HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - SUNRIDGE DEV EIR CONTRAgenda Item• 13
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
.` AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SUNRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
Award a contract to Michael Baker International, Inc., for the preparation of the Sunridge
Development project Environmental Impact Report (Master Case 24-266) in the amount of
$875,102, and authorize a contingency in the amount $370,771, for a total contract amount
not to exceed $1,245,873.
2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all documents, subject to City Attorney
review.
BACKGROUND
The Sunridge Development (Project) (Master Case 24-266) is a request by New Urban West,
Inc., (Applicant) to develop an approximately 980-acre site located on vacant land (Project site).
The Project site is located directly south of the Santa Clara River; west of Golden Valley High
School and Santa Clarita Sports Complex; north of Quigley Canyon Open Space and Circle J
Ranch, an existing single-family residential neighborhood; northeast of Claibournes Arch, an
existing single-family residential neighborhood; and east of various existing industrial uses. The
Plan Area is also west of an existing commercial center known as Centre Point Village, located
along Soledad Canyon Road and Golden Valley Road. The subject property is within the Porta
Bella Specific Plan zone. The Project would replace the existing Porta Bella Specific Plan which
was approved by the City Council in 1995.
The Applicant has submitted entitlements for the Project, proposing a mixed -use community on
approximately 980-acres. Additionally, the Applicant proposes a public park to be developed on
Page 1
Packet Pg. 122
a portion of the adjacent 241-acre City -owned property. The Project consists of 5,750 single-
family and multi -family residential units, including an amount of affordable units; 2.9 million
square feet of nonresidential space; and 330-acres of park and recreational uses, primarily open
space. The Project proposes the buildout of one General Plan roadway, Via Princessa, the partial
buildout of another, Santa Clarita Parkway, and the elimination of the Magic Mountain Parkway
build out. The Project contemplates a total estimate of 29 million cubic yards of grading between
the mixed -use community and the adjacent City -owned property. The Applicant has indicated
that they are interested in exploring the creation of a community facilities district (CFD) for
improvements associated with the development of the project.
The Project site is zoned as a Specific Plan (SP) and includes a range of residential, mixed -use,
business park, school overlay, and open space subzones intended to support phased development
of residential neighborhoods, commercial and employment centers, schools, parks, trails, and
recreational amenities. Residential land uses would range from low -density single-family
development to higher -density urban village and mixed -use residential neighborhoods.
Nonresidential uses would include a wave park, business park, retail, institutional, recreational,
and open space uses.
Primary access to the Project would be provided via the buildout of Via Princessa and partial
buildout of Santa Clarita Parkway, with additional circulation provided through an internal
roadway network connecting the various residential, mixed -use, and business park areas
throughout the Specific Plan area.
The property is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and portions of the site
are located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone and an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.
The Project requires approval of the following entitlements:
• General Plan Amendment (Class V) 24-001: A General Plan Amendment (GP) is required to
replace the existing Porta Bella Specific Plan with the Sunridge Specific Plan, including a
change in the Plan Area boundary. Amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use
Element and Circulation Element will also be required to replace references to the Porta
Bella Specific Plan and to reflect revisions to the roadway network and the land uses
established in the Sunridge Specific Plan.
• Zone Change (Class VII) 24-001: A Zone Change (ZC) is required.
• Oak Tree Permit (Class IV) 24-002: An Oak Tree Permit (Class IV) is required for the
removal of four or more oak trees.
• Hillside Development Review (Class IV) 24-004: A Hillside Development Review (HDR)
is required as development will occur on properties with an average cross slope greater than
15 percent.
• Ridgeline Alteration Permit (Class V) 24-001: A Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP) is
required to regulate development located in the ridgeline preservation (RP) overlay zone.
• Tentative Tract Map (ENG25-017): To facilitate development, a Tentative Tract Map
(TTM) will create 53 lots and roads for the Plan Area.
• Environmental Impact Report 24-002: A Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is
required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze the Specific
Plan's impacts that have the potential for significant environmental impacts.
• Community Facilities District (CFD): The Applicant has indicated that they are interested in
Page 2
Packet Pg. 123
exploring the formation of a CFD to fund public improvements associated with the Project.
