1 Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301478 03/21/25 08:36:11 03/21/25 08:42:49 DISTURBING T-MOBILE USA 27208 - Estrada, Ignacio, 27216 - Landa, Rafael,
27226 - Hernandez,
Melissa, 27248 -
Gonzalez, Brittany, Lee,
CR25-0421 03/21/25 08:38:22 03/21/25 09:52:36 VOID LEONIS / DOWNEY, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301479 03/21/25 08:41:06 03/21/25 09:07:13 NON INJURY HIT T-MOBILE USA 27224 - Ourique, Carlos CR25-0420 03/21/25 09:01:20 03/21/25 09:31:29 RPT FRUITLAND AVE / __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301484 03/21/25 10:25:27 REPOSESSION
CR25-0422 03/21/25 10:50:46 REPO 2439 E 53RD ST, LOS
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301492 03/21/25 11:12:48 03/21/25 11:18:02 TRAFFIC AT&T MOBILITY 27216 - Landa, Rafael, 27226 - Hernandez,
Melissa, 27248 -
Gonzalez, Brittany, Lee,
Bonnie
CR25-0423 03/21/25 11:13:56 03/21/25 12:47:41 RPT ; VS BANDINI BLVD / S __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301505 03/21/25 13:05:28 03/21/25 13:05:28 TRAFFIC STOP 27206 - Encinas, Anthony, 27216 - Landa,
Rafael, Lee, Bonnie CR25-0424 03/21/25 13:05:28 03/21/25 14:01:53 CITE; SRVD 4310 BANDINI BLVD, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 5 ..
Item 8 Page 35 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301551 03/22/25 13:45:40 03/22/25 13:47:56 GRAND THEFT T-MOBILE USA, 27206 - Encinas, Anthony, 27236 -
Villegas, Richard, 27249
- Silva, Bryan, Lee,
Bonnie
CR25-0425, 03/22/25 13:47:56 03/22/25 18:25:04 1015; RPT ; VS E 37TH ST / S SANTA __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301560 03/22/25 20:35:58 03/22/25 20:35:58 PEDESTRIAN 27237 - Sepulveda, Rafael, 27241 -
Velasquez, Richard,
27248 - Gonzalez,
Brittany
CR25-0427 03/22/25 20:35:58 03/22/25 22:34:34 1015; CITE; RPT DISTRICT BLVD / E __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301562 03/22/25 20:52:49 03/22/25 20:58:12 TRAFFIC CHRISTIAN 27224 - Ourique, Carlos, 27237 - Sepulveda,
Rafael, 27241 -
Velasquez, Richard,
27248 - Gonzalez,
CR25-0428 03/22/25 20:54:55 03/22/25 22:58:00 RPT ; OR; VS S BOYLE AVE / E 50TH __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 3 ..
Item 8 Page 36 of 47
1 Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301573 03/23/25 01:17:57 03/23/25 01:24:49 WELFARE CORINA 27224 - Ourique, Carlos, 27237 - Sepulveda,
Rafael, 27241 -
Velasquez, Richard,
27248 - Gonzalez,
CR25-0429 03/23/25 01:20:59 03/23/25 03:49:35 1015; RPT ; VI 3278 E SLAUSON AVE, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301589 03/23/25 09:41:32 03/23/25 09:43:52 BURGLARY TO A CAROLINA EMPLOYEE 27206 - Encinas, Anthony, 27214 -
Hernandez, Miguel,
27249 - Silva, Bryan,
Lee, Bonnie
CR25-0430 03/23/25 09:43:22 03/23/25 10:37:21 RPT 2300 E 57TH ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301594 03/23/25 10:27:20 03/23/25 10:27:20 TRAFFIC 27206 - Encinas, Anthony, Lee, Bonnie
CR25-0431 03/23/25 10:27:20 03/23/25 11:15:06 RPT 3090 E 50TH ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301601 03/23/25 12:26:25 03/23/25 12:28:43 ASSIST FIRE 27249 - Silva, Bryan CR25-0432 03/23/25 12:27:31 03/23/25 12:50:49 RPT ; CPD S SANTA FE AVE / __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301607 03/23/25 14:32:46 03/23/25 14:32:46 PEDESTRIAN 27233 - Hernandez, Rudy, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan CR25-0433 03/23/25 14:32:46 03/23/25 15:12:27 1015; CITE; RPT S SOTO ST / LEONIS __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 5 ..
Item 8 Page 37 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301639 03/24/25 05:22:23 03/24/25 05:27:02 DISABLED HENRY 27237 - Sepulveda, Rafael
CR25-0434 03/24/25 05:24:03 03/24/25 06:37:40 RPT ; VS E 55TH ST / S SANTA __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301651 03/24/25 08:01:38 03/24/25 08:15:59 VANDALISM LANI HILDEBRAND 27214 - Hernandez, Miguel, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan CR25-0435 03/24/25 08:04:42 03/24/25 09:04:51 RPT 4848 S SANTA FE __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301653 03/24/25 08:34:20 03/24/25 09:12:35 GRAND THEFT HELEN PEREZ 27201 - Cerda, Paul, 27249 - Silva, Bryan
CR25-0436 03/24/25 09:05:28 03/24/25 09:41:18 RPT 3225 E WASHINGTON __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301667 03/24/25 11:35:30 03/24/25 11:35:30 PEDESTRIAN 27201 - Cerda, Paul, 27214 - Hernandez,
Miguel, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan CR25-0437 03/24/25 11:35:30 03/24/25 14:36:10 1015; RPT S SOTO ST / __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 4 ..
Item 8 Page 38 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301751 03/25/25 10:10:44 03/25/25 10:17:49 BURGLARY XAVIER Lastra, Genevieve CR25-0438 03/25/25 10:12:35 03/25/25 11:06:33 RPT 2200 E 27TH ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301756 03/25/25 11:28:45 03/25/25 11:29:10 INCIDENT 27223 - Onopa, Daniel CR25-0439 03/25/25 11:29:10 03/25/25 11:31:06 CPD 4305 S SANTA FE __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301763 03/25/25 13:03:35 03/25/25 13:03:35 PARKING 27221 - Cedeno, Ruth CR25-0440 03/25/25 13:03:35 03/25/25 15:59:19 VS 1911 E 51ST ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301770 03/25/25 14:53:00 03/25/25 14:58:34 TRAFFIC LA COUNTY FIRE 27201 - Cerda, Paul, 27214 - Hernandez,
Miguel, Lastra,
Genevieve CR25-0441 03/25/25 14:55:40 03/25/25 16:49:28 RPT E 27TH ST / SANTA __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301780 03/25/25 17:21:41 03/25/25 17:27:57 TRAFFIC MIGUEL GUERRERO 27201 - Cerda, Paul, 27214 - Hernandez,
Miguel CR25-0442 03/25/25 17:24:22 03/25/25 18:13:06 RPT 2831 SANTA FE AVE, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ..
Item 8 Page 39 of 47
CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301800 03/25/25 22:56:33 03/25/25 23:01:49 VANDALISM JERMAINE WATERS 27203 - Flores, Teresa, 27224 - Ourique, Carlos,
27236 - Villegas,
Richard, 27242 - Godoy,
Raymond
CR25-0443 03/25/25 22:58:36 03/26/25 01:02:39 1015; RPT 2801 E 46TH ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 6 ..
Item 8 Page 40 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301809 03/26/25 03:49:51 03/26/25 03:52:25 RECOVERED 27203 - Flores, Teresa, 27224 - Ourique, Carlos,
27236 - Villegas,
Richard, 27242 - Godoy,
Raymond
CR25-0444 03/26/25 03:52:25 03/26/25 06:35:16 VREC; RPT DOWNEY RD / E __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301815 03/26/25 06:39:17 03/26/25 06:44:23 TRAFFIC VALERIA 27203 - Flores, Teresa CR25-0445 03/26/25 06:44:23 03/26/25 07:23:02 RPT PACIFIC BLVD / __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301836 03/26/25 15:22:42 03/26/25 15:22:42 DISABLED 27221 - Cedeno, Ruth, Lastra, Genevieve
CR25-0446 03/26/25 15:22:42 03/26/25 16:05:12 VS DISTRICT BLVD / S __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301837 03/26/25 16:05:15 BURGLARY ED SILVA Lastra, Genevieve CR25-0447 03/26/25 16:17:28 03/26/25 17:58:22 RPT 5401 DOWNEY RD, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301847 03/26/25 19:36:35 03/26/25 19:36:35 TRAFFIC STOP 27203 - Flores, Teresa, 27239 - Madrigal,
Alfonso, 27242 - Godoy,
Raymond CR25-0448 03/26/25 19:36:35 03/26/25 21:44:35 1015; RPT S SANTA FE AVE / E __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ..
Item 8 Page 41 of 47
CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301848 03/26/25 20:03:21 03/26/25 20:09:28 TRESPASS FACILTIY OPERATION 27224 - Ourique, Carlos, 27242 - Godoy,
Raymond CR25-0449 03/26/25 20:05:58 03/26/25 20:50:38 1015 2757 LEONIS BLVD, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 6 ..
Item 8 Page 42 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301875 03/27/25 06:53:53 03/27/25 06:53:53 LOST/STOLEN 27203 - Flores, Teresa, 27221 - Cedeno, Ruth,
27226 - Hernandez,
Melissa, 27233 -
Hernandez, Rudy, 27239
CR25-0450 03/27/25 06:53:53 03/27/25 08:54:51 VREC S SANTA FE AVE / E __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301879 03/27/25 07:56:59 03/27/25 08:03:32 TRAFFIC JENNIFER LEE 27226 - Hernandez, Melissa, 27233 -
Hernandez, Rudy CR25-0451 03/27/25 07:59:23 03/27/25 08:31:39 RPT SOTO//37TH, VERNON __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301921 03/27/25 16:32:17 03/27/25 16:44:30 TRAFFIC JESUS GARCIA 27226 - Hernandez, Melissa, 27233 -
Hernandez, Rudy CR25-0452 03/27/25 16:35:42 03/27/25 17:13:41 RPT 5201 DISTRICT BLVD, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250301930 03/27/25 18:06:16 03/27/25 18:15:42 TRESPASS 27208 - Estrada, Ignacio, 27216 - Landa, Rafael,
27226 - Hernandez,
Melissa, 27233 -
Hernandez, Rudy, 27239
CR25-0453 03/27/25 18:14:58 03/27/25 21:56:12 RPT 2757 LEONIS BLVD, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 4 ..
Item 8 Page 43 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250301995 03/28/25 12:40:15 REPOSESSION SERGIO CASTILLO - FOX CR25-0454 03/28/25 12:49:59 REPO; RPT 3100 E 26TH ST,
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302014 03/28/25 15:44:44 03/28/25 15:57:01 NON INJURY HIT 27226 - Hernandez, Melissa, 27233 -
Hernandez, Rudy, Lee,
Bonnie CR25-0455 03/28/25 15:46:40 03/28/25 17:21:45 RPT 4380 AYERS AVE, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302021 03/28/25 20:01:50 03/28/25 20:05:24 DISTURBING 27203 - Flores, Teresa, 27227 - Ramos, Jose,
27241 - Velasquez,
Richard, Sepulveda,
Rafael
CR25-0456 03/28/25 20:04:00 03/28/25 21:39:38 RPT ; 1015 BANDINI BLVD / S __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 3 ..
Item 8 Page 44 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250302059 03/29/25 11:10:54 03/29/25 11:13:03 VANDALISM ENRIQUE ALATORRE 27249 - Silva, Bryan, Lee, Bonnie
CR25-0457 03/29/25 11:12:10 03/29/25 12:22:10 RPT 4800 DEKALB AVE, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302067 03/29/25 12:42:44 03/29/25 12:47:46 DUI JOE 27233 - Hernandez, Rudy, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan, Lee, Bonnie CR25-0458 03/29/25 12:47:46 03/29/25 14:40:20 1015; RPT ; VI S SANTA FE AVE / E __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302074 03/29/25 16:35:50 03/29/25 16:45:06 TRAFFIC MARTH BAUTISTA 27233 - Hernandez, Rudy, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan, Lee, Bonnie CR25-0459 03/29/25 16:37:36 03/29/25 18:22:13 VI; RPT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302080 03/29/25 19:03:16 03/29/25 19:03:46 DOMESTIC Sepulveda, Rafael CR25-0460 03/29/25 19:03:46 03/29/25 21:08:35 RPT 4250 S ALAMEDA ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 4 ..
Item 8 Page 45 of 47
Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250302122 03/30/25 09:35:05 03/30/25 09:35:05 PEDESTRIAN 27233 - Hernandez, Rudy, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan, Lee, Bonnie CR25-0461 03/30/25 09:35:05 03/30/25 11:37:29 RPT E 46TH ST / SEVILLE __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302126 03/30/25 10:15:05 03/30/25 10:29:40 RECOVERED OPER AUSTIN 27249 - Silva, Bryan CR25-0462 03/30/25 10:24:44 03/30/25 11:34:06 RPT ; CITE; VREC DISTRICT BLVD / __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302131 03/30/25 11:46:52 03/30/25 11:49:24 TRESPASS 27233 - Hernandez, Rudy, Lee, Bonnie
CR25-0463 03/30/25 11:47:22 03/30/25 12:56:35 1015; RPT 2221 E 55TH ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302143 03/30/25 17:05:58 03/30/25 17:05:58 TRAFFIC STOP 27233 - Hernandez, Rudy, 27249 - Silva,
Bryan CR25-0464 03/30/25 17:05:58 03/30/25 17:50:31 VI; ADV; CITE; RPT LEONIS BLVD / __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 4 ..
Item 8 Page 46 of 47
1 Daily Activity With Response Times Printed on April 14, 2025 CFS # CFS Date/Time First On Scene Date/Time Complaint Type Person/Business Name Responder Personnel Case Number First Enroute Date/Time Completed Date/Time Dispo Address CFS250302216 03/31/25 10:35:31 03/31/25 10:36:40 GRAND THEFT 27249 - Silva, Bryan, Escobedo, Alexy
CR25-0465 03/31/25 10:36:13 03/31/25 11:07:27 RPT 2929 E 54TH ST, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302222 03/31/25 12:10:50 03/31/25 12:12:33 DISTURBING ERIC 27223 - Onopa, Daniel, 27249 - Silva, Bryan,
Escobedo, Alexy, Lee,
Bonnie CR25-0466, 03/31/25 12:11:41 03/31/25 15:05:44 RPT E VERNON AVE / S __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302239 03/31/25 15:47:21 03/31/25 15:47:21 TRAFFIC STOP 27249 - Silva, Bryan CR25-0468 03/31/25 15:47:21 03/31/25 16:46:32 VI; CITE; RPT 4100 BANDINI BLVD, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302242 03/31/25 16:03:22 03/31/25 16:03:22 TRAFFIC 27201 - Cerda, Paul, 27249 - Silva, Bryan,
Lee, Bonnie CR25-0469 03/31/25 16:03:22 03/31/25 17:23:28 CITE; RPT ; SRVD; VI S SOTO ST / BANDINI __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CFS250302248 03/31/25 17:38:50 03/31/25 18:00:10 VANDALISM MARIO CASTILLO 27201 - Cerda, Paul, 27249 - Silva, Bryan
CR25-0470 03/31/25 17:41:35 03/31/25 18:08:36 RPT 2104 E 57TH ST, VER __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Records: 5 ..
Item 8 Page 47 of 47
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: May 20, 2025
From: Zaynah Moussa, City Attorney
Department: City Attorney
Submitted by: Eva Muro, Legal Analyst
Subject
Attorney Services Agreement between the City of Vernon and Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for Outside Legal Services
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Attorney Services Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (Burke Williams) for Outside Legal Services, in substantially the same form as submitted, for an amount not-to-exceed $125,000.
Background
The City Attorney’s Office functions as the legal advisor and counsel of record for the City Council, City boards and commissions, City staff, and represents the City in litigation, whether directly or with special counsel. The City Attorney’s Office is currently staffed with one in-house attorney and is supported by outside counsel for specialized legal matters and litigation or other matters requiring additional resources.
Accordingly, the City Attorney’s Office engages special counsel to assist as needed for specific matters (i.e., not via a monthly retainer). The advice or representation provided by special counsel could be in the form of a request for expert analysis on a specific issue, or to represent the City in a personnel matter, claim or lawsuit.
Competitive Selection Process
Pursuant to Vernon Municipal Code (VMC) Section 3.32.220(B), all professional services contracts must be subject to a new competitive selection process every three years, unless commercially unreasonable to do so.
In September 2024, the City Attorney’s Office issued a Request for Proposals for Outside Legal Services, in accordance with VMC Section 3.32.080, with a response deadline of November 4, 2024. The City Attorney’s Office received proposals from 14 firms throughout the state, many of whom were well-qualified in the subject practice areas.
The written proposals were subject to a review process by the City Attorney’s Office and evaluation panel representatives from City Finance, Human Resources, City Administration, and the Police Department. Due to the number and length of proposals received and staff availability/workload, the review and evaluation process took several months. Individual scores were applied by each panel representative and the following were ranked as the top firms overall:
Best Best & Krieger
Burke Williams & Sorensen
Jones & Mayer
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Richards Watson Gershon
Burke Williams is a full-service public law firm that currently serves as special counsel and/or city ..
Item 9 Page 1 of 2
attorney for more than 200 local governmental agencies. Attorney Mark Austin has been recommended as the City’s primary point of contact. Mr. Austin has years of experience working on Vernon matters, having successfully handled a high-profile anti-SLAPP motion, multiple positive outcomes in dangerous condition of public property (tort) cases, as well as several successful motions for summary judgment. Burke Williams also has expert attorneys available in the practice areas of land use, environmental compliance and CEQA, code enforcement, housing issues, and election law. If and when the City’s in-house attorney is unavailable, the firm has experienced city attorneys available to attend meetings and advise on municipal law issues.
Burke Williams litigation and advisory legal services would be billed at the hourly rates set forth below, ranging from $175-375 based on practice area and seniority. The proposed hourly rates are comparable to other firms providing public sector legal services.
Staffing Hourly Rate
Partners $375
Associate Attorneys $325
Paralegals $175
Pursuant to VMC Section 3.32.030(A), City Council approval is required for the proposed Agreement as the total value of the contract exceeds $100,000. The Agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by our Office.
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact is not-to-exceed $125,000. Sufficient funds are available in General Fund, City Attorney Department Professional Services – Legal Account No. 011-010-115-529200 for the current fiscal year and will be budgeted for subsequent years.
Attachments
1. Burke Williams Attorney Services Agreement ..
Item 9 Page 2 of 2
ATTORNEY SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON
COVER PAGE
Associate Counsel: Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Responsible Principal of Associate Counsel: Mark J. Austin, Partner Notice Information - Associate Counsel: Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650
Irvine, CA 92612
Attention: Mark J. Austin, Partner
Phone: (949) 265-3418
Notice Information - City: City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Attention: Zaynah N. Moussa,
City Attorney
Telephone: (323) 583-8811 ext. 839
Commencement Date: May
1, 2025
Termination Date: April 30, 2028
Consideration: Total not to exceed $125,000 (includes
all applicable sales tax)
Records Retention Period Three (3) years, pursuant to Section
11.2 AND BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES ..
Item 9 Page 1 of 86
ATTORNEY SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON
AND BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL
SERVICES This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Vernon ("City"), a California charter City and California municipal corporation (“City”), and Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, a limited liability partnership (“Associate Counsel”). City and Associate Counsel are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City, acting through its City Attorney, desires to engage Associate Counsel, in association with the City Attorney, to assist the City Attorney in connection with various transactions, and to provide advice and assistance in other legal matters from time to time; and
WHEREAS, Associate Counsel possesses the skills, qualifications, and experience necessary to assist as Associate Counsel; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney of the City of Vernon, herein referred to as "City Attorney," is the Chief Legal Advisor for the City and is charged with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the City, its Council, officers, employees and agents, as provided for by California law and the Charter and ordinances of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1.0 Scope of Services.
Associate Counsel is retained as Counsel of Record in association with the City Attorney to perform such legal services as may be required from time to time in connection with specific transactional matters and other legal matters as specified in the City’s Request for Proposals issued on or about September 23, 2024, and titled RFP for Outside Legal Services, and Associate Counsel’s proposal to the City (“Proposal”) dated November 4, 2024, Exhibit “A”, a copy which is attached to and incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Mark J. Austin, a principal member of the firm of Associate Counsel, shall be responsible for the performance of services hereunder, shall personally handle all significant matters, and shall supervise any services performed by other members of Associate Counsel's firm and by its employees. It is understood that the City Attorney is chief counsel of record for all purposes, and Associate Counsel's performance hereunder shall be under the direction and supervision of the City Attorney, that Associate Counsel shall coordinate its services hereunder with the City Attorney to the extent required by said City Attorney, and that all performances required hereunder by Associate Counsel shall be performed to the satisfaction of said City Attorney.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 2 of 86
Associate Counsel shall report to and receive direction from the City Attorney only, and not from any other Department Head or City staff.
2.0 Time of Performance and Term.
The services of Associate Counsel are to commence upon the execution hereof (“Effective Date”), and the written assignment of particular matters, provided, the effectiveness of this Agreement is subject to approval by the City Council or City Administrator (as appropriate), and shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their completion as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care. This Agreement shall automatically terminate three (3) years from the Effective Date, subject and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
3.0 Budgeting.
Associate Counsel handling specific City matters will be expected to institute and to adhere to budgeting and planning procedures in the sole discretion of the City Attorney. The general framework of budgeting and planning procedures is as follows:
3.1 Budget.
3.1.1 Associate Counsel shall, if requested by the City Attorney, provide a Plan and a Budget, or revisions thereof, which will include a projection of recommended steps to be taken in the assigned matter and a range of costs for each step. The Plan and Budget will be reviewed and updated as
necessary, at least every twelve months, or as more
frequently requested by the City Attorney.
3.1.2 The Budget shall include an estimate of Associate Counsel’s attorney’s hours, fees, and disbursements during each
phase and activity.
3.1.3 The Budget should include the anticipated cost of each line item, the time estimated to complete it, and the identity (name, title, billing rate) of the primary attorney handling it.
3.1.4 Each line item should be given a code number that can be used in the billing process and in preparation of updated progress reports.
3.1.5 The Budget is not a fixed fee agreement and is subject to revision. However, Associate Counsel understands and
agrees that failure to timely submit a Budget or major
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 3 of 86
unjustified deviations therefrom may constitute a breach and result in termination of this Agreement with Associate
Counsel.
3.2 Reporting.
3.2.1 In addition to the Budget, Associate Counsel shall prepare a written report, at least every twelve months, or as more frequently requested. The plan will start as an initial evaluation (before substantial costs are incurred) and shall include, with a discussion (where applicable): a) anticipated total costs; b) the primary issues; c) upcoming deadlines, and d) tasks toward completion.
3.2.2 The City Attorney shall be consulted by Associate Counsel regarding the component parts of matters handled so that the City Attorney can determine, or secure a determination from the City Council, as appropriate, tactics, strategy, and whether a particular activity makes sense from an economic standpoint or can be done more economically in another
fashion.
3.2.3 The City Attorney is to be consulted regarding staffing of matters and is to be advised of any significant shift in staffing.
3.2.4 The City Attorney is to be provided with copies of any billing manuals or directions for billing practices in use by Associate Counsel within thirty (30) days of executing this Agreement.
4.0 Compensation, Reimbursement and Methods of Payments.
4.1 Compensation.
Associate Counsel has established rates for the City of Vernon which are comparable to and do not exceed the best rates offered to other governmental entities in and around Los Angeles County for the same services. Fees for all services provided hereunder by all billers shall be charged in accordance with Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by reference.
Associate Counsel’s grand total, not-to-exceed compensation for the three (3) years of this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of $125,000, without prior approval of the City Council and written amendment of this Agreement.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 4 of 86
4.2 Reimbursement.
In addition to the compensation provided above, the City will reimburse Associate Counsel only for the following expenses: printing, copying costs (not to exceed 10 cents a page), transcription fees, reporter's fees and ground transportation (in the amount set forth by the Internal Revenue Service standard mileage rate). Any other expense (e.g., travel expenses or travel time beyond Southern California) must be approved by the City Attorney in writing and in advance. No compensation shall be allowed for general overhead or support services such as typing, word processing, scanning hard-copy documents to .pdf format, secretarial time of any nature (normal, overflow, or overtime), clerical work, Lexis or Westlaw, equipment rental, calendaring, setting up files, updating files, computer time or service, nor any other expense not itemized in the approved Budget or otherwise approved by the City Attorney. There shall be no mark-ups on outside services.
