HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13930 (Andersen At-Grade Crossing)RESOLUTION NO. 13930
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WITH AECOM FOR ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT FOR THE SMART RAIL/ANDERSEN DRIVE AT -GRADE CROSSING
(Term of Agreement: from May 18, 2015 to May 18, 2016,
for an amount not to exceed $109,289.00)
WHEREAS, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) has informed the City of its
intent to move forward with the extension of the rail service from Downtown San Rafael to
Larkspur Landing. This extension includes a crossing with Andersen Drive; and
WHEREAS, Andersen Drive is built over the SMART rail line right-of-way, creating an
at -grade crossing. In the 1990's, the at -grade crossing was permitted by the State of California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) subject to the order that upon resumption of regular rail
service along the mainline right-of-way, the City demonstrate provisions for a safe rail crossing.;
and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a plan for funding and securing the necessary permits
and approvals for a safe rail crossing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the proposed Andersen Drive crossing will require environmental review, which will
involve the preparation of an Initial Study with recommendations. It is recommended that a
consultant be hired to prepare the necessary environmental document for this project; and
WHEREAS, AECOM has prepared a proposal for services to prepare the environmental
document for this project, which is provided as an attachment to this resolution. The proposal for
services includes a not -to -exceed budget of $109,289.00, which includes completion of all
necessary tasks through document certification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the City of San Rafael, an
Agreement for Professional Services with AECOM in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.
I, ESTHER C. BERINE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on Monday, the 18`h day of May 2015, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
1115 � C-_ . za, ZZ. -c
Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk
Attachment: Professional Services Agreement + Exhibit A, Proposal for Services from AECOM (March 6, 2015)
ATTACHMENT 1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WITH AECOM, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE
ANDERSEN DRIVE AT -GRADE ROAD CROSSING WITH THE SMART RAIL LINE
FOR A NOT -TO -EXCEED BUDGET OF $109,289.00
This Agreement is made and entered into this (S-7,0 day of 0,4 v , 2015, by
and between the CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (hereinafter "CITY"), and AIECOM (hereinafter
"CONTRACTOR").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in the early 1980's, The County of Marin (County), Golden Gate Bridget,
Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) and the Marin County Transit District (MCTD)
began working together to acquire the Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Marin
County. GGBHTD subsequently acquired some of those rights, including franchise rights over
certain San Rafael streets. In 1993, the CITY declared those franchise rights terminated by
abandonment. As a result, litigation ensued between the County, GGBHTD, MCTD, the CITY and
the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (Marin Superior Court N. 159486); and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1995, in settlement of litigation, the parties entered into a
"Settlement Agreement," pursuant to which GGBHTD agreed to grant the CITY an easement. This
easement would allow the CITY to construct the Andersen Drive extension over part of the
GGBHTD "mainline right-of-way" (Mainline ROW). As a condition of the Settlement Agreement,
the CITY was required to apply to the State of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for
consent to the construction of a street crossing over the Mainline ROW; and
WHERE AS, .in-IM7sin.conjunction with,the construction of the Andersen Drive extension,
the CITY obtained permission from the CPUC to build the new roadway over the Mainline ROW,
then owned by GGBHTD. However, the approval by CPUC granted the approval only until such
time that rail service over the Mainline ROW might be resumed. The CPUC order required that
upon resumption of regular rail service, the CITY will have to demonstrate that it can provide a safe
train crossing at Andersen Drive; and
WHEREAS, in the mid -2000's, the rail line was conveyed from GGBHTD to the Sonoma -
Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) for the purpose of developing a commuter rail service. As a
successor in interest, the terms of the settlement agreement were conveyed to SMART; and
WHEREAS, following the passage of the Measure Q sales tax in 2006, SMART proceeded
with designing and constructing a commuter rail service along the former NWP Mainline ROW.
Based on available funding, the construction has been planned in phases. Phase 1, which covers the
rail service from Downtown Santa Rosa to Downtown San Rafael is currently under construction;
and
WHEREAS, in 2014, SMART informed the CITY of its intent to proceed with Phase 2,
which includes the extension of the commuter rail service from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur
5 18 15 (SRCC approved)
Landing. SMART requested that the CITY proceed with designing, funding and securing the
needed approvals/permits for the rail crossing design on Andersen Drive; and
WHEREAS, in February 2015, the CITY Department of Public Works completed and
published, "Andersen Drive Report on Analysis of Alternatives to Accommodate Rail Service."
This report studied six conceptual design and access alternatives for accommodating commuter rail
service along Andersen Drive, including, among others, an at -grade road crossing with the rail line,
a grade separated crossing, and closure of Andersen Drive; and
WHEREAS, the local and State approvals required to permit the Andersen Drive at -grade
crossing with the Mainline ROW are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. As environmental review is required for this project, it is prudent for the City to hire a
qualified consultant to prepare the appropriate environmental document; and
WHEREAS, AECOM (CONTRACTOR), an environmental consulting fine was hired by
the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) to complete an environmental study for NEPA of
the SMART extension from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Landing, which includes the area of
the Andersen Drive at -grade crossing. As such, CONTRACTOR is most familiar with the
environmental characteristics, issues and studies of the subject Andersen Drive area. For this reason,
it is most appropriate to retain CONTRACTOR to complete the appropriate CEQA environmental
document for this project.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. PROJECT COORDINATION,
A. CITY'S Project Manager. The Community Development Director is hereby
designated the PROJECT MANAGER for the CITY, and said PROJECT MANAGER shall
supervise all aspects of the progress and execution of this Agreement.
B. CONTRACTOR'S Project Director. CONTRACTOR shall assign a single
PROJECT DIRECTOR to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this
Agreement for CONTRACTOR. Rodney Jeung, Principal, AECOM is hereby designated as the
PROJECT DIRECTOR for CONTRACTOR Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to
the execution of this Agreement require a substitute PROJECT DIRECTOR, for any reason, the
CONTRACTOR shall notify the CITY within ten (10) business days of the substitution.
2. DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR shall perform the duties and/or provide the services that are scoped,
outlined and budgeted in the March 6, 2015 letter to the CITY (addressed to Paul Jensen,
Community Development Director), which is attached herein (Exhibit A).
3, DUTIES OF CITY.
CITY shall pay the compensation as provided in Paragraph 4, and perform the duties as
outlined in attached Exhibit A.
4. COMPENSATION.
For the full performance of the services described herein by CONTRACTOR, CITY shall
pay CONTRACTOR a not -to -exceed amount of $109,289.00.
Payment will be made monthly upon receipt by PROJECT MANAGER of itemized
invoices submitted by CONTRACTOR.
5. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
The term of this Agreement shall be for one (1) year commencing on May 18, 2015 and
ending on May 18, 2016. Upon mutual agreement of the parties, and subject to the approval of the
City Manager the term of this Agreement may be extended for an additional period of six months.
6. TERMINATION.
A. Discretionary. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon
thirty (30) days written notice mailed or personally delivered to the other party.
B. Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause upon fifteen (15) days
written notice mailed or personally delivered to the other party, and the notified party's failure to
cure or correct the cause of the termination, to the reasonable satisfaction of the party giving such
notice, within such fifteen (15) day time period.
C. Effect of Termination. Upon receipt of notice of termination, neither party shall
incur additional obligations under any provision of this Agreement without the prior written consent
of the other.
D. Return of Documents. Upon termination, any and all CITY documents or
materials provided to CONTRACTOR and any and all of CONTRACTOR's documents and
materials prepared for or relating to the performance of its duties under this Agreement, shall be
delivered to CITY as soon as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days after termination.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
The written documents and materials prepared by the CONTRACTOR in connection with
the performance of its duties under this Agreement shall be the sole property of CITY. CITY may
use said property for any purpose, including projects not contemplated by this Agreement. Use of
said property on other projects shall be at the City's sole risk.
