HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - June 29, 2009 - CC SpecAGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
THE AZUSA PLANNING COMMISSION
AZUSA SENIOR CENTER
740 NORTH DALTON AVENUE
A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
• Call to Order
• Roll Call
MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2009
6:30 P.M.
B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Please note that public comments are welcomed by recognition of the
Mayor.
C. AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL ITEM - WASTE MANAGEMENT MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY
CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve RBF Consulting to provide consultant services for the environmental impact report preparation
for the proposed Waste Management material recovery facility project, and authorize the City Manager to
execute the City's standard professional services agreement in the amount of $200,000.
2. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE 2008-
2014 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct
Study Session on the Housing Element of the General Plan.
3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING — CITYWIDE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES POLICY
MANUAL. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Open the Public Hearing; receive testimony; close the
Hearing. Waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance adopting the Citywide Art in Public
Places Policy Manual.
D. CLOSED SESSION
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov. Code Sec. 54957)
Title: Utilities Director
Title: Library Director
2. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (Gov. Code Sec. 54956.8)
Agency Negotiators: City Manager Delach and Assistant City Manager Makshanoff
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
Address: Taylor House - 2330 N. San Gabriel Canyon Road.
Negotiating Parties: City Manager Delach and Assistant City Manager Makshanoff
E. ADJOURNMENT
1. Adjourn
"In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a city
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 626-812-5229. Notification three (3) working days prior to the
meeting or time when special services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements
can be made to provide access to the meeting. "
2
Wr
CONSENT ITEM
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KURT CHRISTIANSEN,ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR VIA: F.M. DELACH, CITY MANAGER )fW
DATE: JUNE 29, 2009
SUBJECT: WASTE MANAGEMENT MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY CONTRACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve RBF Consulting to provide consultant services for the
environmental impact report preparation for the proposed Waste Management material recovery facility
project, and authorize the City Manager to execute the City's standard professional services agreement
in the amount of $200,000.
BACKGROUND
The Waste Management material recovery facility project is proposed to be located on the northeast
corner of Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street in the City of Azusa.
On March 19, 2009, the Economic and Community Development Department sent out fourteen
Requests for Proposals (RFP) to qualified consulting firms for project management and for the
preparation of an environmental impact report for the proposed Waste Management material recovery
facility project. The selected firm or firms would be responsible for providing all project management
for the project and all services related to the preparation of the necessary environmental documentation,
including an initial study and the Environment Impact Report. The RFP requested cost proposals for
either both the project management and the EIR preparation components or for only one component.
The City received six proposals in total, four for both the project management and EIR preparation and
two proposals to prepare the EIR only. It was subsequently decided to have City Planning Division staff
provide the project management and entitlement processing, therefore, staff interviewed five firms for
the preparation of the EIR only. After a thorough review process, staff is recommending award of the
contract to prepare the EIR for the material recovery facility project to RBF Consulting, in the amount of
$200,000. RBF Consulting has extensive experience in writing accurate, legally defensive
environmental documents for all types of controversial projects and particular experience in the
preparation of environmental documents for landfills and material recovery facilities.
Page 2 of 2
June 29, 2009
City Council Staff Report
Waste Management Material Recover Facility Service Contract
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with this project will be borne by Waste Management through a previously
approved Reimbursement Agreement and there should be no impact to the City's General Fund.
Attachments:
RBF Proposal
Professional Services Agreement
4
CONSULTING
April 23, 2009 JN 10-106867
Mr. Kurt Christiansen, AICP
Director, Economic and Community Development
CITY OF AZUSA
213 East Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, California 91702
Subject: Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Reportforthe Waste Management
Material Recovery Facility Project
Dear Mr. Christiansen
The RBF Consulting team is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Azusa to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project.
We understand that the proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 110,000
square foot Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and Household Hazardous Waste Facility
that would sort and process recyclable material and consolidate municipal solid waste fortransport to
other active landfills. A careful and diligent environmental process is essential in order to understand
the potential effects resulting from construction and buildout of the project.
Based upon our review of available project information, and a visit to the site, we have developed a
greater understanding of the issues involved with the project. We believe that our background with
similar projects and experience of our team members are key attributes that we offer to the City for
this project. In summary, RBF offers the following benefits for your consideration:
• Project Team Commitment and Availability. The designated Team will be led by Ms.
Collette Morse, serving as Project Director and Mr. Eddie Torres, serving as Project
Manager. Resumes for each team member are included in this submittal.
• Legally Defensible Documentation: Throughout RBF's 37 years of preparing
environmental documentation, we have attained extensive experience in writing accurate,
legally defensible environmental documents for all types of controversial projects.
• Multi -Disciplinary Capabilities: RBF possess a unique in-house network of over 700
professionals in disciplines including Planning/Environmental Services, Transportation
Engineering, Civil Engineering (including Grading, Public Works, Water/Wastewater and
Hydrology), Mechanical/Electrical/Energy Engineering, Computer Aided Design and Drafting
(CADD) and GIS Services, Mapping, Surveying, Aerial Photogrammetryand Media Services,
which results in a coordinated and efficient effort, with full-service consulting capabilities
within one firm.
• Diverse Planning and Environmental Services: RBF's Planning Department offers an
extensive background of services and expertise for projects including General Plans, Specific
Plans, Environmental Impact Reports, Due Diligence Reports, Negative Declaration, Urban
Design, Entitlement Processing, NEPA Review, Noise Studies, View Analysis, Hazardous
Assessments and Air Quality Modeling. The RBF Planning Department also includes the
Urban Design Studio (UDS) division.
PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION
14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618-2027 • P.O. Box 57057, Irvine, CA 92619-7057.949.472.3505 • FAX 949.472.8373
Offices located throughout California, Ariwna & Nevada • www.RBF.mm
Mr. Kurt Christiansen, AICP
April 23,2009
Page 2
• Excellent Track Record of Meeting Schedules and Budgets: RBF has proven capabilities
to effectively complete environmental studies on time and on budget.
We appreciate your consideration of RBF Consulting for the Waste Management Material Recovery
Facility Project EIR and are available to begin the Work Program immediately. The undersigned is
an agent authorized to submit proposals on behalf of RBF Consulting and is authorized to negotiate
with the City on this project. In addition, at this time, there are no conflicts of interest in providing
services for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/855-3653, or Mr. Eddie Torres
at 949-855-3612 if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Respectfully,
Collette Morse, AICP Eddie Torres, INCE, REA
Vice President, Environmental Services Project Manager
cmorse@rbf.com egtorres@rbf.com
PROPOSAL
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
Waste Management
Material Recovery Facility
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for:
CITY OF AZUSA
Submitted by:
RBF CONSULTING
April 23, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Understanding of the Project
1.0
Introduction................................................................................................................................1
1.2
Understanding of the Project....................................................................................................1
Scopeof Work........................................................................................................................................3
1.0
Project Scoping.........................................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Kick -Off and Project Characteristics..............................................................
3
1.2 Research and Investigation.........................................................................................3
1.3 Agency Consultation...................................................................................................
3
1.4 Preparation of the Initial Study....................................................................................3
1.5 Notice of Preparation..................................................................................................4
1.6 Scoping Meeting..........................................................................................................4
2.0
Preparation of Administrative Draft EIR...................................................................................4
2.1 Introduction and Purpose............................................................................................4
2.2 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................4
2.3 Project Description......................................................................................................4
2.4 Thresholds of Significance..........................................................................................5
2.5 Cumulative Projects to be Considered.......................................................................5
2.6 Environmental Analysis...............................................................................................5
2.7 Growth Inducement............................................:.....................................................10
2.8 Cumulative Impacts...............................................:...................................................10
2.9 Alternatives to the Proposed Action..........................................................................10
2.10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..........................................................11
2.11 Additional Sections....................................................................................................11
2.12 Graphic Exhibits.........................................................................................................11
3.0
Draft EIR..................................................................................................................................12
3.1 Preliminary Draft EIR................................................................................................12
3.2 Completion of the Draft EIR......................................................................................12
4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report .......................................................................................12
4.1 Response to Comments...........................................................................................12
4.2 Final EIR....................................................................................................................12
4.3 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations............................................13
5.0
Project Coordination and Meetings........................................................................................13
6.0
Deliverables............................................................................................................................13
III. Preliminary Project Schedule ...............
15
IV. Summary of Qualifications...................................................................................................................16
1.0 Overview..................................................................................................................................16
2.0 Statement of Certification .......................................................................................................17
3.0 Environmental Studies............................................................................................................18
V. Organizational Chart ............................................................................................................................33
VI. Statement of Financial Conditions.......................................................................................................49
VII. Budget.................................................................................................................................................51
JN 10-106867 • i • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
1. INTRODUCTION AND UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
RBF Consulting has submitted this Proposal to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
assess potential impacts and identify mitigation measures for the Implementation of the Waste
Management Material Recovery Facility Project. The Draft EIR, Final EIR and associated work
products will be prepared in accordance with the criteria, standards and provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 21000 et seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines (California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), the City of Azusa Environmental Guidelines,
and the regulations requirements and procedures of any other responsible Public Agency with
jurisdiction by law. RBF will, throughout the document, and where appropriate, relate the proposed
Project to the general trends in the surrounding area.
The proposed Scope of Services has been prepared in accordance with the task outline identified in
the City's Request for Proposal (RFP). Each of the issues is approached thoroughly in order to fully
assess all potential impacts, establish thresholds of significance, and identify mitigation measures.
RBF is the lead firm for this work program and will provide services from our Corporate
Headquarters in Irvine.
1.2 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT
The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of a 110,000 square foot material
Recovery Facility (MRF), Transfer Station (TS), and Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF)
that would sort and process recyclable material and consolidate municipal solid waste (MSW) for
transport to other active landfills. The MRF/TS/HHWF is located at 1501 West Gladstone Street,
and would replace the existing tire recycling facility. The project site is currently zoned both DW
(District West End Industrial) and DWL (District West End Light Industrial). The General Plan
identifies the project site as both Industrial and Recreation Landfill/Mixed Use. The project would
involve a General Plan Amendment to change the easterly portion of the project site from
Recreation Landfill/Mixed Use to Industrial, a Zone Change to change the easterly portion of the
site from DWL to DW; a Zoning Code Amendment to revise the Development Code to reflect the
new Zone Change; a Use Permit to allow a Recycling Processing Facility in a DW zone; and a
Design Review for the proposed project site layout and structures.
The MRF/TS/HHWF would be located in an enclosed structure designed to provide for odor, dust,
and litter control. Negative pressure will be maintained at the building entrance so no untreated air
will leave the building. An odor neutralizer may be mixed as needed with dust control (water
misters) on the roof as an extra precaution. The building will be metal sided with three distinct
tipping areas; one for the MRF, one for the green waste, and one for the TS. Employee parking
would be provided on site or at Azusa Land Reclamation and would include spaces for all
employees associated with the MRF/TS/HHWF operation.
The existing entrance, scales, and internal roads used for Azusa Land Reclamation would be used
for the MRF/TS/HHWF operations. All roads leading to the facility and aprons around the facility
JN 10-105661 0 1 0 April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
would be paved and capable of accommodating the projected number of trash trucks, recycling
collection trucks, and private vehicles that would be expected to bring materials into the facility on a
daily basis, along with the projected daily number of transfer trucks and other trucks (e.g., flatbed
trucks and other transport trucks) that would remove trash and recycled materials from the facility.
Access roadways for incoming and outgoing disposal and transfer vehicles would be at a similar
grade to the adjacent roadway.
The initiation of this CEQA process will involve a detailed scoping process including a review of
issues, constraints and project opportunities. RBF will embark on an agency consultation process
which will also include a public scoping session, which will be an opportunity to get a better
understanding of key community concerns, as well as informing the public as to the purpose of the
CEQA review and determination process. The Notice of Preparation will be circulated for 30 -day
review. Comments received during the 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 construction and long-term 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 scale of the project, as well as its geographical location, requires consideration of
environmental, planning and design criteria. Careful consideration is necessary for on-site
conditions and compatibility of the projects with the surrounding community. RBF will serve as an
extension of staff to assure that the entire CEQA process is conducted in a comprehensive manner,
which will include consideration of recent CEQA legislation and requirements of reviewing agencies.
The RBF project management team led by Ms. Collette Morse, and Mr. Eddie Torres, will provide
regular and consistent communications and updates to staff on the progression of the work program
and status of the analysis.
The RBF project team will be looked upon as an integral component in the Project review and will
participate in meetings with staff and public hearings, as required by the City. RBF will complete
the environmental review process, respond to all comments received during the 45 -day review
period and prepare the findings of significance and mitigation monitoring program (as directed by
staff). 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.
JN 10-105661 • 2 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
11. SCOPE OF WORK
The following Scope of Work has been prepared based upon information received from the City. The
cost estimate, which is itemized according to task and issue, is provided in Section VII of this
proposal.
1.0 PROJECT SCOPING
1.1 PROJECT KICK-OFF AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The EIR work program will be initiated with a kick-off meeting with City Staff to discuss the project
features and assumptions for the project. This initial meeting is vital to the success of the CEQA
process and will be a key milestone in order to confirm the parameters of the analysis, progress of
the Applicant prepared technical studies, scheduling, and overall communications. Prior to the kick-
off, RBF 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, RBF
will draft a preliminary project description for review and approval by City Staff.
1.2 RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION
RBF will obtain and review available referenced data for the project area, including policy
documentation from the City of Azusa, State and Federal agencies, and all other agencies which
may be affected by the Project. This information, along with environmental data and information
available from the City and other nearby jurisdictions, will become part of the foundation of the EIR
and will be reviewed and incorporated into the analysis, as deemed appropriate.
1.3 AGENCY CONSULTATION
As indicated in Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, many public agencies have found that early
consultation solves many potential conflicts that could arise in more serious forms later in the review
process. Although the Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping session meeting will provide that
opportunity, RBF will conduct additional discussions with local, state and federal agencies which will
assist in the early stages of the analysis and issue delineation. This scoping can be an effective way
to bring together and resolve the concerns of affected Federal, State and local agencies as well as
the local community.
1.4 PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
RBF will prepare the Initial Study for the proposed project. The Initial Study will be structured in the
exact same format as in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. All environmental factor issues will be
verbatim from Appendix G. The Initial Study will contain a description of the Project, the Project
location, and a description of the environmental setting. The main body of the document will consist
of a City -approved environmental checklist and an accompanying environmental analysis.
The Project will be analyzed for potential to create significant environmental impacts in the areas
specified on the City's approved environmental checklist. The Initial Study will also include
mandatory findings of significance, long-term versus short-term goals, cumulative impacts, and direct
and indirect impacts upon human beings.
JN 10-106867 • 3 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
1.5 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
RBF will prepare, distribute and file the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. A Draft NOP will be
prepared and forwarded to the Project Team and City of Azusa for review and comment. RBF will
then finalize the NOP for distribution. The distribution will be based on a City approved distribution
list to be prepared by RBF in conjunction with City staff. This task includes mailing to a maximum of
fifty (50) notices to affected agencies and interested parties. Comments received in response to the
NOP will be evaluated during the preparation of the EIR.
1.6 SCOPING MEETING
A public scoping meeting, which can also involve Federal, State or other local agencies, will be
scheduled during the NOP public review period, in order that the community can gain an
understanding of the proposed project and provide comments on environmental concerns. 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. RBF will provide handouts, presentation -size
graphics and PowerPoint information 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 and the City of Azusa CEQA Implementation
procedures for which the proposed project is subject to. This section will identify the purpose of the
study and statutory authority as well 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.
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project Description section of this EIR will detail the Project location, background and historyof
the project, discretionary actions, characteristics, goals and objectives, construction program,
phasing, agreements, and permits and approvals that are required based on available information.
This section will include a summary of the local environmental setting for the projects. Exhibits
depicting the regional and site vicinity will be included in this section. An aerial photograph exhibit
will be included within the Project Description.
JN 10-106867 -4- April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
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, local, State, Federal or other standards applicable to an impact
category.
2.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED
In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, this section provides a detailed listing of
cumulative projects and actions under consideration for the analysis. As stated in Task 2.8,
Cumulative Impacts, the likelihood of occurrence and level of severity will be studied. The purpose
of this 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 the jurisdiction of Azusa. The
potential for impact and levels of significance are contingent upon the radius or area of interaction
with the project area. RBF will consult with City staff and other applicable local jurisdictions to define
the appropriate study area for the cumulative analysis, as described in Task 2.8.
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
RBF 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 RBF.
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 environmental impacts
associated with the project and their levels of significance. For each Environmental Factor Analysis
Section, the Impacts Subsection will begin with a list of all issues contained in Appendix G. The
thresholds for significance shall be identified for every environmental issue. A brief discussion will be
provided for all environmental issues determined to be No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact in
the Initial Study, explaining why these determinations were made and that no further analysis in the
EIR is warranted. The Impact Subsection will provide a detailed analysis of each issue determined
to be Less Than Significant With Mitigation incorporated or Potentially Significant Impact in the same
order as these issues are provided in Appendix G. For each environmental issue requiring EIR
analysis, the EIR will state the level of significance, and then provide the analysis discussion,
mitigation measures specific to this environmental issue, and level of significance after mitigation for
that environmental issue. This section will include analysis for the following environmental issue
areas:
A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare
This section will characterize the existing aesthetic environment and visual resources for the site,
including a discussion of views within the site and views from surrounding areas site, particularly
from the adjacent uses. Short-term potential construction impacts will be addressed based on
JN 10-106867 • 5 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
changing on-site aesthetics visible from surrounding roadways and locations. The analysis will
consider the potential for view blockage and modification of views along view corridors. Mitigation
measures such as specified landscaping, grading and setback requirements may be recommended
to reduce the significance of potential visual impacts. Color site photographs will be provided which
will show on-site and surrounding views. This section will analyze potential view impairments (if any)
to adjacent uses as a result of Project implementation. The compatibility of the uses, height and
possible building materials with the surrounding area will be studied.