4.3 The City Attorney must approve in advance any single disbursement item in excess of $500.00, including, but not limited to, depositions, investigators, copying, and experts. Requests for costs exceeding $500.00 shall contain a recommendation of alternative information services, including use of City employees. Associate Counsel will use City Staff in lieu of outside experts whenever feasible.
4.4 The City expects moderation with regard to all expenses.
4.5 Method of Billing.
Unless otherwise agreed, Associate Counsel shall provide monthly bills unless fees and costs for a particular month are insignificant (i.e., $500 or less), in which case such charges will be added to the following month’s bill. The following information must be provided in monthly bills:
A. A detailed description of work, in time increments of .1 hour (one tenth of an hour) for and by each and every individual billing services. Associate Counsel shall keep the City advised regarding the identity and the billing rates of those people who work on the matter.
B. Identification of the attorney in charge of the matter.
C. Detailed disbursement breakdowns, including the nature and purpose of each disbursement.
D. Each billing item will be separately stated on a separate line identifying the biller, the time spent, and the exact nature of the service rendered. Narrative billing and block billing are Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 5 of 86
unacceptable. For example, if numerous tasks are undertaken in one day, each should be identified with a specified time for performing that task, i.e. a telephone call, a court appearance, a meeting or legal research. All tasks performed on the same day should be entered as separate entries, identifying the time spent on each. Telephone conferences should specify the
participants and the subject matter discussed.
E. The City will not pay for vague descriptions for services which do not state the precise nature of the work performed and the need for the work. Overly general task descriptions such as “review contract”, “conduct research”, or “prepare for
negotiations” are not acceptable. Associate Counsel shall provide a detailed description of each action, sufficient to provide a meaningful record to an independent auditor
reviewing said task description.
F. The City will not pay for inter-office conferences among attorneys/billers unless a conference is a necessary strategy meeting relating to some significant legal issue or event, such as an upcoming trial, and then only one attorney may be billed.
Where charges are made for conferences, the specific reason and need for each conference must be stated in detail, and the participants identified.
G. Where charges are made for research time, the specific issue being researched and the need must be identified. City has retained Associate Counsel for its expertise, and therefore expects not to be billed for introductory or background research.
The City will not pay for attorneys, law clerks and paralegals educating themselves or doing work of a transient nature on the case.
H. The City expects the attorney assigned to the case to handle all significant issues in the assigned matter. If other attorneys are assigned to assist the primary attorney, the City must be notified. The City may request that the assigned work be instead handled by the primary attorney. Thus, only those attorneys or persons approved in advance by the City may bill on the matter. Upon City request, resumes will be provided for all persons (other than clerical or secretarial) working on the case.
I. No more than two non-attorney support staff may bill on a particular matter without the prior approval of the City.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 6 of 86
J. One paralegal may be used. Assignment of work to such paralegal should not result in duplicative work by the attorneys or reworking of paralegal's work. Paralegal shall not perform clerical work, such as filing, indexing, date-stamping, organizing, etc., but shall perform work such as research, summarizing depositions, investigation, interviews of witnesses, etc.
K. Upon request, each item billed must be coded to a specific budget line item, so a bill may be easily compared with the approved budget.
L. A tracking system must be set up to periodically, at least every six months, to compare the amount of work completed to a percentage of the budget absorbed.
M. The City Attorney reserves the right to request various levels of detail and specific formats (such as columnar comparisons with established budgets).
N. The City will not pay for more than one biller doing any task (e.g. two or more attorneys attending the same depositions or the same court appearances, a biller redoing the work of another biller, or duplicative entries for reviewing and analyzing documentation and legal research).
O. Charges for time spent complying with billing inquiries and/or City audits are non-reimbursable.
P. Photocopies of deposition transcripts shall be made whenever possible to reduce deposition expenses.
Q. No finance charge or interest will be paid by the City, nor billed by Associate Counsel.
4.6 Timing of Payment.
The City shall pay Associate Counsel for services rendered and costs incurred hereunder, at the rates and in the amounts provided hereunder, on a monthly basis.
5.0 Engagement of Other Counsel, Specialists or Experts.
Associate Counsel shall not engage or otherwise incur an obligation to pay other counsel, specialists or experts for services in connection with this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City Attorney.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 7 of 86
6.0 Termination of Agreement and Legal Services.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, this Agreement and all legal services to be rendered hereunder may be terminated at any time by written notice from either party with or without cause. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, project data and reports, both originals and all duplicate copies, in all forms and media requested by the City, shall immediately be turned over to the possession of City, which owns all such materials. In the event of such termination, Associate Counsel shall be paid for all satisfactory work, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event compensation, if any, shall be adjusted, in the City's sole discretion, in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination.
7.0 Interest of Members of Local Public Agency.
No member of the governing body of the City, and no other officer, employee or agent of the City who exercises any discretion, function or responsibility in connection with the carrying out of any project to which this Agreement pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement.
8.0 General Procedures.
Copies of major documents, correspondence and periodic status reports shall be submitted to keep the City Attorney advised of any major developments in the matter. Once the Plan is approved, Associate Counsel need not advise the City of each and every step being taken. As long as Associate Counsel is complying with the Plan, it should provide periodic reviews and information on significant matters. The City does not, however, want boilerplate update letters announcing each and every procedural step being taken.
9.0 Policy for Investigation and Discovery Assistance.
A copy of the City Attorney's Policy for Investigation and Discovery Assistance is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” which is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by reference.
10.0 Conflict of Interest.
Associate Counsel certifies that no member, officer or employee of the Associate Counsel is an officer or employee of the City of Vernon except to the extent permitted by law.
Associate Counsel agrees to secure the informed written consent of the City Attorney before accepting any representation adverse to the City (actual or Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 8 of 86
apparent) during the term of this Agreement, and to forego such representation if the City Attorney, in his/her sole discretion, objects for any reason.
11.0 Maintenance and Inspection of Records.
11.1 The City and any other Federal, State or local governmental agency, and any of their authorized auditors or representatives, shall have access to, and the right to audit and reproduce any of Associate Counsel's records to the extent the City or such other governmental agency deems necessary to ensure that City is paying only the amounts to which Associate Counsel is properly entitled or for other purposes relating to the Agreement.
11.2 Associate Counsel shall maintain and preserve all such records for at least three (3) years after termination of the Agreement or until an audit has been completed and accepted in writing by City. Upon written notice by the City, the Associate Counsel shall promptly make all such records available to auditors or other representatives of the City or other governmental agencies.
11.3 If Associate Counsel does not maintain such records in the City of Vernon, Associate Counsel shall either deliver said records at its expense to Vernon or shall promptly reimburse City for all reasonable costs incurred in conducting the audit at a location other than the City of Vernon, including, but not limited to, expenses for personnel, salaries, private auditors, lodging, meals, and overhead.
12.0 Indemnity.
Associate Counsel agrees to indemnify City, its officers, elected officials, employees and agents against, and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities (herein “claims or liabilities”), including but not limited to professional negligence, that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the work, operations or activities of Associate Counsel, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein, or arising from the acts or omissions of Associate Counsel hereunder, or arising from Associate Counsel’s performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, except to the extent such claims or liabilities arise from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, elected officials, agents or employees.
13.0 INSURANCE.
Associate Counsel shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Associate Counsel, its agents, representative, or employees. The policies shall state Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 9 of 86
that they afford primary coverage.
13.1 Automobile Liability Insurance. Primary insurance coverage shall be written on ISO Business Auto coverage form for all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles or any auto. The policy shall have a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). If Associate Counsel is transporting one or more non- employee passengers in the performance of the services, the automobile liability policy shall have a combined single limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000). If Associate Counsel owns no autos, a hired, non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy is acceptable.
13.1.1 Associate Counsel agrees to subrogate automobile liability resulting from performance under this agreement by
agreeing to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, and its respective employees, agents, and City Council from and against all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, damages, injuries and expenses, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees (“Claims”), which are attributable to any act or omission by the Associate Counsel under the
performance of the services. The City of Vernon, its
directors, commissioners, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers must be endorsed on the policy as additional insureds and, under the Associate Counsels’ policy, there shall be a waiver of subrogation, and the policy shall be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance.
13.2 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Associate Counsel shall carry General Liability Insurance covering all operations performed by or on behalf of the Associate Counsel providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage with a single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate limit written on an Insurance Services Office (ISO) Comprehensive General Liability "occurrence" Form CG 00 01 or its equivalent for coverage on an occurrence basis. The City of Vernon, its directors, commissioners, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers must be endorsed on the policy as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of the Associate Counsels’ performance of this Agreement. The additional insured coverage under the Associate Counsel’s policy shall be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance. The policy shall be endorsed to include a waiver of subrogation.
13.2.1 If Associate Counsel intends to employ other associate as part of the services rendered, the City must approve and will establish the appropriate insurance requirements.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 10 of 86
13.2.2 Associate Counsel agrees to subrogate General Liability resulting from performance under this agreement by
agreeing to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, and its respective employees, agents, and City Council from and against all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, damages, injuries and expenses, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees (“Claims”), which are attributable to any act or omission by the Associate Counsel under the
performance of the services.
13.3 Professional Errors and Omissions Coverage in a sum of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), where such risk is applicable. Applicable aggregate must be identified and claims history provided to determine amounts remaining under the aggregates. Associate Counsel shall maintain such coverage for at least three (3) years after the termination of this agreement.
13.4 Umbrella Liability Insurance. An umbrella (over primary) may be used to comply with limits or other primary coverage requirements. When used, the umbrella policy shall apply to bodily injury/property damage and personal injury/advertising injury and shall include a “dropdown” provision providing primary coverage for any liability not covered by the primary policy. The umbrella policy shall have no additional exclusion or coverage difference from the primary policy. The coverage shall also apply to automobile liability.
13.5 Workers’ Compensation/Employers Liability. Associate Counsel shall comply with the applicable sections of the California Labor Code concerning workers' compensation for injuries on the job. Compliance is accomplished in one of the following manners:
13.5.1 Provide a copy of the permissive self-insurance certificate approved by the State of California; or
13.5.2 Secure and maintain in force a policy of workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and Employer's Liability Insurance with a limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident. The policy shall be endorsed to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its directors, commissioners, officers, employees, and volunteers for
losses arising from performance of this Agreement; or
13.5.3 If Associate Counsel has no employees, it may certify or warrant to the City that it does not currently have any employees or individuals who are defined as “employees” under the Labor Code, and the requirement for Workers’
Compensation coverage will be waived by completing the
waiver form provided by the City.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 11 of 86
13.6 If Associate Counsel maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Associate Counsel. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
13.7 Each insurance policy included in this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to City.
13.8 Insurance shall be placed with insurers with an A.M. Best rating of no less than A-VIII. Any self-insured retention or deductible in excess of $25,000 must be approved in advance by the City. Any policies written on a claims-based basis must include a minimum of a 3-year tail.
13.9 Prior to the commencement of performance, Associate Counsel shall furnish City with a certificate of insurance for each policy. Each certificate is to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to evidence coverage on its behalf. The certificate(s) must be in a form approved by City. City may require complete, certified copies of any or all policies upon request.
13.10 Failure to maintain required insurance at all times shall constitute a default and material breach. In such event, Associate Counsel shall immediately notify City and cease all performance under this Agreement until further directed by the City.
In the absence of satisfactory insurance coverage, City may, at its option: (a) procure insurance with collection rights for premiums, attorney's fees, and costs against Associate Counsel by way of set-off or recoupment from sums due to Associate Counsel, at City's option; (b) immediately terminate this Agreement and seek damages from the Agreement resulting from said breach; or (c) self-insure the risk, with all damages and costs incurred, by judgment, settlement or otherwise, including attorney's fees and costs, being collectible from Associate Counsel, by way of set-off or recoupment from any sums due to Associate Counsel.
14.0 Choice of Forum.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Associate Counsel agrees that the State and Federal courts which sit in the State of California shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies and disputes arising hereunder and submits to the jurisdiction thereof.
15.0 Incorporation by Reference.
This Agreement incorporates by reference the Request for Proposal and specifications therein, and all attachments, and the Proposal by Associate Counsel, and all attachments.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 12 of 86
16.0 Order of Precedence.
In case of conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the terms in any document attached as an exhibit or otherwise incorporated by reference, the terms of this Agreement shall strictly prevail.
17.0 Equal Employment Opportunity Practices.
Associate Counsel certifies and represents that, during the performance of this Agreement, it and any other parties with whom it may subcontract shall adhere to equal employment opportunity practices to assure that applicants, employees and recipients of service are treated equally and are not discriminated against because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex, age, medical condition, sexual orientation or marital status. Associate Counsel further certifies that it will not maintain any segregated facilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Practices provisions are set forth in Exhibit “D”.
18.0 Ethical Guarantees.
18.1 Associate Counsel warrants that no gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) were offered or given by Associate Counsel, or any agent of representative of Associate Counsel, to any officer or employee of City with a view toward securing this Agreement or favorable treatment with respect to any determination concerning the performance of this Agreement. In the event of breach of this warranty, City shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies including, but not limited to, termination, against Associate Counsel as it could pursue in the event of Associate Counsel’s default.
18.2 Associate Counsel and its members shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.).
19.0 Right to Offset Claims for Money.
All claims of money due or to become due from City shall be subject to deduction or offset by City from any monies due Associate Counsel by reason of any claim or counterclaim arising out of: (i) this Agreement, or (ii) any purchase order, or (iii) any other transaction with Associate Counsel.
20.0 Modification.
Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing executed by all parties to this Agreement, and, where applicable, if it is approved by City Council.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 13 of 86
21.0 Severability/Partial Invalidity.
If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, shall be finally found to be void, invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then notwithstanding such determination, such term or provision shall remain in force and effect to the extent allowed by such ruling and all other terms and provisions of this Agreement or the application of this Agreement to other situations shall remain in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material term or provision of this Agreement or the application of such material term or condition to a particular situation is finally found to be void, invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties hereto agree to work in good faith and fully cooperate with each other to amend this Agreement to carry out its intent.
22.0 Time of the Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
23.0 No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in this Agreement will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without limitations, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically state to the contrary in written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Agreement. [Signatures Begin on Next Page].
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 14 of 86
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Associate Counsel have executed this Agreement as of the Commencement Date stated on the cover page and agree as set forth hereinabove.
DATED: CITY OF VERNON, a California charter
City and California municipal corporation
By:
Brian Saeki, City Administrator
DATED: Burke, Williams & Sorensen, a
limited liability partnership
By:
Name:
Title:
ATTEST:
Genoveva Rocha, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Zaynah N. Moussa, City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 15 of 86
EXHIBIT A
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL’S PROPOSAL
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 16 of 86
Proposal to Provide
Legal Services to the
City of Vernon
Primary Point of Contact
Mark J. Austin
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650
Irvine, California 92612
p: 949.265.3418
e: [email protected]
Submitted November 4, 2024
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 17 of 86
Direct No.: 949.265.3418
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071-2953
voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
November 4, 2024
Via hard copy and email to [email protected]
City of Vernon
Attention: City Attorney’s Office
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Re: Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services to the City of Vernon Dear Ms. Muro:
On behalf of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (“Burke”), I am pleased to submit this response to the Request for Proposals issued by the City of Vernon (“City”). Burke is extremely interested in the possibility of providing outside legal services to the City.
Founded in 1927, Burke is a diverse, dynamic, and preeminent public law firm. For over 90 years, the representation of public agencies has been the cornerstone of Burke’s legal practice. The firm currently serves the legal needs of over 200 local governmental entities, including cities, counties, joint powers authorities, and water and school districts. We take pride in our long-standing tradition of providing excellent legal services at reasonable rates and believe our team at Burke offers the depth, expertise, and commitment that the City seeks from its counsel. Ours is a rich tradition of providing high quality advice and services to public agencies. We are prepared to work closely with you in budgeting, performing, reporting on, and updating the legal services you need.
As described in the attached materials, we propose that I serve as lead attorney and point-of-contact. I have served in that capacity for Vernon for several years under a number of contracts with Burke, during which time I have helped Vernon address a multitude of legal issues and successfully handled several litigation matters on a diverse number of subject matters. I currently have multiple active cases for Vernon.
I will be assisted by a team selected to provide able legal representation tailored to the City’s stated needs, including Rachel H. Richman, Michael W. Barrett, Karl H. Berger, Timothy L. Davis, Stephen A. McEwen, Nathan A. Oyster, Algeria R. Ford, Anna C.
Shimko, and others.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 18 of 86
City of Vernon
November 4, 2024
I thank you for your consideration of the accompanying Proposal, and we look forward to meeting with you to discuss any questions you may have regarding our provision of legal services to the City of Vernon. Burke would be honored to represent your City.
As an equity partner of Burke, I am authorized to sign this cover letter, and to submit the accompanying Proposal on its behalf. The Proposal will remain open for 90 days from the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Mark J. Austin
MJA:tmw
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 19 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services Page
i
to the City of Vernon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................... 2 General Municipal Advisory Matters ..................................................................... 2 Labor and Employment ........................................................................................ 3 Real Property and Economic Development.......................................................... 3 Employment Litigation .......................................................................................... 3 Civil Rights Litigation ............................................................................................ 4 Government Tort Liability ..................................................................................... 4 Land Use and Environmental Law........................................................................ 4 Public Contracting ................................................................................................ 6 FEES AND COSTS......................................................................................................... 6 Hourly Rates......................................................................................................... 6 Adjustments.......................................................................................................... 6 Reimbursements .................................................................................................. 7 Billing Format and Procedure ............................................................................... 7 ABILITY TO PERFORM.................................................................................................. 7 General Municipal Advisory Matters ..................................................................... 7 Labor and Employment ........................................................................................ 9 Real Property and Economic Development........................................................ 10 Employment Litigation ........................................................................................ 11 Civil Rights Litigation .......................................................................................... 13 General Tort Liability .......................................................................................... 14 Land Use and Environmental Law...................................................................... 16 Public Contracting .............................................................................................. 19 References ......................................................................................................... 20 ATTACHMENT A – AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COLLUSION
ATTACHMENT B – RESUMES
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 20 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
INTRODUCTION
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (“Burke”) is delighted to present this proposal to provide specialized outside legal services to the City of Vernon (“City” or “Vernon”). As a law firm with a significant commitment to public agencies and deep experience in public law, we believe that Burke is particularly well-suited to serve the City’s legal needs.
We propose that Mark J. Austin serve as Burke’s primary point-of-contact for the City.
Mark is a partner in Burke’s Orange County office and provides both litigation and advisory services to cities throughout the state. Mark’s legal practice focuses on municipal and business litigation, with emphases in municipal tort defense (including employment- related torts and wrongful death matters), real estate litigation, land use litigation, partnership disputes, and environmental litigation. Mark has extensive trial experience, having handled multiple successful jury trials, bench trials, and arbitrations, and has successfully argued before the California Court of Appeal on several occasions.
Mark has worked with the City for the past approximately 10 years, having initially formed a working relationship with the City Attorney’s Office while at his prior firm. Mark served as point-of-contact for the City Attorney’s Office, managed the staffing and assignment of cases, and successfully represented the City in multiple litigation matters, which he continues to do to this day.
At Burke, Mark would similarly oversee the firm’s legal services for the City to ensure consistency and compliance with the City’s policies and budget requirements. For each of the City’s identified legal needs, Mark has assembled a team of experienced Burke attorneys, headed by one or more designated attorneys who will serve as “team leaders” for that area of law. This team model is flexible and adaptable, allowing Mark and the team leaders to staff cases and assignments with a proper mix of experience and skill, and in response to any direction or requests from the City, thereby providing quality representation and a multidimensional option for problem-solving.
Our team leaders are at the top of their fields. They have the right combination of wisdom, talent, commitment, and passion to produce truly superb results for the City of Vernon.
We are proud to designate the following attorneys as our team leaders for this proposal:
Area of Law Proposed Lead Attorneys
General Municipal Advisory Services Rachel H. Richman, Karl H. Berger, Mark J. Austin
Labor and Employment Timothy L. Davis
Real Property and Economic
Development
Robert F. Messinger, Gerald J. Ramiza
Employment Litigation Algeria R. Ford
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 21 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Area of Law Proposed Lead Attorneys
Civil Rights Litigation Nathan A. Oyster
Government Tort Liability Mark J. Austin
Land Use and Environmental Law Anna C. Shimko
Public Contracting Michael W. Barrett
We have provided full biographical statements attached to this proposal for our team leads and team members. Below, we summarize the topic areas and teams. More detailed information about each topic can also be found in the team member bios.
GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK
General Municipal Advisory Matters
Our proposed team, which would be led by Rachel H. Richman, Karl H. Berger, and Mark J. Austin, has expertise in all areas of general municipal law. From the Brown Act to the Public Records Act, public works to the Political Reform Act, Burke attorneys have the skill and experience to resolve all types of municipal concerns.
As city attorneys working in a general counsel capacity for numerous cities across California, Burke’s attorneys routinely attend public meetings and advise elected and appointed officials on the broad spectrum of issues facing public agencies. Before and during the meetings, our team is diligent about Brown Act compliance and analyzing conflicts of interest under the Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 1090, and common law.
Our team members also work directly with staff to review agenda materials, develop internal policies, draft agreements with third parties, and assist with day-to-day operations. For example, we draft and negotiate professional services and joint-use agreements, respond to Public Records Act requests, assist in levying taxes, assessments, and fees, analyze land use applications, and advise our clients concerning environmental matters. Whether the legal issue is routine or complex, our team has the experience to analyze the issue and advise the City so that it can minimize risk and liability.
With regard to public contract issues, we regularly advise cities in the preparation, review, counseling, and negotiation of consultant, professional service, and public works contract documents, including scopes of work, bid forms, and contract procedures. Burke’s attorneys also have experience in handling all aspects of bid protests and award disputes involving issues of responsiveness, responsibility, mistake, subcontractor-listing requirements, and other related issues in the public contracting process.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 22 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Labor and Employment
Burke has a very robust Labor and Employment practice, regularly providing advice and counsel on the full range of personnel matters facing public and private entities. Common issues addressed by our Labor and Employment team include effective administration of leave policies, ADA/FEHA compliance, the interactive process, CalPERS pension and retiree health, wage-and-hour compliance, labor negotiations, employee grievances, employee privacy concerns, freedom of speech, and employee discipline. Our attorneys understand that well-designed and well-utilized MOUs, employee handbooks, policies, and procedures can serve as an organization’s best defense in employment law disputes.
Our team, led by Timothy L. Davis, is well-versed in all areas of employment law, and particularly in those areas of employment law that are unique to the public sector. We work as part of the client’s team, always mindful of the practical needs of our clients when analyzing their legal issues. Our regular involvement in the day-to-day transactional issues of our clients helps to ensure that our team remains up-to-date on current laws, which also allows us to evaluate litigation matters more efficiently.
Real Property and Economic Development
Burke attorneys regularly represent public agencies throughout California in connection with real estate development and land use matters, including negotiation and drafting of retail and commercial leases, option agreements, easement and reciprocal easement agreements, purchase and sale agreements, ground leases, disposition and development and owner participation agreements, and matters relating to hazardous materials/Brownfields remediation, the federal contracting/BRAC process, and condemnation. Burke attorneys offer a broad range of knowledge and experience that enables us to effectively negotiate and document all forms of real estate transactions, and to protect and enforce our clients’ interests in litigation when called upon.
Burke attorneys have extensive experience representing public agencies in connection with complex real estate and affordable housing transactions, including the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, and disposition of property via purchase and sale and ground leases. In addition, our team provides expertise in land use matters, environmental remediation, public bidding, and procurement, and in the negotiation and drafting of architect’s agreements and construction contracts. Our construction lawyers are well- versed in all aspects of procurement requirements and construction law, and our land use lawyers provide expertise in all aspects of land use entitlements.
Employment Litigation
When employment disputes arise, Burke offers a depth of litigation experience, having handled over 300 employment litigation matters within the last five years. Our team, led by Algeria R. Ford, has successfully represented public agencies in employee discrimination, due process, wrongful termination, whistleblower, civil rights, and other employment claims in state and federal court proceedings and arbitrations. Our attorneys Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 23 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
have years of success at trial and on appeal, in writ proceedings, in arbitrations, and in mediation and informal settlement processes. We pride ourselves on being able to resolve claims efficiently, without unnecessary legal expenses, and with an eye towards the client’s larger goals.