8. INSPECTION AND AUDIT.
Upon reasonable notice, CONTRACTOR shall make available to CITY, or its agent, for
inspection and audit, all documents and materials maintained by CONTRACTOR in connection
with its performance of its duties under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall fully cooperate
with CITY or its agent in any such audit or inspection.
9. ASSIGNABILITY.
The parties agree that they shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the
performance of any of their respective obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of
the other party, and any attempt to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations
arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
10. INSURANCE.
A. Scope of Coverage. During the term of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall
maintain, at no expense to CITY, the following insurance policies:
I. A commercial general liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrenceltwo million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate, for
death, bodily injury, personal injury, or property damage.
2. An automobile liability (owned, non -owned, and hired vehicles) insurance
policy in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence.
3. If any licensed professional performs any of the services required to be
performed under this Agreement, a professional liability insurance policy in the minimum amount
of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence/four million dollars ($4,000,000) aggregate, to
cover any cls, arising—aut of the .CONTRACTOR's performance of services under this
Agreement. Where CONTRACTOR is a professional not required to have a professional license,
CITY reserves the right to require CONTRACTOR to provide professional liability insurance
pursuant to this section.
4. If it employs any person, CONTRACTOR shall maintain worker's
compensation and employer's liability insurance, as required by the State Labor Code and other
applicable laws and regulations, and as necessary to protect both CONTRACTOR and CITY
against all liability for injuries to CONTRACTOR's officers and employees. CONTRACTOR'S
worker's compensation insurance shall be specifically endorsed to waive any right of subrogation
against CITY.
B. Other Insurance Requirements. The insurance coverage required of the
CONTRACTOR in subparagraph A of this section above shall also meet the following
requirements:
1. Except for professional liability insurance, the insurance policies shall be
specifically endorsed to include the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, as
additionally named insureds under the policies.
2. The additional insured coverage under CONTRACTOR'S insurance
policies shall be primary with respect to any insurance or coverage maintained by CITY and shall
not call upon CITY's insurance or self-insurance coverage for any contribution. The "primary and
noncontributory" coverage in CONTRACTOR'S policies shall be at least as broad as ISO form
CG20 0104 13.
3. Except for professional liability insurance, the insurance policies shall
include, in their text or by endorsement, coverage for contractual liability and personal injury.
4. The insurance policies shall be specifically endorsed to provide that the
insurance carrier shall not cancel, terminate or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of said
insurance policies except upon ten (10) days written notice to the PROJECT MANAGER.
S. If the insurance is written on a Claims Made Form, then, following
termination of this Agreement, said insurance coverage shall survive for a period of not less than
five years.
b. The insurance policies shall provide for a retroactive date of placement
coinciding with the effective date of this Agreement.
?. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a
combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall
contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and
noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement)
before CITY'S own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named
insured.
8. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance
proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements
and/or limits shall be available to CITY or any other additional insured party. Furthermore, the
requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this
Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or
proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater.
C. Deductibles and SIR's. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions in
CONTRACTOR's insurance policies must be declared to and approved by the PROJECT
MANAGER and City Attorney, and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Policies containing any
self-insured retention (SIR) provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be
satisfied by either the named insured or CITY or other additional insured party. At CITY's option,
the deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to CITY shall be reduced or eliminated to
CITY's satisfaction, or CONTRACTOR shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claims administration, attorney's fees and defense expenses.
D. Proof of Insurance.. CONTRACTOR shall provide to the PROJECT MANAGER
or CITY'S City Attorney all of the following: (1) Certificates of Insurance evidencing the insurance
coverage required in this Agreement; (2).a copy of the policy declaration page and/or endorsement
page listing all policy endorsements for the commercial general liability policy, and (3) excerpts of
policy language or specific endorsements evidencing the other insurance requirements set forth in
this Agreement. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and
endorsements from CONTRACTOR. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of
the right to exercise it later. The insurance shall be approved as to form and sufficiency by
PROJECT MANAGER and the City Attorney.
11. INDEMNIFICATION.
A. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph B., CONTRACTOR shall, to the
fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, release, defend with counsel approved by CITY, and
hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers (collectively, the "City
Indemnitees"), from and against any claim, demand, suit, judgment, loss, liability or expense of
any kind, including but not limited to attorney's fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of
litigation, (collectively "CLAIMS"), arising out of CONTRACTOR'S negligent performance of
its obligations or conduct of its operations under this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR's
obligations apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by the active
or passive negligence of the City Indemnitees. However, to the extent that liability is caused by
the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees, the CONTRACTOWs
indemnification obligation shall be reduced in proportion to the City Indemnitees' share of
liability for the active negligence or willful misconduct. In addition, the acceptance or approval
of the CONTRACTOR's work or work product by the CITY or any of its directors, officers or
employees shall not relieve or reduce the CONTRACTOR's indemnification obligations. In the
event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from CONTRACTOR'S performance of or operations under this
Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at CITY'S
option reimburse_the Cit)�-lndemnitees--their costs -of defense; including reasonable attorneys'
fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
B. Where the services to be provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement are
design professional services to be performed by a design professional as that term is defined
under Civil Code Section 2782.8, CONTRACTOR shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
indemnify, release, defend and hold harmless the City Indemnitees from and against any
CLAIMS that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of CONTRACTOR in the performance of its duties and obligations under this
Agreement or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement,
except such CLAIM which is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY.
C. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in
addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this
Agreement, and shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period
of time allowed by law.
12. NONDISCRIMINATION.
CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of age,
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or disability in connection with or related to the
performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement.
13. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS.
CONTRACTOR shall observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations, in the performance of its duties and obligations under this
Agreement and in accordance with the applicable professional standard of care for similar
professional services rendered in the California. CONTRACTOR shall perform all services under
this Agreement in accordance with these laws, ordinances, codes and regulations.
CONTRACTOR shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and
employees from any and all damages, liabilities, penalties, fines and all other consequences from
any noncompliance or violation of any laws, ordinances, codes or regulations.
14. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.
CITY and CONTRACTOR do not intend, by any provision of this Agreement, to create in
any third party, any benefit or right owed by one party, under the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, to the other party.
15. NOTICES.
All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this
Agreement, including any notice of change of address, shall be in writing and given by personal
delivery, or deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed to the
parties intended to be notified. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal delivery, or
if_mailed,upon the date of'sleposit with the United_States Postal Service—Notice shall be--given-as
follows:
TO CITY's Project Manager:
TO CONTRACTOR's Project Director:
16, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Paul Jensen, Community Development Dept.
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Rodney Je�rincipal
AECOM
300 California Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
For the purposes, and for the duration, of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR, its officers,
agents and employees shall act in the capacity of an Independent Contractor, and not as employees
of the CITY. CONTRACTOR and CITY expressly intend and agree that the status of
CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and employees be that of an Independent Contractor and not
that of an employee of CITY.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT -- AMENDMENTS.
A. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, all exhibits attached, and all documents
expressly incorporated by reference, represent the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the
subject matter of this Agreement.
B. This written Agreement shall supersede any and all prior agreements, oral or written,
regarding the subject matter between the CONTRACTOR and the CITY.
C. No other agreement, promise or statement, written or oral, relating to the subject
matter of this Agreement, shalt be valid or binding, except by way of a written amendment to this
Agreement.
D. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be altered or modified except
by a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the CONTRACTOR and the CITY.
E. If any conflicts arise between the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the
terms and conditions of the attached exhibits or the documents expressly incorporated by reference,
the terns and conditions of this Agreement shall control.
18. SET-OFF AGAINST DEBTS.
CONTRACTOR agrees that CITY may deduct from any pnyment dr-e_.3o
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, any monies which CONTRACTOR owes CITY under
any ordinance, agreement, contract or resolution for any unpaid taxes, fees, licenses, assessments,
unpaid checks or other amounts.
