HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Impact Sciences (EIS)
49-Unit Condominium Project
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar
Environmental Impact Sciences
26051 Via Concha
Mission Viejo, California 92691
July 31, 2025
EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall IImmppaacctt SScciieenncceess Planning and Environmental Consultants 26051 Via Concha, Mission Viejo, CA 92691.5614
Office: 949.837.1195 Fax: 949.837.3935
Look deep into nature and you will understand everything better.
Albert Einstein
July 31, 2025
Ms. Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Proposal: CEQA Compliance Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar (APNs: 8293-044-015 and -016)
Dear Ms. Nakajima:
Disclaimer: No “artificial intelligence” (AI) was utilized in the preparation of this proposal
and the work effort described herein. All contracted services will be performed by diligent
and highly qualified environmental professionals dedicated to the timely and successful
effectuation of the obligations of the City of Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency) under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), demonstrating to the general public and to
the City Council the knowledge, acumen, and high level of professionalism exhibited by the
City’s Community Development Department (Department).
Submitted in response to the Department’s “Request for Proposals to Prepare a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Document for a 49-Unit Attached and Detached Residential
Condominium Project” (RFP), identifying the need for multiple discretionary project-related actions
from the City and thereby necessitating the need for CEQA compliance, the proposed scope of
services, in combination with supporting information concerning the technical expertise, relevant
experience, and professional qualifications of Environmental Impact Science (EIS), is included
herein and in the accompanying combined technical and cost proposal.
Although likely without bearing, the identity of the “applicant” is not expressly specified in the RFP.
In an era of massive residential development projects, a relatively small-scale 49-unit housing
project would outwardly seem a relatively simple undertaking and one that could, in nearly all
instances, be processed through the preparation of a CEQA-compliant “negative declaration” (ND)
or “mitigated negative declaration” (MND). As readers of classic literature would, however attest,
even in Shakespeare’s “Much Ado about Nothing,” before the final curtain falls, based on
missteps, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations, a lot of otherwise avoidable commotion and
needless efforts occur as the play unfolds.
In business as in finance, the intrinsically linked phrases “added value” and “time is money” are
universal truism. In today’s real estate environment, many developers execute development
options on properties where a perceived “added value” can be created (through receipt of specific
discretionary entitlements) within a specified time period. To the extent that the project proponent
has sought to pursue that value-enhancing strategy, entitlement delays (including those
associated with CEQA compliance) can adversely affect the project’s proformas and profitability,
affecting the project’s overall feasibility and increasing the cost of the resulting housing product. In
a static marketplace, as “time” progresses, “value” can decline.
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 2
Prior to the initiation of a more formal, timely, and costly process, public agencies have an
obligation to conduct a preliminary assessment in order to determine: (1) whether the proposed
action is itself subject to (or either statutorily or categorically exempt from) the provisions of CEQA;
and (2) if so subject, whether the Legislature or Secretary of Natural Resources has promulgated
one or more exemptions which satisfy CEQA’s obligations while effectively serving as regulatory
and procedural shortcut.
As briefly outlined herein, a reasonable argument can be formulated that the proposed project
may be either categorically or statutorily exempt from CEQA, thus negating the need to prepare
and process either a ND or a MND. Since that determination is outside the scope of the RFP,
based on the information presented therein, the accompanying proposal presents a potential
pathway allowing for the adoption of an authorized “exemption” while concurrently presenting our
firm’s recommended scope of services for the preparation and processing of a project-level MND.
Beware of CEQA’s “Fair Argument” Rule
When relying on either a ND or MND, CEQA can still throw the Lead Agency a curve. As specified
in Section 15064(f)(3) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR):
If the lead agency determines there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration
The original determination made on the basis of the “initial study” whether to prepare either a
Negative Declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR) remains subject to the "fair
argument" test (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U.C. Regents). In other words, if a “fair
argument” can be made on the basis of “substantial evidence” in the administrative record that the
project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment (even if evidence also exists to
the contrary), then an EIR is required. A ND is authorized only when the Lead Agency determines
that no “substantial evidence” exists supporting a “fair argument” of significant effect (Section
15064[f][1], CCR). A MND applies when changes to the project or mitigation measures reduce the
significant effects to a less-than-significant level or avoid those effects altogether (Section
15064[f][2], CCR).
When pursuing a MND, the adage “leave no stone unturned” becomes an appropriate clarion call.
It is dependent on the Department (and the environmental consultant) to anticipate, identify, and
address all potentially significant environmental effects attributable to the proposed project.
Because the RFP leaves many potentially relevant issues unaddressed and unanswered, unless
otherwise augmented, reliance on the scope of services outlined therein would leave the project
exposed to a successful “fair argument” challenge that potentially significant unmitigated impacts
remain, thus necessitating the preparation of an EIR and not a MND.
If the contracted services are limited to those presented in the RFP, the MND will likely fail.
Nowhere in the RFP does the Department request perspective bidders to identify additional
presently undisclosed work efforts (e.g., air quality and noise analyses) that, in their independent
judgment, might be necessary to prepare a reasonably defensible CEQA document. Although it
may reduce EIS’ potential to secure any resulting contract, presented herein are: (1) those tasks
expressly listed in the RFP or reasonably inferred therefrom; and (2) such additional (“optional”)
work efforts as EIS presently believes to be necessary to reasonably defend against a potential
“fair argument” challenge.
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 3
The potential for that challenge can be avoided should the project qualify under either a “statutory”
or “categorical” exemption. As a result, prior to the commencement of any associated technical
analysis, it is reasonable for the Department to revisit the assumption that the proposed project is
not so eligible.
Searching for Expedited Procedures
CEQA was enacted to promote informed decision-making and outlines a well-trodden process that
serves as a precursor to a public agency’s development and regulatory-based decisions. In the
context of CEQA, an agency’s obligation is to demonstrate compliance with both statutory and
regulatory requirements. Although germane to all projects, in light of the State’s declared housing
crisis, both public agencies and the development community benefit when supportable, expedited
procedures are available and can be utilized. The Legislature (Section 65589.5[a][1], California
Government Code [CGC]) has declared:
The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the
economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. . .The excessive cost of the
State’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local
governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and
require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.
The City’s “2021-2029 Housing Element” (2022) acknowledges that “governmental regulations,
while intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare, can also unintentionally increase
the cost of housing.” With regards to established 2021-2019 housing needs, a goal of 2,521 “new”
dwelling units (Table 9-36) has been adopted by the City Council.California has accumulated an
unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide at least 180,000 new units
annually to keep pace with growth through 2025 (Section 65589.5[a][2][D], CGC).
While much of that documented demand relates to housing is for lower-income households,
absent additional incentives, based on the listed price of the existing Lifery Foundation Building,
it is unlikely that the project has the ability to incorporate any inclusionary housing opportunities for
that income spectrum. Building designs that incorporate multi-generational housings are, however,
growing in popularity.
Referencing Section 21082.4 of the Public Resources Code (PRC):
In describing and evaluating a project in an environmental review document prepared
pursuant to this division, the lead agency may consider specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits,
of a proposed project and the negative impacts of denying the project. Any benefits or
negative impacts considered pursuant to this section shall be based on substantial
evidence in light of the whole record.
CEQA outlines three types of exemptions: statutory, categorical, and “general rule” exemptions.
“Statutory exemptions” (Section 15260-15285, CCR) are granted by the Legislature for both
individual and “classes” of projects and apply regardless of a project’s potential environmental
impacts. In contrast, “categorical exemptions” (Section 15300-15333, CCR) represent “classes” of
projects exempt from CEQA because the California Secretary of Natural Resources has
determined that those projects do not typically have substantial impacts on the environment. The
“general rule” exemption (Section 15061[b][3], CCR) applies to projects that do not fit under the
specified statutory or categorical exemptions but where it can be clearly demonstrated that the
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 4
project has no potential to have significant effect on the environment. That latter category of
exemptions would not have potential relevancy herein.
CEQA, via “Categorical Exemption Class 32” (Section 15332, CCR), exempts certain
environmentally benign “infill” projects subject to specified eligibility provisions (Table A).
As defined by the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation:
The term “infill development” refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within
existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. Infill
development is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning our cities to be
environmentally- and socially-sustainable.
As a newly enacted “statutory exemption,” Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and its accompanying Senate
Bill (SB) 131 (as enrolled on June 30, 2025) established “CEQA Urban Infill Exemption” (Table
B) for the purpose of promoting and expediting the construction of new residential “infill” projects.
SB 131 created several additional categorical exemptions and drastically narrowed the scope of
review for certain housing projects not otherwise eligible for a categorical exemption.
Environmental impact reports can take more than twelve months; however, mitigated negative
declarations (MND) can be completed in fewer than six months. As specified in AB 130 and SB
131, pursuant to Section 65950 of the CGC, a public agency “shall” approve or disapprove the
project within: (1) 60 days from the determination that the project is exempt from the CEQA; and
(2) 60 days from the date of adoption of the MND. Based on noticing requirements, an agency’s
decision to pursue one course of action generally forecloses the decision to pursue an alternative
course of action. As a result, the initial determination that a proposed project is “exempt” for CEQA
can have a substantial positive influence on the project’s entitlement schedule.
As part of their own due-diligence, most sophisticated developers prepare certain technical studies
prior to the formal submittal of development applications. The timely submittal of those studies can
play a critical role in dictating the nature and timing of any requisite CEQA compliance efforts. The
current status of those submissions and the Department’s review thereof is neither specified in the
RFP nor have any environmental issues and implications derivable from those studies identified.
As specified in Section 21082.1 of the PRC, while the CEQA document must be “prepared directly
by, or under contract to, a public agency,” there exists no prohibition precluding an applicant’s
ability to submit information “in any format” which “may be included, in whole or in part, in any
report or declaration.” By limiting public agency efforts to that of peer review, the more relevant
technical studies timely provided by project proponents prior to the commencement of the CEQA
process generally translate into a corresponding shortening of the entitlement process.
In most instances, a project’s eligibility under a “Categorical Exemption Class 32” (Infill
Development Projects) or new “CEQA Urban Infill Exemption” cannot be determined without an
initial assessment (which would generally include consideration of specific technical studies). A
public agency’s preparation and/or review of applicant-submitted technical studies is not, however,
analogous to the commencement of a MND.
Generally, the agency must ascertain whether the proposed project is consistent with applicable
land-use regulations (and public policies), whether existing site conditions impose either regulatory
or other unmitigable constraints to the site’s development, can it be feasibly developed and safely
operated, and constrain the use and operation of other proximal uses.
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 5
As specified, in part, in Section 65589.5.1(j)(1) of the CGC:
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general
plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in
effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes
to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower
density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence
on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A)The housing development
project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the
project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a
lower density. As used in this paragraph, a specific, adverse impact means a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public
health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the
disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the
condition that it be developed at a lower density.
While the public agency has distinct obligations to make specific findings in order to approve a
residential development project, it also has specific disclosure requirements should it elect to
disapprove an applicant’s development plan. As a result, there are fundamental questions that
need to be addressed as part of the CEQA process (even when that process includes a
determination of the project’s categorical exemption thereunder).
With regards to many technical disciplines, public agencies typically lack the internal expertise to
assess the adequacy and credibility of specific technical information and to derive supportable and
defensible determinations with regards thereto. As a result, whether prepared in-house or relying
on applicant-submitted studies, agencies often rely on the third-party reviews conducted by
qualified outside technical consultants.
Potential Impediments to the Application of Categorical Exemptions
As noted in the RFP, the proposed project includes the need “to change the land use designation
to Medium High Density Residential (RMH) and rezone the site to Medium-High Density
Residential (RMH) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay to allow for the proposed residential
development.” Pursuant to Section 21088.66(a)(4) of PRC:
Without limiting any other statutory or categorical exemption, this division does not apply to
any aspect of a housing development project. . .if the housing development project meets
all of the following conditions. . .(A) The project is consistent with the applicable general
plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program as defined in
Section 30108.6. For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be
deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, and any
applicable local coastal program, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a
reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent. (B) If
the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be deemed
consistent with both if the project is consistent with one.
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 6
With regards thereto, an agency’s decisions must be supported by “substantial evidence” (Section
15380, CCR), typically associated with expert testimony and supporting documentation. In Hilltop
Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024), a California appellate court held:
The agency’s determination that a project is exempt under Section 21083.3 is subject to
the substantial evidence standard, not the fair argument test. Public controversy, absent
expert testimony or other substantial evidence, is not sufficient to trigger the need to
prepare an EIR. Furthermore, an agency cannot rely on lay testimony regarding potential
impacts when substantial evidence for less-than-significant impacts exists in the form of
expert studies; the lay testimony is not substantial evidence of impacts.
Although absent therefrom, in order to better define the proposed project as an eligible “infill”
development, a more detailed initial discussion of the applicant’s planned intent and the existence
of any available entitlement options could serve to facilitate the Department’s preliminary
assessment as to the appropriate manner of CEQA documentation. In light of changes to CEQA
predicated by AB 130/SB 131 and discussions with the City Attorney as to the confines of an
agency’s “consistency” determination, the absence of a “consistency” determination would likely
preclude the use of a categorical exemption as the appropriate CEQA strategy.
City of Diamond Bar General Plan Consistency
As indicated in DBMC (Section 22.10.030), residential uses do not appear to be either a permitted
or conditionally permitted use in the “Regional Commercial (C3)” district. The City’s “Official Land
Use Map” and “Official Zoning Map” designates the project site as “General Commercial” and
“Regional Commercial (C3),” respectively. Neither designation appears to authorize residential
uses as either permitted by right or conditionally authorized therein. Although there may be
relevant housing policies that support the proposed project, merely from a land-use perspective, a
supportable assessment of “consistency” cannot be immediately determined.
Since determinations of “consistency” are not an “all or nothing” proposition, while acknowledging
the potential need for an amendment to the “City of Diamond Bar General Plan” (DBGP) and the
“City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code” (DBMC), questions concerning the proposed project’s
“consistency” therewith may remain unresolved. Referencing Section 65589.5(f)(5) of the CGC:
For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use
designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not
constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development
project or emergency shelter.
As part of its entitlement process, it is important to examine the project in the context of not only
the DBGP but the “Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Diamond Bar General Plan
Update and Climate Action Plan” (DBGP-FPEIR). As indicated in Section 21083.3 of the PRC:
If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an
environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application
of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the
environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not
addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which
substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior
environmental impact report.
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 7
SB 131 expressly notes that the following amendment to Section 21080.085(a) of the PRC:
This division does not apply to a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions
contained in an approved housing element pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of
the Government Code.
In addition, SB 131 also included the following amendment to Section 21080.1 of the PRC:
(a) The lead agency shall be responsible for determining whether the project is exempt
from this division and whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration,
or a mitigated negative declaration shall be required for any project that is subject to
this division. That determination shall be final and conclusive on all persons, including
responsible agencies, unless challenged as provided in Section 21167.
(b) (1) If a proposed housing development project would otherwise be exempt from this
division pursuant to a statutory exemption, or categorical exemption pursuant to Class
1 to 5, inclusive, 12, 15, 20, 27, 30, or 32 that is adopted before January 1, 2026, but
for a single condition detailed in the statutory exemption or in Section 15300.2, 15301,
15302, 15303, 15304, 15305, 15312, 15315, 15320, 15322, 15327, 15330, or 15332 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, as applicable, the application of this
division to the approval of the proposed housing development project shall be limited to
effects upon the environment that are caused solely by that single condition. (2) An
initial study or environmental impact report prepared for a housing development project
subject to this subdivision is only required to examine those effects that the lead
agency determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, are caused solely
by the single condition that makes the proposed housing development project ineligible
for the statutory exemption or categorical exemption.
AB 130 and SB 131 can potentially be interpreted to allow the determination of general plan and
zoning consistency to relate, not to existing land-use regulations, but to post-project entitlements.
With regards to that “single condition” (e.g., general plan and zoning code consistency) potentially
applicable thereto are the provisions of Section 15332(a) of the CCR which stipulates that the
project be “consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.” The interpretation and
potential project-specific applicability of Section 21080.1 necessitates further discussion with
Department staff, the City Attorney, and the applicant’s legal counsel.
Project Description
Among other discretionary actions, proposed is a site-specific amendment to the “Official Land
Use Map” from “Regional Commercial” to “Medium High Density Residential (RMH)” and a site-
specific change to the “Official Zoning Map” from “Regional Commercial (C3)” to “Medium-High
Density Residential (RMH)” (Section 22.08.040) with a corresponding “Planned Development (PD)
Overlay” (Chapter 22.32). In 2014, in Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, a
California Appellate Court held that “spot zoning” was legal as long as it furthered a “public
interest.” The CEQA document, therefore, must include information supporting that “public
interest” (likely drawing upon information presented in the City’s “Housing Element”). It is noted
that lands located to the north of the project site are designed “Medium High Density Residential.”
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 8
California courts have indicated that that “the statute requires the impact of any proposed project
to be evaluated against the baseline of existing environmental conditions, which is the only way to
identify the environmental effects specific to the project alone” (Sunnyvale West Neighborhood
Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council). California courts have further noted that “the
baseline for CEQA analysis must be the 'existing physical conditions in the affected area'
(Environmental Planning Information Council v. County of El Dorado), that is, the ‘real conditions
on the ground’ (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors).
As indicated in Section 21068 of the CCR: “Significant effect on the environment” means a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” That description is
reasonably interpreted to define a proposed project as consisting of the “net physical change.”
Currently, an approximately 55,296 square foot office (Lifery Foundation Building) exists on the
project site. Since no adaptive use is proposed, the project’s implementation necessitates not only
the building’s demolition but the cessation of uses and the corresponding environmental impacts
(e.g., traffic, air quality, and noise) associated therewith. In consultation with Department staff, EIS
will consider the most supportable and legally defensible manner to integrate the discussion and
analyze the site’s existing non-residential land use.
As proposed, most of the site’s existing retained open space (and any associated natural
communities associated therewith) located on the western portion of the property (and extending
southward therefrom) will be retained, suggesting that any potential direct impacts thereto would
be minimized. Although the intent and manner of any intended preservation is not indicated,
because potential indirect impacts would likely occur during construction, that area’s proposed
conservation does not foreclose the need to address any associated “project-specific effects”
(Section 21065.3, CCA) thereupon. Additionally, where development occurs adjacent to existing
habitat areas, domestic pets, including cats, can intrude into natural areas and opportunistically
prey on certain avian and small mammal species. Free‐roaming domestic cats are a major
anthropogenic source of morbidity and mortality to wild birds, mammals, and reptiles.
In recognition of the proposed processing of a tentative tract map, the CEQA documentation can
also serve to support the findings specified in Section 21.20.080 (Tentative Map Approval or
Disapproval) in Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the DBMC.
Proposed Technical Approach
A California appellate court has stated that the overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that
agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary
consideration to preventing environmental damage. Where the statute applies, the relevant
governmental agency must conduct an “initial study” to determine ‘“if the project may have a
significant effect on the environment. “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial,
or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected
by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of
historic or aesthetic significance (Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara [2015]).
Pursuant to Section 21064.5 of the PRC:
“Mitigated negative declaration“ means a negative declaration prepared for a project when
the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before
the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 9
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect
on the environment.
In most instances, the determination whether a proposed action has the potential to generate a
“significant effect on the environment” is not immediately discernible. To assist in the derivation of
that conclusion, a number of project-specific technical studies will be submitted by the applicant
(for the Department’s review). Other relevant studies will be prepared by EIS. Collectively, those
studies and the Department’s analysis thereof constitutes the “expanded initial study” and serves
as the basis for determining the project’s eligibility for proceeding under a MND.
EIS has extensive experience in preparing CEQA compliance for development and redevelopment
projects involving the demolition of existing uses. For example, based on a “net physical change”
analysis, EIS prepared a MND for a new 330,000 square foot mixed-use IKEA Center (848 S.
Barranca Avenue, Covina, CA 91723) which included the demolition of a previously vacated
175,800 square foot (Montgomery Ward) big-box retail center, containing retail uses, a garden
center, and an automotive service center. At the time, that redevelopment project involved the only
IKEA Center in California processed through the use of a MND.
Because the quantity of construction-related emissions could prove problematic, substantial
analytical efforts are proposed to address and, if feasible, effectively mitigate any significant air
quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts. In addition, in the event that potential
biological resource impacts are greater than anticipated, EIS has contracted with Kidd Biological,
Inc. who can prepare a full complement of botanical and zoological studies, including focused
species-specific focused surveys, should the need dictate.
Absent direct discussions with Department staff, a more detailed review of the development
application, preliminary review of any applicant submitted technical studies, and EIS’
commencement of additional technical studies, any determination as to the appropriate (and final)
form of CEQA documentation would be presumptuous. Although EIS’ proposed scope of services
includes an initial assessment of the potential applicability of either a “categorical” or “statutory”
exemption, for the purpose of this proposal and in accordance with the RFP, EIS will fully support
the Department’s timely preparation and processing of a MND for the proposed project, including
compliance with all associated and regulatory requirements associated therewith (e.g., tribal
consultation).
Schedule and Cost
As indicated in Section 3.0 (Performance Schedule) in the accompanying proposal, EIS
projects that the “Initial Study” document can be finalized and approved for dissemination
by the Department within 136 calendar days following the scheduled “kick-off” meeting.
As further indicated in Section 4.0 (Not-to-Exceed Cost Proposal) therein, based on the
scope of services outlined in the RFP, EIS’ not-to-exceed cost is $49,300 to prepare and
process the MND. Identified for the purposes of enhancing the document’s adequacy and
defensibility and reducing the Department’s labor commitment, other “optional” activities
have been identified that could be added to that RFP-based work program.
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 10
Submittal
In accordance with the RFP, four (4) printed copies of this combined technical and cost proposal
were delivered to the Department (21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA) and one (1) electronic
copy was separately posted on “Planet Bid” prior to 3:00 PM (PDT) on July 31, 2025
The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual.
Vince Lombardi
Should you have any questions concerning EIS’ response to the RFP, require any additional
information about our firm’s general qualifications or prior experience in successfully processing a
broad range of residential and non-residential development projects throughout the City, please
contact me at (949) 837-1195.
