HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS CONTRAgenda Item: 11
1. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: August 23, 2022
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW SERVICES FOR PROPOSED
PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA'S
ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS CONTRACT
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Award a contract to P1aceWorks, Inc., to provide architectural design services, for an annual
base amount not to exceed $90,000, for a total five-year amount not to exceed $450,000.
2. Appropriate funding from the General Fund (Fund 100) to the Planning Services Expenditure
Account 1003100-516101 in the amount of $80,000 annually, beginning in Fiscal Year 2022-
23 through Fiscal Year 2027-28.
3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all contracts and associated documents,
subject to City Attorney approval.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (City) adopted the Community Character
and Design Guidelines (CCDG). This document provides architectural guidance for development
projects within the City, ensures continuity of architectural styles, and preserves the varied and
unique architectural character found within each community of the City. Guidelines are included
for all types of development including residential, commercial, mixed -use, business park, and
industrial projects.
To supplement architectural review by City staff, the City retains the services of a professional
architecture firm. Beginning in June of 2021, staff conducted two requests for proposal (RFP)
processes for architectural design services to replace the prior consultant. Ultimately, proposals
from two consultants were considered: P1aceWorks, Inc., and John Kaliski Architects, Inc.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 65
The proposals were rated on the following criteria:
• Qualifications
• Scope of work and program management
• Experience with similar projects
• Thoroughness of proposal
• References
A panel of three City staff members evaluated and scored both proposals, based on the criteria
above. The proposals scored as follows:
COMPANY
LOCATION
SCORE
PlaceWorks, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
96
John Kaliski Architects, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
74
In addition to being evaluated and scored by staff, PlaceWorks, Inc., presented an overview of its
firm and the proposed services to the City Council Development Committee on July 6, 2022.
If awarded the contract, PlaceWorks, Inc_, would provide architectural design review services for
all new development projects subject to a conditional use permit. The architectural review will
ensure a project's consistency with the existing CCDG. Staff anticipates as many as ten projects
per year, at an average cost of $9,000 per project.
The current base budget for architectural review is $10,000 annually. The recommended action
would increase this base budget by $80,000 annually, for a total budgeted amount of $90,000.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other actions as identified by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon approval of the recommended actions, $80,000 would be appropriated annually from the
General Fund to Expenditure Account 1003100-516101 for the duration of the contract.
ATTACHMENTS
PlaceWorks Request for Proposal Response (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Page 2
Packet Pg. 66
Attn: Danielle Marquez
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Blvd Ste 295
Santa Clarita CA 91355-2196
661.255.4936 1 dmarguez@santa-clarita.com
February 10, 2022
Subject: Response to RFP # PL-21-22-14—Architectural Design Services Contract (Revised)
Dear Ms. Marquez:
On January 28, 2022, Scott Ashlock and I participated in an informal interview with David Petersen, Associate
Planner from the City's Planning Division regarding PlaceWorks' response to the above -referenced RFP. After
that meeting, Mr. Petersen asked that we revise our proposed scope of work and cost estimates and forward
this revision to you. The following memo is that revision.
Revisions are principally focused on the structure and timing of the Design Review subtask, described here
as Section B Plan of Study/Scope of Work, Tasks A-C, Subtask 1.
Respectfully submitted,
PLACEWORKS
Alan Loomis, AicP I Principal, Urban Design
February 10, 2022 1 Page 1
PLACEWORKS
A. Introduction
The City of Santa Clarita offers a diverse geographic landscape for architectural production. From Old Town
Newhall, a historic stagecoach stop and now a burgeoning transit -oriented main street district, to the
Valencia Town Center area, one of the largest regional shopping malls and anchor to the pioneering Valencia
development, Santa Clarita encompasses a full spectrum of contexts from rural to suburban to urban. With
three Metrolink stations, the City has the opportunity to focus development into new pedestrian -oriented
districts. This is a rich and complicated environment, demanding a nuanced understanding of the uniqueness
of each place within Santa Clarita. As designers of communities, we at PlaceWorks are excited by the prospect
of working with the City to further define these specific neighborhoods and districts.
Our team at PlaceWorks has extensive experience creating communities in all these contexts and an intimate
knowledge of Santa Clarita itself.
Our Principal of Urban Design and proposed project manager for Santa Clarita design review, Alan Loomis,
has served in a number of roles, conducting design review on both sides of the counter. With an architectural
education, Alan's early career included a leading role on the teams that developed many of California's early
form -based codes, with one of the most notable being the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan. After Old Town
Newhall, Alan left the private sector to work as both on -staff urban designer to the Glendale City Council,
then Deputy Director of Planning, responsible for supervising design review for Glendale's appointed Design
Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission. From 2014-2020, Alan served as one of Pasadena's
Design Commissioners. With this diverse public service experience, Alan brings to our team a balanced and
practical understanding of the importance of design review in a community.
Scott Ashlock, one of our landscape architects and land planners, has over a decade of experience working
the Santa Clarita area. Scott has been one of the lead designers for multiple master -planned communities
on the perimeter of Santa Clarita—developments designed and permitted through Los Angeles County with
the expressed intention of being subsequently annexed by the City. Scott has a long history of working under
the "One Valley, One Vision" plan and coordinating with City staff on behalf of County developments. In his
ongoing relationship with these developments, Scott has been asked to review individual projects and
proposals for consistency and compliance with the original master plan, design guidelines, and
environmental clearances.
The design process is inherently iterative and collaborative, and architectural design is especially so. Talented
architects are capable of synthesizing multiple desires, regulatory requirements, and functional demands
into a coherent and attractive building. From client program needs and engineering and construction
techniques, to city zoning codes, architects are responsible for identifying and integrating a wide range of
parameters into their overall design. Accordingly, the architectural design process involves multiple stages
of review as the overall form, configuration, and detailing of the site and building plans evolve.
Based on our conversations with City staff, we have structured our proposal and fees assuming that
PlaceWorks' participation in this process will typically be limited to a single review of applicant proposals. As
described below in our proposed Scope of Work, we expect that in most cases our design evaluation will be
submitted to City Staff and translated by City Staff into subsequent staff reports with appropriate conditions
of approval and City Staff will likewise present the recommendations at public hearings. Nonetheless, as
requested by the RFQ we have budgeted for the possibility that PlaceWorks staff will need to be present at
public hearings as requested by City Staff.
February 10, 2022 1 Page 2
Kick-off tour
Prior to engaging in design review on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita, we recommend a half -day to one -
day tour of recently built work with City staff, potentially including a subcommittee of the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. The purpose of this tour is to ensure that the PlaceWorks team has a clear
understanding of the City's expectations for quality development by seeing finished projects in the city and
discussing what makes these projects successful, where the review process improved the project, where the
design fell short of expectations, and what unforeseen issues the project encountered.
Such a tour can be a useful tool to establish a baseline for future projects and their design review. We expect
that City staff will assist in organizing this tour by identifying illustrative projects in Santa Clarita to visit (both
the successes and disappointments) and arranging any necessary clearances with property owners if the
project is not mostly visible from public streets. PlaceWorks will assist in identifying other nearby projects
and will provide a script of questions to elicit discussion about the projects.
B. Plan of Study/Scope of Work
TASK A: REVIEW OF CITY CAPITAL PROJECTS AND CITY -ASSISTED PROJECTS
TASK B: REVIEW OF APPLICANT PROJECTS
TASK C: AS -NEEDED COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETINGS
The work associated with Tasks A, B and C, as described in the RFQ, are generally similar and related. For
example, attendance at Planning Commission or City Council meetings (Task C) in support of a design review
analysis could be needed in conjunction with design review work for either Task A or B. Likewise, the design
review approach and outputs will generally be the same for City Capital Projects, City -Assisted Projects, or
Applicant -Initiated Projects. We have accordingly described our approach to these three tasks in a single set
of subtasks, as described below.
Subtask 1: Design Review
We understand that applications for Design Review will be received by City Staff and following Staff's overall
review for consistency with City policies and ordinances, applications will be forward to PlaceWorks for a
Design Review evaluation. We anticipate that our Design Review of projects will be concurrent with or
directly follow a review by other departments and divisions in the City, such as traffic, transportation,
engineering, and fire as well as utility providers. We understand that our Design Review will principally focus
on issues of architectural detailing, finishes, and fidelity to known architectural styles and traditions,
especially those defined by the City's Design Guidelines and Specific Plans.
We expect that as a result of preliminary work conducted with City Staff, the applicant team will have largely
resolved all critical design features —overall density, site plan including lot coverage and site access,
height/massing, parking counts, and internal circulation. However, subject to a persuasive argument, these
topics may nonetheless be subject to discussion and revision.
Accordingly, our Design Review will consist of a thorough evaluation of the site plan; site access; massing,
height, and overall building; and materials, finishes, fenestration, and landscape. A careful review of various
character -defining design features will also take place at this stage for material finishes and colors, window
specifications, lighting fixtures/temperatures, and the detailed landscape design. Particularly with minimalist
architectural styles, such as modern or Spanish revival, the application of these details can make or break the
impression of quality development.
February 10, 2022 1 Page 3
To facilitate our Design Review, City Staff will share applicant design proposals, as illustrated in formal submissions,
including project site plans, floor plans and elevations, detail drawings, material finish schedules and
renderings. In addition, we recommend that applicants provide sketches, diagrams, drawings, plans, 3D models,
and crude renderings to illustrate their design thinking. The submission may also include alternatives considered
and outline the reasoning why the project team believes one alternative is the preferred design. Precedent images
to illustrate possible aesthetic directions for materials and architectural style will also be appropriate and assist our
evaluation.
PlaceWorks' review will consist of an evaluation of the proposal as a coherent design. PlaceWorks will
produce a memorandum (with supporting annotated drawings as necessary) summarizing the proposal,
recommending proposed conditions of approval as appropriate. For a typical single structure project, Design
Review will take approximately 24 to 36 direct staff hours. Larger developments composed of multiple
buildings may take up to 48 hours, depending upon the scale of the project.
It is possible, especially for larger and more complex project types, that either the City or the development
team may desire more than one round of design review. If so, we will be able to accommodate a second
design review, with similar hours and deliverables to the initial Review.
Although we anticipate that our design commentary and recommended conditions will be incorporated into
staff reports prepared by City Planners, at the request of the City Staff PlaceWorks will attend a public hearing
with Planning Commission and/or City Council to present the City's design review analysis.
Output:
- Memorandum providing project summary, General Plan and/or Specific Plan and Design Guideline
compliance matrix, any suggested design modifications in a written memo (including, if necessary, redlined
drawings), and any recommended conditions of approval
Attendance and presentation at Planning Commission or City Council hearing (as requested by City staff)
Subtask 2: Construction Review (Optional)
Despite the best intentions and drawings by architects, many issues arise during construction that require an
adjustment to the approved design. On occasion, such issues can impact the overall design and may include
a modification of materials/finishes because of a change in available vendors or development of necessary
details that were not anticipated during the design evolution. For more sophisticated or larger projects, the
production of an on -site mock-up to illustrate and resolve finish applications from subcontractors is often
desired by general contractors and clients. As a result, it is not uncommon for design decisions to be made
during the construction phase.
As an additional services task order and at the request of the City, PlaceWorks can conduct a site review to
evaluate construction progress. We recommend that this review be scheduled at the time in the construction
sequence when subtrades associated with exterior finishes have been engaged but have not yet made
substantial progress. In short, construction review needs to be scheduled when any course corrections are
easy and inexpensive to make. Typical construction review is likely to take four hours.
Output:
Construction Site Visit with Applicant Team and City Staff
TASK D: REVIEW/UPDATE OF CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
Please refer to our original Statement of Qualifications.
February 10, 2022 1 Page 4
TASK E: OTHER SERVICES AS REQUESTED / EXCLUDED SERVICES
Please refer to our original Statement of Qualifications.
C. Schedule
Task A: City Projects and City -partnered Projects
The review of City capital projects is one of the more dynamic venues for community building available to
local government. Unlike applicant projects, where the City is usually responding to a development brief
generated by property owners, the City has the opportunity to establish the overall ambitions of its own
projects at the outset. As experienced community builders, the PlaceWorks team would welcome an
invitation to participate in early project goal setting for City projects. Depending on the scope of our
involvement in City projects, the schedule could include a series of meetings over a number of months to
assist in evaluating potential sites, crafting "Request for Proposal" language to solicit architecture teams and
participating in working sessions with architects hired to design projects for the City. Accordingly, the
schedule of this engagement will be determined by the City's internal project delivery timeline.
Projects in which the City is a partner, but the project is developed by others, such as affordable housing
development, will likely follow the review path described below for Applicant -Initiated Projects.
Task B: Applicant Initiated Projects
We expect that PlaceWorks will receive applicant submissions for design review with a cover letter from City
staff, providing the staff contact, a brief description of the project, additional entitlements requested (if
applicable), and an expectation for comments. Planning staff likely prepares such letters when they route
project applications to other departments for review, and the same transmittal will be sufficient for
PlaceWorks to prepare design comments. Upon receipt of the project application, PlaceWorks will
acknowledge the submission and, if necessary, schedule a 30-minute briefing call with the case planner to
discover any background knowledge not included in the transmittal. Useful information for our review could
include knowing if the project is favorable to the City for economic development reasons or if the site has a
history of failed proposals.
We presume that the typical time frame to provide comments to the City's case planner will be three weeks.
We are prepared to commit ourselves to a three-week turnaround for design review comments. It is likely,
however, that in practice we will deliver comments to the City within two weeks. Additionally, we expect that
the occasional project may require an expeditated review in less than three weeks, and we are prepared to
work with the City on these occasions.
Task C: Planning Commission / City Council meetings
Attendance at a Planning Commission and/or City Council meeting will only occur in conjunction with work
associated with Tasks A, B or D. Accordingly, the schedule for this Task is absorbed within the schedule of
those other Tasks. That said, we are cognizant that hearings by City boards have specific deadlines associated
with Brown Act notices, internal City staff review, and distribution to the board members and the public. We
are prepared to work within those deadlines as directed by City Staff.
Task D: City Architectural Guidelines
We anticipate that if the City wishes to update or revise its Architectural Design Guidelines, our engagement
in this task would be preceded by a series of conversations to determine the scope of work and schedule.
February 10, 2022 1 Page 5
j r, o ` � � n, f�— r,•'
rig,
Minor revisions to the Guidelines, such as text or photo edits can be accomplished within 4 to 6 weeks.
However, a full comprehensive audit and update of the Guidelines may well take 4 to 6 months. In both
cases, significant factors in the schedule are the frequency with which staff reviews interim work and any
required public engagement. Our most recent experience suggests that preparing new design guidelines,
with in-depth staff review and meaningful outreach including public hearings, can encompass a full year.
Given this extensive range of timescales, it will clearly be necessary to determine scope with City staff before
embarking upon this task.
PROPOSED WORK PERIOD
Task A: City Capital Projects and City -Assisted Projects 3 weeks (including Task C if requested)
Task B: Review of Applicant Projects 3 weeks (including Task C if requested)
Task D: City Architectural Guideline Update 2-12 months, depending upon scope and review schedule
D. Program Management
Please refer to our original Statement of Qualifications.
E. Personnel
Please refer to our original Statement of Qualifications.
F. Sub -Consultants
PlaceWorks proposes no subconsultants for this project.
G. Statement of Offer and Signature
Please refer to our original Statement of Qualifications.
February 10, 2022 1 Page 6
s a
F
January 7, 2021
Attn: Danielle Marquez
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
31200 Oak Crest Drive
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Subject: Response to RFP # PL-21-22-14 — Architectural Design Services Contract
Dear Ms. Marquez:
On behalf of PlaceWorks I am pleased to submit our qualifications to provide the City of Santa Clarita with on -call
architectural design services. We are excited at the prospect of working with you in this capacity. The third largest city in
Los Angeles County, Santa Clarita features a diverse landscape and uniquely distinct places; it is a highly desirable place to
live in a dynamic, growing, and evolving geography. Starting with the original Valencia Master Plan, Santa Clarita is well
known for carefully charting its future with successive planned communities and award -winning planning documents.
However, the City's General Plan, Specific Plans, and design guidelines are merely a roadmap describing the desired
evolution of the community through strategic public investments and incremental private development proposals. These
planning documents encourage, but cannot guarantee, quality and thoughtful architecture. As the City has recognized, a
consistent and strong guiding hand is required to bring out the best responses from private development and to live up
to the expectations of the City's overall community plans.
I have an intimate appreciation of this challenge. I recently joined PlaceWorks after 15 years leading the urban design
programs in Santa Monica and Glendale. In Glendale, I managed the city's design review process, updating its design
guidelines and supervising the staff liaisons to the historic preservation commission, design review board, and city council
/redevelopment agency. As the primary urban design staff to the city council, I personally reviewed almost 30 different
projects, providing design direction to architects through submittal process in frequent working sessions. More recently,
in 2020 1 completed two 3-year terms as an appointed member of Pasadena's Design Commission and am thus familiar
with the roles and responsibilities of both commissioners and city staff in development review. Prior to my tenure inside
city hall, my private -sector practice focused on district plans with an emphasis on form -based codes, including the
Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. My personal resume includes both comprehensive and current planning, and I feel a
strong professional desire to tie together the two fields of practice as directly as possible. As Principal of Urban Design at
PlaceWorks, I will serve as the City's primary contact, project manager, and on -call urban designer. In this role, I will
personally evaluate or oversee the review of development proposals submitted to the City and forwarded to PlaceWorks.
The PlaceWorks team will also include Bruce Brubaker LEEDAP, a California Registered Architect who has reviewed projects
on behalf of the City of Hercules and others, and Karen Gulley, who is assisting the City of Laguna Hills in the evolution of
the Laguna Hills Mall (now called Village at Laguna Hills). Our staff team additionally includes landscape architect Scott
Ashlock ASLA, who has a decade of experience preparing master plans for many of the communities around Santa Clarita
and in similar locations.
We appreciate the opportunity to help ensure the City of Santa Clarita evolves through quality development, and we look
forward to your response. For questions orto schedule a time to meet with your team virtually or in person to discuss our
approach and how we might assist the City with achieving its goals, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
PLACEWORK,S f
Alan Loomis, AicP
Principal, Urban Design
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 600 1 Las Angeles, California 9001.7 1 213.623.1443 1 PlaceWorks.com
City of Santa Clarita
Architectural Design Services Contract
PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I DUE JANUARY 10, 2022
SUBMITTED TO:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Attn: Danielle Marquez
23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 295
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
661.255.4936 1 dmarquez@santa-clarita.com
SUBMITTED BY:
PLACEWORKS
Alan Loomis AicP
Principal, Urban Design
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.623.1443 x2101 I aloomis@placeworks.com
PLACEWORKS.COM
A. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1
B. PLAN OF STUDY/SCOPE OF WORK............................................................ 3
Task A. Review of city capital projects and city -assisted projects...................................................................3
TaskB. Review of applicant projects................................................................................................................3
Task C. as -needed Commission/Council meetings...........................................................................................3
Task D. Review/Update of City's Architectural Guidelines..............................................................................5
Task E. Other Services as requested and Excluded Services............................................................................6
C. SCHEDULE................................................................................................... 7
D. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT....................................................................... 9
E. PERSONNEL...............................................................................................
11
WhoWe Are...................................................................................................................................................11
RecentRelevant Projects................................................................................................................................13
OurTeam........................................................................................................................................................16
Resumes..........................................................................................................................................................17
F. SUBCONSULTANTS.....................................................................................2 7
G. STATEMENT OF OFFER AND SIGNATURE ................................................. 29
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS i
Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN SERVICES
i
* tVOW
lox
�� ' � �• � � � �� � . - ' � a w�' ��':�, �� ..�; � f
^.. role �'• 4'� ',� .� y - E!�
yes �
�
`+
�
0�~ '
_�_'-------�----- x`
-~ -
I
��-
A. Introduction
The City of Santa Clarita offers a diverse geographic landscape for architectural production. From Old Town Newhall, a historic
stagecoach stop and now a burgeoning transit -oriented main street district, to the Valencia Town Center area, one of the
largest regional shopping malls and anchor to the pioneering Valencia development, Santa Clarita encompasses a full
spectrum of contexts from rural to suburban to urban. With three Metrolink stations, the City has the opportunity to focus
development into new pedestrian -oriented districts. This is a rich and complicated environment, demanding a nuanced
understanding of the uniqueness of each place within Santa Clarita. As designers of communities, we at PlaceWorks are
excited by the prospect of working with the City to further define these specific neighborhoods and districts.
Our team at PlaceWorks has extensive experience creating communities in all these contexts and an intimate knowledge of
Santa Clarita itself.
Our Principal of Urban Design and proposed project manager for Santa Clarita design review, Alan Loomis, has served in a
number of roles, conducting design review on both sides of the counter. With an architectural education, Alan's early career
included a leading role on the teams that developed many of California's early form -based codes, with one of the most
notable being the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan. After Old Town Newhall, Alan left the private sector to work as both on -
staff urban designer to the Glendale City Council, then Deputy Director of Planning, responsible for supervising design review
for Glendale's appointed Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission. From 2014-2020, Alan served as one
of Pasadena's Design Commissioners. With this diverse public service experience, Alan brings to our team a balanced and
practical understanding of the importance of design review in a community.
Scott Ashlock, one of our landscape architects and land planners, has over a decade of experience working the Santa Clarita
area. Scott has been one of the lead designers for multiple master -planned communities on the perimeter of Santa Clarita—
developments designed and permitted through Los Angeles County with the expressed intention of being subsequently
annexed by the City. Scott has a long history of working under the "One Valley, One Vision" plan and coordinating with City
staff on behalf of County developments. In his ongoing relationship with these developments, Scott has been asked to review
individual projects and proposals for consistency and compliance with the original master plan, design guidelines, and
environmental clearances.