19. WAIVERS.
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant or condition of
this Agreement, or of any ordinance, law or regulation, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any
other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, law or regulation, or of any subsequent breach pr
violation of the same or other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, law or regulation. The
subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee, performance, or other consideration which may
become due or owing under this Agreement, shall not be deemed to be a waiver'of any preceding
breach or violation by the other party of any term, condition, covenant of this Agreement or any
applicable law, ordinance or regulation.
20. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, or arising out of the performance of this Agreement, may recover its reasonable costs
(including claims administration) and attorney's fees expended in connection with such action.
21. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE/ OTHER TAXES.
CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain during the duration of this Agreement, a CITY
business license as required by the San Rafael Municipal Code CONTRACTOR shall pay any and
all state and federal taxes and any other applicable taxes. CITY shall not be required to pay for any
work performed under this Agreement, until CONTRACTOR has provided CITY with a
completed Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and
Certification).
22. APPLICABLE LAW.
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day, month
and year first above written,
NJINUSIAM-1Z ".1. .174.101
NANCY mAcKiLE, City Manager
ATTEST:
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT$t� �tiey
-EPS , 0ity
CONTRACTOR
A ,
By:
Name: Wyley tjevn4)
Title:
EXHIBIT A: Letter to City of San Rafael from AECOM summarizing proposal for
environmental support services for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Rail
Crossing; March 6, 2015
A=COM
March 6, 2015
Paul Jensen, AICP
Community Development Director
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
AECOM 415.796.8100 tel
300 California Street Suite 400 415.798 8209 fax
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.aecom.com
EXHIBIT A
RE: Environmental Support Services for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Rail Crossing
Dear Mr. Jensen:
Thank you for asking AECOM to submit a scope and cost estimate for completing required environmental
documentation in support of the City's Andersen Drive Grade Crossing project. As you know, members of
the AECOM team are familiar with the project based on their participation in preparation of NEPA
environmental compliance documents for the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District's
Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension project. As such, our team offers unique knowledge of the
project site and the environmental issues associated with it. We appreciate the City's interest in having us
continue working on this important project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
We understand that the City has been working with SMART to develop a design for the Andersen Drive
at -grade rail crossing that would meet California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) requirements.
Preliminary designs have been developed and submitted to the CPUC for review, CPUC staff have
tentatively indicated that they will put the design forward for Commission approval. The City will need to
evaluate the environmental effects of the approved design in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's completion of the project is integral to SMART's ability to
extend SMART passenger rail service from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur, which may occur as early
as 2017.
The City has also indicated that it will require assistance for the West Francisco Boulevard "flip", which is
also related to the SMART project. Our approach would be to roll that additional project component into
the work for the Andersen Drive crossing work.
AECOM has already conducted extensive work in the project area as a part of SMART's proposed
extension to Larkspur. AECOM served as SMART's environmental consultant for preparation of a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) for review and approval by
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The EA is currently undergoing public review, and SMART
expects the FTA to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) sometime during March, 2015.
Issuance of the FONSI would make SMART a candidate for funding under an FTA grant, which would
allow SMART to complete design and construct the extension.
As part of its NEPA work for SMART, AECOM has undertaken a significant portion of the environmental
compliance work that will be required for the City's CEQA document. For many of the CEQA
environmental topics, sufficient information has already been compiled, and the level of effort required to
integrate the information into the City's CEQA document will be minimal. The information is current and is
directly relevant to the City's project. Some environmental topics, such as noise and traffic, will need to be
modified or expanded to meet the specific requirements of CEQA and/or the City. For the most part,
however, much of the work has already been completed and can easily be integrated into the City's
CEQA document.
A=COM City San Rafael
March G. 2015
Page 2
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE
Based on our understanding of the project and our knowledge of the level of likely environmental effects,
we believe that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate CEQA
document for the project. Technically, the project could probably be approved using one of the CEQA
Categorical Exemptions provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. However, because of public
interest in the project and the overall sensitivity of the issues, we believe that an IS/MND would be more
appropriate since it would allow decision -makers and the public to more thoroughly consider the potential
environmental effects of the project. Based on information currently available to us as the result of our
previous work with SMART, we do not foresee any potential impacts that would rise to the level of
unavoidable and adverse. Therefore, we do not propose preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) at this time. This could change, though we feel it unlikely, if subsequent analysis identifies new
impacts that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, or if during the public review process an
fair argument is raised by members of the public that a significant impact could occur.
AECOM'S QUALIFICATIONS TO DO THE WORK
As previously noted, key members of the AECOM team (Rod Jeung and Luke Evans) have worked
previously on elements of SMART's proposed extension to Larkspur. Other AECOM personnel also
contributed to that effort, and those same individuals will be utilized for the City's project. Below is a brief
list of projects that present experience possessed by the AECOM team that is directly relevant to the
City's project.
• Sacramento Regional Transit District/Federal Transit Administration Southline Initial
Study/Environmental Assessment
• San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On -Call Planning and Environmental Services
• Merced to Fresno High -Speed Train Preconstruction and Permitting Services, California High -
Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
• Sacramento Regional Transit Bus Maintenance Facility Initial Study/Categorical Exclusion
• Sacramento Regional Transit District, University/65th Street Station Improvement Project Initial
Study
• Downtown Tracy Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
• Swanston Transit Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
• San Carlos Transit Village Environmental Impact Report
• Railroad Avenue Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
KEY STAFF
The AECOM team includes a number of key individuals with direct experience with the SMART project
and therefore a complete understanding of the City's project. Below are several key staff that would be
involved with this project.
Rod Jeung, Project Director. Mr. Jeung has more than 35 years of experience managing and
conducting CEQA and NEPA environmental studies, assessments, and impact analyses. His
responsibilities at AECOM include managing environmental studies, inter jurisdictional and interagency
coordination, client liaison, and public participation. Mr. Jeung will serve as the project director for the
F -I T=X#71�
City of Son Rafael
Mach 6,21115
Page 3
current effort His entire career has been spent in the Bay Area, dedicated to planning programs,
environmental assessment, and regulatory compliance studies.
Luke Evans, Senior Project Manager. Mr. Evans has a well-developed track record in environmental
consulting, especially related to NEPA and CEQA implementation for large and complicated projects. He
has developed a reputation throughout his career for being able to successfully manage a wide range of
project types. Projects he has recently managed include light rail transportation extensions in urban
areas, military installation master plans, and large-scale industrial, commercial, and residential projects
throughout California.
Kristin Tremain, Biologist and Deputy Project Manager. Kristin Tremain is a biologist and regulatory
specialist with experience in terrestrial and aquatic resources. She has experience in conducting
environmental studies and permitting at both the state and federal level. Her background lies in wildlife
biology with particular strengths in vertebrate biology, wetlands science, and landscape ecology. Kristin
has experience conducting protocol -level surveys for special status species, wetland delineations,
mammal trapping and relocation, nesting bird surveys, and botanical surveys.
George Lu, Air Quality Analyst. George Lu is an air quality and climate change analyst. Mr. Lu's work
experience includes preparation of technical studies and related sections of CEQA documents for
commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, recreational, educational, and other development projects.
Mr. Lu has also helped develop and quantify emissions and prepare analyses for health risk assessments
for residential, mixed-use, and industrial development projects. With respect to GHG analyses, Mr. Lu has
developed numerous GHG emissions inventories on the project-, city-, and county -level. He is familiar
with the most current GHG quantification and analysis methods and guidance from local air districts, the
California Air Resources Board, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Mohammad Mahmodi, Noise Analyst. Mohammad Issa Mahmodi is a noise and air quality analyst with
more than 10 years of civil and environmental engineering experience. His experience encompasses all
levels of technical and managerial skills required to provide accurate air quality, noise, and odor study
findings and impact analyses in compliance with CEQA, NEPA, and local ordinances. He has prepared
studies on industrial, energy, transportation, flood control, infrastructure, recreation, mixed-use
development, and other construction projects as well as public policy documents such as general plans.