Sincerely,
Peter Lewandowski
Principal
Attachment: Scope of Services
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 11
Table A
Categorical Exemptions
“Class 32”
Reference Categorical Exemption - Class 32 Eligibility
California Code of Regulations
15300.2(c) Significant Effects. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the
activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
Subject to
Analysis
15300.2(d)
Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially
designated as a state scenic highway.
Appears to
Qualify
15300.2(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any
list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Subject to
Analysis
15300.2(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource.
Appears to
Qualify
15332(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as
with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
Potentially
Disqualifying
15332(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by
urban uses.
Appears to
Qualify
15332(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Appears to
Qualify
15332(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Subject to
Analysis
15332(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Appears to
Qualify
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 12
Table B
Statutory Exemption
“CEQA Urban Infill Exemption”
Reference Urban Infill Exemption Criterion Eligibility
California Government Code
65589.5(h)(2)
The project must qualify as a “housing development project,” meaning that the project must dedicate at least two-thirds of
the square footage for residential use, unless the project proposes at least 500 net new residential units and qualifies for
50% residential pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).
Appears to
Qualify
65589.5(h)(2)
The proposed residential density must be at least 50% of the minimum residential density deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for the jurisdiction, as specified in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). That calculation
translates to at least 15 dwelling units per acre for a jurisdiction within a metropolitan county and 10 dwelling units per
acre for a suburban jurisdiction.
Appears to
Qualify
Public Resources Code
21080.66(a)(1) The project site may be up to 20 acres. Builder’s Remedy projects are limited to five acres. Appears to
Qualify
21080.66(a)(2) The project site must be within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality or located within an urban area, as defined
by the United States Census Bureau.
Appears to
Qualify
21080.66(a)(3)
The project site must be an urban infill site, meaning that: (i) the site was previously developed with an urban use; (ii) at
least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; (iii) at least 75% of the area
within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses; or (iv) for sites with four sides, at least three
sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed
with urban uses. The term “urban use” is defined to mean “any current or previous residential or commercial development,
public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation
passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.”
Appears to
Qualify
21080.66(a)(4)
The project must be consistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, and local coastal program (if
applicable). If the zoning and general plan are inconsistent, the project shall be deemed consistent with both if consistent
with one. The project shall be deemed consistent if there is substantial evidence to allow a reasonable person to come to
that conclusion. Any density bonus and related incentives/concessions, waivers/reductions of development standards, or
reduced parking ratios shall not be grounds for an inconsistency determination.
Potentially
Disqualifying
21080.66(a)(6)
The project site must meet all of the SB 35 siting criteria under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), which prohibits
projects within environmentally sensitive areas, including: certain coastal zone areas; habitat for protected species;
wetlands; very high fire hazard severity zones; hazardous waste sites; delineated earthquake fault zones; special flood
hazard areas; regulatory floodways; and land dedicated for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation
plan or conservation easement (as defined and specified and subject to certain exceptions).
Subject to
Analysis
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
CEQA Services for a 49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
July 31, 2025
Page 13
Table B (Continued)
Statutory Exemption
“CEQA Urban Infill Exemption”
Reference Urban Infill Exemption Criterion Eligibility
21080.66(a)(7) The project must not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic
register before the SB 330 preliminary application was filed for the project (pursuant to Gov. Code § 65941.1).
Appears to
Qualify
21080.66(a)(8)
For new projects “deemed complete” on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project may be designated for use as
transient lodging (as defined). “Deemed complete” means that an SB 330 preliminary application or a complete
application (Section 65943, GC) has been submitted for the project.
Appears to
Qualify
21080.66(b)
The local government must provide notice to and consult with any interested California Native American tribes traditionally
and culturally affiliated with the project site (and incorporate related conditions of project approval), but that consultation
process will be expedited (as specified).
Appears to
Qualify
21080.66(c)(1) A Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) must be conducted for the project site (as a condition of project approval),
and if a recognized environmental condition is found, specified requirements must be met.
Subject to
Analysis
21080.66(c)(2)
For any housing within 500 feet of a freeway: (i) the building must have a centralized heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning system and the outdoor intakes for that system cannot face the freeway; (ii) the building must provide air
filtration media for outside and return air that provide a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16, which must be replaced
as specified; and (iii) the building must not have any balconies facing the freeway.
Appears to
Qualify
21088.66(d)
The project sponsor must meet specified labor requirements, but those requirements only apply to: (i) 100% lower-income
projects (where labor requirements are typically already imposed), (ii) projects over 85 feet in height, and (iii) other
specified projects in the City and County of San Francisco with at least 50 dwelling units.
NA
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Technical and Cost Proposal
Preparation / Processing Mitigated Negative Declaration
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project 1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar
Submitted to:
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
Mayuko Nakajima, Senior Planner
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
(909) 839-7033
Submitted by:
Environmental Impact Sciences
Peter Lewandowski, Principal
26051 Via Concha
Mission Viejo, California 92691
(949) 697-0676
July 31, 2025
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page i
List of Sections
Section Page
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Recommended Scope of Services ................................................................................... 2
3.0 Performance Schedule .................................................................................................. 30
4.0 Not-to-Exceed Cost Proposal ........................................................................................ 32
5.0 Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................................................... 34
6.0 Professional Qualifications ............................................................................................ 36
7.0 Project List .................................................................................................................... 39
8.0 References .................................................................................................................... 41
9.0 Acceptance of Conditions .............................................................................................. 42
10.0 Key Assigned Personnel ............................................................................................... 42
List of Exhibits
Exhibit
EIS-1 Mitigated Negative Declaration – Proposed Performance Schedule .............................. 31
EIS-2 “Department-Specified” Scope of Services .................................................................... 43
EIS-3 “Optional” Supplemental Scope of Services
“Net Operational Physical Change” ............................................................................... 47
EIS-4 “Optional” Supplemental Scope of Services
Other “Optional” Supplemental Services ....................................................................... 48
List of Attachments
Attachment
A Environmental Impact Sciences - Key Assigned Personnel
B Kidd Biological, Inc. – Statement of Qualifications
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar
The future is not a probable place we are being taken to,
but a preferred place we are creating.
The tracks to it are not found and followed,
but are made by laying and constructing a trail.
Peter Ellyard, PhD, 1993
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 1
This scope of services is submitted by Environmental Impact Sciences (Consultant) to the City
of Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency) in response to the Community Development Department’s
(Department) dissemination of a “Request for Proposals to Prepare a CEQA Document for a 49-
Unit Attached and Detached Residential Condominium Project” (RFP), dated July 10, 2025, for a
proposed 49-unit residential condominium project located at 1400 Montefino Avenue, near the
northwest corner of Montefino Avenue and S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City.
The Department’s election to prepare and disseminate the RFP was in response to receipt of a
development application from an unspecified applicant, assumed to be Intercorp Home
(Applicant), including the request for the following requisite “discretionary actions”:
Tentative Tract Map. For condominium purposes.
General Plan Amendment. To change the land use designation from “General
Commercial” to “Medium High Density Residential (RMH).”
Zone Change. To rezone the site from “Regional Commercial (C3)” to “Medium-High
Density Residential (RMH),” with a “Planned Development (PD) Overlay.”
Development Review. Design review of 49 attached/detached residential condominiums.
Conditional Use Permit. Required for all development proposed on a site with a PD
Overlay, which may include specific modifications to any development standards.
Although building demolition and site clearance may be perceived as component parts of the
proposed project, the displacement and relocation of the building’s tenants (LIfery Foundation)
are not be a part of this analysis and, therefore, will not be addressed as part of any resulting
CEQA documentation.
In compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its
accompanying Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Guidelines), this scope of services has been formulated by the Consultant based on the
information known at the time of this proposal’s preparation. Unless otherwise modified, the
following scope of services is limited to those consulting services explicitly delineated herein.
As specified in the RFP, at a minimum, the following technical studies will be submitted by the
Applicant and independently reviewed and accepted by the Department prior to delivery to the
Consultant: (1) traffic study (including vehicle miles traveled); (2) sewer study; (3) geotechnical
report; (4) Low Impact Development (LID) report; (5) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) report; and (6) hydrology/hydraulic report. All of those technical studies shall be
submitted to the Consultant as both Word and pdf documents and formatted in a manner allowing
for direct incorporation into the project’s CEQA documentation. For example, since the “Initial
Study” process is intended to determine the presence of “significant environmental impacts,” the
corresponding threshold used by the Applicant in determining significance must be explicitly
delineated and any mitigation measures formulated for the purpose of reducing those impacts to
a less-than-significant level must be quantified.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 2
The RFP does not specify any associated third-party review obligation (or incurred costs)
attributable to the Consultant’s receipt, review, and incorporation of any and all Applicant-
submitted technical studies.
If, following the Lead Agency’s review of this work program, changes to this scope of services are
identified or if information is subsequently developed through the performance of the specific
activities outlined herein that would suggest the need for a modified level of analysis, to the extent
that any such modifications were to expand this work plan and/or increase the projected total cost
associated with the performance of this work assignment, the Consultant reserves the right to
process and the City, acting through the Department, agrees not to unreasonably withhold
approval of a reasonable and appropriate change order reflecting that modified scope of services.
EIS is not a legal firm and has not sought to augment its project team with an attorney with CEQA
expertise. Because the legal defensibility of the CEQA process is critical, the Department is
encouraged to involve the City Attorney in all aspects of this project assignment. Similarly, the
Applicant is encouraged to seek competent legal counsel with relevant CEQA experience.
Without guarantee or representation, EIS will use its best efforts to prepare and delivery to the
Lead Agency an adequate and defensible CEQA document, including compliance with all noticing
and outreach efforts associated therewith.
The components of this work program have been categorized under the following seven (7) major
task headings, corresponding with key deliverables and/or activities associated with the project’s
environmental compliance effort:
Major Task 1.0: Project Description
Major Task 2.0: Scoping Activities
Major Task 3.0: Expanded Initial Study
Major Task 4.0: Technical Studies
Major Task 5.0: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Major Task 6.0: Departmental and Public Meetings
Major Task 7.0: CEQA Support Activities
Where relevant, for the purpose of describing the separate analytical and outreach activities
and/or deliverables associated therewith, each of these major headings have been further divided
into individual tasks and subtasks. The sequencing and categorization of those major tasks, tasks,
and subtasks identified herein is presented for descriptive purposes only and is not intended to
directly correspond with the order of their commencement or completion.
Major Task 1.0: Project Description
CEQA defines “environment” to mean “the physical conditions which exist within the area which
will be affected by a proposed project” and clarifies that the environment includes both natural
and man-made conditions (Section 15360, CCR). Although specific to EIR preparation, CEQA
(Section 15126.2, CCR) notes that:
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 3
An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity
of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published or if no notice
of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both
a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the
baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is
significant.
CEQA further defines a “project,” in part, to constitute “the whole of an action, which has a
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” California courts have indicated that
that “the statute requires the impact of any proposed project to be evaluated against the baseline
of existing environmental conditions, which is the only way to identify the environmental effects
specific to the project alone” (Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale
City Council [2010]). In Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013), the
California Supreme Court recently held that the lead agency “enjoys discretion to decide. . .exactly
how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured,
subject to review for support by substantial evidence.”
Three recent court decisions (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality
Management District; Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. City of Beaumont; and
Sunnyvalle West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council) under CEQA have
focused on determining the “environmental baseline” against which a proposed project’s potential
significant impacts must be measured. These decisions hold that the baseline must realistically
reflect actual physical conditions occurring before project approval, with the lead agency
maintaining discretion to determine what temporal “snapshot” best captures such conditions. The
“environmental baseline” is the starting point for any meaningful CEQA analysis since “it is only
against the baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined” (County of
Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency). In the context of existing facilities, California courts
have upheld the use of both a “maximum permitted operations levels” and “other impacts
authorized by pre-existing entitlements” as the “existing baseline condition” (Fairview Neighbors
v. County of Ventura).
With regards to the proposed project, the project site (APNs 8293-044-015 and -016) is currently
improved with an approximately 55,296 square foot multi-story office use (Liferay Foundation
Building) including approximately at-grade 220 parking spaces and associated infrastructure,
constructed in 1985. While CEQA mandates that both direct and indirect impacts attributable to a
proposed action be addressed, with the cessation of an existing use, there appears to exist no
CEQA-based obligation to include in that assessment any offsetting counter effects that can be
either directly or indirectly linked to the cessation of that use.
Eligibility for processing through the use of a MND dictates that all identifiable environmental
effects either do not manifest at a level of significance or can be effectively mitigated to a less-
than-significant level. Independent of the manner in which the Liferay Foundation Building is
addressed, construction-related impacts would be expected to be generally similar.
To the extent that the potential impacts from the construction and the operation of the proposed
project do not elevate to a level of significance under CEQA, any consideration of possible offsets
attributable to the site’s former use would be unnecessary. However, should operational impacts
be deemed significant and unmitigable, the application of those offsets might effectively reduce
those impacts to a less-than-significant level, thus supporting the use of a MND.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 4
In order to ensure an accurate and adequate project description, the following tasks and subtasks
will be undertaken. Based on optimal timing and initial cost considerations, in consultation with
the Department, the project’s CEQA documentation can examine the existing Lifery Foundation
Building from one of the following three perspectives: (1) “net physical operational change”
(Option No. 1); (2) demolition/site clearance as an integral project component (Option No. 2): and
(3) a hybrid approach which includes both the deferred of any offsetting analysis pending the
preliminary findings of the “Draft Expanded Initial Study” (Subtask 3.1.1) and a more narrow
focusing of potentially beneficial offsets only on those impacts found to be both significant and
otherwise unmitigable (Option No. 3)
Relative to “construction” impacts, although contrary to CEQA (i.e., fragmentation), unless the
demolition of the Lifery Foundation Building were to be deemed a separate and distinct project
and excluded from the CEQA analysis for the “49-unit residential condominium project,” the
associated construction-related impacts (e.g., air quality, noise, traffic, hazardous matters, waste
management) are inseparable from the proposed project no manner the manner in which the
proposed project is to be described herein. “Option No. 1” and “Option No. 3” present a CEQA-
authorized approach to minimizing potential “operational” impacts.
It is noted that, for the purpose of this proposal, “Option No. 2” (Demolition/Site Clearance as an
Integrated Project Components) has been expressly included in the Consultant’s proposed scope
of services. Both “Option No. 1” (Net Physical Operational Change) and “Option No. 3” (Net
Operational Physical Change Hybrid) are identified herein as “optional” activities. Should the
Department subsequently deem that “Option No. 1” warrants consideration, an “optional” task-
based budget for “Option No. 1” is presented in Exhibit EIS-3 (“Optional” Supplemental Services
– “Net Operational Physical Change”). An alternative line-item cost for “Option No. 3” is not
expressly itemized herein but would be similar in approach to that of “Option No. 1” but involve a
lesser work effort.
Option No. 1: Net Physical Operational Change (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP).
Under CEQA, those development activities that produce significant unavoidable adverse
effects are required to prepare and process an environmental impact report (EIR),
representing a much more costly and time-demanding process than associated with a
MND. Often based on project scale and/or the presence of unique site conditions, when
either the level of development or its associated impacts cannot be feasibly reduced, that
CEQA-mandated requirements is unavoidable.
When a development site contains an existing (and arguably operational use), CEQA
authorizes public agencies to essential subtract the operational characteristics of that
existing use from the like-kind projected operational impacts of the proposed use.
Development projects are generally considered as having both short-term (construction)
and long-term (operational) impacts. Under CEQA, with regards to the proposed project’s
construction impacts, the short-term effects (e.g., traffic, air quality, noise, hazardous
materials, material recycling and waste disposal) attributable to the Lifery Foundation
Building’s demolition, associated site clearance, and debris removal needs to be
quantified. Additionally, the quantification of the construction-term impacts associated with
the 49-unit condominium project constitute an inescapable short-term effect. Collectively,
because demolition and construction will both contribute to the project’s short-term
impacts, those construction impacts and the potential absence of feasible and effective
mitigation are potentially problematic and subject to a skilled analysis.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 5
Conversely, when assessing operational impacts, the Department has a built-in CEQA-
authorized methodology to reduce the project’s potential operational effects without the
need for any material changes in the proposed development plan.
Assuming (for analytical purposes) the retention of a fully functional office building, where
feasible, the existing operational impacts (e.g., traffic, vehicle miles traveled [VMT],
greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions, wet and dry utility consumption) would be quantified.
As an offset to the proposed project’s operational effects, those existing effects would then
be subtracted from those corresponding impacts otherwise attributable to the proposed
project, so as to produce a “net physical operational change.”
While it can be argued that such analysis is explicitly mandated under CEQA, the decision
to pursue this task-based “option” and its inclusion in the CEQA process could be rejected
by the Department and by the Applicant since the pursuit would necessitate that, at
minimum, the Applicant’s submitted traffic study include the requisite information.
The Department and the Applicant likely have “two bites at this apple.” If this approach is
not pursued at the project’s onset, consideration of possible off-sets could be deferred
until after specific non-offsetting project-specific operational impacts have been identified
as exceeding their corresponding levels of significance. However, if so deferred, based on
the corresponding need to revise certain technical studies and reframe the resulting
project description, added costs and scheduling delays would be anticipated beyond those
if the “net physical operational change” strategy was initiated early in the process.
In an effort to reduce the Applicant’s front-end costs, absent express direction in the RFP,
although representing the most defensible CEQA-compliance strategy, a “net physical
operational change” analysis has not been included in the Consultant’s initially proposed
work plan. Although presented as an “option,” the Consultant believes that the resulting
“CEQA-based project description” (Task 0.4): (1) best fulfills CEQA’s guidance relating to
the consideration of “baseline” conditions; (2) provides opportunities for early dialogue
between the Lead Agency and the Applicant; (3) leads to environmental considerations
that beneficially influence the project’s design and development; and (4) meaningfully
shapes the nature of the project’s CEQA-compliance efforts.
Optional Task 0.1: Existing Operational Baseline. Based solely on cost and timing
considerations, this “optional” task and accompanying subtasks are neither initially
recommended for inclusion by the Consultant nor included in the Consultant’s RFP-
derived budget (Exhibit EIS-2 [“Department-Specific” Scope of Services]).
For the purpose of assessing the “net physical operational change,” in consultation
with Department staff and based on a physical inspection of the subject property and
review of available records, “existing operational baseline” (i.e., existing physical
conditions) will be described. When actual existing operational rates are not readily
discernible, either comparable rates (as presented in the AMTAs) or “general” rates
derived from other sources will be utilized. Where more precise quantification is
required (e.g., traffic impacts), this task will likely necessitate the participation of the
Applicant’s technical consultants. Any associated costs so incurred will be borne by
the Applicant.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 6
o Optional Subtask 0.1.1: Draft Existing Operational Baseline. Following
discussions with Department staff and the Applicant and review of existing
documentation relating to the site’s existing improvements and ongoing usage,
using a similar methodology to that which will be applied to the assessment of the
proposed project’s operational impacts, a baseline description of the existing Lifery
Foundation Building, presented in the form of a “Draft Existing Operational
Baseline” analysis, will be prepared defining, among other things, the existing
gross leasable square footages, the nature of existing land uses, projected trip
generation rates and distribution patterns, projections of air emissions (including
greenhouse gas emissions) and noise (including near-site noise levels along
affected roadways) impacts, levels of utility use and consumption, and existing
demands on public services and facilities.
Deliverable: Draft Existing Operational Baseline Analysis
o Optional Subtask 0.1.2: Final Existing Operational Baseline” Upon receipt of
any comments following the Department’s review of the “Draft Existing Operational
Baseline” analysis, the Consultant will revise that document to incorporate those
changes, corrections, or revisions identified by the Department, prepare a revised
document, and submit the “Final Existing Operational Baseline” analysis for the
Department’s acceptance. The “Final Existing Operational Baseline” analysis will
serve as an offset which will reduce the corresponding impacts of the proposed
project and will, therefore, become an integral component of the project’s CEQA
documentation.
Deliverable: Final Existing Operational Baseline Analysis
Optional Task 0.2: Project-Related Operational Parameters. The term “project-
related operational parameters” herein is imprecise in that it is not a description of the
Applicant’s development plan but constitutes the foundational operational
characteristics against which the proposed project’s potential operational impacts are
to be determined. The terminology selected is intended to illustrate the linkage
between the “existing operational baseline” described above and the “net operational
physical change” described below.
o Optional Subtask 0.2.1: Draft Project-Related Operational Parameters.
Detailed information concerning the proposed project, presented in the form of an
“Draft Project-Related Operational Parameters” description, will be presented.
Because the form and format of the CEQA documentation remains undetermined,
so as to be readily adaptable to its incorporation, the project description will include
those items specified under CEQA as constituting a valid project description,
including: (1) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project; (2) a
statement of the Applicant’s objectives; (3) a general description of the project’s
technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal
engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities; (4) a list of
discretionary actions required from the City; and (5) other Responsible and Trustee
Agencies that may be associated with the proposed project and any other
associated discretionary permits or approvals.
Deliverable: Draft Project-Related Operational Parameters Analysis
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 7
o Optional Subtask 0.2.2: Final Project-Related Operational Parameters. Upon
receipt of any comments following the Department’s review of the “Draft Project-
Related Operational Parameters” description, the Consultant will revise that
document to incorporate those changes, corrections, or revisions identified by the
Department, prepare a revised document, and submit a “Proposed Project’s
Operational Parameters” description for the Department’s acceptance.
The “Final Project-Related Operational Parameters” analysis does not, in and of
themselves, constitute the project description but rather serves as the foundation
from which the “existing operational baseline” will be subtracted in order to produce
the “net physical change.”
Deliverable: Final Project-Related Operational Parameters Analysis
Optional Task 0.3: Net Operational Physical Change. In evaluating the significance
of the environmental effect of the proposed project, the Lead agency is required to
consider direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
changes which may be caused by the project. A “direct physical change” in the
environment is a physical change which is caused by and immediately related to the
project. An “indirect physical change” in the environment is a physical change not
immediately related to the project but which is or which may be indirectly caused by or
attributable to the project’s approval and implementation and is a reasonably
foreseeable consequence thereof.
o Optional Subtask 0.3.1: Draft Net Operational Physical Change. As stipulated,
“[e]ffects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change.” For those
factors where a quantitative description can be applied, the “net physical change”
is generally derived by subtracting the “Existing Operational Baseline” from the
“Project-Related Operational Parameters.” Where qualitative comparisons are
only possible, professional judgment (supported by factual information) may need
to be applied in assessing the magnitude of the “net physical change.” Similarly,
with regards to impact comparisons, reasoned adjustments may need to be made
when there are possible time-related variables associated with differences in the
operational characteristics between the existing and proposed uses.
