morgan Tank Farm Project, EIR, City of Carson
• KTLA Studios Expansion Master Plan, Addendum, Hollywood
• Laguna Village Entrance, EIR, City of Laguna Beach
• La Habra Temporary Fire Station, IS, City of La Habra
• Laguna Beach Life Guard Headquarters, IS /MND, City of Laguna Beach
• Los Angeles Housing Ellis Act, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• MTA's Self - Cleaning Public Toilets /Advertising Media Program, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• Niklor Chemical Manufacturing Plant, EIR, Kern County
• Panama Hotel, Categorical Exemption, City of Los Angeles
• Perris -Cross Dock Warehouse /Distribution Facility, EIR, City of Perris
• Pierce Brothers Westwood Memorial Park, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Power Machinery, EIR, City of Oxnard
• Oxnard - Power Machine Industrial Project, Agricultural Study, City of Oxnard
• Quail Lake Cemetery, EIR, County of Los Angeles
• RMC Palo Alto, IS /MND, City of Palo Alto
• Spring Street Parking Structure, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 5
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August I, 2008
• Stationer's Building, Supplemental EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Torrance Detention Basin, IS /MND, City of Torrance
• TreePeople, Preliminary Environmental Study, US DOT
• Troller -Mayer Land Reuse Project, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Wilmington Town Lots, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• YWCA Downtown, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
Plans /MEAs
• 12th Street Preferential Parking Zone, City of Santa Monica
• 1995/1996 City of Santa Monica Master Environmental Assessment Update, City of Santa
Monica
• 1997/1998 City of Santa Monica Master Environmental Assessment Update, City of Santa
Monica
• 2001/2002 City of Santa Monica Master Environmental Assessment Update, City of Santa
Monica
• 2006 Revised Snowcreek Master Plan, EIR, Town of Mammoth Lakes
• Chinatown Redevelopment Project, EIR Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• City of El Segundo Circulation Element, City of El Segundo
• City of Glendora Historic Resources Project, Program EIR, City of Glendora
• Environmental Documents for Community & Specific Plan Updates, City of Los Angeles
• Fresno County Enterprise Zone, EIR, County of Fresno
• Hollywood Park Redevelopment Project, EIR, City of Inglewood
• Lancaster General Plan Amendments, EIR, City of Lancaster
• Light Manufacturing and Studio District, EIR, City of Santa Monica
• Mammoth Crossings, Specific Plan EIR, Town of Mammoth Lakes
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 6
` ..tA S
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Mammoth Sierra Star, EIR, Town of Mammoth Lakes
• Pietra Del Sol Specific Plan, City of Los Angeles
• Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan, City of Santa Monica
• Santa Monica College Thresholds Manual, City of Santa Monica
• WDD South Figueroa Land Co (Figueroa and 12th Street), Transfer Plan, City of Los Angeles
• Residential and Commercial Mixed -Use Projects
• 8th and Grand Avenue, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• 9th and Flower Project South Park Mixed -Use Development, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• 11th and Hill, IS, City of Los Angeles
• 1800 North Argyle, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• 3670 Wilshire (Legacy), IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Adler Realty -Los Feliz (Hillhurst /Los Feliz), IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Astani -9th and Figueroa, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Berkley -700 University Avenue Mixed -Use Project, Focused EIR, City of Berkeley
• Beverly Connection Project, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• Big Wave - San Mateo, EIR, County of San Mateo
• Blossom Plaza, IS /MND and EA, City of Los Angeles
• Bomel -KCOP Site, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Bond- Hollywood Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Capitol Records Property, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Centre Street Lofts, IS /EA, City of Los Angeles
• CIM 4400 Sunset, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• CIM- Sunset and Vine, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Clarett Hollywood, EIR, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 7
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Continental - Bomel, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Cumpston/Lankershim, IS, City of Los Angeles
• Del Arno Fashion Center Phase II Mixed -Use Development, EIR, City of Torrance
• EIP -Wood Street, EIR, City of Oakland
• Furama Hotel Redevelopment Project, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• GE Development Sunset and Gordon, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• GE Development Wilshire Vermont, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• GTO Sunset, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Hollywood and Gower, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Hollywood Passage, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Hollywood /Western, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• JSM McCormick II Mixed Use Development, IS /MND Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• JSM - Milano Project, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• LA Lofts Chinatown, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Lot 114 (WDD), IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Marlton Square, IS /EA, City of Los Angeles
• Marouf Downtown Los Angeles, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Monian— Figueroa Central, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Monterey Park Towne Centre, IS /MND, City of Monterey Park
• North Hollywood Commons, Addendum, City of Los Angeles
• Palazzo Westwood Project, FEIR, City of Los Angeles
• Parkside Tower Project, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Paseo Plaza Hollywood, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Siffin- Panorama City, EIR, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 8
6 � '
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Snyder Valley Plaza, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Vibiana Lofts, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Village at Tarzana, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Village Center Westwood, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• W &D Wilshire 3033 Wilshire, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Wilshire Pacific - Hollywood, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Wilshire SeaGlass Townhomes, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Zen Downtown, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
Residential Multi - Family Projects