Civil Rights Litigation
Burke has significant experience in nearly every aspect of civil rights litigation and counseling. We have defended elected officials, public agency employees, and law enforcement personnel against a variety of civil rights claims in both state and federal court in cases involving the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause, as well as excessive force allegations. We have done so in our role of providing full service to cities and police departments, advising them on many issues, including:
constitutional rights, police procedures and conduct, legal limitations to the police powers inherent in cities and counties and their police departments, and risk management. We have also advised cities when the police departments have been challenged by the federal government, and/or the FBI, with violation of the civil rights of citizens. Our proposed team, including team leaders Nathan A. Oyster, Lisa W. Lee, and Mark J.
Austin, have successfully tried many section 1983 civil rights cases of various types.
Government Tort Liability
Drawing on the experience and expertise of our lawyers spanning many decades, Burke is capable of handling nearly all of a public entity’s potential tort litigation needs. Having both public law and litigation acumen “under one roof” affords Burke the opportunity to tailor its litigation services to better meet the particular needs of its municipal clients and to more effectively promote its litigation management. Defense of public clients often entails detailed knowledge of statutory immunities, pre-litigation notice requirements, and other circumstances unique to public-entity litigation. Burke’s vast experience in these areas enables it to draw upon prior work product to provide more efficient and successful solutions for its clients statewide. The team leader for this area would be Mark J. Austin, who has nearly 25 years of experience as a litigator for public agencies, and has handled a wide variety of cases in that field, including cases involving general torts, wrongful death, dangerous conditions, police misconduct, employment liability, the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, validation actions, breach of contract, writs of mandate, bond financing, redevelopment dissolution, and other issues.
Land Use and Environmental Law
Burke attorneys offer a broad range of knowledge and experience in all areas of land use and environmental law. Our experienced land use attorneys regularly work on complex development projects that address zoning/General Plan, environmental, transportation, economic, cultural, and community issues. Representing municipalities, we deal with the intertwining concerns brought up by real estate development and redevelopment, subdivisions, housing and density bonus law, water rights, remediation, and other vexing Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 24 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
land use issues. Our legal team, led by Anna C. Shimko, excels in drafting and negotiating annexation, disposition and development agreements, construction agreements, and public-private agreements for a wide range of projects from single facilities to complex mixed-use projects to major development projects . Burke lawyers often conduct land use litigation, principally defending decision-makers whose development approvals or denials are challenged by landowners or interest groups.
Because Burke serves as counsel to many public agencies throughout the state, our attorneys have particular and extensive experience with myriad CEQA and NEPA issues.
Burke’s CEQA attorneys regularly assist public agencies with advice on and the preparation and defense of environmental documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) - including CEQA exemption memos; Initial Studies and Negative Declarations (ND)/Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND); Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and Addenda to such NDs/MNDs and EIRs. Even when representing private entities, our lawyers often become trusted advisors to all parties in the CEQA process because of our cooperative and straight-forward approach to the issues and the depth of our expertise. Our team deals with CEQA issues on a daily basis and provides regular legal advice, opinions, and comments regarding all aspects of the process, including strategy and adequacy of documents.
Throughout the administrative project consideration process, our CEQA attorneys keep in mind the possibility of litigation, and build the administrative record with that as a possibility, ensuring that all necessary documents are put before the decision-maker to ensure the best possible record to support the client’s position on a project. Unlike many other firms who have separate CEQA transactional attorneys and litigation attorneys that work in silos and do not communicate effectively, Burke’s CEQA lawyers work together and collaborate as a team at both the administrative approval and advice level and in ensuing litigation, we find this distinguishes us from the field and prepares us to be well poised for seamless and cost-effective litigation.
Burke’s attorneys have served as counsel to petitioners, respondents, real parties in interest and amicus parties in CEQA litigation, including some of the higher impact CEQA decisions. At both the trial and appellate court levels, we have successfully defended CEQA determinations made by our public agency clients or the public agencies that granted our private clients’ entitlements. We are well prepared at all court levels to quickly address and fend off injunctive relief and stay requests and pride ourselves on developing complete litigation plans and then successfully implementing them through strategic law and motion practice and persuasive merits briefing and oral argument. Finally, recognizing that sometimes settlement is the best option for the client, we have frequently negotiated agreements to resolve lawsuits (sometimes even before the litigation is filed) without the need for trial or to avoid appeals.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 25 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Public Contracting
Our experience in public works and transactions includes drafting and negotiating Memorandums of Understanding, Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreements, letters of intent, leases, purchase and sale agreements, statutory development agreements, loan agreements, and special purchase agreements. We also assist with the creation of corporations, limited liability corporations, partnerships, and joint ventures, and all phases of property acquisition and due diligence, including options, purchase and sale agreements, reversionary interests, deeds, escrow instructions, and special instructions.
We regularly advise on structuring transactions with multiple parties and multiple sources of funding.
We also work with clients to prepare and review public works contract documents, including scopes of work, bid forms, and contract procedures as well as prevailing wage requirements. Burke attorneys have experience handling all aspects of bid protests and award disputes including issues of responsiveness, responsibility, mistake, subcontractor listing requirements, and other related issues.
FEES AND COSTS
We believe that the rates quoted below are reasonable and competitive.
Hourly Rates
Staffing Hourly Rate
Partners $375
Associate Attorneys$325
Paralegals$175
Adjustments
The rates for legal services quoted in this proposal will remain in effect for the first year of the contract, or as otherwise negotiated by the parties. Thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated, rates may be adjusted based on a standard annual adjustment upon consultation with the City Attorney and approved by the Council as part of its standard budget adoption process, equal to the greater of the average Consumer Price Index for the previous four quarters or any across the board salary increase granted to represented management personnel within the district.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 26 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Reimbursements
We routinely charge our clients for our direct out-of-pocket expenses and costs incurred in performing the services. These costs and expenses commonly include such items as reproduction of documents, facsimile, mileage reimbursement for travel at the IRS approved rate, and other costs reasonably and necessarily incurred in performing services for the City. We do not charge a service fee or overhead for cost reimbursement items. We also do not charge for computer or word processing time. Reimbursement amounts may be adjusted annually.
Expense Rate
In-house reproduction charges
black and white 20¢ per page
color $1 per page
Mileage 67¢ per mile (or current IRS
rate)
Facsimile $1 per page
All other costs reasonably and
necessarily incurred in
performing services for the City at cost
Billing Format and Procedure
Bills are sent out each month invoicing charges for the prior month. Fees for our services are charged in increments of 1/10th of an hour. The bills provide a specific description of the work performed by all attorneys, the time actually spent on the work item, and the billing rate of the attorney. These bills also contain itemized descriptions of any out-ofpocket expenses incurred during the prior month.
ABILITY TO PERFORM
We propose that Mark J. Austin serve as primary point-of-contact for the City Attorney’s Office, and that the following teams of attorneys be the initial designated members for the matters identified in the RFP.
General Municipal Advisory Matters
Proposed Team Members: Rachel H. Richman, Karl H. Berger, Mark J. Austin Burke has advised city councils on the full range of public law topics. We serve as city attorney to 37 cities statewide and represent a multitude of other cities in a special counsel role.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 27 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Rachel Richman has provided contract city attorney and general counsel services to public agencies throughout California for over nearly 25 years. She is currently the City Attorney for the cities of Camarillo and Rosemead. Previously Rachel served as City Attorney in the cities of Arvin and Delano in Kern County, and as Assistant City Attorney in the cities of Alhambra and Santa Clarita. Rachel has extensive experience providing legal and practical advice to city councils, agency boards, city managers, department heads, and staff on a broad range of issues including planning and zoning, CEQA, conflicts of interest, open meeting laws, public contracting, prevailing wages, employment law, public records, First Amendment issues, code enforcement, elections, ADA and mobile home regulations. She drafts opinions, ordinances, resolutions, and negotiates and drafts agreements. She attends as legal counsel, city council meetings, planning commission meetings, and mobile home rent control panel meetings. Rachel also provides Ethics Training to many of the firm’s clients.
Mark J. Austin has practiced in the public-law field for nearly 25 years, as both a litigator and in an advisory capacity to a number of cities in California. In that capacity, Mark has advised public agencies on a wide range of issues, including (i) Brown Act compliance, (ii) the Political Reform Act and other conflict-of-interest issues, (iii) land use and zoning, (iv) redevelopment and redevelopment dissolution, (v) personnel (including police and firefighter issues), (vi) police-misconduct litigation, (vii) complex financing and bond transactions, (viii) CEQA compliance, and (ix) general tort defense (including employment, wrongful death, FEHA, and others). Mark previously acted as the Interim City Attorney for the City of Calexico, where he worked closely with the City Council, City Manager, and Police Chief on numerous complex and contentious issues. In addition, Mark has acted as Deputy City Attorney for a number of cities, including Dana Point, Twentynine Palms, La Quinta, and others.
Karl H. Berger is the City Attorney for the cities of Bellflower and Monterey Park; he is also the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Santa Clarita and the Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Simi Valley.
Karl previously served as Interim City Attorney for the City of Atascadero; City Attorney for the City of Santa Paula; and as Acting City Attorney for the City of Port Hueneme.
Previously, Karl was Assistant City Attorney for the cities of Camarillo and San Buenaventura (aka “Ventura”); and was the Deputy City Attorney for the City of Port Hueneme. He also served as an attorney in the El Cajon City Attorney’s office.
Karl has practiced municipal law since his admission to the California Bar in 1995.
Accordingly, he is well-versed with those laws that affect public entities on an ongoing basis including, without limitation, the Ralph M. Brown Act; California Public Records Act; California Political Reform Act; Government Claims Act; Constitutional law; public contracting laws; elections laws; CEQA; the Subdivision Map Act; the Permit Streamlining Act; and other, similar, laws regulating public entities.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 28 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Stephen A. McEwen has extensive experience advising cities on land use and planning issues, the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, conflicts of interest, public contracts, environmental law, and constitutional law. In his capacity of both a city attorney and assistant city attorney for multiple cities, Stephen has advised city councils and planning commissions and has drafted numerous ordinances, resolutions, and contracts.
Labor and Employment
Proposed Team Leader: Timothy L. Davis
Proposed Additional Team Members: N. Richard Shreiba, Zachery Lopes, and Donald V. Le
Members of Burke’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group understand the unique and constant challenges facing public entity employers in our state. Burke’s public sector labor and employment experience includes every aspect of representation of public agencies. Burke’s labor and employment attorneys are recognized statewide for their expertise in providing services as advisors, litigators, trainers, labor negotiators, and investigators.
Timothy L. Davis is the Chair of Burke’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group, and is known state-wide for his creative and effective negotiation skills. He has negotiated numerous labor agreements between cities and their employee groups, including police, fire, general employees, and management groups. Tim has served as a lead negotiator in collective bargaining for the Tuolumne Utilities District, the cities of San Diego, Roseville, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Rohnert Park, Chico, National City, Hemet, Banning, Moorpark, and Port Hueneme, as well as the Santa Cruz Port District, and he has advised numerous other public agencies throughout the state of California on collective bargaining issues.
Donald V. Le is an associate attorney and is a member of the Labor and Employment practice group. He represents employers, including special districts, municipalities, private schools, community college districts, and K-12 schools in various labor, employment and education matters.
Donald’s employment experience includes advising and representing employers on issues relating to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, disability accommodation and interactive process, leaves and benefits, pre-employment and privacy issues including drug and alcohol testing, HIPAA/CMIA, free expression, employee discipline and due process, workplace investigations, and performance management. His experience also includes advising public safety clients on the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act and has worked on high-profile civil litigation cases regarding excessive force issues. Donald also advises and represents employers in navigating meet and confer obligations under the MMBA and EERA, and works exclusively on transactional matters. Donald also has specialized knowledge under the Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 29 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
ACA, including the employer shared responsibility provisions and advises public agencies on their obligations.
Zachery Lopes has several years of experience in all matters of public sector collective bargaining. This includes serving as a lead negotiator, administrative litigator before local adjudicative bodies, contracted adjudicators, and the California Public Employee Relations Board (“PERB”), and civil litigator in both state and federal courts with an emphasis on collective bargaining and public law matters.
Zachery is also an experienced appellate litigator, having served as lead counsel for and argued matters before several state courts of appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and lead counsel before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of several large entity clients as amicus curiae. He is also experienced with public employee disciplinary matters.
N. Richard Shreiba is an associate in Burke’s Orange County office and a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment practice group. Richard performs California’s mandatory sexual harassment prevention training for supervisory and non-supervisory employees for firm clients.
Richard provides advice and representation to public and private clients on labor and employment matters. He is experienced in providing employers with advice and counsel services, as well as representing employers throughout the various stages of litigation in both state and federal courts, from pre-litigation all the way to jury trial. He consistently draws on his litigation experience when providing advice to employers. Richard’s transactional experience includes assisting employers throughout the employee discipline process, preparing workplace policies and handbooks, advising employers with leave related issues, and guiding employers throughout the interactive process for workplace disability accommodations. He also assists with overseeing and conducting workplace investigations.
Real Property and Economic Development
Proposed Team Members: Robert F. Messinger, Gerald J. Ramiza Robert Messinger has more than 30 years of experience practicing in the areas of municipal law, land use, community economic development, and real estate. He has represented a variety of municipalities and special purpose public agencies in a broad range of real property and economic development related matters. Robert has extensive experience advising public agencies on the acquisition, disposition, and development of real property, easements, and with revenue generating strategies including the enactment of general and special taxes and with the formation of assessment districts pursuant to the procedural requirements of Proposition 218, Proposition 62, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, and the various assessment district acts codified in the Government Code and the Streets and Highways Code.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 30 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Jerry Ramiza has over 25 years of experience representing public agencies and private developers in connection with large scale real estate and land use transactions, including negotiation and drafting of complex disposition and development agreements, purchase and sale and military base closure/transfer agreements, exclusive negotiating agreements, ground leases, statutory development agreements, and economic development incentive agreements. Jerry’s work on these transactions routinely includes advising on surplus land disposition requirements, affordable housing requirements, prevailing wage and public works contracting issues, public trust tidelands issues, and financing matters, including formation of community facilities and assessment districts.
Jerry currently provides special counsel services on transactional real estate related matters to the cities of Redwood City, Concord, Pittsburg, Mountain View, Fremont, Napa, Vallejo, Foster City, and San Bruno. Many of Jerry’s currently pending projects were impacted by the State’s 2019 enactment of AB 1486 and Jerry is currently advising the cities of Concord, Pittsburg, San Rafael and San Bruno in connection with land dispositions involving potential Surplus Land Act compliance. Jerry’s work for his clients includes evaluating whether sites meet the definition of exempt surplus land and assessment of whether federal or other law may preempt application of Surplus Land Act requirements. Where exemptions are not available, Jerry advises on preparation and circulation of notices of availability, negotiation with preferred purchasers, including housing sponsors, and drafting of HCD-compliant declarations of affordable housing restrictions. In addition to his work advising cities, Jerry has advised the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in connection with AB 1486 Surplus Land Act compliance.
Employment Litigation
Proposed Team Leader: Algeria R. Ford
Proposed Additional Team Members: Timothy L. Davis, Daphne M. Anneet, Dhruva (Neel) Ghanshyam
Burke has very extensive experience in managing all aspects of contested labor-and -
employment matters for a variety of public agencies. We regularly represent numerous public-sector clients (for example, the cities of Anaheim, Alhambra, Hemet, Newport Beach, Santa Clarita, and Los Angeles, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, the County of San Bernardino, the City and County of San Francisco, BART, and the State of California). Our litigation experience includes claims alleging gender, race, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, religion, and disability discrimination, unlawful harassment under federal and state law, retaliation, wrongful termination, violations of equal pay laws, violations of constitutional and civil rights, defamation, retaliation, ADA compliance, wage- and-hour litigation, and all federal and state laws governing employer-employee relations.
Algeria R. Ford’s practice includes advising and representing employers on a variety of labor issues. Al serves as lead labor negotiator, representing public entity management in labor negotiation with police, fire, and general employee bargaining units. He has been Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 31 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
retained as an independent investigator for multiple public entities in discipline investigations. Al also represents public entities in discipline cases before commissions and boards. In addition, he currently serves as special counsel for labor and employment for the Hesperia Unified School District, the Val Verde Unified School District, and Fritts Ford Riverside and is the General Counsel for the Banning Library District.
Al has defended agencies in federal and state court at the trial and appellate level, prosecuted code enforcement matters, developed strategies to deal with homeless issues, drafted ordinances and resolutions, investigated and prosecuted human resources cases, routinely advised on Public Records Act issues, filed civil nuisance actions, assisted in drafting and revising employee handbooks, and pursued criminal prosecutions as a city prosecutor.
Timothy L. Davis serves as Chair of Burke’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group. His 20-year career has almost exclusively involved the representation of public agencies, including special districts, cities, counties, and school districts. An experienced litigator, Tim has represented a number of public agencies in litigation. Tim’s reported decisions include Alhambra Police Officers Association v. City of Alhambra, (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th, 413.
Daphne M. Anneet serves as Chair of the Burke’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Initiative and Vice Chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group. She also serves on Burke’s E-Discovery Working Group. Daphne brings almost 30 years of experience as a litigator, negotiator, investigator, and trainer to Burke’s employment team.
In single plaintiff employment cases, Daphne has developed specific expertise in the areas of disability discrimination/failure to accommodate/failure to engage in the interactive process, race discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation. A tenacious litigator, Daphne has successfully resolved every single-plaintiff employment case on favorable terms to her clients through early resolution, dispositive motion, or trial. In March of 2023, Daphne and Natalie Price obtained a unanimous (8-0) defense verdict in a race discrimination and retaliation action tried in the United States District Court, Central District.
Daphne also has extensive complex litigation experience, having served as lead defense counsel in numerous class action suits involving claims relating to lost pension and retiree health benefits, age discrimination, race discrimination, ADA Title II violations, privacy rights, and wage and hour regulation violations. Daphne’s reported decisions include Metropolitan Water District v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 491(2004); Haro v. City of Rosemead (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1067; and, Costa Mesa Employees’ Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 298 (amicus).
Dhruva (Neel) Ghanshyam has extensive experience representing public entities, including K-12 school districts, hospitals and law enforcement agencies, in matters pertaining to litigation, investigations, writ actions, employee discipline and employee Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 32 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
relations. In Aguilar v. County of Los Angeles, et al., he successfully obtained summary judgment on Plaintiff’s entire action on behalf of Defendant-public entity, which resulted in a dismissal of claims of age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation.
Civil Rights Litigation
Proposed Team Leader: Nathan A. Oyster
Proposed Additional Team Members: Mark J. Austin and Lisa W. Lee Burke has a strong team of litigators with extensive experience in defending public entities from allegations of civil rights violations. Burke has defended nearly every type of litigation that a law enforcement agency could face, including officer-involved shootings, deaths due to excited delirium, class action litigation, malicious prosecution claims, allegations of excessive force, and allegations of unconstitutional jail conditions. We are adept at defending litigation brought under Section 1983, the Unruh Act, the Ralph Act, and the Bane Act.
Nathan A. Oyster has conducted over 500 depositions and 10 trials during his career.
He has tried cases to verdict before a jury for the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Hemet, the City of Modesto, the City of Rialto, and the City of South Lake Tahoe. Nathan has been recognized as one of the leaders in Law Enforcement Defense litigation in California. His March 2023 defense verdict on behalf of the City of Los Angeles in a fatal officer-involved shooting case (Rusanovskaya v. City of Los Angeles) was selected by the Daily Journal as one of the top 20 defense verdicts in the state in the publication’s annual Top Verdicts edition.
Mark J. Austin has handled dozens of litigation matters, in both state and federal courts, on a broad spectrum of issues, including police misconduct, municipal tort defense, employment litigation, and related issues. Mark has extensive trial experience, having handled multiple successful jury trials, bench trials, and arbitrations, and has successfully argued before the California Court of Appeal over a dozen times.
Lisa W. Lee is a partner at Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP with over 27 years of litigation experience, including more than 90 jury trials in both federal and state courts throughout California.
Lisa has successfully represented public entities, including cities, police departments, and police officers in both federal and state courts throughout California. Lisa regularly defends police departments and police officers in a variety of civil rights actions, including Section 1983 claims for excessive force, officer involved shootings, in-custody deaths, First Amendment and Monell, as well as state claims for negligence, wrongful death, and Bane Act.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 33 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Lisa also serves as a consultant for city and police agencies relating to use of force policies and internal affairs investigations.
Lisa worked as a Deputy City Attorney with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office for 6 years representing the Los Angeles Police Department and officers in civil lawsuits. Prior to that, Lisa was a criminal prosecutor for 9 years with the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in Maui, Hawaii where she prosecuted sex crimes, homicides, serious and violent felonies, investigated officer uses of force on behalf of the state, and provided training for new prosecutors and law enforcement.
General Tort Liability
Proposed Team Leader: Mark J. Austin
Proposed Additional Team Members: Brian I. Hamblet
Drawing on the experience and expertise of our lawyers spanning many decades, Burke is capable of handling nearly all of a public entity’s potential tort and other litigation needs.
Having both public law and litigation acumen “under one roof” affords Burke the opportunity to tailor its litigation services to better meet the particular needs of its public agency clients and promotes more effective litigation management. Defense of such clients often entails detailed knowledge of statutory immunities, pre-litigation notice requirements, the Skelly process, Pitchess motions, and other circumstances unique to public entity, public employee and peace officer litigation. Burke’s vast experience in these areas enables it to draw upon prior work product to provide more efficient and successful solutions for its clients statewide.
Burke attorneys take a pro-active approach by personally investigating accident sites with the City’s staff and claims administrators, as well as developing a comprehensive litigation approach to minimize legal costs while providing an aggressive defense. In serious crosswalk, roadway and intersection dangerous condition case, Burke attorneys will engage with City staff to identify approved improvements and plans in an effort to take advantage of design immunity. In many cases, our proactive approach will lead to resolution via a motion for summary judgment. We will actively use discovery to determine if this is the case and draft the strongest possible motion to give the City the highest likelihood of prevailing. We pride ourselves on winning cases and on obtaining good results, and hope to be able to transfer our successful results to your matters.
As noted above, team leader Mark J. Austin has handled dozens of litigation matters, in both state and federal courts, on general torts, wrongful death, dangerous conditions, police misconduct, employment liability, the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, validation actions, breach of contract, writs of mandate, bond financing, redevelopment dissolution, and other issues.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 34 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
Mark has successfully handled multiple litigation matters for Vernon in the past, including drafting a successful anti-SLAPP motion in a contentious matter against the former City Administrator, and multiple successful motions for summary judgment in dangerous- condition cases.
A small sample of the types of cases Mark has handled include the following: CATER v. City of Anaheim. This was a reverse-validation action challenging the issuance of $300 million in lease-revenue bonds by a JPA (consisting of the City and its redevelopment successor agency) to fund the expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. Mark handled the case successfully at trial and obtained a dismissal of the later appeal.
Orange County Catholic Worker, et al. v. County of Orange, City of Anaheim, et al.
This was a complex litigation matter brought by homeless advocates against the County of Orange and various Orange County cities, alleging violations of the civil rights of homeless persons under the Eighth Amendment and Fourth Amendment, and related claims. Mark represented the City of Anaheim in this case from inception.
Mallar v. City of Adelanto, et al. In Mallar, a former correctional officer with the Adelanto prison facility sued the City of Adelanto and a number of its officers based on a training exercise in which, according to the plaintiff, he was intentionally sprayed with pepper spray and beaten in retaliation for certain comments he had made to his superior. The City prevailed on a motion for summary judgment brought by Mark.
White v. City of Laguna Beach, et al. The plaintiff sued the City of Laguna Beach and its police officers, claiming that they violated his First Amendment rights, and unlawfully seized him, when he was issued a citation for obstructing the sidewalk while participating in a demonstration. Mark prevailed on a motion for summary judgment.
Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Windings, Inc. In this matter, Mark successfully represented a turbine-manufacturing company in a complex contractual dispute with the makers of one of the key components of the client’s turbine engines, which was based in Mexico. The matter settled on extremely favorable terms for the client on the eve of a lengthy arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators. Lauren Construction v. Hanwha Q-Cells. In this case, Mark successfully represented the owner of a solar power-plant project (Hanwha Q-Cells) in a dispute on various construction-related issues with one of its subcontractors. The matter settled on very favorable terms for the client on the eve of a complex arbitration before a panel of arbitrators.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 35 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon Peoples Homeless Task Force v. City of Anaheim. In this case, Mark successfully defended the City of Anaheim in a lawsuit involving a Brown Act challenge to the City’s sale of Angel Stadium to an affiliate of the Angels. Omdahl v. Vista Irrigation District. In this case, Mark successfully defended the Vista Irrigation District in a lawsuit alleging the breach of an easement agreement.
He prevailed on a motion for summary judgment.
Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach. In this case, the plaintiff sued the City of Huntington Beach for First Amendment retaliation after she was allegedly removed from a city advisory board for attending a rally at which Antifa members were believed to be present, and for failing to effectively denounce Antifa. Mark won the case on a motion to dismiss, and upheld this result in the Ninth Circuit under a published opinion, at 56 F.4th 1238.
In addition to the foregoing, Mark has five published opinions, all of which touch on public- agency issues: (1) Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach (9th Cir. 2023) 56 F.4th 1238; (2) Oxford Preparatory Academy v. Edlighten Learning Solutions (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 605; (3) City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayers Assoc., et al. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1417, (4) In re County of Monterey Initiative Matter (N.D. Cal. 2006) 427 Fed.Supp.2d 958, and (5) City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations (2004) 34 Cal.4th 942 (amicus).
Brian I. Hamblet has over 20 years of experience litigating cases on behalf of governmental entities. With cases ranging from dangerous conditions of public property to officer-involved shootings, to alleged violations of the Brown Act and Public Records Act, Brian has had extensive experience defending governmental entities, as well as prosecuting cases on their behalf.
Brian has taken or defended over 300 depositions, participated in over 100 mediations, numerous arbitrations and administrative hearings and had 6 trials during his career. He has tried cases to verdict before a jury for the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Clarita, Hemet and Camarillo, and the Torrance Unified School District. In addition he has won numerous cases on motions for summary judgment (four within the last year alone).
Land Use and Environmental Law
Proposed Team Leader: Anna C. Shimko
Proposed Additional Team Members: Stephen E. Velyvis and Erica L. Vega Our attorneys are well versed with a host of local, state, and federal environmental protection laws such as NEPA, CEQA, and the California Coastal Act. They also have extensive experience with state and local land use and planning-related matters as well as with state and federal legal and regulatory frameworks governing schemes regulating Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 36 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
clean water, clean air, endangered species, historic and tribal cultural resources, electricity generation/ transmission, and climate change.
Burke regularly assists public agencies with the preparation and defense of environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. Because of our many public entity clients, Burke deals with CEQA issues daily and provides regular legal advice, opinions and comments regarding all aspects of the process, including compliance and adequacy of documents. Our team also has extensive trial and appellate court experience litigating CEQA and other environmental related cases, as well as experience overseeing environmental work and permitting activities for regional planning entities. At both the trial and appellate court levels, we have successfully challenged improper CEQA determinations made by other public agencies, and successfully defended CEQA determinations that our public agency clients made. Recognizing that sometimes settlement is the best option for the client, we have negotiated agreements that have resolved lawsuits without the need for trial.
Burke attorneys are very familiar with federal and state environmental regulations and regulatory agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the U.S. Department of Interior, the Department of Water Resources, and county flood control districts. Burke’s experience includes negotiation and permitting with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, working with regional water quality control boards on water conveyance systems and wastewater facilities, and advising and litigating on the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
One of our strengths is the variety of projects that the firm has dealt with in the environmental arena. The firms’ attorneys have analyzed environmental issues in connection with housing projects, school projects, retail commercial developments, office park developments, infrastructure projects, industrial and warehouse/logistics projects, resort projects, landfills, solid waste franchises, and even mining projects. Again, this breadth of experience gives the firm a unique perspective on environmental regulation, which we use for our clients’ benefit.
Anna C. Shimko’s practice focuses on all areas of land use, real estate development, and environmental law, representing both public agencies and private landowners and developers in administrative and court proceedings. Anna has particular expertise in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Anna litigates land use, CEQA, and NEPA matters for public and private clients at trial court and appellate court levels, and serves as an expert witness throughout California in cases involving land use issues.
Stephen E. Velyvis Steve Velyvis is a well-respected land use and environmental law attorney with over 24 years of expertise advising and representing public agency and private clients in administrative proceedings and before state and federal trial and appellate courts. While Steve has extensive advisory and litigation experience with a Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 37 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
multitude of land use and environmental laws (e.g., state and local planning and zoning laws, Subdivision Map Act, Coastal Act), he is best known for his CEQA expertise, having represented myriad parties on all three “sides” of the CEQA coin over his career. In other words, in addition to successfully representing Burke’s many municipal and public agency clients, Steve has also successfully represented project applicants and project opponents. In this regard, Steve distinguishes himself as a leading CEQA practitioner, as his broad-based experience gives him unique and valuable insight into what all three sides in a given CEQA project are thinking every step of the way. This perspective enables Steve to develop cutting-edge legal strategies aimed at resolving conflicts and prevailing in litigation, as opposed to simply posturing or falling back on routine, "cookie cutter" advice and litigation tools. In sum, Steve draws on his collective experience to help Burke’s public agency clients think outside the box and routinely provides successful, cost-effective results.
Indeed, Steve works daily on complex CEQA and NEPA compliance and litigation matters and in just the past few years alone, Steve has worked and continues to work with numerous cities and other public agencies to provide advice and actively guide the preparation of numerous CEQA strategies and documents including statutory and categorical exemptions, mitigated negative declarations, and environmental impact reports and addenda. Just a few examples of Steve’s recent/current CEQA work with public agencies include the following: working closely with multiple public agency clients to investigate, document and substantiate numerous CEQA exemption determinations; working closely with city staff and CEQA consultants in the preparation of an MND for a unique and controversial road extension/single family residential project, as well as a challenging creek storm drain outfall repair project; advising and successfully guiding City staff and consultants in the preparation of an EIR for a significant project to replace the City’s historic Recreation and Aquatics Center; and leading and advising an interdisciplinary team of planners, designers, engineers and environmental consultants on a host of CEQA and NEPA issues associated with the preparation of a Joint EIS/EIR for the Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project, which aimed to restore capacity within 33 miles of the canal impacted by land subsidence.
Overall, Steve’s CEQA-advice and litigation counsel work has spanned numerous, wide- ranging projects including various residential, mixed use, industrial (wine production, desalination, canal/water supply, e-commerce warehouse) commercial, public works (dam removal, creek storm drain outfall repair) and planning (area/specific plan, comprehensive general plan update, housing element, all electric reach code ordinance) projects. And when agency project approvals and CEQA determinations are challenged, Steve regularly and successfully leads litigation defense teams and efforts by securing favorable settlements and/or court judgments. Steve recently successfully defended two municipal clients’ CEQA exemption determinations and related project approvals in both the trial and appellate courts, efforts that resulted in significant published decisions by the First District Court of Appeal in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St.
Helena (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 80 and in Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 38 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
(2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1116. And, on behalf of a private developer client and in conjunction with an East Bay City, Steve recently prevailed in litigation in Contra Costa County Superior Court by successfully defending the approval of an 81-unit senior apartment project challenged on CEQA and State Density Bonus grounds (see Clayton for Responsible Development v. City of Clayton – Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N20-05343 [limited to trial court as no appeal was filed]). Finally, just two months ago Steve successfully represented the City of Culver City and prevailed in litigation in Los Angeles County Superior court by defending the City’s claimed CEQA exemption for and approval of a roadway mobility project (see Friends and Families for MOVE Culver City v. City of Culver City – Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03833 [time to appeal still open]).
Erica L. Vega advises public agencies on land use planning and development projects from start to finish, helping staff and legislative bodies understand and navigate the complex web of state and federal laws and regulations applicable to land development in California, including CEQA and NEPA, Permit Streamlining Act, Subdivision Map Act, Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, Density Bonus Law, Mitigation Fee Act, and other provisions of California’s Planning and Zoning Law. Over her seventeen year career, Erica has worked side by side with agency staff on a wide range of public and private projects, including major freeway interchange and state highway improvements; the adoption and amendment of General and Specific Plans, including Housing Element updates; university campus expansions; hospitals; civic centers; and large, master planned residential and mixed use developments. For example, Erica advised the City of Eastvale on the environmental review and entitlement of a master planned mixed use project on approximately 160 acres of former dairy land, consisting of up to 2,500 homes, a civic center complex consisting of a city hall, library, police substation, and public park, and a commercial “lifestyle” center. Erica was a part of the team that negotiated a development agreement for the project on behalf of the City with the developer of the residential portion of the project. Erica also routinely provides training to agency staff and legislative bodies on California’s ever-changing housing and land use laws, and assists with the drafting of ordinances and other policies necessitated by new legislation.
Public Contracting
Proposed Team Leader: Michael W. Barrett
Michael Barrett has successfully advised public clients regarding a wide range of legal issues related to the administration and operations of municipal governments and public utilities. Michael has assisted public officials in the establishment and implementation of public revenue generation systems that equitably allocate costs to benefitting parties to fund essential public infrastructure and services. Michael’s experience includes the evaluation and preparation of documents needed for ballot materials, charter amendments, property and business owner approved assessment districts, enhanced infrastructure financing districts, and local agency approved ordinances and resolutions Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 39 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
establishing fees and rates for services. Michael has extensive experience in complex contractual transactions for large construction projects, multi-agency extra-territorial cooperative agreements, public-private partnerships, negotiating development agreements with private developers, and transfers of public property in compliance with requirements of the surplus land act.
References
We are proud of our service record with our clients. We encourage you to contact the existing client references listed below about the merits of Burke, its personnel, and its services.
Client Name and Address Contact | Tel | Email Attorney
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Robert Fabela, City Attorney
[email protected]
Kristin Pelletier, Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
714.765.5169
Mark Austin
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Patrick Sullivan, City Attorney
[email protected]
Della Thompson-Bell, Assistant City
Attorney
[email protected]
310.618.5810
Mark Austin
Tejon Ranch Co.,
4436 Lebec Road
Tejon Ranch, CA 93243
JustFoodForDogs, LLC
Michael Houston, Former General
Counsel for Tejon Ranch,
JustFoodForDogs, LLC, and City of
Anaheim
(currently General Counsel for SCAG)
[email protected]
714.349.6182
Mark Austin
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Ben Kim, City Manager
[email protected]
626.569.2169
Rachel Richman
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 40 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
ATTACHMENT A – AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COLLUSION
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 41 of 86
AFFIDAVIT OF NON
-COLLUSION BY CONTRACTOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
_______________________________________________________________, being first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she is ______________________________________________________________________ (Insert "Sole Owner", "Partner", "President, "Secretary", or other proper title) of______________________________________________________________________________________ (Insert name of bidder)
who submits herewith to the City of Vernon a bid/proposal; That all statements of fact in such bid/proposal are true; That such bid/proposal was not made in the interest of or on behalf of any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization or corporation; That such bid/proposal is genuine and not collusive or sham; That said bidder has not, directly or indirectly by agreement, communication or conference with anyone attempted to induce action prejudicial to the interest of the City of Vernon, or of any other bidder or anyone else interested in the proposed contract; and further That prior to the public opening and reading of bids/proposals, said bidder:
a. Did not directly or indirectly, induce or solicit anyone else to submit a false or sham bid/proposal;
b. Did not directly or indirectly, collude, conspire, connive or agree with anyone else that said bidder or anyone else would submit a false or sham bid/proposal, or that anyone should refrain from bidding or withdraw his/her bid/proposal;
c. Did not, in any manner, directly or indirectly seek by agreement, communication or conference with anyone to raise or fix the bid/proposal price of said bidder or of anyone else, or to raise or fix any overhead, profit or cost element of his/her bid/proposal price, or of that of anyone else; d. Did not, directly or indirectly, submit his/her bid/proposal price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulge information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof, or to any individual or group of individuals, except the City of Vernon, or to any person or persons who have a partnership or other financial interest with said bidder in his/her business.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the above information is correct By:______________________________________ Title:________________________________ Date:____________________________________
City of Vernon Outside Legal Services Request for Proposals Page 13 of 55 Mark J. Austin
Partner
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Partner
November 4, 2024
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 42 of 86
Proposal to Provide Outside Legal Services
to the City of Vernon
ATTACHMENT B – RESUMES
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 43 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Litigation
Real Estate and Business Law
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., Loyola Law School, Los Angeles,
2000
B.A., Social Ecology/Criminal Justice,
University of California, Irvine, 1997
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
Supreme Court of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
AFFILIATIONS
Orange County Bar Association
RECOGNITIONS
Selected to Southern California Super
Lawyers, Rising Stars Edition, 2007-2014
Mark J. Austin
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
Orange County [email protected]
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650 949.265.3418 D
Irvine, California 92612 949.863.3363 T
Mark Austin is a partner at the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, where his practice focuses on public-entity litigation, real estate litigation, corporate/partnership disputes, land-use and environmental litigation, and municipal tort defense (including dangerous condition cases, employment- related torts, and wrongful death matters). Mark has extensive trial experience, having handled multiple successful jury trials, bench trials, and arbitrations, and has successfully argued before the California Court of Appeal over a dozen times.
Mark began his career representing public entities on both litigation and transactional matters, including real-estate transactions and disputes, constitutional claims, complex land-use matters, employment disputes, and tort claims. Since that time, Mark has expanded his practice to include commercial disputes on behalf of businesses and developers of all sizes, private real-estate litigation, and environmental litigation. In his several years of practice, Mark’s clients have included residential and commercial developers, nationally recognized private companies, cities, counties, small businesses, and private homeowners. His focus on real estate litigation has given him substantial insights into drafting pitfalls, disclosure requirements, and judicial interpretations of written agreements.
Mr. Austin has acted as deputy city attorney for several cities, and in 2015 he acted as the Interim City Attorney for the City of Calexico. He has represented the City of Anaheim, the City of Irvine, the City of Dana Point, the City of Torrance, and the City of Vernon, among several others, on multiple high- profile matters and cases.
PUBLISHED CASES Oxford Preparatory Academy v. Edlighten Learning Solutions (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 605 (enforceability of contractual arbitration agreement) City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayers Assoc., et al. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1417 (complex validation action concerning purchase and development of senior-housing project)
In re County of Monterey Initiative Matter (N.D. Cal. 2006) 427 Fed.Supp.2d 958 (voting rights case)
City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations (2004) 34 Call.4th 942 (amicus; prevailing wage issue)
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 44 of 86
Mark J. Austin
RESULTS Has successfully handled numerous cases
—in both trial courts and arbitrations—involving disputed boundary claims and easement and other property rights.
Successfully represented property owner in month-long arbitration against seller and broker over misrepresentations that property would include an appurtenant easement. Successfully defended water district against lawsuit alleging breach of easement agreement, by making successful summary judgment motion on ground that covenants plaintiff sought to enforce did not run with land. Successfully defended large developer in complex fraud and breach-of contract action brought by several homeowners in new housing tract.
Successfully represented developer in lawsuit against City of Pasadena relating to City’s failure to follow directives under environmental law concerning development project. Successfully represented real-property seller in lawsuit against Montebello Redevelopment Agency for breach of purchase contract.
Successfully defended City of Anaheim in reverse validation action challenging resolutions for issuance of $300 million in bonds to fund expansion of Anaheim Convention Center. Successfully defended businessman/developer in month-long arbitration brought by developer’s former business partner for accounting and alleged misuse of funds.
Successfully represented ousted members of development partnership in dispute with former partners for portion of company’s profits.
Successfully represented large grocery chain in class-action lawsuit relating to car-towing policy. Successfully defended City of Arroyo Grande in writ-of-mandate and constitutional action challenging City’s adoption of general plan amendment.
Successfully represented school district in lawsuit against district’s architect for negligence and breach of contract.
INSIGHTS
Presentations
“Boundary Law,” Lorman Education Foundation (2003, 2004, and 2005) “Appellate Practice Tips for Trial Lawyers” South Orange County Bar Association, September 2013 Publications
“Key Hearing Next Week in Ownership Battle Over Ontario Airport,” Daily Journal, October 2014 “Understanding Broker Liability,” Orange County Register, October 2014 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 45 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Education
Labor and Employment
Litigation
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., magna cum laude, Southwestern
Law School
M.A., University of California, San Diego
B.A., Trinity College, University of Toronto
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
AFFILIATIONS
California Public Employer Labor Relations
Association, Affiliate Member
Association of Workplace Investigators
Labor and Employment Law Section of the
LACBA, Executive Board (former)
National Association of Women Business
Owners-LA (NAWBO LA), Past President
Daphne M. Anneet, AWI-CH
Partner Pronouns:
she, her, hers
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213
.236.2802 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
Daphne Anneet is an experienced litigator, labor negotiator, and investigator.
Daphne is Chair of the firm’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee and Vice-Chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice Group. She has also served as a member of the firm’s Management Committee.
A skilled litigator, Daphne has achieved excellent results for clients in state and federal court, as well as in arbitrations and administrative proceedings.
She represents public and private entities in matters ranging from class actions, discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, wage and hour, worker misclassification, pension, civil rights, unfair labor practice disputes, false claims, and disciplinary appeals. As lead defense counsel in numerous class actions and complex litigation, Daphne has a proven track record of achieving successful results in a variety of creative and cost-effective ways.
A graduate of the LA County Bar Association’s Trial Advocacy Project, Daphne has served as a pro bono prosecutor.
Daphne serves as the lead negotiator for employers during collective bargaining. She has successfully negotiated challenging and sensitive issues such as contracting out of fire services and waste management services, salary and health benefit concessions, furloughs, layoffs, changes to retiree medical benefits, and changes to pension benefit formulas and contributions.
Daphne also has experience representing employers during fact finding proceedings.
As an investigator, Daphne has earned the distinction of Association of Workplace Investigators Certificate Holder (AWI-CH). She conducts independent investigations of complaints involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, workplace misconduct, and alleged conflicts of interest. She also enjoys training and has written and lectured on a wide array of employment issues for many organizations at their annual training conferences and conventions.
In recent years, Daphne has taken on the role of General Counsel to local commissions. She has served as General Counsel to the City of Coronado’s Civil Service Commission. She has also served as General Counsel to the Simi Valley Disciplinary Appeal Board and Legal Advisor to the City of Santa Ana Personnel Commission.
A team builder and team player, Daphne brings together superior litigation skills and subject matter expertise within the firm to develop winning litigation strategies. Daphne thrives on developing a deep knowledge of the client, its mission, structure and governance, practices and culture, and expectations of defense counsel. Her success is rooted in her proactive approach and demonstrated commitment to building strong relationships with every member of the defense team, providing regular client communication, and building consensus on the defense strategy.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 46 of 86
Daphne M. Anneet
Daphne received her Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from Southwestern Law School, where she was awarded the Outstanding Woman Legal Graduate Award. She has been honored to serve on Southwestern’s Board of Trustees.
Daphne is a Past Executive Committee Member of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the LA County Bar Association, an affiliate member of CALPELRA, and a member of the Association of Workplace Investigators. She is a Past President of the National Association of Women Business Owners, LA Chapter. She has supported her local community as a soccer coach and member of the boards of AYSO – American Youth Soccer Organization, Arts Angels and a Public Safety Commission Commissioner.
INSIGHTS
Presentations
“The Power of the JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion),” CalPELRA Annual Training Conferece, Monterey, CA, November 2022
“Disrupting the Noah’s Ark Approach to DEI: Creating a Culture of Inclusion,” Driving Diversity in Law & Leadership, Panelist, The Women in Law Summit Series, Los Angeles November 9, 2022 Effective Communication with Key Decision-Makers, CalPELRA Annual Training Conferece, Monterey, CA, November 2021
“Disrupting the Noah’s Ark Approach to DEI: Creating a Culture of Inclusion,” Virtual Summit: Driving Diversity in Law & Leadership, Panelist, The Women in Law Summit Series, Los Angeles May 12, 2021 “The Executive Suite and the Legal Team: Working Together to Create a More Diverse Culture,” Panelist, Women in Legal & Corporate Leadership [Virtual] Summit, Los Angeles, November 12, 2020 “Elimination of Bias in the Workplace,” Annual MCLE Program, Southwestern Law School (2005-2020) “Technology and Privacy in the Workplace: A Primer for the Public Employer,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, December 2017 (co-author)
“Workplace Investigations: A Practical Guide for Government Lawyers,” International Municipal Lawyers Association, October 2018 “Effectively Mediating Employment Disputes: The Mediator’s Prospective,” LACBA 2018 Labor & Employment Annual Retreat & Section Meeting, April 28, 2018
“The CalPERS Audit: How to Successfully Navigate the CalPERS Audit Process,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, December 2017
“Understanding Special Compensation: Key Compliance Issues,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, December 2017
“I Just Want to be Me: The Expansion of Individual Expression in the Workplace,” UC Risk Summit, 2017 “New Developments for Industrial Disability Retirements,” Southern California Public Labor Relations Council, September 2017
“The CalPERS Audit: How to Successfully Navigate the CalPERS Audit Process,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, November 2016
“Mental Health, Safety, and Workplace Accommodations: Effective Management of Mental Disabilities in the Workplace,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, November 2016 “Alternate Staffing,” Southern California Public Labor Relations Council Annual Conference, February 2016 “Legislative Update: Hot Topics for 2016,” Tri-Counties City Attorneys Association, Camarillo, CA, January 2016 “Avoiding and Responding to Retaliation and Interference Unfair Labor Practice Charges,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, October 2015
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 47 of 86
Daphne M. Anneet
“Workplace Investigations: A Practical Guideline for City Attorneys,” League of California Cities webinar, July 29, 2015 “Employment Discrimination 101,” 5th Advanced Wage & Hour Conference and 32nd Labor and Employment Law Section Annual Meeting, July 2015
“The Bully in the Workplace: How to Identify, Address and Prevent Bullying and Violence in the Workplace,” Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Spring Conference, May, 2015 “The New Frontier: Ethical and Other Emerging Issues in Social Media,” LACBA Labor and Employment Law Section Annual Retreat, Ojai, CA, April 2015
“Moving Your Mooring: Best Practices for Guiding and Defending Your Agency Through Contracting Out Decisions,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey, CA, November 2014 “Impact Bargaining – Latest Developments,” Southern California Public Labor Relations Council’s 31st Annual Labor Relations Conference, February 6, 2014
“Fitness for Duty Examinations – Best Practices,” Southern California Public Labor Relations Council, January 2014 “Navigating the Interactive Process While Effectively Administering Leave of Absence Law,: CalPELRA LEARN Training Program, multiple locations, 2013
“Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Directors and General Managers,” Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Fall Conference, December, 2013
“Contracting Out Under Siege: Preserving the Power of Public Agencies to Contract Out,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), Annual Training Conference, November 2013 “Worker Misclassification 101,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), Annual Training Conference, November 2011
“Hearing Secrets That You Keep: Is There Any Such Thing As Employee Privacy?” Los Angeles County Bar, Labor and Employment Section, Annual Legal Symposium, March 2010 “Managing Employment Practices Liability in Challenging Times: Strategies to Reduce Risk,” National Association of Women Business Owners-LA/ Chubb Insurance, February 2010 “Strategies for Effectively Responding to DFEH Complaint and EEOC Charges,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), Annual Training Conference, November 2009 “The New FMLA Regulations: ACWA-JPIA Training Conference,” Sacramento, California, February 2009 “Privacy in the Electronic Workplace,” PIHRA Annual Legal Update, multiple locations, January 2009 “The Runaway Jury - Avoiding Litigation Over the Implementation of Family Medical Leave and CA Family Rights Acts,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), Annual Training Conference, November 2008 “Strategic HR - Leadership Development: Key Legal Strategies to Ensure Success,” Association of California Water Agencies, Spring Conference, 2008 “Tools and Techniques to Effectively Use the Discovery Process in Employment Litigation,” Los Angeles County Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section, September 2008 “Life in the Big Easy and Million-Dollar Payout, Preventing Retaliation Cases,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA) Annual Training Conference, November 2008 “Recordkeeping - What to Keep, What to Toss, and How to Make Sure Your Electronic Records and Complete and Compliant,” ERI 2008 Advanced California Employer Seminar, September 2008, Irvine, California “Pre-hire Screening: Legal and Successful Ways to Screen Applicants,” Annual Conference of the California State Personnel Commissioners Association, October 2007
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 48 of 86
Daphne M. Anneet
“Managing Capital Programs in Challenging Times,” Association of California Water Agencies Annual Spring Conference, May 2006 “Nuts and Bolts of Employment Law,” Los Angeles County Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section’s Annual Nuts and Bolts of Employment Litigation, February, 2006 “Independent Contractors and Employees,” Los Angeles County Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section’s Annual Nuts and Bolts of Employment Litigation, February, 2006 “The Contingent Workforce – Beware and Be Prepared,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), Annual Training Conference, November 2006
“PERS and Contingent Worker Liability,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CalPELRA) Annual Training Conference, November 2005 “The 2004 Cargill Decision - Steps Your Agency Should Immediately Take to Ensure Compliance,” presented Southern California Public Labor Relations Council, April 2004 “A Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog -With A Vengeance: Are Leased Workers Public Agency Employees and Does the Common Law Apply,” Association of California Water Agencies Annual Spring Conference, May 2004 “Recent Developments in Contingent Worker Claims” League of California Cities, Employee Relations Institute, January 2003 “Coping with Contingent Worker Issues,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, November 2002 (Co -presenter)
INSIGHTS
Publications
“Understanding Dynamex: The Public Employer Perspective,” The Authority, California JPIA Newsletter, August 2018 “Workplace Investigations: A Practical Guideline for City Attorneys,” League of California Cities, July 29, 2015 “Contingent Worker Litigation: Is Your Organization at Risk,” PUBLIC LAW JOURNAL, Vol 22, No. 4, Fall 1999. (Co -
author)
2019 Legal Trends
2018 Legal Trends
2017 Legal Trends
2016 Legal Trends
2015 Legal Trends
2014 Legal Trends
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 49 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Public Law
EDUCATION
J.D., National University School of Law, 1991
M.P.A., National University, 1988
B.A., National University, Behavioral
Science with Emphasis in Government
Relations and Politics, 1986
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California, 1991
United States District Court for the Central
District of California, 1991
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, 1996
United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, 1991
United States Court of Federal Claims,
1995
AFFILIATIONS
Cal Cities (League of California Cities)
Brown Act Committee (2013-2019)
Legal Advocacy Committee (2010-2012)
Public Records Act Task Force (2003-
2004)
Transportation, Communications and
Public Works Policy Committee (2003-
2004)
Public Works Legislation Advisor (1999-
2005)
Proposition 218 Task Force (1996-1997)
Michael W. Barrett
Partner
Marin County [email protected]
181 Third Street, Suite 200 415.755.2613 D
San Rafael, California 94901 415.755.2600 T
Michael Barrett has more than thirty years-experience as a public lawyer, including more than eighteen years as an in-house City Attorney for the City of Napa. Michael’s previous in-house experience included the cities of Fremont and Tracy as a deputy and assistant city attorney, and the City of Oceanside as a law clerk. Michael began his legal career in a San Diego firm representing both public and private development and construction clients.
