HomeMy WebLinkAboutE-17 Staff Report - Agreement with Michael Baker Int and MIGCONSENT ITEM
E-17
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: STEPHAN E. HUNT, CHIEF OF POLICE/ACTING CITY MANAGER
FROM: KURT CHRISTIANSEN, FAICP, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 17, 2017
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANT SERVICES AND MIG TO PROVIDE PLANNING CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR THE CALIFORNIA GRAND VILLAGES AZUSA GREENS
PROJECT LOCATED AT 919 W. SIERRA MADRE AVENUE
SUMMARY:
California Grand Village Azusa Greens is proposing to redevelop a portion of the Azusa Greens. The
proposed project includes construction of a 3-level 256-unit luxury independent living village for seniors
and the reconfiguration of two holes along Todd Avenue. The project would require a Specific Plan,
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Design Review, and Tentative Parcel Map. It is the City’s
intention to hire a planning and environmental consultant, whose service would be paid by California
Grand Villages Azusa, LCC, to review the proposed Specific Plan and to prepare the environmental
documents for the project.
On April 17, 2017, the City Council approved to solicit a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a planning
and environmental consultant services for the preparation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
review of Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Design Review, and Tentative Parcel
Map, for the California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project. Staff received proposals from 10 firms.
Upon evaluation of the proposals, Staff has identified two firms with the necessary experience required
to provide planning and environmental consultant services. This action approves a Professional Services
Agreement with Michael Baker International to provide environmental consultant services and MIG to
provide planning consultant services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Michael Baker International to provide
environmental consultant services in an amount not to exceed $175,405.00; and
APPROVED
CITY COUNCIL
7/17/2017
Approve Professional Services Agreement with Michael Baker International and MIG
July 17, 2017
Page 2
2) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with MIG to provide planning consultant services in
an amount not to exceed $86,160.00; and
3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, on behalf of the City.
DISCUSSION:
On April 17, 2017, a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide planning and environmental consultant
services was distributed to a number of consultants and made available on the City’s website. A total of
10 firms provided a proposal by the indicated deadline of May 18, 2017 (Attachment 1). An initial
review for minimum qualifications was conducted and 10 proposals were provided to the evaluation
committee consisting of the Director of Economic and Community Development, Associate Planner,
and Assistant Planner. The evaluation committee convened to evaluate the proposals on the following
criteria: (1) Experience and Qualifications; (2) Scope of Services; (3) Detailed work plan to complete
services; (4) Qualification and experience of team members; (5) Overall quality of response to RFP; and
(6) Consultant’s Fee Proposal. The top firms to excel in the evaluation process were:
Firm Proposed Cost
Michael Baker International (Environmental Consultant Services) $175,405.00
MIG (Planning Consultant Services) $86,160.00
Kimley Horn (Environmental & Planning Consultant Services) $181,498.00
After careful deliberation, the evaluation committee unanimously selected Michael Baker International
for the environmental consultant services and MIG for planning consultant services as the most qualified
firms to fulfill the required scope of services. While all three finalists’ submitted proposals that were
similar in cost and exhibited the capacity to perform high quality environmental and planning services,
the evaluation committee felt that Michael Baker International and MIG are the stronger candidates
because of their qualification, experience, knowledge in best practices in environmental and planning.
Professional Services Agreements do not require for the lowest submitted bid to be awarded.
Additionally, both firms have extensive planning and environmental experience with previous projects
in the City of Azusa. Michael Baker International provided environmental consultant services with a
previous project in the city’s boundaries and MIG is currently providing consultant services with another
project in the city’s boundaries. This action shall not be binding on any future Planning Commission
and/or City Council actions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with the consultant project review and environmental document preparation will be
paid by the project applicant and there will be no fiscal impact to the City. The City will add a 25%
administrative cost to each of the Professional Service Agreements to cover for Staff time.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
Manuel Muñoz Kurt Christiansen, FAICP
Associate Planner Economic and Community Development Director
Approve Professional Services Agreement with Michael Baker International and MIG
July 17, 2017
Page 3
Reviewed and Approved: Reviewed and Approved:
Louie F. Lacasella Stephan E. Hunt
Management Analyst Chief of Police/Acting City Manager
Attachments:
1) Environmental Consultant Services Proposal Received from Michael Baker International
2) Planning Consultant Services Proposal Received from MIG
3) Professional Services Agreement – Michael Baker International
4) Professional Services Agreement – MIG
5) List of Firms
July 7, 2017
Mr. Manuel Muñoz
Associate Planner
CITY OF AZUSA
Economic and Community Development Department
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, California 91702
Subject: Revised Proposal for Environmental Services for the California Grand Village Azusa
Greens Project
Dear Mr. Muñoz:
Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) is pleased to submit
this proposal to the City of Azusa for Environmental Services for the
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project (project). The project
proposes to construct a 3-level 256-unit luxury independent living village
for seniors and the reconfiguration of two holes along Todd Avenue. The
luxury independent living village would have a resort setting with
concierge, dining, and housekeeping services as well as programming
and amenities. It would also have a limited number of assisted living and
memory care facilities. The reconfiguration of the golf course would
have holes 3 through 6 aligned along West 10th Street.
Based upon our review of available project information, material provided by City staff, and a review of
the project site on May 15th, we have developed a greater understanding of the work program required
for the project. We believe that our key attributes for the project include our team members’ background
and experience. This proposal has been revised to exclude Planning Support Services and solely focuses
on Environmental Consulting Services.
The Michael Baker Team – The Right Team for Azusa
Michael Baker brings to the City of Azusa more than 75 years of experience providing services to
communities throughout southern California. Michael Baker’s environmental and planning experts will
ensure successful project completion with a focus on sound CEQA compliance. In addition, Michael Baker
is joined by Rincon Consultants to provide peer review of the Applicant prepared cultural resources study.
Michael Baker offers the following benefits for your consideration:
Project Team Commitment and Availability: The designated Team will be led by Mr. Eddie Torres, serving
as Project Manager. The designated team is committed to completing this project within the project
timeline and budget set forth in this work program by maintaining close communication with City staff
and working quickly to resolve critical issues.
Michael Baker International, Inc.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
www.mbakerintl.com
Federal Tax ID 25-1228638
Eddie Torres
Project Manager
p. 949.855.3612 | f. 949.837.4122
egtorres@mbakerintl.com
Experience with Specific Plans and Projects in the City: Our Team has an extensive resume involving
CEQA compliance documentation for Specific Plans as well as projects in the City of Azusa. Representative
experience includes the Tenth Street Industrial Center Park EIR in Azusa, Waste Management Material
Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR in Azusa, Crestridge Senior Villas and Palos Verdes Peninsula
Senior Center EIR in Rancho Palos Verdes, Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan EIR in Temecula, Lakes Specific
Plan and Topgolf Project in El Segundo, and the Santa Ana Country Club Golf Course Revitalization Project
in unincorporated Orange County.
Legally Defensible Documentation: Preparation of legally defensible documents is imperative in today’s
environment. Michael Baker has more than 40 years of experience in writing accurate, legally defensible
environmental documents for all types of controversial projects.
Excellent Track Record of Meeting Schedules and Budgets: Michael Baker has proven capabilities to
effectively complete projects on time and on budget.
We appreciate your consideration of Michael Baker for Environmental Services for the California Grand
Village Azusa Greens Project and are available to begin the work program immediately. The undersigned
is an agent authorized to submit proposals on behalf of Michael Baker International and is authorized to
negotiate with the City of Azusa on this project. In addition, the Michael Baker Team has no conflicts of
interest in providing services for this project and there are no commitments which may impact our ability
to perform the contracted services. The project will be managed from our office in Santa Ana, located at
5 Hutton Center, Santa Ana, CA 92707.
We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the work program in greater detail. Please do
not hesitate to contact me at 949-855-3612 | egtorres@mbakerintl.com, should you have any questions
or require additional information.
Regards,
Eddie Torres
Associate Vice President
Environmental Sciences Manager
PROPOSAL
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
Environmental Services for the
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF AZUSA
SUBMITTED BY:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
JULY 7, 2017
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
Table of Contents
I. Experience and Qualifications ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Firm Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Environmental Services Experience .................................................................................... 2
1.3 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 7
II. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
III. Project Team ................................................................................................................................................. 17
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach ......................................................................................................... 29
A. Environmental Consulting Services .................................................................................................... 30
1.0 Project Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 31
1.1 Project Kick-Off and Project Characteristics ..................................................................... 31
1.2 Research and Investigation ............................................................................................... 31
1.3 Initial Study ....................................................................................................................... 32
1.4 Notice of Preparation ....................................................................................................... 32
1.5 Scoping Meeting ............................................................................................................... 32
2.0 Preparation of Administrative Draft EIR ......................................................................................... 32
2.1 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................. 32
2.2 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 32
2.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 33
2.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 33
2.5 Cumulative Projects/Analysis ........................................................................................... 33
2.6 Environmental Analysis..................................................................................................... 33
2.7 Growth Inducement ......................................................................................................... 39
2.8 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................................................. 40
2.9 Additional Sections ........................................................................................................... 40
3.0 Preparation Draft EIR ...................................................................................................................... 40
3.1 Preliminary Draft EIR ........................................................................................................ 40
3.2 Completion of the Draft EIR .............................................................................................. 41
4.0 Final Environmental Impact Report ................................................................................................ 41
4.1 Response to Comments .................................................................................................... 41
4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................ 41
4.3 Final EIR ............................................................................................................................ 41
4.4 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ..................................................... 42
5.0 Project Coordination and Meetings ................................................................................................ 42
5.1 Environmental Review Coordination ................................................................................ 42
5.2 Environmental Review Meetings ...................................................................................... 42
6.0 Deliverables ..................................................................................................................................... 43
V. Compensation ............................................................................................................................................... 45
VI. Exceptions/Deviations ................................................................................................................................... 47
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 1
I. Experience and Qualifications
1.1 FIRM OVERVIEW
Founded in 1940 and celebrating more than 75 years of
supporting our local communities, Michael Baker International is
a leader in environmental, planning, engineering, consulting, and
technical/professional services with a local focus and global
expertise. We offer a full continuum of innovative solutions in
construction, survey, planning, architectural, environmental,
program management and life cycle support, as well as
information technology and communications services.
Michael Baker is a multi-disciplinary planning and engineering
firm with more than 6,000 employees in over 90 offices located
across the U.S. and internationally. With nine local offices in
southern California our firm is prepared to assist clients with
engineering challenges throughout the region. The majority of
the work under this contract will be completed by our staff in the
Santa Ana office.
Michael Baker has in-house expertise in disciplines including
Environmental Analysis, Planning, GIS Services, Surveying, Aerial
Photogrammetry, Mapping, Real Estate Assessments,
Transportation/Traffic Engineering, Civil Engineering (including
Grading, Public Works, Water/Wastewater, Hydrology),
Mechanical/Electrical/Energy Services, Computer Aided Design
and Drafting (CADD) and Media Services. More than 200
professionals are dedicated to Environmental, Planning, and
Urban Design services company-wide.
As a leader in the environmental consulting field, Michael Baker
offers an extensive array of services associated with
environmental compliance and documentation. Michael Baker
provides evaluation for the full spectrum of environmental
effects for all types of projects, including California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, air quality and health risk
assessments, greenhouse gas analyses, noise studies, regulatory
agency permitting, biological resources, visual assessments and
photosimulations, traffic studies, drainage/water quality
assessments, community/socioeconomic analyses, and
biological mitigation/monitoring.
Legal Name of Firm:
Michael Baker International, Inc.
National Headquarters:
500 Grant Street
Suite 5400
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
T. 412.918.4000
Staff size: 677
West Region Headquarters –
Where Work Will Be Performed:
5 Hutton Centre, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
T. 949.472.3505
Staff Size: 260
Year Established: 1940
Type of Organization:
Pennsylvania Corporation
Parent Company: Michael Baker
International
Holdco Corporation – 100% Ownership
Size of Staff in California: 600+
Size of Staff Companywide: 6,000+
Project Contact:
Eddie Torres
Project Manager
Santa Ana Office
T. 949.855.3612
E. egtorres@mbakerintl.com
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 2
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EXPERIENCE
Environmental documents prepared at Michael Baker address the full range of environmental and
technical issues, with in-house specialists providing technical evaluation for traffic and transportation,
flood control and drainage, air quality, climate change, noise, land use, socioeconomics, utilities and
services, energy conservation, visual and aesthetic effects, relevant planning, Phase I hazardous materials,
neighborhood and construction effects, landform modification, agricultural suitability and many other
environmental issue areas. State-of-the-art computer facilities including CADD, ARC/INFO, and specially
created computer programs are utilized in obtaining the highest level of technical completeness and
efficiency.
CEQA AND NEPA DOCUMENTS
The Michael Baker Environmental staff have provided CEQA and NEPA documentation and environmental
technical studies for a diverse range of capital improvement and development projects, as well as
regulatory/policy documents such as General Plans and Zoning Ordinances.
Michael Baker environmental documents are not only legally defensible and user-friendly, but are
supported by professionals with expertise in hydrology, water quality, transportation, water/wastewater,
landscape architecture, urban design, policy planning, structural design, civil engineering, GIS, mapping,
and surveying. Michael Baker produces environmental documents that are sensitive to both the public’s
concern for resource protection and community impacts, as well as real-world issues associated with cost
and feasibility of implementing mitigation measures. Michael Baker’s environmental compliance
managers have a broad resume of project experience in coastal, urban, and rural communities and have
worked on numerous complex projects requiring technical expertise, creative solutions, and development
of effective and workable mitigation. Our team has a thorough understanding of CEQA, NEPA, the
Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other
local, state, and federal regulations.
AIR QUALITY STUDIES/HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
Michael Baker utilizes air quality models that are developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board and local Air
Pollution Control Districts. Michael Baker’s air quality services include project-
specific analysis of regulatory impacts, short-term construction emissions,
long-term operational emissions, and computer modeling of source-specific
pollutant emissions and dispersion analysis. Additionally, Michael Baker has
carried out mitigation programs for commercial, transportation, and industrial
projects, as well as General Plan Air Quality Elements.
Michael Baker also prepares Health Risk Assessments (HRA) in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
guidelines to evaluate potential health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). An HRA is
typically required when a new receptor is proposed near an existing source of toxic pollutants (e.g.,
freeways, distribution centers, factories, power plants, refineries, etc.), or when new sources of pollutants
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 3
are proposed near existing receptors. Our capabilities include emission inventory preparation,
meteorological air dispersion modeling, and risk calculation.
GREENHOUSE GAS STUDIES
Michael Baker’s climate change experts are at the forefront in developing sound scientific regulatory
assessments and strategies within the rapidly changing regulatory environment. We advise both
government and private industry on greenhouse gas (GHG) policies and methodologies and the impact
that they have on the new carbon constrained business future. To ensure a sustainable future, there is a
great need to understand and manage GHG emissions in ways that promote economic growth. As the
climate change debate and private sector market solutions evolve, Michael Baker continues to offer its
clients unparalleled analytical, policy, and business management services.
Michael Baker has been aggressively tracking all aspects of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375
(SB 375) over the last several years. Our internal legislative working group meets monthly to discuss the
implications of these GHG reduction mandates as implementation unfolds. Specific to SB 375, our team
has also conducted numerous presentations with public sector, private developer, and land broker clients
about the influence these GHG reduction mandates may have on their respective businesses.
As a result of this extensive experience, Michael Baker has developed proprietary models for quantifying
and analyzing GHG’s from a variety of direct and indirect sources including construction, vehicular traffic,
electricity consumption, water conveyance and sewage treatment. Michael Baker’s analyses recommend
innovative greenhouse gas/air pollutant reduction methods during the construction and operation of a
project, conduct advanced dispersion modeling, investigate the use of renewable energy sources/energy
efficient products and quantify the benefits of resource conservation (i.e., electricity usage and recycling).
NOISE STUDIES
Michael Baker’s acoustical services include instrument-assisted noise and
vibration field surveys, commercial and industrial stationary sources noise
impact analyses, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) computer
modeling of motor vehicle noise impacts for roadway and freeway projects,
and rail noise impact analysis. Michael Baker’s acoustical staff also evaluates
sound insulation performance, manufacturing and industrial noise impact
mitigation, building exterior and interior sound and vibration isolation analysis, room acoustics, and
prepares General Plan Noise Elements. Services typically provided include technical analysis for NEPA or
CEQA documents, or focused studies used in planning and civil design projects.
REGULATORY AGENCY PERMITS
Our regulatory services team is trained in the most up-to-date regulations and have prepared and
processed hundreds of permit applications through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the
California Coastal Commission (CCC). Michael Baker works closely with each applicant to assure that the
jurisdictional baseline and permit applications accurately address project impacts and ultimately complies
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 4
with the state and federal review process. Michael Baker’s existing relationships with the resource
agencies allow Michael Baker to be a liaison between the applicant and the regulatory agencies.
Michael Baker has certified regulatory staff that is professionally trained to perform wetland delineations
on projects that need to meet regulatory requirements of the ACOE (Clean Water Act Section 404), CDFW
(California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600-1616), RWQCB (Clean Water Act Section 401, Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and CCC (California Coastal Act).
Years of experience preparing and processing regulatory permits through the resource agencies have
enabled Michael Baker to identify successful strategies for satisfying agency requirements. No matter the
location, the regulatory services team has provided regulatory support to clients throughout California,
Nevada, and Arizona. Our staff has successfully delineated project sites and properties ranging from less
than 1-acre to 1,600-acres. Projects have ranged from small stream crossings to long-term maintenance
projects to large-scale mass grading activities. The regulatory services team, coupled with our
environmental and stormwater staff, allows Michael Baker to expeditiously acquire permits from state
and federal regulatory agencies.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Michael Baker has expert in-house biologists experienced in the Federal and State Endangered Species
Acts, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Department of Fish and Game Code, the Clean Water
Act and biological analysis under CEQA and NEPA.
Michael Baker team’s staff relationships with wildlife agencies, regulatory agencies, federal land managers
and various conservation groups allow the firm to serve as a liaison between the applicant and these
agencies/organizations. Michael Baker’s biological team has decades of experience in the biological
consulting process. Valued services provided by Michael Baker include conducting habitat assessments
to characterize the biological features of an area, rapidly identifying any sensitive features, suggesting a
compliance strategy to resolve identified impacts, and working with the client to make sure their planning
needs are met while meeting permitting and mitigation requirements. Michael Baker staff biologists
prepare general biological inventories, endangered species/sensitive plant surveys and biological
monitoring. In consultation with resource agencies, Michael Baker staff has extensive e xperience in
mitigating biological resources impacts through restoration/revegetation and conservation/mitigation
banking.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENTS
Michael Baker provides a range of Hazardous Materials Assessments to meet our clients’ needs for various
project types. Michael Baker has prepared hundreds of Hazardous Materials Assessments for a variety of
projects throughout California utilizing the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) standards for
commercial real estate transactions (E1527-05 and E1528-06), All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) as well as
appropriate protocol from lending institutions and regulatory agencies. The comprehensive capabilities
and professional experience of our in-house staff allows Michael Baker to effectively and efficiently
complete Hazardous Materials Assessments for any type of property.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 5
Michael Baker’s capabilities include Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ASTM E1527-05),
Transaction Screens (ASTM E1528-06), Preliminary Hazardous Materials Assessments, Environmental
Baselines Surveys (for the United States Department of Navy), and Initial Site Assessments (for the
California Department of Transportation).
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Michael Baker provides visual simulation studies for
aesthetic and visual impact evaluation. Simulations
produced by Michael Baker range from simple photo
composite/3-D massing studies to full photorealistic
depictions. Michael Baker uses state-of-the-art software
and advanced techniques such as metric
photogrammetry and Real Time Kinematic (RTK) global
positioning. Data is processed using state-of-the-art
computer techniques into high-quality graphics that allow
the public to understand the visual impacts of a project.
Michael Baker provides dynamic views of proposed developments through the use of animations and
Matchmove technology (the process of combining computer animation with video). Animations provide
visual analysis while moving through or around a project on foot, in a vehicle, or on a plane. Additionally,
Michael Baker has the capabilities to perform viewshed analyses that may be utilized to determine
whether or not project features are visible within a one-mile-radius. The viewshed map is created using
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology and may include Digital Surface Model (DSM) data.
DSM data allows Michael Baker to determine view blockage resulting from existing structures, terrain,
and landscaping (i.e., large trees).
Michael Baker also prepares shade and shadow analyses by overlaying shadow diagrams on a base map
that show the building footprints of the project and the surrounding buildings. The intent of this work is
to illustrate any change in shadow patterns that would be directly attributable to the project, and to
visually demonstrate the effect of these shadows on surrounding land uses, particularly any adjacent
residential or other sensitive uses.
TRAFFIC/PARKING/CIRCULATION
Michael Baker emphasizes traffic planning and design techniques to satisfy the requirements of the study
site and the adjacent areas. This is accomplished by utilizing any or all of the following external study site
traffic analyses.
Traffic Generation
Directional Distribution of Traffic
Access Design Criteria
Traffic Signal Considerations
Adjacent Land Access Needs
Impact on Existing Streets
Evaluation of Alternate Designs
Intersection Capacity Utilization
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 6
Michael Baker’s goal is to achieve safe and efficient movement of vehicles, and
plan adequate parking facilities for the projected land uses and economic
growth. Pedestrian safety and movement is factored into the overall plan.
Michael Baker utilizes traffic models derived from data collected at peak
intervals to capture the current performance of the traffic system and simulate
potential need.
MITIGATION MONITORING
Michael Baker develops Mitigation Monitoring Programs for CEQA documents, and provides assistance to
public and private sector clients in interpreting and implementing the required programs. Michael Baker
services include, through a combination of our Construction Management and Planning staff, field
monitoring for air quality, dust, traffic control, and resource mitigation. Michael Baker received an award
from the Association of Environmental Professionals for our Mission Bay Mitigation Monitoring Program
web site, allowing interactive viewing and updating of mitigation compliance by agency staff, the
developer, and the public.
STORM WATER QUALITY/DRAINAGE
Michael Baker has a broad base of experience that can
provide a wide variety of services to meet the challenges
associated with storm water quality. Current projects
give the Michael Baker Team a unique and clear
understanding of the requirements that the regulated
community faces in complying with Court orders, fulfilling
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit obligations, and other related storm water
activities.
Michael Baker’s Storm Water Quality capabilities include the identification of constituents of concern,
research relative to Best Management Practices (BMP) effectiveness, BMP siting, design, construction,
construction management and operation, and maintenance and monitoring. Furthermore, Michael Baker
has completed studies relative to BMP effectiveness and cost including prototype studies relative to
operation and maintenance cost and capital costs evaluation for new construction and retrofit
construction. Michael Baker has completed designs for the following types of conventional structural
controls:
Wet Pond/Constructed Wetlands
Infiltration (Basin and Trench)
Biofiltration (Swale and Strip)
Key stormwater/water quality services provided by Michael Baker include municipal stormwater program
development; NPDES compliance; BMP research and application; BMP retrofit studies; water quality
monitoring; and stormwater management related training.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 7
1.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Michael Baker has an extensive background related to CEQA analyses of specific plans and
redevelopments of golf courses. Our approach to this project reflects this experience. The Michael Baker
Team is very knowledgeable regarding the legal requirements associated with the preparation of
environmental clearance documents and applies the Team’s CEQA expertise to the development of
impact analysis methodologies that ensure comprehensiveness, legal adequacy of the EIR, and usefulness
for project monitoring.
Detailed representative project descriptions and
additional projects and references have been
provided on the following pages. Projects include
the Tenth Street Center Industrial Park EIR, which is
in proximity to the proposed project site, directly
across North Todd Avenue. The project included
three industrial buildings that ranged from 75,278
to 179,002 square feet, and included office and
distribution/warehousing/manufacturing uses. In
addition, three stormwater retention basins
totaling approximately 72,643 square feet were
included along the southern project boundary to
retain on-site surface water runoff. Of primary consideration were air quality and health risk impacts.
Traffic and circulation were also key issues with this project as the EIR determined there would be
significant and unavoidable impacts at three locations including the Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard
Intersection. As this intersection would be within the study area for the proposed California Grand Village
Azusa Greens Project, this was a key consideration for the preparation of an EIR according to staff.
Michael Baker’s experience with this key issue would allow us to carefully address both the project- and
cumulative-level impacts.