His studies have included both project development and design -phase projects for roadways ranging from
arterial class to interstate facilities on existing and new alignments.
Anthony Mangonon, Transportation Planner. Mr. Mangonon is a versatile transportation planner with
expertise in a wide variety of complex transportation -related analyses and planning efforts across the San
Francisco Bay area. His experience in transit planning covers urban and suburban rail, intercity high
speed rail, bus, and ferry planning, including cost estimation (capital and operating cost estimation,
ridership projections, and revenue forecasting) and service planning (route alignment and headways). Mr.
Mangonon also has experience in environmental review, including transportation impact assessments of
large development projects and area plans; analysis of transit and pedestrian facilities including transit
stations; and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and transit -oriented development
(TOD) guidelines.
WORK PLAN
The end goal of AECOM's work is the City Council's adoption of an MND for the City's proposed project.
AECOM's work plan is designed to efficiently achieve this goal. For purposes of clarity, this work plan
begins with a discussion for each environmental topic as listed in the CEQA Guidelines, This discussion
will help to define the ultimate work plan. For each topic, the technical information that is currently
available from SMART's NEPA EA is described, as well as identification of any known data gaps that may
be present for purposes of CEQA. For some topics, some level of CEQA-specific analysis that was not
undertaken for SMART's NEPA process will be needed. For each topic, the level of effort required to
A=COM
City of San Rafael
March 8. 2015
Page4
supplement existing technical information, if needed, is discussed. This discussion is followed by a
detailed work plan to address these identified needs and to complete the IS/MND.
Aesthetics. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.14). The existing information
need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is required and the
level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources. These resources are not present in the project area. As such, this
topic was only briefly discussed in the SMART EA (Section 3.15). The information is readily available and
the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Air Quality. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.1). However, the EA discussion
concerned the entirety of the SMART extension project, and was not restricted to the Andersen Drive
crossing and West Francisco Boulevard modification. As such, a refined analysis will need to be
undertaken to determine whether local "hotspots" could result in levels of criteria pollutants, principally
carbon monoxide and small -diameter particular matter, exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District
thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction -related emissions will be examined relative to the
District's construction thresholds of significance. The level of effort to complete this task will be moderate.
A stand-alone technical report is not required. Rather, the results of the refined analysis will simply be
integrated into the Initial Study.
Biological Resources. This topic was fully evaluated for federally -listed sensitive species in the SMART
EA (Section 3.2). The relevant federal regulatory agency for potentially affected species in the area
concurred with SMART's determination that the project will not adversely affect listed species. For the
City's project, some additional species that are listed as sensitive by the State of California will need to be
evaluated as per the requirements of CEQA. A simple technical memo will be prepared to supplement the
existing information and considering those species reported in a query of the California Natural Diversity.
The level of effort to complete this task will be moderate, but substantially less than would be the case if
the SMART NEPA work had not been completed.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Both of these topics were fully evaluated in the SMART EA
(Section 3.3). Further, SMART received State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence that the
SMART extension project will not adversely affect cultural resources. The Area of Potential Effect (APE)
for the SMART project included the City's Andersen Drive and West Francisco Boulevard project areas.
Therefore the information is directly transferrable and no additional technical work will be required. The
level of effort required to incorporate the existing information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Geology and Soils. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.5). The existing
information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.6). The
existing information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Hazardous materials were fully evaluated in the SMART EA
(Section 3.7). A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the entire alignment, which
included the City's Andersen Drive and West Francisco Boulevard project areas. No additional analysis is
necessary, and this information can be easily incorporated into the Initial Study. Several CEQA-specific
hazards issues were not evaluated in the EA. These include impacts to/from airports, emergency
response plans, and wildland fire risk. Gathering additional information concerning these issues will
require minimal effort, because these hazards are not present in the project area and existing documents,
such as the City's General Plan, can be used to provide documentation of their absence. The level of
effort for this segment will be minimal.
City of San RafaBI
ASCOM Namb & 2015
Page 5
Hydrology and Water Quality. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.8). The
existing information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Land Use and Planning. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.9). The existing
information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Mineral Resources. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART Ek However, it is clearly not applicable
to the project area, and can be easily addressed in the Initial Study with minimal effort.
Noise and Vibration. This topic was evaluated in the SMART EA using FTKs "Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment" criteria. The City's General Plan requires that SMART -related noise
impacts be evaluated in such a manner as to address both the FTA criteria and the City's noise
standards. The SMART EA did not evaluate the project within the context of the City's noise standards,
but the information needed to do so can be extracted from the EA's technical discussion. In short, the
noise prediction modeling that has been completed suggests that with mitigation (i.e., use of wayside
horns rather than train -mounted homs), the level of noise from train operations at the Andersen Drive
crossing can be lessened to about 66 dB. This would fall within the General Plan's "Conditionally
Acceptable" range for residential land use compatibility, thus avoiding a potentially adverse and
unavoidable impact. Noise levels associated with the West Francisco Boulevard crossing would be
expected to remain essentially the same as current conditions. The level of effort required to integrate this
information into the Initial Study would be moderate.
Population and Housing. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, the level of effort to
incorporate the required information into the Initial Study will be minimal, since the proposed project
would not displace population or residential uses or induce substantial new unplanned growth.
Public Services. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, the level of effort to
incorporate the required information into the Initial Study will be minimal, since the proposed project
would not substantially increase the demand for these services or alter their service levels.
Recreation. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, the level of effort to incorporate
the required information into the Initial Study will be minimal, since the proposed project would not create
a demand for these types of public service facilities nor result in any loss of recreational lands.
Transportation and Traffic. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.13), but a
number of CEQA-specific issues were not addressed. Many of these issues can be easily addressed with
minimal effort. The principal issue for the City's project, however, is the analysis of detailed traffic
movement impacts associated with the Andersen crossing and West Francisco Boulevard modifications.
Since the SMART EA evaluated the entire Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur alignment at a macro level,
detailed analysis at specific crossings was not undertaken. It is our understanding that the City has
completed some of this analysis. For purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that this information will be
made available to supplement the information that is already in the SMART EA. It is further assumed that
any additional technical work that might be required to complete the Initial Study analysis will be
undertaken by the City. Based on these assumptions, the level of effort to incorporate the required
information into the Initial Study will be moderate.
Alternatives. Alternatives in the SMART EA only considered alternatives to the larger Larkspur Extension
project, not to the Andersen Drive crossing and West Francisco Boulevard modification. However, the EA
did disclose, but did not evaluate, a number of options for the Andersen Drive crossing design. The EA
briefly described why the options were rejected, but did not do so in detail. For purposes of this proposal,
we assume that the City will be able to provide AECOM with brief discussions of why particular options
were rejected from further consideration. We note that much of this information is already available in the
City's Alternatives Analysis that was prepared by the Department of Public Works. Any additional
A=COM City of San Rafael
March G. 2015
Page 6
supplemental information that might be required should represent a minimal effort on the part of the City.
In general, the level of effort to incorporate the required information into the Initial Study will be moderate.
TASK 1: KICKOFF MEETING AND SITE VISIT
Even though most members of the project team are familiar with the SMART project, it would be useful to
conduct a kickoff meeting and a site visit that is specific to the Andersen Drive crossing and the and West
Francisco Boulevard modifications. Our experience has shown us that a comprehensive kickoff meeting,
followed by a site visit with the project team, is an effective and efficient way to promote a consistent
understanding of the project, share information, identify potential issues, and confirm expectations of
schedule, deliverables, and review procedures. This meeting would also be used to identify any changes
or new issues that have arisen since the project was first initiated between SMART and City staff nearly
one year ago. We would recommend that the meeting be attended by appropriate City staff members,
representatives from the SMART engineering and project management staff, and the City's design
consultant for the crossing. On the AECOM side, we propose attendance by the AECOM project manager
and deputy project manager.