Under this subtask, a “Draft Net Operational Physical Change” analysis,
consolidating information contained in the “Final Existing Operational Baseline”
analysis and in “Final Project-Related Operational Parameters” description, will be
submitted to the Department for the Department’s review.
Deliverable: Draft Net Operational Physical Change Analysis
o Optional Subtask 0.3.2: Final Net Operational Physical Change. Upon receipt
of any comments following the Department’s review of the “Draft Net Operational
Physical Change” analysis, the Consultant will revise that document to incorporate
those changes, corrections, or revisions identified by the Department, prepare a
revised document, and submit a “Final Net Operational Physical Change” analysis
for the Department’s acceptance.
Deliverable: Final Net Operational Physical Change Analysis
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 8
Optional Task 0.4: CEQA-Based Operational Project Description. The “CEQA-
based project description” serves as the foundation upon which the operational
environmental analysis will be based and, in that regard, is critical to those
environmental effects that will manifest following construction, including the nature and
format of the resulting CEQA documentation and the need (or absence of need) for
any mitigation formulated to reduce, avoid, or compensate for those effects.
Because CEQA is an information-based process, the “CEQA-based operational
project description” is not just the summation of the analyses presented under this
major task but is also the process through which that description was derived. As a
result, in order to present a holistic environmental view of the proposed action and to
assist stakeholders understand why the project analyzed under CEQA is or may be
substantively different from the Applicant’s development application, the “CEQA-
based project description” will draw from the “Final Project-Related Operational
Parameters” and the “Net Physical Change” analysis,
Project opponents might consider this efforts a mere “slide of hand,” intended solely
to underestimate and misrepresent the magnitude of the project’s potential operational
effects. Supported by CEQA, the methodology outlined in this scope of services is
intended to demonstrate why the Department has pursued this path and how the
proposed project was appropriately defined for the purpose of CEQA compliance.
o Optional Subtask 0.4.1: Draft CEQA-Based Operational Project Description.
Under this subtask, a “Draft CEQA-Based Operational Project Description,”
consolidating information contained in the “Final Existing Operational Baseline”
analysis and in the “Final Project-Related Operational Parameters” analysis, will
be submitted for the Department’s review.
Deliverable: Draft CEQA-Based Operational Project Description
o Optional Subtask 0.4.2: Final CEQA-Based Operational Project Description.
Upon receipt of any comments following the Department’s review of the “Draft
CEQA-Based Operational Project Description,” the Consultant will revise that
document to incorporate those changes, corrections, or revisions identified by the
Department, prepare a revised document, and submit a “Final CEQA-Based
Operational Project Description” for the Department’s acceptance.
Deliverable: Final CEQA-Based Operational Project Description
Proposed Option No. 2: Demolition/Site Clearance as an Integrated Project
Components. Under Section 21065 of the PRC and Section 15379 of the CCR, the term
“project” includes both direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical changes.” In conducting environmental reviews, the State Legislature’s desire
that local agency avoid the fragmentation of larger projects into smaller components is a
well-established CEQA precept.
CEQA expressly discourage the framing of individual projects into multiple and separable
components (i.e., building demolition and condominium development). Additionally, it can
be reasonably assumed that (based on acquisition and demolition costs) the Applicant
would not proceed with the demolition of the existing Lifery Foundation Building prior to
receipt of all discretionary approvals associated with the proposed project.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 9
Under this option, with regards to the condominium project, no offsetting impacts would
be assumed. The potential environmental impacts associated with the building’s
demolition, associated site clearance, and debris removal would be quantified only as a
construction-related emission.
Under this approach, the existing Lifery Foundation Building will not be assumed to be an
operating use producing associated environmental impacts. Rather, primarily as it may
relate to assessing construction-related air quality and noise impacts and operational
traffic impacts, the existing improvements would be assumed to constitute an uninhabited
use and the presence of that building and its non-adaptable improvements only an existing
impediment to the proposed residential use. Other than as it relates to the quantification
of project-related impacts, no associated independent analytical would be conducted and
no associated attendant costs would be incurred during this phase of the CEQA process.
As a result, as outlined below, the formulation of the “project description” would proceed
absence any extensive consideration of the Lifery Foundation Building.
Task 1.1: Review Existing Documentation and Studies. Based on recent
environmental compliance activities undertaken by the City affecting the general
project area, in combination with those technical studies undertaken by the Applicant,
a substantial database may now exist concerning the proposed project and/or the
environmental conditions affecting the general project area. Those environmental
documents and technical studies may have some direct or tangential relevancy either
from an analytical or historic perspective, and need to be reviewed and referenced in
the upcoming environmental documentation.
Task 1.2: Draft Project Description. Under this task, a “Draft Project Description shall
be prepared and presented to the Department and the Applicant. The “Draft Project
Description” shall present a supportable description of the proposed project, identifying
the precise geographic area encompassed by the project, and identifying those
discretionary actions required from the City and from other relevant Responsible
Agencies (if any) for the project’s implementation.
Deliverable: Draft Project Description
Task 1.3: Final Project Description. In response to any comments submitted by the
Department and the Applicant, the “Draft Project Description will be revised to address
those comments and a “Final Project Description” prepared. The “Final Project
Description” shall serve as the basis upon which project-related impacts will be
examined in the “Expanded Initial Study.”
Deliverable: Final Project Description
Option No. 3: Net Operational Physical Change “Hybrid” (Optional/Not Specified in the
RFP). This “hybrid” approach can be described as a variation of “Option No. 2” in that no
off-setting analysis is conducted until sufficient information is presented in the “Expanded
Initial Study” (Major Task 3.0) to allow the Department to reasonably determine that one
or more project-related environmental effects cannot be effectively reduced to a less-than-
significant level. Retroactively, this analysis would then focus solely on those unmitigable
impacts and determine whether, through the inclusion of associated off-sets, the resulting
environmental effects would be insignificant.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 10
Although no detailed scope of work is included under this option, the associated tasks and
subtasks would be similar to that outlined for the “Net Operational Physical Change
Analysis” (Option No. 1) but, by more narrowing focusing the areas of potential application,
would involve a lesser effort on the part of the Consultant.
Major Task 2.0: CEQA Scoping Activities
Scoping activities shall be conducted for the purpose of both identifying those environmental
impacts that may occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project’s implementation and
soliciting the issues, concerns, and recommendations of other relevant Responsible Agencies (if
any) and other stakeholders with regards to the recommended manner of mitigating or avoiding
project-related environmental effects. In addition to the dissemination of the “Expanded Initial
Study” and public meetings described in Subtask 6.2 (Public Meetings), the following additional
outreach efforts will be conducted in compliance with the provisions of SB 18 (Chapter 905,
Statutes of 2004), AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) and AB 130/SB 131.
Task 2.1: Informal Consultation (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). As soon as a
Lead Agency has determined that an “Initial Study” will be required for a proposed project,
the Lead Agency shall informally consult with any relevant Responsible and Trustee
Agencies (if any) responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the
recommendations of those agencies as to the appropriate form of CEQA documentation
(Section 21080.3[a], PRC; Section 15063[g], CCR).
In consultation with the Department, the Consultant will identify and send (via certified
mail) written correspondence to any relevant Responsible and Trustee Agencies, including
any relevant public service agencies (e.g., police, fire, school districts, waste
management), for the purpose of soliciting the identification of any relevant environmental
issues, comments, or considerations they may deem applicable to the proposed project.
Task 2.2: Tribal Consultation. As typically interpreted and enforced by public agencies
throughout California, tribal consultation has occurred in that manner mandated under SB
18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) and AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (Section
21080.3.1, PRC). However, AB 130 (June 30, 2025) expanded existing CEQA exemptions
for “infill” housing projects in urban areas and materially altered public agency obligations
relative to tribal consultation. To the extent that duplications and/or material deviations
exist between those statutes, in consultation with the Department and Consulting
Archeologist, the Consultant will identify and reconcile those differences in order to both
ensure full compliance therewith and demonstrate the City’s sensitivity to the identification
and protection of recognized tribal resources. At minimum, should the proposed project
be approved, mandatory construction monitoring shall be imposed as a permit condition.
With regards to Native American consultation, both pre- and post-AB 130 notification and
coordination requirements are separately addressed below. Based on recent tribal
consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians/Kizh Nation (Brea Canyon
Business Park, Diamond Bar). the Consultant neither presently perceive the need to
conduct a field survey with tribal representatives nor engage a professional archaeologist.
o Subtask 2.2.1: Tribal Consultation (AB 52 Compliance). Prior to the adoption of or
a “substantial amendment” to a general or specific plan, the Lead Agency must refer
the proposed action to those tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission’s
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 11
(NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands located within the City’s jurisdiction. The
referral must allow a 45-day comment period (Section 65352, CGC). Under this task,
the Consultant will submit a tribal consultation list request, soliciting from the NAHC a
list of California Native American tribes with whom the City may need to provide notice.
The principal objective of Senate Bill 18 is the preservation and protection of “cultural
places” of California Native Americans, as defined in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993
of the PRC. Prior to the adoption or amendment of a general or specific plan, the local
government must: (1) notify the appropriate California Native American tribe of the
opportunity to conduct consultation for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts
to cultural places; (2) refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC
contact list that have traditional lands within the agency’s jurisdiction; and (3) send
notice of a public hearing to tribes that have filed a written request for such notice.
With regards to AB 52, following receipt of NAHC’s contact list, invitations for tribal
consultation shall be prepared by the Consultant and provided to each of the Native
American groups and organizations listed thereupon. The consultation may include
discussions concerning the type of environmental review deemed applicable; the
identification, presence and significance of “tribal cultural resources” (TCRs); the
significance of the project’s potential impacts on those resources; and, as warranted,
recommendations concerning mitigation measures and alternatives.
Additional unbudgeted activities and reimbursable costs would be incurred if any
Native American tribes receiving notice were to formally requests Lead Agency
consultation. All costs incurred in the performance of those efforts shall be reimbursed
on a time-and-materials and cost-plus basis, in accordance with the Consultant’s
“Standard Rate Schedule.”
Deliverable: NAHC and AB 52 Tribal Consultation Letters
o Subtask 2.2.2: Tribal Consultation (AB 130/SB 131 Compliance). Relative to tribal
consultation, Section 21088.66(b)(1)(A) of the PRC was amended to read:
(b)(1)(A) A local government shall provide formal notification via certified mail
and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the
proposed project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal
cultural resources pursuant to one of the following deadlines: (i) Within 14 days
of the application for the project being deemed complete pursuant to paragraph
(5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code. (ii) For
projects whose applications were deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5)
of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code before July 1,
2026, within 14 days of notifying the local government that the project is eligible
to be exempt from this division pursuant to this section. (B) The formal
notification shall include all of the following: (i) Detailed project information to
help inform the consultation, including site maps, proposed project scope, and
any known cultural resource studies. (ii) Contact information for the local
government. (iii) Contact information for the project proponent. (iv) Notice that
the California Native American tribe has 60 days to request consultation with
the local government pursuant to this subdivision.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 12
(2)(A) Each California Native American tribe has 60 days to notify the local
government that it accepts the invitation to consult. (B) If a California Native
American tribe chooses not to accept the invitation to consult, or does not notify
the local government of its decision within 60 days, the consultation shall be
considered to have concluded.
(3)(A) Within 14 days of receiving the notification that the California Native
American tribe has elected to consult, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (2), the local government shall initiate the consultation. (B) During
the consultation, the local government shall act in good faith to identify whether
a tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed project and shall
give deference to the tribal information, tribal knowledge and customs, and the
significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe. (C) The
project proponent may participate in the consultation with the approval of the
California Native American tribe if the project proponent agrees to engage in
good faith and comply with the confidentiality requirements of Sections
7927.000 and 7927.005 of the Government Code, subdivision (d) of Section
21082.3, subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, and any confidentiality standards adopted by the California Native
American tribe participating in the consultation. (D) The consultation shall seek
to find measures that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural
resource. (E) The local government shall document the results of the
consultation. (F) The consultation shall conclude within 45 days of initiation,
subject to a one-time 15-day extension upon request by a participating
California Native American tribe.
(4) The local government shall include, as binding conditions of the project
approval, all of the following: Any enforceable agreements reached during the
project consultation. (B) All of the following measures, unless there is mutual
agreement between the California Native American tribe and the project
proponent not to include the measure as a binding condition: (i) Upon request
by a California Native American tribe, the project shall include tribal monitoring
during all ground-disturbing activities, as follows: (I) The California Native
American tribe shall designate the monitor. (II) The tribal monitor shall comply
with applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements. (III) The
applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined
in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource
monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the
project. (ii) Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this
requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to
tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites,
and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable
use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.(iii) All treatment and
documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally
appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9.(iv) A California
Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a
tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site.(v) A
Sacred Lands Inventory request shall be submitted to the Native American
Heritage Commission.(vi) The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 13
Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work
stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment
in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected
California Native American tribe.(vii) An application of tribal ecological
knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as
applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A) “California Native American tribe” has the same meaning as defined in
Section 21073. (B) “Enforceable agreement” means an agreement between
the local government, project proponent, and any California Native American
tribe that has engaged in consultation pursuant to this subdivision regarding
the methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource
identification, treatment, and protection, including consideration of avoidance.
Compliance with the enforceable agreement shall be a required condition of
approval for the project and its terms must be enforceable against the project
proponent by the local government and the California Native American tribe.
(C) “Tribal cultural resource” means a site, feature, place, cultural landscape,
sacred place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, Indian
cemetery, or Indian burial area, or an object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe that is any of the following: (i) Included or eligible for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National
Register of Historic Places. (ii) Included in a local register of historical
resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. (iii) Identified by the
Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place pursuant to Section
5097.94 or 5097.96. (iv) Included in a local tribal register.
Except for specified time limits, the diminishment of the independence of the Lead Agency
with regards to the interpretation of the presence TCRs, and mandatory construction
monitoring, tribal consultation requirements under AB 52 are generally similar to those
outlined under AB 130. To date, no guidance documents have been formulated by The
Resources Agency and no formal changes to the published “Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act” have been promulgated.
Based on the site’s urban setting and prior site disturbance, no cultural resource pre-
construction site survey involving a field investigation by a qualified archeologist is
recommended herein. Similarly, no such survey is requested in the RFP. Relative to the
interpretation and application of the City’s government-to-government tribal consultation
obligations, the Consultant will work cooperatively with the Department (and the City
Attorney) to ensure strict compliance and documentation therewith.
Task 2.3: State Clearinghouse Noticing/Coordination. For the purpose of this proposal,
it is assumed that the project is neither a project of “statewide, regional, or areawide
environmental significance” nor will require the issuance of any permits or approvals from
State agencies; therefore, except as provided below, the Lead Agency is not required to
provide certain environmental notice and documents to the State Clearinghouse (SCH).
Nothing herein obligates the Consultant to pay any associated filing, posting, or publication
fees that may be imposed by those agencies and organizations required to receive notice.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 14
Effective January 1, 2022, with regards to the filing of notices for a MND, the Lead Agency
must take the following actions in compliance with CEQA:
o File on CEQAnet. A proposed MNDs and its accompanying “Notice of Completion”
(NOCs) shall be filed electronically on the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate’s
(previously the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) CEQAnet.
o Post on Lead Agency Website. In addition to prior methods of giving notice, draft,
proposed, and final environmental documents, including MNDs, notices of preparation
(NOPs), notices of determination (NODs), notices of availability (NOAs) and notices of
public hearings shall be posted on the Lead Agency’s website.
o File/Post with County. NODs shall be filed electronically with the County Clerk if
electronic filings are offered by the County; however, there is an option to post NODs
either in the Country Clerk’s office or on the County Clerk’s website. Additionally,
NOPs and NOAs shall be posted on the County Clerk’s website and physically County
Clerk’s office.
Deliverable: Appliable CEQA notices
Major Task 3.0: Expanded Initial Study
As specified in Section 15063(a)(3) of the CCR:
An initial study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other
substantial evidence to document its findings. However, an initial study is neither intended
nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR.
As further indicated in Sections 15063(c) therein, among other purposes, the “initial study” shall:
(1) enable the Applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before
an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a MND; (2) provide documentation
of the factual basis for the finding in a MND that a project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and (3) eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
As used herein, the term “Expanded Initial Study” is a term of art and not of statutory construct.
An “Expanded Initial Study” is distinguishable from the more cursory “Initial Study” (e.g., mere
reliance upon the environmental checklist) which typically predates the preparation of an EIR in
that: (1) it provides a greater degree of substantial evidence in support of its preliminary
conclusions; and (2) does not seek to defer the presentation of those conclusions until later in the
CEQA process. By deriving supportable conclusions early in the CEQA process, an “Expanded
Initial Study” fulfills the Legislative mandate that CEQA documents should “be prepared as early
as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project
program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental
assessment” (Section 15004[b], CCR).
Under this major task, prepared in conjunction with those technical studies identified in Major
Task 4.0 (Technical Studies), the Consultant will prepare an “Draft Expanded Initial Study,” a
“Revised Draft Expanded Initial Study,” and a “Final Expanded Initial Study” utilizing, as a format,
either the current CEQA “environmental checklist” form or such other form as may be identified
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 15
by the Department. All the work performed hereunder remains relevant notwithstanding whether
a MND or EIR is ultimately determined to be required by the Department.
Task 3.1: Expanded Initial Study. Under this task, the Consultant will prepare an “Expanded
Initial Study” which will serve as the initial scoping document for the project’s MND.
o Subtask 3.1.1: Draft Expanded Initial Study. Under this subtask, the Consultant will
prepare and provide the Department with an “Draft Expanded Initial Study.” As stipulated
under CEQA, at a minimum, the “Draft Expanded Initial Study” shall include: (1) a
description of the project including its location; (2) an identification of the environmental
setting; (3) an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other
method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate
that there is some evidence to support the entries; the brief explanation may be either
through a narrative or a reference to another information; (4) a discussion of the ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified, if any; (5) an examination of whether the project
would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land-use controls;
and (6) the name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the document’s
preparation (Section 15063[d], CCR).
In addition to the incorporation of information derived through the review of AMTAs and
preparation of CMTAs (Major Task 4.0), the “Draft Expanded Initial Study” will include a
sufficiently detailed analysis of those additional environmental factors identified in the
CEQA “environmental checklist” to support the preliminary conclusions presented therein.
Deliverable: Draft Expanded Initial Study
o Subtask 3.1.2: Revised Draft Expanded Initial Study (Optional/Not Specified in the
RFP). Upon receipt of any comments from the Department and the Applicant on the “Draft
Expanded Initial Study,” EIS will: (1) undertake all necessary actions and allocate all
appropriate resources, within the scope and limitations of this proposal, required to
respond to those comments and make those revisions identified by the Department; and
(2) submit a “Revised Draft Expanded Initial Study” to the Department for second-round
review.
Deliverable: Revised Draft Expanded Initial Study
o Subtask 3.1.3: Final Expanded Initial Study. The Consultant acknowledges that the
term “Final Expanded Initial Study” is a misnomer in that changes, corrections, and
revisions thereto may occur throughout the CEQA process and prior to the document’s
adoption by the City’s decision-making body.
Upon receipt of any comments from the Department and the Applicant following the
Department’s review of the “Draft Expanded Initial Study” and/or “Revised Draft Expanded
Initial Study,” the Consultant will revise that document to incorporate those changes,
corrections, and revisions identified by the Department, prepare a revised document, and
submit a “Final Expanded Initial Study” document for the Department’s review, signoff,
and authorization for public dissemination.
Deliverable: Final Expanded Initial Study
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 16
Task 3.2: Screening-Level Analysis (Decision Point). There exist opportune times
“catch a breath” and pose (even momentarily) to reflect on the status and advancement
of the CEQA process and, if appropriate, to again take stock on the project’s assumptions,
progress, and path forward. The completion of the “Expanded Initial Study” (Subtask 3.1.3)
provides such opportunity.
As noted, the original determination made on the basis of the “Expanded Initial Study”
whether to prepare either a MND or an EIR is subject to the “fair argument” test (Laurel
Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U.C. Regents [1993]). If a “fair argument” can be made on
the basis of “substantial evidence” in the record that the project may have a significant
adverse environmental impact (even if evidence also exists to the contrary) then an EIR
is required. A MND is authorized when the Lead Agency determines that no “substantial
evidence” exists supporting a “fair argument” of significant effect.
As a California court has noted, if ‘“the initial study identifies potentially significant effects
on the environment but revisions in the project plans ‘would avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur’
and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant
effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be used”’ (Keep Our
Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara [2015]).
Sections 15064 and 15064.4 of the CCR set forth the manner in which the Lead Agency
should determine the potential significance of impacts attributable to a development
project. At any stage in the CEQA process, when presented with a “fair argument” that
the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level, the Department must reevaluate the appropriate manner and method of
CEQA compliance and determine whether to continue to proceed along the current course
of action or commence the preparation of an EIR.
The corresponding benefits to be derived from the preparation of the “Expanded Initial
Study” include: (1) allowing the environmental analysis to proceed concurrently with the
City’s development review process, such that environmental considerations may become
integrated into the project’s design and development prior to making irretrievable decisions
concerning the manner of CEQA processing; (2) the information presented therein may,
should the Department subsequently elect to prepare an EIR, allow the Lead Agency to
more narrowly define the scope of that document; and (3) potential tangible reductions in
entitlement costs and timing.
A MND applies when changes to the project or mitigation measures reduce the significant
effects to a less-than-significant level or avoid them all together. Based on the information
presented in or derived from the “Expanded Initial Study,” the Consultant will provide the
Department and the Applicant with a screening-level analysis, including recommendation
concerning the further course of CEQA-related action. At its discretion, prior to
advancement, the Department may commence the following internal discussions:
o With Regards to the Applicant. Seek the Applicant’s willingness to modify or redefine
the proposed project or to formulate additional Applicant-nominated minimization
measures so as to avoid a preliminary determination that the proposed project (as
described and as analyzed) would generate one or more significant environmental
effects (thus avoiding the need for the commencement of an EIR).