RBF will also address potentially significant impacts generated by the introduction of light and glare
associated with the development of the proposed Project. This analysis will include a light and glare
impact discussion on neighboring sensitive uses from streetlights, vehicle headlights, building lights,
etc. RBF will review and incorporate existing City policies and guidelines regarding light and glare for
inclusion within the EIR. RBF will recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential aesthetic and
light and glare impacts to the maximum extent possible.
B. Air Quality/Climate Change
RBF will conduct a peer review of the Applicant's Air Quality and Global Climate Change Assessment.
The peer review will be conducted in two phases. The original study will be critiqued and any follow up
revisions or new information will also be evaluated. The Applicant's report should document the results,
describing the methods, discussing the results of the existing ambient environment, pertinent regulations,
short-term impacts, future operational impacts, cumulative impacts, global climate change, and
appropriate mitigation per CEQA.
The Scope of Work includes the following:
• Review the Air Quality Assessment, including a review of the modeling data and assumptions;
• Evaluate the adequacy of the methods used to conduct the various parts of the study in terms of
professional standards, CEQA guidelines, and South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) guidelines;
• Evaluate the consultant's recommendations and conclusions based on CEQA guidelines and
other state and federal laws as applicable;
• Complete a letter report summarizing the adequacy (or inadequacies) of the technical report;
• Respond to comments made in response to the review of the technical report; and
• Review revised technical report.
RBF will incorporate the analysis and conclusions contained in the Project Applicant's Air
Quality/Climate Change Assessment into the EIR.
C. Geology and Soils
RBF has retained geologist Scott Magorien to prepare a review of geologic, soil and seismic
conditions. The scope of work associated with the geotechnical peer review will involve a review of
the geologic/geotechnical report that has been prepared for the project by the applicant's
geotechnical consultant, and the latest grading plan. As part of this review the following tasks would
also be performed.
JN 10-106867 • 6 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
• Review pertinent unpublished geologic data/ maps of the area, as well as aerial photographs
contained in my files;
• Review other relevant data, including published reports and geologic maps prepared by the
U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey of the project area; and
Prepare a letter report addressing the adequacy of the geotechnical consultant's report in
terms of identification of on-site geologic hazards, geotechnical constraints, and mitigation
measures.
RBF will incorporate the analysis and conclusions contained in the Project Applicant's Geology and
Soils Assessment into the EIR.
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
RBF will conduct a peer review and prepare a summary technical memorandum on the existing
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) provided by the Applicant that has been prepared for
the property located at 1501 West Gladstone Street. RBF's review of the ESA will focus on the
methodology and conclusions. This Task does not include an RBF site inspection, interviews, review
of public records, or completion of ASTM Standard Practice E-1527-05 areas. RBF will complete a
letter report summarizing the adequacy (or inadequacies) of the technical report, and will incorporate
the analysis and conclusions into the EIR.
E. Hydrology/Water Quality
RBF's stormwater department will perform a peer review of the Applicant's hydrology and water
quality report for the proposed project. RBF will review the report to ensure that it contains a review
of existing documentation, watershed boundary delineation, existing conditions analysis, analysis of
proposed hydrology, analysis of proposed drainage facilities, and water quality impacts.
RBF will complete a letter report summarizing the adequacy (or inadequacies) of the technical report,
and will incorporate the analysis and conclusions into the EIR.
F. Land Use
The proposed project will be evaluated in consideration of the nearby and adjacent commercial,
residential, and public uses. RBF will analyze the relationship of the proposed project and
associated entitlements to applicable planning policies and ordinances. City reference documents
are anticipated to include the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The regional planning review will
include consistency with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide policies and the
principles of the SCAG Southern California Compass Growth Visioning Program. Given the site's
location and proximity/type of adjacent uses, a review of compatibility will be conducted. If impacts
are identified in the analysis, mitigation measures will be recommended, which can also be
considered as part of the proposed project's review by the City.
G. Noise
RBF will conduct a peer review of the Applicant's Acoustical Assessment. The peer review will be
conducted in two phases. The original study will be critiqued and any follow up revisions or new
JN 10-106867 • 7 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
information will also be evaluated. The Applicant's report should document the results, describing the
methods, discussing the results of the existing ambient environment, pertinent regulations, short-term
impacts, future impacts, and appropriate mitigation per CEQA.
The Scope of Work includes the following:
• Review the Acoustical Assessment, including a review of the modeling data and noise
measurements;
• Evaluate the adequacy of the methods used to conduct the various parts of the study in terms of
professional standards and CEQA guidelines;
• Evaluate the consultant's recommendations and conclusions based on CEQA guidelines and
other state and federal laws as applicable;
• Complete a letter report summarizing the adequacy (or inadequacies) of the technical report
• Respond to comments made in response to the review of the technical report; and
• RBF will incorporate the analysis and conclusions contained in the Project Applicant's
Acoustical Assessment into the EIR.
H. Traffic and Circulation
RBF will prepare a peer review of the project applicant's traffic impact analysis for the proposed
project. This scope of work assumes the City of Azusa is the Lead Agency. This scope of work has
been prepared prior to discussions with City of Azusa staff and prior to review of the draft project
traffic impact study.
The traffic study peer review will consist of the following:
• Examine the traffic study in accordance with City of Azusa guidelines (if applicable);
• Conduct a site visit and field review of surrounding circulation system to familiarize RBF staff
with traffic and transportation related conditions and issues in the project vicinity;
• Field verify study area geometry configurations and traffic signal phasing utilized in the traffic
analysis;
• Review the use of classification counts to account for heavy vehicles in project study area,
and in project trip generation;
• Review the project trip assignment to determine if study area conforms with City of Azusa
traffic study guidelines (if applicable);
• Review the results of the traffic analysis to confirm summary of traffic level of significance;
• Review traffic analysis for consistency with industry standards,
• Assess any identified mitigation measures for feasibility and ability to reduce traffic impacts
to a level considered less than significant;
• Review traffic signal warrant analysis, if applicable;
JN 10-106867 • 8 0 April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
• Evaluate the Traffic Study for compliance with Los Angeles County Congestion Management
Program (CMP) requirements;
• Evaluate the traffic study to ensure compliance with the Caltrans Guide for Preparation of
Traffic Impact Studies (State of California, Department of Transportation, December 2002);
• Prepare a memorandum summarizing the adequacy of the traffic impact analysis for
inclusion in an environmental document and suggest modifications as necessary.
RBF will incorporate the analysis and conclusions contained in the Project Applicant's Traffic Study
into the EIR.
1. Utilities and Public Services
RBF 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. RBF 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 Services. 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 sites (which includes hazardous material
responses to emergencies), available fire flow, project impacts and required mitigation.
Solid Waste. Solid waste generation resulting from the proposed uses may impact landfill
capacities. The analysis will establish baseline projections for solid waste, including composting
and recycling for both construction and operation of the project. Project's compliance with AB
939 will also be addressed.
Police. The Police Service review will focus upon response times to the site, available personnel
and overall protection services. The overall need for police protection services would increase
beyond existing conditions as a result of the project. Mitigation incorporated into the project
design, including lighting, signage and security hardware to further reduce potential crime activity
will be identified.
Public Utilities
Water. RBF will address on existing capacities, project generation, infrastructure connection,
easements modifications and necessary mitigation.
Sewer. RBF will address on existing capacities, project generation, infrastructure connection,
easements modifications and necessary mitigation.
Electrical. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure relocation, undergrounding of
overhead lines, easements and necessary mitigation.
JN 10-106867 6 9 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
Telephone. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure relocated, undergrounding of
overhead lines, easements and necessary.
Gas. Existing facilities, project impacts, infrastructure relocation, easements and necessary
mitigation.
Roadway Maintenance. The proposed project may incrementally increase the maintenance of
streets, storm drains, and other below surface facilities. RBF will consult with the project team
and City Public Works Division to ascertain key concerns/impacts due to increased utilization of
area roads.
2.7 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
RBF 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. 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.
2.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, RBF will discuss cumulative impacts for each
environmental issue area identified above, focusing on cumulative impacts and levels of severity in
the Project area at a quantitative and qualitative level. The analysis will include potential future
development in the project area. The analysis will focus upon cumulative impacts from recently
approved and/or pending projects in proximity (cumulative Project information to be provided as
stated in Task 2.5).
2.9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, RBF will provide an analysis of a "reasonable range"
of alternatives (for budgeting purposes, RBF assumes four alternatives), comparing environmental
impacts of each alternative in each impact area to the project. For each alternative, RBF will provide
a detailed qualitative analysis of impacts to environmental resources. 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. RBF 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.
JN 10-106867 0 10 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
2.10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
To comply with the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, RBF 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 Measure/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.
2.11 ADDITIONAL SECTIONS
RBF will provide additional sections in the EIR to meet CEQA and City requirements including the
following:
• Sionificant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In the Proposed
Action Should It Be Implemented. Changes in the environment and uses on non-renewable
resources which will occur as a result of the proposed Project which can be considered
irreversible or irretrievable will be evaluated and discussed within this section of the EIR.
• Effects Found Not To Be Significant. RBF will provide a qualitative explanation of issues
concluded in "No Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact' in order to substantiate the
conclusions of the Initial Study.
• Inventory of Mitigation Measures. This section will be a comprehensive list of mitigation
measures for the proposed Project. To allow direct incorporation of mitigation measures into
Conditions of Approval, RBF will provide a summary of mitigation measures, which will be
numbered consecutively.
• Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section will be a comprehensive list of
unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project.
• Organizations and Persons Consulted/Bibliography. Any federal, state or local agencies,
other organizations and private individuals consulted in preparing the EIR will be listed in this
section. RBF will provide a complete list of reference materials used in preparation of the
EIR.
2.12 GRAPHIC EXHIBITS
The EIR will include a maximum of 30 exhibits to enhance the written text and clarify the proposed
Project environmental impacts. Using state-of-the-art computer design equipment and techniques,
our in-house graphic design team will create professional quality, black and white or full color
exhibits, dividers and covers for the EIR and Appendices. This Task assumes camera-ready base
maps are provided by the City. All exhibits will be 8.5" x 11" in size.
JN 10-106867 • 11 0 April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
3.0 DRAFT EIR
3.1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIR
RBF will respond to one complete set of City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. If desired
by the City, RBF will provide the Preliminary Draft of the EIR with all changes highlighted to assist the
final check of the document.
3.2 COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT EIR
RBF will respond to a second review of the Preliminary Draft EIR and will prepare the report for the
required 45 -day public review period. In addition, RBF will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC)
for submittal to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). RBF will also work with the City to
develop a distribution listing for the NOC and Draft EIR. RBF assumes the City will file a notice in
the local newspaper.
4.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RBF will respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period, and
any additional comments raised during public hearings. RBF 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, RBF will finalize this section for inclusion in the
Administrative Final EIR.
It is noted that it is unknown at this time the extent of public and agency comments that will result
from the review process. RBF has budgeted conservatively, given the potential scrutiny involved
with the proposed project. Should the level of comments and response exceed our estimate, RBF
will submit additional funding requests to the City in order to complete the responses.
4.2 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. To facilitate City review, RBF will format the Final EIR with shaded text for
any new or modified text, and "strike out' any text which has been deleted from the Final EIR. RBF
will also prepare and file the Notice of Determination within five (5) days of EIR approval. It is
assumed that the City will pay for the California Department of Fish and Game fees.
JN 10-106867 -12- April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
4.8 FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RBF will provide administrative assistance to facilitate the CEQA process including the preparation of
the Notice of Determination, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings for City use in the
Project review process. RBF will prepare the Findings in accordance with the provisions of Sections
15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and in a form specified by the City. RBF 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 COORDINATION/MEETINGS
Ms. Collette Morse, AICP and Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, 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. RBF will coordinate with state and local agencies regarding this environmental
document. Ms. Morse and 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 RBF to serve as
an extension of City staff throughout the duration of the EIR Project. As is stated in
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT, RBF will be available to meet with staff to discuss particular
Project parameters, as required by the City. In addition, RBF will provide detailed progress reports,
at regular intervals. All progress reports will include the status of documents currently in production,
delivery dates of documents, upcoming meetings with City Staff, status summary of the impact
analysis for each topical area and mitigation under consideration.
Ms. Morse, and/or Mr. Torres, will attend all staff meetings and will represent the Project Team at
public hearings and make presentations as necessary. RBF anticipates several meetings with City
staff, including a "kick-off meeting" (refer to Task 1.1), progress meetings, public meetings and
hearings. Ms. Morse and Mr. Torres along with other key Project Team personnel will also be
available to attend meetings with affected jurisdictions, agencies and organizations as needed to
identify issues, assess impacts and define mitigation. Should the City determine that additional
meetings beyond the following meetings are necessary, services will be provided under a separate
scope of work on a time and materials basis. The estimated cost for additional meetings is
approximately $1,500 per person.
• One kickoff meeting with City Staff (Refer to Task 1.1)
• One Neighborhood or Public Scoping Meeting (Refer to task 1.5)
• Two meetings with City Staff to provide written and oral progress reports, resolve issues,
review comments on Administrative documents and receive any necessary direction from
City Staff (2)
• Three public hearings with presentations as necessary. This includes Design Review Board,
Planning Commission, and City Council meetings (3)
6.0 DELIVERABLES
The following is a breakdown of all products/deliverables.
JN 10-106867 . 13 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
SECTION 1.0 - PROJECT SCOPING
• Fifty (30) copies of the Notice of Preparation
• Fifty (30) CD versions of the NOP/Information Packet
• One (1) Camera -Ready Unbound Copy
• One (1) Electronic Copy of the NOP/Information Packet
SECTION 2.0 - PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
• Two (10) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR
• One (1) CD-ROM containing the Administrative Draft Technical Appendices
• One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft EIR and Exhibits
SECTION 3.0 - DRAFT EIR
• Two (10) copies of the Second Administrative Draft EIR
• Two (10) CD's containing the Second Administrative Draft Technical Appendices
• One (1) electronic copy of the Second Administrative Draft EIR and Exhibits
• Thirty (30) copies of the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices
• Ten (10) CD's containing the Draft EIR Technical Appendices
• Thirty (30) copies of the Notice of Completion/Availability
• One (1) CD with text in Microsoft Word
• One (1) camera-ready unbound original of the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices
• One (1) electronic copy of the Draft EIR and Appendices
SECTION 4.0 - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Two (2) copies of the Draft Responses to Comments
• One (1) electronic copy of the Response to Comments
• Two (2) copies of the Administrative Final EIR
• Two (2) CD version of Administrative Final EIR Technical Appendices
• Ten (50) copies of the Final EIR, including exhibits and Technical Appendices
• Ten (10) CD version of the Final EIR and Technical Appendices
• One (1) unbound camera-ready original of the Final EIR, Exhibits and Technical
Appendices
• One (1) electronic copy of the Final EIR, including exhibits and Technical Appendices
• Two (2) copies of the Draft Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
• One (1) camera-ready Final Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
• One (1) electronic copy of the Final Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
• One (1) camera-ready Notice of Determination
• One (1) camera-ready Notice of Completion
• One (1) CD with text in Microsoft Word
JN 10-106867 • 14 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
111. PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following preliminary schedule assumes an authorization to proceed with the work program in
mid May 2009. The schedule can be further modified based on discussions with City Staff at the
kick-off meeting.
JN 10-106867 0 15 0 April 23, 2009
reparation of Study
•-,..- -:.. million
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
-.....
NINE■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Adirninistrative Draft EIR Preparation
E■■■■Es
■■■NEI■■I■■■■■■■■■■■moll
Preliminary Draft EIR aration
CAty - .- -
• • .
E■ISN■I■N■■EN■■NEN■■■II■Es■■E■EENs■N
mingling
loom
losing
=.�,■■■■■■■■
moll
moll
--• r.• • • • .•• • • _ft -
Prepare Responses to Carrents
91
-•..,on
sssE■ssss■■ssssE■s■■■■■■sE■■s■
'loll
- • Y • •
loom
moll
loll
■■■■■■■■■nssE■■■■■■
�I■■
-• �
mono
sign
loom
■■■■■ss■s■■sg■nsmono
s
■
JN 10-106867 0 15 0 April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
IV. SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
1.0 OVERVIEW
RBF Consulting is a multi -disciplinary planning, engineering and surveying firm with a total staff of
over 800 professionals, with offices in Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Ventura, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties. With over 60 years of public and private
sector experience, RBF is respected and recognized in the profession of consulting planning,
environmental, and engineering services throughout the state of California. RBF 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.
Summary of Business Statements:
Business name, address, and phone/fax numbers:
RBF Consulting, a Privately Held Corporation
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
949/472-3505
949/472-8373
California Corporation License #D-0423965
Federal Employer Identification # 95-2247293
Number of years in business under the present business name, as well as related prior business
names.
RBF Consulting, 7 Years
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, 24 Years
Jack S. Raub & Associates, 22 years
Controlling interests held in any other firms providing equivalent or similar services or financial
interest in other lines of business.
None
Pending litigation involving officers, employees, and/or EIR Consultants thereof, in connection with
contracts.
None involving the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports
Convictions or adverse court rulings involving fraud and/or related acts of all officers, EIR
Consultants, and employees
None
JN 10-106867 • 16 •
April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
2.0 STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION
1. The proposed services to be provided by RBF Consulting involve the preparation of an EIR,
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility
Project in Azusa, California.
RBF Consulting's proposal, dated April 23, 2009, is firm and binding for 90 days from the
date that the proposal is submitted/opened.
3. All aspects of RBF Consulting's proposal, including costs, have been determined
independently, without consultation with any other prospective Consultant or competitor for
the purpose of restricting competition.