TASK 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AECOM will prepare the project description, using information available in the SMART EA and
supplemented by City staff. In general, the project description will identify:
• The project location, together with maps, plans, or aerial overviews showing the project
components;
• A listing of parcels that would be affected;
• An overview of the construction timeframe and activities, along with any temporary or permanent
encroachments into adjoining parcels that might be required; and
• Required permits and approvals.
The project description will be used to direct the preparation of the documents described below. AECOM
will submit the draft project description to City staff for review, and will revise the description based upon
comments received from City staff.
TASK 3: TECHNICAL STUDIES
AECOM will prepare the following supplemental technical memos to provide the CEQA-specific
information needed for the Initial Study:
3.1: Biological Resources. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search will be conducted
to identify potential sensitive species in the project area. Based on the results of the database search,
AECOM will prepare a technical memo to evaluate potential habitat in the project area for non-federal
sensitive species that were not considered for the SMART EA. The information will be presented in
tabular format with a brief narrative.
3.2: Noise. AECOM will prepare a technical memorandum that summarizes the SMART EA noise criteria
analysis and supplements that analysis with a discussion of the project's effects with respect to the City's
noise standards.
TASK 4: PREPARE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY
REVIEW
Drawing upon the information contained in the SMART EA and the technical studies prepared as part of
the above tasks, AECOM will prepare an Administrative Draft IS/MND for the project. The document will
ASCOM COV of Sari Rafael
March 6, 2015
Pap 7
be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Each topical discussion will draw
upon the analysis that was previously conducted for the SMART EA, and will assume that any applicable
mitigation prescribed therein will also be applicable to the City's project.
All of the environmental topics listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines will be evaluated, and each
will be discussed to the extent necessary to determine whether the City's project would result in a
significant impact. For each environmental issue in the Initial Study, the following will be included in the
environmental analysis:
• A concise setting that will be tailored to present baseline conditions most susceptible to change
as a result of the proposed project;
• A checklist of significance criteria for each topic;
• The environmental consequences of the proposed project, with emphasis on any potentially
significant effects; and
• Proposed mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate the identified significant and
potentially significant impacts, if any.
An administrative draft of the IS/MND will be compiled and forwarded to the City for review and comment.
Following review of the Administrative Draft IS/MND by the City and the integration of relevant internal
staff comments that are received, AECOM will prepare a Draft IS/MND for public circulation.
TASK 5: PREPARE AND CIRCULATE A DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO
ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION
Assuming that the proposed project will not have any potentially significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated, AECOM will prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Additional materials that will be prepared to complete the NOI will be abstracted from the Initial Study and
include a brief description of the project, the location of the project, a proposed finding that the project will
not have a significant effect on the environment, a listing of the mitigation measures, and the locations at
which the Draft Initial Study may be reviewed.
AECOM will submit the Draft NOI for the City's review. Once accepted, AECOM will print up to 25 copies
of the Draft IS/MND and NOI for public circulation. Appendices and other supporting materials will be
provided on CDs in the back of each Initial Study. AECOM will forward 15 copies of the Draft IS/MND and
NOI to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to public agencies. AECOM will also deliver two copies of
the Draft IS/MND and NOI to two local public viewing locations as directed by the City for the public's use
during the public comment period. The remaining eight copies of the Draft IS/MND will be sent to the City
for internal use or circulation to members of the public that might request it.
It is assumed that the City will be responsible for all mailings to area residents and other interested
parties. It is also assumed that the City will be responsible for all additional public noticing (i.e.,
newspaper advertisements, posting of the NOI in the project area, etc.) and posting of the Draft IS/MND
on the City's website.
The public review and comment period will run for 30 days following posting of the Draft IS/MND and NOI
at the State Clearinghouse.
TASK 6: PREPARE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINAL IS/MND, AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
Following receipt of public agency and private comments on the Draft ISIMND, AECOM will prepare
responses as necessary to assist the City. For purposes of the accompanying cost estimate, AECOM has
assumed that no more than 20 discrete, individual comments (not letters) will require responses.
A=COM City San Rafael
March
rch fi. 2015 2015
Page 8
Based upon our experience thus far with the public comments received on the SMART EA, we have been
impressed with the complexity of the comments relative to similar projects. The SMART project is of
particular interest to a number of interest groups and individuals, some of whom have expressed a
tendency in the past to litigate or appeal. We expect this high level of interest to carry over to the City's
project. We have therefore budgeted more for this effort than we otherwise would for a project with lower
levels of public interest.
The responses will be forwarded to the City for review and comment, and AECOM will make necessary
revisions based on one set of compiled comments.
AECOM will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The MMRP
will be prepared in an agreed to format and will consist of:
• New mitigation measures, if any;
• Mitigation measures from the SMART EA that are applicable to the project area;
• Timing/frequency of action;
• Responsibility for implementation;
• Responsibility for monitoring;
• Standards for compliance; and
• Verification of compliance.
The Draft MMRP will be submitted for City review. Following review, AECOM will revise the MMRP for
publication and adoption. To approve the project, the City must make necessary findings, adopt the
MMRP, and file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse.
When filing the NOD with the County Clerk, the City will also need to pay necessary filing fees. It is
assumed that the City would be responsible for all announcements, filings, and notices associated with
the project. AECOM's Project Manager will attend the City Council hearing, if requested, to approve the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
TASK 7: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
AECOM's typical project management and coordination activities will focus on:
• Contract administration ensuring budget and schedule adherence and providing QA/QC on all
work products;
• Preparation of progress reports to accompany each invoice over the life of the project;
• Coordination with City staff and the project team in soliciting information regarding the proposed
project and informing City staff of any potential impacts and mitigation measures;
• Compiling an Initial Data Request for the project description and impact analysis, including
available base maps and GIS data, background materials prepared by the City or others, and the
collection of other information that may be required;
• Coordination with City staff regarding right of entry if needed;
• Biweekly conference calls with City staff and other interested parties to ensure that ongoing
information needs are met and that the project is proceeding according to schedule and plan; and
• Attendance by AECOM staff at public meetings and hearings.
Based on the items above, AECOM assumes approximately two hours per week would be required for
project management and coordination for the duration of the project, which is assumed to be four months,
A=COM City of San Rafael
March 6. 2015
Page 9
This assumed project duration anticipates that the proposed project can be cleared with an MND for
CEQA. Should it be determined that additional environmental evaluation is needed that goes beyond that
presented here, then the project schedule would necessarily require an extension and a subsequent
contract amendment for this task.
Beyond the weekly project management tasks outlined above, AECOM has also provided for two in-
person meetings with City staff to be attended by the AECOM project manager. At the City's request, we
have also allocated time for attendance by the AECOM project manager at up to six public meetings or
hearings. We are also allocating for attendance by the AECOM deputy project manager at up to three of
those meetings. For purposes of budgeting, we assume four hours for each meeting, which would include
preparation time. Additional public meetings and/or hearings that AECOM staff could be requested to
attend beyond those noted here would be billed on a time and materials basis.
As noted previously, and based on our experience thus far with the SMART project, we anticipate that
this project will receive a high amount of public interest and potential controversy. For that reason, we
have added an additional 30 percent to the project management and coordination budget to account for
additional senior management time with respect to coordination and consultation with the City.
SCHEDULE
It is expected that the project could be completed in approximately four to five months, following approval
of this scope of work and issuance of a contract by the City. This schedule is based primarily on
anticipated review times by the City, together with typical coordination activities, as well as legally -
mandated public review periods for CEQA (30 days). It should also be noted that many of the work scope
tasks can occur concurrently. A concurrent approach will be used whenever appropriate in order to
expedite the project schedule.
