Costa Mesa City Council
January 21, 2025

1 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

CITY OF COSTA MESA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH M. ARTHUR GENSLER, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC.

THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 21st day of January 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and M. ARTHUR GENSLER, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. a California corporation (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide a long-term Facilities Master Plan that will provide the City with information on current and future facility conditions and needs and establish a framework for the orderly growth of City services, administration, and community program, as more fully described herein; and B. Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and
C. City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit “A” and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and
D. No official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT

1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the profess ional services described in City’s Request for Proposals , attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and Consultant’s Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” both incorporated herein.

1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant’s performance of this Agreement.

1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City . Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City Manager or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to:
(a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the ATTACHMENT 2
2 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

matters of concern;

(b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or

(c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws, including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers’ compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws a nd ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys’ fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above-mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant’s performance under this Agreement.

1.5. Non-Discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military or veteran status, except as permitted pursuant to s ection 12940 of the Government Code.

1.6. Non-Exclusive Agreement . Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement.

1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant’s sole cost and expense.

1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosur e is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING

2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement . Consultant’s total compensation shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety -Two 3 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

Dollars and Eighty-Five (85) Cents ($299,692.85).

2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant’s Proposal unless the City Manager or designee , prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable.

2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant’s services which have been completed to City’s sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant’s invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed , the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement sh all be designated as “Additional Services” and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices.

2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant’s services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times from the Effective Date until three (3) years after termination of this Agreement.

3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, t he professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement.

3.2. Excusable Delays . Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, pandemics (excluding COVID-19), material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party (each, a “Force Majeure Event”). If a party experiences a Force Majeure Event, the party shall, within five (5) days of the occurrence of the Force Majeure Event, give written notice to the other party stating the nature of the Force Majeure Event, its anticipated duration and any action being taken to avoid or minimize its effect. Any suspension of performance shall be of no greater scope and of no longer dura tion than is reasonably required and the party experiencing the Force Majeure Event shall use best efforts without being obligated to incur any material expenditure to remedy its inability to perform; provided, however, if the suspension of performance continues for sixty (60) days after the date of the occurrence and such failure to perform would constitute a material breach of this Agreement in the absence of such Force Majeure Event, the parties shall meet and discuss in good faith any amendments to this Agreement to permit the other party to exercise its rights under this Agreement. If the parties are not able to agree on such amendments within thirty (30) days and if suspension of performance continues, such other party may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the party experiencing the Force Majeure Event, in which case neither party shall have any liability to 4 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

the other except for those rights and liabilities that accrued prior to the date of termination.

4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION

4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Da te and continue for a period of sixty (60) months, ending on January 20, 2030, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties.

4.2. Notice of Termination . The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant.

The term ination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City.

4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City’s written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant.

4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant.

5.0. INSURANCE

5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance . Consultant shall obtain , maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated “A,” Class X, or better in the most recent A.M. Best’s Rating Guide, and approved by City:

(a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate.

(b) Business a utomobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
5 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

(c) Workers’ compensation insurance as required by the State of California.

Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers’ compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers’ compensation insurance policy against the City , its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers’ compensation insurance policies.

(d) Professional errors and omissions (“E&O”) liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects’ and engineers’ coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a “claims made” policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder.

5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

(a) Additional insureds: “The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant.”

(b) Notice: “Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City.”

(c) Other insurance: “ The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the ins urance provided by this policy.”

(d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers.

(e) The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

5.3. Deductible or Self -Insured Retention . If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self-insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self-insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to 6 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self-insured retention.

5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement.

5.5. Non-Limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property.

6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS

6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement.

6.2. Representatives. The C ity Manager or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.

Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.

6.3. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.

Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City.

6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: (a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery, and (b) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail.

IF TO CONSULTANT: IF TO CITY:

M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (213) 327-2902 Tel: (714) 754-5688
7 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

Attn: Kevin Rosenstein Attn: Patrick Bauer

Courtesy copy to:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attn: Finance Dept. | Purchasing

6.5. Drug-Free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City’s Council Policy 100 -5, attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein. Consultant’s failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City.

6.6. Attorneys’ Fees . If litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof.

6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties he reto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California.

6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant ’s interest in this Agreement without City’s prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City ’s consent, no subletting or assignment shall r elease Consultant of Consultant’ s obligation to perform all other obl igations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement.

6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant’s sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall not be required to provide an up - front defense of professional liability claims, rather, Consultant’s defense obligations shall be to reimburse the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees for defense costs incurred in proportion to Consultant’s negligence. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its ba sis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, 8 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant , its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City’s specifications or Consultant’s Proposal, which shall be of no forc e and effect.

6.10. Independent Contractor . Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent.

Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant furthe r agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker’s compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due t o City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph.

6.11 Conflicts with Independent Contractor. Contractor/consultant’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the public entity with any portion of the public entity’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the public entity. The public entity entering into this Agreement shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. Contract or/consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Contractor/consultant shall cooperate with the public entity to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this Agreement.

6.12. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.
9 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled t o, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for emplo yer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

6.13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require.

6.14. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects n ot contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. Consultant’s obligation to transfer ownership of work product to the City is conditioned upon City’s payment for the work product and excludes any of Consultant’s preexisting intellectual property, including design details and standard specifications . City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from City’s use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incom plete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City.

6.15. Public Records Act Disclosure . Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data , including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records A ct (California Government Code s ection 7920.000 et seq.).

Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code section 7924.510, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court.

6.16. Conflict of Interest . Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code s ections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code s ection 1090.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subconsultants to abstain from 10 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute.

6.17. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City’s representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction.

6.18. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect.

6.19. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail . If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced.

6.20. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein.

6.21. Binding Effect. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

6.22. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights . This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement.

6.23. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

6.24. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and have had an adequate opportunity to review each and every provision of the Agreement and submit the same to counsel or other consultants for review and comment. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.

6.25. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement.

6.26. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or 11 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

6.27. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party , is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations.

6.28. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement.

6.29. Corporate Authority . The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

[Signatures appear on following page.]
12 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written.

CONSULTANT

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Signature

__________________________________
[Name and Title]

CITY OF COSTA MESA

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Lori Ann Farrell Harrison
City Manager

ATTEST:

__________________________________
Brenda Green
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Ruth Wang
Risk Management

13 M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Patrick Bauer
Project Manager

DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Raja Sethuraman
Director of Public Works

APPROVED AS TO PURCHASING:

__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Carol Molina
Finance Director

EXHIBIT A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RFP25.03.C06263

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

FOR

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
RFP NO. 25-03

PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF COSTA MESA

Released on
October 9, 2024

RFP25.03.C06263

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The City of Costa Mesa (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) is requesting Proposals from qualified consultants to develop and provide a facilities master plan for the City’s Engineering Services Division.

The awarded Contractor, (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”) shall be in accordance with the Sample Professional Service Agreement, Appendix B terms, conditions, and scope of work. Prior to submitting a Proposal, Proposers are advised to carefully read the instructions below, including the Sample Professional Service Agreement and any solicitation appendix/exhibits. The term is expected to be for two years with two one-year renewal options. The City reserves the right to award one or more contracts for this service.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Costa Mesa is a general law city, which operates under the council/manager form of government with an annual General Fund budget of approximately over $189.9 million and a total budget of $240.10 million for fiscal year 2024-2025.

The City of Costa Mesa, incorporated in 1953, has an estimated population of 115,000 and has a land area of 16.8 square miles. It is located in the northern coastal area of Orange County, California, and is bordered by the cities of Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Irvine.

The City is a “full service city” providing a wide range of services. These services include: police and fire protection; animal control; emergency medical aid; building safety regulation and inspection; street lighting; land use planning and zoning; housing and community development; maintenance and improvement of streets and related structures; traffic safety maintenance and improvement; and full range of recreational and cultural programs.

The City of Costa Mesa is home of the Segerstrom Center for the Arts, Orange County Fairgrounds, South Coast Repertory Theater and the South Coast Plaza Shopping Center, which is the single largest commercial activity center in the City. The volume of sales generated by South Coast Plaza secures its place as the highest volume regional shopping center in the nation.

The successful Proposer, shall have experience in similar types of services. All Proposers responding to this Request for Proposal (RFP) will be evaluated on the basis of their expertise, prior experience on similar projects, demonstrated competence, ability to meet the requested services, adequate staffing, reference check, understanding of services, cost and responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the City of Costa Mesa.

1. Important Notice: The City has attempted to provide all information available. It is the responsibility of each Proposer to review, evaluate, and, where necessary, request any clarification prior to submission of a Proposal. Proposers are not to contact other City personnel with any questions or clarifications concerning this Request for Proposal (RFP). Any City response relevant to this RFP other than through or approved by City’s Purchasing Department is unauthorized and will be considered invalid.

RFP25.03.C06263

If clarification or interpretation of this solicitation is considered necessary by City, a written addendum shall be issued and the information will be posted on PlanetBids. Any interpretation of, or correction to, this solicitation will be made only by addendum issued by the City’s Purchasing Department. It is the responsibility of each Proposer to periodically check PlanetBids website to ensure that it has received and reviewed any and all addenda to this solicitation. The City will not be responsible for any other explanations, corrections to, or interpretations of the documents, including any oral information.

2. Schedule of Events: This Request For Proposal shall be governed by the following schedule:

Release of RFP October 9, 2024
Mandatory Job Walk October 23, 2024 Deadline for Written Questions October 28, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.

Responses to Questions Posted November 1, 2024
Proposals are Due November 6, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
**All dates are subject to change at the discretion of the City.

Mandatory Job Walk: A mandatory job walk will be held on October 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. All proposers shall wait in the lobby area near the elevators. A job walk is held to allow for questions and clarification concerning the City’s RFP process, scope of services and subsequent contract award. The job walk will tour City Hall at 77 Fair Drive and the neighboring Police Department Building 99 Fair Drive.

3. Proposer’s Minimum Requirements: Interested and qualified Proposers that can demonstrate their ability to successfully provide the required services outlined in Scope of Work, Appendix A, of this RFP are invited to submit a proposal, provided they meet the following requirements. All requirements must be met at the time of the proposal due date. If these requirements are not met, the proposal may not receive further consideration, as determined in the sole discretion of the City.
a. The consultant must provide five references for municipal projects of similar size and scope that have been completed within the last five years in California.

b. The Contractor shall maintain a local office with a competent representative who can be reached during normal working hours or emergencies who is authorized to make decisions on matters pertaining to this contract with the City. Office facilities that support daily operations must be within ninety (90) miles of the City.

c. All Proposers must identify the project manager, and the individual authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of the consulting firm; and provide an organization chart showing all proposed key project team members.

II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS

1. Proposal Format Guidelines: Interested entities or contractors are to provide the City of Costa Mesa with a thorough Proposal using the following guidelines: Proposal should be typed and should contain no more than 12 typed pages using a 12-point font size, including cover letter, Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, and graphic exhibits, but excluding resumes of key people and pricing forms. Each Proposal will adhere to the following order and content of sections. Proposal should RFP25.03.C06263

be straightforward, concise and provide “layman” explanations of technical terms that are used.

Emphasis should be concentrated on conforming to the RFP instructions, responding to the RFP requirements, and on providing a complete and clear description of the offer. Proposals which appear unrealistic in terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract may be rejected. The following Proposal sections are to be included in the Proposer’s response:
 Cover Letter: A cover letter, not to exceed two pages in length, should summarize key elements of the Proposal. An individual authorized to bind the Contractor must sign the letter. Indicate the address and telephone number of the contractor’s office located nearest to Costa Mesa, California, and the office from which the project will be managed. And include proposed working relationship among the offering agency and subcontractors, if applicable.


Background and Project Summary Section: The Background and Project Summary Section should describe your understanding of the City, the work to be done, and the objectives to be accomplished. Refer to Scope of Work, Appendix A of this RFP.

 Project Approach and Methodology: Provide a detailed description of the approach and methodology that will be used to fulfill each requirement listed in the Scope of Work of this RFP. The section should include:

1. Describes familiarity of project and demonstrates understanding of work and project objectives moving forward.

2. Detailed description of efforts your firm will undertake to achieve client satisfaction and to satisfy the requirements of the "Scope of Work" section.

3. Detailed project schedule, identifying all tasks and deliverables to be performed, durations for each task, and overall time of completion.

4. Identifies the project’s potential issues and response to them.

5. Proposers are encouraged to provide additional innovative and/or creative approaches for providing the service that will maximize efficient, safe, and cost- effective operations or increased performance capabilities. 
Qualifications & Experience of the Firm : Describe the qualifications and experience of the organization or entity performing services/projects within the past eight years that are similar in size and scope to demonstrate competence to perform these services. Information shall include:

1. Relevant experience, specific qualifications, and technical expertise of the firm and sub-consultants to provide design services.

2. Proposed team members, as demonstrated by enclosed resumes, have relevant experience for their role in the project.

3. Overall organization of the team is relevant to City of Costa Mesa needs.

RFP25.03.C06263

4. Team is managed by an individual with appropriate experience in similar project. This person's time is appropriately committed to this project.

5. Team structure provides adequate capability to perform both volume and quality of needed work within project schedule milestones.

6. If the owner is a corporation please provide: Name of corporation, corporate office street address, city, state, and zip code, state where incorporated, date of incorporation, first and last name of officers, local office address, city, state & zip, and the date local office opened its doors for business.

7. If the owner is a partnership or joint venture, please provide: Name of partnership or joint venture, principal office street address, city, state, and zip code, state of organization, date of organization, first and last name of general partner(s), local office address, city, state, and zip code, and date local office opened its doors for.

8. Provide a list of current and previous contracts similar to the requirements for this project in Costa Mesa, including all public agencies served (if any). For each, provide a brief description of the scope of work performed, the length of time you have been providing services, and the name, title, and telephone number of the person who may be contacted regarding your organization’s service record. Provide a sample of each background investigation for each contract.

9. Submit a description of the organization’s qualifications, experience and abilities that make it uniquely capable to provide the services specified in the Scope of Work.  Financial Capacity: The City is concerned about proposers’ financial capability to perform, and therefore, is requesting copies of audited financials from the pass three years to allow an evaluation of firm’s financial capabilities.


Key Personnel: It is essential that the Proposer provide adequate experienced personnel, capable of and devoted to the successful accomplishment of work to be performed under this contract. The Proposer must agree to assign specific individuals to the key positions.

o Identify the members of the staff who would be assigned to act for Proposer’s firm in key management and filed positions providing the services described in the Proposal, and the functions to be performed by each.

o Include resumes or curriculum vitae of each such staff member, including name, position, telephone number, email address, education, and years and type of relevant experience.

 Cost Proposal: Provide a fee schedule/pricing information for the project including identifying the specific assigned personnel, their hourly rates and their number of hours, and the cost for each work task/deliverable as described in the Scope of Work. If work tasks or deliverable are proposed that are not specifically listed in the City’s Scope of Work, please identify those costs as separate and optional. Proposals shall be valid for a minimum of 180 days following submission.

RFP25.03.C06263

 Disclosure: Please disclose any and all past or current business and personal relationships with any current Costa Mesa elected official, appointed official, City employee, or family member of any current Costa Mesa elected official, appointed official, or City employee. Any past or current business relationship may not disqualify the firm from consideration.  Sample Professional Service Agreement: The firm selected by the City will be required to execute a Professional Service Agreement with the City. A sample of the Agreement is enclosed as Appendix B, but may be modified to suit the specific services and needs of the City. If a Proposer has any exceptions or conditions to the Agreement, these must be submitted for consideration with the Proposal. Otherwise, the Proposer will be deemed to have accepted the form of Agreement.
 Checklist of Forms to Accompany Proposal: As a convenience to Proposers, following is a list of the forms, Appendix C included in this RFP, which should be included with Proposals:

1. Vendor Application Form

2. Company Profile & References

3. Ex Parte Communications Certificate

4. Disclosure of Government Positions

5. Disqualifications Questionnaire

6. Bidder/Applicant/Contractor Campaign Contribution

2. Process for Submitting Proposals:
 Content of Proposal: The Proposal must be submitted using the format as indicated in the Proposal format guidelines.

 Preparation of Proposal: Each Proposal shall be prepared simply and economically, avoiding the use of elaborate promotional material beyond those sufficient to provide a complete, accurate and reliable presentation.

 Cost for Preparing Proposal: The cost for developing the Proposal is the sole responsibility of the Proposer. All Proposals submitted become the property of the City.

Cost proposal shall be submitted in a separate file containing the following:

 Cover letter stating the hourly rates of the proposed key personnel.

 The cost shall depict individual project tasks, work hours, and basic hourly rates for specific personnel to be used on the project. Personnel hourly rates will reflect all costs for office overhead, including direct and indirect costs. The fee proposal shall reflect all anticipated fee increases during the contract duration. 
Forms to Accompany Proposal: Appendix C forms shall be attached at the end of the Proposal with the exception of the Cost Proposal which shall be submitted in a separate file.

 Number of Proposals: Submit one (1) PDF file format copy of your proposal in sufficient detail for thorough evaluation and comparative analysis.

RFP25.03.C06263

 Submission of Proposals: Complete written Proposals must be submitted electronically in PDF file format via the planetbids.com website not later than 2:00 p.m. (P.S.T) on November 6, 2024. Proposals will not be accepted after this deadline. Proposals received after the scheduled closing time will not be accepted. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Proposer to see that the proposal is received in proper time. Faxed or e-mailed Proposals will not be accepted. NO EXCEPTIONS.

 Inquiries: Questions about this RFP must be posted in the Q & A tab on Planetbids no later than October 28, 2024, at 11:00 A.M . The City reserves the right not to answer all questions.

The City reserves the right to amend or supplement this RFP prior to the Proposal due date.

All addendum(s), responses to questions received, and additional information will be posted to the Costa Mesa Procurement Registry, Costa Mesa-Official City Web Site, Business-Bids & RFP's. Proposers should check this web page daily for new information. From the date that this RFP is issued until a firm or entity is selected and the selection is announced, firms or public entities are not allowed to communicate outside the process set forth in this RFP with any City employee other than the contracting officer listed above regarding this RFP.

The City reserves the right to reject any Proposal for violation of this provision. No questions other than posted on Planetbids will be accepted, and no response other than written will be binding upon the City.

 Conditions for Proposal Acceptance: This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract or to pay any costs incurred for any services. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to accept or reject any or all Proposals received as a result of this RFP, to negotiate with any qualified source(s), or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety. The City may waive any irregularity in any Proposal. All Proposals will become the property of the City of Costa Mesa, USA. If any proprietary information is contained in the Proposal, it should be clearly identified.

 Insurance & W-9 Requirements: Upon recommendation of contract award, Contractor will be required to submit the following documents with ten (10) days of City notification, unless otherwise specified in the solicitation:

 Insurance - City requires that licensees, lessees, and vendors have an approved Certificate of Insurance (not a declaration or policy) or proof of legal self-insurance on file with the City for the issuance of a permit or contract. Within ten (10) consecutive calendar days of award of contract, successful Bidder must furnish the City with the Certificates of Insurance proving coverage as specified in the sample contract.

 W-9 – Current signed form W-9 (Taxpayer Identification Umber & Certification) which includes Contractor’s legal business name(s).

3. Evaluation Criteria: The City’s evaluation and selection process will be conducted in accordance with Chapter V, Article 2 of the City's Municipal Code (Code). In accordance with the Code, the responsive responsible proposer shall be determined based on evaluation of qualitative factors in addition to cost. At all times during the evaluation process, the following criteria will be used. Sub-criteria are not necessarily listed in order of importance. Additional sub- RFP25.03.C06263

criteria that logically fit within a particular evaluation criteria may also be considered even if not specified below.

1. Project Approach & Methodology -------40 %

2. Qualifications & Experience of the Firm -------30 %

3. Key Personnel ----20%

4. Cost Proposal ----10 %

4. Evaluation of Proposals and Selection Process: In accordance with its Municipal Code, the City will adhere to the following procedures in evaluating Proposals. An Evaluation Committee, which may include members of the City's staff and possibly one or more outside experts, will screen and review all Proposals according to the weighted criteria set forth above.

While price is one basic factor for award, it is not the sole consideration.

A. Responsiveness Screening : Proposals will first be screened to ensure responsiveness to the RFP. The City may reject as non-responsive any Proposal that does not include the documents required to be submitted by this RFP. At any time during the evaluation process, the City reserves the right to request clarifications or additional information from any or all Proposers regarding their Proposals.

B. Initial Proposal Review: The Committee will initially review and score all responsive written Proposals based upon the Evaluation Criteria set forth above. The Committee may also contact Proposer's references. Proposals that receive the highest evaluation scores may be invited to the next stage of the evaluation process. The City may reject any Proposal in which a Proposer’s approach, qualifications, or price is not considered acceptable by the City. An unacceptable Proposal is one that would have to be substantially rewritten to make it acceptable. The City may conclude the evaluation process at this point and recommend award to the lowest responsible bidder. Alternatively, the City may elect to negotiate directly with one or more Proposers to obtain the best result for the City prior to making a recommendation or selection.

C. Interviews, Reference Checks, Revised Proposals, Discussions: Following the initial screening and review of Proposals, the Proposers included in this stage of the evaluation process may be invited to participate in an oral interview. Interviews, if held, are tentatively scheduled for the week of December 2nd and will be conducted at City of Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. The dates are subject to change. The individual(s) from the Proposer’s organization that will be directly responsible for carrying out the contract, if awarded, should be present at the oral interview. The oral interview may, but is not required to, use a written question/answer format for the purpose of clarifying the intent of any portions of the Proposal.

In addition to conducting an oral interview, the City may during this stage of the evaluation process also contact and evaluate the Proposer’s references, contact any Proposer to clarify any response or request revised or additional information, contact RFP25.03.C06263

any current users of a Proposer’s services, solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a Proposal, and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.

Following conclusion of this stage of the evaluation process, the Committee will again rank all Proposers according to the evaluation criteria set forth above. The Committee may conclude the evaluation process at this point, and make a recommendation for an award, or it may request Best and Final Offers from Proposers. The City may accept the Proposal or negotiate the terms and conditions of the agreement with the highest ranked organization. The City may recommend an award without Best and Final Offers, so Proposers should include their best Proposal with their initial submission.

Recommendation for award is contingent upon the successful negotiation of final contract terms. Negotiations shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure to competing Proposers unless an agreement is reached. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully within a time period determined by the City, the City may terminate negotiations and commence negotiations with the next highest scoring Proposer or withdraw the RFP.

5. Protests : Failure to comply with the rules set forth herein may result in rejection of the protest.

Any proposals awarded pursuant to the formal procurement procedure set forth in the Proposal procedure may be appealed in accordance with the following procedure:
• The Proposer shall file the written notice of appeal with the purchasing officer at least ten (10) working days prior to proposal award date specified in the notice of recommendation to award.
• The written notice of appeal must include specifics as to the nature of the appeal. • The Proposer must provide any and all documentation to support the appeal. • The purchasing officer will respond in writing to the Proposer within five (5) working days.
• In the event the appeal is denied by the purchasing officer, the Proposer may appeal the purchasing officer’s ruling to the city council at the next available council meeting.

6. Accuracy of Proposals: Proposers shall take all responsibility for any errors or omissions in their Proposals. Any discrepancies in numbers or calculations shall be interpreted to reflect the cost to the City.

If prior to contract award, a Proposer discovers a mistake in their Proposal which renders the Proposal unwilling to perform under any resulting contract, the Proposer must immediately notify the facilitator and request to withdraw the Proposal. It shall be solely within the City's discretion as to whether withdrawal will be permitted. If the solicitation contemplated evaluation and award of "all or none" of the items, then any withdrawal must be for the entire Proposal. If the solicitation provided for evaluation and award on a line item or combination of items basis, the City may consider permitting withdrawal of specific line item(s) or combination of items.

7. Responsibility of Proposers: The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by potential Contractors in the preparation or submission of their Proposals. Pre-contractual expenses are RFP25.03.C06263

not to be included in the Contractor’s Pricing Sheet. Pre-contractual expenses are defined as, including but not limited to, expenses incurred by Proposer in:

 Preparing Proposal in response to this RFP;
 Submitting that Proposal to the City;
 Negotiating with the City any matter related to the Proposal; and,  Any other expenses incurred by the Proposer prior to the date of the award and execution, if any, of the contract.

8. Confidentiality: The California Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. Code Sections 6250 et seq.) mandates public access to government records. Therefore, unless information is exempt from disclosure by law, the content of any request for explanation, exception, or substitution, response to this RFP, protest, or any other written communication between the City and Proposer, shall be available to the public. The City intends to release all public portions of the Proposals following the evaluation process at such time as a recommendation is made to the City Council.

If Proposer believes any communication contains trade secrets or other proprietary information that the Proposer believes would cause substantial injury to the Proposer’s competitive position if disclosed, the Proposer shall request that the City withhold from disclosure the proprietary information by marking each page containing such proprietary information as confidential.

Proposer may not designate its entire Proposal as confidential nor designate its Price Proposal as confidential.

Submission of a Proposal shall indicate that, if Proposer requests that the City withhold from disclosure information identified as confidential, and the City complies with the Proposer’s request, Proposer shall assume all responsibility for any challenges resulting from the non- disclosure, indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all damages (including but not limited to attorney’s fees and costs that may be awarded to the party requesting the Proposer information), and pay any and all costs and expenses related to the withholding of Proposer information. Proposer shall not make a claim, sue, or maintain any legal action against the City or its directors, officers, employees, or agents concerning the disclosure, or withholding from disclosure, of any Proposer information. If Proposer does not request that the City withhold from disclosure information identified as confidential, the City shall have no obligation to withhold the information from disclosure and may release the information sought without any liability to the City.

9. Ex Parte Communications: Proposers and Proposers’ representatives should not communicate with the City Council members about this RFP. In addition, Proposers and Proposers’ representatives should not communicate outside the procedures set forth in this RFP with an officer, employee or agent of the City, including any member of the evaluation panel, with the exception of the RFP Facilitator, regarding this RFP until after Contract Award.

Proposers and their representatives are not prohibited, however, from making oral statements or presentations in public to one or more representatives of the City during a public meeting.

A "Proposer" or "Proposer's representative" includes all of the Proposer's employees, officers, directors, consultants and agents, any subcontractors or suppliers listed in the Proposer's Proposal, and any individual or entity who has been requested by the Proposer to contact the City on the Proposer's behalf. Proposers shall include the Ex Parte Communications Form, Appendix C with their Proposals certifying that they have not had or directed prohibited communications as described in this section.

RFP25.03.C06263

10. Conflict of Interest: The Proposer warrants and represents that it presently has no interest and agrees that it will not acquire any interest which would present a conflict of interest under California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq., or Sections 87100 et seq., during the performance of services under any Agreement awarded. The Proposer further covenants that it will not knowingly employ any person having such an interest in the performance of any Agreement awarded. Violation of this provision may result in any Agreement awarded being deemed void and unenforceable.

11. Disclosure of Governmental Position : In order to analyze possible conflicts that might prevent a Proposer from acting on behalf of the City, the City requires that all Proposers disclose in their Proposals any positions that they hold as directors, officers, or employees of any governmental entity. Additional disclosure may be required prior to contract award or during the term of the contract. Each Proposer shall disclose whether any owner or employee of the firm currently hold positions as elected or appointed officials, directors, officers, or employees of a governmental entity or held such positions in the past twelve months using the attached Disclosure of Government Positions Form, Appendix C.

12. Conditions to Agreement: The selected Proposer will execute a Professional Service Agreement for Services with the City describing the Scope of Services to be performed, the schedule for completion of the services, compensation, and other pertinent provisions. The contract shall follow the sample form of Agreement provided as Appendix B to this RFP, which may be modified by the City.

All Proposers are directed to particularly review the indemnification and insurance requirements set forth in the sample Agreement. The terms of the agreement, including insurance requirements have been mandated by the City and can be modified only if extraordinary circumstances exist.

Submittal of a Proposal shall be deemed acceptance of all the terms set forth in this RFP and the sample agreement for services unless the Proposer includes with its Proposal, in writing, any conditions or exceptions requested by the Proposer to the proposed Agreement.

13. Disqualification Questionnaire: Proposers shall complete and submit, under penalty of perjury, a standard form of questionnaire inquiring whether a Proposer, any officer of a proposer, or any employee of a Proposer who has a proprietary interest in the Proposer, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from proposing on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or safety regulation and if so, to explain the circumstances. A Proposal may be rejected on the basis of a Proposer, any officer or employee of such Proposer, having been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from proposing on, or completing a federal, state, or local project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation, Appendix C.

14. Standard Terms and Conditions: The City reserves the right to amend or supplement this RFP prior to the Proposal due date. All addendum(s) and additional information will be posted via PlanetBids. Proposers should check this web page daily for new information.

RFP25.03.C06263

Appendix A

Scope of Services
The Facilities Master Plan aims to provide the City with information regarding current and future facility needs and establish a framework for the orderly growth of City services, administration, and community programs. The goal of the Facilities Master Plan is to evaluate the condition of City owned facilities, assess their ability to meet the needs of current services, anticipate growth and future service delivery requirements, analyze gaps in providing services, identify any existing or potential problems that could affect the building’s performance or integrity, and create an action plan to address these issues. The finalized plan will provide recommendations with cost estimates to guide future decisions, timelines, and steps forward in delivering city services. Ultimately, this effort will improve program and service efficiencies, streamline workflows, and modernize facilities to position the City for effective municipal administration in the years ahead.

The Scope of Services for the Facilities Master Plan includes three (3) primary phases.

Phase 1: Facility Condition Assessment Evaluations
Phase 2: Assessment of Future Space Needs and Gap Analysis Phase 3: Development of Cost Estimates and Funding Strategies - Implementation Plan

The final deliverables will be three-fold, consisting of: a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan report in alignment with the City’s short-term, interim, and long-term vision and strategies; all related assessments, evaluations, options and recommendations; and a clear financial plan with a detailed cost estimate and funding strategies.

The City will provide the necessary information and support for the Project, and Consultant will facilitate regular meetings with the City’s Project Manager and/or Management Team, as designated by the City, to discuss the project’s progress and receive direction.

General

1. City Facilities Lists – Specific Sites Included and Excluded . The intent of the Scope of Services is to develop a Facilities Master Plan for all City owned facilities. The specific facilities relevant to Phases 1 through 3 are listed in Attachment 1 (“City Facilities to be Evaluated”) and shown on the map in Attachment 2 (“Location of City Facilities to be Evaluated”).

2. Additional Scope . The City reserves the exclusive right to amend an agreement entered into between the City and Consultant to add certain qualifying services to the Scope of Services for an additional cost, as mutually agreed upon in writing between the City and Consultant.

3. City’s Obligations . The City shall provide the following for the Project as needed:
a. Project Manager capable of rendering decisions on behalf of the Project in a timely manner. b. As available, any information about:
i. Existing site and floor plans for each of the facilities listed in Attachment 1. ii. Relevant previous studies prepared by or for the City of Costa Mesa. iii. Relevant community development information, including current and projected populations.
iv. Services of other specialized consultants, such as specialist engineering consultants, if mutually agreed upon.
v. Any other information that is reasonably needed for the Project.

4. Regular Meetings. During each Phase of the Project, Consultant and the City’s Project Manager and/or Project Management Team and other relevant City Staff, as may be identified by the City, shall meet at regular, recurring intervals at a frequency sufficient to fulfill the needs of the Project on task and on time.

Action items, summaries of decisions, design direction, and establishment of project requirements may be communicated and documented through written meeting minutes and emails.

Phase 1: Evaluation of Existing Facilities’ Conditions
Consultant shall:

RFP25.03.C06263

1. Facilitate kickoff meeting(s) with the City’s Project Manager and/or Project Management Team to review the Project, including, but not limited to: Project goals and objectives, the Scope of Services, Consultant’s proposed schedule and costs, and confirm project management and communications tools and protocols.

2. Review City-provided documents, including existing site and floor plans for each of the facilities; relevant previous studies (e.g., organizational, staffing, facility studies); relevant community development information, including current and projected populations; and conduct a Tier 1 Seismic Assessment on certain buildings to determine compliance.

3. Provide a Facility Condition Assessment Evaluation for each facility listed in Attachment 1, to include, at minimum, the following information:
a. Site and infrastructure
b. Exterior systems including structural frame, building envelope, wall evaluation, curtain wall, and roofing
c. Mechanical/HVAC, electrical lighting, plumbing
d. Fire protection and life safety
e. Elevators, vertical transportation as well as specialized systems and equipment f. Interior elements, food service spaces and equipment g. Limited accessibility compliance
h. Environmental features, lead based paint and asbestos i. Energy conservation analysis
j. Structural components and seismic compliance

4. Assessment of maintenance efforts to date compared with preventative maintenance recommendations including minimum day-to-day maintenance and associated costs based on industry standards. The Consultant will confirm all sources of existing data with the City’s Project Manager or its designated City staff and where applicable will provide existing studies and reports to be included in the Facility Conditions Assessment report.

5. Comprehensive inspections will be limited to observable areas and systems as well as utilizing input from City staff regarding details of current conditions and facilities background. Inspectors will gather information for each property regarding the building systems components, characteristics, quantity, installation date, life cycle current condition, and level of repair necessary to achieve optimal condition.

6. Prepare a draft Facilities Condition Assessment Report for the City’s review and comment. Consultant will incorporate the City’s comments and prepare a final Facilities Condition Assessment Report.

7. Meetings:
a. City Project Management meetings
b. Facilities tour for all City facilities listed in Attachment 1

8. Deliverables:
a. Implementation plan and schedule for Phase 1
b. Facility Condition Assessment draft and final report for all City facilities in Attachment 1, including a maintenance manual for each facility.
c. Meeting agendas, exhibits, and summary notes for all meetings with the City’s Project Manager and/or the Project Management Team, as designated by the City Phase 2: Assessment of Future Space Needs and Gap Analysis Consultant shall:

1. Conduct an analysis of the City’s existing operations at all current City owned facilities, gaining an in- depth understanding of current services, programs, and operations. Tour City facilities with the City’s Project Manager or other knowledgeable staff, as may be designated by the City, to become generally familiar with the City’s staff and program scheduling opportunities and the constraints of each building.

The City’s expectation for Consultant to physically tour every City owned facility is limited to only those listed in Attachment 1.

2. Measure the facilities current utilization and intended role and whether it is over or underutilized in its current use and capacity. Note the ability of each facility to serve not only its current needs but also its ability to accommodate the number of employees housed.

RFP25.03.C06263

3. Summarize industry standards, trends, and industry best practices in community programs and services including, discussing opportunities for operations and facility efficiencies and other benefits, and compiling recommendations aligned with City goals. Compare and analyze communities of similar size and density, using both regional and national accepted standards, to better understand how the City of Costa Mesa compares.

4. Review the City’s projected growth and assess the demand for services.

5. Prepare a department staff space needs survey. The City staff survey will give greater insight regarding current and projected department staffing; current and anticipated future services and work trends; inter-department collaboration needs and goals and current and future participation rates of residents in City services.

6. Work with City department staff through the City’s Project Manager or the Project Management Team, as designated by the City, at meetings, interviews and surveys to review and confirm information about current and projected use, space needs and staffing levels for each facility and new development within the City that may impact service and staffing needs and any known deficiencies currently affecting these needs.

7. Compile and summarize the results of the survey for the City’s Project Manager or the Project Management Team’s review. Conduct follow-up interviews (in person or via web conference) with key department representatives to confirm our understanding of current and future organizational, service, staffing, and program needs and trends that will shape the development of the facilities’ options.

8. Summarize current space allocations and prepare a draft Space Needs Assessment Report of current and projected space and adjacency needs for each City facility for the City’s review and comment.

Incorporate City feedback into a final Space Needs Assessment Report.

9. Meetings:
a. City Project Management meetings
b. Department interviews

10. Deliverables:
a. Program inventory and analysis
b. Draft and final Survey and survey instruments
c. Draft and final Space Needs Assessment Report
d. Meeting agendas, exhibits, and summary notes for city Project Management meetings Phase 3: Development of Cost Estimates and Funding Strategies – Implementation Plan Consultants shall:

1. Develop a project budget reflecting the recommended option(s) including a rough order of magnitude cost, proposed phases/timelines and associated next steps, as appropriate.

2. Prepare an implementation plan summarizing the project process, evaluation, analysis, and recommendations, for the City’s review and comment. The plan will contain all necessary elements including issues and challenges, strategies, analysis of budget support and funding mechanics to meet the City’s short-term, interim, and long-term vision.

3. Incorporate the City’s comments and prepare a final Implementation Plan

4. Prepare a presentation to City Council of the draft and final Implementation Plan summarizing the process, recommendations, and next steps for review and approval.

5. Meetings:
a. City Project Management meetings
b. City Council presentation(s)

6. Deliverables:
a. Comparative Cost Estimates and Funding Strategies
b. Implementation Plan
c. City Council presentation exhibits
d. Meeting agendas, exhibits, and summary notes for City Project Management meetings and the City Council Meetings

RFP25.03.C06263

ATTACHMENT 1

City Facilities to be Evaluated

BUILDING ADDRESS FLOORS YEAR
BUILT SQ. FT.

Balearic Community Center 1975 Balearic Drive 1 1965 7,680 City Hall - Civic Center 77 Fair Drive 6 1965 73,341
City Hall - Basement 77 Fair Drive

1965 3,800
City Hall - 1st Floor 77 Fair Drive

1965 14,783
City Hall - 2nd Floor 77 Fair Drive

1965 6,464
City Hall - 3rd Floor 77 Fair Drive

1965 6,464
City Hall - 4th Floor 77 Fair Drive

1965 6,464
City Hall - 5th Floor 77 Fair Drive

1965 6,413
Communications Center 79 Fair Drive 1 1981 7,960
Corp Yard Bldg A 2310 Placentia Avenue 1 1989 17,976
Corp Yard Bldg B 2310 Placentia Avenue 1 1989 7,248
Corp Yard Canopy 2310 Placentia Avenue 1 1989 6,004
Corp Yard Warehouse/Fleet 2300 Placentia Avenue 1 1966 23,068 CM Tennis Ctr - Pro Shop 880 Junipero 1 1962-1973 1,025 CM Tennis Ctr - Patio Cover 880 Junipero 1 1962-1973 451 Downtown Recreation Center 1860 Anaheim Avenue 1 2001 19,450 Fire Station #3 1865 Park Avenue 2 1979 6,486
Fire Station #4 2300 Placentia Avenue 1 1967 5,973
Fire Station #5 2450 Vanguard 2 1988 6,500
Fire Station #6 3350 Sakioka Drive 2 1992 9,200
Historical Society Bldg 1870 Anaheim Avenue 1 1980 4,000 Mesa Verde Library 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East 2 1965 5,888 Police Facility 99 Fair Drive 3 1967 50,646
Police Helipad 99 Fair Drive 1 1986 2,464
Police Substation 567 W. 18th Street 1 1958 8,639
Senior Center 695 W. 19th Street 2 1992 20,127

RFP25.03.C06263

ATTACHMENT 2

Location of City Facilities to be Evaluated

EXHIBIT B

CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL

Facilities Master Plan
Response to Request for Proposal (RFP)
August 14, 2024

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Cover Letter
p.01
Background & Project
Summary Section
p.03
Project Approach &
Methodology
p.04
Qualifications & Experience
p.17
Key Personnel
p.28
Financial Capacity
p.38
Cost Proposal
Submitted as a separate attachment per the RFP
Disclosure
p.39
Sample Professional
Service Agreement
p.39
Checklist of Forms
p.40
Contents
August 14, 2024
Stephanie Urueta
Buyer
City of Costa Mesa
Subject: Response to Request for Proposal (RFP No. 25-03) for the City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
Dear Stephanie:

Representing Gensler and its partners, Bureau Veritas, and KPJ Consulting, I am excited to bring our experience in long-range facilities master planning to the City of Costa Mesa. We have studied your Request for Proposal and understand that you are looking for a multi-disciplined team with a broad expertise in public agency facilities assessments and facilities master planning to develop the City’s Facilities Master Plan.

Deep Expertise
In response, we have assembled a team led out of Gensler’s Los Angeles office- with additional expertise from our Denver and Newport Beach offices to help you meet your planning goals. In addition to Gensler as the prime contract holder, we are joined by our longstanding partners Bureau Veritas (facility condition assessments), and KPJ Consulting (cost estimating). This team has worked together on similar facilities master plans across California for nearly 20 years. We know each other well and have developed a “shorthand” that will lead to an efficient and comprehensive engagement with Costa Mesa. We know how to integrate the work from each phase of the project to complete a comprehensive and actionable plan. Together, we believe you will find our collective experience and expertise hard to beat when measured against our competition.

Deep Experience
Over the last 20 years our firm has prepared similar plans cities and counties across the western US, including Los Angeles, Orange, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, and San Bernardino. In addition, several of our clients with particularly large departments have asked us to do follow-up studies stemming from recommendations made in the larger plans, as well as specialized studies, such as civic center plans. Our references will share how we marry this experience and expertise with a collaborative approach to our work. We keep our client’s goals at the forefront of our work and we work well within the parameters of the public sector. 4675 MacArthur Court
Suite 100
Newport Beach CA 92660
Tel 949.863.9434
Cover Letter
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
1 Tested Project Approach
In the project approach and methodology section, we outline the process that we have refined over time and used successfully in our past projects. Bureau Veritas has completed thousands of facilities assessments with a tested process and standards tools and reporting as required in phase 2. Gensler will lead phases 2 and 3, bringing in the findings from Bureau Veritas’ work and bringing in our data collection and engagement process to clearly outline the context for the plan and develop scenarios to review with the city. Finally, we will continue to work with all of our partners to evaluate options and determine funding strategies to implement the plan.

We know that you will have several qualified firms from which to choose. One of the special advantages we bring is that we are passionate about working with our local communities, which has created on-going relationship with our city and county clients.

They are always willing to share their knowledge and insights with us, and, by extension with you. We enjoy a collegial rapport and find that lessons learned by others often add an important dimension to our planning efforts.

In the pages that follow, we invite you to get acquainted with the quality of our work and the capacity of our team. Feel free to reach out to either Kevin Rosenstein or Paul Natzke if you have questions or need additional information. As Principal, Kevin Rosenstein is authorized to bind Gensler. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Cover Letter
Kevin Rosenstein
Principal
(213) 243-8841
[email protected]
Paul Natzke
Project Director
(213) 243-8841
[email protected]
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
2 Background
& Project
Summary
We understand that the City of Costa Mesa
(“City”) is looking to develop a long-term
Facilities Master Plan (“FMP”) that will provide
the City with information on current and future
facility conditions and needs and establish a
framework for the orderly growth of City services,
administration, and community programs. This
framework will serve as a roadmap for strategic
objectives, service delivery, and utilization of City
real estate and facility assets. The FMP will help
guide the effective use of the current real estate
portfolio as well as plan for the development of
future facilities. The FMP will also help define
cost projections that will provide a basis for
project expenditures and updates to your capital
improvements planning. Critical to this process
will be an initial investigation into the functional
needs of the departments who occupy City
facilities, as well as the services they deliver to
the community.

Background & Project Summary Section
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
3 Project Approach and Methodology
Project Approach
& Methodology
We have reviewed your Request for Proposal and your
proposed tasks and have developed a comprehensive
project approach, outlined below. We will draw upon
our team’s collective experience working with many
California municipalities performing similar strategic
facilities planning studies. From this experience we
know the value of bringing a well-defined process that
can be customized to the particular situations of each
City, in terms of areas of focus and priorities.

Early on in the study, we will develop a set of
consensus-driven guiding principles to help ensure
our emerging recommendations are aligned with your
goals and priorities. We will craft the final strategic facilities plan report to best reflect these principles.

Our approach assumes the creation of two main
sets of project stakeholders:
• City Project Team: This group is comprised of the key “day to day” members of both the City and Gensler
teams. They will meet regularly to guide the project,
discuss schedules, help clear hurdles, and provide
general oversight as we move through the study.
• City Steering Committee: If one has not yet been
identified, we strongly recommend creating a
Steering Committee. The Steering Committee
should be comprised of senior City decision-
makers (typically minus the City Council Members)
who we will present to several times during the
study at key milestones to ensure that issues are
thoroughly addressed and decisions made before
proceeding from one phase to the next and that
we are building to specific, actionable conclusions
rather than continuing to investigate a multitude
of directions, which only expends time, energy, and
funds. The makeup of the group can include any
combination of the City Manager and department
heads. Alternatively, and to reduce the size of the
group, representatives from each of logical grouping
of departments could be identified and asked to
participate. In either case, this will be an important
role in the life of the project, one we consider critical to its success.

Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
4 Scope
We estimate approximately seven months to complete
the project, reflected in our scope below. This duration is based on our experience preparing similar facilities master plans for California municipalities and the
amount of analysis, stakeholder engagement, and
work required to produce a comprehensive report.

Please know that we are eager to partner with you
in this important planning effort. We look forward to
discussing this scope with you in detail and tailoring it to best fit your goals, budget, and expectations.

PHASE 1: PROJECT STARTUP
3 weeks
The first step of the proposed process allows our team
to collect and review pertinent background materials,
confirm a process and data collection methodology,
and create the project vision. The first phase is
intended to provide a mutual understanding of the
process and desired outcomes and ensure that all
expectations are aligned.

1.1. TEAM ORGANIZATION
The core project leaders will complete general project
start-up activities, including the identification and
commitment of other individuals from the Consultant
team and the City. During this step, the following will be established:
• Gensler Project Team - including an outline of
specific roles and responsibilities.
• City Project Team - the City’s working team who has
primary responsibility for the project, including the
City’s primary point of contact.
• City Steering Committee - the departmental liaisons
and/or senior stakeholders with whom we will
conduct working sessions throughout the project as
well as from whom we can collect and qualify macro
level data.

1.2. BACKGROUND MATERIALS COLLECTION
Working with the City’s Project Team, we will collect
relevant background materials and critical data for
review and use throughout the project. Methodologies
for acquiring requested data not immediately at-hand
will be discussed during the Kickoff Meeting. The
materials to be requested will include, but may not
be limited to:

General Information
• City of Costa Mesa strategic plans
• Department organization charts and
mission statements
• 5-year historic headcount and square footages
by department
• City budgets for the last 10 years (gathered from
public information)
• Current approved budget
• Previous related studies and reports
• Site maps, surveys, and aerial photos, as available
• GIS data files
Facilities Information
• Current department occupancy by facility
• Floor plans, CAD, PDF, or hard copy f ormat
(as needed)
• Existing workplace standards, as available
• Existing appraisals and valuations of owned f acilities • Parking locations, assignments, and stall counts
• Lease documentation for facilities and parking
• Additional information for the f acilities condition assessment (as needed and as available)
Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
5 1.3. KICK-OFF MEETING
The Kick-off Meeting provides the opportunity for our
broader project team to meet with the City Project
Team. The session is intended to be an introduction to
and confirmation of the process, as well as a facilitated discussion on the principal goals of the project.

Specific activities include reviewing and confirming
the following:
• Consensus on project goals, conditions, and
priority issues,
• Project team roles and responsibilities,
• Project management review meeting schedule (e.g.,
weekly meetings) and quality assurance tasks,
• Scope and reach of project,
• Data collection approach and process,
• Communication channels,
• Key project deadlines and milestones,
• Project deliverables,
• City Steering Committee member confirmation,
• Baseline planning assumptions,

1.4. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

FINALIZATION
Based on the preliminary review of the background
information available from the City and direction
obtained at the Kick-Off meeting, the Gensler team
will begin preparation for several parallel data
collection efforts. A detailed description of the
anticipated data collection methodology can be
found in Phase 2.

1.5. CITY STEERING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP #1
- LONG TERM VISION AND STRATEGIES SESSION
Once the project process is finalized, a Visioning
Workshop will be conducted with the City Steering
Committee. The objective is to discuss the overall
potential for the project while creating consensus
among key project participants. The intent is to
emerge from the meeting with a shared vision
of the future and a clear understanding of roles,
responsibilities, and expectations for the broader team and members of their departments. Specifically, the
meeting will provide an opportunity to align the City
Project Team and City Steering Committee visions for
the project goals, objectives, process, and outcome.

The following topics may be discussed:
• Explain the overall projec t, the research process, and expected final outcome,
• Set expectations for the required level of City
involvement,
• Discuss the issues that City and individual
departments are facing (i.e. growth/real estate
development requirements, client service
delivery changes/challenges, budget deficits/
constraints, regulatory requirements, overcrowding/
underutilization, parking, technology changes, etc.),
• Share best practice and trend research around
real estate approaches, innovative public/private
partnerships, sustainability and green energy
opportunities, space planning/workplace trends for
both the public and private sector,
• stablish preliminary guiding principles for the
Facilities Master Plan and overall goals for
the project,
• Discuss the role of “hybrid” work in the City
workforce and its impact on real estate needs.

Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
6 PHASE 2: DATA COLLECTION
8 weeks

2.1.1 FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Upon approval of the data collection methodology by
the City, our team’s facility conditions expert, Bureau Veritas (“BVTA”), will begin their assessment of the
facilities. The process will include several parallel
tracks of information and data gathering:

Data Gathering Phase
BVTA will need the support of staff who can provide
access to drawings and records. The following is a
typical list of exhibits requested:
• Inspection Reports (sewer, boiler, chiller, etc)
• Building Systems Maintenance Records
• Owner Elected Repair list (if a vailable)
• Original Building Plans (can be viewed on-sit e)
• Capital Expenditure Schedules (prior or planned)
• Fire Protection / Life Safety Plans
• Rehabilitation Budget and Scope (draft or final)
• Certificates of Occupancy / Facility License
• Prior Assessments
• Site Plan / Floor Plans
• Accessibility Transition Plans / Studies
• CMMS / IWMS Data Set
Prior to the Site Phase, BVTA will meet with City
staff to discuss facility condition data standards and
collection standards to be used for this project.

In addition to the drawings and records, BVTA will
issue a pre-survey questionnaire for each facility or
site. Our expectation is that someone with knowledge
of maintenance and operations of the facility will
complete this survey and be prepared to discuss it
with us while on-site
Site Phase
To begin the Site Phase, BVTA proposes a Pilot
Program where they will perform an assessment of
a single building and prepare a written Draft Report
for review. A meeting will be held with Client staff to review the draft report before assessing the remaining
buildings. Upon approval of the draft report, BVTA will proceed with the remaining assessments.

BVTA will need support in the form of escorts while
in the facilities to help access mechanical areas, to
discuss with us any known issues in the facility, and to answer other technical questions.

BVTA will conduct a visual assessment of both sites
and facilities to observe systems and components,
identify physical deficiencies, and formulate
recommendations to remedy the physical deficiencies
As a part of the survey, BVTA will survey 100% of each
facility, including the exterior and grounds, including the building exterior, roofs, sidewalk/pavement,
and recreational/other areas as applicable. They will
interview the building maintenance staff about the
property’s historical repairs and replacements and
their costs, level of preventive maintenance exercised, pending repairs and improvements, and frequency
of repairs and replacements. BVTA will develop
opinions based on their site assessment, interviews
with City building maintenance staff, and interviews
with relevant maintenance contractors, municipal
authorities, and experience gained on similar
properties previously evaluated.

Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
7 BVTA will observe and document all applicable
existing conditions appropriate for each component,
focusing on the following:
• Site + Infrastructure
• Topography
• Paving, Curbing, and Parking
• Flatwork
• Landscaping and Appurtenances
• Utilities
• Recreational/Community Facilities
• Structural Frame + Building Envelope
• Wall Evaluation
• Curtain Wall – As Required
• Roofing (Non-Invasive Visual)
• Plumbing
• Heating
• Air-Conditioning + Ventilation
• Electrical
• Life Safety + Fire Protection
• Elevators + Vertical Transportation
• Interior Elements
• Food Service Spaces and Equipment
• Special Systems and Equipment
• Limited Accessibility Compliance
• Suspected Fungal Growth
• Environmental Features
• Lead-based Paint
• Asbestos
• Energy Conservation Analysis

OPTIONAL
• Preventative Maintenance Routines,
Plans, and Analysis
Report Review Stage
BVTA will provide a complete deliverable for each
building, including in-depth “report cards” for each
building and summary reports from the data collected.

The summary reports include:
• Building overview
• Reserve tables (Immediate, 2-year, 5-year, 10-
year, 20-year) - Reports will include current and
anticipated repairs and deficiencies, recommended
repair and component life-cycle replacements, and
cost estimates for repair/replace recommendations.
• Capital needs breakdown (by system and plan-type)
- Capital Needs analysis will include a cost database
sorted by building system and ranked by priority
for repair. The format of the database will allow for
reporting by building, system, or priority for repair,
and a year-by-year analysis of capital needs.
• Facility Condition Index (also provided portfolio-
wide) - A Facility Condition Index will be calculated
for each building. This index will be a function of
required repairs compared to building replacement
costs. The Facility Condition Index will be generated
from the data collection/capital planning database
and will be updated as components age or are
replaced.

Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
8 OPTIONAL SERVICE

2.1.2 FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT
– TIER 1 SEISMIC ASSESSMENT
It is our understanding that a Tier 1 seismic
assessment has been requested. The governing
standard for this assessment is ASCE 41-17
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings. It is unknown if structural drawings are
currently available.

The evaluation includes the Screening Phase
(Tier 1) to assess primary components and
connections in the seismic force-resisting system
through the use of standard checklists and
simplified structural calculations. If the element is
compliant, it is anticipated to perform adequately
under seismic loading for the specified
performance objective without additional
review or strengthening. Items indicated as
noncompliant in a Tier 1 checklist are considered
potential deficiencies that require further analysis
and potentially retrofit. Further analysis is not
included in this proposal.

The performance objective is expected to be
the basic performance objective for existing
buildings (BPOE) which is typically Collapse
Prevention at a BSE-2E seismic hazard level. The
target performance objective will be confirmed
with stakeholders prior to commencing the
assessment.
• Review original construction drawings (if
available).
• Perform (1) site visit to observe existing
conditions.
• Complete the Tier 1 checklist
• Perform structural calculations as required for
Tier 1 checklist items
• Prepare a report with findings, deficiencies, and
recommendations
• Attend virtual meetings as requested to discuss
our findings
In order to complete the Tier 1 evaluation, it may
be required to create general floor plans and
elevations of the building if existing drawings
are not available. This service will be provided
in-house, or subcontracted to an appropriate
professional for this task for an add-alternate fee.

The following assumptions have been used to
develop this fee proposal.
• Existing structural drawings will be made
available for our use prior to starting
the assessment. If existing drawings are
not available, the Tier 1 assessment will
identify unknown items that require further
investigation
• A lift or ladder will be provided by others for
our use during the field investigation to provide
access to elevated areas (if required)
The following items are excluded from this fee
proposal:
• Structural drawings for any required repairs or
retrofit
• Costs associated with testing and collection of
material samples
• Remediation of existing material dilapidation,
and shoring installation
• Construction cost estimates for any required
repairs.
• No destructive or non-destructiv e testing
or removal of finishes is included, and the
evaluation will be based solely on information
provided in the
existing drawings, and observations made
during our site visit
Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
9 OPTIONAL SERVICE

2.2 EMPLOYEE SURVEY (WORKPLACE

PERFORMANCE SURVEY)
We will begin our data collection process by issuing
our proprietary Workplace Performance Survey to
City employees (or a subset thereof). This online
tool will allow your users of space to directly
tell us how their workplace does and does not
support their functional needs, both in the office
and while working from home. Gensler’s industry
leading benchmark database also allows the City
to compare the performance of its workplace
environment to other leading organizations and
provides a functional assessment baseline against
which pilot studies, future investments and
innovations can be measured.

GLOBAL WORKPLACE
SURVEY 2024
Moving beyond
employee presence
to workplace
performance
Work can—and does—happen anywhere and
everywhere today. As a result, organizations
and leaders are focused on establishing greater
intentionality for office work as they look to build
team cohesion, company culture, and business
growth, and to establish both virtual and physical
platforms for this new era of work. This requires
a close examination of how, when, and where
employees are working today and a redefinition
of the requirements for a successful workplace.

As we reimagine work and the workplace, the
future is about purpose-driven and impactful
solutions. Less than a third of workplaces have
been redesigned in the past three years according
to our Global Workplace Survey 2024 data. It’s
time to re-evaluate how we design workplaces for
office workers today. In an uncertain economic
climate, leaders need the right measures to
understand what constitutes today’s definition of
a high-performing workplace.

Acknowledging this shift, we surveyed more than
16,000 office workers across 15 countries, and
10 industries. This global study examines top
performers at individual, team, and organizational
levels, and highlights what comprises a high-
performing workplace within and beyond the
office—including findings at the scale of the
building and neighborhood. By evaluating the
workplace in its wider context, we identify where
design can elevate a workplace from good, to
great, to exceptional.

Workplace performance is no longer defined
only by building efficiency or space effectiveness,
it is also measured by the emotional response
to space: the workplace experience. This study
highlights the shift from real estate occupancy
to people-centric performance measures, with a
goal of better quantifying the design impact on
how employees work and feel in the workplace.

In doing so, it unlocks the potential to design
workplaces that can yield positive outcomes for
individuals, teams, and organizations.

It’s time to move beyond discussing employee
presence to measuring workplace performance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 INTRODUCTION

8 KEY FINDING ONE
Top performers work differently.
14 KEY FINDING TWO
Top performers have better
workplaces and better
experiences.
18 KEY FINDING THREE
The best workplaces perform
within a building and
neighborhood ecosystem.
22 CONCLUSION
26 APPENDIX
Global Workplace Survey 2024Global Workplace Survey Comparison 2023 Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
10 2.3 DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Your RFP calls developing a survey to identify
department needs. The previously mentioned
Employee Workplace Performance Survey will focus
on employee needs. The department questionnaire
will focus on department leadership perspective for
workplace needs and will be sent to a representative
from each department who is well versed in the
quantitative aspects of their respective space and
facilities. The questions posed by the survey will focus on such issues as:
• Department’s function and mission
• Services provided (both public and internal within
the City)
• Key workload indicators/drivers
• Current facility locations
• Projected departmental growth
• Primary locational requirements
• Access / circulation / security needs
• Critical adjacencies with other departments and/or
external agencies
• Client/visitor requirements
• Ability for staff to work remotely
• Ability to deliver services remot ely
• File storage / record management
• Meeting & support space requir ements
• Parking – staff & public
• Pressing/critical issues at the facility level
Once the questionnaires are completed and returned,
we will conduct follow-up meetings with each
representative to review the results and discuss any
key issues in more detail (discussed in the next task).

2.4 SENIOR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP
INTERVIEWS (up to 12)
We will conduct interviews with key department
leaders to review the completed questionnaires and
discuss high-level qualitative issues. We have assumed
one interview for each of the 10 City departments,
plus 2 additional (if necessary), but will work with the Project Team to streamline the amount of interviews,
if desired. These interactions will provide us with a
“view from the top” in terms of the major issues facing City departments. Topics will include:
• Overview and background of department and
its mission,
• Service delivery mission and issues,
• How the mission is supported / limited and wh y,
• How the service or program is delivered curr ently
and how it might be changing,
• Perception/understanding of their clients,
including any commonalities among client types
(demographic, geographic, socio-economic issues,
etc.) and/or commonalities between departments,
• Day-to-day activities and responsibilities, both
client- and non client—facing,
• Benefits/challenges of the current office locations, including relation to employee’s residence,
commute, etc.,
• External partners (community, other government
agencies) that they could team with for shared or
related services or co-location,
• Impact of emerging technology, including support of
mobile work,
• Qualitative and quantitative department needs,
• Department growth (or lack thereof) and the
reasons for it,
• Planned development projects,
• Major facilities challenges attendant to space,
parking, storage, technology, costs, etc.,
• Collocation opportunities and challenges,
centralization vs. decentralization, etc.,
• Review and clarification of survey answers.

Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
11 2.5 SITE TOURS
In conjunction with the Leadership Interviews or
as a separate effort, we will conduct tours of City
owned facilities. In preparation for the tours, we will review facility floor plans (as available) along with
building condition assessment information provided
by the City. During the tours, we will validate layout
efficiencies, suitability for the current user, vacancy, overcrowding, storage, and other relevant factors. The
results of these assessments will be factored into our
options and recommendations.

PHASE 3: ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
6 weeks
Upon completion of the data collection efforts,
the Gensler team will analyze the information and
conduct a series of interactive work sessions, both
internally and with City representatives, to synthesize the collected information. Our approach to both
internal work sessions and meetings with the Steering
Committee is to have them be as interactive, inclusive, and focused as possible. During our internal work
sessions in particular we make use of all the space as
a “war room” and work through issues in a dynamic
setting. In our meetings with the Steering Committee,
we will employ collaboration tools through which
we garner feedback and additional input as our
recommendations take shape.

3.1 CITY SERVICE POPULATION AND GROWTH

PROJECTION
To assist in the process of identifying future city
staffing and space needs, we will complete a
demographic analysis of the service population and
future growth trends. Historical relationships between
city staffing levels and the overall service population of Costa Mesa will be described. Statistical analysis will provide perspective on historical growth patterns and
factors contributing to city headcount growth. Any
available forecasts of future population, household,
and employment growth within Costa Mesa will be
reviewed. We will then prepare a long-term projection
of service population in Costa Mesa.

3.2 STAFFING PROJECTIONS
To assist in the process of developing useful forecasts for City space, we will then perform an analysis of
the relationship between historic City employment
and overall population trends. This will give us
the historical perspective on growth. We will then
compare this trend to the headcount projections
provided by departments in our department
questionnaire. If the two methods show different
results, we will discuss the gap during our Findings
Workshop and arrive at a supported growth rate.

Appropriate space standards will be developed based
on current trends and benchmark and applied to the
employee growth forecasts to yield estimated square
footage requirements.

3.3 DEMAND AND SUPPLY GAP ANALY SIS
One of our initial tasks will be to outline the gaps
between the existing City supply of facilities and the
demands for space dictated by department operations
and growth. This analysis will be one of the key
drivers in determining the future direction of the City portfolio as we develop master planning options in
the next phase. Among other aspects, we will evaluate
the potential impact of continued work from home,
and how that impacts the amount of space required to
house City employees.

3.4. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND SYNTHE SIS
During this activity we will incorporate what we
learned from the Project Team Meeting into our
analysis. We will also augment what has been learned
to date with any additional reconnaissance at City
facilities, with specific departments or in further
researching relevant workplace and service delivery
trends.

3.5 CITY STEERING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
#2: FINDINGS
We will facilitate a second meeting with the Steering
Committee to present our findings culled from the
activities to date. The meeting will focus on of the
results of the Facilities Condition Assessments,
activities conducted in Phase 2, the current supply
of City facilities, the demand for space based on our
Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
12 questionnaire, interviews, and programming, and
the gap between supply and demand as expressed
in facility needs. Input from the Steering Committee
during this meeting will help our team begin to
formulate options and scenarios in the next phase.
(This workshop will be a presentation of the findings
and is intended to be informational and can be held
virtually).

PHASE 4: OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT
8 weeks
This phase sets the framework for the City Facilities
Master Plan by pulling together all information
obtained in the previous tasks into and presenting City stakeholders.

4.1 DEVELOP SUITABLE AL TERNATIVES
Based on the feedback obtained from the 2nd Steering
Committee Workshop, we will develop up to three
(3) planning options that address site, programmatic
and facility issues. Staff growth and corresponding
space needs, and critical adjacencies and separations,
infrastructure and parking will be all illustrated in
a series of summary diagrams that both capture
the existing conditions and convey growth across
the 10-year planning horizon and are responsive to
service delivery needs. High level costs will be used
at this point of the options development as a scale
of “highest to lowest cost”. The intent of holding off
on detailed cost estimates at this point is to ensure
the options are analyzed through the lenes of the
future needs of the City. (Once an option is approved,
detailed cost estimates will be provided.) The “pros
and cons” of each scenario will also be identified. The following aspects will be considered:
• Potential new building location(s)
• Parking
• Facility condition
• Security
• Potential “hybrid” work model
• Current and projected space needs
• Current space utilization
• Customer service and office locations
• Organizational and cultural drivers
• Departmental adjacencies
• Service delivery geography
• Staff retention and recruitment
• Sustainable strategies
• Quality of the workspace
• Potential cost

4.2 CITY STEERING COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP #3: OPTIONS REVIEW
During the project process we will determine whether
the City Steering Committee will be involved in
narrowing the list of alternate scenarios. We have
found that including a broader group consistently
ensures that the project outcomes will have support
from a breadth of staff. However, depending on
the size of the Steering Committee, it may be more
effective to limit this meeting to the City Project
Team and Department leaders. In either event, this
meeting will be an active dialogue between the
Gensler team and the City about the pros and cons of
each alternative. During the meeting, we will together
narrow the list of options and build consensus for
a particular alternative that will ultimately form the
basis of the City Facilities Master Plan.

4.3 CITY STEERING COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP#4: OPTIONS REFINEMENT
After presenting to the Steering Committee in
Workshop #3 and incorporating any feedback, we will
present the refined alternatives in a second options
workshop with the City Steering Committee and
Department leaders to obtain consensus on a
final scenario.

PHASE 5: FINAL DOCUMENTATION

AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
6 weeks (excluding a City review period)

5.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
Gensler will develop an implementation plan that
identifies the major activities associated with the
alternative selected in Phase 4, including potential
new buildings, renovations, relocations, and
dispositions, as needed. The plans will identify the
affected departments and staff, critical adjacencies,
parking for staff, City vehicles, and visitors, and the suggested timing of each development activity that
reflects milestone sequencing over time.

Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
13 5.2 COST ESTIMATES
Upon selection of the appropriate options in
Workshop #3, cost estimates will be developed and
incorporated into the implementation plan. These
costs will be escalated to the year recommended by
the phasing plan.

5.3 EXISTING REAL ESTATE OC CUPANCY COSTS
To assist in budget development and implementation
plan, we will collect and review historical data
regarding real estate-related costs incurred by the
city to occupy the current portfolio, including annual
operating expenses and prior (or currently planned)
capital expenditures. A baseline of “occupancy
costs” will be developed to include utility expenses,
maintenance and janitorial costs, insurance costs,
replacement reserves, debt service or bond payments,
for the owned facilities. The costs will be expressed
in inflation-adjusted dollars relative to historical
headcounts and the occupied building space (e.g.,
costs per workstation, per square foot as well as total costs by type of facility and department/function).

5.4 EVALUATE IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

AND PREPARE AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
We will confer with appropriate City representatives
to identify the potential for utilizing debt financing, certificates of participation, or public-private
partnerships for the retrofit/rehabilitation or new
construction of capital facilities. We will identify
the timing and financing techniques and funding
sources necessary to implement the recommended
master plan alternative. The outputs of this research
and evaluation and coloration will be synthesized
into a draft annual budget and funding plan for the
implementation of the time-phased recommended
master plan alternative will feed into the identification of an annual budget and funding plan. The
implementation plan will outline recommended
process, strategies, tasks, and challenges and pitfalls to avoid, and issues to monitor or address.

5.6 CITY STEERING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
#5: IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
We will convene a final meeting with the Steering
Committee to review the final recommendations and
implementation plan.

5.37 DRAFT CITY FACILITIE S MASTER PLAN
REPORT
Gensler will document the feedback from the previous
Workshop #4 to develop a Draft City Facilities Master
Plan Report (“Draft Report”) for the City to review.

All reports prepared by our team will be delivered as
an Adobe PDF file, enabling the City to produce hard
copies as needed. Gensler will also deliver relevant
Excel files, GIS datasets, and other documents created
for this project, as requested. The report will include a discussion of all previous phases of this study, up
to and including the final recommendations and
implementation plan.

Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
14 5.8 PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Upon review and approval of the final master plan
report, Gensler will prepare and deliver a presentation for the City Council.

5.9 FINAL STRATEGIC FACILITIE S PLAN REPORT
After review by the City, Gensler will revise the Draft Report to include all feedback and comments and
develop a Final City Facilities Master Plan (“Final
Report”), which may include the following sections:
• Executive Summary,
• Project/Process Narrative,
• Planning and Development Principles,
• Existing Conditions summary,
• Program Requirements,
• Options and Recommendations,
• Development Guidelines/Criteria,
• Costs,
• Implementation Plan

BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS

LEARNED FROM OTHER FACILITY

MASTER PLANS
We have learned much in our previous engagements
with many of California’s cities and counties, both
large and small. Key considerations for Costa Mesa
may include:

Stakeholder Communications
It is critical that this project is supported at the
highest levels of City government. We were pleased
to see you are including a Management Team in the
process to help ensure that our progress, findings, and recommendations are communicated effectively to
the City Council. These interactions will be focused
on building consensus to ensure we are developing a
responsive and actionable facilities master plan.

Remote Work and Telecommuting
Many organizations need to study new ways of
working, including remote work and telecommuting
to balance the lifestyles of its employees with the
need to physically be in the office. Gensler is at the
forefront of this workplace strategy research and
has worked with numerous public and private sector
clients helping them develop “hybrid” work policies
and their impact on physical space needs. Our
engagement with Costa Mesa City will address this
question in part through the issuance of a department
staff space needs survey issued to employee that
sheds a light on how effective remote work has been
from the employee perspective coupled with detailed
discussions with City department leadership, to
understand their POV on the effectiveness of remote
work. Ultimately, we will determine each department’s
current and anticipated future services and work
trends, collaboration needs and goals, and suitability
for hybrid work and factor that into our space needs
analysis.

Data Quality
You will note in our scope that we ask for quite a
bit of information at the outset of the project. This is so we can get an early read on the amount and type of
data we will have access to and can plan to shore up
any data gaps as the study progresses, though we are
comfortable using benchmarks if actual data is
not available.

Impact of Delays
We have included a fairly robust research phase
where, among other things, we survey City employees
and send questionnaires to City department heads.

It is rare that these surveys are returned within the
allotted timeframes. The City should be aware that this can have an impact on the duration of the project.,
however, to mitigate the potential for delays, we have
built in additional time into the schedule. Schedule
delays can also occur while calendaring steering
committee sessions. We recommend getting those
meetings on the calendar as far in advance as possible.

Our approach and scope of services will help you
address these and other important issues as they
come up through an extensive engagement with
City departments, an understanding of how the
City delivers services, an evaluation of your existing
real estate portfolio, and our own research and best
practices gained from performing similar studies with
other California municipalities.

Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
15 Detailed Project Schedule
Week 1 2 4 5* 6 9 10 11* 12 13 14 15* 17 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 Date 12/2 12/9 12/16 12/23 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 Phase 1: Project Startup 3 Weeks

1.1 Team Organization

1.2 Background Materials Collection
Virtual 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting •

1.4 Data Collection Methodology
In Person 1.5 Steering Committee Workshop #1 - Visioning • Phase 2: Data Collection 6 Weeks

2.1.1 Facility Conditions Assessment (BVTA) •
Optional 2.1.2 Tier 1 Seismic Assessment (Bureau Veritas) (OPTIONAL SERVICE) • Optional 2.2 Employee Survey (Workplace Performance Survey) (OPTIONAL SERVICE)

2.3 Elected Office/Department Questionnaire Issued ○ •
In Person 2.4 Elected Office/Department Interviews (12) • In Person 2.5 Site Tours •
Phase 3: Analysis & Findings 6 Weeks

3.1 City Demographics Projections •

3.2 Staffing Projections •

3.3 Demand & Supply Gap Analysis •

3.4 Research & Synthesis
Virtual 3.5 Steering Committee Workshop #2 - Findings Review • Phase 4: Options Development 6 Weeks

4.1 Design Options Solutions (up to 3)
In Person 4.2 City Steering Committee Workshop #3: Options Development ○ City Review/Comment/Approval
Options Refinment Period
Virtual 4.3 City Steering Committee Workshop #4: Options Refinement and Consensus • Phase 5: Final Documentation 8 Weeks

5.1 Implementation/Phased Guide •

5.2 Project Cost Estimates •

5.3 Financial Analysis/Occupancy Costs •

5.4 Financial Analysis/Funding Analysis •

5.5 Final Implementation Plan •
Virtual 5.6 City Steering Committee Workshop #5: Implementation Review ○

5.7 Draft City Facilities Master Plan Report •
In Person 5.8 Presentation to the City Council •

5.9 Final Facilities Plan Report •
LEGEND
* Holiday week
• Client meetings
○ Client review (provide comments/updates/approval)
Key Personnel Billing Rate * * * * Project Fee
Kevin Rosenstein Principal in Charge 350.00$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16,100.00$ Paul Natzke Project Director 300.00$ 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 8 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 8 4 4 4 4 8 38,400.00$ Michael Adkins Strategy Director 250.00$ 8 8 12 12 12 24 12 12 16 16 16 16 12 12 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 83,000.00$ Lindsay Hoskins Strategist 150.00$ 20 20 16 20 20 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 69,000.00$ 150.00$ -$
182.00$ -$
175.00$ -$
Total Hours 34 38 34 38 38 58 38 42 46 42 42 46 38 38 46 42 46 46 42 42 42 42 46 * Team travel week Total Fee $6,900.00 $8,100.00 $7,300.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $12,700.00 $7,900.00 $9,100.00 $10,100.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $10,100.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $10,100.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $206,500.00 Gensler Fees
Travel Expenses $5,385.00

TOTAL FEES BY PHASE
Phase
Prime Consultant
Gensler Total $206,500.00
Subconsultant
Bureau Veritas Total 67,327.00$
KPJ Consulting Total 16,000.00$
Labor Total $289,827.00
Reimbursable Expenses $5,923.50
Contingency (5%) 4,166.35$
TOTAL PROJECT FEE $299,916.85
Optional Services
Tier 1 Siesmic Option 105,600.00$
Preventitive Maintenance Routines, Plans & Analysis 14,120.00$ Employee Workplace Performance Index (WPI) Survey 10,000.00$ $55,800.00
$1,123.00
$56,923.00
PHASE 5
$37,816.00
PHASE 2
$15,000.00
$1,123.00
$16,123.00
PHASE 1
$35,800.00
$2,016.00
$55,000.00
$0.00
$55,000.00
PHASE 3
$44,900.00
$1,123.00
$46,023.00
PHASE 4
Project Approach and Methodology
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan 16
At Gensler, the value of our work stems from its
positive impact on the human experience. We are
a dynamic and collaborative design firm uniting
creativity, research, and innovation to solve complex
problems for our clients. Our work challenges
conventional ideas about architecture and the built
environment. We aren’t just designing buildings —
we are reimagining cities and places that make a
difference in people’s lives. Our team of professionals include a panoramic range of talent and expertise:
strategists, economists, technologists, planners,
experience designers, analysts, researchers, and
more—all working together to create thoughtful,
original, and compelling solutions for today’s complex
and multifaceted projects that put the human
experience at the center of everything we do.

Because our strategic planning and real estate
portfolio teams are integrated with our design teams,
we have a keen awareness of the issues, challenges,
and opportunities associated with both the planning
and design of space. This broad implementation
experience, as well as our focus on creativity,
communication, and integrated service delivery
differentiate us from other strategists.

Facilities Master Planning Technical Experience
Gensler’s comprehensive real estate portfolio strategy
services help public and private sector organizations
develop portfolios that support optimum client service
delivery and changing business directions, whether
they are driven by growth, consolidation, regulatory
changes, or reorganization.

Our strategists leverage proprietary tools to create
real estate portfolio strategies that are efficient,
flexible, sustainable, and geared to drive business
performance. We gather and analyze qualitative
and quantitative data and develop scenarios
focused on business strategy alignment and other
organizational benefits.

About Gensler
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler is a California Corporation, and
was incorporated 1967. Our Newport
Beach office opened its doors for
business in 1983.
4675 MacArthur Court
Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Our Board of Directors bridges geographic and
cultural differences so that our one-firm firm can
run 24/7 and leverage the full depth and breadth
of our worldwide team. Directors rotate on and off
the board, which allows for a constant diversity
of viewpoints, engaging practice and the next
generation of leaders.
https://www.gensler.com/people/board-of-directors
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
17 Unique Capabilities
Civic Centered
We deliver effective and timeless design solutions for federal, state, and local government facilities.

Our projects evoke pride in public missions, create secure work environments, stimulate community investment, and conserve resources. In uncertain economic and geopolitical times, government architecture serves a dual purpose: aspirational leadership on future-facing issues such as climate action, but also practical leadership in providing the services that support civic life. Design will play an instrumental role in both arenas as leaders explore new models of public service.

Qualifications & Experience

—The White House, “White House Takes Action on Climate by Accelerating Energy Efficiency Projects Across Federal Government”
— The White House, “White House Takes Action on Climate by Accelerating Energy Efficiency Projects Across Federal Government” Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
18 The Gensler Research Institute
Clients who partner with Gensler receive more than
just the industry’s top design talent, they also benefit from the insights, lessons, and data that Gensler has
amassed through our in-house research program.

To us, all research is a design opportunity, and all
design is a research opportunity. No other design firm
is as ambitious or thorough as Gensler at uncovering
what’s really driving design and real estate decisions
across the globe. Our clients recognize the value
this knowledge brings to every project knowing
that together we are making the most informed
strategy and design decisions possible. Research is
an investment in the future. The status quo is not
an option for us, or our clients. We view research as
central to our ability to support our clients, lead our industry, and properly fulfill our role as global citizens and designers.

The Gensler Research Institute is a network of
researchers with a singular focus: developing a
deeper understanding of the connection between
design, business, and the human experience. Through
a combination of research grants and external
partnerships, we seek insights that will help solve the world’s most pressing challenges. We are committed
to unlocking new solutions and strategies that will
define the future of design.

Unique among design firms, Gensler works with a
cross-section of the world’s economy. This access
provides us insights into the issues driving change
across markets. To help businesses navigate the
impact of industry trends on the built environment,
our publications and thought leadership explore
how design turns client challenges into competitive
advantages.

DATA-INFORMED DESIGN

INNOVATORS SPEND MORE TIME WORKING WITH OTHERS VIRTUALLY ,

LEARNING AND SOCIALIZING
42%
32%
9%
10%
7%

LEAST INNOVATIVE
30%
28%
16%
13%
13%

MOST INNOVATIVE
Working alone
Working with
others in person
Working with
others virtually
Learning
Socializing
Respondents were segmented into “top”
and “bottom” quartiles based on Innovation
Index scores.
2022
U.S. WORKPLACE SURVEY 2022

U.S.

WORKPLACE
SURVEY
2022
56% OF MEETINGS IN THE OFFICE ARE HYBRID WITH BOTH IN-PERSON

AND REMOTE PARTICIPANTS

WHAT PROPORTION OF YOUR MEETINGS IN THE OFFICE INVOLVE
BOTH IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL ATTENDEES?
63%Energy
60%
60%
57%
57%
53%
50%
49%
45%
Sciences
Media
Technology
Management Advisory
Foundations
Legal
Consumer Goods
Government/Defense
Average
56%
61%Financial
2022
U.S. WORKPLACE SURVEY 2022
SINCE 2008, GENSLER HAS BEEN MEASURING HOW PEOPLE WORK

WORKING
ALONE

LEARNING &

PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

WORKING WITH

OTHERS IN-PERSON

SOCIALIZING,

CONNECTING &

NETWORKING

WORKING WITH

OTHERS VIRTUALLY
2022
U.S. WORKPLACE SURVEY 2022

X MEASURING

PERFORMANCE &

EXPERIENCE
Coffee shop1
Creative lab
Library
Corporate
Clubhouse
2 Boutique hotel
4 5
8 6
3 Conference center
7 CONSUMER
GOODS LEGALSCIENCESTECHRank MEDIAOVERALL

THE IDEAL MIX OF EXPERIENCES VARY BY INDUSTRY
Residential

FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT

ADVISORY GOVERNMENT ENERGY FOUNDATIONS
WHAT SORT OF THE MIX BELOW WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR IDEAL ENVIRONMENT FOR YOUR COMPANY’S OFFICE? 2022
U.S. WORKPLACE SURVEY 2022

DATA-INFORMED DESIGN

GLOBAL WORKPLACE / SURVEY RESEARCH
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
19 Qualifications & Experience
Climate Action + Sustainability
Climate change — and its increasingly visible threat
to people’s lives and cities — continues to elicit a
sense of urgency everywhere. According to insights
from the Gensler Research Institute, 87% of adults in
the United States have been personally impacted by
extreme weather events since 2019. At the same time,
only 18% of Americans believe their communities are
built to withstand climate change. The disconnect
between these startling percentages reveals a
profound opportunity for leaders in the real estate and building sectors, given that buildings are responsible
for some 40% of total global carbon emissions. We
know that to bring about a more resilient future, the
building industry must act now.

We are taking strategic steps to ensure our clients
have access to green materials and key services while
offering new research into the effects of climate
change on people’s lives.

A sustainable materials standard for our projects
As architects and designers, selecting more
sustainable building materials is one of our most
substantial opportunities for impact. Many of our
greatest achievements to date have come from
exemplary projects for which sustainable materials
were a key project priority. However, as the Urban
Land Institute recently noted, environmentally
progressive organizations have begun to increase
their impact beyond individual projects by using their
purchasing power to require building materials comply
with their rigorous material evaluation frameworks.

As the largest design firm in the industry, we have
an opportunity to leverage our size to accelerate
progress. We have a responsibility to define clear,
impact-based priorities for sustainable materials, and a key step in this mission is publicly sharing a minimum
sustainability standard for all our projects.

The Gensler Product Sustainability (GPS) StandardsTM
aim to do just that by defining minimum sustainability
criteria for high-volume, market-ready material
categories used in our architecture and interior
projects. They were developed to continually improve
over time, provide clear and transparent direction
to manufacturers, and align with the industry. We
recognize the power of collective action and strive to
use our influence responsibly by increasing demand
for sustainable materials in the market.

Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
20 Subconsultants
Bureau Veritas
Facilities Conditions Assessment
Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC (“Bureau
Veritas” or “BV”) is a professional services consulting firm providing comprehensive architectural,
engineering, energy, and environmental solutions.

Our team includes over 800 building professionals
nationwide, including Registered Architects,
Professional Engineers, Certified Energy Managers,
Project Managers, Environmental Professionals,
Building Systems Consultants, and Code Compliance
Experts.

Annually, Bureau Veritas conducts thousands of
assessments for Multifamily, Commercial, Industrial,
Government, and Educational clients. Having
successfully completed billions of square feet of
building assessments, we have developed a proven
and efficient methodology for the performance of field
assessments and data collection.

Bureau Veritas’ recommendations are based
on knowledge of property conditions, life-cycle
analysis, regulations, and client objectives. Bureau
Veritas’ subject matter expertise and understanding
of buildings, parks, and property sites forms the
foundation on which we team with clients to create
and implement facility and portfolio management
solutions.

KPJ Consulting
Cost Estimating
KPJ Consulting is an innovative consultancy firm
focused on planning a course of action with relevant
strategic alliances and partnerships with aligned
companies. KPJ is experienced in all aspects of real
estate development and capital improvements,
including early planning, procurement, and close-out.

Founded in 2014, KPJ Consulting is MBE/WBE/
DBE/SBE certified. KPJ has provided cost estimating
services on a variety of project types, including office, hospitality, mixed-use development, temporary
homeless shelter and housing, historical buildings
refurbishment, retail, education, museums, zoological,
and theme parks with budgets ranging in value
from less than $1 million to more than $900 million.

KPJ Consulting is exceptionally skilled in providing
accurate budgets at the early programming and
conceptual phases of a project when that accuracy is
critical to a project’s ultimate success.

Team Structure and Adequate Capability
Our dedicated project team has a long-lasted history
of working together, and we value our relationship
with Costa Mesa. Our intention is to provide the City
with the highest levels of service and delivery. Our
100+ professionals located in Newport Beach are
supported by 800+ professionals as part of Gensler’s
Southwest Region and give you access to a broad
range of expertise and a deep bench of resources
unique to our firm.

Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
21 In the Fall of 2021, Contra Costa
County engaged Gensler to develop a
comprehensive facilities master plan
to improve the delivery of services and
utilization of facilities over a 20-year
planning period.

The County covers an area of 800-square-
miles with an estimated population of

1.15-million residents. The scope of the
master plan spanned 110 facilities, across

1.8 million-square-feet, occupied by over
four thousand County employees.

The Gensler team visited 55 facilities,
surveyed all employees and department
leaders, and interviewed all the
department leaders included in the
master plan. The team presented various
phases of the master plan at two public
board meetings and three meetings
with a steering committee comprised of
department leaders established for the
master plan. These meetings helped solicit
feedback from a range of stakeholders
early and often.

The Gensler team uncovered significant
facility issues spanning poor distribution
of facilities to low space utilization and
proposed three options to remedy the
issues and optimize the portfolio. The
options ranged from high impact and
change to low impact and change. The
board and steering committee voted to
implement the high impact and change
option. Implementation is expected to
reduce the County’s portfolio by 10%
and lower lease costs by 40%, while
accommodating a growth of employee
headcount by 18%.

1.8 million sq ft
110 facilities
August 2021 -
October 2022
Services Provided
Real Estate and
Portfolio Planning
Organizational Assessment
Demand Forecasting
Macro-Level Site Selection

Key Personnel Involved
Kevin Rosenstein, Gensler
Paul Natzke, Gensler
Michael Adkins, Gensler
Phillip Mathur, KPJ
Client Contact
Eric Angstadt
Chief Assistant County
Administrator
County of Contra Costa
(925) 655-2042
[email protected].
us
Contra Costa County
Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
22 The County of Santa Barbara retained
Gensler to evaluate the existing Calle Real
Campus conditions, assess the projected
program needs, and create a Long-Range
Facilities Master Plan to guide campus
growth and expansion in a thoughtful and
deliberate manner over the next twenty
years.

The Master Plan provides a framework
for development at Calle Real over the
next twenty years. It reinforces the
County’s mission to ensure its physical
assets support the highest possible
service delivery and reflect its underlying
ethics. Specific goals and aspirations for
the Campus, including realignment with
the Renew 22 initiative, were identified
through a collaborative visioning
process and then distilled into a set of
Planning Principles which have guided
the development of the Master Plan.

The Master Plan represents both the
culmination of a 9-10 month planning
process and the starting point for the
future development of the campus into
a destination where county residents,
communities, employees, and regional
visitors can be safe, healthy, and
prosperous.

Since it’s purchase in 1910, County
facilities have been developed ad-hoc on
portions of the site, ranging in use from a
health campus to juvenile and adult lock-
down to emergency operations. These
facilities have provided essential services
to the County; however, the campus’s
current overall design has not allowed it to
be used to its fullest potential. A step back
is required to evaluate how to use these
valuable properties to best serve Santa
Barbara residents.The Calle Real Master
Plan addresses this urgent need to revisit
the vision for Calle Real Campus.

As the County looks toward the future,
it seeks to identify the highest and best
use of its Calle Real campus, as well as
limitations imposed by (but not limited to)
geography, topography, seismic, fire and
other life safety risks, cultural resources,
adjacent existing land uses, operational
concerns of the subject facilities,
environmental and residential concerns,
reuse options for the existing facilities, and
County growth and development concerns
particular to this site and in conjunction
with public services offered
at the Downtown campus.

Alpha
Resource
Center
County O/uniFB03ce of
Emergency Mgmt.

Hearts Therapeutic
Equestrian Center
Foothill
Landfill
Santa Barbara County
Fire Dept.

Headquarters
Cathedral Oaks
County School
Admin Bldg.

Cemetery
Goleta Cemetery -
not county property
Ben Page
Youth Center
Santa Barbara
County Coroner
Santa Barbara
County Fire
Station 13
Food Bank
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara
Juvenile Hall
(unoccupied)
Santa Barbara
County Jail
South Coast
Recycling
Campus
Public
Works
Flood
Control
Cell Tower
Hill
Santa Barbara
Public Health,
Environmental, &
Agricultural
Santa
Barbara Wic
Program
Dept. of
Social
Services
Disabled
Persons
Housing
County of
Santa Barbara
Elections O/uniFB03ce
MHRC
New
Bldg.

Santa Barbara
County Registrar
Goleta Valley
Sheri/uniFB00 Station
Sheri/uniFB00
Operations

SITE BOUNDARY

HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES

IN STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY

ZONES IN STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY

ZONES IN LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA

DEBRIS AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT

FOOTHILL CLOSED LANDFILL

100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA

QUATERNARY FAULTS

HOLLISTER AT MODOC SPECIAL

PROBLEM AREA

SITE BOUNDARY

HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES

IN STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY

ZONES IN STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA

VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY

ZONES IN LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA

DEBRIS AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT

FOOTHILL CLOSED LANDFILL

100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA

QUATERNARY FAULTS

HOLLISTER AT MODOC SPECIAL

PROBLEM AREA

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT
SPORTS/slash.caseRECREATIONAL

GOLETA CEMETERY
/hyphen.case NON/hyphen.caseCOUNTY PROPERTY

MONARCH BUTTERFLY SITE
SLOPE /greater.case20/percent.case
MAJOR R.O.W

SITE BOUNDARY

MTD ROUTE 10

LA CUMBRE CAMINO

REAL MARKETPLACE

MTD ROUTE 6/slash.case11

DOWNTOWN SANTA BARBARA
/slash.caseTRANSIT CENTER

CAMINO REAL MARKETPLACE

MTD ROUTE 7

DOWNTOWN SANTA BARBARA
/slash.caseTRANSIT CENTER

GOLETA OLD TOWN

SITE BOUNDARY

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE

HABITAT

GOLETA CEMETERY
/hyphen.case NON/hyphen.caseCOUNTY PROPERTY

SPORTS/slash.caseRECREATIONAL

STATE MASTER PLANNED

SCENIC HWY, NOT DESIGNATED

SCENIC CORRIDOR OFFICIALLY

DESIGNATED SCENIC HWY

MONARCH BUTTERFLY SITE

2000’ BUFFER OF ADOPTED

SCENIC HWY

HWY 101 CORRIDOR

SITE BOUNDARY

POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA

POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA

WITH CONDITIONS

ROAD/slash.caseDRIVE ON/slash.caseTO PROPERTY

SITE BOUNDARY

NON /hyphen.case COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS

SITE BOUNDARY
REMAIN

RENOVATION

POTENTIAL DEMOLITION

DEMOLITION
HISTORIC BUILDING /parenleft.caseTBD/parenright.case
TBD /hyphen.case MORE INFO NEEDED
REMAIN: Buildings designated
“Good” or “New” condition may
remain
RENOVATION: Buildings
designated “Fair” or “Good”
condition may need repairs or
may be suitable for adaptive
reuse
POTENTIAL DEMOLITION:

Buildings designated in “Fair”
condition, supplemented by
information from FCI%, age,
and site observations, may be
recommended for demolition
DEMOLITION: Buildings
designated as “Poor”, with the
exception of the Jail; Buildings
with high renovation costs; all
modulars are recommended for
demolition
HISTORIC BUILDING (TBD):

Buildings that may be eligible
for Historic designation. Need
additional study to determine
future status.

TBD - MORE INFO NEEDED:

Buildings with no Facility
Assessment or formal evaluation
SOURCE: FACILITY CONDITION
ASSESSMENT - 2014
Facility Disposition and Criteria:

CALLE REAL MASTER PLAN
01 97

CALLE REAL MASTER PLAN

CAMPUS OPPORTUNITIES

CALLE REAL MASTER PLAN

RETAIN OUR

EMPLOYEES

RE-DESIGN

HOW WE DO

OUR WORK
9796

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Lesectur re perit res volo voloreh endaeptatur mi, veniand andipsa pienda consectur a dicid quos quamusae reriore ptiumquodi

INCREASE DEVELOPABLE

AREA FOR NEW AND

ENHANCED WORKSPACES
01 Harchillanis mil ius, sint qui consectia quos diti
omniae qui ad et libusan destibusam faccum quid ut
et fuga. Ex eos alicate aut volutat iosserorest aut aut ius volor adis et fugiamus et quiae sapisquunt lam
es qui ra solupti asperit, aut verectae. Ataeped mil id modi raturio. Et ut porrum dero te corernam, suntTotal development area = 147 .73 acres ADDITIONAL AREA AFTER Demolition
= 7 .35 ACRES
County of Santa Barbara
Calle Real Campus Master Plan
Anything else needed here?
RENEW 2022
RENEW
2022

RE-VISION O U R

ORGANIZATION

RE-BALANCE
O U R

RESOURCES

RETAIN OUR

EMPLOYEES

RE-DESIGN

HOW WE DO

OUR WORK

RESPOND

WITH EXCELLENT

SERVICE

DELIVERY
Non-County Organizations
on Campus
24 CALLE REAL MASTER PLAN

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

OVERVIEW

CALLE REAL MASTER PLAN

OVERVIEW
25 County Departments on Campus Agriculture & Coop Extension Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health Services
Clerk - Recorder - Assessor
Community Services Department
County Executive Office
Fire
General Services
Human Resources
Planning & Development
Probation
Public Health
Public Works
Sheriff
Social Services
Treasurer - Tax Collector - Public Amin
Alpha Resource Center
Ben Page Youth Center
Food Bank Santa Barbara
Hearts Adaptive Riding
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
Santa Barbara County Search & Rescue
VA Clinic
Adopted by the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors
in 2018, Renew 22 is a multi-year initiative to
transform how the County does its work. Renew
22 seeks to build the County’s capacity for
innovation and continuous improvement.

The framework addresses five core areas of focus
to help the County embody their “One County, One
Future” vision. Gensler used Renew 22 as a strategic
lens for the Calle Real Master Plan to ensure the plan
aligned with the County’s larger strategic goals.
*BEHAVIORAL WELLNESS DID NOT PROVIDE HEADCOUNT DATA. ALL NON-SURVEYED DEPARTMENTS ALSO EXCLUDED. acres of land on
Campus, including

13.4 acres of
Goleta Cemetary.

GSF of County real
estate on Campus
County
employees
work on site.*

CAMPUS USE
323 500+
~782,000
782,000 sq ft
August 2019 -
March 2023
Services Provided
Real Estate and Portfolio
Strategy
Organizational Assessment
Demand Forecasting
Macro-Level Site Selection
Key Personnel Involved
Kevin Rosenstein, Gensler
Paul Natzke, Gensler
Phillip Mathur, KPJ
Client Contact
Ashton Ellis
Project Manager
County of Santa Barbara
(805) 568-3400
[email protected]
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
23 Napa County (the “County”) hired Gensler
to develop a Long-range Facilities Plan
(“LRFP”) for their County’s 170,000 square
feet of owned space across 5 individual
buildings, including their administrative
headquarters and Hall of Justice buildings.

The overarching goal of the LRFP was to
establish a comprehensive framework for
future facility investments providing a
holistic view of future space needs and a
cohesive, long-term vision that can guide
facility investments over the next 20 to 30
years.

To develop a deeper understanding of
the County’s strategic priorities, drivers
of growth, and individual department
needs, Gensler facilitated a project
kick-off meeting, a half-day visioning
workshop with key stakeholders across
all County departments, a comprehensive
facility needs survey for all departments,
and a series of small-group interviews
with department leaders. In total, 15
departments were interviewed and
surveyed, 5 properties were evaluated,
500+ employee survey responses were
collected, and 3 steering committee
meetings and 1 virtual townhall with 30+
community members in attendance were
conducted. Gensler, in collaboration with
its subconsultants, executed additional
processes of data collection which
included facilities condition assessments,
seismic evaluations as well as real estate
market analyses.

During the initial phase of the project,
the County identified certain areas
that needed attention, such as aging
infrastructure in specific locations. The
possibility of constructing a new building
in downtown Napa or consolidating
operations to a Southern Campus also
needed evaluation. Gensler’s study further
revealed that Napa County has been
steadily increasing its staff for several
decades but has not expanded its facilities
proportionately. This has resulted in a
strain on its aging facilities portfolio,
affecting the County’s ability to operate
and deliver services effectively.

Additionally, the study highlighted pressing
concerns for other County downtown
properties, such as lack of adequate
parking, shortage of collaboration and
training spaces, issues with security and
access control measures, and current
real estate market conditions that limit
the potential redevelopment or sale
value of County properties. The findings
also revealed that there will be marginal
workforce growth over the next 10 years,
and with more efficient space allocations,
the expected growth could likely be
accommodated without a significant
increase in the County’s overall
office footprint.

May 2023 - April 2024
Services Provided
Real Estate and
Portfolio Planning
Organizational Assessment
Demand Forecasting
Macro-Level Site Selection
Key Personnel Involved
Kevin Rosenstein, Gensler
Paul Natzke, Gensler
Client Contact
Steven Lederer
Director, County of Napa
Department of Public Works
(707) 253-4351
steven.lederer@
countyofnapa.org
County of Napa
Facilities Master Plan
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
24 Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
25 County of Los Angeles | Civic Center Facilities Master Plan | Development Scenarios Based on data provided by LA County through December 6, 2017

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community County-owned property
Leased property
Current Portfolio Under Study

AFFECTED LEASED & OWNED SPACE
OUTSIDE 3-MILE RADIUS [NOT SHOWN]
General Hospital (LAC+USC)
5770 S. Eastern Ave, Commerce
1000 Fremont, Alhambra
2615 S Grand Ave (Adams & Grand)
5555 Ferguson, Commerce
1933 S Broadway
312 S Hill
222 S Hill
350 S Figueroa
3470 Wilshire
3333 Wilshire
695 S Vermont
600 S. Commonwealth Ave
425 Shatto Pl
W-2
HOA
HOR
Music Center
Annex
725-747 N. Spring
313 N Figueroa
3175 W 6th550 S Vermont Ave
1055 Alameda
County of Los Angeles | Civic Center Facilities Master Plan | Development Scenarios Based on data provided by LA County through December 6, 2017

RENOVATE HOA REPLACE HOA RELOCATE HOA
1 - Renovate HOA,
Health at 313 Fig
2 - Renovate HOA,
Health at W-2
3 - New Exec HQ at
HOA, New Admin
Building at W-2,
Health at 313 Fig
4 - New HOA,
Health at 313 Fig
5 - New HOA at
W-2, Health at 313
Fig

LA COUNTY OWNED ASSETS
Hall of
Administration Renovated HOA Renovated HOA
New Exec HQ;
Monetization of
Northwestern Portion
of HOA Parcel
New HOA;
Monetization of
Northwestern Portion
of HOA Parcel
Monetization of Entire
HOA Parcel
Parcel W-2
Temporary Swing Temporary Swing Temporary Swing Temporary Swing Temporary Swing Monetization of Spec
Office
Consolidated Health
Agency HQ County Admin Building Monetization of Spec
Office New HOA Building3
313 N Figueroa
Health Admin/
Public Health
Consolidated Health
Agency HQ Monetization of Parcel Consolidated Health
Agency HQ
Consolidated Health
Agency HQ
Consolidated Health
Agency HQ
Hall of Records Renovated HOR for County Office Use
510 Vermont Potential consolidation of Children and Family Services and Child Support Services if the Health Agency consolidation is implemented
LEASES 7 leases totaling 360,000 RSF can be completely eliminated, yielding $7.3 million in annual lease cost avoidance.

TOTAL EST.

CAPITAL
COSTS
1 Total Project Costs $1.84 Billion $1.43 Billion $1.58 Billion $1.82 Billion $1.37 Billion TOTAL EST.

REVENUE

GENERATED

ANNUALLY
2 20% Affordable
Housing TBD2 $4.4 Million $8.6 Million $8.6 Million+ 2 $11.1 Million All Market Rate
Housing
TBD2 $5.5 Million $12.2 Million $12.2 Million+ 2 $13.1 Million

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
1 Cumulative financial total includes Hall of Administration, Parcel W-2, 313 N Figueroa and Hall of Records. Also included is the cost (at $75/SF) to renovate (furniture, paint, and carpet) the W-2 building after several years of use as swing space to either prepare it for market or end user. Total does not include 510 Vermont capital costs.
2 Revenue generated assumes residential development (except for spec office building on W-2 in Options 1 and 4) and reflects Annual Ground Rent to County (at 6.6%) and County General Fund share (0.42%) of property tax; escalations are not included. The market value of a spec office building in approximately 10 years cannot be predicted and was therefore not included.
3 The new HOA on W-2 is larger than the current 681,000 GSF allowed in the Related LP development agreement. It is assumed the County could exceed this GSF Limit.

Civic Center Options - SummaryCivic Center Options - Summary Option numbering from 1 to 5 does not reflect preference of Project Team.

Revenue Generation / Cost Savings
In response to the recent convergence of
issues, opportunities, and decision points
related to the County of Los Angeles’
downtown real estate and facilities
portfolio, it became necessary to develop a
long-range, strategic master plan for these
Civic Center properties.

The final LRFP recommendations include
changes to improve service delivery,
streamline operations, and offer a more
holistic vision for County facilities. Five
plan options were developed for the
County’s consideration with each option
accommodating the future space needs of
all 15 County departments involved in this
study. The options varied in approach, cost,
and time needed for implementation. The
portfolio of recommendations included
the implementation of uniform space
standards, centralizing shared resources
for departments such as conferencing
spaces, a multi-center service center
to function as a ‘one-stop’ model for
customers as well as exploring alternate
parking solutions.

This plan was driven by the County’s desire
to improve service delivery and optimize
operations and, where possible, provide
sustainable revenue by monetizing the
underlying value of parcels not needed
for County use. The County engaged the
Gensler team to develop options that
reflected possible development scenarios
related to three key County-owned
properties.

The areas of investigation were focused
on identifying ramifications and costs
associated with developing each option,
driven by department growth, service
delivery, and adjacencies as a reflection of
optimum work process. The County also
desired to terminate as many leases as
possible, consolidating these fragmented
groups into their primary department
facilities
Completed 2020
Services Provided
Real Estate and Portfolio
Planning
Demand Forecasting
Economic Modeling
Key Personnel
Kevin Rosenstein, Gensler
Paul Natzke, Gensler
Client Reference
Kelly Quinn
CEO, Asset
Management Branch
County of Los Angeles
(213) 974-2318
[email protected]
County of Los Angeles
Civic Center Master Plan
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
26 WATER STREET

LEONARD STREET

OCEAN STREET
250sqft
STAGE
(500 RETRACTABLESEATS)

MARSHALLING

COMMISSARY
65,303
sm
MENS

WATER STREET

LEONARD STREET

OCEAN STREET
250sqft
STAGE(500 RETRACTABLE

SEATS)MARSHALLING

COMMISSARY
65,303
sm
MENS

WATER STREET

LEONARD STREET

OCEAN STREET
2/24/2020SANTA CRUZ COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY

ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE 1
6-7 STORY RESIDENTIAL/PARKING/RETAIL ONLY
ALTERNATIVE 2
6-7 STORY RESIDENTIAL/PARKING/RETAIL

AND ARENA
ALTERNATIVE 3
10-12 STORY RESIDENTIAL/PARKING/RETAIL

AND ARENA
RESIDENTIAL: 603,550 GSF
710 UNITS
240 MARKET RATE
235 WORKFORCE
235 AFFORDABLE
RESIDENTIAL: 368,230 GSF
433 UNITS
145 MARKET RATE
144 WORKFORCE
144 AFFORDABLE
RESIDENTIAL: 663,500 GSF
780 UNITS
260 MARKET RATE
260 WORKFORCE
260 AFFORDABLE
ARENA: 96,500 GSF
3,300-4,500 SEATS
ARENA: 96,500 GSF
3,300-4,500 SEATS

KEY ASSUMPTIONS
• Residential: average of 850 GSF/unit, 85% efficiency, with approximately 33% of units at market rate, 33% workforce, and 33% affordable.
• Residential Parking: average 1.5 stalls per market rate and affordable unit, and average 0.75 stalls per workforce unit (assuming lower parking demand for County staff), resulting in an overall average parking ratio

1.27 spaces/unit*
• County Parking: 650 stalls to replace parking subsumed by arena and/or housing development Note: Section 24.12.240 of City of Santa Cruz Municipal Zoning Code requires 1 space/unit for efficiency, 1.5 spaces for 1 bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for 2-3 bedroom unit, and 1 seat/3.5 seats of maximum seating capacity for arena.

The County of Santa Cruz (the “County”)
hired Gensler to develop a Long-Range
Facilities Plan (“LRFP”) for the County’s 1.4
million square feet of owned and leased
space across 159 individual buildings,
including their administrative headquarters
building.

The overarching goal of the LRFP was to
establish a comprehensive framework
for future facility investments that would
directly support and align with the
priorities established in the County’s 2018-
2024 Strategic Plan.

To develop a deeper understanding of
the County’s strategic priorities, drivers
of growth, and individual department
needs, Gensler began the project
with a series of robust data collection
activities, which included a project kick-of
meeting, a half-day visioning workshop
with key stakeholders across all County
departments, a comprehensive facility
needs survey for all departments, and
a series of small-group interviews with
department leaders. In total, Gensler
collected 20 departmental surveys,
conducted 19 department interviews, and
completed 14 site tours.

Key issues that emerged from this data
collection process included the desire
to consolidate operations into County-
owned facilities, the urgent need for
housing workforce and affordable housing
development across the County, and the
need for more strategic placement of
the County’s most used public services.
in order to address the County’s shifting
demographics. These and several other key
themes served as the basis upon which
recommendations were made.

As the County had not engaged in a
holistic evaluation of its facilities strategy
in several decades, the final LRFP
recommendations include some major
changes to improve service delivery,
streamline operations, and offer a more
holistic vision for County facilities.
1,400,000 sq ft
September 2019 -
October 2020
Services Provided
Real Estate and
Portfolio Planning
Organizational Assessment
Demand Forecasting
Macro-Level Site Selection
Key Personnel
Kevin Rosenstein, Gensler
Paul Natzke, Gensler
Client Reference
Travis Cary
County of Santa Cruz
Director of Capital Projects
(831) 454-2339
travis.cary
santacruzcounty.us
County of Santa Cruz
Long-Range Facilities Master Plan
Qualifications & Experience
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
27 LINDSAY HOSKINS
IIDA
Strategist

NICHOLAS ACEVEDO

AIA, LEED AP , CDT
Local Advisor

PAUL NATZKE
Project Director,
Main Point of Contact

KEVIN ROSENSTEIN
Principal in Charge

MICHAEL ADKINS

LEED GA
Strategy Director

CORE TEAM

SUBCONSULTANT TEAM

BUREAU VERITAS
Facility Conditions Assessments

KPJ CONSULTING
Cost Estimating

KEVIN ROSENSTEIN
Principal in Charge
As Principal-In-Charge, Kevin will provide leadership
and oversight to the entire team, ensuring that the City’s master planning goals are being met. He will advise the core project leadership on issues and concerns related to the planning and management of the project and ensure
that the project represents the firm’s best work.

PAUL NATZKE
Project Director, Primary Contact
As a Strategy Studio Director and Government Practice
Area Leader, Paul will work closely with the full Gensler team in his role as Project Director, bringing his 20 years of experience in leading complex municipal projects.

As Costa Mesa’s Primary Contact, Paul will be the
Gensler Team’s day-to-day contact and will work to
ensure the optimum performance of the entire project
team and the successful, on-time, on-budget completion
of this project.

MICHAEL ADKINS
Strategy Director
As Strategy Director, Michael will also utilize his
expertise in strategic planning and portfolio assessment to help realize the highest and best use of the City’s
portfolio. He leads large and complex accounts where
with an emphasis on strategic planning and work place
analysis, effectively identifying millions in potential real estate savings.

LINDSAY HOSKINS
Strategist
As the team’s strategist, based in Newport Beach,
Lindsay will bring her significant experience to the team as we collect and evaluate a robust set of data, engage with stakeholders, and evaluate opportunities for City
service delivery and its impact on department and real
estate needs.

NICHOLAS ACEVEDO
Local Advisor
Nicholas is a critical part of the leadership team in
Gensler’s Newport Beach office, the closest office to
Costa Mesa. Nicholas will advocate for best practices that serve the community within the context of Costa Mesa
and Southern California and lead the long-term client
relationship with the City as the team’s local advisor.

MATT ANDERSON
Program Manager

MARY VENABLE
Quality Assurance Manager

PHILIP MATHUR
Senior Cost Estimator

MATT ANDERSON
Program Manager
Matt is a registered architect and brings more than
30 years of experience in assessment projects. He will
partner with Mary as they evaluate Costa Mesa’s facilities.

As Program Manager, Matt will assist Mary by providing
QA/QC review on the data collection and reports.

MARY VENABLE, RA, CEM, LEED AP
Quality Assurance Manager
Mary is a registered architect and brings more than 30
years of experience in assessment projects. She will partner with Matt in evaluting City facilities. As Quality Assurance Manager, Mary will lead Matt and BV by providing QA/QC
review on the data collection and reports.

PHILIP MATHUR
Senior Cost Estimator
Philip is another of our long-standing subconsultant
partners, bringing his expertise working with Gensler
on many previous city and county facility master plans.

Phillip’s work will be instrumental as he develops
master plan-level construction cost estimates.

Key Personnel
Key Personnel
We believe there are two essential reasons for Gensler’s success. One is the quality of the work we produce and the other is the quality of our people—our staff. Ultimately, our ability to meet the project objectives will depend upon the Gensler professionals who represent us and work with you on this project.

The following team has been carefully selected with your project requirements in mind. We have assembled a team of expert strategists and designers skilled in facility planning, but it doesn’t stop there. Our team is passionate about civic and government work. We view this as an opportunity to give back to our communities, where we live, work and play. This isn’t just another project for this team, its an opportunity to help shape the future of our backyard.
28Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
Kevin Rosenstein
Principal

Principal-in-Charge
25 Years of Experience
Joined Gensler 2004
Background
Master of Business Administration, Dartmouth College
Tuck School, Hanover, New Hampshire
Bachelor of Science, Biology, Stanford University
Palo Alto, California
Former Co-Director, Corporation for National Service, Presidio Leadership Center
Selected Project Experience
County of Los Angeles
As-Needed Master Plan and Strategic Facilities Planning Consulting Services, Los Angeles, CA
Civic Center Master Plan, Los Angeles, CA
Department of Public Social Services Space Facility Master Plan, Los Angeles, CA
Health & Human Services Multi-A gency, Family Service Center Strategy, Los Angeles, CA
Rancho Los Amigos Campus Planning, Downey, CA
County of Contra Costa Master Plan Services
County of Santa Barbara Calle Real Master Plan, Santa Barbara, CA County of Santa Cruz Long Range Facilities Master Plan, Santa Cruz, CA County of San Luis Obispo Facilities Master Plan, San Luis Obispo, CA County of Sonoma
County Comprehensive Facilities Plan (CCFP), Santa Rosa, CA County Junior College District Facilities Master Plan
City of Long Beach Schroeder Hall Redevelopment Plan, Long Beach, CA The Children’s Assessment Center Facilities Master Plan, Houston, TX California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Reentry Facility Siting Services, Sacramento, CA
California Department of Motor Vehicles, Strategic Facilities Plan Sacramento, CA
BART Lighting Enhancement Project, Oakland, CA
Belkin Logistics Strategic Programming, Playa Vista, CA DHS Mobile Readiness Program, Washington, D.C.

E&J Gallo, Change Management, Modesto, CA
Ericsson Change Management, Tokyo, Japan
Getty Museum, Occupancy Planning, Los Angeles, CA
GlaxoSmithKline Change Management Services, Raleigh, NC GSA Whitepapers
The New Federal Workplace
Managing Mobility, Leveraging Place
GSA Workplace 20.20 Requirements Development Process
DOI, National Business Center, Lakewood, CO
A global leader of Gensler’s Strategy
practice, Kevin brings 25 years of diverse
experience with specific expertise in
organizational development, change
management, and training. Kevin
is passionate about helping clients
successfully adapt to changes in their
organization’s workplaces, culture,
practices, and business strategies. Kevin’s
work extends to Strategy’s core services
of workplace strategy and real estate
portfolio planning.

Kevin has worked on a wide range of projects from change management services for large scale facility relocation to global and site-specific workplace strategy programs for Fortune 500 companies. Solutions for each client are highly unique. In his time at Gensler, he has coupled this varied experience with the firm’s deep focus on design. This coupling has sparked a unique perspective on the role that space, facilities, and the built environment can play in supporting or creating a successful organizational transformation.

Kevin Rosenstein
Principal in Charge
[email protected]
(213) 243-8841
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
29 Paul Natzke
Senior Associate

Project Director
Paul’s work focuses on exploring
how real estate and facilities can
better support organizational goals
and workplace performance.

Since joining Gensler, Paul has successfully led many large, complex, multi-disciplined teams in real estate and workplace strategies for private and public sector entities.

Paul’s work focuses on formulating alternatives that align an organization’s real estate and facilities with its business plans.

He facilitates the realization of goals pertinent to constituent service delivery, staff recruitment and retention, and the creation of community within and among organizations.
27 Years of Experience
Joined Gensler 1999
Background
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Relevant Project Experience
County of Los Angeles
As-Needed Master Plan and Strategic Facilities Planning Consulting Services, Los Angeles, CA
Civic Center Master Plan, Los Angeles, CA
Department of Public Social Services Space Facility Master Plan, Los Angeles, CA
Health & Human Services Multi-A gency, Family Service Center Strategy, Los Angeles, CA
Rancho Los Amigos Campus Planning, Downey, CA
County of Contra Costa Master Plan Services
County of San Luis Obispo Facilities Master Plan, San Luis Obispo, CA County of Sonoma
County Comprehensive Facilities Plan (CCFP), Santa Rosa, CA County Junior College District Facilities Master Plan
County of Santa Barbara Calle Real Master Plan, Santa Barbara, CA County of Santa Cruz Long Range Facilities Master Plan, Santa Cruz, CA City of Sacramento, Real Estate Strategy
County of Alameda
Real Estate Master Plan, Oakland, CA
Social Services Agency, Alameda, CA
County of Los Angeles, Real Estate Strategy
County of Marin, Real Estate Strategy
County of Monterey, Real Estate Strategy
County of Orange, Real Estate and Workplace Strategy
County of San Bernardino, Real Estate Strategy
Judicial Council of California, Court Facility Planning California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Reentry Facility Siting Services, Sacramento, CA
California Department of Motor Vehicles, Strategic Facilities Plan Sacramento, CA
City of Los Angeles
Asset Management Dat abase, Los Angeles, CA
City Hall South Optimization Study, Los Angeles, CA
Real Estate Strategy, Los Angeles, CA
City of Santa Monica,
Civic Center Space Needs Assessment, Santa Monica, CA
Workplace Strategy
Paul Natzke
Project Director
[email protected]
(213) 327-3815
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
30 Michael Adkins, LEED Green Associate
Senior Associate

Strategy Director
With more than 16 years of experience,
Michael has experience delivering diverse
project types for the federal, local and state
governments, the United States military and
private industry. His diverse experience, design
training and proven leadership has positioned
him uniquely to lead large and complex
accounts where he has helped lead real estate
and workplace projects with an emphasis on
strategic planning and work place analysis.

His ability to lead project teams effectively
has lead to his clients identifying millions in
potential real estate savings.

He is also involved in product design where he develops furniture, studies emerging resiliency issues in urban
environments, and how architecture can enhance
humanitarian aid.
20 Years of Experience
Joined Gensler 2015
Background
Pratt Institute, Master of Science, Interior Design, Brooklyn, NY University of Maryland Baltimore County, Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, Baltimore, MD
Lieutenant, United States Navy, Honorable Discharge
Security Clearance: DoD CAF Interim Top Secret
Selected Project Experience
County of Los Angeles
As-Needed Master Plan and Strategic Facilities Planning Consulting Services, Los Angeles, CA
City of Aurora, Aurora, CO
Municipal Campus Space Study
Martin Luther King Junior Library
County of Adams Facilities Master Plan, Adams County, CO County of Weld Facilities Master Plan, Greeley, CO
County of Yavapai Facilities Master Plan, Prescott, AZ
US Department of Commerce, Headquarters Workplace Utilization Washington, DC
US Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Services National Capitol Region Leased Space Study
Pentagon Office Census
Mark Center Space Optimization
Office of the Future
US Department of Defense, NCR Portfolio Strategy
US. General Services Administration CWSS
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Program of Requirements
Washington, DC
Activision Blizzard Workplace Strategy, Santa Monica, CA Activision Headquarters, Santa Monica, CA
Activision Publishing Workplace Strategy, Santa Monica, CA Amazon Web Services Data Center, Multiple Locations
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Workplace, Phoenix, AZ NASA FCU Visioning & Programming
Confidential US Intelligence Agency
Equinix Denver, Denver, CO
Global Strategic Plan, Ft Meade, MD and Worldwide12 locations GSA Building 53 Renovation, Denver, CO
Federal Aviation Administration, Nationwide IDIQ
Bessie Coleman Conference Room
MacCracken Confer ence Room
NASA FCU Visioning & Programming
San Diego Mesa College Master Plan, San Diego, CA
Toyota Gardena Strategy & Concept Planning, Gardena, CA Michael Adkins, LEED Green Associate
Strategy Director
[email protected]
(303) 446-3397
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
31 Lindsay Hoskins, IIDA
Associate

Strategist
9 Years of Experience
Joined Gensler 2017
Background
Bachelor of Science, Interior Design, University of Cincinnati Member, IIDA - International Interior Design Association Member, CoreNet - The Global Association fro Corporate Real Estate Selected Project Experience
US Department of Labor WRR DC WGD 2022
DOL Nationwide Workplace Design, Space Standards, Space Management Concepts, and Change Management Plan for DOLs Future of Work efforts Department of Veterans Affairs - COVID19 Response Support Supported the VA Central Office (VACO) mission of VA “returning to work” from VA’s maximized telework policy in response to the pandemic Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Led a 3-year change management strategy for a HQ move. Enhanced transparency through change champions and stakeholder engagement campaigns, 508-compliant communications, town halls, FAQ SharePoint site, and pulse surveys.

DC Office of the Attorney General (OAG) - Change Management Comprehensive change management and workplace engagement program for employees for post-pandemic office relocation
Booz Allen Hamilton
Conducted 20+ cross-functional leadership interviews to assess culture and policy gaps. Synthesized insights into an industry benchmark study and developed global workplace guidelines to support long-term culture and strategy objectives.

Community Food Bank of NJ
Developed and facilitated a 2-day team-building workshop for 250+ employees, outlining annual goals and enhancing organizational culture.

Prince George’s County - Re-entry Playbook
COVID-19 related workplace planning consulting services, to assist Client in planning for return to workplace pursuant to Client’s directives.

Confidential Financial Services Company
Led change management communications for Charlotte campus relocation.

Designed brand identity, newsletters, welcome guides, and a video campaign with client leaders to engage and educate 2,000+ employees on the new workplace experience.

A strategist passionate about
transforming spaces, experiences,
and organizations by putting people
at the forefront. With nearly a decade
of experience, her expertise spans
design, workplace strategy, change
management, communications, and
organizational development.

Consultative by nature, insight-driven, and design-savvy, Lindsay combines qualitative and quantitative research with creative strategies to drive behavioral change, transform work environments, and future-proof organizations. She has worked across both the private and public sectors, including federal and local government projects, where she has led large-scale initiatives and cultural transformations.

She works with clients, stakeholders, and community members to gain a deep understanding of organizational culture, goals, and operations to drive research driven decisions. Her expertise includes research methods such as surveys, observations, focus groups, workshops, and stakeholder and employee engagements, which inform impactful, forward-thinking strategies.

Lindsay Hoskins, IIDA
Strategist
[email protected]
(202) 721-6430
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
32 Nicholas Acevedo, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Principal

Local Advisor
17 Years of Experience
Joined Gensler 2006
Background
Bachelor of Architecture, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, CA Licensed Architect, California & Utah
Construction Document Technologist (CDT)
National Council of Architecture Registration Board (NCARB) USGBC LEED Accredited Professional
Selected Project Experience Size (sq ft)
Sherman Library & Gardens, Costa Mesa, CA 25,198
City of Santa Ana, Regional Transportation Center Bike Center 2,500 OC Health Care Campus, Irvine, CA 75,000
Saddleback College ATEP Building, Tustin, CA 59,000
College of the Desert Science Building, Palm Desert, CA 15,900 Irvine Valley College Student Services, Irvine, CA 55,000 Irvine Valley College Student Union, Irvine, CA 32,500 Pacifica Christian School, Newport Beach, CA 15,000
Vanguard University Event Center & Gym, Costa Mesa, CA 60,000 Air Zealand Design Lounge Guidelines
John Wayne Airport Expansion Project 350,000
Paradies Concession 4,200
Tenant Design Guidelines N/A
Airline Tenant Improvement Project 60,000
Deconstruction of B1 Parking 125,000
San Francisco International Airport, Redevelopment Studies N/A San Jose International Airport N/A
McClellen-Palomer Regional Airport, Carlsbad, CA 20,130 FivePoint, Great Park Integrated Master Plan, Irvine, CA 3,000 AC Mixed Use Development 31 acres
District 4 Fitness 8 acres
Western Sector 10 acres
Caribou Industries, 3rd & Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 261,000 FivePoint, Newhall Ranch Master Planning, Santa Clarita, CA 250,000 Laguna Niguel Mixed Use Development 180,000
Bank of America Century City, Los Angeles, CA
Tarsadia, Newport Beach, CA 17,500
PIMCO Headquarters, Newport Beach, CA 380,000
Opus Bank, Irvine, CA 2,157
Equity Office Properties various projects
FCB Worldwide, Irvine, CA 15,000
Bank of America Office Properties, various projects N/A Multiple projects in CA, UT
Karma Automotive, Corporate Sales Standard N/A
Toyota Image USA II Facility Program 1,200 Dealerships
Nicholas provides valuable flexibility in
all phases of a project, from full service
design to construction administration
services. His diversity, communication,
collaboration skills, and attentiveness
to the client’s needs, enable him to
contribute to many project teams at any
stage of a project, while ensuring overall
project success.

Nick’s expertise ranges from leading small teams with a focus on custom project elements to managing large complicated project teams with multiple stakeholders. He focuses on our client’s needs while delivering thoughtfully different experiences. Nick’s experience in managing multiphased complex projects with consultant teams, while maintaining client goals and creating memorable experiences that elevates all his projects.

Nick’s experience includes design build delivery, detailed building tectonics, BIM project delivery, parametric modeling, facilitating the utilization of mobile devices for project delivery. Nick co- leads the Southwest region Large Project Committee to assist team throughout the firm and region for delivery of large and complez projects in all practice areas.

Nicholas Acevedo, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Local Advisor
[email protected]
(949) 260-8597
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
33 1
PROJECT EXPERIENCE:

City of Redwood City, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Energy Audit
City of South San Francisco, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Stockton, CA
Facility Condition Assessments
City of Santa Clara, CA
Facility Condition Assessments
City of Monterey, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Milpitas, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Fremont, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Palo Alto, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Menlo Park, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Energy Audit
City of Mill Valley, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of St. Helena, CA

Facility Condition Assessment
City of Vallejo, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
Solano County, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Fresno, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
Judicial Courts of California, CA
Facility Condition Assessment

MATT ANDERSON, RA
Education
Bachelor of Architecture, California
Polytechnic University

PROGRAM MANAGER
Mr. Anderson is a registered architect with experience in the assessment and design of residential projects in addition to construction management processes and procedures. He routinely supervises teams of architects and engineers conducting property condition assessments. He also specializes in cost estimating, government programs, and an array of other services. As Program Manager, he is responsible for delivering results, and is the main point of contact for the Client throughout the project.

Registration
Registered Architect | CA | C15753
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 30+
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
34 2
PROJECT EXPERIENCE:

City of Menlo Park, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Energy Audit
City of Redwood City, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Energy Audit
City of St. Helena, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
Butte County, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Milpitas, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Fresno Fire Stations, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Monterey, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Inventory
City of Fairfield, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Glendora, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
City of Cudahy, CA
Facility Condition Assessment, Space
Utilization, Preventive Maintenance
City of Palm Desert, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Inventory
City of Orange, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
Judicial Courts of California, CA
Facility Condition Assessment
Southern California Gas, CA
Facility Condition Assessment & Energy Audit

MARY VENABLE, RA, CEM, LEED AP
Education
Master of Architecture, University of Nevada
Master of Arts, English, University of Virginia

QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER
Mrs. Venable is a Registered Architect, Certified Energy Manager, and LEED Accredited Professional with 21 years of experience in the government, public housing, and K-12 Education industries. She has extensive experience with projects of similar scope for government clients.

As Quality Assurance Manager, she will assist the Program Manager by providing QA/QC review on the data collection and reports.

Registration / Certification
Registered Architect | NV | 4224
Certified Energy Manager | NV | 18462
LEED AP | 38469
BPA Multi-family Building Analyst | 5006070
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 21
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
35 Philip Mathur
Principal | Senior Cost Estimator

Philip is a Senior Construction Consultant for KPJ Consulting with over 34 years of experience in the construction industry. Philip’s experience includes both public and private sector clients, nationally and internationally. He has provided expertise to a variety of projects and building types in sectors.

Philip is adept at coordinating all facets of cost, managing budgets, and negotiating contracts on large- & small-scale projects. He has extensive experience with project budget control from early design concepts through construction, GMP/bid package negotiations, change order management, cash flow projection, pay application processing and risk analysis.

Project Experience

City of Aurora, Aurora, CO Municipal Campus Space Study City of San Clemente, CA, New Civic Center Options Study Civic Center Historic Building, Adaptive Re -Use Study, Los Angeles, CA County of Sonoma, CA Comprehensive County Facilities P lan County of San Bernardino, CA Comprehensive Master Plan
Newport Beach City Hall, Newport Beach, CA
Solano County Government Center, Fairfield, CA
Los Angeles County, CA Civic Center Master Plan
County of San Luis Obispo, CA Facilities Master Plan
Roxbury Park Redevelopment, Beverly Hills, CA
County of Los Angeles, CA
Consolidated Correctional Treatment Facility Master Plan Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach, CA
Master Plan
Metrolink Midway Yards, Los Angeles, CA
Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena CA Master Plan
University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Position in Firm
PPrriinncciippaall

Role on Project
SSeenniioorr CCoosstt EEssttiimmaattoorr

Length of
Association/Total Years in
Field
22++ yyeeaarrss // 3344 ++yyeeaarrss

Level of Education
BBaacchheelloorr’ss DDeeggrreeee,, QQuuaannttiittyy
SSuurrvveeyyiinngg,, GGllaassggooww CCaalleeddoonniiaann UUnniivveerrssiittyy

Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
36 Public Sector and Library Experience
Gensler has experience partnering with similar sized municipalities and our public sector experience is robust. Gensler has programmed, planned, and designed facilities for public and private clients in California and throughout the United States since its inception in 1965. Select California experience is below:

SELECT CITY AGENCY EXPERIENCE
City of Los Angeles Space Optimization Study
City of San Diego Civic Center Facilities Needs Assessment City of Santa Monica Office Space Needs Assessment
Los Angeles Unified School District Space Needs Assessment

SELECT STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE
California Community College System (various)
California State University System (various)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Re-Entry Facility Site Assessments California Department of Motor Vehicles Strategic Facilities Plan Judicial Council of California Court Facility Plans
University of California System (various)

SELECT COUNTY EXPERIENCE
County of Alameda (various)
County of Contra Costa Facilities Master Plan
County of Los Angeles (various)
County of Napa Facilities Master Plan
County of Marin Facilities Master Plan
County of Monterey Facilities Master Plan
County of Orange Facilities Master Plan
County of San Bernardino Master Space Plan
County of San Luis Obispo Facilities Conceptual Plan
County of Santa Barbara Calle Real Master Plan
County of Santa Clara Strategic Facilities Master Plan
County of Santa Cruz Facilities Master Plan
County of Sonoma Comprehensive County Facilities Plan
County of Santa Barbara Calle Real Master Plan
County of Santa Cruz Long Range Facilities Plan
County of Stanislaus County Center II Site Assessment
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
37 Financial Capacity
Financial Capability
Due to confidentiality, Gensler’s Firmwide Finance
Manager. Phoebe Li, has sent Buyer, Stephanie Urueta
of the City of Costa Mesa, Gensler’s audited financials from the past three years via email to allow an
evaluation of our strong financial capabilities.

Gensler remains financially strong and debt-free as a
result of sound management practices, solid business
acumen, and a diverse portfolio of work. This allows us to deliver consistent service while also investing in our innovation platform by supporting research, talent
development, and design technology. We’re operating
globally across 55 locations, with total revenues for
the year exceeding $1 billion (USD) for the eighth year in a row.
$55.5M

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Contributions to U.S. and international
retirement plans (USD).

A commitment to
innovation and diversity
is at the heart of our
tremendous growth.
$1.84B
20001995199019851980197519701965 2005 2010 2015 2020
bangalore
bangkok
mumbai
Singapore
Sydney
Tokyo
asia pacific
remote/firmwide
Beijing
Hong Kong
Shanghai
greater China
Abu Dhabi
dubai
riyadh
middle east
Berlin
Birmingham
London
Munich
Paris
Europe
Bogota
san jose, Costa Rica
Mexico City
latin america
Atlanta
Baltimore
Charlotte
Miami
Nashville
Raleigh
Tampa
Washington D.C.
north america
southeast
Philadelphia
north america
northeast
Boston
Morristown
New York
Toronto
Chicago
Detroit
La Crosse
Minneapolis
north america
north central
north america
south central
Austin
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Oakland
Portland
San Francisco
San Jose
Seattle
Vancouver
north america
northwest
north america
southwest
Denver
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Newport Beach
Phoenix
San Diego
2001
9/11 & dot-com bubble
2008–2009
great recession
2020
covid-19
2023
$2B
One- Firm
Firm 2023
One- Firm
Firm 2023
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
38 Disclosure
Sample Professional Service Agreement
Disclosure
To the best of our knowledge, Gensler does not have
any and all past or current business and personal
relationships with any current Costa Mesa elected
official, appointed official, City employee, or family
member of any current Costa Mesa elected official,
appointed official, or City employee.

Sample Professional Service Agreement
We have done a preliminary review of the proposed
agreement. While there are a few revisions that
Gensler would like to discuss, the agreement provides
a very reasonable basis for negotiation.

6.9: Indemnification and Hold Harmless:

The indemnity and defense requirement included
is applicable to general liability claims. However,
professional services and the insurance that covers
them functions differently. Thus, we request an
addition to this term that clarifies that for professional liability claims, Consultant shall not be required to
provide an up-front defense, rather Consultant’s
defense obligations shall be to reimburse for
defense costs incurred in proportion to Consultant’s
negligence.

6.13: Ownership of Documents:

If Gensler is required to transfer ownership of the
work product to the City, we request revision of this
term to reflect that transfer is conditioned upon
payment for the work product and excludes any of
Gensler’s pre-existing intellectual property, including design details and standard specifications.

Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
39 Checklist of Forms to Accompany Proposal
RFP25.03.C06263

VENDOR APPLICATION FORM
FOR
RFP No. 25-03 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
TYPE OF APPLICANT:  NEW  CURRENT VENDOR
Legal Contractual Name of Corporation: ______________________________________ Contact Person for Agreement: _____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________ Business Telephone: _________________________ Business Fax: ________________ Corporate Mailing Address: ________________________________________________ City, State and Zip Code: __________________________________________________ Contact Person for Proposals: ______________________________________________ Title: ______________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________ Business Telephone: _________________________ Business Fax: ________________ Is your business: (check one)
 NON PROFIT CORPORATION  FOR PROFIT CORPORATION Is your business: (check one)
 CORPORATION  LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
 INDIVIDUAL  SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
 PARTNERSHIP  UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION
X
M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates, Inc.

Kevin Rosenstein
Nicholas Acevedo, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Principal
Principal, Local Advisor
[email protected]
[email protected]
(213) 243-8841
(949) 260-8597
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
n/a
n/a
X
X
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
40 EXHIBIT C

FEE SCHEDULE

Facilities Master Plan
Response to Request for Proposal (RFP)
August 14, 2024

COST PROPOSAL

August 14, 2024
Stephanie Urueta
Buyer
City of Costa Mesa
Subject: Response to Request for Proposal (RFP No. 25-03) for the City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan: COST PROPOSAL Dear Stephanie:

Please find Gensler’s Cost Proposal enclosed as a separate file to accompany our Technical Proposal in direct response to the Request for Proposal. Gensler’s hourly rates of our proposed key personnel are below and on the following page.

Proposed Key Personnel Hourly Rates
Kevin Rosenstein, Principal in Charge $350
Paul Natzke, Project Director $300
Michael Adkins, Strategy Director $250
Lindsay Hoskins, Strategist $150
Sincerely,
4675 MacArthur Court
Suite 100
Newport Beach CA 92660
Tel 949.863.9434
Cover Letter
Kevin Rosenstein
Principal
(213) 243-8841
[email protected]
Paul Natzke
Project Director
(213) 243-8841
[email protected]
Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan
1 Cost Proposal
Gensler’s proposals shall be valid for 180 days following this submission, dated November 6, 2024.

Cost Proposal
Week 1 2 4 5* 6 9 10 11* 12 13 14 15* 17 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 Date 12/2 12/9 12/16 12/23 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 Phase 1: Project Startup 3 Weeks

1.1 Team Organization

1.2 Background Materials Collection
Virtual 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting •

1.4 Data Collection Methodology
In Person 1.5 Steering Committee Workshop #1 - Visioning • Phase 2: Data Collection 6 Weeks

2.1.1 Facility Conditions Assessment (BVTA) •
Optional 2.1.2 Tier 1 Seismic Assessment (Bureau Veritas) (OPTIONAL SERVICE) • Optional 2.2 Employee Survey (Workplace Performance Survey) (OPTIONAL SERVICE)

2.3 Elected Office/Department Questionnaire Issued ○ •
In Person 2.4 Elected Office/Department Interviews (12) • In Person 2.5 Site Tours •
Phase 3: Analysis & Findings 6 Weeks

3.1 City Demographics Projections •

3.2 Staffing Projections •

3.3 Demand & Supply Gap Analysis •

3.4 Research & Synthesis
Virtual 3.5 Steering Committee Workshop #2 - Findings Review • Phase 4: Options Development 6 Weeks

4.1 Design Options Solutions (up to 3)
In Person 4.2 City Steering Committee Workshop #3: Options Development ○ City Review/Comment/Approval
Options Refinment Period
Virtual 4.3 City Steering Committee Workshop #4: Options Refinement and Consensus • Phase 5: Final Documentation 8 Weeks

5.1 Implementation/Phased Guide •

5.2 Project Cost Estimates •

5.3 Financial Analysis/Occupancy Costs •

5.4 Financial Analysis/Funding Analysis •

5.5 Final Implementation Plan •
Virtual 5.6 City Steering Committee Workshop #5: Implementation Review ○

5.7 Draft City Facilities Master Plan Report •
In Person 5.8 Presentation to the City Council •

5.9 Final Facilities Plan Report •
LEGEND
* Holiday week
• Client meetings
○ Client review (provide comments/updates/approval)
Key Personnel Billing Rate * * * * Total Hours
Kevin Rosenstein Principal in Charge 350.00$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16,100.00$ 16142 Paul Natzke Project Director 300.00$ 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 8 8 33,600.00$ 33700 Michael Adkins Strategy Director 250.00$ 8 8 12 12 12 24 12 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 16 16 12 12 16 16 16 16 78,000.00$ 78296 Lindsay Hoskins Strategist 150.00$ 20 20 16 20 20 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 69,000.00$ 69420 150.00$ -$ 0 182.00$ -$ 0 175.00$ -$ 0 Total Hours 34 38 34 38 38 58 38 38 38 38 38 42 38 38 42 42 46 38 38 42 42 46 46 * Team travel week Total Fee $6,900.00 $8,100.00 $7,300.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $12,700.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $10,100.00 $196,700.00 197558 Gensler Fees
Travel Expenses $5,385.00

TOTAL FEES BY PHASE
Phase
Prime Consultant
Gensler Total $196,700.00
Subconsultant
Bureau Veritas Total 76,447.00$
KPJ Consulting Total 16,000.00$
Labor Total $289,147.00
Reimbursable Expenses $5,923.50
Contingency (5%) 4,622.35$
TOTAL PROJECT FEE $299,692.85
Optional Services
Tier 1 Siesmic Option 188,000.00$
Employee Workplace Performance Index (WPI) Survey 10,000.00$ Project Fee by Key Personnel
PHASE 3
$43,700.00
$1,123.00
$44,823.00
PHASE 4
$53,800.00
$1,123.00
$54,923.00
PHASE 5
$37,816.00
PHASE 2
$15,000.00
$1,123.00
$16,123.00
PHASE 1
$35,800.00
$2,016.00
$48,400.00
$0.00
$48,400.00
Week 1 2 4 5* 6 9 10 11* 12 13 14 15* 17 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 Date 12/2 12/9 12/16 12/23 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 Phase 1: Project Startup 3 Weeks

1.1 Team Organization

1.2 Background Materials Collection
Virtual 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting •

1.4 Data Collection Methodology
In Person 1.5 Steering Committee Workshop #1 - Visioning • Phase 2: Data Collection 6 Weeks

2.1.1 Facility Conditions Assessment (BVTA) •
Optional 2.1.2 Tier 1 Seismic Assessment (Bureau Veritas) (OPTIONAL SERVICE) • Optional 2.2 Employee Survey (Workplace Performance Survey) (OPTIONAL SERVICE)

2.3 Elected Office/Department Questionnaire Issued ○ •
In Person 2.4 Elected Office/Department Interviews (12) • In Person 2.5 Site Tours •
Phase 3: Analysis & Findings 6 Weeks

3.1 City Demographics Projections •

3.2 Staffing Projections •

3.3 Demand & Supply Gap Analysis •

3.4 Research & Synthesis
Virtual 3.5 Steering Committee Workshop #2 - Findings Review • Phase 4: Options Development 6 Weeks

4.1 Design Options Solutions (up to 3)
In Person 4.2 City Steering Committee Workshop #3: Options Development ○ City Review/Comment/Approval
Options Refinment Period
Virtual 4.3 City Steering Committee Workshop #4: Options Refinement and Consensus • Phase 5: Final Documentation 8 Weeks

5.1 Implementation/Phased Guide •

5.2 Project Cost Estimates •

5.3 Financial Analysis/Occupancy Costs •

5.4 Financial Analysis/Funding Analysis •

5.5 Final Implementation Plan •
Virtual 5.6 City Steering Committee Workshop #5: Implementation Review ○

5.7 Draft City Facilities Master Plan Report •
In Person 5.8 Presentation to the City Council •

5.9 Final Facilities Plan Report •
LEGEND
* Holiday week
• Client meetings
○ Client review (provide comments/updates/approval)
Key Personnel Billing Rate * * * * Total Hours
Kevin Rosenstein Principal in Charge 350.00$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16,100.00$ 16142 Paul Natzke Project Director 300.00$ 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 8 8 33,600.00$ 33700 Michael Adkins Strategy Director 250.00$ 8 8 12 12 12 24 12 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 16 16 12 12 16 16 16 16 78,000.00$ 78296 Lindsay Hoskins Strategist 150.00$ 20 20 16 20 20 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 69,000.00$ 69420 150.00$ -$ 0 182.00$ -$ 0 175.00$ -$ 0 Total Hours 34 38 34 38 38 58 38 38 38 38 38 42 38 38 42 42 46 38 38 42 42 46 46 * Team travel week Total Fee $6,900.00 $8,100.00 $7,300.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $12,700.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $10,100.00 $196,700.00 197558 Gensler Fees
Travel Expenses $5,385.00

TOTAL FEES BY PHASE
Phase
Prime Consultant
Gensler Total $196,700.00
Subconsultant
Bureau Veritas Total 76,447.00$
KPJ Consulting Total 16,000.00$
Labor Total $289,147.00
Reimbursable Expenses $5,923.50
Contingency (5%) 4,622.35$
TOTAL PROJECT FEE $299,692.85
Optional Services
Tier 1 Siesmic Option 188,000.00$
Employee Workplace Performance Index (WPI) Survey 10,000.00$ Project Fee by Key Personnel
PHASE 3
$43,700.00
$1,123.00
$44,823.00
PHASE 4
$53,800.00
$1,123.00
$54,923.00
PHASE 5
$37,816.00
PHASE 2
$15,000.00
$1,123.00
$16,123.00
PHASE 1
$35,800.00
$2,016.00
$48,400.00
$0.00
$48,400.00
Week 1 2 4 5* 6 9 10 11* 12 13 14 15* 17 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 Date 12/2 12/9 12/16 12/23 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 Phase 1: Project Startup 3 Weeks

1.1 Team Organization

1.2 Background Materials Collection
Virtual 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting •

1.4 Data Collection Methodology
In Person 1.5 Steering Committee Workshop #1 - Visioning • Phase 2: Data Collection 6 Weeks

2.1.1 Facility Conditions Assessment (BVTA) •
Optional 2.1.2 Tier 1 Seismic Assessment (Bureau Veritas) (OPTIONAL SERVICE) • Optional 2.2 Employee Survey (Workplace Performance Survey) (OPTIONAL SERVICE)

2.3 Elected Office/Department Questionnaire Issued ○ •
In Person 2.4 Elected Office/Department Interviews (12) • In Person 2.5 Site Tours •
Phase 3: Analysis & Findings 6 Weeks

3.1 City Demographics Projections •

3.2 Staffing Projections •

3.3 Demand & Supply Gap Analysis •

3.4 Research & Synthesis
Virtual 3.5 Steering Committee Workshop #2 - Findings Review • Phase 4: Options Development 6 Weeks

4.1 Design Options Solutions (up to 3)
In Person 4.2 City Steering Committee Workshop #3: Options Development ○ City Review/Comment/Approval
Options Refinment Period
Virtual 4.3 City Steering Committee Workshop #4: Options Refinement and Consensus • Phase 5: Final Documentation 8 Weeks

5.1 Implementation/Phased Guide •

5.2 Project Cost Estimates •

5.3 Financial Analysis/Occupancy Costs •

5.4 Financial Analysis/Funding Analysis •

5.5 Final Implementation Plan •
Virtual 5.6 City Steering Committee Workshop #5: Implementation Review ○

5.7 Draft City Facilities Master Plan Report •
In Person 5.8 Presentation to the City Council •

5.9 Final Facilities Plan Report •
LEGEND
* Holiday week
• Client meetings
○ Client review (provide comments/updates/approval)
Key Personnel Billing Rate * * * * Total Hours
Kevin Rosenstein Principal in Charge 350.00$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16,100.00$ 16142 Paul Natzke Project Director 300.00$ 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 8 8 33,600.00$ 33700 Michael Adkins Strategy Director 250.00$ 8 8 12 12 12 24 12 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 16 16 12 12 16 16 16 16 78,000.00$ 78296 Lindsay Hoskins Strategist 150.00$ 20 20 16 20 20 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 69,000.00$ 69420 150.00$ -$ 0 182.00$ -$ 0 175.00$ -$ 0 Total Hours 34 38 34 38 38 58 38 38 38 38 38 42 38 38 42 42 46 38 38 42 42 46 46 * Team travel week Total Fee $6,900.00 $8,100.00 $7,300.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $12,700.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $10,100.00 $196,700.00 197558 Gensler Fees
Travel Expenses $5,385.00

TOTAL FEES BY PHASE
Phase
Prime Consultant
Gensler Total $196,700.00
Subconsultant
Bureau Veritas Total 76,447.00$
KPJ Consulting Total 16,000.00$
Labor Total $289,147.00
Reimbursable Expenses $5,923.50
Contingency (5%) 4,622.35$
TOTAL PROJECT FEE $299,692.85
Optional Services
Tier 1 Siesmic Option 188,000.00$
Employee Workplace Performance Index (WPI) Survey 10,000.00$ Project Fee by Key Personnel
PHASE 3
$43,700.00
$1,123.00
$44,823.00
PHASE 4
$53,800.00
$1,123.00
$54,923.00
PHASE 5
$37,816.00
PHASE 2
$15,000.00
$1,123.00
$16,123.00
PHASE 1
$35,800.00
$2,016.00
$48,400.00
$0.00
$48,400.00
Week 1 2 4 5* 6 9 10 11* 12 13 14 15* 17 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 Date 12/2 12/9 12/16 12/23 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 Phase 1: Project Startup 3 Weeks

1.1 Team Organization

1.2 Background Materials Collection
Virtual 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting •

1.4 Data Collection Methodology
In Person 1.5 Steering Committee Workshop #1 - Visioning • Phase 2: Data Collection 6 Weeks

2.1.1 Facility Conditions Assessment (BVTA) •
Optional 2.1.2 Tier 1 Seismic Assessment (Bureau Veritas) (OPTIONAL SERVICE) • Optional 2.2 Employee Survey (Workplace Performance Survey) (OPTIONAL SERVICE)

2.3 Elected Office/Department Questionnaire Issued ○ •
In Person 2.4 Elected Office/Department Interviews (12) • In Person 2.5 Site Tours •
Phase 3: Analysis & Findings 6 Weeks

3.1 City Demographics Projections •

3.2 Staffing Projections •

3.3 Demand & Supply Gap Analysis •

3.4 Research & Synthesis
Virtual 3.5 Steering Committee Workshop #2 - Findings Review • Phase 4: Options Development 6 Weeks

4.1 Design Options Solutions (up to 3)
In Person 4.2 City Steering Committee Workshop #3: Options Development ○ City Review/Comment/Approval
Options Refinment Period
Virtual 4.3 City Steering Committee Workshop #4: Options Refinement and Consensus • Phase 5: Final Documentation 8 Weeks

5.1 Implementation/Phased Guide •

5.2 Project Cost Estimates •

5.3 Financial Analysis/Occupancy Costs •

5.4 Financial Analysis/Funding Analysis •

5.5 Final Implementation Plan •
Virtual 5.6 City Steering Committee Workshop #5: Implementation Review ○

5.7 Draft City Facilities Master Plan Report •
In Person 5.8 Presentation to the City Council •

5.9 Final Facilities Plan Report •
LEGEND
* Holiday week
• Client meetings
○ Client review (provide comments/updates/approval)
Key Personnel Billing Rate * * * * Total Hours
Kevin Rosenstein Principal in Charge 350.00$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16,100.00$ 16142 Paul Natzke Project Director 300.00$ 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 8 8 33,600.00$ 33700 Michael Adkins Strategy Director 250.00$ 8 8 12 12 12 24 12 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 16 16 12 12 16 16 16 16 78,000.00$ 78296 Lindsay Hoskins Strategist 150.00$ 20 20 16 20 20 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 69,000.00$ 69420 150.00$ -$ 0 182.00$ -$ 0 175.00$ -$ 0 Total Hours 34 38 34 38 38 58 38 38 38 38 38 42 38 38 42 42 46 38 38 42 42 46 46 * Team travel week Total Fee $6,900.00 $8,100.00 $7,300.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $12,700.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,100.00 $10,100.00 $196,700.00 197558 Gensler Fees
Travel Expenses $5,385.00

TOTAL FEES BY PHASE
Phase
Prime Consultant
Gensler Total $196,700.00
Subconsultant
Bureau Veritas Total 76,447.00$
KPJ Consulting Total 16,000.00$
Labor Total $289,147.00
Reimbursable Expenses $5,923.50
Contingency (5%) 4,622.35$
TOTAL PROJECT FEE $299,692.85
Optional Services
Tier 1 Siesmic Option 188,000.00$
Employee Workplace Performance Index (WPI) Survey 10,000.00$ Project Fee by Key Personnel
PHASE 3
$43,700.00
$1,123.00
$44,823.00
PHASE 4
$53,800.00
$1,123.00
$54,923.00
PHASE 5
$37,816.00
PHASE 2
$15,000.00
$1,123.00
$16,123.00
PHASE 1
$35,800.00
$2,016.00
$48,400.00
$0.00
$48,400.00

LINDSAY HOSKINS
IIDA
Strategist

NICK ACEVEDO

AIA, LEED AP , CDT
Local Advisor

PAUL NATZKE
Project Director,
Main Point of Contact

KEVIN ROSENSTEIN
Principal in Charge

MICHAEL ADKINS

LEED GA
Strategy Director
Project Fee by
Key Personnel
Total
Hours
2Gensler | City of Costa Mesa Facilities Master Plan