The design process is inherently iterative and collaborative, and architectural design is especially so. Talented architects are
capable of synthesizing multiple desires, regulatory requirements, and functional demands into a coherent and attractive
building. From client program needs and engineering and construction techniques, to city zoning codes, architects are
responsible for identifying and integrating a wide range of parameters into their overall design. Accordingly, the architectural
design process involves multiple stages of review as the overall form, configuration, and detailing of the site and building
plans evolve.
In our experience, the City's role in this evolutionary process is most effective not just when the design is finalized, but at a
preliminary design phase while alternatives and options are still being explored and evaluated. At a preliminary phase, the
City can be a strategic partner in the development, advising the architect on where to locate driveways, front doors, orservice
access and where the building should be taller or shorter. Applicants can save significant time and expense through this early
interaction, which ensures that the design in final entitlement submission fulfills both the City's and the developer's
expectations and goals. We have accordingly recommended a two -stage review process at the Preliminary Review and Final
Design Review (with an option for an intermediate stage if desired). Our process for evaluating development proposals at
each stage is described in more detail in Section B.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 1
A. Introduction
KICK-OFF TOUR
Prior to engaging in design review on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita, we
recommend a half -day to one -day tour of recently built work with City staff,
potentially including a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and/or City
Council. The purpose of this tour is to ensure that the PlaceWorks team has a clear
understanding of the City's expectations for quality development by seeing finished
projects in the city and discussing what makes these projects successful, where the
review process improved the project, where the design fell short of expectations,
and what unforeseen issues the project encountered.
h " — Such a tour can be a useful tool to establish a baseline for future projects and their
design review. We expect that City staff will assist in organizing this tour by
identifying illustrative projects in Santa Clarita to visit (both the successes and
disappointments) and arranging any necessary clearances with property owners if
the project is not mostly visible from public streets. PlaceWorks will assist in
-- identifying other nearby projects and will provide a script of questions to elicit
discussion about the projects.
2 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
w
i
q
R
ak
AT
.,
r `�•a.� � /' ,1N ,► - . � ' 1.
B. Plan of Study/Scope of Work
TASK A. REVIEW OF CITY CAPITAL PROJECTS AND CITY -ASSISTED PROJECTS
TASK B. REVIEW OF APPLICANT PROJECTS
TASK C. AS -NEEDED COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETINGS
The work associated with Tasks A, B and C, as described in the RFQ, are generally similar and related. For example, attendance
at Planning Commission or City Council meetings (Task C) in support of a design review analysis could be needed in
conjunction with design review work for either Task A or B. Likewise, the design review approach and outputs will generally
be the same for City Capital Projects, City -Assisted Projects, or Applicant -Initiated Projects. We have accordingly described
our approach to these three tasks in a single set of subtasks, as described below.
SUBTASK 1. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Preliminary Review is perhaps the most important stage of
project review. At Preliminary Review the project team
should still be exploring alternatives and evaluating various
design concepts. Critical design decisions —such as where the
building is taller versus shorter, the location of the primary
entry, the driveway location, the position of utility rooms or
loading docks, and in some cases, even the density and use
mix —should still be up for discussion at this stage of review.
Preliminary Review provides an opportunity for the City to
offer advice and opinions on these substantive design issues when such input can be easily acted upon without incurring
significant redesign costs. This stage of design review should correspond with a concurrent review by other departments and
divisions in the City, such as traffic, transportation, engineering, and fire as well as utility providers. Preliminary Review is the
primary moment when the City ensures that the project is fundamentally consistent with the overall vision described in the
General Plan and Design Guidelines, applicable Specific Plans, and City development standards and will continue to evolve in
a manner consistent with these standards and policy directives.
For Preliminary Review, applicants should submit sketches, diagrams, drawings, plans, 3D models, and crude renderings to
illustrate their design thinking. The submission should include alternatives considered and outline the reasoning why the project
team believes one alternative is the preferred design. Precedent images to illustrate possible aesthetic directions for materials
and architectural style will also be appropriate.
Preliminary Review does not constitute a formal approval or entitlement but does provide the design team with a series of
written recommendations reflecting the City's perspective on the project. For the Preliminary Review, PlaceWorks will produce
a short memorandum describing the project and itemizing a series of recommendations for the design team to explore or
consider as the applicant advances the project. A typical Preliminary Review memo, including any site visit, and preparation of
supporting annotated or redlined drawings, will take approximately 12 to 16 hours for an average -sized and stand-alone
commercial, residential, or mixed -use structure. For larger projects involving multiple buildings and/or subdivision of land,
the review may take up to 24 hours.
It is possible, especially for larger and more complex project types, that either the City or the development team may desire
more than one round of review in this preliminary stage. If so, we will be able to accommodate a secondary design review,
with similar hours and deliverables to the Preliminary Review.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 3
B. Plon of Study/Scope of Work
output.
Memorandum providing project summary, preliminary General Plan and/or Specific Plan and Design Guideline
compliance matrix, and any suggested design modifications in writing (and if necessary, redlined drawings)
Attendance and presentation at Planning Commission or City Council hearing (if necessary)
SUBTASK 2. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW
Final Design Review is the point at which a project is granted official entitlement approval. Following this review stage, most
projects will move quickly into Plan Check with the Building Official. Therefore, Final Design Review generally corresponds to
what architects refer to as "schematic design" and sometimes "50 percent design" development. At this stage of the process,
the applicant team has fully resolved all critical design features —overall density, site plan including lot coverage and site
access, height/massing, parking counts, and internal circulation. Any discretionary approvals that may impact these basic
design features, such as variances or conditional use permits, are likely to have been granted prior to Final Design Review or
are scheduled concurrently with this review. Ideally, projects at this stage have also been reviewed by Public Works and other
relevant departments and should be designed to comply with any conditions of approval imposed by those departments or
prepared to otherwise meet such conditions. Accordingly, Final Design Review consists of an approval of the site plan; site
access; massing, height, and overall building; and materials, finishes, fenestration, and landscape. A careful review of various
character -defining design features will also take place at this stage for material finishes and colors, window specifications,
lighting fixtures / temperatures, and the detailed landscape design. Particularly with minimalist architectural styles, such as
modern or Spanish revival, the application of these details can make or break the impression of quality development.
At this stage of review, applicants will submit project drawings, including renderings, and PlaceWorks' review will consist of
an evaluation of the proposal as a coherent design, including a review of the applicants' response and reaction to
recommendations made at Preliminary Review. PlaceWorks will produce a second memorandum (with supporting annotated
drawings as necessary) summarizing the proposal, recommending approval with conditions or return for redesign. For a
typical single structure project, Final Design Review will take approximately 24 hours. Larger developments composed of
multiple buildings may take up to 36 hours, depending upon the scale of the project.
At the request of the City, PlaceWorks will attend a public hearing with Planning Commission and/or City Council, if necessary,
to present the City's design review analysis. As appropriate, PlaceWorks' memo will be written as a recommended action to
these approving bodies.
output
Memorandum providing project summary, General Plan and/or Specific Plan and Design Guideline compliance
matrix, and recommended conditions of approval (if any) or recommendation for return for redesign (if applicable)
Attendance and presentation at Planning Commission or City Council hearing (if necessary)
4 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
B. Plon of Study/Scope of Work
SUBTASK 3: CONSTRUCTION REVIEW (OPTIONAL)
Despite the best intentions and drawings by architects, many issues arise during
construction that require an adjustment to the approved design. On occasion, such
issues can impact the overall design and may include a modification of
materials/finishes because of a change in available vendors or development of
necessary details that were not anticipated during the design evolution. For more
sophisticated or larger projects, the production of an on -site mock-up to illustrate
and resolve finish applications from subcontractors is often desired by general
contractors and clients. As a result, it is not uncommon for design decisions to be
made during the construction phase.
As an additional services task order and at the request of the City, PlaceWorks can
conduct a site review to evaluate construction progress. We recommend that this
review be scheduled at the time in the construction sequence when subtrades
associated with exterior finishes have been engaged but have not yet made
substantial progress. In short, construction review needs to be scheduled when any
course corrections are easy and inexpensive to make. Typical construction review is
likely to take four hours.
output.•
Construction Site Visit with Applicant Team and City Staff
TASK D. REVIEW/UPDATE OF CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
Apart from the City's General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans, the City's Architectural Design Guidelines serve as the
principal policy document informing the development and design of individual buildings in the City. As the City's experience
with these Guidelines matures, as architectural tastes and technologies evolve, and as State laws restricting the language
permitted in design guidelines change, it is necessary to periodically revisit and amend the City's Architectural Design
Guidelines. PlaceWorks and the team we propose to assign to Santa Clarita have expansive experience preparing and
implementing design guidelines forcities and stand readyto assistthe City in reviewing and updating Santa Clarita'sguidelines
as requested.
SUBTASK 1. SCOPING
If the City of Santa Clarita wishes to engage us in a review and/or update of the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, we
would first require a series of scoping meetings to determine the extent of the desired review and/or update as well as the
required public outreach. As we note in our proposed schedule, a simple text or image revision of the existing Guidelines
might be accomplished within 4 to 6 weeks, with a larger scale update requiring 4 to 6 months, and a full revision of the
Guidelines potentially taking over one year. To ensure both cost containment and schedule, this task will need to start with a
series of scoping meetings.
output..
Detailed scope of work and schedule, including expected review parties
SUBTASK 2. UPDATES
Based on the scope of work and schedule agreed upon in Subtask 1, PlaceWorks will embark upon the desired Guideline
updates.
output.•
Design Guideline updates as detailed in the Subtask 1 scope of work
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 5
B. Plan of Study/Scope of Work
SUIBTASI(3. REVIEW
Based on the scope of work and schedule agreed upon in Subtask 1, PlaceWorks will participate in and respond to comments
in the required review of the Design Guideline updates. This effort will include staff review and any required public
participation, such as Planning Commission review.
Output. -
Participation in staff and public review as agreed upon in the Subtask 1 scope of work
TASK E. OTHER SERVICES AS REQUESTED AND EXCLUDED SERVICES
The proposed scope will provide on -call architectural and urban design services, ensuring compliance with the City's General
Plan, Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, and design guidelines as applicable, described in Tasks A, B, C, and D above. We are
prepared to provide other on -call architectural and urban design services as requested by the City, but our scope explicitly
does not include:
• Compliance review for Affordable Housing Concession Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Variance Permits,
Development Agreements, or other discretionary actions that may be granted to projects by City Council, Planning
Commission, or other authority (except insofar as such permits may have specific conditions related to architectural
design).
■ Compliance review with City of Santa Clarita landscape standards and/or California "Be Water Wise" landscape
standards (unless specifically requested through additional services agreement).
