Garden Grove City Council
June 23, 2026

1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2026, by the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal corporation, ("CITY") and SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES , INC. , herein after referred to as “CONTRACTOR”.

RECITALS

The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:

1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Garden Grove Council Resolution No. 9212- 14 (January 28, 2014).

2. CITY desires to utilize the services of CONTRACTOR to provide plan review, inspection, code enforcement, and/or other building contractual services on an ”as-needed” basis.

3. CONTRACTOR is qualified by virtue of experience, training, education and expertise to accomplish services.

AGREEMENT

THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Term and Termination The term of the agreement shall be from the date of this agreement through June 30, 202 6, with an option to extend said agreement an additional four years. Option years shall be exercised one year at a time, at the sole option of the CITY. This agreement may be terminated by the CITY without cause. In such event, the CITY will compensate CONTRACTOR for work performed to date in accordance with CONTRACTOR’s fee schedule which is attached as Attachment “B” and is hereby incorporated by reference. Contractor is required to present evidence to support performed work.

2. Services to be Provided. The services to be performed by CONTRACTOR shall consist of tasks as set forth in the Proposal Attachment “A”. The Proposal is attached as Attachment “A”, and is incorporated herein by reference. The Proposal and this Agreement do not guarantee any specific amount of work. CONTRACTOR warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with customary and usual practices in CONTRACTOR’S profession and the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR certifies that it has carefully considered how the work should be performed and fully understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement

3. Compensation. CONTRACTOR shall be compensated as follows:

3.1 AMOUNT. Total Compensation under this agreement shall not exceed (NTE) amount of Two Hundred Fifty thousand and 00/100 cents ($250,000.00) per fiscal year , payable in arrears and in accordance with proposal in Attachment “B”.

2 3.2 Payment. For work under this Agreement, payment shall be made per monthly invoice for work completed. Payment shall be based on schedule included in Proposal (Attachment B).

3.3 Records of Expenses. CONTRACTOR shall keep complete and accurate records of all costs and expenses incidental to services covered by this Agreement. These records will be made available at reasonable times to CITY.

3.4 Termination. CITY and CONTRACTOR shall have the right to terminate this agreement, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination. If the Agreement is terminated by CITY, then the provisions of paragraph 3 would apply to that portion of the work completed.

4. Insurance requirements.

4.1 COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this Agreement until all certificates and endorsements have been received and approved by the CITY. All insurance required by this Agreement shall contain a Statement of Obligation on the part of the carrier to notify the CITY of any material change, cancellation, or termination at least thirty (30) days in advance and provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City.

4.2 WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE. During the duration of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and all subcontractors shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance in the amount and type required by law, if applicable.

4.3 INSURANCE AMOUNTS. CONTRACTOR shall maintain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement:

(a) Commercial general liability in an amount of $2 ,000,000.00 per occurrence (claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable); Insurance companies must be acceptable to CITY and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A-, Class VII or better, as approved by the CITY.

(b) Automobile liability in an amount of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit (claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable); Insurance companies must be acceptable to CITY and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A-, Class VII or better, as approved by the CITY.

(c) Professional liability in an amount not less than $2 ,000,000.

Insurance companies must be admitted and licensed In California and h ave a Best’s Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better, as approved by the City. If the policy is written on a “claims made” basis, the policy shall be continued in full force and effect at all times during the term of the agreement, and for a period of three (3) years from the date of the completion of services provided.

In the event of termination, cancellation, or material change in the policy, professional/ contractor shall obtain continuing insurance coverage for the prior acts or omissions of
professional/contractor during the course of performing services 3 under the term of the agreement. The coverage shall be evidenced either by a new policy evidencing no gap in coverage, or by obtaining separate extended “tail” coverage with the present or new carrier.

An On-Going and Completed Operations Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 4.3 (a) shall designate CITY, it’s officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR.

CONTRACTOR shall provide to CITY proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to CITY’s requirements, as approved by the CITY.

An Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 4.3 (b) shall designate CITY, it’s officers, officials, employees, agents, and vo lunteers as additional insureds for automobiles, owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall provide to CITY proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to CITY’s requirements, as approved by the CITY.

For any claims related to this Agreement, CONTRACTOR’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the CONTRACTOR’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

If CONTRACTOR maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, CONTRACTOR shall provide coverage for the higher insurance limits otherwise maintained by the CONTRACTOR.

5. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable to CONTRACTOR in the event of any default or breach by CITY, or for any amount which may become due to CONTRACTOR.

6. Non-Discrimination. CONTRACTOR covenants there shall be no discrimination against any person or group due to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital s tatus, age, handicap, national origin, or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.

7. Independent CONTRACTOR. It is agreed to that CONTRACTOR shall act and be an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of the CITY, and shall obtain no rights to any benefits which accrue to CITY'S employees.

8. Compliance with Law . CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations of the federal, state, and local government.

CONTRACTOR shall comply with, and shall be responsible for causing all CONTRACTORs and sub-CONTRACTORs performing any of the work pursuant to this Agreement to comply with, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including, to the extent applicable, the prevailing wage requirements promulgated by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California Department of Labor. The City makes no warranty 4 or representation concerning whether any of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement constitutes public works subject to the prevailing wage requirements.

9. Disclosure of Documents. All documents or other information developed or received by CONTRACTOR are confidential and shall not be disclosed without authorization by CITY, unless disclosure is required by law.

10. Ownership of Work Product. All documents or other information developed or received by CONTRACTOR shall be the property of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with copies of these items upon demand or upon termination of this Agreement.

11. Conflict of Interest and Reporting. CONTRACTOR shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this Agreement.

12. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed to the below listed address, or to such other addresses as may be designated by written notice. These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process.

a. Address of CONTRACTOR is as follows:

Scott Fazekas & Associates, Inc.

Attn: Scott Fazekas, AIA, NCARB, CBO, CASp, LEED AP
2 Corporate Park, Suite 206
Irvine, CA 92606-5103

b. Address of CITY is as follows:

Department of Community Development
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840

13. CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL. This Agreement shall include CONTRACTOR'S proposal which shall be incorporated herein by reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the proposal and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.

14. Licenses, Permits, and Fees. At its sole expense, CONTRACTOR shall obtain a Garden Grove Business License, all permits, and licenses as may be required by this Agreement.

15. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR warrants that:
(1) it has investigated the work to be performed; (2) it has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) it understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions of the work under this Agreement. Should CONTRACTOR discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as 5 represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY of this and shall not proceed, except at CONTRACTOR'S risk, until written instructions are received from CITY.

16. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

17. Limitations Upon Subcontracting and Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of CONTRACTOR, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for CITY to enter into this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not contract with any other entity to perform the services required without written approval of the CITY. This Agreement may not be assigned voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of CITY. If CONTRACTOR is permitted to subcontract any part of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be responsible to CITY for the acts and omissions of its sub-CONTRACTOR as it is for persons directly employed.

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between any sub-CONTRACTOR and CITY. All persons engaged in the work will be considered employees of CONTRACTOR. CITY will deal directly with and will make all payments to CONTRACTOR.

18. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement and that by executing this Agreement, the parties are formally bound.

19. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall defend, and hold harmless CITY and its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, or damages of any nature, including attorneys' fees, for injury or death of any person, or damages of any nature, including interference with use of property, arising out of, or in any way connected with the negligence, recklessness and/or intentional wrongful conduct of CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR'S agents, officers, employees, sub -CONTRACTORs, or independent CONTRACTORs hired by CONTRACTOR in the performance of the Agreement. The only exception to CONTRACTOR 'S responsibility to protect, defend, and hold harmless CITY, is due to the sole negligence, recklessness and/or wrongful conduct of CITY, or any of its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, or employees.

This hold harmless agreement shall apply to all liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by CONTRACTOR.

20. Appropriations. This Agre ement is subject to and contingent upon funds being appropriated therefor by the Garden Grove City Council for each fiscal year covered by the term of this Agreement. If such appropriations are not made, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without penalty to the CITY.

21. Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may 6 be modified only by subsequent mutual written agreement executed by CITY and CONTRACTOR.

22. Waiver. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing by the appropriate authorities of the CITY and CONTRACTOR.

23. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action commenced about this Agreement shall be filed in the central branch of the Orange County Superior Court.

24. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though prepared by both parties

25. Preservation of Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be found invalid or unenforceable, the decision shall affect only the provision interpreted, and all remaining provisions shall remain enforceable.

\ \ \ \

(Agreement Signature Block on Next Page)

7 IN WITNESS THEREOF, these parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below.

Date: _____________ "CITY"

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

By:___________________________
City Manager
ATTESTED:

____________________________
City Clerk

Date: _______________________

"CONTRACTOR"
SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

By: ___________________________

Name:___________________________

Title:_____________________________

Date: __________________________

Tax ID: ___________________________

Contractor’s License: _____________

Expiration Date:_________________

If CON TRACTOR is a corporation, a
Corporate Resolution and/or Corporate Seal
is required. If a partnership, Statement of
Partnership must be submitted to CITY.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Garden Grove City Attorney

________________________
Date

PROPOSAL
FOR

PLAN REVIEW, INSPECTION,

CODE ENFORCEMENT AND BUILDING & SAFETY
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES, CDD-005

Submitted to City of Garden Grove

April 30, 2026

Scott Fazekas & Associates, Inc.