Michael has successfully advised public clients regarding a wide range of legal issues related to the administration and operations of municipal governments and public utilities. Michael has assisted public officials in the establishment and implementation of public revenue generation systems that equitably allocate costs to benefitting parties to fund essential public infrastructure and services. Michael’s experience includes the evaluation and preparation of documents needed for ballot materials, charter amendments, property and business owner approved assessment districts, enhanced infrastructure financing districts, and local agency approved ordinances and resolutions establishing fees and rates for services. Michael has extensive experience in complex contractual transactions for large construction projects, multi-agency extra-territorial cooperative agreements, public-private partnerships, negotiating development agreements with private developers, and transfers of public property in compliance with requirements of the surplus land act.
Michael works with public agency client representatives to clearly understand the client’s goals and identify the most effective means of achieving those goals while soundly documenting compliance with procedural and substantive legal requirements.
INSIGHTS
Presentations “Regulation of Vacation Rentals,” League of California Cities webinar, February 4, 2015
“Public Works Construction and Bidding,” League of California Cities, City Attorney’s Department Seminar, February 2000
Publications
Municipal Law Handbook, CEB, 2013-2019 (drafted and edited the “Open Meeting Laws” section)
“Open & Public V,” League of California Cities, 2013-2019 (drafted and edited updates)
“Providing Conflict of Interest Advice, A Guide for Local Agency Counsel,” League of California Cities, 2014-2016 (drafted and edited updates) Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 50 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., Creighton University School of Law,
1995
B.A., University of California, Davis, 1991
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the
Central District of California
United States District Court for the
Southern District of California
RECOGNITIONS
Named “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers magazine in 2006, 2007, 2008 Karl H. Berger
Partner
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213.236.2729 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
Karl Berger's nearly 30 years of practicing law are exclusively devoted to representing public agencies. He is the City Attorney for the City of Bellflower; the City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park; and the General Counsel for the Carpinteria Sanitary District. Additionally, Karl is the Senior Assistant City Attorney for Simi Valley; Assistant City Attorney for City of Santa Clarita; and provides regular legal services for the cities of Brentwood and Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Karl previously served as the City Attorney for Santa Paula; the Interim City Attorney for Atascadero; Acting City Attorney for the City of Port Hueneme; Deputy City Attorney for the City of Port Hueneme; Assistant City Attorney for the cities of El Segundo, and Camarillo; Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Buenaventura; and research attorney for the City of El Cajon. He previously served as General Counsel for the Montecito Sanitary District and Lamont Public Utility District.
In addition to these appointed public official positions, Karl provides special counsel services to dozens of public agencies.
Karl is knowledgeable in a wide range of public law areas, including conflicts of interest, open meeting laws, public works contracts, redevelopment and successor agencies, personnel matters, all aspects of land use and planning laws, and CEQA.
Karl currently serves as a member of the Legal Advocacy Executive Committee. He previously served on the Housing, Community & Economic Development Policy Committee with the League of California Cities. Karl.is also a contributing author for the Municipal Law Handbook (League of California Cities) and author for the Charter City Project (Institute for Local Government).
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 51 of 86
shimk
PRACTICE GROUPS
Labor and Employment
Litigation
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge
School of Law, 1995
B.A., cum laude, Integral Studies, Saint
Mary's College of California, 1992
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
Timothy L. Davis
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
Silicon Valley [email protected]
60 South Market Street, Suite 1000 408.606.6317 D
San Jose, California 95113 408.606.6300 T
Timothy Davis is a partner in Burke, Williams & Sorensen's Silicon Valley office and is Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment Law practice group.
Tim has tried to verdict employment cases in both federal and state court, and has conducted over 70 employment arbitrations. Tim routinely defends employers in litigation matters in actions involving state and federal law, such as Title VII, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Americans with Disability Act, Age Discrimination and Employment Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, California Family Rights Act, California Pregnancy Disability Act, Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, and wage and hour issues, including wage and hour class actions. He has represented employers in claims of wrongful termination, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of loyalty, unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, and constitutional rights violations. His practice also includes the representation of employers before state, federal, and local administrative proceedings, including the Department of Labor, local civil service commissions, PERB, EEOC, and OSHA. Tim's reported decisions include Alhambra Police Officers Association v. City of Alhambra, (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th, 413.
Tim also represents both public and private employers as a lead negotiator during collective bargaining with their employee groups, including police, fire, general employees, and management groups. Additionally, his practice includes internal investigations of employment complaints involving discrimination and harassment, as well as the presentation of seminars on how to prevent discrimination and harassment and investigate allegations of discrimination and harassment. He also trains human resources professionals and managers regarding proper investigation techniques. His practice includes development of personnel rules and policies including discipline and grievance procedures, and the investigation of grievances. He advises management clients on labor and employment law compliance matters. He has also served as legal advisor during grievance proceedings.
Tim's commitment and experience in public law began in law school, where he co-authored the article, "Does a Public Law Attorney Owe a Duty to Third Parties?" which appeared in the Summer 1994 issue of the Public Law Journal.
RESULTS Torrance et al. v. City of Alhambra. Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights litigation. Prevailed at trial; employee writ and request for injunction denied; affirmed on appeal.
Flannagan v. City of Alhambra. Police First Amendment litigation.
Federal jury trial verdict for plaintiff limited to $8,000 damages.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 52 of 86
Timothy L. Davis
Alhambra Police Officers Association v. City of Alhambra. Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights litigation. Prevailed at trial; affirmed on appeal.
Employment-Related Litigation
Tony Reeves v. City of Alhambra. Race discrimination litigation. Prevailed on summary judgment. Anthony Jones v. City of Alhambra. Race discrimination litigation. Prevailed on summary judgment. Earl Botke v. City of Alhambra. Race discrimination litigation. Prevailed on summary judgment. Alhambra Firefighters Association v. City of Alhambra. Employment litigation. Prevailed on summary judgment. Edith Lopez v. City of Alhambra. Police discrimination litigation - race, gender, religion. Settled at mediation. Isaac Amey v. City of South Gate, et al. Race discrimination/ harassment litigation. Settled at mediation. Sonia Clayton v. City of South Gate, et al. Pregnancy and gender discrimination litigation. Settled after mediation.
Armando Castillo v. Ventura County Community College Dist. Race and age discrimination litigation. Settled at mediation.
Ray Centeno v. Ventura County Community College District. Race discrimination and harassment litigation.
Settled at mediation.
Arbitrations Involving Public Employee Claims Peter Nava v. City of Alhambra. Wrongful termination arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration; employee writ denied; affirmed on appeal.
Daniel Humphreys v. City of Alhambra. Wrongful termination arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration; employee writ denied.
Philip Sheriden v. City of Alhambra. Wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration; employee writ denied. Pfau v. City of Alhambra. Employment arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration. Jose Feliciano v. City of Glendale. Wrongful demotion arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration. Mike Briedert v. City of Santa Clarita. Wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration. R.P. Brar v. City of Banning. Wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration; writ of mandate denied. Cecelia Costlano v. City of Moorpark. Wrongful suspension and wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration on both matters.
Celia Hernandez v. City of Moorpark. Wrongful termination arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration. Anthony Smith v. City of Chino Hills. Wrongful termination arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration. Michael Johnson v. Port Hueneme. Wrongful termination arbitration. Prevailed at arbitration John Harbor v. City of Santa Paula. Wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration Larry Blinn v. Port Hueneme. Wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration. Israel Reyes v. Port Hueneme. Wrongful termination. Prevailed at arbitration. Myrna Kassack v. City of Hemet. Termination. Prevailed at arbitration; upheld on writ before in Superior Ct.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 53 of 86
Timothy L. Davis
INSIGHTS
Presentations “Health Insurance Opt
-Outs After the Affordable Care Act and Flores v. City of San Gabriel Decision,” County Counsels' Association of California Employment Law Conference, Santa Barbara, November 2016 “Essentials of Workplace Investigations,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey Conference Center, November 2016 “Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights and the Police Officer Bill of Rights: At the Intersection of Labor Relations and POBR/FPBRA,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey Conference Center, October 2015 “Going with the Flow: Managing Multiple Bargaining Units to Obtain Optimal Settlements,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey Conference Center, November 2014 “Preparing for Factfinding: Tools to Navigate the Impasse Process Under the MMBA,” CALPELRA Annual Training Conference, Monterey Conference Center, November 20, 2013 “Preparing for Factfinding: Tools to Navigate the Impasse Process Under the MMBA,” County Counsels Association of California Employment Law Fall Conference, November 7, 2013 “Negotiating Changes to Pension Benefits,” San Diego Taxpayers Association, September 12, 2013 “Predict a Better Future: Dealing with Difficult Employees,” 2013 Western Region IPMA Annual Training Conference, May 1, 2013 “Creating Effective Documentation,” California Joint Powers Insurance Authority's Human Resources Academy, April 23, 2013
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 54 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Education
Labor and Employment
Litigation
Public Law
EDUCATION
J.D., University of Louisville Brandeis
School of Law
M.S., Biotechnology, University of
Maryland University College
B.S., Biological Science, Drexel University
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
State Bar of Kentucky
United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky
Algeria R. Ford
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
Inland Empire [email protected] 1770 Iowa Avenue, Suite 240 951.801.6611 D Riverside, California 92507 951.788.0100 T
Algeria Ford is a member of Burke’s Public Law, Labor and Employment, Litigation, and Education practice groups. Al currently serves as City Attorney for the City of Simi Valley, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Cathedral City and Assistant City Attorney for the City of Rialto. Al also serves as General Counsel for the Banning Library District, General Counsel for City of Simi Valley/Waterworks District No. 8, and Assistant General Counsel for the Sunline Transit Agency. In addition, Al serves as special counsel in the areas of police and employment law for the Hesperia Unified School District, the Val Verde Unified School District, and the Apple Valley Unified School District.
Finally, Al provides special counsel labor and employment services to Fritts Ford Riverside.
In the area of litigation, Al has extensive experience in the areas of labor and employment, civil rights, tort and premise liability, and code enforcement. Al has also handled appeals in the California Court of Appeal as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
In the public law arena, Al advises on Public Records Act and subpoena responses, Brown Act problems, Conflicts of Interest, and Pitchess motions.
Al’s practice also includes conducting independent internal investigations, serving as lead labor negotiator for public entity negotiations, advising and representing employers on discipline issues and during grievance procedures, drafting ordinances, and providing general advice to department heads, elected officials, and private employers. Al also has a robust training practice and routinely trains clients on emerging issues for public entities including in the law enforcement, employment law, and records disclosure context.
Prior to joining the firm, Al represented public sector clients while employed with the San Bernardino Office of County Counsel as a member of both the litigation and employment groups. In that capacity Al obtained successful results on various motions and as counsel in jury trials, assisted in drafting policies and rules, regularly advised on POBR issues, Internal Affairs Investigations and employment disputes, and represented the County before the Civil Service Commission. In addition, Al advised the Sheriff Department during federal investigations.
Al previously worked as a Deputy District Attorney with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted multiple cases to jury verdict.
Prior to that he worked for the Louisville Metro Public Defender’s Office, obtaining successful results for clients at hearings and jury trial.
During law School, Al was the Editor-in-Chief of two of the school’s three legal journals, was a member of the Moot Court Board, and served on the school’s National Trial and National Environmental Moot Court Teams. He won the School’s prestigious oral advocacy competition during his second year of law school and received honors for obtaining the highest grade in Advanced Constitutional Law, Advanced Trial Practice, and Criminal Procedure.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 55 of 86
Algeria R. Ford
RESULTS Koslow v. City of Cathedral City, et al., Court of Appeals case concerning the legality of using third party hearing officers to hear public entity administrative appeals.
Tusant v. City of Hemet, et al., Lead Trial Counsel in state jury trial involving alleged dangerous condition, which resulted in an accident that caused traumatic brain injury and paralysis. Conwell v. County of San Bernardino, et al. U.S. District Court, Central District. Case No. 5:13-cv-01290. Lead trial counsel in federal jury trial, resulting in defense verdict, in case involving alleged excessive force resulting in traumatic brain injury.
Mackey v. County of San Bernardino, et al. U.S. District Court, Central District. Case No. 5:09-cv-01124. Lead trial counsel in federal jury trial, resulting in defense verdict, in case involving police shooting of a murder suspect. Rogoff v. County of San Bernardino, et al. U.S. District Court, Central District. Case No. 2:12-cv-04218. Second Chair in federal jury trial, resulting in defense verdict, in case involving alleged excessive force by a patrol officer responding to a 911 call.
Birdt v. San Bernardino Sheriffs’ Department, et al. Obtained Summary Judgment in a Second Amendment case challenging a Sheriff’s discretion to deny a Concealed Carry permit. Madrigal, et al v. United States of America, et al. Obtained Judgment on the Pleadings in a case involving alleged constitutional violations during prior state civil forfeiture action. Perez v. County of San Bernardino, et al. Obtained dismissal in a case challenging the constitutionality of a City’s gang injunction.
Simon v. James Henning, et al. Obtained Summary Judgment in a First Amendment case alleging violation of freedom of religion.
Ayala v. San Bernardino Sheriffs’ Department. Obtained dismissal in a case where officers arrested a plaintiff on a stale restraining order.
Bond v. Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, et al. Ninth Circuit Appeal challenging District Court’s immunity analysis in a deliberate indifference case against hospital.
INSIGHTS
Publications
“An Advanced Look at Senate Bill 1421: Analyzing the Confidentiality of Certain Police Records,” The Authority, California JPIA Newsletter Issue 81, November 2018
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 56 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Education Law
Labor and Employment
Litigation
EDUCATION
J.D., Loyola Law School, 2014
B.A., University of California, San Diego,
2009
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
Dhruva (Neel) Ghanshyam
Senior Associate Pronouns: he, him, his
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213.236.2832 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
Neel Ghanshyam is a senior associate in Burke, Williams & Sorensen’s Los Angeles office. Neel has extensive experience representing public entities, including K-12 school districts, hospitals and law enforcement agencies, in matters pertaining to litigation, investigations, writ actions, employee discipline and employee relations. Prior to practicing law, Neel worked as a legal investigator for the U.S. Department of Labor, where he assisted in their ERISA compliance program and assisted in auditing employer and union retirement benefit and health benefit plans.
Neel earned his Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School. He served as the school’s Student Bar Association President in 2013-2014.
RESULTS Aguilar v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC586140: Successfully obtained summary judgment on Plaintiff’s entire action on behalf of Defendant-public entity, which resulted in a dismissal of claims of age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation.
INSIGHTS
Publications “PERB Addresses Need for Procedural Admonitions for Post Investigation Union Member Interviews,” Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, Summer 2019.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 57 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Eminent Domain and Inverse
Condemnation
Labor and Employment
Litigation
Public
Real Estate and Business
EDUCATION
J.D., magna cum laude, Loyola Law
School, 2000
B.A., University of California, Los Angeles,
Dean's List, 1987
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
AFFILIATIONS
President Emeritus, City Attorney's
Association of Los Angeles County
(CAALAC) 2023
President, City Attorney's Association of
Los Angeles County (CAALAC) 2022
Vice-President, City Attorney's Association
of Los Angeles County (CAALAC) 2021
Secretary, City Attorney's Association of
Los Angeles County (CAALAC) 2020
Treasurer, City Attorney's Association of
Los Angeles County (CAALAC) 2019
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Brian I. Hamblet
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
Ventura County [email protected]
2310 East Ponderosa Drive, Suite 25 805.437.4406 D
Camarillo, California 93010 805.987.3468 T
Brian Hamblet is a partner at Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP with over 20 years of experience working with public agencies. Brian is the Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Simi Valley. He also provides legal advice to numerous public entities across the state, including Camarillo, Santa Clarita, Burbank, Rialto, and Lawndale.
Brian’s interest in representing public entities began before graduating law school while he was a law clerk at a firm defending the cities of Beverly Hills and Ventura. Since then, Brian has developed a strong background in advising and defending governmental entities and their employees in a wide range of matters including the Public Records Act, conflict of interest laws, tort litigation, particularly premises liability, dangerous condition of public property, wrongful death, eminent domain, inverse condemnation, constitutional law, and civil rights litigation. Brian has also advised many municipalities regarding how to stay compliant with the Brown Act.
Brian also serves as the City Prosecutor for numerous cities including Rosemead, Camarillo, and Santa Clarita where he successfully handles criminal litigation and prosecution of code enforcement matters. Serving in these capacities has given Brian a broad range of litigation experience which he continues to expand upon to successfully advise and represent his clients.
As a litigator, Brian has also successfully litigated and tried cases to verdict for both public agencies and private clients in the areas of bodily injury, contract disputes, employment discrimination, products liability, motor vehicle warranty, toxic tort, and unfair business practices, as well as bankruptcy, preference and fraudulent transfer litigation.
Brian received his B.A. in philosophy with a minor in business administration from UCLA in 1987. He graduated magna cum laude from Loyola Law School, in 2000 where he was ranked number one in his division and received numerous honors including the Order of the Coif, the Sayre MacNeil Scholars Award, the Dean’s Scholarship for Academic Excellence, the American Jurisprudence Award for Excellence in Ethical Lawyering, and First Honors Awards in 1st Amendment Law, as well as Initiative and Referendum Law.
Brian was also appointed a member of the Order of the Coif, the St. Thomas More Law Honor Society, and Alpha Sigma Nu Honor Society and was an Editor on the Loyola Law Review. Brian has also lectured extensively for the City Attorneys Association of Los Angeles County (“CAALAC”) as well as the University of Southern California, Loyola Law School, and Mount Saint Mary’s College.
Prior to becoming an attorney, Brian was an apprentice editor on the movie, Father of the Bride II.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 58 of 86
Brian I. Hamblet
RESULTS Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP v. Garau, No. B297827, 2020 WL 6375226, (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2020), review denied (Jan. 20, 2021)
Johnson v. The Raytheon Co., 33 Cal. App. 5th 617, 621, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 282, 285 (2019) Palassanian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2011) WL 227992 Nunan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2010) WL 4122706 Bell v. Pierce (2009) WL 475783 Chase v. County of Los Angeles (2007) WL 646241 Melek v. City of Ontario (2006) WL 2925376 Acker v. City of Ontario (2006) WL 540888
INSIGHTS
Presentations “Public, Private, Protected? What Public Entities Can (and Cannot) Do to Keep Personnel and Litigation Issues Confidential,” City Attorney's Association of Los Angeles County, November 2012 Publications
Contributing Editor, Municipal Law Handbook
“USERRA Rights and Obligations: Traps for the Unwary Employer,” On the Burke Beat - Law Enforcement Liability Update, June 2017 “Making Drug Dealers Pay For Law Enforcement,” Western City Magazine, February 2013 “Make the Drug Dealers Pay for Law Enforcement,” Burke Public Law Update, July 2012 “Strategic Implication of the Expedited Jury Trial Act,” Burke Public Law Update, April 2012 “Employers’ Legal Obligations Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act,” Burke Public Law Update, August 2011
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 59 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Labor and Employment
Labor Relations
Education Law
EDUCATION
J.D., Loyola Law School, Los Angeles,
2016
B.A., University of California, Irvine, 2012
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
AFFILIATIONS
Los Angeles Bar Association
Orange County Bar Association
Donald V. Le
Associate Pronouns: he, him, his
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213.236.2806 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
Donald Le is an associate attorney in Burke’s Los Angeles office and is a member of the Labor & Employment, Labor Relations, and Education Law practice groups where he represents employers, including public agencies, municipalities, private schools, special districts, community college districts, K-12 schools, and private entities, in various labor, employment and education matters.
Donald’s employment experience includes advising and representing employers on issues relating to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, disability accommodation and interactive process, leaves and benefits, pre-employment and privacy issues including drug and alcohol testing, HIPAA/CMIA, free expression, employee discipline and due process, workplace investigations, and performance management. Donald’s experience also includes advising public safety clients on the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act and has worked on high-profile civil litigation cases regarding excessive force issues. Donald advises and represents employers in navigating meet and confer obligations under the MMBA and EERA, and works exclusively on transactional matters. Donald also represents clients at the bargaining table, negotiating bargaining agreements and matters such as compensation, hours and scheduling, seniority and advancement, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Donald also advises on best practices for updating existing MOU language, bargaining strategy, compliance with good-faith bargaining requirements, and closed session preparations. Donald also has specialized knowledge under the ACA, including the employer shared responsibility provisions and advises public agencies on their obligations.
Donald’s practice also includes conducting workplace investigations, including employee misconduct, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, policy, conduct violations, and other discipline-related issues. Donald has conducted investigations into allegations of harassment, retaliation, and misconduct, including those of a sensitive nature and those concerning high-profile individuals.]
Donald regularly advises private schools, community college districts, and K- 12 schools on matters such as harassment or discrimination claims, discipline and termination, independent contractor issues, employee performance management, disability accommodations, construction, preventative measures, and other student, faculty, and governance-related issues. He works extensively on contractual matters such as employment and enrollment agreements, vendor and facilities use contracts/disputes, services agreements, transportation agreements, travel waivers, releases, as well as employee and student handbooks.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 60 of 86
Donald V. Le
Donald also represents employers throughout the various stages of litigation in both state and federal courts, as well as DFEH/EEOC matters, administrative matters, writs of mandamus. His litigation practice includes all aspects of discovery, motion practice, and trial preparation, including deposition preparation and appearances, drafting demurrers and motions for summary judgment, and preparing pretrial motions and witnesses for trial.
INSIGHTS
Publications
2022 Legal Trends
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 61 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Labor and Employment
Litigation
EDUCATION
J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge
School of Law
B.A., University of California, Davis
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
Supreme Court of the United States
United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
United States District Court for the
Southern District of California
AFFILIATIONS
California Lawyers Association – Public
Law Section
Zachery A. Lopes
Senior Associate
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213.236.2724 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
Zachery joins the firm with several years of experience in all matters of public sector collective bargaining. This includes serving as a lead negotiator, administrative litigator before local adjudicative bodies, contracted adjudicators, and the California Public Employee Relations Board ("PERB"), and civil litigator in both state and federal courts with an emphasis on collective bargaining and public law matters.
Zachery is also an experienced appellate litigator, having served as lead counsel for and argued matters before several state courts of appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and lead counsel before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of several large entity clients as amicus curiae. He is also experienced with public employee disciplinary matters.