■ Compliance review for conditions imposed by Public Works, Transportation, Engineering, and other City departments/
divisions or by utility providers (water, electrical, sewer, trash).
■ Engineering or plan check analysis.
6 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
� •'� TT M 1 t �' eat�P .. � -� '✓�...__.,,; '�' e - _♦ -
r �� v ` ��-J y ,. rya♦ .. � �.'./�,,�'(L" N+��� '!`� 1't—t_.' �f / �
• � c�Ci ••^'}� �_ .'::, � ems• .—r..� � - d 1;' �``'-----�..
O
1 •
I Rtir• t
1r.VA
1.�.r��t/ i♦p.�a ���IJ t},, f Iwo `K+r'�,�' y..� —��i •^\ �'+' L, ,,� ��J f,r •C�" -� .m .
[�� d. •' k t.a ti �'4- `'�1`' a4:��r,-'}'"�"`• �"°� .,. , '4 G+'t"'- -'fit-.
C. Schedule
TASK A. CITY PROJECTS AND CITY -PARTNERED PROJECTS
The review of City capital projects is one of the more dynamic venues for community building available to local government.
Unlike applicant projects, where the City is usually responding to a development brief generated by property owners, the City
has the opportunity to establish the overall ambitions of its own projects at the outset. As experienced community builders,
the PlaceWorks team would welcome an invitation to participate in early project goal setting for City projects. Depending on
the scope of our involvement in City projects, the schedule could include a series of meetings over a number of months to
assist in evaluating potential sites, crafting "Request for Proposal" language to solicit architecture teams and participating in
working sessions with architects hired to design projects for the City. Accordingly, the schedule of this engagement will be
determined by the City's internal project delivery timeline.
Projects in which the City is a partner, but the project is developed by others, such as affordable housing development, will
likely follow the review path described below for Applicant -Initiated Projects.
TASK B. APPLICANT -INITIATED PROJECTS
We expect that PlaceWorks will receive applicant submissions for design review with a cover letter from City staff, providing
the staff contact, a brief description of the project, additional entitlements requested (if applicable), and an expectation for
comments. Planning staff likely prepares such letters when they route project applications to other departments for review,
and the same transmittal will be sufficient for PlaceWorks to prepare design comments. Upon receipt of the project
application, PlaceWorks will acknowledge the submission and, if necessary, schedule a 30-minute briefing call with the case
planner to discover any background knowledge not included in the transmittal. Useful information for our review could
include knowing if the project is favorable to the City for economic development reasons or if the site has a history of failed
proposals.
We presume that the typical time frame to provide comments to the City's case planner will be three to four weeks. We are
prepared to commit ourselves to a four -week turnaround for comments for both the preliminary plan review and final design
review stages. It is likely, however, that in practice we will deliver comments to the City within two or three weeks.
Additionally, we expect that the occasional project may require an expeditated review in less than four weeks, and we are
prepared to work with the City on these occasions.
TASK C. PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Attendance at a Planning Commission and/or City Council meeting will only occur in conjunction with work associated with
Tasks A, B or D. Accordingly, the schedule for this Task is absorbed within the schedule of those other Tasks. That said, we are
cognizant that hearings by City boards have specific deadlines associated with Brown Act notices, internal City staff review,
and distribution to the board members and the public. We are prepared to work within those deadlines as directed by City
staff.
TASK D. CITY ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
We anticipate that if the City wishes to update or revise its Architectural Design Guidelines, our engagement in this task would
be preceded by a series of conversations to determine the scope of work and schedule. Minor revisions to the Guidelines,
such as text or photo edits can be accomplished within 4 to 6 weeks. However, a full comprehensive audit and update of the
Guidelines may well take 4 to 6 months. In both cases, significant factors in the schedule are the frequency with which staff
reviews interim work and any required public engagement. Our most recent experience suggests that preparing new design
guidelines, with in-depth staff review and meaningful outreach including public hearings, can encompass a full year. Given
this extensive range of timescales, it will clearly be necessary to determine scope with City staff before embarking upon this
task.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 7
C. Schedule
PROPOSED SCHEDULES
TASK PROPOSED WORK PERIOD
Task A. City Capital Projects and City -Assisted Projects 4 weeks (including Task C if requested)
Task B. Review of Applicant Projects 4 weeks (including Task C if requested)
Task D. City Architectural Guideline Update 2 to 12 months, depending on scope and review schedule
8 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
y4tl Ct It LIL III A
8 E w N x L
U Ion IC z
0 U* W MW
" 'KAR.1c WE: HA
L L I 9
' ' r
1' 1 A � C' , C U.
M
5 A 0 I L r 1, 0 S. C
'S "D
i ' '
r. I I. L I I . A � I I
C A L L I qt' T( ,L' S I, � I
'It I A ��A I It
I v I
D. Program Management
Upon receipt of project submittal, Alan Loomis, as principal -in -charge and project manager, will route the submission
internally to supporting PlaceWorks staff as needed. Alan will be responsible for managing their work and the timeliness of
their response.
PlaceWorks maintains an internal workload management database to carefully balance our workload and ensure that
adequate staff, time, and resources are available to complete all projects on schedule. At the end of each week, we forecast
hours by team members for the following week to ensure every project will be adequately staffed. In advance of our weekly
Friday staff meeting, project managers fill in their anticipated staff needs for their projects. During the Friday staff meeting,
the database is projected for all to review and discuss, and hours are adjusted to ensure full staff coverage for each project.
By the end of the meeting, every team member understands exactly what his/her assignments are and how many hours are
allotted for the week.
OUTREACH DURING COVID-19
Review of projects in Santa Clarita are likely to be initiated during the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and stay-at-home orders.
Traditional in -person meetings have been put on hold, forcing us all to adapt to online engagement methods. Fortunately,
PlaceWorks has been perfecting online engagement as a complement to in -person events for many years and in a variety of
settings and methods. The stay -home order will likely transition over the course of this project, changing the threshold of
what is and is not allowed. The PlaceWorks team will work intensively to adapt to these changes, and we are prepared for
any and all outcomes. Since March 15, 2020, we quickly and efficiently adopted virtual methods of engagement to allow a
wide range of planning projects to progress. The PlaceWorks team is prepared to address all challenges to outreach posed by
COVID-19 and will continue to stay apprised of outreach needs and methods as rules and guidance evolve from our public
health officials.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 9
D. Program Management
This page intentionally left blank.
10 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
,
_ 1
y
R
! r�
�i � f .�•� a� 1 rr .M 'f �:',
^
. �e# �,�� t �� ��:. y "'�f. ate: •
t
a
1
I
T01V
ENTER pl�j , ,
L2
0
E. Personnel
Mlt
PlaceWorks is a California S-corporation serving clients nationwide but primarily those throughout California. The firm
employs approximately 120 staff members in six offices and serves both public- and private -sector clients in the fields of
comprehensive planning, urban design, landscape architecture, environmental analysis and sciences, and GIS.
Communities don't stand still. As they grow and change, they need to balance diverse interests: the physical with the social,
the governmental and economic with the environmental. PlaceWorks works with communities to design strong, sustainable
futures. We are committed to collaboration across disciplines, workable solutions, and creating better places for people to
live. We craft forward -thinking, inventive solutions around long-term consequences. Our talented, multidisciplinary team
thrives on tackling complex problems and provides creativity grounded in research and systems -based thinking. Our services
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Design
■ Design Review Services
■ Design Standards and Guidelines
■ Zoning and Form -Based Code
■ Downtown Visioning and Design
■ Transit -Oriented Design
■ Corridor Planning & Design
■ Urban Infill Design
■ Site Planning
■ Large -Scale Planning and Design
■ Strategic Planning and Design
Landscape Architecture
• Urban Agriculture & Urban Forestry
■ Streetscape Design
■ Open Space Planning/Design
■ Parks and Trails Planning
■ Evidence -Based Design
■ Storm Water Management Design
Community Planning
■ Community Engagement
■ Comprehensive Planning, including
General Plans and Specific Plans
■ Zoning and Form -Based Code
■ Housing Research and Analysis
■ Transit -Oriented Development Planning
■ Corridor Planning
■ Infill Planning and Design
■ Climate Adaptation/Resiliency Planning
■ Healthy Community Planning
■ Active Transportation Planning
■ Environmental Justice
■ Transferable Development Rights
■ Municipal Services
• Geographic Information Systems
■ Creative Media
Economics
• Market/Fiscal Analysis
■ Economic Development Planning
• Site Selection
■ Feasibility Studies
Environmental Services
■ CEQA/NEPA Documentation
• Third -Party Peer Review
■ Technical Studies:
— Air Quality
— Greenhouse Gases
— Noise/Vibration
— Health Risk Assessment
— Hydrology/Water Quality
— Site Assessment
— Visual Impact Analysis
■ Environmental Site Investigation
We maintain six offices throughout the state, and our corporate office is in Santa Ana, California. Work for this project will be
led and predominantly staffed by team members in our Downtown LA office, with support from our Santa Ana and Berkeley
offices.
LOS ANGELES
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles CA 90017
213.623.1443
CENTRAL COAST
PO Box 1316
San Luis Obispo CA 93406
619.299.2700
ORANGE COUNTY HEADQUARTERS
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana CA 92707
714.966.9220
INLAND EMPIRE
2850 Inland Empire BI., Suite B
Ontario CA 91764
909.989.4449
BAY AREA
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley CA 94704
510.848.3815
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 215
Folsom CA 95630
916.245.7500
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 11
E. Personnel
URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING
Comprehensive planning, infill development, adaptive reuse, redesign of circulation, open spaces, architectural and urban
design —all require balancing a variety of complex issues to achieve design quality while ensuring financial feasibility. Good
ideas remain ideas unless they can be implemented, yet good planning does not have to be expensive. We find solutions that
achieve urban form and character that is right for an area and is cost efficient. In an era of constrained financing solutions,
we consider the multiple benefits that can be accomplished with each investment, from simple fagade enhancements to
repurposing street rights -of -way. Our experience with both public and private sectors gives us direct knowledge of the
developer perspective coming out of recessions and the preference of site configurations that can be explored with the
community and tested throughout the process.
To successfully create an urban environment requires an in-depth understanding of both land use planning and design. Our
approach to urban design is enhanced by an expert understanding of transit -oriented development, downtown revitalization,
and corridor planning. We integrate cohesive transit and streetscape networks with their surrounding neighborhoods,
buildings, open spaces, and public facilities —all while maintaining each community's unique character.
Many of our larger master/specific planning efforts include city- or county -owned properties as catalysts for economic
development within a larger area. Working with municipalities, we plan and design city -owned facilities that provide the
desired uses, structures, circulation, and programming needed by the client, but that also fit within and connect to the
surrounding neighborhood.
■ PlaceWorks is at the forefront of developing innovative, integrated, and web -based general plans. Our 44 years of
experience have resulted in more than 100 completed general plans, including numerous award -winning plans, such as
the web -based San Bernardino Countywide Plan, the Temple City 2050 Mid -Century Plan, and the El Monte General Plan.