Attachment "A"
2 Table of Contents
1 LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 2 EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 5

2.1 SFA’s Team Members ................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Organization Chart .................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 SFA Resumes ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 SFA’s Relevant Experience ...................................................................................................... 19

2.5 Other Types of Projects Reviewed by SFA ............................................................................. 25

2.6 SFA’s Ability to Perform Scope of Services ............................................................................ 26

2.7 SFA’S Philosophy .................................................................................................................... 27

2.8 SFA’S Quality Features ........................................................................................................... 27

2.9 Tailored Viva Entries by Administrative Staff ......................................................................... 28

2.10 SFA’s Tailored Plan Check Services Approach ....................................................................... 29

2.10.1 Agency Information List ........................................................................................... 29

2.10.2 Transmittal Protocol ................................................................................................. 29

2.10.3 SFA Plan Log System ............................................................................................... 29

2.10.4 Plan Assignment/Routing ......................................................................................... 30

2.10.5 Status, Tracking and Reports .................................................................................... 30

2.10.6 Electronic Plan Review ............................................................................................. 30

2.10.7 Corrections Protocol Template ................................................................................. 31

2.10.8 Communication with City ......................................................................................... 31

2.10.9 Plan Review Logout and Delivery ............................................................................ 31

2.10.10 Applicant Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 32

2.10.11 City Role/Time Involvement .................................................................................... 32

2.10.12 Managing Time Schedules ........................................................................................ 32

2.10.13 Resource Allocation .................................................................................................. 32

2.10.14 Tracking Turnaround Times ..................................................................................... 33

2.10.15 SFA’s Customer Service ........................................................................................... 34

2.10.16 SFA’s Past Performances .......................................................................................... 34 3 CLIENT REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 35 4 COMPENSATION .............................................................................................................................. 37

4.1 Fees .......................................................................................................................................... 37

4.2 Classification/Hourly Rates ..................................................................................................... 37

4.3 Turn Around Times .................................................................................................................. 38

4.4 Sample Invoice ........................................................................................................................ 38 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 40 Appendix Consultant Statement & Addendum No. 1 ................................................................................ 41

3 1 LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

April 30, 2026

City Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840

Subject: Proposal for Plan Review, Inspection, Code Enforcement and Building & Safety Contractual Services RFP No. CDD-005 (SFA Proposing on Plan Review Only) Scott Fazekas & Associates, Inc. (SFA) submits this Proposal for Building Consultant Services to the City of Garden Grove. SFA is located at 2 Corporate Park, Suite 206, Irvine, CA 92606 and our telephone number is 949-475-2901. Scott Fazekas can also be reached on his cell phone number which is 858-395-5522. Mr. Fazekas, as President and Chief Financial Officer, has reviewed the terms of the RFP and is authorized to sign and bind the company for the following Proposal should SFA be awarded the contract with the City. He also acknowledges that SFA has read all addendums pertaining to this RFP.

SFA is uniquely qualified to deliver the requested services covered in the following Proposal. The past five (5) years of providing the exact services covered for the City has allowed SFA to develop operational synergy with the City of Garden Grove. It has covered format of plan mark-ups, communication with City staff on plan approvals with tools such as phasing, deferrals, notations, and applicant communication that match the City’s needs, expectations and preferences. We have modified our processing protocols based on working closely with key City representatives.

SFA was founded in 1996 by Scott Fazekas as a California Corporation. We exclusively serve municipal building departments with zero private sector work to avoid any potential conflict of interest. SFA’s primary service is building plan review which allows us to focus on, and specialize in, the plan review aspect of the projects. SFA has performed over 250,000 plan reviews and has provided plan check services which have included every type of construction and occupancy group in the building spectrum. Many notable projects are provided in this Proposal with their information and reference contacts.

The Scope of Work covered in this Proposal is for comprehensive building plan review covering structural, fire-life safety, accessibility, energy, green, plumbing, mechanical, electrical codes as well as review for compliance with City’s ordinances, policies and interpretations. Services are delivered in a format as requested by the City with each submittal and resubmittal until readied for approval. Current City Policy has established the goal of approval by 3rd review and with joint efforts by the City and SFA this goal is being met in an increasing number of cases. Not only does SFA provide on time plan reviews 100% of the time, we have consistently and frequently met requests by City staff to expedite projects.

4 The qualifications of SFA’s staff are key to not just providing the requested Scope of Services but to delivering them in a timely manner with a consistently high level of quality services. All of SFA staff are licensed professionals with exceptional levels of tenure as shown in the Qualifications Section of this Proposal. Credentials include Civil Engineers, Structural Engineers, an Architect, Certified Plans Examiners, CASp’s and a LEED Accredited Professional. We have one new (2 plus years) associate who is an EIT, a CPE and will be a licensed Civil Engineer in 2026. Planting future resources is an important need for the future of building safety professionals.

SFA has attended many virtual and in-person meetings with City staff and applicants. In working with the City on the P-3 Civic Center Revitalization Project we have attended multiple meetings each week over the recent approximately two-year period without charging the City. Without being asked, SFA did this as our contribution to this important City project. SFA offers, and will rely on, our current track record with the City of Garden Grove and the opinion of the key staff with whom we are directed by, and interface with, as the most valuable asset and reference we can offer.

The following Proposal will offer the complete response to the RFP and SFA will look forward to discussing how we can serve the City of Garden Grove going forward.

Sincerely,
SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scott R. Fazekas, AIA, NCARB, CBO, LEED AP, CASp
President

5 2 EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS

2.1 SFA’s Team Members
All of SFA’s plan check engineers are available to do City of Garden Grove’s plan checks and are Licensed Civil or Structural Engineers or Architects. SFA prides itself on having a highly experienced group of engineers who are all qualified to do any type of project. This amount of experience within the plan review staff allows SFA to always meet deadlines and streamline any special requests made by the City when requested to do so.

The plan check engineers will each perform comprehensive building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, energy, disabled access, green building and City ordinance and policy reviews consistent with the administrative protocols as directed by the City’s Building Official. They will prepare marked-up plans in the format required by the City for plan review.

One of SFA’s senior plan check engineers, Ganesh Rao, S.E., has developed and instructed the Calbo Structural Code Update Seminar for the C.B.C. Additionally, Vic Penera, S.E., served as Chairman of the I.B.C. Structural Code Development Committee and was involved in the drafting of the 2000 I.B.C. structural provisions. Brett Archibald, one of SFA’s plan check engineers, took the initiative in developing both a commercial and a residential checklist for the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022, and 2025 California Codes. This has been shared with local I.C.C. Chapters and client agencies. Staying abreast of the code industry is key to SFA’s philosophy of serving as a highly-trained extension of the City’s staff.

Unique to the City of Garden Grove, SFA has provided Garden Grove with a fast turnaround time record, handled politically sensitive projects, provided proactive outreach to solve special needs projects, maintained interpretation synergy with the City’s key staff, cultivated sound PR relationships with the development community and provided many hours of pro bono services for special City projects. We have been privileged to work with important developments such as the City’s Civic Center Revitalization, GKN, Great Wolf Lodge, Car Dealerships and have taken on grading reviews for Flood Zone projects to facilitate ADU expediting. This is being done at the request of the Engineering Division. We have a also been providing additional Preliminary Reviews during the discretionary phase free of charge.

SFA has a record of 43% of all Garden Grove plans being delivered ahead of schedule. For GKN, 90% were ahead of schedule at half of the allowed time and rechecks were also under half of the allowed recheck time between 1-3 days. In addition to our plan review role, we have attended the two P-3 weekly meetings since the beginning of the project to current time at no charge. Also, all of the P-3 project revisions, deferred submittals and jobsite meetings were done free of charge.

SFA’s engineers and aministrative staff have worked hard at following the City’s Viva system protocol to ensure project status is carefully followed, allowing timely intake scheduling to the Plan Check Engineers and tracking plans to ensure timely delivery when returned. When projects are not progressing well, we proactively reach out to the developer to open dialogue and arrange meetings when necessary. Difficult issues that require interpretation are communicated to the City to insure concurrence of the Building Official.

The following are brief bios on the SFA Project Team that would be available 100% to work on City of Garden Grove plan reviews.

6 Scott Fazekas, Project Manager
Mr. Fazekas has served on committees, and lectured at seminars, for the two primary organizations which represent building safety professionals: I.C.C. and Calbo. He served four years on I.C.B.O.’s General Design Code Development Committee which then became the Structural Code Review Committee in 1999. He also served six years on the ANSI A117 Committee which develops the accessibility standards used in the federal and state access regulations.

Name Qualifications Type of Review Work
Scott R. Fazekas, President
AIA, NCARB, CBO, CASp

LEED AP
949-475-2901 ext. 26 or cell
858-395-5522 e-mail:
[email protected]
Registered Architect, CA
Colorado, Nevada, NCARB
Certified Plans Examiner
ICC/Calbo
Certified Building Inspector,
ICC/Calbo
LEED Accredited Professional,
USGBC
Certified Access Specialist
(CASp) DSA
Certified Building Official, ICC
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy, Accessibility,
CalGreen
Scott Fazekas, as Principal and Project Manager, will be responsible for the administration of services and seeing that services are tailored to the specific needs of the Agency. He has managed consulting plan check and building safety services for over 36 years. He will also perform plan reviews and assign which employees will work on each given project. Mr. Fazekas is Past President of the Orange Empire Chapter of I.C.C. and has served on the Code Development and Education Committees. He also serves in the capacity of Building Official for two cities and stays abreast of changing regulatory trends.

Mr. Fazekas has a hands-on approach for managing all of SFA’s clients. He is available personally for questions from Building Officials and other City staff as well as applicants and interacts daily with all of SFA’s plan check engineers relating to code questions or other difficult issues that may arise during the course of a plan check.

Ganesh Rao, S.E.
949-475-2901 ext. 27 e-mail:
[email protected]
Registered Structural Engineer,
CA
Registered Professional
Engineer, CA
Certified Plans Examiner,
ICC/Calbo
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy, Accessibility,
CalGreen
Mr. Rao has diverse design experience of wood, concrete, masonry and steel in low, mid and high-rise structures of varying occupancy groups. Now focused on plan review, he brings a thorough knowledge of current structural code provisions. He has worked for SFA for 27 years.