• 1133 South Hope Street Project, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• 130 Sepulveda Boulevard, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• 2055 Avenue of the Stars Condominiums, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• 8th and Grand, IS /MND and EIR, City of Los Angeles
• 860 Highland Association - Hollywood, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Ardmore Heights Apartments, Categorical Exemption, City of Los Angeles
• Avalon Bay Del Rey Apartments, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Bedford Hills Condominiums, EIR, County of Los Angeles
• Bellwood Lofts, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Bonnie Brae Apartments, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Capital Foresight, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Casden Park La Brea, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• DS Ventures - Woodland Hills, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Euclid Avenue Disabled Housing /Public Neighborhood Park Project, IS /EA, City of Santa
Monica
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 9
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Franklin Apartments, Focused EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Gateway Chinatown, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Gilroy Miller Avenue Project, IS, City of Gilroy
• Hanover Downtown Project, IS, City of Los Angeles
• Hanover Westwood, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Hobart Boulevard, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• Inglewood Senior Center, IS /EA, City of Inglewood
• James Wood Apartments, Categorical Exemption, City of Los Angeles
• JPI Hollywood, IS/MND, City of Los Angeles
• JSM Vineland Apartments, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Lyndon Hotel, Categorical Exemption, City of Los Angeles
• Magnolia Avenue Condominium Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Manatt-Akoya West, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• McCadden Place Housing Project, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Nicholson -Watt, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Olson - Santa Fe Springs, IS /MND, City of Santa Fe Springs
• Oxford Avenue Apartment Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Patriot Cahuenga, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Red Oak, IS /MND, County of Los Angeles - Torrance
• Sylmar — Merco, MND, City of Los Angeles
• Tennessee Avenue Lofts, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Tentative Tract Map No. 5440, 1S /ND, City of Thousand Oaks
• W &D Wilshire, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• Wilcox Condos, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 10
Jj
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates
• Wilshire Boulevard Condominium Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Woodbridge Wilshire Condominium Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
Residential Subdivision Projects
• 801 Fassler Ave - The Prospects, EIR, City of Pacifica
• Bee Canyon Residential Development, EIR, Los Angeles County
• Bisno - San Pedro Residential Development, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• Gilroy Masoni Orchard Subdivision, IS, City of Gilroy
• Health Structures /Holy Cross Residential Subdivision, EIR, City of Los Angeles
• KB Homes - Monterey Hills, IS, City of Los Angeles
• Liberty Canyon Project, EIR, City of Calabasas
• Pacifica -Gypsy Hill, EIR, City of Pacifica
• Palmer -Del Valle, EIR, County of Los Angeles
• Petaluma Davidon Homes, EIR, City of Petaluma
• Rockville Trail Estates, EIR, County of Solano
• Santa Fe Springs Townlots Subdivision, EIR, City of Santa Fe Springs
• Silverlake Red Car Development, IS /MND, City of Los Angeles
• The Keystone, EIR, City of Santa Clarita
• Thomas Subdivision, EIR, San Mateo County
• Triangle Ranch, EIR, unincorporated Los Angeles County (Calabasas area)
• Verdugo Hills Project, EIR, City of Los Angeles
August 1, 2008
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 11
v
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
SPECIALIZED ANALYSES
Air Quality Analyses
• Agoura Hills Design Center, Air Quality Study, City of Agoura Hills
• HQ Development - Agoura Oaks Plaza, Air Quality Study, City of Agoura Hills
• Robinson Ranch, Air Quality Study, City of Santa Clarita
Biological Resource Analyses
• 11130 -11160 Oro Vista, Biological Inventory, City of Los Angeles
• 6701 Portshead, Biological Inventory, City of Malibu
• Adel - Malibu Restoration, Strategic Assistance, City of Malibu
• Ashai Design Biology, Biological Inventory, Rancho Palos Verdes
• Biological Inventory for 0.15 -acre Property located at 31634 Sea Level Drive, City of Malibu
• Biological Inventory for 1 -acre Property located at 31361 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu
• Biological Inventory for 1.5 -acre Property located at 6130 Galahad Road, City of Malibu
• Habitat Assessment/Biological Walkover (Southeast Corner of Florida Ave. and Palm Ave.), City
of Hemet
• HQ Development - Agoura Oaks Plaza, Biological Inventory, City of Agoura Hills
• Malibu Bio -Jeff Lane 3250 Serra Road, Biological Inventory, City of Malibu
• Mira Loma, Biological Inventory, County of Riverside
• Northrop Biota, Biological Inventory, City of Palmdale
• Oak Tree Survey for Malibu Valley Inn and Spa, Los Angeles County (near the City of
Calabasas)
• RMC Antioch, Biological Inventory, City of Antioch
GIS Analyses
• Fresno County Enterprise Zone Application
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark page 12
_ _i'lk_
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Defined an area of rural Fresno County that qualified under the California State Enterprise Zone
Program
• Selected census areas based upon demographic thresholds
• Imported, digitized and reclassified zoning data
• Calculated areas and percentages categorized by zoning designation
• Exported address and street ranges contained in the Enterprise Zone
• Solano Rockville Trails Estates — Wastewater Disposal Area
• Defined an area for wastewater disposal
• Quantified acreage categorically
• 6701 Portishead Malibu Plant Communities
• Digitized plant communities based upon biologist's site study and aerial photo
• Oro Vista Sensitive Species Habitat
• Analyzed sensitive plant, animal and habitat species within a specified buffer distance from the
project site
Historic Analyses
• 1060 S. Broadway, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• 2323 La Mesa, Historic Analysis, City of Santa Monica
• 6904 Hollywood, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Alexandria Hotel, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Bronson — LA Housing Pt., Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Hanover Wilshire Historical, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles Community Design Center, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Lyndon Historical, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• MM -1645 Gower, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 13