The Waste Management Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR for the City of Azusa evaluated
the development of an approximately 125,000 square-foot processing facility with offices and a 5,400
square-foot Household Hazardous Waste Facility. Key issues included aesthetics, traffic, air quality, and
noise. Located approximately 2 miles southwest of the proposed project, it received a significant amount
of public interest, and during the public review period received 165 comment letters from agencies and
the general public. Michael Baker was able to mobilize with City staff and address all comment letters in
a compressed timeline. The project was litigated by two separate parties and withstood all legal
challenges.
The Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan EIR for the City of Temecula proposed to redevelop a 305-acre site
into a master-planned Resort Community by expanding the existing hotel and conference center, and by
adding a private residential component. Similar to the California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project, the
project would be placed on an existing golf course. Portions of the existing 27-hole golf course would be
reconfigured by eliminating nine holes to create an 18-hole championship golf course. Of primary concern
was land use compatibility, traffic/access, and noise.
Additional relevant examples are provided to illustrate our experience with golf course projects, golf
course reconfigurations, and senior housing. Our project management approach is designed to facilitate
Photo of the Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Intersection.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 8
communication among all key parties, providing a clear understanding of expectations and resolving any
issues of concern in a timely manner. Our dedicated Project Manager will work closely with City staff to
reach agreement on project parameters, including schedule and budget. We welcome the opportunity to
review our scope of work, budget, and schedule with City staff prior to commencement of the work
program. We have found that consistent and clear communication beginning with contract approval
through project closeout ensures an efficient process, resulting in successful project completion. We look
forward to bringing that same level of flexibility and commitment to the City of Azusa.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 9
Tenth Street Center Industrial Park EIR | Azusa, CA
Michael Baker International prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the proposed Tenth Street Center Industrial Park. The
proposed project consisted of the demolition of the existing one-story
office, building foundations and the concrete remnants of the former
shipping/receiving bay, and the construction of a 342,629 square-foot
industrial/warehousing development. The project would include three
industrial buildings that would range from 75,278 to 179,002 square
feet, and would include office and distribution/warehousing/
manufacturing uses. In addition, three stormwater retention basins
totaling approximately 72,643 square feet would be located along the
southern project boundary to retain on-site surface water runoff. All
buildings on-site would include office and distribution/ warehousing/
manufacturing space, as well as truck loading stalls for
loading/unloading equipment and supplies. A Parking Variance would
be required to accommodate 523 passenger vehicle parking spaces, 53
heavy truck and/or temporary, short-term trailer /container parking
spaces within the southwestern portion of the site, and 29 heavy truck
loading stalls.
Key environmental issues included aesthetics, traffic, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and hydrology. In addition to the EIR,
Michael Baker evaluated potential geology, soils, and cultural resources
impacts with several geotechnical investigation reports and cultural and
paleontological record searches. Michael Baker also analyzed potential
hydrology impacts and address Best Management Practices with a
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan as required by the City of
Azusa and County of Los Angeles.
CLIENT
Mr. Kurt Christiansen
Economic & Community
Development Director
CITY OF AZUSA
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
626.812.5236
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 10
Waste Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility EIR | Azusa, CA
Michael Baker International prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility (MRF),
Transfer Station (TS), and Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF),
located in the City of Azusa, California. The proposed project will
construct a MRF/TS, bale storage building, scale house, and HHWF at
the existing Waste Management Azusa Land Reclamation landfill. The
proposed facility will include an approximately 125,000 square-foot
processing facility with offices, and a 5,400 square-foot HHWF.
The project will construct a fully enclosed MRF/TS building (a tiered
structure, ranging in height from approximately 30 to 57 feet), a single-
story bale storage building with a truck dock, and paved driveways with
surface parking areas. The MRF/TS will be located in a fully enclosed
structure designed to control odors, dust, and litter. The building will
be metal sided with three distinct tipping areas; one for the MRF
recyclable materials, one for the green waste, and one for municipal
solid waste.
The MRF/TS facility will be designed to receive, process, and transfer up
to 3,800 tpd of solid waste (2,500 tpd of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),
800 tpd of recyclables, and 500 tpd of green waste). Input to the MRF
will consist of various materials, including source separated and non-
source separated materials such as single stream curbside recyclables,
separated cardboard loads, mixed residential, office, and commercial
loads with high recyclable content and other mixed waste loads.
Key environmental issues included increased truck traffic and related
emissions and aesthetics associated with building heights.
CLIENT
Mr. Kurt Christiansen
Economic & Community
Development Director
CITY OF AZUSA
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA 91702
626.812.5236
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 11
Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan EIR | Temecula, CA
Michael Baker is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the City of Temecula for the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan Project.
The proposed project plans to redevelop the existing 305-acre site into
a master-planned Resort Community by expanding the existing hotel
and conference center, and by adding a private residential component.
The project would re-design portions of the existing 27-hole golf course
by eliminating nine holes to create an 18-hole championship golf
course. Private hillside residential land uses would be introduced that
would include 385 single-family detached dwellings. The proposed
project would re-align and improve portions of Rainbow Canyon Road
along the property frontage to comply with the City of Temecula’s
engineering standards.
Michael Baker’s team of in-house experts provided the following
technical studies as part of the project:
Traffic Impact Analysis
Biological Habitat Assessment Update and Wildlife Corridor
Analysis
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Acoustical Analysis
Key environmental issues include traffic, biological resources, and
tribal cultural resources. Traffic impacts are anticpated to be a
challenge for the project due to uncertainties concerning future
regional development scenarios. The project is sited within four
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Criteria Cells (7444, 7520, 7530, and 7592) that are designed for
conservation and form Constrained Linkage 14, an important wildlife
corridor for mountain lion, bobcat, and other large mammals. In
addition, the project site is directly adjacent to the Pechanga Resort and
Casino and is situated within the Tribe’s Traditional Cultural Property.
Michael Baker retained the services of BCR Consulting to prepare
cultural resource studies in compliance with CEQA regulations as well
as coordination with the Pechanga Tribe for field work and monitoring
activities.
CONTACT:
Mr. Matt Peters, AICP,
Senior Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
951.694.6408
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 12
Crestridge Senior Villas and Palos Verdes Peninsula Senior Center EIR
| Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
The Crestridge Senior Villas project involved an infill development of a
vacant 9.76-acre parcel, surrounded by single- and multi-family
residential uses. For more than a decade, the project underwent
multiple site plan modifications and corresponding environmental
analyses, in response to City and resident concerns. The project
proposed five primary components: the Crestridge Senior Villas
Condominiums; the Crestridge Senior Villas Townhome Condominiums;
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Senior Center; a new roadway; and a passive
open space area. The proposed senior condominium development
includes 80 for-sale condominium and townhome units (age-restricted)
dispersed throughout seven multi-story buildings. The proposed senior
townhome development includes five for-sale units (age-restricted) in
one two-story structure. The proposed senior center involves a 14,500-
square foot, two-story, 28-foot high structure.
Key environmental issues involved potential impacts to scenic vistas
and General Plan-identified scenic resources, noise, traffic, and air
quality associated with construction-related activities. Additionally,
several geologic constraints were identified resulting in the need for
substantial remedial actions and a detailed analysis of potential hazards
associated with landslides and slope stability. Significant unavoidable
impacts were identified for scenic resources, due to the proposed
grading and removal of the existing ridgeline, construction-related air
emissions and noise, and geologic hazards.
CONTACT:
Mr. Eduardo Schonborn, AICP
Principal Planner
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
350 Main Street
El Segundo, California 90245
310.524.2312
(Mr. Schonborn was with the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
during the preparation of this
environmental document).
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 13
Santa Ana Country Club Golf Course Revitalization Project | Orange
County, CA
In December 2014, the membership of the Santa Ana Country Club
(SACC) approved a capital improvement project to improve and
revitalize the 18-hole, 35,676 square foot golf course, located within
unincorporated Orange County. Michael Baker prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Santa Ana Country Club Golf Course
Revitalization Project. The proposed project would replace the aging
and inefficient irrigation system, realign the existing 18-hole golf
course, implement landscape and water feature improvements, and
relocate certain course facilities. These improvements would revitalize
the course while concurrently reducing water demands on the golf
course, decreasing impervious surfaces, and implementing water
conservation practices on the course.
Key environmental issues included air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, and hazardous materials.
CONTACT:
Ms. Chris Uzo-Diribe,
Environmental Planner
COUNTY OF ORANGE
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, California 92703-
5000
714.667.8845
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
I. Experience and Qualifications 14
The Lakes Specific Plan and Topgolf Project EIR | El Segundo, CA
Michael Baker prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for The
Lakes Specific Plan and Topgolf Project. The Lakes Specific Plan would
establish a link between the El Segundo General Plan implementing
policies and the development proposed within the Specific Plan area
boundaries. The proposed Specific Plan consists of an approximately
26.54-acre area that currently comprises The Lakes at El Segundo, and
establishes two subareas: The Public Recreation/Open Space (PR/OS)
Subarea; and the Commercial-Recreation/Open Space (CR/OS)
Subarea. The Topgolf project consists of 31 acres located at 400 South
Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of El Segundo, County of Los Angeles.
The project would replace an existing driving range and hitting bays
with a three-story Topgolf facility on approximately 11 acres located
within the southern portion of the project site. The project would
modify the fairways and layouts of three holes at the existing nine-hole
executive golf course, and the existing parking lot would also be
modified and expanded to accommodate additional parking in support
of the Topgolf facility.
The EIR reviewed the existing conditions, analyzed potential
environmental impacts, and identified feasible mitigation measures to
avoid or lessen the project’s potentially significant effects. The EIR
provided an in-depth review of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and
Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. As part of the work effort,
Michael Baker staff was also involved with conducting a peer review of
the Applicant prepared Specific Plan.
Key environmental issues included air quality and noise impacts.
CONTACT:
Mr. Eduardo Schonborn, AICP
Principal Planner
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
350 Main Street
El Segundo, California 90245
310.524.2312
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
II. References 15
II. References
Ms. Sandra Moberly
Community and Economic Development Manager
TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
437 Old Mammoth Road
Mammoth Lakes, California 93546
760.934.8989 x251
smoberly@townofmammothlakes.ca.gov
Project: Preparation of an EIR for the Mammoth Lakes
Multi-Use Facility. The project consists of constructing
new community multi-use facilities at the project site,
encompassing a maximum 100-foot by 200-foot ice rink
(winter)/recreation/event area (RecZone) covered by
an approximately 30,000 square-foot roof structure
and additional storage and support space. In addition,
the proposed project includes a 13,000 square-foot
complementary community center, reconfiguration
and improvements to an existing playground to add
accessible interactive components, restroom
improvements, and 107 additional surface parking
spaces.
Start: January 2016 End: May 2017
Mr. Mark Persico, AICP
Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North “D” Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
909.384.5357
persico_ma@sbcity.org
Project: Preparation of the Department of Water and
Power Specific Plan EIR. The project proposed the
development of a 48-lot residential development and
4.5-acres of open space. Mr. Persico was the
Community Development Director of Seal Beach at that
time.
Start: August 2010 End: December 2011
Ms. Carrie Tai, AICP
Senior Planner
CITY OF LONG BEACH
333 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90802
562.570.6411
carrie.tai@longbeach.gov
Project: Preparation of the Subsequent EIR for the
Portola Center Project. The 195-acre project proposed
930 single-family units. The project also proposed a
5.0-acre Community Park, 1.5 mile perimeter trail and
three neighborhood parks, for a total of 10.8 acres of
parkland. Ms. Tai was a Senior Planner at the City of
Lake Forest at the time.
Start: November 2010 End: November 2011
Mr. Steven Ratkay, AICP
Senior Planner
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
8200 Westminster Avenue
Westminster, California 92683
714.548.3486
sratkay@Westminster-CA.gov
Project: Preparation of an EIR for the Bolsa Row Specific
Plan. The proposed project plans to establish a new
mixed-use community in the heart of Little Saigon. This
new community would include a hotel, banquet facility,
apartments, restaurants, and retail uses centered
around a festival street. The festival street would
accommodate community events, outdoor seating, and
a variety of landscape elements.
Start: January 2017 End: Current
Mr. Saied Naaseh
Planning Manager
CITY OF CARSON
701 East Carson Street
Carson, California 90745
310.952.1770
snaaseh@carson.ca.us
Project: On-Call Environmental Services. Mr. Torres
currently manages an on-call environmental services
contract with the City of Carson. In this capacity, Mr.
Torres reviews CEQA documents on behalf of City staff
that are submitted by private developers.
Start: June 2016 End: Current
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
II. References 16
This page left intentionally blank.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 17
III. Project Team
The Michael Baker Team will provide close coordination with the City, ensure technical accuracy, and
carefully monitor budget and schedule compliance, ensuring the overall success of the project. As Project
Manager, Eddie Torres will coordinate the project directly with the City’s Project Manager, be fully
cognizant of the day-to-day technical issues, coordinate with subconsultants, and develop consensus with
City staff and the project team. The Eddie Torres will oversee the project team and be responsible for
ensuring Michael Baker’s successful completion of each task, as well as ensuring that the City’s goals and
expectations are being met.
Every project will have challenges that require discussion and agreement between the affected parties.
The early identification and resolution of critical issues is imperative to keep a project on track and on
schedule. Michael Baker’s approach is designed to allow for regular interaction between City staff, the
environmental consulting project team, and other interested/responsible governmental agencies and
parties, which allows for frequent information sharing among all project members. This approach will
assist in data exchange without loss of time or resources and will give City staff advance input on issues
that arise. Such participation by the consultant minimizes duplication of research effort, improves the
technical quality and accuracy of analysis, and ultimately, reduces the cost of services. It also allows the
project team to offer expert advice and counsel to the City and other interested parties, particularly
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over key elements of the project.
Michael Baker’s scheduling systems allocate resources to meet all client due dates, regardless of their
timing or the number of deadlines within a given period. Responsibility for planning and controlling a
contract schedule belongs to the Project Manager, who will use all of the following systems:
Weekly workload management meetings;
Long-range staffing projections;
Multi-media scheduling (word processing, graphics, editing, and production scheduling); and
Critical path method and time line scheduling for tasks and milestones.
Producing high quality work is an extremely important goal for Michael Baker. The Michael Baker Team’s
Quality Control Program is a continuous process used not just at project milestones, but also on a daily
basis as work flows from desk to desk, discipline to discipline, and consultant to client. Our plans will
undergo two types of internal reviews:
On-going Reviews: These occur throughout the project process by the Project Manager and focus
on the day-to-day accuracy and coordination with other disciplines.
Formal Reviews: These occur at each of the product submittal stages and will be performed by
the discipline department head.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 18
The following are brief background descriptions and availability for the key professionals who would be
responsible for preparing the environmental documentation. Michael Baker is the lead firm for this work
program and will provide services from our Orange County office in Santa Ana. The percentage of hours
of each staff member and individual tasks are included in the Budget Estimate. The project organization
chart is as follows:
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 19
Eddie Torres | Project Manager
SUMMARY:
Mr. Torres’ primary responsibilities include oversight of daily
operations, management of projects, staff mentoring and instruction,
scheduling, and business development for the Santa Ana
Environmental Sciences Department. With many years of practical
experience, Mr. Torres is a recognized leader in CEQA and NEPA studies
(EIR’s, EIS’s, Negative Declarations, and Environmental Assessments).
Mr. Torres utilizes his experience to manage and author environmental
documentation, often incorporating the results of complex technical
documentation to substantiate conclusions within the document. Mr.
Torres has also successfully prepared environmental documentation
for a range of highly controversial projects subject to scrutiny by the
general public, environmental organizations, and public agencies.
Using his broad background and understanding of environmental
constraints, Mr. Torres provides detailed, legally sound CEQA/NEPA
compliance review and environmental documentation.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 18
EDUCATION/TRAINING
M.S., 2005, Mechanical
Engineering, University of
Southern California
B.S., 2000, Mechanical
Engineering, University of
California at Irvine
B.A., 2000, Environmental
Analysis and Design, University
of California at Irvine
Certificate, 2000,
Fundamentals of Mechanical
Engineering, University of
California at Irvine
LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS
Institute of Noise Control
Engineering, 2002
EXPERIENCE:
10th Street Center Industrial Park EIR (Azusa, CA)
14751 Brookhurst Street Residential Development IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
Bandini Industrial Center IS/MND (Bell, CA)
Bethel Church EIR (Redding, CA)
Cabot Career Lofts IS/MND (Laguna Niguel, CA)
Carrari Ranch EIR (Rancho Cucamonga, CA)
Carson/Avalon Mixed Use Project IS/MND (Carson, CA)
Crestridge Senior Villas and Palos Verdes Peninsula Senior Center EIR
(Rancho Palos Verdes, CA)
DeNova Homes High Density Residential IS/MND (Costa Mesa, CA)
Duarte Transit Station TOD Specific Plan EIR (Duarte, CA)
Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan EIR (Upland, CA)
Lido House Hotel EIR (Newport Beach, CA)
Maple Live/Work IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
Mammoth Creek Park West New Community Multi-Use Facilities EIR
(Mammoth Lakes, CA)
Old Mammoth Place Specific Plan EIR (Mammoth Lakes, CA)
Pacific Trade Center EIR (El Monte, CA)
San Fernando Parking Lots Mixed Use Development Project EIR (San
Fernando, CA)
Santa Ana Country Club Golf Course Revitalization Project (Unincorporated
Orange County, CA)
Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan Program EIR (City of Huntington
Beach, CA)
Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan EIR (Temecula, CA)
Temple Palms Business Park EIR (El Monte, CA)
Waste Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility EIR (Azusa, CA)
West Basin Desalination Facility EIR (El Segundo, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 20
Achilles Malisos | Air, Noise, and Climate Change
SUMMARY:
Achilles Malisos serves as the Manager of Air and Noise Studies, with a
specialty in Acoustics, Air Quality, and Climate Change. Achilles has
experience in the research, analysis, and writing of analyses consistent
with the CEQA and NEPA for a variety of environmental planning
projects involving renewable energy, redevelopment, infrastructure,
residential, mixed use, institutional, and commercial uses.
Mr. Malisos has the ability to implement a full analysis methodology
per Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CARB, Air Pollution
Control District/Air Quality Management District, and Caltrans/FHWA
guidelines. His expertise in Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessments
includes technical modeling experience using various state and
federally approved programs including CalEEMod, AERMOD, CALINE4,
and EMFAC.
Mr. Malisos also provides a full range of noise impact analyses for
public and private sector clients, in accordance with local, state and
federal impact assessment criteria. Mr. Malisos utilizes his experience
with noise monitoring using Type I rated instruments, as well as
sophisticated noise modeling using FHWA-RD-77-108, Traffic Noise
Model 2.5, and SoundPLAN to develop noise barrier recommendations
where necessary.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 12
EDUCATION/TRAINING
M.A., 2005, Urban and Regional
Planning, UC Irvine
B.A., 2003, Environmental
Studies, University of
California, Santa Cruz
Trinity Consultants, “Practical
Air Dispersion Modeling
Workshop,” July 2008.
Bowlby and Associates, Inc.,
“FHWA Traffic Noise Model
2.5 Training Course”, 2012.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Urban Land Institute
EXPERIENCE:
10th Street Industrial Park EIR (Azusa, CA)
Citrus Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue Warehouse Peer Review (Fontana, CA)
Country Club Village Senior Housing and Mixed Use IS/MND (Beaumont, CA)
Duarte Transit Station TOD Specific Plan EIR (Duarte, CA)
Generations Senior Housing Project (Temecula, CA)
Laurel Ridge Senior Apartments Technical Studies (Novato, CA)
Oak View Estates Peer Review (Bradbury, CA)
Pacific Avenue Residential Project (Baldwin Park, CA)
Palm Springs Country Club Peer Review (Palm Springs, CA)
Pinnacle Senior Living Center (Murrieta, CA)
Ridge One Warehouse Peer Review (Fontana, CA)
Santa Ana Country Club Golf Course Revitalization Project IS/MND (Orange
County, CA)
Sepulveda and Panama Senior Housing Mixed Use Project (Carson, CA)
Skypark at Santa’s Village Project Peer Review (San Bernardino County, CA)
Temple City Gateway Plaza Project (Temple City, CA)
Waste Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility EIR (Azusa, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 21
Kristen Bogue | Visual/Hazardous Materials/Environmental Analysis
SUMMARY:
Kristen Bogue assists in the preparation of environmental and planning
studies for public and private sector clients, with a focus on due
diligence planning activities. In addition to being a CEQA/NEPA
generalist, Ms. Bogue specializes in the preparation of hazardous
materials studies and visual analysis services.
Ms. Bogue has prepared numerous hazardous materials related
studies. Ms. Bogue prepares Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
(ESAs), Phase I Initial Site Assessments (ISAs) for the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Preliminary Hazardous
Materials Assessments pursuant to CEQA, and Environmental Baseline
Surveys (EBSs) for the Department of the Navy. Other hazardous
materials related studies follow CEQA Guidelines pertaining to
hazardous materials.
Additionally, Ms. Bogue is involved with Visual Impact Assessments in
conformance with appropriate agency standards, including the FHWA
“Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for Highway Projects,” United States
Bureau of Land Management guidelines, and California Energy
Commission (CEC) guidelines. Ms. Bogue assists in the preparation of
documents with respect to CEQA and the NEPA. Visual Services include
the preparation of photosimulations, shade and shadow studies, light
and glare analyses, as well as viewshed mapping.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 12
EDUCATION/TRAINING
B.A., 2005, Environmental
Analysis and Design,
University of California,
Irvine
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASTM International E50
Committee Member
Orange County Association of
Environmental Professionals
Board Member
EXPERIENCE:
10th Street Industrial Park EIR (Azusa, CA)
Carrari Ranch Project EIR (Rancho Cucamonga, CA)
Country Club Village Phase I ESA (Calimesa, CA)
Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment EIR (Seal Beach,
CA)
Golf Course Revitalization Design IS/MND (Santa Ana, CA)
Historic Downtown Upland Specific Plan EIR (Upland, CA)
Maple Avenue Live/Work Project IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan EIR (Palmdale, CA)
Pilgrim Creek Vector Remediation Project IS/MND (Oceanside, CA)
Portola Center Area Plan Project EIR (Lake Forest, CA)
Redevelopment Project Area Merger - Area A Program EIR (San Bernardino,
CA)
Serrano Summit Area Plan 2009-1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17331 EIR
(Lake Forest, CA)
Waste Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility EIR (Azusa, CA)
Westgate Residential Project IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 22
Ryan Chiene | Environmental Analyst
SUMMARY:
Mr. Chiene has worked professionally in the Planning/Environmental
industry for three years. His work experience includes researching,
analyzing and writing a number of CEQA documents, including
Environmental Impact Reports, Initial Studies, Mitigated Negative
Declarations, and technical studies. Technical studies he has worked
on include Air Quality/ GHG Assessments, Noise Studies, Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments, and Visual Impact Assessments,
among others. He has also been involved in municipal planning and
affordable housing work. Through his professional planning work, he
has learned a great deal about the environmental aspect of the
development process, affordable housing, cooperatively working with
fellow employees, and the logistics of development. Moving forward,
he is eager to continue to learn and grow as a professional planner, and
expand his web of knowledge and professional network.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 4
EDUCATION/TRAINING
B.S., 2012, City and Regional
Planning, California
Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo
EXPERIENCE:
Alamitos Battery Energy Storage System IS/MND (Long Beach, CA)
Carson/Avalon Mixed Use Project (Carson, CA)
Elements Specific Plan Project IS/MND (Carson, CA)
Freeway Trail Lighting Project Preliminary Environmental Study (Irvine, CA)
Garnet Street Bridge Replacement Three Year On-Call (Mentone, CA)
Gilbert Street Improvements Phase I ISA (County of Orange, CA)
Heritage Park EIR (Dublin, CA)
Inn at the Village Subsequent EIR (Mammoth Lakes, CA)
Lincoln Specific Plan EIR (Whittier, CA)
Mater Dei High School Parking Structure EIR (Santa Ana, CA)
Park Avenue Over Grand Canal Bridge Replacement Project IS/MND
(Newport Beach, CA)
Park Place Extension EIR/EA (El Segundo, CA)
Portola Center IS and EIR (Lake Forest, CA)
University Drive Widening IS/MND (Irvine and Newport Beach, CA)
Upland General Plan Update and EIR (Upland, CA)
Westgate Residential Project IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 23
Tom Huang, TE | Senior Traffic Engineer
SUMMARY:
Mr. Huang has worked professionally in transportation planning and
traffic engineering since 1995. His experience in these fields includes
traffic impact analysis, circulation and access planning, parking
demand analysis, and site access evaluation. He has worked on a
variety of traffic engineering designs including traffic signal plans,
signing and striping plans, and traffic control plans. Mr. Huang has
provided on-call service for City of Pomona in assisting the Public
Works Department staff in performing plan checks for traffic control
plans and traffic impact analysis. He also provided peer review services
for various traffic impact analysis reports. Mr. Huang’s experience with
neighborhood traffic control has included numerous neighborhood
street impact assessments that focus on pedestrian safety issues. Mr.