PROPOSEDFEE
We propose to carry out the above scope of work for the not -to -exceed fee of $109,289, including direct
expenses. The attached spreadsheet shows the breakdown of costs per task. Charges would be made on
a time and materials basis, and any surplus hours not used would not be billed to the City.
CONCLUSION
AECOM is very excited about the prospect of supporting the City with its environmental compliance
needs for the Andersen Drive and West Francisco Boulevard projects. If you have questions about the
enclosed information or our proposed approach, please feel free to call Luke Evans at 909-809-0508 or
email at luke.evans(cDaecom.com.
Sincerely,
Rod Jeung Luke Evans
Principal Senior Project Manager
A=COM
March 6, 2015
AECOM 415.796.8100 tal
300 California Street Suite 400 415.796.8200 fax
San Francisco. CA 94104
www.ascom.com
EXHIBIT A
Paul Jensen, AICP
Community Development Director
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
RE: Environmental Support Services for the Andersen Drive At -Grade Rail Crossing
Dear Mr. Jensen:
Thank you for asking AECOM to submit a scope and cost estimate for completing required environmental
documentation in support of the City's Andersen Drive Grade Crossing project. As you know, members of
the AECOM team are familiar with the project based on their participation in preparation of NEPA
environmental compliance documents for the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District's
Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Extension project. As such, our team offers unique knowledge of the
project site and the environmental issues associated with it. We appreciate the City's interest in having us
continue working on this important project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
We understand that the City has been working with SMART to develop a design for the Andersen Drive
at -grade rail crossing that would meet California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) requirements.
Preliminary designs have been developed and submitted to the CPUC for review, CPUC staff have
tentatively indicated that they will put the design forward for Commission approval. The City will need to
evaluate the environmental effects of the approved design in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's completion of the project is integral to SMART's ability to
extend SMART passenger rail service from Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur, which may occur as early
as 2017.
The City has also indicated that it will require assistance for the West Francisco Boulevard "flip", which is
also related to the SMART project. Our approach would be to roll that additional project component into
the work for the Andersen Drive crossing work.
AECOM has already conducted extensive work in the project area as a part of SMART's proposed
extension to Larkspur. AECOM served as SMART's environmental consultant for preparation of a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) for review and approval by
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The EA is currently undergoing public review, and SMART
expects the FTA to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) sometime during March, 2015.
Issuance of the FONSI would make SMART a candidate for funding under an FTA grant, which would
allow SMART to complete design and construct the extension.
As part of its NEPA work for SMART, AECOM has undertaken a significant portion of the environmental
compliance work that will be required for the City's CEQA document. For many of the CEQA
environmental topics, sufficient information has already been compiled, and the level of effort required to
integrate the information into the City's CEQA document will be minimal. The information is current and is
directly relevant to the City's project. Some environmental topics, such as noise and traffic, will need to be
modified or expanded to meet the specific requirements of CEQA and/or the City. For the most part,
however, much of the work has already been completed and can easily be integrated into the City's
CEQA document.
A=COM City of San Rafael
March 6. 2015
Page 2
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE
Based on our understanding of the project and our knowledge of the level of likely environmental effects,
we believe that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate CEQA
document for the project. Technically, the project could probably be approved using one of the CEQA
Categorical Exemptions provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. However, because of public
interest in the project and the overall sensitivity of the issues, we believe that an IS/MND would be more
appropriate since it would allow decision -makers and the public to more thoroughly consider the potential
environmental effects of the project. Based on information currently available to us as the result of our
previous work with SMART, we do not foresee any potential impacts that would rise to the level of
unavoidable and adverse. Therefore, we do not propose preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) at this time. This could change, though we feel it unlikely, if subsequent analysis identifies new
impacts that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, or if during the public review process an
fair argument is raised by members of the public that a significant impact could occur.
AECOM'S QUALIFICATIONS TO DO THE WORK
As previously noted, key members of the AECOM team (Rod Jeung and Luke Evans) have worked
previously on elements of SMART's proposed extension to Larkspur. Other AECOM personnel also
contributed to that effort, and those same individuals will be utilized for the City's project. Below is a brief
list of projects that present experience possessed by the AECOM team that is directly relevant to the
City's project.
• Sacramento Regional Transit District/Federal Transit Administration Southline Initial
Study/Environmental Assessment
• San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On -Call Planning and Environmental Services
• Merced to Fresno High -Speed Train Preconstruction and Permitting Services, California High -
Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
• Sacramento Regional Transit Bus Maintenance Facility Initial Study/Categorical Exclusion
• Sacramento Regional Transit District, University/65th Street Station Improvement Project Initial
Study
• Downtown Tracy Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
• Swanston Transit Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
• San Carlos Transit Village Environmental Impact Report
• Railroad Avenue Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
KEY STAFF
The AECOM team includes a number of key individuals with direct experience with the SMART project
and therefore a complete understanding of the City's project. Below are several key staff that would be
involved with this project.
Rod Jeung, Project Director. Mr. Jeung has more than 35 years of experience managing and
conducting CEQA and NEPA environmental studies, assessments, and impact analyses. His
responsibilities at AECOM include managing environmental studies, inter jurisdictional and interagency
coordination, client liaison, and public participation. Mr. Jeung will serve as the project director for the
A=COM
City of San Rafael
March 6. 2015
Page 3
current effort His entire career has been spent in the Bay Area, dedicated to planning programs,
environmental assessment, and regulatory compliance studies.
Luke Evans, Senior Project Manager. Mr. Evans has a well-developed track record in environmental
consulting, especially related to NEPA and CEQA implementation for large and complicated projects. He
has developed a reputation throughout his career for being able to successfully manage a wide range of
project types. Projects he has recently managed include light rail transportation extensions in urban
areas, military installation master plans, and large-scale industrial, commercial, and residential projects
throughout California.
Kristin Tremain, Biologist and Deputy Project Manager. Kristin Tremain is a biologist and regulatory
specialist with experience in terrestrial and aquatic resources. She has experience in conducting
environmental studies and permitting at both the state and federal level. Her background lies in wildlife
biology with particular strengths in vertebrate biology, wetlands science, and landscape ecology. Kristin
has experience conducting protocol -level surveys for special status species, wetland delineations,
mammal trapping and relocation, nesting bird surveys, and botanical surveys.
George Lu, Air Quality Analyst. George Lu is an air quality and climate change analyst. Mr. Lu's work
experience includes preparation of technical studies and related sections of CEQA documents for
commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, recreational, educational, and other development projects.
Mr. Lu has also helped develop and quantify emissions and prepare analyses for health risk assessments
for residential, mixed-use, and industrial development projects. With respect to GHG analyses, Mr. Lu has
developed numerous GHG emissions inventories on the project-, city-, and county -level. He is familiar
with the most current GHG quantification and analysis methods and guidance from local air districts, the
California Air Resources Board, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Mohammad Mahmodi, Noise Analyst. Mohammad Issa Mahmodi is a noise and air quality analyst with
more than 10 years of civil and environmental engineering experience. His experience encompasses all
levels of technical and managerial skills required to provide accurate air quality, noise, and odor study
findings and impact analyses in compliance with CEQA, NEPA, and local ordinances. He has prepared
studies on industrial, energy, transportation, flood control, infrastructure, recreation, mixed-use
development, and other construction projects as well as public policy documents such as general plans.
His studies have included both project development and design -phase projects for roadways ranging from
arterial class to interstate facilities on existing and new alignments.
Anthony Mangonon, Transportation Planner. Mr. Mangonon is a versatile transportation planner with
expertise in a wide variety of complex transportation -related analyses and planning efforts across the San
Francisco Bay area. His experience in transit planning covers urban and suburban rail, intercity high
speed rail, bus, and ferry planning, including cost estimation (capital and operating cost estimation,
ridership projections, and revenue forecasting) and service planning (route alignment and headways). Mr.