4. All declarations in RBF Consulting's proposal and attachments are true and constitutes a
warranty, the falsity of which shall entitle the City to pursue any remedy by law.
5. RBF Consulting agrees to provide the City of Azusa with any other information that the City
determines to be necessary for an accurate determination of the Consultant's ability to
perform services as proposed.
6. RBF has general liability insurance in the amount of $4,000,000. RBF's Professional Liability
(Errors and Omissions) amounts to $3,000,000. RBF also carries automobile liability, excess
liability, worker's compensation and employer's liability. Further information and/or
certificates of insurance will be provided by RBF, as requested by the Client.
7. If RBF Consulting is selected for this and all other assignments with the City, RBF Consulting
will comply with all applicable rules, laws and regulations.
8. The following is a summary of RBF's exceptions to the City's Professional Services
Agreement contract language. Deleted text is in strikeout, and added text is in underline:
3.2.10.3 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 to the extent that such coverage remains commercially
available at reasonable rates. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than
$1,000,000 per claim, and shall be endorsed to include contractual liability.
3.2.10.4(D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this
Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspeRded
voided, FedHGed, or canceled except after thirty (30) days 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.
JN 10-106867 • 17 • April 23, 2009
• City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
3.3.3 Reimbursement for expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for
any expenses unless authorized in writing by the City, with the exception of direct
project related mileage, meals, and reproducible document copies.
3.5.6 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
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, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any
manner arising out of OF ineident te any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful
misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and
contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the
Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of a8
Gensequential damages reasonable attorneys fees and other related costs and
expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any
and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may
be brought or instituted against City, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
agents or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or
decree that may be rendered against City or its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding.
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 not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if
any, received by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or
volunteers.
3.5.9 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision
of this Agreement subject to adherence to sound professional practices and
procedures.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
As a leader in the environmental field, RBF offers an extensive array of services associated with
environmental compliance and documentation. RBF provides evaluation for the full range of
environmental effects for all types of projects. Our award-winning team offers documentation in
compliance with environmental laws and regulations including CEQA, NEPA, the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act and other applicable environmental laws.
Environmental documents prepared at RBF 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, 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. RBF draws upon the profession's leading subconsultants for specialized
biological, archeological, geotechnical and fiscal/economic studies to build a multi -disciplinary team
of environmental analysts. State-of-the-art computer facilities including Computer Aided Drafting and
Design (CADD), ARC/INFO, and specially created computer programs are utilized in obtaining the
highest level of technical completeness and efficiency.
JN 10-106867 9 18 9
April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
RBF possesses the full range of disciplines necessary to provide turn -key planning, design and
implementation of a wide range of projects. We combine our expertise in development projects and
urban planning, transportation and air quality management, to develop and assess project designs
that minimize impacts to the natural environment and community. The following is a comprehensive
list of RBF departments and services:
Departments Areas Of Expertise
Land Planning and Urban Conceptual Design; Master Planning; Site Planning;
Design: Hillside Grading; Landscape Architecture; Redevelopment
and Infill Land Use Planning; Illustrative Plans; Pedestrian
and Vehicular Trail Studies; Visual Analysis; Design
Guidelines and Development Standards.
Policy Planning: Specific Plans, General Plans; Community Participation
Programs; Project Management and Coordination;
Feasibility/Special Studies; Fee Programs; Entitlement to
Use (including zone changes, General Plan Amendments
and annexation studies); Redevelopment Studies;
Consultant Coordination; Governmental Agencies/Public
Liaison; and Development Support Services through
Construction.
Environmental Services:
Environmental Impact Reports/Statements; Expanded
Initial Studies/Negative Declarations; Mitigation Monitoring
Programs; Public Participation Programs; Natural
Resource Management; Resource Mitigation Permits; EIR
and EIS Review; Noticing; Statements of Overriding
Considerations; Findings; and Special Studies, such as
Phase I Site Assessment for hazardous materials, as well
as noise and air quality monitoring and modeling.
Transportation Planning:
Master Plans of Circulation; Transportation Planning/
Engineering; Traffic Impact Studies; Traffic Control Plans;
Traffic Signal Coordination; Traffic Signal Design;
Congestion Management Programs; Street Lighting;
Signing, Striping, and Construction Detour Plans.
Media Services:
Report Graphics; Presentation Graphics; View Analysis;
Illustrations; Slide Shows; Video Services; and CADD
Illustrative Plans.
Civil Engineering:
Subdivision Engineering; Structural Engineering;
Engineering Design; and CADD mapping.
Mechanical/Electrical
Commercial Office Buildings; Retail Shopping Center;
Engineering:
Educational Facilities; Hotel/Motel; Industrial; Special
Energy Systems; Entertainment Performing Arts Centers;
and Computer Centers.
JN 10-106867 0 19 0 April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
RBF has experienced professionals in a wide range of planning, engineering and related disciplines.
With over 60 years of experience throughout California, our staff is actively involved in professional
and local issues through serving as local and state officers for various professional organizations.
We provide a full range of engineering and planning services, with particular expertise in the
planning, design and permitting of major commercial/industrial and mixed use projects. Our staff
includes:
• 34 American Institute of Certified Planners
• 7 Registered Environmental Assessors
• 2 Certified Environmental Inspectors
• 1 EPA - Certified Building Inspector and Management Planner for Asbestos
• 1 Registered Geologist/Certified Engineering Geologist
• 8 Licensed Landscape Architects
• UCI Certificate in Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation/40 hour OSHA Training
• Instructors in the areas of Energy Efficiency, Environmental Engineering and Water
Resources
• Over 300 Registered Civil, Traffic, Structural and Mechanical Engineers
RBF has not had any contract terminated prior to the original termination date during the last five
years. The following is a partial listing of representative projects that have either been recently
completed or are currently in effect.
JN 10-106867 -20- April 23, 2009
Premier Recycling Initial Study
RBF prepared an Environmental Initial Study for the existing
Premier Recycling facility, located on Leo Avenue in San Jose,
California. The Initial Study will provide CEQA clearance for
issuance of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the facility from the
California Integrated Waste Management Board. Key
environmental issues addressed in the Initial Study included noise,
and traffic and circulation. RBF worked with staff from the City of
San Jose' Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement, as well the Environmental Services Department,
acting as the Local Enforcement Agency for the project.
01259 -6/22/04
San Jose, CA
Highlights:
■ Environmental Initial Study
■ RBF Acted as the Local
Enforcement Agency for the
Project
Reference:
Premier Recycling
348 Phelan Avenue
San Jose, CA 95112
Mr. Rocky Hill, 408/297-7910
FW. e
CONSULTING
Long Term Solid Waste Disposal EIR
RBF was selected to prepare an EIR to address the City of
Fremont's long-term disposal needs. The EIR addressed two
landfill expansion scenarios at the existing Tri -Cities Recycling and
Disposal Facility and three potential material recovery facilities
(MRF)/transfer stations (TS). The landfill scenarios involved
different expansion heights and disposal areas. One of the initial
tasks was to prepare a fatal flaw analysis of several potential
MRF/TS sites to determine the three sites to be carried forward in
the EIR.
00885 - 11/14/03
Fremont, CA
Highlights:
■ Landfill Expansion at
Recycling and Disposal
Facility
■ Environmental Impact
Report
Reference:
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Ms. Kathy Cote, 510/494-4743
PF
CONSULTING
Huntington Beach Gun Range
RBF provided EIR preparation services to the City of Huntington
Beach for a 4.91 -acre former gun range site, previously operated by
the Huntington Beach Police Officer's Association. The project
proposes remediation of the site for extensive lead contamination,
and reuse as an industrial aggregate processing facility. The project
required the preparation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for
consideration within the EIR, and extensive coordination with the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and
Orange County Department of Health Services (DHS).
Key short-term project issues in regards to demolition/construction
include the containment of hazardous materials, air quality, noise,
and aesthetics.
The EIR analysis also includes an in-depth examination of long-
term impacts, including: geological issues due to the site's situation
over a landfill; aesthetics due to the site's proximity to a public
library and sports park; air quality and noise for the site's long-term
use as a recreational facility; and potential land use impacts in
regards to surrounding land use designations.
Huntington Beach, CA
Highlights:
■ EIR Preparation for a
4.91 -Acre Former Gun
Range Site
■ Extensive Lead
Contamination
■ Continuous Coordination
with DTSC and DHS
Regarding Remediation
Process
■ Analysis of Long -Term
Reuse of Site as a
Recreational Facility
Reference:
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mr. Ricky Ramos, 714/536-5624
02211 -12/10/2006
WF
CONSULTING
Regional Solid Waste Facilities EIR
RBF prepared an EIR to address the Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority long-term (70+ years) waste disposal demands. This
included four possible landfill expansion scenarios. The scenarios
involve various combinations of a vertical expansion of Crazy
Horse Landfill, large and moderate size vertical and horizontal
expansions of Johnson Canyon Road and Jolon Road Landfills, and
potential new transfer stations/material recovery facilities
(TS/MRF). Seven potential TS/MRF sites are being considered;
five in the Salinas area and two in the King City area. RBF was
responsible for preparing the EIR that included technical studies
addressing groundwater, water quality, biological resources, air
quality, noise, and traffic impacts among others. The EIR is highly
controversial since the selected scenario will result in a long-term
commitment to solid waste facilities that will have significant
environmental impacts to local communities and the surrounding
roadways.
Monterey County, CA
Highlights:
■ EIR to Address Long -Term
Waste Disposal Demands
■ Seven TS/MRF Sites
Studied
Reference:
Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority
65 West Alisal, Suite 210
Salinas, CA 93901
Mr. Stephen Johnson,
831/758-7295
00892 - 11/14/03
CONSULTING
Pacific Trade Center EIR
EI Monte, CA
RBF prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a 27 -acre
commercial/industrial project within the City of El Monte. The
project involved the reuse of a brownfield site, formerly utilized for
heavy industrial operations. Key project components included
commercial condominium units, warehouses, and a City of El
Monte Public Works yard.
One of the primary issues analyzed within the EIR included
hazardous materials, due to contamination associated with the site's
previous heavy industrial use. The EIR also involved the
preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis, for which extensive
consultation with City staff and Caltrans was necessary to establish
appropriate baseline traffic volumes and mitigation measures.
Other key environmental issues included air quality, noise,
hydrology, and land use.
Highlights:
■ Environmental Impact
Report
■ 27 -Acres of Commercial /
Industrial Use
■ Hazardous Materials
Contamination from
Historical Heavy
Industrial Use
■ Extensive Consultation with
Caltrans Regarding
Regional Traffic Impacts
References:
Arden XC, LP
3010 Old Ranch Parkway
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Mr. John Killen, 562/546-0200
Lead Agency:
City of EI Monte
11333 Valley Boulevard
EI Monte, CA 91731
Mr. Alex Chan, 626/258-8626
���►..E I. la ..... M �.
is
i
W
1 T
� 1 nuu nlhc z
l � J
I
.. i. I
W w w W
�I BUILDih 1
02364 — 01/19/2009 WF
CONBLJ 6TING
Prima Deshecha Landfill
RBF provided jurisdictional coordination for the Prima Deshecha
Landfill Remediation Project for the County of Orange Integrated
Waste Management Department. The project was highly sensitive
and required close coordination with various resource agencies, due
to the potential stockpile landslide volume of two million cubic
yards which posed a hazard to both the continued safe operation of
the landfill facility and to known populations of threatened and/or
endangered species in the area. Services provided by RBF included
peer review of third -party consultant delineation for the project and
preparation of an amended jurisdictional delineation detailing
jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." and associated project impacts.
In addition, RBF provided design services for recycled water
pumping and transmission facilities for day-to-day operations.
RBF has also been involved in the preliminary design and analysis
of alternative alignments for the extension of Avenida La Pata from
Ortega Highway to Avenida Vista Hermosa. The central segment
of these alternative alignment studies directly impacts the Prima
Deshecha Landfill.
01391 - 2/27/03
San Clemente, CA
Highlights:
■ Project Size: 1,530 Acres
■ Highly Sensitive due to
Potential Landslides
■ Jurisdictional Coordination
■ Arterial Highway Alignment
Studies
Reference:
County of Orange Integrated
Waste Management
Department
320 N. Flower Street, Suite 400
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Mr. Bob Richmond,
714/834-4000
CONBU LTIN6
Lewis Road Landfill EIR
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
RBF managed the preparation of an EIR addressing various Lewis
Road Landfill scenarios for increased daily tonnage quantities,
expanding the operating hours, changing the grading plan,
changing the closure plan, and various other actions. The
environmental document will also be used to update the existing
1976 Solid Waste Facilities Plan that does not reflect current
operations. Key environmental issues include traffic, noise,
groundwater contamination, and methane gas migration. An
extensive alternatives analysis was conducted to address daily
tonnage quantities ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 tons per month to
provide the Authority with a number of options. RBF also
prepared the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
00840 - 1117/00
Highlights:
■ Environmental Impact
Report
■ Mitigation Monitoring
Program
■ Solid Waste Facility
Reference:
Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority
65 West Alisal, Suite 210
Salinas, CA 93901
Stephen Johnson, 831/755-1300
FW.
Jolon Road Landfill Solid Waste Facilities Permit
Revision Project Initial Study/
Negative Declaration
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
RBF prepared the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to address
revisions to the existing 1983 Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the
Jolon Road Landfill. The permit revision would reflect two
changes; a change in the site final grading plan that would reflect
an increase in the maximum Module 2 fill height from 556 feet
MSL to 575 MSL that would be offset by a similar reduction in
waste volume in Module 4 and an adjustment in the landfill lease
area boundary by a net increase of 17 acres. Since the project was
a minor change to existing operations, the Initial Study focused on
analysis of aesthetic and noise impacts. Both of these impacts were
determined to be less than significant.
Highlights:
■ Initial Study/Negative
Declaration
■ Solid Waste Facilities Permit
Reference:
Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority
65 West Alisal, Suite 210
Salinas, CA 93901
Mr. Stephen Johnson,
831/758-7295
00838 - 12/11/00
WF
CONSULTING
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
PROJECT EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
The following is a summary of project background experience on environmental review projects
Land Development Projects
Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch Program EIR — Bakersfield, CA
Colonies at San Antonio EIR — Upland, CA
Fagan Canyon Specific Plan Program EIR — Santa Paula, CA
Gosford-Panama Program EIR — Bakersfield, CA
Grand Canal EIR — Bakersfield, CA
Hi Hope Ranch MND — Oceanside, CA
Lancaster Capital, LLC Tentative Tract 53229 — Lancaster, CA
Lyons Canyon Ranch Specific Plan EIR — Santa Clarita, CA
Moffett Towers Corporate Campus — Sunnyvale, CA
Oasis Road Specific Plan Master EIR — Redding, CA
Pacific Coast Highway at Second Street Improvement Project MND — Long Beach, CA
Rio Bravo Program EIR — Bakersfield, CA
Robinson Ranch North EIR — Yucaipa, CA
Shoppes at Chino Hills EIR — Chino Hills, CA
Soledad Village EIR — Santa Clarita, CA
St. Cloud Tentative Tract Map MND — Oceanside, CA
University Village and Orchard Park Specific Plans EIR — Loma Linda, CA
Village of Del Lago at Quintana — Thermal, CA
Redevelopment/Brownfield Projects
Beverly Wilshire Office Building EIR — Beverly Hills, CA
Clearwater Specific Plan EIR — Mammoth Lakes, CA
Fair Isaac Redevelopment Project — San Rafael, CA
Garvey Villas IS/MND — Monterey Park, CA
Gateway Plaza — Santa Cruz, CA
Montage Project EIR — Beverly Hills, CA
North Downtown Lancaster Transit Village EIR/EA — Lancaster, CA
Redlands Mail Redevelopment Project EIR — Redlands, CA
San Gabriel Center EIR — San Gabriel, CA
Shoreline Gateway EIR — Long Beach, CA
Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan EIR — Huntington Beach, CA
Uptown Orange Mixed Use Project MND — Orange, CA
Policy Planning Studies
City of Angels Camp General Plan Update Studies — Angels Camp, CA
City of Carson General Plan Update and EIR — Carson, CA
City of Cerritos General Plan Update and EIR — Cerritos, CA
City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update and EIR — Costa Mesa, CA
City of Cypress General Plan Update and EIR — Cypress, CA
City of Glendora General Plan Update and EIR — Glendora, CA
City of Lancaster General Plan Update — Lancaster, CA
City of Stanton General Plan Update and EIR — Stanton, CA
JN 10-106867 -29- April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
Dana Point Town Center IS/MND — Dana Point, CA
Downtown Sierra Madre Specific Plan EIR — Sierra Madre, CA
Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan EIR — Palmdale, CA
Route 66 Specific Plan EIR — Glendora, CA
Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update and EIR — Los Gatos, CA
Watsonville General Plan Update EIR — Watsonville, CA
Resorts/Recreation
Anaverde Basin/Sports Complex EIR — Palmdale, CA
Berryessa Creek Trail Reach 3 MND/CE — Milpitas, CA
Cypress Skate Park Technical Studies — Cypress, CA
Gilroy Golf Course EIR — Gilroy, CA
Hotel del Coronado Master Plan EIR — Coronado, CA
Loch Lomond Marina — San Rafael, CA
Long Point Resort EIR — Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
McKean Sportsfield Complex EIR — San Jose, CA
North Village Specific Plan EIR — Mammoth Lakes, CA
Santa Cruz Coast Hotel EIR — Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Rosa Creek Trail IS/MND — Cambria CSD, CA
Transportation Projects
Allen Road Bridge over the Kern River — Bakersfield, CA
Foothill Parkway Westerly EIR — Corona, CA
1-10/Jefferson Interchange EA/IS — Indio, CA
1-880 IS/EA—Alameda County, CA
Irvine Transit Center Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Conformity — Irvine, CA
North Peak Northern Access Road MND/EA — Riverside County, CA
SR -57 Widening EA/IS — Orange County Transportation Authority, CA
SR-118/Alamos Canyon Interchange EA/EIR — Simi Valley, CA
SR -154 Group 11 Improvement Studies — Santa Barbara County, CA
Military Base Reuse Planning
Fort Ord/East Garrison Specific Plan Project Facilitation — Monterey County, CA
Hamilton Field Redevelopment EIR — Novato, CA
March Inland Cargo Facility — Riverside County, CA
San Mateo Point Military Housing EA — Southwest Division, CA
Southern CA Logistics Airport — Victorville, CA
U.S. Navy Environmental Assessments — Southwest Division, CA
Public Facilities
4'" Appellate Courthouse Replacement IS/MND — Santa Ana, CA
Coronado School District Master Facilities EIR — Coronado USD, CA
Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Project EIR — Dana Point, CA
Genomics Building MND, UC Riverside, CA
Fox Theater Renovation MND — Riverside, CA
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan EIR — Santa Clarita, CA
JN 10-106667 • 30 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
Huntington Beach Gun Range EIR — Huntington Beach, CA
Kaiser Permanente Hospital EIR Addendum — Downey, CA
Ocean Education Center EIR — Dana Point, CA
UCLA Film and Television Archive Preservation Center MND — Santa Clarita, CA
Desalination Projects
Cambria Desalination EIR — Cambria CSD, CA
Coastal Water Project — Monterey County, CA
Encina Desalination EIR— SDCWA, CA
Marina Coast Water District Desalter Project EIR Support — Monterey County, CA
Poseidon Resources Desalination Project EIR — Huntington Beach, CA
Under Ocean Floor Seawater Intake and Discharge Project IS/EA — Long Beach, CA
Industrial/Commercial Projects
Blue Rock Business Center EIR — Antioch, CA
Boeing Specific Plan EIR — Seal Beach, CA
Broadway Plaza Shopping Center Technical Studies — Chula Vista, CA
CA Army National Guard Maintenance Facility EA — Riverside, CA
EI Centro de Huntington Park EIR — Huntington Park, CA
Eldorado National Forest Telecommunications Project EA — EI Dorado National Forest, CA
Firestone Mastercare Center Technical Studies — Chino Hills, CA
Mariner's Mile Gateway Project MND — Newport Beach, CA
National City Costco Technical Studies — National City, CA
Pine Corporate Center Technical Studies — Chino Hills, CA
Super Wal-Mart Commercial Center EIR — Rialto, CA
Tyler Mall EIR Addendum — Riverside, CA
Vitner Square Shopping Center EIR — Lodi, CA
Energy Projects
BP Cogeneration Facility — Carson, CA
EI Segundo Redevelopment Power Plant Project — EI Segundo, CA
Granite Fox Power Project — Gerlach, NV
Long Beach Power Project — Long Beach, CA
Mountainview Power Plant Project — Mountain View, CA
Nueva Azalea Power Plant Project — Downey, CA
Palomar Energy Project — Escondido, CA
South Shore Power Project — Bridgman, Michigan
Termoelectrica de Mexicali Project — Mexicali, Mexico
Water/Wastewater and Solid Waste Projects
Arlington Desalter Enhancement Project IS/MND — Riverside County, CA
Barstow Wastewater Reclamation Facility Upgrades Project IS/MND — Barstow, CA
CAL-MRT Transfer Station EIR — Downey, CA
Cambria Wastewater Treatment Plant EIR — Cambria CSD, CA
Cambria Effluent Disposal Ponds EIR — Cambria CSD, CA
Chino Hills Water Supply and Distribution EIR — Chino Hills, CA
JN 10-106867 • 31 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
Coachella Valley Recycling and Transfer Center IS/MND — Indio, CA
Los Alamitos Pump Station IS/MND — Seal Beach, CA
Metropolitan Water District Statewide Reservoir Reconnaissance Study — Statewide, CA
Santa Fe Valley Treatment Plant EIR — Rancho Santa Fe Community Services District, CA
Solid Waste Management Plan EIR — Palmdale, CA
Victor Valley Wastewater Facility — Victor Valley, CA
Drainage/Water Quality Projects
Amargosa Creek Improvement Project EIR — Palmdale, CA
Calleguas Creek Sediment Control/Bank Protection EIR —Ventura County, CA
Ironwood State Prison Erosion Control Project IS/MND — Blythe, CA
Mahon Creek Enhancement EIR — San Rafael, CA
On -Call Environmental Services
CA Department of Transportation
Cambria Community Services District, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA
City of Cypress, CA
City of Lancaster, CA
City of Long Beach, CA
City of Milpitas, CA
City of Santa Ana, CA
City of Seal Beach, CA
City of Westminster, CA
County of Kern, CA
Town of Mammoth Lakes, CA
JN 10-106867 • 32 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
V. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
CITY OF
AZUSA
Collette Morse, AICP
Project Director
Eddie Torres, INCE, REA
Project Manager
RBF TEAM
Rita Garcia
Senior Environmental Analyst
Kristen Bogue, CEI
Environmental Analyst/Hazards
Achilles Malisos
Environmental Analyst/Air Quality/
Climate Change/Noise
Rebecca Kinney, P.E.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Paul Martin, P.E.
Transportation Specialist
SUBCONSULTANTS
D. SCOTT MAGORIEN, CEG
Geology and Soils Analysis
JN 10-106867 • 33 • April 23, 2009
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Project Director
Ms. Morse's primary responsibilities at RBF include the Registration:
preparation of CEQA and NEPA documents (Environmental 1996, American Institute of
Impact Reports, Negative Declarations, Initial Studies,
Certified Planners, 12382
Environmental Assessments), as well as other policy planning
documents, including General Plans and Specific Plans. She has
Years of Experience: 23
prepared environmental documents for policy plans, mixed-use
developments, high-rise office commercial, residential, industrial,
schools (elementary, high school, and colleges/universities),
Education:
hospitals and redevelopment projects for both public and private
B.A., 1984, Geography /
sector clients throughout California. Ms. Morse's responsibilities
Ecosystems, U.C.L.A.
include analysis, technical review and management of
environmental documents for CEQA compliance, staff support for
Professional Affiliations:
public agencies, and assistance to private sector clients in meeting
Commissioner, American
governmental agency requirements.
Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP) for Region
VI, 2006 — 2010
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Member, American Planning
Association
President, California Chapter,
Industrial/R&D/Manufacturing
American Planning
Association, 2003 to 2004
• Ocean Ranch Master Development Plan Mitigated
President -Elect, California
Negative Declaration, Oceanside
Chapter, American Planning
• Ushio America- Walker Facility Mitigated Negative
Association, 2002
Declaration, Cypress
Vice President of Public
• ShurFlo Project (SW Corner of Katella Avenue and
Information, California
Valley View Street) Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Chapter, American Planning
Cypress
Association, Board of
• Diamond Sports Distribution Facility and Spec Building B
Directors, 2000 to 2001
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
Conference Co -Chair, 1998
• Vertex Standard - Office/Warehouse Building (10900
California Chapter APA State
Walker Street) Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
Conference, Orange Section
• Speculative R&D Building - Parcel 7 (5730 Katella
Marketing Director, California
Avenue) Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
Chapter, American Planning
• Warland Speculative Office/Warehouse Building
Association Board of
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
Directors, 1992 to 1999
• Cypress Land Company Speculative Office/Warehouse
Legislative Review Team
Building Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
Member, California Chapter,
• Addendum to Easterly Industrial Facility EIR, The
American Planning
Plantation Tentative Parcel Map and Development Plans,
Association, 1990 to Present
Industry
Section Director, Orange
• Grand Avenue Industrial Project EIR, Industry
Section, California Chapter,
• Oakes Industrial Park Building 93 Mitigated Negative
American Planning
Declaration, Industry
Association, 1989 to 1992
• Exxon Service Station at 15215 Gale Avenue Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Industry
CONSULTING
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Project Director
• Coca-Cola Bottling Company Distribution Facility Mitigated Negative Declaration, Industry
• Louketon Business Center Mitigated Negative Declaration, Industry
• Trammel Crow Company Warehouse Facility on 6`h Street Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Industry
Mixed Use
• Mission District Specific Plan EIR, San Gabriel
• The Colonies at San Antonio EIR, Upland
• Robinson Ranch North Program EIR, Yucaipa
• University Village/Orchard Park Specific Plans Program EIR, Loma Linda
• Grindlay/Orange Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
• Kohl Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Riverside County
• Winchester Hills Specific Plan EIR, Temecula
• Pleasant Valley Specific Plan EIR, Camarillo
• Prado de las Posas Specific Plan EIR, Camarillo
• Pier Bowl Master Plan Program EIR, San Clemente
• Pueblo Serra EK San Juan Capistrano
Residential
• Northern Foothills Implementation Program EIR, San Dimas
• Rancho Del Oro Village XII Program EIR, Oceanside
• CenterStone Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
• Wicker Drive Specific Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
• Grindlay/Orange Specific Plan Amendment and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
• The Olson Company 12 -Unit Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
• Nevis Homes 61 -Unit Condominium Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cypress
• Rancho San Juan ADC Specific Plan EIR, Monterey County
• Rush Creek Estates EIR, Marin County
• Emerald Village Senior Housing Development Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cerritos
• Pioneer Villas Senior Housing Development Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cerritos
• Center Pointe Specific Plan (SP. No. 255) EIR, Riverside County
• Western Pacific Housing Mitigated Negative Declaration, Stanton
• North Star Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Riverside County
• Tentative Tract No. 37396 EIR, Los Angeles County
Infrastructure/Public Facilities
• Southern California Water Company - West Orangewood Water Well Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Cypress
• Ocean Ranch Phases 3 and 4 Off -Site Transportation Improvements, Oceanside
• Davis Municipal Golf Course EIR, Davis
• I-710 Environmental Assessment, Southgate
• 201h Street Storm Drain Improvements Initial Study, Upland
CONSULTING
Eddie Torres, INCE, REA
Project Manager
Mr. Torres serves as the Director of Technical Studies, with a Years of Experience: 10
specialty in Acoustics, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Visual
Impact Assessments. Mr. Torres is also proficient in the Education:
preparation of CEQA and NEPA studies (EIR's, EIS's, Negative M.S., 2005, Mechanical
Declarations, Environmental Assessments), as well as due Engineering, University of
diligence studies. Projects have included residential, commercial, Southern California
industrial, infrastructure, redevelopment projects. Mr. Torres' B.S., 2000, Mechanical
responsibilities also include staff training, public hearing Engineering, University of
presentations, and coordination of our extensive in-house team of California, Irvine
experts as well as various subcontractors. B.A., 2000, Environmental
Analysis and resign,
The following is a representative sample of projects for which Mr. University of California,
Torres has prepared environmental and technical analyses. Irvine
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Professional Affiliations:
American Planning Association
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Institute of Noise Control
Engineering
Commercial/Industrial/Mixed Use/Infrastructure
Air & Waste Management
Association
•
Dana Point Harbor Revitalization EIR (Dana Point, CA)
•
Super Wal-Mart Development (Rialto, CA)
Software Training:
•
4th Appellate District, Division 3 Courthouse Replacement
Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (Santa Ana, CA)
AutoCAD
•
Town of Mammoth Lakes Airport (Mammoth Lakes, CA)
Breeze Air Dispersion Software
•
Town of Mammoth Lakes Police Station (Mammoth Lakes,
EMFAC
CA)
URBEMIS
•
Uptown Orange Redevelopment Project Mitigated Negative
TNM 2.5
Declaration (Orange, CA)
FHWA-RD-77-108
•
Boeing Space Center Specific Plan EIR (Seal Beach, CA)
Larson Davis DNA
•
Los Alamitos Pump Station IS/MND (County of Orange,
CA)
gruel & Kjaer Noise Explorer
•
City Wide Sewer Master Plan Project (Seal Beach, CA)
•
Metropolitan Water District Reservoir Reconnaissance
Additional Training:
Study (Statewide, CA)
UCLA Extension, "Introduction
•
Chino I Desalter Expansion and Chino II Desalter Projects
to Air Quality and Traffic
(Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA)
Impacts Analysis".
•
Arlington Desalter Enhancements Project (Riverside
UC Irvine Extension, "Air Quality
County, CA)
Permitting and Compliance
•
Van Buren MetroRail Station Mitigated Negative
Issues".
Declaration (Riverside, CA)
SCAQMD, "CEQA Air Quality
•
Eldorado National Forest Telecommunications Project Initial
Assessments with a Special
Study/Environmental Assessment (Eldorado National Forest,
Emphasis on Diesel Toxics".
CA)
•
Alton Parkway Extension EIR (Irvine and Lake Forest, CA)
•
SR-118/Alamos Canyon Drive EIR (Ventura County, CA)
CON5U LTING
Eddie Torres, INCE, REA
Project Manager
• Coronado Semi Diverters Removal Project EIR (Coronado, CA)
• Kern River Bridge EIR (Bakersfield, CA)
• Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvements EIR (Long Beach, CA)
• Antelope Valley Transit Authority Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lancaster, CA)
• Apple Valley Road Improvement IS/MND (Apple Valley, CA)
• Cove Area Drainage Mitigated Negative Declaration (Cathedral City, CA)
• Marina Coast Water District Desalter Project EIR (Monterey, CA)
• Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR (Huntington Beach, CA)
• San Diego Creek Sediment Basin No. 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Irvine, CA)
• Los Alamitos Pump Station Mitigated Negative Declaration (Seal Beach, CA)
• Anaheim Groundwater Well IS/MND (Anaheim, CA)
• California Army National Guard Organized Maintenance Shop Initial Study/Environmental
Assessment (Riverside, CA)
• Ironwood State Prison Erosion Control and Stormwater Protection Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Blythe, CA)
• Edinger Channel Widening Mitigated Negative Declaration (Orange County, CA)
ACOUSTICS/AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE CHANGE
Commercial/IustitutiouaWnfrastructure Studies
• Temple Palms Business Park (El Monte, CA)
• Pacific Trade Center 4000 North Arden Drive (El Monte, CA)
• Etiwanda Marketplace (Rancho Cucamonga, CA)
• French Valley Business Park (Riverside County, CA)
• National City Costco (National City, CA)
• Hayes Avenue Well Project (Murrieta, CA)
• Bayfront Substation Project (San Diego County, CA)
• Capistrano Bluffs/Pines Park Sewer Improvements (Dana Point, CA)
• Barstow Wastewater Reclamation Facility Upgrades Project (Barstow, CA)
• Bonita Canyon Drive Trail (Irvine, CA)
• Nash Data Center (El Segundo, CA)
• Equinix Data Center (El Segundo, CA)
• Firestone at Soquel Canyon Crossings (Chino Hills, CA)
• Blue Rock Business Center (Antioch, CA)
• National City Costco (National City, CA)
• Mission Oaks Industrial Complex (Camarillo, CA)
• Santa Cruz Coast Hotel Project (Santa Cruz, CA)
• Tyler Mall Redevelopment Project (Riverside, CA)
• Jackson Square Retail Center (Coachella, CA)
• Mariner's Mile Gateway Commercial Development (Newport Beach, CA)
• University California Riverside East Campus Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2 (Riverside, CA)
• Adelanto Gateway Logistics Center (Adelanto, CA)
• Castaic Lake Water Authority Recycled Water Master Plan (Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, CA)
• Mira Sorrento Substation (San Diego, CA)
C❑NSU LT -I NU
Rita Garcia
Senior Environmental Analyst
In her responsibilities as Senior Environmental Analyst, Ms. Garcia
Years of Experience: 17
is involved in the preparation, daily monitoring, and coordination
of CEQA documents, ensuring their timely completion reflective of
Education:
the highest standard of professional care. With nearly 17 years in
B.S., 1988, Urban and Regional
the environmental field, Ms. Garcia has extensive experience with
Planning, California State
projects involving sensitive planning and environmental issues
Polytechnic University,
including population/housing/employment, land use and relevant
Pomona
planning, noise, and traffic/circulation. She has had significant
experience with environmental analyses of numerous large-scale
program -level projects involving commercial, residential, and
Professional Affiliations:
public infrastructure uses.
Member, Association of
Environmental Professionals
Ms. Garcia's professional experience consists of involvement with
Member, American Planning
various program EIRs for large-scale, mixed-use projects including
Association
the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan, Northeast Gateway
Corridors Plan, North Lake Area and South Lake Area Projects,
Irvine Business Complex, and Rancho Palos Verdes
Residential/Golf Course Development. She has been involved with
several facility EIRs including wastewater facility projects for the
Cambria Community Services District, various water facility
projects for the Santa Margarita Water District, Rancho California
Water District, and the North Riverside County Transfer Station
and Materials Recovery Facility. Ms. Garcia is experienced in the
environmental assessment of public works projects such as the
Environmental Reevaluation for the Interstate 5 Widening Project,
the Moulton Parkway Smart Street, the North Costa Mesa Arterial
Improvements Study, and the Metropolitan Water District
Reservoir Reconnaissance Study.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
North Downtown Lancaster Neighborhood Revitalization /
Transit Village Plan and EI;/EA (Lancaster, CA) - Senior
Environmental Analyst involved with sensitive population,
housing, public services/utilities issues. RBF prepared an EIR/EA
for a 103 -acre area in the Lancaster North Downtown. The project
represents the City's long-term program to retain and revitalize the
historic downtown area. The plan creates a framework to achieve
the overall objectives of expanding and locating new institutional
uses in the area, providing adequate locations for various service
providers, rehabilitating or replacing deteriorated housing stock,
providing recreational facilities and enhancing commercial uses.
The environmental review involved traffic, historical resources, air,
noise, and hazardous materials.