Huang has extensive experience in transportation planning analysis.
He has prepared numerous traffic impact analysis studies for various
commercial, industrial and residential development projects.
Additionally, Mr. Huang has worked cooperatively with California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in conducting traffic impact
analysis in support of project study reports (PSR).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 21
EDUCATION/TRAINING
B.S., 1995, Civil Engineering,
California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS
Traffic Engineer, California,
2010, 2575
EXPERIENCE:
10375 West Washington Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact
Analysis (Los Angeles, CA)
Anaheim Senior Affordable Housing Parking Study (Anaheim, CA)
Country Club Village Traffic Impact Analysis (Calimesa, CA)
Depot at Santiago Mixed-Use Project Traffic Site Analysis (Santa Ana, CA)
Elderly Residential Care Facility Traffic Study (Santa Ana, CA)
Huntington Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Traffic Impact and
Parking Study (Pasadena, CA)
In-N-Out Vallejo Traffic Impact Analysis (Vallejo, CA)
La Ville Soleil Traffic Study (San Gabriel, CA)
Laguna Wood Cannabis Dispensary Parking Study (Laguna Woods, CA)
NCA Medical Center Traffic Impact Analysis (Mission Viejo, CA)
Nelson Business Park Traffic Impact Analysis (City of Industry, CA).
Norm’s Restaurant Parking Demand Analysis (El Monte, CA)
Oceanaire Apartments Traffic Impact Study (Long Beach, CA)
Park Place Extension Traffic Impact Analysis (El Segundo, CA)
Peer Review of the Hare Creek Commercial Center Project Traffic Impact
Study Report (Fort Bragg, CA)
Peer Review of the Inn at Laguna Beach Parking Analysis (Laguna Beach, CA)
Peer Review of the Santa Clara City Place Environmental Impact Report,
(Santa Clara, CA)
Rady Children's Hospital Murrieta Hub Medical Office Traffic Study
(Murrieta, CA)
Rowland Height Office Project Traffic Study (Rowland Heights, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 24
Tom McGill, Ph.D. | Biological Resources
SUMMARY:
Dr. McGill has more than 30 years of experience in preparing all types
of biological reports, including resource management plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCP), multi-species habitat conservation plans
(MSHCP), sensitive species surveys, and biological assessments under
Section 7 of the federal endangered species act. He provides the
unique combination of being and environmental consultant as well as
an attorney having passed the California State Bar in 1990. Dr. McGill
has directed numerous habitat conservation planning, land use
planning, and environmental efforts throughout the Inland Empire,
including the cities of Chino, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana,
Rialto, San Bernardino, Highland, Redlands, Riverside, San Jacinto, and
Hemet. Dr. McGill is also one of the authors of the multiple award-
winning first ever Tribal Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
prepared for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians which
established the benchmark for all future similar documents for
Sovereign Nations. Prior to his entry into the private industry, Dr.
McGill worked for the U.S. Department of the Navy as head of
environmental management in the Mojave Desert at China Lake.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 31
EDUCATION/TRAINING
Ph.D., Genetics, University of
California, Santa Barbara
1978
M.A., Ecology, University of
California, Santa Barbara
1978
B.A., Biology, Harvard
University Cambridge
Massachusetts, 1971
HONORS/AWARDS
Lifetime Achievement Award,
2004 Inland Empire
Leaders of Distinction
Outstanding Individual
Achievement Award, 2003
AEP State of California
Outstanding Individual
Achievement Award, 2003
AEP Inland Empire Chapter
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Professionals
Business Development
Association of the Inland
Empire
California State Bar Association
Death Valley Natural History
Association, Past Chairman
EXPERIENCE:
Alabama Street Bridge (County of San Bernardino, CA)
City of Chino Annexation, General Plan Amendment and EIR
DARPA Grand Challenge (San Bernardino County, CA)
Desert Conservation Program Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Nursery Products (Barstow, CA)
Hawes Radio Relay Station (San Bernardino County, CA)
MSHCP Consistency Analyses for the Western Riverside County and
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
North Fontana Habitat Conservation Plan (Fontana, CA)
On-Call Environmental / Biological Consulting (Los Angeles, CA)
Panattoni Development Species Relocation Plan (Chino, CA)
Prado Basin Biological Studies and Section 7 Consultation
San Bernardino Merged Area B Merger and Amendments Project EIR (San
Bernardino, CA)
Santa Ana River Trail Biological Assessment
Sares Regis Relocation Plan for the Burrowing Owl (Chino, CA)
Silver State North Solar Project (Primm, NV)
The Preserve Development (Chino, CA)
Walton Development San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan (Redlands, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 25
Rebecca Kinney, PE | Hydrology/Water Quality Specialist
SUMMARY:
Ms. Kinney has extensive experience in all phases of stormwater
management projects including planning, design, and construction.
Her recent experience has focused on development of Master Plans of
drainage, which focus on storm drainage facility sizing, stormwater
NPDES compliance, stream stability, and floodplain management. Her
planning experience includes large master planned communities, and
municipal planning, as well as supporting hydrologic and stormwater
quality analysis as a basis for CEQA documentation.
Ms. Kinney has prepared Water Quality Management Plans,
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, and CEQA water quality
technical studies. Ms. Kinney is also experienced in channel
restoration design work including hydrologic and hydraulic modeling
and PS&E work. She has also served as a regulatory agent for the
application of 404 Corps of Engineers, 401 California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and 1601/1603 California of Department of Fish
and Game permits. She received Wetland Delineation training by the
Wetland Training Institute. Her knowledge of both engineering and
environmental requirements make her an asset to any multi-
disciplinary team.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 20
EDUCATION/TRAINING
B.S., 1995, Civil Engineering,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo
LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Engineer - Civil,
California, 1999, 58797
EXPERIENCE:
10th Street Center Industrial Park EIR Hydrology/WQMP Peer Review
(Azusa, CA)
14751 Brookhurst Street Residential Development Project IS/MND
(Westminster, CA)
2626 Harbor Boulevard IS/MND and Addendum (Costa Mesa, CA)
Anchor Live/Work Project IS/MND (Costa Mesa, CA)
Bandini Industrial Center IS/MND (Bell, CA)
Hyundai Motor America EIR Hydrology/WQMP Peer Review (Fountain
Valley, CA)
Maple Avenue Live/Work Project IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
Portola Center Initial Study and EIR Hydrology/WQMP Peer Review (Lake
Forest, CA)
San Diego Creek Master Plan of Drainage (Orange County, CA)
Waste Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility EIR Hydrology/WQMP Peer Review
(Azusa, CA)
Westgate Residential Project IS/MND (Westminster, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 26
Christopher Duran, MA, RPA| Principal Archaeologist, Rincon
Consulting
SUMMARY:
Chris Duran is a Principal Investigator and Project Manager at Rincon
Consultants, Inc. Mr. Duran has more than seven years of professional
experience and has worked extensively in California and the Great
Basin. Mr. Duran has more than nine years of professional experience
procuring, conducting, and managing cultural resources investigation
projects in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), NEPA, and CEQA as they pertain to
cultural resources. His research and professional experience include
hunter-gatherer societies, Great Basin archaeology, Mojave Desert
archaeology, California archaeology, GIS, quantitative analysis, ruins
preservation, and cultural resources management. Mr. Duran has
served as Principal Investigator and Project Manager on archaeological
projects throughout Southern California, and in San Diego County,
including historical archaeology studies in the region.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 10
EDUCATION/TRAINING
M.A., Anthropology, Northern
Arizona University (2009)
B.S., Anthropology-Cultural
Resources Management,
California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona (2007)
Registered Professional
Archaeologist (ID# 415730)
LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS
Principal Investigator, California
Bureau of Land
Management statewide
FLPMA permit (CA-15-27)
(2015-2018)
Principal Investigator, Nevada
Bureau of Land
Management, statewide
FLPMA permit (N93677)
(2015-2018)
EXPERIENCE:
001B Turn-out Structure and Basin No. 2 Inlet/Turn-out Structure Projects
(Pico Rivera, CA)
TD575283 Deteriorated Pole Replacement Heritage Resources Survey
Project (Inyo National Forest, CA)
Casa Diablo Transmission Line Heritage Resource Monitoring (Inyo National
Forest, Inyo and Mono Counties, CA)
Cherry Canyon Citizens’ Trail Project (La Cañada Flintridge, CA)
Courtyard and Townplace Suites Hotel Cultural Resources Investigation (City
of Agoura Hills, CA)
Garland Solar Archaeological Monitoring Project (Kern and Los Angeles
Counties, CA)
Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) Advanced Water
Treatment Facility (AWTF), Water Replenishment District (Los Angeles
County, CA)
Line 33-37 Coupon Extraction Phase I Cultural Resources Study (Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, CA)
Padres Trail Desilting Basin Project (La Cañada Flintridge, CA)
Partial or Complete Closure of Defense Fuel Support Point Cultural
Resources Investigation (San Pedro, CA)
Medea Creek Restoration Project Phase II Cultural Resources Investigation
(Agoura Hills, CA)
Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program Tower Replacement Project
Cultural Resources Study (Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Ventura Counties, CA)
Three Pole Replacement in Mojave (Mojave, CA)
Walker Pass Archaeological Survey (Neenach, Los Angeles and Kern
Counties, CA)
Woodland Hills Water Recycling Project, Phase I Cultural Resources Study
(Los Angeles County, CA)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 27
TEAMING PARTNERS
Rincon Consultants, Inc. is a multi-disciplinary environmental sciences, planning, and
engineering consulting firm that provides quality professional services to government and
industry. Founded in 1994, Rincon has grown to a firm of over 90 professionals located in
nine California offices (Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Carlsbad, Monterey, Oakland, Los Angeles,
Riverside, Fresno, and Sacramento).
Rincon’s highly trained professionals have many years of experience in urban, land use, and
environmental planning; regulatory compliance; biological resource evaluation and habitat enhancement;
soil evaluation and remediation; and related studies including problem-solving services in geology,
hydrology, and waste management. For this project, Rincon would be used as a subconsultant for
cultural/historical resources (AB 52).
Rincon’s Cultural Resources group is committed to providing high-quality cultural resources services to
private and public sector clients. The group includes professional cultural resource managers who meet
or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history,
history, and prehistoric and historic archaeology. Rincon’s professional paleontologists meet the Society
of Vertebrate Paleontology qualifications requirements. The firm’s professional cultural resources staff
will be supported by qualified field technicians, GIS staff, technical editors, and document production
specialists. Rincon is adept at helping private, utility, and agency clients comply with the cultural resources
components of federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Rincon specializes in compliance with the
cultural resources requirements of CEQA, CEQA-Plus, NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). When analyzing projects, our specialists consider the
full spectrum of cultural resources including the built environment, archaeological, paleontological and
traditional cultural properties/tribal cultural resources. The firm’s cultural resources group is highly skilled
at completing the full range of cultural resources management services, including:
Compliance with NEPA, CEQA and local
historic ordinances
Historic preservation planning
Historic resource evaluations
Preparation of California Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms
Historic context statements
Compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards (Standards) for
Rehabilitation
Findings of Effects (FOE)
Native American consultation, including
compliance with Senate Bill 18 of 2005
(SB-18) and Assembly Bill 52 of 2015 (AB-
52)
Mills Act and ordinance assistance
Certificates of appropriateness
Certified Local Government (CLG)
Compliance
Archaeological resource surveys, testing
and data recovery programs
Cultural resource monitoring
Paleontological Resource analyses
Paleontological monitoring and salvage
Historic American Building Survey (HABS)
documentation
Historic district design guidelines
Adaptive reuse plans
Historic group consultation
Rincon has considerable experience identifying and managing architectural resources, having evaluated
the historical significance of thousands of resources within the built environment. Experience includes
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
III. Project Team 28
archival research, documentation and evaluation of streetscape elements such as buildings, structures
and districts, but also includes water conveyance systems, roads and trails, landscapes, and other unique
features of the built environment. Rincon develops meaningful mitigation for CEQA projects, including
the use of HABS documentation, oral histories, educational outreach, preservation mitigation banks, and
the development of interpretative media.
Rincon’s archaeologists have developed a solid reputation of providing quality archaeological resource
services, and the firm has garnered respect from a wide variety of private and agency clients. Rincon has
conducted thousands of archaeological assessments for projects on private and public lands. This work
has been conducted under the guidelines of CEQA, as well as Section 106 of the NHPA under the
jurisdiction of many state and local agencies. The archaeological work conducted by Rincon’s
archaeologists has involved all phases, including initial desktop analyses, archival records searches,
pedestrian surveys, testing and evaluations, data recovery operations, and archaeological resources
monitoring. Rincon’s excellent working relationships with tribal representatives and agencies throughout
the state helping local jurisdictions navigate their consultation obligations under SB 18 and AB 52, as well
as Section 106 of the NHPA.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 29
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach
Project Understanding
Michael Baker will serve as an extension of City staff to ensure that the entire environmental process is
conducted in a comprehensive manner and considers recent CEQA legislation and reviewing agency
requirements. Mr. Eddie Torres will be responsible for the day-to-day management and supervision of
the work program and will be the direct point of contact to the City. Mr. Torres will be responsible for
consulting with and coordinating the Michael Baker project team to ensure a thorough analysis that
complies with CEQA requirements and the City’s entitlement process. Mr. Torres will also attend
scheduled staff meetings and will represent the Project Team at public hearings and make presentations
as necessary. We anticipate regular and consistent communication throughout the project and will be
available to attend conference calls and or meetings with City staff and/or other representatives as
necessary. The Michael Baker Team includes Rincon Consultants for cultural/historical resource peer
review services. This Team of professionals have the proven expertise and experience in preparing
technical studies and environmental analysis for successful environmental compliance.
The City of Azusa is seeking a consultant to provide environmental consulting services for the proposed
California Grand Village Azusa Green Project. The Azusa Greens Country Club has been in operation since
1988 and is comprised of approximately seven parcels. The project proposes to construct a 3-level 256-
unit luxury independent living village for seniors and the reconfiguration of two holes along Todd Avenue.
The area where the project would be constructed consists of 4.48 acres at southwest corner of North
Todd Avenue and West Sierra Madre Avenue, and currently consists of holes three through six of the golf
course. The luxury independent living village would have a resort setting with concierge, dining, and
housekeeping services as well as programming and amenities. The project would also have a limited
number of assisted living and memory care facilities. The reconfiguration of the golf course would have
holes three through six aligned along West 10th Street.
The project would have various amenities similar to a resort. Each resident would receive all meals
prepared by a central kitchen in a formal restaurant setting and dining areas would include
indoor/outdoor areas. A bistro would provide deli/take-out service and wine bar/outdoor patio is planned
on a roof deck. The project would include fitness rooms, personal training, outdoor pool, and day
spa/wellness center. Additional meeting and activities rooms would be provided for range of activities or
events, such as: computers classes, movies, games nights, etc. The outdoor space would consist of patios,
gardens, trails, a dog park, and passive landscape areas. On-site staff would provide services such as
concierge, transportation, activities, and programming, to provide a luxury resort-like setting for
residents.
A 3-level parking structure would be constructed and would include a total of 288 parking stalls, with 11
handicap parking stalls, and 5 van accessible parking stalls. The parking structure would not be visible
from the public right-of-way and would be completely wrapped by residential units. The project would
have 4 parking stalls outside of the parking structure near the main entrance. Access to the facility is
proposed from Todd Avenue with a central entry that would open into a circular drop off area. The drop
off area would have a large specimen tree in the middle.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 30
The project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Design Review, Specific
Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and an Environmental Impact Report.
Based upon the RFP and correspondence with City staff, it is our understanding that the Applicant team
will be preparing the following technical studies:
Air Quality Assessment
Arborist / Tree Survey
Biological Resources Assessment
Cultural Resources Assessment
Geology / Geotechnical
Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Phase I Site Assessment
Fire Master Plan
Hydrology Study
Preliminary Water Quality Master Plan
Noise Assessment
Traffic Impact Analysis
Domestic Water Supply Study
Sewer Assessment
Visual Simulations
Economic Study
The Michael Baker Team will provide a peer review of the Applicant prepared studies and will incorporate
them into the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
TASK A. Environmental Consulting Services
The initiation of the CEQA process will involve a detailed scoping process including a review of issues,
constraints, and project goals/objectives. Michael Baker will prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with
an attached Initial Study to be circulated for 30-day review. Comments received during the review period
will be evaluated as part of preparation of the Draft EIR. Michael Baker, working closely and in
collaboration with City staff, will include a public scoping session, which will provide an opportunity to
obtain a better understanding of key environmental concerns of interested agencies and the community,
as well as informing the public as to the purpose of the CEQA review and determination process.
Comments received during the 30-day NOP review period will be evaluated as part of preparation of the
Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR will include the Introduction and Purpose, Executive Summary, and Project Description. The
Environmental Analysis section will evaluate the necessary information with respect to the existing
conditions, the potential adverse effects of project construction and implementation (both individual and
cumulative), and measures to mitigate such effects. Environmental issues raised during the scoping
process (Notice of Preparation responses; public scoping meeting; and any other relevant and valid
informative sources) will also be evaluated. The environmental analysis section of the EIR will thoroughly
discuss the existing conditions for each environmental issue area; identify short-term and long-term
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 31
environmental impacts associated with the project and their levels of significance. Feasible mitigation
measures will be recommended to reduce the significance of impacts and identify areas of unavoidable
significant adverse impacts even after mitigation. The environmental documentation will assist in
identifying constraints, modifications, and improvements which may be incorporated into the land
planning process.
The Michael Baker Team will be viewed as an integral component in the project review and will participate
in meetings with staff and public hearings, as required by the City. The Michael Baker Team will have the
responsibility of aiding the City during the public scoping meeting, as well as leading the public
participation program for the environmental review, including the Draft EIR public review meeting and
throughout the public hearing process for certification of the EIR. The Michael Baker Team will assist
decision makers and the public in understanding the analysis, conclusions of the EIR review, and guide the
CEQA review process. Michael Baker has served in this role with a countless number of agencies and with
a wide range of projects of great interest to communities.
Michael Baker will complete the environmental review process, respond to all comments received during
the Draft EIR public review period, prepare the mitigation monitoring program, and draft the necessary
Findings and possible Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of
the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental review process will result in the presentation of pertinent
information associated with project impacts and findings to the City decision makers for determination
and CEQA certification.
1.0 PROJECT SCOPING
1.1 Project Kick-off and Project Characteristics
The work program will be initiated with a formal kick-off meeting with City staff to discuss the project
features in greater detail. This initial meeting is vital to the success of the process and will be a key
milestone in order to confirm the parameters of the analysis, the details of construction and proposed
buildout conditions, scheduling, and overall communications. The City’s preferred format for the
environmental documentation will be provided as part of this meeting. Prior to the kick-off, Michael Baker
will distribute a kick-off meeting agenda and detailed memorandum, which will identify information
needs. Based upon the detailed project information obtained at the project kick-off meeting, Michael
Baker will draft a preliminary project description for review and approval by City staff.
1.2 Research and Investigation
Michael Baker will obtain and review available referenced data for the project area, including policy
documentation from the City of Azusa, state and federal agencies, the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), and all other agencies which may be affected by the project. This information, along
with environmental data and information available from the City, will become part of the foundation of
the EIR and will be reviewed and incorporated into the analysis, as deemed appropriate. This task includes
a visit to the project area, which will include a detailed photographic inventory of on- and off-site
conditions.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 32
1.3 Initial Study
Michael Baker will prepare an Initial Study that includes detailed explanations of all checklist
determinations and discussions of potential environmental impacts. The analysis will be prepared in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The Initial
Study will include a description of the project, its location, and supporting exhibits; briefly explain the
reasons for determining which project impacts would not be significant or potentially significant and
provide evidence to support each conclusion; and identify which project impacts would be significant or
potentially significant, in order to focus the EIR environmental analysis. Michael Baker will respond to
one complete set of comments from the City on the Draft Initial Study then finalize the document for
distribution.
1.4 Notice of Preparation
Michael Baker will prepare the NOP for the EIR, which will be distributed to a City-approved Distribution
List. An Initial Study Checklist will be attached to the NOP. This task includes certified mailing to affected
agencies and interested parties. Comments received in response to the NOP will be evaluated during
preparation of the EIR.
1.5 Scoping Meeting
Michael Baker will conduct a scoping meeting during the NOP public review period that will be set up as
a brief project overview presentation, so that the community can gain an understanding of the proposed
improvements and provide comments based upon accurate knowledge of the proposed project. The
scoping meeting will orient the community on the CEQA review process and will be presented in a manner
which the community can gain a greater understanding of the proposal, intent of CEQA, and the key issue
areas to be addressed in the EIR. Michael Baker will provide a PowerPoint presentation to supplement
the discussion. Following the presentation, the meeting will be devoted to public participation, questions,
and comments. Written comment forms will be provided for this purpose, and these comments, along
with oral comments, will become a part of the administrative record.
2.0 PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
2.1 Introduction and Purpose
The Introduction will cite the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Azusa’s CEQA
Implementation procedures for which the proposed project is subject. This section will identify the
purpose of the study and statutory authority as well as document scoping procedures, summary of the
EIR format, listing of responsible and trustee agencies, and documentation incorporated by reference.
2.2 Executive Summary
The Executive Summary will include a Project Summary, an overview of project impacts, mitigation, and
levels of significance after mitigation, summary of project alternatives, and areas of controversy and issues
to be resolved. The Environmental Summary will be presented in a columnar format.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 33
2.3 Project Description
The Project Description section of the EIR will detail the project location, background and history of the
project, discretionary actions, characteristics (addressed in Task 1.1), goals and objectives, construction
program, phasing, agreements, and required permits and approvals that are required based on available
information. This section will include a summary of the local environmental setting for the project.
Exhibits depicting the regional and site vicinity will be included in this section.
2.4 Thresholds of Significance
This section will provide a comprehensive description of thresholds of significance for each issue area of
the environmental analysis. The significance threshold criteria will be described and will provide the basis
for conclusions of significance. Primary sources to be used in identifying the criteria include the CEQA
Guidelines, and local, state, federal, or other standards applicable to an impact category.
2.5 Cumulative Projects/Analysis
In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will include a section providing a
detailed listing of cumulative projects and actions under consideration for the analysis. The likelihood of
occurrence and level of severity will be studied. The purpose of the section is to present a listing and
description of projects, past, present, and anticipated in the reasonably foreseeable future, even if those
projects are outside of Azusa’s jurisdiction. The potential for impact and levels of significance are
contingent upon the radius or area of interaction with the project area. Michael Baker will consult with
City staff and other applicable local jurisdictions to define the appropriate study area for the cumulative
analysis. The cumulative analysis for each topical area will be incorporated throughout the analyses in
Section 2.6.
2.6 Environmental Analysis
Michael Baker will evaluate the necessary information with respect to the existing conditions, the
potential adverse effects of project implementation (both individual and cumulative), and measures to
mitigate such effects. Environmental issues raised during the scoping process (Notice of Preparation
responses, public scoping meeting, and any other relevant and valid informative sources) will also be
evaluated. The analyses will be based upon all available data, results from additional research, and an
assessment of existing technical data. These analyses will be performed by qualified Environmental
Analysts, CEQA experts, and Planners at Michael Baker.
The Environmental Analysis section of the EIR will thoroughly discuss the existing conditions for each
environmental issue area, identify short-term construction and long-term operational impacts associated
with the project, and their levels of significance. The thresholds for significance shall be identified for
every environmental issue. Feasible mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce the significance
of impacts and identify areas of significant unavoidable impacts even after mitigation. This section will
include analysis for the following environmental issue areas:
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 34
A. A E S T H E T I C S
Existing Conditions. The project site and surrounding area are currently characterized by developed
residential and recreational uses, as well as commercial and industrial uses. This section will characterize
the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources for the site vicinity, including a discussion of views
toward the site from the surrounding developed area. A visual inventory of the project area will be
conducted in order to verify the visual character and viewshed. A discussion of the existing on-site
recreational (golf course) uses will be detailed. Color site photographs will be provided to illustrate on-
site and surrounding views.