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• Old Pasadena NRHD, Historic Analysis, City of Pasadena
• Palisades Beach Road, Historic Analysis, City of Santa Monica
• Sieroty Building, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Spaulding Square, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
• Sunset - Highland, Historic Analysis, City of Los Angeles
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• 9th and Flower, MMRP, City of Los Angeles
• Beverly Connection, MMRP, City of Los Angeles
• Centre Street Lofts, MMRP, City of Los Angeles
• Wilshire Comstock, MMRP, City of Los Angeles
• Yucca, MMRP, City of Los Angeles
Noise Analyses
• Anoush Restaurant, Noise Study, City of Glendale
• Centex Homes Fusion, Noise Study, City of Hawthorne
• Centex Tract 4862, Noise Study, City of Thousand Oaks
• Centex Tract 5377, Noise Study, City of Thousand Oaks
• City College, Noise Study, City of Los Angeles
• Decron- Hawaiian Gardens, Noise Study, City of Hawaiian Gardens
• Los Angeles City College Swap Meet, Noise Study, City of Los Angeles
• Palmdale 47th Street, Noise Study, City of Palmdale
• Robinson Ranch Estates, Noise Study, City of Santa Clarita
Shade /Shadow and Visual Simulation
• 10000 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Shade /Shadow Study, City of Los Angeles
• Glenoaks Solar, Solar Report, City of Los Angeles
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark Page 14
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates August 1, 2008
• RSA -The Glen, Shade /Shadow Study, City of Los Angeles
• Suncal Century City, Shade /Shadow Study, City of Los Angeles
• Travel Lodge Santa Monica, Visual Simulations, City of Santa Monica
Moorpark General Plan Update EIR Appendix B
City of Moorpark
Page 15
EXHIBIT B
Insurance Requirements
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will
use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does
not meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or
endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance
coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of
coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy form CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event
to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non -owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant employees will use personal autos in
any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay
on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
Agreement.
Worker's Compensation on a state - approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Professional Services Agreement between
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the State of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials,
employees, servants, agents, and independent consultants ( "Agency
indemnities "), using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior
to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors and subcontractors to
do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right
of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractor's to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or
its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not
been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so- called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification, and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior
written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or
Professional Services Agreement between
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
I f"
♦ y°
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any
time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty,
to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or
any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall
be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due
Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificates are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any
cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify such
certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to
mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will
"endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the
certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subconsultant, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, non - contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved
with the project, who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant.
Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all
responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the
requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements
with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for
review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self- insure or to use any self- insured retention or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees
that it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, or other entity or person in any
way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this
agreement to self- insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing coverage
includes a deductible or self- insured retention, the deductible or self- insured
retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review options
with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible
of self- insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
Professional Services Agreement between
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage, only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any
steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this
Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of the City to inform Consultant of non - compliance with any insurance
requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it
waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this Agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the Agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until
City executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and /or additional insured endorsement is required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five
days of the expiration of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials, and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a give coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party of insured to be limiting or all -
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
Professional Services Agreement between
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of
this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or
impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to the City. It is
not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with
these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of
premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes
no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
Professional Services Agreement between
City of Moorpark and Christopher A. Joseph and Associates
}' ' w