7 Name Qualifications Type of Review Work
Vic Penera, S.E.
949-475-2901, ext. 34, e-mail
address:
[email protected]
Registered Structural Engineer,
CA
California Structural Engineers
Association of Southern
California
American Society of Civil
Engineers;
International Code Council
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy, Accessibility,
CalGreen
Vic Penera was previously with the City of Los Angeles Building Safety with experience in both plan review and supervision. He has worked for SFA for 25 years.

Kam Chitalia, S.E., CBO
CASp
949-475-2901, e-mail
[email protected]

Registered Civil Engineer, CA
Registered Structural Engineer,
CA
Certified Access Specialist, CASp
Certified Plans Examiner, ICC
Building & Structural,
Plumbing, Mechanical,
Electrical T24 Energy,
Accessibility, CalGreen
Kam Chitalia joined SFA in 2019. He has provided comprehensive plan check services for all of SFA’s client agencies. His reviews include checking for compliance with all state and local codes, ordinances, regulations and City-specific policies. He has 32 years of building safety experience with City of Irvine and SFA and 5 years in the private sector in structural design.

Brett Archibald, P.E.

CASp
949-0475-2901 ext. 22, e-mail
address:
[email protected]
Registered Civil Engineer, CA
Certified Plans Examiner, ICC
Certified Mechanical Inspector,
ICC
International Code Council
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Build it Green Certification, CA
Certified Access Specialist, CASp
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy, Accessibility,
CalGreen
Brett Archibald has 25 years’ experience in residential and commercial plan review. He is responsible for keeping SFA’s Correction Lists updated at each Code adoption cycle and is the lead person for Energy Code updates. He is also the primary person in working with IT services and working with client’s software and file transfer protocol needs.

8 Name Qualifications Type of Review Work
Peter Tang, P.E.
949-475-2901 ext. 62, e-mail
address:
[email protected]
Licensed Civil Engineer, CA Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy, Accessibility,
CalGreen
Peter Tang joined SFA after having spent 6 years in structural design. His expertise in wood- framed structures and rack design has made him a valuable resource. Peter has 22 years’ experience in residential and commercial plan review.

Kyle Tonokawa, P.E.

CASp
949-475-2901, ext. 37, e-mail
address:
[email protected]
Registered Civil Engineer, CA
Certified Access Specialist,
CASP
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy Accessibility,
CalGreen
Kyle Tonokawa joined SFA in 2018. He has plan checked and approved plans, design calculations and reports for various commercial and residential buildings and developments for compliance with the California Building Code, State Title 24 Accessibility, ADA and Energy requirements. He has 33 years of combined experience with L.A. City, Anaheim and Irvine Building Departments.

Dorothy Chung, P.E.
949-475-2901 ext. 31, e-mail
address:
[email protected]
Registered Civil Engineer Residential & Tenant
Improvements including
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy Accessibility,
CalGreen
Dorothy Chung has experience in engineering of a variety of projects including single-family Residences, landlord/tenant/facility improvements, ground up commercial buildings, seismic retrofits, etc.

Thaddeus Friess
949-475-2901 ext. 23, e-mail
address:
[email protected]
EIT-California & Kansas,
Passed P.E. National Exam,
Pending California Seismic &
Survey Exam Currently
ICC Certified Plans Examiner
Residential & Tenant
Improvements including
Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, Electrical, T24
Energy Accessibility,
CalGreen
Thad Friess has been providing plan review for a variety of residential projects including seismic retrofit of homes, single and multifamily housing, retaining walls, swimming pools and electrical PV plans. Mr. Friess has been with us two years since straight out of college and has worked under the supervision of our other engineers. He has his E.I.T. and the National P.E. exam passed and is only pending the California supplement scheduled in about two months in order to complete his P.E. for California. He has passed the Certified Plans Examiner as well. He is currently reviewing residential and tenant improvements.

9 2.2 Organization Chart

10 2.3 SFA Resumes
SCOTT R. FAZEKAS

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, 1980 Supplementary Structural Course Work, California State University, Fullerton, 1984

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Licensed Architect, California, C-19012, Colorado, Nevada, NCARB

CERTIFICATIONS
LEED Accredited Professional, LEED
Certified Access Specialist, DSA CASp-063
Certified Building Official, I.C.C. 808505-CB
Certified Plans Examiner, I.C.C., C.B.C. 808505-K-6
Certified Building Inspector, I.C.C., C.B.C. 808505-K-1

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Fazekas is President of Scott Fazekas & Associates, Inc. (SFA) which provides building official, building plan check and building inspection services to governmental agencies. He has interfaced with architects, engineers, designers, contractors, plan checkers, inspectors, developers and building owners to achieve code compliant building construction through the application of local, state, and federal codes and regulations.

Mr. Fazekas has 54 years of progressive experience working in and for building departments. Prior to starting SFA, he was employed by BSI Consultants, Inc. (currently Bureau Veritas) as a Senior Vice President and Division Manager of the Building Safety Division. He was r esponsible for starting, developing and managing the Building Safety Division for 11 years. During that time, he served as building official in California and Washington jurisdictions and oversaw plan review services for more than one hu ndred client agencies. He also founded and served as President of Employment Systems Inc., which was a corporation dedicated to municipal staffing needs. Before his term with BSI, he spent 13 years working for the building divisions in the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa where he worked his way through all levels in the departments from clerk to permit technician, inspector and plan check engineer.

Mr. Fazekas has plan checked buildings which encompass the full spectrum of building types and occupancy groups and has served as building official for over twenty jurisdictions through long term and interim contract arrangements. He has also contributed to both the design and code enforcement professions by regularly lecturing at code-related seminars and classes for Calbo and ICC. He served six years on the American Institute of Architects Building Performance and Regulations Committee where he, as AIA’s representative, voted on the ANSI A117.1 Disabled Access Standards. He also served four years on I.C.B.O.'s General Design/Structural Review Committee and on the Orange Empire Chapter of I.C.B.O.'s Code Change Committee. He has served on the local Orang e Empire Chapter of ICC’s Board and was President in 2005. He has served as both contract and interim Building Official for over 20 jurisdictions during his last 38 years in the private sector.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of Architects (A.I.A.)
International Code Council (I.C.C.)
California Building Officials (CALBO)
Certified Access Specialist Institute (CASI)

11 GANESH M. RAO

EDUCATION
Masters of Science in Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Bangalore University, India

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Structural Engineer in California S4471
Registered Professional Engineer in California C52721
Certified Plans Examiner, I.C.C. 1136557-60

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Rao has been a building plan check engineer in SFA’s Irvine office since 1998. He reviews both commercial and residential plans for compliance with model codes and local ordinances. He has a total of 29 years of progressively involved engineering experience.

Prior to his employment with SFA, Mr. Rao spent eight years in the design field with experience in California, Nevada and Hawaii designing wood, steel concrete and post-tensioned low, mid and high- rise structures. Occupancies which he has performed design work for have included retail, medical, office resort, bridge, industrial, schools, parking structure and hangar facilities.

Some of Mr. Rao’s notable projects include two Amazon Fulfillment Facilities of 5 -story Type I construction; Education First private school campus with some historic building re -use and new on- campus housing for students; the Ontario Event Center, numerous mixed-use mid-rise structures with parking, retail and housing complexes, many with snow loads in Mammoth Lakes; large -scale cannabis grow farms as well as processing facilities; a 45,000 sf residence in the desert with an airplane wing-like roof using fi nite element analysis in the design; the Great Wolf Water Park & Resort in Garden Grove with a 10 -story hi -rise hotel; elderly care facilities; ambulatory surgery centers; and the Tustin Blimp Hangar evaluation re -use project. He has recently worked on th e 62- acre World Energy Paramount project. This project is a biofuel manufacturing/processing facility with extensive overhead process piping as well as administrative and industrial buildings.

Mr. Rao has experience in a variety of geographic regions. His design experience includes projects in California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and the Territory of Guam. His plan review experience has been in California, Nevada and Colorado. Mr. R ao has reviewed plans for code compliance for residential, tenant improvement, low to mid -rise, tilt-up warehouses, etc. Projects included a three -dimensional finite element analysis of space frame for a mall in the Territory of Guam; Disney Building in Burbank utilizing Haunch moment connections; seismic retrofit of Mattel Distribution Center; an aircraft hangar; and Sony Technology Center in San Diego. Projects also included design and detailing of antenna structures ranging from 30 feet monopole to 400-foot latticed tower.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
International Code Council (ICC)

12 VICTOR A. PENERA

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, California State University, San Diego 1968 Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, 1970 Supplementary Structural Course Work, California State University, Los Angeles, 1973-76

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Structural Engineer, California 1976, S2083
Registered Professional Engineer, California 1971, C21629

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Penera joined SFA in April 2000 as a member of its plan check engineering staff after completing 30 years of service with the City of Los Angeles.

Having worked four years in the Department of Public Works and 26 years in Building and Safety with the City of Los Angeles, Mr. Penera has substantial experience in both design and plan checking of structural systems. In the 26 years he spent with LA Dep artment of Building and Safety, he plan checked a wide spectrum of structures, occupancies and uses; from simple, wood-frame, single family homes and room additions to complex, high-rise, steel office buildings.

During the last three years of his career with Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Mr.

Penera served as the Deputy Superintendent of Building in charge of the Engineering Bureau. As Chief of the Engineering Bureau, Mr. Penera oversaw a staff of 175 engineers, technicians and clerical staff responsible for the checking for compliance of state and local regulations related to building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and zoning issues.