• We have prepared well over 350 specific plans, overlay zones, and strategic plans over the past 40 years. Add to that
the dozens of plans some team members have prepared prior to joining the firm. Our planning, design, and
environmental team work together to ensure that plans are designed to avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts.
We can create land use concepts that mitigate potential impacts, which helps reduce costs forthe city and future project
applicants in the project area.
■ We offer deep knowledge and insight on TOD and station area planning projects. Our team members have worked on
numerous such projects throughout California, giving us an unparalleled depth of knowledge of the ingredients required
for successful implementation. These include the Jefferson -La Cienega TOD Plan, Historic Downtown Upland Specific
Plan, Warner Center 2035 Plan, and the APA-award-winning Laguna Niguel Gateway Specific Plan (TOD for Metrolink
station area in southern Orange County).
■ PlaceWorks is on the forefront of transit corridor planning and has conducted numerous corridor plans for
municipalities throughout California. Highlights of PlaceWorks' work on transit corridors in Southern California include
the Artesia Corridor Specific Plan in Gardena, the SCAG Compass Blueprint Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan in
Santa Ana, the SCAG Compass Blueprint Los Alamitos Commercial Corridors in Los Alamitos, and the SCAG Compass
Blueprint Arrow Highway Corridor (for eight linear miles in the San Gabriel Valley through the cities of Azusa, Baldwin
Park, Covina, Glendora, and Irwindale and the County of Los Angeles).
■ PlaceWorks' station area and corridor plans, as well as our general and specific plans, all strive to incorporate
multimodal planning through complete street design. We prioritize planning for people by addressing access,
circulation, and amenities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit users.
■ When preparing design guidelines, PlaceWorks' landscape architects and urban designers focus on the necessary
design components to create or preserve good urban fabric and encourage high -quality building design. We address
the broader issues such as building massing, rhythm, and setback as well as more detailed criteria such as signage,
fenestration, and lighting to ensure that consistent, yet flexible standards guide future development.
12 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
RECENT RELEVANT PROJECTS
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN REVIEW
PlaceWorks assisted city staff with design review for six blocks in the Village
Neighborhood District of the Waterfront District Master Plan area, a new mixed -
use neighborhood planned for residential and commercial uses around a planned
Amtrak stop and ferry terminal. Development is regulated by a form -based code
adopted in 2008 and amended in 2012 and 2016. It is intended to be a pedestrian -
oriented housing area whose character is derived from the city's industrial past.
PlaceWorks was engaged to review development submittals to ensure high quality
architectural design, streetscapes, and open spaces.
E. Personnel
.,._�.z. .mom.... -
.1 h
The first project, called "Block N," is a 162-unit apartment building between John.M.,....,..«
Muir Parkway and a natural creek open space area. It includes retail at the ground r,\ WESTSIDE ELEVATION
floor and a set of 10 townhomes along the creek. PlaceWorks Principal Bruce
Brubaker, a registered architect, reviewed project submittals for completeness, attended meetings with applicant and staff,
analyzed the submittal for conformity to the form -based code, and provided guidance to staff and the applicant on
architectural issues. We also reviewed drawings for site landscape issues and compliance with environmental mitigations.
The applicant revised the submittal according to input, and the project was approved by the Hercules Planning Commission
in May 2017. Since the Block N project was approved, PlaceWorks has reviewed subsequent projects for Blocks Q and R in
2018 and Blocks M, 0, and P in 2019.
GLENDALE DESIGN REVIEW
To encourage new development in Glendale in the wake of the recession, an
ordinance was adopted to streamline project permits in two redevelopment
areas —the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan and the San Fernando Road
Redevelopment Corridor. The ordinance consolidated all discretionary review
under the city council/redevelopment agency, with advice and recommendations
from the city's urban designers. This eliminated advisory review by the city's
appointed design review board and planning commission and granted the city's
urban designers' significant authority to interpret design guidelines and steer new
projects toward hearings with the city council.
As principal urban designer for Glendale, PlaceWorks' Alan Loomis was responsible for design review of approximately 5,000
units of urban housing and over 750,000 square feet of commercial space, providing design direction to architects through
the submittal process. This included preparing written criticism and recommendations to the city council and redevelopment
agency regarding work by architects such as Architects Orange, KTGY, Studio One Eleven, and Gensler.
When Alan was promoted to deputy director, he assumed management oversight of staff responsible for Glendale's historic
preservation commission and design review board in addition to his continued role supervising design review for city -council -
approved projects. In this capacity, he also led the creation of the Glendale's first citywide design guidelines (adopted in
2011).
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 13
E. Personnel
PASADENA DESIGN REVIEW
Pasadena is well known for quality architecture and development grounded in a
tradition of historic preservation, thoughtful planning, and civic activism.
PlaceWorks' Alan Loomis served on the city's nine -member design commission,
which reviews proposals in all six of the specific plan areas covering most of
Pasadena's mixed -use commercial zones and multifamily zones and is responsible
for historic preservation issues in the Central District Specific Plan. The commission
has broad authority over development and is often the only discretionary review
authority required of a project.
Alan served two consecutive three-year appointments until termed out in 2020, including a year as commission chair, and
volunteered for a variety of commission subcommittees. During his tenure, the commission reviewed some very large and
consequential projects —the 6.5-acre, 400-unit, mixed -use development on the Parsons' parking lots adjacent to Old
Pasadena; the 8.5-acre, 550-unit "Space Bank" on Foothill Boulevard in East Pasadena; remodeling proposals for the Paseo
Colorado mixed -use mall and the Kaiser Permanente Medical School; and expansion plans at EF Academy, the Art Center,
and Caltech.
THE VILLAGE AT LAGUNA HILLS
The nearly shuttered, 68-acre Laguna Hills Mall is proposed for an urban mixed -use development by Merlone Geier Partners.
The proposed project has 1,500 residential units, 465,000 square feet of office, 250,000 square feet of new retail, and a 150-
room hotel designed with an internal Main Street component and in a walkable pattern of new blocks connecting to
surrounding arterial roadways. Not only is this project the largest infill opportunity in this built -out community, but the former
mall was a popular community gathering place. It is absolutely imperative that this project "get it right." However, the work
of three different architects had been stitched together into an overall site plan. The city asked PlaceWorks to lead the reviews
of the site plan, architectural design, and landscape design according to our professional expertise and for consistency with
an existing, 20-year-old specific plan.
PlaceWorks commented on the overall site plan to refine right-of-way design, parking, building placement and orientation,
pedestrian/bicycle connectivity, the design of the village square, gateways/corner treatments, placement of public and
private open space, and connectivity to
adjacent off -site uses. For architecture,
PlaceWorks reviewed and commented ..,...,.
on fagade design, corner elements, _
ti l
massing, modulation, color, windows,
entry design, solar control, pedestrian
-
i-
access, amenity spaces, and signage.
The review of landscape design focused
on ensuring consistency with the F' I ys' s :; �—g3" X'
specific plan's tree and plant selection
and planting pattern, with the ultimate — � . *. • . ;
goal of creating a comfortable walking
environment. PlaceWorks also provided
direction and peer review of the CEQA
component and overall application
process.
�.� a �� THE VILLAGE A.T LAi_ I IJ ,HILLS . ' SD
.. ram,. 9.03
14 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
E. Personnel
CITY OF WILDOMAR ON -CALL SERVICES
PlaceWorks serves as staff to the city's planning department at all levels —from
intake through senior staff. We provide information to staff and the public on
planning issues that involve interpretation of city ordinances, architectural review
of projects, preparation of CEQA documents, and management of other '' 0 f" rsi
consultants. As an extension of staff, we work in the city office with the city's team
to provide information to residents. We also prepare a �.. .
P p pa e staff reports and
presentations for the planning commission, city council, and other city committees.
This role includes preparing CEQA documents such as environmental impact
reports and initial studies, assisting with grant applications and reports, and any 1
other planning -related duties requested, including design review. °', r
As part of these services PlaceWorks developed the Wildomar Multifamily Residential Design Standards and Guidelines to
provide developers, builders, and architects with a clearstatement of the desired architectural and site design characteristics
for new multifamily residential development in Wildomar. Designed to comply with recent state legislation mandating
objective standards for residential projects, the standards and guidelines establish a strong, consistent design image and
direction that reflect the desires, aspirations, and vision of the Wildomar community.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 15
E. Personnel
OUR TEAM
For the City of Santa Clarita, PlaceWorks' design review team will be led by Alan Loomis AICP, working from our Downtown
Los Angeles office. An award -winning urban designer and educator with 25 years of experience, Alan recently joined
PlaceWorks following a three-year tenure at the City of Santa Monica, where he served as city urban designer and helped
lead Promenade 3.0, a strategic design plan to re -envision the iconic Third Street Promenade.
Before Santa Monica, Alan led the urban design program for the City of Glendale for 12 years, starting in 2005 as the city's
first on -staff urban designer. Holding the title Principal Urban Designer, Alan was responsible for bringing the Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP) and Mobility Study to adoption; personally managing the design review for over 20 new downtown
projects, representing over 3,000 new residences; and additional projects at the Disney/DreamWorks creative campus and
in the Tropico District surrounding Glendale's Metrolink/Amtrak station, working with some of the most prolific and
prominent architects and developers in the region during regular, often weekly, design sessions.
While at Glendale, Alan also engaged the city council in a series of study sessions to produce a comprehensive overhaul of
the city's design review process and procedures. The end result was the consolidation of five disparate documents into a
single Citywide Design Guidelines structure, adopted in 2011.Organized around three major topic areas —Site Planning, Mass
and Scale, and Design and Detailing —this framework helped focus both staff evaluations and Design Review Board decisions,
providing consistency to the city's highly charged design review process. Substantially updated in 2016 to 2018 as part of the
South Glendale Community Plan, Glendale's Citywide Design Guidelines nonetheless established a template followed by a
variety of Southern California cities, including West Hollywood and El Monte.
Alan's tenure in Glendale also included engagement with a variety of City -initiated developments. From scoping potential
sites and projects, preparing RFPs, evaluating proposals from architects, to serving as the design lead on the client team,
Alan's position as chief Urban Designer touched multiple points across numerous capital projects. Among these are the key
anchors of the Artsakh Art and Entertainment District, including the Museum of Neon Art, Central Park Master Plan, Central
Library renovation, and the ACE121 affordable artist colony (a partnership between the City's Housing Authority, Glendale
YMCA, and Meta Housing). Beyond the downtown, Alan's experience included evaluation and design review on various City -
sponsored affordable housing projects as well as development on City -owned sites such as the Montrose TraderJoe's. Alan
brings this deep understanding of community building from inside City Hall to our Santa Clarita team.