• Development Agreement: The MOU contemplates the potential consideration of a
development agreement as part of the Project's implementation.
The Project is currently under review and requires environmental review under CEQA. Based on
anticipated impacts associated with the Project, the appropriate CEQA document required for the
Project is an EIR. Since the City of Santa Clarita (City) does not have the in-house expertise or
resources available to complete an EIR, an outside environmental consulting firm is required to
complete this task. The EIR will analyze a variety of topics including, but not limited to, traffic,
geology and soils, biology, wildfire, air quality, noise, aesthetics, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The EIR will also analyze how the project would interact with and/or impact cleanup efforts,
managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), of on -site hazardous materials
generated by the operation of previous land uses in the project area. The EIR process will help
guide coordination between the City and the DTSC regarding this area of study.
The City conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified consulting
firms to prepare an EIR for the Project. The Memorandum of Understanding approved by the
City Council for the project in September 2024, identified preparation of a Program EIR for the
project. However, at the request of the project applicant, and with the concurrence of City staff,
preparation of a Project EIR was ultimately within the scope of the RFP. The RFP was published
and circulated via the City's e-procurement system, BidNet, on March 10, 2026. The City
transmitted the solicitation to 4,542 vendors on BidNet, of which 97 vendors downloaded the
RFP. Seven firms provided proposals for consideration.
An evaluation panel comprised of City staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals based on
qualifications, relevant experience, project approach, and the firms' demonstrated ability to
successfully prepare and manage complex CEQA documentation. Evaluation criteria included
the following:
• Contractor qualifications, plan of study/scope of work, program management (40 points)
• Experience on similar projects (30 points)
• Thoroughness of proposal, approach to providing sound services, and ability to provide
services to meet objectives and standards (30 points)
• Cost of materials and services provided as well as discounts offered (reviewed separately
for completeness and reasonableness and not used as part of the scored ranking process)
Consistent with California Government Code Section 4526, the selection of professional
architectural, engineering, environmental, and related professional services is based on
demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory
performance of the services required, rather than price alone. Accordingly, proposals were
evaluated and ranked based on qualifications and non -cost criteria.
Page 3
Packet Pg. 124
The scoring results are shown below:
RANK
FIRM
LOCATION
SCORE
1
Michael Baker International, Inc.
Long Beach, CA
92
2
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
La Mesa, CA
86
3
Envicom Corporation
Westlake Village, CA
81
4
SWCA Incorporated
Pasadena, CA
77
5
Impact Sciences
Los Angeles, CA
73
6
U1traSystems Environmental Inc.
Irvine, CA
72
7 JEcoTierra
Consulting
Los Angeles, CA
72
In addition to evaluating written proposals, City staff conducted interviews with the three
highest -scoring firms: Michael Baker International, Inc., HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.,
and Envicom Corporation. The interviews provided an opportunity for the firms to further
discuss their project approach, CEQA strategy, experience with complex environmental review
processes, project team composition, and overall ability to manage the preparation of the EIR in
coordination with City staff and the project applicant.
Based on the interviews, City staff determined that Michael Baker International, Inc. (MBI)
demonstrated the strongest overall understanding of the Project, the most comprehensive
approach to managing the environmental review process, and the greatest depth of relevant
experience with comparable CEQA projects.
Interview scores were as follows (10 points maximum):
RANK
FIRM
LOCATION
SCORE
1
Michael Baker International, Inc.
Long Beach, CA
9
2
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
La Mesa, CA
6
3
Envicom Corporation
Westlake Village, CA
6
Based on the quality of MBI's proposal, qualifications, relevant project experience, and
interview performance, City staff recommends MBI as the firm most qualified to complete the
preparation of the EIR for the Project.
The proposed cost for the MBI scope of services is $875,102. The Scope of Work includes
preparation of the Project Description; peer review of technical studies; coordination of the
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting; preparation of the Draft EIR; responses to
comments; preparation of the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP); and attendance at public hearings. Michael Baker International, Inc., anticipates an
approximate 16-month schedule to complete the EIR once all applicant -prepared technical
studies have been submitted. This is consistent with the proposed timelines for other projects
Page 4
Packet Pg. 125
including the 12-month proposed timeline for the Belcaro project and the 20-month timeline for
the Shadowbox project. Most recently, the City approved an EIR contract for the Belcaro
Development Project, which is a smaller -scale project with an anticipated review process of
approximately one year.