CONSULTING
Rita Garcia
Senior Environmental Analyst
Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel EIR (Beverly Hills, CA) - Project Manager/Senior
Environmental Analyst involved with significant land use and traffic and circulation issues. The analysis
reviewed the growth inducing and traffic and circulation impacts of the Base Project, and comparatively
analyzed the environmental impacts associated with five alternatives. The document preparation involved
significant time constraints and coordination requirements.
Oasis Road Specific Plan Master EIR (Redding, CA) - Senior Environmental Analyst involved with
significant land use and traffic and circulation issues. RBF prepared an EIR for a specific plan area
comprising 159 parcels and totaling approximately 672 acres. The purpose of the Project was to ensure the
orderly development of Redding's next major commercial and high-density residential area. Two land use
scenarios, and two optional roadway alignments for each scenario, were evaluated in the MEIR The
objective of the analysis was to identify an "environmentally superior" land use plan.
Long Point Resort EIR (Rancho Palos Verdes, CA) - Senior Environmental Analyst involved with
significant biological, cultural, aesthetic, geologic, noise, and health and safety issues. RBF prepared an
EIR for a 168 -acre project site located in an aesthetically- and environmentally -sensitive coastal area
Intended as a multi -faceted destination resort, the project proposed conserved/enhanced habitat and public
open space/recreation facilities, with a full-service hotel as the cornerstone of the resort.
Cambria Community Services District Water Master Plan EIR (Cambria, CA) - Senior
Environmental Analyst involved with significant biological, regulatory, and growth -inducing issues. RBF
is preparing an EIR for the District's long-term water supply strategy, which consists of Seawater
Desalination, Recycled Water, and Water Demand Management. These strategies, along with the proposed
Potable Water Distribution System improvements, comprise the Water Master Plan components evaluated
in the EIR The level of analysis under this Program EIR focuses on the Project's ability to provide a
reliable source of water for the community and the potential to cause growth -inducing effects. The
Program EIR will serve as the master environmental documentation in order to properly tier from the
programmatic analysis.
North Village Specific Plan Amendment Program EIR (Mammoth Lakes, CA) - Senior Environmental
Analyst involved with significant population, housing, and public services/utilities issues. The approved
North Village Specific Plan (1991) involves development of a destination resort facility including lodging,
commercial and residential uses on 64.1 acres. The amendment includes circulation and parking
modifications, changes to height limitations and setbacks, changes in development standards, establishment
of design guidelines, modifications to public facilities and housing requirement changes. This coupled with
the elapsed time since the 1991 certification of the original North Village Specific Plan EIR warranted
further review through an updated Program EIR In addition, the evaluation included the development
application for Phase 1 of the Specific Plan.
GONSU�TING
Kristen Bogue, CEI
Environmental Analyst
Ms. Bogue assists in the preparation of environmental and planning
Years of Experience: 4
studies for public and private sector clients, with a focus on due
Phase I and Phase II
diligence planning activities. Ms. Bogue prepares Phase I
Education:
Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), Initial Site Assessments
B.A., 2005, Environmental
(ISAs) for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
Analysis and Design,
Preliminary Hazardous Materials Assessments pursuant to the
University of California,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Environmental
Irvine
Baseline Surveys (EBSs) for the Department of the Navy.
For Commercial Real Estate,
Additionally, Ms. Bogue is involved with Visual Impact
Certification:
Assessments in conformance with appropriate agency standards,
2007, Certified, Environmental
including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) "Visual
Inspector, 9924
Impact Assessment (VIA) for Highway Projects," United States
Management, 2006
Bureau of Land Management guidelines, and California Energy
Professional Affiliations:
Commission (CEC) guidelines. Ms. Bogue assists in the
Member, Association of
preparation of documents with respect to CEQA and the National
Environmental Professionals
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
(AEP)
PEN -
C pNSU LTING
Additional Education:
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Assessments For
Commercial Real Estate,
Commercial/Industrial and Mixed Use Projects
ASTM International, 2008
Environmental Site Assessments
Crossroads Plaza Commercial Center Initial Study and EIR
For Commercial Real Estate,
(Bakersfield, CA) - Currently serving as Environmental Analyst
ASTM International, 2006
for the proposed Crossroads Plaza Project EIR. This Project
Visual Resource Management,
consists of approximately 75 net acres (77.34 gross acres including
Bureau of Land
road right-of-way), containing approximately 786,370 square feet
Management, 2006
of retail commercial (net building area, not including 37,385 square
AEP Workshop, "CEQA Basics:
feet of two garden centers), located on the west side of Gosford
Understanding the California
Road, between Panama Lane and Harris Road, within the
Environmental Process,"
Bakersfield City Limits. Tentative Tract Map No. 11865 is also
2006.
being proposed and processed as a part of the project. Key issue
Due Diligence at Dawn, EDR
areas in this EIR included potential impacts associated with the
Inc., 2007
degradation of character/quality as a result of this "big box"
Update on Toxic Substances,
commercial development. The visual analysis included discussions
Environmental Laws and
on proposed landscaping, architectural treatments, and lighting.
Regulations, 2005
Saco Ranch Commercial Center EIR (Bakersfield, CA) -
Regulating Activities Affecting
Currently serving as an Environmental Analyst for the
Wetlands Course, 2005
environmental documentation relating to implementation of an
California Wetlands, CLE
approximate 300 -acre commercial center and office/industrial use
International, 2005
development. The proposed project consists of approximately 144
RBF Air Quality/Noise Training
acres of retail stores, restaurants, and a movie theater;
Seminar, 2005
approximately 30.5 acres of office space; and approximately 126.4
South Coast Air Basin Fugitive
acres of light industrial uses. Key areas of concern include
Dust Control Class, South
Coast Air Quality
Management District, 2005
PEN -
C pNSU LTING
Kristen Bogue, CEI
Environmental Analyst
economic, land use, and aesthetics impacts. RBF conducted a detailed conformity analysis of the proposed
project with the City of Bakersfield's "Big Box" Ordinance. Additional issues include biological
resources, light and glare, hydrology, water quality, noise, air quality, and global climate change.
Dana Point Harbor Revitalization EIR (Dana Point, CA) - Served as an Environmental Analyst for the
environmental documentation relating to implementation of a Master Plan for revitalization of the
commercial areas at the existing Dana Point Harbor. The overall goals of the Dana Point Harbor
Revitalization Project are to create a unique character and family atmosphere to distinguish itself as a
popular destination for tourist, boaters, and local residents. Key land use changes associated with the
project include a new parking structure, additional retail, creation of a Festival Plaza and pedestrian
promenade, dry -stacked boat storage, dock modifications, hotel expansion, expansion/modification of
existing facilities, and related improvements. Services provided included an Environmental Impact Report,
Local Coastal Plan Amendment, and GIS Mapping.
Super Wal-Mart Development (Rialto, CA) - Served as an Environmental Analyst for the environmental
documentation relating to implementation of a Super Wal-Mart. The proposed project consists of a
250,000 square foot Super Wal-Mart and seven commercial parcels. Key issues addressed included traffic,
noise, air quality, and fiscal impact constraints.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS
Ms. Bogue has prepared numerous Phase I ESAs. The scopes of the ESAs follow guidance provided in
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-05. The ASTM 1527-05
document outlines a procedure for completing ESAs that includes a review of records (current and
historic), site reconnaissance, and interviews.
• Main Street Widening (Orange, CA)
• Covert Canyon Training Center (San Diego County, CA)
• Miles Avenue (Riverside County, CA)
• Tustin Street/Chapman Avenue Widening (Orange, CA)
Lincoln Acres Library and Community Center (San Diego, CA)
Montecedro Property (Altadena, CA)
North Oakhurst Drive (Beverly Hills, CA)
Tracy Properties (San Joaquin, CA)
Hercules Town Center Project (Hercules, CA)
Cabo Grill (Encinitas, CA)
Garrett Ranch (Hemet, CA)
Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan (San Diego, CA)
Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension (Corona, CA)
Steele Canyon Phase V (San Diego County, CA)
Tentative Tract No. 17980 (Hesperia, CA)
Downtown and Central Long Beach Redevelopment Plan (Long Beach, CA)
Del Vino Court Property (San Diego, CA)
Grey Hawk Business Center (Carlsbad, CA)
600 -Acre South Ormond Beach Property (Oxnard, CA)
Rich Haven Specific Plan Properties (San Bernardino, CA)
Former MCAS El Toro Property (Orange, CA)
CONSULTING
Achilles Malisos
Environmental Planner / Analyst
Mr. Malisos serves as an Environmental Analyst, with a specialty
Years of Experience: 4
in Acoustics, Air Quality, and Climate Change. Achilles has
experience in the research, analysis, and writing of analyses
Education:
consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
M.A., 2005, Urban and Regional
and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a variety of
Planning, UC Irvine
environmental planning projects involving redevelopment,
B.A., 2003, Environmental
infrastructure, residential, mixed use, institutional, and commercial
Studies, University of
uses.
California, Santa Cruz
The following is a representative sample of projects for which Mr.
Malisos has prepared environmental and technical analyses.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, American Planning
Association
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Software Training:
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
AutoCAD
Fox Plaza EIR (Riverside, CA) -Environmental Analyst. The
Breeze Air Dispersion SoftwareEMFAC
proposed mixed-use project consisted of 532 condominium
dwelling units, a 400 -space parking structure, and 88,000 square
URBEMIS
feet of restaurant and retail uses. The EIR identified short- and
TNM 2.5
long-term impacts associated with the proposed project, assuming
FHWA-RD-77-108
construction of the proposed project in two phases.
Larson Davis DNA
Briiel & Kjaer Noise Explorer
Seal Beach Townhomes IS/MND (Seal Beach, CA) -
Environmental Analyst. Evaluated impacts for the IS/MND
prepared for the development of 87 townhomes on 4.5 acres
Additional Training:
adjacent to the Boeing Specific Plan Area and the Naval Weapons
RBF Consulting: "Air Quality
Station at Seal Beach.
Analysis and Modeling
Techniques," 2005.
Interceptor Upgrades Project for the Victor Valley Wastewater
South Coast AQMD: "Rule 403
Reclamation Authority IS/MND (City of Victorville, and Town
Fugitive Dust Control Class,"
of Apple Valley, CA) - Mr. Malisos was Environmental Analyst
2005.
for the IS/MND prepared for the VVWRA. The project includes
AEP Workshop, "CEQA Basics:
upgrades to the existing sewer interceptor pipeline, the
Understanding the California
rehabilitation of one pump station, and construction of a new pump
Environmental Process,"
station.
2005.
UCLA Extension, "Successful
Los Alamitos Pump Station IS/MND (County of Orange, CA) -
CEQA Compliance," 2006.
Environmental Analyst. Evaluated impacts for the IS/MND
RBF Consulting, "Introduction to
prepared for the Los Alamitos Pump Station and associated
Traffic Noise Modeling,"
Retarding Basin. The pump station would be upgraded to provide
2006
for adequate drainage, while the basin would be modified to
RBF Consulting, "AutoCAD at a
provide a constructed wet basin/channel to achieve dry weather
Glance," 2006
flow water quality treatment.
JIMF
CONSULTING
Achilles Malisos
Environmental Planner / Analyst
ACOUSTICS/AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE CHANGE
Residential Studies
• The Vineyards at Menifee (Riverside County, CA)
• Villa Palmera Residential Development (Coachella, CA)
• Tesoro del Valle Phases B and C (Santa Clarita, CA)
Mixed Use and Specific Plan Studies
• South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization Project (South Pasadena, CA)
• Lancaster Downtown Specific Plan (Lancaster, CA)
• 231-265 North Beverly Drive Project (Beverly Hills, CA)
• Cottonwood Creek Project (Riverside, CA)
• San Fernando Parking Lots Project (San Fernando, CA)
• NWC Katella Avenue and Winners Circle (Cypress, CA)
• 601 North Parkcenter Drive (Santa Ana, CA)
Commercial/Institutional/Infrastructure Studies
• Temple Palms Business Park (El Monte, CA)
• Pacific Trade Center 4000 North Arden Drive (El Monte, CA)
• Marymount College Facilities Expansion (Rancho Palos Verdes, CA)
• Etiwanda Marketplace Acoustical Assessment (Rancho Cucamonga, CA)
• Temporary Ocean Water Desalination Demonstration Project (Redondo Beach, CA)
• High Tech High School (Chula Vista, CA)
• La Bahia Hotel Project (Santa Cruz, CA)
• Vacation Village Resort Hotel Project (Laguna Beach, CA)
• French Valley Business Park (Riverside County, CA)
• National City Costco (National City, CA)
• Hayes Avenue Well Project (Murrieta, CA)
• Bayfront Substation Project (San Diego County, CA)
• Capistrano Bluffs/Pines Park Sewer Improvements (Dana Point, CA)
• Barstow Wastewater Reclamation Facility Upgrades Project (Barstow, CA)
• Bonita Canyon Drive Trail (Irvine, CA)
• Nash Data Center (El Segundo, CA)
• Equinix Data Center (El Segundo, CA)
• Firestone at Soquel Canyon Crossings (Chino Hills, CA)
• McCall Road Medical Development (Sun City, CA)
General Plan Studies
• Lancaster General Plan Update (Lancaster, CA)
• South Gate General Plan Update (Lancaster, CA)
• Hawaiian Gardens General Plan Update (Hawaiian Gardens, CA)
CONSULTING
Rebecca L. Kinney, PE
Hydrology/Water Quality
Ms. Kinney has extensive experience in all phases of stormwater
Registration:
management projects including planning, design and construction.
1999, Civil Engineer, CA, 58797
Her recent experience has focused on development of Master Plans
of Drainage, which focus on storm drainage facility sizing,
Years of Experience: 13
stormwater NPDES compliance, stream stability, and floodplain
management. Her planning experience includes large master
planned communities and well as supporting hydrologic and
Education:
stormwater quality analysis as a basis for CEQA documentation.
B.S., 1995, Civil Engineering,
California Polytechnic State
Ms. Kinney has prepared Water Quality Management Plans,
University, San Luis Obispo
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, and CEQA water quality
technical studies.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, Society of Women
Ms. Kinney is experienced in channel restoration design work
Engineers
including hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and PS&E work.
Associate Member, American
Ms. Kinney has also served as a regulatory agent for the application
Society of Civil Engineers
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
Publication:
the Wetland Training Institute. Her knowledge of both engineering
Rebecca Kinney and Anna
and environmental requirements makes her an asset to any multi-
Lantin, "Coastal Community
disciplinary team.
Incorporates Sustainable
Design", Urban Water
RELEVANT ExPERIENCE:
Management, July, 2007
Heritage Fields Drainage and Water Quality Master Plans
(Irvine, CA) 2008 - Drainage Master Plan Task Manager. RBF
provided regional hydrology, master planning of backbone
facilities and GIS mapping for the overall Heritage Fields project.
The Master Plan of Drainage includes six (6) regional watersheds
(Marshburn, Bee Canyon, Agua Chinon, Borrego, Serrano, and
Upper San Diego Creek) passing through the project site, and a
Master Plan of Water Quality for all districts of Heritage Fields.
Tujunga Wash Watershed Groundwater Recharge Master Plan
(Los Angeles County, CA) - Ms. Kinney is serving as Project
Manager, responsible for master planning services to the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works, Water Resources
Division for the preparation of the Tujunga Wash Watershed
Groundwater Recharge Project. The San Fernando Groundwater
Basin, which is a significant resource for drinking water for the
City of Los Angeles, is in a state of overdraft. In order to meet
current and future water demands without utilizing imported water,
the County and City are seeking to maximize groundwater recharge
in the Tujunga Wash Watershed which overlays the groundwater
basin. The first phase of the project involves determination of the
feasibility of six (6) existing recharge or storage projects within the
■ —i
CONSULTING
Rebecca L. Kinney, PE
Hydrology/Water Quality
Tujunga Wash. The second phase includes the development of an overall master plan and the refinement
of three (3) new projects, which will be implemented in the next 3 to 5 years. All projects investigate
economic viability, feasibility of adding telemetry to the sites, environmental constraints, and construction
readiness.
Valley Communications Site Drainage Study (Chatsworth, Los Angeles County, CA) 1996 - Served as
the project Hydrologist and Hydraulics Engineer for this drainage study as part of a due diligence process
for the Los Angeles Police Department. This study developed ten-year, 25 -year, and capital storm
flowrates for the existing conditions and proposed project. The study also investigated the capacity of two
drainage channels lining the property.
Valley Communications Site Drainage Study (Chatsworth, Los Angeles County, CA) 1996 - Served as
the Project Hydrologist and Hydraulics Engineer for this drainage study as part of a due diligence process
for the Los Angeles Police Department. This study developed ten-year, 25 -year, and capital storm
flowrates for the existing conditions and proposed project. The study also investigated the capacity of two
drainage channels lining the property.
Marymount College Facilities Expansion EIR -(Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, CA) 2001
- Served as Hydrologic and Stormwater Quality Analysis Project Manager and hydrologist for the impact
evaluation of the expansion of the hillside college in Rancho Palos Verdes. The project evaluated both
existing and post -project onsite flowrates and recommended a BMPs in compliance with Los Angeles
Regional Board's NPDES requirements.
Malibu Lagoon Water Level Management Project (Malibu, CA) 2000 - Served as Project Engineer for
a feasibility study, and plans, specifications, and estimates for construction for the Water Level
Management of Malibu Lagoon for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. This
project is a unique engineering and environmental effort which involves the seasonal installation of a
rubber dam to regulate release of water during the summer months. The project stemmed from the release
of poor water quality from the lagoon into a popular Malibu surfing location.
Arcadia and Sierra Madre Water System (Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA) Since 1996 - Served as
Project Economist and Report Writer for this Corps of Engineers study. Responsibilities include plan
formulation, fire damage assessment, and cost and benefit analysis.