In 2014 Alan was appointed to the City of Pasadena Design Commission. During his six -year service to Pasadena, the
commission reviewed and approved a number of transformative projects, including 100 West Walnut (the Parsons campus
expansion), 3200 E Foothill (Space Bank site), Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine, and the Paseo Colorado mixed-
use/hotel expansion. As both a former commissioner and city staff planner, Alan is careful to prepare design policies,
guidelines, or recommended conditions of approval with a focus on usability and practicality.
Alan will serve as the City of Santa Clarita's primary contact, project manager, and on -call urban designer. We anticipate that
the majority of design review memorandums and annotated redline drawings will be prepared by Alan directly. Alan will be
supported by additional PlaceWorks staff as needed, including Managing Principal Karen Gulley, Principal Bruce Brubaker
LEES AP and CA Registered Architect, Associate Principal/licensed landscape architect Scott Ashlock ASLA, and Associate Yue
Zhang.
Our team at PlaceWorks is ideally suited to provide design review services to the City of Santa Clarita. We have experience
working with and for both private developers and public agencies. Our statewide presence gives us a broad perspective on
development trends and practices. Finally, our in-house team includes landscape architects, architects, and urban designers,
providing the City with a single consultant to turn to for all design review tasks outlined under the Qualifications Request as
well as a capacity to "scale up" to accommodate other tasks as desired by the City.
Resumes of our staff are provided on the following pages
16 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
ALAN LOOMIS, AiCP
Principal, Urban Design
Alan Loomis, AICP, is an award -winning urban designer, planner and educator. As
EDUCATION
Principal of Urban Design in PlaceWorks' downtown LA office, Alan is responsible for
leadingour regional urban design practice while lam a role in projects throughout
g g p playing g p J g
" MA, Architecture, Southern California
California.
Institute of Architecture
» BA, Religious Studies/Theology,
From 2017 to 2020 Alan was the city urban designer for Santa Monica, California,
University of Detroit, Mercy
where he was the city's lead for Promenade 3.0, a vision plan to comprehensively
redesign the iconic Third Street Promenade. Before Santa Monica, Alan led the urban
CERTIFICATIONS
design program in the City of Glendale for 12 years. Starting in 2005 as the first on -
staff urban designer, and later as deputy director of the Community Development
» American Institute of Certified
Department, he built an award -winning urban design team that managed design
Planners #027723
review, historic preservation, citywide planning, and mobility programs.
Alan taught urban design at Woodbury University School of Architecture and co-
AFFILIATIONS
edited Los Angeles: Building the Polycentric Region, a survey of regional smart growth
» American Planning Association
practices. He created the DeliriousLA list of Los Angeles area architecture and urban
» Los Angeles Forurn for Architecture
design events, now crrated by the Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban
and Urban Design
Design, and is a frequent speaker and tour guide on urbanism and Los Angeles.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE*
LEADERSHIP & COMMUNITY
» Los Alamitos Town Center Strategic Plan � Los Alamitos CA
Board of Advisors (2019—Present),
» San Bernardino Downtown Specific Plan ( San Bernardino CA
Woodbury University School of
» Temecula Objective Design Standards I Temecula CA
Architecture
» Menifee Objective Design Standards I Menifee CA
a Commission Chair (2016-17),
The Ontario Plan I Ontario CA
Pasadena Design Review Commission
» South Pasadena General Plan Update I South Pasadena CA
»Member (2014—Present), Pasadena
» Modelo Specific Plan I Commerce CA
Review
Design Review Commission
» City of Eastvale 2040 General Plan Update EIR I Eastvale CA
Juror , "LA Lights the Way"
020), "CompeA Li
City of Fountain Valley 2040 General Plan Update and EIR I Fountain Valley CA
Design for City of Los
SB 2 Planning Grant Program Technical Assistance for the California Department
Angeles
of Housing & Community Development I Statewide
„Member (2017-18) Glendale Arts
» City of Glendora Meda Avenue Plaza I Glendora CA
F Task Master Plan
Task Force
» City of Livermore General Plan Update, Housing Element Update, and EIR I
» Member ( Pasadena Civic
Livermore CA
Center Task Force
PRIOR EXPERIENCE Team member since 2020
» Promenade 3.0, Vision Plan I Santa Monica CA
» South Glendale Community Plan, Comprehensive General Plan Policies and
Design Guidelines I Glendale CA
» Tropico Station Transit Oriented District, Zoning Code & Design Guidelines I Glendale CA
» Space 134 Vision Plan, 25-acre Freeway Cap Park I Glendale CA
Harvard -Louise Green Streets I Glendale CA
» Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance and Design Guidelines I Glendale CA
» Central Park Strategic Master Plan I Glendale CA
» Downtown Art & Entertainment District, Focused Implementation Plan I Glendale CA
North Glendale Community Plan, Comprehensive General Plan Policies and
Design Guidelines I Glendale CA
» Glendale Downtown Mobility Study, Comprehensive Transit, Parking, and
Transportation Plan I Glendale CA �y� p
» Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, Urban Design Plan, Guidelines, and Zoning ®PLACE W ®INKS
Standards Glendale CA
» Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, Transit -Oriented District I Santa Clarita CA
» North Montclair Specific Plan, Transit -Oriented District I Montclair CA
» Azusa General Plan and Development Code, Comprehensive Update I Azusa CA
» Azusa Station/Civic Center, Transit District Planning Guidelines & Master Plan I Azusa CA
PUBLICATIONS
» "The Americana at Brand," in SAH Archipedia, University of Virginia Press, 2018
» "Panel: Dingbat as an Urban Typology," in Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Las Angeles
Apartment as Projection of o Metropolis, Doppelhouse Press, 2016
ALAN LOOMIS » `Streetscapes," Form & Landscape, online "Pacific Standard Time" exhibit at pstp.
edison.com, May 2013
Principal, Urban Design » "Glendale's Downtown Specific Plan," in Planning Los Angeles, Planners Press, 2012
aloomis@placeworl<s.com » "The Once and Future Mall," Forum Annual 2004, LA Forum for Architecture &
Urban Design, 2004
» "Down by the River," orcCA 4.03, Winter 2003/04
» "Urban Paranoia," loudpapervolume 3, issue 3, February 2000
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
PANELS / LECTURES / CONFERENCES
» "Objective Design —: A New Oxymoron?" panel I APA Orange County, May 2021
"City of Gardens" panel for 2016 APA California Conference, Pasadena CA
» "Beyond the Freeway" panel for 2016 APA California Conference, Pasadena CA
» "Laboratory for Modernity, Los Angeles, 1940-1990" for Pacific Standard Time
Presents, Pasadena CA, 2013
» "New Urbanism and the Comprehensive Plan" panel at 2008 APA National
Conference, Las Vegas NV
» "Creating Form -Based Comprehensive Plans" panel at 2008 16th Congress for
New Urbanism, Austin TX
"Implementing Form -Based Codes" panel at 2007 15th Congress for New
Urbanism, Philadelphia PA
» "The Dilemma of Density" at 2005 11th Biennial Conference on Planning History,
Coral Gables FL
"Corridors: The Urban Design Challenge" panel at 2005 13th Congress for New
Urbanism, Pasadena CA
VIDEO / RADIO / PODCASTS
» "Human City," podcast, December 17, 2020
» Radio: "Promenade 3.0" appearance on DnA: Design and Architecture, KCRW
89.9 fm, September 3, 2019
» Podcast: "Archinect Next Up: Arroyo Seco Weekend," June 24, 2017
» Radio: 'A park on top of a freeway?" appearance on Take Two, KPCC 89.3 I'm,
March 15, 2016
» Podcast: "Curating the City: Urban Designer Alan Loomis on Archinect Sessions
One -to -One #12," February 22, 2016
» Video: "UNIQLO LA: Urban Designer Alan Loomis" interview for UNIQLO, July 7, 2014
» Video: "Take a Stroll in a Park, a Freeway Park" appearance on Good Day LA, Fox
11 News, April 4, 2013
AWARDS
> 2018 LA Conservancy Preservation Award I Glendale Central Library Renovation
» 2017 APWA Southern California Chapter B.E.S.T "Project of the fear" Award
Harvard -Louise Green Streets
» 2016 ASLA Southern California Merit Award I Space 134 Vision Plan
» 2015 APACA and APACA Los Angeles Section, Implementation Award of
Excellence, Large Jurisdiction I DSP/Mobility Study
» 2014 APA California, Distinguished Leadership Award —Public Agency I Glendale
Community Development Department
» 2014 APACA Los Angeles Section, Urban Design Merit Award I Space 134 Vision Plan
» 2013 Westside Urban Forum Design Award I Space 134 Vision Plan
2012 Metro TOD Planning Grant, Round 2 1 Tropico Station TOD Plan
» 2012 SCAG Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project Grant I Space 134 Vision Plan
KAREN GU LLEY
Managing Principal, Design
Karen has a talent for strategy and innovative problem solving that has been honed
EDUCATION
by 25 years of experience. Her skill with all facets of comprehensive planning and
design for private and public sector clients expands the opportunities for creative
BA, Economics, University of
solutions. She has led six general plans, including for the cities of La Palma, Rancho
California, Santa Cruz
Cucamonga, and Temecula; more than forty specific plans, including the MCAS Tustin
» Masters Program, Urban &Regional
Specific Plan/Reuse Plan and Harmony Specific Plan for Lewis Corporation and the
Planning, California State Polytechnic
County of Orange; dozens of long-range conceptual plans for transit -readiness, and
University, Pomona (all but thesis)
vision plans to reposition large areas within Carson, Yorba Linda, and Brea. Her deep
understanding of the real estate and development fields inform all facets of her
CERTIFICATIONS
public -sector projects —master plans, transit plans, conceptual design studies and
» Certificates from the International
park plans, coding, design guidelines, and implementation programs.
Association for Public Participation
Karen has extensive experience in developing community participation programs and
— Planning for Effective Public
Participation
facilitating public meetings and workshops. She is adept at establishing a rapport with
— Strategies for Dealing with
her audience and communicating complex and often controversial issues clearly and
Opposition and Outrage in Public
accurately. She provides expertise in project visioning and implementation, project
Participation
processing, negotiating conditions of approval, responding to political considerations,
and handling communication between stakeholders.
AFFILIATIONS
As Principal, Karen is responsible for leading a team of people and projects within » Arnerican Planning Association
the Community Planning & Design Team and maintaining quality control, Karen's » Urban Land Institute
strengths include handling the day-to-day management of large project teams, where — National Urban Revitalization
information sharing, issue management, problem solving, and policy development Product Council
require extensive coordination. She is responsive to client needs and desires on — Women's Leadership Initiative for
a project, and is dedicated to ensuring that the project stays on track and within District Chapter
budget.