Due to the complexity of the Project and surrounding area, City staff requested that consultants
include contingency pricing as part of their proposals. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was
released while the Project Description was still being finalized; therefore, consultants were
requested to provide a separate schedule of pricing associated with potential revisions to the
Project Description and related environmental analysis.
The proposed contingency amount is $370,771, bringing the total contract amount to a not -to -
exceed amount of $1,245,873. The contingency is intended to address potential recirculation of
the Draft EIR and any supplemental environmental analysis that may be required if revisions to
the EIR are necessary. The contingency also provides flexibility to address unforeseen issues
identified during the environmental review process. The Applicant will be responsible for all
costs associated with preparation of the EIR and the related consultant contract. Upon award of
the contract, the Applicant will deposit the required funds into a trust account maintained by the
City.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs associated with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report will be the
responsibility of the Applicant for the Sunridge Development. There will be no fiscal impact to
the General Fund associated with this item.
ATTACHMENTS
Cost File-Sunridge Project
Page 5
Packet Pg. 126
COST FILE
SUNRIDGE PROJECT -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROPOSAL # CD-25-26-27
N R 10 G E
SUBMITTED BY
Michael Baker MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
376D Kilroy Airport Way • Suite 27D
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Long Beach, CA 90806
OF SANT9 0
9
ti� bra
O 9
DGHOep 16 DECEVA �P �01
0
m
A 7
Y
I_
Q
0
I�
m
tm
a
1
tea'
5 K"
- .NPY1"
4i
0
Y
i IM!
U-
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
2392D Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
Packet Pg. 127
1.2.1 BASE BID SCOPE OF WORK
As required in the City's RFP, this section includes the costs for all tasks and subtasks described in Section
1.1.3, Plan of Study/Scope of Work, of the Response File. Table 1 below provides this proposal's total costs,
and Table 2 provides the billing rates for proposed staff from Years 2026 through 2028. The proposed base
bid cost for our scope of work is $875,102.05. A detailed breakdown of costs by task and individual is provided
on the attached spreadsheet; however, we understand that costs will be dependent upon the specific services
performed under this scope of work. Relative to the cost estimate, it is realized that the proposed costs are in
fact an approximation of the labor and reimbursable costs by task. Actual costs per task within the framework
of the not -to -exceed task amount will be billed to the City on a time and materials basis. Michael Baker requests
flexibility to increase or decrease the level of effort between tasks and among staff within the total not -to -
exceed limit of the overall budget.
For budgeting purposes, our scope of work assumes the following, consistent with the deliverables identified
in the RFP, except where noted:
• An electronic copy (Word and pdf format) of a working draft version of the Administrative Draft EIR for
City staff review.
• Five hard copies and one electronic copy (Word and pdf format) of the preliminary (screencheck) Draft
EIR for City staff review.
• Five hard copies and one electronic copy (pdf format) of the Appendices for the preliminary Draft EIR
for City staff review; for printing budget purposes, Michael Baker assumes that the Appendices will total
no more than 1,000 pages.
• Ten hard copies and one reproducible master of the Draft EIR for public review and an electronic copy
(Word and pdf format) of the Draft EIR.
• Ten hard copies of the appendices for the Draft EIR for public review and an electronic copy (pdf
format) of the appendices for the Draft EIR; for printing budget purposes, Michael Baker assumes that
the Appendices will total no more than 1,000 pages.
• An electronic copy (Word and pdf format) of a working draft version of the Administrative Final EIR for
City staff review.
• An electronic copy (Word and pdf format) of the preliminary (screencheck) Final EIR for City staff
review.
• Fifteen copies and one reproducible master of the Final EIR for public review and an electronic copy
(Word and pdf format) the Final EIR.