Construction-Related Impacts. Short-term clearing, grading, and construction impacts will be studied
within the EIR. Potential impacts to sensitive uses as a result of staging areas and visible earthwork
activities will be addressed. Construction related haul trucks and activities will also be analyzed.
Scenic Views and Vistas. The Initial Study of the EIR will confirm that the proposed project will not result
in impacts pertaining to view blockage of the San Gabriel Mountains, as seen from public trails along the
San Gabriel River to the west of the project site.
Character/Quality Analysis. The analysis will consider the potential visual impacts that could result from
the modification of the on-site and surrounding character/quality. The compatibility of the proposed land
uses, building heights and possible building materials, as compared to the surrounding area, will be
studied. This scope of work assumes that the Applicant will provide photosimulations, which will be
incorporated into this analysis. This section will include an analysis of the existing City of Azusa General
Plan goals and policies. Consideration of the project’s design and appearance of structures will be
included. A discussion of the project’s compliance with all applicable development and design
standards/guidelines will be included, which minimizes potential adverse effects pertaining to aesthetic
continuity within the community. Additional mitigation measures will be recommended, as necessary, to
reduce impacts pertaining to the degradation of character/quality as feasible.
Photosimulation Peer Review. Michael Baker will conduct a peer review of the Applicant-provided
photosimulations. Michael Baker will review the specific locations of photograph locations proposed and
make recommendations regarding relocation or addition of new photograph locations based on the
existing public views in the area. Michael Baker will review and compare the photosimulations of the
project to the project’s site plans, grading plans, and elevations and will make recommendations for
revisions as necessary to ensure an accurate representation of the project.
Light and Glare Analysis. Michael Baker will address the potential for significant impacts to be generated by the
introduction of light and glare associated with the increased development of the project. Michael Baker will
review and incorporate existing outdoor lighting standards established by the existing City of Azusa Municipal
Code, for inclusion within the EIR.
B. A I R Q U A L I T Y
Michael Baker will review the Air Quality analysis that will be provided by the project Applicant, including
a review of all modeling data and assumptions (electronic files of all computer models shall be provided
for verification); evaluate the adequacy of the methods used to conduct the various parts of the study in
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 35
terms of professional standards, CEQA Guidelines, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD) CEQA Guidelines; and evaluate the consultant’s recommendations and conclusions based on
CEQA Guidelines and other state and federal laws as applicable. It is assumed that the technical analysis
will include an evaluation of construction and operational emissions at project and cumulative levels. A
memorandum summarizing the adequacy of the study (or inadequacies) will be prepared. Michael Baker
will conduct a brief review of the revised (final) technical report to ensure the peer review comments have
been addressed.
This section will incorporate the Air Quality study prepared by the Applicant Team upon completion of
Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
C. B I O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S
Michael Baker will conduct a peer review of the Biological Resources and Arborist reports that will be
provided by the project Applicant. Michael Baker will first verify the technical references/databases
reviewed prior to conducting an on-site field investigation. In addition, any correspondence with the
regulatory agencies, and any governing biological management plans (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plan(s))
prepared for managing habitat in the general area will also be reviewed to ensure completeness and
consistency of the information provided in the report. Following the initial review of the biological
resources report, an on-site field investigation/site reconnaissance will be conducted to verify/reconfirm
biological resources documented in the report. Subsequent to verification, Michael Baker will conduct a
review of the prepared technical report for technical accuracy, completeness of the impact assessment
and the adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures and/or permit requirements. If concerns are
noted, Michael Baker will recommend actions to correct the noted concern within a technical
memorandum. Michael Baker will conduct a brief review of the revised (final) technical report to ensure
the peer review comments have been addressed.
This section will incorporate the Biological Resources and Arborist studies prepared by the Applicant Team
upon completion of Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
D . C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
Michael Baker has retained the services of Rincon Consultants (Rincon) to conduct a peer review of the
Cultural Resources Report that will be provided by the Applicant Team. The report will include the
following:
Cultural Resources Assessment Peer Review. The peer review will focus on the adequacy of the technical
report for conformance with the cultural resources requirements of CEQA and the City of Azusa General
Plan and Development Code. Analysis will include: understanding of the regulatory setting; adequacy of
survey to current professional standards; adequacy of California Register of Historical Resources eligibility
evaluations, impacts assessment, mitigation measures (if any); and, an assessment of the mitigation
measures to ensure adequacy to avoid or reduce project‐related impacts to a less than significant level.
The results of the cultural resources peer review will be summarized in a technical memorandum. This
peer review will include review of a paleontological resources study, if one is available.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 36
Senate Bill 18 Assistance. Rincon will assist the City of Azusa with Native American government‐to‐
government consultation in accordance with SB 18. SB 18 assistance will include preparation of an SB 18‐
specific Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search request and draft letter
and map for Native American tribal government contacts, as well as providing the City with a tracking
sheet and instructions for successful SB 18 consultation. Native American contacts have 90 days to
respond and request further consultation.
Assembly Bill 52 Assistance. Rincon will assist the City of Azusa with Native American consultation in
accordance with AB 52. Rincon assumes the City will provide a list of tribes who have requested AB 52
notification from the County. Rincon will draft letters and maps for Native American tribal contacts, and
will provide the County with a tracking sheet and instructions for successful AB 52 consultation. Native
American contacts have 30 days to respond and request further consultation.
This section will incorporate the Biological Resources and Arborist studies prepared by the Applicant Team
upon completion of Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
E . G E O L O G Y A N D S O I L S
Michael Baker will conduct a peer review of the geology/soils report that will be provided by the project
Applicant. The peer review of the geology/soils study will be conducted to ascertain its compliance with
professional standards of the industry and CEQA Guidelines, including a “desktop” level review of the site
and surrounding area. Michael Baker will conduct a brief review of the revised (final) technical report to
ensure the peer review comments have been addressed. The final report and recommended mitigation
(if any) will be incorporated into the EIR.
F . G R E E N H O U S E G A S E M I S S I O N S
Michael Baker will peer review the GHG Analysis that will be provided by the project Applicant, including
review of all modeling data and assumptions (electronic files of all computer models that were used for
verification shall be provided); evaluate the adequacy of the methods used to conduct the various parts
of the study in terms of professional standards, CEQA Guidelines; and evaluate the consultant’s
recommendations and conclusions based on CEQA Guidelines and other state and federal laws as
applicable. It is assumed the technical analysis will include an evaluation of project and cumulative GHG
emissions and project consistency with applicable GHG emissions reduction plans. A memorandum
summarizing the adequacy of the study (or inadequacies) will be prepared. Michael Baker will conduct a
brief review of the revised (final) technical report to ensure the peer review comments have been
addressed.
This section will incorporate the Greenhouse Gas Emissions study prepared by the Applicant Team upon
completion of Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
G . H A Z A R D S A N D H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Peer Review. Michael Baker will conduct a peer review and
prepare a summary technical memorandum on the Applicant-provided Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA). Based on the documentation provided in the Phase I ESA, Michael Baker will discuss
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 37
the findings, opinions, and conclusions made in the Phase I ESA. Recommendations/requests for
clarification will be made, as necessary. This Task does not include a Michael Baker site inspection,
interviews, review of public records, or completion of other ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practice
E 1527-13 areas that may or may not be present in the Phase I ESA document during the peer review.
Existing Conditions. The project site consists of the existing holes 3 through 6 at the existing Azusa Greens
Golf Course. The project site is comprised of existing tee boxes, fairways, putting greens, and ornamental
landscaping. Michael Baker will document the existing hazards and hazardous materials conditions of the
project site, based on the Applicant-provided Phase I ESA.
Project-Related Impacts. Michael Baker will utilize the above referenced documentation to analyze
potential project-related impacts, as they pertain to hazards and hazardous materials per the CEQA
thresholds of significance. An analysis of the proposed improvements will be conducted. Potential
accidental conditions during construction and operations, involving hazardous materials will be analyzed.
Project emergency access will be considered. Should a potentially significant impact arise, Michael Baker
will recommend mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. Any significant and
unavoidable impacts that result, if any, will be concluded.
H . H Y D R O L O G Y A N D W A T E R Q U A L I T Y
Michael Baker will peer review the Hydrology Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(pWQMP) that will provided by the project Applicant. The review will be conducted to evaluate the
adequacy of the method and approach to conduct the study in terms of professional standards, County
and City requirements, and CEQA Guidelines. Recommendations within the reports will be evaluated as
well as the CEQA significance determinations. A memorandum summarizing the adequacy of the study
(or inadequacies) will be prepared. Michael Baker will conduct a brief review of the revised (final)
technical report to ensure the peer review comments have been addressed.
This section will incorporate the Hydrology Study and pWQMP prepared by the Applicant Team upon
completion of Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
I . L A N D U S E A N D P L A N N I N G
The project site has a General Plan designation of Open Space and Zoning designation of Recreation (Rec).
The requested project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Design Review,
Specific Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map. Analysis will be conducted, in order to determine the project’s
consistency with the City of Azusa General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and related policy documents. In
addition, the regional planning review will include consistency with SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide policies.
This section will also evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed uses in comparison to the surrounding
uses, as well as identify and analyze the consistencies and potential inconsistencies of the proposed
project with on-site and surrounding uses. The density of uses proposed on-site and impacts to nearby
uses will be studied. Mitigation measures will be identified to reduce the significance of potential impacts.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 38
J . N O I S E
Michael Baker will review the Noise Analysis that will be provided by the project Applicant, including a
review of all modeling data and noise measurements (electronic files of all computer models shall be
provided for verification); evaluate the adequacy of the methods used to conduct the various parts of the
study in terms of professional standards, CEQA Guidelines; and evaluate the consultant’s
recommendations and conclusions based on CEQA Guidelines and other state and federal laws as
applicable. It is assumed that the technical analysis will include an evaluation of construction and
operational emissions at project and cumulative levels. A memorandum summarizing the adequacy of
the study (or inadequacies) will be prepared. Michael Baker will conduct a brief review of the revised
(final) technical report to ensure the peer review comments have been addressed.
This section will incorporate the Noise Analysis prepared by the Applicant Team upon completion of
Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
K . P U B L I C S E R V I C E S A N D U T I L I T I ES
Michael Baker will contact potentially affected agencies to confirm relevant existing conditions, project
impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. The discussion will focus on the potential alteration of
existing facilities, extension or expansion of new facilities, and the increased demand on services based
on the proposed land uses. Michael Baker will evaluate the ability of the project to receive adequate
service based on applicable City standards and, where adequate services are not available, will identify
the effects of inadequate service and recommended mitigation measures. Issues discussed include:
Public Services:
Fire. The overall need for Fire Services would potentially increase beyond existing conditions as a
result of the project. The Fire Services review will include a review of existing services/facilities in the
area, response times to the site, available fire flow, project impacts, and required mitigation. This
section will also include the findings of the Applicant provided Fire Master Plan.
Police. The overall need for Police Services would potentially increase beyond existing conditions as
a result of the project. The Police Services review will include a review of existing services/facilities in
the area, response times to the site, project impacts, and required mitigation.
Recreation. The analysis will review the overall parkland conditions in the City and parkland
requirement associated with the proposed residential uses. Potential impacts will be identified with
mitigation to reduce the significance of impacts.
Utilities:
Water. Based upon information provided by the City, Applicant provided Water Supply Study, and
the Azusa Light & Water, Michael Baker will evaluate existing capacities and the ability of the project
to receive adequate water supplies. Deficiencies will be addressed.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 39
Sewer. Based upon technical information provided by the City and project Applicant (Sewer Study),
the discussion will focus on the potential alteration of existing facilities, extension or expansion of
new facilities, and the increased demand on services based on the proposed land uses. Michael Baker
will evaluate the ability of the project to receive adequate service based on applicable agency
standards and, where adequate services are not available, will identify the effects of inadequate
service, and recommended mitigation measures.
Solid Waste. This discussion will focus on the increased solid waste generation that would occur with
the proposed project and the ability of landfills serving Lancaster to accommodate the increased
disposal needs.
L . T R A N S P O R T A T I O N / T R A F F IC
Michael Baker will review the adequacy of the Applicant provided Traffic Impact Analysis report in
addressing the project traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The peer review will include
review of the methodologies utilized and overall accuracy of the analysis with respect to standard industry
practices. The peer review of the Traffic Impact Analysis would include the following subjects:
Determination of study area roadway and intersections;
Traffic count data;
Project traffic generation;
Project trip distribution patterns;
Cumulative forecast methodology;
Traffic operations and impact analysis;
Traffic mitigation measures; and
Project access control.
A memorandum summarizing the peer review methodology and findings will be prepared. Michael Baker
will conduct a brief review of the revised (final) technical report to ensure the peer review comments have
been addressed.
This section will incorporate the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Applicant Team upon completion
of Michael Baker’s technical peer review.
2.7 Growth Inducement
Michael Baker will provide a project specific analysis update of potential growth-inducing impacts
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g). The analysis in this section was based on data from the
City of Azusa, California Department of Finance, and U.S. Census. The section discusses ways in which the
proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment as a result of the proposed GPA. The analysis
addresses growth-inducing impacts in terms of whether the project influences the rate, location, and the
amount of growth. Growth-inducing impacts are assessed based on the project’s consistency with
adopted/proposed plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint.
Potential growth-inducing impacts from the proposed development will be analyzed as they relate to
population, housing, and employment factors.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 40
In addition to growth-inducing impacts, this section will discuss energy impacts consistent with Appendix
F of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis will be conducted pursuant the requirements in Public Resources
Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
2.8 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The range of Alternatives is expected to include the No Project/No Development, No Project/Existing
General Plan and Zoning, and possibly a reduced/modified Alternative that may be considered through
the Project Review process. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, Michael Baker will provide an
analysis of a “reasonable range” of alternatives, comparing environmental impacts of each alternative in
each impact area to the project. For each alternative, Michael Baker will provide a qualitative analysis
based upon available data in the technical studies. One important element of the Alternatives section will
be an impact matrix which will offer a comparison of the varying levels of impact of each alternative being
analyzed. This matrix will be prepared in a format to allow decision-makers a reference that will be easily
understood, while providing a calculated (where feasible), accurate comparison of each alternative.
The Alternatives section will conform to both amendments to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines
and to recent and applicable court cases. Michael Baker will discuss, as required by the CEQA Guidelines,
the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the reasons for rejecting or recommending the
project alternatives stated. This alternatives section will culminate with the selection of the
environmentally superior alternative in accordance with CEQA requirements.
2.9 Additional Sections
Michael Baker will provide additional sections in the EIR to meet CEQA and City requirements including
the following: Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In the Proposed
Action Should It Be Implemented, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts, and Organizations/Persons Consulted and Bibliography.
The Effects Found Not To Be Significant section will provide a brief analysis of those environmental topical
areas (e.g., agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources) determined to have no impact or a
less than significant impact and are not specifically addressed in the environmental analysis sections
referenced above.
3.0 PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR
3.1 Preliminary Draft EIR
Michael Baker will respond to one complete set of City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. If
desired by the City, Michael Baker will provide the Preliminary Draft of the EIR with all changes highlighted
to assist the final check of the document.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 41
3.2 Completion of Draft EIR
Michael Baker will respond to a second review of the Preliminary Draft EIR and will prepare the report for
the required 45-day public review period. Michael Baker will prepare the Notice of Availability (NOA) for
City review and will file the NOA at the County of Los Angeles Clerk recorder. Michael Baker will work
with the City to develop a distribution listing and prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) for submittal
to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
4.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.1 Response to Comments
Michael Baker will respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period,
and any additional comments raised during public hearings. Michael Baker will prepare thorough,
reasoned, and sensitive responses to relevant environmental issues. This task includes written responses
to both written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR (includes review of hearing transcripts, as
required). The Draft Responses to Comments will be prepared for review by City staff. Following review
of the Draft Responses to Comments, Michael Baker will finalize this section for inclusion in the
Administrative Final EIR.
It is noted that at this time the extent of public and agency comments that will result from the review
process is unknown. Michael Baker has budgeted conservatively, based upon our understanding of the
project and potential scrutiny involved with similar projects. Should the level of comments and response
exceed our estimate, Michael Baker will submit additional funding requests to the City in order to
complete the responses.
4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
To comply with the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 32180), Michael Baker will prepare a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be defined through working with City staff to identify
appropriate monitoring steps/procedures and in order to provide a basis for monitoring such measures
during and upon project implementation.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist will serve as the foundation of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project. The Checklist indicates the mitigation
measure number as outlined in the EIR, the EIR reference page (where the measure is documented), a list
of Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval (in chronological order under the appropriate topic), the
Monitoring Milestone (at what agency/department responsible for verifying implementation of the
measure), Method of Verification (documentation, field checks, etc.), and a verification section for the
initials of the verifying individual date of verification, and pertinent remarks.
4.3 Final EIR
The Final EIR will consist of the revised Draft EIR text, as necessary, and the “Comments to Responses”
section. The Draft EIR will be revised in accordance with the responses to public comments on the EIR.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 42
To facilitate City review, Michael Baker will format the Final EIR with underlined text for any new or
modified text, and strike out text for any deleted text. A NOA of the Final EIR will be sent to all parties on
the Draft EIR distribution list as well as anyone who commented on the Draft EIR. Michael Baker will
prepare a NOD to be filed with the County Clerk and sent to the State Clearinghouse within five days of
EIR certification. This scope of work excludes the required fees for the CDFW.
4.4 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Michael Baker will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process including the
preparation of the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for City use in the project review
process. Michael Baker will prepare the Findings in accordance with the provisions of Section 15091 and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and in a form specified by the City. Michael Baker will submit the
Draft Findings for City review and will respond to one set of City comments.
5.0 PROJECT COORDINATION AND MEETINGS
5.1 Environmental Review Coordination
Mr. Eddie Torres will be responsible for management and supervision of the EIR project Team as well as
consultation with the City staff to incorporate City policies into the EIR. Mr. Torres will undertake
consultation and coordination of the project and review the EIR for compliance with CEQA requirements
and guidelines and City CEQA procedures. Michael Baker will coordinate with state and local agencies
regarding this environmental document. Mr. Torres will coordinate with all technical staff, consultants,
support staff, and word processing toward the timely completion of the EIR. It is the goal of Michael Baker
to serve as an extension of City staff throughout the duration of the EIR project.
5.2 Environmental Review Meetings
Mr. Torres will participate in staff meetings and represent the project Team at public hearings and make
presentations as necessary. For budgeting purposes, Michael Baker anticipates a “kick-off meeting” (refer
to Task 1.1), “scoping meeting” (refer to Task 1.3), progress meetings via conference call/WebEx as
necessary, and four additional public meetings/hearings. Mr. Torres along with other key project Team
personnel will also be available to attend additional meetings or hearings, as needed. Should additional
hearings be necessary beyond those identified above, services will be provided on a time and materials
basis.
One (1) kickoff meeting with City staff (refer to Task 1.1).
One (1) scoping meeting (refer to Task 1.3).
Progress meetings with City staff via conference call/WebEx assumes five (5) meetings to provide
written and oral progress reports, resolve issues, review comments on Administrative documents,
and receive any necessary direction from City staff.
Four (4) public meetings/hearings with presentations as necessary. This includes a Community
Workshop, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 43
6.0 DELIVERABLES
The following is a breakdown of all EIR-related products/deliverables in accordance with the RFP.
NOP with Initial Study:
Five (5) hardcopies and one (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Initial Study (word and
pdf)
One (1) electronic copy (word/pdf) of the Administrative Draft and Final NOP
State Clearinghouse submittal, including fifteen (15) copies of the NOP and Initial Study Checklist
Thirty (30) copies of the NOP with Initial Study Checklist to agencies/interested parties of the
City’s distribution list
Administrative Draft EIR:
Five (5) hardcopies and one (1) electronic copy (word and pdf) of the Administrative Draft EIR
One (1) electronic copy of the complete Appendices
Screencheck Administrative Draft EIR:
Ten (10) hardcopies and one (1) electronic copy (word and pdf) of the Screencheck Draft EIR
One (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Administrative Draft prepared in Microsoft Word (all
changes will be reflected in track changes format)
One (1) clean electronic copy of the Screencheck Administrative Draft prepared in Adobe pdf file
format (with exhibits included)
Public Review Draft EIR:
Thirty (30) hardcopies of the Public Review Draft EIR (technical appendices on CD)
One (1) hardcopy of the Public Review Draft EIR Technical Appendices
Thirty (30) CDs that contain the Public Review Draft Document and technical appendices for
distribution
Clearinghouse submittal package, including one (1) copy of the Notice of Completion, fifteen (15)
copies of the Notice of Availability, fifteen (15) copies of the Clearinghouse Summary Form, and
fifteen (15) CDs that contain the Public Review Draft Document and technical appendices
One (1) electronic copy of the Notice of Availability
Final EIR:
One (1) electronic copy of the Draft and Final Responses to Comments
One (1) electronic copy of the Draft and Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Fifty (50) hardcopies of the Final EIR
Twenty (2) CDs of the Final EIR
One (1) electronic copy of the Notice of Determination
One (1) electronic copy of the Draft and Final Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
Considerations (word and pdf)
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
IV. Methodology Overview and Approach 44
Schedule
The following Preliminary Schedule assumes authorization to proceed with the work program by June
2017.
EIR Kickoff Month 1
Draft Specific Plan delivered to Michael Baker Month 1
Peer Review of Technical Studies Month 1
Notice of Preparation Month 1
30-Day NOP Public Review Months 1 - 2
Receipt of Revised Technical Studies Month 2
EIR Scoping Meeting Month 2
Administrative Draft EIR preparation Months 1 - 4
Review of Administrative Draft EIR Month 5
Preliminary Draft EIR preparation by Michael Baker Month 5
Review of Preliminary Draft EIR Month 6
Complete, Publish, and Circulate Draft EIR Month 6
45-Day Public Review Period Months 6 - 7
Hearing during the Draft EIR Review to receive Comments Month 7
Michael Baker prepares Responses to Comments Month 8
Review of Responses to Comments Month 8 - 9
Michael Baker prepares Administrative Final EIR Months 9
Review of Administrative Final EIR Month 9
Complete, Publish, and Circulate Final EIR Month 9
Certification Hearings TBD
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
V. Compensation 45
V. Compensation
E.T.S.B.A.M.K.B.R.C.T.M.R.K.T.H.GrA Total Subs*Direct Total
TASK 220 195 140 140 100 185 165 165 85 Hours Expenses Cost
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES
1.0 Project Scoping 0 #REF!
1.1 Project Kick-Off and Project Characteristics 8 12 20 $3,440
1.2 Research and Investigation 1 4 5 $620
1.3 Initial Study 6 4 6 45 6 67 $7,950
1.4 Notice of Preparation 1 2 3 $420
1.5 Scoping Meeting 6 10 16 $2,720
2.0 Preparation of Administrative Draft EIR $0
2.1 Introduction and Purpose 1 8 9 $1,020
2.2 Executive Summary 1 8 9 $1,020
2.3 Project Description 1 4 18 8 31 $4,200
2.4 Thresholds of Significance 1 1 1 3 6 $855
2.5 Cumulative Projects/Analysis 3 4 3 3 4 17 $2,680
2.6 Environmental Analysis $0
A. Aesthetics 4 12 30 2 48 $5,730
B. Air Quality 4 20 36 60 $7,280
C. Biological Resources 2 24 20 2 48 $6,710
D. Cultural Resources 2 24 26 $2,700 $5,540
E. Geology and Soils 6 12 20 38 $6,460
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3 16 20 39 $4,900
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2 16 30 48 $5,680
H. Hydrology and Water Quality 4 20 35 59 $9,455
I. Land Use and Planning 4 45 2 51 $9,825
J. Noise 1 18 22 41 $4,940
K. Public Services and Utilities 2 16 32 2 52 $6,930
L. Transportation/Traffic 2 24 28 54 $9,740
2.7 Growth Inducement 2 16 18 $3,560
2.8 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 6 8 10 20 8 52 $7,880
2.9 Additional Sections 2 16 18 $2,040
3.0 Draft EIR $0
3.1 Preliminary Draft EIR 16 8 12 10 6 10 62 $9,610
3.2 Completion of the Draft EIR 12 2 2 12 4 32 $4,740
4.0 Final EIR $0
4.1 Response to Comments 12 8 10 16 4 50 $8,180
4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 6 7 $820
4.3 Final EIR 8 8 2 18 $2,730
4.4 Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 16 2 20 $2,210
5.0 Project Coordination/Meetings 0 $0
5.1 Environmental Review Coordination 32 32 $7,040
5.2 Environmental Review Meetings 45 10 12 67 $12,980
6.0 Deliverables/Expenses 0 $5,500 $5,500
TOTAL HOURS 203 150 122 157 364 20 35 28 44 1123
*Percent of Total Labor (Hours)18.1%13.4%10.9%14.0%32.4%1.8%3.1%2.5%3.9%
SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $44,660 $29,250 $17,080 $21,980 $36,400 $3,700 $5,775 $4,620 $3,740 $2,700 $5,500 $169,905
TOTAL COSTS (Fixed Fee)$175,405
E.T. = Eddie Torres A.H. = Alesia Hsiao GrA = Graphic Artist
S.B. = Starla Barker T.M. = Tom McGill
A.M. = Achilles Malisos R.K. = Rebecca Kinney
K.B. = Kristen Bogue T.H. = Tom Huang
Note:All work for Tasks A and B will be performed at a "Not to exceed"contract price,which will become the firm fixed price upon completion of negotiations with the Client.The total budget includes all miscellaneous costs for
travel/mileage,reproduction,reimburseables,telephone,postal,delivery,reference materials and incidental expenses.Michael Baker will receive payment either on a percentage basis using milestones or by monthly billing,as
determined by the Client.The Michael Baker project manager reserves the right to make adjustments to staff allocations as necessary within the overall budget.Work efforts related to Task C will be performed on a "Time and
Materials" basis.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
May 18, 2017
V. Compensation 46
This page left intentionally blank.