Team member since 1991
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
TRANSIT PLANNING/TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
» Metro Transit to Parks Strategic Plan I Los Angeles County CA
» Metro Green Line Extension I Norwalk CA
» West Carson Specific Plan I County of Los Angeles CA
» Irwindale TOD Specific Plan I Irwindale CA
» Morena Boulevard TOD Specific Plan I San Diego CA
» Bellflower Station TOD Specific Plan I Bellflower CA
» Bellflower Station Design Study I Bellflower CA
CORRIDOR PLANNING
» Beach Boulevard Specific Plan I Anaheim, CA
» Harbor Boulevard Specific Plan I Santa Ana CA
Midtown Corridor Specific Plan I Long Beach CA
» Katella and Los Alamitos Boulevard Corridor Plan I Los Alamitos CA
» Corridor revitalization: planning and implementation projects for the cities of
Glendora, Covina, Azusa, San Dimas, Irwindale, and Chino as part of SCAG's
Compass Blueprint Demonstration Program
@D PLACEWORKS
INFILL & REDEVELOPMENT
Brea Core Visioning and Specific Plan I Brea CA
» CollegeTown Specific Plan I Fullerton CA
» Crafton Hills College Village Plan I Yucaipa CA
» Mixed Use Overlay Zones I Anaheim CA
» Stanton Plaza Specific Plan I Stanton CA
» Prospect Village, Downtown Tustin Redevelopment I Tustin CA
KAREiV GULLEY URBAN PLANNING
» Southeast Area Specific Plan I Long Beach CA
Managing Principal, Design » Advanced Technology Education Park (XI EP) Framework Plan I Tustin CA
kgulley@placeworks.com » Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Update I Tustin CA
» Carson Vision Plan I Carson CA
» Savi Ranch Vision Plan I Yorba Linda CA
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
» WRCOG Economic Development and Sustainability Framework Plan I Western
Riverside County CA
» Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update and EIR I Rancho Cucamonga CA
» Economic Development Strategic Plan I San Bernardino County CA
» Fontana General Plan Update & Zoning Code Consistency Program I Fontana CA
» Temecula Inaugural General Plan Update and EIR I Temecula CA
LARGE-SCALE LAND PLANNING
MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan I Tustin CA
Harmony Specific Plan I Highland CA
» DeAnza Special Study, Mission Bay I San Diego CA
» Kennecott Master Plan I Salt Lake County UT
» Centennial Specific Plan, Tejon Ranch I Los Angeles County CA
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
» Tustin Legacy Master Developer I Tustin and Irvine CA
» Villages of Columbus Planning & Entitlements, MCAS Tustin I Tustin CA
» Moffett Meadows Design & Processing I Irvine CA
ARTICLES
"Repositioning Urban Corridors to Attract New Residential and Commercial
Markets," Urban Land, 2010
"Sowing the Seeds of Regional Planning," Urban Land, 2007
"Reshaping the American Commercial Strip," Urban Design Group Journal, Winter
2003
SPEAKING
» "Guiding Infill Development: What Planning Commissioners Need to Know" I OC
Association of Planning Officials Forum, 2016
» "Got a College? New Town/Gown/Industry Collaboration" 1201.5 APACA State
Conference; 2015 WRCOG Visioning Workshop
» "Effective Elements of Corridor Planning" I APA San Diego Chapter, 2013
AWARDS
» 2015 Transportation Planning Award of Merit, APACA Orange Section I Fullerton
College Connector (Streetcar) Study)
» 2013 Best of the Best Award, ULI Orange County/Inland Empire I WRCOG
Sustainability Framework
» 2009 Compass Blueprint Achievement Award in Prosperity, SCAG I Coachella's
South East SOI Sustainability Project
BRUCE BRUBAKER, LEED AP
Principal, California Licensed Architect
Bruce has spent over 25 years shepherding urban design and architecture projects EDUCATION
from conceptual designs through construction for public, commercial, and
residential projects. His work has ranged in scale from regional blueprint plans to " Master of Architecture, University of
detailed multimodal street design projects. He is very interested in the middle scale California, Berkeley
of station area plans, downtown plans, and neighborhood plans, and he brings his » Residential Course, International
understanding of the very small and the very big to the careful, complicated work of Laboratory for Architecture and
developing visions that generate excitement while being feasible in the real world. Urban Design, Siena, Italy
Bruce is well known for innovative planning and design work on transit -oriented » BS, Architecture, California
development projects in northern and southern California, and he is an accomplished Polytechnic State University, San Luis
practitioner of the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Obispo
(CPTED).
Bruce applies sustainable design principles to architectural projects that include
REGISTRATIONS
energy efficiency, use of renewable and recycled materials,' and healthy building
» California Licensed Architect
principles. In addition, he is a highly collaborative facilitator and has successfully
#C22756
forged consensus in numerous public workshop settings. He is certified as a
charrette planner by the National Charrette Institute and has led several projects
incorporating multiday design charrettes for local and regional governments. Priorto
CERTIFICATIONS
joining PlaceWorks, Bruce was an associate with the architecture and urban design
» Leadership in Energy and
firm Lyndon/Buchanan Associates and had his own practice, Yellow Studio, focused
Environmental Design Accredited
on sustainable design.
Professional
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE AFFILIATIONS
TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
» US Green Building Council
» Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan, Millbrae CA
» Urban Land Institute
» Ventura/kings Canyon Corridor Revitalization Project, Fresno County CA
» Congress for the New Urbanism
Gilroy High -Speed Rail Station Area Plan, Gilroy CA
» Bergamot Area Plan, Santa Monica CA
Team member since 2006
Fresno Southwest Specific Plan and Program EIR, Fresno CA
» West Downtown Walnut Creek Specific Plan and EIR, Walnut Creek CA
» Antelope Crossing Transformation Project, Citrus Heights CA
» Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan and EIR, East Palo Alto CA
» Hillsdale Station Area Plan, San Mateo CA
» Upland Downtown Specific Plan, Upland CA
» Southeast Greenway GPA, Rezoning, and EIR, Santa Rosa CA
» Bay Fair BART Station Area Improvement Plan, San Leandro CA
» Area Two Concept Plan, Newark CA
» Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, Santa Rosa CA
DOWNTOWN, NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AREA PLANS
» Ceres Downtown Specific Plan and EIR, Ceres CA
» West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan, Seaside CA
» San Antonio Precise Plan, Mountain View CA
» Suisun City Development Feasibility Analysis, Suisun City CA
» Kentfield College Avenue Vision Plan, Kentfield CA
» Point Arena Action Plan, Mendocino County CA
@D PLACEWORKS
» Southwest Chico Neighborhood Plan, Chico CA
» California Avenue Master Plan, Fresno CA
» Downtown Gilroy High -Speed Rail Station Area Plan, Gilroy CA
» Laytonville Traffic Calming and Downtown Revitalization: Planning for a Livable
Community, Mendocino County CA
COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN AND MULTIMODAL PLANNING
» Central County Complete Streets, Alameda County CA
» MTC West San Carlos Master Streetscape Plan, San Jose CA
BRUCE BRUBAKER » Harrison Street Corridor Plan, Oakland CA
Principal » City of Alameda Community -Based Transportation Plan, Alameda CA
bbrubal<er@placeworks.com » Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Plan, Santa Rosa CA
» Regional Blueprint Planning Public Involvement and Outreach, Mendocino CA
» Palm Springs Airport Shuttle Demonstration Project, Palm Springs CA
SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN
» Calpella Community Design Project, Mendocino County CA
» Waterman Gardens Master Planning, San Bernardino CA
» Onizuka AFS Redevelopment Plan, Sunnyvale CA
Davis Tools of Engagement/Concept Plans, Davis CA
» Miraflores Housing Development Site Plan and EIR, Richmond CA
» Integrated Site Development Plan, Petaluma CA
» Downtown Infill Conceptual Building Designs, Lafayette CA
» Marinwood Village Master Plan, San Rafael CA
» Urban Farm Design Service, Treasure Island, San Francisco CA
» Tenaya Lodge Expansion Permitting and Site Planning Services, Mariposa County CA
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
» Menlo Park General Plan and Zoning Update, Menlo Park CA
» Vacaville General Plan Update and EIR,-'Vacaville CA
» Capitola General Plan Update and EIR, Capitola CA
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
» "Not All TODs Are Alike;' 2010 APACA State Conference, Carlsbad CA
AWARDS
» 2011 Comprehensive Planning Award for a Small Jurisdiction, APACA Central
Section, Ceres Downtown Specific Plan
» 2010 SMART Ideas Competition Urban Design Award, AIA Redwood Empire
Chapter and the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, Refarming
Suburbia
» '1010 Focused Issue Planning Award, APACA Northern California Section, Bay Fair
BART Station Area Improvement Plan
» 2008 Merit Award, APACA Northern California Section, Santa Rosa Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan
» 2008 Honor Award, APA California Chapter, California Avenue Master Plan
» 2010 Residential Preservation Award, Berkeley Architectural Heritage
Association, Hurtig House
» 1990 Second Place, St. Vincent's/Silviera Design Competition
» 1991 Honorable Mention, Vietnam Women's Memorial Competition
» 1988 First Place Thomas Church Award, University of California, Berkeley
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY
» Trails for Richmond Action Committee, Vice Chairman
i
SCOTT ASHLOCK, ASLA
Associate Principal
Scott's background in architecture and landscape architecture and his savvy EDUCATION
technological skills make him well versed in the nuts and bolts of design. He is adept
at tackling a variety of complex issues, but his passion lies with landscape architecture » BS, Landscape Architecture, California
and how to address the natural and built environment, from large master -planned State Polytechnic University, Pomona
communities to specific site designs. Scott's interest in exploring communities led
him across the nation and to Europe and the Mediterranean. He uses this experience REGISTRATIONS
to introduce new or different ways of problem solving for designs. He incorporates » Licensed Landscape Architect in
principles of Asian landscape design; drought -tolerant landscapes; California native California, No. 6177
plantings; and demonstration, educational, and healing gardens. His vigorous desire
to expand his knowledge and the multifaceted perspective he gained from other AFFILIATIONS
cultures and cities make his approach to any project exciting and remarkable.