Zachery received his law degree with distinction from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He is a member of the Roger J. Traynor Society, McGeorge's scholastic honor society. He received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of California, Davis, with majors in political science and philosophy, and is an alumnus of the University of California Washington Center. Zachery is currently a graduate student at the University of Southern California's Sol Price School of Public Policy.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 62 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Environmental, Land Use, and Natural
Resources
Public
Real Estate and Business
EDUCATION
J.D., University of Illinois
M.P.A., University of Southern California
B.A., The American University
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
State Bar of Colorado
Robert F. Messinger
Partner
Orange County [email protected]
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650 949.265.3413 D
Irvine, California 92612 949.863.3363 T
Robert Messinger practices in the areas of public agency real estate, land use, community and economic development, and general municipal law. He has represented a variety of municipalities, housing authorities, special purpose public agencies, and developers in a broad range of complex multi-party real estate transactions, land entitlement, Subdivision Map Act, and planning matters. Robert has extensive experience with real property transactions involving real property acquisition and disposition transactions, commercial leasing, ground leasing, options, easements, and licenses. Robert previously served for thirteen years with San Bernardino County Counsel, where he advised and represented the County’s Real Estate Services Department on all aspects of real property acquisition and disposition.
Robert also has extensive experience assisting public agencies with airport matters, special purpose entity formation and governance, advising Local Agency Formation Commissions on reorganization matters, advising Countywide Oversight Boards in interpreting and implementing the redevelopment dissolution statutes, and the interpretation of and compliance with the Surplus Land Act.
Robert is known for his commitment to helping his clients achieve their goals by providing pragmatic strategies and his ability to pursue a collaborative approach in order to achieve resolution. His commitment to delivering superior work product, exceeding client expectations through exceptional service, integrity, and results are the personal values that form Robert’s client relationships.
RESULTS Counsel to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in negotiations with the City of Colton, Union Pacific, and BNSF to finance and construct a $202 million 2.2-km east-west flyover of the Union Pacific tracks over the north-south BNSF tracks, and installation and construction of quiet zone improvements and other grade separation work on city roadways, thereby resolving a rail congestion problem that had existed since 1883.
Counsel to San Bernardino County in the implementation and negotiations relating to the County’s Land Plan Prop-70 Transformation, providing for the disposition of up to approximately 366.55 acres of County-owned dairy property and the acquisition of approximately 322.06 acres for agricultural preservation to include community gardens, agricultural heritage projects, agricultural and wildlife education or wildlife habitat, or for open space, conservation and park purposes, all within the Chino Agricultural Preserve in the cities of Ontario and Chino.
Counsel to San Bernardino County in negotiations with The High Desert ‘Partnership in Academic Excellence’ Foundation, Inc. (“Foundation”), Real Estate Development Associates, and the City of San Bernardino to Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 63 of 86
Robert F. Messinger
resolve a lease default by the Foundation on 14 acres of County-City jointly owned property by exchanging the 14 acres for 18 acres owned by Real Estate Development Associates and the Foundation financing and constructing a new preschool facility for the County on 2.25 acres to cure the default and to apply as prepaid rent to a ground lease of the remaining 15.75 acres on which it would construct a K-12 charter school facility.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 64 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Litigation
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., Boston University School of Law,
2002
M.A., Political Science, Case Western
Reserve University, 1999
B.A., Political Science and Economics,
Case Western Reserve University, 1999
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
United States District Court for the
Southern District of California
Nathan A. Oyster
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213.236.2719 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
Nathan Oyster is the Vice Chair of the Litigation Practice Group at Burke. His practice focuses on the defense of law enforcement officers and local governments in civil rights litigation, and he also provides guidance to law enforcement agencies on the implementation of policies that reduce the likelihood of litigation.
Nathan has been recognized as one of the leaders in Law Enforcement Defense litigation in California. His March 2023 defense verdict on behalf of the City of Los Angeles in a fatal officer-involved shooting case was selected by the Daily Journal as one of the top 20 defense verdicts in the state in the publication’s annual Top Verdicts edition.
Nathan’s litigation experience is extensive. In 2024 alone, Nathan has represented 13 different law enforcement agencies throughout the state in civil litigation. He has tried cases in both state and federal court, with his first jury trial coming at age 24. He has also argued before both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal. Nathan has defended nearly every type of litigation that a law enforcement agency could face, including officer-involved shootings, deaths due to excited delirium, class action litigation, malicious prosecution claims, allegations of excessive force, and allegations of unconstitutional jail conditions. He is adept at defending litigation brought under Section 1983, the Unruh Act, the Ralph Act, and the Bane Act. Nathan also advises law enforcement agencies throughout the state on a variety of policy issues.
Representative clients include the County of Riverside, the University of Southern California, and the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Whittier.
RESULTS Obtained a defense verdict in March 2023 in a fatal officer -involved
shooting case in which the plaintiffs sought $20 million at the close of the three-week trial. This victory in Rusanovskaya v. City of Los Angeles was selected as a Daily Journal Top Verdict.
Obtained a defense verdict in a fatal officer-involved shooting case in which the decedent was armed with a screwdriver.
Obtained summary judgment in a fatal officer-involved shooting case, resulting in a published opinion. MacEachern v. City of Manhattan Beach, 623 F.Supp.2d 1092 (C.D.Cal. 2009).
Defended a proposed class action lawsuit in which jail inmates alleged that their rights under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution were violated.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 65 of 86
Nathan A. Oyster
INSIGHTS
Presentations
“Anchors Aweigh: How Partisanship, Public Opinion, and Large Jury Verdicts Impact Law Enforcement,” California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), 26th Annual Risk Management Educational Forum, San Diego, October 7, 2021
“Law Enforcement Litigation Trends: What Partisanship, Changing Public Opinion, and Eight-Figure Verdicts Mean For Your Agency,” California San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority (CSJVRMA), 36th Annual Workshop, January 29, 2021 (Live webinar)
“What Data on the Use of Force, Jury Verdicts, and the Pandemic Can Tell Us About Police Litigation in 2020” – with David Cannon, Ph.D., BWS Webinar Series, October 27, 2020 (Live webinar) “Trends in Law Enforcement Litigation,” City Attorney Association of Los Angeles County (CAALAC), Biennial Conference, Santa Barbara, March 29, 2019 “Officer-Involved Shootings and Body-Worn Cameras,” 2017 City Attorney Association of Los Angeles County (CAALAC) Biennial Conference, Huntington Beach, March 18, 2017 Publications
“An Advanced Look at Senate Bill 1421: Analyzing the Confidentiality of Certain Police Records,” The Authority, California JPIA Newsletter Issue 81, November 2018
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 66 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Environmental, Land Use, and Natural
Resources
Public
Real Estate and Business
EDUCATION
J.D., University of California, Davis, School
of Law, 1994
B.S., Economics, University of
Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance,
1988
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
AFFILIATIONS
Alameda County Bar Association, Real
Estate Section
Urban Land Institute
Gerald J. Ramiza
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
Oakland [email protected]
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650 510.273.8723 D
Oakland, California 94612 510.273.8780 T
Jerry Ramiza's practice emphasizes real estate transactional, land use, and public/private partnership development matters.
Real Estate/Land Use/Public Private Partnerships
Jerry represents private clients and public agencies throughout California in connection with complex real estate and land use matters and transactions.
Jerry’s work includes forward planning, assisting with development, land use, entitlement, design review, and permitting processes, environmental review, and CEQA/NEPA compliance. He routinely handles negotiation and documentation of purchase, sale, easement, lease and financing transactions; asset management (including loan administration, property management and landlord/tenant matters); negotiation and drafting of complex development agreements; foreclosures; public trust and tidelands transactions; surplus lands dispositions; workouts and secured transactions; and ancillary matters such as title insurance review, due diligence, environmental risk allocation and hazardous materials/ Brownfields matters. With over 15 years of experience in the redevelopment arena, Jerry is assisting successor agencies throughout the state in the implementation of the redevelopment dissolution act, ABx1 26. He also advises public agency clients in connection with the ferry-system transactions, affordable housing, federal contracting/BRAC process, utilization of federal grants, lease and parking revenue financing and assessment districts.
RESULTS
Representative projects include: Chanate Campus – Currently representing Sonoma County in negotiation and drafting of disposition and development agreement for approximately 117-acre mixed-use project at Chanate Campus in City of Santa Rosa.
Concord Naval Weapons Station – Currently representing City of Concord in master developer selection process for former Concord Naval Weapons Station property, including negotiation of agreements for disposition and development of 2,200 acres of developable property. Gateway Shopping Center – Represented private developer in ground leasing and entitlements for Gateway grocery anchored shopping center in City of Pinole.
Apple Campus – Negotiated and drafted development agreement for the City of Cupertino for Apple's new approximately 176-acre corporate campus.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 67 of 86
Gerald J. Ramiza
CVS Pharmacy – Represented owner in ground leasing of property in City of Oakland for development of new CVS store.
Open Window Project – Represented private developer in negotiation and drafting of master development plan and development agreement for large scale mixed-use project in downtown Stockton, including 1,400 residential units and 200,000 square feet of retail space on 51 individual parcels over 12 city blocks. Wheeler Plaza – Represented private developer in negotiation and drafting of disposition and development agreement for a large mixed-use project in the City of San Carlos, including 108 residential units, retail space and a multi-level parking structure.
Stanford in Redwood City Project – Represented City of Redwood City in negotiation of development agreement and related entitlements for multiple phased construction of 35-acre campus, consisting of 1.5 million square feet of building space and parking facilities for 4,500 vehicles. State Street Project – Represented City of Fremont in negotiation of agreements for sale and development of 5.4- acre site in downtown Fremont with 145 multi-family residential units and 21,000 square feet of retail space. Alameda Theater – Negotiated and drafted agreements for development of a new multiplex cinema and integration of the new cinema with a restored historic theater. Project involved site assembly, complex easements, ground leasing, and construction and financing of a separate multi-level public parking structure. Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center – Negotiated and drafted disposition and development agreement, including related property acquisition and lease termination agreements, for a new 110,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center, anchored by Nob Hill Foods grocery store. Concord Legacy Project – Represented the Concord Redevelopment Agency in connection with the assemblage and disposition of 17 parcels comprising 4.6 acres and development of a 250-unit apartment project located adjacent to the Concord BART station.
Concord MetroPlex Office Project – Negotiated and drafted owner participation and public improvement agreements for a 475,000 square foot office project.
Emeryville Center of Community Life Project – Represented the City of Emeryville in negotiation and drafting of joint use, operation and maintenance agreements for a new approximately 180,000 square foot facility providing flexible use space for educational, cultural, recreational, and social programs. Emeryville RCD Ambassador Project – Represented the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency in acquisition and assemblage of 5 parcels and subsequent negotiation and drafting of agreements for disposition and development of a 69-unit very low income infill multi-family project financed with a mix of HOME funds and tax credits. Emeryville Glashaus – Represented the City of Emeryville in connection with development of a high-density residential project, including a 50-space public parking condominium floor within an otherwise private garage. Pilgrim Triton Project – Represented the City of Foster City in negotiation and drafting of a master development agreement and ancillary documents with three institutional owners/investors. The agreement provides for expansion/intensification of a previously developed approximately 20-acre site with up to 296,000 square feet of commercial/industrial office use and up to 730 residential units, including affordable housing. Gilead Campus – Represented City of Foster City in negotiation of development agreement and related entitlements for construction of 1,000.000 square feet of additional office/lab space within an existing 500,000 square foot headquarters campus.
Mare Island Vallejo – Represented City of Vallejo on early transfer acquisition, clean-up and subsequent disposition of over 700 acres of Mare Island property, including negotiation of development and disposition agreements with Lennar Mare Island and transfer and remediation agreements with the U.S. Department of the Navy, State of California State Lands Commission, and Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Crossing Project – Represented City of San Bruno in negotiation and drafting of development and owner participation agreements for phased mixed-use development of 20-acre Crossing Project site at I-380 and El Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 68 of 86
Gerald J. Ramiza
Camino with approximately 1,063 residential rental and for-sale units, including 530 affordable housing units, senior housing, hotel uses, restaurant space, and neighborhood serving retail. Alameda Ferry System – Represented City of Alameda in the transfer of the Oakland/Alameda and Alameda/San Francisco Ferry Systems to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Project included negotiation and drafting of agreements to effect the transfer of ferry systems assets, allocation of responsibility for ongoing capital projects, establishment of ferry service levels, and allocation and assignment of BCDC permit rights and obligations.
Represented developer in the land use entitlement process for a 20-unit San Francisco condominium project. Represented owner/seller in connection with sale of 66,000 square foot medical office building project. Represented developer with the acquisition, financing, and redevelopment of an approximately 12,000 square foot office building in San Francisco.
Represented owner/investor in connection with $19 million refinancing of a medical office building project in San Francisco.
INSIGHTS
Presentations
“Successor Agency Training: ABx1 26 Implementation,” California Redevelopment Association Redevelopment Seminar, March 2012
"Powers of Redevelopment," California Redevelopment Association Redevelopment Seminar, April 2008 "Critical Elements of the DDA/OPA," California Redevelopment Association Redevelopment Institute, July 2006 and 2007
"Redevelopment Law," California Redevelopment Association Redevelopment Institute, March 2003 and 2004 Publications
“Redevelopment in California,” Solano Press (4th ed. 2009) (co-author) Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 69 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., Loyola Law School, 1999
B.S., Political Science, University of
California, Santa Barbara, 1994
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
AFFILIATIONS
League of California Cities, Fair Political
Practices Committee
City Attorney Association of Los Angeles
County
Los Angeles County Bar Association,
Government Law Section
Rachel H. Richman
Partner Pronouns:
she, her, hers
Los Angeles [email protected]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 213.236.2828 D
Los Angeles, California 90071 213.236.0600 T
818.219.2716 M
Rachel Richman has proudly provided city attorney and general counsel services to public agencies throughout California for 25 years.
Rachel serves as the City Attorney for the City of Camarillo and the City of Rosemead. She previously served as City Attorney to the cities of Arvin and Delano and as the Assistant City Attorney for the cities of Alhambra and Santa Clarita for several years.
Rachel has extensive experience providing legal and practical advice to city councils, agency boards, city managers, department heads, and staff on a broad range of issues including planning and zoning, CEQA, conflicts of interest, open meeting laws, public contracting, prevailing wages, public records, first amendment issues, code enforcement, elections, ADA and mobile home park regulations. She drafts opinions, ordinances, resolutions, and negotiates and drafts agreements. She attends as legal counsel, city council meetings, planning commission meetings, and mobile home rent control panel meetings.
Rachel is experienced working on behalf of cities with developers on commercial, residential, and mixed use projects. She has negotiated and drafted development agreements, exclusive negotiating agreements, owner participation and disposition and development agreements, and affordable housing agreements. She has worked on general plan updates, specific plans and amendments, first time home buyer agreements, façade improvement agreements, and reviewing and advising on CEQA documents.
Rachel handles various aspects of labor and employment matters. These matters include responding to DFEH complaints, discipline and grievance matters, drafting personnel policies and labor negotiations.
Rachel regularly handles issues related to public works construction projects, including development of notices inviting bids, to reviewing bids and recommendation of award, she has dealt with bid protests well as advising on dealing with construction delays, stop notices, liquidated damages issues and prevailing wage issues.
Rachel also has experience in eminent domain on behalf of cities, agencies, and for the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority involving pre- condemnation activities, initiation of condemnation actions, and drafting and negotiating settlement agreements. She is also cognizant of the public concerns that exist with the use of eminent domain.
Rachel provides training on ethics and AB 1234, municipal governance, ADA inclusion requirements and transparency laws to firm clients as well as providing presentations at various municipal conferences. Rachel served as Chair of the League’s FPPC Committee.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 70 of 86
Rachel H. Richman
While at law school, Rachel was a member of Loyola's Moot Court Honors Board and received "Top Ten Brief" recognition. She was on the National Moot Court team and winner of the Regional National Moot Court competition.
During law school she was a law clerk for the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Counsel's Public Works Department.
In her approach to working with legislative bodies, staff and others to achieve their goals which can often be full of challenges she ascribes to the following prospective: “There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” (Beverly Sills)
INSIGHTS
Presentations
AB 1234 Training Local Leaders Executive Education Forum, USC, October 2019, 2023 AB 1234 Training for the institute for Local Government, 2022 AB 1234 Training, Contract Cities Association, Annual Conference, June 2019 California Public Records Act training , 2018, 2021, 2023 “FPPC Update,” League of California Cities City Attorney Conference, May 2017, May 2018 “FPPC Update,” League of California Cities Conference, September 2017 “Case Studies on Placement of Telecom Facilities in Cities’ Public Rights -of-Way- “Can You Hear Me Now?” SCAN
NATOA (Telecommunications Association), June 2016 “Inclusion Services Under the ADA and Methods for Compliance, a Case -by-Case Approach, Inclusion Services
Summit,” CPRS District 14, March 2015 “FPPC Gift Regulations,” City Attorneys Association of Los Angeles County Conference, March 2012 “AB 1234 Training,” Independent Cities Association, Annual Conference, June 2011 Publications “Post-Bell Reform Bill Requires Disclosure of Compensation Received for Certain Simultaneous Meetings Prior to Convening Any Subsequent Meeting,” Public Law Update, December 2011 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 71 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Environmental, Land Use, and Natural
Resources
Real Estate and Business
EDUCATION
J.D., Cornell Law School, 1986
B.A., Urban Studies, University of
California, Davis, 1983
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
AFFILIATIONS
Secretary/Librarian, Land Use and
Environment Committee, American
College of Real Estate Lawyers
President, Harbor Equity Group, Waldo
Point Harbor, April 2015 – present
Member, Board of Trustees, Marin
Montessori School, 2023-present
School Campus Planning Committee,
Marin Montessori School, 2015-present
Advisory Council and Board of Directors,
San Francisco Planning and Urban
Research Association, 2003-2014
California Building Industry
Association/California Business Properties
Association, CEQA Reform Task Force,
1992-present
Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island
Citizens Advisory Board, 2001-2004
San Francisco Juvenile Probation
Commission, 1996-2000
Vice President, Associated Students of UC
Davis, 1981
City of Davis Ad Hoc Committee to Update
the Housing Element, 1982
Anna C. Shimko
Partner Pronouns:
she, her, hers
San Francisco [email protected]
1 California Street, Suite 3050 415
.655.8115 D
San Francisco, California 94111 415.655.8100 T
Anna Shimko is Chair of Burke's Real Estate and Business Practice Group.
She focuses her practice on all areas of land use, real estate development, and environmental law, representing both public agencies and private landowners and developers in administrative and court proceedings to bring projects to fruition. Anna has particular expertise in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She works closely with project proponents, public agencies, and environmental consultants on preparing and defending CEQA and NEPA documents such as negative declarations, environmental impact reports (EIRs), and environmental impact statements (EISs), including for complex projects such as water rights transfers, multi-phased mixed-use projects and large campus master plans. Anna helps private clients through all stages of the land use approval process, obtaining entitlements to build or expand large shopping centers, stand-alone retail stores, mixed-use projects, hospitals, hotels and resorts, golf courses, residential developments, and quarries, among others. She also assists cities, counties, special districts, and state agencies in regulating land and development, negotiating real estate transactional documents and development agreements, and updating general plans, specific plans, and zoning codes. Anna represents clients in matters involving the Subdivision Map Act, annexation, historic resources, public-private partnership transactions and financing mechanisms, the Coastal Act, air quality regulations, water supply, climate change regulations, transportation planning, eminent domain, and inverse condemnation. Anna litigates land use, CEQA, and NEPA matters for public and private clients at trial court and appellate court levels, and serves as an expert witness throughout California in cases involving land use development issues.
RESULTS
Private Developers Represented a well
-known Bay Area computer animation studio in
securing development agreement and zoning for a four-phase headquarters project.
Defended in court the EIR and entitlements for a 20,000-acre residential development and open space preserve in the Carmel Valley. Represented one of California’s largest grocery store chains and a large nationwide home improvement store in numerous projects throughout the state to build new stores or expand existing venues. Represented residential developer in obtaining local and coastal permits, including through several lawsuits and global settlement of Coastal Act, wetland, subdivision, traffic, and inverse condemnation issues.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 72 of 86
Anna C. Shimko
Assisted prominent football team in drafting ballot measure and seeking permits for new stadium and shopping mall.
Represent Native American tribe with environmental review under state compact for new casino, as well as with CEQA and NEPA documents for federal and state permits related to highway improvements, management contract and other permits, and with associated litigation. Secured major use permit amendments for renovation of Napa Valley resort on National Register of Historic Places.
Defended in court EIR and general plan consistency findings for shopping center in Monterey County involving water supply, traffic impact, and hazardous materials issues. Assisted private developer with transit-oriented development grant funding and entitlements from and agreements with public agencies for housing project near rapid transit station. Represented national developer in obtaining development agreement and all permits for phased shopping center, residential, and hotel project on redevelopment lands.
Defended CEQA review and height variance at trial court and Court of Appeal for demolition of unreinforced masonry building and construction of new research laboratory. Worked with a Bay Area developer on an EIR, development agreement and permits for a mixed-use, phased redevelopment of commercial uses on port lands.
Represented a national hotel chain in its renovation of a high-end San Francisco hotel.
Public Agencies Represent the City of Los Angeles defending land use and CEQA litigation concerning City approval of development projects at the trial and appellate court levels. Represented City of Albany in preparing an EIR for a waterfront development master plan, and later negotiated and defended in court a development agreement and gaming ordinance for a card room facility at a live horse racing venue on the waterfront.
Assisted the University of California at San Francisco with preparing EIRs (and defending associated litigation) for its acquisition of the Mount Zion Hospital and development of a biomedical research facility and administrative research space at the Laurel Heights campus.
Represent City of Santa Clara with ground leases, development agreements, EIRs and entitlements for private development of entertainment, office, retail, and residential uses on city land adjacent to Levi’s Stadium. For City of San Carlos, prepared development agreement with Palo Alto Medical Foundation for hospital and medical office project, and assisted with EIR, general plan amendments and all permits. Represented City of Orinda with a specific plan and EIR for mixed-use development of the Gateway Valley. Worked with consulting firms to advise the California Public Utilities Commission in environmental review for the sale of fossil-fueled and hydroelectric power plants and siting new transmission lines and substations throughout the state, for replacement facilities at nuclear power plants, and for desalination plant to supply water to Monterey Peninsula.
Assisted Zone 7 Water Agency with an EIR for a water supply, transfer, and storage program. Defended CEQA review of City of San Carlos decision to replace grass with turf on City play fields.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 73 of 86
Anna C. Shimko
INSIGHTS
Presentations
“Avoiding Speed Bumps at the Intersection of Land Use and Real Estate Law,” 37th Annual Real Property Law Section Retreat, Hyatt Regency Embarcadero, April 21, 2018
“CEQA: An Update,” California Water Law Conference, San Francisco, CA, November 13, 2017 “California Environmental Quality Act: Key Developments Affecting Water Projects,” Annual California Water Law Conference, San Francisco, November 2016
“Current Developments in CEQA Law and Practice,” The Administrative and Public Environmental Law Conference, June 2015
Speaker, “Current Issues in Land Use Regulation and Development,” California Environmental Quality Act Update Cases Late 2011 to Present, California Continuing Education of the Bar, September 2012 “Aetna Springs Resort,” California Building Industry Association Select Conference on Industry Litigation, April 2012 “Hydraulic Fracturing: Permitting and Environmental Reviews,” The Seminar Group, November 2011 “Americans with Disabilities Act Primer,” 2011 for insurance company “Cumulative Impacts,” Climate Change, Cumulative Impacts and Compliance: 6th Annual National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) CLE International Conference, January 2010 “Coming Soon to Your State or Federal Government: the Climate Change Regulation Experience in California,” ICSC U.S. Shopping Center Law Conference, October 2009
“The Benefits of Development Agreements,” League of California Cities Planners Institute, March 2009 “Land Use in Northern California,” Law Seminars International, March 2009 “AB 32 Session Climate Change: Science, Law & Policy,” California Business Properties Association, Fall 2008 “The Changing Climate of California Real Property Law,” California Continuing Education of the Bar, Fall 2008 “Green Building Conference,” CLE International, February 2008 “The Challenges of Urban Development: Trends and Legal Issues for Real Property Practitioners,” California Continuing Education of the Bar, Fall 2007
“Land Use Regulation and Development,” California Continuing Education of the Bar, Fall 2006 “Regulatory Takings Conference,” CLE International, 2003 “2002 Spring CEQA Workshop Series,” Association of Environmental Professionals, 2002 “Regulatory Takings Conference,” CLE International, 2002 “CEQA: What Is It and How Does It Impact Telecommunications Projects?,” Federal Communications Bar Association, Northern Chapter, 2002
RECOGNITIONS
American College of Real Estate Lawyers, Elected Member Lambda Alpha International (global land economics society), Elected Member California’s Top 50 Development Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2014 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 74 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Labor and Employment
EDUCATION
J.D., cum laude, Drexel University Thomas
R. Kline School of Law, 2016
B.A., California State University, Fullerton,
2012
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
United States District Court for the
Southern District of California
AFFILIATIONS
Orange County Bar Association
California Bar Association
RECOGNITIONS
Selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers –
Rising Stars / Southern California 2020,
2022, 2023 & 2024
N. Richard Shreiba
Associate
Orange County [email protected]
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650 949.265.3411 D
Irvine, California 92612-1032 949.863.3363 T
Richard Shreiba is an Associate in Burke’s Orange County office where he provides advice and council to public and private entities on labor and employment matters. Richard is experienced in providing employers with practical solutions to everyday personnel related issues, as well as representing employers throughout the various stages of litigation in both state and federal courts.