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 17
o With Regards to the Consultant. Ascertain whether any alternative analytical
methodologies or supplemental analysis may exist, the pursuit of which may be
warranted and whose application may produce different preliminary findings, including
consideration of additional mitigation measures and other related actions.
Deliverable: Consultant Recommendations Regarding Continued Processing of a MND
For the purpose of this proposal, it is assumed that the “Expanded Initial Study” continues
to support the use of a MND under CEQA and the Department elects to move forward
therewith. Conversely, should an EIR be determined by the Department to be warranted,
the Consultant’s currently proposed scope of services would be either terminated or
substantially augments and a separate work plan (and attendant budget) would need to
be submitted to the Department by the Consultant and likely approved by the City Council.
Major Task 4.0: Technical Studies
Information presented in an MND must be supported by substantial evidence. “Substantial
evidence” is defined as containing “enough relevant information and reasonable inference from
this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other
conclusions might also be reached.”
In order to provide a factual and supportable basis for the Department’s environmental
documentation and preliminary determination, detailed engineering and/or scientifically-based
assessments of a broad array of topical issues will be required. In the derivation of substantial
evidence, presented herein are separate outlines of those activities to be performed by or under
the supervision of the Consultant, identified as “Consultant-managed technical analyses” (CMTA)
(Task 4.1) and those additional activities, identified as “Applicant-managed technical analyses”
(AMTA) (Task 4.2) to be performed by or on behalf of Applicant. All AMTA provided to the
Consultant shall have been first reviewed and accepted by the City.
Relative to both the Consultant’s and the Applicant’s commitments and/or obligations regarding
the preparation and submission of technical studies, as indicated in the RFP:
At a minimum, the consultant shall prepare a biological resources report in accordance with
industry accepted protocols and methodologies appropriate for the plant communities, site
characteristics and Special Status animal and plant species occurring or likely to occur in
the vicinity of the project site. The applicant will be providing a traffic study, sewer study,
geotechnical report, Low Impact Development report, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
report and hydrology/hydraulic report, subject to peer review by the City.
The Consultant believes that the list of Consultant-prepared (e.g., air quality and acoustical
analyses) and Applicant-submitted (e.g., water supply and Phase I ESA) studies is incomplete
and fails to include numerous critical issues germane to the environmental review and the Lead
Agency’s determination as to the appropriate manner of CEQA compliance.
Absent from the RFP is any obligation or responsibility with regards to the Consultant’s
participation and/or determination as to the appropriate scope of any CMTAs submitted by the
Applicant. For the purpose of this proposal, the Consultant has assumed that each such study
shall include and encompass all relevant issues, topics, analyses (including appropriate CEQA-
related thresholds of significance criteria), corresponding minimization measures, and
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 18
supportable findings as may be germane to the preparation of a defensible CEQA process. The
Applicant and not the Consultant has the sole obligation to support and defend those aspects of
the resulting CEQA analysis germane thereto.
In order to determine the presence of recognized environmental conditions, in accordance with
ASTM Standards, based on the potential presence of asbestos-containing building materials and
other potentially environmental containment liabilities associated with the Lifery Foundation
Building, noticeably absent therefrom should be an Applicant submitted Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA). That assessment is intended to constitute appropriate inquiry into the
previous ownership and uses of the subject property, as required to support the assertion of the
innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, and/or bona fide prospective purchaser
defenses to liability, collectively the landowner liability protections (LLPs) under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.
Additionally, numerous sensitive residential receptors, many with an elevated perspective of the
project site (located along Knoll Drive, Colombard Lane, Spruce Tree Drive, Butternut Way, and
White Fir Lane) are less than 100 feet from the project’s construction footprint. Because air quality
impacts associated with building construction, site clearance, and debris removal could exceed
SCAQMD threshold of significance standards, an air quality/greenhouse gas/toxic air
contaminants emissions analysis (accompanied by an acoustical analysis) is deemed by the
Consultant to be critical to any determination of the manner of CEQA compliance.
Conversely, certain topical issues are assumed not to elevate to a level of significance and can
reasonably be dispense with as part of the “Expanded Initial Study.” For those topical issues not
examined herein, unless otherwise included in the Consultant’s scope of services and a
corresponding line-item budget authorized by the City, the Consultant will prepare a more cursory
evaluation (supported to the extent possible by substantial evidence) and include that information
and analysis therein.
To the extent feasible, each of the CMTA will include information relating to the corresponding
impacts attributable to the existing operations of Oak Tree Plaza and the Ranch Center. For
example, with regards to air quality impacts, the regional emissions analysis will quantify the
emissions associated with the existing commercial use. These emissions will be deducted from
the emissions that would occur from the proposed project in order to determine the “net” increase
or decrease in emissions that would be generated from the development of the project over the
“existing baseline condition.” The “net” increase or decrease in emissions (both with regards to
criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases) will then be compared with the SCAQMD’s significance
thresholds to determine the project’s potential for significant impacts to the SCAB’s regional
emissions inventory.
Task 4.1: Consultant-Managed Technical Analyses. In order to provide a supportable
basis for the Department’s preliminary “significant” or “less-than-significant” impact
determination, a number of topic-specific technical analyses will be performed by the
Consultant. Unless otherwise directed by the Department, it is not the Consultant’s intent
to include the following analyses as “stand alone” reports but to incorporate the information
generated through these studies into the MND.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 19
Each of the CMTA identified herein shall include a description of the existing
environmental and regulatory setting (environmental setting), identify the threshold of
significance criteria used to assess significance (significance criteria), provide a
description of relevant construction and operational effects (environmental impacts),
present reasonable and appropriate mitigation measures (mitigation measures), and
conclude whether each post-mitigated effect is deemed to be significant (level of impact
after mitigation).
Since the RFP did not include a definitive list of those technical studies to be included in
the project’s CEQA documentation, prior to the formulation of the “final project description”
(Task 1.3), tribal consultation (Subtask 2.2.1 and Subtask 2.2.2), “Final Expanded Initial
Study” (Task 3.1.3), and receipt of comments received as “public meetings” (Task 6.2), a
definitive listing of those technical studies cannot be presented herein. The Consultant
has, however, sought to utilized its best judgment as to the identification of those topical
issues to be addressed and the level of analyses required therein.
Those CMTA assumed to be required to demonstrate the presence or absence of
significant environmental effects are separately described below. It is, however, noted that
a number of the recommended studies were not delineated in the RFP and, therefore,
constitute “out-of-scope” services not explicitly deemed by the Department to be a part of
the project’s CEQA compliance efforts. The inclusion of these recommended subtasks
herein is based on the Consultant’s extensive experience with similar projects and reflects
our firm’s professional judgment as to the requisite components of a defensible MND.
Should the Department deem these subtasks to be unwarranted (or performed by others),
the Consultant requests that the attendance costs for their preparation be subtracted from
the Consultant’s stated costs.
o Subtask 4.1.1: Land Use and Planning (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). As
proposed, among other discretionary actions, project implementation will necessitate
an amendment to the “City of Diamond Bar General Plan” (DBGP) and a revision to
the City’s “Official Zoning Map,” including the adoption of “Planned Development (PD)
Overlay.” It is assumed that all such actions are limited to the project site and do not
have application, either directly or indirectly, beyond the site’s boundaries.
Although specific to EIRs, CEQA (Section 15125[d] and [e], CCR) notes that:
[T]the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and
applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. . .Where a proposed
project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall examine the existing
physical conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no
notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is
commenced as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan.
It is assumed that those disclosure provisions are equally applicable to a MND.
The Applicant shall provide the Consultant with a copy of a preliminary title report or
similar document identifying and depicting the location of any utility easements and
designed rights-of-way (ROWs) incumbering the project site. If not already illustrated
on the tentative tract map, the Applicant shall provide an overlay or other depiction
illustrating the location of those easements and ROWs in relationship to the project
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 20
boundaries, grading limits, and proposed lotting plan. Potential project-related impacts
associated with those encumbrances will be evaluated.
Deliverable: Land Use and Planning Analysis
o Subtask 4.1.2: Air Quality (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). Existing air quality
conditions in the project area will be characterized and historical air quality data from
the nearest monitoring station will be compiled for the past three years. The closest
sensitive receptors will be identified and evaluated. To provide a regional context, the
most recent attainment and non-attainment status designations of the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB) will be identified and applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB)
and SCAQMD regulations will also be discussed.
Both regional and localized air quality impacts will be evaluated for the construction
and operations phases of the proposed project and compared to the significance
thresholds established by the SCAQMD. With regards to construction emissions, the
project will generate localized air pollution from construction vehicle exhaust, fugitive
dust from grading and excavation activities, and from demolition activities.
Localized air quality modeling will be conducted to determine concentrations of carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM) of less than 10 (PM10)
and 2.5 microns (PM2.5). With regards to operational emissions, the Consultant will
present an estimate of long-term air pollutant emissions associated with operation of
the proposed project. The operational phase of the impact analysis will be based, in
part, on the traffic analysis (Subtask 4.2.1) and any phasing information provided by
the Applicant. CO, volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions will be quantified using the most recent CalEEMod emissions inventory
model. Mobile and stationary emissions for criteria pollutants will be examined in the
context of SCAQMD’s regional operational significance thresholds. In addition, the air
quality analysis will provide an analysis of the project’s consistency with SCAQMD’s
current “Air Quality Management Plan” (AQMP).
Deliverable: Air Quality Analysis
o Subtask 4.1.3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). In
accordance with the Natural Resources Agency guidelines for quantifying greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. The Consultant will prepare a GHG analysis consistent
therewith. The GHG analysis will include a discussion of potential global climate
change impacts. Modeling of GHG emissions will be based, in part, on the traffic
analysis (Subtask 4.2.1) and phasing information provided by the Applicant. Area
source and transportation emissions will be quantified using the most current
CalEEMod emissions inventory model.
Deliverable: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
o Subtask 4.1.4: Noise and Vibration (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). The existing
noise environment will be quantified based on field measurements. Projected noise
and vibration levels during construction activities will be quantified. Emphasis will be
placed on the identification of potential impacts upon any sensitive receptors located
in proximity to the project site. Traffic-related noise impacts will be quantified using the
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 21
Version), calibrated with measured noise levels and simultaneous traffic counts. CNEL
levels will be modeled based on existing and project-related traffic volumes and
projected future year traffic conditions as identified in the project’s traffic analysis
(Subtask 4.2.1).
Deliverable: Noise and Vibration Analysis
o Subtask 4.1.5: Biological Resource Assessment. Based on the conceptual site
plan presented by the Applicant and included with the RFP, the project’s development
footprint will encroach into the existing tree line located in the northwestern portion of
the project site. As a result, construction activities would produce both direct and
indirect biological resource impacts (e.g., noise and vibration) potentially affecting both
“protected trees” and the habitats of any sensitive species and nesting birds
associated therewith. As indicated in Section 22.38.010 of the “Diamond Bar Municipal
Code” (DBMC):
One of the City's most important resources is the beauty of its natural
environment. Native trees are a significant part of this environment. While
impacted by development over the years, several areas in the city still contain
native oak, walnut, and riparian woodlands which support species of trees
important to our natural heritage. . . [The] general plan, as the overall policy
document for the City, requires the preservation and maintenance of native
trees including oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, significant trees of cultural or
historical value and pepper trees where appropriate.
Except where exempt, “protected trees” are defined as inclusive of: (1) native oak,
walnut, sycamore, and willow trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 8 inches
or greater; (2) trees of significant historical or value as designated by the City
Council; (3) trees required to be preserved or relocated as a condition of approval
for a discretionary permit; (4) trees required to be planted as a condition of approval
for a discretionary permit; and (5) stands of trees, the nature of which make each
tree dependent upon the others for survival (Section 22.38.038, DBMC).
Pursuant to Section 22.38.070 therein, when the removal or relocation of a
“protected tree” is proposed in connection with an application for a discretionary
permit, the Community Development Director may waive the requirement of a
separate tree removal permit and require necessary information to be submitted as
part of the discretionary permit application. In order to ascertain the presence of any
“protected trees” within the project’s footprint, in addition to the work outlined herein,
the Consultant recommends that the Applicant submit an “arborist report” prepared
by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist (Subtask 4.2.9).
For the purpose of identifying existing on-site biological resources and assessing
potential project-related impacts thereupon, working cooperatively with the Consultant,
Kidd Biological, Inc. (Consulting Biologist) will perform the following activities:
◊ Literature Review. Prior to visiting the site, historical and recent documentation
will be reviewed to determine the locations of sensitive resources in relation to the
project site. Resources that will be reviewed include those listed on the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Data Base,
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 22
United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) records, previously prepared reports for
sites in the vicinity, and any other pertinent information.
◊ Field Survey. Following the literature review, the project site will be surveyed
systematically to document current site conditions, soil types, compile a species
compendium and assess the suitability of the on-site habitat to support sensitive
biological resources. All species will be noted in a field notebook and photographs
taken. If vegetation varies on the site, a vegetation map will be drawn to delineate
the habitats. Any drainage features will be mapped on a United States Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic map depicting the project site. If suitable soils for
sensitive plants are located, they will be documented using GPS waypoints.
The field biologist will be very familiar with any of the species that might be present.
◊ Biological Resource Assessment. A report will be prepared analyzing the
conditions of the project site. Descriptions will be given on the on-site plant
communities as well as any geologic or hydraulic features. On-site soils will be
analyzed using United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soils maps. A
compendium of all plants and animals observed on the project site will be included
as well as site photographs. Sensitive species potentially occurring will be
addressed, including their probability of occurrence. Avoidance or minimization
measures, if necessary, will be included.
The report will not include an oak tree assessment, arborist study, or jurisdictional
delineation. If additional studies are recommended, a separate scope of services
and attendant cost proposal will be presented to the Department.
Deliverable: Biological Resource Assessment
Task 4.2: Applicant-Managed Technical Analyses. In addition to those CMTA identified
above (Task 4.1), it is assumed that specific technical studies will be prepared by the
Applicant or by other parties operating under contract to the Applicant. Recognizing that
the determination of “significance” is purely a CEQA matter, technical reports by other
engineers and non-CEQA scientists are neither typically prepared in a style nor format
consist with CEQA’s disclosure requirements. For example, in order to determine whether
a particular impact is “significant,” that impact must be examined in the context of either a
quantitative or qualitative threshold standard. As a result, from an engineering perspective,
notwithstanding the technical adequacy of each AMTA relative to the issues examined
therein, the information and analysis presented may not reasonably substitute for a CEQA-
based analysis nor, independent of further augmentation, constitute an integral part of the
body of the “Expanded Initial Study.”
Although each of the technical studies listed herein are assumed to be provided by or on
behalf of the Applicant, the integration of each of these topical issues (including their
augmentation into a workable CEQA format) may require the expenditure of time and
labor-based resources by the Consultant. The line-item costs identified herein are limited
to those efforts reasonable expected to be required by the Consultant for document
integration only and are not inclusive of any additional efforts that may be expended by
the Consultant to address any aspects of those studies which, in the independent
judgment of the Consultant: (1) fails to examine the current iteration of the proposed
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 23
project; (2) fails to sufficiently address each of the corresponding issues raised in the
CEQA “environmental checklist”; (3) fails to provide sufficient information and analysis to
derive supportable conclusions relative to the nature and magnitude of the project’s
potential environmental effects; and/or (4) fails to present the information and topic-
specific analysis in a suitable CEQA-compliant format. With regards to the CEQA process,
the Department acknowledges that the adequacy and defensibility of all AMTA rests solely
with the Applicant and not with the Consultant.
It is the Consultant’s intent to physically include copies of the AMTA into the project’s
CEQA documentation. In furtherance thereof, the Applicant shall bear all costs associated
with the preparation, production, reproduction, and dissemination of all AMTA documents,
including all accompanying graphics and appendices, in the number and manner specified
by the Department. In accordance with the RFP, those AMTA which have been assumed
to be provided to the Consultant by the Applicant are described below.
o Subtask 4.2.1: Traffic Study / Vehicle Miles Traveled / Internal Circulation. For
the purpose of this proposal, the Consultant has assumed that all requisite
components of an approvable traffic impact analysis will be (or have been)
incorporated therein (e.g., morning, evening, and daily peak-hour trips; traffic
distribution patterns; level of service calculations). Additionally, it is assumed that the
traffic study includes, but is not limited to, a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assessment;
resident and guest parking analysis; evaluation of both ingress/egress and internal
circulation (addressing fire trucks and trash collection vehicles); and consistency with
applicable Fire Code requirements. Truck haul routes should be identified and the
number, frequency, and duration of haul trips estimated.
o Subtask 4.2.2: Sewer Area Study. For the purpose of this proposal, the Consultant
has assumed that the “sewer area study” quantifies projected wastewater flows,
analysis system adequacy, and identifies any requisite on-site and off-site
improvements. The “sewer area study” shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer
registered in California and submitted to the City Engineer and Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The resulting analysis shall include sewer
flow monitoring at specific locations to be determined by the City Engineer and the
LACDPW; include calculations for the quantities of sewer flow for the pre-development
and post-development conditions; and determine potential impacts on all affected City
and County-operated sewerage facilities. Should project-related sewer flows be
determined to impact the sewer capacity downstream from the development, the study
shall identify mitigation and/or such other actions as may be required to address any
potential capacity deficiency by a method approved by the City Engineer or LACDPW
based on corresponding jurisdictional authorities.
o Subtask 4.2.3: Geotechnical / Seismic / Soils Report. For the purpose of this
proposal, it is assumed that, following the Department’s review and acceptance, an
adequate geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils investigation (suitable for CEQA-
compliance purposes) shall be provided by the Applicant (Sections 21.20.080[3][g]
and 21.22.110[2][e], DBMC) for incorporation into the project’s CEQA documentation
including (where applicable) a “slope analysis map,” pursuant to Sections
22.22.030(4) and 22.22.070 of the DBMC.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 24
The findings presented in that geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils investigation
shall be presented documenting (through appropriate boring and other subsurface
investigations by others) existing surface and subsurface conditions (with particular
emphasis on any deleterious conditions that may be identified or suspected) and
demonstrating (through the formulation of appropriate conditions and other actions)
the proposed project’s feasibility from a geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils
perspective, within a reasonable factor of safety. Any unstable or potentially unstable
soils conditions, including potential liquefaction hazards, shall be identified,
reasonable and appropriate remedial actions formulated, and grading plans shall be
presented and evaluated (by others).
o Subtask 4.2.4: Low Impact Development Report. In the context of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit (R4-2012-0175),” as adopted on September 8, 2016 and
subsequently amended, the City (as a Permittee thereto) is required to ensure that
specified new development and redevelopment projects minimize storm water and
urban runoff discharge impacts. In accordance therewith, qualifying applicants are
required to prepare a “Low Impact Development (LID) Plan” for the purpose of
ensuring that post-construction “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) are
incorporated to effectively reduce pollutants resulting from storm water and urban
runoff discharges. It is assumed that the resulting report will be prepared in compliance
therewith.
o Subtask 4.2.5: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Report. With regards to
water quality, under the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act, storm water runoff
pollution discharged to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) must be
controlled to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). It is assumed that the report will
identify pollutants and hydrologic conditions of concern and outline the Applicant’s
proposed conceptual water quality management plan and associated site design and
source control and treatment BMPs. Surface and groundwater quality shall also be
addressed and NPDES Permit compliance evaluated. It is assumed that the resulting
report will be prepared in compliance therewith.
o Subtask 4.2.6: Hydrology/Hydraulic Report. It is assumed that issues relating to
surface hydrology, groundwater hydrology, and water quality will be (or have been)
addressed therein. In addition, existing and post-project drainage and hydrologic
conditions shall be analyzed; a determination presented how the project potentially
impacts the quantity of water to determine such things as increased flows, impacts on
storm drain systems, and sizing of on-site retention basins; including the identification
of any reasonable and appropriate conditions formulated to reduce project-related
impact associated with changes to on-site discharge. Conceptual plans shall be
identified and evaluated to determine effects on historical flows. Preliminary
calculations shall be presented evaluating increased/altered drainage flows caused by
landform alterations and the changes to the site coverage by impervious surfaces. As
applicable, the report shall include a jurisdictional delineation or indicated that neither
State nor federal jurisdictional areas occur on the project site.
o Subtask 4.2.7: Water Supply Assessment (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP).
Existing site-specific and proposed project-related water consumption rates shall be
calculated, localized and system-wide capacities determined, and any associated
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 25
project-related improvements thereto identified. Based on civil engineering
information provided by the Applicant, water delivery systems shall be evaluated
relative to flow characteristics and line capacity. The analysis shall determine whether
adequate water supplies, existing delivery systems, and proposed infrastructure
improvements are adequate to service projected average and peak-day demands and
Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) fire-flow requirements.
o Subtask 4.2.8: Hazardous Materials (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). Buildings
constructed or renovated prior to 1981 may contain “asbestos-containing materials”
(ACM), and “asbestos-containing building materials” (ACBM). Similarly, building
constructed or renovated prior to 1978 may contain “lead-based paint” (LBP). At a
minimum, a Phase I ESA, conducted in accordance with the “Standards and Practices
for All Appropriate Inquiries” (40 CFR 312), shall be performed in order to identify the
presence or potential presence of any such hazards.
The conclusions presented in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall
be presented along with any recommendations for supplemental investigations and
remediation efforts. Based on the information presented in that investigation, the
location of any known on-site contaminants shall be identified and recommendations
formulated for their removal or remediation. If applicable, the study should discuss
plans for compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 1403 (Asbestos Removal from
Demolition/Renovation Activities).
o Subtask 4.2.9: Arborist Report (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). In order to
determine the location and potential impacts on any “protected trees” located on the
project site, for inclusion in the “Expanded Initial Study,” as prepared by an ISA-
certified arborists, the Consultant recommends that the Applicant prepare and submit
for the Department’s and Consultant’s consideration an arborist report. The arborist
report would support the requisite findings (Section 22.38.110), tagging requirements
(Section 22.38.120), and tree replacement standards outlined in the DBMC.
Information presented in the Applicant’s “arborist report” would be incorporated into
the Consultant’s “biological resource assessment (Subtask 4.1.5).