Mangonon also has experience in environmental review, including transportation impact assessments of
large development projects and area plans; analysis of transit and pedestrian facilities including transit
stations; and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and transit -oriented development
(TOD) guidelines.
WORK PLAN
The end goal of AECOM's work is the City Council's adoption of an MND for the City's proposed project.
AECOM's work plan is designed to efficiently achieve this goal. For purposes of clarity, this work plan
begins with a discussion for each environmental topic as listed in the CEQA Guidelines. This discussion
will help to define the ultimate work plan. For each topic, the technical information that is currently
available from SMART's NEPA EA is described, as well as identification of any known data gaps that may
be present for purposes of CEQA. For some topics, some level of CEQA-specific analysis that was not
undertaken for SMART's NEPA process will be needed. For each topic, the level of effort required to
A=COM
City of San Rafael
March E. 2015
Page 4
supplement existing technical information, if needed, is discussed. This discussion is followed by a
detailed work plan to address these identified needs and to complete the IS/MND.
Aesthetics. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.14). The existing information
need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is required and the
level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources. These resources are not present in the project area. As such, this
topic was only briefly discussed in the SMART EA (Section 3.15). The information is readily available and
the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Air Quality. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.1). However, the EA discussion
concerned the entirety of the SMART extension project, and was not restricted to the Andersen Drive
crossing and West Francisco Boulevard modification. As such, a refined analysis will need to be
undertaken to determine whether local "hotspots" could result in levels of criteria pollutants, principally
carbon monoxide and small -diameter particular matter, exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District
thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction -related emissions will be examined relative to the
District's construction thresholds of significance. The level of effort to complete this task will be moderate.
A stand-alone technical report is not required. Rather, the results of the refined analysis will simply be
integrated into the Initial Study.
Biological Resources. This topic was fully evaluated for federally -listed sensitive species in the SMART
EA (Section 3.2). The relevant federal regulatory agency for potentially affected species in the area
concurred with SMART's determination that the project will not adversely affect listed species. For the
City's project, some additional species that are listed as sensitive by the State of California will need to be
evaluated as per the requirements of CEQA. A simple technical memo will be prepared to supplement the
existing information and considering those species reported in a query of the California Natural Diversity.
The level of effort to complete this task will be moderate, but substantially less than would be the case if
the SMART NEPA work had not been completed.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Both of these topics were fully evaluated in the SMART EA
(Section 3.3). Further, SMART received State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence that the
SMART extension project will not adversely affect cultural resources. The Area of Potential Effect (APE)
for the SMART project included the City's Andersen Drive and West Francisco Boulevard project areas.
Therefore the information is directly transferrable and no additional technical work will be required. The
level of effort required to incorporate the existing information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Geology and Soils. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.5). The existing
information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.6). The
existing information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Hazardous materials were fully evaluated in the SMART EA
(Section 3.7). A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the entire alignment, which
included the City's Andersen Drive and West Francisco Boulevard project areas. No additional analysis is
necessary, and this information can be easily incorporated into the Initial Study. Several CEQA-specific
hazards issues were not evaluated in the EA. These include impacts to/from airports, emergency
response plans, and wildland fire risk. Gathering additional information concerning these issues will
require minimal effort, because these hazards are not present in the project area and existing documents,
such as the City's General Plan, can be used to provide documentation of their absence. The level of
effort for this segment will be minimal.
A:COM City of San Rafael
March S. 2015
Page 5
Hydrology and Water Quality. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.8). The
existing information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Land Use and Planning. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.9). The existing
information need only be converted into an Initial Study section. No new information or analysis is
required and the level of effort to incorporate this information into the Initial Study will be minimal.
Mineral Resources. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, it is clearly not applicable
to the project area, and can be easily addressed in the Initial Study with minimal effort.
Noise and Vibration. This topic was evaluated in the SMART EA using FTA's "Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment" criteria. The City's General Plan requires that SMART -related noise
impacts be evaluated in such a manner as to address both the FTA criteria and the City's noise
standards. The SMART EA did not evaluate the project within the context of the City's noise standards,
but the information needed to do so can be extracted from the EA's technical discussion. In short, the
noise prediction modeling that has been completed suggests that with mitigation (i.e., use of wayside
horns rather than train -mounted horns), the level of noise from train operations at the Andersen Drive
crossing can be lessened to about 66 dB. This would fall within the General Plan's "Conditionally
Acceptable" range for residential land use compatibility, thus avoiding a potentially adverse and
unavoidable impact. Noise levels associated with the West Francisco Boulevard crossing would be
expected to remain essentially the same as current conditions. The level of effort required to integrate this
information into the Initial Study would be moderate.
Population and Housing. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, the level of effort to
incorporate the required information into the Initial Study will be minimal, since the proposed project
would not displace population or residential uses or induce substantial new unplanned growth.
Public Services. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, the level of effort to
incorporate the required information into the Initial Study will be minimal, since the proposed project
would not substantially increase the demand for these services or alter their service levels.
Recreation. This topic was not evaluated in the SMART EA. However, the level of effort to incorporate
the required information into the Initial Study will be minimal, since the proposed project would not create
a demand for these types of public service facilities nor result in any loss of recreational lands.
Transportation and Traffic. This topic was fully evaluated in the SMART EA (Section 3.13), but a
number of CEQA-specific issues were not addressed. Many of these issues can be easily addressed with
minimal effort. The principal issue for the City's project, however, is the analysis of detailed traffic
movement impacts associated with the Andersen crossing and West Francisco Boulevard modifications.
Since the SMART EA evaluated the entire Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur alignment at a macro level,
detailed analysis at specific crossings was not undertaken. It is our understanding that the City has
completed some of this analysis. For purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that this information will be
made available to supplement the information that is already in the SMART EA. It is further assumed that
any additional technical work that might be required to complete the Initial Study analysis will be
undertaken by the City. Based on these assumptions, the level of effort to incorporate the required
information into the Initial Study will be moderate.
Alternatives. Alternatives in the SMART EA only considered alternatives to the larger Larkspur Extension
project, not to the Andersen Drive crossing and West Francisco Boulevard modification. However, the EA
did disclose, but did not evaluate, a number of options for the Andersen Drive crossing design. The EA
briefly described why the options were rejected, but did not do so in detail. For purposes of this proposal,
we assume that the City will be able to provide AECOM with brief discussions of why particular options
were rejected from further consideration. We note that much of this information is already available in the
City's Alternatives Analysis that was prepared by the Department of Public Works. Any additional
ASCOM City of San Rafael
March 6, 2015
Page 6
supplemental information that might be required should represent a minimal effort on the part of the City.
In general, the level of effort to incorporate the required information into the Initial Study will be moderate.
TASK 1: KICKOFF MEETING AND SITE VISIT
Even though most members of the project team are familiar with the SMART project, it would be useful to
conduct a kickoff meeting and a site visit that is specific to the Andersen Drive crossing and the and West
Francisco Boulevard modifications. Our experience has shown us that a comprehensive kickoff meeting,
followed by a site visit with the project team, is an effective and efficient way to promote a consistent
understanding of the project, share information, identify potential issues, and confirm expectations of
schedule, deliverables, and review procedures. This meeting would also be used to identify any changes
or new issues that have arisen since the project was first initiated between SMART and City staff nearly
one year ago. We would recommend that the meeting be attended by appropriate City staff members,
representatives from the SMART engineering and project management staff, and the City's design
consultant for the crossing. On the AECOM side, we propose attendance by the AECOM project manager
and deputy project manager.
TASK 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AECOM will prepare the project description, using information available in the SMART EA and
supplemented by City staff, in general, the project description will identify:
The project location, together with maps, plans, or aerial overviews showing the project
components;
• A listing of parcels that would be affected;
• An overview of the construction timeframe and activities, along with any temporary or permanent
encroachments into adjoining parcels that might be required; and
a Required permits and approvals.