During this term in management, he oversaw ordinance adoption, council presentations, counter processes, programs for large scale preliminary review meetings, proprietary product listings, tracking and approvals and Alternate Methods and Materials Requests (AM&MRs).

During his time with SFA, Mr. Penera has performed comprehensive plan reviews of the full range of construction and occupancy types of both small to large scale projects. His career experience, credentials as a structural engineer and management experienc e have honed his abilities as a plan check engineer.

Mr. Penera was active in the development of the first International Building Code (IBC). For one year, he served on the Steering Committee for the development of the first draft of the IBC and for two years served as Chairman of the Structural Subcommitte e to draft the structural engineering chapters (Chapters 16-26) of the proposed IBC.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOC) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
International Conference of Building Officials (ICC)

13 KAM CHITALIA

EDUCATION
Masters of Science, Civil Engineering, Clemson University, South Carolina Bachelors of Science, Civil Engineering, Bombay University, Bombay, India

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Structural Engineer, California (S3661)
Civil Engineer, California (C40594)

CERTIFICATIONS
ICC Certified Building Official (858212)
ICC Certified Plans Examiner (858212-06)
Certified Access Specialist (CASp-959)
Building Official Leadership Academy (BOLA) Graduate
Certified Post-Disaster Assessment Program (SAP) Evaluator Certified Post-Disaster Assessment Program (SAP) Coordinator

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Chitalia is a Building Plan Check Engineer with Scott Fazekas & Associates, Inc. (SFA) where he provides comprehensive plan check services for all SFA’s client agencies. His reviews include checking for compliance with all state & local codes, ordinan ces, regulations and City -specific policies.

Mr. Chitalia’s career began in 1984 where he worked in the private sector in structural design firms for 5-1/2 years where he designed multi -story buildings of steel, masonry, concrete and wood. In 1989, he began his career with the City of Irvine. His p ositions ranged from Associate Engineer to Senior Engineer to Principal Engineer, and he ultimately became the Chief Building Official/Manager of Building & Safety. During his 20 years of progressively responsible roles, he reviewed OSHPD projects for the State, complex multi -story structures including hi -rises, shopping centers, fire stations, condos, apartments, parking structures and churches. During a 9 -year period as Principal, he supervised in-house staff that managed reviews of over $12 billion valuation. As Building Official, he interacted with local Fire (OCFA), Water District (IRWD), and County Health (OCHCA) and supervised over 80 staff members.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
California Building Officials (CALBO)
International Code Council (ICC), Orange Empire Chapter Certified Access Specialist Institute (CASI)

14 KYLE B. TONOKAWA

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, 1985

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Civil Engineer, CA (C43738)

CERTIFICATION
Certified Access Specialist (CASp), DSA CASp-0642

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Tonokawa is a plan check engineer in SFA’s Irvine office. He provides plan reviews of all types of construction and occupancy groups. Through his 33 years of municipal building department career, he has gained diverse experience in zoning reviews, te sting of proprietary construction products and listing, grading reviews and geotechnical report reviews and management of plan check staff in addition to comprehensive plan review responsibilities.

Mr. Tonokawa began his career in 1985 as a plan check engineer with the City of Los Angeles where he worked for 13 years providing building, zoning and grading plan reviews. He then spent nine (9) years as Senior Plan Check Engineer with the City of Anaheim where he handled major projects, as well as code interpretation resolutions and project flow and scheduling. His most recent position before joining SFA was 11 years in the City of Irvine as Senior Plan Check Engineer where, in addition to complex plan reviews, he handled staff training, inter -departmental representation and interfacing with consultants in providing plan review services. He was also responsible for the implementation, coordination and daily operation of Irvine’s Tidemark permitting system and its later upgrades.

Mr. Tonokawa has reviewed numerous mid and hi -rise structures in his career. His reviews have included wrap-around mid-rise condos around parking structures, industrial complexes, hazardous material storage & processing, assembly buildings, private schools, churches, apartment complexes, offices, retail complexes & malls, essential services facilities and oil refinery projects.

Some of Mr. Tonokawa’s large projects are as follows: Twin 20 -Story Office Towers in the Irvine Spectrum, 15-Story Marriott Hotel at the Irvine Broadcom Campus, 997-Unit Park Plate Apartments and Parking Garage, Tower of Terror at Disneyland, Garden Walk Shopping Mall at Disneyland, Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage at Disneyland, 77th Street LA Police Facility, and World Energy Paramount 62-Acre Bio Fuel Processing Facility.

During his term in Los Angeles, he was responsible for reviewing and working with applicants & manufacturers to determine test protocols for proprietary products. He reviewed test data for a range of proprietary products such as sprayed fireproofing, engi neered lumber products, viscous seismic dampers and roofing products.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Calbo - Post Disaster Safety Assessment Evaluator
California Office of Emergency Services - Essential Engineering Duties International Code Council, (I.C.C.)

15 PETER K. TANG

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, 1994

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Civil Engineer, California, C59691

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Tang has been a plan check engineer in SFA’s Irvine office for 22 years. He reviews both residential and commercial plans for compliance with model codes and ordinances. With a background in forensic investigations on wood -framed structures, he is particularly well versed in wood structures.

Over a 25 year period, Mr. Tang has been exposed to a variety of engineering design assignments with three different structural design firms. He was employed by Seismic, Inc. in Pomona; Ficcadenti & Waggoner Structural Engineers in Irvine; and John A. Martin Structural Engineers in Los Angeles.

Mr. Tang has been an excellent supervisor to junior plan checkers in the area of wood framing. His expertise in rack design has also made him a valuable resource in the review of increasingly large rack systems.

In his engineering design years, Mr. Tang was a project designer on Fresno State’s Savemart Center, a steel and concrete sports area; the Pacific Grand Resort, a steel conference center in Huntington Beach; the Westpark Tiempo Community in Irvine, a seismic retrofit of homes; and the Casa Gateway Condos in Pacific Palisades, a seismic evaluation of 3-story homes.

Through our current contract with the City of Norwalk, Mr. Tang worked in -house at the City one day per week for almost 8 years. He worked with applicants to answer code questions and to resolve plan check issues for both his projects as well as those of other SFA plan reviewers. His personality allowed him to be a successful ambassador.

Mr. Tang is uniquely familiar with the specialized needs of SFA’s clients when it comes to electronic submittal. His long tenure with different software systems has made him effective at troubleshooting areas which can be improved when new systems or changes occur. He interacts with our client cities and assists in the submittal process with our other engineers when necessary.

16 BRETT A. ARCHIBALD

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, California State San Diego, 2002 Structural Emphasis in Course Work

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Civil Engineer, California, C69206

CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Plans Examiner, I.C.C. 5114159-60
Certified Mechanical Inspector, I.C.C. 5114159-41
Build It Green Certification, CA
Certified Access Specialist, DSA CASP-122

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Archibald is one of SFA’s professional staff in the Irvine office. He has 25 years of experience with SFA reviewing both residential and commercial projects. He is responsible for tracking changes in T-24 Energy Regulation and updating all staff.

Mr. Archibald started internship with SFA during college summer breaks and immediately started full-time upon graduation in 2002. He has performed reviews of all construction types and occupancy groups during his tenure including new structures, additions and alterations.

Mr. Archibald has experience in plan checking a variety of projects including single and multi-family housing, tenant improvements, new commercial and industrial buildings, seismic retrofits, tilt -up warehouses, etc. These projects involved structural systems such as wood framing, light gauge steel, moment frames, cantilever columns, concrete and masonry.

Mr. Archibald has taken the lead role of developing and updating SFA’s Commercial & Residential Standard Correction Lists used by the entire plan check team. He has also been the key plan check engineer to follow all the T -24 energy updates and is the “go to” person for energy questions. As a CASp, he also maintains updated training as a CASI member.

Mr. Archibald interacts with client cities on implementing electronic plan reviews as well as doing data entries in the client’s tracking system such as Accela or Eden or EnerGov when needed. He has been instrumental in assisting clients in the process of implementing digital plan review for plan intake and review. He is also SFA’s key representative when client’s software systems change and protocols change or when SFA is initiating services with a new client.

Mr. Archibald has also been instrumental in helping to establish tailored documentation for some of SFA’s newer clients or clients which are modifying procedures or policies. His computer skills have assisted in the coordination of SFA processing with the needs of clients.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
International Code Council (ICC)
Certified Access Specialist Institute (CASI)

17 DOROTHY J. CHUNG

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 2013 Structural Emphasis in Course Work
Master of Science in Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, 2017 Structural Emphasis in Course Work

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Civil Engineer, California, C92499

EXPERIENCE
Ms. Chung has been a plan check engineer in SFA’s Irvine office for almost 1 year. She currently reviews residential plans for compliance with model codes and ordinances. With a design background in Residential & Commercial wood-framed structures, she is proficient in wood structures.

Over a 10 -yr. period, Ms. Chung has been exposed to a variety of engineering design assignments with three different structural design firms. She was employed by EW Webb Engineering in Riverside; Okamoto Structural Engineering in Costa Mesa; and Brandow & Johnston in Newport Beach.

Ms. Chung has experience in engineering design of a variety of projects including single -family residences, landlord/tenant/facility improvements, ground-up commercial buildings, seismic retrofits, etc. These projects involved structural systems involving wood framing, light gauge steel framing, structural steel, concrete, and masonry.

In her engineering design years, Ms. Chung has been a project designer on lighting effects support for Disneyland’s Space Mountain ride refresh in Anaheim using Unistrut parts; a couple of wood framed retail structures for The Vineyards Shops in Murietta; Amazon’s SCA4 facility improvement in San Diego involving a steel roofed tilt-up structure; and Fairfield Inn, a 3-story wood framed hotel in Chatsworth.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC)

18 THADDEUS FRIESS

EDUCATION
Benedictine College, Civil Engineering

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Engineer in Training, EIT, California

EXPERIENCE
Mr. Friess is currently a Plans Examiner and has his E.I.T. in California after recently finishing his coursework at Benedictine College with a degree in Civil Engineering prior to joining SFA. Under the supervision of senior members of the firm and its President, Scott Fazekas, Thad has performed many reviews on residential projects from basic single -family additions, ADUs and to larger new SFR single family residences. His knowledge base continues to grow as his experience deepens.

His seminar training coursework has covered code analysis, means of egress, heights and areas, T-24 Energy and both 11-A and 11-B Access Regulations.

He has systematically studied, and become familiarized with plumbing, mechanical and electrical code provisions relating to residential by studying check lists and code content. He has also done seminars on T-24 energy regulations.

Prior to joining SFA, he worked for a construction company during his school years, which gave him familiarity with actual construction practices.

Mr. Friess’ youth offers the benefits of extreme familiarity with computers and their programs.

Todays’ world requires computer skills and he has the advantage of having used computers through his entire school career. He is familiar with all forms of e lectronic plan review approving and delivering of these plans and is also very familiar with Bluebeam which most of SFA electronic plans are read in.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
National Society of Professional Engineers

19 2.4 SFA’s Relevant Experience
SFA primarily specializes in proving building plan review services exclusively to governmental agencies. SFA has performed over 250,000 building plan reviews and 40,000 for clients in the past 5 years. Several notable projects are provided with the information and reference contacts as requested in the RFP are listed below.
16-Story Hotel
2725 W. Katella Avenue
City of Anaheim

Plan Check Engineer: Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Scott Beery, Building Official
714-765-4130
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project is a 16-story hotel which is connected to a large development in Anaheim broadly called the VIBE, which includes the Honda Center, expansion of a 6-story atrium, new parking garages, bridge connections to the ARTIC inflated translucent shell structure, other mixed-use structures, and outdoor spaces. This 16-story is placed on fairly tight site constraints on several commonly owned parcels. All the surrounding structures are Type I-A construction which allows for unlimited areas and unlimited openings between structures. The opening protection requirements occur only on some tight exit court conditions. The occupant load in the 16-story required that it be designed as an Occupancy Category III structure for increased seismic requirements. There were three alternate methods & materials applications (AM&Ms) filed with this project. Timelines are important for the VIBE as most facility development intends to be complete in time for the Olympics.

5-Story Mixed Use Multi Family
2575 N. Santa Anita Avenue
City of Arcadia

Plan Check Engineer, Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Ken Fields, Building Official
(626) 574-5420
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project was a 5-story mixed use building with subterranean parking. Its primary occupancy was multifamily R-2 occupancy dwellings with 181 units and 379 parking spaces. The mixed occupancies included R-2, S-2, A-3, M & B. It was 346,152 sq. ft. of Type I-B construction. This project required that plan review consider Chapter II-A access regulations, some II-B public parking requirements, EV charging in the CALGreen regulations, and occupancy separation requirements between dwelling units and between other occupancies.

20 Honda Center South
2695 E. Katella Avenue
City of Anaheim

Plan Check Engineers, Ganesh Rao, S.E. & Peter Tang, P.E.

City Contact: Scott Beery, Building Official
(714) 765-4130
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project is an expansion of the Honda Center which is directly across the 57 Freeway from Anaheim Stadium. It is part of the “VIBE” development. The project is a 6-story, 72,000 sq. ft. area, steel framed, Type IA structure with 5 levels of open atrium. It has tiered floor areas of Assembly use on each side of the atrium and has openings onto the main arena concourse at all levels. The structure is seismically isolated from the main arena. The expansion modifies the South Entry requiring exit analysis and re-routing of existing exit routes, to allow uninterrupted occupancy during construction. This project involved mechanical smoke control and AM&Ms. The main arena also has existing smoke control as well.

Type 11A 6-Tier Parking Structure and Type 111-A Apartment Building 2300 Swaim Way
City of Tustin

Plan Check Engineers, Ganesh Rao, S.E. & Kyle Tonokawa, P.E.

City Contact: Mariam Madjlessi, Building Official
(714) 573-3109
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project is a group of structures on 6 contiguous parcels consisting of 6 parking garages between 5 & 6 levels each, surrounded by residential apartment units wrapped around the parking garages between 4 & 5 stories each. The parking garages were Type II-A and the residential units ranged from Type V-A to III-A construction. A 3-hr. fire wall separates the two different types of construction. Solar canopy carports are on the roofs of the parking garages and some have solar on the residential roofs. Amenity occupancies such as leasing, club rooms and resource rooms occur within the residential components of the structure.

Four of the “wraps” were being developed by The Irvine Company and two were being developed as affordable by USA Properties. There were a number of code issues worked through, beginning with pre-submittal questions to revisions late in the design stage.

21 Type III-B New Construction Speculative Concrete Tilt Warehouses, Pump House, Dock Door Levelers, Trash Enclosure, Pole Lights, Pump House and Fences 19077 Calle De Los Rios
City of Desert Hot Springs

Plan Check Engineer, Kyle Tonokawa, P.E.

City Contact: Travis Clark, Building Official
(760) 329-6411 ext. 240
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project a 1,062,165 sq.ft. 1 Story Warehouse/Distribution Center of Group S-1 occupancy. It was intended for agriculture cultivation and distribution by the initial occupant. It was Type III-B sprinklered Construction and unlimited area. It included required smoke and heat venting due to the large area. Also, due to it’s scale it had to make use of the extended travel distance of 400 ft. allowed by 1017.2.2 CBC. The structural design utilized Buckling Restrained Brace Frames (BRBF) due to extreme roof tributary areas. Also, the initial submittal had some under designed shear transfer connections, chord force details and re-entrant corner drag connection details. This project had a number of accessory site structures of a pump house, tanks with foundations, light poles and trash enclosures.

83 Attached 3-Story Condominiums and 10 Live/Work Units 11459 Imperial Hwy
City of Norwalk

Plan Check Engineer, Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Faye Yuan
(562) 929-5739
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project consists of 83 attached 3-story Condominiums with 10 live-work units. They were separated into multiple pods. This involved both multifamily and public accommodation access regulations. The project was lacking a soils report initially. The foundation ended up being post- tensioned and the structure had discontinuous systems which required overstrength design for some of the elements in the load paths. Being 3 stories of wood framing, stacked shear walls, and in some cases, narrow shear wall aspect ratios created shear wall design challenges.

22 Target Store, 1732 Oak Valley Parkway
City of Beaumont
Plan Check Engineer: Kyle Tonokawa, PE
City Contact: Sara Retmier, Building Official
(951) 769-8517
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project is a new Target store. It included the shell and tenant build out. This structure was a Type III-B, unlimited area building of 147,796 sq. ft. using 60 ft. yards for allowable area. It required an AM&M and concurrence with Fire where solar canopy locations technically interrupted the 60 ft. yards in one location. This site was in a mapped fault zone and involved an extensive fault trench and evaluation by geotechnical engineers. Fault traces were identified and evaluated to allow development of the land. They used a campus design approach with PVs, grouping the PVs on the major buildings but serving all buildings. There was an AM&M filed to allow shallower roof drainage of 1% due to large spans on roof. Also, due to the large scale, there were design corrections to resolve for concrete piers and drag collectors for large tributary areas.

4-Story, 93 Room Hotel, 181 Colorado Place
City of Arcadia
Plan Check Engineer: Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Ken Fields, Building Official
(626) 574-5420
e-mail address: [email protected]

This project was a new 4-Story Hotel of Type III-A Sprinklered Construction. It was 47,260 sq.ft. and included R-1, B, A-2, A-3 and S-1 occupancies. Allowable area used separated occupancy provision calculations including yard increase allowances. This project started with an initially incomplete set of plans which required an excessive number of corrections to instruct the design team on what to address in the plans. The structural plans and calculations were incomplete and could not be provided with initial structural review until the second submittal. This project is currently pending resubmittal and is not yet complete.

23 New Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard City of Arcadia
Plan Check Engineer: Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Ken Fields, Building Official
(626) 574-5420
e-mail address: [email protected]

This project was a 100 Room Memory Care Assisted Living Facility of 105,353 sq.ft. It included R-2, A-2, A-3, B and S-1 occupancies and was Type VA Sprinklered Construction. It presented some Code Analysis issues for the allowable area using “separated occupancies”, yard frontage, assumed property lines and firewalls. It involved the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) for licensing. It also had travel distance design challenges and application of Exit Court provisions which required discussion with Fire as well due to occupancy group. Structurally the project used a wood framed shear wall lateral system design with stacked shear walls, and truss floor and roof systems.

5-Story Mixed Use Multi Family With Basement Parking, 181 Units, 379 Parking Spaces, 25- 75 N. Santa Anita Avenue
City of Arcadia
Plan Check Engineer: Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Ken Fields, Building Official
(626) 574-5420
e-mail address: [email protected]

This project was a mixed use Multi Family Building with an underground parking basement and 5- stories above grade and an occupied roof deck. It was Type 1-B Sprinklered Construction It was 346,152 sq.ft. and included R-2, S-2, A-3 M and B occupancies. There were multiple different fire- rated assembly systems for floor, roof, wall and column protections as well as occupancy separations. It also had exterior wall and opening fire protection requirements due to proximity to property lines. This project required an egress elevator with standby power.

24 Commercial Medical TI. Office Out Patient Clinics. # OSHPD 3 Clinics on 1st Floor. 16,977 sq.ft., 20 Patient Care Bays, 5 Operating Rooms. 4,935 sq.ft. 1st Floor CT Room, 1-X-Ray Room, 2 MRI’s. 3rd Floor- 13,765 sq.ft. 40 Treatment Bays, 1 Pharmacy 12471 Washington Avenue
City of Whittier
Plan Check Engineer: Kyle Tonokawa
City Contact: Adam Tekunoff, Building Official
(562) 567-9331
e-mail address: [email protected]

This project was a 112,000 sq.ft. OSHPD 3 Medical Office Building T.I. It was 3 stories of Type 11-B Sprinklered Construction and included both B and A-3 Occupancies. This project involved a number of fire-rated assembly walls and floor/ceiling assemblies including Fire Walls, Fire Barriers, Fire Partitions, Smoke Barriers and Smoke Partitions. It also included medical gas requirements. Being required to provide OSHPD 3 Certification by the City at competition, it was intended for licensing by California’s Department of Health Services (DHS). This project involved many issues relating to egress, such as travel distances, panic hardware, number of exits and voice/alarm communication systems.

Being OSHPD3, the various different room functions required following Table 4-2 CMC to check for positive and/or negative air balancing in the respective areas. This project included Outpatient Surgical Clinic services, Radiological/Imaging and Cancer Treatment/Infusion Therapy. It also involved structural design and anchorage detailing for heavy equipment such as MRI, CT, X-ray, generator and new roof top mechanical units.

Reconstruction of Fire Station No. 2, Including Demolition of the Existing Facility.

Construction of a New Single-Story, Type V-B Building with B, R-3, and S-2 Occupancy Groups. Fully Sprinklered Structure with a 9,445 sq.ft. Footprint and 8,630 Sq.ft. of usable Space, Designed to Achieve LEED Gold Certification. Temporary Facilities included Living Quarters, an Apparatus Bay Canopy, and a Conex Storage Unit. 800 Baker Street
City of Costa Mesa
Plan Check Engineer: Kyle Tonokawa
City Contact: Charles Chamoun, Plan Check Manager
(714) 754-5614
e-mail address: [email protected]

This project involved the demolition of an existing Fire Station and the construction of a new Fire Station. The new facility was 9,445 sq.ft., single story, Type V-B Sprinklered, Group B, S-2 and R occupancies. It’s structural design was reviewed as an Essential Services Facility which is an Occupancy Category IV structure. It was designed to meet LEED Gold Certification.

25 Some of the unique structural design challenges stemmed from discontinuous roof diaphragms due to different roof elevations and vertical irregularities, re-entrant corners in the plan layout. The design also combined a steel moment frame with plywood shear walls in the lateral design.

Amazon Building

64165 19th Street
City of Desert Hot Springs

Plan Check Engineer, Ganesh Rao, S.E.

City Contact: Travis Clark, Community Development Director (760) 329-6411 ext #240
e-mail address: [email protected]
This project was a new Amazon Center of 680,844 sq.ft. of 1 story area plus a Mezzanine. It consisted of S-1, A-2, A-3, & B occupancies. It was Type III-B Sprinklered tilt up construction.

From initial shell review to some of the conveyors and process equipment, approximately 18 different applications have been filed on it over a 2.5 year time frame There was a water supply issue that warranted a 2,555 sq.ft. 420,000-gallon tank on site which was built of masonry walls.

2.5 Other Types of Projects Reviewed by SFA
Some projects worth noting to illustrate a broad range of experience are as follows:
• New undergraduate dormitory 96,200k SF housing facility • New mixed use 10 story residential and indoor water park with retail • New Assisted living Facilities
• New Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Multiple OSHPD 3's • Multiple residential buildings (apartments and condos) 3 to 5 stories with podium construction and parking below
• Mixed use office, retail and housing facilities
• Multiple Cannabis Buildings including agriculture, packaging, retail and extraction • Multi-story parking structures
• OCSD Sheriff’s facility remodel upgrading to Occupancy Category Code IV • Multiple large warehouses
• Multiple multi-story office buildings
• Fire Stations
• Municipal Event Centers
• Private School Buildings

26 • Large 5 story Distribution Hub Buildings 4 and 5 Story with multi-million sq. ft. areas • Three- and Four-Story mini-storage facilities
• Multifamily and Multistory residential projects
• Storage racks and large-scale conveyor structures
• Elderly Care and Child Care Facilities
• Blimp Hangars at MCAS Tustin - Evaluation and Re-Use

2.6 SFA’s Ability to Perform Scope of Services
SFA has performed over 250,000 plan reviews over our 30 years as a company and has provided plan check services which have included every type of construction and occupancy group in the building spectrum. SFA has also encountered many unique administrative policies and processes in working with the building officials in client jurisdictions which may have arisen due to tight project scheduling, application of alternate design methods or simply due to unique project characteristics.

SFA tailors services to the needs of the City.

SFA does not subcontract out building plan review services and retains full-time staff who work in our office, not remotely. SFA has numerous, solid, municipal references beyond the references provided in the Reference Section, if desired. All references listed in the Reference Section are for current clients and reflect on-going work which shows SFA’s experience with other cities for the same plan check services offered to the City of Garden Grove.

SFA does not perform any work for the private sector so no conflict of interest can result, allowing SFA staff to be objective in the enforcement of regulations. The owner, Scott Fazekas, will be actively involved with ensuring that quality services are delivered to the City of Garden Grove, and will be the primary contact for all communication with the City.

The scope of SFA plan review covers Building, Fire-life Safety, Architectural, Structural, Accessibility, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical, use and occupancy, building heights and areas, construction type, foundation design, soils report design parameter implementation, Green Building Code, Energy Calculations, and any local City Ordinances or Policies relevant to the projects. SFA also does reviews of project revisions and deferred submittals as needed.

SFA appreciates the client’s concern for high quality performance and precise communication when utilizing the services of a consultant. Close interaction with the client is considered an essential part of SFA consulting services. SFA’s commitment to a thorough understanding of the codes and the intent with which they were written permits consistent and proper enforcement while meeting the expectations of the City and earning the respect of the public.

SFA’s approach is to provide high quality, thorough, clearly written plan review comments in an on-time schedule by credentialed and experienced staff. These services are coordinated with the needs of the City’s inspection team and the permit technicians who process the plans and permits.

Our aim is to provide courteous interaction with City staff, applicants, owners and design team professionals. The ultimate objective is to contribute to a safely built community which maintains property values through property protection and sustainability.

27 2.7 SFA’S Philosophy
Through the 30 years of experience in providing contract services to governmental agencies, SFA has identified concepts and ideas that are essential for a consultant to possess in order to effectively fulfill the building department requirements of a city or county. They are as follows:
• The experience and staff to respond to each agency’s needs in a timely, efficient and cost- effective manner.
• Administrative and management ability of high caliber to identify problem areas and provide for their correction in a timely and sure manner. • The ability to recognize and develop the attributes and strengths of staff members and to utilize them to their full potential.
• A reputation for quality performance and integrity to successfully administer all aspects of the codes.
• Expectations and performance accountability that are established and adhered to. • Professional representation on behalf of the client agency in order to maintain good public relations.
• Communication with the assigned client agency liaison through meetings, memorandums and status reports.
• Coordination with other agencies which require Building Department involvement. • Attendance of key meetings to keep informed on the most recent state statutes, and code administration techniques and procedures.
• Attendance at any required meetings connected with the plan review services.

2.8 SFA’S Quality Features
• Objectivity - Exclusively serving municipalities for zero conflict of interest. • Fast turnaround times: SFA will perform the first review in 10 working days and rechecks in 5 working days.
• Tailored Electronic plan submittal and review.
• Five Years Experience in the immediately recent contract cycle providing Plan Review to the City of Garden Grove
• Experience of individual plan check staff.
• Excellent references by numerous municipalities.
• Bluebeam mark-up corrections delivered to City and status updated in Viva for timely communication in a City Approved format.
• Quality Control measures practiced to ensure a quality work product. • Municipal experience in building safety and familiarity with all internal and external agency and division needs.
• Planning’s Discretionary Reviews Upon Request.

28 • Excellent Customer Service as Ambassadors of the City. • Experience in Bluebeam, Accela, Microsoft Word, Excel, EPR, Viva Civic and many others.

SFA’s process ensures due dates are always honored by assigning work to the engineers quickly upon receiving from the City and closely tracking the plan review process as defined in this section.

The following paragraphs illustrate how SFA views, routes, and communicates during the plan review process from beginning to completion which provide additional detail of SFA’s tools and processes to accomplish the Scope of Work.

SFA incorporates several internal procedures which will: 1) ensure better communication with the client agencies and the applicants; 2) achieve plan reviews which are more consistent with the specific policies and needs of the individual municipal client; and 3) enhance internal organization and processing.

SFA provides building plan check services by only licensed professionals with ICC Certified Plans Examiner certifications and all from one location in SFA’s Irvine office. SFA’s plan check engineers are licensed Professional Civil or Structural Engineers or Architects. All projects produce marked-up plan files containing all corrections, in a format consistent with City’s request, with each submittal and resubmittal until final approval and transmittal to the City of Garden Grove.

The plan review staff are always available to answer any technical questions of the City and applicant/design team regarding corrections, codes and regulations to encourage complete resubmittals.

2.9 Tailored Viva Entries by Administrative Staff
To ensure client satisfaction, SFA’s Administrative staff also act as an extension of the City Staff by entering in Viva the status of every plan received, reviewed or delivered that day which allows seamless flow between SFA’s tracking system and Viva. This Protocol is specifically tailored to the needs of the City.

The following list is a brief synopsis of the procedures followed in Viva:

All new and recheck plans from the City are sent via e-mail to SFA which notifies us of a new plan being sent to us. SFA will then log the new plan or recheck in and print out the City description and fees for the project from the Viva website if the project is new. SFA will then log it into our tracking system.

When a recheck is received SFA will print the e-mail then go into Garden Grove Viva portal to print out the responses from the applicant on the resubmittal project. If no responses or marked-up plans are in Viva we will close out the cycle with a note to provide the response for review.