Task 4.3: Third-Party Review (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). As in the case of the
proposed project, it is common practice for public agencies to require and/or accept technical
documents submitted by project proponents. Prior to their incorporation into CEQA
documents, those studies are reviewed internally by agency personnel or made subject to
independent, third-party reviews by either the environmental consultant or by other parties
operating under contract to the public agency.
As indicated in the RFP, all AMTAs are “subject to peer review by the City.” The Consultant
has, therefore assumed no obligation or responsibility relative to any such “peer review.”
Alternatively, subject to a precise scope of services and associated contract augmentation,
prior to the incorporation of any of the AMTA, the Consultant, acting through State-licensed
professionals and other senior managers, will review that material in detail to determine their
adequacy, objectivity, and applicability. As part of this review, the Consultant will: (1)
independently ascertain the technical adequacy of those studies and identify any areas where
further augmentation may be required; (2) work cooperatively with the Department and the
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 26
Applicant to formulate a work plan for the generation of any requested information; (3)
expedite the assemblage of any requisite material, either by independently completing those
studies or working with the Department and the Applicant’s technical consultants; (4)
document the City’s independent evaluation of all technical material; and (5) formulate
independent conclusions relative to the project’s potential impacts, available mitigation
measures, and post-mitigated levels of significance.
Major Task 5.0: Mitigated Negative Declaration
As defined in Section 21064.5 of CEQA:
“Mitigated negative declaration” means a negative declaration prepared for a project when
the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before
the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect
on the environment.
Prior to approving or conditionally approving the proposed project, the Lead Agency’s decision-
making body shall consider the proposed MND, together with any comments received during the
public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed MND only if it finds,
on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and that the MND reflects the Lead Agency’s
independent judgment and analysis (Section 15074[b], CCR).
Included under this major task is the preparation of associated environmental notices, including
consideration of any written comments that may be submitted to the Lead Agency in response to
those notices, and a “mitigation reporting and monitoring program” (MRMP). This proposal does
not include any costs associated with notice dissemination, newspaper publication, posting, or the
payment of any filing or associated fees as may be imposed by the County Clerk or by the CDFW.
Task 5.1: Environmental Notices. Either following or prior to the preparation of the
“Expanded Initial Study” (Major Task 3.0), the Department will make a determination
whether to proceed under a MND or to commence the preparation of an EIR. Should the
Department continue to process a MND, included under this major task is the preparation
of a “Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration” (NOI) and, following
adoption of the MND, a “Notice of Determination” (NOD). The Consultant will work
cooperatively with Department staff to ensure compliance with all applicable CEQA-
obligated notice requirements.
o Subtask 5.1.1: Notice of Intent. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to prepare
a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) for the purpose of establishing public review period of the
agency’s intent to adopt a MND of not less than 21 days. When the proposed MND is
submitted to the SCH for review by State agencies, the public review period will not be
less than 30 days, unless a shorter period is approved by the SCH.
As required, the City must give notice of its intent to adopt a MND by at least one of the
following procedures: (1) publication of a legal notice in a newspaper of general
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 27
circulation; (2) posting of notices on and off the project site; and/or (3) direct mailing to
the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project site. In compliance with
those obligations, the Consultant will prepare a “Draft Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration” (Draft NOI) and transmit that document to the
Department for execution. Upon its execution, the Draft NOI will become the “Notice of
Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration” (NOI) and used to announce the Lead
Agency’s intent to adopt a MND (Sections 15072 and 15703, CCR).
Deliverable: Notice of Intent
o Subtask 5.1.2: Notice of Completion. When a MND is complete (but unsigned), a
“Notice of Completion” (NOC), along with the proposed MND and accompanying
“Initial Study,” must be filed with the SCH.
Deliverable: Notice of Completion
o Subtask 5.1.3: Notice of Determination. As required under CEQA, in order to
shorten the statute of limitations on subsequent legal challenges to the Lead Agency’s
CEQA process, the Lead Agency is required to file a “Notice of Determination” (NOD)
with the County Clerk within five working days after deciding to carry out or approve
the project. If the project requires a discretionary approval from any State agency, the
Lead Agency is also required, within five working days of approval, to file a copy of the
NOD with the State Clearinghouse. Should the City elect to approve or conditionally
approve the proposed project, the Consultant shall prepare and transmit to the
Department a “Draft Notice of Determination” (Draft NOD). Upon its execution, the
“Draft NOD” will become the “Notice of Determination” (NOD) and will be used to
announce the Lead Agency’s adoption of the MND (Section 15075, CCR).
The NOD shall include: (1) an identification of the project, including its common name
and location; (2) a brief description of the project; (3) the date on which the agency
approved or conditionally approved the project; (4) the Lead Agency’s determination
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (5) a statement
that a MND has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and (6) the
address where a copy of the MND may be examined.
Deliverable: Notice of Determination
o Subtask 5.1.4: No Effect Determination. Using Form DFW 866, concurrent with the
dissemination of the NOD, the Consultant will prepare, for transmittal by the
Department to the CDFW, a “No Effect Determination” (NED) request. Within five
working days of approving a project for which a MND has been approved, the Lead
Agency shall file the NED, along with the NOD, with the SCH
A project shall not be operative, vested, or finalize, and local government permits for
the project shall not be valid, until the requisite filing fees are paid (Section 711.4[c][(3],
California Fish and Game Code [CFGC]); however, all projects found to have no effect
on fish and wildlife resources shall incur no associated fee (Section 753.5[c], CFGC).
Effective January 1, 2025, the CDFW’s filing fees shall be $4,123.50 for an EIR and
$2,968.75 for an MND, plus an additional $50 County Clerk filing fee.
Deliverable: No Effect Determination
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 28
o Task 5.2: Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. Pursuant to AB 3180
(Statutes of 1988), based on the presence of any mitigation measures identified in the
“Expanded Initial Study” (Subtask 3.1.3), the Consultant shall prepare and transmit to
the Department a “Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program” specifying: (1)
the party or agency responsibility for each mitigation measure’s implementation; (2)
the timing for implementation, keyed to a specific event, milestone, or permit
obligation; and (3) the frequency, contact, and format for compliance reporting. Upon
its acceptance by the Department, the “Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring
Program” shall become the “Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program”
(MRMP) upon which the proposed project shall be conditioned (Section 21081.6[a][1],
PRC; Sections 15073[d] and 15091[d], CCR).
Deliverable: Draft and Final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Programs
o Task 5.3: Response to Comments (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). Written
responses to comments received by the Lead Agency are not required and are not
typically prepared for projects eligible for processing under a MND. Under CEQA,
however, the Lead Agency is required to “consider” any comments received during the
noticed comment period (Section 15074[b], CCR). Under Section 15073(e) of the
CCR, the Lead Agency's obligations are limited to providing written notice of scheduled
public hearings to those public agencies commenting on the proposed MND.
For the purpose of this proposal, the Consultant has allotted a minimum number of
labor hours for the sole purpose of reviewing those comments which have been
received and which have been transmitted to the Consultant. Based on that review,
the Consultant shall provide the Department: (1) preliminary recommendations
whether the nature of the comments warrant a written response; (2) predicate the need
for any substantial changes to the “Expanded Initial Study”; (3) potentially require the
recirculation of the MND; and/or (4) potential necessitate the preparation of an EIR. If
the need for a written response or recirculation appears warranted, the Consultant
shall provide the Department with an estimate of the number of labor hours and other
associated costs required to formally respond thereto, including (a) the identification
of an additional technical analyses that may be needed in order to present an adequate
technical response thereto and (b) the party or parties appropriately bearing
responsibility for the preparation of those draft responses. All incurred costs will be
billed on a time-and-material and cost-plus basis in accordance with the rates and
terms specified in the Consultant’s “Standard Rate Schedule.”
The Lead Agency may be required to recirculate the MND if the document must be
substantially revised after public notice of its availability has been provided but prior to
its adoption (Section 15073.5, CCR). A “substantial revisions” shall mean: (1) a new,
avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions
must be added in order to reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level; or (2) the
Lead Agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions
will not reduce potential effects to a less-than-significance level and new measures or
revisions must be required.
Recirculation is not, however, required under the following circumstances: (1)
mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures; (2) new
project revisions are added in response to comments on the project’s effects identified
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 29
in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects; (3) measures or
conditions of approval are added after circulation of the MND which are not required
by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects, and which are
not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and (4) new information is
added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant
modifications thereto (Section 15073.5, CCR).
Major Task 6.0: Departmental and Public Meetings
Presented under this major task are those additional outreach and coordination efforts associated
with the proposed project, including meetings with Department staff and other public meetings.
Task 6.1: Departmental Meetings. At project commencement, the Consultant’s Project
Director (Lewandowski) will attend one (1) “kick-off” meeting involving key project
participants. The purpose of this meeting is to establish an open avenue of
communication between all parties, obtain additional information concerning the proposed
project, obtain copies of applicable documents, and finalize any outstanding issues
concerning scope and schedule. In addition, the Project Director will attend up to two (2)
additional meetings corresponding with key milestones of this work program. Throughout
the term of this project assignment, the Consultant will be available to participate in up to
three (3) conference calls to address outstanding issues and/or to keep Department staff
fully informed about project status and deliverables.
Task 6.2: Public Meetings. The Project Director shall attend up to two (2) public
meetings, including a community workshop(s) and scoping meeting(s) and noticed public
hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Consultant shall be
available to make technical presentations and assist Department staff in the preparation
of staff reports and other presentation materials for those meetings. Since meeting length
cannot be precisely defined, for budgetary purposes, a specified number of labor hours
and a preliminary budget have been established for travel and attendance. Should the
number of meetings and number of hours exceed these assumed limits, any and all
additional efforts beyond the number and budget specified will be invoiced on a time-and-
materials and cost-plus basis in accordance with the rates and terms in the Consultant’s
“Standard Rate Schedule.”
Not budgeted herein are any costs that may be incurred to prepare presentation materials,
including, but not limited to, agendas, staff reports, graphics, and/or other handouts, for
use or dissemination at any public meetings.
Major Task 7.0: CEQA Support Activities
This major task includes those activities required to support the Department’s preparation and
processing of the MND.
Task 7.1: Preliminary Mailing List (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP). In consultation
with Department staff, the Consultant will prepare a preliminary mailing list of appropriate
local, State, and federal agencies that, pursuant to CEQA requirements, should be
contacted as part of the Lead Agency’s public noticing obligations. Not included herein is
the preparation of any radius maps and/or review of any Los Angeles County Assessor
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 30
rolls for the purpose of identifing and listing those property owners and tenants located
within a specified radius of the project site.
Deliverable: Preliminary Mailing List
Task 7.2: Reprographic Support Services. CEQA documents are typically large and
unwieldly, incorporating information from a variety of sources. Included herein are the
labor hours associated with the preparation and assemblage of documents for publication,
delivery of “camera-ready” documents for printing, and the proofing of finish work products
prior to either delivery to the Department or dissemination. The following documents will,
upon their acceptance by the Department, be transmitted to the City by the Consultant:
o Draft Expanded Initial Study (Subtask 3.1.1). Five hard copies/one electronic copy;
o Expanded Initial Study (Subtask 3.1.3). Five hard copies/one electronic copy;
o Environmental Notices (Task 5.1). One electronic copy); and
o Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program (Task 5.2). One electronic copy.
Task 7.3: Other Direct Costs. This task includes all other incidental expenses related to
the implementation of this work program including, but not limited to, travel, photo
processing, postage, and deliveries.
The Consultant acknowledges that “time is of the essence” to the Applicant and will, therefore,
work cooperatively with the Department (and the Applicant) to finalize the CEQA process
(assuming a MND) within the shortest possible timeframe.
All parties, however, need to acknowledge that any CEQA-based implementation schedule must
include certain assumptions and is based on a wide range of factors primarily relating to: (1) the
availability of and the Department’s allocation of sufficient staff resources; (2) the precise nature
of the project’s CEQA documentation (Categorical Exemption, EIR, or MND); (3) the timely filing
of requisite notices; (4) a consistent and static project description; (5) the Applicant’s timely
delivery of Department pre-approved AMTA; (6) the preliminary CEQA-relevant findings of both
AMTA and CMTA (including potential revisions thereto and the need for augmentation thereof);
(7) information obtained through discussions between the Consultant, the Department, and the
Applicant; (8) the Department’s adherence to tribal consultation time limits; (9) comments
received from other Responsible and Trustee Agencies; (10) the time required for Department
staff and the Applicant to review and comment on each of the project’s deliverables; and (11) the
number and scheduling of public hearings involving the Planning Commission and City Council.
Assuming that the proposed project is neither “categorically exempt” (Section 15332, CCR) nor
“statutorily exempt” as a qualifying “CEQA urban infill exemption” (AB 130). presented in Exhibit
EIS-1 (Mitigated Negative Declaration – Proposed Performance Schedule) is the Consultant’s
estimated timeline to prepare and process a MND. In most instances, the schedule assumes that
most Department reviews and associated actions require a minimum of 14 days to complete.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 31
Exhibit EIS-1
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROPOSED PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
Activity Calendar Days Total Days
Kickoff Meeting and Determination of “Non-Exempt” Project Status 1 1
Applicant Submits Site Plans and Approved AMTAs to Consultant - -
Consultant Prepares CEQA-Based Project Description 7 8
Project Description Accepted by Department 7 15
Commence Preparation of Initial Study - -
Consultant Submits All Draft CMTAs to Department 30 45
Departmental Conducts Peer-Review of all Draft CMTAs an Submits Comments 14 59
Consultant Submits Revised CMTAs to Department 14 73
Department Accepts All Revised CMTAs 14 87
Consultant Submits Draft Expanded Initial Study to Department 14 101
Department Review and Comment 14 115
Consultant Submits Revised Expanded Initial Study to Department 7 122
Department Accepts Revised Expanded Initial Study 14 136
Department Authorizes Release - -
Dissemination of the NOI 3 139
Start 21-Day Comment Period 1 -
Department Conducts Noticed Scoping Meeting - -
End 21-Day Comment Period 21 160
Planning Commission Public Hearing 30 190
City Council Conducts First Public Hearing 30 220
City Council Conducts Second Public Hearing 14 234
City Council Adopts MND and Approves/Denies Proposed Project - -
Posting of NOD 2 236
Outside the Consultant’s control with limited Departmental staffing resources and the occasional
need to involve other City departments (including Public Works and the City Attorney), that turn-
around time may be extended. Including adoption of the MND and the City Council’s two requisite
public hearings (for the adoption of an ordinance), relative to the Applicant’s receipt of requisite
entitlements, an estimated under 8-month permitting schedule is depicted therein. Relative to the
Consultant’s obligations to produce and disseminate an “Expanded Initial Study,” based on the
work plan outlined herein, a 4½-month schedule has been assumed.
For many other projects throughout the San Gabriel Valley, working cooperatively with a
committed agency staff, the Consultant has successfully completed the preparation of the
“Expanded Initial Study” document and the public agency’s release of the “Notice of Intent” in less
than 5 months. For budgetary purposes, even when working expediently, based on the time-
consuming nature associated with the preparation of numerous AMTAs and time spent in the
performance of the Department’s internal peer-revie obligations, the Applicant should assume
that a 6-month (or lesser) CEQA document submittal schedule is reasonably attainable.
Unless effectively managed and the strict attainment of that schedule is agreed to by all parties,
at each step in the CEQA process, possible delays and unplanned time extensions could surface.
The outlined schedule neither adjusts for competing Departmental staffing demands nor holidays,
illnesses, and the vacation schedule of assigned Department personnel.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 32
The “Planet Bid” posting specifies that this solicitation constitutes a “lump sum” contract; however,
the City’s “sample consulting services agreement” specifies “not-to-exceed cost.” For the purpose
of this proposal, the Consultant has assumed and proposes the latter. Subject to the specified
limitations, the Consultant will convert this “not-to-exceed cost proposal” to a “lump sum” bid.
Besides the customary difficulty in precisely projecting future events and the always
present potential for encountering unknown complexities, the Consultant’s proposed “not-
to-exceed cost proposal” seeks to straddle the limitations of the scope of services
delineated in the RFP and, based on the Consultant’s experience on similar projects,
identifies a number of additional (“optional”) tasks and subtasks that the Consultant
believes may reasonably warrant inclusion herein. The inclusion of those “optional” tasks
and subtasks in the Consultant’s “recommended scope of services” could negate the
consistency among competing proposals and add needless complexity to the Department
evaluation thereof.
The collective goal of all participating parties is the preparation of high-quality CEQA
documents and a legally defensible CEQA process. Our local experience suggests that,
with regards to the review of major deliverables, three rounds of internal review are often
required prior to final acceptance by the Department (with the Consultant’s third submittal
being the version accepted by the Department for broader dissemination). In contrast, the
RFP generally references only a “draft” and “final” submittal, thereby suggesting only two
rounds of internal Departmental review (with the Consultant’s second submittal being the
version accepted by the Department). For budgetary purposes, in recognition of perceived
reality, for many of the deliverables identified herein, the Consultant has included (as an
“optional” work effort) a third round of internal document reviews.
Neither intended as derogatory nor stereotypical, in common American parlance, the term
"Chinese menu" refers to a list of options, particularly in a restaurant, where a customer
can make multiple selections from a wide range of menu categories. More specifically, the
term can refer to the style of American Chinese cuisine where a meal consists of choices
among multiple dishes, including items intended to complement the main selection. The
term can be more broadly used to describe a situation with a large number of options are
presented, where the selection between varied options is determined by the consumer.
Since CEQA compliance is a government-initiated obligation, it is the sole responsibility
of the Lead Agency (acting through the Department) to determine the precise scope of
any requisite analyses. Here, the Consultant has provided the Department with: (1) the
work plan and the attendant costs associated with those activities specified in and
reasonably inferred from the RFP; (2) the delineation of other potentially applicable
(“optional”) analytical efforts which appear reasonably germane to the fulfillment of the
Lead Agency’s CEQA obligations; (3) additional “supportive efforts” that the Consultant
can perform to best assist the Department and to effectively reduce the City’s associated
labor commitment; and (4) optional strategies in the manner in which the proposed project
can be described and analyzed (e.g., net operational physical change) for CEQA
compliance purposes.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 33
These “optional” tasks and subtasks should not be perceived as being “all or nothing.” For
those activities where the Department perceives a tangible benefit, those endeavors can
be added in order to supplement the “line-item budget per the RFP.” Conversely, for those
activities where no benefit is perceived, those “optional” efforts would be eliminated and
any associated costs not added to the Consultant’s “not-to-exceed cost proposal.”
As described, separately itemized herein are the following cost proposals:
“Department-Specified” Scope of Services. Exhibit EIS-2 (“Department-Specified”
Scope of Services) is an itemized “not-to-exceed cost proposal” for those activities
(categorized herein as major tasks, tasks, and subtasks) expressly specified in or
reasonably inferred from the RFP.
As noted, relative to the assumptions presented herein and based on the work program
outlined in the RFP, the Consultant’s fully-burned not-to-exceed cost to prepare and
process a MND is $49,300.
“Net Operational Physical Change.” Exhibit EIS-3 (“Optional” Supplemental Services -
“Net Operational Physical Change”) allowing for the inclusion of the Lifery Foundation
Building’s existing operational characteristics to become the “baseline” again which the
proposed project’s operational impacts shall be evaluated.
As depicted, the inclusion of a “net operational physical change” analysis (Option No. 1)
would add an additional $4,350 to the “Department-specified scope of services” (Exhibit
EIS-2).but would, in all likelihood, produce substantial off-setting financial and other
benefits in terms of reduced mitigation costs and City fees.
Other “Optional” Supplemental Services. As presented in Exhibit EIS-4 (“Optional”
Supplemental Services - Other “Optional” Supplemental Services), excluding the manner
in which the CEQA-based project description is formulated, the Consultant has sought to
elaborate on the Department-specified services to allow for the inclusion of other “optional”
efforts, including added Department support, that could be added to this work program.
Any additional costs with the inclusion of those additional “optional” services specified
therein would be dependent upon which (if any) of those services were determined by the
Department to warrant inclusion in the Consultant’s contracted scope of services.
All authorized project-related costs will be invoiced in accordance with the rates and terms
specified in the Consultant’s “Standard Rate Schedule.” The Consultant reserves the right to
internally adjust individual line-items and to exceed the individual itemized line-item cost
projections presented herein subject to the limitation that the specified total project cost is not
exceeded.
Should the City elect to delete or modify any of the individual components comprising this work
program, to the extent that the deleted or modified work element(s) is a precursor to other linked
activities or is deemed by the Consultant to be critical to the completion of the stated work
products, the Consultant reserves the right to submit a revised cost proposal and process
associated change orders to reflect those changes.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 34
Unless explicitly identified herein or in any supplements hereto, all additional efforts, burdened
costs, and other expenditures that may be incurred as a result of written or oral requests by the
Department are beyond the scope of this work program and constitute “out of scope” activities
that will be billed in accordance with the rates and terms specified in the Consultant’s “Standard
Rate Schedule.” Neither the Department nor the Applicant shall unreasonably withhold or delay
processing of any change order requests for work authorized by or directed by the Department
for any additional consulting services not explicitly identified herein. Should a dispute arise as to
appropriateness, amount, and/or nature of any payment and/or change order request that may
be submitted to the Department by the Consultant, the Consultant reserves the right to stop work
pending the timely resolution of any such dispute.
At project commencement, the Applicant shall provide the Consultant with copies of the
Applicant’s development application, including a detailed project description consisting of both
text and graphics. The project description shall, among other items, including: (1) identification
of existing ownership interests and easements; (2) specific nature (and categorization) of
proposed amendments to the “City of Diamond Bar General Plan” amendment and zone changes
pursuant to the “Diamond Bar Municipal Code”; (4) indicate the maximum number of residential
units, including information concerning the size and architectural character and whether intended
for individual purchase or managed as rental units; (5) depiction of internal circulation, identify the
number and size of on-site parking spaces, identify proposed access controls and devices,
identify the design vehicle, and graphically depict minimum turning radii on a dimensioned site
plan; and (6) include such additional information as may be reasonably required to adequate
describe the proposed project and the discretionary actions required for the project’s effectuation.
This proposal is based on a static project description. All parties acknowledge that post-
commencement changes to the project description would predicate the need for an additional
unbudgeted consideration of those changes in order to ensure that the environmental analysis
accurately reflects the revised project. The Consultant’s response to any subsequent project
changes which might predicate the need for revisions to the documents and/or technical analyses
identified herein, has not been accounted for herein and is not included within this scope of
services and its attendant budget. By delivering project revisions to the Consultant, both the
Department and the Applicant acknowledge the Consultant’s right, whether then immediately
exercised or deferred, to process a change order in response thereto.