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
May 18, 2017
VI. Exceptions/Deviations 47
VI. Exceptions/Deviations
We appreciate the chance to preview the form of agreement the City of Azusa will use for this project
and, as permitted by the RFP instructions, we respectfully request consideration of the following
comments and requested changes to certain contract terms. Michael Baker has contracted with clients
on thousands of projects over our 75-year history and we are confident in our ability to work with the City
of Azusa to come to amicable agreement on terms.
Section 3.2.9 (Period of Performance and Liquidated Damages) – We request removal of any references
to liquidated damages in this clause (including the title) as these types of terms are not usual to this type
of project and are not necessary to assure compliance with agreed-upon terms. It should be noted that
in our experience the majority of delays in any project are caused by forces outside of the consultant’s
control (such as delay on the part of the client in providing required materials or in review of draft
documents). When such delays occur, it does not serve the client or our firm well to try to speed up
services to make up for lost time, as the consultant is still held to a professional standard of care that must
be observed. Therefore we request modification of this section to:
“Period of Performance. Consultant shall perform and complete all Services under this Agreement within
the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above (“Performance Time”). Consultant shall also perform the Services
in accordance with any completion schedule or project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B”
attached hereto, or which may be separately agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant
(“Performance Milestones”), subject, however, to the exercise of the generally accepted standard of care
for performance of such services.”
Section 3.2.10 (Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications) – Past experience has shown that
laws at various agency levels can be in conflict with one another, making a requirement to comply with
all local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations, impractical. When we have encountered a conflict,
we notify our client and work to resolve the situation. For this reason, we request modification of this
clause to:
“Consultant shall use the standard of care set forth in Section 3.2.8 to keep itself fully informed of and in
compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting
the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all
notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in
connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws,
rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible
for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors, officers,
employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement,
from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules, or
regulations. If a conflict between such laws, rules, and regulations arises, Consultant will promptly advise
City of the situation in writing at which time both parties shall work together to seek resolution and City
will not interpret such conflict as a breach of Consultant’s responsibilities under this section.”
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
VI. Exceptions/Deviations 48
Section 3.2.11 (Insurance) – Michael Baker carries insurance that will more than adequately protect all of
our clientele and we can comply with the types and limits of insurance required. But there are some
specific coverage terms in this section which are not part of coverage commercially available to our
profession. We therefore request the following clarifications:
Section 3.2.11.3 Professional Liability – The professional liability policies commercially available
do not include wording for contractual liability. This is because the policy covers any negligence
in the performance of professional services regardless of the existence of a contract. Additionally
defense costs come out of the limits, and are not paid outside of/in addition to limits. For this
reason, we request modification of the final sentence to: “Such insurance shall be in an amount
not less than $1,000,000 per claim.”
Section 3.2.11 4 Insurance Endorsements, Paragraph D – Most large carriers will only provide
advance notice for reason of cancellation of a policy only and such notice is by regular mail.
Additionally, we cannot control the decisions of the carrier when it comes to coverage, if we as
the policy-holder have not followed policy reporting requirements. For these reasons, we cannot
provide an endorsement with the wording in this paragraph, and request modification to: “All
Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that:
coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment of premium)
prior written notice by U.S. mail, has been given to the City.”
Section 3.5 (Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality) – We request the following clarifications to
certain paragraphs under this section consistent with the standard of care observed by our profession:
Section 3.5.1 Documents Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property – We request modification of the
last two sentences in this clause as the normal/average period of time for a consultant to be
required to keep records on file is anywhere from 3-5 years, depending upon the project. It is
also not usual to put the responsibility of client notification, prior to destruction of project records
after the retention period, on the consultant. It is, instead, the responsibility of the client to keep
deliverables on file for as long as they determine needed. For these reasons, we request (a)
modification of the retention term to five years, and (b) removal of the final sentence.
Section 3.5.4 Indemnification – We request modification of this clause to protect our firm from
any improper use of deliverables by our client or another entity to whom the client has given
deliverables outside of our control: “Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City, its directors,
officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent,
copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any
person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by City of the Documents & Data,
including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. However, Consultant
will not indemnify City if the suit or claim results from: (1) City’s alteration of a deliverable, s uch
that City’s alteration of any deliverable created the infringement upon any presently existing U.S.
letters patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark or any other proprietary right; or
(2) the use of a deliverable in combination with other material not provided by Consultant when
it is such use in combination which infringes upon an existing U.S. letters patent or copyright.”
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
VI. Exceptions/Deviations 49
Section 3.5.5 Confidentiality – We understand the need to keep client and project information
secure. However, we cannot be responsible for disclosures that may be required by law or are
otherwise already in the public realm through other means. For this reason, we request
modification of this clause to: “Confidentiality. All Documents & Data either created by or
provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held
confidential by Consultant. Except as may be required by law, all Documents & Data shall not,
without the prior written consent of City, be used or reproduced by Consultant for any purposes
other than the performance of the Services. Consultant shall not disclose, cause or facilitate the
disclosure of the Documents & Data to any person or entity not connected with the performance
of the Services or the Project. The preceding restriction shall not apply to information which is in
the public domain, was previously known to City, was acquired by City from others who have no
confidential relationship to City with respect to same, or which through no fault of City comes
into the public domain. Consultant shall not be restricted from releasing information, including
confidential information, in response to a subpoena, court order, or other legal process.
Consultant shall not be required to resist such subpoena, court order, or legal process, but shall
promptly notify City in writing of the demand for information before Consultant responds to such
demand. Consultant shall not use City’s name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any
publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper,
television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of City.”
Section 3.6.2 (Indemnification) – We will be responsible for any errors we make and understand the
requirement to indemnify our client. However, we cannot be responsible for the actions of parties outside
of our control and need to ensure that any indemnification requirement can be insured under professional
liability insurance, which provides coverage to the extent of the policy-holder’s negligence and will not
provide for the hiring of defense counsel for any party except the policy-holder. Please note that this does
not mean that the insurance will not cover the reimbursement of defense costs incurred by our client due
to any negligence on our part. For this reason we request modification of this section to:
“3.6.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials,
officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands,
causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to
property or persons, including wrongful death, to the extent caused by any negligent act, error or
omission of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in
connection with the performance of the Consultant’s Services, the Project or this Agreement,
including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney’s fees and other related costs and
expenses. The parties expressly agree that this indemnity provision does not include, and in no
event shall Consultant be required to assume, any obligation or duty to defend any claims, causes
of action, demands, or lawsuits in connection with or arising out of this Agreement or the services
rendered by the Consultant.
3.6.2.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award
or decree covered by Section 3.6.2.1 that may be rendered against City or its directors, officials,
officers, employees, volunteers and agents as party of any such claim, suit, action or other
proceeding. Consultant shall also reimburse City for the cost of any settlement paid by City or its
directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers as part of any such claim, suit, action
or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include payment for City’s reasonable attorneys’
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project
July 7, 2017
VI. Exceptions/Deviations 50
fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Consultant shall reimburse City and its directors,
officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs
incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.
Consultant’s obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement and
shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials,
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.”
Section 3.6.4 (Time of Essence) – For the same reason as explained above for Section 3.2.9 regarding the
typical cause of project delays, we request modification of this clause to: “Time. Consultant agrees to
exercise diligence in the performance of its services consistent with the agreed upon project schedule,
subject, however, to the exercise of the generally accepted standard of care for performance of such
services.”
Addition of Professional Services Clauses – We request the addition of the following two paragraphs,
common to the professional services agreements Michael Baker enters into:
“Waiver of Consequential Damages. In no event shall either City or Consultant have any claim or right
against the other, whether in contract, warranty, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise,
for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages of any kind or nature whatsoever, such as
but not limited to loss of revenue, loss of profits on revenue, loss of customers or contracts, loss of use of
equipment or loss of data, work interruption, increased cost of work or cost of any financing, howsoever
caused, even if same were reasonably foreseeable.”
“Force Majeure. In no event shall either City or Consultant have any claim or right against the other for
any failure of performance where such failure of performance is caused by or is the result of causes
beyond the reasonable control of the other party due to any occurrence commonly known as a “force
majeure,” including, but not limited to: acts of God; fire, flood, or other natural catastrophe; acts of any
governmental body; labor dispute or shortage; national emergency; insurrection; riot; or war.”
537 SOUTH RAYMOND AVENUE | PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105
626-744-9872 | www.migcom.com
REVISED PROPOSAL | JULY 12, 2017
California Grand Village
Azusa Greens Project
PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES
PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLOGY
CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY, DAVIS,
FULLERTON, KENWOOD,
PASADENA, RIVERSIDE
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO
AND SAN JOSE
COLORADO
DENVER
NEW YORK
PLEASANTVILLE
OREGON
EUGENE AND PORTLAND
TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO
WASHINGTON
SEATTLE
537 S Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: (626) 744-9872
Fax: (626) 744-9873
www.migcom.com
July 12, 2017
Kurt Christiansen, FAICP
Director of Economic and Community Development
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, California 91702
Subject: Revised Proposal for Planning Consultant Services - California Grand Village
Azusa Greens
Dear Mr. Christiansen:
The Azusa Greens Golf Course and Country Club, a presence in Azusa for over 30
years, offers Azusans and the larger East San Gabriel Valley community recreation
and social facilities and amenities. The California Grand Village Azusa Greens project
proposes the construction of a multi-story luxury senior housing village on 4.48 acres
of the Azusa Greens Golf Course. The project site is within the West End General Plan
district and is designated as open space. However, the site is bounded by operating
industrial businesses. Although the golf recreational amenities will continue and may
provide a buffer, the placement senior housing near industrial uses requires a strong,
defi nitive Specifi c Plan. Furthermore, the site’s location along heavily travelled Todd
Avenue necessitates the need for an Environmental Impact Report. The applicant has
retained a consultant to prepare the Specifi c Plan and the various technical reports that
support the environmental review process.
MIG is pleased to submit this proposal to provide planning and entitlement services
to the City of Azusa. MIG will review the Specifi c Plan and technical reports, and be
responsible for entitlement processing. The staff we assign offers the City a deep
knowledge of Azusa based on prior work experience in the City, combined with
Specifi c Plan expertise and superior public engagement and management skills. Also,
we are sensitive to the unique operations of senior housing, having completed CEQA
and entitlement documents for several senior housing projects in California, including
Kensington Assisted Living Communities in Sierra Madre and Redondo Beach and
Front Porch Communities in Pasadena, San Diego and Marina.
Under the direction of Lisa Brownfi eld, who served as a contract planner in Azusa
from 1998 to 2005, MIG proposes to provide full planning and project review. We
propose a work scope and budget that respond to the City’s request to complete the
work program expeditiously and to build from the work underway by the applicant’s
consultants. In particular, we propose to provide comprehensive staffi ng services,
from draft Specifi c Plan review to entitlement documents preparation (staff reports,
General Plan amendments, Development Code changes, ordinances and resolutions)
and hearing attendance. The MIG team can complete all the required services, thus
streamlining the process.
PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLOGY
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our approach, ideas and qualifi cations
with you in person. Please contact me or Lisa Brownfi eld in our Pasadena offi ce at
(626) 744-9872 or via email at lstetson@migcom.com and lisab@migcom.com. Thank
you for your consideration.
Regards,
Laura R. Stetson, AICP Lisa Brownfi eld
Principal Director of Planning Services
Laura R Stetssssssssssssssssssssson AICP Lisa Brownfi eld
Table of Contents
Consultant’s Prior Experience and Qualifi cations Section 1
mig capabilities 1.1
relevant experience 1.1
References Section 2
Organizational Chart Section 3
Team Member Resumes Section 4
Methodology Overview and Approach Section 5
project understanding 5.1
project considerations 5.1
scope of work 5.1
schedule 5.6
Compensation Section 6
Exceptions/Deviations Section 7
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 1.1
1. Consultant’s Prior Experience and Qualifi cations
MIG Capabilities
Critical thinking. Strategic focus. Innovative solutions.
For 34 years, MIG has engaged top professionals in
planning, design, communications, management and
technology who work together to ensure our clients
achieve the results they seek. Our focus and reputation
are based on providing our clients and communities the
highest level of professional planning services with vision,
integrity and creative problem-solving. From our extensive
experience, we provide a full-range of planning services to
private developers and public agencies.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Specifi c Plans
• Development Entitlement Processing
• General Plans and Development Codes
• Environmental Services (CEQA/NEPA)
• Graphics and Geographic Information Systems
• Community Engagement
• Contract Staffi ng
• Master Plans and Site Planning
• Urban Design
• Landscape Architecture
Relevant Experience
MIG has the right staff and targeted project experience
to assist the City of Azusa with all staffi ng needs for this
assignment. We have the in-house expertise needed to
address all components of the project: 1) reviewing the
draft Specifi c Plan; 2) reviewing the technical reports;
3) leading public workshop/scoping meeting; 4) SB 18
administration, including consultation; 5) preparing
entitlement documents – General Plan amendment,
Development Code changes, resolutions, ordinances,
staff reports and public hearing materials; 6) presenting
the project to the Design Review Board, Planning
Commission and City Council; and 7) supporting City staff
in any actions that may follow fi nal City Council action on
the Specifi c Plan.
Our qualifi cations are threefold:
• We have signifi cant experience preparing Specifi c Plans
that meet state law and are easily understood by the
public.
• Our staff has a distinguished history of providing
high-quality and reliable contract staffi ng services to
public agency clients, including the City of Azusa.
• We know Azusa intimately based on prior and current
work. In particular, our project manager, Lisa Brownfi eld,
served as a contract planner in Azusa for more than fi ve
years, overseeing the General Plan update program,
entitlements within the Rosedale Specifi c Plan and the
Downtown planning charrette. She has provided similar
entitlement staffi ng services for the two Dhammakaya
Specifi c Plan projects. MIG’s Genevieve Sharrow prepared
the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element. Currently, Lisa
Brownfi eld is leading a team of environmental planners
in an environmental review process for an industrial
development application on Vincent Avenue.
We recently completed Specifi c Plans for a small infi ll
mixed-use development in Monrovia and the reinvention
of Duarte’s town center. We are currently completing
corridor Specifi c Plans for Rosemead’s Garvey Avenue and
Glendora’s Arrow Highway. Recent CEQA projects include
senior housing projects, as well.
ENTITLEMENT SERVICES FOR DHAMMAKAYA SPECIFIC
PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Azusa, California
Ms. Brownfi eld led a team of planners and environmental
analysts to review the proposed Dhammakya International
Meditation Center specifi c plan, prepare the associated
EIR, prepared entitlement documents (ordinances,
resolutions, staff reports, presentations) and an
expedited City staff review and application processing.
Ms. Brownfi eld presented the projects to both the City
of Azusa City Council and Planning Commission. A few
months after adoption and certifi cation, Ms. Brownfi eld
led a second team of MIG staff to provide similar services
for the Revised Dhammakaya Specifi c Plan.
The California Grand Village Azusa Greens’ requested
services are identical to those provided for both
Dhammakaya International Meditation Center
projects.
1.2 CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services
ENTITLEMENT SERVICES FOR KENSINGTON ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY
Redondo Beach, California
This project involved a proposal to demolish nine of the
ten existing structures, construct a two-story, 33-foot high,
80,000-square-foot Residential Care Facility for the Elderly
with 96 residential suites to accommodate up to 130
seniors and persons with disabilities such as Alzheimer’s
and other memory impairments; and to preserve and
re-use/re-purpose the existing Redondo Beach Union
School District’s Kindergarten building.
The proposed project required the approval of text
amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element,
Coastal Land Use Plan, Coastal Zoning Ordinance,
Conditional Use Permit, Planning Commission Design
Review, Coastal Development Permit and Tentative
Vesting Parcel Map.
ENTITLEMENT SERVICES FOR FRONT PORCH
VILLA GARDENS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
Pasadena, California
To address the growing need for senior living facilities
in the City of Pasadena, Front Porch proposed a 27,000-
square-foot addition to an existing building containing six
stories, with fi rst-fl oor parking and fi ve upper fl oors for 24
additional housing units. MIG processed the Conditional
Use Permit and Variance for the addition.
MIG staff has also processed entitlements for Front Porch
Senior Housing projects, including Cypress Knolls in
Marina, California and the Wesley Palms in San Diego.
MIG staff prepared design guidelines for the Cypress
Knolls project as well.
SERENITY TERRACE SENIOR HOUSING ENTITLEMENT
APPROVALS AND INITIAL STUDY
Whittier, California
MIG staff processed the entitlement approvals and
prepared the environmental Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the two-story, 66,245-square-foot,
Craftsman style senior residential care facility. The
project approvals included a Conditional Use Permit,
with Variances to accommodate the use on a former auto
dealership site. Serenity Terrace is planned for 80 Assisted
Living and Memory Care units. MIG staff prepared the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City of Whittier.
The project will be developed on an approximately
2.38-acre parcel located at 13617 Whittier Boulevard.
The project incorporates a number of environmental and
sustainable features, including light pollution reduction,
water-effi cient landscaping, reduction of total water use,
recycling and construction waste diversion.
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 1.3
DUARTE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Duarte, California
The Duarte Town Center Specifi c Plan is an action-
oriented plan that sets standards and guidelines for
new building forms, as well as land use and mobility
regulations for activities within the Town Center. The
specifi c plan was envisioned as the mechanism to
encourage and promote mixed-use development and
set forth a plan for streetscape improvements along
an approximate one-mile stretch of Huntington Drive
creating Duarte’s core town center area. The Plan seeks to
create a memorable, accessible and economically vibrant
Town Center. The Specifi c Plan is the result of extensive
community engagement, planning and design efforts.
It builds upon community desires and aspirations from
residents, businesses, property owners, stakeholders, City
staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. MIG also
prepared the Supplemental EIR.
MONROVIA 5TH AND HUNTINGTON
SPECIFIC PLAN AND MND
Monrovia, California
Under Lisa Brownfi eld’s technical and project
management, MIG staff prepared a Specifi c Plan and
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a
mixed-use development (154 rental housing units, 1,340
square feet of retail, 200 square foot patios, a leasing
offi ce and common recreation and social areas) on 2.86
acres. Mitigation was included for air quality, cultural
resources and noise.
ARROW HIGHWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR
Glendora, California
The Arrow Highway Specifi c Plan focuses on a 2.5-mile
stretch of Arrow Highway within the jurisdiction of the
City of Glendora in the San Gabriel Valley, which also
travels through the cities of Covina, San Dimas and
portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The
Plan aims to transform the Arrow Highway corridor into
a vibrant, attractive and revitalized area that serves the
community and the region through a variety of land uses
and activities. The process for developing a specifi c plan
creates a framework that facilitates collaboration between
public and private entities, and residents, to direct the
future of the corridor. By pairing stakeholders’ input with
studies completed by technical experts, the approach
is to develop standards that reshape the corridor to
better refl ect the community’s needs and vision. This
plan facilitates the development of streetscape and
urban design features aimed at improving pedestrian and
bicycle mobility and creating more dynamic and inviting
spaces for the community. Development of this specifi c
plan will also promote collaboration and coordination
among the jurisdictions served by Arrow Highway, as the
split jurisdictional nature of the corridor requires. MIG is
also preparing the EIR.
ENTITLEMENT SERVICES FOR MASONIC HOMES
Covina, California
MIG processed a Site Plan Review for the development
of a two-story, 28-unit skilled nursing and memory care
facility totaling 39,572 square feet on the Masonic Homes
Covina campus in Covina. Entitlements included a
Conditional Use Permit and MND Addendum.
ENTITLEMENT SERVICES FOR BOLSA ROW
SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Westminster, California
MIG processed an application for a Specifi c Plan,
Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map and
Environmental Analysis for a proposed mixed-use
development that encompasses a 150-room hotel, an
approximately 32,000-square-foot, second-fl oor banquet
facility, approximately 38,886 square feet of commercial
land uses, a 5,950-square-foot below-ground pedestrian
tunnel, up to 210 residential apartments with supporting
amenities and two multi-level parking garage structures
on a six-acre site.
1.4 CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services
Additional Experience in Azusa
GENERAL PLAN, DEVELOPMENT CODE AND EIR
Azusa, California
As a multi-year contract planner, Ms. Brownfi eld served as
the project manager and was a technical writer/editor for
this comprehensive project to envision Azusa’s future.
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CHARRETTE
Azusa, California
Serving as a contract planner in Azusa, Ms. Brownfi eld
planned, facilitated and prepared summaries for the
Downtown Specifi c Plan.
FOOTHILL/DALTON MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Azusa, California
Ms. Brownfi eld led a team of contract planners who
prepared the Specifi c Plan and Supplemental EIR
and provided review of project plans for a mixed-use
project surrounding Azusa City Hall. She also served the
liaison with other agencies and directed the community
engagement tasks.
ROSEDALE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MONROVIA NURSERY
SPECIFIC PLAN
Azusa, California
Ms. Brownfi eld provided contract staffi ng services for the
review of site plans and other entitlement applications for
projects to implement these two Specifi c Plans.
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN
STAFFING SERVICES
Azusa, California
MIG staff (while with prior fi rms) provided staffi ng services
to the City for the review of the Azusa Pacifi c University
Specifi c Plan. Adopted in 2006, this Specifi c Plan serves
as the master plan for the University’s 20-year capital
investments. Our staff directed revisions to draft materials
and shepherded the document through the public
process.
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 2.1
2. References
We invite you to contact these current and prior MIG
clients regarding our ability to complete projects on
schedule, within budget and to our clients’ satisfaction.
CITY OF MONROVIA
Craig Jimenez, Community Development Director
Sheri Bermejo, Planning Division Manager (Formerly
City of Rosemead City Planner)
415 South Ivy Avenue
Monrovia, California 91016
(626) 932-5537 (Craig) | cjimenez@ci.monrovia.ca.us
(626) 932- 5539 (Sheri) | sbermejo@ci.monrovia.ca.us
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
Jill Ekas, Former Planning Manager
(650) 365-8992 | jillekasplanning@gmail.com
CITY OF DUARTE
Craig Hensley, Community Development Director
1600 Huntington Drive
Duarte, California 91010
(626) 357-7931 ext. 232 | chensley@accessduarte.com
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
Steve Ratkay, Acting Planning Manager
8200 Westminster Boulevard
Westminster, California 92683
(714) 548-3484 | sratkay@westminster-ca.gov
FRONT PORCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Martin Lakatos, Vice President Development
800 North Brand Boulevard, 19th Floor
Glendale, California 91203
(818) 254-4100 | mlakatos@frontporch.net
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 3.1
3. Organization Chart
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Laura Stetson, AICP
Principal-in-Charge
Lisa Brownfi eld
Project Manager
Pam Steele
Consulting Principal
SPECIFIC PLAN AND PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS
Deborah Drasler - Associate Planner
Bryan Fernandez - Associate Planner
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 4.1
4. Team Member Resumes
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
Laura Stetson, AICP
EDUCATION
• BS, Environmental Earth Science, Stanford University
• Graduate Coursework in Public Administration,
American University
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
• Kensington Assisted Living Facility CEQA Documentation,
Sierra Madre, California
In-depth Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
a controversial senior housing development in downtown
Sierra Madre. Project subject ultimately to voters via City
Council referendum, and approved.