Once the review has been done by SFA, we will upload the marked-up plans in Viva and log it out of Viva with corrections. If any additional hours are to be added, we will add a note in Viva with the hours spent on the project. We verify that the plan checker added the comment on the plans and that status has been changed.

When plans have been approved, SFA’s plan checkers will upload plans into Viva and add any additional hours or Conditions of Approval in Viva notes for the City. SFA will also verify that the plan checker logged out the plans as approved.

29 2.10 SFA’s Tailored Plan Check Services Approach

2.10.1 Agency Information List
SFA provides a plan review service which is tailored to the specific needs of each client by using a customized Agency Information List which documents policies, interpretations, ordinances, routing, and communication rules, etc. Whenever the City wishes to implement a change or addition to the list, SFA will update the list and distribute it to all plan check staff to notify them of the change and it is also updated on the Agency Info List Portal. When technical directives are added to the Agency Information List, these items are often incorporated into the City of Garden Grove’s Correction Protocol Template, ensuring that specific critical items are incorporated in each review when applicable.

2.10.2 Transmittal Protocol
SFA does not use our standard Transmittal format with the City of Garden Grove, instead all information that pertains to that plan review is entered into Viva for proper tracking by the City from that point until the next submittal to SFA.

2.10.3 SFA Plan Log System
The SFA Plan Log System is a software designed specifically for SFA that provides centralized data management for the plan review process. This allows SFA to:

A. Login – Record all information associated with each project B. Generate Reports

1. Scheduling – Efficiently assign plans based on plan checker workloads

2. Productivity – Measure and monitor plan review efficiency

3. Capacity – Monitor the workload capacity of each plan reviewer C. Status to City
D. Track – Plan review progress throughout the plan review process E. Logout – Route completed plans back to the City

Some additional features of the SFA Plan Log System are:
• Fee calculation and tracking for all hourly projects such as revisions or deferred submittals.
• Automated invoice generation to help prevent clerical and mathematical errors. • A Scheduling Report is generated daily which displays the currently assigned workload for each plan checker and all projects received that day. This report is used to ensure each project has the proper time available to complete a proper review. This process also serves to identify projects experiencing delays with numerous re-checks so they can be addressed.
• Maintains all SFA holiday and vacation calendars to ensure assigned workloads are accurate and achievable.

30 • A Due Report is generated nightly and delivered as a reminder, to each plan checker containing all the projects due the next day to ensure deadlines are achieved. • A Status Report is generated which includes the turnaround time for all projects. This serves as a double check that projects do not go out late. • Advanced search features which help streamline projects by assigning projects at the same address to the same plan checker who performed previous reviews. • Customizable fee structure and review schedules for each client with automated generation of fees and due dates to prevent clerical and mathematical errors.

2.10.4 Plan Assignment/Routing
After plans have been logged in, the SFA Plan Log will recommend plan reviewer assignments based on previous reviewer history for rechecks and plan checker capacity for initial reviews. Plans are promptly routed to the plan check engineer with an assignment tag and the due date, so the engineer can schedule their time accordingly.

2.10.5 Status, Tracking and Reports
The details, status and progress of each plan review is tracked in the SFA Plan Log and can be provided to the City when needed.

Upon City request SFA can generate specific reports from the SFA Plan Log System. This allows for full transparency of the plan review process. The reports include information such as:
• Dates received, reviewed, checked, notified and also how delivered. • Tracking status
• Plan Check Engineer’s name, contact information, where and how to respond and resubmit for recheck
• Plan Mark-ups
• Special Notes to flag unique project-specific items.

2.10.6 Electronic Plan Review
The plans are distributed by the administrative staff to the assigned plan check engineer’s office and tagged with a due date and any unique notations specific to each project. This is done within 24 hours of intake. The plan check engineer reviews the City Application paperwork and compares the scope of the application with the plans. The review will incorporate any items from the City of Garden Grove’s Correction Protocol Template that apply, as well as applicable policies from the Agency Information List. Once the direction and scope are clear and any City-specific issues that apply are understood, the comprehensive review of the plan is started.

SFA follows the City’s requested plan review method by marking up plans in Bluebeam. Some projects have deferred submittals for varying scopes of work while other changes may include notes added to plans. This process has evolved during SFA’s recent contract term in working out a system that specifically meets the City’s needs and objectives in delivery of services to the development community.

31 2.10.7 Corrections Protocol Template
SFA does not use our standard correction list for the City of Garden Grove. However we still use a City-specific template to ensure that items key to City policies is applied at the onset of our review.

We have created an entirely new format in order to accommodate the City’s request to put all comments on the actual plan for that plan review session. This has provided more clarity for the applicants and helped to lessen the amount of rechecks needed to complete a project. During the plan review process corrections continue to be marked on the plans to cite specific issues and where appropriate, identify the location on the plans where the conditions apply along with the code section.

2.10.8 Communication with City
During the plan review process SFA has multiple mediums with which to communicate with the City. The method selected is intended to be the most convenient, timely, efficient and inclusive to all relevant parties. SFA lists the communication tools currently being utilized in daily operations:
• In person meeting with City at City Hall or SFA offices • Zoom or Teams meetings
• Conference call dial-ins
• Combination of Bluebeam shared on-line viewing with conference call to discuss plans. • Phone
• Fax
• Email and pdf
Considerations such as the location(s), number of participants and complexity of the subject matter play a role in how the method of interaction is selected.

Preliminary meetings may be virtual or in person. SFA attends meetings in City Hall when requested by City Staff. Phone consultations are available to the City on any topic, regardless of whether or not it’s for a project worked on by SFA. Code issues are addressed as a courtesy with no charge. SFA is always available to answer technical questions to the public, including inquiries regarding building and safety codes and regulations.

SFA’s plan check staff work in SFA’s Irvine office, not remotely. Staff regularly take phone calls throughout the day in real time.

2.10.9 Plan Review Logout and Delivery
When the applicant and/or design team have resolved corrections through the resubmittal and recheck process and have shown compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, state and federal laws as well as City Policies and Interpretations, SFA will upload the plans in Viva with notes for any conditions on the approval. The plan will then be logged out/approved in the SFA Plan log when it has been delivered back to the City.

32 2.10.10 Applicant Questionnaire
SFA provides Applicant Questionnaires on our website at scottfazekasandassociates.com for the design/developer team to complete after the review process is complete. This allows follow-up of any potential process issues but also lets the plan check team know they’re open to receiving comments. This is available, if requested by the City.

2.10.11 City Role/Time Involvement
It is the ultimate goal of SFA to reduce or eliminate the effort by City staff needed in the plan review process. Since SFA works at the pleasure and direction of the City, the City has the right to determine what, if any, involvement they have. SFA is simply an extension of the City staff as an as-needed resource. Some information and effort required of the City to perform services that would help SFA perform plan review services more efficiently would be as follows:
• Copies of Code Adoption Ordinance.
• Copies of, or verbal explanation of, any written Policies on Code Interpretations. • Copies of any administrative policies on plan routing with applicants. • List of City contacts, roles, phone numbers, etc. to allow efficient interfacing for communication and coordination between SFA and City staff when necessary.

Copies of Application Forms with each plan review assigned to SFA by the City

2.10.12 Managing Time Schedules
Scott Fazekas, President of SFA, will personally be managing the time schedule and assures the City of Garden Grove that he will make sure all deadlines are met.

2.10.13 Resource Allocation
The SFA admin staff performs all non-plan check related activities to enable plan check engineers the capacity to efficiently focus only on plan review. SFA’s engineers all work in the same office; none work remotely. This enhances coordination, communication, consistency in application of interpretations and team building.

33 All of SFA plan check engineers are hourly, not salaried, so they are compensated at 1.5 rate for all overtime worked. This structure allows SFA the depth of resources when assignments are received to have any or all engineers do overtime in order to always meet the deadline. This equates to approximately two and a half Full Time Employee’s always being available for increased demand.

The SFA Capacity chart above accounts for the current work load; the excess capacity shown is capacity to perform plan check services above and beyond the current work load to provide additional plan review services to the City.

2.10.14 Tracking Turnaround Times
SFA will meet or exceed the City’s expectations for turnaround times. First reviews will be done in ten (10) working days and rechecks in five (5) working days. Monthly statistics are provided each month with the invoices showing which projects were completed during the preceding month.

Additional reports are available as requested by the City. Any additional duties requested by the City such as Preliminary Discretionary Reviews would meet the agreed upon expectations of the City.

SFA has worked with its clients on numerous projects which have required preliminary meetings, condensed schedules, phased reviews, and tight goals on permit issuance deadlines.

A Daily Turnaround Report is run and reviewed by management to verify that all deadlines are being met or exceeded.

As shown in the following chart, SFA has performed over 33,000 reviews in the previous 4 years, during that time 38% of the reviews have been completed prior to the committed due date, 62% on the due date and 0% late. SFA’s commitment to its clients to deliver plan review services on time is unparalleled.

34 2.10.15 SFA’s Customer Service
SFA prides itself on providing top notch Customer Service. This starts with providing plan reviews that are consistent, technically thorough, competent, clearly communicated, constructive and timely.

From start to finish, due dates are transparent and the plan check engineers are available to discuss and clarify any questions in a professional and courteous manner once the marked-up plans are received by the Applicant through the City. Plan review comments on marked-up plans are a critical component of plan review in order to minimize the number of rechecks and maximize applicant satisfaction. When the plan check engineers see solutions, they will articulate suggestions. Plan Check Engineers at SFA have the goal of moving each project as quickly as possible through to approval while achieving code compliance. SFA makes every effort to accommodate final completion of approved plans within the first three plan checks.