The project description will be used to direct the preparation of the documents described below. AECOM
will submit the draft project description to City staff for review, and will revise the description based upon
comments received from City staff.
TASK 3: TECHNICAL STUDIES
AECOM will prepare the following supplemental technical memos to provide the CEQA-specific
information needed for the Initial Study:
3.1: Biological Resources. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search will be conducted
to identify potential sensitive species in the project area. Based on the results of the database search,
AECOM will prepare a technical memo to evaluate potential habitat in the project area for non-federal
sensitive species that were not considered for the SMART EA. The information will be presented in
tabular format with a brief narrative.
3.2: Noise. AECOM will prepare a technical memorandum that summarizes the SMART EA noise criteria
analysis and supplements that analysis with a discussion of the projects effects with respect to the City's
noise standards.
TASK 4: PREPARE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY
REVIEW
Drawing upon the information contained in the SMART EA and the technical studies prepared as part of
the above tasks, AECOM will prepare an Administrative Draft IS/MND for the project. The document will
A=COM City of San Rafee
March 6, 2015
Page 7
be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Each topical discussion will draw
upon the analysis that was previously conducted for the SMART EA, and will assume that any applicable
mitigation prescribed therein will also be applicable to the City's project.
All of the environmental topics listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines will be evaluated, and each
will be discussed to the extent necessary to determine whether the City's project would result in a
significant impact. For each environmental issue in the Initial Study, the following will be included in the
environmental analysis:
• A concise setting that will be tailored to present baseline conditions most susceptible to change
as a result of the proposed project;
• A checklist of significance criteria for each topic;
• The environmental consequences of the proposed project, with emphasis on any potentially
significant effects; and
• Proposed mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate the identified significant and
potentially significant impacts, if any.
An administrative draft of the IS/MND will be compiled and forwarded to the City for review and comment.
Following review of the Administrative Draft IS/MND by the City and the integration of relevant internal
staff comments that are received, AECOM will prepare a Draft IS/MND for public circulation.
TASK 5: PREPARE AND CIRCULATE A DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO
ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION
Assuming that the proposed project will not have any potentially significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated, AECOM will prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Additional materials that will be prepared to complete the NOI will be abstracted from the Initial Study and
include a brief description of the project, the location of the project, a proposed finding that the project will
not have a significant effect on the environment, a listing of the mitigation measures, and the locations at
which the Draft Initial Study may be reviewed.
AECOM will submit the Draft NOI for the City's review. Once accepted, AECOM will print up to 25 copies
of the Draft IS/MND and NOI for public circulation. Appendices and other supporting materials will be
provided on CDs in the back of each Initial Study. AECOM will forward 15 copies of the Draft IS/MND and
NOI to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to public agencies. AECOM will also deliver two copies of
the Draft IS/MND and NOI to two local public viewing locations as directed by the City for the public's use
during the public comment period. The remaining eight copies of the Draft IS/MND will be sent to the City
for internal use or circulation to members of the public that might request it.
It is assumed that the City will be responsible for all mailings to area residents and other interested
parties. It is also assumed that the City will be responsible for all additional public noticing (i.e.,
newspaper advertisements, posting of the NOI in the project area, etc.) and posting of the Draft IS/MND
on the City's website.
The public review and comment period will run for 30 days following posting of the Draft IS/MND and NOI
at the State Clearinghouse.
TASK 6: PREPARE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINAL IS/MND, AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
Following receipt of public agency and private comments on the Draft IS/MND, AECOM will prepare
responses as necessary to assist the City. For purposes of the accompanying cost estimate, AECOM has
assumed that no more than 20 discrete, individual comments (not letters) will require responses.
A=COM
C ty of San Rafael
March 13. 2015
Page R
Based upon our experience thus far with the public comments received on the SMART EA, we have been
impressed with the complexity of the comments relative to similar projects. The SMART project is of
particular interest to a number of interest groups and individuals, some of whom have expressed a
tendency in the past to litigate or appeal. We expect this high level of interest to carry over to the City's
project. We have therefore budgeted more for this effort than we otherwise would for a project with lower
levels of public interest.
The responses will be forwarded to the City for review and comment, and AECOM will make necessary
revisions based on one set of compiled comments.
AECOM will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The MMRP
will be prepared in an agreed to format and will consist of:
• New mitigation measures, if any;
• Mitigation measures from the SMART EA that are applicable to the project area;
• Timing/frequency of action;
• Responsibility for implementation;
• Responsibility for monitoring;
• Standards for compliance; and
• Verification of compliance.
The Draft MMRP will be submitted for City review. Following review, AECOM will revise the MMRP for
publication and adoption. To approve the project, the City must make necessary findings, adopt the
MMRP, and file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse.
When filing the NOD with the County Clerk, the City will also need to pay necessary filing fees. It is
assumed that the City would be responsible for all announcements, filings, and notices associated with
the project. AECOM's Project Manager will attend the City Council hearing, if requested, to approve the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
TASK 7: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
AECOM's typical project management and coordination activities will focus on:
• Contract administration ensuring budget and schedule adherence and providing QA/QC on all
work products;
• Preparation of progress reports to accompany each invoice over the life of the project;
• Coordination with City staff and the project team in soliciting information regarding the proposed
project and informing City staff of any potential impacts and mitigation measures;
• Compiling an Initial Data Request for the project description and impact analysis, including
available base maps and GIS data, background materials prepared by the City or others, and the
collection of other information that may be required;
• Coordination with City staff regarding right of entry if needed;
• Biweekly conference calls with City staff and other interested parties to ensure that ongoing
information needs are met and that the project is proceeding according to schedule and plan; and
• Attendance by AECOM staff at public meetings and hearings.
Based on the items above, AECOM assumes approximately two hours per week would be required for
project management and coordination for the duration of the project, which is assumed to be four months.
A=COM City of 5aa Waal
March G. 2015
Page 9
This assumed project duration anticipates that the proposed project can be cleared with an MND for
CEQA. Should it be determined that additional environmental evaluation is needed that goes beyond that
presented here, then the project schedule would necessarily require an extension and a subsequent
contract amendment for this task.
Beyond the weekly project management tasks outlined above, AECOM has also provided for two in-
person meetings with City staff to be attended by the AECOM project manager. At the City's request, we
have also allocated time for attendance by the AECOM project manager at up to six public meetings or
hearings. We are also allocating for attendance by the AECOM deputy project manager at up to three of
those meetings. For purposes of budgeting, we assume four hours for each meeting, which would include
preparation time. Additional public meetings and/or hearings that AECOM staff could be requested to
attend beyond those noted here would be billed on a time and materials basis.
As noted previously, and based on our experience thus far with the SMART project, we anticipate that
this project will receive a high amount of public interest and potential controversy. For that reason, we
have added an additional 30 percent to the project management and coordination budget to account for
additional senior management time with respect to coordination and consultation with the City.
SCHEDULE
It is expected that the project could be completed in approximately four to five months, following approval
of this scope of work and issuance of a contract by the City. This schedule is based primarily on
anticipated review times by the City, together with typical coordination activities, as well as legally -
mandated public review periods for CEQA (30 days). It should also be noted that many of the work scope
tasks can occur concurrently. A concurrent approach will be used whenever appropriate in order to
expedite the project schedule.
PROPOSED FEE
We propose to carry out the above scope of work for the not -to -exceed fee of $109,289, including direct
expenses. The attached spreadsheet shows the breakdown of costs per task. Charges would be made on
a time and materials basis, and any surplus hours not used would not be billed to the City.
CONCLUSION
AECOM is very excited about the prospect of supporting the City with its environmental compliance
needs for the Andersen Drive and West Francisco Boulevard projects. If you have questions about the
enclosed information or our proposed approach, please feel free to call Luke Evans at 909-809-0508 or
email at luke.evansna.aecom.com.
Sincerely,
Rod Jeung Luke Evans
Principal Senior Project Manager