• Lincoln Avenue Specifi c Plan, Pasadena, California
Plan for revitalization of 1.2-mile corridor of key artery
serving neighborhoods surrounding the Rose Bowl and
Northwest Pasadena.
• Rosedale Specifi c Plan EIR, Azusa, California
Led early 1997 environmental review and documentation
process for redevelopment of the Monrovia Nursery site.
• Home of Christians Initial Study, Monterey Park, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
phased redevelopment of a church sanctuary classrooms,
and meeting space.
• Garden Rove Mixed Use Zones, Garden Grove, California
• Colton General Plan, Colton, California
• Manhattan Beach General Plan,
Manhattan Beach, California
• Montebello General Plan, Montebello, California
• Monterey Park General Plan, Monterey Park, California
• Rialto General Plan, Rialto, California
• Brea Hillsides Zoning Codes, Brea, California
• Commerce Zoning Codes, Chino Hills, California
• La Mirada Zoning Codes, La Mirada, California
• Maywood Zoning Codes, Maywood, California
• Pasadena Land Use and Mobility Element,
Pasadena, California
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Zoning Codes / Urban Planning
CEQA / Design Guidelines
QUALIFICATIONS
Laura Stetson has served as principal-in-charge and/or
project manager on general plans, zoning codes, specifi c
plans and special planning studies for diverse cities
throughout California. In this capacity, she has worked
with advisory committees, commissions and councils to
develop long-range goals, policies and programs, and to
craft the regulatory tools to implement those programs.
Ms. Stetson has conducted background research for
planning, written plan elements, coordinated preparation
of plans and related environmental documentation and
presented recommendations to decision-making bodies.
She also directs preparation of CEQA documents, either
as part of planning programs or to address development
projects.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
• American Planning Association
• American Institute of Certifi ed Planners
• California Planning Roundtable
4.2 CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services
PROJECT MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES
Lisa Brownfi eld
EDUCATION
• MA, Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles
• BS, Urban Planning, California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
• Dhammakaya Specifi c Plan and Environmental Review,
Azusa, California
• Arrow Highway Specifi c Plan, Glendora, California
• Garvey Avenue Specifi c Plan, Rosemead, California
• Fifth and Huntington Specifi c Plan and CEQA
documentation, Monrovia, California
• Redwood City General Plan Update,
Redwood City, California
• Azusa General Plan and Development Code,
Azusa, California
• Adelanto North 2035: Sustainable Comprehensive Plan,
Adelanto, California
• Westlake Village General Plan, Westlake Village, California
• Huntington Beach General Plan, Huntington Beach,
California
• Redwood City Zoning Code Update-Mixed Use,
Redwood City, California
• Sphere of Infl uence Specifi c Plan and EIR,
Ontario, California
• Big Bear Lake Moonridge Corridor Specifi c Plan and EIR,
Big Bear Lake, California
• Inglewood International Industrial Corridor Specifi c Plan,
Inglewood, California
PROJECT AWARDS
• Adelanto North 2035: Sustainable Comprehensive Plan,
APA, Inland Empire Section, Merit Award, 2017
• Redwood City General Plan, APA, California Chapter,
Outstanding Achievement Small Jurisdiction Planning
Effort, 2012
• Azusa General Plan and Development Code, Southern
California Association of Governments, Visionary Planning
for Livability Award Compass Blueprint Awards, 2007
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
General and Specifi c Plans / City Planning
Development Codes / Environmental Review
Project Management
QUALIFICATIONS
Lisa Brownfi eld has extensive experience in private
sector and public sector planning. Her 20 years of project
management experience includes leading large consultant
teams and city staff; formulating, monitoring and ensuring
compliance with project budgets and schedules; ensuring
all technical and presentation materials and products are
of the highest quality; envisioning, creating and facilitating
signifi cant public outreach programs; and presenting
technical concepts, plans and managerial reports to
decision-makers, members of the public and related
professionals.
In addition to project management expertise, Ms.
Brownfi eld has diverse technical experience. She has
prepared all mandatory and many optional elements of
general plans; prepared policy documents that highlight
sustainability, smart growth and healthy city concepts;
prepared industrial, commercial and recreation-oriented
specifi c plans; conducted special land use, housing
and circulation studies; reviewed and amended zoning
and development codes; and conducted and prepared
environmental reviews and analyses.
From 1998 to 2005, Ms. Brownfi eld served as contract
staff to the City of Azusa. Her primary role was to oversee
development of the new General Plan, Development
Code and accompanying EIR. During her stint, she also
planned and facilitated a charrette for the Downtown
Specifi c Plan and processed entitlements for projects
within the Rosedale Specifi c Plan. Later as a consultant
with a prior fi rm, she oversaw the Specifi c Plan and
Supplemental EIR for the Dalton/Foothill Mixed Use
project.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
• American Institute of Certifi ed Planners, 1990
• American Planning Association
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 4.3
Pamela Steele
EDUCATION
• University of California, Riverside
Brigham Young University, Utah
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
• Front Porch Villa Gardens Retirement Community
Entitlement, Conditional Use Permit and Variance, for a
six-story 27,000 square foot addition to an existing building
including one fl oor of parking and fi ve fl oors with 24
housing units in Pasadena
• Front Porch Cypress Knolls Entitlement, including an EIR
and Design Guidelines, for a 772-unit, 190-acre senior
housing development in the former Fort Ord base closure
area
• Kaiser Commerce Center, a 540+ acre specifi c plan
amendments and EIR for the clean-up and redevelopment
of the former Kaiser Steel Plant in the Fontana area of San
Bernardino County
• Crossroads Business Park Specifi c Plan amendments and
build-out of a 280+ acre industrial business park in the City
of Ontario, CA
• Kaiser Permanente medical facilities and master plans in
the cities of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Colton, San
Marcos, San Bernardino and Victorville
• Numerous industrial/business park developments and
large-scale residential developments and specifi c plans
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Development Processing / Entitlements Services
Senior Housing
QUALIFICATIONS
Pam Steele has nearly 30 years of experience in planning,
community development and project management. She
has managed a variety of planning and development
projects, from due diligence through entitlement to
project occupancy. She has worked with developers,
agencies, and jurisdictions to bring complex, multi-layered
projects through the necessary approvals, helping to
develop projects that are benefi cial to both private and
public sectors. She has prepared and managed specifi c
plans and amendments, community and master plans
and multi-layered environmental review and clearances
for large-scale industrial and commercial developments,
senior residential projects and medical and hospital
facilities.
Ms. Steele manages projects for a variety of private
sector clients. Her experience related to on-call planning
consulting services include:
• City of Twentynine Palms Planning Director
• City of Cypress Assistant Planning Director
• City of Canyon Lake Planning Director
• City of Murrieta Planning Staff
• City of Diamond Bar Consultant Staff
• City of Yucaipa Planning Staff
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
• American Planning Association
• Urban Land Institute
CONSULTING PRINCIPAL
4.4 CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services
Deborah Drasler
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
EDUCATION
• BS, Urban and Regional Planning, California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
• City of Azusa: Dhammakaya Specifi c Plan and
Environmental Review
• City of Redondo Beach: Kensington Assisted Living Facility
Amendments to General Plan Land Use Element, Coastal
Land Use Plan, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Conditional
Use Permit, Planning Commission Design Review, Coastal
Development Permit and Tentative Vesting Parcel Map
• City of Westminster: Bolsa Row Specifi c Plan, Development
Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Environmental Analysis
• City of Covina: Masonic Homes Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and MND Addendum
• City of Laguna Hills: Laguna Hills Mall Redevelopment
Precise Plan, Master Sign Program, Conditional Use Permit,
Parking Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and EIR
Addendum
• City of Bakersfi eld, South of Brimhall: General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Circulation Element
amendment on 758 acres and the removal of 101 acres
from the Kern River Element
• City of Valencia: North Valencia Specifi c Plan – 700+ acre
mixed use project. 1998 APA Award-winner
• City of Bakersfi eld: Stockdale Commercial, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change on a 133-acre site
Her experiences related to contract planning services
include the following cities:
• City of Newport Beach Contract Planner
• City of Laguna Woods Contract City Planner
• City of Mission Viejo Contract Associate Planner
• City of San Clemente Contract Associate Planner
• City of Dana Point Contract Associate Planner
• City of Laguna Hills Contract Associate Planner
• City of Vista Assistant Planner
• County of Riverside Contract Planning Services
• City of Rolling Hills Estates Assistant Planner
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Project Management / Processing of Entitlements
QUALIFICATIONS
Deborah Drasler has over 25 years of public and private
professional planning experience. She has served as
project manager on multiple current and advanced
planning projects throughout Southern California. Ms.
Drasler has extensive experience and responsibility
managing and processing entitlements for residential,
resort, commercial and industrial development projects.
Ms. Drasler has served as the city’s planning liaison at
the City of Dana Point for the construction of the St.
Regis Hotel and Resort. Projects included: Tentative Tract
Map; review of landscaping, irrigation and maintenance
agreement and CC&Rs; processing amendments to the
Site Development Permit and Coastal Development
Permit; preparation of a phasing plan; coordination
project plans with other project leaders, city departments
and other organizations and agencies; and managing the
project from entitlements to Certifi cate of Occupancy.
While serving as the Project Manager for the Miramar
Theater in the City of San Clemente, Ms. Drasler was
involved with the review and coordination of an EIR,
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Cultural
Heritage Permit and Architectural Permit.
Expertise includes:
• Entitlement Application Processing
• Specifi c Plan Preparation and Implementation
• Land Use Regulations
• CEQA Processing
• Subdivision Processing
• Development of Planning Policies and Procedures
• Coordination with City Staff, Property Owners, Applicants
and Divergent Groups
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 4.5
Bryan Fernandez
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
EDUCATION
• Master of Public Policy, University of California, Los Angeles
• BA, Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
• Contract and Consultant Planner – Cities of Covina,
El Monte and Rialto
• Project Associate – General Plan Update for Cities of
Walnut and Costa Mesa. Specifi c Plan Updates for the
Cities of El Segundo and Walnut. Zoning Code Updates for
Cities of Arcadia and Burlingame
• Contract Planner – County of Orange
• Contract Planner – City of Lake Forest
• Assistant Planner – Department of Planning and Building
Safety, El Segundo
• Assistant Planner – Department of Planning Services,
Palm Springs
• Special Projects Analyst – Community Redevelopment
Agency, Los Angeles
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Entitlement Processing / Plan Checking
Environmental Document Review
QUALIFICATIONS
Bryan Fernandez has provided professional planning
services in Southern California for more than 10 years.
He has managed the entitlement and permitting process
for simple to complex planning projects for commercial,
industrial and residential projects including high-rise office
park campus redevelopments and multi-family residential
developments. He has managed the public counters
for development services departments throughout
Southern California, with a focus on providing supportive
customer services to multicultural and multilingual
residential and development professional communities.
He is adept in processing conditional use permits cases
for alcohol (retail and non-retail) and entertainment uses
within a variety of neighborhood and urban context. He
has written comprehensive and targeted zoning code
updates, specifi c plans and general plans. His experience
provides projects and for cities professional experience in
drafting, analyzing and implementing a variety of land use
regulations.
Mr. Fernandez has extensive experience at processing
planning entitlements such as coastal development
permits, tract maps, land-use permits, sign programs and
variances. He has a strong background in architectural
review and working with architects when implementing
design guidelines both explicit and implied. He has
experience within urbanized neighborhoods for both
residential and non-residential projects. He has prepared
staff reports, resolutions with findings of fact, mitigation
measures and conditions of approval. He has prepared
and made graphic and oral presentations at Planning
Commission public hearings.
Mr. Fernandez has strong CEQA experience and has
written environmental determinations for various projects
including the preparation of Initial Studies, Negative
Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations and EIRs
for individual projects, specifi c plans and general plans.
He is experienced in using GIS for mapping and analysis,
and community engagement for community planning
efforts.
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 5.1
Project Considerations
The Azusa Greens golf course and country club has
operated in Azusa for over 30 years, providing the East
San Gabriel Valley community with recreational, public
golf opportunities. The proposed senior housing project,
to be constructed on a portion of the Azusa Greens
golf course, requires the golf course’s redesign to
accommodate the 256 units, the associated community
dining and activity spaces, the community pool and
recreational amenities and vehicular circulation/parking.
Todd Avenue will provide the vehicle access point.
Immediately surrounding the site are operating industrial
and nursery businesses, and a single-family residential
neighborhood. The site may be near active earthquake
fault splays, which may affect the placement of the
higher-density residential buildings. Existing neighbors
may be concerned that new housing units will increase
activity on the site, with associated concerns of noise and
traffi c. They may also be concerned that new residents
may lodge complaints about surrounding industrial use,
requiring changes to long-standing industrial and nursery
businesses’ operations. Both the Specifi c Plan in its design
features and the EIR in the analysis and mitigation will
need to address these community concerns.
Scope of Work
In this section, we detail the work scope we propose to
undertake. Our goal is to complete the work program
within 11-12 months, assuming the environmental review
documents (DEIR, FEIR, etc.) are prepared in six months.
We propose to work as an extension of City staff,
providing all services that staff typically provides for a
Specifi c Plan application. Our work will begin with the
immediate review of the draft Specifi c Plan and technical
reports provided by the project applicant so we can
identify any information gaps needing to be fi lled. We will
provide detailed review comments to the applicant, and
we will keep the City apprised of progress and needs.
Project Understanding
The City of Azusa has received an application from
California Grand Villages Azusa, LLC for the construction
of a multi-story 256-unit luxury independent living village
for seniors and for the reconfi guration of two holes along
the west edge of the Azusa Greens Golf Course. The
facilities will be built on the current Azusa Greens Golf
Course located at 919 W. Sierra Madre Avenue. The
proposed project will require a General Plan amendment,
Zone Change, Specifi c Plan, Design Review, Tentative
Parcel Map and Environmental Impact Report. The
applicant is in the process of preparing a Specifi c Plan
for the proposed improvements, as well as the following
technical reports to support the environmental review
process:
• Air Quality
• Arborist/Tree Survey
• Biology
• Cultural Resources
• Geology/Geotechnical
• Greenhouse Gases
• Phase I Environmental Hazards
• Fire Master Plan
• Hydrology
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
• Noise
• Traffi c
• Domestic Water
• Sewer
• Visual Simulations
• Economic Study
Given the City’s and the applicant’s desire to process
the application expeditiously while allowing for public
review and input, the City looks to retain a highly qualifi ed
consultant to manage the entitlement process.
5. Methodology Overview and Approach
5.2 CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services
To engage and inform the public, we propose meetings at
the milestones noted below. Additional public meetings
can be scheduled as additional services, if the City
believes such meetings will be helpful, and include:
• A Planning Commission workshop to which the public is
invited to review the draft Specifi c Plan
• Public hearings with the Planning Commission on the Draft
Specifi c Plan
• Public hearings with the City Council on the Draft Specifi c
Plan
We have staff available to begin work on the project
immediately and to see it through to completion on
budget, on schedule and to the satisfaction of the City,
the applicant and the Azusa community.
MIG presents the comprehensive work scope we propose
to undertake for the California Grand Village Azusa
Greens’ (CGVAG) project. Our goal is to complete the
project through public hearings within 11 months.
TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND
COORDINATION
1.1: Kick-Off Meeting
MIG project manager Lisa Brownfi eld will meet with City
staff, California Grand Village Azusa Greens (CGVAG)
project representatives and Michael Baker representatives
to clarify the Planning Department’s expectations
regarding the Specifi c Plan. Objectives for the meeting
include:
• Exchange of contact information
• Understand the City’s expectations
• Establish primary contact and best methods for
communication
• Discuss the project proposal
• Discuss project schedule
• Identify technical studies being prepared by the CGVAG
consultants and the timeline for the studies’ completion
If, as a result of the meeting and direction from City staff,
we fi nd that the work scope and budget require any
revisions, MIG will make the revisions in discussion with
you.
Following the Kick-Off meeting, Lisa Brownfi eld and a City
staff representative will visit the project site.
This meeting will occur the fi rst week of the project after
contract execution.
1.2: SB 18 Compliance
Specifi c plans, as well as General Plan amendments,
require SB 18 compliance. MIG is unsure if the initial SB 18
compliance tasks were completed. As such, MIG proposes
to conduct the following SB 18 compliance tasks:
• Prepare and mail the initial contact letter to the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting local
tribe contact information.
• Prepare and mail letter to local tribes as identifi ed by
the NAHC response to the list. Letter will introduce the
proposed project and inquire if the tribe would like to have
“consultation”.
• Conduct one two-hour meeting with local tribes requesting
consultation. MIG’s recent specifi c plan experience, in
the cities of Glendora and Covina, indicates a local tribe
requests consultation.
• Prepare and mail the 45-day letter to local tribes. This letter
conveys the Specifi c Plan and the Draft EIR, requests tribe
comment and initiates the tribe’s 45-day comment period.
• Prepare and mail the public hearing notice ten days prior
to the City Council’s public hearing.
• Prepare and update an “action summary matrix”, which
documents:
o All City correspondence and contact with the NAHC
and local tribes
o All NAHC and tribal response to the correspondence
and contact
City staff, presumably the Economic and Community
Development Director, will need to provide a wet
signature on all correspondence. If a consultation meeting
is necessary, a City staff member is required by State law
to participate.
Consultation will occur at key points throughout the
project.
1.3: Project Coordination Meetings (allowance)
Strategic planning meetings/phone calls between Lisa
Brownfi eld, the City’s project manager and the CGVAG’s
project manager will be important throughout the Specifi c
Plan. The budget provides an allowance for coordination
meetings and calls; it is anticipated this budget will
facilitate biweekly project management calls; monthly
meetings with the City Manager, Director of Economic
& Community Development and other City staff; and
day-to-day communications.
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 5.3
1.4: Project Management
This subtask provides for contract administration,
invoicing, scheduling and coordination with the project
team.
Task 1 Meetings and Deliverables
• Kick-Off meeting
• SB18 Compliance: Letters to NAHC and Local Tribes,
Action Summary Matrix, One Consultation Meeting with
Local Tribe (as needed)
• Project coordination meetings and calls (budgeted
allowance)
• Monthly status reports (with invoices)
TASK 2: SPECIFIC PLAN
2.1: Administrative Draft Specifi c Plan
We understand that the California Grand Village Azusa,
LLC retained a consultant to prepare the Specifi c Plan.
Our role is to review and ensure the Specifi c Plan meets
State law requirements and conforms to City goals and
objectives with regard to good site planning, maintaining
or enhancing the West End Industrial neighborhood
character and guarding against impact on the
surrounding industrial businesses and adjacent residential
neighborhood. If the CGVAG consultant has not yet
completed a draft of the Specifi c Plan, we will meet
with the consultant (as part of the kick-off meeting) to
discuss the project objectives, design and development
approaches and proposed operations of all facilities
onsite.
MIG will circulate the complete Administrative Draft
Specifi c Plan to be submitted by the applicant’s consultant
to other City departments responsible for review of and
comment on particular sections (e.g., Police Department,
County Fire Department, Light and Water, Public Works).
Section 88.51.070 of the Azusa Municipal Code addresses
Specifi c Plans but does not identify required contents.
Our assumption is that the minimum requirements for the
California Grand Village Azusa Greens Specifi c Plan will
mirror the requirements set forth in state law. Importantly,
the Plan will contain all information necessary to allow
the project to move forward and will set forth operational
standards for all planned and anticipated onsite activities.
With regard to any circulation or access issues, the traffi c
report, provided by the applicant, will assist with any
requirements. Information from the traffi c study regarding
any required off-site improvements will only be included if
requested by the City.
At a minimum, the Specifi c Plan should consist of the
following sections:
• Introduction, including project summary, specifi c plan
objectives and relationship to General Plan policies
• Site development plan (permitted uses, development
standards, design standards)
• Operational standards and conditions
• Circulation (vehicular and non-vehicular)
• Infrastructure, utilities, public services
• Open space
• Phasing and fi nancing
• Specifi c Plan administration
In addition to circulating and reviewing the Specifi c Plan
and as necessary, MIG will meet with representatives
from other City department representatives and County
Fire to review comments. Following this internal review
of the Administrative Draft document, we will meet with
the CGVAG’s consultant to review the comprehensive
comments and provide further direction.
The review of the Administrative Draft Specifi c Plan will
occur within four weeks from its receipt.
2.2: Preliminary Draft and Draft Specifi c Plan
MIG will ask that the applicant prepare a Preliminary Draft
Specifi c Plan that incorporates all comments provided
by MIG and other City staff on the Administrative Draft.
Following MIG’s review of the Preliminary Draft, we
will meet with the CGVAG’s consultant to review the
comments. Based on these comments, we will direct
preparation of the Draft Specifi c. Additional City staff
review is not required but will be welcomed if City staff
would like to review the document before its publication.
This version will form the basis of the project description
for CEQA review.
The review of the Preliminary Draft Specifi c Plan will occur
within three weeks from its receipt.
Task 2 Deliverables
• Detailed comments on the Administrative Draft Specifi c
Plan (PDF); City staff meeting, as necessary
• Meeting with applicant
• Comments on the Preliminary Draft Specifi c Plan (PDF)
• Meeting with applicant
• Draft Specifi c Plan to be provided by the applicant, with all
required copies to be produced by the applicant
5.4 CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services
TASK 3: PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS
MIG proposes to provide full staff support to the City for
this project. This includes:
• Site plan and design review including conducting,
reviewing and providing written comments regarding
the site plan’s compliance with City of Azusa General
Plan, Development Code, standards and guidelines.
MIG will work circulate the site plan for appropriate City
staff comment; MIG will collect and consolidate City staff
comment. As appropriate, MIG can meet with City staff
members to facilitate comment review. MIG will organize,
prepare all materials (agenda, etc.) and facilitate a Design
Review Board (DRB) meeting. Appropriate City staff will be
invited to participate in the Design Review Board meeting.
The site plan review and the DRB meeting will occur within
three weeks from receipt of the site plan.
• MIG’s full service capabilities (including GIS mapping,
civil engineering, landscape architecture, community
engagement, zoning and general plan planning and
environmental review) enables MIG to prepare the
following planning entitlement documents, as necessary:
o General Plan Amendment (GPA) (mapping, policy
review and proposed text revisions, as appropriate)
o Zone Change (ZC) (mapping, code text revisions, as
appropriate)
MIG will provide a Screencheck draft for the City’s
Community Development Director and/or City Attorney
to review and comment on the General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change materials. MIG will revise the
documents accordingly.
The GPA and ZC documents’ preparation will occur within
two weeks. Response to comments will occur within one
week of comment receipt.
MIG assumes the applicant will prepare the Tentative
Tract Map; however, MIG will prepare all entitlement
processing materials necessary for the Tentative Tract
Map’s review and adoption.
Task 3 Deliverables
• Site Plan Review, Meetings and Comments (PDF)
• Design Review, Meeting and Comments (PDF)
• General Plan Amendment Text and Mapping (PDF), as
appropriate
• Zone Change Text and Mapping (PDF), as appropriate
TASK 4: STAFF REPORTS AND HEARING DOCUMENTS
MIG proposes to provide full staff support to the City for
this project. This includes:
• Preparing public hearing notices, radius maps and mailing
labels; mailing hearing notices to identifi ed recipients
• Preparing staff reports and presentation exhibits required
for the Design Review Board meeting and the Planning
Commission and City Council public hearings
• Working with the City of Azusa City Attorney, MIG will
prepare Planning Commission resolutions recommending
actions regarding the Specifi c Plan, Tentative Tract Map,
General Plan Amendment, Zoning Change and DEIR
• Working with the City of Azusa City Attorney, MIG will
prepare City Council resolutions and ordinances
• Preparing PowerPoint Presentations presenting the project,
fi ndings and staff recommendations
City planning staff will be responsible for reviewing
and providing comment on all notices, staff reports,
presentations, ordinances and resolutions. MIG will revise
the documents accordingly.
The resolutions/ordinances, staff reports and
presentations’ preparation, including response to
comment time, will occur in three to four weeks.
Task 4 Deliverables
• Public Hearing Notices (PDF)
• Radius Map (1 printed copy)
• Mailing Labels (2 printed copies and PDF)
• Staff Reports – Design Review Board, Planning
Commission, City Council (Screencheck – PDF; Public – 30
printed copies and PDF)
• Resolutions (Screencheck – PDF; Public – 30 printed copies
and PDF)
• Ordinances (Screencheck – PDF; Public – 30 printed copies
and PDF)
• PowerPoint Presentations (Screencheck – 1 electronic copy;
Public – 1 electronic copy)
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 5.5
TASK 5: PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1: Planning Commission Hearings
MIG will prepare materials and facilitate Planning
Commission hearings on the regarding the Specifi c Plan,
Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change. MIG will present the PowerPoint Presentation
and will respond to questions. Our budget includes an
allowance for this task; it assumes two two-hour hearings.
Any time required beyond this allowance will be billed as
additional services with prior authorization from the City.
5.2: City Council Hearings
MIG will prepare materials and facilitate City Council
hearings on the regarding the Specifi c Plan, Tentative
Tract Map, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
MIG will present the PowerPoint Presentation and will
respond to questions. Our budget includes an allowance
for this task it assumes two two-hour hearings. Any time
required beyond this allowance will be billed as additional
services with prior authorization from the City.
Task 5 Deliverables
• Two Planning Commission Hearings materials preparation
(PDF) and hearing participation
• Two City Council Hearings materials preparation (PDF) and
hearing participation
TASK 6: WRAP UP AND CONTINUING SERVICES
6.1: Final Documents
Following fi nal City Council action on the project, MIG will
ensure that the applicant makes all Specifi c Plan revisions
required to address the Council’s direction, and that fi nal
copies refl ecting the adopted document are provided by
the applicant (printed and editable electronic).
6.2: Continuing Services
In the RFP, the City has asked that we be available to
attend appeal hearings, court hearings or settlement
conferences (if required) relating to City of Azusa
determination and relating to advice given regarding the
project. We are available and fully capable of doing so. All
such services would be billed on a reimbursable basis in
accordance with our standard fee schedule in effect at the
time such services are requested.
JULY 2017 AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN 2018 FEB MAR APR MAY Specifi c PlanPROCESS SCHEDULEMeetings & Public Outreachcalifornia grand village azusa greens projectCITY OF AZUSAPlanning Consultant ServicesKick-offMeetingDraft Technical Reports & Draft Specifi c Plan MeetingPlanning Commission Workshop/Scoping MeetingPlanning Commission HearingsCity Council HearingsFinalSpecifi c PlanReceiveDraft Specifi cPlanComments on Draft Specifi c PlanApplicant ProducesPreliminary Specifi c PlanPrepare Public Hearing Staff ReportsPROJECT MONTHEntitlementSB18Contact SB18Contact SB18Contact SB18Contact Site Plan & Design ReviewReceipt/Analysis DRB Meeting Prepare and Revise General Plan Amendment & Zone ChangePrepare and Revise:- Ordinances- Resolutions- PresentationsPreliminaryDraft PlanComments & MeetingDraft Specifi c PlanReleasedONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT (WEEKLY TELECONFERENCES AND MONTHLY MEETINGS)
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 6.1
Fee Proposal
On the following page, we provide our estimated cost by
task and a total project cost to complete the Scope of
Work proposed. Should we be selected, we will review
each assignment’s objectives carefully with City staff, and
we will tailor the scope and cost to best meet the needs
and resources of the City of Azusa.
HOURLY RATES
Professional time is billed according to the hourly rates
presented in the Fee Proposal table. Project costs are
incurred as professional time costs associated with
the performance of project tasks. The proposed hours
and associated professional time costs for MIG team
members are provided in the table, as well as the total
subconsultants costs per task.
DIRECT COSTS
Direct costs or project expenses such as photocopying
(large-quantity), plotting and printing (b&w, color) are
charged at cost, plus 10%. The cost of communications
including long-distance telephone (excluding cell phones),
facsimile, postage, courier and other delivery costs
are charged at cost, plus 10%. The mileage charge for
personal autos will be the currently applicable mileage
rate established by the Internal Revenue Service. All other
travel expenses such as accommodations, parking, tolls,
etc. are charged at cost, plus 10%.
6. Compensation
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 6.2PPrincipal QA/QCSenior Housing ConsultantStetson BrownfieldSteeleDrasler/FernandezLabor Rates$220$175$205$110$851.01.1 Kick-off Meeting and Site Visit4 4 $1,1401.2 SB 18 Compliance4 4 $1,1401.3 Project Coordination Meetings (allowance) 2 70 8 $13,5701.4 Project Management 4 36 4 $7,520Total Task 1 6 114 16 4 $23,3702.02.1 Administrative Draft Specific Plan32 4 16 2 $8,3502.2 Preliminary Draft and Draft Specific Plan 4 12 24 2 $5,790Total Task 2 4 44 4 40 4$14,1403.04 52 4 110 $22,9004.0Staff Reports and Hearing Documents30 80 2 $14,2205.0Public Engagement5.1 Planning Commission Hearings (allowance) 10 8 $2,6305.2 City Council Hearings (allowance)10 4 $2,190Total Task 6 20 12$4,8206.0Wrap Up and Continuing Services6.1 Final Documents (allowance)8 4 2 $2,0106.2 Continuing Services As needed - Billed on reimbursable basisTotal Task 7 8 4 2 $2,01014 268 8 262 12 $81,460Direct CostsWorkshop Materials/Deliverables (allowance)$3,500Mailing/Delivery (allowance)$750Travel$450TotalDirect Costs$4,700TOTALLABOR AND DIRECT$86,160Planning AssociateProject Manager Review Specific PlanTOTAL Labor Hours and CostsPlanning EntitlementsProject Management and CoordinationTotalWord Proc and Admin SupportFee Proposal
CITY OF AZUSA | California Grand Village Azusa Greens Project Planning Consultant Services 7.1
MIG does not have any exceptions or deviations to the
City’s Professional Services Agreement. We acknowledge
that as no contractual exceptions are noted, MIG will be
deemed to have accepted the contract requirements.
7. Exceptions/Deviations
8513273_1
CITY OF AZUSA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this 17th day of July, 2017 by and between the
City of Azusa, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with
its principal place of business at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California 91702 (“City”)
and Michael Baker International with its principal place of business at 5 Hutton Centre Drive,
Suite 500 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually
referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant.
Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain
professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing environmental consulant
services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of
City.
2.2 Project.
City desires to engage Consultant to render such services for the California Grand
Villages Azusa Greens project (“Project”) as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Scope of Services and Term.
3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to
the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional environmental consulting services
necessary for the Project (“Services”). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit
“A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and
performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 17, 2017 to
completion of the California Grand Villages Azusa Greens project, unless earlier terminated as
provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and
shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual written
consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
Michael Baker International
Page 2 of 17
3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The
Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine
the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this
Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee.
Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of
this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under
Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other
amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this
Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and
obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security
taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’
compensation insurance.
3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the
Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance
with the Schedule, City shall respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner. Upon
request of City, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to
meet the Schedule of Services.
3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.
3.2.4 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to City that
certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should
one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of
at least equal competence upon written approval of City. In the event that City and Consultant
cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel who fail or refuse to perform the
Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are determined by the City to be
uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a
threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the
Consultant at the request of the City. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are
as follows: Eddie Torres, Starla Baker, and Ryan Chiene
3.2.5 City’s Representative. The City hereby designates Kurt Christiansen,
FAICP, Director of Economic and Community Development or his or her designee, to act as its
representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City’s Representative”). City’s
Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this
Contract. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City’s
Representative or his or her designee.
Michael Baker International
Page 3 of 17
3.2.6 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates Eddie Torres
or his/her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement
(“Consultant’s Representative”). Consultant’s Representative shall have full authority to
represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The
Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill and
attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures
and for the satisfactor y coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.7 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with City
staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City’s staff, consultants and other
staff at all reasonable times.
3.2.8 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Consultant shall perform
all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the
standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional
calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and
subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to
them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses,
permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the
Services, including a City Business License, and that such licenses and approvals shall be
maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without
reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are
caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any
employee of the Consultant or its sub-consultants who is determined by the City to be
uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat
to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services
in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant
and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.
3.2.9 Period of Performance. Consultant shall perform and complete all Services
under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above (“Performance Time”).
Consultant shall also perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or
Project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B” attached hereto, or which may be separately
agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant (“Performance Milestones”). Consultant
agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time
and/or pursuant to any such Project Milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this
Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage.
3.2.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Consultant shall
keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and
regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all
Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable
for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
Michael Baker International
Page 4 of 17
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without
giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising
therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors, officers,
employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this
Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply
with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.2.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Consultant. By executing this
Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of
state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not
limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to
time. Such requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and
retention of documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of
the Consultant. Consultant also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law
within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and
shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Consultant shall
avoid any violation of any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an
electronic verification of work authorization program operated by the United States Department
of Homeland Security, by participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program
operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly
hired employees, or by some other legally acceptable method. Consultant shall maintain records
of each such verification, and shall make them available to the City or its representatives for
inspection and copy at any time during normal business hours. The City shall not be responsible
for any costs or expenses related to Consultant’s compliance with the requirements provided for
in Section 3.2.10 or any of its sub-sections.
3.2.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, Consultants, Sub-
subcontractors and Subconsultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as
Consultant, Consultant shall require all of its subcontractors, consultants, sub-subcontractors and
subconsultants performing any work relating to the Project or this Agreement to make the same
verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for in Section 3.2.10.1.
3.2.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant verifies that they are a duly authorized officer
of Consultant, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the City to
terminate the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Consultant or its subcontractors, consultants,
sub-subcontractors or subconsultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections
3.2.10.1 or 3.2.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with
such requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Consultant under Section
3.2.10.2); or (3) failure to immediately remove from the Project any person found not to be in
compliance with such requirements.
3.2.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant
certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake
Michael Baker International
Page 5 of 17
self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.2.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents
that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subconsultant,
employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities
related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of
City’s Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs
or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
3.2.10.6 Air Quality. To the extent applicable, Consultant must
fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment
and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting
requirements imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and/or
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Although the SCAQMD and CARB limits and
requirements are more broad, Consultant shall specifically be aware of their application to
"portable equipment", which definition is considered by SCAQMD and CARB to include any
item of equipment with a fuel-powered engine. Consultant shall indemnify City against any
fines or penalties imposed by SCAQMD, CARB, or any other governmental or regulatory
agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Consultant, its
subconsultants, or others for whom Consultant is responsible under its indemnity obligations
provided for in this Agreement.
3.2.10.7 Water Quality.
(A) Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable,
Consultant’s Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all
applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws,
rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; the City’s ordinances
regulating discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued
pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State.
(B) Liability for Non-compliance. Failure to comply with the
laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject
Consultant or City to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Consultant shall
defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and
agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and
against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result
of Consultant’s non-compliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section,
Michael Baker International
Page 6 of 17
unless such non-compliance is the result of the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or
active negligence of the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers.
(C) Training. In addition to any other standard of care
requirements set forth in this Agreement, Consultant warrants that all employees and
subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them
without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in
this Section. Consultant further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive
adequate training, as determined by City, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and
policies described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this
Agreement. Upon request, City will provide Consultant with a list of training programs that
meet the requirements of this paragraph.
3.2.11 Insurance.
3.2.11.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence
Services under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has
secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory
to the City that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this section.
3.2.11.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance
for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum
levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as
broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office
Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability:
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto);
and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as
required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. The policy shall not
contain any exclusion contrary to the Agreement, including but not limited to endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability (including but not limited to ISO CG 24
26 or 21 29); or (2) cross liability for claims or suits by one insured against another.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain
limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with
general aggregate limit is used including, but not limited to, form CG 2503, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit
shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident
Michael Baker International
Page 7 of 17
for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s
Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California. Employer’s Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Defense costs shall be paid in addition to the limits.
(C) Notices; Cancellation or Reduction of Coverage. At least
fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence showing that such insurance
coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is
cancelled or materially reduced, Consultant shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written
notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance
showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another
insurance company or companies. In the event any policy of insurance required under this
Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, the City
has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid
by the City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or the City may withhold amounts
sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, the City may suspend or
terminate this Agreement.
3.2.11.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and
maintain, and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years
following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their
profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim, and shall
be endorsed to include contractual liability. Such insurance shall be in amount not less than
$1,000.00 per claim.
3.2.11.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or
approved by the City to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall include
or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) using ISO CG forms 20 10 and 20 37, or
endorsements providing the exact same coverage, the City of Azusa, its directors, officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insured with respect to
the Services or ongoing and complete operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant,
including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) using
ISO form 20 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, the insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents
and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the
Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any excess insurance shall contain a provision that
such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City,
before the City’s own primary insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
named insured. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. Notwithstanding the minimum limits set
forth in Section 3.2.11.2(B), any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified
Michael Baker International
Page 8 of 17
minimum limits of coverage shall be available to the parties required to be named as additional
insureds pursuant to this Section 3.2.11.4(A).
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall
include or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage
excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be
excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any
way. Notwithstanding the minimum limits set forth in Section 3.2.11.2(B), any available
insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of coverage shall be available to
the parties required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Section 3.2.11.4(B).
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability
Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its directors,
officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the
insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant.
(D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this
Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: coverage shall not be canceled except after (30) days
(10 days for non payment of premium) prior written by U.S. mail, has been given to the City.
3.2.11.5 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations; Waiver of
Subrogation. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds
provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
All policies shall waive any right of subrogation of the insurer against the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other additional insureds, or shall specifically
allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications
to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of
recovery against City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other
additional insureds, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from
each of its subconsultants.
3.2.11.6 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any
deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant
shall guarantee that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate
such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense
expenses.
Michael Baker International
Page 9 of 17
3.2.11.7 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall
not allow any subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract relating to the work under
the Agreement until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured
all insurance required under this Section. If requested by Consultant, the City may approve
different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subconsultants. The Consultant
and the City shall be named as additional insureds on all subconsultants’ policies of Commercial
General Liability using ISO form 20 38, or coverage at least as broad.
3.2.11.8 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the City.
3.2.11.9 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish City
with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this
Agreement on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each
insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf, and shall be on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and
endorsements must be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
3.2.11.9 Reporting of Claims. Consultant shall report to the City, in
addition to Consultant’s insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted by Consultant in
connection with the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.12 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid
injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at
all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations,
and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature
of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as
applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving
equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and
subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks,
confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices,
equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or
injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.2.13 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records
shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal
business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other
documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work,
data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3)
Michael Baker International
Page 10 of 17
years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.3 Fees and Payments.
3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including
authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth
in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation
shall not exceed one hundred seventy five thousand and four hundred five ($175,405.00)
without written approval of the City Council. Extra Work may be authorized, as described
below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this
Agreement.
3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly
itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by
Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the
initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate,
through the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review
the statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any
expenses unless authorized in writing by City.
3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may
request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work
which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which
the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement.
Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization
from City’s Representative.
3.3.5 Prevailing Wages. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California
Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations,
Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of
prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “public works” and
“maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public
works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage
Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in
effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing
rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the
Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant’s
principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold
the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or
liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.4 Termination of Agreement.
Michael Baker International
Page 11 of 17
3.4.1 Grounds for Termination. City may, by written notice to Consultant,
terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving
written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Consultant
shall be compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to City, and
Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this
Agreement except for cause.
3.4.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein,
City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other
information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services
under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.4.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole
or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may
determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.5 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.
3.5.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement
creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense
any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications,
studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or
otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). All Documents & Data shall be and
remain the property of City, and shall not be used in whole or in substantial part by Consultant
on other projects without the City's express written permission. Within thirty (30) days
following the completion, suspension, abandonment or termination of this Agreement,
Consultant shall provide to City reproducible copies of all Documents & Data, in a form and
amount required by City. City reserves the right to select the method of document reproduction
and to establish where the reproduction will be accomplished. The reproduction expense shall be
borne by City at the actual cost of duplication. In the event of a dispute regarding the amount of
compensation to which the Consultant is entitled under the termination provisions of this
Agreement, Consultant shall provide all Documents & Data to City upon payment of the
undisputed amount. Consultant shall have no right to retain or fail to provide to City any such
documents pending resolution of the dispute. In addition, Consultant shall retain copies of all
Documents & Data on file for a minimum of fifteen (15) years following completion of the
Project, and shall make copies available to City upon the payment of actual reasonable
duplication costs. Before destroying the Documents & Data following this retention period,
Consultant shall make a reasonable effort to notify City and provide City with the opportunity to
obtain the documents.
Michael Baker International
Page 12 of 17
3.5.2 Subcontractors. Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in
writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the
subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that
Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no
such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design
professionals other than Consultant or its subcontractors, or those provided to Consultant by the
City.
3.5.3 Right to Use. City shall not be limited in any way in its use or reuse of the
Documents and Data or any part of them at any time for purposes of this Project or another
project, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement or on a
project other than this Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City’s
sole risk. If City uses or reuses the Documents & Data on any project other than this Project, it
shall remove the Consultant’s seal from the Documents & Data and indemnify and hold harmless
Consultant and its officers, directors, agents and employees from claims arising out of the
negligent use or re-use of the Documents & Data on such other project. Consultant shall be
responsible and liable for its Documents & Data, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, only
with respect to the condition of the Documents & Data at the time they are provided to the City
upon completion, suspension, abandonment or termination. Consultant shall not be responsible
or liable for any revisions to the Documents & Data made by any party other than Consultant, a
party for whom the Consultant is legally responsible or liable, or anyone approved by the
Consultant.
3.5.4 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent,
copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or
entity in consequence of the use on the Project by City of the Documents & Data, including any
method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.5.5 Confidentiality. All Documents & Data either created by or provided to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. All Documents & Data shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used
or reproduced by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Consultant shall not disclose, cause or facilitate the disclosure of the Documents & Data to any
person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing
furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has
become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use
City’s name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or
the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other
similar medium without the prior written consent of City.
3.6 General Provisions.
Michael Baker International
Page 13 of 17
3.6.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other
address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
Consultant:
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Attn: Eddie Torres, Associate Vice President
City:
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Attn: Kurt Christiansen, FAICP, Director
Economic and Community Development Department
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed,
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to
the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date
actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.6.2 Indemnification.
3.6.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any
alleged acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors,
consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s Services, the
Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential
damages, expert witness fees and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code
Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code
Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the Consultant.
3.6.2.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Consultant shall defend, with
legal counsel chosen by City, at Consultant’s own cost, expense and risk, any and all claims,
actions or other proceedings of every kind covered by Section 3.6.2.1 that may be brought or
instituted against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.
Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against
City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents as party of any such
Michael Baker International
Page 14 of 17
claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Consultant shall also reimburse City for the cost of any
settlement paid by City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers as
part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include
payment for City’s attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Consultant shall
reimburse City and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers, for any
and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing
the indemnity herein provided. Consultant’s obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or
termination of this Agreement and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received
by the City, its directors, officials officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
3.6.3 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for
compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions,
Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et
seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City. Such Government Code claims and any
subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters
that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims,
and/or changed conditions have been followed by Consultant. If no such Government Code
claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as
specified herein, Consultant shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit
against the City.
3.6.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of
this Agreement.
3.6.5 City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants. City reserves right to employ
other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.6.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties.
3.6.7 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or
transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the
prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees,
hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted
assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.6.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have
participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be
construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any
term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not
work days. All references to Consultant include all personnel, employees, agents, and
subcontractors of Consultant, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to
City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise
Michael Baker International
Page 15 of 17
specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for
convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope,
content, or intent of this Agreement.
3.6.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment
of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.
3.6.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other
default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit,
privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any
contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
3.6.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for
in Section 3.6.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed
by the Parties.
3.6.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.6.13 Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not
employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not
paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Consultant further
agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subconsultants to file, a Statement of Economic
Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the
Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this
Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of
City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this
Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.6.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary,
appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.6.15 Attorney’s Fees. If either party commences an action against the other
party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the
losing party reasonable attorney’s fees and all other costs of such action.
3.6.16 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party
warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and
Michael Baker International
Page 16 of 17
authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
3.6.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of
which shall constitute an original.
3.6.18 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by
both parties.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Michael Baker International
Page 17 of 17
CITY OF AZUSA Michael Baker International
By: By:
Mayor Joseph Romero Rocha
Name:
Attest:
Title:
City Clerk
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND
Secretary, AND CORPORATE SEAL OF
CONTRACTOR REQUIRED]
Approved as to Form:
Best Best & Krieger LLP By:
Name:
City Attorney
Title:
A-1
8513273_1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[INSERT SCOPE]
B-1
8513273_1
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
[INSERT SCHEDULE]
C-1
8513273_1
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
[INSERT RATES & AUTHORIZED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES]
D-1
8513273_1
CITY OF AZUSA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this 17th day of July, 2017 by and between the
City of Azusa, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with
its principal place of business at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California 91702 (“City”)
and MIG with its principal place of business at 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105
(“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and
collectively as “Parties.”
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant.
Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain
professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing planning consulant services
to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of City.
2.2 Project.
City desires to engage Consultant to render such services for the California Grand
Villages Azusa Greens project (“Project”) as set forth in this Agreement.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Scope of Services and Term.
3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to
the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional environmental consulting services
necessary for the Project (“Services”). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit
“A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and
performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 17, 2017 to
completion of the California Grand Villages Azusa Greens project, unless earlier terminated as
provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and
shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual written
consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The
MIG
Page 2 of 17
Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine
the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this
Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee.
Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of
this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under
Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other
amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this
Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and
obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security
taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’
compensation insurance.
3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the
Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance
with the Schedule, City shall respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner. Upon
request of City, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to
meet the Schedule of Services.
3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.
3.2.4 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to City that
certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should
one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of
at least equal competence upon written approval of City. In the event that City and Consultant
cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel who fail or refuse to perform the
Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are determined by the City to be
uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a
threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the
Consultant at the request of the City. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are
as follows: Laura Stetson, AICP and Lisa Brownfield
3.2.5 City’s Representative. The City hereby designates Kurt Christiansen,
FAICP, Director of Economic and Community Development or his or her designee, to act as its
representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City’s Representative”). City’s
Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this
Contract. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City’s
Representative or his or her designee.
MIG
Page 3 of 17
3.2.6 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates Lisa
Brownfield or his/her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement
(“Consultant’s Representative”). Consultant’s Representative shall have full authority to
represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The
Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill and
attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures
and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.7 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with City
staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City’s staff, consultants and other
staff at all reasonable times.
3.2.8 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Consultant shall perform
all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the
standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional
calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and
subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to
them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses,
permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the
Services, including a City Business License, and that such licenses and approvals shall be
maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without
reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are
caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any
employee of the Consultant or its sub-consultants who is determined by the City to be
uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat
to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services
in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant
and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.
3.2.9 Period of Performance and Liquidated Damages. Consultant shall perform
and complete all Services under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above
(“Performance Time”). Consultant shall also perform the Services in strict accordance with any
completion schedule or Project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B” attached hereto, or
which may be separately agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant (“Performance
Milestones”). Consultant agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned
Performance Time and/or pursuant to any such Project Milestones developed pursuant to
provisions of this Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer
damage. [***INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE ONLY IF YOU'RE INCLUDING
LD'S – DELETE OTHERWISE – DON'T SIMPLY INSERT $0; ALSO DELETE “AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES” FROM TITLE OF SECTION***]Pursuant to Government Code
Section 53069.85, Consultant shall pay to the City as fixed and liquidated damages the sum of
[***INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT***] Dollars ($[***INSERT NUMERICAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT***]) per day for each and every calendar day of delay beyond the
MIG
Page 4 of 17
Performance Time or beyond any Project Milestones established pursuant to this Agreement.
3.2.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Consultant shall
keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and
regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all
Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable
for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without
giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising
therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors, officers,
employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this
Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply
with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.2.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Consultant. By executing this
Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of
state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not
limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to
time. Such requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and
retention of documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of
the Consultant. Consultant also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law
within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and
shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Consultant shall
avoid any violation of any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an
electronic verification of work authorization program operated by the United States Department
of Homeland Security, by participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program
operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly
hired employees, or by some other legally acceptable method. Consultant shall maintain records
of each such verification, and shall make them available to the City or its representatives for
inspection and copy at any time during normal business hours. The City shall not be responsible
for any costs or expenses related to Consultant’s compliance with the requirements provided for
in Section 3.2.10 or any of its sub-sections.
3.2.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, Consultants, Sub-
subcontractors and Subconsultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as
Consultant, Consultant shall require all of its subcontractors, consultants, sub-subcontractors and
subconsultants performing any work relating to the Project or this Agreement to make the same
verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for in Section 3.2.10.1.
3.2.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant verifies that they are a duly authorized officer
of Consultant, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the City to
terminate the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Consultant or its subcontractors, consultants,
sub-subcontractors or subconsultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections
3.2.10.1 or 3.2.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with
MIG
Page 5 of 17
such requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Consultant under Section
3.2.10.2); or (3) failure to immediately remove from the Project any person found not to be in
compliance with such requirements.
3.2.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant
certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake
self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.2.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents
that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subconsultant,
employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities
related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of
City’s Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs
or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
3.2.10.6 Air Quality. To the extent applicable, Consultant must
fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment
and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting
requirements imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and/or
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Although the SCAQMD and CARB limits and
requirements are more broad, Consultant shall specifically be aware of their application to
"portable equipment", which definition is considered by SCAQMD and CARB to include any
item of equipment with a fuel-powered engine. Consultant shall indemnify City against any
fines or penalties imposed by SCAQMD, CARB, or any other governmental or regulatory
agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Consultant, its
subconsultants, or others for whom Consultant is responsible under its indemnity obligations
provided for in this Agreement.
3.2.10.7 Water Quality.
(A) Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable,
Consultant’s Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all
applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws,
rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; the City’s ordinances
regulating discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued
pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State.
MIG
Page 6 of 17
(B) Liability for Non-compliance. Failure to comply with the
laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject
Consultant or City to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Consultant shall
defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and
agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and
against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result
of Consultant’s non-compliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section,
unless such non-compliance is the result of the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or
active negligence of the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers.
(C) Training. In addition to any other standard of care
requirements set forth in this Agreement, Consultant warrants that all employees and
subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them
without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in
this Section. Consultant further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive
adequate training, as determined by City, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and
policies described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this
Agreement. Upon request, City will provide Consultant with a list of training programs that
meet the requirements of this paragraph.
3.2.11 Insurance.
3.2.11.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence
Services under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has
secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory
to the City that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this section.
3.2.11.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance
for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum
levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as
broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office
Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability:
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto);
and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as
required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. The policy shall not
contain any exclusion contrary to the Agreement, including but not limited to endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability (including but not limited to ISO CG 24
26 or 21 29); or (2) cross liability for claims or suits by one insured against another.
MIG
Page 7 of 17
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain
limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with
general aggregate limit is used including, but not limited to, form CG 2503, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit
shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident
for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s
Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California. Employer’s Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Defense costs shall be paid in addition to the limits.
(C) Notices; Cancellation or Reduction of Coverage. At least
fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence showing that such insurance
coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is
cancelled or materially reduced, Consultant shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written
notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance
showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another
insurance company or companies. In the event any policy of insurance required under this
Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, the City
has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid
by the City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or the City may withhold amounts
sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, the City may suspend or
terminate this Agreement.
3.2.11.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and
maintain, and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years
following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their
profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim, and shall
be endorsed to include contractual liability. Defense costs shall be paid in addition to limits.
3.2.11.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or
approved by the City to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall include
or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) using ISO CG forms 20 10 and 20 37, or
endorsements providing the exact same coverage, the City of Azusa, its directors, officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insured with respect to
the Services or ongoing and complete operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant,
including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) using
ISO form 20 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, the insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents
and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the
Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any excess insurance shall contain a provision that
MIG
Page 8 of 17
such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City,
before the City’s own primary insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
named insured. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. Notwithstanding the minimum limits set
forth in Section 3.2.11.2(B), any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified
minimum limits of coverage shall be available to the parties required to be named as additional
insureds pursuant to this Section 3.2.11.4(A).
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall
include or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage
excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be
excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any
way. Notwithstanding the minimum limits set forth in Section 3.2.11.2(B), any available
insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of coverage shall be available to
the parties required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Section 3.2.11.4(B).
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability
Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its directors,
officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the
insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant.
(D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this
Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced
or canceled except after thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment of premium) prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; and (B) any failure
to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties,
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents
and volunteers. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or any other additional insureds.
3.2.11.5 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations; Waiver of
Subrogation. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds
provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
All policies shall waive any right of subrogation of the insurer against the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other additional insureds, or shall specifically
allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications
MIG
Page 9 of 17
to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of
recovery against City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other
additional insureds, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from
each of its subconsultants.
3.2.11.6 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any
deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant
shall guarantee that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate
such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense
expenses.
3.2.11.7 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall
not allow any subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract relating to the work under
the Agreement until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured
all insurance required under this Section. If requested by Consultant, the City may approve
different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subconsultants. The Consultant
and the City shall be named as additional insureds on all subconsultants’ policies of Commercial
General Liability using ISO form 20 38, or coverage at least as broad.
3.2.11.8 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the City.
3.2.11.9 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish City
with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this
Agreement on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each
insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf, and shall be on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and
endorsements must be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
3.2.11.9 Reporting of Claims. Consultant shall report to the City, in
addition to Consultant’s insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted by Consultant in
connection with the Services under this Agreement.
3.2.12 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid
injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at
all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations,
and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature
of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as
applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving
equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and
MIG
Page 10 of 17
subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks,
confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices,
equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or
injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.2.13 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records
shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal
business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other
documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work,
data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3)
years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.3 Fees and Payments.
3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including
authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth
in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation
shall not exceed eighty six thousand and one hundred sixty ($86,160.00) without written
approval of the City Council. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if
authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly
itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by
Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the
initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate,
through the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review
the statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any
expenses unless authorized in writing by City.
3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may
request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work
which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which
the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement.
Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization
from City’s Representative.
3.3.5 Prevailing Wages. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California
Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations,
Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of
prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “public works” and
“maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public
MIG
Page 11 of 17
works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage
Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in
effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing
rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the
Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant’s
principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold
the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or
liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.4 Termination of Agreement.
3.4.1 Grounds for Termination. City may, by written notice to Consultant,
terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving
written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Consultant
shall be compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to City, and
Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this
Agreement except for cause.
3.4.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein,
City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other
information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services
under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.4.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole
or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may
determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
3.5 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.
3.5.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement
creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense
any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications,
studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or
otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). All Documents & Data shall be and
remain the property of City, and shall not be used in whole or in substantial part by Consultant
on other projects without the City's express written permission. Within thirty (30) days
following the completion, suspension, abandonment or termination of this Agreement,
Consultant shall provide to City reproducible copies of all Documents & Data, in a form and
amount required by City. City reserves the right to select the method of document reproduction
and to establish where the reproduction will be accomplished. The reproduction expense shall be
MIG
Page 12 of 17
borne by City at the actual cost of duplication. In the event of a dispute regarding the amount of
compensation to which the Consultant is entitled under the termination provisions of this
Agreement, Consultant shall provide all Documents & Data to City upon payment of the
undisputed amount. Consultant shall have no right to retain or fail to provide to City any such
documents pending resolution of the dispute. In addition, Consultant shall retain copies of all
Documents & Data on file for a minimum of fifteen (15) years following completion of the
Project, and shall make copies available to City upon the payment of actual reasonable
duplication costs. Before destroying the Documents & Data following this retention period,
Consultant shall make a reasonable effort to notify City and provide City with the opportunity to
obtain the documents.
3.5.2 Subcontractors. Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in
writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the
subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that
Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no
such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design
professionals other than Consultant or its subcontractors, or those provided to Consultant by the
City.
3.5.3 Right to Use. City shall not be limited in any way in its use or reuse of the
Documents and Data or any part of them at any time for purposes of this Project or another
project, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement or on a
project other than this Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City’s
sole risk. If City uses or reuses the Documents & Data on any project other than this Project, it
shall remove the Consultant’s seal from the Documents & Data and indemnify and hold harmless
Consultant and its officers, directors, agents and employees from claims arising out of the
negligent use or re-use of the Documents & Data on such other project. Consultant shall be
responsible and liable for its Documents & Data, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, only
with respect to the condition of the Documents & Data at the time they are provided to the City
upon completion, suspension, abandonment or termination. Consultant shall not be responsible
or liable for any revisions to the Documents & Data made by any party other than Consultant, a
party for whom the Consultant is legally responsible or liable, or anyone approved by the
Consultant.
3.5.4 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent,
copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or
entity in consequence of the use on the Project by City of the Documents & Data, including any
method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.5.5 Confidentiality. All Documents & Data either created by or provided to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. All Documents & Data shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used
or reproduced by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
MIG
Page 13 of 17
Consultant shall not disclose, cause or facilitate the disclosure of the Documents & Data to any
person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing
furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has
become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use
City’s name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or
the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other
similar medium without the prior written consent of City.
3.6 General Provisions.
3.6.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other
address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
Consultant:
MIG
537 S. Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attn: Lisa Brownfield, Director of Planning Services
City:
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Attn: Kurt Christiansen, FAICP, Director
Economic and Community Development Department
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed,
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to
the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date
actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.6.2 Indemnification.
3.6.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any
alleged acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors,
consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s Services, the
Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential
damages, expert witness fees and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code
MIG
Page 14 of 17
Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code
Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the Consultant.
3.6.2.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Consultant shall defend, with
legal counsel chosen by City, at Consultant’s own cost, expense and risk, any and all claims,
actions or other proceedings of every kind covered by Section 3.6.2.1 that may be brought or
instituted against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.
Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against
City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents as party of any such
claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Consultant shall also reimburse City for the cost of any
settlement paid by City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers as
part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include
payment for City’s attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Consultant shall
reimburse City and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers, for any
and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing
the indemnity herein provided. Consultant’s obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or
termination of this Agreement and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received
by the City, its directors, officials officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
3.6.3 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for
compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions,
Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et
seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City. Such Government Code claims and any
subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters
that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims,
and/or changed conditions have been followed by Consultant. If no such Government Code
claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as
specified herein, Consultant shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit
against the City.
3.6.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of
this Agreement.
3.6.5 City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants. City reserves right to employ
other consultants in connection with this Project.
3.6.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties.
3.6.7 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or
transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the
prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees,
MIG
Page 15 of 17
hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted
assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.6.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have
participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be
construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any
term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not
work days. All references to Consultant include all personnel, employees, agents, and
subcontractors of Consultant, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to
City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise
specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for
convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope,
content, or intent of this Agreement.
3.6.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment
of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.
3.6.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other
default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit,
privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any
contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
3.6.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for
in Section 3.6.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed
by the Parties.
3.6.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.6.13 Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not
employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not
paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Consultant further
agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subconsultants to file, a Statement of Economic
Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the
Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this
Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of
City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this
Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.6.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary,
MIG
Page 16 of 17
appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.6.15 Attorney’s Fees. If either party commences an action against the other
party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the
losing party reasonable attorney’s fees and all other costs of such action.
3.6.16 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and
authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party
warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and
authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.
3.6.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of
which shall constitute an original.
3.6.18 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by
both parties.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
MIG
Page 17 of 17
CITY OF AZUSA MIG
By: By:
Mayor Joseph Romero Rocha
Name:
Attest:
Title:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Best Best & Krieger LLP By:
Name:
City Attorney
Title:
A-1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
MIG presents the comprehensive work scope we propose to undertake for the California Grand
Village Azusa Greens’ (CGVAG) project. Our goal is to complete the project through public
hearings within 11 months.
Task 1: Project Management and Coordination
1.1: Kick-Off Meeting
MIG project manager Lisa Brownfield will meet with City staff, California Grand Village Azusa
Greens (CGVAG) project representatives, and Michael Baker representatives to clarify the
Planning Department’s expectations regarding the Specific Plan. Objectives for the meeting
include:
Exchange of contact information
Understand the City’s expectations
Establish primary contact and best methods for communication
Discuss the project proposal
Discuss project schedule
Identify technical studies being prepared by the CGVAG consultants and the timeline for the
studies’ completion
If, as a result of the meeting and direction from City staff, we find that the work scope and
budget require any revisions, MIG will make the revisions in discussion with you.
Following the Kick-Off meeting, Lisa Brownfield and a City staff representative will visit the
project site.
This meeting will occur the first week of the project after contract execution.
1.2: SB 18 Compliance
Specific plans, as well as General Plan amendments, require SB 18 compliance. MIG is unsure if
the initial SB 18 compliance tasks were completed. As such, MIG proposes to conduct the
following SB 18 compliance tasks:
•Prepare and mail the initial contact letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
requesting local tribe contact information.
•Prepare and mail letter to local tribes as identified by the NAHC response to the list. Letter will
introduce the proposed project and inquire if the tribe would like to have “consultation”.
•Conduct one two-hour meeting with local tribes requesting consultation. MIG’s recent specific
plan experience, in the cities of Glendora and Covina, indicates a local tribe requests
consultation.
•Prepare and mail the 45-day letter to local tribes. This letter conveys the Specific Plan and the
Draft EIR, requests tribe comment, and initiates the tribe’s 45-day comment period.
•Prepare and mail the public hearing notice ten days prior to the City Council’s public hearing.
•Prepare and update an “action summary matrix”, which documents:
all City correspondence and contact with the NAHC and local tribes
All NAHC and tribal response to the correspondence and contact
A-2
City staff, presumably the Economic and Community Development Director, will need to
provide a wet signature on all correspondence. If a consultation meeting is necessary, a City staff
member is required by State law to participate.
Consultation will occur at key points throughout the project.
1.3: Project Coordination Meetings (allowance)
Strategic planning meetings/phone calls between Lisa Brownfield, the City’s project manager,
and the CGVAG’s project manager will be important throughout the Specific Plan. The budget
provides an allowance for coordination meetings and calls; it is anticipated this budget will
facilitate biweekly project management calls; monthly meetings with the City Manager, Director
of Economic & Community Development, and other City staff; and day-to-day communications.
1.4: Project Management
This subtask provides for contract administration, invoicing, scheduling, and coordination with
the project team.
Task 1 Meetings and Deliverables
Kick-off meeting
SB18 Compliance: Letters to NAHC and Local Tribes, Action Summary Matrix, One
Consultation Meeting with Local Tribe (as needed)
Project coordination meetings and calls (budgeted allowance)
Monthly status reports (with invoices)
Task 2: Specific Plan
2.1 Administrative Draft Specific Plan
We understand that the California Grand Village Azusa, LLC retained a consultant to prepare the
Specific Plan. Our role is to review and ensure the Specific Plan meets State law requirements
and conforms to City goals and objectives with regard to good site planning, maintaining or
enhancing the West End Industrial neighborhood character, and guarding against impact on the
surrounding industrial businesses and adjacent residential neighborhood. If the CGVAG
consultant has not yet completed a draft of the Specific Plan, we will meet with the consultant (as
part of the kick-off meeting) to discuss the project objectives, design and development
approaches, and proposed operations of all facilities onsite.
MIG will circulate the complete Administrative Draft Specific Plan to be submitted by the
applicant’s consultant to other City departments responsible for review of and comment on
particular sections (e.g., Police Department, County Fire Department, Light and Water, Public
Works). Section 88.51.070 of the Azusa Municipal Code addresses Specific Plans but does not
identify required contents. Our assumption is that the minimum requirements for the California
Grand Village Azusa Greens Specific Plan will mirror the requirements set forth in state law.
Importantly, the Plan will contain all information necessary to allow the project to move forward
and will set forth operational standards for all planned and anticipated onsite activities. With
A-3
regard to any circulation or access issues, the traffic report, provided by the applicant, will assist
with any requirements. Information from the traffic study regarding any required off-site
improvements will only be included if requested by the City.
At a minimum, the Specific Plan should consist of the following sections:
•Introduction, including project summary, specific plan objectives, and relationship to General
Plan policies
•Site development plan (permitted uses, development standards, design standards)
•Operational standards and conditions
•Circulation (vehicular and non-vehicular)
•Infrastructure, utilities, public services
•Open space
•Phasing and financing
•Specific Plan administration
In addition to circulating and reviewing the Specific Plan and as necessary, MIG will meet with
representatives from other City department representatives and County Fire to review comments.
Following this internal review of the Administrative Draft document, we will meet with the
CGVAG’s consultant to review the comprehensive comments and provide further direction.
The review of the Administrative Draft Specific Plan will occur within four weeks from its
receipt.
2.2 Preliminary Draft and Draft Specific Plan
MIG will ask that the applicant prepare a Preliminary Draft Specific Plan that incorporates all
comments provided by MIG and other City staff on the Administrative Draft. Following MIG’s
review of the Preliminary Draft, we will meet with the CGVAG’s consultant to review the
comments. Based on these comments, we will direct preparation of the Draft Specific. Additional
City staff review is not required but will be welcomed if City staff would like to review the
document before its publication. This version will form the basis of the project description for
CEQA review.
The review of the Preliminary Draft Specific Plan will occur within three weeks from its receipt.
Task 2 Deliverables
Detailed comments on the Administrative Draft Specific Plan (PDF); City staff meeting, as
necessary
Meeting with applicant
Comments on the Preliminary Draft Specific Plan (PDF)
Meeting with applicant
Draft Specific Plan to be provided by the applicant, with all required copies to be produced by
the applicant
Task 3: Planning Entitlements
A-4
MIG proposes to provide full staff support to the City for this project. This includes:
•site plan and design review including conducting, reviewing, and providing written comments
regarding the site plan’s compliance with City of Azusa General Plan, Development Code,
standards, and guidelines. MIG will work circulate the site plan for appropriate City staff
comment; MIG will collect and consolidate City staff comment. As appropriate, MIG can meet
with City staff members to facilitate comment review. MIG will organize, prepare all materials
(agenda, etc.), and facilitate a Design Review Board (DRB) meeting. Appropriate City staff will
be invited to participate in the Design Review Board meeting.
The site plan review and the DRB meeting will occur within three weeks from receipt of the site
plan.
• MIG’s full service capabilities (including GIS mapping, civil engineering, landscape
architecture, community engagement, zoning and general plan planning, and environmental
review) enables MIG to prepare the following planning entitlement documents, as necessary: ₀General Plan Amendment (GPA) (mapping, policy review, and proposed text revisions, as
appropriate) ₀ Zone Change (ZC) (mapping, code text revisions, as appropriate)
MIG will provide a Screencheck draft for the City’s Community Development Director and/or
City Attorney to review and comment on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
materials. MIG will revise the documents accordingly.
The GPA and ZC documents’ preparation will occur within two weeks. Response to comments
will occur within one week of comment receipt.
MIG assumes the applicant will prepare the Tentative Tract Map; however, MIG will prepare all
entitlement processing materials necessary for the Tentative Tract Map’s review and adoption.
Task 3 Deliverables
Site Plan Review, Meetings, and Comments (PDF)
Design Review, Meeting, and Comments (PDF)
General Plan Amendment Text and Mapping (PDF), as appropriate
Zone Change Text and Mapping (PDF), as appropriate
Task 4: Staff Reports and Hearing Documents
MIG proposes to provide full staff support to the City for this project. This includes:
•preparing public hearing notices, radius maps, and mailing labels; mailing hearing notices to
identified recipients
•preparing staff reports and presentation exhibits required for the Design Review Board meeting,
and the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings
• working with the City of Azusa City Attorney, MIG will prepare Planning Commission
resolutions recommending actions regarding the Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, General
Plan Amendment, Zoning Change, and DEIR.
•working with the City of Azusa City Attorney, MIG will prepare City Council resolutions and
ordinances
•preparing PowerPoint Presentations presenting the project, findings, and staff recommendations.
A-5
City planning staff will be responsible for reviewing and providing comment on all notices, staff
reports, presentations, ordinances, and resolutions. MIG will revise the documents accordingly.
The resolutions/ordinances, staff reports, and presentations’ preparation, including response to
comment time, will occur in three to four weeks.
Task 4 Deliverables
Public Hearing Notices (PDF)
Radius Map (1 printed copy)
Mailing Labels (2 printed copies and PDF)
Staff Reports – Design Review Board, Planning Commission, City Council (Screencheck – PDF;
Public – 30 printed copies and PDF)
Resolutions (Screencheck – PDF; Public – 30 printed copies and PDF)
Ordinances (Screencheck – PDF; Public – 30 printed copies and PDF)
PowerPoint Presentations (Screencheck – 1 electronic copy; Public – 1 electronic copy)
Task 5 Public Hearings
5.1 Planning Commission Hearings
MIG will prepare materials and facilitate Planning Commission hearings on the regarding the
Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. MIG will
present the PowerPoint Presentation and will respond to questions. Our budget includes an
allowance for this task; it assumes two two-hour hearings. Any time required beyond this
allowance will be billed as additional services with prior authorization from the City.
5.2 City Council Hearings
MIG will prepare materials and facilitate City Council hearings on the regarding the Specific
Plan, Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. MIG will present the
PowerPoint Presentation and will respond to questions. Our budget includes an allowance for
this task it assumes two two-hour hearings. Any time required beyond this allowance will be
billed as additional services with prior authorization from the City.
Task 5 Deliverables
Two Planning Commission Hearings materials preparation (PDF) and hearing participation
Two City Council Hearings materials preparation (PDF) and hearing participation
Task 6: Wrap Up and Continuing Services
6.1 Final Documents
Following final City Council action on the project, MIG will ensure that the applicant makes all
Specific Plan revisions required to address the Council’s direction, and that final copies
reflecting the adopted document are provided by the applicant (printed and editable electronic).
6.2 Continuing Services
In the RFP, the City has asked that we be available to attend appeal hearings, court hearings or
A-6
settlement conferences (if required) relating to City of Azusa determination and relating to
advice given regarding the project. We are available and fully capable of doing so. All such
services would be billed on a reimbursable basis in accordance with our standard fee schedule in
effect at the time such services are requested.
B-1
EXHIBIT “B”
COMPENSATION
Principal
QA/QC
Senior Housing
Consultant
Stetson Brownfield Steele Drasler. Fernandez
Labor Rates $220 $175 $205 $110 $85
1.0
1.1 Kick-off Meeting and Site Visit 4 4 $1,140
1.2 SB 18 Compliance 4 4 $1,140
1.3 Project Coordination Meetings (allowance)2 70 8 $13,570
1.4 Project Management 4 36 4 $7,520
Total Task 1 6 114 16 4 $23,370
2.0
2.1 Administrative Draft Specific Plan 32 4 16 2 $8,350
2.2 Preliminary Draft and Draft Specific Plan 4 12 24 2 $5,790
Total Task 2 4 44 4 40 4 $14,140
3.0
4 52 4 110 $22,900
4.0 Staff Reports and Hearing Documents
30 80 2 $14,220
5.0 Public Engagement
5.1 Planning Commission Hearings (allowance)10 8 $2,630
5.2 City Council Hearings (allowance)10 4 $2,190
Total Task 6 20 12 $4,820
6.0 Wrap Up and Continuing Services
6.1 Final Documents (allowance)8 4 2 $2,010
6.2 Continuing Services As needed - Billed on reimbursable basis
Total Task 7 8 4 2 $2,010
14 268 8 262 12 $81,460
Direct Costs
Workshop Materials/Deliverables (allowance)$3,500
Mailing/Delivery (allowance)$750
Travel $450
Total Direct Costs $4,700
TOTAL LABOR AND DIRECT $86,160
Planning AssociateProject Manager
Review Specific Plan
TOTAL Labor Hours and Costs
Planning Entitlements
Project Management and Coordination
TotalWord Proc and
Admin Support
Attachment #5 – List of Firms
Firm Name Planning Environmental
CSG Consultants X X
De Novo Planning Group X X
Dudek X X
First Carbon Solutions X X
IEC X X
Kimley Horn X X
Meridian Consultants X X
Michael Baker X X
MIG X X
Ultra Systems X X