2.10.16 SFA’s Past Performances
SFA has been providing plan review for projects of similar scope for type and complexity as referenced in our experience section of this Proposal. SFA has numerous other client cities in Orange, L.A., Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties in which they contract for same services as for City of Garden Grove. In addition to illustrating similar plan review services through SFA’s project experience provided in the Relevant Experience and Reference Section of this Proposal, we have had the privilege of providing the exact scope of services requested in the RFP for the City of Garden Grove over recent years. We have worked with senior City personnel on many unique projects such as the City’s Civic Center Revitalization Project as well as tailoring services to evolving City protocols and policies, so that the services provided are synchronized with the City’s processing and interpretation expectations. SFA has adapted to the City’s processing goals to achieve approval for permit issuance within 3 reviews which in some cases involves deferred submittals and notes added to plans. This has been accomplished on a high degree of projects and has always been coordinated and communicated on with City staff.

Additionally, we have amended our plan review format to provide mark-ups on plans consistent with the format requested by senior City staff liaisons.

SFA provides the additional service of doing Preliminary Discretionary Reviews of projects prior to reaching the building plan check submittal stage. These are reviewed without charge. This assists Building and Planning on “conditioning” PCC projects and flagging critical “red flag” items that could have a major impact on the project design or scope if unresolved at an early stage.

35 3 CLIENT REFERENCES
References are provided below to show our experience with other public agencies where we do plan review. Additional references are available upon request.

Agency: CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Ste. 145
Anaheim, CA 92805
Reference: Scott Beery, Building Official
(714) 765-4130
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF TUSTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Reference: Mariam Madjlessi, Building Official
(714) 573-3109
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Reference: Bill Belvin, Building Official
(951) 674-3124 ext #286 or (951) 848-0469
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF BEAUMONT
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Reference: Sara Retmier, Building Official
(951) 769-8517
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS
65950 Pierson Boulevard
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
Reference: Travis Clark, Community Development Director (760) 329-6411 ext #240
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review

36 Agency: CITY OF ARCADIA
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Reference: Ken Fields, Building Official
(626) 574-5420
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Reference: Charles Chamoun, Plan Check Manager
(714) 754-5614
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF WHITTIER
13230 Penn Street, 2nd Floor
Reference: Adam Tekunoff, Building Official
Whittier, CA 90202
(562) 567-9331
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review
Agency: CITY OF PARAMOUNT
16400 Colorado Avenue
Paramount, CA 90723
Reference: John King, Planning and Building Director
(562) 220-2049
email address: [email protected]
Service: Plan Review & Building Official

37 4 COMPENSATION

4.1 Fees
SFA proposes to charge plan review fees based on a percentage of the City Plan Review Fees established by the City’s Fee Ordinance. The project valuations assumed are based on the most current Valuation Data Chart published by the International Code Council. The percentage fees are scaled based on valuation as follows:

Project Valuation % of City P.C. Fee
Up to $1 million 70%
Greater than $1 million 60%
Greater than $10 to $50 million 50%
Greater than $50 Million to $200 Million 40%
Greater than $200 Million 35%
Expedited Reviews would be provided at 125% of the regular plan review fee. This however, would only apply when the City selects this option.

4.2 Classification/Hourly Rates
SFA will charge hourly for any recheck after the 3rd. SFA does not charge for administrative costs. Deferred submittals, field revisions or scope not covered by the initial plan review are charged at a rate of $140/hour.

All Plan Checkers will be charged at the same hourly rate.

SFA will meet or exceed the City’s expectations for turnaround time. The Table on the next pages gives turnaround times but most projects will be scheduled with a maximum 10 working days for initial review and re-checks in 5 working days. Revisions or deferred submittals will be reviewed in 5 business days.

Expedited reviews will be done when requested by the City’s Building Official in seven (7) business days for initial and five (5) business days or sooner for recheck. Unusually large or complex projects would be as agreed upon in advance with the City’s Building Official.

SFA has worked with its clients on numerous projects which have required preliminary meetings, condensed schedules, phased reviews, and tight goals on permit issuance deadlines.

38 4.3 Turn Around Times

TYPE OF JOB TURN AROUND TIME

FIRST CHECK

TURN AROUND TIME RE-
CHECK
Residential:

New Construction 10 Working days 5 Working days
Addition 10 Working days 5 Working days
Remodel 10 Working days 5 Working days
Non-Residential
New Construction 10 Working Days 5 Working days
Addition 10 Working Days 5 Working days
Remodel 10 Working Days 5 Working days

A Daily Turnaround Report is run and reviewed by management to verify that all deadlines are being met or exceeded.

4.4 Sample Invoice
As requested in the RFP, a sample Invoice has been provided and follows this page.

Invoice
DATE INVOICE #
February 28, 2026 #23516

Taxpayer ID 33-0711166
BILL TO:

City of Garden Grove
Kamyar Dibaj, Public Works Engineering
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92842-3070

GRADING PLAN CHECK SERVICES 02/01/2026 through 02/28/2026

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Plan Ck. No. Address Description City Fee SFA Fee
G-000141 12821 Sungrove Blvd Grading to 464-25 *ADU 1 hr @ $110 $110.00 G-000142 12411 Oertly Drive Grading to 475-25 *ADU 1 hr @ $110 $110.00 G-000144 12272 Granite Pl Grading to 523-25 0.5 hr @ $110 $55.00 G 000147 13111 Rainbow St Grading for 527-25 1 hr @ $110 $110.00 G 000145 13162 Newell St Grading for 533-25
*ADU
2 hr @ $110 $220.00
G-000155 12462 Russell Circle Grading to 16-26 *ADU 2 hr @ $110 $220.00 G-000163 12382 Volkwood Street Grading to 25-26 *ADU 2 hr @ $110 $220.00 G-000165 14681 Taft Street Grading to new ADU
Reviewed by City
2 hr @ $110 $220.00
G-000161 15311 Spar Street Grading to 37-26 1 hr @ $110 $110.00 G-000166 11451 Woodbury Road Grading to SFR addition
*checked by City
1 hr @ $110 $110.00
G-000153 10531 Kedge Ave Grading to 61-26 1.5 hr @ $110 $165.00

TOTAL $1,650.00

40 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Viva tracking program used by the City of Garden Grove and the philosophical goal of moving plans through the system for approval by the third review has been a process in which SFA has made the necessary adjustments and synchronized with the City in delivering services which meet the City’s operating objectives. Proactive contact with applicants is also part of SFA’s protocol on all third reviews as well as with projects deemed to need extra attention when so determined by the City.

Also, the President of SFA is personally involved in interaction with the City whenever the City calls about status of a project, to discuss technical requirements or to explore options to move project approval forward.

SFA did the plan review on the P-3 Police City Revitalization Project and over the two year period of planning and construction spent approximately $39,000 of hours by Scott Fazekas and staff attending meetings and the job site without charging the City. This was a contribution by SFA since this project was a high priority to the City. SFA views the City of Garden Grove as an important client and will always work hard in the City’s best interest.

Previously mentioned in the Qualifications and Experience Section of this Proposal but not requested in the RFP, SFA has been reviewing and providing comments on Plannings’ Preliminary Reviews to assist Senior Building Staff. We provide comments in two sections; Corrections and Conditions. This has been done without charge. It serves to flag key issues to be addressed early and to facilitate plan reviews when SFA receives the building plans for review to ready for construction.

Lastly, at the request of Engineering, SFA took over grading/drainage reviews for ADU projects in the FEMA Flood Zone. Coordinating this concurrently with the ADU reviews helped to deliver timely grading reviews and subsequently allowing ADUs more timely approval and permit issuance.

41 Appendix Consultant Statement & Addendum No. 1

37 4 COMPENSATION

4.1 Fees
SFA proposes to charge plan review fees based on a percentage of the City Plan Review Fees established by the City’s Fee Ordinance. The project valuations assumed are based on the most current Valuation Data Chart published by the International Code Council. The percentage fees are scaled based on valuation as follows:

Project Valuation % of City P.C. Fee
Up to $1 million 70%
Greater than $1 million 60%
Greater than $10 to $50 million 50%
Greater than $50 Million to $200 Million 40%
Greater than $200 Million 35%
Expedited Reviews would be provided at 125% of the regular plan review fee. This however, would only apply when the City selects this option.

4.2 Classification/Hourly Rates
SFA will charge hourly for any recheck after the 3rd. SFA does not charge for administrative costs. Deferred submittals, field revisions or scope not covered by the initial plan review are charged at a rate of $140/hour.

All Plan Checkers will be charged at the same hourly rate.

SFA will meet or exceed the City’s expectations for turnaround time. The Table on the next pages gives turnaround times but most projects will be scheduled with a maximum 10 working days for initial review and re-checks in 5 working days. Revisions or deferred submittals will be reviewed in 5 business days.

Expedited reviews will be done when requested by the City’s Building Official in seven (7) business days for initial and five (5) business days or sooner for recheck. Unusually large or complex projects would be as agreed upon in advance with the City’s Building Official.

SFA has worked with its clients on numerous projects which have required preliminary meetings, condensed schedules, phased reviews, and tight goals on permit issuance deadlines.

Attachment "B"

38 4.3 Turn Around Times

TYPE OF JOB TURN AROUND TIME

FIRST CHECK

TURN AROUND TIME RE-
CHECK
Residential:

New Construction 10 Working days 5 Working days
Addition 10 Working days 5 Working days
Remodel 10 Working days 5 Working days
Non-Residential
New Construction 10 Working Days 5 Working days
Addition 10 Working Days 5 Working days
Remodel 10 Working Days 5 Working days

A Daily Turnaround Report is run and reviewed by management to verify that all deadlines are being met or exceeded.

4.4 Sample Invoice
As requested in the RFP, a sample Invoice has been provided and follows this page.