Richard’s experience includes assisting employers throughout the employee discipline process, preparing workplace policies and handbooks, preparing executive employment agreements, advising employers with leave related issues, guiding employers throughout the interactive process for workplace disability accommodations, and presenting workplace trainings.
Richard has represented public entities at various different levels of government, and private entities that varied from small regional businesses to large national enterprises.
During law school, Richard clerked for multiple public entities. Richard’s experience and passion for serving public and non-profit entities enables him to provide exceptional service and creative solutions for his clients.
Richard’s first career as a manager in the financial services industry enables him to provide employers with practical strategies and creative alternatives to solving employment personnel issues while simultaneously complying with state and federal employment laws.
During his free time, Richard loves to enjoy the outdoors and catching a baseball game whenever possible. He enjoys spending time at the beach, Angel stadium, and hiking state and national parks with his family.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 75 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Environmental, Land Use, and Natural
Resources
Public
EDUCATION
J.D., University of California, Hastings
College of the Law, 2006
B.A., Government, Smith College, 2003
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central
District of California
AFFILIATIONS
League of California Cities
California Bar Association, Public Law
Section
Erica L. Vega
Partner Pronouns:
she, her, hers
Inland Empire [email protected] 1770 Iowa Avenue, Suite 240 951.801.6629 D Riverside, California 92507 951.788.0100 T
Erica Vega has dedicated her entire legal career to the representation of cities and other public agencies across California. She serves as City Attorney for the City of Eastvale, as Assistant City Attorney for Alhambra and Pacific Grove, and has worked with numerous other cities in both general and special counsel roles. In addition to her work with cities, Erica serves as General Counsel to two mosquito and vector control special districts.
Erica serves as a trusted advisor to public agency governing bodies, commissions, and staff on a wide array of legal issues, with a particular focus on land use, development and housing, elections, ethics and transparency, and cannabis regulation. She ensures that she delivers advice to clients in a manner that is understandable and contains practical guidance that can be readily applied in the real world. In providing advice, Erica focuses on both legal compliance and risk assessment, understanding that many complex situations faced by public agencies do not have clear cut answers.
Erica has extensive experience advising cities on land use and environmental issues related to proposed development projects, including large private development projects and public infrastructure improvements. She has negotiated and drafted complex development agreements and has experience advising on the acquisition and disposition of property by public agencies, including Surplus Land Act compliance. Erica routinely advises public agencies on CEQA compliance throughout the project processing and approval process. She has reviewed CEQA documents for and advised on freeway interchange improvements and major state highway projects, General and Specific Plans, large commercial and mixed use developments, university campus expansions, hospitals, and master planned residential developments proposing thousands of new homes.
Erica has extensive experience advising on ballot measures, whether initiated by the agency or voter petition. She has worked on numerous initiatives, referendums, and recall attempts, including situations where there are competing ballot measures. She is knowledgeable on the local elections process from start to finish. She has drafts ballot measures and impartial analyses and works closely with the local elections official to ensure Elections Code procedures and requirements are satisfied.
Erica is an active in organizations representing the interests of public agencies. She served two terms on the CalCities Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy Committee and for six years on the CalCities City Attorney’s Department Public Records Act Committee. She is a contributor to the CalCities publications “The People’s Business” and “Providing Conflict of Interest Advice.”
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 76 of 86
Erica L. Vega
A graduate of Smith College, Erica majored in Government. She also studied in Geneva, Switzerland, where she was enrolled at the University of Geneva and the Graduate Institute for International Studies. Erica obtained her Juris Doctorate from the University of California School of Law San Francisco (UC Law SF, formerly UC Hastings). At UC Law SF, Erica focused her studies on public law and policy. She participated in the school’s Center for State and Local Government Law and Public Law Research Institute.
INSIGHTS
Presentations
“Top 10 Brown Act Compliance Tips,” League of California Cities Riverside Division meeting, February 22, 2019 “How to Build and Maintain the Public’s Trust: Practical Ethics and the Law (AB 1234),” League of California Cities 2019 New Mayors and Council Members Academy, Irvine Marriott, February 1, 2019 “Municipal Elections: From Start to Finish,” League of California Cities Webinar, March 1, 2018 “Transparency Strategies,” LAFCO for San Bernardino County, Mojave Water Agency, January 29, 2018 “The Brown Act: The Top 10 Issues Boards Face,” California Special Districts Association’s Special District Leadership Academy, November 2014 and January 2016 “Preserving the Attorney-Client Privilege During the CEQA Review Process,” presentation to the Greater Inland Empire Municipal Lawyers Association, February 2014 “What You Need to Know About Public Records and Open Meetings,” Lorman Education Services Seminar, February 2014
“Housing and Land Use Course,” University of California, Riverside Extension, Summer 2010, 2008 "Putting 'Green' Into Practice: The Essential Elements of a Local Sustainability Program," presentation to the Greater Inland Empire Municipal Law Association, February 2009
Publications
“Cost-Effective Public Records Act Compliance and Records Transparency Following Proposition 42,” Western City, February 2015
“E-Records Sent From Private Devices and Accounts Are Not Public Records Under CPRA,” The Authority, April 2014 “E-Records Sent From Private Devices and Accounts Are Not Public Records Under CPRA,” Public Law Alert April 2014 “Legal Trends,” Public Records Act Chapter editor, 2009, 2008 editions "Oops! Property Tax Allocation Fees Trigger Trap," Public Law Update, July 2010 "Frustration is not Enough" for Courts to Compel Certification of an EIR, Public Law Update, December 2009 "Effect of SB 375 on Fourth Revised Housing Elements," Public Law Update, December 2008 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 77 of 86
PRACTICE GROUPS
Eminent Domain and Inverse
Condemnation
Environmental, Land Use, and Natural
Resources
Litigation
Real Estate and Business Law
Public Law
EDUCATION
J.D., Vermont Law School, Environmental
Editor, Vermont Law Review, 1998
B.A. History, Ohio University, 1993
ADMISSIONS
State Bar of California
State Bar of Colorado
AFFILIATIONS
California Bar Association, Environmental
Law Section Legislation Committee
(member) and Environmental Law Update
publication (regular contributor)
American Planning Association, Northern
California Chapter (Board of Directors,
Legislative Director)
CA Solar Energy Industries Association
USGBC Northern California Chapter
(founding member, former steering
committee member and emerging
professionals chair of the Chapter’s Diablo
East Bay Branch)
California Special Districts Association:
CEQA Expert Feedback Team
Bay Area City Attorneys’ Association
Stephen E. Velyvis
Partner Pronouns: he, him, his
San Francisco [email protected]
1 California Street, Suite 3050 415.655.8133 D
San Francisco, California 94111 415.655.8100 T
Steve Velyvis is a well-respected land use and environmental law attorney with over 22 years of expertise advising and representing public agency and private clients in administrative proceedings and before state and federal trial and appellate courts.
Steve has extensive advisory and litigation experience with and works daily on projects addressing complex legal issues spanning the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Power Act, and the California Coastal Act, as well as the state and federal legal and regulatory frameworks governing clean water, clean air, endangered species and electricity generation and transmission. He also routinely represents clients in land use and planning-related matters and advises on CEQA compliance issues in eminent domain matters.
While Steve has extensive advisory and litigation experience with a multitude of environmental laws, he is most experienced with CEQA, having represented parties on all three “sides” of the CEQA equation. In other words, in addition to successfully representing Burke’s many municipal and public agency clients, Steve has also successfully represented numerous private clients (e.g., project applicants and project opponents) on important CEQA matters. In this regard, Steve distinguishes himself as a leading CEQA practitioner. Steve’s deep and varied experience gives him invaluable insight into what all three sides on a given CEQA project are thinking at every step along the way. This unique perspective also enables him to develop cutting- edge legal strategies aimed at resolving conflicts and prevailing in litigation, as opposed to simply posturing or falling back on routine "cookie cutter" advice and litigation tools. In sum, Steve draws on his collective experience to help Burke’s clients think outside the box and routinely provides successful, cost-effective results.
RESULTS
In just the past few years alone, Steve has worked with numerous cities, school districts, and private clients providing advice on projects involving myriad land use and environmental issues, actively guiding the preparation of a host of CEQA documents (statutory and categorical exemptions, mitigated negative declarations and environmental impact reports and addenda) and successfully defending various legal challenges thereto.
Steve also has experience with solar and other renewable energy projects and climate change issues, including representation of parties in proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Forest Service, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the California Public Utilities Commission concerning PV solar, pumped-storage hydroelectricity, transmission line, water supply/canal and desalination projects involving complex CEQA/NEPA, Clean Water Act, CA Coastal Act and Endangered Species Act issues, among others.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 78 of 86
Stephen E. Velyvis
Some recent and ongoing representative matters in which Steve has provided land use/CEQA advice and/or litigated the adequacy of CEQA documents include:
Advisory Matters Advise City Attorney and planning staff on CEQA compliance issues pertaining to multi -million square foot high
cube warehouse project.
Advise Fortune 50 company and interdisciplinary team of attorneys, engineers, consultants, public relations, and development personnel working on CEQA review and entitlement processes associated with a number of large and controversial warehouse and logistics development projects. Advise City Attorney, City Manager and planning staff on CEQA compliance issues and strategies related to competing citizen- and City-initiated ballot initiatives pertaining to Urban Limit Line changes. Advise City Attorney and planning and public works staff on CEQA and Coastal Act compliance issues and strategies for two bluff repair/stabilization projects. Advise renewable energy company on various land use, planning and CEQA issues pertaining to their varied PV solar and battery storage projects.
Advise City Attorney and planning staff on CEQA compliance issues and strategies and assist in preparation and certification of EIR for project to replace historic recreation/aquatic center. Advise water authority serving as CEQA lead agency and myriad environmental consultants and engineers regarding the preparation of a joint EIS/EIR for Friant Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project to restore canal water conveyance capacity diminished due to land subsidence. Advise City and County serving as joint lead agencies for solid waste transfer station project on CEQA compliance issues and assist in preparation of EIR and related staff reports, resolutions and CEQA findings. Advise City Attorney and City Council on land use and CEQA aspects of controversial emergency demolition permit application seeking approval to demolish two significant historic buildings. Advise City Attorney and lead multi-faceted team advancing City’s appeal of adjacent City’s Planned Development Permit for vertical landfill expansion.
Advise and direct City staff and consultants on CEQA compliance issues and assist in preparation of Revised EIR for General Plan Update project.
Advise School District General Counsel on CEQA compliance issues concerning sports field improvement project. Advise City Attorney on land use planning and zoning issues concerning major updates to the General Plan and Zoning/Development Code.
Advise City Attorney on CEQA compliance issues concerning changes to a planned hotel and related specific plan to determine whether subsequent environmental review is required and assist on preparation of focused supplemental EIR.
Directed city staff, outside consultants and applicant teams and provided extensive land use and CEQA compliance advice and guidance to newly incorporated city and city attorney regarding various proposed commercial, residential and transportation infrastructure projects. Lead interdisciplinary team of attorneys, engineers, consultants, and school district personnel working on the environmental impact review process related to the yearly provision of charter school facilities (involving an addendum to a prior EIR one year, a new MND the next and a focused EIR the following year). Lead interdisciplinary team of attorneys, consultants and school district personnel to develop facts supporting CEQA exemption for project involving reopening of closed elementary school and changes in attendance boundaries to repopulate the reopened school.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 79 of 86
Stephen E. Velyvis
Provided extensive CEQA compliance advice and guidance to a city and a special district regarding joint exercise of powers agreements for wastewater, fire and emergency medical services to be provided to an Indian tribe. Develop legal strategy and develop record documents and findings supporting statutory CEQA exemption for traffic mitigation projects related to new Indian casino. Advised a Fortune 100 company and led interdisciplinary team of attorneys, engineers, consultants, public relations, and agency personnel working on CEQA review and entitlement processes associated with a number of large and controversial retail development projects.
Litigation Matters Residential Neighbors of Mount Saint Mary’s University v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Nos. 22STCP01883 [Lead Case], 22STCP01884, and 22STCP01886 – defending City’s adoption of EIR and approval of new Wellness Pavilion at Mount Saint Mary’s University from three related lawsuits alleging various CEQA and Planning and Zoning claims.
Coalition of Pacificans for an Updated Plan v. City of Pacifica, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 20- CIV-05719 – defending City’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of 8-unit townhouse project from CEQA and General Plan Law claims.
No New Gas Novato v. City of Novato, Marin County Superior Court Case No. CIV2100950 – on behalf of Real Party in Interest, defending City’s adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of fuel facility and related street/intersection improvement project from CEQA claim Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21102761 – successfully defended City’s CEQA exemption determination (Gov’t Code § 65457 project consistent with specific plan, and also categorically exempt under Class 32 exemption for in-fill development) and project approvals for a 130 unit affordable housing project in downtown Livermore (case currently on appeal before First District Court of Appeal).
Safer San Ramon v. City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. MSN21-0365 – successfully defended CEQA challenge to City’s approval of a fuel facility project and determination that the project was exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 categorical exemption for in-fill development. Gallaher v. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-265711—successfully defended challenge to ordinance requiring electric-only power and heating systems for new low-rise residential construction (AKA all-electric reach code), under CEQA and California reach code regulations. Clayton for Responsible Development v. City of Clayton (Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N20- 05343). Representing project applicant as Real Party in Interest, successfully defended City’s project approvals (including CEQA infill exemption determination) against challenge alleging both CEQA and State Density Bonus Law claims.
McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group et al. v. City of St. Helena (Napa County Superior Court Case No. 000205 and 1st District Court of Appeal Case No. A153238). Prevailed in trial and appellate courts in challenge to City’s reliance on CEQA infill exemption and issuance of design review approval for 8-unit multi-family residential project, resulting in significant published decision by the First District Court of Appeal in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 80. Citizens for Responsible Winery Growth v. City of St. Helena (Napa County Superior Court Case No. 000953).
Successfully defended City’s reliance on existing facilities CEQA exemption and issuance of design review approval for wine fermentation tank farm replacement project at existing winery. APS West Coast, Inc. dba Amports v. City of Benicia (Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCS050113).
Successfully defended/resolved challenge to City’s decision granting appeal and denying emergency demolition permit sought to demolish and remove historic buildings. Tiernan et al. v. Diablo Community Services District (Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. MSC17- 02529). Successfully defended District in quiet title action seeking to negate claimed public right to use of Diablo roads and declare District has obligation to prohibit such public use.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 80 of 86
Stephen E. Velyvis
Albert Park Neighborhood Alliance v. City of San Rafael (Marin County Superior Court Case No. 1105491 and Court of Appeal Case No. A135028). Prevailed in trial court and Court of Appeal in challenge to City’s reliance on CEQA exemption and issuance of use permit for lease of City-owned baseball park to independent professional baseball team.
Pasetta Park Neighbors v. City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 114CV266514).
Worked collaboratively with counsel for Real Parties to obtain favorable settlement and early dismissal of entire action raising zoning challenge requiring nothing from the City. Concerned Citizens of Sonoma County v. City of Rohnert Park and M&M Services, Inc. v. City of Rohnert Park (Sonoma County Superior Court Case Nos. SCV250536 and SCV250020). Prevailed in these two separate but related actions challenging City’s award of exclusive temporary debris box franchise on Proposition 218 and CEQA grounds.
Citizens for Upholding Zoning Regulations v. City of Palo Alto (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 107CV078386 and Court of Appeal Case Nos. H032872, H033204 and H036691). Prevailed in trial court action challenging approval of mixed-use project on State Density Bonus Law and CEQA grounds and subsequently received, successfully defended (in two separate appeals) and recovered significant attorneys’ fee awards pursuant to CCP section 1021.5.
Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School District (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Nos. 113CV245684 and 113CV255506). Achieved favorable and significant settlement and dismissal of consolidated actions challenging charter school facilities offers on various CEQA grounds, ending bitter multi-year litigation between the parties.
Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. City of Rohnert Park (Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV252617).
Prevailed in trial court on motions for judgment/to dismiss in challenge to City’s use of statutory exemption for transportation project related to new Indian casino.
Livermore Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Livermore (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 14725317). Worked collaboratively with counsel for Real Parties to obtain favorable settlement and dismissal of entire action challenging CEQA exemption determination requiring nothing from the City. Residents of Santa Clara v. City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 113CV254623).
Successfully opposed Petitioner’s motion to augment Administrative Record with voluminous extra-record documents and prevailed on motion to dismiss lawsuit, challenging City’s use of CEQA categorical exemption for project to rehabilitate a historic residence, as moot.
Concerned Citizens of Fort Bragg v. City of Fort Bragg (Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCTMCVG 15-65240). Successfully defended City’s approval of loan agreement to provide grant money for homeless services from a variety of claims including CEQA and NEPA causes of action. Petitioner voluntarily dismissed lawsuit after failing to secure temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and while the City’s motion for judgment was pending.
Center For Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (California Supreme Court Case No. S217763).
Co-authored amicus brief for the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Special Districts Association and the Southern California Association of Governments addressing important issues regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, impact analysis and mitigation and greenhouse gas emission impact methodology.
Prior to joining Burke, Steve successfully litigated numerous other land use and CEQA actions including: a successful defense of challenges to lot line adjustment ordinance in two consolidated actions in Napa County Superior Court (facial and as applied challenges) asserting Subdivision Map Act preemption and CEQA claims; successful traditional mandamus action in Contra Costa County Superior Court resulting in rare judgment ordering agency to complete long- delayed EIR and water supply assessment forthwith; successful defense of subdivision approval in action in Alameda County Superior Court asserting Subdivision Map Act and CEQA claims; successful mandate action in Napa County Superior Court challenging flood control project on CEQA grounds; successful mandate actions in both Napa County Superior Court and Santa Cruz County Superior Court challenging issuance of timber harvest permits and timberland conversion permits on CEQA grounds and related attorneys’ fee awards.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 81 of 86
Stephen E. Velyvis
INSIGHTS
Presentations
Webinar Moderator, “SB 9 & ADU Law: The Toilsome Twosome,” APA California Northern Section Legal Topic Webinar, July 2022
Featured Speaker, “Discretion – The Gateway to and Limitation on CEQA,” League of California Cities Annual Conference, October 2019
Panel Speaker, Data Alone is Not CEQA Analysis, 2019 Association of Environmental Professionals California State Conference, March 2019
Featured Speaker, “Understanding Historical and Tribal Cultural Resource Issues Under CEQA,” City Attorneys Association of Los Angeles County Member Luncheon, August 2018 Featured Speaker on “litigation” panel at San Francisco Bar Association seminar entitled, “Environmental Law Basics:
Understanding CEQA,” November 3, 2016
“Planning Fun-da-mentals,” League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Academy, March 2, 2016 “CEQA Update,” City Attorneys Association of Los Angeles County Member Luncheon, February 2016 “AB 2188 Implementation Requirements for Rooftop Solar Systems,” League of California Cities City Attorneys’ Spring Conference, May 2015
“CEQA Issues,” County Counsels’ Association Spring Land Use Conference, May 2014 “Practical Advice for Minimizing CEQA Liability in Your City,” League of California Cities’ Webinar, March 2014 “Fall CEQA Update,” City Attorney’s Association of Los Angeles County, September 2013 “Summer CEQA Update: A Look at Legislative Modernization Efforts and Recent Judicial Decisions,” Contra Costa County City Attorneys’ Association Membership Luncheon, July 2013 “Legal and Legislative Update Panel,” League of California Cities’ Planning Commissioners Academy Conference, Pasadena, March 2013
“Developing Opportunities in Uncertain Times” Panel, Walnut Creek, CA, January 2011 “Wind/Solar Energy Panel,” California Bar Association’s 29th Annual Real Property Law Section Retreat, April 2010 “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Workshop,” Association of Environmental Professionals, Fall 2009 Publications
“The Evolution and Application of a CEQA Exemption” Northern News, June 2018 “Identifying Baseline Conditions under CEQA – Back to the Future?” Northern News, March 2015 “Big Changes on Horizon for Traffic Impact Analysis Under CEQA,” Northern News, October 2014 “Practical Advice for Minimizing CEQA Liability in Your City,” League of California Cities’ Western City Magazine, February 2014
“Density Bonus Law: Recent Court Decision Highlights Valuable Tool Available to Developers,” Newsletter Article, Spring 2011
“Trouble on the Range or a Green Opportunity? How the State’s Budget Woes are Creating Both Challenges and Opportunities for Landowners Under Williamson Act Contracts,” Newsletter Article, Summer 2010 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 82 of 86
www.bwslaw.com
800.333.4297
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 83 of 86
EXHIBIT B
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650
Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 265-3418
Zaynah N. Moussa, City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Re: Outside Legal Services
Dear Mrs. Moussa:
The following hourly fees are agreeable:
A) Partners $375
B) Associate Attorneys $325
C) Paralegals $175
Sincerely,
For the Firm
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 84 of 86
EXHIBIT C
POLICY FOR INVESTIGATION AND DISCOVERY ASSISTANCE
The following sets forth the policy of this office regarding investigation and other assistance in the defense of liability cases involving the City of Vernon or City employees. The objective is to provide current and long-range investigative assistance and guidance on all liability cases.
1. Copies of the summons, complaint and claims investigation reports, if available, will be forwarded to Associate Counsel upon assignment of the lawsuit to defense counsel.
2. Associate Counsel, in evaluating the lawsuit, is to advise the City Attorney as to further investigative needs. The services of an investigating agency, approved by the City Attorney, may be requested to assist Associate Counsel in their investigation. The agency is to furnish this office with copies of all its reports.
3. After receiving Associate Counsel's request, the investigating agency commences the specified investigation and outlines its recommendations for additional investigation, but does not commence such additional investigation until specifically requested by Associate Counsel to do so.
4. In addition to investigation, the investigating agency assists with such discovery, needed diagrams, photographs and other information as may be requested by Associate Counsel.
5. Associate Counsel is requested to review the claims investigation file sent with the assignment of defense so as to preclude unnecessary or duplicate investigative expenses.
6. Copies of the Vernon Municipal Code and other City documents can be readily obtained from the City Attorney's Office.
7. Attendance at mandatory settlement conferences will include only Associate Counsel and an attorney from the City Attorney's Office. Neither the Claims Coordinator nor investigators shall attend unless specifically requested to do so by this office.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 85 of 86
EXHIBIT D
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES PROVISIONS
A. Associate Counsel certifies and represents that, during the performance of this Agreement, the contractor and each subcontractor shall adhere to equal opportunity employment practices to assure that applicants and employees are treated equally and are not discriminated against because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, sex, or age. Associate Counsel further certifies that it will not maintain any segregated facilities.
B. Associate Counsel agrees that it shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for applicants for employment placed by or on behalf of Associate Counsel, state that it is an "Equal Opportunity Employer" or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, sex or age.
C. Associate Counsel agrees that it shall, if requested to do so by the City, certify that it has not, in the performance of this Agreement, discriminated against applicants or employees because of their membership in a protected class.
D. Associate Counsel agrees to provide the City with access to, and, if requested to do so by City, through its awarding authority, provide copies of all of its records pertaining or relating to its employment practices, except to the extent such records or portions of such records are confidential or privileged under state or federal law.
E. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed in any manner as to require or permit any act which is prohibited by law.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attorney Services Agreement
_______________________ ..
Item 9 Page 86 of 86
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: May 20, 2025
From: Daniel S. Wall, P.E., Director of Public Works
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Lissette Melendez, Project Engineer
Subject
Project Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 for Fiscal Year 2025-26
Recommendation
A. Find that the approval of the proposed resolution does not constitute a "project" pursuant to sections 15378(b)(2) and (4) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it constitutes an administrative activity and government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment; and even if the adoption of the proposed resolution did constitute a project, it would be exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that may have a significant effect on the environment; and
B. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-012 adopting a project list to be funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.
Background
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) – The Road Repair and Accountability Act was signed by the Governor on April 28, 2017. SB 1 addressed basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local street and road systems. SB 1 increases per-gallon fuel excise taxes, increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees, and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.