Hansen Dam Water Conservation Draft Feasibility Report (Los Angeles County, CA) 1997 - Served
as Technical Writer for the Corps of Engineers' water conservation main report. Responsibilities included
the organization, compilation, and comprehension of over 500 -pages of geotechnical, hydraulic, economic,
and environmental technical data.
Santa Monica Water Infrastructure Restoration Study (Los Angeles County, CA) 1998 - Served as
Project Economist for this Corps of Engineers study. Responsibilities include plan formulation, fire
damage assessment, and cost and benefit analysis.
G CINSU LTING
Paul Martin, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic and Transportation
Paul Martin has extensive experience in transportation planning, Registration:
traffic engineering, and parking analysis. Utilizing experience with 2003, Civil Engineer, CA, 65868
traffic signal design, he is proficient at identification of feasible 2005, Traffic Engineer, CA, 2315
roadway/intersection mitigation measures for CEQA defensibility. 2005, Professional Traffic
Mr. Martin is practiced at working with project applicants to refine Operations Engineer, US,
project site plans to better facilitate internal circulation and 1651
minimize site access conflicts. Parking conditions review has 2005, Civil Engineer, WY, 10623
included project completion and construction phasing scenarios, 2007, Civil Engineer, HI, 12701
with identification of physical and non-physical solutions to
address forecast deficiencies, such as parking reduction strategies 2008, Civil Engineer, NV, 19817
and shared parking implementation. 2009, Civil Engineer, AZ, 49276
Mr. Martin has prepared multiple traffic flow visual simulations Years of Experience: 10
combining measured vehicular and pedestrian volumes with aerial
imagery to show existing and future traffic circulation. Simulations
have shown proposed roadway connections, placement of traffic Education:
signals at varying access points, as well as intersection control by B.S., 1999, Civil Engineering,
traffic signal or roundabout for public understanding and University of California,
discussion. Irvine
Through his work experience, Mr. Martin has worked closely with
Caltrans, City, County, and regional transportation staff to find
solutions to transportation planning challenges. In collaboration
with agency staff, Mr. Martin has prepared and presented multiple
summaries of technical findings at community meetings, staff
meetings, and public hearings. His experience interfacing with
public agencies and private groups allows him to serve competently
as a liaison on complex projects.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Downtown Revitalization Project Traffic Analysis (South
Pasadena, CA) 2007 - Supervised preparation of a traffic impact
analysis to support an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
addressing the revitalization project in downtown South Pasadena.
The proposed project consisted of approximately 60 condominium
dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of commercial uses in five
separate building sites. Generally all the building sites consisted of
construction over existing parking lots utilized by businesses
fronting Fair Oaks Avenue. The multi-year planning process to
derive the proposed project heightened the attention of the public,
and therefore increased the level of scrutiny otherwise expected in
the generally built out community. Twenty-five study intersections
were analyzed in the multi -phase project, with 28 cumulative
projects identified through coordination with adjacent agencies and
review of available studies. Traffic impacts for roadways and
CONSULTING
Paul Martin, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic and Transportation
intersections were reviewed during both weekday and weekend conditions, and mitigation measures were
considered for effectiveness and feasibility. Detailed project phasing with the project and during
construction was considered to identify potential short-term impacts related to roadway closures during
construction. The study evaluated traffic impacts consistent with the Los Angeles County Congestion
Management Program and the Caltrans Traffic Analysis Guidelines. The comprehensive traffic study
received minimal comments from reviewing cities and Caltrans.
Rita Avenue Mixed -Use Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Huntington Park, CA) 2008 - Supervised
preparation of a traffic impact analysis addressing the redevelopment of three City -owned surface parking
lots which comprise 4.6 acres to include condominium dwelling units and ground floor retail uses in City of
Huntington Park. Trip generation for the proposed project included ITE based diverted link trip reductions
as well as a transit usage reduction and walk-in reduction.
Empire Buena Vista Apartment Traffic Impact Analysis (Burbank, CA) 2003 - Prepared due diligence
traffic impact analysis of the proposed 350 -Apartment unit project in Burbank. Study scenarios included
near-term and long -rang analysis to account for the zone change from office to residential.
Citywide Comprehensive Traffic Study (Torrance, CA) 2007 - RBF prepared a Citywide traffic model
incorporating recent traffic counts at 166 intersections and 170 roadway segments. The Traffix-based
model was utilized to analyze existing conditions, near-term conditions, and General Plan Buildout. The
results of the traffic analysis were utilized to identify short-term and long-term improvements to achieve
acceptable operation within the City. The existing counts database provided to the City included counts
surrounding the Del Amo Fashion Center during the peak Winter Holiday season. The study includes an
estimation of pass-through traffic entering and exiting the City without stopping in the City. Based on
recommendations identified in the analysis, conceptual improvement graphics were prepared at 23
intersections to illustrate intersection approach widening, lane re -striping, and signal modifications.
Bunker Hill Towers Apartments Area Transit Survey (Los Angeles, CA) 2005 - Assisted in preparation
of a transit survey in the vicinity of the Bunker Hill Towers Apartments to determine transit
services/opportunities available to residents, guests, and employees at the Bunker Hill Towers Apartments
in Downtown Los Angeles. The survey summarized transit services in the vicinity on the Bunker Hill
Towers Apartments categorized by bus transit, Metro rail transit, and Metrolink regional rail transit.
Additionally, a parking analysis of the Bunker Hill Towers Apartments community was prepared,
documenting existing parking capacity, demand, and utilization.
Pacific Trade Center Project Traffic Impact Analysis (El Monte, CA) 2008 - Supervised preparation of
a traffic impact analysis for 27 -acre redevelopment site into industrial and free trade zone buildings in the
City of El Monte. Coordinated with City staff to identify baseline conditions for closed glass containers
facility at project site. Supported project team to develop circulation plan and access alternatives to
minimize truck traffic utilizing adjacent residential streets. The study reviewed potential project traffic
impacts at study intersections utilizing applicable agency thresholds of significance. Traffic analysis
included application of passenger car equivalents to account for multiple axle trucks. The study included a
section for review of State Highway intersections and freeway segments based on Caltrans criteria and
adopted methodologies. Additionally, analysis scenarios were included assuming traffic detour associated
with construction of a nearby rail/roadway grade separation project. The comprehensive traffic study
received minimal comments from reviewing agencies and Caltrans.
C ENSU LTING
EXPERTISE
• Engineering Geology
• Geologic Hazards
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
D. SCOTT dV JAL y`l ORIEN' C.E.G. 1290
Consulting Engineering Geologist
510 Superior Avenue, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Tel:(949) 574 7096 Email:scott.magorien@amec. corn
• B.Sc. Geology, California State University, Northridge, 1979
• Graduate Studies at Ohio State University and University of
California, Berkeley, 1987
• ASFE Institute for Professional Practice, 1989
CERTIFICATIONS
• Professional Geologist: California, Washington and Wyoming
• Certified Engineering Geologist: California and Washington
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
• Association of Engineering Geologists
• Seismological Society of America
• American Geophysical Union
• Geological Society of America
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1999 -Present: Consulting Engineering Geologist
1992-1999: Principal/ Chief Engineering Geologist, Converse
Consultants: Geotechnical and environmental consulting
services.
1990-1992: Consulting Engineering Geologist/Hydrogeologist,
Irvine, California. Technical consulting services in the
disciplines of engineering geology and hydrogeology.
1985-1990: Senior Engineering Geologist/ Hydrogeologist,
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., Irvine, California.
Geotechnical and environmental consulting services.
1980-1985: Project Engineering Geologist/ Hydrogeologist,
Fugro/Earth Technology Corp., Long Beach, California.
1978-1980: Exploration Geologist, Pluess Staufer (California)
Inc., Lucerne Valley, California. Non-metallic mineral
exploration and mining.
PROFESSIONAL PAPERS AND RESEARCH
• Co-author of over 50 technical papers discussing effects of
geologic/ structural controls on regional groundwater
movement within carbonate/granitic rock and alluvial aquifers
in the Great Basin of California, Nevada and Utah; U.S. Air
Force Ballistic Missile Office;' and abstracts for 1982 annual
meeting Geological Society of America,.
• Swansea-Coso Thrust Fault System in the Southern Inyo
Mountains, Argus and Slate Ranges, Inyo County, California:
1987 South Coast Geological Society Guidebook #15.
Updated 2/08
PROFESSIONAL PAPERS AND RESEARCH (con't)
• Surface Displacement of the Newport -Inglewood Fault (Third
Order, North Branch Splay) at Newport Beach, California:
abstract 1995 Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG) and
GRA annual meeting.
• Fault -Rupture Hazard Evaluation at Thompson Creek Dam,
Claremont, California: abstract 2003 annual meeting of AEG.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
For the past 28 years served as project manager and/ or principal
investigator for a wide variety of project types including:
• Comprehensive landslide, faulting, geotechnical and
groundwater investigations before, during, and following
construction for large commercial and residential hillside
developments throughout southern California. Also, serve as
engineering geologic consultant to numerous Southern
California city engineering and planning departments.
• Geologic and fault -rupture hazards studies for existing and
proposed large earthen dams in Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside San Bernardino and Merced Counties, California.
• Geotechnical, groundwater and faulting studies for proposed
and existing hazardous waste landfills throughout southern
California, and proposed nuclear waste repositories in
Nevada, and the southern and southeastern United States.
• Groundwater resources investigations from alluvial basins
and crystalline rocks (e.g. granite and carbonate rocks) within
the mountains and valleys of California, Nevada and Utah.
• Geotechnical studies for numerous projects with emphasis on
geologictgeotechnical hazards adjacent to active and
potentially active faults throughout the Los Angeles Basin,
San Bernardino Valley, Mojave Desert and Santa Cruz
Mountains, California.
• Comprehensive geotechnical, faulting and landslide studies
for over 3000 earthquake -damaged homes following the 1989
Loma Prieta, 1992 Landers -Big Bear, and 1994 Northridge
earthquakes.
• Principal investigator/ preparer of numerous EIR-level
studies/ reports involving evaluation and mitigation of
geologic hazards/ and groundwater conditions in coastal and
inland areas of California, and Nevada and Utah desert
environments.
• Serve as a technical expert for the State of California Board
of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists; as well
provide expert testimony for litigation involving slope
instability, landslides, active faulting, groundwater -related
impacts, and other geologic hazards.
• City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
VI. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITIONS
This Proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days. Progress billings will be forwarded based on
payment criteria established by the City. These billings will include the fees earned for the billing
period. The City shall make every reasonable effort to review invoices within fifteen (15) working
days from the date of receipt of the invoices and notify Consultant in writing of any particular item
that is alleged to be incorrect. -
Invoices shall specifically identify all project team members as well as all tasks and deliverables
covered in the billing period. For each task and deliverable, the amount in the billing will be identified
and the remaining amount left in the budget after the current billing period will also be identified.
Hourly billing rates will be identified for each project team member, as well as the total hours charged
to each task and deliverable.
Deviations or modifications from the Scope of Work will result in potential re-evaluation of the
associated fees. Items not specifically stated in the proposal will be considered an additional work
item.
All work will be performed at a "Not to Exceed" contract price, which will become the fixed price upon
completion of negotiations with the City Staff authorized to negotiate and agreement. The total
budget includes all miscellaneous costs for travel/mileage, reproduction, telephone, postal, delivery,
reference materials and incidental expenses.
The budget provides a breakdown of our estimated cost of performing the services described in this
Scope of Services. Our Scope of Services and its associated cost are based on several key
assumptions, including the following:
1. The budget is valid for a period of 90 days from the date of submittal/opening, after which it
may be subject to revision.
2. City will develop the mailing list for distribution of the Draft EIR and notices. The Applicant or
the City will be responsible for newspaper cost of publication of notices, which will be billed
directly to the City, so they are not included in the proposed budget.
3. Photocopy costs included in the proposal are for the specified number of copies of
deliverables and reasonable incidental and in -team photocopying. If additional copies of
deliverables are needed, they can be provided with an amendment to the proposed budget.
4. Review cycles for preliminary documents are presented in the scope of work. Additional
review cycles or additional versions of administrative drafts are assumed to not be needed.
5. The proposed work addresses CEQA requirements of the proposed action. Work related to
NEPA compliance, Section 404 compliance, or other permitting processes is not included
(although these can be added, as needed, with a contract amendment). Work concludes at
the acceptance of the final deliverable.
JN 10-106867 -49- April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
6. The budget is based on completion of work within an agreed upon schedule. If substantial
delay occurs, an amendment of the budget would be warranted to accommodate additional
project management time and other costs. Substantial delay is normally defined as 90 days
or more.
7. Costs are included for the number of meetings specified in the scope of work. If additional
meetings are needed, they can be included with an amendment of the budget.
8. The extent of public comment on a Draft EIR is not predictable. The proposed budget
includes a reasonable, preliminary estimate time to respond to comments. RBF will consult
with the City after the valuation of the comments to determine if the preliminarily estimated
budget is sufficient.
9. Costs have been allocated to tasks to determine the total budget. RBF may reallocate costs
among tasks, as needed, as long as the total budget is not exceeded.
10. The CEQA statutes or guidelines may change during the course of this EIR. If amendments
require redoing work already performed or substantially increasing effort, a contract
amendment may be warranted.
JN 10-106867 • 50 • April 23, 2009
City of Azusa
Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Project
Wait BUDGET
TASK
C.M.
185
E.T.
135
R.G.
114
K.B.
97
A.M.
97
P.M. R.K.
144 144
GrAIWP
85
Total
Hours
Subs
Repro
Total
cost
1.0 PROJECT SCOPING
1.1 Project Kick -08 and Project Characteristics
6
10
8
24
$3,236
1.2 Research and Investigation
3
4
7
$793
1.3 Agency Consultation
2
4
6
$910
1.4 Preparation of the Initial Study
1
4
4
45
4
58
$5.886
1.5 Notice of Preparation
1
1
$135
1.6 Sopping Meebrig
6
101
1
8
1
1 1
24
1
$3.236
Deliverables
1
0
1
$1,750
$1.750
2.0 PREPARATION OF ADMIN DRAFT EIR
0
2.1 Introduction and Purpose
1
6
7
$767
2.2 Executive Summary
1
5
1
7
$840
2.3 Project Description
1
12
1
14
$1,890
2.4 Threshold of Significance
1
1
2
$232
2.5 Cumulative Projects to be Considered
1
1
2
$320
2.6 Environmental Analysis
0
A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare
1
10
1
45
21
58
$6.070
S. Air Quality/Climate Change
1
16
1
451
21
64
1
$6.880
C. Geology and Soils
1
8
20
11
30
$5,000
$8,630
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2
12
50
2
66
$7,010
E. Hydrologyfflater Qualty
2
5
35
55
2
99
$12,530
F. Land Use
2
10
40
1
53
$6,365
G. Noise
1
10
30
2
43
$4,615
H. Traffic, Circulation and Parking
1
10
40
22
2
75
$8.753
I. Utilities and Public Services
1
6
24
8
1
40
$4,184
2.7 Growth Inducement
1
16
17
$1,737
2.8 Cumulative Impacts
1
121
13
1
$1,553
2.9 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2
12
201
35
21
71
$7,835
2.10 Miti ation Moriftorina and Reporting Program
1
10
11
12
$1,240
2.11 Additional Sections
10
11
11
$1,055
2.12 Graphic Exhibits
201
20
$1,700
Deliverables
0
$2,000
$2.000
3.0 DRAFT EIR
0
3.1 Preliminary Draft EIR
6
201
6
18
8
1
61
64
$7,526
Deliverables
I
I
1
0
$950$950
3.2 Completion of the Draft EIR
4
121
10
26
$3.330
Deliverables
6
6
1
$5,500
$6.010
4.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0
4.1 Response to Comments
10
16
B
20
8
62
$7,542
Deliverables
0
1
$300
$300
4.2 Final EIR
2
8
16
6
32
$3,512
Deliverables
0
$6,000
$6,000
4.3 Findin s/Statement of Overridin Considerations
2
8
35
2
47
$5.015
Deliverables
0
$100
$100
5.0 COORDINATION AND MEETINGS
40
60
100
$15,500
EXPENSES
0
$2,000
TOTAL HOURS
100
269
115
306
221
22 55
73
1161
'Percent of Total Labor Hours
8.6%1
23.2%1
9.9%1
26.4%
19.0%
1.9% 4.7%
6.3%
SUSTOTALLABORCOSTS
$18,500
$36,315
$13,110
$29,682
$21,437
$3,168 $7,920
$6,205
$5,000
316,600
$159.937
TOTAL LABOR COSTS
$158,837
C . = Collette Morse K.B. =Kristen Bogue R.K. - Rebecca Kinney
E.T. = Eddie Torres A.M. = Achilles Malisos GrA = Graphic Artist/Word Processing
R.G. = Rita Garcia P.M. -Paul Martin
Note: All work 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 trawl/mileage,
reproduction, relmburseebles telephone, postal, delivery, reference materials and incidental expenses. RBF will receive payment either on a percentage basis using milestones or by monthly billing, as determined by the
Client. The RBF project manager reserves the right to make adjustments to staff allocations as necessary within the overall budget.
JN 10-106867 0 51 0 April 23, 2009
CITY OF AZUSA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this 291h day of June, 2009 by and between the City
of Azusa, a municipal organization organized under the laws of the State of California with its
principal place of business at 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California 91702-1295 ("City")
and RBF CONSULTING, a PRIVATELY HELD CORPORATION with its principal place of
business at 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, California 92618 ("Consultant"). City and Consultant
are sometimes individually referred to 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 consultant 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, including an Initial Study and an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), for the proposed Waste Management Material Recovery
Facility, Transfer Station, and Household Hazardous Waste Facility 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.
Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other
established schedules and deadlines.
3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.
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: Collette Morse, Vice President Environmental
Services and Eddie Torres, Project Manager.
3.2.5 City's Representative. The City hereby designates Kurt Christiansen, Director
of Economic and Community Development, or his designee, to act as its representative for the
performance of this Agreement ("City's Representative"). City's Representative shall have the
2
P:\1Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChangdLZ-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRF6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
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 designee.
3.2.6 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Collette Morse, or
his or 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 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 Laws and Regulations. 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
P:\1 Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChange\Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St, MR96-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
3.2. 10 Insurance .
3.2.10.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence Work
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.
3.2.10.2 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.
(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, 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.
3.2.10.3 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.
3.2.10.4 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 be endorsed
to state that: (1) the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be
covered as additional insured with respect to the Work or operations performed by or on behalf of
4
P:\l Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChange\Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRF6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; 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.
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be
endorsed 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.
(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 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.
3.2.10.5 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations. 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.
3.2.10.6 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.
3.2.10.7 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.
5
P:\l Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChangdZ-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRF6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
3.2.10.8 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 Safe . 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.
3.3 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
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) without written approval of City's
Economic and Community Development Director. 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, with the exception of direct project related mileage
and reproducible document copies.
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
6
P:\] Planning\Entitlements2-ZoneChang&Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRF6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
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 sem., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title
8, Section 1600, 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 Accounting Records.
3.4.1 Maintenance and Inspection. 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.
3.5 General Provisions.
3.5.1 Termination of Agreement.
3.5.1.1 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.
3.5.1.2 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.
7
P:\1 Planning\Entitlementsi2-ZoneChangdZ-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRF6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
3.5.1.3 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.
3.5.2 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:
City:
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 91618
Collette Morse
Vice President, Environmental Services
City of Azusa
213 East Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702-1295
Attn: Kurt Christiansen
Director of Economic and Community Development
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.
3.5.3 Ownership of Materials and Confidentialitx.
3.5.3.1 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"). 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 provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited
in any way in its use of the Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within
the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City's sole risk.
8
P:\l Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChange\Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRR6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
3.5.3.2 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information,
and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not,
without the prior written consent of City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the
performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed 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.
3.5.4 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.
3.5.5 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 reason-
able attorney's fees and all other costs of such action.
3.5.6 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its 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, in law or equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of any negligent acts, omissions or
willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and
contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this
Agreement, including without limitation the payment of reasonable attorneys fees and other related
costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all
such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or
instituted against City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. Consultant
shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its directors,
officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding.
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 not be
restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its directors, officials, officers,
employees, agents or volunteers.
3.5.7 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
9
P:\1 Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChangdZ-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRF6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both
parties.
3.5.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
3.5.9 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this
Agreement subject to adherence to sound professional practices and procedures.
3.5. 10 Cit 's Right to Employ Other Consultants. City reserves right to employ other
consultants in connection with this Project.
3.5.11 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors
and assigns of the parties.
3.5.12 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.
3.5.13 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.
3.5.14 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of
this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.
3.5.15 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.
3.5.16 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries
of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
10
P:\1Planning\Entitlementsi2-ZoneChang&Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRR6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
3.5.17 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.
3.5.18 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. 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.
3.5.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal
opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, 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.
3.5.20 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 Worker's 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.
3.5.21 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.
3.5.22 Counterparts . This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which
shall constitute an original.
3.6 Subcontracting.
3.6.1 Prior Approval Required. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the
work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of
City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated
in this Agreement.
11
P:\I Planning\Entitlements\2-ZoneChangc\Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRR6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
12
PM Plannin6okEntitlementA2-ZoneChangd,Z-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRR6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
CITY OF AZUSA
Attest:
Francis Delach
City Manager
Vera, Mendoza
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
[INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT]
Collette Morse
Vice President, Environmental Services
13
P:\IPlanning\Entitlement,42-ZoneChangdZ-2009-01 1501 Gladstone St. MRE6-25 Professional Services Agreement for RBF.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SEE ATTACHED RBF PROPOSAL
A-1
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
SEE ATTACHED RBF PROPOSAL
B-1
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
SEE ATTACHED RBF PROPOSAL
C-1
F;1,
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KURT CHRISTIANSEN, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
VIA: F.M. DELACH, CITY MANAGERl�
DATE: JUNE 29, 2009
SUBJECT: CITYWIDE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES POLICY MANUAL
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council waive further reading and introduce the Citywide Art in Public Places
Policy Manual and Policy.
BACKGROUND
For some time, there has been interest to implement an Art in Public Places Ordinance. In February of
2007, the Planning Commission was presented with a conceptual draft ordinance. Recently, the effort was
revived and, on March 11, 2009, the Planning Commission was given the same ordinance again for review
and asked to provide any comments to staff. Comments were received and the policy manual was revised
and agendized for formal Planning Commission action.
At the May 13, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, staff was asked make additional minor revisions to
ensure that greater flexibility was in place with regard to the types of art projects. At the June 10, 2009,
Planning Commission meeting, additional revisions were made to recommend that the art be approved
prior to issuance of a building permit and in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Additionally, the Commission recommended that the City Council hold off on implementation of the plan
for six to eight months because of the downturn in the economy. Staff has made the revisions and is
presenting the draft document for the Council's consideration.
DISCUSSION
A growing number of cities in Southern California have requirements governing Art in Public Places
including, La Verne, Downey, Calabasas, and Brea. In reviewing the previous draft document from 2007,
staff believed it would be a more prudent direction if the manual were simplified. As such, it has been re-
drafted for more simplified compliance and administration. The Planning Commission has further assisted
Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
Citywide Art in Public Places Policy Manual
June 29, 2009
Page 2 of 2
in making it a user friendly document. We believe the draft manual has been written to realize the goal of
providing quality public art in the community while still maintaining flexibility to ensure art pieces go in
the best places possible.
The primary elements and highlights of the proposed manual are as follows:
• Developers of commercial, industrial, and office projects as well as residential development of
eight (8) or more homes will be subject to the Art in Public Places requirements.
• 1% of the assessed valuation of the project will be the financial obligation for the value of the
public art.
• Projects with an assessed valuation of less than $1,000,000 are exempt.
• The maximum amount assessed to a developer would be fixed at $50,000.
0 Developers will have the option of paying the in -lieu 1 % value of the public art piece(s) to the City
rather than installing and maintaining the art themselves.
• An Art in Public Places Advisory Committee is proposed as part of this effort.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that an Art in Public Places policy would result in the positive placement of art pieces within
the City of Azusa and, therefore, is supportive of establishing a policy manual to aid the development
community in beautifying the City.
Attachments:
Draft Art in Public Places Manual
Ordinance Approving the Art in Public Places Policy
W:\AGENDA\06-29-09\CC-StaftRepot 6-29-09.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITYWIDE ART IN
PUBLIC PLACES POLICY MANUAL
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to support the development community
in beautifying the City of Azusa; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that placing works of art in public
places would result in beautification of the City of Azusa; and
WHEREAS, the Art in Public Places Policy Manual creates a system for
ensuring the placement of works of art in public places throughout the City of Azusa; and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to impose fees under the police power
granted by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and under the provisions
of Government Code section 66000, et seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS.
The Recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this Resolution.
SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed
citywide Art in Public Places Policy Manual ("Program").
SECTION 3. PROGRAM GOALS.
The purposes and goals of the Program include distinguishing Azusa as a special
place to live, work, play, and visit, providing every member of the community easy visual
access to artworks from vehicles on major public streets, strengthening cultural
awareness, creativity, and innovative thinking in the community, and softening the
impacts of development within the City (e.g. construction noise, traffic, congestion, and
pollution).
SECTION 4. GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
Under the Program, commercial and industrial development or residential projects
of Eight (8) dwelling units or more, with a total building project valuation of one million
dollars or more, are required to select, purchase and install permanent outdoor art at the
PAlPlanning\Entitlements\Art in Public Places\CC-Ordinance 6-29-09.DOC
development site, accessible and visible to the general public from public streets. The
required minimum art allocation shall be one percent of the total building construction
valuation (excluding tenant improvements). The maximum Art Allocation per project
will be set at $50,000.
All attached and detached additions to an existing commercial or industrial
building, with a valuation (for the addition) of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more
must also comply with the program. Developers also have the option of paying the Art
Allocation directly to the City. Allocations paid in this manner will be used to provide
Art in Public Places elsewhere in the City. More specific program requirements can be
found in the Program, attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. ART PROJECT APPROVAL.
The applicant or developer must follow the procedures for art project approval
contained in the Program, including the following steps. The applicant must select an
artist and submit an application for review by the Art in Public Places Advisory
Committee ("Committee"), which either approves or denies the application. Approval or
denial is based on the factors listed in the Program.
SECTION 6. SEPARATE FUND AND USE OF FEES COLLECTED.
All fees collected under this ordinance shall be held in a separate fund of the City.
The City Manager shall be responsible for maintaining the records relating to the
Program Fund, and these records shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council
annually.
All fine art purchased with such funds shall be the property of the City. Monies
appropriated under this ordinance may be used for hiring artists to develop design
concepts and for the selection, acquisition, purchase and commissioning of public art
works. Monies appropriated under this ordinance may be used for operating costs of the
Program, including the cost of public dedications when the art work is completed. Funds
not expended in any given year shall be carried over into the next year and shall be used
solely for the Program.
SECTION 7. CREATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
The Art in Public Places Advisory Committee shall be approved the City Council.
The Committee shall be comprised of a designee from the City Manager's Office, the
Economic & Community Development Department, the City Council, the Cultural and
Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning Commission.
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
PAIPlanningTntitlements\Art in Public Places\CC-Ordinance 6-29-09.130C
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might subsequently be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 9. CEQA.
The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378)
of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 11. PUBLICATION.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same
to be posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2009.
Joseph R. Rocha
Mayor
ATTEST:
Vera Mendoza
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
PAIPlanningTntitlements\Art in Public Places\CC-Ordinance 6-29-09.DOC
City of Azusa
Art in Public Places Policy Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Azusa's Art in Public Places Program
A. Program Goals ...........................
B. Which Projects Need Art Pieces
Page
........................................................... 1
........................................................... 1
C. How Building Valuations and Art Allocations Are Determined ............... 2
D. Art Allocation Expenses............................................................................. 2
1. Allowable Expenses from Art Allocation ............................................ 2
2. Expenses Not Allowed from Art Allocation ........................................ 2
E. Artist and Artwork Selection...................................................................... 3
1. Artist and Artwork............................................................................... 3
2. Art Consultant...................................................................................... 3
F. Value Verification...................................................................................... 3
II. The Application Process
A. Overview.................................................................................................... 3
B. Application Steps....................................................................................... 3
1. Plan Review......................................................................................... 3
2. Artist Selection..................................................................................... 4
3. Art in Public Places Advisory Committee Review .............................. 4
4. Notification and Follow-Up................................................................. 4
5. Unveiling Plans.................................................................................... 4
C. If the Proposed Application is Not Approved ............................................ 4
1. Developer Options............................................................................... 4
2. The Appeal Process.............................................................................. 5
III. Review Criteria and Requirements
A. Artist Qualifications................................................................................... 5
1. Experience........................................................................................... 5
2. Verification of Past Works................................................................... 5
B. Artwork Criteria......................................................................................... 5
1. Artistic Expression and Innovation...................................................... 5
2. Scale and Content................................................................................. 6
3. Permanence and Materials................................................................... 6
P:\1Planning\Entitlements\Art in Public Places\Public Art Policy Manual CC 6-29-09.doc
4. Multiple Editions.................................................................................. 7
5. Public Liability and Safety................................................................... 7
6. Water Features and Fountains.............................................................. 7
C. Site and Installation Requirements............................................................. 8
1. Visibility............................................................................................... 8
2. Signage................................................................................................. 8
3. Lighting and Electrical......................................................................... 8
4. Landscaping and Base.......................................................................... 8
5. Identification........................................................................................ 8
D. Maintenance............................................................................................... 9
E. Damaged Artwork...................................................................................... 9
F. Replacement of Artwork............................................................................ 9
G. Donation of Artwork to the City................................................................ 9
Appendices
A. Advisory Committee Review Checklist..................................................... 10
B. Application Checklist................................................................................. 11
C. Application Instructions/Submittal Requirements ..................................... 12
D. Application — Form A................................................................................ 14
E. Application — Form B................................................................................. 15
Azusa's Art in Public Places Program
The goal of Azusa's Art in Public Places Program is to provide permanent, outdoor artworks that
are easily accessible to the general public throughout the City. The Program is designed to offer
a wide range of artistic styles, themes, and media, all of outstanding quality. The unique variety
of artistic styles is chosen to provoke discussion and encourage comment.
This program manual, in accordance with Ordinance No. XX-XXXX, adopted by the Azusa City
Council, describes how Azusa's Art in Public Places program works, gives information on how
the City interacts with developers and artists and describes the program's policies.
I. Art in Public Places Program
A. Program Goals
Distinguish Azusa as a special place to live, work, play and visit.
2. Integrate the vision of artists with the perspective of other design professionals
into the planning and design of the urban landscape.
Provide every member of the community easy visual access to artworks from
vehicles on major public streets.
4. Provide a means to counterbalance what many consider to be the "negative"
effects of development (e.g. construction noise, traffic, congestion, and
pollution).
Strengthen cultural awareness, creativity, and innovative thinking in the
community.
B. Which Projects Need Art Pieces?
Commercial and industrial development or residential projects of Eight (8)
dwelling units or more, with a total building project valuation of one million dollars
($1,000,000) or more, are required to select, purchase and install permanent
outdoor art at the development site, accessible and visible to the general public
from public streets. The required minimum art allocation shall be one percent (1%)
of the total building construction valuation (excluding tenant improvements), which
is determined using the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBG)
tables in effect at the time building permits are issued. The maximum Art
Allocation per project will be set at $50,000.
All attached and detached additions to an existing commercial or industrial
building, with a valuation (for the addition) of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or
more shall also comply with the program. Developers also have the option of
paying the Art Allocation directly to the City. Allocations paid in this manner will
be used to provide Art in Public Places elsewhere in the City.
P:\IPlanning\Entitlements\Art in Public Places\Public Art Policy Manual CC 6-29-09.doc
C. How Building Valuations and Art Allocations Are Determined
The minimum art allocation for each development is equal to one percent (1%) of
the total building valuation of a project. The total building valuation is computed
at the time building permits are issued, using the most current Building Valuation
Data set forth by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). This
information is issued quarterly. Square foot value is based on the type of building
construction, the proposed use of the building, and the quality of construction. An
initial building valuation is estimated by the City's Building Official when the
developer submits formal application plans to the City's Planning Division. The
building valuation is recalculated when the project receives building permits.
D. Art Allocation Expenses
1. Allowable Expenses from Art Allocation
a) The work of the art itself, including the artist's fee for design, structural
engineering, and fabrication.
b) Transportation and installation of the artwork.
c) Identification plaque(s) for the artwork.
d) Mountings, pumps, motors or subterranean equipment, pedestals, bases, or
materials directly necessary for installation of the artwork.
e) Lighting specifically illuminating the art piece.
f) Art consulting fees. This fee shall not exceed 10% of the total art
allocation.
g) Art appraisals requested by City staff and/or the Art in Public Places
Advisory Committee.
2. Expenses Not Allowed from Art Allocation
a) Expenses to locate the artist (e.g. airfare for artist interviews, etc.)
b) Architect and Landscape Architect fees.
c) Landscaping around a sculpture, that is not included as part of the Artist's
sculpture furnishings, including, but not limited to, functional structures,
prefabricated water or electrical features not created by the artist, and
ornamental enhancements.
d) Utility fees associated with activating electronic or water generated
artwork.
e) Lighting elements not integral to the illumination of the art piece.
f) Publicity, public relations, photographs, educational materials, business
letterhead or logos bearing artwork image.
2
g) Dedication ceremonies, including unveilings or grand openings.
E. Artist and Artwork Selection
1. Artist and Artwork
The developer is responsible for selecting the artist(s) and artwork, provided
both meet the program criteria. The Art in Public Places Advisory Committee
shall consider each artist and proposed artwork on a case-by-case basis.
2. Art Consultant
The developer may choose to hire an art consultant to assist with the selection
of the artist and the application process. The role of the art consultant is to
research and present to the developer, qualified artists who are able to create an
appropriate artwork for their specific project. The art consultant is responsible
for providing written and visual collateral on the artist(s) for the application.
The developer may not apply more than ten percent (10%) of the total art
allocation toward consulting fees. Consulting fees in excess of ten percent
(10%) of the allocation shall be absorbed by the developer.
F. Value Verification
If City staff cannot verify the value of a proposed art piece (by past records of
comparable work sold, etc.), the City may choose to have the artist's proposal
and/or other completed works appraised by a qualified art appraiser selected by the
City. The applicant shall pay up front for any art appraisal service fees. This
expense may be deducted from the total art allocation.
II. Application Process
A. Overview
Successful public art projects involve collaboration and cooperation between the
developer, the artist, and the City. The developer selects an artist and submits an
application for review by the five -member Art in Public Places Advisory
Committee ("Committee"), which either approves or denies application. The
Committee is comprised of a designee from the City Manager's Office, the
Economic & Community Development Department, the City Council, the Cultural
and Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning Commission.
B. Application Steps
1. Plan Review
The developer formally submits a development proposal for plan approval to
the City's Planning Division. If the project is valued at $1,000,000 or more,
staff informs the developer of the estimated 1% art allocation for their project.
The developer receives full program details including the Art in Public Places
Policy Manual and Application. Art must be approved prior to issuance of a
building permit and in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3
2. Artist Selection
If the developer chooses to purchase and install artwork rather than pay paying
the Art Allocation directly to the City, the developer (or art consultant)
researches and selects an artist(s) who meets the program criteria. The
developer and selected artist collaborate in packaging the art application for
committee review. The application is included at the back of this manual.
3. Art in Public Places Advisory Committee Review
The developer submits the Art in Public Places Application to the City's
Planning Division, which will schedule an appointment with the Art in Public
Places Advisory Committee for a preliminary review.
4. Notification and Follow-up
The developer shall be notified in writing of the Committee's decision within
ten (10) days of the review meeting. If the art piece is approved, any
outstanding items that must be completed by the installation date will be listed
and given to the developer/art consultant. If the art piece is not approved, the
reason(s) for denial will be noted, including possible modifications or additions
which could lead to recommended approval. Should the developer and/or
consultant agree to the modifications, he/she may resubmit an application to the
Committee for reconsideration. Once approved by the City, the developer shall
inform the City of the approximate date the piece will be installed.
5. Unveiling Plans
The developer shall contact the Planning Division regarding any unveiling or
dedication ceremonies for the art piece. An unveiling or dedication is strictly
optional. In the event the developer chooses to conduct an unveiling or
dedication, City staff shall provide the developer with an invitation list of City
Council Members, Commissioners, Art in Public Places Advisory Committee
Members, and other appropriate guests. City staff shall work with the
developer to promote press opportunities and public interest in the art project.
C. If the Proposed Application Is Not Approved
1. Developer Options
a) Accept the Committee's recommendations and make the requested
modifications.
b) Select a different artist to create a new design and resubmit the application
to the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee.
c) Appeal the Committee's recommendation to the Azusa City Council (see
Appeal Process below).
2
2. The Appeal Process
The developer must file a written request for an appeal within ten (10) days of
notification of the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee's
recommendation. All items for appeal should be addressed to the City
Council. Upon filing an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the hearing date and
notify the applicant. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole
or in part any Committee recommendation or requirement. Azusa City
Council's decision shall be final and conclusive.
III. Review Criteria and Requirements
A. Artist Qualifications
1. Experience
Artists must be working artists, who have a portfolio which includes outdoor
art. Qualified artists should have experience in design concept, fabrication,
installation, and long-term durability of large-scale exterior artworks. Artists
must be able to successfully collaborate with design teams, architects, art
consultants, developers, engineers, fabricators, and landscape architects, and
meet scheduled deadlines. Artists should also have experience in negotiating
and contracting their work responsibly. Artists who do not meet these criteria
will not be approved by the Committee.
2. Verification of Past Works
Artists must be able to verify the value of the proposed artwork, based on their
previous and current public art commissions. The Committee will look for
purchase prices of similar works sold by the artist (by size, medium, etc.)
which progressively increase toward, or exceed, the proposed commission
amount. The City may request records, including but not limited to, sales
contracts, invoices, and payments. Gallery list prices or asking prices of works
are not necessarily comparable, as they are not records of a willing buyer. If
the value of the proposed art piece cannot be verified (by records of past
comparable sold works, etc.), the City may choose, at its sole discretion, to
have the artist's proposal and/or other completed works appraised by a
qualified art appraiser. This expenditure shall be counted toward the total art
allocation, and shall be borne by the developer. The value of the proposed
artwork shall be verified prior to Committee review as to not delay the approval
process.
B. Artwork Criteria
1. Artistic Expression and Innovation
Proposed artworks shall demonstrate how they will effectively engage the
public, and invite a "second look." Works engaging to the public are often
described as thought provoking, inspiring, entertaining, clever, whimsical,
powerful, reflective or symbolic. Innovation and originality are encouraged
and expected. The Committee takes interest in the artist's creative thought
process in relationship to the specific development project. Therefore, existing
5
works are not generally encouraged. Artists shall be able to thoroughly discuss
the following elements of their proposal with the Committee: expressive
properties (mood, feeling, message, symbolism) and formal properties
(balance, emphasis/dominance, repetition/rhythm, unity, form/shape, texture,
color).
2. Scale and Content
Artworks must be appropriate in scale, material, form, and content to their
immediate, general, social, and physical environments. The artwork shall not
look like an afterthought to the development. The following are not acceptable:
a) Mass produced reproductions or replicas of original works of art.
Exceptions are signed sculptures by the original artist for reproduction.
(Edition limit: 5).
b) Functional equipment, which may be considered part of an amenities
package, such as benches, chairs, fountains, etc. (see page 10, Water
Features and Fountains).
c) Decorative or ornamental pieces which are not designed by a qualified,
acceptable artist, including historical markers or bells, bell towers, obelisks,
minor architectural ornamentation, and garden sculpture.
d) Art as advertisements or commercial signage mixed with imagery.
3. Permanence and Materials
a) Recommended materials: bronze, stainless steel, high-grade aluminum,
hard stone.
b) Materials not recommended: Cor -ten steel, wood, soft stone (e.g.
alabaster).
c) Other materials not listed may be considered, in the event the artwork
application includes a comprehensive maintenance plan, which meets the
interest and standards of the Committee and staff.
d) Rust proof materials must be used whenever possible. Artists will be asked
to provide a breakdown by percentage of metal alloys for bronzes from
foundries. Thickness and grade/quality of steel works will be reviewed for
rust proof durability. Artists shall take note of which materials (including
nuts, bolts, and other metal fixtures) will be in contact with each other that
may produce oxidation and rust.
e) Artists must be able to clearly demonstrate the quality, craftsmanship, and
durability of their artwork. Substantial consideration shall be given to
structural and surface integrity and stability, permanence and weathering,
resistance against theft, vandalism, and the probability of excessive
maintenance and repair costs. Artworks must be constructed of durable,
long-lasting materials that are able to withstand outdoor display, and
require low levels of maintenance. When selecting an art piece, developers
shall keep in mind that property owners are legally responsible for the
maintenance of the artwork for its lifetime.
4. Multiple Editions
If the proposed art is one of multiple editions, the applicant shall include the
edition number of the piece, and provide the location of all other editions. To
maintain the value of the proposed work, similar editions may not be publicly
displayed within a fifty (50) mile radius of the Azusa project site, unless both
the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee and the owner of existing and/or
future editions grant permission.
5. Public Liability and Safety
The artist and developer must bear in mind the art will be displayed along
major public streets. In order to be acceptable, artworks must not disrupt traffic
or create unsafe conditions or distractions to motorists and pedestrians, which
may expose the City or property owner to liability. Consideration should be
given to sharp or protruding edges that may pose a danger to pedestrians.
Attention should also be given to durability and ability to withstand weight, as
owners are held responsible for repairs resulting from persons climbing, sitting,
or otherwise damaging the art.
6. Water Features and Fountains
Water feature pieces, or artworks requiring water, must be conceptually
designed by an acceptable, qualified visual artist in order to be considered for
the Art in Public Places Program. The artwork must stand on its own should
the water cease to function properly. There must be a demonstrated
collaboration between the artist and the water feature design company. The
intent of the Art in Public Places Program is to promote the work of visual
artists, not water feature design companies. Water related costs, such as pump
and pool construction, will be evaluated by the Art in Public Places Committee
for consideration as part of the overall art allocation. Developers are welcome
to exceed the arts budget to construct a water feature. However, water features
will not be accepted in lieu of the Art in Public Places requirement. No more
than thirty percent (30%) of the total art allocation may be utilized for water -
related costs.
C. Site and Installation Requirements
1. Visibility
Artwork is to be located outdoors and easily visible to both motorists and
pedestrians from a major public street. Distance from the art to the public
street should typically not be greater than fifty (50) feet. Artwork may not be
placed near monumental signs, sign walls, bus benches, or utility boxes, as
these structures may impede the public's view from the street or diminish the
aesthetic value of the art. Lettering, symbols or signage are not permitted upon
the art or its foundation, except as intended by the artist. Visibility to the
general public is the key criteria in approval of art location. Exceptions can be
7
made for large open or enclosed public areas such as shopping malls, which
may have their art piece(s) in an interior public location.
2. Signage
Permanent signage of any type is not permissible in or around the immediate
area of the art. This includes the foreground, background, or adjacent areas of
the art. Signage should not distract or diminish the aesthetics of the artworks,
when the public views the work from the most accessible vantage points (e.g.
intersections, entryways). The Art in Public Places Advisory Committee will
review all signage plans and ask the applicant to provide alternative locations
should the signage interrupt the public's view.
3. Lighting and Electrical
Artwork shall be properly lit during evening and nighttime hours. All lighting
and electrical elements should be in good working condition and meet all
current safety conditions. Lighting and electronic elements, not integral to the
sculpture, will not be included as part of the art allocation. Lighting plans must
be submitted as part of the application.
4. Landscaping and Base
Landscaping and art base should be well integrated and securely installed. The
sculpture must also be secured to the base. A licensed structural engineer must
approve and certify the installation plans as structurally sound, safe, and
durable. The base shall only house art, and plaque, if applicable.
5. Identification
Each art piece shall be identified by a cast bronze plaque approximately 8" x
8". The plaque shall be placed in a ground location near the art piece, listing
only the title, artist, and date of installation. The Art in Public Places Advisory
Committee must approve any additional plaques that may be requested.
D. Maintenance
All property owners are legally responsible for maintaining their art piece for its
lifetime and replacing the art piece should it be damaged beyond repair, destroyed,
or stolen. The applicant should demonstrate that the selected artwork is
constructed for permanent outdoor display and that provisions have been made for
its long-term care.
E. Damaged Artwork
The property owner is responsible for repairing the artwork in the event of damage
and/or vandalism. Artwork damaged or vandalized shall be repaired as closely as
possible to the original approved artwork. If repair is needed, the original artist
must be given first refusal on repair(s) for a reasonable fee. If the original artist is
not available or is unwilling to perform the required repair(s) for a reasonable fee,
the owner shall make arrangements for repair(s) with a reputable art conservator.
E:3
The owner shall be responsible for notifying the Art in Public Places Advisory
Committee and City staff of the steps that will be taken to repair the work.
F. Replacement of Artwork
In the event the art piece is destroyed, damaged beyond repair, stolen or otherwise
removed from the site, the owner shall replace the art piece with a new work of art
(see next section, Removal of Artworks). The owner shall submit an application to
the City for review by the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee. The new
artwork shall comply with all of the requirements of the Art in Public Places
Program in effect at the time the work is replaced. The allocation for the new
(replacement) art piece shall be calculated at I% of the current total building
valuation, as computed by the most current Building Valuation Data set forth by
the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBG). As ICBO figures
typically increase each year, property owners are advised to take steps to replace
damaged or destroyed sculptures immediately. The replacement process shall be
completed within a six (6) to twelve (12) month time frame unless otherwise
agreed to by the City.
G. Donation of Artwork to the City
Although the art work is located in public view, the intent of Azusa's Art in Public
Places Program is for the art to be located on private property as part of the fixed
assets of that property. Therefore, the City does not encourage the donation of
public art to the City.
However, in special cases where it is impossible for artwork to remain on private
property and/or be maintained by the property owner, the City may consider
accepting the donation of an art piece. Property owners may submit a written
request to the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee describing the unique
circumstances and the reasons why they are requesting that the City accept the
donation of the art piece. The Committee will review their request, discuss the
proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
9
APPENDIX A
City of Azusa Art in Public Places
Advisory Committee Review Checklist
PROJECT:
Artist: Artwork Title:
Date Reviewed:
Committee Members:
CRITERIA
MEETS
CRITERIA
DOES NOT
MEET
CRITERIA
COMMENTS
I. Art Piece
Scale: life-size 5' or larger (excluding base)
Permanent and weather resistant media, armature
and framework of rust free materials, foundry
materials and metals breakdown by percentage.
Artistic Content (for discussion only):
• Expressive properties (mood, feeling, message,
symbolism).
• Formal properties (balance, emphasis, color,
repetition/rhythm, unity, form/shape, texture).
Proposal shows how work will engage public
interest (provokes discussion, a closer look,
intrigues, entertains, etc.). Is public input/survey
requested?
Liability and Safety conditions
Original work of art (Editions limited to 5)
II. Artist
Education/training in the visual arts and art
Exhibit records and collections
Experience with large scale outdoor artwork
Verification of purchase price of past works
III. Site/Installation
Clearly visible to motorists and pedestrians from
major public street.
No more than 50 feet from public street(s)
Base well integrated to landscape
Lighting instruments and lighting plan
No signs, utility boxes, or other conditions limiting
public view.
Sculpture plaque
Installation design approved by structural engineer.
Landscape plan will not pose future visibility or
conservation problems.
Sprinkler plan assures no water spraying on art.
V. Artist/Developer Contract of Sale
VI. Maintenance Instructions/Maintenance
Fund
10
APPENDIX B
*Note: This form for applicant use only. Please keep for your records.
City of Azusa Art in Public Places
Avvitication t-,necxiisi
Date:
Applicant:
Project:
For description of each item see Appendix G, Application Instructions.
❑
1.
Application — Form A
❑
2.
Site plan indicating art piece location.
❑
3.
Photographs or computer enhanced image of site/sculpture location.
❑
4.
Landscape plan
❑
5.
Lighting plan (specific instruments)
❑
6.
Artist statement
❑
7.
Maquette(s) or drawings of proposed work
❑
8.
Sample materials or finishes of proposed work
❑
9.
Installation design (to be approved by structural engineer)
❑
10.
Artist's current resume
❑
11.
Artist's history of public art commissions — Form B
❑
12.
Slides and photographs of artist's previous works
❑
13.
Edition number and locations of other pieces in the series (if applicable).
❑
14.
Budget breakdown
❑
15.
Maintenance instructions
❑
16.
Draft contract of sale
11
APPENDIX C
*Note: This form for applicant use only. Please keep for your records.
City of Azusa Art in Public Places
Application Instructions/Submittal Requirements
Please submit the following application materials to the City of Azusa, Community Services
Department. City of Azusa staff must receive all application materials prior to scheduling an Art in
Public Places Advisory Committee review meeting. The review meeting will be set within thirty (30)
days once all application materials are complete.
1. Application — Form A
2. Site plan of the development, including the following:
a. Proposed placement of the art piece.
b. Distance in measurement between the sculpture and public streets.
c. Placement of any existing and/or future monumental or temporary signs, utility boxes, nearby
street signals, or structures which may impede public view of the art piece from the public street.
Photographs or computer enhanced design of the site, which clearly shows the sculpture in relation
to the site/building, as the public at ground level would see it. An image of the art piece may be
superimposed on a photograph of the site. Please make to scale.
4. Landscape plan, including the location(s) and type(s) of trees and shrubbery, in relation to the
sculpture.
5. Lighting plan for art, specifying location, number, and type of fixtures to be used.
6. Artist statement, describing artist's style, artistic concept and content, relationship between proposed
artwork and the project. The developer should explain to the Committee why the proposed work
was chosen and how it will enhance the development, complement the existing art program, and
engage public viewing and comments.
7. Drawings, or maquette(s), of the proposed artwork. The maquette may be brought to the Committee
meeting.
8. Sample materials or finishes of the proposed artwork.
9. Installation design of the proposed artwork, stamped by a licensed Structural Engineer, certifying the
art as structurally sound, safe, and durable.
10. Current and complete curriculum vitae of the artist (including art training and education, group and
solos exhibitions, private and public collections.
APPENDIX C
12
Page 2
11. Artist's history of public art commissions. The value of the proposed piece is verified by previous
commissions of similar style work (by medium, style, and size). Records should indicate
commissions progressing toward or exceeding the proposed commission amount. City staff will
verify the artist's records of past sales of similar sculpture(s). If the value of the proposed work
cannot be verified, due to inconsistencies in the record, a certified art appraiser at the developer's
expense may review the proposed artwork (see page 3, Allowable Expenses from Art Allocation).
12. Slides, photographs, or other collateral (reviews, critiques, articles) of past works, corresponding to
the listings in items 10 and 11.
13. Edition number of the proposed work (if part of a limited edition series) and locations of all other
pieces in the series.
14. Budget breakdown including artist fees for design concept, materials, fabrication, transportation,
installation, and art consultant fees (if applicable). The total budget should equal or exceed the
minimum 1% art allocation.
15. The artist's maintenance instructions for routine and long-term preservation shall be included in the
contract of sale (see pages 12, Maintenance Instructions). The instructions may be amended as
needed, pending the results of the Art in Public Places Committee review meeting.
16. Draft contract of sale (see Appendix D, Sample Contract of Sale). The draft contract may be
amended as needed, pending results of the Art in Public Places Committee review meeting. After
approval by the Art in Public Places Committee, a final contract must be signed by the property
owner, artist, and art consultant (if applicable), and submitted to the City of Azusa.
APPENDIX D
13
FORM A City of Azusa Art in Public Places Application
DATE SUBMITTED:
Minimum Art Allocation:
Project Name:
Development Location/Address:
Location of Art Piece (be specific):
Developer: Contact Person:
Address:
Phone: Fax:
Property Owner:
Address:
Phone: Fax:
Artist:
Address:
Phone: Fax:
Title of Art Piece:
Selling Price: (includes consultant fees)
Description of Art Piece:
Dimensions:
Media:
Percentage breakdown of metal alloys (for bronzes):
Armature Material:
Paint type, brand, color (if applicable):
Description of Art Foundation or Base:
Landscape Description:
Lighting Description:
Sprinkler Description at Sculpture Base:
Distance between Public Street and Art Piece:
Installation Date:
Dedication/Unveiling Plans:
14
FORM B
Artist Name
Artist's History of Public Art Commissions
Please list in order of most recent. Use additional sheets if needed.
Project
APPENDIX E
No.
Title
Medium
Dimensions
Purchaser and Phone
Number
Location
Date of
Commission
Commission
Amount
1.
Proposed work for
Azusa:
To be determined
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.