For the purpose of this proposal, the Consultant has made certain assumptions concerning the
required content of the “Expanded Initial Study,” the studies that will be prepared under any
resulting professional services agreement, the studies that will be provided by the Applicant for
the Consultant’s use, and the efforts comprising the Consultant’s recommended scope of
services. It is assumed that our firm’s scope of work does not include: (a) any planning-related
or environmental activities not explicitly described herein; (b) any independent geologic,
geotechnical, seismic, and soils investigation; (c) any environmental site assessment, records
search, or other investigation assessing the presence of toxic or hazardous materials and/or
petroleum products upon or within one-quarter mile of the project site; (d) any hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses; (e) any water supply assessment; (f) any civil or other engineering studies
documenting the adequacy of water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain supplies, services, and
systems; and (g) any independent third-party review of technical studies submitted by the
Applicant or by other parties for consideration as part of the CEQA-compliance process.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 35
As part of this work effort, no surface or subsurface investigations will be conducted, no soils or
water samples taken, no laboratory analyses performed, and no detailed architectural plans,
computer simulations, or physical or analytical models prepared for the proposed project.
Unless tasked and adequately budgeted to complete an independent third-party review, the
Consultant makes no representation concerning the quality and accuracy of any work products
provided to us by the Department or by the Applicant for incorporation into the project’s CEQA
documentation. Should any issues arise with regards thereto, the Consultant shall not be
responsible for any inaccuracies contained therein and shall not be required to defend those
documents or to respond to any comments that may be raised with regards thereto.
This scope of service does not include the formulation or technical review of any project-specific
Best Management Practices (BMPs), urban storm water management plans (SUSMP), storm
water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), or any quantitative or qualitative assessment or
modeling of any water quality constituents.
It is assumed that a number of technical studies will be prepared by the Applicant or by others
and will be presented to the Consultant following review and acceptance by the Department. Each
of those technical studies is assumed to include a description of the environmental and regulatory
setting, identify the thresholds of significance criteria used to assess the significance of the
project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative effects under CEQA, describe relevant construction,
operational, and cumulative impacts, state whether each identified impact is deemed to be
“significant” based on identifiable CEQA threshold criteria, list any reasonable and appropriate
mitigation measures and/or conditions of project approval proposed to address or minimize
potential project-related environmental effects, and conclude whether each post-mitigated effect
is “significant” based pm that CEQA criteria. All text shall be provided in both printed (unbound,
single-sided, hard-copy) and electronic (Word and pdf) formats and all accompanying graphics
shall be provided to the Consultant as pdf or jpg files.
The information, analyses, and preliminary findings presented by the Consultant will be based on
available studies and other data readily available to the Consultant and, excerpt where otherwise
noted, will neither involve the independent generation of new technical data nor the performance
of technical analyses not readily accessible from available published reports.
As required under CEQA, the project’s environmental documentation must reflect the independent
judgment of the Lead Agency. As such, in fulfillment of the Lead Agency’s CEQA obligations, the
City must allocate sufficient personnel and other resources to adequately and timely review all
administrative draft documents provided by the Consultant, including, as appropriate, review by
the City Attorney. The City’s review and acceptance is required in order to ensure that those
documents and the statements presented therein are, in fact, the Lead Agency’s documents and
adequately and accurately reflect the level of analysis deemed appropriate by and the positions
and preliminary conclusions of the Department with regards to each of the issues examined
therein. The Department’s acceptance and dissemination of those documents shall serve to
demonstrate the Lead Agency’s acceptance and adequacy of each associated work product.
The terms “Consultant,” as those terms are used herein, is intended to be inclusive of all
employees, independent contractors, subcontractors, and other parties (independent of their
affiliation) operating under the Consultant’s supervision. The Consultant is neither a legal firm nor
are its representatives licensed attorneys. Any statements presented by the Consultant should
not be construed as a legally-based interpretation of existing local, State, and/or federal statutes
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 36
and regulations. With regards to CEQA compliance, the Lead Agency is encouraged to actively
involve the City Attorney and the Applicant is encouraged to seek early and effective involvement
by reputable independent legal counsel.
Environmental Impact Sciences (Consultant) is a full-service planning and environmental
consulting firm with extensive experience in preparing and processing planning, environmental,
and other entitlement documents for public and private-sector projects located throughout the
southern California area. Recent projects have including the preparation of environmental-
compliance documents for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects; transit-oriented
development (TOD); regional commercial centers; manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution
facilities; park and recreational facilities; governmental and institutional facilities; historic
preservation projects; energy generation and transmission facilities; water and wastewater
systems; street and infrastructure improvement projects.
Environmental compliance activities are conducted in compliance with applicable provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal and State
Clean Water Acts; and Federal and State Endangered Species Acts and include:(1) CEQA/NEPA
documentation; (2) focused technical studies; (3) mitigation reporting and monitoring programs;
(4) permitting; (5) regulatory compliance; and (6) third-party technical reviews.
State and federal regulatory requirements have become increasingly more detailed and individual
projects are subject to a greater level of scrutiny. The general public and special interest groups
are more sophisticated relative to project challenges and each project must be conducted in a
fashion that best represents and protects our client’s immediate and long-term interests and which
ensures reasonable defense against possible litigation and other challenges.
Consulting services and client representations are conducted using a “hands-on” approach
involving the direct management and supervision of all work assignments by the firm’s Principal.
While seeking economies relative to the use of support staff and subcontractors, this oversight
produces the highest professional standards in the industry and results in the production of high-
quality reports, publications, and other compliance documents. In that fashion, our planning and
environmental documents exhibit a consistently high quality and success rate.
The Consultant provides each project with the personal attention that our clients deserve and with
the senior-level management required to ensure the greatest level of client support. Based on
each project’s permitting needs, the Consultant can promptly augments its project team with
specifically selected professionals possessing the technical experience, expertise, and acumen
required to solve the problems impeding the attainment of our clients’ goals and objectives.
For our private-sector clients, the goal of any planning and environmental process is not document
preparation but project approval, including expedited entitlements and lower front-end costs. By
formulating innovative and cost-effective solutions, EIS works closely with our clients to best meet
their development and financial needs. The Consultant strives to be a valued member of each
project team by bringing tangible cost-benefits to each project. The Consultant’s goal is to
minimize front-end investment and back-end costs to ensure the profitability of our client’s
development projects.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 37
The Consultant recognizes that it is our objective to:
Add value to our clients’ endeavors, reduce entitlement costs, and improve profitability;
Develop cost-effective and implementable solutions to potential project impediments;
Deliver work products on-time and within budgetary parameters;
Pursue expedited processing options;
Seek early buy-ins from regulators;
Reduce mitigation costs through reasonable and feasible measures;
Promote project-related benefits; and
Avoid duplication and pursue entitlement efficiencies wherever possible.
With regards to public-sector clients, EIS’ goal is to fully support and assist governmental efforts
to advance land-use and sustainable objectives and other public policies, including environmental
protection and enhancement. In addition to timely performance, it is the Consultant’s objective to:
Serve as a valued extension of government agency staff;
Minimize public and private costs associated with entitlement efforts;
Reduce of eliminate project-related environmental effects to maximize community
benefit;
Protect, defend, and support the credibility of agency commissions, councils, and staffs;
Faithfully address voiced community concerns;
Facilitate informed decisionmaking; and
At all times, maintain high ethical and professional standards.
The often competing goals of the public and private sectors may at times be at odds. The
Consultant has a proven record in reconciling those divergent goals, promoting economic
development, and demonstrating the shared goal of protecting the environmen. The Consultant
provides a diverse client-base with a wide variety of professional and technical services, including
the preparation of planning-related and environmental compliance documents, technical studies
addressing a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines, and securing local, State, and
federal entitlements.
Some of the consulting services EIS offers are listed below:
Planning and Permitting
o Land-use studies
◊ Land-use analysis for a 160-acre downtown core area, providing program-level
entitlements for 800 new dwelling units and 490,000 square feet of retail and
office-related use (Town Center Specific Plan, Covina)
◊ Hazards assessment for a housing shelter located in close proximity to existing
above-ground petroleum storage tanks (Mercy House, Ontario)
◊ Opportunities/constraints analysis (Riverside County)
o Specific plan preparation
◊ Specific plan for a 988-acre, 1,020-unit mixed-use project, including three Pete
Dye-designed golf courses (Country Club of the Desert, La Quinta)
◊ Specific plan for a 30-acre mixed-use project including over 200 units and
150,000 square feet of commercial use (Site D Specific Plan, Diamond Bar)
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 38
o Other Planning-Related Activities
◊ Photometric lighting studies conducted for the purpose of establishing outdoor
lighting standards and quantifying light trespass for public park projects and
recreational facilities (La Habra and Glendale)
◊ Public transit ridership and assessment of travel patterns in multi-modal transit
facilities (Thousand Oaks)
Environmental Compliance
o Lytle Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Rialto)
o Lytle Creek North Master Plan (San Bernardino County)
o Willow Heights/Site D Specific Plan (Diamond Bar)
o South Pointe West Specific Plan (Diamond Bar)
o Park Place/Tick Canyon (Los Angeles County)
o Town Center Specific Plan (Covina)
o Walnut Hills Master Plan (Walnut)
Technical Studies
o Acoustical analysis
◊ Big-box retail centers (Huntington Beach and La Quinta)
◊ Solid waste transfer stations (Azusa and Diamond Bar)
◊ Water/sewer system improvements (Riverside County)
◊ Sewer treatment plants (Riverside County)
◊ Parks and other public facilities (Glendale)
◊ School expansion projects (Los Angeles)
o Air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change
◊ Freeway improvement projects and public ROW encroachment permits (Caltrans)
◊ Regional shopping centers (San Bernardino County)
◊ Big-box retail (Huntington Beach and La Quinta)
◊ Industrial and warehousing projects (Irwindale)
◊ Federally-assisted housing (Compton and Ontario)
o Biological resource assessment
◊ MSHCP compliance analyses (Riverside County and Lake Elsinore)
◊ Resource assessments (Diamond Bar and Rialto)
◊ Energy generation/transmission facilities (Escondido, Riverside County, and San
Diego County)
o Cultural and historical resource assessment
◊ National Register eligibility assessments (Yorba Linda)
◊ Historic building assessments (Los Angeles County, Diamond Bar, Whittier)
◊ Park improvements projects (Glendale)
o Traffic engineering
◊ Industrial and warehouse projects (Irwindale)
◊ Residential development (Diamond Bar)
◊ Senior centers (Orange County)
◊ Transit facilities (Covina)
◊ Community facilities (Santa Ana)
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 39
o Tribal AB 52 consultation
◊ California Native American Heritage Commission
◊ Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians/Kitz Nation (Diamond Bar)
◊ Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Lake Elsinore)
◊ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Lake Elsinore)
o Visual resource analysis
◊ Residential development (Azusa, Rialto, and Walnut)
◊ School projects (Los Angeles)
◊ Recreational facilities (Glendale)
Third-Party Technical Review
o I-405 Freeway Widening Project (Seal Beach)
o General plan updates (Cypress)
o Residential development (Coachella)
o Energy transmission facilities (Jurupa Valley)
o Airport development and expansion projects (Irvine)
o Sports facilities (Diamond Bar and Walnut)
A detailed “Statement of Qualifications” (SOQ), including a broader discussion of our firm’s
experience and a more complete project listing, can be provided upon request.
Partial list of relevant CEQA-Related Projects Conducted for the City of Diamond Bar:
Brea Canyon Business Park (124-Room Hotel and 54,142 SF Mixed-Use Development)
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
Attn: Grace Lee, Senior Planner
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(909) 839-7032
Willow Heights / Site D Specific Plan (200-Multi-Family Units and Neighborhood Park)
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
Attn: Greg Gubman, Director
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7030
Diamond Crest / South Point West Specific Plan (99-Units and Neighborhood Park)
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
Attn: Nancy Fong, Planning Manager
21810 Copley Driver, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(562) 464-3380
Kaiser Diamond Bar Medical Office Building, Phase II (Medical Office Building)
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
Attn: Andrew Gonzales, Contract Planner
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7030
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 40
Brea Canyon Road Street Improvements (Washington Drive/Lycoming Street)
City of Diamond Bar - Public Works Department
Attn: Sterling Mosley, Contract Engineer
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(909) 839-7030
Pathfinder Road Extension (Categorical Exemption)
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
Attn: Greg Gubman, Director
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7030
California Bicentennial House / 22702 Timbertop Lane (Historic Resource Assessment)
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
Attn: Mayuko Nakajima, Associate Planner
2180 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7030
Third-Party CEQA Reviews (Tres Hermanos, Industry MRF; Lanterman; NFL Stadium)
City of Diamond Bar – Office of the City Manager
Attn: James DeStefano, City Manager
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(909) 839-7030
Partial listing of recent CEQA-Related Projects Conducted throughout Southern California:
East Lake Villas (336-Unit Residential Retirement Community)
City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department
Attn: Damaris Abraham, Director
130 S Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(951) 674-3124
University of the West/Biola University (Demolition/New Major Facility Construction)
Attn: Binh Tran, Architect
City of Rosemead Community Development Department
8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770
(714) 476-7778
Chabad Jewish Center of Tustin (Demolition/New Jewish Synagogue)
County of Orange | OC Public Works
Development Services/Planning
Attn: Kevin Shannon, Environmental Planner
601 North Ross Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4048
(714) 667-1632
Hidden Valley/Tapia Ranch (Bridge Construction, 405-Units, and Neighborhood Park)
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planner
Attn: Lynda Hikichi, Senior Planner
320 West Temple Street, Room 1354, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-6433
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 41
Garden Grove Hilton Hotel (124-Room Hotel)
City of Garden Grove, Community and Economic Development
Attn: Binh Tran, Architect
11222 Acacia Parkway, Garden Grove, CA 92840
(714) 476-7778
Greg Gubman, Director
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7030
Grace Lee, Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar - Community Development Department
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7030
Sean Crumby, City Engineer
City of Long Beach - Department of Public Works
333 W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 570-6383
Gus Romo, Community Development Director
City of Baldwin Park - Community Development Department
14403 E. Pacific Avenue, Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) 813-5253
David Doyle, City Manager
City of Aliso Viejo - Office of the City Manager
12 Journey, Suite 100, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
(949) 425-2500
M. Katherine Jenson, Attorney
Rutan & Tucker
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1998
(714) 641-3413
Rabbi Shuey Eliezrie
Chabad Jewish Center of Tustin
13112 Newport Avenue, Suite H, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 508-2150
The Consultant accepts all conditions listed in the RFP and the provisions of the “sample
professional services agreement.”
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 42
Those key individuals, including a brief outline of their respective qualifications, that have been
assigned to this project are identified in Attachment A (Key Assigned Personnel).
In addition, in the event that potential biological resource impacts are greater than anticipated, for
the purpose of this proposal, the Consultant has teamed with Kidd Biological, Inc. (Attachment
B) to prepare both the initial biological resource assessment and who can provide a full
complement of additional botanical and zoological studies, including focused species-specific
focused surveys.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 43
Table EIS-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“DEPARTMENT-SPECIFIED” SCOPE OF SERVICES
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Major Task 1.0: Project Description
Option 1: Net Operational Physical Change (Optional/Not Specified in RFP) - - - - -
Optional Task 0.1: Existing Operational Baseline - - - - -
Subtask 0.1.1: Draft Existing Operational Baseline - - - - -
Subtask 0.1.2: Final Existing Operational Baseline - - - - -
Optional Task 0.2: Project-Related Operational Parameters - - - - -
Subtask 0.2.1: Draft Project-Related Operational Parameters - - - - -
Subtask 0.2.2: Final Project-Related Operational Parameters - - - - -
Optional Task 0.3: Net Operational Physical Change - - - - -
Subtask 0.3.1: Draft Net Operational Physical Change - - - - -
Subtask 0.3.3: Final Net Operational Physical Change - - - - -
Optional Task 0.4: CEQA-Based Operational Project Description - - - - -
Subtask 0.4.1: Draft CEQA-Based Operational Project Description - - - - -
Subtask 0.4.2: Final CEQA-Based Operational Project Description - - - - -
Subtotal - - - -(a) -
Option 2: Demolition/Site Clearance as Integrated Project Components - - - - -
Task 1.1: Review Existing Documentation and Studies 4 / 700 4 / 600 - 1,300 -
Task 1.2: Draft Project Description 8 / 1,400 2 / 300 2 / 250 1,950 -
Task 1.3: Final Project Description 4 / 700 - - 700 -
Subtotal 16 / 2,800 6 / 900 2 / 250 3,950 -
Option 3: Net Physical Change Hybrid (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Major Task 2.0: CEQA Scoping Activities
Task 2.1: Informal Consultation (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Task 2.2: Tribal Consultation - - - - -
Subtask 2.2.1: Tribal Consultation (AB 52 Compliance) 4 / 700 - 6 / 750 1,450 - Subtask 2.2.2: Tribal Consultation (AB 130/SB 131 Compliance)
Task 2.3: State Clearinghouse Noticing/Coordination 4 / 700 - - 700 -
Subtotal 8 / 1,400 - 6 / 750 2,150 -
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 44
Table EIS-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“DEPARTMENT-SPECIFIED” SCOPE OF SERVICES
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Major Task 3.0: Expanded Initial Study
Task 3.1: Expanded Initial Study - - - - -
Subtask 3.1.1: Draft Expanded Initial Study 40 / 7,000 20 / 3,000 8 / 1,000 11,000 -
Subtask 3.1.2: Revised Draft Expanded Initial Study
(Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtask 3.1.3: Final Expanded Initial Study 16 / 2,800 8 / 1,200 4 / 500 4,500 -
Task 3.2: Screening Level Analysis (Decision Point) 2 / 350 - - 350 -
Subtotal 58 /10,150 28 / 4,200 12 / 1,500 15,850 -
Major Task 4.0: Technical Studies
Task 4.1: Consultant-Managed Technical Analyses (CMTA) - - - - -
Subtask 4.1.1: Land Use and Planning (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtask 4.1.2: Air Quality (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtask 4.1.3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a)
Subtask 4.1.4: Noise and Vibration (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtask 4.1.5: Biological Resource Assessment 4 / 700 - 30 / 3,750 4,450 -
Task 4.2: Applicant-Managed Technical Analysis (AMTA)(c) - - - - -
Subtask 4.2.1: Traffic Study / Vehicle Miles Traveled / Internal Circulation 8 / 1,400 4 / 600 - 2,000 -
Subtask 4.2.2: Sewer Area Study 6 / 1,050 - - 1,050 -
Subtask 4.2.3: Geotechnical / Seismic / Soils Report 6 / 1,050 - - 1,050 -
Subtask 4.2.4: Low Impact Development Report 6 / 1,050 - - 1,050 -
Subtask 4.2.5: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Report 6 / 1,050 - - 1,050 -
Subtask 4.2.6: Hydrology / Hydraulic Report 6 / 1,050 - - 1,050 -
Subtask 4.2.7: Water Supply Assessment (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtask 4.2.8: Hazardous Materials (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtask 4.2.9: Arborist Report (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Task 4.3: Third-Party Review (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Subtotal 42 / 7,350 4 / 600 30 / 3,750 11,700 -
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 45
Table EIS-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“DEPARTMENT-SPECIFIED” SCOPE OF SERVICES
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Major Task 5.0: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Task 5.1: Environmental Notices - - - - -
Subtask 5.1.1: Notice of Intent 4 / 700 - - 700 -
Subtask 5.1.2: Notice of Completion 4 / 700 - - 700 -
Subtask 5.1.3: Notice of Determination 4 / 700 - - 700 -
Subtask 5.1.4: No Effect Determination 4 / 700 - - 700 -
Subtotal 16 / 2,800 - - 2,800 -
Major Task 5.0: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Task 5.2: Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program 2 / 350 4 / 600 950 -
Task 5.3: Response to Comments (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a)(b) -
Subtotal 2 / 350 4 / 600 950 -
Major Task 6.0 Departmental and Public Meetings
Task 6.1: Departmental Meetings 24 / 4,200 - - 4,200 -
Task 6.2: Public Meetings 16 / 2,800 - - 2,800 -
Subtotal 40 / 7,000 - - 7,000 -
Major Task 7.0: CEQA Support Services
Task 7.1: Preliminary Mailing List (Optional/Not Specified in the RFP) - - - -(a) -
Task 7.2: Reprographic Support Services 2/ 350 12 / 1,800 2,150 -
Task 7.3: Other Direct Costs - - - 2,750 -
Subtotal 2/ 350 12 / 1,800 - 4,900 -
Total Line-Item Budget per the Department RFP(d) 184 / 32,200 54 / 8,100 50 / 6,500 $ 49,300 -
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 46
Table EIS-2 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“DEPARTMENT-SPECIFIED” SCOPE OF SERVICES
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Notes:
(a) The estimated labor hours and projected budgeted line-item costs associated with those major tasks, tasks, and/or subtasks identified herein as
“optional/not specified in the RFP” are included under the heading “Optional Line-Item Budget” and not under the “Total Line-Item Budget per the RFP.” At
the Department’s sole discretion, one or more of these “optional” endeavors may be subsequently added to the Consultant’s contracted scope of services.
Conversely, at the Department’s sole discretion, one of more of the “budgeted” major tasks, tasks, and/or subtasks may be deemed by the Department to
not warrant inclusion as part of this project assignment and any labor hours and attendant costs associated therewith removed from the Consultant’s
contracted scope of services.
(b) The budget assigned hereto is limited to a review of any comments received by the Department following the dissemination of the “Notice of Intent to Adopt
a Mitigated Negative Declaration” and, following that review, the preparation of recommendations concerning a reasonable course of action in response
thereto. Any additional expenditure beyond the labor hours so specified would constitute “out-of-scope” work and be billed in accordance with the rates and
terms specified in the Consultant’s “Standard Rate Schedule.”
(c) The estimated labor hours and attendant costs are solely for the incorporation of the information, analysis, graphics, and technical appendices (presented in
the those AMTAs provided to the Consultant by the Department) into the “Expanded Initial Study” and neither assumes any peer review or independent
verification thereof nor any separate and independent technical analysis or augmentation by the Consultant relating to the specific topical issue, the
potential environmental impacts associated therewith, and the need for or efficacy of any mitigation measures or other minimization efforts depicted therein.
(d) Assuming that the RFP constitutes the full scope of consulting services solicited by the Department, the “optional” major tasks, tasks, and subtasks depicted
in both Table EIS-3 (“Optional” Supplemental Services [“Net Operational Physical Change]) and in Table EIS-4 (Other “Optional” Supplemental Services)
herein should be viewed as being separate and distinct from the Consultant’s response to those services specified in and reasonably inferred from the RFP.
Bidder: Environmental Impact Sciences
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 47
Table EIS-3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“OPTIONAL” SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
“NET OPERATONAL PHYSICAL CHANGE”
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Optional Line-Item Budget
Major Task 1.0: Project Description - - - - -
Option 1: Net Operational Physical Change - - - - -
Task 0.1: Existing Operational Baseline - - - - -
Subtask 0.1.1: Draft Existing Operational Baseline 4 / 700 8 / 1,200 - - 1,900
Subtask 0.1.2: Final Existing Operational Baseline 2 / 350 2 / 300 - - 650
Task 0.2: Project-Related Operational Parameters - - - - -
Subtask 0.2.1: Draft Project-Related Operational Parameters 4 / 700 8 / 1,200 - - 1,900
Subtask 0.2.2: Final Project-Related Operational Parameters 2 / 350 2 / 300 - - 650
Task 0.3: Net Operational Physical Change - - - - -
Subtask 0.3.1: Draft Net Operational Physical Change 4 / 700 4 / 600 - - 1,300
Subtask 0.3.2: Final Net Operational Physical Change 2 / 350 - - - 350
Task 0.4: CEQA-Based Operational Project Description - - - - -
Subtask 0.4.1: Draft CEQA-Based Operational Project Description 2 / 350 4 / 600 3 / 250 - 1,200
Subtask 0.4.2: Final CEQA-Based Operational Project Description 2 / 350 - - - 350
Subtotal “Net Operational Physical Change”(a) 22 / 3,850 28 / 4,200 8,300
Subtract Tasks 1.1 thru 1.3 16 / 2,800 6 / 900 2 / 250 3,950 (3,950)
Total “Net Operational Physical Change” 7 / 2,050 22 / 3,300 - $ 4,350
Notes:
(a) In an effort to reduce the Applicant’s front-end costs, absent express direction in the RFP, although potentially representing the most defensible CEQA-
compliance strategy, a “net physical operational change” analysis has not been included in the Consultant’s initially proposed work plan. This “optional”
analysis is, however, recommended by the Consultant and, if incorporated as part of the Consultant’s scope of services, would substitute for and replace
“Option 2: Demolition/Site Clearance as Integrated Project Components” (Task 1.1 through Task 1.3). If so incorporated, subject to budget augmentation,
these tasks and subtasks could be effectively integrated into the proposed project’s analytical pre-release efforts.
Bidder: Environmental Impact Sciences
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 48
Table EIS-4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“OPTIONAL” SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
OTHER “OPTIONAL” SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Optional Line-Item Budget
Major Task 2.0: CEQA Scoping Activities - - - - -
Task 2.1: Informal Consultation 4 / 700 - - - 700
Subtotal 4 / 700 - - - 700
Major Task 3.0: Expanded Initial Study - - - - -
Task 3.1: Expanded Initial Study - - - - -
Subtask 3.1.1: Administrative Draft Expanded Initial Study - - - - -
Subtask 3.1.2: Revised Administrative Draft Expanded Initial Study 16 / 2,800 4 / 600 4 / 500 - 3,900
Subtotal 16 / 2,800 4 / 600 4 / 500 - 3,900
Major Task 4.0: Technical Studies - - - - -
Task 4.1: Consultant-Managed Technical Analyses (CMTAs) - - - - -
Subtask 4.1.1: Land Use and Planning 24 / 4,200 = - - 4,200
Subtask 4.1.2: Air Quality 4 / 700 40 / 6,000 - - 6.700
Subtask 4.1.3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4 / 700 16 / 2,400 - - 3,100
Subtask 4.1.4: Noise and Vibration 4 / 700 40 / 6,000 - - 6,700
Subtotal 36 / 6,300 96 /14,400 - - 20,700
Task 4.2: Applicant-Managed Technical Analysis (AMTAs)(b) - - - - -
Subtask 4.2.7: Water Supply Assessment 4 / 700 - - - 700
Subtask 4.2.8: Hazardous Materials 4 / 700 - - - 700
Subtask 4.2.9: Arborist Report 4 / 700 - 4 / 500 - 1,200
Task 4.3: Third-Party Review - - - - Not Bid
Subtotal 12 / 2,100 - 4 / 500 - 2,600
Major Task 5.0: Mitigated Negative Declaration - - - - -
Task 5.3: Response to Comments 8 / 1,400 - - - 1,400
Subtotal 8 / 1,400 - - - 1,400
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences July 31, 2025
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page 49
Table EIS-4 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
“OPTIONAL” SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
OTHER “OPTIONAL” SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Major Task/Task/Subtask
Budgeted Hours / Labor Costs ($) Line-Item Budget ($)
Director
($175/hour)
Planner
($150/hour)
Scientist
($125/hour)
Per RFP
Scope
Optional
Scope
Optional Line-Item Budget
Major Task 7.0: CEQA Support Services - - - - -
Task 7.1: Preliminary Mailing List 2 / 350 4 / 600 - - 950
Subtotal 2 / 350 4 / 600 - - 950
Total Other “Optional” Supplemental Services(a) 78/13,650 104 /15,600 8 / 1,000 - $ 30,250
Notes:
(a) The Consultant has endeavored to be responsive to the Department’s RFP and, as depicted in Table EIS-2 (“Department-Specified” Scope of Services)
included those activities expressly noted therein or reasonably inferred therefrom. The Consultant, however, believes that the Department RFP may have
unintentionally overlooked other relevant environmental analyses and prior Departmental involvement on similar CEQA projects. Based on available
information and prior experience, one or more of the additional services that the Consultant presently deems germane to this project are presented herein
and, subject to budget augmentation, could be effectively integrated into the proposed project’s CEQA analysis.
(b) The estimated labor hours and attendant costs are solely for the incorporation of the information, analysis, graphics, and technical appendices (presented in
the those AMTAs provided to the Consultant by the Department) into the “Expanded Initial Study” and neither assumes any peer review or independent
verification thereof nor any separate and independent technical analysis or augmentation by the Consultant relating to the specific topical issue, the
potential environmental impacts associated therewith, and the need for or efficacy of any mitigation measures or other minimization efforts depicted therein.
Bidder: Environmental Impact Sciences
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar
Attachment A
Key Assigned Personnel
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences Attachment A: Key Assigned Personnel
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page A-1
Award-winning professional with more than 30 years of experience in the fields of planning, entitlement,
and environmental impact analysis with a proven track record in successfully processing large-scale
residential, non-residential, and mixed-use development projects. Possesses extensive experience in
preparing environmental and planning-related documents for public and private-sector projects, including
major planning studies (general and specific plans), development activities, hotel and resort projects,
commercial and industrial centers, energy generation and transmission facilities, water, sewer, and solid
waste facilities, and other capital improvement programs. Work assignments are performed in strict
compliance with and adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Federal/State Endangered Species Acts and include:
CEQA/NEPA documentation; focused technical studies; specific plan preparation; mitigation reporting and
monitoring plan preparation and compliance; environmental opportunities and constraints analysis; permit
processing and regulatory compliance; third-party peer reviews; and management of diverse team of
planners, scientists and engineers.
o Environmental Impact Sciences (2002 – Present): Founder / Principal
Responsible for all CEQA/NEPA and planning activities, management of diverse project teams,
presentations before boards, commissions, and councils.
o L.D. King, Engineers, Inc. (2000 – 2002) – Director of Planning and Environmental Services
Established and grew the company’s environmental compliance division, including document
preparation, entitlement services, and public presentations.
o Ultrasystems Environmental, Inc. (1998 - 2000): Founder / Principal / Chairman of the Board
Established and managed an environmental consulting firm, including document preparation, public
presentations, and QA/QC.
o LG&E Power Systems, Inc. (Fortune 500) (1996 - 1998): Director or Environmental Services
Managed the corporation’s environmental division. Prepared and managed the preparation of
environmental and entitlement documents for the company’s energy-related projects and contracted
environmental-compliance services in furtherance of both public and private development.
o Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc. (1988 - 1996): Director or Environmental Services
Managed the corporation’s environmental division. Prepared and managed the preparation of
environmental and entitlement documents for the company’s energy-related projects and contracted
environmental-compliance services in furtherance of both public and private development.
o Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (1984 -1988): Program Manager
Management of a revolving housing fund (“Rehabilitation and Marketing Program”), including the
purchase of improved/unimproved land, new construction/rehabilitation, recordation of deed
restrictions, and the conditioned sale of multi-family projects.
o City of Avalon (1982-1984) – Planning Director
Managed planning activities, coordinated Island-wide planning activities with Los Angeles County,
processed major development project (Hamilton Cove), and prepared the City’s Housing Element.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences Attachment A: Key Assigned Personnel
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page A-2
o California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Master’s Degree, Urban & Regional Planning / Master’s Degree, Architecture (IP)
o University of California, Irvine
Bachelor’s of Arts (BA), Social Ecology / Construction Management Certificate
Specific/Master Plans
o Downtown Covina Specific Plan, City of Covina
o Alberhill, Ramsgate, and Tuscany Hills Specific Plans, County of Riverside County
o Park Place and Lytle Creek North Master Plans, County of San Bernardino
o South Pointe Master Plan, City of Diamond Bar
o Walnut Hills Master Plan, City of Walnut
o Highway 111 Specific Plan, City of Indian Wells
o Stevenson Ranch Master Plan, County of Los Angeles
Residential Development / Mixed-Use Projects
o Willow Heights, City of Diamond Bar
o Mountain Cove, City of Azusa
o Greystone Homes, City of Compton
o East Lake Villa Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, City of Lake Elsinore
o Mercy House Homeless Shelter / Continuum of Care Program, City of Ontario
Big-Box Retail
o Lowes, City of Huntington Beach
o Costco, City of Lomita
o IKEA, City of Covina
o Citrus Plaza, City of Redlands and County of San Bernardino
Park / Recreation Projects
o Carr Park and Deukmegian Wilderness Park, City of Glendale
o Montrose Park Skateboard Park, Verdugo Skate Park, and Verdugo Adobe City of Glendale
Water/Wastewater
o El Toro Reservoir, El Toro Water District
o Lytle Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, San Bernardino County
o Abalone Cove Combination Sewer System, Rancho Palos Verdes
o Alberhill Wastewater Treatment Plant, Meadowbook Reservoir, Lee Lake and Horsethief Canyon
Booster Stations, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
o Railroad Canyon Dam Improvement Project, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Federally Funded / Permitted Projects
o Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
o Covina Transit Plaza, City of Covina
o Ramona Avenue Grade Crossing, City of Montclair
o Hobsonway Beautification Project, City of Blythe
o Atwood Avenue Street Improvement Project, City of Moreno Valley
o Congressional Award of Professional Recognition (United States Congress, Washington DC)
o Diamond Bar Commemorative Tile (Outstanding Public Service Award) (City of Diamond Bar)
o Professional Proclamation (El Toro Reuse Planning Authority)
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences Attachment A: Key Assigned Personnel
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page A-3
Extensive experience with assisting developers cost effectively navigate CEQA/NEPA requirements. Over
30 years of experience in the air quality and noise practice. Performed air quality and noise analyses on a
broad array of projects including infrastructure, educational, residential, entertainment facilities, airport
development, general plans, and other planning efforts. Conducted air quality and noise analyses on
numerous high profile and contentious projects. Provided expert testimony relative to air quality and
greenhouse gas (GHG emissions analysis, climate change, and noise impacts. Contracted by law firms,
school districts, and municipalities to provide third-party reviews of technical analyses conducted by other
companies. Strong work ethic and personal commitment to sustained excellence in the air quality, noise,
and climate change profession and due diligence for public and private-sector clients.
o Technical Skills. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise and Vibration Proficiency. Services provided
include conducting air quality emissions inventories, dispersion modeling, health risk assessments,
consistency/conformity evaluations, climate change evaluations, vibration analysis, and environmental
noise monitoring. Called upon to conduct third-party reviews and critique outside technical studies for
consistency with accepted assessment protocols.
• Proficiency in air quality models and calculations which include CalEEMod, Urbemis, AERMOD,
ISC, EMFAC, Roadway Construction Emissions Model, USEPA AP42, and Offroad.
• Proficiency in noise and vibration models and calculations which include the FHWA Traffic Noise
Model, Noise Screening Tool, FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Model, Roadway
Construction Noise Model, SoundPlan, and FHWA vibration assessment methods. Proficient in
conducting noise measurement programs using environmental noise dosimeters.
o Management Skills. Responsible for development and management of the air quality and noise teams.
Train team members in the latest computer modeling techniques and methodology related to CEQA/
NEPA analyses. Conducted weekly workload assessments and maintain the quality assurance/control
process.
o Environmental Impact Sciences (2023-2025): Principal Scientist
Responsible for the preparation of air quality, GHG, climate change, and noise/vibration studies.
o TCA Environmental (2015-2025): Principal Scientist
Assist clients navigate the CEQA\NEPA process for air quality and noise/vibration studies.
o Yorke Engineering (2024-2025): Principal Scientist
Involved in preparation of CEQA documents including technical studies, Class 32 exemptions, indirect
source reviews, health risk assessments, EIRs and MNDs.
o Psomas (2016 – 2024): Director of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Services
Responsibilities included business development, development of technical capabilities for the air quality
and noise teams, conducting technical studies, QA\QC, and attendance at public hearings.
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences Attachment A: Key Assigned Personnel
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page A-4
o LSA Associates Incorporated (2015 – 2016): Senior Air Quality Scientist
Conducted air quality and GHG for land-use development projects.
o URS Corporation (2011 – 2015): Senior Air Quality Scientist
CEQA/NEPA Air Quality Team Leader for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties. Primary responsibilities included technical studies and QA\QC.
o The Planning Center (2004 - 2011): Senior Environmental Scientist
Responsible for developing and growing the firm’s air quality, noise, and climate change practice.
o P&D Environmental\AECOM (1999 - 2004): Senior Environmental Scientist
Responsible for conducting air quality and noise/vibration studies for CEQA/NEPA documents.
o PCR Services Corporation (1994-1999): Environmental Scientist
Conducted air quality and noise/vibration studies relative to CEQA. Responsible for providing training
relative to air quality and the compilation of emissions inventories.
o University of California, Santa Barbara
Bachelor of Arts (BA), Environmental Studies and Geography
o Centennial Tejon Ranch, Los Angeles County
o BNSF Tehachapi Rail Corridor EIR, California Department of Transportation
o Bay Delta Conservation Plan, California Department of Water Resources
o NFL Stadium Master Plan EIR, City of Industry
o Los Angeles Arena (Staples Center), City of Los Angeles
o Universal City (Universal Studios) Specific Plan EIR, Universal City
o Ontario General Plan Update EIR, City of Ontario o Los Angeles International Airport Master Plan EIS/EIR, Los Angeles County
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences Attachment A: Key Assigned Personnel
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page A-5
Mrs. Kidd has 20 years’ experience in conducting herpetological, entomological, avian and botanical
surveys. Her experience includes inventorying both plants and wildlife in the western U.S. She has
experience in raptor trapping, handling, survey techniques, and nest monitoring, as well as some
experience with mammal trapping. Mrs. Jimerson-Kidd has conducted numerous focused surveys or habitat
assessments for California gnatcatcher, desert tortoise, least bell’s vireo, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing
owls, western spadefoot toad, Delhi-sands flower-loving fly, Arroyo toad, and Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Additionally, her experience includes habitat assessments and focused for sensitive plants species,
particularly desert species.
o Focused Surveys for Endangered Species. Conducted presence/absence surveys as well as pit-
fall trapping for California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, arroyo toad, Quino-checkerspot butterfly,
desert tortoise, burrowing owl, nesting birds, flat-tailed horned lizard, and other rare plants and
general wildlife throughout the western United States.
o General Biological Analyses. Over 2,500 cellular communication sites have been assessed for
potential impacts to biological resources. Sites have included all of California, Oregon, Washington,
Arizona, and Nevada. Consulted with the USFWS as a representative of the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) on several projects located in “critical habitat” areas.
o Burrowing Owl Relocation. Coordinated with CDFW and USFWS to actively translocate one pair of
burrowing owls from a project site in the City of Fontana to a conservation site on the United States
Naval Station, Seal Beach. Assisted in the trapping and release efforts and monitoring.
o Sensitive Plant Surveys. Conducted sensitive plant surveys in both desert and coastal regions of
California. Presently participating in the Washington Native Plant Society’s Rare Plant Monitoring
Program to search for and document historically reported occurrences of rare plants.
o Construction monitoring. Monitored construction activity on numerous projects including
communication towers, military training facilities, road maintenance, linear utility lines, park trails,
large housing developments, and restoration activities. Species monitored has included arroyo toad,
least bell’s vireo, California gnatcatcher, burrowing owls, and desert tortoise.
o Humboldt State University
Bachelor’s of Science (BS), Natural Resources Planning & interpretation/ Ecology
o Desert Tortoise Council Workshop 2001
o Tortoise Egg Handling and Burrow Construction, 2001
o Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Workshop, 2001
o Bats of the Southwestern Desert, 2002
o Burrowing Owl Symposium, 2003
o California Tiger Salamander Workshop, 2013
o Rapid Assessment/Releve and California Manual of Vegetation, CNPS Training Workshop 2015
o Rare Plant Survey Methods, University of Washington, 2018
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences Attachment A: Key Assigned Personnel
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar Page A-6
o Federal Bird Marking Sub-Permit: 22951-C
o Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard handling MOU (BLM)
o Scientific Collection Permit: 801128-03
o Federal 10A(1)a permit #036550-5: California Gnatcatcher and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Previously Published:
o Kidd, J.W., P.H. Bloom, C.W. Barrows, C.T. Collins. 2007. “Status of Burrowing Owls in Southwestern
California.” Bird Populations Monograph No.1 2007 by the Institute for Bird Populations and Albion
Environmental, Inc. Pages 76-89.
o Bloom, P.H., M.D. McCrary, J.M. Scott, J.M. Papp, K.J. Sernka, S.E. Thomas, J.W. Kidd, E.H.
Henckel, J.H. Henckel, and M.J. Gibson. 2015. “Northward Summer Migration of Red-tailed Hawks
Fledged From Southern Latitudes.” Journal of Raptor Research 49(1):1-17
o Bloom, P.H., J.W. Kidd, S.E. Thomas, T. Hipkiss, B. Hornfeldt, M.J. Kuehn. 2015. “Trapping Success
Using Carrion With Bow Nets to Capture Adult Golden Eagles In Sweden.” Journal of Raptor
Research 49(1):92-97.
o Bloom, P.H., W.C. Clark, J.W. Kidd. 2007. Raptor Research and Management Techniques, Chapter
12: “Capture Techniques”. Edited by David M. Bird and Keith L. Bildstein. Hancock House Publishers.
Pages 193-219.
o Bloom, P.H., J. Michael. Scott, Joseph M. Papp, Scott E. Thomas, and Jeff W. Kidd. “Vagrant
Western Red-Shouldered Hawks: Origins, Natal Dispersal Patterns, and Survival.” The Condor
113(1): 538-546.
Presently In Preparation:
o Kidd, J.W., J.P. Smith, W. P. Prestera, G. Rhozon. Winter and Summer Ranges and Spring and Fall
Migration of Rough-Legged Hawks wintering in California and Nevada.”
o Bloom, P.H., C.T. Collins, S. Langdon, J.W. Kidd, S. E. Thomas. “Dispersal of Barn Owls (Tyto alba)
in Southwestern California.”
o Bloom, P.H., J. M. Scott, J.W. Kidd, S.E. Thomas, J.M. Papp. “Natal Dispersal of Red-Tailed Hawks
from Southwestern California.”
49-Unit Residential Condominium Project
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical and Cost Proposal
Environmental Impact Sciences
1400 Montefino Avenue, Diamond Bar
Attachment B
Kidd Biological, Inc.
Statement of Qualifications
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
23049 Ave de la Carlota, Suite 600-66
Laguna Hills, CA 98221
(949)636-7769
www.KIDDBIOINC.COM
1
Table of Contents Statement of Experience ........................................................................................................................ 2
Statement of Similar Work................................................................................................................. 3
Other Notable Projects ........................................................................................................................ 4
Areas of Expertise ................................................................................................................................. 6
Nesting Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Rare Plants ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Focused Habitat Assessments/Due Diligence ......................................................................................................... 6
Report Writing .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Compliance Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Least Bell’s Vireo, ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ................................................................................................................................ 7
Coastal California Gnatcatcher .................................................................................................................................... 8
Arroyo Toad ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Birds of Prey....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Burrowing Owl .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Quino Checkerpot Butterfly ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Other Sensitive Species .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Permitting/Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................................ 9
Qualifications of Key Personnel ..................................................................................................... 11
Key Personnel ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Statement of Experience
Thank you for the opportunity to assist with on-call biological services. Starting in 1997 with
independent Biological Consulting and subsequently incorporating in 2010 to Kidd Biological, Inc.
(KBI) (C Corporation). Our biologists each bring over 10 years of experience as researchers, sole-
proprietors and/or employees of medium to large consulting firms. Each supports federal and
state permits that authorize take of a variety of species, including but not limited to, sensitive
plants, butterflies, herpetofauna, small mammals, and birds including eagles.
We have conducted surveys for sensitive species throughout the state as well as in Arizona,
Nevada, Washington and other areas of the world but our primary area of service is southwestern
California. Our familiarity with the resources in the region, our ability to streamline work with
biologists experienced with multiple species, and low overhead, allows us to keep our rates lower
than industry standard. As president of KBI, I have a dedication to providing exceptional
standards and choosing projects which align with my company’s principles.
Kidd Biological, Inc. is a California Certified Small business (#1136780) and is recognized by the
National Association of Professional Women and we are certified as a Woman Owned Business
by the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council (WBENC #2005122627). We are certified
by the Supplier Clearing House (CPUC) as a Women Business Enterprise (#13010093).
Again, thank you for this opportunity. If you have any questions or concerns with our
qualifications, please do not hesitate to contact me so that we may discuss these matters.
Sincerely,
Nina Jimerson-Kidd
President, Wildlife Biologist
3
Statement of Similar Work
Kidd Biological, Inc. has provided services to many various types of clients including private and
public such as municipalities and military, forest service and California state parks. Below is a list
of similar conservancies we have provided services for:
Basewide Utility Infrastructure Improvement Projects- Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton (2010-2016) as well as other projects for DOD.
In the last 13 years we have conducted focused surveys and compliance monitoring for several
projects on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and other military installations in California and
Nevada on numerous long-term projects involving several agencies and various construction
companies. These projects are linear in nature and include new and/or upgraded water or sewer
lines, power lines, communications lines, water and sewage treatment plants, and housing and
military facilities. Resources being monitored include California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo,
willow flycatcher, arroyo toad, pacific pocket mice, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, fairy shrimp, vernal
pools, waters of the U.S. and sensitive plants. We provide environmental training to all primary
contractors prior to construction and assist with consultations between the contractors, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the representatives from the Navy and Marine Base. Monthly progress
reports and final project reports are submitted. Most of these projects are permitted under a
Biological Opinion (BO). Our team ensures the contractors remain in compliance with the
minimization and mitigation efforts required in the BO to prevent any delays in the project.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
For the past 15 years Kidd Biological has prepared approximately 2,000 NEPA-level biological
resource assessment reports throughout California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada and
Arizona. In addition to reporting, additional services have included focused surveys for
endangered species, nesting bird surveys, compliance monitoring and habitat restoration.
Several of these projects have required consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Species addressed include California gnatcatcher,
endangered plants, California tiger salamander, red-legged frog, and desert tortoise.
SCE On-call Services
We have provided SCE and their prime contractors with on-call services since 2001 for MBTA
surveys, emergency raptor pick-ups or assistance with nesting birds, burrowing owl relocations,
preconstruction surveys and monitoring on substations, access roads and pole
placement/repairs. Recently we have prepared pre-construction biological assessments for
projects within the San Bernardino National Forest, private lands and BIA, BLM and DOD lands.
Analysis and surveys have been conducted for various sensitive species on these projects
including sensitive plants such as Santa Ana Woolly Star and slender-horned spineflower; San
4
Bernardino kangaroo rat, California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, sensitive riparian bird species
and Delhi sands flower-loving fly. Projects have ranged throughout San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties as well as into Arizona and as far west as San Onofre Nuclear Generation plant
decommissioning in Oceanside. Size of projects are as small as single pole replacements to as
large as the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project (RTRP) in the Santa Ana River near Chino.
Other Notable Projects
County of San Bernardino. Resource Management Plan (RMP)
The RMP was prepared for 13,000 acres in the Brisbane Valley of the Mojave Desert, north of
Victorville. During the surveys, numerous Desert Tortoise and Burrowing Owls as well as other
sensitive species were observed. The plan focused on minimizing the effects efforts of a low-
density housing project on sensitive species in the Mojave Desert including bats, raptors, desert
tortoise and sensitive plants. (Ms. Kidd prepared this RMP while employed at another firm)
Irvine Ranch Conservancy
Scope of Work:
2016-2024-Conduct breeding (nesting) raptor surveys on Irvine Ranch Conservancy managed
land within the City of Irvine Open Space Preserve with a focus on medium to large raptor species
such as Red-tailed Hawks, Red-shouldered Hawks, Eagles, White-tailed Kites and Owls.
Monitoring of Turkey Vulture, Western Screech Owl, Long-eared Owl, American Kestrel and
Northern Harrier breading activity may also occur opportunistically. We also assist with assigning
active nests to IRC volunteer monitors and, if necessary, escort volunteers on their initial nest
visit. Results from breeding surveys, including maps that delineate survey areas, the locations of
nests (Lat/Long data preferred), and the outcome/status of nests are submitted to the IRC at the
end of the breeding season (August 30).
Mission Resource Conservation District
Scope of Work:
2014-2017- Kidd Biological, Inc. developed a Nesting Bird Management Plan. The Plan included
appropriate means and methodologies for the district and its contractors avoid and/or
minimize impacts to nesting birds. We also conducted surveys and mapping of nesting birds
within riparian restoration projects within the San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, prior to the
start of maintenance work (e.g. weed abatement). Locations were marked in the field with
visible tape and/or flagging, as appropriate. GPS were used so to provide accurate coordinates
of nests to the district. Upon completion of the field survey, the biologist provided a map to the
5
district showing locations of any and all active nests within the work area. If necessary, the
map also included species-specific avoidance buffers.
If sensitive bird species were detected during the pre-work surveys, a qualified avian monitor
was present to assist in directing the crews away from active nests to ensure no take occurred
during the maintenance work.
Rivers & Lands Conservancy
Scope of Work:
2018-2021 As part of the monitoring plan for the Jurupa Hills and Mary Vagel Conservation Area on the
border of Riverside and San Bernardino County south of Fontana, we conducted focused surveys for the
federally threatened California gnatcatcher throughout the preserve during the 2018 and 2021 breeding
season. Monitoring the populations of sensitive resources is required under the Preserve Management
Plan created in response to a Biological Opinion.
Marine Corps Community Services
Scope of work:
2013-2019- Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) is a comprehensive set of programs that
support and enhance the life quality of Marines, their families, retirees and civilians. Each year
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton’s MCCS hosts the “World Famous Mud Run”. This annual 3-
day event traverses sensitive habitats that are occupied by the federally listed Arroyo Toad and
the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. To ensure impacts to these species are minimized to the greatest
extent possible, we conduct pre-race clearance surveys in the sensitive areas. If toads, tadpoles
or egg strands are found within the race route, they are relocated to a safe area downstream. A
qualified monitor is present during all installations of bridges and fencing. All potential kangaroo
rat burrows are flagged and the race is re-routed to avoid the burrows.
Following the races, the biologists document any potential impacts from the race and submit a
report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
6
Areas of Expertise
Nesting Birds
KBI has conducted countless nesting bird surveys and nest monitoring throughout southern
California. Our biologists have extensive experience with the various habitats and the nesting
bird species expected to occur in the region, including being able to identify nesting behaviors,
nest searches and assessing nest-stage status. Projects we have assisted with include small short
term projects such as pre-construction surveys for single utility pole replacements (Southern
California Edison, SDG&E) and new mobile communications towers (AT&T, T-Mobil, Verizon) as
well as long-term, large scale projects which require continuing monitoring and surveys ahead of
construction. These large scale projects require clear and continued communication with
contactors where we have developed efficient and practical reporting forms which allow us to
present the contractors with daily updates of nest statuses including maps. Many of our
biologists are also authorized to monitor nests of sensitive species including least Bell’s vireo,
willow flycatcher and California gnatcatchers.
KBI also offers training to arborists and contactors for wildlife awareness with particular emphasis
on the laws protecting nesting birds.
Rare Plants
KBI is familiar with the special-status plant species known to occur
throughout the region and has conducted several focused plant
surveys in the region including desert and alpine habitats. For general
botanical surveys, Nina Kidd, Dilip Kumar and Kelly Rios would conduct
the surveys and prepare the reports. For more complex projects,
Botanist Russell Kokx is committed to assisting with surveys,
monitoring, etc.
Focused Habitat Assessments/Due Diligence
Our team of biologists has 20 years of experience conducting general habitat assessments and
due diligence surveys. These are the first step in determining the types of surveys or mitigation,
which may be required for a proposed project. Our biologists are capable and experienced in
determining suitable habitat for the sensitive species known to occur throughout the region. All
of our biologists are versed in the habitats and common plant species and take detailed notes on
all site visits, including geo-referenced site photos.
Report Writing
As with most work, documenting the findings and results are as important as the studies
themselves. KBI prides itself on concise reports submitted in a timely fashion to both the client
and agencies. KBI has submitted countless reports to Federal, state and local agencies including
CDFW, USFWS, BLM, State Parks, Counties of San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside and various
other cities and jurisdictions. Our reports include clear mapping of sites, photographs and
accurate, up-to-date information on sensitive resources, as well as recommendations for
appropriate mitigation if required. In 2012, we initiated the use of tablets in the field for the
purpose of collecting data and preparing daily monitoring notes in the field. This makes submittal
7
of data nearly instantaneous which allows efficiency and accuracy of data collected. This in turn
allows us to prepare reports in a timely manner as data sheets are submitted each day by our
field crew. This also allows for easy follow up to issues that may arise in the field. Examples of
reports and/or data forms will be submitted upon request.
Compliance Monitoring
KBI has managed several long and short term monitoring projects for both linear projects and
standard construction projects. Monitoring has included sensitive species monitoring, and
restoration monitoring. Species include, but are not limited to, desert tortoise, least Bell’s vireo,
coastal California gnatcatcher, arroyo toad, red-legged frog, southern rubber boa, burrowing owl,
and various breeding birds (nest monitoring). In addition to our regular staff, we have an
extended network of colleagues we use for long term monitoring projects. These contract
employees have years of monitoring experience and are accustomed to dealing with construction
safety concerns and arduous working conditions. Most importantly, these biologists are
comfortable working with construction personnel and are able to communicate concerns in a
concise friendly way to ensure projects stay in compliance with permits without causing hostility
in the field.
Least Bell’s Vireo,
KBI is permitted to conduct surveys using visual and auditory cues per USFWS protocols. We are
also permitted to conduct nest monitoring as well as mark and recapture. Mr. Kidd and Ms.
Moore has extensive experience with this species including a MAPS station on Rancho Mission
Viejo in Orange County, monitoring a landfill project in Los Angeles County, focused surveys on
MCB Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. Nina Kidd has surveyed for the vireo in several
locations in Riverside County including the San Luis Rey, Santa Ana River, Mojave River and Lake
Mathews as well as areas in the Cleveland National Forest and MCB Camp Pendleton. Mr. Kidd,
Ms. Johnson have also been permitted to monitor vireo nests on a project-by-project basis. Ms.
Johnson assisted in the operation of various MAPS banding stations in San Diego County. All birds
caught in mist nets were banded and processed, where various measurements were taken.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Angela Johnson is permitted to conduct focused surveys for this species using a taped call as well
as nest monitoring. Her experience extends throughout southern California as well as Arizona.
Ms. Johnson has experience banding and monitoring the nests of willow flycatchers while
working for the U.S. Department of Geological Services.
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
Angela Johnson is permitted to conduct focused surveys for this species using a taped call as well
as nest monitoring. Her experience extends throughout southern California as well as Arizona.
Ms. Johnson was a field supervisor for the Southern Sierra Research Station in Arizona where she
supervised other field biologists during mist-netting, banding and taking blood samples of
cuckoos. She also affixed radio transmitters to cuckoos to monitor their movements.
8
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
In the past 15 years, we have conducted numerous focused surveys for the coastal California
gnatcatcher in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. We have
conducted census surveys for the gnatcatcher on 12,000 acres on MCB Camp Pendleton in San
Diego County in both 2000 and 2010 and have conducted construction compliance monitoring
throughout its range. In 2011 KBI participated in census surveys for the gnatcatcher for the
Nature Reserve of Orange County on 149 plots within the
37,000-acre reserve. In 2014 and 2016 KBI conducted
census surveys for the gnatcatcher on Fallbrook Naval
Weapons Station. Several of our biologists are authorized
to monitor nests for this species. In 2017 and 2018 KBI has
been monitoring the winter home ranges of breeding CAGN
pairs on MCB Camp Pendleton. Monitoring included color-
banding birds and monitoring their movements throughout
the habitat.
Arroyo Toad
Jeff Kidd and Scott Thomas are permitted to survey for and handle the arroyo toad per their
federal permits. Nina Kidd and Jason Berkley are permitted to handle on a project-by-project
basis. We have conducted countless focused surveys for the arroyo toad throughout its range in
California. We have also trapped and relocated several hundred arroyo toads at MCB Camp
Pendleton. Methods include general pedestrian surveys as well as pit-fall trapping within riparian
and upland habitats. Jeff Kidd and Scott Thomas have assisted with population studies, which
include pit-tagging and radio tagging toads on Naval Weapons Station Fallbrook, MCB Camp
Pendleton and Rancho Mission Viejo.
Birds of Prey
Since 1993, Jeff Kidd has trapped and banded over 10,000 nestling and adult raptors from
approximately 25 species throughout California. Data is collected as part of a long-term study on
dispersal, survivorship, philopatry, migration, habitat and home range use to name a few.
Techniques such as trapping, tree climbing, attaching radio and satellite transmitters and taking
blood and feather samples are all used on a regular basis during our research. KBI has extensive
experience conducting nesting bird surveys and migrant raptor studies as part of studies for
research, population counts, power-line and wind-farm projects. Our biologists are authorized to
conduct studies on golden eagles, Swainson’s hawks and others.
9
Burrowing Owl
Along with our colleagues, we have been monitoring
and banding burrowing owls throughout southwestern
California since 1993. Jeff Kidd has banded and/or color
banded total of ca. 600. He has personally or assisted
with translocating approximately 100 burrowing owls
over the last 30 years via a federal migratory bird permit
and CDFW approvals. He has constructed and installed
over 100 artificial nest structures in Orange, Western
Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, Kings and San Diego Counties as well as in Nevada. As a
consultant, KBI has performed 200+ burrowing owl surveys in the last 30 years throughout
southern California. We also use techniques such as trapping, measuring brood patch
development, and scoping burrows with fiber optics cameras to determine the status of nesting
pairs. This can be a tremendous assistance when attempting to do construction activities in the
bird nesting season. KBI has worked closely with various agencies in Riverside, San Bernardino
and San Diego Counties to translocate burrowing owls onto established preserves in order to
increase the population of owls within these reserves (Lake Mathew’s /Estelle Mountain reserve,
Hidden Valley Regional Park (Corona), El Sol Reserve (French Valley), Lone Star Ridge Reserve
(Otay Mesa, San Diego Co.). Most recently KBI has translocated owls from military air fields in
Clark Co. Nevada (Nellis AFB) and Fresno Co, CA (Lemoore NAB).
Quino Checkerpot Butterfly
Nina Kidd, Jeff Kidd and Kelly Rios are permitted to conduct surveys for the QCB. We have
experience with focused surveys on both private and public lands (USFS and Military). We have
conducted numerous habitat assessments for the species in Riverside and San Diego County
including the mapping of larval host plants along many miles of utility corridor projects.
Other Sensitive Species
Our biologists have extensive experience surveying for migrating raptors, spotted owls, coast
horned lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, western spadefoot toad, orange-throated whiptail,
coastal whiptail, fringe-toed lizards, southern rubber boa, western pond turtle, mountain yellow-
legged frog, and California red-legged frog. Techniques used include but are not limited to
helicopter surveys, pit-fall trapping, mist-netting, visual surveys, auditory surveys (call
recognition), call play back (taped calls played to illicit a response from nearby individuals), radio
or satellite transmitter, color banding.
Permitting/Agency Coordination
Our company and our employees have excellent relationships with agency personnel and we
communicate often with various local, state and federal agency personnel during the course of
many projects. Ms. Kidd also has experience in preparing 2081 permits for CDFW and negotiating
10
with USFWS for Section 10 permits. Mrs. Kidd has also prepared several Biological Assessments
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for projects with a federal nexus for Red-legged
frog, desert tortoise, California gnatcatcher and others.
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Staff and Role Burrowing Owl** Rare Plants Nesting Birds Quino Checkerspot Butterfly * Reporting Compliance Monitoring California gnatcatcher Least Bells Vireo** Willow Flycatcher** Yellow-billed cuckoo* Arroyo toad** Golden Eagle* Education Nina Kidd, Project Manager,
Lead X X X X X X X X X X
Jeff Kidd, Lead Biologist X X X X X X X X X X
Kelly Rios, Lead Biologist X X X X X X X X X
Scott Thomas, Lead Construction
Monitor, Avian Biologist X X X X X X X X
Dilip Mahto, Botanist/ Avian
support X X X
Jill Coumoutso, Avian Support,
Permitted Avian Biologist X X X X X
Angela Johnson, Avian Lead,
Permitted Biologist X X X X X X X X
Jason Berkley, Permitted
Biologist, Avian Support X X X X X X X X
12
*Specialized study requiring permits ** Nest monitoring, banding, or handling, are considered specialized studies.
Key Personnel
Nina J. Kidd
Ms. Kidd has over 20 years’ experience in conducting herpetological, entomological, avian and botanical
surveys. Her experience includes inventorying both plants and wildlife of southern and central and
northwest California. She has experience in raptor trapping, handling, survey techniques, and nest
monitoring, as well as some experience with mammal trapping.
Ms. Kidd has conducted numerous focused surveys or habitat assessments for California gnatcatcher,
desert tortoise, least bell’s vireo, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owls, western spadefoot toad, Delhi-
sands flower-loving fly, Arroyo toad, and Quino checkerspot butterfly. Additionally, her experience
includes habitat assessments and focused for sensitive plants species, particularly desert species in both
California and Nevada. Prior to becoming a consultant, Nina worked in natural history and zoological
museums as a curator and educator. She is key in choosing projects which best fit our company's standards
and ethics while being able to provide our clients the best service possible
Jeff W. Kidd
Mr. Kidd has over 25 years’ experience in conducting herpetological, entomological, avian and botanical
surveys. His experience includes inventorying both plants and wildlife of southern California. He has
extensive experience in raptor trapping, handling, survey techniques, nest monitoring and relocation. Mr.
Kidd has conducted numerous focused surveys or habitat assessments for desert tortoise, California
gnatcatcher, Red-legged frog, least bell’s vireo, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owls, Arroyo toad,
least tern, snowy plover and Quino checkerspot butterfly. As division head for our coastal team of
biologists, Mr. Kidd manages multi-million dollar projects and works closely with the agencies to ensure
projects are completed in compliance with the laws while effectively working with proponents to find
effective solutions to regulatory hurdles.
Mr. Kidd has been conducting raptor research throughout California including: locating, trapping, and
banding over 6,000 nestling and adult raptors from 20 species. Research requires recording and
documenting information related to survivorship, mate and site fidelity, philopatry, migration, and various
other aspects of the biology and ecology of raptors. He has published and/or co-published several papers
on Raptor biology and ecology, including the “Status of Burrowing Owls in southwestern California”.
(2007)
Angela Johnson
Ms. Johnson has been conducting research on passerines for over a decade. She specializes in riparian
bird species and has extensive experience in monitoring populations and nesting behaviors of woodland
bids. She has expertise in population management in regards to nest predation. Her research has
extended throughout the United States as well as internationally. In addition to her extensive experience
with passerines, she also has experience with birds of prey and desert species. She has worked on long-
term linear construction projects and is a very capable compliance monitor, keeping detailed notes and
dealing with complex schedules and projects.
14
Ms. Johnson is authorized to conduct focused protocol surveys and nest monitoring for the least Bell’s
vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher and the yellow-billed cuckoo and is permitted to survey an monitor
California gnatcatchers. She is also authorized to remove brown headed cowbird eggs and chicks from
nests of these species.
Kelly Rios
Since 1993, Ms. Kelly Rios has been working as a biologist. She has experience in working with both the
private and public sector, specifically for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) since
19999, as well as providing surveys on an independent basis. She has conducted many focused surveys
as a permitted biologist for sensitive species such as coastal California Gnatcatcher, Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly, El Segundo Blue Butterfly, and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, as well as other sensitive species
such as Arroyo Toad, Western Spadefoot, Flat--tailed Horn Lizard, Desert Tortoise, Western Pond Turtle,
Palm Springs and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Least Bell’s Vireo, and Burrowing Owl.
Ms. Rios has conducted many focused surveys for various sensitive plant species throughout California.
Her experience also includes trapping with the use of pitfall traps, funnel traps, and has conducted
specialized surveys such as wildlife corridor surveys and Bird Use Count (BUC) surveys for avian species.
Ms. Rios has conducted extensive Golden Eagle and avian surveys for LADWP as well as for other clients.
She has managed many habitat restoration projects in a variety of plant communities. Additionally,
habitat creation and resto oration efforts have been conducted for federally-listed endangered species
such as the coastal California Gnatcatcher, Ell Segundo Blue Butterfly, and the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving
Fly.
Scott Thomas
Mr. Thomas has over 25 years of experience working with amphibians, reptiles, raptors, songbirds, and
small mammals. He has conducted surveys, telemetry tracking, construction monitoring and
conservation measure implementation for endangered amphibians and reptiles, including southwest
arroyo toads and California red-legged frogs. He has banded several thousand raptors, including
Swainson’s Hawks, Burrowing Owls, Golden Eagle, sea-eagles, Osprey; Rough-legged, Red-tailed, and
Red-shouldered Hawks; Peregrine Falcons, White-tailed Kites, Spotted, Long–eared, Barn, Saw-whet and
Great Horned Owls, and more than 500 songbirds. He has extensive experience with both passive and
active relocation of Burrowing Owls. He has performed and managed various raptor survey and
monitoring studies, managing numerous field staff, schedules and budgets on projects such as the
Tehachapi Renewables Transmission Project (TRTP) Antelope Valley Swainson’s Hawk surveys and the
IID Burrowing Owl 3 year census.
Jason Berkley
Mr. Berkley has been conducting biological surveys in Southern California and Arizona since 1992.
Working for federal and state agencies, consulting firms as well as an independent consultant has allowed
Mr. Berkley to achieve a broad understanding of the laws protecting endangered species. Working closely
with the agencies has resulted in effective ways to utilize project proponents to achieve their project
goals. He has extensive experience with coastal, mountain and desert species throughout Southern and
Baja California, as well as Arizona. He conducts surveys for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least
Bell's Vireo, coastal California Gnatcatcher, southwestern Arroyo Toad, California and Northern Red-
legged Frog, Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Flying Squirrel,
Southern Rubber Boa, Southwestern Pond Turtle and the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. In
15
addition, he is qualified to conduct surveys for the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Burrowing Owl, and nesting
birds; Cowbird trapping; and general surveys for reptiles, amphibians, mammals and fish.
EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall IImmppaacctt SScciieenncceess Planning and Environmental Consultants 26051 Via Concha
Mission Viejo, CA 92691.5614
949.837.1195