On November 1, 2017, the State Controller commenced depositing a portion of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). Part of the RMRA funding is apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2031 (h)(2) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and road systems. Pursuant to SHC Section 2030, RMRA local streets and roads allocations must be used for projects that include, but are not limited to, the following: ▪ Road maintenance and rehabilitation ▪ Safety projects ▪ Railroad grade separations ▪ Traffic control devices ▪ Complete street components (e.g. active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, etc.)
The City's allocation for FY 2025-26 is estimated to be $5,536 pursuant to the formula in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(c)(i) and (ii). The formula proportions the total population of the City to the total population of all cities in the state.
SPENDING PLANS AND REPORTS
The RMRA stipulates that, prior to receiving RMRA funds in a fiscal year, a city or county must ..
Item 10 Page 1 of 2
submit to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) a project list pursuant to an adopted budget. For each project, the list must include a description, location, schedule, and useful life.
The RMRA also requires the submission of an annual report of project completion in order to receive RMRA funds. The report must include all projects for which RMRA funds were expended.
The Citywide Striping and Pavement Markings project is identified as a potential candidate for FY 2025-26 SB 1 funding.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The City will receive an estimated $5,536 in RMRA funding in FY 2025-26 from SB 1 and will allocate funding once it fulfills the requirements under SB 1.
Attachments
1. Resolution No. 2025-012 ..
Item 10 Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO
. 2025-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON
ADOPTING A PROJECT LIST TO BE FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2025-2026
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017, to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide.
B. SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions to ensure that the residents and business community of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year.
C. The City must adopt by resolutiona list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must includea description and the location of each proposed project,a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement.
D. Streets and Highways Code Section 2031(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the RMRA, after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously appropriated to cities and counties by the State Controller pursuant to the formula in Streets and Highways Code Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii).
E. The City will receive an estimated $5,536 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 from SB 1.
F. By Staff Report dated May 20, 2025, the Director of Public Works has recommended the adoption of a project list to be funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2025-2026; given the limited amount of SB 1 funding allocated to the City, the proposed project would partially fund the maintenance of traffic striping and pavement markers on certain streets within the City’s boundary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Vernon finds and determines that the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Vernon finds that this action does not ..
Item 10 Page 1 of 3
Resolution No. 20
25-012
_______________________
constitutea “project” pursuant to sections 15378(b)(2) and (4) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), because it constitutes an administrative activity and government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment; and even if the adoption of this Resolution did constitute a project, it would be exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby adopts the following project planned to be funded with Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
Project Location Estimated
Useful Life
Estimated
Construction
Dates
Furnish and install The following1-2 years Construction traffic striping, streets within the 09/2025
pavement
markers,
City’s boundary:
and pavement
markings (legends)
over existing
striping on various
streets within the
City of Vernon.
Bandini Boulevard,
Downey Road, Vernon
Avenue, PacificBoulevard,
Santa Fe Avenue, Leonis
Boulevard, and Fruitland
Avenue
Completion of
construction 06/2026
All project locations
are an estimate
and have yet to be
finalized.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / / ..
Item 10 Page 2 of 3
Resolution No. 20
25-012
_______________________
SECTION 5. The City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED May 20, 2025.
________________________
JUDITH MERLO, Mayor
ATTEST:
Genoveva Rocha, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ZAYNAH N. MOUSSA, City Attorney ..
Item 10 Page 3 of 3
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: May 20, 2025
From: Freddie Agyin, Director of Health and Environmental Control Department: Health and Environmental Control
Submitted by: Dulce Gonzalez, Management Analyst
Subject
Sespe Consulting, Inc. (Sespe) Agreement Amendment No. 1 Recommendation
Authorize the City Administrator to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Services Agreement with Sespe, in substantially the same form as submitted, for environmental compliance and remediation technical consulting services, increasing the contract amount by $200,000, bringing the total amount not-to-exceed to $500,000, for a 3-year term.
Background
On December 5, 2022, following a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the City Council approved a three-year Professional Services Agreement with Sespe for environmental compliance and remediation technical consulting services (Agreement). Sespe was selected due to its outstanding qualifications, including technical expertise, competitive pricing, and responsiveness. The Agreement established a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 for the term ending December 5, 2025.
Sespe has consistently delivered high-quality consulting services, including technical reviews, and regulatory guidance for numerous environmental projects under the oversight of the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). Since the commencement of the Agreement, the volume and complexity of environmental projects have significantly increased beyond initial projections. As a result, DHEC has exhausted the original contract amount well ahead of the term end date.
Continuity of service from Sespe is essential to ensure that ongoing projects remain in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and continue progressing without interruption. In accordance with Vernon Municipal Code Section 3.32.030, City Council approval is required for contract amendments exceeding $100,000. Staff requests approval to increase the total not-to-exceed contract amount by $200,000, bringing the revised total to $500,000, while maintaining the original contract expiration date of December 5, 2025.
Amendment No. 1 has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact is estimated at $200,000. Sufficient funds are available in General Fund, Health Department, Professional Services - Technical Account No. 011-020-200-529225 for the current fiscal year and has been budgeted for subsequent year 2025-2026.
Attachments
1. Amendment No. 1 – Sespe Agreement ..
Item 11 Page 1 of 1
AMENDMENT NO.
1 TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
VERNON AND SESPE CONSULTING, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
AND REMEDIATION TECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
This Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) to the Agreement for environmental compliance and remediation technical consulting services dated December 6, 2022, (Agreement), is made as of May 20, 2025, by and between the City of Vernon, a California charter City and California municipal corporation (City), and Sespe Consulting Inc., (Contractor), a California corporation.
The City and Contractor agree as follows:
RECITALS
A.The City and Contractor are parties to a written Agreement dated December 6, 2022, under which Contractor provides environmental compliance and remediation technical consulting services.
B.The City and Contractor desire to amend the Agreement to increase Contractor’s total not to exceed amount by an additional $200,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Amendment agree as follows:
1. Effective May 20, 2025, Contractor’s grand total consideration from December 6, 2022 through December 5, 2025, shall not exceed the total amount of $500,000, without prior City Council approval and written amendment of the Agreement.
2. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3. The provisions of this Amendment shall constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter included in this Amendment and shall supersede any other agreement, understanding, or arrangement, whether written or oral, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment.
4. The person or persons executing this Amendment on behalf of each of the parties warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Amendment on behalf of that party and has the authority to bind that party to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
[Signatures Begin on Next Page].
..
Item 11 Page 1 of 2
Sespe Consulting, Inc.
Amendment No. 1
_______________________
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date stated in the introductory clause.
City of Vernon, a California Charter City and
California municipal corporation
_______________________________
Brian Saeki, City Administrator
ATTEST:
________________________________
Genoveva Rocha, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Zaynah N. Moussa, City Attorney
Sespe Consulting Inc., a California
corporation
By:
Name:Paul Greywall
Title: President
By:
Name:David Larsen
Title: CFO and Secretary
..
Item 11 Page 2 of 2
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: May 20, 2025
From: Todd Dusenberry, General Manager of Public Utilities Department: Public Utilities
Submitted by: Adriana Ramos, Senior Management Analyst
Subject
Services Agreement with InfraTerra, Inc.
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Services Agreement with InfraTerra, Inc., in substantially the same form as submitted, for the water system seismic vulnerability assessment, in an amount not-to-exceed $242,027.
Background
The water supply and distribution infrastructure of the City is comprised of several components:
6 active groundwater production wells, 4 inactive wells, 14 booster pumps, a 10-million-gallon underground concrete reservoir, 6 one (1) 1-million-gallon above ground steel reservoirs, 1 elevated steel tank with a capacity of 600,000 gallons, and approximately 49 miles of distribution pipeline. Additionally, the City has a connection to the Metropolitan Water District and a recycled water connection.
The City’s water supply and distribution system is experiencing age-related challenges. To mitigate the impact of a significant earthquake in the area and ensure continued reliability of the water system, it is crucial to reduce both the number of repairs required and the length of service interruptions. To maintain a steady water supply for customers while lowering repair expenses for Vernon Public Utilities (VPU), the Water Division is implementing a two-phase strategy to evaluate the seismic risks associated with the current water supply and distribution system.
Phase 1 involves site inspections, data collection, and engineering assessments of the existing facilities and infrastructure. Phase 2 will produce evaluation reports that will offer retrofit suggestions, including structural assessments, and recommendations for the elevated tank. The evaluation reports will aid in future Capital Improvement Planning initiatives, guiding decisions on necessary retrofits, repairs, or infrastructure replacements to improve seismic resilience.
To advance with Phases 1 and 2 and in compliance with Vernon Municipal Code (VMC) Section
3.32.080, on February 18, 2025, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Water System Seismic Vulnerability Assessment. The RFP was advertised on the City’s PlanetBids platform.
The scope of services encompasses a two-step project aimed at assessing the current conditions of the existing water supply and distribution system and sites and providing seismic retrofit recommendations. The RFP issued specifically focused on the assessment of seismic vulnerabilities in the water system. Following the completion of the assessment phase, a Request for Bids or additional RFPs will be issued to create separate contracts for any design or construction work that may arise from this evaluation.
Proposal packages were received from two firms by the March 10, 2025 deadline. A qualified panel thoroughly examined the proposals based on professional qualifications (45%), overall approach and strategy (45%), and responsiveness to the RFP (10%). Both responsive firms met the minimum criteria outlined in the RFP. Interviews were conducted with each of the two responding firms to gauge each firm’s suitability to meet the City’s needs. Based on the evaluation process, the proposal submitted by InfraTerra, Inc. (InfraTerra) demonstrated a ..
Item 12 Page 1 of 2
combination of expertise, understanding, experience, and a comprehensive approach that was best suited to fulfill the scope of services outlined in the RFP. The proposal submitted by InfraTerra ranked the highest score across the panel and was, therefore, deemed most qualified.
InfraTerra specializes in seismic assessment of water infrastructure and development of mitigation solutions to improve resiliency.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Services Agreement with InfraTerra for the water system seismic vulnerability assessment for a total amount not-to-exceed $242,027.
Pursuant to VMC Section 3.32.030(A), City Council approval is required for the proposed agreement, as the total value of the contract exceeds $100,000.
The proposed Services Agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact is not to exceed $242,027. Sufficient funds are available in the Water Fund, Capital Outlay, Account No. 058-070-700-660000 for the current fiscal year and additional funds are budgeted in fiscal year 2025-26.
Attachments
1. Services Agreement with InfraTerra, Inc. ..
Item 12 Page 2 of 2
Page
1 of 18
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON AND INFRATERRA, INC. FOR WATER SYSTEM SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
COVER PAGE
Contractor: InfraTerra, Inc.
Responsible Principal of Contractor: Ahmed Nisar, PE, President Notice Information - Contractor: InfraTerra, Inc.
5 Third Street, Suite 420
San Francisco, CA 94103
Attention: Ahmed Nisar, PE, President
Telephone: (510) 684-6306
Notice Information - City: City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Attention: Todd Dusenberry,
General Manager
Telephone: (323) 583-8811 ext. 579
Commencement Date: May 20, 2025
Termination Date: December 31, 2026
Consideration: Total not to exceed $242,027 (includes all applicable sales tax); and more particularly
described in Exhibit B
Records Retention Period Three (3) years, pursuant to Section 11.20 ..
Item 12 Page 1 of 64
Page
2 of 18
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON AND INFRATERRA, INC. FOR WATER SYSTEM SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This Agreement is made between the City of Vernon, a California charter City and California municipal corporation (“City”), and InfraTerra, Inc., a California corporation (“Contractor”).
The City and Contractor agree as follows: 1.0 EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACTOR . City agrees to engage Contractor to
perform the services as hereinafter set forth as authorized by the City Council on May 20, 2025.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.
2.1 Contractor shall perform all work necessary to complete the services set forth in the City’s Request for Proposals issued on or about February 18, 2025, and titled RFP for Water System Seismic Vulnerability Assessment, and Contractor's proposal to the City ("Proposal") dated March 10, 2025, Exhibit “A”, a copy which is attached to and incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
2.2 All services shall be performed to the satisfaction of City.
2.3 All services shall be performed in a competent, professional, and satisfactory manner in accordance with the prevailing industry standards for such services.
3.0 PERSONNEL.
3.1 Contractor represents that it employs, or will employ, at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement.
3.2 Contractor shall not subcontract any services to be performed by it under this Agreement without prior written approval of City.
3.3 All of the services required hereunder will be performed by Contractor or by City approved subcontractors. Contractor, and all personnel engaged in the work, shall be fully qualified and authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform such services and shall be subject to approval by the City. 4.0 TERM. The Contractor shall commence the delivery of services on receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall complete the services on the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”.
5.0 COMPENSATION AND FEES.
5.1 Contractor has established rates for the City of Vernon which are comparable to and do not exceed the best rates offered to other governmental entities in and around Los Angeles County for the same services. For satisfactory and timely performance of ..
Item 12 Page 2 of 64
Page
3 of 18
the services, the City will pay Contractor in accordance with the payment schedule set forth in Exhibit“B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
5.2 Contractor's grand total compensation for the entire term of this Agreement, shall notexceed $242,027 without the prior authorization of the City, as appropriate, and written amendment of this Agreement.
5.3 Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all necessary and incidental labor, material, supplies, facilities, equipment, and transportation which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement. Materials shall be of the highest quality. The above Agreementfee shall include all staff time and all clerical, administrative, overhead, insurance, reproduction, telephone, air travel, auto rental, subsistence, and all related costs and expenses.
5.4 City shall reimburse Contractor only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City.
Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Contractor:
5.4.1 The actual costs of subcontractors for performance of any of the services that Contractor agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement.
5.4.2 Approved reproduction charges.
5.4.3 Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement.
5.5 Contractor shall not receive any compensation for extra work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, “extra work” means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the time of execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized extra work shall be paid in accordance with the payment schedule as set forth in Exhibit “B,” if the extra work has been approved by the City.
5.6 Licenses, Permits, Fees, and Assessments. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor’s sole cost and expense, such licenses, permits, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments, and taxes, plus applicable penalties and ..
Item 12 Page 3 of 64
Page
4 of 18
interest, which may be imposed by law and which arise from or are necessary for the performance of the Services by this Agreement.
6.0 PAYMENT.
6.1 As scheduled services are completed, Contractor shall submit to the City an invoice for the services completed, authorized expenses, and authorized extra work actually performed or incurred according to said schedule.
6.2 Each such invoice shall state the basis for the amount invoiced, including a detailed description of the services completed, the number of hours spent, reimbursable expenses incurred and any extra work performed.
6.3 Contractor shall also submit a progress report with each invoice that describes in reasonable detail the services and the extra work, if any, performed in the immediately preceding calendar month.
6.4 Contractor understands and agrees that invoices which lack sufficient detail to measure performance will be returned and not processed for payment.
6.5 City will pay Contractor the amount invoiced within thirty (30) days after the City approves the invoice.
6.6 Payment of such invoices shall be payment in full for all services, authorized costs, and authorized extra work covered by that invoice.
7.0 CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY. City shall cooperate with Contractor as may be reasonably necessary for Contractor to perform its services; and will give any required decisions as promptly as practicable so as to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of Contractor's services.8.0 COORDINATION OF SERVICES
. Contractor agrees to work closely with City
staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City’s staff, consultants, and other staff at all reasonable times.
9.0 INDEMNITY. Contractor agrees to indemnify City, its officers, elected officials, employees and agents against, and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities (herein “claims or liabilities”), including but not limited to professional negligence, that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the work, operations or activities of Contractor, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein, or arising from the acts or omissions of Contractor hereunder, or arising from Contractor’s performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, except to the extent such ..
Item 12 Page 4 of 64
Page
5 of 18
claims or liabilities arise from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, elected officials, agents or employees.
10.0 INSURANCE. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representative, or employees. The policies shall state that they afford primary coverage.
10.1 Automobile Liability Insurance – Primary insurance coverage shall be written on ISO Business Auto coverage form for all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles or any auto.
The policy shall have a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). If Contractor is transporting one or more non-employee passengers in the performance of the services, the automobile liability policy shall have a combined single limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000). If Contractor owns no autos, a hired, non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy is acceptable.
10.1.1 Contractor agrees to subrogate automobile liability resulting from performance under this agreement by agreeing to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, and its respective employees, agents, and City Council from and against all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, damages, injuries and expenses, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees (“Claims”), which are attributable to any act or omission by the Contractor under the performance of the services. The City of Vernon, its directors, commissioners, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers must be endorsed on the policy as additional insureds and, under the Contractors’ policy, there shall be a waiver of subrogation, and the policy shall be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance.
10.2 Commercial General Liability Insurance – Contractor shall carry General Liability Insurance covering all operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage with a single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate limit written on an Insurance Services Office (ISO) Comprehensive General Liability "occurrence" Form CG 00 01 or its equivalent for coverage on an occurrence basis. The City of Vernon, its directors, commissioners, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers must be endorsed on the policy as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of the Contractor's performance of this Agreement. The additional insured coverage under the Contractor’s policy shall be ..
Item 12 Page 5 of 64
Page
6 of 18
primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance. The policy shall be endorsed to include a waiver of subrogation.
10.2.1 If Contractor intends to employ other contractors as part of the services rendered, the City must approve and will establish the appropriate insurance requirements.
10.2.2 Contractor agrees to subrogate General Liability resulting from performance under this agreement by agreeing to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, and its respective employees, agents, and City Council from and against all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, damages, injuries and expenses, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees (“Claims”), which are attributable to any act or omission by the Contractor under the performance of the services.
10.3 Professional Errors and Omissions Coverage in a sum of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), where such risk is applicable. Applicable aggregate must be identified and claims history provided to determine amounts remaining under the aggregates.
Contractor shall maintain such coverage for at least one (1) year after the termination of this agreement.
10.4 Umbrella Liability Insurance – An umbrella (over primary) may be used to comply with limits or other primary coverage requirements. When used, the umbrella policy shall apply to bodily injury/property damage and personal injury/advertising injury and shall include a “dropdown” provision providing primary coverage for any liability not covered by the primary policy. The umbrella policy shall have no additional exclusion or coverage difference from the primary policy. The coverage shall also apply to automobile liability.
10.5 Workers’ Compensation/Employers Liability - Contractor shall comply with the applicable sections of the California Labor Code concerning workers' compensation for injuries on the job. Compliance is accomplished in one of the following manners:
10.5.1 Provide a copy of the permissive self-insurance certificate approved by the State of California; or
10.5.2 Secure and maintain in force a policy of workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and Employer's Liability Insurance with a limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident. The policy shall be endorsed to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its directors, commissioners, officers, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from performance of this Agreement or
..
Item 12 Page 6 of 64
Page
7 of 18
10.5.3 If Contractor has no employees, it may certify or warrant to the City that it does not currently have any employees or individuals who are defined as “employees” under the Labor Code, and the requirement for Workers’ Compensation coverage will be waived by completing the waiver form provided by the City.
10.6 If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
10.7 Each insurance policy included in this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to City.
10.8 Insurance shall be placed with insurers with an A.M. Best rating of no less than A-VIII. Any self-insured retention or deductible in excess of $25,000 must be approved in advance by the City. Any policies written on a claims-based basis must include a minimum of a 3-year tail.
10.9 Prior to the commencement of performance, Contractor shall furnish City with a certificate of insurance for each policy. Each certificate is to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to evidence coverage on its behalf. The certificate(s) must be in a form approved by City. City may require complete, certified copies of any or all policies upon request.
10.10 Failure to maintain required insurance at all times shall constitute a default and material breach. In such event, Contractor shall immediately notify City and cease all performance under this Agreement until further directed by the City. In the absence of satisfactory insurance coverage, City may, at its option: (a) procure insurance with collection rights for premiums, attorney's fees, and costs against Contractor by way of set-off or recoupment from sums due to Contractor, at City's option; (b) immediately terminate this Agreement and seek damages from the Agreement resulting from said breach; or (c) self-insure the risk, with all damages and costs incurred, by judgment, settlement or otherwise, including attorney's fees and costs, being collectible from Contractor, by way of set-off or recoupment from any sums due to Contractor.
11.0 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
11.1 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
11.1.1 It is understood that in the performance of the services herein provided for, Contractor shall be, and is, an independent contractor, and is not an agent, officer or employee of City and shall furnish such services in its own manner and method except as ..
Item 12 Page 7 of 64
Page
8 of 18
required by this Agreement, or any applicable statute, rule, or regulation. Further, Contractor has and shall retain the right to exercise full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons employed by Contractor in the performance of the services hereunder. City assumes no liability for Contractor’s actions and performance, nor assumes responsibility for taxes, bonds, payments, or other commitments, implied or explicit, by or for Contractor. Contractor shall be solely responsible for, and shall indemnify, defend and save City harmless from all matters relating to the payment of its employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, including compliance with social security, withholding and all other wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, exactions, and regulations of any nature whatsoever.
11.1.2 Contractor acknowledges that Contractor and any subcontractors, agents or employees employed by Contractor shall not, under any circumstances, be considered employees of the City, and that they shall not be entitled to any of the benefits or rights afforded employees of City, including, but not limited to, sick leave, vacation leave, holiday pay, Public Employees Retirement System benefits, or health, life, dental, long-term disability or workers' compensation insurance benefits.
11.2 CONTRACTOR NOT AGENT. Except as the City may authorize in writing, Contractor and its subcontractors shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of or bind the City in any capacity whatsoever as agents or otherwise.
11.3 OWNERSHIP OF WORK. All documents and materials furnished by the City to Contractor shall remain the property of the City and shall be returned to the City upon termination of this Agreement. All reports, drawings, plans, specifications, computer tapes, floppy disks and printouts, studies, memoranda, computation sheets, and other documents prepared by Contractor in furtherance of the work shall be the sole property of City and shall be delivered to City whenever requested at no additional cost to the City. Contractor shall keep such documents and materials on file and available for audit by the City for at least three (3) years after completion or earlier termination of this Agreement. Contractor may make duplicate copies of such materials and documents for its own files or for such other purposes as may be authorized in writing by the City.
11.4 CORRECTION OF WORK. Contractor shall promptly correct any defective, inaccurate or incomplete tasks, deliverables, goods, services and other work, without additional cost to the City. The performance or acceptance of services furnished by Contractor shall not relieve the Contractor from the obligation to correct subsequently discovered defects, inaccuracy, or incompleteness.
..
Item 12 Page 8 of 64
Page
9 of 18
11.5 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS. Contractor shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Contractor, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Contractor occurs, then Contractor shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Contractor professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction.
11.6 WAIVER. The City's waiver of any term, condition, breach, or default of this Agreement shall not be considered to be a waiver of any other term, condition, default or breach, nor of a subsequent breach of the one waived. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance.
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and executed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought.
11.7 SUCCESSORS. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and/or assigns.
11.8 NO ASSIGNMENT. Contractor shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the City and approval by the City Attorney, which may be withheld in the City's sole discretion. Any unauthorized assignment or transfer shall be null and void and shall constitute a material breach by the Contractor of its obligations under this Agreement. No assignment shall release the original parties from their obligations or otherwise constitute a novation.
11.9 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Contractor shall comply with all Federal, State, County and City laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, which are, as amended from time to time, incorporated herein and applicable to the performance hereof. Violation of any law material to performance of this Agreement shall entitle the City to terminate the Agreement and otherwise pursue its remedies. Further, if the Contractor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules, and regulations Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom.
11.10 ATTORNEY'S FEES. If any action at law or in equity is brought to ..
Item 12 Page 9 of 64
enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and necessary disbursements in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled.
11.11 INTERPRETATION.
11.11.1 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be deemed an agreement and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Contractor agrees that the State and Federal courts which sit in the State of California shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies and disputes arising hereunder, and submits to the jurisdiction thereof.
11.11.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including any exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties regarding its subject matter and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous negotiations, representations, understandings, correspondence, documentation, and agreements (written or oral).
11.11.3 Written Amendment. This Agreement may only be changed by written amendment executed by Contractor and the City Administrator or other authorized representative of the City, subject to any requisite authorization by the City Council. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect.
11.11.4 Severability. If any provision in this Agreement is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, void, or unenforceable, such portion shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect as fully as though such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable portion had never been part of this Agreement.
11.11.5 Order of Precedence. In case of conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the terms contained in any document attached as an Exhibit or otherwise incorporated by reference, the terms of this Agreement shall strictly prevail. The terms of the City’s Request for Proposals shall control over the Contractor’s Proposal.
11.11.6 Construction. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
11.12 TIME OF ESSENCE. Time is strictly of the essence of this agreement and each and every covenant, term, and provision hereof. ..
Item 12 Page 10 of 64