In addition, a new California law requires CEQA documents submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), as a
state agency, be compliant with the requirements of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Because
creating WCAG-compliant documents is a very time -intensive exercise, our cost only includes staff time to
produce WCAG-compliant Draft and Final EIRs but not the EIR Appendices. Due to the unknown length of
these appendices at this time, our proposed cost does not include producing WCAG-compliant EIR Appendices
as the cost will vary based on length and complexity of the documents. Michael Baker will provide the City
within an estimate for these costs once the number of appendices has been determined.
Our proposed scope of services provided in Section 1.1.3, Plan of Study/Scope of Work, of the Response File,
also includes a kickoff meeting, a scoping meeting, and a community meeting during the 45-day review of the
Draft EIR, and regular staff meetings throughout the CEQA process. Furthermore, the cost identified in the
table below includes time for the Michael Baker project management team to assist with the preparation of
presentations and attendance at one Planning Commission hearing and one City Council hearing.
I N T E R N A T I O N A L CITY OF SANTA CLARITA • SUNRIDGEPROJECT -ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT •
Packet Pg. 128
13.a
1.2.2 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS PRICING
Consistent with requirements Sections 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.5 of the RFP, Table 1 also presents our estimated
cost for work that may be required due to changes in the project description and associated environmental
analyses. Separate optional costs associated with recirculation of the Draft EIR (Section 1.2.2.4) or preparation
of a Supplemental EIR or Revised EIR (Section 1.2.2.5) are shown at the bottom of the table. These optional
costs are our best estimation at this point. However, accurate costs for recirculation of the Draft EIR or
a Supplemental/Revised EIR cannot be provided until the nature and extent of the Project changes are
identified.
In addition, the estimated cost of attendance at additional public meeting or hearings or extended
coordination with reviewing agencies (Section 1.2.2.6) will vary and depend on which members of the Project
team the City requests to participate; the cost per public meeting or hearing may range from $2,300
(attendance by our Principal -in -Charge, Project Manager, and Deputy Project Manager) to $5,000
(additional staff attendance, such as our senior biologists, transportation engineers, and/or technical
specialists), and virtual one -hour coordination meetings with reviewing agencies may start at $800 per
meeting.
Regarding responses to unusually high volumes of public or agency comments (Section 1.2.2.7), we estimate
that, on average, responding to an individual comment in a comment letter will typically require 1 to 2 hours
of staff time; however, responding to certain individual comments may take up to 5 to 6 hours of staff time,
depending on the complexity of the comment, whether subject matter experts are needed to weigh in on the
comment, and whether the comment is attorney -written. Therefore, we would assume that addressing
100 additional comments may require between $10,000 to $50,000 more, with the assumption that a
number of these comments are similar in nature to ones already addressed during the initial batch of
responses to comments. Hourly billing rates by staff are presented in Table 2.
As required in the City's RFP, this proposal is a firm offer for a 120-day period, and work will be performed at
the "not -to -exceed" price shown in Table 1.
This cost proposal is signed by Fareeha Kibriya, who is the authorized representative to make legally binding
commitments for Michael Baker.
Z' _� 6P
areeha Kibriy
Vice President/Office Executive
9, 2026
Date
I N T E R N A T I O N A L
CITY 0 F SANTA CLARITA • SUNRIDGEPROJECT- ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT •
Packet Pg. 129
riujeLt ue—iptiuni Vdl I dull I ty dIIU —Itillyelit DIVI-1111eiRd I Mildly— —pe Ul VVUIK RK d neU I LUldteU Mall Lin \uase — , iaSK Y. 11
Project Description Variability and Contingent Environmental Analysis Scope of Work for a Supplemental EIR or Revised EIR (Base Bid Task 9.2)
1=1 = nd.
�.2 I em In. _..' An— 2 2. 1.
T I—
H! in H H H
1111MM��Z�31 T,111� IIII.
16 1 11 "1 "1 1 11
lg� 3111111
11 61 1 1
1 16
FM..h..l Baker
Table 2 Sunridge Project Environmental Impact Report Hourly Rate Sheet for Years 2026 through 2028
(;11YOfSAN1ACLAR11A - SUNRIDGE PROJECT -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR �