Park Name: Controller: ....
Inspector:
IRRIGATION INSPECTION
Station
Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
OK
Broken Head
Plugged Head
Adjust Head
Broker Lateral
Solenoid
Valve
Other
PLANT MATERIAL INSPECTION
Good
Fair
Turf too wet
Stressed Turf
IRRIGATION INSPECTION
Station
Number
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 OK
Broken Head
Plugged Head
Adjust Head
Broker Lateral
Solenoid
Valve
Other
PLANT MATERIAL INSPECTION
Good
Fair
Turf too wet
Stressed Turf
Irrigation Schedule:
Scheduled water days (circle): M T W TH F Sat Sun
Start Times: Program A 1st _____ 2nd _____ 3rd _____ 4th ______ Start Times: Program B 1st _____ 2nd _____ 3rd _____ 4th ______ Water Budget %: ______
230
Station Run Times: 1___, 2 ___, 3 ___, 4 ___, 5 ___, 6 ___,7 ___, 8 ___, 9 ___,10 ___, 11 ___,12 ___, 13 ___, 14 ___,15 ___, 16 ___, 17 ___, 18 ___,19 ___, 20 ___, 21 ___,22 ___, 23 ___,24 ___,25 ___, 26 ___, 27 ___,28 ___, 29 ___, 30 ___,31 ___,32 ___, 33 ___,34 ___, 35 ___, 36___,37 ___,38___, 39 ___, 40 ___,
Station
Number Description of Deficiency Recorded Date Identified Date
Corrected
Notes:
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____
Inspector(signature):
Inspector(printed name):
Affix additionalsheets asrequired.
231
CITY OF DUARTE
WEEKLY LANDSCAPE INSPECTION REPORT
Contractor:_______________________________________________Date:__________to_________ Locaaon:__________________________________________________________________________ Inspector: _________________________________________________________________________ Area Inspected
WEEK
1 2 3 4
DEFICIENCY
Yes(Y) or
No (N)
Description/See
detailed report below
A. Landscape
1 Damages – Traffic Accident,
Vandalism, Theft, etc.
2 Mowing, edging, trimming has
been completed
3 Trees and shrubs have been
maintained, planters weeded
4 Shrubs, turf or tree replacement
needed
5 Turf areas are weed free
(herbicide applicator scheduled?)
provide
6 Turf areasinspected for hazards
such as holes, mounds, rocks,
glass and other debris and
removed daily (list hazards
removed)
B. Trees
1 12”/36” tree wells have been
maintained
2 No sucker growth or low limb
obstructions
3 Tree supports and stakes are secure
4 Tree contractor (WCA)services are
required
C. Irrigation
1 Damaged to irrigation components
2 Excessive wet areas, run-off, over- spray Areas
3 Dry, brown or dead areas
D. Hardscape
1 Damage or hazards in sidewalks,
curb, gutters, parking lots or picnic
areas
2 Swales and drains clean
3 Litter & debris removed daily
E. Fertilization
1 Grass: Forecasted Application
Date for: Jan/May/September
2 Shrub: Forecasted Application
Date for: April
F. Pesticide
232
Letter and
Number
Description of Deficiency Recorded Date
Identified
Date
Corrected
1 Notification submitted to City:
Weed Control Application
2 Notification submitted to City:
Disease / Insect Applications
G. Playgrounds
1 Sand: Forecasted Rototill Date for:
Jan/May/September
2 Sand areas are weed free
H. Graffiti
1 All areas: Identify location & log
time
I. Weekend Trash Removal
1 Emptied 50% full or weekly
J. Recreational Trail
1 Slope and open space areas
maintained/trash and debris
removed
2 Trash and debris removed
3 Trees,shrubs ground cover
K. Traffic Control
1 Required traffic control devicesin- place
2 Encroachment permit atsite and
posted in vehicle
233
234
Attachment A - Part 2
AERIALS OF MAINTENANCE AREAS
Note: The attached aerial photos show an approximate location of maintenance areas. Please use these as a guide; however, please note that the area calculations are approximations and it is the contractor’s responsibility to visit the site and determine the exact extent of the area.
235
1 - Amberwood Homes
Huntington Drive and Amberwood Drive
Lot Area: 4.5 Acres
Landscape Area Estimate: 16,000 sf
236
2 - Buena Vista Villas
1900 Block of Buena Vista St.
Lot Area: 2.4 Acres
Landscape Area Estimate: 10,500 s.f .
237
238
239
5-EncantoParkway
AreaEstimate:26,000s.f.
240
241
242
8 - Kendrick Tract
Along the top of Royal Oaks Park
Landscape Area Estimate: 10,000 s.f.
243
244
245
246
247
13 - Rancho Verde Homes
Hacienda Dr. and Las Lomas Rd.
Lot Area: 12 Acres
Landscape Area Estimate: 50,000
248
14 - Ridgecrest
Sunnydale Dr. and Starpine Dr.
Frequent Lot Area: 1/2 Acre
Infrequent Lot Area: 3.9 Acres
249
250
16 - Aloysia Moore Park
1100 Duarte Rd.
Lot Area: 1.2 Acres
Landscaping Area Estimate: 22,000 s.f.
251
17 - Beardslee Park
2000 Buena Vista St.
Lot Area: 3.25 Acres
Landscaping Area Estimate: 134,000 s.f.
252
Teen Center
18 - Duarte Park
1344 Bloomdale St.
Lot Area: 1.5 Acre
Landscape Area Estimate: 54,000 s.f.
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
27 - Otis Gordon Sports Park
2351 Central Ave.
Lot Area: 5.9 Acres
Landscaping Area Estimate: 190,000 s.f.
262
263
264
30 - Royal Oaks Extension Park
2701 Royal Oaks Dr.
Lot Area: 2.8 Acres
Landscaping Area Estimate: 112,000 s.f.
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
45 - Duarte Rd. Medians and Parkways
Mountain Ave. to Bradbur
279
280
281
282
283
50 - Huntington Drive Medians,
Bulb outs, and Parkway
Cotter Ave. to Po
�.., -·
284
50 - Huntington Drive Medians,
Bulb outs, and Parkway Cont.
Mt. Olive Dr. to Crestfield Dr.
285
50 - Huntington Drive Medians,
Bulb outs, and Parkway Cont.
Las Lomas Rd. to Encanto Pkwy.
l f, � �i :·t-=:(/kJ .!·
286
51-LasLomasRoadMedian
BetweenRoyalOaksParkandExtension
287
52 - Mountain Ave. Median and Parkway
Duarte Rd. and Mountain Ave.
288
289
290
291
292
293
58 - Brookridge Road Tree Wells
12 Tree wells
3100 Block of Brookridge Rd.
294
295
60 - Central Ave. Tree Wells
47 Tree Wells
Central Ave. between Buena Vista St. to Highland Ave.
Buena Vista to Duncannon (24 wells)
Duncannon to Highland (23 wells)
296
61 - Deerlane Dr. Tree Wells
8 Tree Wells
3000 Block of Deerlane Dr.
297
62 - Delford Ave. Tree Wells
10 Tree Wells
2000 Block of Delford Ave.
298
299
64 - Huntington Tree Wells
Mountain to Pops Rd. - 86 Tree Wells
Ave. to Buena Vista St.
Buena Vista St. to Cotter Ave.
Cotter Ave. to Po s Rd.
300
Huntington Tree Wells Cont.
Pops Rd. to Crestfield Dr. - 87 Tree Wells
Elmhurst Ave. to Mt. Olive
-
301
Huntington Tree Wells Cont.
Crestfield Dr. to Encanto Pkwy. - 48 Tree Wells
Crestfield Dr. to Las Lomas Rd.
j
Las Lomas Rd. to Encanto Pkw .
302
65 - Melcanyon Rd. Tree Wells
11 Tree Wells
200 Block of Melcanyon Rd.
303
66 - Parkview Court
2 Trees, 1200 s.f. of Concrete
Across from 827 Parkview Ct.
304
66b - Maynard Dr. Tree Wells
Along 2671 Maynard Dr.
5 Tree Wells
305
306
307
308
68 - Duarte Road/Mountain Avenue Vacant Lot
15,000 s.f. Dirt Lot
309
69 - Huntington Drive/Buena Vista Vacant Lot
18,000 s.f. Dirt and Landscape
310
70 - Huntington Drive/ Las Brisas Road Vacant Lot
20,000 s.f. Dirt and Asphalt Lot
311
312
72 - Huntington Drive and Mount Olive Corner
1000 s.f. Landscaped Area Reserved for Public Art
313
73 - Duarte Wilderness Preserve - Open Space
Slopes Northwest of "The Mesa" Area
Landscaping Estimate: 10 Acres
314
74 - Greenbank Debris Basin
At the top of Greenbank Ave. near 206 Greenbank
Landscaping Estimate: 12,500 s.f
315
316
2 project including City overhead.
HumanGood has been considering expansion of Westminster Gardens for some time and has met multiple times with City Staff to discuss the process. The City’s Housing Element considered the expansion with an estimated increase of 300 units with at least half being in the affordable category.
This was not intended to be a maximum unit increase, but an estimate of a total increase that might be possible on site.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Over the next 15-20 years, HumanGood would like to expand the campus with Independent Living LPC Units; Affordable Senior Non LPC Units; Non LPC Units; care buildings; mixed-use buildings and office buildings. The request is for this expansion to accommodate 600 total units; this includes assisted living and memory care units, and mixed use much of which would be on the southeast corner of Huntington Drive and Santo Domingo.
Approval of the MIG contract for the Specific Plan and EIR is not acknowledgement that the City Council will approve the proposed project or that the City might not seek changes to the plan.
HumanGood and City Staff discussed the best options for selection of the specific plan and EIR consultant. MIG was selected based on past experience and quality of projects in Duarte and because MIG recently completed the environmental work (mitigated negative declaration) for the Morrison House. MIG Staff assigned to work on this project include Principal Laura Stetson, Project Manager Genevieve Sharrow, and CEQA Director Bob Prasse. All have worked on Duarte projects in the past and have performed exceptionally well, including overall work product, community outreach and cooperation with Staff and applicant. The MIG proposal is attached and provides additional detail.
The proposal includes: project coordination, preparation of a specific plan, preparation of an EIR, public meetings and community engagement and a Water Supply Assessment (if necessary). The total maximum contract cost is $404,480 ($359,480 for specific plan and EIR and $45,000 for Water Supply Analysis). City Staff and MIG will work with HumanGood and its other consultants to create efficiencies that may allow for reduced costs. For example, if some of the graphics and details can be supplied this could reduce the overall cost by as much as $30,000.
HumanGood will be responsible for the cost of the MIG contract and for the application fees that are intended to cover City Staff costs. To address this, the City Attorney has developed a Funding Agreement (attached) that outlines the process for payment.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to: 1) sign a Professional Services Agreement with MIG, Inc. for the preparation of a new Westminster Gardens Specific Plan and an Environmental Impact Report for $404,480; and 2) sign a Funding Agreement with 317
3 HumanGood, project applicant, to fund the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact. All costs associated with the contract with MIG will be funded by HumanGood. City Staff time to manage the contract will be covered by additional application fees paid for by HumanGood.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Professional Services Agreement with MIG (proposal attached) B. Funding Agreement with HumanGood
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
June 8, 2023
Craig Hensley, Director
Community Development Department
City of Duarte
1600 Huntington Drive
Duarte, CA 91010
via email to [email protected]
Subject: Westminster Gardens Master Plan – Revised Proposal for Specific plan and CEQA Documentation
Dear Craig:
Per our request, MIG, Inc. presents this revised proposal to prepare a specific plan and complete CEQA documentation for the Westminster Gardens master plan. We understand that the applicant, Human Good, has been working with the Dahlin Group for more than a year to plan the phased redevelopment of this senior living community. The redevelopment will substantially increase the number of units on the property and introduce commercial uses along Santo Domingo Avenue. The City has determined that a specific plan represents the best way to guide the 15- to 20-year build out. While the current Westminster Gardens specific plan has served as the land use regulatory document for current conditions, a new specific plan will be needed to address the new land use and circulation plan.
We have reviewed the draft specific plan (dated May 2023) the applicant provided and concur that it represents a good start on a specific plan that meets State law and City requirements. This proposal assumes that MIG will be provided with an editable version of the document and that the applicant will continue to provide the needed graphics and other details. Working with City staff, we will put together a list of items for the applicant to provide to allow us to complete the specific plan and CEQA document, which we assume will consist of an EIR.
The attached revised scope of services and budget identify the tasks we will undertake to see the project succeed. The budget is based on our experience with prior similar work in Duarte. We have included a cost range for community outreach and will discuss with you the activities that might be included.
Per your request, Genevieve Sharrow will lead the effort, supported by MIG planning and environmental staff, including Bob Prasse, who currently is overseeing CEQA compliance for reuse of the Morrison house. We have included the services of Historic Resources Group (HRG) to assess potential impacts relative to possible historic building and grounds; HRG completed the recent assessment of the Morrison House.
330
MIG 2 , Inc.
If this proposal is acceptable to you, let us know how you wish to proceed. We are available to get work underway immediately.
Sincerely,
Laura R. Stetson, AICP
Principal
331
MIG 3 , Inc.
Scope of Services
MIG will provide the following scope of services. Please note that each task identified may not occur in the order presented in this scope, as tasks may occur simultaneously. Also, this scope is based on the current proposal to replace the existing 147 units/beds over time to yield 310 independent living units, 150 affordable units, and 90 memory care beds (net 330 units), plus office and retail space. We will want to determine during the kick-off meeting (or prior) that this represents the project the applicant intends to pursue, including the 150 affordable units. Confirming the project description bears upon how the specific plan will be written and the EIR analysis proceeds.
Task 1: Project Management and Coordination
1.1: Kick-Off Meeting
MIG Principal Laura Stetson, Project Manager Genevieve Sharrow, and CEQA Director Bob Prasse will meet with City staff to clarify available information and your expectations regarding the specific plan and EIR. Objectives for the meeting include:
Understand the City’s expectations and requirements
Establish primary contact and preferred methods for communication Establish contact protocols with the applicant
Solidify the project description and discuss the project components Discuss project schedule, particularly as it relates to the CEQA document Strategize the public engagement approach
Identify additional studies and information needed from the applicant
1.2: Project Coordination Meetings (allowance)
This task involves strategic planning meetings/phone calls between City staff, MIG (and subconsultants), and the applicant as needed. The budget assumes the City’s project manager and the MIG project manager will conduct regularly scheduled check-in calls every other week.
1.3: Project Management
This subtask provides for contract administration, invoicing, scheduling, coordination with the project team, and quality control/assurance.
Task 1 Meetings and Deliverables
Kick-off meeting
Project coordination meetings (budgeted allowance)
Task 2: Prepare Administrative Draft Specific Plan
The Westminster Gardens specific plan will clearly and concisely convey the desired build-out of the affected properties. The specific plan will be written so that it can be easily understood by City decision makers, City staff, the property owner, and community residents and local business owners. Wherever possible, we will rely on illustrative examples rather than text to convey key concepts so that these can easily be adapted and reflected in future development. The plan will rely upon materials provided by 332
MIG 4 , Inc.
the applicant describing and illustrating, at a minimum:
The distribution of land uses on the site
Contemplated locations for all buildings
Building heights and illustrative elevations and sections Access and internal circulation – vehicles and pedestrians Location of loading and service areas
Open space improvement plan
Infrastructure improvement plans
Phasing plan, including how existing uses will function until they are replaced Landscaping plans, including existing landscaping to be retained Streetscape landscaping in particular
Signage plan
Parking plan
Grading plan
We will prepare supplementary graphics such as location maps and maps indicating circulation improvements on and adjacent to the site.
For the commercial components of the plan, we will examine the use table contained in the draft specific plan provided by the applicant, further tailoring it to reflect commercial uses most compatible with the senior community.
The specific plan will be structured to meet the requirements of State law and mirror other specific plans adopted by the City. We propose to revise the draft specific plan provided by the applicant to remove extraneous existing conditions information (which will be useful for the EIR) and to focus on the proposed development plan. The envisioned outline is:
Introduction and Users’ Guide
Project Overview and Phasing
Land Use Plan and Development/Design Standards
Circulation and Infrastructure
Implementation
Appendices: Glossary and General Plan Consistency
For this administrative draft, the document will be prepared in Word to facilitate City review and markup. We ask that the City provide a single mark-up document using Word’s track-changes format and including all City comments, internally resolved. We also ask the City to consider providing the administrative draft to the applicant so the applicant can verify accuracy and determine whether revisions to any project component are needed.
Task 2 Deliverables
One electronic copy (Word and pdf) of the Administrative Draft Specific Plan for City staff review (and applicant)
333
MIG 5 , Inc.
Task 3: Administrative Draft #2 and Public Review Draft Specific Plan
3.1: Administrative Draft #2
City staff will provide MIG with a marked-up copy of the administrative draft specific plan, consolidating all comments into a single document. We will meet with staff to review staff’s comments, as well as the applicant’s comments. If City staff directs revisions to the site plan or other project components prepared by the applicant’s team, our scope assumes that the applicant will provide the revised materials to us. We will revise any graphics prepared by MIG, and based on City staff comments, we will revise Administrative Draft #1 to create Administrative Draft #2.
3.2: Public Review Draft Specific Plan
Following staff’s review of Administrative Draft #2, MIG will prepare an InDesign template for the specific plan reformat the plan using the InDesign template and prepare the public review specific plan for CEQA analysis and general release to the public.
Task 3 Deliverables
Administrative Draft #2 (Word and pdf) for City staff review InDesign specific plan template
Public review draft specific plan - Printed and electronic copies per City requirements Task 4: SB 18 and AB 52 Consultation Support
State law requires tribal consultation for certain land use actions, including preparation of a specific plan. While the City is required to conduct any requested in-person consultation, MIG will assist by preparing a letter to inform affected tribes of the requested specific plan and to prepare any needed follow-up written correspondence. We have provided an allowance for this task.
Task 4 Deliverables
Required notification letters
Follow-up written correspondence in response to tribal letters received Task 5: Program EIR
MIG will prepare and process a comprehensive, clear, and defensible Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with all CEQA required components including existing setting, project description, cumulative and growth inducing impacts and alternatives. We will also provide all CEQA required findings and notices including postings with the County and the State Clearinghouse, and distribution of documents required by CEQA. Our scope does not include newspaper publication fees or any other fees.
The Program EIR will be designed to facilitate tiering to streamline subsequent CEQA review when site-specific, development proposals are submitted over time. For each of the technical studies listed below: 1) relevant baseline conditions will be assessed, 2) impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan estimated and compared to applicable thresholds, and 3) where such thresholds are exceeded recommend mitigation. One round of City review and revisions is assumed for all documents 334
MIG 6 , Inc.
described below.
Please also note that our scope of work does not include a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). If once a stable project description has been developed, the specific plan meets CEQA requirements for preparing a WSA (roughly 500 net dwelling units), a contract amendment would be necessary to retain a subconsultant to prepare a WSA. Based on our experience with similar projects the cost of a WSA would be in the range of $30,000 to $45,000.
5.1: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
Once a stable project description has been developed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be prepared.
The NOP will serve to announce the City’s determination that a Program EIR will be prepared, and to request comments concerning the scope and nature of issues to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP provides an opportunity for Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, other governmental entities, and other interested parties to review the project, identify issues of concern, and to suggest approaches to avoid or reduce the potentially adverse effects of the proposed project.
We will coordinate closely with City staff to prepare a distribution list for the NOP, including any affected federal, state, and local public agencies, and any other entities or individuals who have requested notification of CEQA projects from the City. MIG will distribute the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, and other interested entities for the CEQA-required 30-day review period. We will also post the NOP with the Los Angeles County Clerk.
A scoping meeting will be held during the 30-day NOP public review period in accordance with CEQA requirements. MIG will participate in the meeting and make a PowerPoint presentation about the project and the CEQA environmental process. MIG will also assist the City in the setup, noticing, and coordination of the NOP Scoping meeting.
5.2: Administrative Draft EIR
The Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) will consider all aspects of Specific Plan implementation.
Environmental topic areas and potential CEQA-defined impacts will be aligned with potential policies, implementation programs and other components of the Specific Plan. The EIR will include all CEQA required components and, where necessary to address potentially significant impacts, practical, implementable, and enforceable mitigation measures will be developed. Once completed, the full ADEIR will be provided to the City for review and comment.
Also, the following technical studies to support the EIR are included in our scope of work.
5.2.1: Air Quality – MIG will evaluate the proposed project’s potential individual and cumulative air quality impacts in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and recommended guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). MIG will use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and project-specific data (e.g., land use and trip/mobility data) to estimate the potential net change in emissions that could occur with the Specific Plan. The resulting emissions estimates will be compared to regional CEQA significance thresholds maintained by the SCAQMD. The air quality impact assessment will incorporate all applicable emission reduction policies included in the City’s General Plan and/or the proposed Specific Plan. If necessary, MIG will identify best management 335
MIG 7 , Inc.
practices or mitigation measures to reduce construction and operational emissions generated by the proposed project. Budget for this subtask includes up to three CalEEMod runs (existing emissions, and unmitigated and mitigated project scenarios) using project-specific data generated by the applicant and MIG team.
5.2.2: Greenhouse Gases (GHG)/Energy – MIG will evaluate the proposed project’s potential GHG and energy impacts in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and recommended guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) and the SCAQMD. MIG will quantify the proposed project’s GHG emissions and evaluate the significance of these emissions using a multi-pronged test that considers both the magnitude of the project’s GHG emissions levels and its consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions, including the CARB’s 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Government’s Connect SoCal. MIG notes that, to be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan and State’s Climate Goals, future residential land uses within the planning area would need to be designed to prohibit the construction, installation, and use of natural gas infrastructure for on-site building systems, appliances, and other mechanical equipment.
MIG will also evaluate the proposed project’s potential individual and cumulative energy use impacts, in accordance with Appendices F and G of the CEQA Guidelines and case law governing CEQA energy analysis (e.g., Tracy First v. City of Tracy). MIG will quantify the project’s potential consumption of petroleum fuel, electricity, and natural gas during all phases of construction of operation, evaluate whether the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and determine if the proposed Project could conflict with any applicable renewable energy or energy efficiency plans or policies, such as CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan. The analysis will incorporate any renewable energy generation and energy efficiency features included in the project into energy use estimates. Pursuant to California Clean Energy v. County of Placer, the analysis would also clearly consider the need for additional or enhanced renewable energy systems or design features to be included in the project design.
MIG will prepare up to six energy consumption spreadsheets (on- and off-site construction energy, as well as existing and proposed on- and off-site operational energy)) detailing electricity, natural gas, and fuel consumption estimates using project-specific data collected by the applicant and the MIG team.
5.2.3: Noise and Vibration – MIG will evaluate the proposed project’s potential noise and vibration impacts in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. MIG will conduct short-term (up to 1 hour) and long-term (up to 24 hours) noise monitoring at up to six locations at and adjacent to the planning area to adequately describe the existing noise environment in the planning area. The noise analysis will quantify peak and typical construction activity noise levels, and, if necessary, identify best management practices or mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of potential construction noise impacts to less than significance. Most of the noise analysis would focus on the potential for the future development to effect current residents on-site, as well as off-site receptors to the west, north, and east of the site. MIG proposes to model existing and proposed off-site transportation noise levels using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model. The analysis will also focus on the potential for construction or transportation-related vibration to affect any existing or future vibration-sensitive structures in the planning area.
This subtask includes budget for modeling traffic noise levels on up to three roadway segments under 336
MIG 8 , Inc.
existing and proposed conditions.
5.2.4: Transportation Assessment/EIR Support – Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) will prepare a comprehensive transportation assessment that will include the elements listed below. Their full proposal was provided separately in MIG’s original March, 2023 proposal. Project Mobilization (Scoping)
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis
Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
Consistency with Adopted Plans, Programs, Ordinances and Policies Data Collection and Research (non- CEQA, traffic counts) Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
Non-CEQA (Level of Service) analysis
Project Site Access and Circulation Review
Preparation of the Transportation Assessment Report
Attendance at Meetings and Conference Calls
Draft EIR Project Alternatives Assessment
Consultation Related to the Draft EIR (Review Draft Transportation Section) Response to Comments/Final EIR Support
5.2.5: Historic Resources Assessment – Historic Resources Group (HRG) will prepare a comprehensive historic resources assessment that will include the elements listed below. The Morrison House has already been investigated as part of the recent plan to renovate the structure; however, HRG will include any context impacts that might occur. HRG’s work will include:
Review any existing evaluations and documentation of potential historic resources on or adjacent to project site. Identify potential historic resources on the project site and in the that would need to be considered as part of environmental review of the proposed project. Site visit and photography to document existing conditions. Conduct additional research (building permits, Sanborn maps, aerial photographs, historic photographs, other primary and secondary sources) to understand development history and potential historic significance of the site and surrounding area. Confirm any previous evaluations of existing buildings.
Analyze proposed project to identify potential impacts to historic resources. Prepare draft Historical Resources Technical Report for review by the project team and the City. Revisions to the Technical Report, as needed, based on comments from the project team and/or City staff.
The following will only be performed as needed.
Review of the applicable section of the DEIR and proposed mitigation measures (if any). Meetings/consultation with project team.
Responses to comments on the DEIR.
337
MIG 9 , Inc.
5.3: Draft EIR For Public Circulation
Following review and comment on the ADEIR by the City, MIG will prepare the public review Draft EIR, incorporating the revisions resulting from City comments. Following the City’s review and any final revisions, MIG will prepare a final “proof-check” version of the DEIR. Following City review and approval of the proof-check DEIR to verify all changes/revisions have been addressed, the public review Draft EIR will be ready for public circulation. MIG will prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) for submittal to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and will prepare a Notice of Availability (NOA) to be transmitted to other government and quasi-governmental agencies, special interest groups, and interested persons that have requested notification of environmental documents prepared for projects under City of Duarte review.
MIG will also post the NOA with the Los Angeles County Clerk and prepare all SCH-required forms and transmittals. Circulation of the DEIR will initiate a mandatory 45-day public review period as required by CEQA.
5.4: Response to Comments/Final EIR (RTC/FEIR) and MMRP Following the close of the 45-day public review period, the City will transmit all written comments received to MIG. MIG will prepare an administrative draft of the Response to Comments/Final EIR (RTC/FEIR) document, which will include written responses to comments, addressing such comments with a reasoned analysis of issues raised. In some cases, responses may result in revisions to the text or exhibits contained in the DEIR, and such changes will be documented in the administrative draft RTC/FEIR. The RTC/FEIR document will include: the comments on the DEIR and the responses to such comments (as discussed above); a list of entities commenting on the DEIR; an erratum to address corrections and clarifications to the DEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Technically under CEQA, the DEIR is also considered to be part of the Final EIR, although it is maintained as a separate volume.
It is difficult to predict the number or complexity of comments there will be on the Draft EIR. We have allocated approximately 160 hours of staff time, which is our best estimate of the time needed to complete this task. If the allocated budget is exceeded due to the number, length, or complexity of the comments received, additional budget authorization may be needed.
The budget for this task allows for MIG to respond to one round of review/revisions of a consolidated set of City comments on the administrative draft RTC/FEIR document. Following MIG revisions to the administrative draft RTC/FEIR in response to City comments, a final “proof check” version will be provided for final City approval. The RTC/FEIR would then be ready to transmit to the commenters, which must occur at least ten days prior to the City Council’s decision on the project.
5.5: Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations MIG will prepare the CEQA-required findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations. MIG will coordinate with the City’s Legal Counsel as appropriate to prepare this document and submit a draft for one round of review and comment by City staff. MIG will also prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if there are any unavoidable significant impacts and if the City determines that specific economic, social, or other considerations override any unmitigated environmental effects. 338
MIG 10 , Inc.
5.6: Notice of Determination (NOD)
Within five working days of certification of the Final EIR by the City Council, MIG will prepare and file the NOD with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse.
5.7: EIR Project Management
MIG has allocated budget for communication and coordination with other project team members to ensure we can communicate clearly and effectively. In addition, this budget covers quality control review process for the EIR.
Task 5 Deliverables
All CEQA-required notices and forms
All technical studies as listed under Subtask 5.2
NOP and Associated Distribution List
NOP Scoping Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Administrative Draft EIR
Public Circulation Draft EIR
Response to Comments/Final EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Notice of Determination
Task 6: Community Engagement
The City may ask MIG to assist with outreach to surrounding neighbors and the larger Duarte community to present the proposed project. Outreach activities could include community workshops or focused outreach to surrounding neighborhoods, or both. In the budget we provide a budget range for engagement activities. At the start of the work program, we will meet with you to determine the most effective ways of engaging the community.
Task 7: Public Hearings and Final Specific Plan
7.1: Public Hearings
Because approval of the specific plan will be by ordinance (legislative action), public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council will be required. Two MIG staff will attend public hearings with the Commission and Council. We have budgeted for one hearing each with the Commission and Council.
Additional hearing attendance can be provided on a reimbursable basis. MIG will prepare a PowerPoint presentation for the hearings. The City will be responsible for all public hearing notices and staff reports.
7.2: Final Specific Plan
Following final City Council action on the specific plan, we will revise the Public Review Draft to incorporate any revisions directed through the public hearing process. We have provided a budgeted allowance for this task.
339
MIG 11 , Inc.
Task 7 Deliverables
PowerPoint Presentation for hearings
Final specific plan – Master reproducible digital files (InDesign and pdf) Budget
The table below identifies the estimated costs associated with each work scope task. We have provided ranges for the draft specific plan and engagement events since the precise level of work required cannot be known at this time. For the FEIR, costs associated with preparing responses to comments will be tied to the number and complexity of comments received. City staff elect to may take on such work as SB 18/AB 52 consultation and preparing the Findings/SOC (city attorney). All work will be billed on a timeand-materials basis. The City of Duarte will cover direct costs such as printing. We will maintain strict cost controls.
Task Estimated Cost
1.0 Project Management and Coordination $8,000
2.0 Administrative Draft Specific Plan $40,000 to $60,000
3.0 Administrative Draft #2 and Public Hearing Draft $20,000 to $24,000
4.0 SB 18 and AB 52 Consultation $3,000
5.0 Program EIR
5.1 - NOP and Scoping Meeting $6,700
5.2 - Administrative Draft EIR $69,500
5.2.1 – Air Quality Study $11,500
5.2.2 – GHG/Energy Demand Study $11,800
5.2.3 Noise and Vibration Study $11,500
5.2.4 - Transportation Assessment $49,830
5.2.5 – Historic Resources $17,450
5.3 Draft EIR for Public Circulation $19,500
5.4 RTC/FEIR and MMRP $24,300
5.5 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations $8,100
5.6 Notice of Determination $1,000
5.7 EIR Project Management $9,500
5.8 Water supply analysis $30,000 to $45,000
6.0 Community Engagement $9,000 to $15,000
7.0 Hearing and Final Documents
PowerPoint Presentation $3,000
Hearing Attendance (2 hearings) $4,000
Final Documents (allowance) $2,000
Total $404,680 max
*Includes 10% administrative markup for subconsultant.
340
MIG 12 , Inc.
Staffing and Billing Rates
The table below identifies the MIG staff assigned to this project and their billing rates.
Staff Hourly Rate
Principal $240
Director/Senior Associate $175 - $225
CEQA Planners $110 - $185
Assistant $100 - $115
Admin. Support $105
Direct costs or project expenses such as large quantity printing, plotting, and printing are charged at cost, plus 10%. The cost of communications including postage, courier, and other delivery costs are charged at cost, plus 10%. The mileage charge for personal autos will be the currently applicable mileage rate established by the Internal Revenue Service. All other travel expenses are charged at cost, plus 10%.
Schedule
The applicant has not submitted a formal application for the Westminster Gardens specific plan.
However, once it is submitted, we are prepared to get underway immediately and work to complete the quickly, provided all required materials are received. We will develop a detailed schedule with City staff once the application has been deemed complete. Please note that for efficiency purposes, we would not begin the EIR until the project description has stabilized and that we will need about five to six months to complete the administrative draft EIR once we are confident the project description will not change.
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Duarte caused the Agreement to be subscribed by its Mayor or City Manager and said Applicant has executed or caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer(s).
CITY OF DUARTE
Brian Villalobos
City Manager
Date: -------------
ATTEST
City Clerk
Date: -------------
APPROVED AS TO FORM
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
City Attorney, City of Duarte
Date: -------------
2671/012225-0 IO 1
19409782.1 aOS/02/23
APPLICANT
HumanGood SoCal, a California Nonprofit
Corporation
By: --�-� A, �
.... -A-n
�
dyM- -
cD_o
_n
_a
�ld ___ _
Its: Chief Financial Officer
Date: 8/7/2023
By:------------
Its: -------------
Date: -------------
-8-
361
362
363