» Urban Land Institute
Scott's skill with Adobe Creative Suite, ArcGIS, AutoCAD, 3DS Max, and SketchUp » American Society of Landscape
has made him a "wearer of many hats." He also has extensive experience handling Architects
construction documents, planting plans, and site designs and has worked with
contractors and crews to ensure that the design intent and vision of a project are
captured. Scott develops creative design solutions and carries them forward from Team member since 2011
concept to project completion. For CEQA/NEPA documentation, he leads his group's
efforts in Visual Impact Analysis, which consists of visual simulations and shade
& shadow and light & glare analyses, with capabilities in drone photography and
videography.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
MASTER PLANS
» Irvine Company Community Master Planning I Irvine CA
» Tesoro Viejo Master Plan I Madera CA
» Skyline Ranch Master Plan I Los Angeles County CA
» Berge Val Vista Master Plan Gilbert AZ
Waterston Master Plan Gilbert AZ
» Brookside Master Plan Walnut CA
» Lost Canyon Master Plan and video modeling simulation I Simi Valley CA
» Daybreak Reno Master Plan and video modeling simulation I Reno NV
» Natomas Meadows Master Plan I Natomas CA
» Hawks Ridge Master Plan I Duvall WA
Tesoro Del Valle Master Plan I Los Angeles County CA
» Mission Bay Park Master Plan Amendment I San Diego CA
» Centennial New Town Master Plan I County of Los Angeles CA
» Newhall Ranch Master Plan I County of Los Angeles CA
» Calimesa Creek Master Plan I Calimesa CA
SPECIFIC PLANS AND OTHER PLANNING SERVICES
» Westminster Mall Specific Plan I Westminster CA
» Millerton Lake Specific Plan I Fresno County CA
» West Ming Specific Plan I Bakersfield CA
» Meadowood Specific Plan I San Diego County CA
» Angels Crossing Specific Plan I Stanislaus County CA
U PLA(_-_'EV,,/0R1(SP
» Butterfield Specific Plan I Banning CA
South West Village Specific Plan I San Diego CA
» NorthLake Specific Plan I Los Angeles County CA
» De Anza Park Revitalization Plan I San Diego CA
» Tesoro Viejo Site Planning I Madera CA
» Greenspot Specific Plan I Highland CA
» CollegeTown Specific Plan Fullerton CA
» French Valley Specific Plan County of Riverside CA
Garrett Ranch Specific Plan Hemet CA
SCOTT ASHLOCK » Mill Creek Specific Plan Chino CA
Associate Principal » Arbor Vista Specific Plan Temecula CA
sashlock@piaceworks.com » Renaissance Specific Plan Rialto CA
Seven Oaks Business Park Design Guidelines I Bakersfield CA
» March Airforce Base Joint Powers Association Design Charrette Riverside CA
» Carmenita Truck Center Planning Services I Santa Fe Springs CA
» Desert Horizons Community Amenity Planning I Indian Wells CA
CORRIDOR PLANNING AND TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
» San Bernardino Transportation -Oriented Development I San Bernardino CA
Beach Boulevard Corridor Fly -through Model Buena Park CA
» Highland Baseline Corridor Fly -through Model Highland CA
» Harbor Boulevard Corridor Plan and Vision I Santa Ana CA
VISUAL I M PACT ANALYSIS
Yorba Linda High School Pool Lighting I Yorba Linda CA
» The Forum Lighting and View Shed Analysis I Inglewood CA
AWARDS
» 2016 Innovation in Green Community Planning for the Tesoro Viejo Plan I APACA,
Central Section
» 2010 Water Feature Design Competition I Aquatic Technologies
YUE ZHANG
Associate
r
Yue has more than 8 years' experience in site planning and residential design. Her EDUCATION
projects range from large-scale city planning to specific site plan and landscape » MA, Landscape Architecture, Utah
design. Yue is passionate about site planning and how she can help clients and
residents create a sustainable living environment. As a designer at PlaceWorks, Yue is State University
» BEng., Landscape Architecture,
involved in site analysis, design, production, coordination, and submittal processes. Southwest Jiaotong University
She specializes in landscape design, graphics, document design, 3D modeling and
rendering, and lighting analyses.
AFFILIATIONS
Yue participated in the 2020 ULI Technical Assistance Panels. She was the major » American Society of Landscape
research assistant in 2012 Landscape Architecture Foundation Case Study Architects
Investigation Prograrn, in which she evaluated the performance benefits of four
great street projects. During her master program, she presented a feasibility analysis
for using constructed wetland system to treat and reclaim wastewater in City of Team member since 2012
Mount Pleasant, UT. This study will guide the construction of Mount Pleasant city
wastewater treatment facilities.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
» Wildomar Objective Design Standards I Wildomar CA
» Temecula Objective Design Standards I Temecula CA
» The El Camino Plan I Atascadero CA
PA 61 Otay Mesa Landscape Plan I San Diego CA
» THE GROVES at Loma Linda Specific Plan I Loma Linda CA
Solar Array View Simulation I Capistrano Unified School District
Water Tank Shadow Study I Woodside CA
» Newhall Ranch Master Plan I County of Los Angeles CA
CollegeTown Specific Plan I Fullerton CA
» Natomas Residential Design I Sacramento CA
» Skyline Ranch Master Plan I Santa Clarita CA
» Harbor Boulevard Corridor Plan and Vision I Santa Ana CA
» Harmony Specific Plan EIR I Highland CA
Mill Creek Specific Plan I Chino CA
» Ramona Creek Specific Plan I Hemet CA
» Renaissance Rialto Specific Plan I Rialto CA
Tesoro Viejo Master Plan I Madera County CA
» Tesoro Del Valle Master Plan I Santa Clarita CA
» Oxford Place Development I Toronto CA
» Glenwood Housing Foundation Landscape Design I Laguna Beach CA
» Santa Ana High School Lighting Study I Santa Ana CA
» Garey High School Lighting Study I Pomona CA
» Pomona High School Lighting Study I Pomona CA
» Westlake Village Site Plan I Westlake Village CA
Ocean View Hills Site Plan and Landscape Plan I San Diego CA
Strada Verde Innovation Park Specific Plan I Kings County CA
» Southwest Village Specific Plan I San Diego CA
» River Street View Simulation I San Juan Capistrano CA
» Lost Canyon Golf Community Visual Simulation I Simi Valley CA
YUE ZHANG
Associate
yzhang@placeworks.com
PUBLICATIONS
» "On the Research Front: 2012 Landscape Architecture Foundation Case Study
Investigation and the Case of the Streetscape," Conference Notes for Council of
Educators in Landscape Architecture, 2012.
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
"Design of a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Mount
Pleasant, Utah" 12012 Spring Runoff Conference I Logan UT
r
-
x
711
� . � - . � _ram": a� 1�. -'" ay `. '�;► .�- .'R +� � r,� q� � �iL
P
30
IL
+sue - .�. ! y • .r (iri
10
_
• _. L
+
1' t 22
r L1
u
F. Subconsultants
PlaceWorks proposes no subconsultants for this project.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 27
F. Sub Consultonts
This page intentionally left blank.
28 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
r +
s ,
_ •.. Syr «gyp.
�_ .r
WOOD LATICE SCREEN
ON METAL FRAME 4
e O R w re*
IL soft
0"_� \ �e:M10
evw
op
CREEPING VINES GROWING UP
WOOD LATICE SCREEN
AC UNIT BEHIND SCEEN
WOOD LATICE SCREEN
ON METAL FRAME
1� . EXISTING FACIA
EXISTING HEDGES
G. Statement of Offer and Signature
PlaceWorks' proposed contract changes are shown below. Please note that work under this on -call contract will be
performed at not -to exceed cost where desired by the City.
This proposal shall remain valid for 120 days from the due date. As a principal, I am authorized to bind the team to the
contents of this submittal and to negotiate contracts on behalf of the firm. My phone number is 213.623.1443 x2101; my
email address is aloomis@placeworks.com; and my address is as shown on this letterhead.
PLACEWORKS
Alan Loomis, AICP I Principal, Urban Design
City of Santa Clarita
Proposed Agreement Changes
20. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY.
(A) To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably
acceptable to CITY), indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, departments, officials,
representatives and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any and all claims, loss,
cost, damage, injury (including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of an employee of
CONSULTANT or its subconsultants), expense and liability of every kind, nature and description to the
extent that arise from or relate to (including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages,
court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert
witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) that arise f...... er Felate to
directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from: (1) CONSULTANT's negligent performance or willfull
misconduct of Services under this Agreement, or any part thereof; (including any additional services
authorized by CITY in writing) (2) any negligent act or omission of CONSULTANT, any subconsultant,
anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control; (3) any actual or alleged
infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, service mark or any
other intellectual or proprietary right of any person or persons in consequence of the use by CITY, or any
other Indemnitee, of articles or Services to be supplied in the performance of this Agreement; or (4) any
breach of this Agreement (collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and
indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent such Liabilities are caused by the sole negligence
or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee, but shall apply to all other Liabilities. The foregoing shall be
subject to the limitations of California Civil Code section 2782.8 as to any design professional services
performed by CONSULTANT and in particular the limitation on CONSULTANT's duty to defend whereby
such duty only arises for claims relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of
CONSULTANT as well as the limitation on the cost to defend whereby CONSULTANT will only bear such
cost in proportion to CONSULTANT's proportionate percentage of fault (except as otherwise provided in
section 2782.8).
(B) The foregoing indemnification provisions will not reduce or affect other rights or obligations which
would otherwise exist in favor of the CITY and other Indemnitees.
(C) CONSULTANT shall place in its subconsulting agreements and cause its subconsultants to agree to
indemnities and insurance obligations in favor of CITY and other Indemnitees in the exact form and
substance of those contained in this Agreement.
RESPONSE TO RFP # PL-21-22-14 I PLACEWORKS 29
Charrettes & Workshops Developer Roundtables Mobile Outreach
Stakeholder
Interviews
Research & Analyze Collaborate Envision
Original Data Files Vision
q
� c7 7 0 V--3 0 � CID
i C7 c7 a o Ct a O O o °� Q
1 I
0 PLACEWORKS
Local Stakeholders
Property & Business Owners
Document
+Plans
+Maps/Diagrams
+Graphics/ r
Illustrations
+Tables/Charts
+ Performance `l
Evaluations
AI
�i
People
The PlaceWorks Team believes
in collaboration and community
engagement every step of the
way —from the assessment of
current conditions and needs, to
exploration of opportunities for the
future, to confirmation of preferred
visions, development plans, and
implementation strategies and codes.
The PlaceWorks Team works through
multiple methods to include as many
people as possible.
Websites, Social Media
& Traditional Notices
❑L �` l
N5W—S
_77� =L_�
�c700rZI00C3c�
O a7 d a L7 C7 O Q 0
o a o 0 o v n p_
Review & Strategize
owl
Process
The PlaceWorks Team is effective at
completing projects on time and under
budget.
We establish clear procedures and
protocols to ensure that the work
program addresses Client objectives
and expected outcomes, and that it
coordinates with concurrent Client
initiatives.
Open Houses &
Public Hearings
Present
Specific Plan Environmental
_ Impact Report
C} 4
CJ
Product
The PlaceWorks Team is dedicated
to providing clients with reliable and
effective products. This means that for
each deliverable work product we will
provide the Client with electronic files
for publications.
L - 1-. _ - ice._
y" 7
$z I
h:
J �,�,• f` �T"r Y .,{'4�
�#.';a.^•+"+, .PST' �'�- i u �ylT� �*i� 1y�x �� �.
��.w/y JIM�^.: ,.. �����'�' +..+ t. %1� %' ��-y��vQ'd� l��i'�"� i'A�k..` -+{ �-�hcifawn ti.-_-�v ; d%_R`�+'a*!.,Fib°w-,7u�.V7,r+:".:P:4c'�:.�r*'d',•Pi�:. `.,, Y
My•