HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2008U1 d[11UFJU tsar
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
5: 00 p.m. — Closed Session CC -8
5:30 p.m. - Study Session CC -8
6:30 p.m. — Regular Meeting
The Government Center
South Coast Air Quality Management District/
Main Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Jack Tanaka Ron Everett
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
Wen P. Chang Carol Herrera Steve Tye
Council Member Council Member Council Member
City Manager James DeStefano City Attorney Michael Jenkins 9 City Clerk Tommye Cribbins
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public
inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in
need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a
minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Have online access? City Council Agendas are now available on the City of Diamond Bar's web site at www.CityofDiamandBar.com
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same.
Em
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES
Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. Meetings of the Diamond Bar City
Council are open to the public and are cablecast live on Channel 3. You are invited to attend and
participate.
PUBLIC INPUT
Members of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during the
time the item is taken up by the Council. In addition, members of the public may, during the
Public Comment period address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or any matter not on
the agenda and within the Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Persons wishing to speak should
submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk. Any material to be submitted to the City Council at the
meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk.
Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise.
The :Mayor may adjust this time limit depending on the number of people wishing to speak, the
complexity of the matter, the length of the agenda, the hour and any other relevant consideration.
Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during public hearings,
when the applicant/appellant may be afforded a rebuttal.
Public comments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior that disrupts the orderly conduct
of the meeting may result in the speaker being removed from the Council chambers.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Agendas for regular City Council meetings available 72 hours prior to the meeting and are posted
in the; City's regular posting locations, on DBTV Channel 3, and on the City's website at
www. cityofdiamondbar.com. A full agenda packet is available for review during the meeting in
the foyer just outside the Council chambers. The City Council may take action on any item listed
on the agenda.
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot
access the podium in order to make a public comment. Sign language interpretation is available
by providing the City Clerk three business days' notice in advance of a meeting. Please
telephone (909) 839-7000 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Fridays.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, CassetteNideo tapes of meetings (909) 839-7010
Computer access to agendas: www.cityofdiamondbancom
General Information: (909) 839-7000
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY TIME -WARNER FOR AIRING ON
CHANNEL 3, AS WELL AS BY STREAMING VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET AND BY
REMAINING IN THE ROOM YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE
TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AT
9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 8:00 P.M. ON CHANNEL 3, AND IS ALSO
AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEB SITE AT WWW.CITYOFDIAMONDBAR.COM
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
October 21, 2008
Next Resolution No. 2008-40
Next Ordinance No. 06 (2008)
CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m., Room CC -8
Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda
► Government Code Section 54956.9(c) Initiation of Litigation —
One Case.
STUDY SESSION:
5:30 p.m., Room CC -8
► Presentation of Sustainability Action Plan — Discussion and Action.
Public Comments
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
6:30 p.m.
Mayor
Lee Bendell
Diamond Bar, CA
Council Members Chang, Herrera,
Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Everett, Mayor
Tanaka
Mayor
Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council
meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City
Clerk's Office at 21825 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business
hours.
October 21, 2008 PAGE 2
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
INEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.1 Presentation of City Plaque to USA Fit Force Taekwondo, 932 N.
Diamond Bar Blvd., as New Business of the Month, October, 2008.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each
regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda.
Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted
agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
Lcompletion of this form is voluntary) There is a five-minute maximum time limit
when addressing the City Council
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — October 23, 2008 — 7:00
p.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 Haunted House — October 30 and 31, 2008 — 6:00 — 9:00 p.m., Heritage
Park, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. (Admission $5.00 per person).
5.3 Fall Fun Festival — October 31, 2008 — 4:30 — 8:30 p.m., Heritage Park,
2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. (Admission $5.00 per child).
5.4 City Council Meeting — November 4, 2008 — 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 City Council Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 7, 2008 — Approve as
submitted.
6.2 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of
August 14, 2008 - Receive and file.
October 21, 2008 PAGE 3
6.3 Ratification of Check Register — Ratification of Check Register dated
October 2, 2008 through October 15, 2008 totaling $1,395,767.58.
Requested by: Finance Department
6.4 Appropriation of $247,500 in Federal HUD Special Grant Funds and
Authorize Transfer to the Walnut Valley Unified School District as
Reimbursement for Improvements to the Diamond Bar High School
Baseball Field.
Recommended Action: Appropriate and Authorize transfer
Requested by: City Manager
6.5 (a) Approve Plans and Specifications; Award the Construction
Contract for the Palomino Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project to
Premier Paving, inc. in the Amount of $74,549 and Authorize a
Contingency Amount of $7,500 for Contract Change Orders to be
Approved by the City Manager, for a Total Authorization Amount of
$82,049.
(b) Award of Construction Administration Services Contract to DMS
Consultants, Inc. for the Palomino Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Project in the Amount of $15,917.50 and Authorize a Contingency
Amount of $1,600 for Contract Change Orders to be Approved by the
City Manager, for a Total Authorization of $17,517.50.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.6 Adopt Resolution No. 2008 -XX: Opposing Measure R on the
November 4, 2008 Ballot, Which if Passed, Would Increase the
County Sales Tax by One -Half Percent to Fund Specific
Transportation Projects.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Legislative Sub -Committee
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
October 21, 2008 PAGE 4
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 Council Appointments:
(a) Appointment to the Los Angeles County Vector Control
Board.
Recommended Action: Appoint.
(b) Appointment to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority
Advisory Committee.
Recommended Action: Appoint.
Requested by: Mayor
8.2 Solid Waste Subcommittee Recommendations:
(a) Solid Waste Franchise Negotiation/RFP Process Integrity Rules.
Recommended Action:
(b) Approval of City Council Solid Waste Subcommittee to Begin
Negotiations with Current Haulers.
Recommended Action: Approve.
(c) Award of Contract to Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC (HF&H) in
the Amount of $150,000 for As -Needed Solid Waste Negotiation
Services.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Solid Waste Sub -Committee
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda # Study Session
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL
7%'� AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man
TITLE: ,Sustainability Action Plan Presenta ion
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive presentation and authorize implementation of the Recommended Action items.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All of the Recommended Action items can be accomplished with existing resources.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council has listed "research available sustainability program options and present them to the
City Council for consideration" as one of its Goals and Objectives for FY 2008-09. To meet this City
Council goal, staff has developed the attached Sustainability Program Options Report.
The attached presentation material formally presents this report and the specific options contained
therein. The sustainability options are presented in the following three categories:
Current/Ongoing Programs — These are programs that are currently in place.
2. Recommended Actions — These are programs that staff recommends be implemented
following the presentation to Council unless otherwise directed by Council. These can be
accomplished with existing resources.
3. Long Term Options — These programs have long term policy implications and may have
significant costs associated with them. Each of these options will be presented to the Council
individually at a future date for consideration.
PREPARED BY:
Assistan City Mager
Introduction
The City Council's adopted Goals & Objectives for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 include the
development of new environmental sustainability program and policy options. This
document aims to provide these options to the Council for consideration along
with a history of the City's long-standing commitment to the environment through
a number of ongoing programs.
With energy, waste disposal, and fuel prices rising to unseen levels, state water
resources becomiing more critical, and environmental preservation fast becoming a
top priority around the nation, many government agencies and private enterprises
are also searching for ways to adopt and implement sustainable public policies and
programs. Such efforts can lead to cost savings, improved efficiency, and enhanced
environmental health while setting a positive example for the community to follow
at work and at home.
Defining Sustainability in Diamond Bar
Prior to developing attainable environmental options for the Council to consider,
it is important to identify what we aim to accomplish and how we plan to get
there. In developling this action plan, careful consideration of the City's duties and
responsibilities were taken into account while being mindful not to place an undue
burden on residents or business owners. Recognizing the responsibilities and
leadership qualities our agency must exhibit to ensure Diamond Bar's operations,
programs, and services remain sustainable, the following guiding definition was
created:
This guiding principle focuses the City's efforts, while encouraging quantifiable
results, public and business community participation, and the development of
policies and procedures that are not only effective, but economically feasible and
appropriate.
2
Diamond Bar's Current/Ongoing Environmental
Programs
While the concept of sustainability and "going green" is relatively new, the City
Council has long recognized the importance of reducing our overall impact to the
environment. Since incorporation in 1989, the City has embraced its role as Diamond
Bar's environmental stewards, offering innovative recycling programs, environmental
education/outreach opportunities for residents and the business community, and
expanded water quality requirements that have kept the community on the forefront
of environmental protection and awareness. With these programs alone, the City
has diverted tons of recyclables from landfills, tons of debris from storm drains (and
ultimately, the ocean), and an untold amount of hazardous waste that would have
otherwise been released into the environment. The City's current environmental
programming schedule includes the following (with 2007 diversion results):
t.d 3 3 i Y4di'i"moi!! i" `�i 3fi r i1 a S'ervice's
• Household Hazardous Waste Roundups (Curbside Collection started in '08)
8,500 gallons of used paint, 300 used car batteries, 70 drums (55 gallon)
of miscellaneous waste
• Residential Curbside Recycling
12,267.95 tons of recyclables collected
Diverting these items from landfills is the equivalent of removing 3,571 cars
from roadways, the emission generated by energy use in 1,041 homes,
and the emission generated by the use of 2,213,280 gallons of gasoline
School Recycling Programs
DBHS Paper Recycling (4,362 lbs. per week)
Diamond Point Elementary (1,000 lbs. per week)
New Programs at Pantera and Golden Springs Elementary Schools
• Other Efforts
E -Waste (91,821 pounds)
Batteries (3,183 pounds) & Florescent Bulbs (5,860 bulbs)
Used Oil (10,782 gallons) & Oil Filters (635 filters)
Sharps Collection Mail -Back Program
• Recycling Programs at City Hall
Printer Toner
Batteries/Light Bulbs
Electronic Waste
Paper Recycling Bins
2008 e -waste round -up at Diamond
Bar City Hall
3
rirntYlunity Outreach
• Public Education
•EnviroLink Newsletter
-Green Giveaways/Info Booth at City Events
-Smart Gardening — Composting DVD/Composting Bin Giveaway
-Street Sweeping Calendar/Used Oil Information Postcard
-Assistance to businesses and multi -family units interested in starting
recycling i programs
r. Improvement Efforts
• Sewers/Storm Drains
-Overflow Management Plan — Prevents future spills
-Building standards designed to reduce runoff pollution
• Implemented Best Management Practices for construction projects and
municipal operations
Recycled Water
-The City utilizes recycled water provided by Walnut Valley Water District
where available
Street Sweeping/Composting
-Diverted (552.51 tons of debris from storm drains
• 1.06 tons of debris removed from City catch basins
-Debris Composting Program
• Intelligent Transportation System/Traffic Signal Synchronization System
-Reduces congestion and idling
Improved traffic flown reduces carbon emissions from all vehicles
City Haller
• Online Transit Pass Sales/Recreation Program Registration
-Reduces trips to City Hall and DBC,thereby reducing vehicle emissions
-Reduces printing costs and paper usage.
• Streaming
.Reduces trips to City Hall and DBC,thereby reducing emissions produced by
vehicles
Electronic Mailing
• Residents may choose to receive electronic copies of City documents,
agendas, etc. via electronic mail
• Reduces printing costs and paper usage
-Provides additional convenience to residents
Environmental Services booth -2008
City Birthday
E
"Ji mall practic:r,s
Use of Recycled) Office Supplies
The City has long purchased recycled paper and other goods for daily
office use
• Alternative Work Schedule
.The City's 9/80 work schedule helps to reduce daily commutes and related
carbon emissions while still providing everyday service to the community
AB 32 —The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
In 2006, the California State Legislature passed AB 32, known as the Global Warming
Solutions Act. This landmark piece of legislation aims to return greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is
currently in the process of developing the standards which cities will be required to
follow to achieve the emissions goals of AB 32. Once these standards are released,the
way cities plan and build projects, purchase equipment and materials, and prepare
budgets will change dramatically. Knowing these major policy mandates are on the
horizon, it is important to consider a number of additional environmental program
options for Diamond Bar.
Short -Term Sustainability Plan Options
The City's long history of environmental awareness certainly indicates that the existing
programs have been successful. But on the heels of AB 32, the responsibility of local
governments to cut emissions, waste, and energy use will increase dramatically. So
while the City continues to expand and improve the offerings already in place, it must
also consider new programs and policies above and beyond those currently available.
In doing so,the City must not only meetfuture state and federal requirements but also
improve local and regional quality of life while saving energy, water, and potentially,
taxpayer dollars.
Internal Policies and Procedures
Simple low-cost adjustments to the City's internal operations and policies can be
developed and implemented in a short period of time with measurable benefits. By
considering the environmental impacts of the City's basic business operations when
setting policy and implementing projects, we serve as leaders and an example to
both residents and businesses.
New state and federal legislation
will require cities to consider new
environmental strategies.
5
Adopt a City-wide Purchasing/Procurement Policy -The primary purpose of
this policy is to minimize negative environmental impacts of the City's activities by
ensuring the procurement of services and products that reduce toxicity, conserve
natural resources, materials, and energy and maximize recyclability and recycled
content. By incorporating environmental considerations in public purchasing,
the City of Diamond Barcan serve this commitment by reducing its burden on the
local and global environment, removing unnecessary hazardsfrom its operations,
protecting pub is health, reducing costs and liabilities,and potentially improving
the environmental quality of the region. This policy is an effective way to direct
the City's effort in procuring environmentally preferable products and services.
Whenever economically feasible, the City (and its contractors) could choose to
purchase recycled products across departments. Another consideration, (again,
where feasible) could be to choose to purchase items from local vendors in order
to reduce emissions related to long-distance shipping. A policycould also specify
that recycled/environ mentally friendly materials be procured where appropriate.
To accommodate these new purchasing guidelines across City departments, a
special green purchasing guide could be created.
Adopt a Fuel -Efficient Vehicle Purchase/Replacement Policy — As the City's
gasoline and diesel powered fleet vehicles reach the end of their productive
lives, the City Council could choose to replace them with hybrid, CNG, or
alternative fuel options that reduce both fuel costs and carbon emissions. The
policy could also include the use of best management practices that maximize
efficiency of all fleet vehicles and limit or reduce overall mileage traveled.
While the initia I purchase costof an alternativefuel or hybrid vehicle is g reaterthan
that of a standard gasoline model,fuel savings do provide offsets. According tothe
U.S. Dept. of Energy,the use of a CNG vehicle ratherthan a gasoline powered one
saves an owner approximately $500.00 annually. Should the City determine CNG
vehicles to be the most efficient and appropriate alternative,the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has offered to sell Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) to the City from its on-site pumps and at a lower cost than current
gasoline prices. As of July 2008, average CNG price was $3.00-$3.20 per gallon.
AB 2766 provides the City with funds to encourage cleaner air by reducing
emissions. In the past, the City has utilized these funds for the Transit program,
its infrastructure (online system), and administration. AB 2766 funds are no
longer eligible to be used on these programs, but may be used to purchase
CNG vehicles (hybrids are not eligible). A portion of fund balance reserves could
be allocated to purchase and fuel new CNG fleet vehicles where appropriate.
The City could also choose to require certain contractors (trash trucks, street
sweepers, street and park maintenance vehicles, etc.) to operate alternative
fuel vehicles as they complete their assigned work in Diamond Bar. These
requirements could be included in future contract negotiations.
Vehicles using Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) reduce emissions and fuel
costs.
tr li` Enviro,,n �,v ntal Outreach Pro grams
The City's role in educating residents and property owners about sustainability is
very important. Expanded outreach efforts encourage greater participation in City
environmental programs and greater personal responsibility.
Develop an Enhanced Environmental Services Page on the City's Website
- The City is currently in the process of implementing a new and improved
City website, which will feature a bright new design and layout, improved
functionality, and a dedicated Environmental Services section. The new website
is the perfect opportunity to expand upon current content and educate visitors
about ongoing recycling programs and offer practical sustainability solutions
for the home and business. Regular updates could include a short monthly
sustainability article, invitations to upcoming round -up events, and other
valuable tips related to waste management, recycling, and any related sustainable
building requirements, Residents would be able to e -subscribe for monthly
newsletters and the annual Envirol ink publication. Other links to the City's
environmental services, standards, and ordinances should be included as well.
Website content can be managed and updated by staff easily.
Develop 1-2 Minute Environmental PSAs for Airing on DBTV and Website
- The City is fortunate to have its own government access television channel,
DBTV 3. By developing brief and entertaining public service announcements
containing educational environmental/recycling information, DBTV will
serve as another vital tool in the City's outreach arsenal to residents and
the business community. The advent of streaming video on the City's
website provides yet another vehicle for delivering the message to the
public, while further publicizing the City's programs and upcoming events.
A series of five environmentally -themed PSAs could be produced at a cost of
approximately $3,000.
Hold Periodic "Green Living" Public Meetings - A special public meeting
dedicated to green living could be held (during the evening or on a weekend) at
the Diamond Bar Center. A live public session is yet another format the City could
use to encourage residents and businesses to "go green" on their own accord.
Costs to conduct a public meeting are mostly dependent upon the level of
promotion. Should the City use its website and TV channel while making
announcements at Council Meetings, advertising costs should be relatively low.
If the Council wishes to mail announcements to each parcel/address in town,
postage costs could reach into the thousands of dollars.
The City's website provides a wealth
of environmental information to the
public.
7
irt.y�?G s C' tr "aca� ;:'t.ogran"is
The City is always actively involved in helping businesses start and expand waste
reduction and recycling programs. Whether the business is new or existing, the
City will continue to promote and assist recycling efforts in Diamond Bar's business
community. Through new and expanded outreach efforts, the City can identify and
target businesses throughout Diamond Bar in hopes to either start or expand waste
reduction and recycling programs while offering positive benefits for the business
owner.
Create a Business Recycling Starter Information Kit —The City's new Business
License program offers a unique opportunity to establish a connection with
business owners to introduce the City's environmental services and recycling
programs. With this opportunity in mind, staff can develop a Recycling Starter
Kit designed specifically for the business community. This kit may include
instructions on how to implement their own business recycling program,
information on the City's services and programs, ways to obtain recycling
bins/containers, and a list of local commercial recyclers and the materials they
accept.
Create a Green Business Program/Pledge — Environmental programs and state
diversion mandates are often viewed as cumbersome to business. To encourage
the participation and communication of businesses in the City's sustainability
efforts, a new Green Business Program can be created. To participate in this
program, businesses would pledge to meet City -determined environmental and
recycling qualifications. Upon meeting these goals, a "Green Business" window
sticker or plaque issued by the City may be publicly displayed at the business
location. The positive connotations associated with such a designation should
encourage business ownerstopursuesustainable business practices,andwith the
public becoming more inclined to support environmentally friendly businesses,
may even help to boost sales traffic and the local economy. Once the program
is underway, a "Green Business of the Month" could be highlighted at a Council
Meeting or in a profile on the Environmental Services section of the website.
Another option is to use City Staff across departments as environmental
"ambassadors" to the business community, actively targeting large businesses
and informing them of the City's recycling programs and providing assistance
in starting their own green/recycling programs at their place of business. Such
assistance could result in businesses obtaining a 3 -foot recycling bin, beginning
a program to recycle ink cartridges and batteries, and/or installing "green"
enhancements to their buildings (i.e. HID to LED lighting). The City has already
begun to target large businesses throughout Diamond Bar with hopes to reach
out to small businesses in the community in the near future.
The City's partnership with the
business community includes
environmental outreach and
assistnace.
is r�jeloprneait Standards
Amend the Development Code to Require Low Impact Designs For
Stormwater Quality - In recent months, the City's Environmental Services
staff has worked closely with developers to include construction features that
encourage natural absorption of pollutants through plants/landscaping and
soil infiltration as part of California Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(commonly known as SUSMP) requirements. These features include porous
pavement, detention basins, and natural drainage options that divert stormwater
runoff to a vegetated swale, rain garden, or other landscaping. Examples of
these environmentally friendly features can be seen at the new Kaiser facility
and Chili's Restaurant. While developers have already shown a willingness to
incorporate these elements as part of their projects,the City lacks the enforcement
authority to require them without a defined development code section.
A section requiring these features should not present a financial burden to
d evelope rs that would prevent a project's com pl etion. Adoption of the new sections
of the development code would require City Council review and a public hearing.
Require Developers to Attend an Introductory Meeting With Environmental
Services Staff - Developers of commercial or residential projects with multiple
units can be required to send their contractors to an introductory meeting with
Environmental Services and Planning staff prior to the submittal of the project's
plans and release of permits. At this meeting, staff will review all stormwater
compliance regulations, Best Management Practices (BMP) and certifications,
provide BMP training materials, and emphasize construction and demolition
debris removal standards.
r Conserv=rtion
Revise the City's Water Conservation Ordinance -The City of Diamond Bar currently
has a water efficient landscaping section of the code. The section requires builders to
meet a certain level of water efficiency for the project's landscaping to complete the
plan check process.
Some desert cities have adopted stricter ordinances that regulate the use of water for
landscaping purposes.To encourage water conservation in Diamond Bar, the Council
could choose to revise the water conservation code section that, for example, limits
watering to specific times of day (avoiding the hotter hours that limit effectiveness) or
cites property owners with irrigation systems that are "watering the sidewalk" rather
than the landscaping.
Adoption of new water conservation sections of the development code would require
City Council review and a public hearing.
Low impact storm water quality
designs have been featured
components of the new Kaiser and
Chili's buildings.
E
, +�,ste Hauler Contract RenegotiationlEnhancecl Recycling f'rovi:sions
• The City currently holds two waste hauler franchises. Waste Management serves
single-family residential customers, while Valley Vista serves commercial and multi-
family residential customers. Residents in single-family units receive recycling
and green waste bins as part of their monthly service fee. Commercial and multi-
family customers must pay an extra fee for regular recycling collection service.
The City's solid waste franchises are entering the renegotiation window, with
expiration in August, 2010. As part of the new franchise agreement, the City could
require a series of environmental/recycling enhancements that are not currently
provided to the commercial and multi -family sectors of the community. Examples
include free recycling containers, waste hauler site visits to establish recycling
programs, a mandated 50% diversion for construction/demolition debris to an
approved Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), and free curbside e-waste/hazardous
waste/universal waste pickup.
Long -Term Sustainability Plan Options
Beyond the long list of options available for implementation in the short term, the
Council should begin to determine the appropriateness of several more extensive
long-term sustainability goals that may have an even greater impact. These items
will require greater financial investment as well as extended development and
implementation periods.
r tv a f.;: ri3.,,. z the City's Overall Energy Usage
Audit City Energy Usage and Set an Overall Energy Use Reduction Goal -The
Council could set an overall energy reduction goal to be phased in overa specified
time period. To do so,an audit of the City's annual energy use must be completed
to setthe baselinefor improvement. Once completed,the Council can choose the
overall level of reduction in energy use it deems appropriate (5%/10%/15%/20%,
etc.) and the time frame for accomplishment. Reaching the goal will likely
require the development and implementation of new energy use policies and
an investment in alternative energy generation and the retrofitting of facilities.
Costs could be significant, with offsets expected over a period of years. Total
costs and offsets are unknown at this time and are dependent upon the level of
energy use reduction desired and the amount of investment required to do so.
The final impacts of adopted AB 32 requirements will also have an impact on the
overall investment deemed necessary.
LED Lighting - Public Works staff is currently researching the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of replacing the City's standard lighting fixtures with energy-
efficient LED bulbs. If proven feasible, implementation could be accomplished
using a phased approach, beginning with locations surrounding City facilities.
The primary benefits of LEDs are their reduced energy consumption, longer
lifetime, directionality and controllability. The energy savings can reach 50% or
more with an extended useful life.
The CIP program could include
environmental retrofitting of city
facilities like the Diamond Bar Center.
70
,,Sr -'en City Buil int' S
The City currently owns and operates several public facilities, the largest being the
Diamond Bar Center. Since these buildings were built in the years prior to new
state and federal environmental and energy mandates, the opportunity to improve
efficiency and sustainability remains available.
• Fund an Annual CIP Program To Retrofit City Facilities With Sustainable
Energy Enhancements - The Council could decide to add sustainable
energy features to its annual capital improvement project list. Each year,
specific enhancements to City -owned buildings (DBC, Heritage, etc.) that
improve energy efficiency could be implemented. Solar energy options will
become increasingly feasible in the coming years as technology improves and
installation costs continue to fall. By reducing the City's reliance on the energy
grid, annual costs and environmental impacts can be reduced. These related
cost savings could then be set aside to further retrofit facilities in future years.
Other effective retrofitting and energy management options are available as well
and can be implemented with long-term savings in mind.A 2006 Green Building
Council study found that by retrofitting buildings, cities can save 90 cents a
square foot annually, on average, in energy and other costs and earn back their
investment in 2 to 2'/z years.
•:�<�! I�I,:�r� I�-ie�°"s�if.�a��
Include Sustainability Guidelines in the General Plan Revision - The City's
General Plan provides the basis for land use planning decisions for future
generations of Diamond Bar residents. With a revision in the beginning stages,
it is timely and appropriate to include a dedicated section in the document that
reflects changes to land use, environmental design and efficiency, transportation/
circulation, and community design/building standards that enhance sustainable
and responsible development in measurable ways for generations to come.
For example, the revision could include provisions for "green" building design,
which use a holistic approach to enhance resource efficiency in the materials,
construction, and design of new structures.
ne :24/Green Development, Code Standards/Sustainable Building
• California's Title 24 mandate requires developers to incorporate enhanced energy
efficiency elements into new construction and significant remodeling projects.
While California has been a leader in environmental policy, many cities are
incorporating Sustainable Building Ordinances that exceed Title 24 requirements
and include further environmental standards for construction. Should the Council
choose to adopt such an ordinance, it could be adopted in conjunction with the
City's revised General Plan and focus on promoting sustainability development
for the foreseeable future. Overall impacts of such policy would require study.
Solar energy could be utilized to
power city facilities, reducing costs
and reliance on the grid.
Adopt Development Code Sections Requiring Developers to Meet Defined
Energy Efficiency Standards in New Construction and Major Renovations -There
are a number of new energy efficiency/green building programs including
LEED, Energy 'Star (utilized by the City's I.S. Dept. when making purchases for the
Server Room), and other equivalent programs that set guidelines for developers
and their projects that exceed the levels set by California's Title 24 mandates.
The Council could choose to adopt development standards that require
developers to exceed Title 24 standards or meet the more aggressive energy
efficiency requirements set by LEED and other equivalents. In one current
real-world example of this option, the City of Chula Vista requires developers
to exceed current Title 24 requirements by 20%, a very aggressive mandate.
New standards related to stormwater quality, water conservation,
and the use of recycled construction materials could also be
included in a series of newly adopted development codes.
While some studies conducted by the California Public Utilities
Commission indicate that building to LEED standards can be
accomplished at virtually no extra cost to the developer, the true costs
or savings remain to be seen and will ultimately depend on the project.
Adoption of the new sections of the development code would require City
Council review and a public hearing. Costs to develop the section would
primarily consist of City Attorney's fees.
Incentives/Enforcement - Whether through incentives or enforcement,the City
has the opportunity to reduce energy costs for owners, increase reliability and
availability of energy sources for the State, and reduce the environmental impact
in the City. To those developers that incorporate green building concepts or
meet defined development standards, the City could choose to offer incentives
such as expedited/priority plan -check services or reduced plan -check fees.
• Other Sustainable Building Standards - Beyond implementing energy
efficiency standards, the Council could also choose to require a percentage of
all new residential units to utilize alternative energy sources or meet "net -zero"
energy emission standards.The City's possible subdivision at the Summitridge
Mini -Park site could be used as a model for green residential development.
Other development code amendments could require enhanced residential water
conservation measures, include tighter regulations for disposal and diversion of
construction and demolition waste,and mandate space for recyclables collection
in all multi -family and commercial developments.
State and federal laws now require
stricter environmental quality and
energy efficiency development
standards.
12
t_aui al l� Er ergy and D �velopment Agreements
Use of Alternative Energy — When negotiating development agreements for
residential or commercial projects, the Council could adopt a policy that requires
the project to incorporate the use of some form of renewable green energy.
Energy sources could include dedicated solar or fuel cells or, where available,
site specific energy sources such as methane (commonly found near landfills
and oil operations). Such standards reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the
state's overburdened energy grid and can dramatically cut the carbon emissions
normally produced by a large development.
With an exploding population and a desert climate, water is one of California's most
important and limited resources. As supply becomes increasingly scarce and costs
continue to rise, the City should take further steps to conserve water usage.
• Install Drought Resistant Landscaping — As the City has done with the Grand
Avenue improvements, all future City landscaping projects (parks, medians,
parkways, etc.) could feature drought resistant/tolerant landscaping featuring
native plants and foliage. These landscaping features reduce necessary water
usage and costs and may prove to be less expensive to install and maintain.
• Should the Council wish to go a step further, water -extensive green belts
and lawns maintained by the City could be replaced with drought -tolerant
landscaping. Initial costs to do so would be high, with cost offsets expected years
down the line in the form of water cost savings (particularly in LLAD budgets).
• Implement Centralized Irrigation Control System/Low Flow Sprinklers —The
City's irrigation systemsare currently controlled bya seriesof individual controllers
in different locations. A centralized system and the installation of cooperative low
flow sprinkler heads would result in a more efficient and less intensive water usage.
• Implementing this system is very expensive, and could reach as high as $500,000.
Community Services staff has applied for grant funds from Metropolitan Water,
which if awarded, could offset a significant portion of these costs.
Conclusion
The City Council's long-standing commitment to the environment is laudable and
should continue with additional new programs and policies. The implementation
of some or all of the options described above will maintain this commitment as
conservation and sustainability become even more essential to future residents and
businesses.
The City's beautification project
features drought tolerant
landscaping.
73
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
909.839.7000
INTRODUCTION
The City Council's adopted Goals & Objectives for FY 2008-09 identify
the development of new sustainability options for Council consideration.
The Draft Sustainability Program Options document prepared by staff
contains a number of new or expanded programs that may be
implemented in Diamond Bar.
The presentation tonight includes three categories: Currentlongoing
programs that the City is currently doing; Recommended Actions that
staff recommends the Council approve tonight for immediate
implementation; and Long Term Options which will require additional
information and will be presented to the Council for consideration in the
future.
DEFINING SUSTAINABILITY
Before developing options, we first developed a defining statement for
the City's future sustainability programs.
This defining statement identifies what we aim to accomplish, focusing
the City's efforts while encouraging quantifiable results that are not only
effective, but economically feasible and appropriate for residents and
business owners.
A SUSTAINABLE DIAMOND BAR
"A sustainable Diamond Bar uses its resources to meet current needs
while ensuring that adequate resources are available for future
generations of residents and business owners. The City should exhibit
leadership by developing and implementing responsible and cost-
effective environmental policies, procedures, and strategies that reduce
waste, prevent pollution, maximize conservation, and further develop
local resources to revitalize the local economy."
CURRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
While the concept of sustainability and "going green" may be relatively
new on the national scene, the City has long recognized the importance
of reducing our overall impact to the environment.
Since incorporation, the City Council has been ahead of its time,
approving the development of a variety of recycling programs,
education/outreach opportunities for residents and businesses, and
expanded water quality requirements.
RRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
BY THE NUMBERS
HHW Roundup
8,500 Gallons of Used Paint
300 Used Car Batteries
70 Drums of Misc. Waste (55 Gallons Each)
Residential Curbside Recycling
12,267.95 Tons of Various Recyclables
School Recycling Programs
5,362 lbs. of Recycled Paper Per Week
CURRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
BY THE NUMBERS
Other Recycling Program Results
91,821 lbs. of E -Waste
3,183 lbs. of Batteries
5,860 Florescent Bulbs
10,782 Gallons of Used Oil
635 Used Oil Filters
CURRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAMS
EnviroLink Annual Newsletter
Environmental Services Info Booth at City Events (City B-Day/July 4)
Composting Bin/DVD Giveaway
Street Sweeping Calendar
Used Oil Information Postcard
Business and Multi -Family Units Recycling Assistance
CURRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
WATER QUALITY
Sewers/Storm Drains
Overflow Management Plan (Preventing Future Spills)
Recycled Water
The City Utilizes Recycled Water from WVWD Where Available
Street Sweeping/Composting
Diverted 652.52 Tons of Debris
Another 1.06 Tons of Debris Removed From Catch Basins
CURRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC MITIGATION
Traffic Signal Synchronization
Reduces Congestion and Engine Idling
Improved Traffic Flow Leads to Reduced Carbon Emissions
CURRENT/ONGOING PROGRAMS
E-GOVERNMENTNIRTUAL CITY HALL
Online Transit Pass Sales/Recreation Registration
Reduces Trips to City Hall and DBC
Reduces Printing Costs and Paper Usage
On -Demand Streaming Video
Makes Council Meetings Available Without a Trip To City Hall
THE IMPACTS OF AB 32
Passed by the State in 2006, the Global Warming Solutions Act aims to
reduce state-wide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is currently determining
how to implement new rules and regulations that will allow agencies to
meet this aggressive new standard.
While we remain uncertain of what exactly the new regulations will hold
for local agencies, we suspect that they will bring about significant
changes in the way we must do business, from planning and building
projects to purchasing.
INTRODUCING RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Knowing the major policy changes of AB 32 are looming, it is important
to consider additional environmental programs.
There are a number of potential options that can be developed and
implemented by staff in a fairly short time frame without major financial
investment.
The majority of the short-term program actions identified here focus on
new and expanded public outreach efforts, inclusionary business
environmental programs, and stormwater quality standards, among
others and can be accomplished with existing resources. It is staff's
intent to implement these Recommended Actions following tonight's
study session provided Council concurs. Each of the Long Term
Options identified in tonight's presentation will be presented to the
Council at a future date for consideration.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
INTERNAL POLICIES & PROCEDURES
Develop a green purchasing guide that provides criteria with which to
purchase supplies and equipment, such as economic feasibility,
proximity of the vendor to the City to reduce transportation emissions,
and use of recycled/environmentally friendly materials in the items
purchased.
Adopt a fuel-efficient vehicle purchase and replacement policy that
promotes the utilization of low -emission vehicles and/or fuels when
possible, require contractors to operate efficient vehicles, and use
AQMD AB2766 funding to offset the costs associated with purchasing
CNG fleet vehicles.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAMS
The City's newly redesigned website will include a dedicated
environmental services webpage. Staff could develop enhanced content
for the page, providing new information on recycling programs and
offers practical sustainability solutions to residents and businesses.
Taking advantage of DBTV and streaming video on the City's website, a
series of short environmental PSAs will be developed as public
educational tools.
Periodic "Green Living" meetings will be held at the Diamond Bar Center
to encourage and educate residents and businesses about how they
can "go green."
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BUSINESS OUTREACH PROGRAMS
The City's partnership with the business community includes
environmental outreach and assistance. Through new and expanded
outreach, the City will identify and target businesses throughout
Diamond Bar to start or expand their own waste reduction and recycling
programs.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BUSINESS OUTREACH PROGRAMS
Create a Business Recycling Starter Kit
Provides information for businesses to begin their own recycling
programs, encourages them to participate in programs offered by the
City, and connects them with local recyclers.
Green Business Program/Pledge
Develop a program for businesses that pledge to meet defined "green
standards/efforts. The program will include a City -issued sticker or
plaque recognizing the business as meeting "green" standards. A City
"Green Team" will be formed to lead efforts to identify businesses and
encourage participation.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Amend the Development Code to Require
Low Impact Designs for Stormwater Quality.
Work closely with developers to include features such as porous
pavement, detention basins, and landscaped swales that encourage
natural absorption of pollutants through landscaping and natural
filtration.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
While developers have shown a willingness to incorporate stormwater
quality elements in new projects, the City lacks the authority to require
them without a rodifiari Ctandarr1
Chili's Restaurant
Kaiser Medical Center
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Require Developers to Attend an Introductory Meeting With
Environmental Services and Planning Staff Prior to Project Submittal.
Work closely with developers to review stormwater quality compliance
regulations, Best Management Practices and Certifications, and
construction/debris removal standards while encouraging "green"
building techniques prior to the project's commencement.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
WASTE HAULER CONTRACTS
With the Council Solid Waste Contract Subcommittee, Develop a Wish
List of Environ menta VRecycling Enhancements to be Included in the
Provisions of the Next Waste Hauler Contract(s).
The City's current waste hauler contracts are due to expire in 2010. As
part of a renewal or RFP process, the City could request a series of new
environmental or recycling services to be provided as part of the
contract terms.
INTRODUCING LONG TERM OPTIONS
The following long-term options will most likely require greater financial
investment and extended research, development, and implementation
periods.
These options include major environmental policy decisions that will
require extensive Council consideration, including public hearings, and
input from the development community.
These decisions will be new to the Council and will in some way shape
the City's operations in the years to come. Each of these items will be
presented to the Council at a future date for consideration.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
AUDIT ENERGY USE & SET REDUCTION GOALS
Conduct an audit the City's total energy use across departments,
operations, and facilities.
Using this information, set a goal for the percentage reduction in energy
use deemed appropriate and achievable.
Reduced energy usage should lead to cost savings. However, costs to
implement reduction strategies could be significant with cost offsets
reached over a period of years.
OPTIONS
LED LIGHTING
LED lighting is a longer -lasting, with greater energy efficiency.
Public Works is currently researching the feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of replacing the City's standard lighting fixtures with LED
bulbs, and the potential for a phased installation approach.
Studies indicate the energy savings of LED lighting can reach as high
as 50% over standard lighting fixtures.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
GREEN CITY BUILDINGS
Although several City facilities were built prior to recent state and federal
mandates, a special CIP Program fund can be created to improve
energy efficiency and retrofit existing buildings with newer technology.
The special fund could be utilized for green efficiencies such as the
installation of solar panels at the Diamond Bar Center, energy efficient
heating and air conditioning units, and efficient LED lights in City
facilities, with potential cost savings being reinvested to retrofit
additional facilities in future years.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
GENERAL PLAN REVISION
The City's General Plan could be revised to include sustainable
guidelines to influence growth in the City by focusing on recent changes
to land use planning, environmental design and efficiency, and new
community design/building standards.
The revision would reflect big picture changes to new development
within the City, and could also require the incorporation of green
technology and design efficiencies when residents and businesses
propose renovations of their existing buildings.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
TITLE 24 & DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS
California's Title 24 sets some of the most sustainable building
standards in the nation, mandating builders/developers to incorporate
enhanced energy efficiency components to new construction and
remodeling projects.
The City Council could choose to require further requirements through a
development code amendments that set standards beyond Title 24
levels (LEED Silver or equivalents, etc.). For example, these
amendments could include stricter water quality and conservation
provisions or the mandated use of alternative energy sources and
recycled materials. Cost implications will depend on the project and
standards implemented.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS/INCENTIVES
When negotiating development agreements, the City could choose to
require the developer to incorporate the use of renewable green energy.
Examples of renewable green energy include fuel cells or solar panels,
to name a few.
Often, developers will ask for incentives in exchange for such
agreements. In exchange for enhanced "green" building features, the
City could provide expedited plan -check or reduced plan -check fees,
among other options.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
WATER CONSERVATION
Install a Centralized Irrigation Control System and Low -Flow Sprinklers
Leads to more efficient and less intensive water usage in the City.
Implementation of this project is very expensive — up to $500,000.
Community Services has applied for grant funds in an attempt to offset
the cost of such a project.
LONG TERM OPTIONS
WATER CONSERVATION
Install Drought -Resistant Landscaping On City -Owned Properties
When installing landscaping on all future projects, incorporate the use of
landscaping that requires little water usage.
The City's recently completed Grand Avenue improvements incorporate
these techniques.
The Council could also choose to replace existing water -intensive green
belts with drought tolerant landscaping. This would require a significant
investment of funds. �,
LONG TERM OPTIONS
WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
Revise the City's Existing Water Conservation Ordinance to Include
More Conservative Standards.
Develop and adopt stricter measures that regulate water usage for
landscaping. Options may include limiting the use of water on
landscaping to certain "non -peak" hours of the day, or issuing citation for
those with irrigation systems that waste water by flowing on concrete.
CONCLUSION
The City Council's adopted Goals & Objectives for FY 2008-09 identify
the development of new sustainability options for Council consideration.
The Draft Sustainability Program Options document prepared by staff
contains a number of new or expanded programs that may be
implemented in Diamond Bar.
The items presented tonight as Recommended Actions will be
implemented by staff unless Council directs otherwise. Each of the
Long Term options will be brought back to Council in the future for
consideration.
Jack Tanaka
Mayor
Ron Everett
Mayor Pro Tem
Wen P. Chang
Council Member
Carol Herrera
Council Member
Steve Tye
Council Member
Recyded pape,
October 16, 2008
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7000 • Fax ON) 861-3117
www.CityofDiamondBar.com
City of Industry
Attention: Mike Kissell, Planning Director
15625 East Stafford Street
City of Industry, California 91744
Subject: Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental
Impact Report - SCH No. 2003121086 (NFL' Stadium based
development proposal)
Dear Mr. Kissell,
The City of Diamond Bar (City) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment
upon the "Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact
Report, SCH No. 2003121086" (DSEIR or SEIR), as released under the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing guidelines (CEQA).
The DSEIR notes that the "revised Plan of Development would include, among other
things, a National Football League (NFL) stadium with practice fields, team training
facilities, and team offices; a sports medical center; retail uses; restaurants;
entertainment uses; other office buildings; and parking areas to accommodate all
uses" (DSEIR, p. 1-6, p. 3-2).
The "revised Plan of Development" envisioned for the Industry Business Center
(IBC) and described in the DSEIR differs substantially from the "2004 IBC Plan of
Development" (original project) identified and evaluated in the "Final Environmental
Impact Report — Industry Business Center, SCH No. 2003121086" (Final IBC/EIR),
as certified on October 28, 2004.
The City has examined the proposed NFL stadium based development project as
described within the DSEIR to ensure that sufficient information has been made
available to allow an informed decision regarding the likely benefits and potential
consequences of a project of the scale proposed. Looking beyond those efforts, the
nature and potential significance of the proposed project requires that the City view
the project not on architectural design and its site planning considerations but more
specifically on the project's local and neighborhood implications.
Non-compliance with CEQA
One of the policy mandates established under CEQA is that public agency actions
take place with a reasonable understanding of the environmental implications of
those actions and with the goal of preventing environmental damage while providing
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 2
a decent home and satisfying living environment to every Californian (§21000[g]). CEQA contains
requirements for public participation as well as specific findings that an agency must make when
evaluating a project's environmental impacts. An agency must find that a project has a significant
effects on the environment if the possible effects of that project are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable (§21083[b]). Similarly, agencies must find that a project has a significant
environmental effect if a proposed project's impacts will directly or indirectly cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings (§21083[c]).
The City asserts that the Lead Agency has not included sufficient relevant information about the
"revised project" and its impacts and, as a result, has precluded informed decision making and
public participation. Unless the document's shortcomings, and the myriad of technical and
procedural defects outlined herein are remedied, any project -specific actions by the Lead Agency
would constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion under CEQA.
A number of established residential neighborhoods in Diamond Bar (i.e., Sunset Crossing/Neil
Armstrong Elementary School and Lycoming/Washington) abut portions of the project site and will
be negatively impacted by the stadium based project. Additionally a substantial portion of project
related traffic will utilize Diamond Bar's street network in order to access the subject property and
the land uses now proposed. As indicated in the DSEIR, on "NFL game days, nearly 82% of the
traffic will approach the project via Grand Avenue. It is anticipated that 38.6% of the traffic will
approach from the east on the freeways, and merge with approximately 30.4% approaching from
the west on the freeway and from farther south on Grand. The remaining 12.9% will arrive from the
north on Grand Avenue" (DSEIR, Appendix I, p. 2).
Not only will stadium events subject the City to detrimental traffic and other impacts, but impacts
related to the many other proposed land uses will create negative impacts to the Diamond Bar
community. In order to mitigate project -related and cumulative traffic impacts, numerous traffic,
intersection, and mid -block improvements may be required in Diamond Bar. As a result, Diamond
Bar becomes the recipient of all the detrimental impacts of the proposal while the City of Industry
receives all of the beneficial aspects of the project.
The concept of "environmental justice," is defined as the fair treatment of people of all races,
cultures, and incomes with respect to development, adoption, and implementation of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies. Environmental justice relates to ensuring that development in one
community does not result in that community's retention of all the inherent benefit and the
exportation of all the resulting hardships to another community and to a constituency that the
decision-making agency neither represents nor speaks for.
The comments presented herein are submitted on behalf of all residents, property owners, and
business interests in Diamond Bar and reserve to those parties the rights available themselves of
the comments, statements, and substantial evidence presented herein should any such party elect
to pursue judicial remedies in response to the Lead Agency's failure to comply with its CEQA
obligations.
The Final IBC/EIR, upon which the DSEIR is derived, acknowledged: "[A]II agencies responsible
for approving traffic -generating projects must work cooperative with the agencies responsible for
implementing road improvements. These agencies include the Cities of Industry, Walnut, Diamond
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 3
Bar and Pomona, the County of Los Angeles, Caltrans, Cal Poly Pomona and others. These
agencies will all have responsibilities to assess, collect and contribute mitigation fees for the
purpose of funding needed roadway improvement. Most of these agencies will also be responsible
for implementing roadway improvements needed within their jurisdictional boundaries" (Final
IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response H-2).
As further indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "Industry shall work cooperatively with responsible
agencies, including Caltrans, County of Los Angeles and the Cities of Diamond Bar, Pomona,
Walnut and West Covina and other appropriate agencies to secure funding for and to cause the
implementation of the following or equivalent traffic improvements" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 1-38). With
regards to "traffic improvements," the Lead Agency formally acknowledged Diamond Bar's
responsible agency status through Resolution No. 2065, as adopted by the Industry City Council
on October 28, 2004 (FOF/SOQ, Mitigation Measure 5.14-1, p. 3-28).
As mitigation for the "transportation and traffic" impacts associated with the "revised project," the
DSEIR states: "The City of Industry shall work cooperatively with responsible agencies, including
Caltrans; County of Los Angeles; the Cities of Diamond Bar, Pomona, Walnut, West Coving; and
other appropriate agencies to implement the following or equivalent traffic improvements" (DSEIR,
p. 5.10-191). As such, the Lead Agency acknowledges that Diamond Bar is a responsible agency
under CEQA.
Because the City will be required to rely upon the information presented in the EIR, as required
under CEQA, responsible agencies, shall respond to consultation by the Lead Agency in order to
assist in preparing an adequate environmental document for the project (14 CCR 15096[b]) and
shall reach their own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project (14 CCR 15096[a]).
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR and as contained in the administrative record for that earlier
project, a number of Industry -adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval were
previously established by Industry which may have continued bearing on the "revised Plan of
Development". As a result, with the exception of Industry itself, this community will be substantially
impacted by the project's development. It is, therefore critical to the City, that the environmental
review and decision-making processes be founded on a thorough and accurate assessment of the
likely effects that the proposed project will create, not only with regards to impacts to Industry but
also with regards to the project's effects on the City and throughout the region.
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "The Industry Urban Development Agency, which owns the
property has developed a preferred plan of development for the IBC" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 4-2). In the
absence of any reference to any conveyance instrument, it is not known whether the IUDA
subsequently conveyed to the Applicant or to another party, any control over or rights to that
property. If such conveyance has occurred, the Lead Agency needs to disclose the nature of that
conveyance, identify the benefited party, and explicitly state what rights or benefits were so
conveyed.
In the absence of any reference to the possible inclusion of the IUDA, any reference to the "Lead
Agency" herein should be interpreted as inclusive of the City (including its decision makers,
advisory bodies, and various departments), the IUDA, and any other separate division or public
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 4
entity of Industry involved, either directly or indirectly, with the "2004 IBC Plan of Development"
and/or the "revised Plan of Development."
All public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment
plan constitute a "single project" (§21090). An EIR on a redevelopment plan shall be treated as a
program EIR with no subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the redevelopment
plan unless a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required (14 CCR 15180). As a result, to the
extent that the project site is located within an existing redevelopment plan area, the "revised Plan
of Development" needs to be linked to the first-tier CEQA documentation establishing the
redevelopment project area in which the NFL Stadium based project site exists. The project's
consistency or lack of consistency with that redevelopment plan and the first-tier EIR needs to be
evaluated. Similarly, the Lead Agency's plans to provide any form or amount of public subsidy for
the project's development and/or operation, including any infrastructure improvements predicated
by or benefiting that project, needs to be disclosed and the potential impacts of that subsidy (e.g.,
diversion of public funds from other alternative actions) needs to be fully disclosed.
On April 17, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported Mr. Ed Roski of Majestic Realty stated that no
public funds (whether in the form of public subsidies or in monies otherwise diverted from other
special districts) would be involved in the advancement of the stadium project. However, among
the list of discretionary actions for which the DSEIR has been prepared, the Lead Agency states
that the "intended use of the EIR" includes "financing approvals" (Table 3-3, p. 3-56).
What is the Lead Agency's definition of and meaning of "financing approvals"? Who would be the
beneficiary of those approvals? Why is "financing approvals" designated by the Lead Agency as a
discretionary action? What physical change in the environment could potentially result from those
approval?
The City of Industry's Mayor Dave Perez in a June 28, 2008 article in the Pasadena Star News. is
quoted as stating: "Hell yeah we'll get our money back." In that same article, Rick Eckstein, author
of "Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums," is quoted as
stating: "This sounds like one of those kind of hidden subsidies where money does not change
hands but some other kind of assistance is provided."
Absent from the DSEIR is any declaration concerning whether the Lead Agency and/or the IUDA
have an economic interest (of any kind) in the project's advancement and/or would benefit (either
directly or indirectly) from the project's approval. For example, if public dollars will be invested in or
in furtherance of the NFL Stadium based development project, the Lead Agency may have an
economic motivation to see the project move forward and succeed because those public dollars
may be riding on the project's success. If there are any economic interests or if Industry, the IUCA,
and/or any of the project's decision makers would benefit economically from the project's approval,
those interests must be identified in order to ensure full disclosure for the public to independently
ascertain the presence of any public funding or the existence of an economically -motivated
agenda.
The Lead Agency must disclose under what lease terms the Applicant's possessory interests in the
underlying real property was established. Other than through increased property valuation, does
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 5
there exist any terms or other provisions in that agreement or any related agreement whereby or
through which Industry and/or the IUDA could economically benefit?
The Lead Agency's failure to disclose the presence of public subsidies is contrary to the purpose of
CEQA (14 CCR 15002[a][4]) and, because public funding is itself a project subject to CEQA (14
CCR 15378[a][2]), constitutes an unsupportable truncation of the "revised project."
The Lead Agency's planned commitment of public funds to benefit (either directly or indirectly) the
NFL Stadium based development project would suggest the existing presence or planned approval
of a development agreement, owner participation agreement, disposition and development
agreement, or similar instrument between the City of Industry and/or the IUDA and the Applicant.
No reference is, however, made in the DSEIR as to whether such an agreement now exists or is
currently being negotiated. Recently, the City of Industry announced it's intent to apply "excise
taxes" upon admission to certain entertainment uses in the City of Industry and parking fees. The
NFL stadium based development project provides a multi-million dollar revenue source directly to
the City of Industry and an additional project benefit derived from the decisions of the Lead Agency
to approve the NFL stadium based development project, a clear conflict exists for Industry to
provide an unbiased consideration of the proposal.
Incomplete Project Description
The DSEIR contends that the project now under consideration is not, in fact, the NFL Stadium
based development project at all but now houses all the "paper" development that was included in
the "2004 IBC Plan of Development." As stated in the DSEIR, (i.e., "The project area is currently
vacant land...No structures are present on the property," p. 4-3). When assessing the resulting
environmental implications of an NFL stadium based development project, the Lead Agency states
that the property is not vacant at all. In defining the project as only the incremental difference
between the unfulfilled vision of how Industry once saw the build -out of the subject property and
the alternative future that the Applicant now envisions, the project and its resulting impacts are
erroneously reduced to an accounting exercise based on a "net change" rather than in accordance
with a CEQA-obligated "physical change."
CEQA states that the purpose of an EIR is to "provide public agencies and the public in general
with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the
environment" (§21061). CEQA defined the "environment" to mean "the physical conditions which
exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project" (§21060.5). Ignoring the fact that
the "IBC site has historically been used for leased cattle grazing and a portion of the site is
currently being used for such purpose" (DSEIR, p. 4-3) and the fact that the "project area is current
vacant land" (DSEIR, p. 4-3), in describing its analytical methodology, the Lead Agency
erroneously states that "the SEIR considers the project approved in the IBC EIR as its baseline"
(DSEIR, p. 4-10).
The Lead Agency seeks to compare the "revised project" against those hypothetical conditions that
may exist under the "original project." Citing only a few examples, the DSEIR notes that:
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 6
(1) "Each topical area within this section analyzes whether the revisions to the 2004 IBC Plan
of Development would result in new significant effects, a decrease in the severity of
previously identified significant effects, or in an increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects" (DSEIR, p. 1-3);
(2) "The proposed changes to the 2004 IBC Plan of Development would eliminate the current
conceptual Planning Areas in favor of a project plan that would reduce the total square
footage of office, retail and industrial space on the IBC" (DSEIR, p. 1-6);
(3) "The No Project/Existing Development Alternative. . .would result in a worsening of air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions because of the large increase in the amount of
development that would occur" (DSEIR, p. 1-7);
(4) "[T]he amount of commercial/office development with the revised Plan of Development
would be substantially less than previously planned" (DSEIR, p. 3-12);
(5) "[T]he revised Plan of Development would result in 1,161,000 square feet less of office and
commercial use and 508,000 square feet less of industrial use" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-13);
(6) "The current project downsizes that proposed in the [Final IBC] EIR reducing the proposed
development by 1,794,000 square feet" and "the project is estimated to reduce trips"
(DSEIR, Appendix C, p. 21);
(7) "When compared against the weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak our traffic
generation of the 2004 IBC plan of development, the project as now proposed would result
in a lower traffic generation... the current project could generate 14,221 fewer weekday
daily trips, 2,961 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 2,187 fewer PM peak hour trips than the
original project traffic generation" (DSEIR, Appendix H, p. 39);
Although the Lead Agency attempts to define the "revised project" not as a stand-alone action but
as the difference between the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" and the proposed "revised Plan of
Development," it must be noted that neither the "original project" nor the Final IBC/EIR actually
considered any definitive land use plan. The land -use plan contemplated in the prior EIR was only
conceptual in nature.
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "Mhis document is a programmatic EIR and the project design is
conceptual in nature" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response F-11). As further
indicated therein: "[T]he project is a 'plan of development' that will provide the framework for future
development that takes place in the area. The broad categories of suggested uses (i.e., corporate
headquarters, commercial center) and their relationship to each other is based upon solid planning
practices and knowledge of the real estate market needs in these areas. The City of Industry only
has two zones, commercial and industrial, and the commercial zone includes both retail and office
buildings. The plan of development is intended to distinguish as much as is possible what would
occur under the broadly defined zones of commercial and is intended as a guiding document as
specific projects are presented in the future" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response
N-6).
None of the building square footage calculations presented in the DSEIR include any square
footage numbers assigned to the NFL Stadium itself (e.g., "the revised Plan of Development would
reduce the total buildout square footage, not including the seating and concession areas for the
stadium, by approximately 1,669,000 square feet," DSEIR, p. 3-12). The failure to assign a square
footage to the stadium results in a fatal defect which is subsequently carried throughout the SEIR.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 7
It is further noted that the DSEIR is not internally consistent in that the alleged "difference" is
alternatively stated as "1,669,000 square feet" (DSEIR, p. 3-12) and "1,794,000 square feet"
(DSEIR, p. 5.8-15), making a clear and consistent description of Lead Agency's assertion as to
what comprises the "revised project" unclear. In fact, public presentations by Majestic Realty have
revealed the size of the football stadium at 1,900,000 square feet. Therefore, the actual size of the
proposed NFL stadium based development project is greater, not less than, the previously
approved IBC proposal.
In County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977), the EIR was found to be legally insufficient as it
failed to provide "an accurate, stable and finite project description." The size of the "revised
development" and the square foot differences between the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" and
the "revised Plan of Development," cannot be accurately deciphered and have not been
consistently applied by the Lead Agency throughout the DSEIR.
The methodology employed in the DSEIR is not the same analytical methodology that was
employed in the development of the Final IBC/EIR. With regards to the "No Project/Existing Zoning
Alternative" examined in the first-tier document, the Final IBC/EIR states that "[t]his alternative
assumes the existing zoning would remain in place for the entire site and a total of approximately
6,412,000 square feet of industrial building space would be constructed" (Final IBC/EIR, pp. 9-4
and 9-7). It is apparent that "[t]he EIR's right hand does not appear to know what its left hand is
doing" (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles [1981]). No factual basis now exists to apply two
substantially different analytical methodologies in the Final IBC/EIR and the DSEIR while, at the
same, asserting a mere "supplement" (14 CCR 15163) is all that is necessary to make the Final
IBC/EIR apply to the "revised project."
The inherent problem with regards to the manner in which the project is described leads to a
fundamental deficiency with the DSEIR and negates its value for CEQA purposes. As indicated by
the Lead Agency, the DSEIR "has been prepared to analyze revisions to the 2004 IBC Plan of
Development analyzed in the IBC EIR (SCH #20033121086) and any environmental effects that
are different than those identified in the certified IBC EIR ... This SEIR will therefore analyze those
specific issue that are different or of greater impact than those identified in the IBC EIR" (DSEIR, p.
4-1). Rather than describing and evaluating the NFL Stadium project as a "new project" (e.g., "the
2004 IBC Plan of Development did not include a stadium," DSEIR, p. 5.10-153), the existing
environmental setting used by the Lead Agency for the purpose of impact assessment in the
SDEIR is based on a hypothetical condition that does not now exist (e.g., "the SEIR considers the
project approved in the IBC EIR as its baseline," DSEIR, p. 4-10).
The Lead Agency has inaccurately identified the environmental baseline. Other than through the
preparation of independent environmental studies, neither the City nor the public have the ability to
assess the environmental effects of the revised project NFL stadium based development project.
Inappropriate Tiering of Environmental Documents
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: (1) "This document has been prepared as a program EIR" (Final
IBC/EIR, p. 2-7); (2) "[T]his document is a programmatic EIR and the project design is conceptual
in nature" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response F-11); and (3) "The Industry
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 8
Business Center EIR is a program -level document" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments,
Response L-3).
As noted in 2004 by the Lead Agency: "The precise development of specific planning areas or
specific projects cannot be determined at this time" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments,
Response C-5). The DSEIR acknowledges in several statements the "conceptual" nature of the
"2004 IBC Plan of Development" and the subsequent transition from that earlier broad-based plan,
based on the concept of individual "Planning Areas," to the "detailed" development plan now
brought forward in the "revised Plan of Development" for the NFL stadium based project. Except
through the preparation of an original "master EIR" (14 CCR 15169), which is not the case here,
site-specific development proposals (particularly those as large as a NFL stadium based
development project) are routinely categorized as "new projects" and agency's routinely conduct
independent CEQA-compliance documents prepared for agency consideration.
At the time of certification of the Final IBC/EIR, the IUDA owned the property and sought to
formulate a "preferred plan of development for the IBC" in order to "[p]rovide for comprehensive
planning of the site" and to "[p]rovide private investment opportunities within the City to enhance
the City's revenues" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 4-2). The Lead Agency concluded that 4,779,000 square
feet of mixed office, commercial, and industrial use would obtain a higher price than lands allowing
for "approximately 6,412,000 square feet of industrial building space" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 9-7).
CEQA states that a "program EIR" is "an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that
can be characterized as one large project" and are related in specified ways (14 CCR 15168[a]).
An advantage of using a program EIR is that it can "[a]llow the lead agency to consider broad
policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has
greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts" (14 CCR 15168[b][41). A
"program EIR" is separate and distinct from a "project EIR" which is prepared for a specific project
and must examine, in detail, site-specific considerations (14 CCR 15161).
In the sequence of environmental review, the Lead Agency seeks to move from a "program EIR" in
which "no specific facility plans have been submitted for the IBC" (Final IBC/EIR, pp. 4-23 and 4-
24) to a "project EIR" for a "regionally significant" NFL stadium based project while asserting that
the appropriate environmental review is through the preparation of a "supplemental EIR" which
need only focus on the "differences" between the hypothetical "buildout assumptions" used when
building plans are unknown" (FEIR IBC/EIR, p. 4-23) to a detailed development plan with
2,985,000 square feet of commercial and office use and a NFL stadium of at least 1,900,000
additional square feet of building construction.
However, rather than only seeking to present "minor additions or changes (14 CCR 15163[a][2]),
the Lead Agency seeks to rewrite the entire foundation upon which the remainder of the book is
derived. As the story opens, the project's "baseline" is no longer the vacant site acknowledged in
both the Final IBC/EIR and SDEIR but is now represented as a fully development property
containing 4,779,000 square feet of commercial and office use.
The Lead Agency acknowledges that the "proposed signage program has not yet been finalized"
(DSEIR, p. 3-22). Although the nature of the "signage program" is never disclosed, the Lead
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 9
Agency nevertheless acknowledges that the "proposed signage program" will "require an
amendment to the municipal code" (DSEIR, p. 3-27). Code amendments are not typically
processed unless: (1) existing policies need to be modified to accommodate a previously
unauthorized use; and/or (2) a proposed use exceeds existing standards, necessitating a
modification to those standards if the use is to be authorized. It is, therefore, unreasonable for the
Lead Agency to assert or suggest that an activity requiring a code amendment is consistent with
that code prior to the approval of such amendment. Absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of
the existing nature of that inconsistency.
In essence, the Lead Agency is stating that Industry plans to amend its municipal code but will not
tell the public how and to what extent that code will be amended, including any potential
applications of that code amendment extending beyond the project boundaries. Since municipal
code amendments can and typically often do have broad-based application beyond the specific
site for which those amendments are initially proposed, the absence of any disclosure as to the
precise nature of those amendments, the on-site and off-site application thereof, and the potential
environmental effects of those changes are never disclosed in the EIR.
By failing to reasonably describe and evaluate a key project element (e.g., "proposed signage
program") which, under the Lead Agency's own admission, will "play a significant role," the public is
denied the ability to comment on the environmental effects of that element, assess the efficacy of
any proposed measures or other actions formulated in response to those effects, and/or to suggest
any reasonable alternatives thereto. Since the public has been denied the ability to consider and
comment on the proposed code amendment(s), the Lead Agency's non -disclosure of that
amendment (and its environmental implications) constitutes a violation of CEQA.
As evidence of both the defer of disclosure and the conversion of discretionary to ministerial
actions, the DSEIR notes: "Prior to the approval of improvement plans for the surface parking
areas east of Grand Avenue, the project applicant shall submit an off-street parking lighting plan for
review and approval by the Department of Public Works" (PDF 1-18). Although the "[A]pplicant is
required to submit an off-street parking lighting plan" and "the lighting plan is required to include
the amount, location, height, and intensity of street and parking -area lighting" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-33),
none of the "required" plans have been included in the DSEIR. However, even in the absence of
those undisclosed lighting plans and undisclosed electronic billboards, the Lead Agency is
nonetheless able to conclude that "nighttime lighting impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-33).
Improper Use of a Supplement Environmental Impact Report
Under CEQA (14 CCR 15163), the Lead Agency is only authorized to prepare a supplement to an
EIR (rather than a "subsequent EIR") if "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to
make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." Because "a
supplement to an EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR
adequate for the project as revised," the Lead Agency's procedural approach (i.e., "supplemental
EIR") is inconsistent with CEQA and only serves to minimize the disclosure of the NFL Stadium
project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects, foreclose consideration of a full
array of mitigation measures, and limit discussion of a range of reasonable alternatives.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 10
Objectives used to derive the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" included, but were not limited to: (1)
"Provide complementary commercial, professional and service uses to support manufacturing,
distribution, and industrial uses within the City of Industry, and residential uses within the
surrounding communities"; (2) "Allow for reasonable use of lands within the project site reflecting
current and projected market demand considering adjacent existing and planned development";
and (3) "Initiation of capital improvement programs and incentives to serve existing Industry and to
stimulate and support investment" (FEIR IBC/EIR, p. 4-2).
In contract, the objectives of the NFL Stadium project include, but are not limited to: (1) "To
construct a state-of-the-art football stadium in conformance with or exceeding the generally
accepted standards of design for National Football League stadiums, thus enabling the project
applicant to acquire and maintain an NFL franchise in the greater Los Angeles area'; (2) "To
provide a suitable venue capable of hosting a wide variety of regional entertainment events, such
as concerts and other sporting events"; (3) "To develop facilities adjacent to the stadium that
support and complement its use, including an NFL attraction, NFL team training complex, and
associated retail and entertainment uses"; and (4) "To provide an iconic regional destination retail,
entertainment, and commercial project" (DSEIR, p. 3-2).
The "2004 IBC Plan of Development" was designed and intended to accommodate a range of
locally -serving land uses (e.g., "Provide complementary commercial, professional and service uses
to support manufacturing, distribution, and industrial uses within the City of Industry," FOR
IBC/EIR, p. 4-2). In contrast, the "revised Plan of Development" is being designed to serve
regional needs (e.g., "regional destination retail, entertainment, and commercial project," DSEIR, p.
3-2). This change in the general character of the proposed use(s) and the market base from those
uses seek to draw constitutes a substantive change.
The DSEIR notes that "the revised Plan of Development seeks to create a retail/recreation
destination and draws from a much larger region" (DSEIR, p. 7-9). In contrast, the "2004 IBC Plan
of Development" sought to create "a mix of land uses more typical of the City of Industry and the
industrial projects north of the site" (DSEIR, p. 7-9). The change from a local use to a regional
magnet has far-reaching implications with regards to the revised project's environmental
implications (e.g., alternatives analysis and cumulative impacts).
When the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" objectives are compared against the "revised Plan of
Development," the two projects are substantially different both in purpose and intent (and thus in
terms of environmental effects). One of the CEQA consequences of the Lead Agency's significant
modification of the project's objectives is that such change produces an equally significant change
in the range of reasonable alternatives formulated in response to those objectives. When
comparing the Final IBC/EIR and the DSEIR, not only are the objectives different but so is the
range of alternatives formulated in response to those alternatives. The fundamental change in the
project's objective from those with a locally -based to a regionally -based focus have other far-
reaching implications. Not only are the objectives themselves different but, as evidenced in the
resulting analysis, so is the inventory of project's collectively producing cumulative impacts, the
operational characteristics of the use comprising the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" and the
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 11
"revised Plan of Development," and the environmental impacts resulting from those substantially
different projects.
According to statements in the DSEIR and publicly stated by Majestic, construction of Phase One
must begin by December 2008 in order to meet the August 2011 scheduled stadium opening.
Clearly, the Lead Agency has not allotted any time to conduct further project -level environmental
review following certification of this EIR and prior to the initiation of grading operations. The Lead
Agency's own project schedule constitutes substantial evidence that the DSEIR is intended to
serve as the project -level CEQA compliance document for the NFL Stadium. In addition, the City
of Industry's rejection of any additional time to allow the public and the two adjacent municipal
governments an opportunity to review and respond to the DSEIR documents serves to refute any
assertion by the Lead Agency that the DSEIR constitutes a "supplemental program EIR" but is
clearly intended to serve as a "supplemental project EIR" and is being processed under an
expedited schedule for entitlements and construction.
As specified under CEQA, the tiering of environmental review, as is now being proposed by the
Lead Agency, "shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan
and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located" (14 CCR 15152). However, as
indicated in the DSEIR, implementation of the "revised project" will necessitate: (1) zone change(s)
(e.g., "approval of a revised Plan of Development and zone change," DSEIR, p. 3-2); (2) imposition
of a general plan and/or zoning code overlay (e.g., "The project proponent has submitted an
application for a P -D Overlay and has prepared a revised Plan of Development," DSEIR, p. 3 -2 -
"with the implementation of a PD Overlay Zone, the proposed stadium, retail, office, entertainment,
and sports related uses would be consistent with the City of Industry's zoning designation for the
project site," DSEIR, p. 5.6-13); and (3) municipal code amendment(s) (e.g., "The proposed
signage program would require an amendment to the municipal code," DSEIR, p. 3-27).
Additionally, a subsequent EIR is prepared when: (1) substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; (2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; and/or (3) new information of substantial importance, which was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified shows any of the following (a) the project will have one or more
significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, (b) significant effects previously examined will
be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, (c) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponent declined to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative, or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment but the project proponent declined to adopt the mitigation
measure of alternative (14 CCR 15162[x]).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 12
By undertaking the preparation of a supplemental EIR, the Lead Agency acknowledges that one or
more of the conditions specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and/or
Section 15162(a) of the California Code or Regulations (CCR) now exists, otherwise, the Lead
Agency would have no reason to prepare a "supplemental EIR."
Since a "supplement to an EIR need only contain the information necessary to make the previous
EIR adequate for the project as revised" (14 CCR 15163[a][b]), it would appear inappropriate for
the Lead Agency to suggest that the introduction of a new, 75,000 -seat professional football
stadium based development project designed to accommodate the Super Bowl and a wide array of
other "sell-out events," could be fully examined with "only minor technical changes or additions" to
the Final IBC/EIR.
Failure to Satisfy CEQA Standards for a Supplemental EIR
Because the project's baseline is misrepresented in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency's resulting
environmental analysis also misrepresents the nature and severity of the project's environmental
effects. As such, the information presented in the DSEIR neither constitutes a credible source for
nor a determinant of whether the "revised project" satisfies applicable CEQA criteria warranting the
preparation of a subsequent. A Lead Agency cannot prepare an inadequate EIR and then seek to
rely on the information presented therein. Similarly, commenting parties should not be tasked with
performing the work that CEQA requires the Lead Agency to perform.
Notwithstanding the inadequacies of the DSEIR and the problems those inadequacies impose on
the City and the affected public, substantial evidence exists to support each of the criteria
contained in CEQA calling for the preparation of a "subsequent EIR." Substantial evidence
addressing each of those criteria is provided below and can be found elsewhere throughout the
City's comments.
■ Substantial changes are proposed in the project (14 CCR 15162[a][1] and 15163[a][11).
Differences exist between the "2004 Plan of Development" and the "revised Plan of
Development" (e.g., introduction of a new 75,000 -seat NFL Stadium designed to
accommodate the Super Bowl), the Final IBC/EIR was identified as a "program EIR" while
the DSEIR is assumed to constitute a "supplemental project EIR." Under CEQA, the
degree of specificity required in an EIR corresponds with the degree of specificity involved
in the underlying activity. CEQA requires that an EIR prepared on a construction project be
more detailed in the specific effects of the project than an EIR prepared for the adoption or
amendment of a local general plan or zoning ordinance which focuses on those secondary
effects that can be expected to follow from adoption or amendment (14 CCR 15146).
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "The intent of the EIR is to provide sufficient information
on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Industry Business Center Plan of
Development to allow the City of Industry to make an informed decision regarding approval
of the plan" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 2-1). The Final IBC/EIR was based on the premise that the
"precise development of specific planning areas or specific projects cannot be determined
at this time" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response C-5). In contrast, the
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 13
DSEIR examines the "implementation of the revised Plan of Development," including
"subsequent development" (DSEIR, p. 1-1). As a result, the two documents' different
intents and the substantive differences in the level of specificity of the resulting EIRs (as
required under CEQA) constitutes substantial changes in both the nature of the "project"
under consideration and the CEQA documentation required to address those changes.
Substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
(14 CCR 15162[x][2] and 15163[a][11).
With regards to ensuring that traffic impacts are fully mitigated, the Final IBC/EIR
acknowledged the "critical importance of maintaining traffic flow through" the SR -57/60
interchange (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response N-19). As indicated in the
Final IBC/EIR: "Because of the critical importance of maintaining traffic flow through this
interchange, the City of Industry will initiate the long process of planning, designing and
constructing needed improvements. Modifications to Mitigation Measure 5.14-1 commit the
City of Industry to prepare a Project Study Report/Project Report and associated
environmental documentation as required [by] Caltrans and complete the design for the
interchange improvements prior to occupancy of any non-public buildings at the IBC" (Final
IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response N-19).
"Mitigation Measure 5.14-1" stated, in part, that "Industry shall work cooperatively with
responsible agencies, including Caltrans, County of Los Angeles and the Cities of Diamond
Bar, Pomona, Walnut and West Covina and other appropriate agencies to secure funding
for and to cause the implementation of the following or equivalent traffic improvements. .
.The City of Industry shall fully fund and build the traffic improvements to the Grand Avenue
and SR -57/60 Interchange as indicated in 2015 mitigation measures. The City [of Industry]
shall fully fund the cost of preparing any necessary Project Study Report/Project Report and
associated environmental documentation for the interchange improvements and complete
design drawings per Caltrans specifications prior to the first occupancy of any building in
the Industry Business Center. Construction of the improvements shall commence when the
total traffic volume from project intersections on Grand Avenue reaches 2,000 PM peak
hour trips (in and out) or the volume at Intersection #56 [Brea Canyon Cutoff at Pathfinder
Road] reaches 7,500 peak hour trips (in and out), which is determined to be the threshold
volume where level of service would be near unacceptable" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 1-38;
FOF/SOQ, p. 3-28).
As now noted in the DSEIR, "Mitigation Measure 5.14-1" is "not retained from the 2004 IBC
EIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-190). More specifically, the DSEIR states that "improvements to this
interchange would include modifications to the Grand Avenue interchange, a new bypass,
collector and distributor roads, auxiliary lanes, and improvements ramps, independent of
the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 4-9) and "improvements that are planned to
be constructed in the future and are not related to the revised Plan of Development include
the Grand Crossing Development project, City of Industry improvements along Grand
Avenue, and Caltrans improvements for the SR-57/SR060 Confluence at Grand Avenue"
(DSEIR, p. 5.10-41). As such, not only does the Lead Agency now seek to eliminate its
obligations under "Mitigation Measure 5.14-1" but it also rejects any obligation to prepare
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 14
any "necessary Project Study Report/Project Report" as may be required to advance design
and engineering and to provide any funding in furtherance of those improvements. Instead
of fulfilling its stated mitigation obligations, the Lead Agency now seeks to defer its
obligations to both Caltrans and to other affected public agencies and private parties.
There exists no information in the Final IBC/EIR and/or in the DSEIR demonstrating
Caltrans' ability to implement those improvements in any time period commensurate with
the development of the "revised project." Presently, no design plans have been finalized
and no funding has been allocated by Caltrans for those traffic improvements which are
delineated in Mitigation Measure 5.14-1. As such, no factual information has been provided
to indicate that traffic conditions on the SR -57/60 corridor and along Grand Avenue will, in
fact, be as presented in the DSEIR.
As further indicated in the DSEIR: "The improvements that are planned to be constructed in
the future, and are not related to the proposed Industry Business Center project, include. .
.Caltrans improvements for the SR-571SR-60 Confluence and Grand Avenue" (DSEIR,
Appendix H, p. 54). The DSEIR then asserts that the "City of Industry or the project
applicant is only responsible for a fair -share of improvements attributable to the project
related traffic generated from the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-23). In the
Final IBC/EIR, the Lead Agency commits to the payment of the entire cost of identified
traffic improvements. However, in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency rejects that measure and
commits only to the payment of a "fair -share" of those costs.
The DSEIR states that "the project is expected to cause significant traffic impacts at four of
the five freeway mainline segments under Year 2015 conditions, as follows: [1] SR -60 east
of Nogales (eastbound) — Project fair -share percentage: 20.2°/x. [2] SR -60 west of Brea
Canyon Road (eastbound) — Project fair -share percentage: 20.1%. [3} SR -60 east of
Junction SR -57 North (eastbound) — Project fair -share percentage: 19.9%. (4) SR -57 south
of Pathfinder Road (northbound) — Project fair -share percentage: 13.2%" (DSEIR,
Appendix H, p. 164). The change from the payment of 100% to the payment of 13.2 to
20.2% constitutes a substantial change to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken.
Project will have significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
(14 CCR 15162[a][3][A] and 15163[a][11).
In order to compare the impacts presented in the Final IBC/EIR and those addressed in the
DSEIR, in light of the Lead Agency's assertion that "a Supplement to the 2004 Industry
Business Center Environmental Impact Report is necessary" (NOP), since a supplemental
EIR can only be used in which circumstances where a "minor change" is proposed to a
project with a certified EIR, the City would anticipate the impacts outlined in the Final
IBC/EIR would be carried over (generally verbatim) to the DSEIR and the minor changes
between the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" and the "revised Plan of Development" would
be clearly identified and examined in the context of those same carried forth measures.
However, rather than seeking anything approximating the same list of environmental
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 15
impacts, the effects presented in the Final IBC/EIR are virtually ignored and a totally new
set of impacts (generally absent from the Final IBC/EIR) are identified in the DSEIR.
For example, posited in the form of questions, the Final IBC/EIR lists the following aesthetic
impacts with respect to the "2004 IBC Plan of Development"; (1) "Would the project have a
substantial visual effect on a scenic vista" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 5-19); and (2) "Would the
project substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 5-36). In contrast, posited in the form of pre -drawn
conclusions, the DSEIR lists the following aesthetic impacts with respect to the "revised
Plan of Development"; (1) "The revised project would not substantially degrade the
aesthetic quality of the area in the context of the visual character of surrounding vicinity"
(DSEIR, p. 5.1-18); and (2) "The revised project would not create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area"
(DSEIR, p. 5.1-19). As a result, in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency has presented a format
which prevents both a ready comparison between the two documents and a clear
assessment of the impacts attributable to the "revised project."
More significantly, as evidenced by these variations, the DSEIR: (1) identifies new impacts
that were not addressed in the Final IBC/EIR; (2) elevates the potential significance of
impacts that were described therein; and/or (3) fails to bring forward for supplemental
analysis impacts that were identified in the Final IBC/EIR.
A comparative analysis of the existence of potential environmental effects is made more
difficult by the Lead Agency's failure to carry forward the same threshold of significance
criteria listed in the Final IBC/EIR and to utilize a consistent set of threshold standards in
the DSEIR. For example, under the assessment of "population and housing," the Final
IBC/EIR stated that: "SCAG views significant impacts as those which would: Result in
population, housing and employment growth inconsistent with the regional level of growth
projected under the Southern California Association of Government's Regional
Comprehensive Plan" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 5-272). No comparable threshold of significant
standard is, however, found in the DSEIR (DSEIR, p. 5.18-12).
The "revised project" will have numerous "new" significant effects which were neither
discussed nor deemed to be significant in the previous EIR. For example, the Lead Agency
notes:
(1) "Because the 2004 IBC Plan of Development did not include a stadium, the 2004
IBC EIR did not identify any significant impacts related to project -generated traffic
associated with large scale event traffic" (DSEIR, Impact 5.7-4, p, 5.7-43). With
regards to Impact 5.7-4, the DSEIR notes: "No mitigation measures are feasible to
reduce noise generated by project -related traffic to below the City's significance
threshold ... Traffic noise impacts are a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR,
p. 5.7-111).
(2) "The 2004 IBC EIR did not identify any significant impacts related to project -
generated mobile -source or train noise" (DSEIR, Impact 5.7-5, p, 5.7-75). With
regards to Impact 5.7-5, the DSEIR notes: "No mitigation measures are feasible to
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 16
reduce single -event noise generated by project -related traffic to below the City's
significance threshold. The 2004 IBC EIR did not evaluate noise from project -
generated train traffic because the original IBC EIR did not generate train activities.
Single -event train noise impacts are a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR,
p. 5.7-111).
(3) "Because the 2004 IBC Plan of Development did not include a stadium, the 2004
IBC EIR did not identify any significant stadium -related noise impacts" (DSEIR,
Impact 5.7-7, p, 5.7-80). With regards to Impact 5.7-7, the DSEIR notes that "no
mitigation measures would [be] available to reduce noise from nighttime cleanup
activities in the stadium, parking lot, fireworks and noise generated by helicopters.
In addition, impacts from a concert would extend beyond the local vicinity of the
project site and are a significant adverse impact ...Consequently, noise impacts
generated during a stadium event are considered significant and unavoidable. .
.Stationary -source noise impacts associated with operation of the stadium, including
parking areas and helicopters, are a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR,
pp. 5.7-111 and 112).
(4) "The 2004 IBC EIR did not identify any significant vibration impacts associated with
operation of the revised [sic] project" (DSEIR, Impact 5.7-8, p, 5.7-93). With regards
to Impact 5.7-8, the DSEIR notes: "No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce
vibration generated by project -related train traffic to below the level of perception.
Impacts from project -generated trains are considered significant and unavoidable. .
.Single -event train vibration impacts are a new significant impact of this SEIR"
(DSEIR, p. 5.7-112).
As further indicated in the project's "noise" analysis:
(1) "The 2004 IBC EIR did not evaluate mobile -source noise impacts associated with
large numbers of people leaving during the off-peak hour. Consequently, mobile -
source noise impacts associated with the flux of traffic after a game or concert ends
is a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p 5.7-62).
(2) "Noise levels at the nearest residences could reach 70 dBA Leq. Impacts from a
concert event are a significant adverse impact. The 2004 IBC EIR did not evaluate
stationary -source noise impacts associated with stadium noise. Consequently,
operational -source noise impacts associated with the stadium is a new significant
impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-83).
(3) "The 2004 IBC EIR did not evaluate ingress/egress-source noise impacts
associated with a large flux of people entering/existing the project site at once
during a stadium event as the 2004 IBC EIR would not have generated impacts in
this manner. Consequently, ingress/egress-source noise impacts associated with
the stadium is a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-83).
(4) "Because the 2004 IBC EIR land uses would not have promoted the use of parking
lots in this manner, operational -source noise impacts associated with the tailgating
in the parking lots is a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-84).
(5) "Because the 2004 IBC EIR land uses would not have prompted the use of
helicopters in this manner, this would be considered a new mobile -source impact of
this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-84).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 17
(6) "Because the 2004 IBC EIR land uses would not have generated trains in this
manner, train -related vibration impacts associated with the stadium is a new
significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-93).
(7) "[I]mpacts identified for train noise and vibrations are new significant cumulative
impacts of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-108).
As further indicated in the project's "air quality" analysis:
(1) "The 2004 IBC EIR did not evaluate global climate change impacts ... impacts from
GHG [greenhouse gases] associated with construction -related activities would be
cumulatively significant" (DSEIR, pp. 5.2-38 and 39).
(2) "[T]he total annual amount of CO2 emissions generated by operation of the revised
Plan of Development would be substantial and therefore cumulatively significant"
(DSEIR, p. 5.2-41).
(3) "[T]he revised Plan of Development's GHG emissions and contribution to global
climate change impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable and
therefore cumulatively significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.2-43).
(4) "The project's contribution to global climate change is a new cumulatively significant
impact in this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.2-44).
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
(14 CCR 15162[2][3][B] and 15163[a][1]).
As a result of the EIR's analytical methodology, a comparative assessment of the "2004
IBC Plan of Development" and the "revised Plan of Development" is virtually impossible
(e.g., "the trips generated by the revised project represent a decrease from those projected
for the 2004 IBC Plan of Development," DSEIR, p. 5.2-20). Commenting agencies and the
affected public are, therefore, placed at an unfair disadvantage because, unless those
parties were to conduct their own independent analysis (a feat which could not be
realistically completed within the limited comment period established by the Lead Agency),
the only basis for comparison is the information presented in the DSEIR.
As indicated below, based only on the information which is presented, numerous examples
of the increased severity of environmental impacts attributable to the "revised project" can,
however, be extracted from the EIR.
(1) "While the land use impacts at many intersections affected in the 2004 IBC EIR
have been eliminated, seven new intersections would be affected by the traffic
mitigation for the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-55).
(2) "Traffic noise impacts would be greater than those identified in the 2004 IBC EIR
because this SEIR identifies nighttime traffic noise after an event that was not
previously analyzed in the 2004 IBC EIR because the 2004 IBC Plan of
Development did not include a stadium. Traffic noise impacts are a new significant
impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-111).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 18
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR, all impacts on fire protection services could be mitigated
to "less than significant" (Final IBC/EIR). However, as indicated in the project's "public
services and utilities and service systems" analysis, the DSEIR now concludes: (1)
"because the City of Industry cannot ensure that the County Fire Department will commit to
its operation, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-5); and
(2) "because the operation of the fire station is the responsibility of the LACFD [Los Angeles
County Fire Department] and the City of Industry cannot ensure its operation, the impact of
new, recently completed and proposed developments in the eastern part of Industry is
considered a significant cumulative impact and the revised project is considered
cumulatively significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-5).
Mitigation/alternatives previously found not to be feasible would be feasible
(14 CCR 15162[a][3][C] and 15163[a][1]).
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR, under the heading "Alternatives Considered and Rejected
during the Scoping/Project Planning Process," with regards to the inclusion of an
"alternative sites" alternatives analysis, the Lead Agency concluded that "[n]o sites of this
size were identified" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 9-3). Based on those findings, in the Final IBC/EIR,
the Lead Agency rejected consideration of any "Alternative Sites" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 9-3). In
contrast, the DSEIR included an "Alternative Sites" analysis and, in fact, identifies a number
of alternative sites, including an alternative site "considered environmentally superior to the
revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 7-22).
Mitigation/alternatives considerably different from those in the previous EIR
(14 CCR 15162[a][3][D] and 15163[a][11).
The Final IBC/EIR, the DSEIR acknowledges that numerous mitigation measures and other
conditions of approval for the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" have been eliminated and
deemed inapplicable to the "revised Plan of Development." As indicated in the DSEIR: (1)
"These mitigation measures have not been carried through to this SEIR as the revised
project would eliminate the current conceptual Planning Areas of the previous 2004 IBC
Plan of Development (which outlines potential uses that could be development within each
Planning Area) in favor of a development plan that would include site-specific uses"
(DSEIR, pp. 5.4-9 and 5.5-32); (2) "Some of the previous PDFs [Project Design Features]
were deemed unnecessary because they were originally intended to provide guidance for a
conceptual Plan of Development that included Planning Areas rather than the detailed
project description and site plan presented in the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p.
5.1-15); and (3) "The following mitigation measure from the 2004 IBC EIR is no longer
applicable and has not been carried through to this SEIR" (DSEIR, pp. 5.2-48, 5.3-24,
5.4-13, and 5.5-31). Each of those changes are too numerous to individually list herein.
However, a listing can be found following each of the page referenced cited above.
As noted in the Final IBC/EIR, "the 2004 IBC EIR noted that the proposed landscaping as
well as other PDFs established for the 2004 IBC Plan of Development would reduce visual
impacts ... While some residents would experience a change in views, such view impacts
would be mitigated through PDFs and a buffer zone between the proposed structures and
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 19
residential communities ... Therefore, upon incorporation of the PDFs, view impacts were
found to be less than significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-2). Based on those statements, it is
evident that the Lead Agency acknowledges the importance of the adopted PDFs in
reducing otherwise significant visual impacts to a less -than -significant level.
As required under CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to "adopt a reporting or monitoring
program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring
program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation
(§21081.6[a][1]). CEQA further stipulates that "[m]itigation measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding agreements"
(14 CCR 15126.4[a][2]).
As noted in the Final IBC/EIR: "In the City of Industry, PDFs will be implemented as Special
Development Requirements, and their implementation will be assured through inclusion in
the mitigation monitoring and reporting program" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 2-6). As noted in the
MMP, each of the PDFs identified in the Final IBC/EIR were, in fact included in the Lead
Agency's MMP for the "2004 IBC Plan of Development."
Because, in the Final IBC/EIR, PDFs were elevated to the status of "mitigation measures"
under CEQA, there inclusion in the MMP provided reasonable assurance that those
features would be implemented and enforced. It is, therefore, the declaration of the Lead
Agency (as stated in the first-tier EIR) that "Project Design Features" are "mitigation
measures" and constitute enforceable project -level commitments made by the Lead Agency
to ensure that environmental impacts will be reduced to the maximum extend feasible.
Many of the PDFs presented in the Final IBC/EIR have been eliminated or substantially
modified.
The Lead Agency has not provided substantial evidence to support the elimination of
mitigation measures adopted following certification of the Final IBC/EIR. When the
substitute PDFs presented in the DSEIR, and presenting the rational for the rejection of
adopted PDFs, are compared with the replacement PDFs, the "revised Plan of
Development" is invalidated.
CEQA requires that the "discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the
measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other
measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency or other persons which are
riot included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce
adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project" (14 CCR
'I 5126.6[a][1][A]).
The City believes that there exists no supportable basis, either under CEQA or as a result of the
precise nature of the "revised project" now under consideration for use of a "supplemental EIR" for
the NFL Stadium based development project. Because the proposed 75,000 -seat stadium should
more appropriately be considered a "new project" rather than a "minor addition or change" to an
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 20
existing project (14 CCR 15163[a]), the Lead Agency is obligated to prepare either a "subsequent
EIR" or a new "project EIR".
Project Description Inclusive of Two Professional Sports Teams
As reported by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on August 28, 2008: "Majestic Realty Vice President
John Semcken" said that he "believes there is a possibility two NFL teams could wind up playing in
the $800 million stadium Roski wants to build in Industry." As reported in the Daily Titan on
September 9, 2008: "The stadium has a chance of not just hosting one franchise, but two. The
construction plans for the stadium are for two teams, according to Semcken...This stadium is
designed to accommodate two teams."
Based on the Applicant's own admission, there is clear intent to secure "two teams." Since the
Applicant currently has no NFL team(s) and since the prospects of securing one or two teams
seem equivalent, the Lead Agency cannot, without even acknowledging that a second team could
play at the NFL Stadium, fail to include that analysis as part in the EIR.
As now drafted, the DSEIR states that "NFL home games would occur up to 12 times a year at the
stadium. These events would consist of 2 preseason games, 8 regular season games, and up to 2
playoff games" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-8). Ignoring possible use by one or more college teams, or
professional soccer teams, at a minimum, if a second team were added to the stadium's roster,
those numbers would at least double. Potential impacts associated with a doubling of the site's
NFL stadium use are not addressed in the DSEIR and no prohibition again an expanded use have
been nominated by the Applicant or formulated by the Lead Agency. The "revised project" should
incorporate, as part of the "project description," the use of the NFL Stadium by two teams (e.g., two
professional football teams; one professional football team and one professional soccer team).
Incomplete and Inaccurate Project Description
The courts have stated that "all of the participants in the CEQA process must have the opportunity
to test the 'no project' and 'project' descriptions. These definitions must run the gauntlet of CEQA
process scrutiny to acquire legitimacy" (County of Inyo V. City of Los Angeles [19841). An
adequate project description is important in that it ensures that CEQA's goals of providing
information allow
consideration ofrm project'senvironmental
vmeasures la dpacts to alternati government
not be trenderedsuse useless (Coupublic
ty of
allow cons 9
Inyo v. City of Los Angeles 1981]).
The courts have indicated that `CEQA contemplates serious and not superficial or pro forma
consideration of the potential environmental consequences of a project" and emphasizes "the
importance of an accurate project description to fulfilling the goals of CEQA" (Leonoff v. Monterey
County Board of Supervisors). The courts have further stated that a "curtailed or distorted project
description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of
the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating
the proposal (i.e., the 'no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 21
sufficient EIR" (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles). The courts have repeatedly held that the
purpose of CEQA "is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made" (Laurel Heights Improvement Association
v. University of California).
Pursuant to CEQA, a "project" is defined to mean "the whole of an action, which has a potential for
resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment" (14 CCR 15378[a]). The entire project being proposed must
be described in the EIR as a complete project description necessary to ensure that all of the
project's environmental impacts are considered (City of Santee v. County of San Diego).
By focusing only upon what is "different" (DSEIR, p. 4-1) between the "2004 IBC Plan of
Development" and the proposed revisions to that plan, rather than focusing on the "revised project"
itself, the Lead Agency has inappropriately sought to carve off a certain portion of the project
(including the potential environmental effects thereof) for the apparent purpose of precluding or
otherwise limiting the disclosure of those effects, thus preventing the preparation of an accurate
environmental assessment of the "revised Plan of Development."
Neither the programmatic Final IBC/EIR nor the approval of a "Plan of Development" that followed
that document's certification established any vested rights with regards to any precise entitlements
to the real property addressed therein (e.g., "actual development levels would depend on approved
plans for future projects," Final IBC/EIR, p. 4-23; "The precise development of specific planning
areas or specific projects cannot be determined at this time," Final IBC/EIR, Response to
Comments, Response C-5). Since densities are typically represented as a range rather than a
precise number, neither a general plan nor a zoning designation, in and of themselves (absent a
development agreement or vesting subdivision map), create an entitlement for a specified floor -
area -ratio or square footage of any use that may be authorized therein. Similarly, any
predevelopment expenditures that may have been undertaken by the Applicant or the Lead
Agency do not establish any vested rights.
Although the Final IBC/EIR was previously certified, no discretionary actions were subsequently
taken by the Lead Agency with regards to the property now the subject of the DSEIR (e.g., "A Plan
of Development was prepared for the IBC in 2004 with the intention of rezoning to Commercial
when individual projects were presented. No areas have been zoned for commercial use and the
project site remains [designated as] Industrial," DSEIR, p. 5.6-4). As such, the "revised project"
does not constitute a modification of an existing permit that had been issued by the Lead Agency
or which any authorization which become final (whereby a party had been granted a legal right to
build). As such the "revised Plan of Development" constitutes a "new project" under CEQA.
The Lead Agency's approach to the assessment of the NFL Stadium project, whereby the square
footage; contemplated in the Final IBC/EIR can be subtracted from the proposed "revised Plan of
Development" (as the basis for defining the proposed action and assess the environmental effects
of the "revised project") is unreasonable since no precise entitlements are, in fact, in place and no
use rights have been granted.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 22
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR, with regards to the "2004 IBC Plan of Development, the "precise
development of specific planning areas or specific projects cannot be determined at this time"
(Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response C-5). Notwithstanding that declaration, the
DSEIR is based, in part, on the false assumption that the revised Plan of Development would
result in 1,161,000 square feet less of office and commercial use" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-13). Since no
precise entitlements now exists, the unanswered question arising from the Lead Agency's
assertion is "less' than what?" Unlike a situation where an existing use is being demolished to
make way for a new use (such that actual vehicle trips attributable to the existing use would be
removed from area's roadways), although offering an interesting accounting exercise, this
mistaken approach has no application to CEQA.
Without conceding to the accuracy of the figure, the EIR's air quality study discloses that
111,000,000 square feet are allocated for the stadium structure" and an additional" 0 00 0 square
Based
feet are allocated to the parking structure (DSEIR, p. 5.2-22; Appendix C, pp. and )•
on available information, the 1,000,000 square foot figure is, at best, a gross underestimation of
the actual square footage of the stadium. Public presentations by Majestic Realty have revealed
the size of the stadium at 1,900,000 square feet which is consistent with recent similar sized
stadium projects across the country.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal on September 27, 2004, "larger concourses, more
concessions and ample bathrooms have all become hallmarks of football stadiums." As a result,
with regards to the current size of NFL stadium's "1.6 million to two million square feet is [the]
standard size now, compared with one million to 1.2 million square feet before, but seating
capacities haven't changed."
The absence of the estimated 1,900,000 square feet of new "regional destination" development is
not limited to only the EIR's "project description" but permeates each of the accompanying
technical analyzes presented therein. No analysis of and no mitigation for those additional
construction -term impacts (inclusive of greenhouse gas emissions) is presented in the DSEIR.
The Applicant has established an Internet website which provides information concerning the
proposed development (http://www.losangelesfootbalistadium.com/stadium). As indicated therein,
the proposed 75,000 -seat stadium will be built so as to be "expandable to 80,000 for Super Bowl
games" (http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/LAStadium.htm). The presence of an additional
5,000 undisclosed fans represents an approximately seven percent increase in in -seat stadium
attendance above the figures represented in the DSEIR. Absent from the DSEIR is any analysis of
the potential impacts of an additional 5,000 -seated fans at a Super Bowl game and at any of the
"30 major sell-out events" (DSEIR, p. 3-31) or "45 major events per year" (DSEIR, Table 5.8-7).
Since no analysis is presented, the potential impacts attributable to and the potential need for
additional or expanded mitigation resulting from that added attendance are not considered in the
DSEIR.
The DSEIR never states whether the terms "75,000 seats" and "maximum allowable attendance"
are synonymous. In a newspaper article describing the NFL Dallas Cowboys' new stadium in
Arlington, Texas, the Los Angeles Times on October 1, 2008 reports that "[flans will be able to buy
standing -room tickets to watch from areas high above either end zone ... Or they can picnic outside
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 23
and follow the action on gigantic video screens." Many arenas can increase attendance by selling
"standing room tickets" and providing for "in -field" seating during concert events, as well as
including designated areas to accommodate physically disabled fans.
Similarly, the "75,000 -seat" figure (or even the Applicant's stated 80,000 -seat expansion
capabilities) does not appear inclusive of a wide range of other individuals that would be expected
to be within the stadium, including those occupying the luxury boxes or other VIP areas, athletes,
trainers, coaches, referees, other team personnel, sponsors, sponsors' representatives and other
personnel, medics, media representatives, sound crews, stadium officials, vendors,
concessionaires, ushers, security and law enforcement personnel, maintenance crews, scouts,
agents, drivers, aids, personal assistants, cheerleaders, color guards, marching bands,
entertainers, performers, and any of a larger group of others that would be expected to be in
attendance during a "major" event.
In addition to the stadium itself, the Applicant seeks to develop "an iconic regional destination of
retail, entertainment, and commercial project" (DSEIR, p. 3-2). Besides those individuals drawn to
the game itself, a substantial number of other people would be expected to be on the site in order
to enjoy the "associated retail and entertainment uses" (DSEIR, p. 3-2). The Lead Agency
confirms that the stadium would "be connected to other uses that may include several football -
themed attractions, including NFL -themed attractions, football -themed dining, sponsored areas,
team/retail stores, club/banquet/ conference space, team offices, and other retail facilities" (DSEIR,
p. 3-12). Since not all fans can afford the price of tickets, it is likely that these areas would draw
large attendance independent of the stadium itself.
By defining total attendance as the 75,000 -seat stadium, the Lead Agency seeks (by failure of
analysis or intentional misrepresentation) to under -represent the actual impacts of the project.
Since many environmental issues stem (directly, indirectly, or ultimately) from the number of
individuals that could potentially be on the property site at any one time, it is critical that the Lead
Agency attempt to accurately represent those conditions that could occur should the project be
developed. Unless both the Lead Agency and the Applicant intent to impose and enforce site -
access restrictions to the project site to everyone unless they possess game -day tickets, the
assertion that, "[o]n game days, the stadium -related uses are not expected to generate additional
trips beyond traffic generated by the game" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-28) is clearly erroneous because it
fails to understand and accurately represent both the intended and the actual nature of intended
on-site use.
In order to purport a reduction in traffic and parking requirements, the DSEIR asserts that "[o]ffices
would be closed prior to the start of weekday games" (DSEIR, p. 3-21) and the "medical office and
general office components will be closed before 2:00 PM on game days" (DSEIR, Appendix H, p.
37). However, in contrast, the "project description" states that "office" hours will extend between
"6:00 AM to 6:00 PM" (DSEIR, p. 3-21). With 75,000+ fans on the property at any one time, there
would clearly be a benefit to encourage the "medical center (out patient)" (DSEIR, p. 3-11) and
"sports medical center and clinic" (DSEIR, p. 3-20) to remain open to assist other on-site personnel
deal with the many medical problems that would routinely and non -routinely be expected to occur
during the "major events."
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 24
It is readily apparent that attendance figures can and will exceed the assumptions presented in the
DSEIR. No provisions are, however, made by the Lead Agency to either limit the operational
characteristics of the project to only those assumptions described in the EIR (i.e., 75,000 -seats) or
to institute additional off -setting measures to mitigate the incremental increase in environmental
effects attributable to higher attendance levels above those stated assumptions. In the absence of
those restrictions and/or off -sets, the Lead Agency's actions would constitute a violation of CEQA.
Although the `revised project is generally represented as a new "NFL Stadium," it is evident that
the proposed venue is, in reality, intended to accommodate a much larger regional entertainment
draw. As indicated in the DSEIR, assuming only one NFL team, a "typical year" would include only
12 pre-, regular-, and post -season home games (for a total of 12 annual NFL football games).
However, a "total of 30 major sell-out events" and "15 minor events with attendance of 25,000 or
less" (DSEIR, p. 3-21) are proposed.
Absent from the DSEIR are any conditions or other measures restricting the number of "major" and
,,minor' events to the numbers indicated, thus allowing for a substantial increase in on-site uses
beyond the number assumed by the Lead Agency and serving as the bases upon which the
project's impact assessment is derived. Similarly, the Lead Agency identifies a third category of
on-site events, namely "special events" (DSEIR, p. 3-28); however, that term is never defined and,
because its separate categorization remains elusive, may be distinct from other "major" and "minor"
events.
In contrast to the declarations presented in the DSEIR, "[a]t the time of its opening, it was
estimated that Reliant Stadium and Reliant Park would host more than 400 events each year"
(http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/Building/537/Reliant_Stadium.php). Similarly, "Ford Field
hosts more than 120 events per year" (http://www.dexigner.com/design_news/4147.htmi). In the
absence of explicit and enforceable restrictions, attendance at the proposed NFL Stadium must be
assumed be comparable to that found at other similar venues.
Since the stated objectives of the project include the provision of a "suitable venue" capable of
hosting "other sporting events" (DSEIR, p. 3-2), what is left unaddressed is what types of "other
sporting events" are now envisions and which other events could potentially occur. One important
and unanswered question is whether the stadium is being designed or would be readily adaptable
to accommodate the playing fields and spatial configuration of any other professional sport.
Although a declared project objective, the term "suitable venue" is left undefined both by the
Applicant and by the Lead Agency.
As reported by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on August 28, 2008: "Majestic Realty Vice President
John Semcken" said that he "believes there is a possibility two NFL teams could wind up playing in
the $800 million stadium Roski wants to build in Industry."
Once the stadium is built, since the presence of a second team has already been stated by the
Applicant, it would be disingenuous for the Lead Agency to subsequently disclose the addition of a
second major stadium user, to authorize that expanded use under the same set of entitlements as
may be issued for the stadium's initial construction, or to limit a later CEQA review to the
incremental environmental effects associated with that expanded site use.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 25
Since the term "generally" is neither defined nor conditioned, the statement that "[s]tadium uses for
concerts and other sporting events would generally be limited to Saturday and Sundays" (DSEIR,
p. 3-21) has no informative value under CEQA, imposes no limitations or restrictions on the
Applicant, and seriously devalues any environmental analysis relating (directly, indirectly, and/or
cumulatively) to the site's intended use. Because "generally" imposes no inherent limitations or
restrictions with regards to the site's ultimate use, the DSEIR includes no factual bases to state
that "except for limited use on weekdays (not more than two games/large events a year), the
stadium will not be used for games/large events during Monday through Friday" (DSEIR, Appendix
H, p. 30).
Since the profitability of the stadium is likely enhanced as the number of scheduled events
increases, absent limitations to the contrary, the total number of annual sell-out (>_75,000
attendance) and minor (!_25,000 attendance) events would be expected to exceed the artificial
limitations used as the basis for the EIR's environmental analysis (e.g., "Aside from official NFL
game clays the stadium may be used for concerts, exhibitions, or other sports events," DSEIR, p.
5.8-15).
Qwest Field, build to accommodate both footfall and soccer, is an example of a multi -sports
stadium. The stadium is the home of the NFL Seattle Seahawks and Major League Soccer's
Seattle Sounders FC. In addition, Qwest Field also hosts the Washington State Cougars' college
football team. Qwest Field has a 67,000 -seat capacity but includes an additional 5,000 additional
seats available for special events and 1,400 seats for fans with disabilities. As noted, seating for
fans with disabilities is not included in the stadium seating capacity (thus suggesting,that the NFL
Stadium project will also accommodate attendance figures greater than the stated number of
seats).
In the absence of any restrictions to the contrary and in light of the Applicant's own statement that
"two NF=L teams" could potentially play at the proposed stadium, the DSEIR errors by analyzing an
artificially low assumption concerning the site's likely utilization and occupancy. Since much of the
venue's actual use would be expected to occur during weekdays, contributing to peak -hour traffic
volumes along the region's arterial highways and local roadways, the DSEIR's environmental
analysis substantially misrepresents potential project -related impacts.
In an April 21, 2008, article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Mr. Roski states that the project will
"become an entertainment complex comparable to Staples Center and Universal City's City Walk"
(DSEIR., p. 3-2). Consistent with SCAG's finding that the "revised project" is "regionally significant,"
it is evident that Applicant seeks not to create a typical commercial use (with typical use
characteristics and typical trip generation rates) but a "regional destination" similar to Universal
City's City Walk (e.g., "the revised Plan of Development seeks to create a retail/recreation
destination and draws from a much larger region," DSEIR, p. 7-9).
In terms of at land -use characteristics and use -related trip generation, the DSEIR suggests that all
commercial uses are interchangeable (e.g., "the revised Plan of Development would result in
1,161,000 square feet less of office and commercial use," DSEIR, p. 5.6-13). Based on that
characterization, under the Lead Agency's methodology, the addition of one square of "iconic
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 26
regional destination retail" is equal to the reduction of one square foot of a more traditional
commercial use (e.g., grocery store).
Since the Lead Agency purports that all commercial uses are the same, when comparing two
development plans, the DSEIR can then falsely assert that "impacts" (assuming that impacts
themselves are generic and interchangeable) from alternative planned commercial uses would be
appreciably reduced merely because "the amount of commercial/office development with the
revised Plan of Development would be substantially less than previously planned" (DSEIR,
p. 3-12).
The "project description" assumes the existence of "roadway improvements in the vicinity" (DSEIR,
p. 3-29), initiated by others, which are not currently in place, where improvement plans have not
yet been finalized, and where construction has not been slated. As indicated in the DSEIR, with
regards to the "Diamond Bar/Industry interchange corridor of SR -57 and SR -60," the DSEIR states
that the "Cities of Industry and Diamond Bar, in a joint effort with Metro, are in the process of
developing the necessary engineering and transportation studies that are needed to bring the
remaining improvements to this interchange corridor to fruition, independent of the revised Plan of
Development" (DSEIR, pp. 3-30 and 4-9).
Those "remaining improvements' include, but may not be limited to, the following: (1) SR -60
westbound off -ramp; (2) SR -57 southbound/SR-60 westbound on-ramp; and (3) SR -60 eastbound
on-ramp. Absence any supporting evidence, the Lead Agency asserts that those "improvements
are expected to be completed by 2015, and have been included in the analysis of year 2015, year
2025 and year 2030 cumulative base and cumulative plus project conditions for the two key ramp
intersections at the Grand Avenue interchange." Additional uncommitted and unfunded
"improvements are anticipated to be completed by 2025, and have been presumed in the analysis
of year 2025 and year 2030 cumulative base and cumulative plus project conditions (DSEIR, p.
5.10-42).
In describing the differences between the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" and the "revised Plan of
Development," the Lead Agency does not acknowledge that the development schedule has been
substantially modified. While the Final IBC/EIR is based on a project "completed by 2025, the
"revised project" is projected to be completed by 2015 (DSEIR, Table 3-2, p. 3-19). However,
since "Phase One is assumed to be completed and open for business by 2011" (DSEIR, p. 3-19),
freeway improvements which will not be completed until 2015 will prove of limited benefit during
the early years of theNFL
environmental mental c nt equ nbsent from ces should the DSEIR is anythe improvements to the iscussI
on of the
potential traffic andSR-57/60
corridor not be in place prior to kickoff.
The Lead Agency has failed to include applicable project elements as part of the its environmental
assessment. The DSEIR notes that unrelated "improvements to this interchange would include
modifications to the Grand Avenue interchange, a new bypass, collector and distributor roads,
auxiliary lanes, and improvements ramps, independent of the revised Plan of Development"
(DSEIR, p. 4-9). The DSEIR further notes that the "improvements that are planned to be
constructed in the future and are not related to the revised Plan of Development include the Grand
, and Caltrans
Crossing Development project, City of Industry improvements along Grand Avenue
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 27
improvements for the SR-57/SR-60 Confluence at Grand Avenue" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-41). The Lead
Agency, therefore, asserts that it has no CEQA-based obligation to: (1) assess obviously critical
"roadway improvements in the [project] vicinity"; (2) include those improvements under the
umbre[a of the environmental review of the "revised project"; (3) address the potential post -project
environmental implications (e.g., traffic gridlock) should those improvements not be implemented in
the time period and/or in the manner assumed; or (4) impose any conditions or mitigation
measures establishing those improvements as events precedent to the commence of the facility's
Phase One operations.
This position contradicts earlier statements by the Lead Agency and presented in the Final
IBC/EIR. As indicated therein: "Because of the critical importance of maintaining traffic flow
through this interchange, the City of Industry will initiate the long process of planning, designing
and constructing needed improvements. Modifications to Mitigation Measure 5.14-1 commit the
City of Industry to prepare a Project Study Report/Project Report and associated environmental
documentation as required [by] Caltrans and [to] complete the design for the interchange
improvements prior to occupancy of any non-public buildings at the IBC" (Final IBC/EIR, Response
to Comments, Response N-19). As noted in the DSEIR, however, "Mitigation Measure 5.14-1" is
"not retained from the 2004 IBC EIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-190).
By ignoring any need or obligation to condition the NFL Stadium project on the physical
improvement of the SR -57/60 corridor (as evidenced by the elimination of "Mitigation Measure
5.14-1"), the Lead Agency seeks to rescind a critical mitigation measures used to support the
findings upon which the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" was originally approved (FOF/SOQ, p. 3-
28) and to erroneously exclude the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) from the list
of responsible agencies which are presented in the DSEIR (DSEIR, Table 3-3, p. 3-56).
Numerous discretionary actions logically associated with the "revised project" are never disclosed
in the DSEIR and insufficient information is presented therein allowing for any reasonable
supposition concerning the nature of or any additional impacts attributable to those actions. For
example, as indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "Individual projects in the planning areas would be
required to submit a tentative parcel map and development plans to the City of Industry for
approval that will adhere to the City's design guidelines as stated in Chapter 17.36 of the Municipal
Code" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response N-6). Based on that statement, it can
be concluded that the "revised project" includes a tentative subdivision map. No such map is,
however, included or referenced in the DSEIR.
The DSEIR further states that the "site consists of a 245 -acre parcel on the east side of Grand
Avenue and a 347 -acre parcel on the west side of Grand Avenue" (DSEIR,p. 3-2). Based on the
proposed project phasing, the planned development of an internal street system, and the
demarcation of a variety of distinct land uses and structures, it can be assumed that the "revised
project" includes an undisclosed tentative tract map. Rather than indicate that the project includes
the subdivision of the project site, the Lead Agency merely states that the DSEIR is intended for
"[o]ther approvals required to implement the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 3-56).
Under CEQA, an adequate project description must include "[a] general description of the project's
technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 28
proposals if any and supporting public service facilities" (14 CCR 15124(c]). The Lead Agency has
failed to provide sufficient (and in some cases any) information concerning the technical,
economic, and environmental characteristics of the project and the supporting public service
facilities.
A number of major items are either absent from the "project description" or are discussed in such a
brief or nebulous fashion as to offer no explanation of what is, in fact, being proposed as part of the
revised project." In the absence of even a fundamental description (e.g., height of the stadium),
the affected public is denied the ability to understand the nature of the proposed action and/or to
independent assess the potential environmental implications of those features.
Missing and critical components of the "project description" include, but are not limited to:
• Traffic and Parking Management Plan. As indicated in the DSEIR: "Significant impacts at
key intersections during the weeknight game PM arrival, Sunday game midday arrival, and
Sunday game PM departure peak hours would be addressed through the implementation of
a Traffic and Parking Management Plan (currently being prepared for the project) when
NFL games are held at the proposed stadium ... it was concluded that the implementation
of a Traffic and Parking Management Plan, and the expected fine-tuning of that Plan as
more games are actually held at the proposed stadium, would effectively address the traffic
access and circulation needs of the project during games (instead of the construction of
permanent, physical mitigation measures at key intersections and along key roadways"
(DSEIR, Appendix H, p. 150).
The EIR states that the Lead Agency has decided to reject "permanent, physical mitigation
measures at key intersections and along key roadways" for unspecified future actions
whose implementation will be deferred until "more games are actually held." The Lead
Agency, therefore, appears to accept gridlock as the acceptable game -day conditions and,
at some unknown time in the future, see if there may exist any low-cost and CEQA exempt
solutions that might help move traffic along. Besides ignoring the nexus that exists
between a proposed development and that development's obligations to proactively
address the impacts it creates, the Lead Agency ignores the extensive lead-time required to
institute actual physical improvements to affected intersections and roadways, to disclose
and mitigate the impacts that physical traffic improvements can themselves create, and the
purpose of preparing a project -level in EIR in the first place.
The Lead Agency's deferral of a "traffic and parking management plan" prevents interested
parties, the affected public, and public agencies with established expertise in formulating,
designing, and implementing "physical mitigation measures at key intersections and along
key roadways" from commenting on the nature of that plan and suggesting improvements
or other modifications that might prove advantageous to the stadium's operation.
■ Lighting Plan. As indicated in the DSEIR: "Light and glare impacts are also determined
through a comparisonof the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or
policies" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-2). However, the Lead Agency acknowledges: (1) "a detailed
lighting plan has not yet been designed for the stadium" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30); and (2) "Other
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 29
than the directives of Section 15.32.070, the City of Industry does not have a lighting
ordinance specifying the maximum amount of lighting that may be generated by new
projects" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-33).
Based on the Lead Agency's own admission, it is not possible to assess the "light and glare
impacts" of the proposed project absent a detailed understanding and quantitative
assessment of the "proposed lighting plan." Since a "detailed lighting plan has not yet been
designed," Industry's admission serves as the Lead Agency's declaration that lighting
impacts have not been reasonably and appropriately examined.
Although absent from the "project description," the DSEIR states that the stadium would
employ lighting that would emit "300 to 350 foot-candles" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30). As illustrated
in Figure 3-6b — Stadium Elevations (DSEIR, unpaginated), the high-intensity sports lights
will be mounted on large light banks extending substantially above the top of the stadium,
so as to be observed from any fore -ground, middle -ground, or back -ground location where
a view of the stadium would exist.
As indicated in Illuminating Engineering Society of North America's (IESNA) Lighting
Design + Application publication (Vol. 32, No. 7, July 2002), the lighting design firm of Flack
+ Kurtz, Inc. (F+K Lighting Group), with regards to the Paul Brown Stadium (home of the
NFL's Cincinnati Bengals) noted: "To meet the stringent requirements of ESPN broadcast
standards, over six hundred 200 W metal halide sports lights were used." As indicated,
lighting design is required to accommodate lighting levels higher than those required for
individual sports in order to obtain "ESPN broadcast standards" established for television
coverage. Absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of sports lighting in general, much less
information concerning the nature of lighting proposed for the NFL Stadium portion of the
overall development project, lighting requirements for night football in general, and lighting
standards for media coverage.
Signage Plan. As indicated in the DSEIR: "The proposed signage program has not yet
been finalized, however, it is anticipated that signage would play a significant role in the
revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 3-22);
Notwithstanding this key architectural feature and the. importance of signage to the
proposed operation of the "revised project," the following excerpts reflect the totality of the
discussion of "lighting" found in the "project description": (1) "It is anticipated that the
signage program would include signage on the rim of the NFL Stadium. Additionally, the
proposed signage plan would include free-standing pylon (pole) signs, including one near
the Grand Avenue exit from the SR -60/57. Directional and informational signage would
also be included in and around the project site to direct pedestrians and vehicular traffic and
provide public access information, as needed. Signage would also be incorporated into the
retail, entertainment, and office components of the project. The proposed signage program
would incorporate signage both on the IBC site and exterior to the IBC site adjacent to the
Freeways. Proposed signage associated with the revised Plan of Development may include
LED or other electronic and/or animated signage, illuminated building identification, tenant
identification, storefront signs, wayfinding signs, and other graphic elements ranging from
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 30
banners to interactive electronic displays. The revised Plan of Development would also
include advertising and sponsorship signage" (DSEIR, p. 3-22); and (2) "The bridges could
also serve as opportunity areas for advertising and/or signage" (DSEIR, p. 3-28). From
this, all that can be discerned is that there will be lots of project -related signs (on buildings,
on walls, on bridges, on freestanding signs) both on and off the project site.
On the Applicant's internet website (http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/images),
numerous architectural renderings of the "Los Angeles Stadium" are illustrated. Many of
those drawing depict giant signage stating "Los Angeles Stadium," "Super Bowl," "Sony,"
"Miller." Giant billboards and animated displays (e.g., scoreboards) are shown, laser
beams and other high-intensity promotional lighting are depicted, and fireworks are shown
illuminating the night sky. A blimp is shown flying over the stadium with an electronic
"Coca-Cola" sign (depicting additional undisclosed off-site signage). Many of the signs are
electronic and depict letters which appear to be multi -stories tall.
Although no signage program has been "finalized," rather than being diligent to maintain at
least some semblance of propriety, the Lead Agency seeks to deny the public's right to
scrutinize the Applicant's proposed signage plans and to, based on Applicant's own self-
serving PDFs, convert signage to a ministerial action no longer subject to CEQA
compliance (e.g., "Along with the request for an amendment, the applicant would be
required to submit a signage program for the City's (Industry) review and approval
consistent with the PDFs and analysis presented in the SEIR," DSEIR, p. 3-27; "The
signage program would be required to be consistent with the PDFs outlined in this section
when reviewed and approved by the City of Industry," DSEIR, p. 5.1-29).
Wall and Fencing Plan. No wall and fencing plan has been included in the DSEIR. Only a
single reference to walls and/or fences is presented in the "project description." As
indicated therein: "Curbing, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, and gated entries are also
proposed within the parking areas as well as security fencing/walls where necessary"
(DSEIR, p. 3-28).
Because the DSEIR acknowledges that "under the current plan many [residents] would be
looking down on and across the parking lots" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-18), the Applicant's plans for
perimeter fencing (if any) need to be disclosed so the effectiveness of those plans to screen
the project site from sensitive receptor locations (e.g., abutting residential neighborhood in
Diamond Bar) (e.g., proximal residential neighborhoods in Walnut) can be independently
evaluated. The type, location, and design of perimeter fencing is made more critical
because the Lead Agency asserts that "potential significant" aesthetics impacts will be
reduced to a less -than -significant level through the application of the Applicant's PDFs.
However, only the following two PDFs included any reference to walls or fences: (1) "Where
parking lots would be visible from adjacent residential areas on the eastern boundary, the
transition zone shall employ a variety of techniques, such as berms with tree and shrub
massing or vine -covered low walls or decorative fences to screen the views" (PDF 1-7); and
(2) "Parking lots I, J, H and G east of Grand Avenue shall be fenced where adjacent to
perimeter slopes to prevent entry into landscaped areas" (PDF 1-11). Because neither the
"project description" nor the "aesthetic" analysis include any further reference to walls and
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 31
fencing, absent reasonable detail, there exists no certainty that the identified PDFs will have
any mitigative effects.
Landscape Plan. No landscape plan has been included in the DSEIR. However, the Lead
Agency notes that the "landscape plan for the revised project would retain many of the
features of the 2004 IBC Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. 3-22). No "landscape plan" was,
however, included in the Final IBC/EIR and no requirement for the preparation of that plan
was included therein. Additionally, the Lead Agency states that "[a]ll PDFs from the
certified 2004 IBC EIR have been updated, condensed and replaced herein with ones that
are tailored to this specific site plan. Some of the previous PDFs were deemed
unnecessary" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-15).
Although no landscape plan is included, the Lead Agency asserts that "implementation of
the PDFs would address screening view from sensitive receptors, buffers, appropriate
landscape planting, and light and glare reduction" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-29) and "PDF
requirements for landscaping would also provide sufficient screening in the buffer to reduce
visibility of these [sports and parking lot] light sources" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30). However, in
direct contradiction to any inferences that extensive landscaping will be provided, the
DSEIR specified that "landscaping within the parking areas must be limited" (DSEIR,
Appendix I, p. 6).
Based on the stadium's potentially significant visual impacts (NOP, pp. 20 and 29) upon
adjacent residential areas located in Diamond Bar, the Lead Agency must demonstrate in
the EIR the project's landscaping will, in fact, produce the desired benefits with regards to
"screening" those abutting and proximal sensitive receptor areas from project site.
'Truck Delivery and Loading Plan. Feeding 75,000 or more fans during a football game
would result in significant food and beer deliveries and resulting trash which would need to
be hauled away following a game. Although the delivery of food and other products and the
removal of wastes would be a significant part of the stadium's daily operation, absent from
the "project description" is any reference to or discussion of deliveries, shipping, hauling
loading, and unloading activities associated with scheduled on-site operations. Only a
single reference is provided to "trash" anywhere in the "project description" (i.e., "Trash
receptacles and recycling bins would also be provided for patrons throughout the complex
including parking areas," DSEIR, p. 3-12). No loading, unloading, docking, storage, or
staging areas, no trash pick-up locations are depicted, and no discussion of trucking
operations, of any kind, have been provided by the Lead Agency. The fact that the Lead
Agency failed to include any reference to trucking operations, loading dock locations and
activities, and waste collection and disposal is further evidence of an incomplete "project
description."
Solid Waste Reduction Plans and Procedures. The DSEIR states that "[a]II on-site uses
shall implement waste reduction programs, including the maximum extent possible,
recycling programs" (PDF 12-3). Although a worthwhile statement, since it includes no
Explicit requirements for waste reduction, contains no performance standards, and leaves
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 32
compliance and enforcement to the discretion of individual "uses," there exists no
assurance that it will accomplish its intended purpose.
Since programs are typically in place or can be readily implemented for standard retailers,
office buildings, and medical clinics, recycling efforts can be reasonably expected as part of
the routine operation of many site users. However, noticeably absent are any provisions
stipulating any requirements for the site's major waste generator (i.e., NFL Stadium).
According to the DSEIR, a "maximum -capacity event would generate approximately 31 tons
of solid waste (930 tons per year). Of this amount, 24 tons (713 tons per year) would be
garbage, and the other 7 tons per event (217 tons per year) would be recycled materials"
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-21). Based on that statement, the Lead Agency is stating that about 29
percent of the stadium's waste stream is comprised of "recycled materials." Because
nothing in the EIR obligates the Applicant to achieve that or any level of recycling, both the
document and the Lead Agency are remiss by their failure to impose definitive,
performance-based requirements for waste diversion. Waste that is not diverted ends up in
local landfills or in the yards and properties of nearby residences and businesses or on
local streets and become the responsibility and at the cost of others. As a result, it is not
sufficient for the Lead Agency to turn a blind eye to waste reduction and recycling and to
delegate to the Applicant the responsibility for not only formulating a waste reduction plan
but self-monitoring its performance.
Parking lot cleanup "activities [would occur] for approximately six to eight hours after a
game" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-84). As indicated by the Lead Agency "Sunday night games typically
start at 5:00 or 6:00 PM" and the "typical length of a game is approximately 3.5 hours"
(DSEIR, p. 3-21). Assuming that "cleanup activities" commence one-hour after the
completion of a game (starting at 10:30 PM) and last for eight hours, noise generating uses
will be occurring between 10:30 PM and 6:30 AM during night football games. if would typically
or other events were allowed to conclude at erlottime
no segwould commence later and
conclude by 12:00 AM," DSEIR, p. 5.7-62), parking
continue longer. Similarly, the "movie theater/entertainment venue" will remain open until
"2:00 AM" (DSEIR, p. 3-21).
It becomes immediately evident that adjoining residential receptors will be subjected to a
24-hour a day bombardment of project -generated noise. Since CEQA requires that impacts
be mitigated to the maximum extend feasible, the Applicant and the Lead Agency must
demonstrate that are acting proactively to reduce impacts on adjoining land uses.
Neighborhood/Business Preservation Plan. The Lead Agency states that the project
would generate a "[s]ignificant impact if there would be substantial encroachment on the
adjacent land use that would disrupt/displace structures or parking areas that could render
uses sub -standard or non -conforming with development standards; or adjacent remaining
uses could be exposed to substantially increased environmental concerns such as noise,
air pollutant emissions, etc." (DSEIR, p. 5.6-13). The Lead Agency, however, never applies
that same threshold of significance criteria to the stadium's likely impacts on those
residences and businesses located in Diamond Bar.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page .33
The availability of on-site parking is predicated upon certain assumptions concerning both
the maximum attendance at the stadium, the occupancy of individual vehicles arriving at the
game, the percent of fans electing to use public transit, the absence of additional vehicle
trips attributable to non -stadium activities, and the closure of other on-site businesses
during scheduled events. If any of those assumptions are wrong or understated (which
many appear), available on-site parking will prove inadequate and site visitors will be
required to find the nearest off-site parking spaces.
Additionally, parking fees at special events can often top $25 per vehicle. Many fans, by
choice of economics, often look for free parking opportunities near venues. Fan websites
are often devoted to telling others how and where to park for free off the stadium site.
In the case of the NFL Stadium project, proximal off-site parking opportunities include, but
are not limited to, on -street parking within adjacent, established residential neighborhoods
located to the east and west of the stadium in Diamond Bar (i.e., Sunset Crossing/Neil
Armstrong Elementary School and Lycoming/Washington) and off-street parking which is
used and operated by existing businesses (e.g., Burger King and Target, Ayres Suites),
religious institutions (e.g., Calvary Chapel Golden Springs), public uses (e.g., Diamond Bar
Golf Course), and other public buildings (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District)
are located near the stadium.
Stadium attendances using those parking spaces minimize parking available to local
residents and businesses, block driveways and fire hydrants, increase traffic volumes along
streets where children play, generate noise during hours when many residents are
sleeping, and adversely impact business operations by reducing parking otherwise
available to customers and other authorized site users.
Absent from the DSEIR are any plans or indication of future plans to be instituted by the
Lead Agency and/or the Applicant to minimize or prevent cut -through traffic and parking in
residential neighborhoods and in business areas in Diamond Bar. Because the EIR does
not even address this issue, no attempt has been made by the Lead Agency to ascertain its
significance, to assess its impacts, or to suggest actions to minimize project -related impacts
on off-site uses.
Overflow Parking Contingency Pian. Instead of committing to an actual number of
parking spaces that will be provided on the project site, the Lead Agency states that "up to
25,000 parking spaces would be accommodated within the project site" (DSEIR, p. 3-28).
That statement neither commits the Lead Agency to the establishment and enforcement of
actual project condition nor establishes a definitive any parking ratio tied to the actual
number of on-site individuals. Based on a one -size -fits -all approach, the same number of
parking spaces will be available whether attendance is <75,000 or 2_80,000. Similarly, the
DSEIR recognizes that "about 10% of the spaces may be lost due to tailgating and other
activities" (DSEIR, Appendix I, p. 2).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 34
Because "Phase Two" is not being constructed at the same time as "Phase One" (i.e.,
"Phase Two would commence after the completion of Phase One," DSEIR, p. 3-20), some
undisclosed number of parking spaces may be lost or otherwise forfeited during the "Phase
Two" construction period. Absent from the EIR are any guarantees that a specified number
of parking spaces will be available on the project site prior to the commencement of
stadium use, throughout the construction term," at build -out.
Absent from both the DSEIR is any reference to or discussion of contingency plans in the
event that available on-site parking proved to be inadequate to accommodate event
requirements. Because the Lead Agency has misrepresented the number of individuals
that will on the project site during certain major events, it then follows that any calculation of
parking requirements based on that same underestimation would itself fall short of the
amount of on-site parking actual needed. Additionally, because certain events (e.g., Super
Bowl) might involve extensive media coverage (displacing fan parking to make way for
large media trucks and trailers), sponsor -paid activities staged in parking lot areas (further
displacing fan parking), and attract both ticket -holders and others who choose to be on the
site merely to partake in non -stadium activities, basing parking solely on the number of
seats in the stadium will generate significant parking problems.
The absence of a contingency parking plan in the "project description" or any obligations
requiring the preparation of that plan prior to the commencement of operations indicates
that the Lead Agency has failed to fully assess the potential off-site impacts attributable to
the NFL Stadium based development project.
Project Schedule. The DSEIR states that "Phase One is assumed to be completed and
open for business by 2011...[U]nder Phase One, it is expected that the NFL stadium,
115,000 square -foot team training facility, training fields, 400,000 square feet of retail,
50,000 square feet of restaurants, 100,000 square feet of medical facilities, roadway
system and surface parking to serve this phase would be constructed by 2011" (DSEIR, p.
3-19). Although absent from the "project description," found in the technical analysis is the
statement that "Phase 1 is estimated to begin in December 2008 and endin August
201
and Phase 2 is anticipated to be completed in August 2014 (DSEIR, App , p ) In
direct contradiction, the "project description" states that "Phase Two (buildout) would
commence after the completion of Phase One and would be completed and open for
business approximately four years after Phase One" (DSEIR, p. 3-20). If that schedule
were correct, Phase Two would be completed in August 2015 or precisely twelve months
after the date used as the basis for impact analysis. This leads to one of two conclusions:
(1) the dates presented in the DSEIR are internally inconsistent; or (2) the construction
period for Phase Two is misrepresented.
As such, based on conflicting statements in the EIR, it is not possible to ascertain the length
of construction or any increased severity of those environmental effects (e.g., additional
construction -term air emissions) that may relate, either directly or indirectly, to the length of
the construction process.
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 35
Procedures for Plan Revisions and Modifications. Left unaddressed in the DSEIR is any
description concerning how the Lead Agency intends to reconcile any proposed future
changes (e.g., changes to the illustrated site plan; changes to the list of proposed on-site
uses; changes to the height, location, and configuration of buildings and other structures)
with the analysis presented in the EIR, including: (1) a declaration whether the requested
change(s), or even what change(s), would be deemed to be a discretionary or ministerial
action; and (2) how the Lead Agency would go about determining whether the requested
change(s) was adequately examined in the EIR, including any new or modified mitigation
measures or other conditions of approval.
The "Plan of Development" concept is unique to Industry and is likely governed by specific
local code and/or other provisions. Since the "City of Industry General Plan" and the "City
of Industry Municipal Code" are neither available for viewing few readers would have any
understanding of the intent, purpose, or application of a "Plan of Development" as a land -
use and zoning tool. Since it is Industry's intent to adopt a "revised Plan of Development," it
is incumbent upon the Lead Agency to provide an overview of what a "Plan of
Development" actually is, how precisely does it dictate the type, size, placement, and
orientation of buildings and uses its presages, and how modifications to that plan are
administrative addressed.
Similarly, the DSEIR does not include a clear statement concerning what land uses would
be authorized by right and what uses would be authorized subject to a conditional use
permit (CUP). The Lead Agency states that "among other things," proposed uses include
"training facilities and offices, sports medical clinic, retail shops and uses, restaurants, other
office uses, [and] entertainment uses" (DSEIR, p. 3-11). The term "among other things"
indicates that other uses, besides those stated, could and will probably be developed on
the project site.
The Lead Agency's failure to fully and precisely define the proposed project prevents commenting
parties from independently assessing the environmental consequences of the approval,
construction, and operation of the "revised project."
Deferral of Information and Analysis
As illustrated in Figure 3-6b — Stadium Elevations (DSEIR, unpaginated), the "tallest part of the
stadium" is not, as represented by the Lead Agency, the "tower on the west side" (DSEIR, p. 3-12)
but the high-intensity sports lighting used to illuminate the playing field. The DSEIR indicates that
"the stadium would employ lighting that would emit 300 to 350 foot-candles" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30).
The DSEIR acknowledges that: (1) "a detailed lighting plan has not yet been designed for the
stadium" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30); and (2) "the City of Industry does not have a lighting ordinance
specifying the maximum amount of lighting that may be generated by new projects" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-
33). The DSEIR further acknowledges that the "proposed signage program has not yet been
finalized, however, it is anticipated that signage would play a significant role in the revised Plan of
Development" (DSEIR, p. 3-22).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 36
Rather than including specific details in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency seeks to defer the submittal
of important information until after the certification of the EIR (following the approval of the
proposed project) and to made the approval of the lighting and signage plans submit to a
ministerial rather than a discretionary action (e.g., "Prior to the approval of improvement plans for
the surface parking areas east of Grand Avenue, the project applicant shall submit an off-street
parking lighting plan for review and approval by the Department of Public Works," PDF 1-18).
Narrowly Defined Objectives Preclude Reasonable Range of Alternatives
As indicated in the NOP: "The City of Industry has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed
project and has determined that a Supplement to the 2004 Industry Business Center (IBC)
Environmental Impact Report is necessary." In order to allow for the use of a "supplement to an
EIR," the Lead Agency must demonstrate that the "revised project" meets qualifying CEQA
standards (14 CCR 15163), including the finding that '[o]nly minor additions or changes would be
necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation."
The Final IBC/EIR includes seven objectives which establish the project's stated purpose. As
indicated therein, the very first objective states: "Provide for comprehensive planning of the project
Zone Change in conformance with the
site through the approval of a Plan of Development and
City's General Plan" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 4-2). That objective would appear to constitute the Lead
Agency declaration of the project's "underlying purpose" (14 CCR 15124[b]). As such, one would
logically conclude that the same purpose (and the same set of objectives) would be carried over for
any later project(s) being processed through a "supplement to the EIR" (e.g., limited to only "minor
additions or changes"). Rather than retaining that same common thread, the Lead Agency now
declares that the fundamental "underlying purpose" of the "revised project" has now changed
substantially (from those presented in the Final IBC/EIR), such than none of the original objectives
apply and an entirely new set of objectives are now required.
Instead of merely pursuing the worthwhile goal of "comprehensive planning," the Lead Agency now
states that the project's primary purpose is to "construct a state-of-the-art football stadium" (DSEIR,
p. 3-2).
Misrepresentation of Environmental Baseline
CEQA requires that the EIR describe the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the
project as they exist at the time the NOP is published. This environmental setting will normally
constitute the baseline physical conditions by which the lead agency determines whether an impact
is significant. Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall
examine the existing physical conditions at the time the NOP is published as well as the potential
future conditions discussed in the plan (14 CCR 15125).
Although the DSEIR acknowledges that the subject property is "currently vacant land" (DSEIR,
p. 4-3), the EIR nonetheless assumes that the property now containing "4,779,000 square feet of
industrial and commercial space" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-2) and bases its impact analysis on the
hypothetical conditions contemplated by the existing plan and not with the actual existing physical
Mike Hassell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 37
conditions ("the SEIR considers the project approved in the IBC EIR as its baseline," DSEIR,
p. 4-10).
Deficient Cumulative Impacts Analysis
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR, the "potential study area" extends "across political boundaries"
and encompasses "a 10 -mile radius of the site" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response
M-5). Similarly, the DSEIR notes that "a 10 -mile radius around the study area revealed
approximately 56,000 unemployed individuals" (DSEIR, p. 5.8-1) and a "10 -mile radius is
considered a reasonable commute distance" (DSEIR, p. 5.8-2).
Notwithstanding those declarations, in direct contrast, the cumulative impact analysis presented in
the DSEIR is artificially limited to "approved and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of
the revised project area" (DSEIR, p. 4-10). The resulting inventory or related projects (DSEIR,
Table 4-1, p. 4-11) only includes projects in the Cities of Diamond Bar, Industry, and Walnut, at
California State University — Pomona (Cal Poly), and a single project in unincorporated Los
Angeles County (partly in Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence).
Noticeably absent from the Lead Agency's list of related projects are those adjacent traffic
improvement projects which are planned but not yet constructed. With regards to improvements to
the SR -57/60 corridor, the DSEIR states that "improvements to this interchange would include
modifications to the Grand Avenue interchange, a new bypass, collector and distributor roads,
auxiliary lanes, and improvements ramps, independent of the revised Plan of Development"
(DSEIR, p. 4-9) and "improvements that are planned to be constructed in the future and are not
related to the revised Plan of Development include the Grand Crossing Development project, City
of Industry improvements along Grand Avenue, and Caltrans improvements for the SR-57/SR060
Confluence at Grand Avenue" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-41). Although the DSEIR's traffic analysis is
premised on the implementation of those "future" improvements (e.g. "The above improvements
are expected to be completed by 2015, and have been included in the analysis of year 2015, year
2025 and year 2030 cumulative base and cumulative plus project conditions," DSEIR, P. 5.10-42),
absent from the list of "cumulative projects" is any reference to those, as yet unbuild and unfunded,
traffic improvements.
With regards to Grand Avenue, the DSEIR notes that the "City of Industry and the City of Diamond
Bar embarked on a joint effort to improve traffic flow along Grand Avenue. The improvements
widen Grand Avenue to provide eight travel lanes, four in each direction, from south of Baker
Parkway to north of Golden Springs Drive. Construction for this improvement is planned for Fall
2008. Therefore, the Grand Avenue widening improvements have been presumed in the
evaluation of Year 2011, Year 2015, Year 2025 and Year 2030 Cumulative Base and Cumulative
plus Project traffic conditions at key intersections along Grand Avenue" (DSEIR, Appendix H, p.
54). As of the publication of the DSEIR, none of those improvements had yet to commence.
Similarly, the "Fall 2008" timeline will not be achieved.
The exclusion of the SR -57/60 and Grand Avenue improvements from the cumulative impact
analysis and/or the Lead Agency's failure to include those same improvements as part of the
11whole of the action" constitutes a violation of CEQA in that those actions result in a deficient
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 38
cumulative impact analysis. There exclusion from both the project description and inventory of
related projects serves as further evidence of the Lead Agency's "truncated project concept."
Failure to Examine Economic and Other Indirect Impacts
Since the "revised project" is projected to generate 4,428 full-time and 1,515 part-time jobs
(DSEIR, p. 5.8-15), it can be reasonably assumed that the metropolitan area experience the loss of
a professional football franchise would lose not less than a comparable 5,943 full- and part-time
jobs. Because, absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of the potential indirect job and revenue
gains within the Los Angeles metropolitan area, no information is provided by the Lead Agency
regarding the job and re Ifa lsthe
to satisfylitan the standlardsarea fornan adequate Draft EIR
existing franchise that
can be linked to the prooject.t. The DSEIR
(14 CCR 15088.5[a][11-[41).
Employment figures presented s the DSEIR fail to
include employment
tn ll
attributable to the NFLfranchise that be relocate from outside of he LosAngeles
metropolitan area to within that area. Additionally, the DSEIR fails to disclose the jobs that are
n may be
indirectly associated with an NFL s am, upon whose existence the NFL's the DSEIR fails to disclose the potential indirect partially or fully dependent. A such,
j bs and
housing impacts attributable to the proposed project.
Based on the Applicant's own declaration, a relocated NFL franchise will likely come from
Bloomington, Minnesota (Vikings), New Orleans, Louisiana (Saints), Buffalo, New York (Bills),
Jacksonville, Florida (Jaguars), San Diego, California (Chargers), Oakland,
California (Raiders),
two teams were to
and/or San Francisco, California (49ers). If, as indicated by the Applicant,
relocate to the Los Angeles area, two metropolitan areas would experience the economic loss of
their existing NFL franchises.
Failure to Demonstrate the Efficacy of Mitigation Measures
Throughout the EIR, the Lead Agency
ded measts lsures will deduceoor avoid otherwisequestionable
sgnificant
efficacy and concludes that the referenced
s that
environmental effects. Many of those
measures
implemented,contain
no milestone o quantitative dpulating tagainsttwhch
cannot be passed until the measure sto broad
performance can o judged, and/or caveat allowing fbecause non -fulfil ment or non-compliance erformance remains pnbased on
interpretation or contains a limiting
the Applicant's or the Lead Agency's discretion.
For example, the Lead Agency at least recognizes that the "high volume of traffic near the stadium
has the potential to impact emergency access
"potentially significant" ant" effect,nse times l the following measuren and around the s e
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-5). As mitigation P
recommended: (1) "The project applicant shall submit an emergency access plan to the Los
Angeles County Fire Department including, but not limited to, identificatioof alternative related constructs routes on
emergency access during construction to areas potentially blocked by project -
activities"; (2) The City of Industry shall offer the use of the future fire station at the intersection of 5
Grand Avenue and Garcia Avenue to the Los Angeles County Fire Department" (DSEIR, p. );
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 39
(3) "The project applicant shall submit an emergency access plan to the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department including, but not limited to, identification of alternative routes for emergency
access during construction to areas potentially blocked by project -related construction activities"
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-10); and (4) "A parking and transportation management plan shall be submitted to
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-10).
Nowhere in any of these measures is any timing specified and none of the measures mandate
acceptance of the "emergency access plan" or timely construction of the "future fire station."
Additionally, the "emergency access plan" and "parking and transportation management plan"
neither require that existing response times and capabilities be maintained nor requires the
Applicant to demonstrate that project -induced traffic will not become a serious impediment to
effective emergency response.
The Lead Agency has failed to establish a factual basis for supporting the allegation that: (1) "The
mitigation measures identified above would mitigate the potential impacts of the revised project to
the maximum extent feasible" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-7); and (2) "The mitigation measures identified above
would reduce potential impacts associated with police protection to a level that is less than
significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-10).
Although the Lead Agency has the ability to condition the project on specific performance, provide
sufficient fees to the County to allow for the facility's construction, and/or provide the LACFD with a
turn -key facility, the Lead Agency states that "because the City of Industry cannot ensure that the
County Fire Department will commit" to the construction, staffing, and equipment purchasing
associated with a "future fire station," impacts on fire protection and public safety are "considered
significant and unavoidable" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-6).
Deferral of mitigation obligations, as now proposed by the Lead Agency, to other agencies is
precluded under CEQA. Clearly, the Lead Agency has both the ability and the authority to mitigate
the health and safety impacts attributable to the "revised project." Because "CEQA establishes a
duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible"
(14 CCR 15021[a])the fact that Industry chooses not to mitigate those impacts is contrary to its
obligations under CEQA. There exists no rationale whereby the Lead Agency deems acceptable
any project which results in the creation of significant unmitigatable health and safety impacts
affecting not only facility users but also the general public, including those who reside or work in
close relationship to the project and whose lives may be imperiled by the Lead Agency's
unwillingness to mitigate known safety conditions. The affected public is primarily located in
Diamond Bar.
As noted in the Final IBC/EIR: "In the City of Industry, PDFs will be implemented as Special
Development Requirements, and their implementation will be assured through inclusion in the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program" (Final IBC/EIR, p. 2-6). In contrast, the DSEIR notes
that PDFs "do not constitute mitigation measures by definition, although they have a mitigating
effect. However, given their critical importance in ensuring that significant impacts are avoided,
PDFs are treated similarly to mitigation measures and will be included in the comprehensive
Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 1-10).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 40
From this statement, the Lead Agency seeks to make a clear distinction that PDFs are not
mitigation measures under CEQA but are, in fact, something called "Special Development
Requirements." Although the implications of that explicit disclaimer is unclear, it would appear that
the Lead Agency is stating that, while included in the MMP, PDFs need to be considered and
treated in a different (lesser) and distinct fashion than other "mitigation measures" identified in the
DSEIR. Similarly, absent from thDSEIR is any arable t other"conditions of app ovally that may be imposed one
aration that "Speal Dvelopment
Requirements are compthe project
by the Lead Agency.
As evident throughout the DSEIR, the identified PDFs are not tied to specific impacts but are
presented as precursors to the Lead Agency's discussion of impacts that follow there identification
under individual topical headings. In that fashion, they are should more appropriately considered
project components and part of the "project description" rather than mitigative actions formulated in
response to any identified impact. Similarly, following the identification h of impacts would throuavemhoutthe
DSEIR, the Lead Agency does not disclose which (if any)
tiga
benefits with regards to that impact and/or to what extend each feature could be expected to
facilitate the purposeful "avoidance" of that environmental effects. As such, PDFs fail the test of
mitigation in that they are not linked to any specific impact.
A preponderance of the listed PDFs are neither measureable nor tied to specific milestone events,
such as issuance of building permits. For example, if it is assumed that PDFs addressing signage
are intended to reduce visual impacts associated with project signage, then one would assume that
the listed PDFs would impose some condition that could be demonstrated to reduce newly
introduced visual effects. For example, one PDF stipulates that "[s]ignage shall accentuate the
architecture of the project and contribute to a lively and visually stimulating experience" (PDF 1-
12). Instead of reducing the impacts of signage, based on the Lead Agency's own threshold
criteria (e.g., "Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of5t1e15site
the PDF
surroundings" and "Create a new source of substantial light or glare," DSEIR, p. )�
could actually increase the negative impacts of the project's signage.
Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other
legally -binding instruments (14 CCR 15126.4[a][2]). Mitigation measures that contain limiting
e level of discretion, or convey responsible to the
language, are not quantifiable, imply som
Applicant for interpretation and compliance cannot be demonstrated to produce the desired effect.
Lead Agency Irreparably Severed Connectivity with the Program EIR
With the exception of limited remedial grading, the original "program EIR" neither resulted in any
subsequent discretionary actions modifying the physical characteristics of project site nor altered
the environmental baseline conditions that existed prior to the certification of the Final IBC/EIR. As
a result, with limited exceptions, the site that exists today is virtually the same site that existed prior
to 2004.
In 2004, the Lead Agency certified the Final IBC/EIR and adopted the "2004 IBC Plan of
Development. Although it was Industry's intent to rezone the subject property from "Industrial" to
"Commercial" use, those actions did not occur (i.e., "A Plan of Development was prepared for the
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft 'Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 41
IBC in 2004 with the intention of rezoning to commercial when individual projects were presented.
No areas have been zoned for commercial and the project site remains zoned as Industrial,"
DSEIR, p. 4-9).
Failure to Include a "No Project/No Development" (No Build) Alternative
As required under CEQA: "The specific alternative of 'no project' shall also be evaluated along with
its impact ... The 'no project' analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of
preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental
analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services" (14 CCR 15126.6[e][11-[2]).
Notwithstanding that requirement, as indicated in the DSEIR, with reference to the Final IBC/EIR,
the "No Project/No Development Alternative was considered in 2004 and was rejected in favor of a
mixed-use development" (DSEIR, p. 7-2). As such, a "No Project/No Development Alternative"
was not evaluated in the first-tier EIR and the project's decision makers and the affected public
were denied the opportunity to examine the impacts of the "revised project" against an
environmental baseline that assumes the retention of the site in its existing undeveloped state (i.e.,
"The project area is currently vacant land," DSEIR, p. 4-3)
Other than with regards to the Final IBC/EIR (e.g., "The 2004 IBC EIR reviewed in detail four
alternatives to the original project: No Project/No Development Alternative, No Project/Existing
Zoning ,Alternative, Reduced Intensity Alternative, and the Wetland Avoidance Alternative," DSEIR,
p. 7-2), absent from the second-tier EIR is any reference to a "No Project/No Development
Alternative" and/or any rationale for the Lead Agency's failure to include that scenario therein As
such, there exists no evidence demonstrating that the "No Project/No Development Alternative"
was even considered in this EIR.
In defining the assumptions inherent in the DSEIR's "No Project/Existing Plan of Development
Alternative," the Lead Agency states that "the site would be developed as reviewed in the EIR
prepared for the 2004 Plan of Development.
Approximately 4,146,000 net square feet of office and/or commercial space and 633,000 square
feet of industrial space would be developed throughout the Industry Business Center" (DSEIR, pp.
1-7 and 7-6). The Lead Agency, however, acknowledges that the assumptions inherent in that
alternative do not reflect existing public policies and would necessitate a zone change (i.e., "The
zoning would change in some areas from Industrial to Commercial," DSEIR, p. 1-7).
In light of the Lead Agency's asserted changes to the project's fundamental "underlying purpose"
(14 CCR 15124[b]), the "revised project" constitutes a "new project" under CEQA and the Lead
Agency is, therefore, obligated to prepare an EIR conforming to its CEQA obligations, including an
alternatives analysis in full compliance with applicable CEQA requirements (14 CCR 15126.6).
Similarly, because the list of related projects presented in the Final IBC/EIR and in the DSEIR differ
substantially, even assuming the project site remains in its current condition, the resulting
cumulative impact analysis could result in the identification of different cumulative impacts.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 42
Alternatives Capable of Meeting Specific Project Objectives
The Lead Agency asserts that the "LA Memorial Coliseum Alternative" would "not be feasible"
because it would "not include many of the off-site amenities proposed with the revised Plan of
Development." However, because the Lead Agency acknowledges that the
16"selection e on f f is
alternative could accommodate a renovated NFL stadium" (DSEIR, p. ),
Coliseum alternative would satisfy the "underlying purpose" of the "revised project."
The Lead Agency also examined a "Rose Bowl Alternative." Similarly, it is the Lead Agency's
position that, although capable of providing seating for "65,000 attendees, with an additional
10,000 seats that could be added for special events," the "Rose Bowl Alternative" would" "not be
feasible" because it "could not accommodate the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, p. ).
As reported in the Pasadena -Star News on September 4,
2008: "Roski wants to buy at least a 30-
40 percent share of an NFL team and move it to the Rose Bowl by next season, with plans to
relocate the team to his 75,000 -seat stadium by 2011, Majestic Realty Vice President John
Semcken said. . . By January, Semcken hopes to have approved plans for the stadium,
environmental clearance from Industry and a deal in place for the team to play two seasons at the
Rose Bowl while Roski's Los Angeles Stadium is built." As further reported in the Los Angeles
Times on April 17, 2008: "Roski said that if an NFL team is willing to relocate, construction on the
stadium can begin this fall and be finished in time for the 2011 season. He added the team could
begin playing in Los Angeles by the 2009 season, and conceivably use the Coliseum or Rose Bowl
as a temporary home in the interim."
Based on the Applicant's own declaration that both the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl can
accommodate an NF{ Alternative"lntended solely t ion of the
a pre-determi nation in favorof "LA Memorial Coliseum AI
the Applicant's development plan.
The administrative record clearly shows that the Applicant first sought rights to the Los Angeles
Memorial Coliseum, then to the Rose Bowl, and only now in the City of Industry. Because the
Applicant's own objectives encompass "the greater Los Angeles area," no factual basis exists to
now assert that a feasible alternative site can be rejected merely because they are neither in
"Industry or the project site." For the purpose of CEQA compliance, the Lead Agency is required to
return to its original set of objectives, as outlined in the Final IBC/EIR, and examine a reasonable
range of alternatives which would "allow for reasonable use of lands within the project site" (FEIR
IBC/EIR, p. 4-2).
The Lead Agency states that the following additional alternatives are "infeasible" and, therefore,
warrant elimination: (1) "Reduced Intensity Alternative" (e.g., "While this alternative would lessen
many of the impacts associated with the original project, it was rejected as The feasibility
economically
infeasible," DSEIR, p. 7-2); and (2) "Reduced Stadium Size Alternative" (e.g.,
reducing the size of the stadium component of the revised Plan of Development to reduce overall
project impacts is determined in large part by whether an NFL team
aam a d the NFLthe woolNFL has nether
stadium with a substantially reduced capacity," DSEIR, p. )•
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 4.3
approved nor rejected a particular design plan nor specified a minimum number of seats, the Lead
Agency has no factual basis to assert that a "Reduced Stadium Size Alternative" would be deemed
infeasible" (DSEIR, p. 7-5) by the NFL.
Failure, to Consider Additional Alternative Sites
If the Applicant's "underlying purpose" is to "acquire and maintain an NFL franchise in the greater
Los Angeles area," the stipulation that the NFL franchise must be located in Industry and must only
be located on the project site are both self-imposed restrictions and unreasonably narrow the
range of options that should be considered as part of any CEQA analysis. While the DSEIR did
examine a "Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Alternative," a "Rose Bowl Alternative," and an
"Anaheim Alternative" as sites upon which recent plans have been formulated and which have
been suggested as conducive to the attainment of that objective, the Lead Agency presents no
factual basis for including other alternative sites that have also been suggested as suitable for that
same purpose.
Additional Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Responding to Significant Effects
In addition to requiring identification of significant environmental impacts, CEQA also requires
public agencies to discuss ways in which those impacts can be avoided or reduced. Agencies
must "systematically identif[y] both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant
effects" (§21002).
CEQA requires that the an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (14 CCR
15126.6[a]). In formulating a "reasonable range of alternatives," the Lead Agency must, therefore,
first define the "significant effects of the project" that might be reduced or eliminated.
As indicated in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency acknowledges the existence of a number of
"significant and unavoidable" environmental effects. The statements presented inthe "executive
summary" constitute irrefutable declarations on the part of the Lead Agency of the presence of
unmitigable environmental consequences.
Although the City believes that the list is not inclusive of all the significant and unavoidable impacts
identified in the EIR, the Lead Agency's acknowledged significant air quality, noise, and
transportation and traffic impacts are separately addressed below.
• Air Quality. As indicated in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency acknowledges the existence of
the significant and unavoidable "air quality" environmental effects. Since most large-scale
projects would be anticipated to produce significant air quality impacts, other than through a
reduction in the overall scale of the project or the relocation of the project to a conforming
air basin, few alternatives may be available that would reduce air quality impacts to a less -
than -significant level.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
ess Center Environmental Impact Report
Draft Supplement to Industry Busin
October 16, 2008
Page 44
Noise. As indicated in the DSEIR, the Lead Agency
acknowledges
a stad umxevtent project
ence of the
significant and unavoidable "noise" impacts: (1) On a day with
related traffic would not substantially elevate average daily noise levels but would
substantially elevate hourly traffic noise levels in the hours after a stadium event" (DSEIR,
Impact 5.7-4, p. 1-31); (2) 'On days with a stadium event, Metrolink trains generated by the
project during special event service would generate substantial notse from a da with train sad ubm
events and train horn noise" (DSEIR, Impact 5.7-5, p. 1-32); (3) " Y
event, noise from stadium activities would exceed the maximum
permissible
noise level
limits at nearby noise -sensitive uses" (DSEIR, Impact 5.7-7, p. ); and
train trips generated by the revised project on days with a stadium event would create
perceptible levels of groundborne vibration from train passby events" (DSEIR, Impact 5.7-8,
p. 1-33).
Because noise impacts can often be readily reduced to a less -than -significant level through
feasible design and operational changes, additional noise -based alternatives need to
considered because those alternatives are both implementable and would continue to allow
for the attainment of the Applicant's objectives. As discussed below, alternatives focusing
specifically on stadium -related and parking lot -related noise need to be considered.
p Stadium Noise Alternatives (Covered Stadium). With regards to stadium -based
noise, the SDEIR indicates: (1) "Noise levels at the nearest residences could reach
70 dBA Leq. Impacts from a concert event are a significant adverse impact"
(DSEIR, p. 5.7-83); (2) "No mitigation measures are available to reduce noise
generated by crowd noise or fireworks during a stadium event" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-110);
and (3) "[I]mpacts from a concert would extend beyond the local vi1 nand 112)
ity of the
project site and are a significant adverse impact" (DSEIR, pp.
Clearly, significant noise levels will emanate from the stadium (e.g., marching
bands, crowd noise, loud speakers, and other amplifiedwill not ased on the Lead
a those noise
Agency's own admission, existing stadium design plans
impacts to a less -than -significant level, resulting in long-term adverse impacts upon
those sensitive located near the stadium (including adjoining residential areas in the
City of Diamond Bar).
With the exception of fireworks, each of those noise sources originates from within
the stadium, overtop the stadium's walls, and extend outward encompassing
abutting properties. Noise generated inside the stadium could be effectively
controlled through the construction of a fixed -roof.
As indicated in the DSEIR, "exterior -to -interior transmission loss from standard
building construction results in a minimum 24 dBA" (DSEIR, Appendix G, p. 114).
As a result, covering the stadium would result in a "minimum 24 dBA" reduction in
noise transmission from in -side to out -side the stadium I i residential t at level e eof
structural attenuation would reduce impacts from proximal
attributable to noise generated from inside the stadium to a less -than -significant
level.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 45
0 Tailgating Noise Alternatives (Restricting Tailgating to Defined Areas). As
indicated in the DSEIR, "operational -source noise impacts associated with the
tailgating in the parking lots is a new significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-
84). Because tailgating is a popular activity which will occur prior to during NFL
games (and may be expected to continue throughout the game and after its
completion) and because areas where tailgating might actually occur are located
directly adjacent to existing residential areas in Diamond Bar, the Lead Agency
cannot merely accept the existence of those effects without examining all feasible
alternatives (and mitigation measures) that, if implemented, could reduce those
impacts to a less -than -significant level.
The City believes that noise impacts attributable to tailgating could be effectively
reduced by establishing specific "tailgate welcome" areas away from near -site
sensitive receptors and posting "no tailgating or loitering" signage in areas closer to
those receptors.
As now proposed, only two mitigation measures have been identified by the Lead
Agency addressing tailgating, namely: (1) "No tailgating shall be permitted within
150 -foot buffer area located adjacent to residential areas"; and (2) "Tailgating shall
be prohibited after 10:00 PM in the parking lots" (DSEIR, Mitigation Measures 10-3
and 1004, p. 5.7-110). As acknowledged by the Lead Agency, those measures did
not reducing associated noise impacts to below a level of significance. However,
because noise atmospherically attenuates over distance, if tailgating could be
located 600 -feet or 1,200 -feet away from those residences, to specially designated
landscaped areas, the Lead Agency would likely be able to conclude that tailgating -
related noise could be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage
where feasible. CEQA further specifies that public agencies should not approve a project,
as proposed, if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment
(14 CCR 15021). As such, in addition to the alternatives outlined above, the City
recommends that the EIR be expanded to include the following additional mitigation
measures designed to reduce noise impacts to the maximum extend feasible.
0 Pre -Event Noise Management Plan. The Lead Agency concludes that noise
impacts from the stadium's operation will produce significant and unmitigable noise
impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: (1) "Noise levels at the nearest
residences could reach 70 dBA Leq. Impacts from a concert event are a significant
adverse impact" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-83); (2) "No mitigation measures are available to
reduce noise generated by crowd noise or fireworks during a stadium event"
(DSEIR, p. 5.7-110); and (3) "[I]mpacts from a concert would extend beyond the
local vicinity of the project site and are a significant adverse impact" (DSEIR, pp.
5.7-111 and 112).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
ess Center Environmental Impact Report
Draft Supplement to Industry Busin
October 16, 2008
Page 46
Although never addressed, it can be assumed that different types of stadium events
(e.g., football games and concerts) have the potential to produce quite varied noise
impacts at near -by residences. Because of the possible diversity with regards to the
types of concerts and other events that may be scheduled and potential substantial
differences in sound characteristics, sound systems, and physical layout, it is
recommended that a "noise management plan" be prepared prior to any scheduled
',major," "minor," and other "special" event, as those terms are defined (or in the
case of "special events" not defined) in the DSEIR. The goal of each noise
management plan would be to ensure the project's and the event's strict compliance
with the noise standards governing proximal residential receptors.
Concert speaker systems are often located in speaker clusters near the stage and
directed at the audience. These speaker clusters usually are fairly directional in
contrast to public address type sound systems. Since the speaker clusters are
s system
usually farther from centralfrohe audience than speaker clusters pwill tenddtosbe louder at speakers,
concert noise at thesame
distance.
Development of a noise management plan is recommended to minimize disturbance
of nearby residents from concert and other events resulting from sound amplification
at the stadium that addresses the specifics related to any proposed event. The plan
would assess the precise nature of the event and specify appropriate mitigation,
such as line array of speaker systems and optimum speaker aiming.
0 Additional Noise Attenuation. The NFL Stadium project site directly abuts two
residential neighborhoods in Diamond Bar (i.e., Sunset Crossing/Neil Armstrong
Elementary School and Lycoming/Wash ington) and the stadium's operation will
subject those sensitive receptors to noise levels deemed to be "significant and
unavoidable" by the Lead Agency. As such, all reasonable efforts need to be taken
to reduce exterior noise levels in those areas to the maximum extent feasible.
As mitigation for "concert noise" the Lead Agency recommends that "[a]coustical
design features shall be incorporated into the project design and verified through an
acoustical report. Acoustical design features may include exterior features to
reduce noise such as berms/walls at the stadium, lowering speaker height, and
other architectural features to reduce noise ine polfatge from the he adjacent resident alum to ess than 55
land uses.
dBA Leq as measured at the property J
These architectural features shall be shown on all building plans and shall be
incorporated into construction of the project" (DSEIR, Mitigation Measure 10-2, p.
5.7-110).
Independent of and in addition to whatever efforts may be implemented to fully
comply with Mitigation Measure 10-2, in order to more effectively mitigation
the NFL proect, the
operational the Lead Agaency'sdecisionk
utable o-mag bodily' houuldJ adopt the ollow nlg
include and the 9
additional mitigation measures:
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 47
With regards to the Sunset Crossing/Neil Armstrong Elementary School
neighborhood, at the Applicant's sole cost and expense, prior to the
issuance of any occupancy permits or final inspection for any land use
located on the subject property, the Applicant shall design, install, and
thereafter fully maintain (including landscaping and graffiti removal) the
following improvements along and adjacent to the property boundary of all
existing sensitive residential receptors located along Rock River Road,
South Palo Cedero Drive, North Palo Cedero Drive, Eaglespur Road, and
Deep Hill Drive in the City of Diamond Bar: (1) an earthen and extensively
landscaped berm, with a minimum berm height of not less than 15 -feet
extending above the existing grade, as measured at the high point of the
shared property line(s) separating those existing residential receptors from
the project site; and (2) a decorative, solid, masonry block wall, with a
minimum height of 8 feet above finish grade, installed along or directly
adjacent to the property boundaries of those existing residential receptors
sharing a common property line(s) with the project site. The wall design
shall seek to accomplish the duel goals of providing effective noise mitigation
to proximal residential receptors and providing a functional, attractive, and
safe design element enhancing the visual character of those homes and that
abutting neighborhood.
2. With regards to the Lycoming/Washington neighborhood, in accordance with
the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) "Final Train Horn Rule," as
published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2005 and amended on August
17, 2006, including any and all guidance documents associated therewith, at
the Applicant's sole cost and expense, prior to the issuance of any
occupancy permits or final inspection for any land use located on the subject
property, the Applicant shall design, install, and thereafter fully maintain
(including landscaping and graffiti removal) those safety, noise attenuation,
and other related improvements associated with any existing or future "quiet
zone" that may be established in the vicinity of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming
Street or as identified by the City of Diamond Bar in its application to the
FRA for "quiet zone" status, including the annual or more frequent monitoring
of "quite zone" compliance.
Residential Insulation and Noise Reduction Program. California's Noise
Insulation Standards (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations) establish an
interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residential space (CNEL or Ldn). Acoustical
studies must be prepared for residential structures located within noise contours of
60 dBA or greater (CNEL or Ldn) from freeways, major streets, thoroughfares, rail
lines, rapid transit lines, or industrial noise sources. The studies must demonstrate
that the building is designed to reduce interior noise to 45 dBA or lower (CNEL or
Ldn).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
ess Center Environmental Impact Report
Draft Supplement to Industry Busin
October 16, 2008
Page 48
While it does not appear not specifically intended for affected off-site receptors, the
Lead Agency states that "[a]coustical design features incorporated into construction
of the revised project shall include e%terior features to reduce noise, such as
berms/walls and/or architectural features, such as Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rated windows, doors, and attic baffling, to ensure interior noise levels in noise -
sensitive habitable rooms will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL, as defined by the California
Building Code" (DSEIR, PDF 16, p. 5.7-26). The application of new construction
practices, materials, and techniques will ensure that all on-site uses achieve that
standard. However, existing sensitive uses located beyond the project boundaries
should not be subjected to noise levels which diminish or otherwise detract from the
use and enjoyment of those properties.
Although the DSEIR specified that noise impacts upon proximal sensitive receptors
will be "significant and unavoidable," the EIR does not specify the distances from the
stadium where significant noise impacts will extend. Excluding the noise associated
with firework displays, the Lead Agency should establish a "residential insulation
and noise reduction program" within that geographic area where exceedance
conditions are documented.
Since exterior noise impacts are deemed significant and mitigablshoulfully
nt
be required
compensation for residential exposure to those impacts, Apllica ica to achieve a
fund such structural attenuation improvements as may
significant interior reduction from stadium noise levels while ensuring the style,
character, and liveability of participating homes is maintained. As a performance
criteria, the program should encompass such acoustical insulation as may be
required to ensure that the interior noise level of any habitable o om, due to dueto
erior
sources, does not exceed 45 dBA Leq, Loz, s
standard would be the more restrictive.
Existing residential neighborhoods that would be eligible for participation in this
program would include, but may not be limited to Lycoming/Washington and Sunset
Crossing/Neil Armstrong Elementary School.
• Transportation and Traffic. As indicated in the DSEIR, the LaAge
s cnificant [1]d es
that "[w]ithout mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially 9
On
weekdays without games, the revised project would generatetrraffi 5 that would D. _impact and
levels of service for the existing area roadway system" (DSEIR,
impact5.10-189); (2) "On weeknights with games, the revised project would
I generate (DSER Impact 5that
would impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system"
2, pp. 1-60 and 5.10-190); and (3) "On Sundays with games the revised project would
generate traffic that wouldimpaanld 5.10-190).
isof service for the existing area roadway system"
(DSEIR, Impact 5.10-3, pp 1-65
Traffic impacts can be reduced to a less -than -significant level through the implementation of
the identified traffic improvements, including the payment of all applicable fair -share
contributions to each of the State and local responsible agencies in whose jurisdiction those
Mike K,issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 49
improvements are located, inclusive of those associated with the SR -57/60 corridor and
Grand Avenue. In recognition of both the difficulty likely to be encountered in implementing
some of those improvements and the CEQA-based obligation on the Lead Agency to
reduce environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible, the following additional
mitigation measures are recommended by the City.
Permanent Shuttle Bus Operations. As proposed, a "private shuttle service" will
be operated between the stadium and the Metrolink station only "during game days
and special events" (e.g., "By providing private shuttle services from the Metrolink
station to the stadium during game day and special events, the revised project
would be providing a beneficial and viable long-term mode of alternative
transportation," DSEIR, p. 3-28). However, by limiting shuttle operations to only
event days, the statement that the Lead Agency and/or the Applicant are making
any meaningful contribution to a "viable long-term of alternative transportation" is, at
best, misleading.
The Applicant is promoting not only a NFL Stadium but also a "regional destination
retail, entertainment, and commercial project" (DSEIR, p. 3-2) which is "comparable
to Staples Center and Universal City's City Walk" (Valley Daily Bulletin, April 21,
2008). Improved connectivity between the Metrolink station and the NFL Stadium
project would help to reduce the number of vehicle driving to the planned "regional
destination" to the maximum extent feasible.
The proposed "shuttle service," therefore, needs to be extended to not only "game
days and special events" but to all hours when the "regional destination retail,
entertainment, and commercial project" would be open for business (e.g., increased
visitor population," DSEIR, 5.9-9). The Applicant states that the operating hours of
the "entertainment venue" extend between "8:00 AM to 11:OOPM or and 2:00 AM"
(DSEIR, p. 3-21). The proposed "shuttle service" needs to operate continuously
during those hours or during such hours as Metrolink services are available.
Dedicated Shuttle Bus Overpass or Undercrossing. The Lead Agency states
that the project would produce a significant traffic impact if the project were to
"substantially increase hazards due to a design feature" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-24).
However, the EIR never discloses that placing an open-air, slow-moving shuttle on a
major arterial highway in travel lanes shared with other motorists represents a safety
hazard to shuttle riders. As a result, a potentially significant traffic impact is never
disclosed in the DSEIR.
As illustrated in the DSEIR, the route of the "conceptual shuttle system" (DSEIR,
Figure 3-9, unpaginated) indicates that the shuttle system will operate on Grand
Avenue rather than along a dedicated shuttle route that would not place the "rubber -
tired shuttles" (DSEIR, p. 3-28) on public roadways, in competition with other
motorists for those same travel lanes. Slow moving shuttles will likely impede traffic
flow and would effectively reduce traffic volumes along Grand Avenue. As such,
because the Applicant asserts that the shuttle system will remove 1,250 cars from
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 50
the roadway (DSEIR, Table 5.10-9, P. 5.10-33), the system's operations would
prove counter-productive if it would` 1 600evehicleepee hope percity �aneeas theapracys pcal
on
which it were to travel (e.g.,
capacity for through lanes," DSEIR, Appendix H, p. 11).
In order to maximum the potential benefits of the "shuttle system," the project should
be designed to create a dedicated on-site travel -way for the shuttle to operate, thus
keeping the shuttles off public roadways to the maximum extend possible. Such a
dedicated routing plan could be easily implemented with only minor changes in the
tion of a
proposed site extendingincng the the eastern parking dedicated
plan ,parking area(east of Grand Avenue) to
dge overpass or
undercrossing 9
the stadium area.
p Bicycle Route Improvements. The Lead Agency states that the project would
produce a significant traffic impact if the project were to "conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-
24). As indicated in the DSEIR, implementation of those proposed traffic
improvements identified by the Lead Agency will result in the elimination of a
number of existing dedicated bicycle lanes.
Intersections and/or street segments where existing bicycle lanes will be eliminated
include, but are not limited to: (1 intersection
6 4 Grandnd Avenue at Cameron
Avenue at Mountaineer
Avenue (DSEIR, p. 5.10-192); (2) Intersection
Road (DSEIR, p. 5.10-192); (3) Intersection 7 — Grand Avenue at San Jose Hills
Road (DSEIR, p. 5.10-193); (4) Intersection 8 — Nogales Street at Amar Road
(DSEIR, p. 5.10-193); (5) Intersection 9 — Lemon Avenue at Amar Avenue (DSEIR,
( SpEIR10-
5.10-193); (6) Intersection 10 — Grand Avenue at Temp
le 194); (7) Intersection 16 — Diamond Bar -Mission Boulevard at Temple Avenue
(DSEIR, p. 5.10-198); (8) Intersection 18 — Nogales Street at La Puente Road
(DSEIR, p. 5.10-199); (9) Intersection 19 — Grand Avenue at La Puente Road
(DSEIR, p. 5.10-199); (10) Intersection 28 — Diamond Bar Boulevard at SR -57 NB
Ramp (DSEIR, p. 5.10-203); (11) Intersection
129— rDia o d Bar DaumonddBat
Sunset Crossing Road (DSEIR, p. 5.10-203); ( ) 1
Boulevard at SR -60 WB Ramp (DSEIR, p. 5.10-203); (13) Intersection 31 —
Diamond Bar Boulevard at SR -60 EB Ramp (DSEIR, p. 5.10-203); (14) Intersection
34 — Diamond Bar Boulevard at Golden Springs Drive (DSEIR, p. 5.10-204); (15)
Intersection 58 — Gateway Center Drive at Golden Springs Drive (DSEIR, p. 5.10-
208); (16) Intersection 59 — Copley Drive at Golden Springs Drive (DSEIR, p. 5.10-
208); (17) Intersection 68 — Diamond Bar Boulevard at Montefino Avenue (DSEIR,
p. 5.10-211); (18) Intersection 69 — Diamond Bar Boulevard at Quail Summit Drive
(DSEIR, p. 5.10-211); (19) Intersection 70 — Diamond Bar Boulevard at Mountain
Laurel (DSEIR, p. 5.10-212); (20) Intersection 71 —Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Kiowa Crest Drive (DSEIR, p. 5.10-212); (21) Intersection 77 — Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Pathfinder Road (DSEIR, p. 5.10-213); (22) Intersection 81 — Diamond
Bar Boulevard at Golden Springs Lane (DSEIR, p. 5.10-215); (23) Intersection 82 —
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 51
Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard (DSEIR, p. 5.10-215); and (24)
Intersection 84 — Diamond Bar Boulevard at Gold Rush Drive (DSEIR, p. 5.10-216).
The "revised project" is anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on bicycle
safety. No mitigation of any kind is, however, recommended by the Lead Agency
and no acknowledge of this impact exists anywhere in the EIR.
CEQA states that mitigation includes compensating for the impact by replacing or
providing substitute resources or environments (14 CCR 15370[e]). As mitigation
for the project's impacts on "alternative transportation" systems, the Lead Agency is
required to provide reasonable compensation to each agency in whose jurisdiction a
bicycle lane(s) will be eliminated. The appropriate amount of compensation need to
be determined by the affected agency based on a technical analysis of options
available to each agency and the actions deemed appropriate by that agency to
mitigate those impacts. In most case, affected agencies will be required to amend
their general plans and/or park and recreation plans to both change the status of
affected bicycle routes and to identify alternatives thereto.
Additional Undisclosed Indirect Impacts
In Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court
discussed the issue of what circumstances require consideration in an EIR of future action related
to the proposed project. While recognizing that "'where future development is unspecified and
uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to
future environmental consequences"' [citation], it held future effects must be included if: "(1) it is a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action
will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its
environmental effects" (City of Santee v. County of San Diego).
Based a review of the DSEIR, a number of additional, undisclosed, potential indirect impacts have
been identified. Those impacts are separately discussed below.
(Reasonably Foreseeable Future Uses. As discussed elsewhere, substantial evidence
suggests that "[t]his stadium is designed to accommodate two teams" (Daily Titan,
September 9, 2008). Absent from the EIR is any discussion or evaluation of the potential
expanded use of the NFL Stadium accommodating a greater intensity of use that disclosed
in the DSEIR.
With regards to "emergency response and evacuation planning," the Lead Agency states
that "the proposed stadium, its associated practice fields, and surface parking areas could
also serve as a venue for staging emergency services and/or temporary shelter during
major disasters or other crises in the region. For example, given its proposed location and
sheer size, the stadium could be utilized by the American Red Cross for the provision of
temporary shelter and/or the administration of medical services during a major disaster"
(DSEIR, p. 5.4-12).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 52
Because the Lead Agency state that the proposed project could, in the future, become a
key element in regional emergency planning efforts, that intent must be considered a
"reasonably foreseeable future use" warranting further consideration in the EIR. Since the
Lead Agency has itself volunteered the NFL Stadium as an emergency staging site,
Industry must accept an obligation (under CEQA) not to merely assert the existence of a
"beneficial impact" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-12), which might be subsequently cited as part of any
findings adopted following certification of the EIR, but to present a reasonable analysis
which supports that conclusion.
The Lead Agency states that the proposed project would have a significant environmental
effect if the project were to "[i]mpair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-8).
Use of the site as temporary housing for "an estimated 15,000 people" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-12)
under dire conditions could introduce additional environmental impacts which are not yet
disclosed. Since the DSEIR does state whether the Lead Agency has adopted an
"emergency response plan," no information is provided to assess the stadium's future use
in the context of existing public policies and previous analyses.
The Lead Agency's identification of the NFL Stadium as a "venue for staging emergency
services and/or temporary shelter" further suggests the need to amendment or otherwise
modify an "adopted emergency response and evaluation plan" to include the stadium as
part of regional emergency responsiveness efforts. If the NFL Stadium were to become the
site where regional emergency efforts were concentrated, it would appear logical that
regional plans then acknowledged that stated purpose and intent.
Growth -Inducing Impacts. With regards to "growth -inducing impact," an "EIR must
discuss growth -inducing impacts even though those impacts are not themselves a part of
the project under consideration, and even though the extent of the growth is difficult to
calculate" (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors). In
determining if a project has growth -inducing impacts, the courts generally look to whether
the project sets in motion market forces that can lead to economic pressure for growth.
Since, as part of any findings adopted following certification of the EIR, it must be assumed
that the Lead Agency will seek to claim that the "revised project" will serve as an "economic
catalyst," the Lead Agency is required to base its findings on substantial evidence
presented in the EIR. In direct contradiction, the documentation of lost property value
attributable to a stadium's proposed presence would appear to refute any such claim.
To the extent that the NFL Stadium project were to put downward pressures on residential
valuation due to the "negative externalities" attributable to the project (e.g., traffic
congestion, noise, loss of privacy, and crime), those impacts would most likely occur in
Diamond Bar and manifest as lost revenues to the State, the County, and the City.
Available evidence indicates that the economic consequences of the NFL Stadium project
on Diamond Bar will likely be substantial. The Lead Agency's subsequent release of an
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 1i3
economic evaluation, without sufficient opportunity for the City and other parties, to conduct
an appropriate review of the report's findings (including hiring a qualified economic
consultant with the experience and capabilities to independently evaluate any Applicant -
based assumptions) would prove contrary to CEQA because it would reward the Lead
Agency for withholding key information and preclude sufficient opportunity for the public to
reasonably assess the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Additionally, the
Lead Agency's response to comments can neither be used as a substitute for what should
be included in nor cure the defects of the DSEIR. Such a tactic has been repeatedly
condemned because it frustrates CEQA's twin goals of public participation and informed
decisionmaking. "This requirement of `public and agency review' has been called 'the
strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR."' (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino).
In the Lead Agency's FOF/SOQ, allegedly basing its conclusions on factual information
already in the administrative record, Industry concluded that "[a]s the project develops,
similar uses will be attracted to neighboring areas with similar zoning stimulating investment
and increasing the economic vitality of this eastern end of the San Gabriel Valley as a
whole" (FOF/SOC, p. 4-2). By this statement, the Lead Agency represents that the "2004
Plan of Development" will attract similar uses and will stimulate development beyond the
project boundaries. In contrast, the "revised Plan of Development" will "not, therefore
involve a precedent -setting action that could be applied to other properties and thereby
encourage or facilitate growth that would not otherwise occur" (DSEIR, p. 10-4). In that
statement, the Lead Agency has itself limited the rationale it can subsequent present with
regards to any statement of overriding considerations that it may wish to present in support
of the "revised Plan of Development."
CEQA requires that the decision-making agency balance the economic, legal, social, technological,
or other benefits of a proposed action against its unavoidable environmental risk (14 CCR 15093).
Absent any economic analysis made subject to peer review and comment, the Lead Agency has
not created an administrative record which would support the approval of a statement of overriding
considerations on any economic grounds.
In a variety of CEQA cases, the courts have rejected the argument that information found in a
document that was not circulated for public review, such as a response to comments, can
substitute for information required in a draft EIR. In Mountain Lion Coalition v. California Fish and
Game Commission, the court condemned the agency practice of insulating environmental analysis
from public review. As the court stated: "If we were to allow the deficient analysis in the draft EID
[Environmental Impact Document] to be bolstered by a document that was never circulated for
public comment ... we would be subverting the important public purposes of CEQA ... To evaluate
the draft EID in conjunction with the final EID ... would only countenance the practice of releasing a
report for public consumption that hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a
more detailed analysis to the final EID that is insulated from public review".
Failure to Adequately Identify the Impacts of Recommended Mitigation Measures
As required under CEQA: "If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in
addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 54
measures shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as
proposed" (14 CCR 15126.4[a][1][D]).
With regards to "transportation and traffic" mitigation, as indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "The City of
Industry recognizes that certain intersection improvements would require the acquisition of
additional right-of-way and possible displacement of existing land uses" (Final IBC/EIR, Response
to Comments, Response M-7). As indicated in the DSEIR, with regards to project -related and/or
cumulative traffic impacts, addition right-of-way (ROW) will need to be purchased at the following
intersections located in Diamond Bar. As excerpted from the DSEIR, without the City stating its
concurrence with the EIR's preliminary findings, the Lead Agency's "additional ROW requirements
for LOS D mitigation and land use impact assessment" is provided for each of the identified
intersection located in the City.
(1) Intersection No. 16 - Diamond Bar Boulevard -Mission Boulevard at Temple Avenue. "West
side of Diamond Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW requirement of 22 feet would encroach
on slope bank/landscaping and restaurant parking lot adjoining the SB approach on
Diamond Bar Boulevard. Additionally, a 6 feet ROW adjoining the SB departure will affect
existing landscaping/wall and residential use. Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-32, 5.10-
198, and 5.10-199).
(2) Intersection No. 30 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at SR -60 WB Ramps. "East side of Diamond
Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW of 11 feet required would encroach on existing
commercial parking lot on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The encroachment represents a
decrease in the number of commercial parking spaces. Potentially Significant Impact"
(DSEIR, pp. 5.6-38, 5.6-39, and 5.10-203).
(3) Intersection No. 31 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at SR -60 EB Ramps. (1) "North side of SR -60
EB: An additional ROW of 7 feet required would encroach on an existing freeway
landscaping. Less than Significant Impact" and; (2) "East side of Diamond Bar Boulevard:
An additional ROW of 11 feet required will encroach on an existing landscaping and
commercial use on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-
39 and 5.10-203).
(4) Intersection No. 34 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Golden Springs Drive. (1) "South side of
Golden Springs Drive: An additional ROW of 12 feet required would reduce school grounds
and playfield and increase traffic noise impacts. The encroachment would disturb and
reduce school grounds and jeopardize the safety of students. Significant Impact"; (2) "North
side of Golden Springs Drive: An additional ROW of 10 feet required would encroach on an
existing gas station on Golden Springs Drive. Potentially Significant Impact" and; (3) "North
side of Golden Springs Drive: An additional ROW of 11 feet required would encroach on an
existing gas station on Golden Springs Drive. Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-40 and
5.10-204).
(5) Intersection No. 52 - SR -60 at Golden Springs Drive. (1) "North side of Golden Springs
Drive: An additional ROW requirement of 2 feet would encroach on an existing fast-food
restaurant. The encroachment is less than significant as it represents a minimal amount of
land. Less than Significant" and; (2) "North side of Golden Springs Drive: An additional
ROW requirement of 13 feet would encroach on an existing fast-food restaurant. ROW
requirements would encroach on developed site and could affect structures. Potentially
Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-42 ad 5.10-207).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 55
(6) Intersection No. 53 - Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive. (1) "South side of
Golden Springs Drive: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an
existing landscaping and restaurant. The encroachment on a restaurant on Golden Springs
could be potentially significant as there are a limited number of commercial parking spaces
on all corners of the intersection. Potentially Significant Impact"; and (2) "South side of
Golden Springs Drive: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an
existing landscaping and restaurant. Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-43 and 5.10-207).
(7) Intersection No. 59 - Copley Drive at Golden Springs Drive. "South side of Golden Springs
Drive: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an existing
slope/landscaping/office parking lot. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-43 and
5.10-209).
(8) Intersection No. 60 - Grand Avenue at Golden Springs Drive. (1) "East side of Grand
Avenue: An additional ROW requirement of 22 feet would encroach on an existing gas
station/structure. Significant Impact'; (2) "West side of Grand Avenue: An additional ROW
requirement of 11 feet would affect the existing golf course on the SB approach and
landscaping/commercial use on the SB departure. Less than Significant Impact; and (3)
"East side of Grand Avenue: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on
existing gas station structure. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-44 and 5.10-
209).
(9) Intersection No. 63 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue. (1) "East side of Diamond
Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW requirement of 22 feet would substantially encroach on
existing bank/commercial use (NB approach). An existing 11 feet would also encroach on
existing bank/commercial use on NB departure [Significant Impact]" (2) "West side of
Diamond Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet on the SB approach
would encroach on existing shopping center/commercial center. This is continued past
Grand on the SB departure [Significant Impact]"; (3) "South side of Grand Avenue: An
additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on commercial buildings on the EB
departure. These ROW requirements represent significant impacts as the intersection
corners are fully developed with commercial buildings. Significant Impact; and (4) "North of
Grand Avenue: An additional ROW requirement of 10 feet would encroach on existing
oank/commercial on the WB approach on Grand Avenue. Potentially Significant Impact'
(DSEIR, pp. 5.6-45, 5.6-46, and 5.10-210).
(10) Intersection No. 68 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Montefino Avenue. (1) "South side of
IMontefino Avenue: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an
existing parking lot of a convenience store. This could potentially have an impact as there is
already a limited amount of parking space available at the site. Potentially Significant
Impact'; and (2) "North side of Montefino Avenue: An additional ROW requirement of 11
feet would encroach on an existing post office adjoining the SB approach on Diamond Bar
Boulevard. The decrease in parking spaces could be a potential impact to post office
patrons. Potentially Significant Impact' (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-47 and 5.10-211).
(11) Intersection No. 70 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Mountain Laurel. (1) "North side of
Mountain Laurel: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an existing
wall/landscaping and residential use adjoining the WB departure on Mountain Laurel Way.
The ROW requirement encroaches on residential area that could potentially disturb their
quality of life. Potentially Significant Impact; and (2) "West side of Diamond Bar Boulevard:
An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an existing wall/landscaping
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 56
and residential use adjoining the SB approach on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The ROW
requirement encroaches on a residential area that could potentially disturb their quality of
life. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-47, 5.6-48, and 5.10-212).
(12) Intersection No. 73 - Brea Canyon Road at Pathfinder Road. (1) "North side of Pathfinder
Road: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on an existing
landscaping and commercial parking lot. The encroachment on landscaping and partial
encroachment onto commercial parking lot could take away parking spaces. Potentially
Significant Impact"; and (2) "South side of Pathfinder Road: An additional ROW requirement
of 10 feet would encroach on existing slope/landscaping. Less than Significant [Impact]"
(DSEIR, pp. 5.6-48 and 5.10-212).
(13) Intersection No. 74 - SR -57 SB Ramps at Pathfinder Road. "West side of SR -57 SB: An
additional ROW requirement of 10 feet would encroach on existing highway
and 5.10-212).
daping
and commercial use. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp.
(14) Intersection No. 77 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Pathfinder Road. (1) "West side of
Diamond Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW requirement of 5 feet would affect existing
landscaping and residential use. This ROW requirement is less than significant as the
residential use on Diamond Bar Boulevard is minimally affected. Less than Significant
Impact"; (2) "East side of Diamond Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW requirement of 12
feet would encroach on existing landscaping and residential neighborhood. The
encroachment of residential land use could potentially affect the quality of life for the
residential community. Potentially Significant Impact"; and (3) "West side of Diamond Bar
Boulevard: An additional ROW of 11 feet would encroach on existing landscaping and
residential neighborhood. The encroachment of residential land use could potentially affect
the quality of life for the residential community. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp.
5.6-49, 5.6-50, and 5.10-213).
(15) Intersection No. 76 - Brea Canyon Road (East) -Fern Hollow Drive at Pathfinder Road. (1)
"East side of Brea Canyon Road: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would
encroach on existing residential neighborhood [Significant Impact]"; and (2) "West side of
Brea Canyon Road: "An additional ROW requirement of 22 feet would encroach on the
residential neighborhood and on street -parking on Brea Canyon Road. ROW requirements
would encroach substantially into the residential neighborhood. Significant Impact" (DSEIR,
pp. 5.6-49 and 5.10-213).
oulevard at Cold Springs Lane. (1) "South side of Cold
(16) Intersection No. 81 -Diamond Bar B
requirement of 5 feet would encroach on existing
Springs Lane: An additional ROW
landscaping and residential neighborhood [Potentially Significant Impact]"; and (2) "No
side of Cold Springs Lane: An additional ROW requirement of 5 feet would encroach on
existing landscaping and residential neighborhood. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR,
pp. 5.6-51 and 5.10-215).
(17) Intersection No. 82 - Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard. "South side of
Diamond Bar Boulevard: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet
and would
encroach 215). on
5.6 52
existing open space. Less than Significant [Impact]" (DSEIR, pp. West side of Brea
(18) Intersection No. 83 - Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive. (1)
Canyon Road: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on existing
freeway landscaping [Potentially Significant Impact]"; and (2) "East side of Brea Canyon
Road: An additional ROW requirement of 11 feet would encroach on existing residential
neighborhood. Potentially Significant Impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.6-52 and p. 5.10-216).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 57
Because the Lead Agency asserts that improvements to Grand Avenue and the SR -57/60 corridor
are the responsible of others and do not constitute an obligation upon the "revised project,"
unaddressed in any of the above referenced intersections are the impacts on the Diamond Bar
Golf Course (22751 E. Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar) and other properties directly abutting
the SF; -57/60 Freeway that will be impacted by those improvements. As a result, secondary
impacts to existing businesses and properties in Diamond Bar are likely to be greater than now
disclosed in the DSEIR.
As indicated above, numerous commercial, residential, and institutional uses will be significant
impacted by those project -related and cumulative traffic improvements identified in the DSEIR.
The potential impacts of those improvements include, but are not limited to, the loss of existing
housing inventory, the displacement of existing residents, the cessation and displacement of
existing businesses, the reduction in available commercial parking, the closure of school facilities,
and the loss of open space and street -adjacent landscaping. Although the DSEIR provides
generali information, the precise nature of the impacts on abutting properties cannot be accurately
ascertained from the information provided by the Lead Agency (e.g., precise number of dwelling
units affected, functionality of residential and commercial uses with diminished land area;
operational impacts on businesses with loss parking).
Many of these impacts are particularly onerous to the affected residents and businesses and
include substantial undisclosed direct and indirect costs associated with the displacement and
relocation activities that would be required in order for the City to effectuate the traffic
improvements identified in the DSEIR which are located in Diamond Bar Walnut. If the stated
improvements are not feasible or cannot be feasibly implemented, the Lead Agency cannot
assume their implementation and must, therefore, either identify alternative improvements or
reassess post -project traffic conditions absent those improvements.
Under CEQA, a "project" is defined as the "whole of the action, which has a potential for resulting
in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment" (14 CCR 15378). The acquisition of additional ROW to accommodate
project -related and cumulative impacts constitutes a direct impact of the NFL Stadium project and
the resulting impacts on abutting properties (including the displacement of existing residents and
businesses) constitutes an indirect impact.
In the Final IBC/EIR, the Lead Agency sought to truncate the "2004 IBC Plan of Development' by
stating than the CEQA analysis of any such improvements was not the responsibility of Industry
but fell solely on the agency in whose jurisdiction those improvements were located. As indicated
in the Final IBC/EIR: "The City of Industry has prepared the Industry Business Center EIR to
evaluate the potential environmental effects of the project without regards to jurisdictional
boundaries. In furtherance of this duty, the City of Industry identified various roadway impacts that
require mitigation. Some of those impacts are predicted to occur within the boundaries of other
jurisdictions, including the City of Diamond Bar. Pursuant to CEQA the City of Industry is obligated
to identify mitigation measures that may reduce such impacts to a less than significant impact.
However, the identification of such mitigation measures does not elevate the City of Diamond Bar
to the role of responsible agency for the Industry East Project. If Caltrans proceeds with
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 58
improvements to freeway ramps and other jurisdictions, such as Diamond Bar, proceed with
roadway improvements within their jurisdictions, these agencies will be responsible for the
preparation of CEQA documentation as required by their roles as lead agencies for said
improvements" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments, Response N-4).
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR: "While each jurisdiction will determine the desirability and
ultimate fate of its transportation system and road network, the mitigation measures identified in
the EIR are feasible but implementation may also impact adjacent land uses" (Final IBC/EIR,
Response to Comments, Response L-3). However, the Lead Agency also states that "Industry
recognizes the difficulty in phasing improvements and that certain improvements may be found to
be infeasible or undesirable by the local agency" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments,
Response L-8).
The Lead Agency found that all the traffic mitigation presented in the Final IBC/EIR was "feasible."
CEQA defined "feasible as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors" (§21061,1 and 14 CCR 15364).
Since roadway improvements designed to mitigate project -related and cumulative traffic impacts
are identified by the Lead Agency (both in the Final IBC/EIR and DSEIR) the implementation of
those improvements is indistinguishable from the implementation of water and sewer systems
needed to support the proposed development. The Lead Agency has already identified water and
sewer providers as "responsible agencies" (DSEIR, Table 3-3, p. 3-56).
Absent from the Final IBC/EIR and the DSEIR is sufficient analysis to allow the City and the
affected public to reasonably ascertain the impacts of those "feasible" mitigation measures,
including "impact [to] adjacent land uses." Since cost implications of those improvements are not
presented in the DSEIR, the City has not been provided information concerning the Lead Agency's
assessment of those costs. Absent the disclosure of those costs (including the methodology use
to derive those costs), the City has been denied critical information concerning any fair -share cost
allocation that is being proposed by the Lead Agency to off -set the costs of those traffic
improvements now proposed (by the Lead Agency) in the City.
As such, the Lead Agency seeks to defer the responsibility for all traffic mitigation identified in other
cities to the each local government but denies to those same agencies: (1) the opportunity to avail
themselves of the CEQA documentation created by the agency primarily responsible for the
inducement of the impacts upon which those improvements are predicated; (2) information
concerning the physical impacts on those improvements on affected properties so as to allow each
agency to independent assess the direct and indirect impacts of the recommended traffic
improvements; (3) critical economic information concerning the costs of those improvements,
including the methodology used to estimated those costs; and (4) the Lead Agency's proposed fair -
share contributions to be allotted to each agency for those improvements.
In lieu of presenting any reasonable analysis, the Lead Agency merely concludes that "the
proposed project is expected to build -out over a 15 -year timeframe and the time horizon for some
of these improvements is 2025. With such long-term timeframes it is pure speculation that these or
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 59
other alternative mitigation measures are not feasible" (Final IBC/EIR, Response to Comments,
Response L-3). The response ignores a full range of "economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors," the mere passage of time does not assure that infeasible mitigation
measures will be made feasible or that feasible mitigation measures can overcome permitting,
environmental, and economic obstacles so as to allow timely effectuation.
Contradictory and unsupported statements by the Lead Agency suggest that Industry has not
conducted a reasonable assessment of the feasibility of implementing the identified traffic
improvements located in Diamond Bar. Instead of conducting that analysis, the Lead Agency
seeks to defer to other agencies and to later CEQA processes a determination of the feasibility of
those measures.
Traffic Impact Analysis Deficiencies
The DSEIR contains a Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") identified as the "Industry Business Center
SEIR" prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ("LL&G") and dated August 11, 2008,
1. Unless there is data showing the number of project trips will be inconsequential, the
following roadways should be analyized and added to the traffic impact study:
a. Grand Avenue south of the WB 60 ramps
b. Grand Avenue north of Baker Parkway
c. Diamond Bar Boulevard between Golden Springs Drive and WB 60 ramps
d. Lemon Avenue north of Golden Springs Drive
2. Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines require the evaluation of freeway facilities
including mainline segments and ramp junctions when a project:
a. Generates over 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility
b. Generates over 50 to 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility and
affected State highway facilities are experiencing noticeable delay and approaching
unstable traffic flow conditions (LOS C or D)
c. Generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility and affected
State highway facilities are experiencing significant delay and approaching unstable
or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS E or F)
Therefore, the traffic study should be revised to incorporate Caltrans requirements and
include all other freeway facilities including mainline segments and ramp junctions that
meet the above criteria, in addition to the five mainline segments already included in the
study.
3. Traffic analysis for freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions should apply the HCM
methodology recommended by Caltrans, in addition to the demand/capacity ratio method
identified in the CMP.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 60
4. Several intersection analysis assumptions are not reasonable. For example, the heavy
vehicle percentage was assumed to be 0% and the peak hour factor was assumed to be
1.0 in the traffic study.
5. The traffic analyses focus on "game day" conditions, which are assumed to focus on
football games. The applicant has acknowledged that the stadium will be used for other
events and that will primarily occur on the "weekends". The "weekends" are assumed to
include Friday nights and Saturdays, which are likely to be a more critical "background"
condition than a Sunday afternoon. The traffic impact study must be revised to ensure
that the most critical condition (peak hours, peak days, etc.) have been analyzed in the
DSEIR and TIA.
6. Information vital to the Project transportation evaluations are incorrect, as provided on page
5.10-41 and 5.10-42 of the SEIR (and in the TIA as well). These erroneous assumptions
must be corrected and the analyses updated to properly reflect actual conditions:
a. The SEIR and TIA assume widening of Grand Avenue between Baker Parkway and
Golden Springs Drive to eight lanes, to begin construction in Fall 2008. The City of
Diamond Bar has not approved the project. As this roadway widening is proposed
as a part of the Grand Avenue Interchange widening project and timing, the funding
for this project is still unknown. This improvement cannot be assumed as a given
and the DSEIR must be modified to identify appropriate mitigations for impacts at
this location.
b. The last sentence on page 5.10-41 indicates that under "a first phase of
development, the Caltrans improvements for the SR-57/SR-60 ... involve". This
statement is incorrect. The potential improvements for the SR-57/SR-60 are still
conceptual and not yet funded. In addition, the Metro consultant (CH2MHill) for the
project has not completed their evaluations. The City of Diamond Bar has not begun
public review of the potential alternatives and has not selected a specific alternative.
The City of Industry has stated that the City of Industry desired "first phase"
improvements identified may need to change depending on the outcome of the
overall SR-57/SR-60 study, etc. Further study is required within the TIA and
incorporated into the environmental impact report.
Based on the factors identified above, these improvements cannot be assumed as a
"given". The impacts of the Project without these improvements in place must be
identified, and adequate mitigation measures developed.
c. The "SR -60 Eastbound On -Ramp" (page 5.10-42) is only one option being
considered to be a part of the potential improvement that may occur at this
interchange. A viable option is to maintain the "diamond" ramp configuration on the
City of Diamond Bar side of the interchange. If that design is not viable to serve this
Project, the "SR -60 eastbound loop on-ramp" must be analyzied and identified as a
mitigation measure for the Project.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 61
d. The SEIR indicates that the improvements identified on page 5.10-42 "are expected
to be completed by 2015'. Several regional transportation agencies have indicated
the current funding for the SR-57/SR-60 is not programmed until year 2030. The
transportation project has not yet been defined, so estimation of a completion date
is not possible.
7. The study should identify all the potential roadway improvements within the study area, and
these improvements should be considered in the procedure of traffic forecasts. For
example, the study did not assume the SR-60/Lemon Avenue interchange currently
undergoing environmental review and the SR -60 HOV project in place by 2025 or 2030.
8. Applying a simple growth rate is not accurate for locations where major roadway
improvements will occur by 2025, with the resulting potential change in travel patterns. For
example, the improvements on SR -60 (i.e., HOV lane and SR-60/Lemon Interchange) will
change travel patterns for that area. The TIA must analize forecasts to reflect likely
changes in travel patterns.
9. 'The growth rates used for projections should be supported by historical data. For example,
the study assumed a growth rate of .07% per year for intersections in the City of Diamond
Bar from 2015 to 2030. The study should provide the source or rationale to use this growth
rate.
10. The study should confirm the list of pending and approved projects in adjacent communities
is current/accurate. For example, Table 9 in Appendix H does not have the accurate land
use assumptions for additional projects in Diamond Bar.
11. The NFL stadium based development project which includes the stadium facility and
various other mixed land uses would result in a significant changes to the character of the
surrounding area and would be expected to induce land use changes and growth for the
surrounding areas outside of the project development boundaries. The traffic analyses
must address potential transportation impacts of the growth inducing factors associated
with the proposed Project (i.e., if the Project results in the golf course changing to
commercial development, which would result in significantly greater traffic demand for the
Grand Interchange and surrounding areas).
12. Overall, the traffic volume projections (e.g. at the SR -57/60 interchange at Grand Avenue,
Grand/Golden Springs intersection, SR -60 interchange at Brea Canyon, etc.) do not appear
consistent with the traffic projections and on-going analyses that are now known to exist for
the Grand Interchange project and SR -57/60 Metro "Big Fix" alternatives evaluations.
a. The discrepancies in the traffic volume projections between the analyses presently
being conducted for the freeway mainlines and interchanges, compared to the
volume projections for this Project, must be resolved.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 62
b. In the case of the SR -57/60 interchange at Grand Avenue, the level of analyses
must be consistent with the evaluations (i.e., traffic simulations, etc.) that have been
completed to date for the related projects, such that the results of the TIA will be
accurate, consistent, etc. and all potential transportation impacts can be accurately
evaluated and proper mitigation measures and or project alternatives can be
prepared.
13. Existing lane configurations at several of the TIA study intersections are inaccurate. For
example, Figure 4B indicates dual left -turn lanes on the westbound approach at intersection
53, which should be one left -turn lane. The northbound right -turn movement at intersection
56 should have an overlap instead of permitted phase.
14. It must be assured that existing traffic counts reflect typical roadway conditions (i.e., no
road work, road closures, etc.) and/or any anomalies have been accurately and properly
accounted for in the analyses.
15. The City provided comments to the Lead Agency on the NOP and explained that "Standard
traffic analyses (i.e., Intersection Capacity Utilization ("ICU"), Highway Capacity Manual -
Highway Capacity Software ("HCM-HCS", etc.) are not anticipated to accurately describe
the potential impacts of the proposed Stadium Project. The Project is expected to have
traffic characteristics such as high volumes of traffic arriving/leaving during short periods of
time, significant vehicle queues, need for modified traffic signal operations, potential for
manual/police traffic controls, significant pedestrian activities, impacts on weekend and
weekday conditions, etc. that require evaluations that accurately reflect proposed
operations. Accepted
must ic bee ining cluded dedein he TIAsand tinvolve DSEIR, to fullllysophisticated
d paclosethe
analyses are
potential traffic impacts of the Project.
a. These NOP comments were not fully addressed through the SDEIR and TIA. Some
specific examples are highlighted in Table 5.10-4 of the SEIR, and include but are
not limited to:
b. The Grand / SR -57/60 EB Ramps intersection is identified to have LOS B operations
during the PM peak in the SEIR and TIA, but this does not accurately reflect the
existing southbound left turn queue that occurs at this intersection and is not
representative of LOS B operations.
c. The Grand / SR -57/60 WB Ramps intersection in the SEIR/TIA is shown to have
LOS B operations, which does not accurately reflect the vehicle queues for the off -
ramp. This off -ramp is critical to the proposed Project. If it is not properly analyzed
for existing conditions, these inaccuracies are carried through to the future
conditions and the Project impacts are not properly evaluated.
d. The Brea Canyon / Golden Springs intersection is shown to operate at LOS B for
the PM peak hour, but there are often significant queues for the westbound Golden
Springs approach to this intersection.
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 63
e. The Brea Canyon / SR -60 WB Ramps are shown to be at LOS A during the AM and
PM peak hours, which does not reflect actual operations.
These examples confirm our NOP comments which requested supplemental
analyses will be required for conditions that are currently congested (in particular
when specific movements are impacted) in order to provide accurate evaluations
and fully disclose potential Project impacts.
16. All inaccuracies for existing conditions must be corrected and subsequent evaluations
updated. Errors in the existing conditions translate to problems with the future conditions
analyses, which include lack of accurate documentation of Project related impacts.
17. The study assumes the breakdowns by travel mode for the game -related trips (i.e., 65% for
season ticket passenger car, 20% for VIP passenger car, 10% for bus, and 5% for Metrolink
shuttle) and the vehicle occupancies for each mode (i.e., 3 people for one season ticket
passenger car, 3.5 people for one VIP passenger car, 40 people for one bus, and 40
people for one shuttle). There is no documented basis for these assumptions. The basis for
these assumptions should be documented.
18. The study assumes 5% of the game -related trips would use Metrolink on weekdays and
weekends. Metrolink schedule information does not permit train arrivals and departures
sufficient to serve the game day patrons. For example, the last Metrolink train arrives at the
Industry Station before 7:30 PM; however, the weekday games won't end until after 9 PM.
19. The study assumes that 25% of daily trips and 15% of peak hour trips will be internal trips
within the project site. The basis for this assumption should be documented.
20. There are numbers of problematic assumptions, questions, and concerns related to the
"Project Trip Generation" analyses (beginning on page 5.10-28 of the SEIR). Overall there
are under -estimations of Project generated trips, which results in potential Project
transportation impacts that remain undisclosed.
21. The TIA and the DSEIR evaluations are stated to be based on operation of a 75,000 seat
stadium, but the DSEIR indicates the Project may actually have events with a capacity of
80,000 seats or more. The current analyses may therefore be understated by at least six
percent, which could be the difference between a traffic impact conclusion of "significance"
and "not significant".
22. The "standard" trip generation assumptions for the restaurants, movie theaters, retail, live
theater, and office uses were dramatically reduced for weekday Project conditions, when
the stadium is assumed to be in use (Table 5.10-9 and Table 7 of the TIA). We believe
these assumptions are incorrect and cannot be substantiated, resulting in an under
estimations of Project traffic impacts. The problematic assumptions include but are not
necessarily limited to:
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 64
o The restaurants (30,000 square feet ("SF") of "Stadium Restaurants",
50,000 SF of
other Phase 1 restaurants, and 112,000 SF of Phase 2 restaurants) were all
assumed to have "zero" weekday, PM peak hour trip generation impact on the
surrounding streets, when the stadium is in use. The assumption is that for "Without
Game" conditions the restaurants will have typical (as described by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers ("ITE")) trip generations, but for "With Game" conditions
there will be essentially zero PM peak hour, restaurant traffic impacts on the
surrounding streets. Unless every restaurant customer (arriving and leaving during
the PM peak) will also be attending the stadium use, the potential traffic impacts are
not fully nor properly disclosed in the DSEIR.
o The movie theater weekday PM peak hour trip generation impacts on the
surrounding streets were reduced by 80 percent for "with game" conditions. This
would essentially mean that 80 percent of the movie theater customers, typically
arriving/leaving during the 4:00-6:00 PM period would no longer arrive/leave during
the PM peak hour, as they would also be attending the stadium event (in addition to
a movie). We do not find this assumption credible and if more than 20% of the
movie patrons are not also stadium patrons, then the traffic impacts have been
underestimated.
o Similarly the retail uses (400,000 SF for Phase 1 and 433,000 SF for Phase 2) PM
peak hour trip generation assumptions were reduced by 80 percent for "With Game"
conditions This assumes that 80 percent of the customers that would arrive/depart
the retail during the PM peak hour would attend the "Game" or no longer be a part of
on
the PM peak hour. an 20% of
rare no also find lstad um patrons, then the traffic d
We do not traffic I f more h
impacts have been
the retail patro
underestimated
o For the movie theater and retail uses, the 80 percent PM peak hour, trip generation
reductions, were then further reduced by another 15 percent to account for "internal
trip reductions". The trip generation reduction assumptions do not appear
reasonable and would result in undisclosed traffic impacts.
o The live theater is assumed to be closed when the stadium is in use. Mitigation
measures and Project conditions will need to be implemented ,to assure that the live
theater operations are consistent with this assumption.
o For the offices uses (100,000 SF of medical office for Phase 1 and 1,490,000 SF of
general office for Phase 2), the Project traffic analyses essentially assumes that
"zero" PM peak hour trip ends and traffic impacts will be generated by the office
uses for weekday, "with game" conditions. It is assumed that all offices will close at
2:00 PM when the stadium is in use and there will be zero PM peak hour trips
generated by these buildings during the PM peak. We do not believe this is a
credible or feasible assumption, and would not be possible to regulate. The traffic
analyses need to provide traffic evaluations assuming typical operations for the
office uses.
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft �'Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 65
c An example of the extreme nature of the assumed trip generation reductions for the
land uses near the stadium, is reflected in Table 5.10-9 (Table 7 of the TIA), near
the bottom of the table, for "Buildout Gross Trip Generation (A + B + D)". The
weekday daily trip generation for `Without Game" is 76,835 trip ends and "With
Game" is less with 69,744 trip ends, meaning there will be less traffic generated on
"Game Day"? The other trip generation assumptions show increases, but still not to
levels that would be considered reasonable.
o Under estimations of the Project trip generation means that all of the traffic analyses
(i.e., intersection analyses, street segment evaluations, freeway mainline and ramp
analyses, etc.) need to be updated. The City of Diamond Bar will need adequate
time to review the updated evaluations.
o The City cannot fully evaluate the analyses contained in the SEIR and TIA and
understand the impacts to the community until these updated evaluations are
corrected and provided for review.
23. As indicated in the NOP comments, the City of Diamond Bar determines significant project
impacts based on project impacts during peak conditions. The TINDEIR need to examine
the extent of Project impacts during peak conditions. The City of Diamond Bar requests
development of adequate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of
nsignificance. Limiting the stadium operations (i.e., to certain days, certain time periods,
etc.) in order to offset traffic impacts is not reasonable or possible to enforce; especially
when the impacts occur outside the City of Industry jurisdiction. The comment would also
be applicable to limiting other Project uses (e.g. the office buildings being closed at cleared
by 2:OOPM on "Game" days).
24. The rational for the trip reductions assumed in Table 5.10-9 appear problematic and in
conflict. The SEIR indicates a strong interrelationship between the stadium and the other
uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, movie theaters, etc.), which results in significant trip reductions
for these uses on "Game" days. The SEIR, however, also downplays the number of days
that the stadium will operate indicating the retail, restaurant, movie theaters, etc. will need
to be successful operations, independent of the stadium patrons. The traffic analyses
therefore need to provide evaluations for the real and expected conditions, whereby the
other uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, movie theaters, etc.) operate essentially the same on
"With Game" and "Without Game" conditions.
25. The ITE "Trip Generation Handbook" is referenced as the basis for making the internal
reductions (page 5.10-29) shown in Table 5.10-9. The worksheets (i.e., Figures 7.3, 7.4,
and 7.5, that illustrate steps 4-9 of the internal trip analyses) for the internal trip analyses
need to be referenced and included in SEIR. The current internal trip reductions applied in
fable 5.10-9 appear over estimate the internal trip reductions, which would result in greater
traffic impacts (not currently shown) on the surrounding street system
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 66
26. The weekday PM peak hour assumptions for a "Game" and/or other event at the stadium,
appear to add to the under estimation of Project related transportation impacts. Table 5.10-
9 (and TIA Table 7) show that only one-half of the stadium traffic is assumed to occur
(arrive during the PM peak hour). The "Game", however, is assumed to start at 6:00 PM so
the highest hour of arrivals is expected to occur within the 4:00-6:OOPM peak period and
should be greater than one-half of the total patrons. In addition, for weekday events, many
people would be arriving from work further "compressing" the arrivals (increasing the peak
hour traffic)
27. The SEIR indicates (page 5.10-28) that the travel mode splits and average vehicle
occupancies ("AVO") are based on "prior stadium traffic studies and operational information
from the NFL. These references and data need to be provided to allow proper review and
full disclosure.
on should
so be
in
28. The prior nable Table 5.10 9aassumptonal ions folrr the stadium) operations. Theseverifying
quetio assumptions
include, but are not necessarily limited to:
o The employees are shown to have zero impact on the stadium peak hours studied
for "With Game" conditions on either a weekday or Sunday. Table 5.10-9 (and TIA
Table 7) under "Project Component", "Game Employees and Team" shows no
measurable ("nominal') vehicle trips during any of the peak hour movements
studied. It does not appear feasible that all "non -stadium seat" traffic will occur
outside the peak hours.
o The Project trip generation assumes that during the peak stadium "arrival' periods,
virtually "zero" stadium related vehicles would be departing the site. Conversely
when vehicles are exiting the stadium, it is assumed in Table 5.10-9 that virtually no
vehicles arrive. For most land uses, especially ones as large as a stadium, there is
always a component of traffic that is traveling in the direction (i.e., departing/arriving)
opposite to the predominant movement.
o Only one-half of the "club/VIP" passenger cars and charter/shuttle buses are
assumed to arrive during the Project peak hour. It is anticipated that a higher
percentage these types of vehicles would arrive at similar times (i.e., within the peak
hour), since they all be focused on arriving at the "ideal" time.
o Is the 40.0 AVO for the charter buses and shuttles the maximum seating capacity
for these vehicles?
o Assuming that only 65% of the total patrons arrive by passenger vehicle appears
overly optimistic. If a higher percentage of patrons arrive by passenger car, then the
impacts on the surrounding street system will be greater than documented in the
current analyses. This percentage appears particularly low for weekday condition
(i.e., more people arriving direct from work, less opportunity to access charter
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 67
buses, more difficulty to utilize Metrolink since everyday commuters comprise much
of the train capacity, etc.)
o What safeguards can and will be put in place if the 65% maximum (and other
assumed percentages) are not achieved?
29. For some of the proposed land uses, Friday represents increased trip generation impacts
(e.g. restaurants, movie theaters, etc.) above those impacts generated during the other
weekdays. Has the SEIR accounted for these Friday factors in the traffic analyses? Clear
documentation should be provided in the SEIR and TIA.
30. The bottom of Table 5.10-9 shows a comparison of the weekday Project trips (subject to
comments above) to the previously assumed land uses. A similar comparison should be
shown for the "Sunday" conditions.
31. This study used the same trip distribution assumptions for all the analysis years. The land
use and roadway network settings would likely be different between interim years and
cumulative years, which would affect driver destinations and routes. The TIA report should
be revised accordingly.
32. The Project trip distributions may be significantly impacted by the measures that are to be
implemented in the Traffic and Parking Management Pian (TPMP). This is why it is
imperative to develop, identify, and require as mitigation, the specific measures that are to
be implemented so the Project will be accurately analyzed and the impacts correctly
identified.
33. The freeway mainline was analyzed using the LA County CMP method instead of the HCM
method typically requested by Caltrans. The CMP method is highly simplified and doesn't
consider operational conditions such as weaving. The freeway ramps were not analyzed by
the study. In addition to potentially understating impacts, the freeway -related analysis is
unlikely to satisfy Caltrans.
34. The study should include a list of improvements planned in the area, whether or not to
assume those improvements as "givens" in the future year analysis, and whether or not
those improvements have committed funding. Those without committed funding should not
be assumed as given.
35. The NOP had specific example of IBC mitigation requirements that need to be brought
forward and clearly identified in this document. Specifically there were conditions related to
the SR -57/60 interchange at Grand Avenue. The current DSEIR/TIA may have assumed
these issues had been addressed through the assumptions of interchange improvements
"being in place", but those assumptions are incorrect and are understood to be in conflict
with CEQA requirements.
36. The City response to the Lead Agency NOP emphasized concerns that previous IBC EIR
traffic analyses assumed various "Industry East Mitigations" to be in place prior to
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 68
considering the IBC project. The City of Diamond Bar indicated that this assumption was
erroneous and must be corrected in the updated draft. The implementation of needed
mitigation measures must be assured (i.e., by providing the required funding to the City of
Diamond Bar for impacts within their jurisdiction) as a condition of this Project. The
"Industry East Mitigations" had no definitive implementation plan or funding.
37. The funding (share) necessary to offset Project related impacts must be provided directly
to the affected Agencies as stated in the NOP. This would be a much more genuine "good
faith" effort to mitigate Project impacts. The City of Industry has a history of holding funds
that have proven to be difficult to access, which has resulted in a number of unmitigated
impacts, for various City of Industry developments. This problematic mitigation
methodology is again proposed as "mitigation" for the current Project.
38. It is noted that in Table 1-1 that 100% of the funding for improvement of intersections #56, #
87, and #89 are required of the Project. It must be noted that the ramp improvements for
#56 (Grand Avenue / SR -57/60 WB Ramps) that were assumed in the DSEIR/TIA as a
"given" are not finalized or fully funded. The Project will need to include responsibility for
these improvements as a mitigation measure.
39. The study did not analyze the traffic impacts to roadway and freeway segments under
"Weeknight with Game" and "Sunday with Game" conditions. However, traffic impacts for
these conditions need to be revealed for the following reasons:
a. Traffic during the Sunday midday peak hour without the game could also be heavy,
especially for the retail areas.
b. Some roadways or freeway facilities may not be able accommodate the large
amount of game -related traffic before and after the game, resulting people using
residential or other streets to cut through the congested area.
40. The document does not identify any impacts from the project on the freeway system. This
doesn't seem reasonable given the size and location of the project. It is also not consistent
with Caltrans Traffic Study Guidelines, which identifies that any traffic added to the freeway
segments that operate at LOS E or F would cause a significant impact.
41. The study assumes that the traffic impacts on roadway segments would be alleviated by the
implementation of intersection mitigation measures. This is not a reasonable conclusion.
Detailed mitigation measures should be developed for the impacted roadway segments.
42. The study does not include discussion on how neighborhoods in the surrounding
communities will be protected from traffic and parking impacts. This discussion needs to be
added to this EIR.
43. The study states that a Traffic and Parking Management Plan (TPMP) be submitted to the
City for approval six months prior to the first scheduled patron -attended event. The Plan
should be submitted and approved earlier in the final EIR stage, with inclusion of detailed
information on parking management, traffic control, emergency access routes, and etc.
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 69
44. The NOP comments identified specific need for a detailed TPMP to be developed and
included as mitigation, within the SEIR. Development of this plan could have significant
effects that could change the accuracy of the current analyses (e.g. changing the trip
distribution patterns for the Project, etc.). While potential general measures are currently
discussed, the specific operations that will be required of the Project and implemented
throughout the life of the Project must be clearly identified and included as Project
mitigation measures.
45. The study assumes the Alternative 3 design for the Grand Avenue interchange as a "given".
The PSR of the Grand Avenue interchange is still in the review process, and the preferred
alternative at this location may be changed during the PR/ED phase. Consultants should
note this in the report.
46. The documents should identify what mechanisms will be used to generate the money
needed to implement the proposed traffic mitigation measures.
47. The "Mitigation Monitoring Program, Industry Business Center Environmental Impact
Report, SCH #2003121086" dated October 28, 2004 ("2004 MMP-EIR") contains some
significantly changed and different, "Traffic" mitigation measures, when compared to the
current DSEIR. Examples of a few of the changes include but are not limited to:
The 2004 MMP-EIR documents that the "City of Industry shall fully fund and build
the traffic improvements to the Grand Avenue and SR57/60 Interchange as
indicated in the 2015 mitigation measures" (MM 5.14-1) The City shall also fully
fund the preparation of all "Project Study Report/Project Report and associated
environmental documentation ... and complete design drawings" for the interchange
improvements prior to any occupancy in the IBC.
b. The 2004 MMP-EIR Mitigation (MM 5.14-1) also requires construction of the
interchange improvements to commence once 2,000 PM peak hour trip ends is
reached (the mitigation states "total traffic volume", but even assuming this
conditions intends to mean "Project traffic"), therefore, construction of the
interchange improvements must begin prior to occupancy of the Stadium.
c. The current TIA and SEIR suggestion that a "TPMP" is sufficient to address Stadium
impacts is incorrect. Based on the 2004 MMP-EIR construction of the Grand
Interchange improvements must begin prior to occupancy of the Stadium and/or any
other uses that generate any significant amounts of traffic (i.e., 2,000 PM peak hour
trips or less — "less" based on the actual project condition).
d. As detailed in earlier comment there are various incorrect assumptions and errors in
the TIA and SEIR analyses that have contributed to incorrect reductions in
mitigation responsibilities, for the current Stadium Project. For example in the 2004
MMP-EIR, the intersection of "Grand Avenue @ SR -60 WB Ramps" (MM 5.14-1)
required addition of a fourth lane on Grand Avenue in each direction as well as
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 70
added turn lanes, resulting in the need for about 21-22 feet of additional right-of-way
("ROW") at various intersection legs, as well as ten added feet of ROW on the north
side of the SR -60/57 westbound off -ramp. The current SEIR requires the project to
provide 100% funding of mitigation at this intersection (Grand Avenue @ SR -660 WB
Ramps), but the current SEIR suggests only a "reconfiguration" (pp
restriping?) of the eastbound approach to provide two right turn lanes is required (for
the Stadium Project). This is enormous shift in IBC mitigation responsibility, which
is not technically reasonable or correct (for various reasons including those cited in
earlier comments).
e. At the "Grand Avenue @ SR -60 EB Ramps" in the 2004 MMP-EIR there is a third
southbound left turn lane required on Grand Avenue as well as a widening of the EB
on-ramp to accommodate the third left turn lane. The widening of the ramp was
expected to require about eleven feet of ROW. The current SEIR now indicates that
"No project mitigation necessary" at this intersection.
f. There are other examples of significant changes in traffic mitigation responsibilities
from the 2004 MMP-EIR to the current SEIR document, which we understand is
problematic tfrom a Cthe City fromcal traffic ven if found toimpact pe spebtive consistent with CEQA, it
is not acceptable for
g. The City of Diamond Bar does not find these changes acceptable for a number of
reasons, but also because of one major defect — these conclusions do not account
of the Project
for traffic impacts generated b the operations of the Stadium (portion
during a weekday).
48. The potential improvements at the Grand Avenue Interchange at SR -57/60, whether as
identified in the 2004 MMP-EIR or under the current concepts being considered, are all
directly linked to providing mitigation for developments in the IBC. It is misleading to now in
the current SEIR, separate the interchange improvements and assume they will be
completed by "others". The IBC development/current Stadium Project are primary traffic
generators for the area and generate a significant portion of the need for these interchange
improvements. The Grand Interchange mitigations/improvements must remain directly
linked any developments that may occur in the IBC.
49. The TIA and SEIR trip generation analyses are based on erroneous assumptions that
would be impossible to regulate. Footnote 'T' to Table 7 of the TIA states that "During
games, these uses would not generate additional trips (beyond traffic generated by the
game) during the time periods analyzed. The medical office (100,000 SF) and general
office (1,490,000 SF) uses will be closed before 2:OOPM on game days, and closed all day
on weekends. Alsoitrs anticiiipatedwill be no pthatoall restaurants ances duled would ln the live be serving tgamerpatrons00
seats) on game days.
during peak hours on game days."
What is the definition of "game day"? The TIA references one football team with two
weekday "game days", but what about say a weekday soccer match that fills the
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 71
stadium, weekday/Friday concert, weekday/Friday vehicle event, etc. We do not
believe it would not be possible to apply the footnote "f' assumptions to any "game
day", much less all weekday events that could possibly occur. The TIA and SEIR,
therefore, do not address all potential traffic impacts associated with the project.
b. How will the 100,000 SF of medical offices and 1,490,000 SF of general offices be
closed by 2:OOPM on weekday/Friday event days so that they have zero peak hour
impacts as assumed in the TIA and SEIR? What specific measures are planned to
implement these conditions, during all Stadium events (as well as during NFL
games)?
c. How can it be assured that the approximately 192,000 SF of restaurant uses will
generate zero added peak hour traffic during all events (weekday and weekend)?
What specific measures are planned to assure that the assumed conditions actually
occur, during all Stadium events (as well as during NFL games)?
d. How can it be assured that the approximately 863,000 SF of retail use will generate
a maximum of 20% of its normal weekday peak hour traffic during weekday events
and a maximum of about 16% of its normal weekday peak hour during weekend
events? What specific measures are planned to assure that the assumed
conditions actually occur, during all Stadium events (as well as during NFL games)?
e. How can it be assured that other uses such as Stadium Team Administrative Offices
(45,000 SF), Stadium NFL Hall of Fame (40,000 SF), Stadium Banquet Facilities
(20,000 SF) NFL Team Training Facilities and Offices (115,000 SF), Practice Fields
(4 fields), etc. will all have zero peak hour traffic impacts on weekday and weekend
event days? For example during soccer games, concerts, other events, it does not
appear feasible to assure that these other facilities will not be used?
f. It is our understanding that the live theater may have a view of the Stadium interior.
Therefore, even if a "theater event" is not scheduled, it is possible that the seating
may be used, which has not be accounted for in the TIA and SEIR.
How can it be assured that the movie theater daily traffic will be reduced by about
80% on any weekday or weekend "event" day, as assumed in the TIA and SEIR.
Movie theater patrons and Stadium patrons would be expected to be separate
customers and an "overlap" of uses would not be expected? An "overlap" that
would warrant an 80% reduction in movie theater daily traffic on event days,
appears unreasonable and incorrect, resulting in undisclosed impacts. What
specific measures are planned to assure that the assumed conditions actually
occur, during all Stadium events (as well as during NFL games)?
h. The SEIR indicates "numbers of events" that would suggest that many would occur
on Saturdays. The TIA would need to assume closure of the office buildings and
similar circumstance as described in footnote "f', to occur on Saturdays as well.
This may not be a reasonable assumption.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 72
i. It is likely that Saturday "background" traffic would actually produce greater impacts
than the Sunday conditions analyzed in the TIA and SEIR.
j. What conditions and mitigation measures have been made a part of the SEIR and
Stadium Project that will ensure the trip generation assumptions will occur as
assumed?
k. We do not believe that adequate Project conditions and mitigations are available to
ensure the trip generation assumptions, will realistically occur. Therefore, revised
traffic analyses would be required using more realistic trip generation assumptions.
The assumptions to be used should be discussed and agreed upon with the City of
Diamond Bar, prior to completing revised analyses.
50. Traffic counts should be conducted to determine if Saturday conditions would actually result
in greater impacts, rather than Sunday conditions.
51. The TIA and SEIR addresses the Project trip generation at the project site boundaries,
which is acceptable for many uses, but not necessarily for a Stadium uses. In considering
the trip generation and traffic impacts for a Stadium use, there are people that drive to
areas near a stadium (e.g. Rose Bowl patrons drive passenger vehicles to the "Parsons"
building parking lot near the Rose Bowl, then are shuttled to the Rose Bowl on buses), then
park and use bus/shuttles, "carpools" (i.e., from nearby off-site location, e.g., to save on
parking costs, find one another more easily, etc.), etc., to then go through the "gates" at the
Project site The current TIA and SEIR only capture the buses/shuttles, carpools, etc. going
through the "gates at the site" and does not address Project traffic associated with people
"parking off-site" (i.e., in the City of Diamond Bar, at the City Hall/AQMD parking lot, church
parking lots, etc.). These are Stadium traffic trips, directly generated by the Project, that
are impacting off-site streets and intersections, but are not accounted for in the current TIA
and SEIR. The TIA and SEIR must be revised to account for these Stadium Project traffic
impacts that are currently undisclosed.
52. It is our understanding that the 75,000 seats and "Game Employees and Team"
assumptions in the
edia
es IA and SEIRdo vendors, etcc., whichtresultsif
in under -estimation oor people in the f potential traffic
personnel, deliver ,
impacts.
53. There are notraae /to be added n the analyses
ontati potential Project construction impacts.
These analyses
n.
54. In the TIA (section 6.14, page 150) it is documented that intersection mitigations contained
in the TIA and SEIR do not address traffic impacts associated with events being held at the
Stadium. This is a serious flaw, when traffic/transportation impacts and required
mitigations, are not provided for public review, for a significant portion (i.e., the Stadium
operations) of the Project.
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft 'Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 73
This section 6.14 also focuses on "NFL games" in particular. As detailed in earlier
comments, we have a number of comments and concerns related to the TIA and SEIR
analyses of "NFL game" conditions, however, there is also a troubling omission of
analyses/mitigations related to other events that would occur at the Stadium.
Section 6.14, page 150 states that "in consideration of the "special -event" aspect of
the NFL game component of the project, it was concluded that the implementation
of a Traffic and Parking Management Plan ... would effectively address the traffic
access and circulation needs of the project during games..." The City of Diamond
Bar is extremely concerned about various impacts (including Traffic/Transportation)
associated with the Project, even if the Stadium operates less than 365 days per
years.
b. What specific threshold(s) is the consultant using when defining the operation of the
Stadium operations as a "special event"? This is a critical threshold as the TIA
concludes that based on the "special event" status, a TPMP can be used as
mitigation "instead of the construction of permanent, physical mitigation measures at
key intersections and along key roadways".
c. Whatever threshold the consultant may be using to define "special event" and the
criteria for making the conclusion to implement "non -permanent" mitigations, must
be clearly documented in the TIA and SEIR. The City of Diamond Bar must have
opportunity to review and comment on these thresholds, criteria, and conclusions
(since they were not presented in the SEIR). The consultant's "thresholds" may not
be appropriate for use in the City of Diamond Bar.
d. We do not know what "effectively address" means in terms of technical evaluation of
project impacts and adequacy of mitigation measures. Will all potential Stadium
traffic impacts be mitigated by the Traffic and Parking Management Plan ("TPMP")?
What portion of Stadium and overall Project impacts would remain, after the TPMP
is implemented?
e. If there are any remaining traffic/transportation impacts that cannot be fully mitigated
by the TPMP, then these impacts must be clearly analyzed, identified, and mitigated
in the SEIR.
f. Based on the current SEIR document, it is not possible for the City of Diamond Bar
and/or the public to review and evaluate the traffic/transportation impacts that may
result from the operations of the Stadium and/or overall Project. There needs to be
clear and objective analyses of the traffic/transportation conditions that will result,
after the TPMP is implemented. These analyses need to be clearly documented
and presented for public review in the SEIR.
g. As stated in the City of Diamond Bar NOP comments, details of any "TPMP" plans
need to be developed as a part of the environmental documentation and included as
mitigation measures. The specific TPMP actions that will occur, to achieve the
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 74
mitigation results needed and anticipated, must be clearly identified and defined in
the environmental document; otherwise the potential impacts of the Stadium
operations and the Project as a whole, remain undisclosed and without mitigation.
h. The Stadium traffic is expected to impact the entire study area (and perhaps beyond
the study area). The City of Diamond Bar is concerned that there will be significant
traffic and transportation impacts (e.g., within the City of Diamond Bar) that are not
currently indentified in the TIA and SEIR. It is likely that a significant portion of the
impacts will remain even after implementation of the TPMP. While this would likely
be an unacceptable condition, the public cannot comment, as these facts are not
currently a part of the SEIR.
i. For Stadium traffic impacts at intersections within the City of Diamond Bar, how will
the TPMP mitigate these impacts on NFL game days and during other events held
at the Stadium? What specific Project conditions and mitigations measures are
currently within the SEIR, to assure that adequate funding will be provided by the
Project to the City of Diamond Bar, so that the City of Diamond Bar will be able to
address the impacts of the Stadium uses.
j. Section 6.14 indicates that "fine tuning" of the TPMP is expected to occur after the
Stadium begins operations. What specific problems and potential impacts are
expected to be faced, that are not currently identified in the TIA and SEIR.
k. What "mitigation area" was assumed by the consultant, when making conclusions
about the TPMP? The locations/areas where mitigations will be implemented by the
TPMP need to be clearly identified in the TIA and SEIR.
55. The focus in Section 6.14 is on "NFL games" but it should be remembered that the trip
generation analyses assumed huge trip reductions (which we disputed through earlier
comments) for the other on-site uses during these NFL game days. The SEIR does not
address potential traffic/transportation impacts that will result when "smaller" events occur,
which would be additive traffic to the `other" on-site uses.
be
56. It isc r at the Stadiuim?P isWill there be different TPMPs fspecific to NFL games or or differepnt usethat
at the Stadium? will occur
57. We believe the TIA and DSEIR are very unclear and misleading. For example, the trip
generation analyses show (TIA, Table 7) evaluations for the all uses and development at
the site, which is defined as the "Project", but the analyses of the different baseline years
plus the "Project', actually excludes the weekday operations of the Stadium. This also
leads to other problems as identified in the comments above. As an informational
document, however, the public would naturally assume that the detailed "Project' traffic
analyses would include the operations of the Stadium (even if it is on a weekday).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 75
Failure to Demonstrate that Mitigation Measures and Alternative are Infeasible
CEQA requires that, before approving a project, the lead public agency find either that the project's
significant environmental effects identified in the EIR have been avoided or mitigated, or that the
mitigations and alternatives identified in the EIR are infeasible and the unmitigated effects are
outweighed by the project's benefits; if the public agency makes the latter finding, it must explain its
reasoning in a statement of overriding considerations (Community for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency [Court of Appeals, Third District]).
An agency's findings must be based on information presented in the project's administrative
record. The courts have stated that the purpose of "restricting review. . .to the administrative
record" is to ensure that the courts do not "engage in independent fact finding rather than engaging
in a review of the agency's discretionary decision" (Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of
Forestry & Fire Protection). The courts have further noted that "agency consideration of otherwise
reasonable alternatives in the administrative record cannot replace the CEQA mandated
discussion of alternatives in the EIR" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors).
With regards to mitigation measures, as indicated in the DSEIR: (1) "No mitigation measures are
feasible to reduce single -event noise (train passbys and train horn noise) generated by project -
related train traffic to below the level of perception" (DSEIR, p. 1-32); (2) "No mitigation measures
are available to reduce noise generated by crowd noise or fireworks during a stadium event"
(DSEIR, p. 1-32); (3) "No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce noise generated by project -
related traffic to below the City's significance threshold. . .Traffic noise impacts are a new
significant impact of this SEIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-111); (4) "No mitigation measures are feasible to
reduce single -event noise generated by project -related traffic to below the City's significance
threshold" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-111); and (5) "[N]o mitigation measures would [be] available to reduce
noise from nighttime cleanup activities in the stadium, parking lot, fireworks and noise generated
by helicopters. In addition, impacts from a concert would extend beyond the local vicinity of the
project site and are a significant adverse impact" (DSEIR, pp. 5.7-111 and 112).
With regards to alternatives, as indicated in the DSEIR: (1) "[T]he "Reduced Intensity Alternative"
was "rejected as economically infeasible" (DSEIR, p. 7-2); (2) "The Coliseum site would not be
feasible for the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR, pp. 1-8 and 7-16); and (3) "[T]he Rose Bowl
Alternative would not feasible for the development of the revised Plan of Development" (DSEIR,
pp. 1-8 and 7-16).
"Feasible" is defined in as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors (§21061.1; 14 CCR 15364). Any assertion that an alternative or mitigation measure is
infeasible must, therefore, factually demonstrate that one or more of those factors would prevent its
successful implementation within a reasonable time period. Unsubstantiated statement would not
suffice (14 CCR 15088[b]).
As presented, the administrative record fails to include any substantial evidence supporting the
Lead Agency's assertion that mitigation measures and other alternatives could not be feasibly
implemented to reduce or eliminate the project's significant environmental effects. Similarly, the
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 76
EIR contains no evidence that any mitigation measures were identified, considered, and eliminated
based on any traceable analytical process.
Lead Agency Obligation to Mitigate Extraterritorial Environmental Effects
CEQA compels public agencies to disclose, in an EIR, their projects' contributions to any
significant environmental problems, even if those contributions are indirect; even if project -specific
contributions, if viewed in isolation, would seem small; and even if those impacts occur partly
outside the agency's jurisdictional boundaries. CEQA does not include provisions whereby one
government agency can accept, on the part of another government agency, the introduction of new
significant impacts without first taking all actions reasonable and feasible to reduce those effects to
the maximum extent possible.
That functional definition invokes no political boundaries. Rather, if an area is affected, it is part of
the relevant physical environment, regardless of the governmental authority exercising local
jurisdiction.
Topic -Specific Comments
CEQA stipulates that the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of
specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a
construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will
be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the
effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy' (14 CCR 15146). Agencies
must make "an objective, good -faith effort to comply [with CEQA" (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium
Commission v. Board of Trustees). Based on statements presented in the DSEIR, it is assumed
that the "revised project" is a "construction project" and, therefore, needs to be analyzed to a
degree consistent with that intent. The following topic -specific comments point to those
environmental issues where the DSEIR fails to fulfill that intent.
Aesthetics. An accurate portrayal of the impacts from a proposed project is a fundamental
tenant of CEQA. That tenant, however, appears to have been overlooked by the Lead
Agency. For example, none of the graphics presented in the DSEIR have dimensionable
scales allowing distances to be measures. As such, readers are required to rely on the
information presented in the EIR as the basis for assessing impacts. However, the
document is internally inconsistent and contradictory. In attempting to define the separation
distances between the NFL Stadium and residential uses in Diamond Bar, the DSEIR
represents that distance as "2,000 feet" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-3), "approximately 2,000 feet"
(DSEIR, p. 5.1-30), and "over 2,500 feet" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-83).
The role of the EIR is to make manifest a fundamental goal of CEQA, namely to "inform the
public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before
they are made" (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of
California). To do this, an EIR must contain facts and analysis, not merely bare conclusions.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 77
The DSEIR's analysis of environmental impacts fails to provide the necessary facts and
analysis to allow the Lead Agency, other responsible agencies, and the affected public to
make an informed decision concerning the project, mitigation measures, and project
alternatives. Without such detail, the DSEIR is deficient under CEQA.
As indicated in the NOP, the Lead Agency states that the "revised project" has the potential
to create the following "potentially significant impacts": (1) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista; (2) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings; and (3) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area" (NOP, p. 20). Notwithstanding
that preliminary determination, the DSEIR only lists the following aesthetic impacts with
respect to the "revised Plan of Development"; (1) "The revised project would not
substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the area in the context of the visual character
of surrounding vicinity" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-18); and (2) "The revised project would not create a
new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-19). As such, the Lead Agency's representations concerning the
project's potential environmental effects (as presented in the NOP) was not consistently
applied to the project's evaluation (as presented in the DSEIR).
As indicated in the DSEIR, the "2004 IBC Plan of Development would also introduce new
sources of light and glare. However, many of the proposed buildings, such as the office
buildings, would not remain lighted at night. Additionally, many nearby residential areas
would be shielded from new sources of light due to screening and shielding measures
included in the PDFs and landscaping on the project site. Therefore, the 2004 IBC EIR
concluded that the impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant"
(DSEIR, p. 5.1-2).
As further indicated in the DSEIR, the "most sensitive viewing receptors would be
residential areas where occupants would have sustained views of the project area. ..An
increase in the length of viewing time tends to increase sensitivity to the views" (DSEIR, p.
5.1-3). The "lowering of the site in the area represents the single biggest change from the
previous project" and "under the current plan many [residents] would be looking down on
and across the parking lots" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-18). In addition, all of the adopted PDFs have
been "deleted from the 2004 IBC EIR" (DSEIR, p 5.1-15). As a result, the entire basis for
asserting that visual impacts attributable to the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level (i.e., buildings not illuminated at night, intervening
buildings, adopted PDFs) have been eliminated from the "revised project" as has the Lead
Agency's rationale for its earlier findings.
The Lead Agency's analysis of project -related impacts on "scenic vistas" (inclusive of the
loss of open space views from abutting residential neighborhoods) has to be ferreted from
various sections of the DSEIR. Once assembled, the parts fail to account for a reasoned
analysis, are conclusionary in nature, and the project's "potentially significant impact" is
quickly relegated to insignificant through reference to broad, unenforceable, and generally
meaningless PDFs (e.g., Assuming incorporation of the PDFs listed above," DSEIR,
p. 5.1-29).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 78
Since "[n]o mitigation measures were outlined in the 2004 IBC EIR" and since the DSEIR
concludes that "[n]o mitigation measures are necessary" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-34), it is evident
that the Lead Agency has not elevated the listed PDFs to the status of mitigation measures
under CEQA. With limited exception, none of the PDFs specifically state the precise
actions to be implemented by the Lead Agency and/or the Applicant, remain subject to
broad interpretation, have not been included in the "project description" as actual
components of the project, and are likely unenforceable.
For example, although "under the current plan many [residents] would be looking down on
and across the parking lots" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-18), none of the PDFs presented in the DSEIR
can be demonstrated to have any beneficial impact as to their ability to screen the views
from those residents to and across the parking lot to the NFL Stadium beyond. Clearly,
low-lying groundcover and scrubs would have no screening potential. The Lead Agency
states that the project's only obligation concerning the planting of trees and/or the
construction of perimeter walls includes: (1) "One local native tree species shall be planted
at a rate of one per 10,000 square feet. The mixture of trees shall include some fast
growing species" (PDF 1-1); (2) "Where parking lots would be visible from adjacent
residential areas on the eastern boundary, the transition zone shall employ a variety of
techniques, such as berms with tree and shrub massing or vine -covered low walls or
decorative fences to screen the views" (PDF 1-7); and (3) Parking lots I, J, H and G east of
Grand Avenue shall be fenced where adjacent to perimeter slopes to prevent entry into
landscaped areas" (PDF 1-11).
None of the proposed features provides any assurance that visual impacts can be reduced
to below a level of significance. Similarly, other declarations contained in the DSEIR
directly countermand the PDFs and indicate that any stated or inferred benefits are no more
than window dressing (e.g., "landscaping within the parking areas must be limited," DSEIR,
Appendix I, p. 6).
Even if those and other PDFs are adopted, the language of the replacement PDFs is
intentionally design to prevent definitive meaning and preclude implementation in any
meaningful fashion. Rather than incorporating mandatory language, many PDFs use the
word "should" instead of "shall" (e.g., PDFs 1-13 and 1-17), use limiting language (e.g., "to
the greatest extent possible" and "as appropriate"), and defer critical details until after the
project is approved (e.g., "Prior to the approval of improvement plans for the surface
parking areas east of Grand Avenue, the project applicant shall submit an off-street parking
lighting plan for review and approval by the Department of Public Works," PDF 1-18).
As such, little meaning or mitigation value can be assigned to the Applicant -nominated
PDFs. Even the few PDFs that have quantitative rather than qualitative language (e.g.,
150 -foot buffer) cannot be demonstrated to reduce those "potentially significant impact" (as
identified in the NOP) to a "less than significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-34) level. Nowhere has the
Lead Agency demonstrated that the significance of the stadium's visual intrusion will
diminish over the specified distance or that landscaping will eliminate light -of -sight vistas
from residential areas "looking down and across the parking lots" (i.e., "landscaping would
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 79
provide an ample buffer for the surrounding community and aesthetic relief in an otherwise
urbanized area," DSEIR, p. 5.1-29).
However, in direct contradiction to any inferences that extensive landscaping will be
provided, the DSEIR specified that "landscaping within the parking areas must be limited"
(DSEIR, Appendix I, p. 6).
As indicated in the NOP: "The Supplement will address the potential impacts of the
proposed project on views from surrounding locations. Mitigation measures will be
recommended as feasible and appropriate" (NOP, pp. 29-30). Now, with minimal analysis
and absent any mitigation measures or Lead Agency recommended revisions to any
component of the "revised project," the Lead Agency has converted three "potentially
significant [aesthetic] impacts" (NOP, p. 20) to a "less than significant" level.
"A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference" (Laurel
Heights Home Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California). If a
reviewer where to only examine the issue of aesthetics, it become immediate apparent that
the Lead Agency has crafted a pro -project document, absent any credible assessment of
due -diligence, and has failed to reasonably and objectively examine the potential impacts of
the proposed action.
The DSEIR acknowledges that the "proposed signage program has not yet been finalized"
(DSEIR, p. 3-22) and "a detailed lighting plan has not yet been designed" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-
30). In the absence of conceptual signage and lighting programs, the statements that
"signage associated with the revised Plan of Development would be an essential
component of the project, that would contribute to the overall environment as a sports,
retail, and entertainment destination by providing an exciting e [sic] visual experience for
patrons and establishing a unique identify for the project site" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-29) provides
Kittle evidence that signage and/or lighting will not "have a substantially effect on a scenic
vista."
The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR (14 CCR
15084[e]). As indicated in many excerpts throughout the DSEIR (including those cited
above), the Lead Agency has failed in the fulfillment of that obligation. The Lead Agency
confuses promotional materials prepared by or in behalf of the Applicant from independent,
objective environmental analysis prepared for the purpose of demonstrating faithful
compliance with CEQA.
Similarly, although Figure 3-6b — Stadium Elevations (DSEIR, unpaginated) illustrates that
"sports lighting" will be placed substantially above the structural elements that comprise the
stadium, the Lead Agency (absent any factual evident) states that the "stadium structure
acts as a shield to limit lighting to adjacent areas" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30).
Additionally, it appears that the Lead Agency lacks any understanding of the differences to
be "light' and "glare" (including direct glare and reflective glare). Although it is unclear how,
in the absence of "detailed lighting plan" the Lead Agency can assert that "stadium lighting
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 80
spill light calculations are projected at less than one foot-candle 1000 feet from the edge of
the stadium" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30), the EIR ignores the more apparent impacts of direct glare
attributable to an unimpeded light -of -sight view of sports lighting illuminated to 350 foot -
candies (e.g., "it is anticipated that the stadium would employ lighting that would emit 300 to
350 foot-candles," DSEIR, p. 5.1-30).
The statement that "spill light calculations" have been performed and field lighting levels
established indicate the Lead Agency's possession of critical information that has withheld
from the public. In the absence of the disclosure of the documentation from which that
information is derived, the City and the affected public have been denied the ability to
independently review and validate the information.
Since high-intensity sports lighting will tower above the height of all other on-site structures
(as evident in Figure 3-6b — Stadium Elevation), abutting residential receptors in Diamond
Bar will be provided a clear and unimpeded view of the stadium and its pole -mounted
sports lighting displays (as evident in Figure 5.1-6c — Computer Modeled Views from
Surrounding Vicinity), it isinnappropriate for the Lead Agency to suggest, in the obvious
absence of any such buildings or topography, that "intervening buildings or topography"
may "block light spillage to adjacent off-site areas" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30). It appears that the
EIR's authors based their analysis without the benefit of either a site or grading plan.
Artificial light can escape the confines of the sports field in three forms: spill light, glare, and
sky glow. Spill light involves light intended for the sports field entering an area where it was
not intended. Glare can result from an over -abundance of light bathing the playing field or
by fixtures aimed in such a manner that looking at them causes discomfort. Sky glow is
light thrown (either directly or reflectively) upward, obscuring one's ability to see stars in the
night's sky. Reflective glare or veiling reflection is the glare resulting from reflections of
high luminance from specular, glossy, or polished surfaces within the field of view. Direct
glare is defined as the visual discomfort resulting from insufficiently shielded light sources in
the field of view (i.e., the luminaire is positioned directly in the field of vision of the
observer). Few, if any, of those undesirable consequences of lighting are even addressed
in the DSEIR.
The DSEIR includes no or, at best, only a cursory discussion and analysis of potential spill
light, direct glare, and sky glow efforts associated with the proposed project. Similarly,
absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of the reflectivity of surfaces and the implications
with regards to reflective light.
"Light trespass" or "spill light" is defined as the light shining beyond the area to be
illuminated, caused either by the uncontrolled direct component from luminaires or from
light reflected from the task being illuminated. The California Energy Commission (CEC)
further defines "light trespass" as "unwanted light from a neighboring property. Any source
of light can create trespass, but complaints are related mostly to sports lighting, billboards,
and street lighting. Light trespass is annoying, but it can also become a nuisance or even a
serious health and safety risk if it adversely affects visibility for other tasks. Light trespass
may also be a source of glare, including disabling, discomfort, veiling luminance, and
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 81
annoyance glare that can also be serious public health and safety risk" (California Energy
Commission, California Outdoor Lighting Standards Synopsis, February 1, 2002, p. 1).
Views of the NFL Stadium from residential areas in Diamond Bar are illustrated in Figure
5.1-6c — Computer -Modeled Views from Surrounding Vicinity (DSEIR, unpaginated). As
illustrated for "Location 8," Industry's characterization of on-site views from off-site
receptors is refuted by the Lead Agency's own computer simulations.
As indicated in the FOF/SOQ: (1) "Adherence to the Plan of Development, the proposed
Project Design Features and Existing Codes and Regulations concerning development
standards will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts to scenic vistas for the
reasons set forth in the Draft EIR" (FOF/SOQ, p. 3-3); (2) "Adherence to the Plan of
Development, the proposed Project Design Features and Existing Codes and Regulations
concerning development standards will prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts
related to visual character or quality for the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR" (FOF/SOQ, p.
3-3); and (3) "Adherence to the Plan of Development, the proposed Project Design
Features and Existing Codes and Regulations concerning development standards will
prevent the occurrence of any significant impacts related to light and glare for the reasons
set forth in the Draft EIR" (FOF/SOQ, p. 3-3).
The DSEIR references four code sections which are "potentially applicable to the revised
Plan of Development," including: (1) Chapter 15.32 (Sign Regulations); (2) Section
'17.12.050 (Regulations); (3) Section 17.36.060 (Standards of Review and Development
Guidelines); and (4) Section 17.36.080 (Standard Conditions of Approval) (DSEIR, p. 5.1-
4). Neither the precise language nor the relevant implications of those code sections are,
however, presented in the DSEIR. With the exception of Section 17.12.050, none of those
code sections are available at the Lead Agency's website. As such, it is not possible to
know how, or whether, those code sections apply to the "revised project" and what
standards or performance obligations, if any, are contained therein. Because the Lead
Agency acknowledges that "[o]ther than the directives of Section 15.32.070, the City of
Industry does not have a lighting ordinance specifying the maximum amount of lighting that
may be generated by new projects" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-33), it would appear that the code
citations have little direct relevance and/or actual mitigative environmental effect.
Although the Lead Agency found that "adherence to. . .the proposed Project Design
F=eatures" served, in whole or in part, as the basis for the mitigation of aesthetic impacts,
the DSEIR states that all of the PDFs have been "deleted from the 2004 IBC EIR" (DSEIR,
p. 5.1-15) and replaced with new Applicant -nominated features. Certain PDFs included in
the Final IBC/EIR and now eliminated from the "revised project," however, have no
comparable measures in the DSEIR. Examples of PDFs that have been eliminated but not
replaced include: (1) PDF 5.1-16 ("A 20 -foot landscape buffer will be required at the eastern
edge of the development pad"); (2) PDF 5.1-17 ("Buildings in these project sites will have
varying height limitations dependant on visibility from nearby residential areas"); (3) PDF
5.1-18 ("This north -facing slope will be planted with 100% coverage"); and (4) PDF 5.1-19
("The west/northwest facing slopes along the western edge of the project site will have an
appropriately landscaped buffer and building setback to minimize views from the residential
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 82
neighborhood to the west") (Final IBC/EIR, p. 5-35). As such, it is readily apparent that
there does not exist any demonstrable comparability between the PDFs contained in the
Final IBC/EIR and those now presented in the DSEIR.
Since PDFs are neither linked to the impacts that they are intended to address nor are
enforceable actions binding on either the Applicant or the Lead Agency, it is not possible to
conclude that: (1) the impacts which predicated the original PDFs will, in fact, be
comparably mitigated by the replacement PDFs; and/or (2) the impacts which now
predicate the replacement PDFs will be effectively mitigated, such as to substantiate the
Lead Agency's unsupported assertions that otherwise significant impacts will be reduced to
less -than -significant levels merely through reference to the new PDFs. For example, the
Lead Agency asserts that "the fixture requirements and foot-candle limitations of PDF 1-16
would further reduce the visibility of light sources" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30). However, absent
from the DSEIR is any evidence that PDF 1-16 (or any of the PDFs identified by the Lead
Agency) constitute enforceable commitments.
When PDF 1-16 is examined, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that the
implementation of that measure will have any mitigating impacts on the visual impacts
identified in the DSEIR. Focusing only on potential light intrusion associated with the direct
line -of -sight vantage point of the massive NFL Stadium from abutting residential areas in
Diamond Bar (as depicted in Figure 5.1-6c — Computer -Modeled Views from Surrounding
Vicinity), PDF 1-16 states that "light spill beyond parking lots or roadways on the perimeter
of the site shall not be greater than 0.5 foot-candles" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-17). Unspecified is
whether the 0.5 foot-candle (FC) standard is to be measured as horizontal foot-candles
(HFC) or vertical foot-candles (VFC) and what uniformity ratio is being applied to on-site
lighting. The uniformity ratio describes the average level of illumination in relation to the
lowest level of illumination for a given area. For example, with a uniformity ratio of 4:1 for a
given area, the lowest level of illumination is not less than four times the average level of
illumination. As such, absent that information, even the Lead Agency's stated standard
remains subject to broad interpretation.
HFC is a measure of luminous flux density (Im/f) reaching a horizontal surface, normal to
or three feet above the ground. VFC is a measure of luminous flux density within a vertical
plane. VFC would be calculated by pointing the light meter directly toward the light source
while HFC would be measured pointing the light meter toward the ground. The distinction
between HFC and VHF can be both substantial and profound.
No evidence has been submitted by the Lead Agency that the 0.5 standard can be
obtained. In addition, no PDFs are proposed to address direct glare.
Although never referenced in the DSEIR, NFL lighting standards call for 150 VFC on the
field and a high level of light uniformity. Since no lighting levels are identified with regards
to appropriate HFC and VFC levels and uniformity ratios for professional football, no
evidence is provided that the "300 to 350 foot-candles" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-30) levels referenced
in the DSEIR is even adequate to obtain the desired on -field levels required for television
coverage.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 83
It is, therefore, meaningless for the Lead Agency to assert that off-site lighting impacts will
be less than significant merely by stating that "[I]ighting shall incorporate 'cut-off' shields as
appropriate to minimize any increase in lighting at adjacent properties" (PDF 1-19) (DSEIR,
p. 5.1-17). No evidence is provided that "cut-off shields" have any application to the lighting
needs of the project and/or can be effectively implemented based on the high levels
required for media coverage.
Similarly, absent from the DSEIR are any commitments to ensure that maximum perimeter
lighting standards will be obtained, routinely monitored and measures, the demonstrated
qualifications of any monitor, the reporting practices to be instituted, and how (or whether)
any exceedances will be corrected. Additionally, no mechanism is established through
which complains can be filed, no assurances that the Applicant commits to responding to
those compliances, and how the Lead Agency intends to verify that corrective actions have
been instituted.
Absent from the DSEIR is any documentation, as derived from the IESNA or other credible
sources, examining lighting levels associated with the proposed use. No documentation is
presented indicating whether the Lead Agency has conducted its own due -diligence with
regards to the identification and evaluation of project -related impacts or only sought to rely
upon information provided by the Applicant.
The Lead Agency states that the "revised Plan of Development includes structures of a
similar type and massing as that considered in the 2004 IBC EIR" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-33).
Ignoring, for the moment, the introduction of a 75,000 -seat sports arena, the "revised
project" includes numerous structures described as: (1) "10 stories in height" ("the tallest
part of the stadium structure would be the tower on the west side, which would be up to 10
stories in height" (DSEIR, p. 3-12); (2) "The buildings would typically range between two
and ten stories" (DSEIR, p. 3-20); and (3) "The office buildings would typically range
between four and ten stories in height" (DSEIR, p. 3-21). No specific discussion of building
heights could, however, be found anywhere in the Final IBC/EIR (e.g., "Buildings in these
project sites will have varying height limitations dependant on visibility from nearby
residential areas," Final IBC/EIR, p. 1-5).
The Final IBC/EIR acknowledge that "no specific facility plans have been submitted for the
IBC" (Final IBC/EIR, pp. 4-23 and 4-24). As a result, there exists no factual information to
support the Lead Agency's assertion that the "2004 IBC Plan of Development" and the
"revised Plan of Development" includes structures of similar "type and massing."
As indicated in the Final IBC/EIR, with regards to existing and proposed land uses in
Diamond Bar, "it is unlikely that this residential neighborhood would be able to view
significant portions of the Industry Business Center upon build out of the project site" (Final
IBC/EIR, p. 5-193). That false representation is contradicted by the DSEIR which
acknowledges that "most of the buildings including the stadium would be visible to the
surrounding residential neighborhoods located farther away" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-21). As
illustrated in Figure 3-16 — Conceptual Grading Plan (DSEIR, unpaginated), any intervening
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 84
topography that may now separate existing residential areas in Diamond Bar from a direct
view of the project site will be eliminated under the "revised project." As a result, adjoining
sensitive receptors in Diamond Bar are positioned at higher elevations and will have an
unobstructed view of the NFL Stadium.
The DSEIR states that "some residents would experience a change in views" (DSEIR, p.
5.1-2) and "[a] portion of both residential communities on the western and eastern
boundaries would have views of the project site" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-21). The Lead Agency
erroneously asserts that "view impacts would be mitigated through PDFs and a buffer zone
between the proposed structures and residential communities" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-2) and
"visual impacts would be further mitigated though a 150 foot landscaped buffer between the
revised Plan of Development and both residential areas" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-21). Because
certain residential areas will have unimpeded views of the project site, the Lead Agency has
failed to demonstrate how the proposed setback and PDFs will mitigate the aesthetic
impacts associated with the substantial change from existing open space views to a
75,000 -seat stadium, numerous 10 -story tall buildings, and 350 -FC high-intensity sports
lighting.
Similarly, the Lead Agency makes further misrepresentation of the visual impacts by stating
that "similar office and retail uses are also within view along with industrial buildings
comparable in size to the stadium" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-21). Nowhere in the project area are
three million square foot high-rise structures with high-intensity sports lights towering over
those structures,and topped with 350 -FC sports lighting. To suggest that the NFL Stadium
is comparable to a low-rise, flat -roofed, enclosed warehouse is like saying that a grape is
similar to a watermelon.
Similarly, with "45 major events" (DSEIR, Table 5.8-7) and 15 minor events" (DSEIR, p. 3-
21) per year and with the presence of overhead lighting, at 350 foot-candles, the Lead
Agency states that "the limited schedule of nighttime events at the stadium would not
substantially increase nighttime light in the project area" (DSEIR, p. 5.1-33). Without
establishing any defensible standard, the Lead Agency mistakenly equated "significance"
with "frequency." The Lead Agency cannot arbitrary state that impacts that occur every
sixth day on average throughout the year would be insignificant because of their "limited"
frequency.
As illustrated in Figure 3-7 - Phase One Revised Plan of Development (DSEIR,
unpaginated), driveway and internal street configuration orient vehicle headlights directly
towards abutting sensitive receptors. Design elements, as simple as the gradient of those
driveways and those roadways, can have a major effect upon the intrusion of those project -
related light sources on adjoining land uses. However, since the impact is never disclosed,
the City and the affected public have been denied the ability to assess the significant of the
resulting impacts and to suggest design changes and other measures which, if enacted,
would reduce potentially significant impacts on adjoining residential uses.
Air Quality. With regards to odors generated from cooking, the DSEIR states that
"[o]perational odors would be produced from on-site food preparation, including tailgate
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 85
parties" (DSEIR, Appendix C, p. 46). The Lead Agency asserts that "these odors are
common in the environment and would not constitute a significant impact" (DSEIR,
Appendix C, p. 46). While agreeing that barbeques and neighborhood -serving restaurants
might be common in and adjacent to residential areas, a restaurant seating 75,000 hungry
fans could not be considered "common." The Lead Agency's assessment of the potential
operational odor impacts associated with the NFL Stadium and the numerous restaurants
now proposed and tailgate barbeques throughout the project site is relegated to a
meaningless two -sentence assessment. A through examination and series of mitigation
measures is required.
(Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Absent from the DSEIR is any continuity whereby the
findings of one section can be reconciled with the findings of another. As such, what is
presented is a constantly moving target which prevents both the EIR's authors from
preparing a consistent analysis and prevents the public from presenting comments in
response to a stationary and static project description.
For example, the "hazards and hazardous materials" analysis alleges that "[d]uring the
operation phase, the revised project would not interfere with any of the operations of
LACFD or LASD in and around the project area during an emergency event" (SDEIR, p.
5.4-11). In clear contradiction, the DSEIR states:
U "[O]n event days, demand for fire protection services is likely to be greater due to
the unique demands that a stadium event requires for fire and emergency services"
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-2);
0 "Grand Avenue may experience temporary delays" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-9);
0 °[H]igh volume of traffic near the stadium has the potential to impact emergency
access and response times in and around the stadium" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-5);
0 "[C]ongestion on the surrounding roadway network could cause delays in
emergency response or other logistical problems. This would be of particular
concern immediately prior to and after events when vehicles are queued on local
streets" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-11);
C "Event -related congestion on local roadways could also impede emergency
response in the event of a major emergency at the stadium while it is occupied"
(DSEIR, p. 5.4-11);
0 "Police service could decrease due to elevated police workload associated with the
increased visitor population of cumulative development" (DSEIR, 5.9-9); and
0 "[B]ecause the City of Industry cannot ensure that the County Fire Department will
commit to its operation, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable"
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-7).
The Lead Agency's preliminary findings that "the revised project would not interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-12) is based, in part, on
"the provision of on-site police, fire, and/or medical emergency personnel during event
days" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-12). No such commitment is, however, stated anywhere in the EiR
and no mitigation measures or other conditions are presented requiring the Applicant to pay
costs incurred by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and/or Los Angeles
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 86
County Sheriff's Department (LACSD or LASD) for such purposes. The mere fact that the
LACSD "confirms that they have enough part-time officers for traffic control on game days"
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-8) does not guarantee the availability or sufficiency of "on-site police, fire,
and/or medical emergency personnel" or ensure that the affected public is not burdened by
costs appropriately borne by the Applicant.
Since it appears that the LACFD and the LACSD did not even respond to the NOP (DSEIR,
pp. 2-2 through 2-14), no evidence is presented to verify any such "confirmation" or the
presence of any unresolved issues that may have been raised by those departments. To
the extent that any project -related correspondence or other communications exists between
the Lead Agency and the LACFD and/or LACSD, that correspondence and those
communications need to be fully disclosed so that any representations made by the Lead
Agency with regards to impacts on police and fire protection services can be independently
verified.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The water tank rupture analysis summarized in the Final
IBC/EIR and referenced in the DSEIR (DSEIR, p. 5.5-27) is based on the premise that
rupture would "uniformly release 2 million gallons of water radially outwards" (Final IBC/EIR,
p. 5-173; DSEIR, p. 5.5-27). Although a uniform radial release could constitute one
possible scenario, because "residential homes are located in the impact zone" (Final
IBC/EIR, p. 5-173), a more conservation modeling assumption (i.e., concentrated release in
the direction of adjoining residents) should have also been evaluated.
It appears that a more conservation analysis was either quantitatively or qualitatively
included in the DSEIR (e.g., "in the event that the tank ruptured in such a manner that
would direct the majority of the water flows in a northeasterly direction towards the existing
residences, the amount of water released could inundate a number of residences," DSEIR,
p. 5.5-28). In recognition of those potential health and safety hazards, the Lead Agency
asserts that "PDF -7-1 would ensure that flows remain on-site" (DSEIR, p. 5.5-28). PDF -7-1
stipulates that the "final grading plan for the water tank shall provide a berm along the
eastern property edge near the water tank to protect the residences from any potential
inundation associated with the tank failure" (DSEIR, p. 5.5-13).
The City seeks the Lead Agency's acknowledgement that "any potential inundation"
includes the scenario wherein the totality of the water in the tank is instantaneously release
in the direction of those residences in a manner and at rates with the greatest potential to
cause damage or harm to those properties. Water discharge and berm height calculations
need to be presented to and independently verified by the City so that affected residences
are provided reasonable assurance that documented safety hazards have, in fact, been
addressed.
Land Use and Planning. As indicated in the DSEIR: "Certain land uses are particularly
sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, school, and open space/ recreational
areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety.
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the Diamond Bar golf course,
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 87
schools in the project vicinity, and the residential communities surrounding the project site"
(DSEIR, p. 5.7-6).
The City adamantly disagrees with the Lead Agency assertion that the "revised project" is
consistent with "existing and proposed land uses in the City of Diamond Bar" (DSEIR, p.
5.6-21). It is commonly held that land -use conflicts can surface when dissimilar land uses
(including uses with substantially different operational characteristics) either abut or are
located in close proximity to one another. In Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company, the courts
confirmed that "[n]o serious difference of opinion exists in respect of the validity of laws and
regulations fixing the height of buildings within reasonable limits, the character of materials
and methods of construction, and the adjoining area which must be left open in order to
minimize the danger of fire or collapse, the evils of over -crowding, and the like, and
excluding from residential sections offensive trades, industries, and structures likely to
create nuisances."
'Two existing and well established residential neighborhoods located in the City directly abut
the NFL Stadium site (e.g., "Residential communities within the border of the City of
4Diamond Bar exist to the east and west of the site," Final IBC/EIR, p. 5-178) The mere fact
that these residential areas exist in the City, while the "revised project" exists in Industry,
independent of jurisdiction demarcations, does not negate the basis planning principal that
land -use conflicts can and typically due arise from the adjacency of dissimilar activities.
'The Lead Agency lacks any basis to assert that the operational characteristics of a
residential use (e.g., relative quiet, minimal light and noise intrusion) are similar to those of
the "revised project." While the operational characteristics of the NFL Stadium are never
actually disclosed, it is self-evident that the cacophony of 75,000 fans would be
disharmonious with the quiet serenity one seeks at home. Similarly, parking lot
maintenance activities (e.g., sweeping likely to occur on a 24-hour per day basis), since
numerous on-site uses will remain open until 2:00 AM (DSEIR, p. 3-21) and existing
residential areas abut the parking lots that cater to those uses, as further evidence of
undisclosed impacts, the Lead Agency alleges that "impacts to residential areas from the
revised Plan of Development would be reduced or eliminated through mitigation measures
and project design features" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-21).
The Lead Agency's conclusions are refuted by its own analyses. As indicated in the
DSEIR: "Noise levels at the nearest residences could reach 70 dBA Leq. Impacts from a
concert would extend beyond the local vicinity of the project site. Consequently, impacts
from a concert event are a significant adverse impact" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-83). Similarly, the
DSEIR states that "street sweeping would occur in the evening and would exceed 45 dBA
Leq at the property line of the residences bordering the site to the northeast, [and] would be
significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-84). Additionally, "helicopter flyover events during a stadium
event would be frequent noise intrusion for media and traffic coverage [and] are considered
significant" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-84).
The acoustical analysis concludes: (1) "No mitigation measures are available to reduce
noise generated from project related traffic from increasing the ambient noise environment
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 88
by 3 dBA" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-109); (2) "No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce single -
event noise generated by project -related train traffic to below the level of perception"
(DSEIR, p. 5.7-110); (3) "No mitigation measures are available to reduce noise generated
by crowd noise or fireworks during a stadium event" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-110); (4) "No mitigation
measures are available to reduce noise levels or flight patterns from helicopter overflights
associated with media and traffic coverage during a stadium event" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-110); (5)
"No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce vibration generated by project -related train
traffic to below the level of perception" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-111); (6) "No mitigation measures are
feasible to reduce noise generated by project -related traffic to below the City's [Industry]
significance thresholds. Traffic noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable"
(DSEIR, p. 5.7-111); and (7) "No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce vibration
generated by project -related train traffic to below the level of perception. Impacts from
project -generated trains are considered significant and unavoidable" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-112).
Based on the Lead Agency's own evidence, noise associated specifically with the stadium's
planned operations cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Those residential
areas that adjoin the stadium will be adversely and significantly impacted by the stadium's
scheduled use. In direct contradiction to the Lead Agency's mischaracterization of the
project's consistency and the stadium's compatibility with existing and proposed land uses
in Diamond Bar (e.g., "Other impacts to residential areas from the revised Plan of
Development would be reduced or eliminated through mitigation measures and project
design features," DSEIR, p. 5.6-21), the EIR demonstrates that the NFL Stadium is, in fact,
incompatible with those existing uses that predate the stadium's introduction.
Since the Lead Agency states that the "revised project" would be deemed "significant" if it
were to "[c]onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-12),
the stadium's demonstrated incompatibility should result in a determination that the "revised
Plan of Development" will result in an unmitigable land -use impact. Despite substantial
evidence to the contrary, the Lead Agency erroneously asserts that "no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to land use and planning remain" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-55).
Based on substantial evidence presented in the EIR, that finding cannot be reconciled with
the information presented in the DSEIR.
Both the NOP (Initial Study, pp. 32-33) and the DSEIR (DSEIR, p. 8-2) conclude that all
"biological resource" impacts will either be "less than significant" or "no impact." Based on
those findings, "biological resources" are not addressed in the DSEIR. Although
determined not to be relevant to the "revised project," the Lead Agency states that one of
the only three "threshold of significance" criteria applicable to the assessment of land -use
impacts relate to impacts upon biological resources (i.e., "Conflict with applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan," DSEIR, p. 5.6-12). Based on
the Lead Agency's preliminary findings and the absence of any refuting testimony, stating
that land -use impacts would manifest if development were to impinge upon sensitive
biological resources only serves to divert public attention away from other legitimate land -
use considerations. For example, no threshold standards have been formulated by the
Lead Agency which address the Lead Agency's own declarations that houses and
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 89
businesses may be displacement in Diamond Bar as a result of the recommended traffic
improvements listed in the DSEIR.
Under CEQA, environmental effects cannot be so compartmentalized as to allow the Lead
Agency to present an impact analysis is one section, conclude for insignificance based on a
self-imposed limited number of threshold standards delineated in that section of the EIR
while concurrently ignoring threshold standards that the Lead Agency presents in another
section of the EIR. For example, under the discussion of "population and housing," the
Lead Agency states that the project would be deemed to produce a significant effect if it
were to "[d]isplace substantial numbers of existing housing" and/or "[d]isplace substantial
numbers of people" (DSEIR, p. 5.8-13). That Lead Agency established threshold standard
is not considered in the DSEIR's evaluation of "transportation and traffic" impacts.
As indicated in the DSEIR, many of the proposed traffic improvements proposed in
Diamond Bar will have either "significant" or "potentially significant" environmental effects.
Under CEQA, mitigation measures or alternatives shall be identified where project -related
or cumulative environmental impacts occur at levels above the established threshold of
significance criteria. Through the Lead Agency's own admission, as a result of the need for
additional right-of-way needed to accommodate the identified infrastructure improvements,
significant or potentially significant land -impacts are projected to occur at or near the
following intersections: (1) Intersection No. 16 - Diamond Bar Boulevard -Mission Boulevard
at Temple Avenue (potential loss of restaurant parking and/or use; potential loss of
residential units); (2) Intersection No. 30 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at SR -60 WB Ramps
(potential loss of commercial parking and/or use); (3) Intersection No. 31 - Diamond Bar
Boulevard at SR -60 EB Ramps (potential loss of commercial parking and/or use); (4)
Intersection No. 34 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Golden Springs Drive (potential loss of
institutional use; increased hazards to children; potential loss of service station); (5)
Intersection No. 52 -SR-60 at Golden Springs Drive (potential loss of restaurant parking
and/or use); (6) Intersection No. 53 - Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive (potential
loss of restaurant parking and/or use); (7) Intersection No. 59 - Copley Drive at Golden
Springs Drive (potential loss of office parking and/or use); (8) Intersection No. 60 - Grand
Avenue at Golden Springs Drive (potential loss of commercial parking and/or use); (9)
Intersection No. 63 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue (potential loss of
bank/commercial/shopping center parking and/or use); (10) Intersection No. 68 - Diamond
Bar Boulevard at Montefino Avenue (potential loss of convenience store parking and/or use;
potential loss of post office parking and/or use); (11) Intersection No. 70 - Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Mountain Laurel (potential loss of residential units); (12) Intersection No. 74 -
SR -57 SB Ramps at Pathfinder Road (potential loss of commercial parking and/or use);
(13) Intersection No. 77 - Diamond Bar Boulevard at Pathfinder Road (potential loss of
residential units); (14) Intersection No. 76 - Brea Canyon Road (East) -Fern Hollow Drive at
Pathfinder Road (potential loss of residential units); (15) intersection No. 81 - Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Cold Springs Lane (potential loss of residential units); and (16) Intersection
No. 83 - Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive (potential loss of residential uses).
Based on the traffic mitigation proposed by the Lead Agency, it can be reasonably
concluded that, in order to support the EIR's conclusion that traffic impacts can be reduced
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 90
to a less -than -significant level, widening of numerous roadways in Diamond Bar will be
required. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the implementation of those
recommended improvement plans formulated by the Lead Agency will result in direct and/or
indirect impacts to existing homes, businesses, and institutional uses along the affected
street segments. Substantial evidence further demonstrates that an unspecified number of
homes will need to be demolished and businesses closed, resulting in direct impacts on
those residents and those business and indirect impacts on Diamond Bar (e.g., lowered
property and sales tax revenues, reduced housing and employment opportunities,
diminished community amenities and public services)
Despite substantial evidence to the contrary, the Lead Agency states that "no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to land use and planning remain" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-55).
Based on the threshold standards presented under "population and housing," as evidenced
by substantial evidence presented in the EIR, that preliminary finding cannot be reconciled
with the information presented in the DSEIR.
Noise. As indicated in the DSEIR: "After a major stadium event, up to 75 percent of the
■ spectators would leave within the first hour after the event, thereby generating a flux of
traffic on the local roadway network ...Football events would generally conclude by 9:30
PM and concerts would typically conclude by 12:00 AM" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-62).
While the DSEIR assumes "45 major events per year" (DSEIR, Table 5.8-7), the project's
acoustical analysis assumes "12 sell-out games" and "18 major nonfootball sell-out events"
per year (DSEIR, p. 5.7-80). As a result, the acoustical analysis is not based on the same
project that serves as the basis for the EIR. Based on those differences, at best, the Lead
Agency's own acoustical analysis underestimates the likely environmental impacts resulting
from the project's approval and operation.
The DSEIR concludes that a broad range of noise impacts cannot be mitigated to below a
level of significance, including "project related" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-109), "project -related train
traffic" (DSEIR, pp. 5.7-110, 111, and 112), "crowd noise or fireworks during a stadium
event" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-110), "flight patterns from helicopter overflights associated with media
and traffic coverage during a stadium event" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-110), and "vibration generated
by project -related train traffic" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-111). Many of those significant and
unmitigable impacts would adversely affect sensitive receptors in the City. Although the
Lead Agency acknowledges that project -related activities will create those adverse
consequences, the EIR fails to disclose how project -generated noise will impact sensitive
residential areas located in Diamond Bar. In essence, the Lead Agency is stating that,
although acknowledging the presence of unmitigable noise impacts, the implication of those
project -induced conditions do not necessitate further analysis upon those receptors likely to
be most affected.
Noise is defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) as that "which interferes with normal activities such as sleeping, conversation, or
recreation. The noise causes actual physical harm or adversely affects mental health."
Human response to increase noise levels can include pain and hearing fatigue, hearing
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 91
impairment including tinnitus, annoyance, interferences with social behavior, interference
with speech communication, sleep disturbance and all short-term and long-term
consequences, cardiovascular effects, hormonal responses (stress hormones) and their
possible consequences on human metabolism (nutrition) and immune system, and
diminished performance at work and school. Proximity to prolonged noise sources have
also been demonstrated to result in diminished residential property valuation.
Objections from affected homeowners might properly rise in a nuisance action (Greater
Westchester Homeowners Association v. City of Los Angeles) because the property
owners' fundamental rights have already vested prior to the offending behavior. The Lead
Agency failure to mitigate the noise impacts created by the NFL Stadium project on
proximal residential receptors demonstrates that Industry and the Applicant will deprive
those parties of their fundamental rights without the provision of just compensation (e.g.,
"Impact 5.7-7 — No mitigation measures are available to reduce noise generated by crowd
noise or fireworks during a stadium event," DSEIR, p. 5.7-110).
On June 24, 2005, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued its "Final Train Horn
Rule" allowing public authorities to establish "quiet zones" where locomotive horns are not
routinely sounded at the public grade crossings. The result may be improved living
conditions as loud train horns are silenced.
Absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of a noise mitigating "quiet zone" on Lemon
Avenue. As a result, the Lead Agency's conclusion that the "revised project" would result in
a significant impact as a result of increased train horn noises (e.g., "On days with a stadium
event, Metrolink trains generated by the project during special event service would generate
substantial noise from train passby events and train horn noise," DSEIR, Impact 5.7-5, p. 1-
:32). Although remedies can be readily implemented, no such actions are recommended in
the EIR.
Unaddressed in the DSEIR is any discussion of on-site events that may not occur within the
stadium itself. Many stadiums (including Anaheim Stadium) routinely hold events within
their parking lots, including car shows and sales and mobile home and home improvement
expos. Since those events would occur outside the confines of the stadium (whose walls
offer some noise attenuation), additional, undisclosed, and undocumented noise impacts
could befall adjoining sensitive receptors. Absent from both the "project description" and
the impact analysis is any discussion of possible and allowable multiple use of the on-site
parking areas, including a discussion of what uses could occur in those areas and what
uses would be prohibited.
Arguably, the approval of a project without even attempting to provide mitigation for or
consider alternatives which would result in the avoidance of significant impacts on affected
residents constitutes a violation of due process of law and amounts to a taking in violation
of Article I of the California Constitution.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 92
Employment growth
As indicated in the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's "Working Paper No. 02-12R": "It
is fair to say that economists have cast a skeptical eye on the claims that professional
sports franchises contribute to the economic health of the surrounding area, regardless of
how that surrounding area is defined. Baade and Sanderson and Coates and Humphreys
examine employment and income, respectively, in metropolitan areas and find that the
presence of professional sports teams induces substitution across leisure activities rather
than stimulating new expenditures within the cities. The multiplier effects appear to be
small."
As further indicated in a recent article in the Economic Review entitled "What are the
Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise," the authors note that "taking explicit
account of job losses and using estimates of the local multiplier from independent studies
suggest that the net number of jobs created from hosting a professional sports team is quite
low. It is almost certainly less than 1,000 and likely to be much closer to zero. The bottom
line, then, is that the benefit to a host metro area from increased economic activity as
measured by net job creation and increased tax revenue appears to fall far short of the
public outlays typically needed to retain and attract professional sports teams" (Economic
Review, First Quarter 2001).
With regards to "employment," every job attributed to the new stadium is falsely considered
new "job creation" when, in actuality, many of those jobs might constitute "job diversion."
For example, assume an individual gets a job in the new stadium and is paid $50,000.
Many would attribute the entire $50,000 to the new stadium; however, this approach would
be incorrect. If the individual was working for $40,000 before the new stadium opened, then
the stadium should only be credited with $10,000 for this individual. If some other individual
left a job of $38,000 to take the $40,000 job vacated by the new stadium worker, then only
$2,000 could be accredited to the stadium.
Although asserting that the "revised project" will create expanded job opportunities, the
DSEIR asserts that the "medical office and general office components will be closed before
2:00 PM on game days" (DSEIR, Appendix H, p. 37). Absent from the DSEIR is any
information concerning the lost revenues to employees and reduced productivity that would
result from those forced closures. Similarly, with the mandatory closure of "medical offices,"
the DSEIR includes no discussion concerning what alternatives may be available to
individuals seeking medical attention during "major" events.
Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems. As further evidence that the project
examined in the Final IBC/EIR has little similarity with the "revised project" examined in the
DSEIR, only a single threshold of significance criteria is presented in the DSEIR (DSEIR, p.
5.9-2) while no less than ten threshold standards are listed in the Final IBC/EIR (Final
IBC/EIR, p. 5-291). As a result, because the Lead Agency has elected to modify the
threshold criteria against which the significance of impacts are evaluated, without any
explanation as to the rationale for that change, it is not possible to compare the findings in
the DSEIR with those previously presented in the Final IBC/EIR.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 93
Comments addressing fire and police protection, solid waste, and wastewater are
separately presented below.
Fire Protection. Threshold of significance criteria presented in one section of an
EIR must be assumed to have applicability under other sections. For example,
under "land use and planning," the Lead Agency states that a project would be
deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project were to
"[p]hysically divide an established community" (DSEIR, p. 5.6-12). As indicated
under "public services and utilities and service systems," the Lead Agency notes
that numerous LACFD and LACSD facilities now servicing Diamond Bar are located
to north of the project site.
Should traffic or other conditions between those facilities and portions of the City
east of the SR -57/60 corridor become impeded (such as might occur along Grand
Avenue during stadium events), emergency response (inclusive of both police and
fire) to Diamond Bar would be adversely impacted, community -wide safety hazards
would increase, and public safety would diminish. Since CEQA does not define
"community" as the boundaries of a single jurisdiction, isolating public service
providers (including the LACFD and LACSD) and critical public facilities from the
individuals they serve would result in an activity with a potential to "physical divide
an established community" and would, therefore, constitute an undisclosed
significant environmental effect.
The Lead Agency's failure to consider and subsequently apply the Lead Agency's
own established threshold of significance criteria (as identified in the Final IBC/EIR
and SDEIR) from one section of the EIR to another and conclude for insignificance
based solely on those self-imposed blinders (e.g., ignoring the threshold standards
established by the Lead Agency and listed under other sections of the EIR)
constitutes a violation of CEQA and has resulted in the Lead Agency's release of a
deficient EIR.
The Lead Agency recognized that: (1) "Grand Avenue may experience temporary
delays" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-9); (2) "high volume of traffic near the stadium has the
potential to impact emergency access and response times in and around the
stadium" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-5); (3) "congestion on the surrounding roadway network
could cause delays in emergency response or other logistical problems. This would
be of particular concern immediately prior to and after events when vehicles are
queued on local streets" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-11); and (4) "Event -related congestion on
local roadways could also impede emergency response in the event of a major
emergency at the stadium while it is occupied" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-11).
Absent from the DSEIR, however, is any discussion of project -related impacts on
emergency response capabilities and emergency response times between those
emergency service providers and critical public facilities located to the north of the
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 94
project site and that portion of Diamond Bar located to the south of the NFL Stadium
during any of the scheduled sell-out events.
The DSEIR states that "the City of Industry would ensure adequate emergency and
fire protection access to and from the stadium by keeping at least one lane of Grand
Avenue open for emergency vehicles during peak entry and arrival times" (DSEIR,
p. 5.9-5) and "during peak entry and exit hours from the stadium, one lane of Grand
Avenue would be dedicated for emergency vehicle access only" (DSEIR, p. 5.4-11).
Left unaddressed is how the Lead Agency will enforce the proviso that this
dedicated "emergency vehicle access only" lane be maintained in free-flow
conditions while, at the same time, accommodating "nearly 82%" of all stadium
traffic via Grand Avenue (DSEIR, Appendix I, p. 2).
As illustrated in Figure 5.10-3a — Opening Day Inbound Traffic Circulation Plan
(DSEIR, unpaginated), focusing only on the traffic detail presented for the main
intersection of the main parking lot entry along Grand Avenue (Traffic Detail E),
proposed is one dedicated left -turn lane, three dedicated right -turn lanes, and one
dedicated through lane. If, as indicated in the EIR, it is the Lead Agency's intent to
dedicate one through lane for "emergency vehicle access only," zero through lanes
remain for northbound traffic along Grand Avenue. Based on the Lead Agency's
own statements, during football games, Grand Avenue is thus closed to northbound
traffic. The Lead Agency's analysis is based on impractical assumptions that would
realistically not be expected to come to fruition, particularly absent any enforceable
conditions of approval mandating compliance.
Additionally, even if the Lead Agency sought to create an "emergency vehicle
access only" lane, it is unclear how a free-flowing travel lane will be maintained or
whether such a statement is reasonably feasible based on the traffic volumes
anticipated and the lane configuration depicted. Because this commitment is not
also reflected in the traffic analysis, the Lead Agency needs to demonstrate that the
traffic study contains a comparable commitment and that the calculated level of
service (LOS) conditions which are stated during stadium events are based on the
enforcement of these public safety -derived traffic controls.
The more likely scenario is that grid -lock will occur both before and after the "big
game." It is also reasonable to assume that traffic conditions would substantially
delay emergency response. Because a significant adverse impact would result
should the project fail to "maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives" (DSEIR, pp. 5.9-2 and 5.9-7), the EIR is remiss in failing to
quantify pre- and post -project response times from LACFD and LACSD facilities to a
specified and reasonably representative location in Diamond Bar.
Based on its own self-imposed threshold criteria, the Lead Agency has failed to
present any documentation indicating that "acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives" can and will be maintained. The DSEIR
A th t traffic flow will be impeded. The empirical evidence,
does, however, fin a
Mike K:issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 95
therefore, suggests that response times will diminish and Diamond Bar's businesses
and residents would suffer.
Similarly, the DSEIR indicates that "[p]olice service could decrease due to elevated
police workload associated with the increased visitor population of cumulative
development" (DSEIR, 5.9-9). That statement is a misrepresentation since, other
than the "revised project" itself, there is no "cumulative development" identified by
the Lead Agency which will "increase visitor population" in the general project area.
It is, therefore, the "revised project" and not other "related projects" that will result in
diminished police services otherwise available in Diamond Bar.
Options to Diamond Bar include the acceptance of decreased police and fire
protection services and longer response times or the need to increase City
expenditures merely to "maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance standards" (DSEIR, pp. 5.9-2 and 5.9-7) at those levels that exist prior
to the Lead Agency's approval of the "revised project." Acceptance of a reduced
level of police and fire protection merely to accommodate the "revised project" is an
unacceptable option of Diamond Bar.
Based solely on the "revised Plan of Development," the City's municipal
expenditures allocated for public safety for the City's residents and businesses will
need to increase. During major events, the City may be required to pre -position
police and fire personnel and equipment south of the stadium so that response
times would not be adversely affected by the project. Additional public facilities may
need to be constructed and/or real property may need to be leased to adequately
accommodate that personnel and equipment and new communication facilities
provided in support of that pre -positioning. Notwithstanding those impacts, absent
from the EIR are any mitigation measures or other conditions committing either the
Applicant or the Lead Agency to off -setting those increased municipal costs which
will be incurred by the City in order to maintain existing police and service levels.
Although Industry may be willing and able to accept the creation of "significant and
unavoidable" public health and safety impacts on behalf of its residents and
business community (e.g., "because the City of Industry cannot ensure that the
County Fire Department will commit to its operation, this impact is considered
significant and unavoidable," DSEIR, p. 5.9-7), Diamond Bar asserts that the Lead
Agency is obligated to fully and fairly compensate this community for any and all
costs that may be incurred to maintain adequate levels of public safety, to pre-
position public safety personnel in the City during stadium events and to off -set any
diminishment thereto attributable to any land -use entitlements in Industry.
Law Enforcement. As indicated in the DSEIR, "on event days, demand for police
protection services is likely to be greater due to the unique demands that a stadium
event requires for police protection services" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-8). Absent from the
EIR, however, is any discussion of what "unique demands" the Lead Agency fails to
disclose.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 96
Because the "parking lots would typically open four hours prior to the beginning of a
game" (DSEIR, p. 3-21), both the Lead Agency and the Applicant are, in essence,
encouraging fans to arrive early and have impromptu, minimally regulated tailgate
parties in the parking lot, including areas located directly adjacent to existing homes
in Diamond Bar.
Although not made a condition of project approval, the Lead Agency nonetheless
states that about "200 private security personnel would provide security within and
around the stadium during these events" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-8). With a ratio of no better
than 400 fans to 1 security guard, it is uncertain how effective non -deputized
personnel will actually be in both observing and preventing unlawful and/or
inappropriate behavior. The DSEIR suggests that no sworn officers will be situated
on site but will be confined to traffic enforcement duties exterior to the stadium
property (i.e., "The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department confirmed that they
have enough part-time officers for traffic control during game day," DSEIR, p. 5.9-8).
The EIR contains no evidence that "200 private security personnel" will prove
adequate to effectively patrol the entire 592 -acre property and ensure the safety of
families, women, children, and other fans and to control undesirable behavior. The
vate security
SDEIRnever nel' will havetorecognize, respond, and detefies what training and what r that rbehavor,ity the pmuchpersonnel" less what
behavior will be scrutinized.
Absent from the EIR is any evidence that the Lead Agency has sought to fully
understand and reasonably address the "unique" operational characteristics of a
professional football stadium. Absent from the DSEIR is any evidence the Lead
Agency or the document's authors interviewed any law enforcement personnel or
stadium operators with direct, first-hand knowledge of the challenges that law
enforcement at large venue actually face. No statistical information is presented
comparing the rate of incidence and nature of crimes in a business park setting
("2004 IBC Plan of Development") and that which has been documented at NFL
football games ("revised Plan of Development"), including trespass, public urination,
loud and offensive language, vandalism and other property damage, the propensity
for public drunkenness, and the increased presence of impaired drivers leaving the
stadium.
Instead of performing a reasonable analysis and presenting factual evidence, the
Lead Agency seeks to defer both disclosure and response to after the EIR has been
certified (e.g., "the project applicant would coordinate the preparation and
implementation of an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) or equivalent plan for the
proposed stadium. The plan would be designed to provide specific guidelines in the
event of a major emergency at the stadium while it is occupied," DSEIR, p. 5.9-8).
Since the preparation of the EOP is neither included as part of the "project
description" not explicitly identified as a mitigation measure in the DSEIR (in a
nebulous "development plan" category under the discussion of "hazards and
Mike K;issell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 97
hazardous waste" [DSEIR, p. 5.5-151 rather than under the discussion of law
enforcement), there exists no evidence that the Applicant or the Lead Agency has
even committed to its preparation or determined how the plan's effectiveness will be
evaluated. Similarly, by focusing on "hazards and hazardous wastes" and the
collective whole, the EOP appears to utterly ignores the behavior of individuals that
could prove adverse to the quality of life of those residents located adjacent to the
stadium's parking lots.
Although failing to adequately address the range of law enforcement concerns
raised herein, as mitigation for the project's impacts on police services, the Lead
Agency includes the following measure: "12.4 — The project applicant shall pay all
applicable police facility fees required by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department to staff additional personal and equipment as needed (previous
Mitigation Measure 5.12-2)" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-9). The City requests that "Mitigation
Measure 12.4" be expanded or one or more new mitigation measures formulated to
also require direct payment by the Applicant or the Lead Agency to the City of
Diamond Bar for any and all additional police and fire protection services as may be
incurred as a result of the Lead Agency's approval of the "revised Plan of
Development," as determined in the sole discretion of the City.
Solid Waste.
As noted in the DSEIR, stadium operations would include "45 major events per
year" (DSEIR, Table 5.8-7) and an unspecified number of "special" events (DSEIR,
p. 3-28). The Lead Agency's annual estimate of waste generation ignores the
presence of any wastes attributable to: (1) any "major events" in excess of "30 sell-
out events per year" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-21); (2) any of the "15 minor events with a
capacity of up to 25,000 spectators" (DSEIR, p. 5.9-21); (3) any other events
occurring within the stadium, including routine maintenance; (4) any of the other on-
site land uses, such as the 5,000 -seat live theatre, 1,200 -seat movie theater,
965,000 -square feet of shops and restaurants, and 100,000 -square feet of medical
facilities. Because solid waste generation estimates are misrepresented, no factual
basis has been provided to support the Lead Agency's conclusion that "the revised
project's contribution to cumulative solid waste impacts is less than significant"
(DSEIR, p. 5.9-21).
According to the DSEIR, the project would produce a significant impact if the project
were to "[c]reate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people"
(DSEIR, p. 5.2-15). Notwithstanding the existence of that threshold standard,
absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of potential odor impacts resulting from the
putrefied food wastes that will occur as a result of the stadium's use (calculated by
A -Trojan Disposal & Recycling Services to be as much as 38.5 tons during a single
Super Bowl event), including: (1) the length of time those wastes may be present on
the site; (2) where those wastes will be stored pending their disposal; (3) how odors
will be minimized; (4) how scavenger bird, rodents, flies, and other vectors, will be
controlled; and (5) how complains about odors and/or vectors will be addressed.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 98
p Wastewater. With regards to "wastewater," left unaddressed in the DSEIR are the
odor impacts associated with massive use of available comfort facilities, including
any port -a -potties which will be used anywhere on the project site during stadium
and other large-scale events. Absent from the EIR is any discussion of the
Applicant's plans for provisions for the use of temporary restroom facilities located
throughout the 25,000 parking spaces proposed on the site or in the areas of public
gathering. With the prevalence of tailgate parties, the level of alcohol consumption
that typically occurs at NFL events, the distance between the stadium and remote
parking areas, the need for long waits for shuttle busses, the traffic delays that can
be anticipated as all 75,000 fans depart the stadium within an hour after the game,
people parking off-site because insufficient or costly on-site parking. Because the
EIR includes no reference to or provisions for those portables, there exists no
prohibition that they would not be positioned close to existing homes.
Transportation and Traffic. Absent from the DSEIR is any discussion of potential public
safety hazards associated with the presence of the NFL Stadium project and the freeway -
adjacent "LED or other electronic and/or animated signage" (DSEIR, 3-22) associated
therewith.
As indicated in a recent article in the April 2008 ITE Journal ("Debate Over Digital
Billboards: Can New Technology Inform Drivers without Distracting Them?"), a September
2001 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report ("Research Review of Potential
Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction") concluded:
"Determining the effect of roadway commercial advertising billboards on safety is a difficult
endeavor for several theoretical and methodological reasons. . .Regardless of these
difficulties, researchers have examined the effects of billboards on safety. The results are
mixed and inconclusive." Despite this, the report did note: "Studies were identified that
verified that: an increase in distraction, a decrease in conspicuity, or a decrease in legibility
may cause an increase in the crash rate."
Absent from the DSEIR is any assessment of the distraction potential and the resulting
safety hazards to motorists traveling along adjacent freeway segments that may result from
freeway adjacent signage, electronic billboards, animated signs, other allowable signage,
and fireworks displays.
Each section of the DSEIR appears to be based on a unique set of assumptions which
appear rarely consistent throughout the environmental analysis. As such, there exists no
internal consistent throughout the EIR, only a revolving and evolving description of the
project's operational considerations. For example, the DSEIR notes that "[o]n a day with a
stadium event, 80 percent of the project -generated trips are assumed to be attributable to
the game" (DSEIR, p. 5.7-43). In contrast, the DSEIR elsewhere states that "[o]n game
days, the stadium -related uses are not expected to generate additional trips beyond traffic
generated by the game. . .it is assumed that 80 percent of the total game -day trips
generated by these Phase Two components would be attributable to the game" (DSEIR, pp.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 99
5.10-28 and 29). Clearly, there is an obvious distinction between 80 percent of all trips and
80 percent of the substantially lower Phase Two trips.
As illustrated in the DSEIR (Figure 5.10-4b, unpaginated) all traffic exiting the southern toll
plaza from the parking lot east of Grand Avenue will be required to turn south onto Grand
Avenue, such that right turns (northbound) traffic will be prohibited (Traffic Detail E). Any
vehicles wishing to travel north on Grand Avenue would then need to continue southward to
"B Street" or Golden Springs Boulevard in order to make a U-turn toward their intended
destination. As proposed, , because may motorists many be unfamiliar with the stadium's
operational plans and/or may be directed toward scare parking that not ideal for each
motorists actual travel patterns, instead of alleviating traffic congestion in Diamond Bar, the
facility's operational plan may actually increase congestion.
The Lead Agency states that the project would produce a significant traffic impact if the
project were to "conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-24). In recognition of agency -nominated threshold, the
Lead Agency must accept some responsible to actually examine "alternative
transportation." As now drafted, the DSEIR mistakes the statement that "no persons are
assumed to walk/bike/use non -motorized mode of transportation" (DSEIR, Table 5.10-9, p.
5.10-39) as a sufficient assessment of: (1) the project's consistency with "adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation"; and (2) any reasonable
examination of the project's potential impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Lead Agency states that the project's "transportation and traffic" analysis is based, in
part, on the information presented in the "Preliminary Parking Plan, NFL Stadium Project,
Walker Parking Consultants, July 2, 2008" (DSEIR, p. 5.10-1), as included in Appendix I of
the EIR. That plan, however, includes no discussion of: (1) off-site pedestrian activities; (2)
on-site or off-site bicycle use, travel patterns, and access; and/or (3) potential project -
related impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists. However, as indicated above, proposed
traffic improvements will result in the elimination of existing bicycle lanes along at least
twenty-three roadways (e.g., Intersections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34,
58, 59, 68, 69, 70, 71, 77, 81, 82, and 84). These impacts are neither discussed nor is any
mitigation suggested.
Similarly, the DSEIR included no discussion of public transportation, other than with regards
to the statement that "private shuttle services from the Metrolink station to the stadium" will
be provided "during game days and special events" (DSEIR, p. 3-28). As a result, absent
from the EIR is both a reasonable assessment of: (1) the project's impacts on public
transportation; and (2) possible enhancement to existing public transportation systems and
service that, if instituted, could reduce vehicle trips.
For example, the DSEIR notes that there may exist a need to "increase the number of
charter buses to offset any potential constraints related to Metrolink train service during
games" (DSEIR, Mitigation Measure 14-2, p. 5.10-225) and "there are not enough Metrolink
trains to provide rail transit service during Monday night games" (DSEIR, Appendix H, p.
37). Absent from the EIR is any substantial evidence that existing Metrolink services and
Mike Kissel[, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 100
train operations occur at those times and those days when "major," "minor," and other
"special" events may be scheduled at the project site.
As indicated in the DSEIR, "3,750 persons" are projected to use Metrolink trains during an
NFL game (DSEIR, Table 5.10-9, p. 5.10-33). The Industry Metrolink station (15651 E.
Stafford Street, City of Industry) is located on the "Riverside Line." Currently, train service
along that line is limited to such an extend that train ridership would not be an available
option during most "major," "minor," and other "special" events. It is, therefore, readily
apparent that the Lead Agency has misrepresented potential public transit use and, in so
doing, underestimated the number of vehicle trips attributable to the proposed project. An
underestimations of project -related traffic results in a reduced "fair -share" contribution to
areawide traffic improvements, shifting the cost of those improvements away from the
"revised project" and onto the backs of those communities in which those improvements are
located.
Although specific traffic mitigation measures have been identified, the Lead Agency states
that Industry will work cooperatively with "responsible agencies" and "other appropriate
agencies" in order to implement the identified "or equivalent traffic improvements" (DSEIR,
Mitigation Measure 14-1, p. 5.10-191). Since Diamond Bar retains the responsibilities for
instituting traffic improvements within its jurisdiction, Diamond Bar retains the exclusive right
to determine whether the identified improvements or an "equivalent improvement" will be
undertaken.
Ultimately, the City will determine whether the EIR's recommended traffic improvements are
feasible or whether the impacts on the community (e.g., displaced homes and businesses)
may be too great of an environmental and socioeconomic cost to bear. That decision,
however, does not alleviate the Lead Agency from the fulfillment of its obligation to reduce
or eliminate the impacts of its actions (e.g., "The City of Industry shall be responsible for
providing 100 percent funding for Intersections #56, #87 and #89 and a fair share of funding
for other listed intersection improvements," DSEIR, Mitigation Measure 14-1, p. 5.10-191).
To the same extend that Industry retains autonomy with regards to land -use decisions
within its jurisdiction, the City has autonomy to act in what it deems to be the best interest of
its constituents. Just as Diamond Bar has not asserted jurisdiction over the City's review of
the "improvement plans" for the NFL Stadium, the Lead Agency can neithercondition
on of
the
fulfillment of its own CEQA obligations on a condition precedent (i.e., "Upon pre
completed improvement plans and cost estimates for non -Industry intersections, the City of
Industry shall submit its fair share of costs to an escrow account," DSEIR, Mitigation
Measure 14-1, p. 5.10-191) nor can it withhold the unconditional release of its appropriate
"fair-share" commitment to the City beyond the issuance of the first discretionary app
roval
associated with the implementation of the "revised project." Since off -setting improvements
need to be in-place concurrent with the commencement of stadium's operations, any delay
in releasing funds to the City would only serve to ensure that the improvements upon with
the EIR's findings are predicated will not, in fact, be in place at that time.
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page '101
The City rejects the Lead Agency's retention of "fair -share" funding, the conditioning of the
"fair -share payment to the City, and the Lead Agency's retention of any discretion as to the
performance of its obligations (i.e., "Funds shall be released to the jurisdiction responsible
for the improvement upon initiation of construction or earlier as directed by the City of
Industry through the year 2018," DSEIR, Mitigation Measure 14-1, p. 5.10-191).
CEQA documents are not intended to be promotional documents designed to facilitate the advance
of individual development projects but rather objective analyses of each project's potential
environmental impacts. The City's concern regarding the objective analysis necessary is illustrated
in the following ten general areas: (1) failure to acknowledge the proposed action as a "new
project" and the inappropriate and unsupportable application of a "supplemental EIR" as the basis
for CEQA compliance; (2) methodological shortcoming comparing the proposed project against a
hypothetical build -out scenario that ignores the existing environmental baseline condition; (3)
failure to provide an accurate, stable, and finite project description; (4) substantial evidence that
the Lead Agency has failed to describe the totality of the planned development, resulting in a
truncation of the project and the piecemealing of its direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
effects; (5) failure to reasonably and accurately describe the project's technical, economic,
environmental characteristics, and principal engineering proposals, including planned site uses and
operational characteristics; (6) failure to disclose substantial changes to the original project, the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and the existence of new information of
substantial importance; (7) presentation of unsupported statements concerning the project's
potential environmental effects in lieu of reasoned analysis; (8) failure to reasonably assess
potential cumulative impacts through the application of an artificially constrained inventory of
related projects; (9) failure to examine a reasonable range of alternatives, including those not
involving the construction of the NFL Stadium; and (10) failure to formulate reasonable and prudent
mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant environmental effects, including the
acceptance of Applicant -proposed PDFs in lieu of reasonable, measurable, and enforceable
mitigation measures.
Requested Time Extension Denied by Lead Agency
In recognition of the potential impacts of the proposed project and numerous requests from our
constituency for information about the NFL Stadium project, in recognition of the City's status as
both a responsible agency and a transportation planning agency and public agency which has
transportation facilities within its jurisdiction which could be affected by the project (14 CCR
15086[a][5]), the City submitted a written request to the Lead Agency for a reasonable time
extension to allow the City the opportunity to review the DSEIR. Because the Lead Agency neither
initiated early consultation with the City (14 CCR 15083) nor consented to extension of the
commend period on the DSEIR, the City's and the affected public's ability to formulate comments
on the EIR was severely limited.
Substantial Evidence
"Substantial evidence has been defined as 'relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion' [citation], or 'evidence of "ponderable legal significance. .
.reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value"' [citation]" (Bowman v. City of Petaluma).
Mike Kissell, Planning Director
Draft Supplement to Industry Business Center Environmental Impact Report
October 16, 2008
Page 102
"Substantial evidence" under CEQA "includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact,
or expert opinion supported by fact" (§21080[e][1]). Diamond Bar asserts that comments submitted
by and on behalf of the City constitute "export opinion" within the meaning of Section 21080 of
CEQA.
The City's efforts to present additional substantial evidence have clearly been frustrated by the
Lead Agency's lack of disclosure with regards to both the proposed project and the impacts likely
to result the project's approval and operation. The Lead Agency cannot be rewarded for releasing
a defective EIR, prepared absent a good -faith effort, and the affected public subsequently
penalized for its efforts to call the Lead Agency to task for its shortcoming and to solicit reasonable
and objective disclosure.
The defects in the EIR preclude remedy other than through redrafting and recirculation of the
DSEIR. These comments demonstrate that the draft SEIR is so fundamentally and basically
inadequate and conclusionary in nature that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded" (14 CCR 15088.5[a][4.
Through these comments, the City has sought additional information and analysis to allow those
deficiencies to be addressed. Should you have any questions
free to concerning
ct let er o wishat to
schedule a meeting to discuss the City's comments, pleas
839-7010.
Sincerely,
7
es DeStefan
City Manager
Cc: City Council
City Attorney
Agenda No. 6.1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OCTOBER 7, 2008 r""RAFT
U, ,
CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m. — Room CC -8
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda — None Offered.
► Government Code Section 54956.9(c) Initiation of Litigation — One Case.
STUDY SESSION:
6:00 p.m., Room CC -8
► Presentation of Sustainability Action Plan — Discussion and Action —
(Continued to October 21, 2008)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Tanaka called the regular City Council meeting to
order at 6:35 p.m. in SCAQMD Government Center/Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, CA.
CA/Jenkins reported that during tonight's Closed Session no public comments were offered
and no reportable action was taken by Council.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL:
Everett and Mayor Tanaka.
Council Member Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Monsignor James Loughnane with St. Denis Church
Council Members Chang, Herrera, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem
Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Asst. City
Manager; Mike Jenkins, City Attorney; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director;
Greg Gubman, Acting Community Development Director; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer;
Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Patrick
Gallegos, Management Analyst; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; Joyce Lee, Sr.
Management Analyst; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; and Tommye Cribbins,
City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 M/Tanaka present a Certificate of Recognition to Diamond Bar High School
Student Anantha Singarajah, Leo of the Year. Pat Fabio representing
Congressman Miller's Office also presented Ms. Singarajah with a Certificate
of Recognition.
OCTOBER 7, 2008 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.2 M/Tanaka presented a Certificate Plaque to Mike Patel, owner of The UPS
Store #3890, 1142 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. as Business of the Month for
October 2008.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
CM/DeStefano announced vacancies on the Greater Los Angeles County Vector
Control Board and Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority Advisory Committee.
Individuals willing to serve should contact the City Clerk at 909-839-7010 for
application forms.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dr. Manual Baca introduced Britani Falconer and spoke about Measure RR and its
importance of continuing financial assistance to Mt. SAC by extending the Bond
from 2030 to 2039.
Raul Galindo, a 40 -year resident, said he was in favor of the NFL Stadium project in
the City of Industry and hoped the Council would speak out in favor of the stadium
because it would bring positive economic impacts to D.B. and the surrounding area.
He felt that the traffic impacts would be minimal.
Darrell Bowler, a 30 -year resident, said he was also in favor of the NFL Stadium
project and all of the amenities provided to enhance the economics of the area.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — October 9, 2008 — 7:00
p.m., AQMD/Government Center Board Hearing Room, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — October 14, 2008 — 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.3 City Council Meeting — October 21, 2008 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tye requested that item 6.10 be pulled. C/Herrera
moved, C/Chang seconded, to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.
OCTOBER 7, 2008 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
Motion carried by the following Roll Call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera, Tye, MPT/Everett,
M/Tanaka
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
(a) Study Session Meeting of September 16, 2008 — approved as submitted.
(b) Regular Meeting of September 16, 2008 — approved as submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular
Meeting of September 9, 2008.
6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 28, 2008.
6.4 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — dated September 11, 2008 through
October 1, 2008 totaling $2,338,832.32.
6.5 APPROVED PRELIMINARY TREASURER'S STATEMENT — month of
August 2008.
6.6 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 05(2008): AMENDING
DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT RULES FOR USE OF
PUBLICLY OWNED TRAILS.
6.7 APPROVED APPROPRIATION OF $50,000 FOR PAVEMENT
RECONSTRUCTION ON WINDWOOD DRIVE PURSUANT TO THE
AGREEMENT WITH ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORITY.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2008-37: DECLARING THE CITY'S
INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF VIA SORELLA STREET AND
DIRECTED THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008.
6.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2008-38: AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING
THE SALE OF $300,000 OF PROPOSITION A FUNDS (LOCAL RETURN
TRANSIT FUNDS) TO THE CITY OF COMMERCE FOR GENERAL FUNDS
TO BE DEPOSITED INTO THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FUND.
OCTOBER 7, 2008 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
7
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.10 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2008-39: AUTHORIZING A MONETARY
REWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO
THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR
DESTRUCTION OF THE OBSERVATION PLATFORM AT SYCAMORE
CANYON TRAIL WATERFALL.
C/Tye asked that the reward be increased from $500 to $1000 and require
the offenders to replace the damaged property at their expense.
C/Tye moved, MPT/Everett seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item
6.10 as amended to increase the reward amount from $500 to $1000 and
require the offenders to replace the damaged property at their expense.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera, Tye, MPT/Everett,
M/Tanaka
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
M/Tanaka stated that anyone having information that may lead to the arrest and
conviction of the individual or individuals who destroyed the observation platform in
Sycamore Canyon Park should contact Detective Mark Gittens, D.B./Walnut Station,
909-595-2264, Ext. 3009.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None.
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Tye thanked his colleagues for supporting his amendment to Consent Calendar
Item 6.10.
C/Chang agreed with C/Tye's amendment to Consent Calendar Item 6.10. He
spoke about the financial crisis and reiterated that every year D.B. balances its
budget and maintains a surplus.
C/Herrera thanked everyone who sent emails, cards, telephoned her, etc. to
express sympathy about the passing of her mother. She spoke about the major
election on November 4 and urged everyone to thoroughly investigate the many
measures including Measure R that is being sponsored by MTA because the
majority of the funding would go to the western portion of the region and exclude the
eastern portion of which D.B. is a part.
OCTOBER 7, 2008 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
MPT/Everett spoke about the vandalism at Sycamore Canyon Park. On September
25 he attended the Diamond Ride open house at the Diamond Bar Center. He
thanked the City's Public Works Department and Public Information Department for
a very fine presentation. He and M/Tanaka attended the California League
Convention in Long Beach on September 26. He encouraged voters to study the
ballot measures. The past two Saturdays he attended the Sheriff's Department
basic academy training. He and M/Tanaka attended the meeting with the City's
audit firm, the results of which will be available in about six months. He spoke
about Friends of the Library's upcoming events. MPT/Everett thanked staff for
getting the clothing donation container removed from the Park 'n Ride lot. He
encouraged everyone to read the City Newsletter. He also thanked staff for the
attending to the traffic problem at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Mountain Laurel.
M/Tanaka requested that staff prepare a feasibility report for reinstating the City's
tree maintenance from a five year period back to a three year period.
M/Tanaka attended the California Contract Cities monthly meeting; San Gabriel
Valley COG Transportation Committee and regular meeting; Pacific Crest Youth
Arts Program Awards Luncheon; the Alisa Ann Rush Burn Foundation Golf
Tournament dinner; he and MPT/Everett attended the League of California Cities
Convention and Expo; and, the Diamond Bar Friends of the Library luncheon.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tanaka adjourned the regular
City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m.
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2008.
JACK TANAKA, MAYOR
Agenda No 6.2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Mok called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Mok led the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL: Commissioner House, Vice Chairman Jimmy Lin,
Chair Kenneth Mok
Absent: Commissioners Liana Pincher and Michael Shay
were excused.
Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director; Rick Yee, Senior
Civil Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate
Engineer; Christian Malpica Perez, Associate
Engineer, and Marcy Hilario, Senior Administrative
Assistant.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Minutes of the June 12, 2008 regular meeting.
C/House moved, VC/Lin seconded, to approve the June 12, 2008 minutes as
presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: House, VC/Lin, Chair/Mok
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pincher, Shay
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
ITEMS FROM STAFF:
A. Received and Filed Traffic Enforcement Updates for:
1. Citations: May, June & July 2008
2. Collisions: May, June & July 2008
3. Street Sweeping: May, June & July 2008
AUGUST 14, 2008 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
IV. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS - None
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS — C/House said he had received several
complaints from residents about phone call and/or e-mail response by the Sheriff's
Department and wondered what could be done to make the deputies more available.
PWD/Liu responded that the Commissioners need to assure residents that the
Sheriff's Department is responding as rapidly as possible and has always provided
excellent service as expected. If there are specific and unique situations residents
should contact City Hall staff. While our Traffic Sgt. Mark Saunders has been out on
medical leave for several months and it is not known when to expect his return to
duty, staff feels that the Sheriff's Department is very responsive.
C/House said he was a retired L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy and he cannot get
anyone to respond to his e-mails and if he cannot get a response he does not know
how the public is able to get a response. Perhaps he needs to go through staff
because he has been unable to get response regarding issues at the schools.
PWD/Liu asked C/House to include staff in the communications so that staff could
follow through.
C/House said he heard at the NTMP meeting on Tuesday, August 12th, that the City
was updating school signage and striping that included stop signs. AssocE/Molina
responded that the City was updating the signage in vicinity of schools to the current
MUTCD standards. At Golden Springs Elementary, the City has included the addition
of stop signs as part of the update. C/House said he was curious about Evergreen
Elementary and AssocE/Molina stated that staff has not reviewed plans for other
schools and would have to get back to the Commission on Evergreen Elementary
School.
VC/Lin asked if the 57/60 interchange was included in the L.A. County sales tax
increase package and PWD/Liu responded that itwas not. SGVCOG said theywould
not support the half -cent sales tax ballot measure because, in their opinion, it was not
equitable for the San Gabriel Valley residents.
Chair/Mok said he participated in the dedication of the traffic signal at Racquet Club
and Golden Springs and it was encouraging to hear the residents express their
appreciation.
VI. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. Brea Canyon Grade Separation Project — SCE/Yee stated that the opening is
anticipated for the end of October.
B. Traffic Signal Interconnect Links — Phase I — SCE/Yee reported that the project
is near completion and the fiber optic line installation is slated to occur over the
next several weeks.
C. Verizon's FIOS Project — SCE/Yee said the fiber optic service installation to
residences has been underway in Area 4 since April and the infrastructure is
scheduled to be completed over the next several weeks with service available
in October.
AUGUST 14, 2008 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
D. Grand Avenue Street Improvements —Phase I II —SCE/Yee reported that work
began in the medians on August 13tH with completion anticipated about the
end of September.
E. City Council Goals & Objectives for FY 2008-09 — PWD/Liu highlighted four
items having to do with on-going traffic mitigation efforts.
F. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project — PWD/Liu
stated that recently the City of Industry submitted the project study report to
Caltrans and is hoping for approval by the end of 2008.
G. Lemon Avenue On/Off Ramps Project — PWD/Liu reported that Industry
indicated in a letter to Caltrans their preference to pursue alternative 3. D.B. is
conducting an economic impact analysis to determine if the closing of the Brea
Canyon Road ramps would negatively impact contiguous businesses.
H. SR57/60 Feasibility Study — PWD/Liu stated that Metro is considering three
concepts that would support substantial traffic operation benefits for the
interchange. The City of Industry has indicated that the Grand Avenue
Interchange design will be consistent with the preferred concept.
I. Diamond Ride (Dial -A -Cab) Program — PWD/Liu reported that at its August 5th
meeting, the City Council reviewed the program and enhanced the medical
facilities boundary for users.
J. Diamond Bar Boulevard and Mountain Laurel Crosswalk — SCE/Yee stated
that a dedicated right -turn pocket will be implemented from southbound
Diamond Bar Boulevard onto westbound Mountain Laurel, striping
modification, and a dedicated right -turn phase to increase circulation.
PWD/Liu responded to Commissioners' comments that staff would continue to
monitor the changes for improved circulation and possible further mitigation.
K. 2007-2008 CDBG Curb Ramp Project — AssocE/Molina reported that the
project was completed this week in the area of the Quail Summit Elementary
school with installation and upgrade of 19 curb ramps to current ADA
standards.
L. NTMP — Palomino Drive, Forest Canyon Neighborhoods — AssocE/Molina
reported that about eight (8) residents attended the very successful August
11 th meeting and all attendees were in favor of the proposed plans with minor
modifications for the Palomino neighborhood. Staff anticipates construction to
commence in late October. The Forest Canyon neighborhood will hold its first
meeting on Monday, August 25tH
M. Residential -Area 4/Arterial — Zone 2 Slurry Seal Project — AssocE/Molina
indicated that this project is on hold and the contractor has until September4th
to secure a supplier.
N. Chino Hills Parkway Street Rehab Project — AssocE/Molina reported that staff
is currently reviewing five (5) design proposals and awaiting Caltrans'
authorization to move forward with a design contract.
VII. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda.
AUGUST '14,2008 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Chair/Mok adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are herebyapproved this
a �
-Fd day of GOT',' &4Z
RespectfullY,-
4DaidG. Liu, Secretary
Attest:
'l..4�,� j�, -
OWrman Kenneth Mok
11:
Agenda # 6.3
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Man g
TITLE: Ratification of Check Register dated October 2, 2008 through October 15,
2008 totaling $1,395,767.58.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify.
FINANCIAL IMPACT.-
Expenditure
MPACT:Expenditure of $1,395,967.58 in City funds.
BACKGROUND:
The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly
basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The attached check register containing checks dated October 2, 2008 through October
15, 2008 for $1,395,967.58 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been
made in compliance with the City's purchasing policies and procedures. Payments
have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff and the
attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate
by the Finance Director.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson
Finance Director
REVIEWED BY:
A 14Tt:��
Finance IDiVector
AsAistant` Manager
Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 10/02/08 through 10/15/08.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CHECK REGISTER AFFIDAVIT
The attached listings of demands, invoices, and claims in the form of a check register
including checks dated October 2, 2008 through October 15, 2008 has been audited
and is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in
these amounts:
Description
Amount
General Fund
$936,906.50
Prop A - Transit Fund
7,815.21
Int. Waste Mgt Fund
4,616.03
CDBG Fund
6,409.65
LLAD 38 Fund
502.10
LLAD 39 Fund
345.55
LLAD 41 Fund
163.20
Capital Improvement Project Fund
439,209.34
$1,395,967.58
Signed:
Linda G. Magnuson
Finance Director
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
PIR TRANSFER-08/PP 20
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
10/2/2008
08-PP20
PAYROLL TRANSFER
100.00
10/2/2008112
10/2/2008
PAYROLL TRANSFER
AMERITECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
SUPPLIES -COPIER
10200
6,353,071.00
$185,107.89
10/2/2008
PAYROLL TRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER-08/PP 20
115
10200
4,616.03
267.83
10/2/2008125
10/2/2008
PAYROLL TRANSFER
CORRECT P/R TRANSFER
ARROWHEAD
10200
1,409.65
10/2/2008
PAYROLL TRANSFER
10/2/2008
112
10200
-6,353,071.00
10/2/2008
PAYROLL TRANSFER
CORRECT P/R TRANSFER
112
10200
6,353.71
P/R TRANSFER-08/PP 20
001
10200
172,728.50
42130
'—'—•—"""I
t1J0IVI/A HL"/AYtK
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
100.00
$100.00
10/2/2008
82204
AMERITECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
SUPPLIES -COPIER
0014090
1 42100
267.83
$267,83
10/2/2008
82205
ARROWHEAD
WATER SUPPLIES -DBC
10/2/2008
ARROWHEAD
0015333
41200
49.92
$60.73
EO RENTAL -DBC
00153331.
42130
10.81
10/2/2008
82206
AT&T MOBILITY
P-------------
H-SVCS-GENERAL
10!2/2008
AT&T MOBILITY
0014090
42125
10.74
$3222
10/2/2008
AT&T MOBILITY
PH -SVCS -GENERAL
0014090
42125
10.74
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
10.74
10/2/2008
82207
BENESYST
10/03/08 -PIR DEDUCTIONS
001
1 21105
702.48
$702.48
10/2/2008
82208
BLAZE CONE COMPANY INC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0015554
1 41250
643.271
3.27
10/2/2008
82209
BLUE FOUNTAIN POOLS
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT
10/2/2008
BLUE FOUNTAIN POOLS
001
34140
34.00
$368.72
10/2/2008
BLUE FOUNTAIN POOLS
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT
001
34350
2,08
10/2/2008
BLUE FOUNTAIN POOLS
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT
001
34310
2.00
10/2/2008
BLUE FOUNTAIN POOLS
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT
001
34110
254.16
10/2/2008
BLUE FOUNTAIN POOLS
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT
001
34130
43.28
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT
001
34120
33.20
10/2/2008
82210
BLUE SKY CAFE INC
OTRLY B -FAST -ERC
0014060
42347
537.461
$537.46
10/2/2008
82211
BUCKNAM & ASSOCIATES INC
PROF. SVCS-PAVEM ENT MGMT
0015551
R45221
5,074.50
$5,074.50
10/2/2008
82212
CANDLELIGHT PAVILION DINNER THE,
DEPOSIT -VOLUNTEER PATROL
0014415
42325
100.00
$100.00
10/2/2008
82213
CHONGYONG CHO
RECREATION
r.�wNrcErvrvv
001
34780
ion nn
e,.,.,,,,,�
Page 1
Page 2
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru
10/15/08
-
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
10/2/2008
82214
CTS LANGUAGE LINKTRANSLATION
SVCS-P/INFO
0014095
44000
277.50
$277.50
10/2/2008
82215
& J MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC
10/2/2008
JE)
D & J MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC
BLDG & SFTY SVCS-JULY 08
0015220
45201
15,139.80
$30,589.18
BLDG &SFTY SVCS-AUG 08
0015220
1 45201 1
15,449.38
10/2/2008
82216
SANDY DAVIS
FACILITY REFUND-DBC
001
23002
650.00
$650.00
10/2/2008
82217
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS-HIR
0014060
42110 1
A-AA I al
$434.19
10/2/2008
82218
CAROL DENNIS
PROF.SVCS-T&T MTG
0015510
44000
100.00
$100.00
10/2/2008
82219
DFS FLOORING CORP
MAINT-DBC
0015333
42210
675.00
$675.00
10/2/2008
82220
NARGIS DHARAS
10/2/2008
NARGIS DHARAS
FACILITY REFUND-DBC
001
23002
200.00
$458.32
10/2/2008
NARGIS DHARAS
FACILITY REFUND-DBC
001
23004
83.32
FACILITY REFUND-DBC
001
36615
175.00
10/2/2008
82221
EDFUND
SLRY ATTCHMT-WK 10/3
001
21114
23.28
$2328
10/2/2008
82222
FEDEX
10/2/2008
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL-GENERAL
0014090
42125
252.77
$695.54
10/2/2008
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL-GENERAL
0014090
42120
266.70
EXPRESS MAIL-GENERAL
0014090
42120
176.07
10/2/2008
82223
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
ISLRY ATTCHMT-WK 10/3
001
21114
427.67
$427.67
10/2/2008
82224
MICHELLE GASPARIAN
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
113.00
$113.00
10/2/2008
82225
GG ONE SOFTWARE INC
COMP MAINT-INFO SYS
0014070
42205
399.001
$399.00
82226
GRAND MOBIL
U110/2/2008
GRAND MOBIL
rVE0/2/2008EH MAINT-ROAD MAINT
0015554
42200
268.89
$566.75
H MAINT-COMM SVCS
0015310
42200
287,86
10/2/2008
82227
GRAPHICS UNITED
PRINT SVCS-OCT NEWSLTTR
0014095
44000
2,962.06
$2,962.06
10/2/2008
82228
GRAYBAR
SUPPLIES-DBC
0015333
41200
39.73
$39.73
10/2/2008
82229
RACHEL GROSSMAN
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
113 00
$113.00
Page 2
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount
10/2/2008 82230 IYELENA GUO RECREATION REFUND
001 34780 226.00 $226.00
10/2/2008 82231 ADA GUTOWSKI FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001 23002 100.00 $100.00
10/2/2008 82232 ICAROLYN HANSEN RECREATION REFUND
001 34780 ua nn a —I
10/2/2008
82233
HARDY & HARPER INC
RETENTION PAYABLE
1 0014090
42120
182.90$182.90
vv vv
10/2/2008
82235
HARDY & HARPER INC
CESA CONF-A SANTOS
250
20300
-46,384.56
$419,959.01
10/2/2008
HARDY & HARPER INC
CONSTRUCTION -GRAND AVE
2505510
R46411
463,845.57
$124.93
tnnnnno
82236
HIRSCH PIPE AND SUPPLY INC
ROAD MAINT-21306 HIGH PAS
0015554
45502
2,498.00
Page 3
v___
"` IM,SVCS
CONTRACT -FY 08/09
1 0014090
42120
182.90$182.90
10/2/2008
82235
HILTON RESORT - PALM SPRINGS
CESA CONF-A SANTOS
0014440
42340
124.93
$124.93
10/2/2008
82236
HIRSCH PIPE AND SUPPLY INC
MAINT-PARKS
0015340
42210
691.04
$691.04
10!2/2008
82237
MARY HOLYFIELD
FACILITY RFUND-DBC
001
23002
275.00
$275.00
10/2/2008
82238
JULIE HOM
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
65.00
$65.00
10/2/2008
82239
AGNES HSIAO
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
60.00
$60.00
10/2/2008
82240
WINNIE HU
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
60.00
$60.00
10/2!2008
82241
LORA ILLIG
IRECREATION REFUND
001
1 780
40.00
$40.00
10/2/2008
82242
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
EXCRSN-PACIFIC PALISADES
10/2/2008
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
0015350
45310
865.00
$2,326.50
TRANSPORTATION-EXCURSN
1125350
45310
1,461.50
10/2/2008
82243
GAIL ITO
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
65.00
$65.00
10/2/2008
82244
lHORACEJACKSON
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
100.00
$100.00
10/2/2008
82245
KOA CORPORATION
DESIGN SVCS-NTMP
2505510
846412
6,600.00
$6,600.00
10/2/2008
82246
SUE LEK
ocr-o�
���r � wry rc�rurvu
001
34780
an nn
ern „ 1
Page 3
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount
10/2/2008
82247
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
LEGAL SVCS-H/R
0014020
44021
90.00
$90.00
10/2/2008
82249
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-289
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2005-152
001
23010
1,092.50
$14,345.00
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
001
23010
380.00
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-318
001
23010
95.00
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-3.17
001
23010
47.50
10/212008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2005-145
001
23010
2,066.25
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2002-63
001
23010
712.50
10/2!2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-319
001
23010
1,235.00
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-324
001
23010
1,757.50
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2005-166
001
23010
736.25
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-321
001
23010
3,491.25
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-PLNG JULY
0015210
44250
617.50
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-305
001
23010
142.50
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-274
001
23010
1,971.25
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-348
001
23010
17.10
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-317
001
34430
-8.55
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-317
001
23010
8.55
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-305
001
34430
-25.65
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-305
001
23010
25.65
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-348
001
34430
-17.10
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-274
001
23010
354.82
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-324
001
34430
-316.35
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-324
001
23010
316.35
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-321
001
34430
-628.43
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-321
001
23010
628.43
1 0/212 00 8
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-274
001
34430
-354,82
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2002-63
001
23010
128.25
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-166
001
34430
-132.53
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-166
001
23010
132.53
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-145
001
34430
-371.93
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-145
001
23010
371.93
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2002-63
001
34430
-128,25
10/2/2008
LILLEY
PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-319
001
23010
222.30
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-152
001
23010
68.40
Page 4
Page 5
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru
10/15/08
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
10/2/2008
82249...
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-152
001
34430
68.40
$14,345.00
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-289
001
23010
196.65
...
10/2/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-289
001
34430
-196.65
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-319
001
34430
-222.30
10/2/2008
82250
CHRISTINA LIN
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
160.00
$160.00
10/2/2008
82251
EDITH LOREZCA
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
60.00
$60.00
10/2/2008
82252
ILOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
TRFFC MAINT-JUN 08
0015554
45507
821.26
$821.26
10/2/2008
82253
MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK
OCT 08 -EAP PREMIUMS
001
21115
155.68
$155.68
10/2/2008
82254
MARSHA D ROA
REIMB-GRANICUS CONF
0014095
42330
111.84
$111.84
10/2/2008
82255
MCE CORPORATION
10/2/2008
MCE CORPORATION
STORM DRAIN MAINTAUG
-
0015554
45512
1,237.81
$15,292.28
10/2/2008
MCE CORPORATION
SGNS & STRPNG MAINT-AUG
0015554
45506
4,280.96
10/2/2008
MCE CORPORATION
ROAD MAINT-AUG 08
0015554
45502
8,657.68
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINT-AUG
0015554
45522
1,115.83
10/2/2008
82256
ANTOINETTE MCKELLAR
RECREATION REFUND
001
34740
35.00
$35.00
10/2/2008
82257
ISURENDRA MEHTA
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
45320
540.00
$540.00
10/2/2008
82258
MINUTEMAN PRESS R & D BLUEPRINT
10/2/2008
MINUTEMAN PRESS R & D BLUEPRINT
PRINT SVCS-P/WKS
:1
0015510
42110
1,400.00
$1,413.26
PRINT SVCS-P/WKS
0015510
42110
13.26
10/2/2008
82259
MARIE MONTALES
RECREATION REFUND
001
34720
119.00
$119.00
10/2/2008
INANCY FONG
REIMB-SGVCOG SEMINAR
0015210
42325
20.00
$20.00
10/2/2008
82261
GARY L NEELY
PROF.SVCS-JULY 08
0015210
44210
1,--- -
$1,620.00
10/2/2008
82262
NORRIS REPKE INC
10/2/2008
NORRIS REPKE INC
ROAD REHAB -PROSPECTORS
2505510
R46411
400.00
$10,192.50
SLURRY SEAL -AREA 5
2505510
46411
9,792.50
10/2/2008
82263
PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS INC.
LONG DIST (.RRCs SEPT/OCT
0014090
42125
757 51
$757 51
Page 5
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date lCheckNumberl Vendor Name Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct # I Amount I Total Check Amount
10/2/2008 1 82264 CHRISTINE PATEL FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 23002 1 100.00 $100.00
10/2/2008
82265
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
SURVIVOR BENEFIT
001
21109
47.43
$25,528.20
10/2/2008
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
001
21109
10,058.38
10/2/2008
82267
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
RETIRE CONTRIB-ER
001
21109
15,422.39
$9,565.85
10/2/2008
82266
POMONA JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PARKING CITATION FEES -AUG
001
32230
2,025.00
$2,025.00
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-AUG 08
0015554
45507
5,348.59
10/2/2008
82267
R F DICKSON COMPANY
STREET SWEEPING SVCS -SEPT
0015554
45501
9,565.85
$9,565.85
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-DBB
0015554
45507
4,255.00
10/2/2008 1
82268
LISA RALLS
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780 1
50.00
$50.00
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-MAR 08
0015554
45507
3,284.32
10/2/2008 1
82269
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS
0014095
1 42110 1
224.08
$224.08
10/2/2008
82270
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-AUG
0015554
45507
3,915.00
$30,495.40
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-AUG 08
0015554
45507
5,348.59
10/212008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-JULY 08
0015554
45507
6,913.48
$50.00
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-DBB
0015554
45507
4,255.00
10/2/2008
82273
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-C/HILLS PK
0015554
45507
1,500.00
$65.00
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-MAR 08
0015554
45507
3,284.32
10/212008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-GRAND AVE
0015554
45507
1,364.01
$100.00
10/2/2008
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
T/SIGNAL MAINT-JUL 08
0015554
45507
3,915.00
10/2/2008 1
82271
S C SIGNS & SUPPLIES LLC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
1 0015554
41250
1,065.18
$1,065.18
10/2/2008 1
82272
MELISSA SANCHEZ
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
50.00
$50.00
10/2/2008 1
82273
MARIA SANTOS
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
65.00
$65.00
10/2/2008 1
82274
ISEOUNG YANG
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780 1
100.00
$100.00
10/2/2008 1
82275
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
GRAPHIC DESIGN SVCS -OCT
1 0014095
1 44000 1
2,375.00
$2,375.00
10/2/2008 1
82276
SO CAL SANITATION
JEQ RENTAL -AUG 08
0015340
1 42130 1
545.97$545.97
10/2/2008 1
82277
SO COAST AIR QUALITY MGT DISTRICT
LEASE -CITY HALL OCT
0014090
1 42140
21,810.60
$21,810.60
Page 6
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept T Acct # Amount I Total Check Amount
10/2/2008
82278
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
2,341.28
$6,007-61-
1012/2008
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
1,566.20
1012/2008
82282
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
151.87
$100.00
10/2/2008
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
53.26
10/2/2008
82283
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
1,264.11
$148.00
10/2/2008
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
416.91
10/2/2008
82284
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL
0015510
42126
213.98
$107.16
10/2/2008 82279 ISOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-G/SRINGS/GTWY 0015510 1 42126 1,057.76 $1,057.76
10/2/2008
82280
STANDARD INSURANCE OF OREGON
OCT 08-SUPP LIFE INS PREM
001
21106
99.50
$3,166.68
10/2/2008
STANDARD INSURANCE OF OREGON
OCT 08 -LIFE INS PREMS
001
21106
1,285.68
10/2/2008
82282
STANDARD INSURANCE OF OREGON
OCT 08-STD/LTD
001
21112
1,781.50
$100.00
10/2/2008
82281
STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
ISLRY ATTCHMT-#0000932977
1 001
1 21114 1
221.671
$221.67
10/2/2008
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DATA MODEM
0014090
42125
72.90
10/2/2008
82282
ISTATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
ISLRY ATTCHMT-BY0426064
1 001
1 21114 1
100.00
$100.00
10/2/2008
82283
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
ILEGAL AD-NTMP
10015510
42115
148.00
$148.00
10/2/2008
82284
THOMSON WEST
PUBLICATIONS-C/CLERK
0014030
1 42320 1
107.161
$107.16
10/2/2008
82285
US POSTAL SERVICE (HASLER)
IPOSTAGE
1 0014090
1 42120 1
5,000.001
$5,000.00
10/2/2008
82286
VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-30324810103/09-P/R
DEDUCTIONS
0011
21108 1
27,875.70
$27,875.70
10/2/2008
82287
ISANDY VARNER
RECREATION REFUND
001
134780 1
65.00
$65.00
10/2/2008
82288
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-TELEWORKS ACIS
0014090
42125
109.88
$259.57
10/2/2008
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DATA MODEM
0014090
42125
72.90
10/2/2008
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DIAL IN MODEM
0014090
42125
76.79
10/2/2008
82289
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
FACILITY RENTAL-JUL 08
0015350
42140
728.00
$2,600.00
10/2/2008
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
FACILITY RENTAL-JUL 08
0015350
42140
1
1 1,872.00
10/2/2008 1 82290 IWALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JELECT POWER-EASTGATE 1 0014440 1 42126 1 45.20 $45.20
Page 7
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount
10/2/2008
82291
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
1,138.40
$1,232.55
10/2/2008
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
42210
94.15
10/2/2008 1
82292
JEMMA WESTER
RECREATION REFUND
1 001
1 34780 1
83.001
$83.00
10/9/2008
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -RECREATION
0015350
41200
27.95
10/2/2008 1
82293
ICHENG TSUNG WU
RECREATION REFUND
1 001
34780 1
175.00
$175.00
10/9/2008
BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN
MONTHLY MAINT-HERITAGE
0015340
42210
155.00
10/3/2008
82294
ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY
ESCROW DEP-WASHINGTON
1 0014090
1 46305
343,334.50
$343,334.50
10/9/2008 1
82295
JACADEMY SUCCESS
REFUND -TEMP SIGNS
1 34430
100.001
$100.00
10/9/2008
82296
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -RECREATION
0015350
41200
41.76
$101.16
10/9/2008
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -RECREATION
0015350
41200
27.95
10/9/2008
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -RECREATION
0015350
41200
31.45
10/9/2008 1 82297 JALWAYS JUST FOR FUN BALLOON -FALL FUN FSTVL 1 0015350 1 41200 1 440.00 $440.00
10/9/2008
82298
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
SUPPLIES -TONERS
0014070
45000
458.98
$559.65
10/9/2008
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
SUPPLIES -TONERS
0014070
1
45000
100.67
10/9/2008 1 82299 ISAME ANABI REFUND -TEMP SIGNS 1 001 1 34430 1 100.00 $100.00
10/9/2008
82300
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
SLOPE REPAIR -GOLDRUSH
2505510
R46416
351.00
$536.00
10/9/2008
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
SLOPE REPAIR -GOLDRUSH
2505510
1 R46416
185.00
10/9/2008
82301
AT & T
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
29.09
$83.01
10/9/2008
AT & T
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
29.09
10/9/2008
AT & T
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
24.83
10/9/2008
82302
BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN
MONTHLY MAINT-PANTERA
0015340
42210
85.00
$1,203.00
10/9/2008
BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN
MAINT-DBC
0015333
42210
190.00
10/9/2008
BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN
MONTHLY SVCS -DBC
0015333
45300
773.00
10/9/2008
BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN
MONTHLY MAINT-HERITAGE
0015340
42210
155.00
10/9/2008
82303
CATALINA BALLAST BULB COMPANY
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
114.31
$350.04
10/9/2008
CATALINA BALLAST BULB COMPANY
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
7L0.24
Page 8
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date
Check Number Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
10/9/2008
82303... CATALINA BALLAST BULB COMPANY
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
42210
165.491
$350.04...
10/9/2008
82304
CDW GOVERNMENT INC.
COMP EQ-I.T.
2505510
1 R46412
85.52
$85.52
10/9/2008
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -RECREATION
0015350
42110
45.47
10/9/2008 1
82305
IJOANNE CHEN
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
71.00
$71.00
10/9/2008
DH MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL SVCS -DBC SEPT
0015333
45300
12,250.83
10/9/2008 1
82306
CHRISTIN J MURPHEY
EMPLOYEE COMP LOAN PROG
001
13135 1
2,500.00
$2,500.00
10/9/2008 1
82307
ICIRCUIT CITY
FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN
1 001
23002
50.00
$50.00
10/9/2008 1
82308
IPATTI COUCH
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780 1
67.00
$67.00
10/9/2008 1
82309
IVICTORIA CROSS
EMPLOYEE COMP LOAN FROG
1 001
13135 1
1,064.41
$1,064.41
10/9/2008
82310
CUMMINS ALLISON CORP
ANNL MAINT-CK PERFORATOR
0014090
42200 1
386.58
$386.58
10!9/2008
82311
DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
ILEGAL SVCS -AUG 08
0014020
44023 1
2,010.37
$2,010.37
10/9/2008 1
82312
JDAVID J. GRUNDY
P & R COMM -9/25
0015350
44100
45.00
$45.00
10/9/2008
82313
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -RECREATION
0015350
42110
260.73
$306.20
10/9/2008
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -RECREATION
0015350
42110
45.47
10/9/2008 1
82314
JDBCAA EVERGREEN
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 23002 1
200.001
$200.00
10/9/2008
CAROL DENNIS
PROF.SVCS-PLN COMM
0015210
44000
1
1 50.00
10/9/2008 1
82315
DELTA CARE USA
OCT 08 -DENTAL PREMIUMS
1 001
1 21104 1
396.081
$396.08
10/9/2008
DH MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL SVCS -DBC SEPT
0015333
45300
12,250.83
10/9/2008 1
82316
DELTA DENTAL
OCT 08 -DENTAL PREMIUMS
1 001
1 21104 1
2,721.36
$2,721.36
10/9/2008
82317
CAROL DENNIS
PROF.SVCS-P & R MTG
0015310
44000
75.00
$125.00
10/9/2008
CAROL DENNIS
PROF.SVCS-PLN COMM
0015210
44000
1
1 50.00
10/9/2008
82318
DH MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL SVCS -PARKS
0015340
42210
735.17
$13,377.00
10/9/2008
DH MAINTENANCE
ADDL MAINT-DBC
0015333
45300
266.00
10/9/2008
DH MAINTENANCE
ADDL MAINT-DBC
0015333
45300
125.00
10/9/2008
DH MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL SVCS -DBC SEPT
0015333
45300
12,250.83
Page 9
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount Total Check Arnount
10/9/2008
82319
DIAMOND BAR MOBIL
FUEL -COMM SVCS
0015310
42310
165.85 $165.85
10/9/2008 82320 DIAMOND BAR/WALNUT YMCA JCDBG PRG -DAY CAMP JUL/AUG 1255215 1 42355 5,000.00 $5,000.00
10/9/2008
82321
DMS CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERS INC
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
001
23012
1,339.50
$13,395.00
10/9/2008
DMS CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERS INC
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
001
34650
-1,339.50
10/9/2008
82323
DMS CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERS INC
PROF SVCS -EN 08-608
001
23012
13,395.00
$14,900.00
10/9/2008
52322
DOG DEALERS INC
CONTRACT CLASS -FAL
1 0015350
1 45320 1
44.40
$44.40
10/9/2008
GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS
GRAFFITI REMOVAL -AUG 08
0015230
45520
1
5,200.00
10/9/2008
82323
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES
PROF.SVCS-STADIUM PROJ
0015210
1 R44000 1
14,900.001
$14,900.00
10/9/2008
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
PROF.SVCS-INSPECTION
2505310
46415
472.50
10/9/2008
82324
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0014090
1 42120 1
182.901
$182.90
10/9/2008
82325
GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS
GRAFFITI REMOVAL -SEPT
0015230
45520
5,200.00
$10,400.00
10/9/2008
GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS
GRAFFITI REMOVAL -AUG 08
0015230
45520
1
5,200.00
10/9/2008 1 82326 ISUNEET GUPTA FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 123002 1 50.001 $50.00
10/9/2008
82327
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
PROF.SVCS-LEN 08-608
001
23012
8,109.12
$8,581.62
10/9/2008
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
001
23012
810.91
10/9/2008
82329
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
001
34650
-810.91
$45.00
10/9/2008
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
PROF.SVCS-INSPECTION
2505310
46415
472.50
10/9/2008 1
82328
1BARBARA HENNESSY
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780 1
125.001
$125.00
10/9/2008
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
128.22
10/9/2008 1
82329
ILEW HERNDON
'[P& R COMM -9/25
1 0015350
1 44100 1
45.001
$45.00
10/9/2008
82330
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0015350
41200
870.30
$1,632.62
10/9/2008
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
128.22
10/9/2008
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
42210
229.83
10/9/2008
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
42210
404.27
10/9/2008
82331
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL SVCS -FPL 2008-304
001
23010
265.00
$806.25
10/9/2008
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL SVCS -FPL 2008-299
001
23010
265.00
10/912008
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL SVCS -FPL 2008-312
001
23010
276.25
Page 10
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date I Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount
10!9/2008 82332 ILINDSAY JEBBIA FACILITY REFUND -MAPLE HLL 001 23002 200.00 $200.00
1019/2008 1
82333
IJOE A. GONSALVES & SON INC.
ILEGISLATIVE SVCS -OCT 08
0014030
44000
3,000.00
10/9/2008
$3,000.00
10/9/2008 1
82334
KIDS CAN DO GYMNASTICS
CONTRACT CLASS -FALL
0015350
45320
429.00
$429.00
10/9/2008
82335
SHAWN KUK
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
86.00
10/9/2008
$86.00
10/9/2008
82336
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL SVCS -TRAIL
2505310
R46415
2,009.00
10/9/2008
19.49
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL SVCS-PANTERA
2505310
R46415
1.
1,209.20
$3,218.20
10/9/2008
82337
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -CITY TILE
0014090
1 42113 1
1,235.00
19.49
$19.49
10/9/2008
82338
BENNY LIANG
P & R COMM -9/25
1 0015350
44100
10/912008
45.00
$45.00
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
82341
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-AUG 08
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-3326
0015210
44250
1,235.00
$11,399.01
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2005-147
001
001
23010
23010
142.50
10/912008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2002-09
001
23010
142.50
142.50
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-324
001
23010
925.26
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-324
001
23010
1,330.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF -SVCS -FPL 2008-309
001
23010
95.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-325
001
23010
1,140.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2005-152
001
23010
902.50
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-274
001
23010
308.75
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-321
001
23010
142.50
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-327
001
23010
617.50
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-318
001
23010
332.50
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2005-145
001
23010
2,327.50
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2002-63
001
23010
1,045.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-274
001
23010
190.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-325
001
23010
205.20
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2008-317
001
23010
190.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-259
001
23010
190.00
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-259
001
34430
-34.20
10/9/2008 1
ILILLEY
PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-259
001
23010
34.20
Page 11
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Ch k
ec Date I Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description I Fund/ Dep
10/9/2008
82341...
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INCADMIN
FEE -FPL 2008-325
001
10/9/2008
23010
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-324
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-309
001
10/9/2008
-166.73
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-309
001
10/9/2008
34430
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-324
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-324
001
10/9/2008
55.58
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-324
001
10/9/2008
23010
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2002-63
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-274
001
10/9/2008
-25.65
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-274
001
10/9/2008
34430
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-274
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-274
001
10/9/2008
25.65
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2002-63
001
10/9/2008
23010
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-327
001
10/912008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-321
001
10/9/2008
-25.65
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-321
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2002-09
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2002-09
001
10/9/2008
59.85
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-327
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-326
001
1 0/912 00 8
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-147
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-147
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-145
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-145
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2008-326
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2008-317
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-152
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEE -FPL 2005-152
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2008-318
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2008-318
001
10/9/2008
LILLEY PLANNING GROUP INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2008-317
001
10/9/2008 1 82342 IMAD SCIENCE CORP
10/9/2008 1 82343 IKAREN MAY
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
34430
205.20
$11,399.01...
23010
-239.40
34430
-17.10
23010
17.10
34430
-166.73
23010
166.73
34430
239.40
23010
188.10
34430
-55.58
23010
55.58
34430
-34.20
23010
34.20
34430
-188.10
23010
111.15
34430
-25.65
23010
25.65
34430
-25.65
23010
25.65
34430
-111.15
23010
25.65
34430
-25.65
23010
25.65
34430
-418.95
23010
418.95
34430
-25.65
23010
34.20
34430
-162.45
23010
162.45
34430
-59.85
23010
59.85
34430
-34,20
CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 t 45320 1 1,587.001 $1,587.00
CLASS -FALL 1 0015350 1 45320 1 475.201 $475.20
Page 12
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount I Total Check Amount
10/9/2008
82344
MCE CORPORATION
IVEGETATION CONTRL-AUG
0015558
1 45508 1
7,608.14
$7,608.14 '
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
82345
82346
IMINUTEMAN PRESS R & D BLUEPRINT
MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP
PRINT SVCS-PLNG
EQ RENTAL -DBC SEPT
0015210
0015333
42110
41200 1
117.45
8.00
$117.45
$8.00
10/9/2008
82347
MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES INC
IREPEATER SVCS -OCT 08
0014440
42130
78 75
$78.75
10/9/2008
1019/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
82348
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
NORRIS REPKE INC
PROF.SVCS-EN 08-608
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
PROF -SVCS -EN 08-608
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
PROF -SVCS -EN 08-608
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
42210
42210
42210
42210
42210
42210
42210
86.34
165.00
52.50
97.20
23012
23012
34650
23012
23012
34650
23012
23012
34650
9,000.00
900.00
-900.00
665.00
66.50
-66.50
595.00
59.50
-59.50
$10,260.00
10/9/2008 I 82349 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY INC SUPPLIES -FALL FUN FSTVI 001535n 4120
--- � -- -- ....�vvw � cvv 4�w./a X454 -/2S
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9!2008
82350
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
GOPHER CONTROL -DIST 38
GOPHER CONTROL-SYC CYN
GOPHER CONTROL-PANTERA
1385538
0015340
0015340
42210
42210
42210
42210
42210
42210
42210
60.64 $209.66
63.22
85.80
10/9/2008
82351
TED OWENS
P & R COMM -9/25
1 0015350
42210
42210
42210
42210
86.34
165.00
52.50
97.20
1 44100
45.00
$45.00
10/9/2008
82355
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
SUPPLIES -ENVELOPES
0014090
10/9/2008
82352
PRECISION DYNAMICS CORPORATION
SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP
0015350
1 41200
197.94
$197,94
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
82353
PROTECTION ONE INC
PROTECTION ONE INC
PROTECTION ONE INC
PROTECTION ONE INC
ALARM SVCS -HERITAGE
EQ MAINT-DBC
ALARM SVCS -DBC
ALARM SVCS-SYC CYN PK
0015340
0015333
0015333
0015340
42210
42210
42210
42210
86.34
165.00
52.50
97.20
$401.04
10/9/2008 I
82354
RBF CONSULTING
PROF SVCS -GRAND AVE
0015240
1 R44000
31,877.70
$31,877.70
10/9/2008
82355
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
SUPPLIES -ENVELOPES
0014090
1 42110
421.09
$421.09
Page 13
10/9/2008
82364
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
ELECT SVCS -DIST 39
10/9/2008
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct # Amount
Total Check Amount
10/9/2008
I 82356
RUTH M. LOW—P
& R COMM
- --MM "-"
00 5350
44100
45.00
$45.00
10/9/2008
82357
OFELIA SANCHEZ
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002 1
700.00
$700, OD
10/9/2008
82358
SCHORR METALS INC
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
42210
140.82
$140.82
10/9/2008
1 82359
JSCMAF
MEMBERSHIP DUES -STAFF
0015350
42330
11D.00
$110.00
1019/2008
82360
ISECTRAN SECURITY INC.
COURIER SVCS -OCT 08
0014090
44000
31428
$314.28
10/9/2008
82361
PATRICK SERNA
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
100.00
$100.00
10/9/2008
82362 IMONICA
SERRATO
FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA
001
23002
50.00
$50.00
10/9/2008
82363
SO COAST AIR QUALITY MGT DISTRICT
PERMIT -DBC
2505310
46415
643.61
$643.61
10/9/2008
82364
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 39
10/9/2008
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 38
10/9/2008
23002
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 38
10/9/2008
406.42
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS-P/WORKS
10/9/2008
42126
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 41
10/9/2008
1415541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -PARKS
10/9/2008
1395539
42126
345.55
$6,157.84
1385538
42126
35.04
23002
400.00
1385538
42126
406.42
10/9/2008
0015510
42126
197.77
1415541
42126
163.20
45320
5,758.20
0015340
42126
5,009.86
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
82365
IFIERMINIA TAMAYO
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
$400.00
001
23002
400.00
10/9/2008
82366
TENNIS ANYONE
CONTRACT CLASS -FALL
$5,758.20
0015350
45320
5,758.20
10/9/2008
82367
THE COMDYN GROUP INC
THE COMDYN GROUP INC
PROF.SVCS-WK 9/12
PROF.SVCS-WK 9/5, 9/12
$1,095.05
0014070
00140704400088.80
44000�11�12510/9/2008
10/9/2008
82368
TIME WARNER
MODEM SVCS -COUNCIL
$44.95
001401D
42130
44.95
10/9/2008 1
82369
ITIME WARNER
INTERNET SVCS -HERITAGE
$116.01
0015340
42126
116.01
10/9/2008
82370
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, NA
ILOC FEES -JUNE -SEPT 08
$16,867.20
001409042129
16,867.20
Page 14
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
10/9/2008
82371
US BANK
CAJPIACONF-DOYLE
10/912008
US BANK
LEAGUE CONF-DOYLE
10/9/2008
42325
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES-C/CLERK
10/9/2008
41200
US BANK
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
10/9/2008
42410
US BANK
EXCURSN-BREA PLUNGE
10/9/2008
41200
US BANK
SUPPLIES -DBC
10/9/2008
42340
US BANK
MTGS-BATSON/MCKITRICK
10/9/2008
45310
US BANK
EXCURSN-HLLYWD BOWL
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES-MCLEAN/ROA
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
CESA CONF-A SANTOS
10/9/2008
41200
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
10/9/2008
42325
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
CAJPIA CONF-MCLEAN
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
LEAGUE MTG-MCLEAN
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
CALPERS CONF-HIR
10/9/2008
42315
US BANK
MEMBERSHIP DUES -CROSS
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
AD-H/R
10/9/2008
42340
US BANK
TRNG-MAGALLANEZ
10/9/2008
41200
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES -RECREATION
10/9/2008
42325
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES-C/CLERK
10!912008
42325
US BANK
SUPPLIES-I.T.
10/9/2008
42340
US BANK
MTG SUPPLIES-PLNG
10/9/2008
42315
US BANK
MEMBERSHIP DUES-PLNG
10/9/2008
46230
US BANK
COMP EQ-I.T.
10/9/2008
42325
US BANK
MISAC MTG-DESFORGES
10/912008
US BANK
COMP MAINT-I.T.
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
CJPIA CONF-ROA/MCLEAN
10/9/2008
42330
US BANK
3CMA CONF-HIDALGO/ARELLAN
10/9/2008
42200
US BANK
VEH MAINT-COMM SVCS
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amoun
0014030
42330
250.00
59,939.79
0014030
42330
140.00
658.02
0014030
42325
54.62
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
0015350
41200
296.81
10/9/2008
0015350
42410
100.00
0015333
41200
245.40
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
0015350
42340
328.00
0015350
45310
46.00
87.94
0014030
42330
46.69
0014030
42330
124.93
0015350
41200
114.15
0015510
42325
41.80
0014030
42330
925.00
0014030
42330
140.00
0014060
42330
275.00
0014060
42315
65.00
0014060
42330
225.00
0015220
42340
150.00
0015350
41200
73.46
0014030
42325
26.02
0014070
42325
452.73
0015210
42340
19.19
0015220
42315
215.00
0014070
46230
61.00
0014070
42325
364.93
0014070
42205
3,010.12
0014095
42330
53.76
0014095
42330
1,438.08
0015310
42200
657.10
10/9/2008
10/9/2008
82372
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-REAGAN 0015340 42125
87,94
$1'354'77
10/9/2008
PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125
658.02
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125
29.81
10/9/2008
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DBC 0015333 42125
10/9/2008
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DBC
249.56
0015333 42125
87.94
Page 15
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 10/02/08 thru 10/15/08
Check Date Check NumberVendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount
10/9/2008 82372 VERIZON CALIF
10/9/2008
82373
ORNIA
MEMO CREDIT-LASD MODEM
FIT SVCS -MAPLE HILL
$1,395,967.58
0015340
42125
87.9q
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
42200
PH.SVCS-HERITAGE PK
$269.96
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
$1,354.77 ..
10/9/2008
42125
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
10/9!2008
0015340
42125
24.85
42125
10/9/2008
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH -SVCS -PETERSON PK
CELL CHRGS-LASD MODEM
0015340
42125
g7,94
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
CELL CHRGS-CMGR
PH -SVCS -HERITAGE PK
42125
0015340
49125
nn 77
10/9/2008
82373
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
MEMO CREDIT-LASD MODEM
$1,395,967.58
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
0014411
42200
-85.85
$269.96
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
CELL CHRGS-DESFORGES
0014070
42125
50.41
10/9!2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
CELL CHRGS-AZIZ
00140.70
42125
50.41
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
CELL CHRGS-LASD MODEM
0014411
42200
141.12
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
CELL CHRGS-CMGR
0014030
42125
69.45
10/9/2008
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
CELL CHRGS-EOC
0014440
42125
44.26
CELL CHRGS-EOC
0014090
42125
0.16
1 n/OMnno
RECREATION REFUND 001 36615 400.00
$400.00
10/9/2008 82375 FELIX XU
FACILITY REFUND DBC 1 001 23002 2 000 00 $2----.-- 00000
10/9/2008 I 82376 YOSEMITE WATER
10/13/2008 1 82377 ICITY CLERKS ASSOC OF CALIFORNIA
10/13/200882378 FIRESTONE AUTOMOTIVE
EQ RENTAL -SEPT 08
0015310 42130 12.00 $12.00
C CLERK CONF-CRIBBINS
FORD VAN - REPAIRS
0014030 42340 1 250 00 $250 00
0015310 42200 1 $1,001.92
$1,395,967.58
Page 16
Agenda # 6.4
Meeting Date: October 21 2008
,
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man(4'
TITLE: APPROPRIATION OF $247,5001 FEDERAL HUD SPECIAL GRANTS
FUNDS AND AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSFER TO THE WALNUT
VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL
FIELD
RECOMMENDATION:
Appropriate and authorize the transfer of funds.
FISCAL. IMPACT:
Since these funds were planned to be transferred to Walnut Valley Unified School District as
part of the grant deal, there is no impact to the General Fund budget.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
In 2006, the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development awarded the City a Special Projects
grant to be used by the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) to improve Diamond
Bar High School's baseball field. The terms of the grant require the City to act as the grant's
agent through the application, environmental review, drawdown, and closeout processes, and
upon completion of these steps, transfer the funds to the school district. In the interim, WVUSD
completed the field improvements and is now awaiting reimbursement.
To proceed with the transfer, the Council must appropriate the funds. Again, since the grant
funds are to be transferred to the District, they were not budgeted and present no implication to
the General Fund.
Prepared b
Rya cLean, Assistant to the City Manager
Agenda #
Meeting Date: October 21. 2008
CITY COUNCIL \� AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man g
TITLE: APPROVE PLANS AND PECIFICATIONS, AWARD THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PALOMINO NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT TO PREMIER PAVING, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $74,549.00 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT OF $7,500 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $82,049.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and award.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
As part of the FY 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program, $200,000 of Traffic
Improvement Funds have been budgeted for Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program (NTMP) mitigations.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In 2005 the City Council adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
(NTMP). In late 2006 the City completed installing Pilot Project traffic calming
mitigations throughout the City. With the installation of several types of tools such as
speed cushions and Texas Dots on several residential roadways, residents began
contacting the City to inquire about such tools on their own residential roadways.
In August of 2006 staff received a request for traffic calming tools along Palomino Drive.
The Pilot Project construction was still underway and evaluation of the tools had not
been completed. In February 2007 staff completed the evaluation of the pilot program
and the results consistently indicated reduced speeds and volumes of vehicles. The
results of the evaluation were then presented to the City Council with proposed
modifications to improve the implementation process of the NTMP. One such
modification was to require that at least 51% of the residents that may be affected by
traffic calming tools on the roadway sign a petition in favor of launching the NTMP in
their neighborhood. On February 28, 2007 staff received the petition from the Palomino
Drive Neighborhood with over 51% of the neighborhood in favor of beginning the
program.
On June 28, 2008 staff conducted it's first meeting in the neighborhood introducing the
program to the residents and collecting their input on the residential traffic conditions
they experience. The largest concern expressed was speeding along Palomino Drive,
Ballena Drive at the frontage of Golden Springs Elementary School, and along Platina
Drive at the rear of Golden Springs Elementary School.
At the request of the neighborhood, staff collected data in July 2007 which indicated
85% speeds in the average range of 26-37 mph but did not reflect the accurate volume
of vehicles the neighborhood experiences during school sessions. A second set of
traffic speed and volume data was collected in October 2007 which was able to indicate
the same 85 percentile speeds as well as an average increase of up to 320 vehicles per
day on school days.
One of the City's traffic engineering consultants developed a concept of traffic calming
tools for Platina, Ballena, and Palomino Drives that would address the speeding
concerns of the neighborhood. This concept was presented to the neighborhood on
December 10, 2007 with overwhelming support by those in attendance. Staff presented
a second petition, which would require per the NTMP Guidelines adopted by Council
,67% of the neighborhood to sign in favor of proceeding with design and construction of
the concept. A representative of the neighborhood presented the support petition to the
neighborhood and was able to obtain 85.7% of the neighborhood's support (1 signature
per household) in favor of proceeding with design and construction.
On April 1, 2008 Council approved a design contract with KOA Corporation to develop
the plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate (PS&E) package for the Palomino
Neighborhood. Plans were 90% complete in August 2008 and presented to the
neighborhood at an August 12, 2008 meeting.
With the completion of the plans and specifications, the project was advertised for bids
on September 9, 2008. On September 30, three (3) bids were received, and the lowest
responsible bidder was Premier Paving, Inc. The bids received were as follows:
Company Bid Amount
1. Premier Paving, Inc. $74,549.00
2. HYM Engineering, Inc. $94,746.00
3. Emad Nabih $96,415.00
Staff has verified the contractor state license and found it to be valid. References were
checked for similar work completed and Premier Paving, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed many similar projects in other Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties. The project schedule is tentatively set as follows:
Award of Contract October 21, 2008
Start of Construction November 10, 2008
Completion of Construction December 10, 2008
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer Date: October 13, 2008
RE VIEWED BY -
Yee,
-
Yee, Sen
I Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
The following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed
by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, by and between Premier Paving, Inc.
hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY."
WHEREAS, pursuant to Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, bids were received, publicly
opened, and declared on the date specified in the notice; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of CONTRACTOR Premier Paving, Inc. and;
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute a written contract with
CONTRACTOR for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the Palomino Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Proiect in the City of Diamond Bar.
agreed: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is
1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall furnish all necessary
labor, tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the Palomino
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Proiect in the City of Diamond Bar. The work to be
performed in accordance with the plans and specifications, dated August 2008 (The Plans and
Specifications) on file in the office of the City Clerk and in accordance with bid prices
hereinafter mentioned and in accordance with the instructions of the City Engineer.
2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED
COMPLEMENTARY: The Plans and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof with like force and effect as if set forth in full herein. The Plans and
Specifications, CONTRACTOR'S Bid dated September 30, 2008, together with this written
agreement, shall constitute the contract between the parties. This contract is intended to require
a complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work properly and
in accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by the
CONTRACTOR whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that
any inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written agreement, the
provisions of this written agreement shall control.
3. TERMS OF CONTRACT: Since this is a Federally assisted construction project,
Davis -Bacon will be enforced. If Federal and State wage rates are applicable, then the higher of
the two will prevail. The Federal Labor Standards Provisions (Form HUD -4010) and the Federal
Wage Determination are attached and made part of this agreement, and compliance will be
enforced.
The CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work within Thirty (30) calendar
days from the date of the notice to proceed.
The CONTRACTOR agrees further to the assessment of liquidated damages in
the amount of _five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each calendar day the work remains incomplete
beyond the expiration of the completion date. City may deduct the amount thereof from any
monies due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under this agreement. Progress
payments made after the scheduled date of completion shall not constitute a waiver of liquidated
damages.
4. INSURANCE: The CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this
contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies
acceptable to City nor shall the CONTRACTOR allow any subcontractor to commence work on
his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. The
CONTRACTOR shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this contract the
following policies of insurance:
a. Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as
proof that he has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all
persons whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in
carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and
effect during the period covered by this contract.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code, every CONTRACTOR shall secure the payment of compensation to
his employees. The CONTRACTOR, prior to commencing work, shall
sign and file with the City a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code
which requires every employer to be insured against liability for
workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance
with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with
such provisions before commencing the performance of work of this
contract."
b. For all operations of the CONTRACTOR or any sub -contractor in
performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following
minimum limits and coverage:
1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each
person; $500,000 aggregate.
3) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each
person; $1,000,000 each accident.
4) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each
accident; $500,000 aggregate.
5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000
each accident.
6) Automobile - Property Damage $250,000 each accident.
C. Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall:
1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City,
which is admitted to do business in the State of California.
2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers,
agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid
documents to be so included;
3) Specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or
owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to
cover a loss under the policy;
4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be
canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until
thirty (30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such
cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a
registered letter."
5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to the City.
d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an
endorsement which:
1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities
specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional
insureds in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by
reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations
of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor in performing the work
provided for herein;
2) Provides it shall not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days'
written notice thereof given to City by registered mail.
e. The CONTRACTOR shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the
notice of award of the Contract, deliver to the City Manager or his
designee the original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b.
hereof, or deliver to the City Manager or his designee a certificate of the
insurance company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the
additional insured and other provisions required herein.
5. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the
provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the
CONTRACTOR is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for
work of a similar character in the locality in which the public works is performed, and not less
than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard,
the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and
has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates
of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, 21825
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, and are available to any interested party on request.
City also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar day or
portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing
rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any
subcontractor under him.
6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, and in accordance with the regulations of the California
Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the performance of
the work.
The CONTRACTOR is required to make contribution to funds established for the
administrative of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in
any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other CONTRACTOR'S on the public works
site are making such contributions.
The CONTRACTOR and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal
day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the CONTRACTOR
and any sub -contractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of
California having to do with working hours set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of
the Labor Code of the State of California as amended.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars
(525.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by
him or any sub- CONTRACTOR under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for
each calendar day during which the laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to
labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of the Labor Code.
8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: CONTRACTOR agrees to pay
travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract
as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining
agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.
9. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers,
agents and employees ("Idemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for
any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for any of the materials
or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person
or persons, either workmen or employees of the CONTRACTOR, of his subcontractor's or the
public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or
in connection with the performance of the work. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for
any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from
any cause whatsoever.
The CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnitees against and will hold and save
Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property,
penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity,
corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the
work, operation, or activities of the CONTRACTOR, his agents, employees, subcontractors or
invitees provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on
the part of City. In connection therewith:
The CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection
with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will
pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection
therewith.
b. The CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against
the CONTRACTOR or Indemnities covering such claims, damages,
penalties, obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with
such work, operations or activities of the CONTRACTOR hereunder, and
the CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
C. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding
filed or prosecuted against the CONTRACTOR for damages or other
claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities
hereunder, the CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all
costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding
together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
So much of the money due to the CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the
contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has
been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.
This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is in
addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of
any insurance coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or any additional
insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it,
hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting
within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising our of or incident to
activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Indemnitor regardless of any prior,
concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Indemnitees.
10. NON-DISCRIMINATION• Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by this
Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this section
exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section 1735.
11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the CONTRACTOR
for furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the Price
Schedule in accordance with CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated September 20, 2008.
12. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without cause,
upon the giving of a written "Notice of Tennination" to CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of tennination specified in the notice. In the event of such termination,
CONTRACTOR shall only be paid for services rendered and expenses necessarily incurred prior
to the effective date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement with all the
formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures.
State of California
"CONTRACTOR'S" License No. 638301, Classification A & C-12
Premier Pavine, Inc.
PO Box 1149
Ontario, CA 91762
By:
Date
TITLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
By:
JACK TANAKA, MAYOR
Date
ATTEST:
By:
CITY CLERK
Date
CONTRACTOR'S Business Phone 909-902-5353
Emergency Phone at which CONTRACTOR can be reached at any time
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date
Agenda #: 6.5 f,)
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
Z`-JITY COUNCIL
roni
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Mana e
TITLE: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION ADINVIINISTRATION SERVICES
CONTRACT TO DMS CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR THE PALOMINO
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$15,917.50 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $1,600
FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $17,517.50.
RECOMMENDATION:
Award.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
As part of the FY 2008-09 Capital Improvement Program, $200,000 was budgeted for
the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Mitigations to cover design,
construction administration and construction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Palomino Drive is a residential roadway in which staff launched the Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program (NTMP) upon the request of the neighborhood residents. The
improvements include the installation of traffic calming devices to address both speed
and volume concerns.
In September 2008, the City requested proposals for Construction Administration
Services. Three (3) engineering consulting firms submitted proposals.
1. Norris-Repke $14,460.00
2. DMS Consultants, Inc. $15,917.50
3. KOA Corporation $18,500.00
The proposals were reviewed by staff. DMS Consultants, Inc. was selected because
they best understood the City's needs and were the most qualified due to their
construction management approach, public relations with the community, and
knowledge of local conditions.
DMS' scope of work includes:
• Provide construction inspection to assure contractor is in full compliance with the
construction contract.
• Provide public outreach to the residents impacted by the construction.
• Review and monitor contractor's progress and schedule.
• Evaluate progress payments and change order requests.
• Prepare As -Built plans.
The tentative schedule of this project is as follows:
Award of Contract
Start of Construction
Completion of Construction
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer
fflu
October 21, 2008
November 10, 2008
December 10, 2008
Attachments: Consulting Services Agreement
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of October 21, 2008 by and between the City of
Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and DMS Consultants, Inc.,
("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor
to provide consulting services to City.
B. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting
services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its
principals and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants
and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Services.
A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services
to be performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "A", DMS Consultants, Inc.
Proposal dated September 15. 2008 attached hereto and incorporate herein by this
reference.
B. Level of Services/Time of Performance. The level of and time of
the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as set forth in Exhibit "A."
2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect October 21, 2008,
and shall continue unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein.
3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for each service
Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in such amounts as are set forth in
Exhibit "B". Payment will be made only after submission of proper invoices in the form
specified by City. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not
exceed Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen dollars and Fifty cents
($15,917.50) absent a written amendment to this Agreement.
4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency
between the provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of
this Agreement shall control.
5. Addresses.
City: City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
6. Status as Independent Consultant.
Consultant:
DMS Consultants, Inc.
12377 Lewis Street, Suite 101
Garden Grove, CA 92840
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly
independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or
liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor
any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of
Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at
any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in
any manner agents or employees of City.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to
Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any
and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of
the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that
City is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor
status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly
independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, then Consultant
agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising
out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto.
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law
regarding Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to
indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with
applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the
amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City
from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any
reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6.
7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the
standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under
similar conditions.
8. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to indemnify the City, its officers,
agents, volunteers, employees, and attorneys against, and will defend and hold and
save them and each of them harmless from, and all actions, claims, damages to
persons or property, penalties, obligations, or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed
b an
Y Y
person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization arising
out of the negligent or wrongful acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, its agents,
employees, subcontractors, or invitees, including each person or entity responsible for
the provision of services hereunder.
In the event there is more than one person or entity named in the Agreement as a
Consultant, then all obligations, liabilities, covenants and conditions under this Section 8
shall be joint and several.
9. Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement
carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company admitted to
do business in California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad -form
comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00
combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of
wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and
independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement; (2) property
damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive liability
insurance, with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4)
professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) to cover or partially cover
damages that may be the result of errors, omissions, or negligent acts of Consultant, in
an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; and (5) worker's compensation
insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law,
whichever is greater. City, its officers, employees, attorneys, and volunteers shall be
named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) as to comprehensive general liability,
property damage, and automotive liability. The policy (ies) as to comprehensive general
liability, property damage, and automobile liability shall provide that they are primary,
and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only.
A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not
be non -renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition
of additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier
giving City thirty (30) day's prior written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will not
cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage.
B. All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement; shall be issued by an insurance company which is
admitted to do business in the State of California or which is approved in writing by the
City; and shall be placed with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less that A VII.
C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating
compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above,
and (2) insurance policy endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum
insurance requirements above, not less that one (1) day prior to beginning of
performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's
appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement", or a substantially
similar form which the City has agreed in writing to accept.
10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access
to confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant
covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or
received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed
confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by
City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data
shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant
under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, to the extent Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically
for and in connection with certain projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's
prior written consent, use the same for other unrelated projects.
11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without
restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City.
The City acknowledges the Consultant's design documents, including electronic
files, as instruments of professional service. Nevertheless, the final design documents
prepared under this Agreement shall become the property of the City upon completion
of the services and payment in full of all monies due to the Consultant. The City shall
not reuse or make any modifications to the design documents without the prior written
authorization of the Consultant. The City agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant, its officers, directors, employees and
subconsultants (collectively, Consultant) against any damages, liabilities or costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising from or allegedly arising
from or in any way connected with the unauthorized reuse or modification of the design
documents by the City or any person or entity that acquires or obtains the design
documents from or through the Client without the written authorization of the Consultant.
12. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not
acquire any interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be
performed by Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner
with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in
performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed
by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which
would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this
Agreement.
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation,
monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City
as a result of the performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this
section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
13. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without
cause upon fifteen (15) days' written notice to the other party. The effective date of
termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event
no date is specified, upon the fifteenth (15th) day following delivery of the notice. In the
event of such termination, City agrees to pay Consultant for services satisfactorily
rendered prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written
notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services.
14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own
expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the
services required under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it
supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such
services. Consultant reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own
employees to the performance of Consultant's services under this Agreement, but City
reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any employee from
performing services on City's premises.
15. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion,
sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical
condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to
this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto.
Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training,
including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees
placed by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer
or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard
to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical
or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all
subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts
for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
16. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without
the prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this
Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no
effect.
17. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or
longer, a written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within
ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and
each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required
by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review, and any comments or
complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing, shall be
considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any
noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the
inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein.
18. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of
any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a
waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall
the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver
by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of
Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or
prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.
20. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this
Agreement shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand
during regular business hours or by facsimile before or during regular business hours;
or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other
addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the
provisions of this section.
21. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
22. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
23. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents
incorporated herein by specific reference, represent the entire and integrated
agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or
written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be
amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the
parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will
only be valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
24. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated
herein by this reference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.
"City"
ATTEST:
M
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By:
Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk Jack Tanaka, Mayor
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
DMS Consultants, Inc.
By:
Its:
7
CONSULTANTS, INC.
C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
September 15, 2008
Ms. Kimberly Molina, P.E.
Associate Engineer
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Subject: Proposal for Palomino Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project
Diamond Bar, California
Dear Kimberly:
DMS Consultants, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal to perform construction administration and
inspection services for the subject project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Mr. Surender Dewan, P.E., President of DMS Consultants, Inc. would be assigned as the Principal -in -
Charge of construction administration and will be responsible for all aspects of the services provided. Mr.
Rene Cohen will assist Mr. Dewan and serve as construction inspector for the project.
Our understanding of the work to be performed is to provide the City of Diamond Bar with proven
experience and expertise as they relate to construction administration and inspection services for the
subject project.
We look forward to the opportunity of working with you and your staff
Sincerely,
DMS Consultants, Inc.
Surender Dewan, P -E.
President
DB-PaiominoTC.PRO
12377 Lewis Street, Suite 101 • Garden Grove CA 92840
Tel: 714-740-8840 • Fax: 714-740-8842
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work as set forth in the Request for Proposal includes construction administration and
inspection services in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as follows:
• Coordinate and attend preconstruction meeting.
• Coordinate with utility companies.
• Provide construction inspection to ensure that the contractor is in full compliance with the
construction contract.
■ Meet with residents that may be impacted by the construction.
• Prepare daily inspection reports and progress photos with weekly summary reports. Submit to the
City on a weekly basis.
• Respond to and address Contractor's request for information/questions regarding design issues.
• Review/monitor Contractor's progress and schedule.
• Evaluate progress payments and change order requests.
• Conduct a final job walk and prepare a punch list.
• Recommend for final acceptance of the project.
• Maintain project construction records and prepare record drawings to be given to the City at the end
of the project.
12377 Lewis Street, Suite 101 • Garden Grove CA 92840
Tel: 714.740.8840 • Fax: 714.740.8842
PROJECT APPROACH
DMS Consultants, Inc. is extremely aware of the impact the project may have on the community. We will
closely review the Contractor's proposed method of construction, schedule and traffic control plans to
ensure that the impact to residents and commuters is minimized.
PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING
■ Contract Administrator in consultation with the City Staff and the Contractor will send out
notifications to various agencies and utility companies to schedule the preconstruction meeting. It
will be the responsibility of our Administrator to prepare minutes of the meeting.
UTILITY COORDINATION
■ Throughout the duration of the contract, our Field Inspectorwill coordinate as necessary with utility
companies to ensure smooth completion of the project.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
■ DMS Consultants, Inc. will perform inspector/administrators duties asset forth in the scope of work
for the project. Guidance for the manner in which those duties are carried out is best described in
the project plans and specifications.
DAILY/WEEKLY REPORTS
■ Field Inspector will prepare daily reports addressing progress of the project, weather conditions,
number of workers on site, subcontractors present on site, directions given to Contractor, and
potential problems which may cause delay or extra work. Copies of daily reports along with photo
documentation will be submitted to the City on a weekly basis.
MONITOR CONTRATORS PROGRESS
■ Inspector will answer Contractor's questions regarding design issues and review or monitor the
Contractor's progress and schedule. Impact to local residences will be minimized through careful
coordination with the Contractor. Strict adherence to the approved schedule will be required of the
Contractor. If necessary, the Contractor will be immediately notified when his progress falls behind
schedule. The Inspector, with concurrence of City staff, will immediately resolve the design issues
between the Contractor and designer in order to minimize any potential delays.
EVALUATE PROGRESS PAYMENTS
• The Administrator upon receipt of the Contractor's progress payments will review them for accuracy.
Any revisions resulting in change orders will be brought to the City's attention prior to authorization
FINAL JOB WALK
At the completion of the project, the Field Inspectorwill prepare a "Punch List" identifying items to be
addressed by the Contractor prior to final acceptance of the job. The Inspector will ensure that all
items addressed in the "Punch List" are attended to by the Contractor and to the City's satisfaction.
FINAL ACCEPTANCE
■ Recommend for final acceptance of the project.
12377 Lewis Street, Suite 101 • Garden Grove CA 92840
Tel: 714.740.8840 ° Fax: 714.740.8842
FEE PROPOSAL
Palomino Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project
Diamond Bar, California
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES
Preconstruction Meeting: .................... .................................. ........ - ... -- ............. ............. $800.00
Field Inspector: 5 hours/23 days at $90.00 — Total of 115 hours ............................. $10,350.00
Project Administrator: 1 .5 hours/23 days at $115.00 — Total of 34.5 hours........................$3,967.50
Reimbursable Expenses and Weekly Reports:..........................................................:.............$800.00
TOTAL: .................................................................... $15, 917.50
Note:
1. In I he event the duration of the contract was to exceed 30 calendar days as indicated in the construction
documents, additional services would be provided at $90.00/hour for Field Inspector.
12377 Lewis Street, Suite 101 • Garden Grove CA 92840
Tel: 714.740.8840 • Fax: 714.740.8842
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
AGENDA REPORT
e
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man e
TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR OPPOSING MEASURE R ON THE NOVEMBER, 4, 2008 BALLOT,
WHICH IF PASSED, WOULD INCREASE THE COUNTY SALES TAX BY
ONE-HALF CENT TO FUND SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
AB 2321, which passed the California Legislature this summer, authorized the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's one-half cent sales tax measure to be placed on the
November 4, 2008 General Election ballot as Measure R. If approved by the voters, Measure
R's 30 -year tax increase would raise approximately $40 billion be used to fund various
transportation infrastructure, transit, and maintenance projects in the County as identified in the
language of the proposal. These projects include hundreds of millions of dollars for Gold Line
expansion and I-710 Gap Closure projects primarily serving other areas of the County.
The City of Diamond Bar has long been an advocate for transportation infrastructure
improvement and congestion relief projects. However, the narrow focus Measure R ignores the
eastern portions of the County almost completely, and high-priority projects like the SR-57/SR-
60 Interchange are nowhere to be found. Solving our region's traffic problems requires a broad
spectrum of improvement projects throughout the region, and ignoring the eastern San Gabriel
Valley's traffic and transportation challenges does a disservice to taxpayers of the area.
Measure R fails to address the county's regional transportation needs, yet raises taxes for all.
Therefore, it is recommended the City adopt the attached Resolution in opposition to Measure R.
Prepared
RAJ McLean, Assistant to the City Manager
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING MEASURE R ON THE NOVEMBER 4, 2008 BALLOT, WHICH IF
PASSED, WOULD INCREASE THE COUNTY SALES TAX BY ONE-HALF PERCENT
TO FUND SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Measure R will appear on the November 2008 ballot for voter
consideration; and
WHEREAS, Measure R, calls for a 30 -year countywide sales tax increase of one-
half percent, and is expected to generate approximately $40 billion in sales tax revenue
to be used for transportation project, transit operations, and maintenance, primarily in
the Western portion of Los Angeles County; and
WHEREAS, Los Angeles County's transportation infrastructure is in need of
improvement to increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion not only in specific
locations, but throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, Measure R does not provide equitable solutions for countywide
improvements, and does not represent the interests of all Los Angeles County
residents; and
WHEREAS, Measure R does not include language that insures fair distribution
throughout the county of the funds generated by the proposed sales tax increase; and
WHEREAS, Measure R's flawed language highlights the need for alternative
proposals that generate funds for transportation projects throughout the county;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Diamond Bar hereby
opposes Measure R.
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar shall adopt the Resolution
and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption.
SECTION 2. Certified copies of the resolution shall be circulated to the following:
League of California Cities
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008.
Jack Tanaka, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 21st day of October, 2008, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
Agenda # 8 . 1 (a)
Meeting Date Oct. 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL `� AGENDA REPORT
�`)XeoRnti4,9
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members�f the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City 6ej—�a
TITLE: Appointment to the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control Board
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff as necessary.
I�LIi1i•LOVJA11_11111103�L�i : ' -E
No Fiscal Impact.
BACKGROUND:
The City is a member of the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District. This
Agency is in charge of reducing populations of public health vectors (mosquitoes) below
nuisance levels, prevent human infection associated with mosquito -transmitted
diseases, and prevent the loss of property values and commercial enterprise as a result
of vector occurrence and activity. In 2006, the City Council appointed Audrey Hamilton
to a two (2) year term on the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control Board. This
December, 2008 Mrs. Hamilton's term will expire.
Although Mrs. Hamilton has indicated that she would be willing to continue as a Trustee,
the Mayor can if he chooses appoint a member of the Council.
PIPARED BY:
Toommy� Cribbins, City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
— N,
David Doyle, Asst. City Manager
PRESIDENT
Mison Levi, Cudahy
VICE PRESIDENT
Cheri Kelley, Norwalk
SECRETARY -TREASURER
Sally Flowers, Artesia
BELL
I`ictor Bello
BELLFLOWER
Ray T. Smith
BELL GARDENS
Pedro Aceituno
BURBANK
Dr. Jeff U. Wassem
CARSON
Harold Wilpoms
CERRITOS
Nikki Noushkam
COMMERCE
hugo Argumedo
DIAMOND BAR
Audrey Hamilton
DOWNEY
Meredith H. Perkins
GARDENA
Rachel C. Johnson
GLENDALE
Armine Perian
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
Victor Farjan
HUNTINGTON PARK
Elba Roma
LAKEWOOD
.loseph Esquivel
LA MIRADA
Bob Choiiner
LA HABRA HEIGHTS
Jim Remingtair
LONG BEACH
Robert Campbell
LOS ANGELES CITY
Alma Martine:
LOSANGELESCOUNTY
Vaca"
LYNWOOD
Jim Marlon
MAYWOOD
Thomas Martin
MONTEBELLO
Robert Uneaga
PARAMOUNT
Henry Harkemo
PICO RIVERA
Bob Archuieta,
SANFERNANDO
Dr. James Lawson
SAN MARINO
Dr. Se-YOa Hsu
SANTA CLARITA
Janice H Heidi
SANTA FE SPRINGS
Michael Madrigal
SIGNAL HILL
Dr. Hazel Wallace
SOUTH EL MONTE
Blanca Figueroa
SOUTH GATE
Maria Davila
WHITTIER
Owen Newcomer
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
12545 Florence Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Office (562) 944-9656 Fax (562) 944-7976
Email: infona el rg Website: www.21acvcd.org
September 29, 2008
City Manager James DeStefano
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. DeStefano:
GENERAL MANAGER
Kenneth L. Bayless
OCT - 2 2008
!"is is to inform you that the term of file office of Irustee.Audrey Hamilton as a member
of the Board of Trustees of the Greater Los Angeles,County hector Control District will
expire on January 5, 2009. Pursuant to Section 2024 of the State:Health and Safety Code
Y
goour Ci Council may of office of members appointed to the Board of
HSC ge dates of
Trustees y City consider reappointing Trustee Audrey Hamilton, or
appointing`a new trustee for a 2 or 4 year term of the office, commencing at noon on the
first Monday of January:(i.e. January 5, 2009). Please note, per the State Health and Safety
Code that representatives must be appointed to serve a full 2 or 4 year term commencing
on January 5, 2009 Clty,representatives should not be appointed on a yearly basis.
Please review alI subsectionsof
each person appointed ttie SHSC 2022 (i.e. a -e). Subsections a and b require that
by a board of supervisors or by a city council shall be a voter and
resident within the
incorporates Ian respective county or city of the appointing body. Section 2022 (c)
guage t�'t clarifies the issue over the doctrine of Incompatibility of
Office, exempting and enabling an appointee who holds elected offices to also
simultaneously serve on the District's Board of `}<"rustees:=
Please make your appointmentdreappointment prior to J
SHSC. anuary 5, 2009 as stipulated in the
S
Should you have any questions regarding this trustee appointment, please contact Truc
Dever at 562-944-9656.
Since y,
enneth L. Bayless
General Manager
Enclosure: Section 2022 of the SHSC
cc: Trustee Audrey Hamilton
A CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
PRONIOTING COMMUNITY HEALTH, COMFORT AND WELFARE THROUGH EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIVE VECTOR CONTROL SINCE 1952
Agenda # R _ 1 (h )
Meeting Date Oct. 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL f,,��,1G�� AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man4w__2e
TITLE: Appointments to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WCCA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No Fiscal Impact.
BACKGROUND:
The City is a member of the Governing Board of The Wildlife Corridor Conservation
Authority (WCCA) which was established to provide the proper planning, conservation,
environmental protection and maintenance of lands within the Puente -Chino Hills
corridor area.
In addition to the governing board WCCA has a large Advisory Committee that meets
separately to provide input of which the City holds two seats. Recently, the City was
informed that our WCCA Advisory Committee Members Bill Herrick and Steven Davis
terms expired and it is time make new appointments.
Staff has spoken with Mr. Herrick who indicated that he is not interested in continuing
his position. Mr. Davis has indicated that he would be interested in reappointment.
PR PARED BY•
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
David Doyle, Asst. City Manager
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
57 AVENUE 26, SUITE 100, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90065
( TELEPHONE: (310) 589-3200
FAX: (31 O) 589-2408
GLENN PARKER
h !% f
[E
CD
CHAIR
October 3, 2008 -----\�
PUBLIC MEMBER
ORANGE COUNTY
JOHN SEAUMAN
Jack Tanaka
VICE -CHAIR
Diamond Bar City Hall
CITY OFBREA
21825 E. Copley Drive
BOB HENDERSON
Diamond Bar, California 91765
CITY OF WHITTIER
HOWARD VIPPERMAN
Nomination to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
Authority Advisory Committee
JACKTANAKA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Dear Mr. Tanaka:
GARY WATTS
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS
In accordance with the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WCCA)
MICHAEL HUGHES
Advisory Committee Policy, the term of each member of the Advisory
PUBLIC MEMBER
Committee expired in July 2008. As such, staff is asking that you
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
nominate two (2) Advisory Committee members at the next WCCA
ELIZABETH CHEADLE
Governing Board meeting (expected to be November 5, 2008).
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
CONSERVANCY
You may want to provide the following attached materials to any
DICKIE SIMMONS
prospective applicants: a copy of the public notice that was published in
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
local newspapers, an application form, and the Advisory Committee
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Policy. The Advisory Committee Policy describes desired qualifications
and instructions to apply. Completed application forms should be sent to
me at the above address by October 15, 2008.
We are also sending a similar letter to the current Advisory Committee
members. If you wish to renominate an Advisory Committee member
that you previously nominated, the applicant can either fill out a new
application form, or rely on an old completed application form in our files -
In any case, (s)he should still notify me to let me know (s)he is applying
again. Additional forms or information can be obtained by calling me at
(310) 589-3200, extension 122, or by email at diane.sacks(aDmrca ca aov.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Sacks
Board Secretary
,sir vr�iv iH tSI ABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS ACT
Agenda # 8 ,2_ ( a )
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL WN
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man g
TITLE: SOLID WASTE FRANCHIS NEGOTIATION/RFP PROCESS
INTEGRITY RULES
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BACKGROUND:
As the City Council is aware, the City is now embarking on a process to determine how
and by whom residential and commercial solid waste and recycling collection services
will be performed in the City upon expiration of the current franchises in 2010. If
Council concurs, the process will commence with negotiations with the incumbent
franchisees, which will result in either an extension of one or both of the existing
franchise agreements or a decision to open the process to all interested vendors
through a request for proposals. The City Council established an ad-hoc subcommittee
consisting of Mayor Tanaka and Mayor Pro Tem Everett to spearhead this process with
the support and assistance of City staff. In order to ensure a fair process free of
favoritism or the perception of favoritism, it is recommended that Solid Waste Franchise
Process Integrity Rules be adopted to govern interactions between all potential
franchisee, and City representatives.
DISCUSSION:
The following rules are proposed:
PROPOSED NEGOTIATION RULES
• From the date that the City Council authorizes the initiation of contract
negotiations with Waste Management and Valley Vista and until the City Council
either awards a franchise extension or elects to issue a Request for Proposals
("RFP"), any and all contacts, communications, and/or conversations about
franchise -related, customer service -related, and negotiation -related waste hauler
issues outside of a properly convened subcommittee or City Council meeting
shall be directed exclusively to Joyce Lee, Sr. Management Analyst and/or David
Liu, Public Works Director.
It is understood and acknowledged that incidental conversations in a social
setting may occur from time to time between City officials and employees and
representatives of solid waste enterprises. Those contacts and conversations
should steer clear of the subjects of the existing franchise, the proposed
franchise and/or any components of either including any and all aspects of
franchise negotiations.
The two incumbent solid waste vendors and other vendors who may be
interested in proposing their services to the City will be advised of these Process
Integrity Rules. They will be advised that any contact made with City officials or
employees other than Ms. Lee and Mr. Liu outside of a properly convened
subcommittee or City Council meeting by the vendor's representatives regarding
the topic of solid waste agreements, negotiations, or any other issues associated
with franchise negotiation may result in the disqualification of that waste hauler
from consideration.
• Councilmembers shall decline any and all gifts, including food and beverages,
regardless of the financial value, from any waste haulers or their representatives.
Any offer of a gift by a waste hauler representative or others acting on behalf of a
waste hauler shall be grounds for disqualification from consideration.
• Interpretation of these Rules above shall rest solely with the City Manager.
PROPOSED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RULES
If the City Council elects to issue an RFP either immediately or in the future, the
following rules shall govern interaction between Councilmembers, appointed City
officials, and City staff, and all interested responders to the City's RFP:
All of the above rules will be in effective and will apply to all interested parties
effective with the release of the City's RFP until the award of the franchise..
All questions regarding the RFP, its ancillary material, current services, proposed
services, or any other clarification shall be submitted in writing to Joyce Lee, Sr.
Management Analyst and David Liu, Public Works Director. All answers to the
above written material submitted to the City shall be circulated to all interested
parties to the RFP process along with the original written communication.
Page 2 of 3
• Any vendor who violates these Rules will be notified of its violation and may be
disqualified from the selection process at the sole discretion of the City Manager.
For any issues or situations that are not specifically addressed above, guidance should
be sought by any interested party from the City Manager or his designee.
PREPARED BY:
Joyce Lee, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
uavia (3. LIU, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Agenda # 8.2 (b)
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL
- 11rp-11",AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Mana rt
TITLE: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL OLID WASTE SUBCOMMITTEE TO
BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH CURRENT HAULERS
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Council Solid Waste Subcommittee recommendation to begin Solid Waste
Contract Negotiations with Waste Management Inc. and Valley Vista Services for six (6)
months.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
During the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting, the Council approved the creation
of a Council Solid Waste Subcommittee and appointment of two (2) council members to
the subcommittee. The first subcommittee meeting was held on October 9, 2008,
during which the pros and cons of exclusive negotiation versus soliciting competitive
proposals were evaluated.
DISCUSSION:
Advantages of negotiation include; ensures continued service from a "known entity",
avoids transition issues associated with a change of service providers, and has fewer
adjustments for customers and improves existing service.
The advantages of competitive proposals are that; it ensures that services are
competitively priced, it maximizes likelihood of obtaining a comprehensive contract with
favorable terms that protect the City's interest, and it presents a public appearance of
fairness in awarding large contracts.
The Solid Waste Subcommittee recommends entering a six (6) month negotiation time
frame ending in April, 2009 to determine if the City will extend the current contracts.
This would provide enough time to work on favorable contract terms and to finalize a
new agreement, which will address the solid waste and recycling needs for Diamond
Bar residents and businesses before the current contract expires in 2010. Competitive
and consistent pricing compared to neighboring cities will still be ensured during this
process. Negotiations with the current haulers do not preclude the possibility of an
additional nine(9) to twelve(12) months of competitive proposal process if the
negotiations are not successful.
PREPARED BY:
Joyce Lee, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Page 2 of 2
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 21St day of October 2008
by and between the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and HF&H
Consultants, LLC, ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. CITY has heretofore issued its verbal Request for Proposal pertaining to the
performance of professional services with respect to Solid Waste Contracting
Assistance and by this reference made a part hereof.
B. CONSULTANT has now submitted its proposal for the performance of such
services, a full, true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by
this reference made a part hereof.
C. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting
services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its
principals and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants
and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Services. The nature, level and scope of the specific
services to be performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "A" the Consultant's
Response, dated September 25, 2008.
2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect October 21, 2008,
unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein.
3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for each service
which Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule
set forth in Exhibit "B." Payment will be made only after submission of proper invoices in
the form specified by City. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement
shall not exceed one hundred and fifty thousand ($150,000).
4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency
between the provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of
this Agreement shall control.
5. Addresses.
City: City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Consultant: Laith Ezzet
HF&H Consultants, LLC
2990 Westerly Place,
Suite 195
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
6. Status as Independent Consultant.
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly
independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or
liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor
any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of
Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at
any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in
any manner agents or employees of City.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to
Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any
and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of
the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that
City is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor
status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly
independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, then Consultant
agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising
out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto.
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law
regarding Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to
indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with
applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the
amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City
from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any
reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6.
7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the
standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under
similar conditions.
8. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to indemnify the City, its officers,
agents, volunteers, employees, and attorneys against, and will hold and save them and
each of them harmless from, and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property,
penalties, obligations, or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm,
entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization arising out of the acts,
errors or omissions of Consultant, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees,
including each person or entity responsible for the provision of services hereunder.
In the event there is more than one person or entity named in the Agreement as a
Consultant, then all obligations, liabilities, covenants and conditions under this Section 8
shall be joint and several.
9. Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement
carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company admitted to
do business in California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad -form
comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00
combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of
wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and
independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement; (2) property
damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive liability
insurance, with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4)
professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) to cover or partially cover
damages that may be the result of errors, omissions, or negligent acts of Consultant, in
an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; and (5) worker's compensation
insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law,
whichever is greater. City, its officers, employees, attorneys, and volunteers shall be
named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) as to comprehensive general liability,
property damage, and automotive liability. The policy (ies) as to comprehensive general
liability, property damage, and automobile liability shall provide that they are primary,
and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only.
A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not
be non -renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition
of additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier
giving City thirty (30) day's prior written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will not
cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage.
B. All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement; shall be issued by an insurance company which is
admitted to do business in the State of California or which is approved in writing by the
City; and shall be placed with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less that A VII.
C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating
compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above,
and (2) insurance policy endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum
insurance requirements above, not less that one (1) day prior to beginning of
performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's
appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement", or a substantially
similar form which the City has agreed in writing to accept.
10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access
to confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant
covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or
received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed
confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by
City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data
shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant
under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, to the extent Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically
for and in connection with certain projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's
prior written consent, use the same for other unrelated projects.
11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without
restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City.
12. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not
acquire any interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be
performed by Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner
with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in
performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed
by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which
would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this
Agreement.
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation,
monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City
as a result of the performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this
section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
13. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without
cause upon fifteen (15) days' written notice to the other party. However, Consultant
shall not terminate this Agreement during the provision of services on a particular
project. The effective date of termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice
of termination, or, in the event no date is specified, upon the fifteenth (15th) day
following delivery of the notice. In the event of such termination, City agrees to pay
Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination.
Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue
performing services.
14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own
expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the
services required under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it
supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such
services. Consultant reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own
employees to the performance of Consultant's services under this Agreement, but City
reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any employee from
performing services on City's premises.
15. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion,
sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical
condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to
this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto.
Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training,
including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees
placed by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer
or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard
to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical
or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all
subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts
for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
16. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without
the prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this
Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no
effect.
17. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or
longer, a written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within
ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and
each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required
by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review, and any comments or
complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing, shall be
considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any
noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the
inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein.
18. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of
any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a
waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall
the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver
by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of
Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or
prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.
20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall
commence any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be
entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
including costs of expert witnesses and consultants.
21. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this
Agreement shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand
during regular business hours or by facsimile before or during regular business hours;
or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other
addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the
provisions of this section.
22. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents
incorporated herein by specific reference, represent the entire and integrated
agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or
written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be
amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the
parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will
only be valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
25. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated
herein by this reference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.
"City"
ATTEST:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By: By.
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
:N
City Attorney
HF&H Consultants, LLC
By:
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Jack Tanaka, Mayor
10/20/2008 15:28 9492519741
HFH PAGE 02/0
regular business hours;
deposit
during regular business hours or by fecsimilebefor or n theuUng[ted States mail, postage
or (b) on the third business day following to such
prepaid, to the addresses heretofortigot
e to timerth , designan the te in writingrpursuant tothe
addresses as the parties may, from
provisions of this section.
22, Governing Law. This S et of Cal'rforniaterpreted, construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of
the 23, counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument. nts
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement,
and
entire hand er documat d
incorporated herein by specific reference, represent or
agreement between Consultant and City.
or agrs's Agreement ements. This supersedes
tlmayrnotibe
written negotiations, representations
amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the
ments on behalf the City
parties which expressly refers to this Agreement.
only be valid if signed by the City Manager the Mayor and attested by thef City Cleric it
25. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are Incorporated
herein by this reference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.
"City,
ATTEST:
By:
Tommye Cribbins. City Clerk
Approved as to form.
13y:
City Attorney
HF&H Consultants, LLC
By:
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By:
Jack Tanaka, Mayor
• 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: 949/251-8628
Fax: 949/251-9741
u,wzo.hfh-consultants.coni
September 25, 2008
Ms. Joyce Lee
Senior Management Analyst
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Exhibit A
-------1 "-1 vices to Municipal Management
Re: Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Dear Ms Lee:
Robert D. Hilton
John W. Famkopf
Laith B. Ezzet
Richard J. Simonson
HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Diamond Bar
(City) to provide solid waste contracting assistance. HF&H has a long history of successfully
providing contracting assistance exclusively to local governments. We believe that HF&H
brings the following unique qualifications and benefits to the City:
is 1. We audited both Waste Management and Valley Vista Services for the City of
Diamond Bar in 2005. As a result, we are familiar with both companies and the services
they provide in Diamond Bar.
2. We are experts in the procurement and negotiation of solid waste services agreements,
having assisted more than 50 California jurisdictions with the development of RFP's
and agreements, evaluation of proposals, and negotiation of solid waste services
agreements for refuse, recycling and green waste collection, material processing services,
and disposal. In some of our competitive procurements, costs to the ratepayers have
been reduced by as much as 40%.
3. Our municipal focus ensures that we meet the needs of public agencies and officials.
HF&H does not work for private waste haulers order to avoid conflicts of interest that
may arise in firms that attempt to serve both the public and private sectors. We believe
this independence is particularly important for objective proposal evaluation and
effective negotiations during the procurement of a solid waste services agreement.
4. HF&H has a history of developing attainable and enforceable recycling plans for its
clients. In 2000, we assisted the City of Los Angeles in developing a program -specific
plan to reach 70% diversion. Our collection contracts included not only city-wide
diversion goals, but specific, measurable requirements for tonnage under the hauler's
control.
• 5. In addition to our extensive experience assisting public agencies with the specific
services your City has requested, we also have a broad base of experience assisting
Advisory Services to Municipal Management
Ms. Joyce Lee
September 25, 2008
Page 2 of 2
approximately 250 California cities and counties with planning, implementation,
evaluation, and monitoring of their solid waste collection, diversion, and disposal
programs. As a result, we are intimately familiar with the requirements for cost
effective solid waste program planning, and understand the related public policy issues
that must be addressed to make individual programs successful.
6. We are familiar with the solid waste rates, services, and programs implemented
throughout Southern California as a result of our previous projects and on-going
surveys of 200 cities in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego and Ventura. As a result, we understand current trends in the local solid
waste industry and we are familiar with the capabilities of the potential proposers.
7. Our staff includes accountants, economists and public policy experts. The varied
backgrounds of our consultants provides substantial added value to our clients, value
that can rarely be achieved by individual engineering, accounting, or management
consulting firms. HF&H provides clients with the breadth of experience of a national
firm with the responsiveness, accountability, and personal commitment of a local
firm.
8. The engagement will be managed and staffed from our Southern California office,
making our staff readily available to participate in project meetings in a cost-effective
manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information. We look forward to an
opportunity to meet with you and the appropriate City staff to present our proposal, and learn
how we might best assist the City. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(949) 251-8902 or lezzet@hfh-consultants.com.
Very truly yours,
HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC
Laith Ezzet, CMC
Senior Vice President
City of Diamond Bar
Table of Q)ntents
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE.........................................................1
SECTION 2: FEES AND BILLING..........................................................................................5
SECTION3: SCHEDULE.......................................................................................................7
SECTION 4: FIRM INFORMATION........................................................................................8
SECTION 5: PROJECT TEAM ......................
SECTION 6: EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES.
EXHIBITS
• A. HF&H Service Brochures
B. Client List
C. Staff Resumes
D. Letters of Reference
.............................................................11
....................................................14
HF&H Consul tants, LLC i September 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 1: Scope of Work and Fee Fstimate
Proposal to Prozride Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE
OPTION 1: FEE ESTIMATE TO RENEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS WITH
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND VALLEY VISTA SERVICES - $90,000 TO
$110,000
Waste Management provides exclusive residential solid waste collection services and
Valley Vista Services provides exclusive commercial solid waste collection services in
the City of Diamond Bar. The goal of this option would be to renegotiate the City's
residential and commercial franchise agreements with the existing contractors in order
to obtain two comprehensive, state-of-the-art agreements with services that meet the
needs of the City's customers, and position the City to be in full compliance with
current and proposed waste diversion requirements and other legislation.
We will initiate the process by reviewing the City's existing franchise agreements,
including amendments, and profile them against the terms and conditions contained in
a modern agreement in order to identify potential service enhancements and
improvements to contract terms. We will subsequently confirm with City staff and/or
the City's solid waste subcommittee the desired service and contract enhancements, and
document the City's direction in writing. This will provide the outline for the updated
franchise agreements.
We will subsequently prepare a draft residential franchise agreement and draft
commercial franchise agreement for the desired services and contract terms. City staff,
including the City Attorney, will subsequently review the draft agreements, and the
City will be responsible for consolidating comments from the City's various reviewers
into a single "redline" of the agreement, which we will then use to prepare updated
draft agreements.
We recommend that the draft agreements be provided to Waste Management and
Valley Vista Services documenting the City's desired services and contract terms. The
contractors can then propose rates that are consistent with the City's desired terms and
conditions contained in the draft agreements. The result of the contactors' review of the
agreements will likely be a series of points that they desire to address and proposed
rates that may or may not be satisfactory. HF&H will then assist in negotiating
reasonable rates. We will also work with City staff to guide the City through its
determination of which service provider concerns are minor and which are valuable
enough not to negotiate away without a substantial offsetting gain for the City.
HF&H Cansudtants, LLC 7 -September 25, 2008
L_J
Citi/ of Oiawoid Bar Secttou 1: Scope of Work and Fee Esthmite
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Service statistics, such as the number of customers, container size and frequency of
collection, can be used to determine the overall value of the contract at proposed rates.
Typically, we determine and compare the overall current compensation to the service
provider at current rates to the renegotiated rates in order to demonstrate the true
overall financial impact to the rate payer. For example, a decrease in the rate for a
common service level is more valuable than a decrease in a rate for a service that is
seldom used. With the proper data, we can compare the overall proposed company
compensation on a similar basis with a few other comparable jurisdictions.
Our work products for this task will be:
• Preparation of a negotiation draft of the residential and commercial franchise
agreements documenting the City's desired services, terms and conditions.
• An analysis of the proposed rates to be used by the City's negotiating committee.
• Participation in negotiation sessions with City staff and the contractors.
• Preparing "redline" versions of the draft agreement to reflect the results of the
• negotiations.
• Presenting the final negotiated agreements to the City Council.
Because the complexity of the negotiations and the number of issues to be negotiated
cannot be known in advance, the project costs cannot be precisely estimated. Based on
our experience in other cities, we estimate the cost to be between $45,000 and $55,000
per agreement, or $90,000 to $110,000 for both the residential and commercial
agreements.
OPTION 2: FEE ESTIMATE FOR COST OF SERVICE STUDY - $30,000 TO
$40,000
If there is uncertainty whether the current or proposed rates are reasonable, and if the
rate comparisons to other jurisdictions do not provide sufficient information for the
City to determine whether the rates are reasonable, the City could perform a cost of
service study, with the contractors' cooperation and support, to evaluate the
reasonableness of the current rates. This would require Waste Management and Valley
Vista Services to "open their books" to the City in order to verify current rate revenues
and operating costs. This would allow the City to analyze each Contractor's actual cost
• of providing service, and to compare the profitability of the Diamond Bar operations to
industry averages. Additionally, if significant service changes are proposed to
collection operations, we would need to estimate the impact of the proposed service
HF&H ColSf(ltantS, LLC -
C 2 1;eptcniher25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 1: Scope: of Work and Fee Estimate
Proposal to Proi>ide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
changes on the cost of operations. The estimated cost to perform this work is $15,000 to
$20,000 per hauler, assuming that we also perform the negotiation assistance described
in Option 1. This is an additional task that may or not be performed depending on the
City's needs and the cooperation of the contractors.
OPTION 3: FEE ESTIMATE FOR COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL PROCESS -
$110,000 TO $150,000
If the City prefers to seek competitive proposals rather than to renegotiate with Waste
Management, our estimated cost to manage the process for the City is $110,000 to
$150,000. Our services would include:
■ Reviewing in detail the current service arrangements and existing contract terms.
■ Confirming the desired services with City staff and the City Council prior to
developing the RFP.
■ Preparing a draft RFP with separate residential and commercial franchise
agreements for review by City staff, the City Attorney, and potential proposers for
comment. The RFP will be structured so proposers can propose on the residential
and commercial services separately, and propose a discount if awarded both
contracts.
• Contacting potential proposers via telephone to determine their interest in
proposing on the City's RFP, and soliciting feedback regarding the draft documents.
• Revising the RFP and franchise agreements after reviewing submitted comments.
■ Distributing the RFP to potential proposers based on our knowledge of likely
proposers. We will also provide the documents to the waste haulers' association
and other organizations that may ensure a wider distribution.
■ Conducting a pre -proposal conference and preparing an addendum to answer
questions submitted by the attendees.
■ Evaluating the proposals and preparing a draft evaluation report.
• Sending the evaluation section related to each company's proposal to that proposer
for review to confirm our understanding of their proposal.
HF&H Consultants LLC 3 Septeinber25, 2008
City of Diarironcl Bar Sectiota 1: Scope of Work and Fee Estimate
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
• ■ Interviewing top ranked proposers.
•
• Briefing the City's solid waste subcommittee on the results of the evaluation prior to
negotiating final agreements with top ranked proposers.
• Negotiating and finalizing franchise agreements with the proposer(s) selected by the
Citv's evaluation committee for final consideration.
■ Presenting the recommended proposers and final agreements to the City Council for
consideration and possible award.
This estimate assumes that a single service option is proposed upon in the RFP for each
contract (residential and commercial). Limiting the RFP to one desired service option
will maximize the likelihood that contractors will propose on the City's RFP, and it will
make the proposal evaluation and selection process much clearer for City staff and the
City Council. The fee estimate assumes that a maximum of five proposals will be
evaluated. Additional proposals will be reviewed at a cost of $5,500 each.
Note: If the City attempts to negotiate urith Waste Management and Valley Vista Semices first
under Option 1, and those negotiations are unsuccessful, the subsequent cost for the competitive
proposal process under Option 3 urould be reduced because a portion of the zoork performed
under Option 1 it�ould benefit Option 3.
HF&H Consultants, ILC 4 September25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 2: Fees and Billing
Proposal to Provide Solid Wizste Contracting Assistance
SECTION 2: FEES AND BILLING
FEE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
In order to provide our services at minimum cost, the fee estimates for all of the options
described above assume that any public outreach or public involvement activities
associated with the effort, such as customer surveys and/or community workshops, is
performed by City staff. Of course, we would be happy to lead or participate in such
public outreach activities if requested and adjust our fee estimate accordingly.
Under Options 1 and 3, the City attorney will be responsible for obtaining
documentation from the contractor for insurance/bonds and the parent -company
guaranty, and obtaining required signatures.
BILLING
We will assist the City based on time and materials, and our actual costs could be lower
or higher than the amounts estimated above, depending on the level of effort required.
We will bill you once per month based on the number of hours worked multiplied by
our hourly billing rates, plus out-of-pocket expenses incurred.
Hourly rates for our consultants through December 31, 2008 are as follows and are
subject to a $5.00 per hour adjustment on January 1, 2009.
Senior Vice President $235
Director $195
Sr. Associate $175 to $190
Associate $135
Assistant Analyst $95
Out-of-pocket expenses for mileage will be billed at the standard IRS allowance,
currently $0.585 per mile. Black and white document reproduction over 15 pages per
run will be billed at $0.15 per page, and color copies at $0.75 per page. Subcontractors
will be billed at actual cost plus 15%. Postage, overnight mail, and other out-of-pocket
expenses will be billed at actual cost.
HF&H Consultants, LLC 5 September 25, 2008
•
Citi/ of Diamoud Bar Section 2: Fees ami Billilig
dim
Proposal to ProVidc Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
COST REIMBURSEMENT
In most jurisdictions the City's contracting cost is usually required to be reimbursed to
the City by the contractor upon approval of the new franchise agreement.
HF&H Cmsidtants LLC
September 2;, 2005
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Section 3: Schedule
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
SECTION 3: SCHEDULE
The existing 10 -year agreements expire in August 2010.
We estimate it will take approximately six months to negotiate new agreements with
the current waste haulers under Option 1 from the date of project initiation to award of
the new agreements by the City Council.
If a competitive RFP process is to be performed, it should start at least 18 -months prior
to the start of a new agreement. Therefore, the competitive RFP process should begin
around February 2009 in order to allow sufficient time for a successful proposal
evaluation process and implementation period.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Septenrber25, 2008
•
i
City vfL)ianxond Bar Section 4: Firm Inf)rmation
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
SECTION 4: FIRM INFORMATION
OVERVIEW OF HF&H QUALIFICATIONS AND CLIENT SATISFACTION
While we have been engaged by clients throughout the United States, our focus is on California.
With offices located in Newport Beach and Walnut Creek, we have an in-depth understanding
of both state and regional conditions (e.g., laws, values, issues, resources, and service providers)
in Northern, Central, and Southern California. Please see Exhibit A (HF&H Service Brochures)
for a description of the services offered by HF&H.
Through more than 1,000 engagements over the past 18 years, we have served more than 250
municipal agencies in California. We have included a complete list of HF&H's clients in Exhibit
B. Some important measures of our client's satisfaction are:
"Your experience and
guidance were
essential in
eonzrincing the City
Council that the
process would be
objectiz)e, fair and well
reasoned."
Neil Miller, Public
Works Director
City of City of
Manhattan Beach
• The majority of our engagements in any year are received through
sole -source processes and result from prior experience with the
client or strong referrals from past clients.
• In any year, 70% of our clients have previously engaged us within
the past two years.
• In each of the past three independent client satisfaction surveys
spanning the past 12 years, 100% of respondents have said they
would use HF&H again and would recommend us to other
municipal agencies.
• We have received numerous testimonials (samples of which are
included in Exhibit D) regarding the quality and effectiveness of our
work.
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY SERVICES
We provide our clients with a comprehensive range of solid waste advisory services. They
include, but are not limited to:
• RFP Development and Negotiations
• Recycling Planning
• Performance Management
• Economic and Cost -of -Service Studies
• Recycling and Resource Management
• Public Outreach and Education
• Contractor Selection and Management
• Rate Structure and Fee Studies
• Litigation Consulting
• Regulatory Support
Most clients do not realize the broad range of our services. From among the more than 800
engagements we have performed, we have selected the following few examples to demonstrate
the range of our services:
HF&II Consultants, LLC September 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
"The City of La
Quinta has
continuously renewed
its contract with
HF&H to provide
solid waste consulting
services since 1998.
Through HF&H's
consulting services,
the City's diversion
rate has increased
from 42 % to 59%
during these past
several years. "
Douglas R. Evans,
Director of
Community
Development
City of La Quinta
"The highly complex
franchise process was
exemplanj in its
execution."
Sharon Perlstein,
City Engineer
City of West
Hollywood
"You were able to
acquire City services
beyond what was
requested, while at the
same time
significantly lowering
rates for both
residents and local
businesses."
Chris Daste,
Director of Field
Services
City of Santa Clarita
Section 4: Firm Information
• Long term solid waste system planning - for Orange County,
Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and the City of San Diego.
• Transition from non-exclusive to exclusive collection systems - for
cities such as Beverly Hills and Santa Clarita and counties such as
Riverside and San Bernardino.
• Competitive selection of recycling and solid waste service
contractors - for agencies as large as the City of Santa Clarita
(population 177,000) and as small as the town of Gridley (population
5,000) that have provided expanded services while saving ratepayers
hundreds of millions of dollars.
• Sole -source negotiation - renegotiation of solid waste services
contracts for cities such as Inglewood, which added services and froze
residential rates for three years.
• Reviews of rate applications - by such national companies as Waste
Management and Allied, as well as regional companies such as Marin
Sanitary Service and Norcal, and smaller companies such as Gilton
Disposal, which have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in
savings to ratepayers.
• Design and implementation of rate structures - as incentives for
waste reduction in cities as diverse as Pasadena, Alameda, Livermore,
and Union City.
• Cost -based regulatory fees - for landfill operations in Alameda and
Marin counties and collection impact fees for operations in more than
30 California cities, generating millions of dollars for pavement
management programs.
• Regulatory support - to such agencies as La Quinta and Lawndale,
increasing their calculated diversion rates by 17% and 20%,
respectively.
• Used oil recycling - outside Lawndale's Kragen Auto Supply store, as
well as AutoZone and Kragen Auto Supply stores throughout the
Coachella Valley;
• Hands-on technical assistance - (Including dumpster diving) - to the
New Haven School District in Union City.
• Large venue/event recycling management - for the City of Newark's
"Newark Days" and the City of San Jose's Airport and Jazz Festival.
• Benchmarking municipal collection operations - in cities such as San
Diego, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Brentwood, and El Cerrito.
• Litigation support - to the City of Fresno regarding the County of
Fresno's landfill disposal fees, resulting in the retention of our firm by
both litigants in order to help determine appropriate contract terms
and rate processes.
HF&H Consultants, ILC
September 25, 2008
•
•
•
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Section 4: Firm Information
A WELL MANAGED AND EQUIPPED TEAM OF SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLING EXPERTS
"Your knowledgeable
staff approached the
contract negotiations
with integrity and
thoroughness we liave
come to admire and
respect."
Thomas Coates,
Environmental
Services Supervisor
City of Inglewood
Our team of planners, accountants, engineers, and management
consultants are well trained, have extensive experience, and have access
to proprietary databases and analytical tools. Many have advanced
degrees and/or possess professional certifications and are leaders in their
professional organizations (e.g., California Resource Recovery
Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, the Southern
California Waste Management Forum, the Institute of Management
Consultants, and the Municipal Section of the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants). Many have a decade or more of
government and/or industry experience, prior to becoming consultants.
Our employees use proprietary databases of industry operations, cost,
and rate data, as well as proprietary analytical tools and templates to
apply to issues related to your project.
HF&H is more than the sum of its individual members and databases. We offer a management
structure that ensures expertise is consistently delivered to our clients with high-quality
analyses and work products in a timely, cost-effective manner. Each project includes a team of
consultants. A principal reviews work plans and schedules, reviews analyses, and drafts and
presents work products. A manager prepares and supervises the performance of detailed work
plans, provides status reports, drafts work products, and participates in presentations. Under
supervision, qualified staff perform those tasks for which they are well-qualified. This structure
has resulted in a consistent level of quality, regardless of the office or consultants working on
your project.
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND IMPROVING PUBLIC
SERVICES
Our mission is to be the first choice and recognized leader among municipal agencies to help
them manage environmental resources and improve public services. We approach this mission
with certain core values:
• We serve our clients: exceptionally; with a focus on each engagement s objectives; and,
with an understanding of each client's broader goals.
• We relate to each other: positively; supporting our professional development; and,
providing opportunities for personal rewards.
• We operate the firm with: a commitment to the environment and public service; and,
integrity.
HE&H Consultairts, I_LC 10 September 25, 2008
City ofDiamond Bar Section 5: Project Team
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Considting Seroices
SECTION 5: PROJECT TEAM
The project manager for this engagement will be Laith Ezzet, HF&H Senior Vice President. Mr.
Ezzet has been the project manager on every contractor selection and negotiation process that
HF&H has conducted in Southern California in the past 15 years, including the public outreach
component of each of these projects. Team members will provide additional expertise in
multiple key areas, including drafting solid waste agreements, AB 939 compliance, and rate and
cost analysis.
ORGANIZATION CHART
11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes II
Laith Ezzet
Project Manager
Darrel Bice Lisa Keating Debbie Morris
Rate/ Cost Analyst11 11 Procurement/ Recycling Analyst
Contract Specialist 11 11
TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES
LAITH EZZET, PROTECT MANAGER
Mr. Ezzet is a Certified Management Consultant and Senior Vice President of our Southern
California solid waste consulting practice. Mr. Ezzet has over 20 years of experience as an
economist and solid waste consultant and has assisted over 100 public agencies to plan,
implement, and monitor their solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal programs. During
the course of these engagements, he has conducted more than 100 public workshops and public
meetings for City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and citizens' advisory groups. Mr. Ezzet is a
past member of the Board of Directors of the California Resource Recovery Association and
currently a Director of the Southern California Founding Chapter of the Solid Waste Association
of North America.
Mr. Ezzet has managed numerous procurement engagements for solid waste services contracts,
including RFP preparation, proposal evaluation, and negotiation support. Examples of clients
for whom he has helped to procure new solid waste services contracts include the cities of
Beverly Hills, Bellflower, Cerritos, Dana Point, El Centro, Imperial Beach, Indian Wells,
Inglewood, Lake Forest, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Mission Viejo, Orange, Palm Desert,
HF&H Consrdtants, 1.LC 17 Septembcr25, 2008
Cite of Dianwiul Bar Section 5: Project Tcanr
Proposal to PrOVOC Solid Waste Consulting Services
0
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Santa Margarita, Riverside, Santa Clarita, Tustin, West
Hollywood, and others. He managed the procurement of a new solid waste system operator for
San Bernardino County's landfills and transfer stations. He has negotiated solid waste
agreements with a total value in excess of $1 billion. The competitive procurements managed
by Mr. Ezzet have saved public agencies more than $160 million. He assisted the Orange
County City Managers' Solid Waste Working Group negotiate 10 -year waste disposal
agreements with the County of Orange. He authored a paper entitled "How Much Can You
Save through Competitive Proposals?" that was presented at SWANA's Western Regional
Symposium.
LISA KEATING PROCUREMENT/CONTRACT SPECIALIST
Lisa Keating has assisted the cities of Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Compton, El Centro, Lawndale,
Manhattan Beach, Mission Viejo, Palm Desert, Rancho Palos Verdes, Riverside, Santa Clarita,
Tustin, and Goodyear (Arizona), and the County of Orange through the procurement process
for new solid waste collection and recycling agreements, and is currently assisting the City of
Orange through the competitive procurement process. She has drafted both Requests for
Proposals and Requests for Bids, and the related agreements. She has reviewed hauler
proposals for solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services.
Ms. Keating assisted the cities of Dana Point, Inglewood, and Palmdale to re -negotiate their
collection contracts. She assisted the cities of Carlsbad, Dana Point, Garden Grove, and Murrieta
• with contract reviews to evaluate re -negotiation options.
Ms. Keating reviewed and evaluated proposals for the development and use of a transfer
station for the City of Palm Springs. Ms. Keating prepared the Request for Proposals and draft
agreement for commercial recycling services in the city of Lawndale. Lisa assisted the City of
Lancaster with its procurement of a street sweeping contract, after having prepared the Request
for Proposals and draft agreement for these services. Ms. Keating also prepared the Request for
Proposals for the County of San Bernardino's procurement of an operations contractor for its
transfer station and landfill system, and developed a Request for Proposals and draft operations
and maintenance agreement for operating a materials recovery facility for the City of Oxnard.
DARRELL BICE RATE/COST ANALYST
Darrell Bice, Senior Associate, is a Certified Public Accountant with 30 years of auditing and
accounting experience, including experience in public accounting and in the solid waste
industry. During his time in public accounting, he participated in and supervised the annual
audits of a major public solid waste company. He served as an assistant corporate controller for
five years and as a division controller for two years in the solid waste industry for a major solid
waste company. As an assistant corporate controller, he reviewed the results of operations for
ten California divisions, which included the analysis of financial statements and operating
reports to evaluate the performance of the division and report to corporate management. While
a division controller, Mr. Bice assisted in the development of a commercial refuse pricing
model, incorporating the full cost of service and desired profit levels. Additionally, he
• participated as a team member in the development of the cost -of -service and resulting pricing
structures for proposals to several Southern California municipalities. As a solid waste
HF&H Consultants, l LC 1 September25, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Section 5: Project Team
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Cons"Iting Services
consultant, during the past seven years, Mr. Bice has participated in a variety of solid waste
projects for over 25 municipalities and governmental agencies. He participated in
procurement/ negotiation support projects for two Southern California cities.
DEBBIE MORRIS RECYCLING ANALYST
Ms. Morris is a Senior Associate and has specialized in consulting to government clients on
solid waste issues for over 15 years. Ms. Morris' experience includes assistance with diversion
studies, AB 939 compliance, construction and demolition debris ordinance preparation,
construction and demolition debris program implementation and monitoring, new base -year
studies, contract management, audit services, and rate reviews. Since 1991 she has been the
primary researcher conducting surveys of solid waste programs and rates in the 200 cities in
Southern California.
Ms. Morris has performed an integral role in assisting jurisdictions with the requirements of AB
939. This ongoing support has included contract management assistance. To assist clients in
increasing diversion rates, and complying with the CIWMB's increased emphasis on program
implementation, Ms. Morris meets regularly with a city's solid waste haulers to closely monitor
performance and contract compliance. Ms. Morris reviews the effectiveness of public outreach
strategies; monitors hauler reports; reviews rate adjustment requests; monitors current
diversion program performance; and, assists with implementation of new diversion programs.
HF&H Considtauts, LLC 13Septetnber25, 2008
•
•
City of L)ialllond Bar SPeti07, 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Prozride Solid Waste Consulting Services
SECTION 6: EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES
This section provides a representative sample of engagements, including references, relevant to
the City's current procurement effort.
EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN CONTRACT PROCUREMENT SERVICES
HF&H has extensive experience providing services similar to those requested in the City's
Request for Statement of Qualification and Proposal. Table 2 presents 19 previous procurement
engagements and the results and details of those engagements.
Jurisdiction
Bellflower
Yea r
2004
-
# of
Proposers
5
Contract
Term
8 years
— -"Lt
Old Contract New Contract
Value* Value*
$49,688,000 $38,400,000
Total Savings
$11,288,000
% Savings
23%
EI Centro
2007
4
8 years
$34,209,000
$43,608,000
$0
n/a
Imperial Beach
1999
4
7years
$13,692,000
$13,153,000
$539,000
4%
Lake Forest
1996
5
7 years
$29,500,000
$22,800,000
$6,700,000
23%
Lancaster
2006
3
5 years
$3,413,000
$2,540,0001
$873,000
26%
Lawndale
1997
5
5years
$6,127,000
$5,476,000
$651,000
11%
Lawndale
2002
5
7years
$7,546,000
$6,349,000
$1,197,000
16%
Manhattan Beach
2002
7
7years
$22,400,000
$21,800,000
$600,000
3%
Mission Viejo
2000
6
8 years
$54,784,000
$48,395,000
$6,389,000
12%
Palm Desert
2000
6
7 years
$46,252,000
$40,553,000
$5,699,000
12%
Rancho Palos Verdes
1999
7
7 years
$22,034,000
$20,647,000
$1,387,000
6%
Rancho�Residential
2004
5
8 years
$28,704,000
$20,864,000
$7,840,000
27%
Riversid2001
7
7 years
$20,272,000
$16,793,000
$3,479,000
17%
Riverside—Commercial
2001
6
7years
$97,506,000
$64,354,000
$33,152,000
34%
County of San Bernardino
2001
10
7 years
$144,892,000
$118,633,000
$26,259,000
18%
Santa Clarita — Residential
2003
6
7 years
$100,204,000
$70,409,000
$29,795,000
30%
Santa Clarita - Commercial
2003
6
9 years
$39,256,000
$34,099,000
$5,157,000
13%
Tustin
2000
8
7years
$42,392,000
$25,011,000
$17,381,000
41%
West Hollywood
2003
9
8 years
$42,376,000
$33,512,000
$8,864,000
21%
TOTAL
' Over term of cnntract
$814,646,000
$647,396,000
$167,250,000
21%
HAULING COMPANY EXPERIENCE
HF&H does not work for hauling companies in order to avoid the conflicts of interest that may
arise in firms that attempt to serve both public and private sectors. However, HF&H has
extensive experience in auditing and negotiating with hauling companies, including likely
proposers, through our work on behalf of other municipalities.
HI&H Consultants, LLC 14 - September 2:5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience mica References
Proposal to Proz�icie Solid Waste Cmsnitirig Services
REFERENCES FOR SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS
We have provided 12 references below. We would be pleased to provide additional references
upon your request.
CITY OF BELLFLOWER
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Solid
Waste Contract
Date of Engagement: 2004 C$
Client Needs:
After 40 years with the same waste collector, the City of Bellflower conducted a
competitive procurement for a new residential and commercial collection agreement.
The City needed to implement new programs that would increase waste diversion to
meet State goals. Accurate service data was not readily available for use in an RFP.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H developed the City's RFP and draft agreement, conducted the RFP process,
evaluated the proposals and assisted in negotiating a new franchise agreement. This
new agreement increased recycling and customer services while lowering costs to rate
payers and increasing City revenues. In order to address the City's issues, we audited
the hauler data to be included in the RFP, including tons recycled and disposed, amount
billed, and franchise fees paid in order to provide proposers confidence in the service
data. We conducted public outreach meetings for customer groups.
Results:
Reduced overall rates by 23%, saving ratepayers $11.3 million over the 8 -year term
Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• $347,500 in annual funding to the City for its solid waste related expenses
• Collection at no additional charge from City facilities and at City -sponsored events,
and free disposal of street sweepings
Free commercial and multi -family recycling
Processing of all multi -family refuse and roll -off box loads
• Transformation of refuse to meet CIWMB diversion requirements
Electronic waste collection and processing
Diversion of manure from horse properties
New collection vehicles and new residential carts
Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating, Darrell Bice
Client Contact: Brian Smith
Assistant Director of Public Works
562/804-1424
HF&H Consnitarits, LLC 15 Septe)uber 25, 2008
Citic of Diamond Bar Section 6: Eaper7ence and References
Proposal to Provide Solid 1,1/aste Considting Services
CITY OF MISSION VIETO
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Separate
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Contracts
Date of Engagement: 2000
Client Needs:
The City maintained separate residential and commercial contracts with different service
providers. The City's diversion rate was 38%, and the City needed to implement new
recycling services. The City had service challenges such as attached housing in need of
individual services, but limited storage space for carts, and shopping centers with
limited bin space and collection vehicle access issues. The City had an unsatisfactory
experience during its previous transition from another hauler.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H managed the City's competitive procurement process. We toured the City,
discussing service issues with the City and current haulers. We collected and analyzed
tonnage and other service data to provide proposers an accurate account of the services
which they will be providing. We drafted a commercial agreement and a residential
• agreement that included the City's intent to fully automate residential services and to
provide incentives for businesses to recycle. We made arrangements for smaller carts
and other special service arrangements for space constrained customers.
We evaluated the proposals received and assisted the City in negotiating favorable
contracts for both residential and commercial services with the current commercial
hauler, thereby limiting transition issues, while lowering rates.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 12% saving the ratepayers $6.4 million over the 8 -year term
• Smooth transition
• City reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Contractor remits an Abandoned Item Collection Fee of $65,000 per year to City
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• A smooth transition to automated residential recycling and green waste collection
• Curbside electronic waste collection at no additional charge
• New alternative fuel collection vehicles powered by compressed natural gas and
new residential carts
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating, Darrell Bice
Client Contact: Karen Wylie
. Assistant to the City Manager
949/470-8409
W&H CwsiljtalltS, [.LC
16 September 25, 2008
City of Dianrond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste Considtillg SC)_Vices
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Solid Waste
Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2000
Client Needs:
The City's current solid waste collection agreement was expiring. The City was
interested in implementing more effective recycling programs. All residential services
were manual, and the co -collection of refuse and green waste was ineffective. The City
had conducted a limited pilot program for automating service. Varying terrain and
container storage capacity were issues.
HF&H Solution:
The City retained HF&H to prepare an RFP and franchise agreement, manage the
procurement process, evaluate proposal, interview finalists, and negotiate the final
agreement.
We determined that the majority of the City in the inland area was suitable for
automated refuse, recycling and green waste service and implemented three cart service.
Manual collection was retained in the coastal area where streets were too narrow and
properties too small to accommodate larger automated vehicles. The coastal area
generated little green waste, so only refuse and recyclables service was provided in this
area.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 3%, saving ratepayers $600,000 over the 7 -year term
• Residential curbside diversion increased to 45% to 50%
• Over 95% residential recycling program participation rate
• Commercial recycling accounts increased from 60 to 355 in two years
• Commercial diversion increased from 6% to 25% in two years
• Fixed disposal costs for contract term
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Collection at no additional charge at City -sponsored events
• Recycling fee of $20,000 per year remitted to City
• Three -cart automation of majority of City, all new carts
• New residential containers throughout City
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Electronic waste collection
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Neil Miller, retired
Public Works Director
HF&H Consultants, I LC 17
Septeniher 25, 2005
0
City of Diajnond Bar Section 6: Experiewe and References
Proposal to Prozlide Solid Waste Consaalting Services
CITY OF INGLEWOOD
Engagement Title: Review of Proposed Solid Waste Rates and
Negotiated Terms of a New Solid Waste
Agreement 122
Date of Engagement: 2004
Client Needs:
The City's solid waste contract was expiring. The City was under a compliance order
and required to implement several diversion problems in a matter of months.
Maintaining low, stable rates was a top priority for the City.
HF&H Solution:
• Identify desirable contract terms, based on the City's needs and industry standards
• Evaluate proposed deal with contract hauler and compare to industry standard
terms
• Compare rates to those of four other area cities, based on the City's specific basket of
services
• Determine whether deal was reasonable
• Negotiate and prepare final contract terms
iResults:
• Reduced residential rates by 5% and froze for three years
• Froze existing commercial rates for one additional year
• Capped future increases in disposal rates at the change in CPI
• $510,000 in new annual fees to the City
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Reimbursement of costs to join Los Angeles Regional Agency
• Collection at no additional charge from City facility roll -off boxes, at City -sponsored
events, from street litter containers, and of abandoned items
• Transformation and mixed waste processing required at no cost to meet AB 939
requirements
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Automation of residential recycling and green waste collection
• Electronic waste collection
• Used motor oil and filter recycling
• Biennial curbside Household Hazardous Waste events
• Alternative collection vehicles
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Contact: Angela Williams
310/412-8722
HF&H Consultants, LLC is September 25, 2008
Cite of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to ProzU, Solid Waste Consulting Seroices
CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Solid Waste
Contract
Date of Engagement: 2004
Client Needs:
The City needed a new contract with improved recycling services, as the City was under
a time extension with the CIWMB to meet diversion goals. The City consists of
predominantly multi -family units and had already implemented a comprehensive
multi -family recycling program, but lacked recycling opportunities in other areas. The
City's high density, narrow streets and hilly terrain provided collection challenges.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H managed the procurement process, reviewing proposals, interviewing proposers
and negotiating the final agreement. We conducted community outreach meetings and
worked with the City to identify recycling improvements to be made for single-family,
commercial and restaurant customers.
We considered the City's unique geography, high number of multi -family residents, and
extreme density when working with staff to determine the ideal service package for its
constituents. The City received nine proposals, a high number for this type of
procurement process, and awarded the contract to a new service provider.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 21%, saving ratepayers $8.9 million over the 8 -year term
• City was reimbursed for procurement costs by new contractor
• Implemented an AB 939 Fee of $100,000 per year that contractor pays City
• Collection at no additional charge from street litter containers.
• Restaurant food waste diversion program tailored to the City's high density
• Free commercial recycling
• Mixed waste processing of commercial waste
• Automation of single family refuse, recycling and green waste
• Biennial neighborhood cleanup campaigns
• Curbside electronic waste collection at no additional charge
• New alternative fuel collection vehicles and new residential carts
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff:
Client Contact:
Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Jan Harmon
Environmental Programs Manager
323/848-6499
HF&H Consultants, LLC 19 September 25, 2008
•
City of Diamunnd Bar Section 6: Ea-perioice arnl References
Proposal to Proz7h1e Solid Waste Consadting Scrniees
CITY OF LAWNDALE
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Residential Solid
Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2002 10
Client Needs:
The City's residential solid waste collection agreement was to expire soon and the City
was in need of additional recycling programs. The City had issues with collection,
recycling and reporting in the open commercial sector as well.
HF&H Solution:
Having been pleased with our previous work for the City when we conducted its solid
waste contract procurement process in 1997, we were again hired to prepare the RFP
and franchise agreement, conduct the process, evaluate the proposals and negotiate the
final agreement.
We have continued to assist the City with development of commercial hauler permitting
system, preparation of municipal code text revisions, contract compliance, auditing of
tonnage reported and fees remitted.
• Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 16%
• Saved the ratepayers $1.2 million over the 7 -year term
(Note: Savings from our 1997 procurement were 11%, or $651,000 over the 5 -year
term)
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Annual Source Reduction and Recycling Surcharge - $30,000
• Collection at no additional charge at City -sponsored events
• Abandoned items collected at no additional charge
• Improved residential recycling and green waste diversion programs
• Required transformation of refuse
• Three City-wide clean up events per year
• Electronic waste collection
• Used oil recycling
• Alternative fuel vehicles
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating, Debbie Morris
Client Contact: Ms. Marlene Miyoshi
Director of Public Works
310/973-3260
•
HF&H Consultants, LLC 70 Seliteniher 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Consndting SerZnees
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Solid Waste
Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2000 NA
Client Needs:
The City needed a consultant to:
• Determine the services to be proposed upon
• Prepare the RFP and franchise agreement
• Audit the hauler operating data
• Conduct community outreach meetings for stakeholder groups
• Evaluate proposals
• Negotiate final contract terms
• Present the final agreement to the City Council
The City offered many challenges, including numerous homeowners' associations, each
with unique service requirements, such as in -ground containers, both manual and
automation, different waste streams serviced, backyard service, and collection day
restrictions.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H assisted the City in the procurement of a new residential and commercial solid
waste franchise agreement.
We tailored a contract to meet the needs of all of the City's various communities, and
simplified the hauler's complex rate schedule.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 12%
• Saved the ratepayers $5.7 million over the 8 -year term
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Collection at no additional charge of abandoned items
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Used motor oil and filter recycling
• Backyard, in -ground, manual and automated options
• Once versus twice -per -week collection options
• Alternative collection vehicles
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Contact: Ms. Sheila Gilligan
Asst. City Manager
760/346-0611
HF&H Constdtarnts, LLC -)7 September 25, 2008
0
Citi of Diannoud Bar Section 6: Fxperic rice and References
Prt>Posal to Provide Solid Waste Cotisislting Services
CITY OF DANA POINT
Engagement Title: Negotiation of a Solid Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2005
The City needed a new contract with improved recycling services. The City needed
guidance as to whether it should renegotiate with the current hauler or seek competitive
proposals. As the City was pleased with prior work HF&H had performed for the City,
HF&H was hired to assist with determining procurement strategy, drafting the
franchise agreement and negotiating the final agreement.
HF&H Solution:
In order to meet the City's goals, HF&H:
• Evaluated the benefits of renegotiation versus competitive procurement, briefing the
City Council and City staff on the benefits of each option
• Assisted the City in determining that first negotiating with the current hauler could
achieve the desired results
• Drafted the draft agreement
• • Assisted in the negotiations process
• Compared the proposed rates and services to comparable cities and competitively
procured agreements to assist the City in determining that the agreement was
reasonable and met its needs
Results:
The new contract provided the City with:
• Mixed waste processing of all multi -family refuse and roll -off box loads
• Mixed waste processing of 50% of commercial bin refuse
• Required site visits to establish commercial and multi -family recycling programs
• Increased franchise fees
• Funding to City for recycling efforts
• Annual $75,000 funding of staff time
• Reimbursement of contract negotiations costs
+ Phasing in of alternative fuel vehicles
• Hauler -funded biennial audits
• Increased performance security and insurance levels
• Free bulky item collection for multi -family customers
• Retains lowest residential rate in a four -city area, or "quad cities"
• Free electronic waste collection
• Required dedicated routes to improve tonnage reporting accuracy
• HF&H Team Members: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
HF&H Consultants, LIC » Scl7tember 25, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Consulting SenVices
Client Contact: Brad Fowler
Public Works and Engineering Services
(949) 248-3554
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement and Negotiations of
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Contracts
Date of Engagement: 2002
Client Needs:
The City had three residential haulers operating in three exclusive areas. The same three
haulers offered commercial services City-wide on a competitive basis under a maximum
City -approved rate. Residential and commercial contracts ended years apart. The City
wanted to:
• Restructure the franchise arrangement
• Analyze regional transfer station and MRF options
• Analyze variable can rate implementation options
HF&H Solution:
We prepared a RFP and drafted agreement for separate residential and commercial
contracts with the same end date. We conducted public outreach meetings, evaluated
six proposals, and negotiated contracts with three potential haulers, including an
agreement to develop a materials recovery facility in the City.
Results:
• City will save an estimated $35 million over the terms of the contracts, with a 30%
reduction in residential rates and a 13% reduction in commercial rates
Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractors
Recycling Fee of $70,000 per year paid to City
• $5.50 per ton of commercial recyclables paid to City
Collection at no additional charge from City facilities and at City -sponsored events
• City has the option, at the end of the term, to purchase a MRF built by the
commercial hauler below market value
Free commercial and multi -family recycling
Free mixed waste processing of at least half of commercial loads
New residential carts and enhanced recyclables and green waste collection
• Optional diaper recycling program
Electronic waste collection and processing
Diversion of manure from horse properties
HF&H Coitsitltants, LLC 23 September 25, 2008
40
Citi/ of Dianlotrd Sar Section 6: EXPericnce anri References
Proposal to Pro(ride Solicl Waste Cotistdting Services
• Alternative fuel vehicles
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Mr. Travis Lange
Environmental Services Manager
661/255-4337
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Solid
Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 1999
Client Needs:
The City has two separate franchise areas each with twice weekly refuse collection.
The smaller area had only 5% of the City's residential customers, and had unique
service requirements because it contained horse properties. The entire City had
is
operational challenges due to steep hills and overhanging trees.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H assisted the City in the procurement of new residential solid waste franchise
agreements. We prepared the RFP and agreement, conduct the procurement process,
evaluated the proposals and negotiated the final contract terms.
We addressed difficult terrain issues with "Scout service' (small trucks that can access
containers more easily than collection trucks and re -position containers for collection).
We conducted public outreach meetings. We surveyed and tabulated responses from
more than 3,000 customers regarding their service preferences for once versus twice
per week collection.
• Reduced overall rates by 6%, saving the ratepayers $1.4 million over the 7 -year term
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Abandoned items collected at no additional charge
• New Recycling Programs and Service Enhancements
• Customer acceptance of automation of recyclables and green waste, with new carts
• Electronic waste collection
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
• HF&H Team Members: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
HF&H G)I I St 1111711fs, LLC — - - — Septcj07cr2:5, 2008
Citi of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Consulting Services
Contact: Lauren Ramezani
Senior Administrative Analyst
(310) 541-6500
CITY OF RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA ire
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Solid Waste
Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2004
Client Needs:
The newly incorporated City was entering into its first franchise agreement, after having
been serviced under a county contract for five years. Residential services were not
consistent throughout the City and the City lacked sufficient recycling programs.
HF&H Solution:
After previously assisting the City with negotiations, the City hired us again to conduct
the City's first solid waste RFP process. We develop an RFP and franchise agreement for
single-family, multi -family and commercial refuse, recycling and green waste collection
services, managed the procurement process, evaluated the proposals, interviewed
proposers and negotiated the final agreement.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 27%, saving the ratepayers $7.8 million over the 8 -year
term
• Implementation of a 5%o franchise fee
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Outreach Fee of $60,000 per year to City
• Collection at no additional charge from City facilities and at City -sponsored events
• Collection of abandoned items at no additional charge
• New collection vehicles and new residential carts
• Biennial curbside cleanup campaigns
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
New recycling programs and service enhancements, including:
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling, site visits required
• Automation of green waste collection
• Mixed waste processing of all roll -off box loads
• Electronic waste collection
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Mr. D. James Hart, City Manager
Currently with the City of Adelanto
760/256-2300 ext. 3016
HF&H Constiltants, LLC ,F Septettthcr25, 2008
•
Citic of Dirnnrntd Bar Section 0: Experience aiid References
Proptlmd to Proode Solid Waste Cortsnitirjg Services
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Engagement Title: Waste Hauling Franchise Negotiations
Date of Engagement: 2003 ♦�
Client Needs: `
The County of San Bernardino contracts with haulers to
provide residential and commercial collection services in more than 25 areas and sub
areas within the unincorporated county. The County was establishing five new county
franchise areas in need of haulers and collection agreements. The County received
proposals to service these areas, as well as proposals to make revisions to existing
contracts. Service areas received different services at different rates. Proposals were
received in a variety of formats. The County needed to determine costs and services to
be negotiated in each area.
HF&H Solution:
First, HF&H worked closely with County staff to assist staff in gaining a better
understanding of their own complex network of franchise agreements.
Proposals had been solicited without strict guidelines; therefore, some information was
incomplete and the proposals were difficult to compare. We profiled proposed and
• existing service arrangements by hauler and new county franchise area in a way to
permit the reader to understand and compare the various proposed services and terms
for each area.
We provided rate evaluations to identify and evaluate the reasonableness of proposed
rates. The County was grateful for the detailed layout of rates that we provided, as the
format assisted in reviewing fees and over -charges as well.
For proposals relating to existing franchise areas, HF&H summarized proposed contract
changes by hauler and franchise area, listing recommended changes and corresponding
rate effects.
We provided contract language for use in the contract revisions and new franchise area
agreements to provide the County with clearer and more complete service requirements
and contract language that will enable the County to enforce these requirements.
Results:
As a result of our assistance, County staff gained:
• Improved contract language for County contracts
• More consistency in service levels
• Equitable rates
• A better understanding by the County as to services provided in various areas under
many franchise agreements.
• Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
HP&H G�nsrtlhnits, LLC 26 September 25, 2008
City of Dinnrond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Proz>ide Solid Waste Co)lsidtirag SeWices
Client Contact: Kathleen Bingham
Solid Waste Programs Administrator
909/386-8739
CITY OF EL CENTRO
Engagement Title Competitive Procurement and Negotiations ofELQr,_
a Solid Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2007
Client Needs:
The City's solid waste collection contract with the only major hauler in the region was
expiring and the hauler offered a short extension. The local landfill and materials
recovery facility were owned and operated by the City's current hauler. The City
wanted to conduct a competitive procurement but had limited time, limited hauler
options, and limited disposal options. Rates had not been increased since 2003 and were
expected to increase significantly. Service data was difficult to obtain.
HF&H Solution:
We drafted the RFP and collection agreement, conducted public outreach meetings,
evaluated four proposals, and negotiated contracts with two proposers.
Results:
• The City received four quality proposals
• Increased franchise fee
• New AB 939 fee
• New refuse vehicle impact reimbursement of $90,000 per year
• New hauler agreed to establish a new facility within City limits
• Optional used oil and oil filter collection
• New residential carts
• Site visits to all businesses to promote recycling
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Free mixed waste processing of at least half of commercial loads
• Electronic waste collection and processing
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
• Improved rate adjustment method, including a mechanism to adjust rates upon the
opening of the Mesquite Landfill, if it is used
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Ms. J.B. West
Public Works Analyst
760/337-4538
HF&H Corisidtants, LLC 27 1
Se �temher 25, 2008
•
City of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience aad References
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Crntsxlting Services
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Engagement Title: Commercial Solid Waste Procurement;
Transition to Exclusive Franchise System
Date of Engagements: 1994, 2000, 2003
Client Needs:
The City had multiple private haulers under contract to provide commercial collection
services. In 1994, 2000 and 2003, the City was in need of assistance in procuring new
collection agreements. The City's Public Works Department provides residential service.
HF&H Solution
We have assisted the City of Beverly Hills on an ongoing basis since 1993, including
negotiating collection agreements in 1994, 2000 and 2003, auditing haulers, and
performing rate studies.
In 1994, HF&H assisted the City in transitioning from a non-exclusive commercial
system with an unlimited number of haulers to a non-exclusive system limited to only
five haulers. Challenges of such a transition, which HF&H overcame, included
providing proposers with sufficient service data gathered from multiple haulers.
• In subsequent engagements, HF&H then helped the City transition from five
commercial haulers to one.
Results:
In 1994, the City executed five-year non-exclusive commercial solid waste collection
agreements with five haulers, significantly reducing its number of haulers.
In 2003, the City competitively procured a new commercial hauler, providing free
recycling services, mixed waste processing of all waste, and commercial green waste
collection.
Key HF&H Staff : Laith Ezzet Darrel Bice, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Shana Epstein
Assistant Utility Services Manager
310/285-2570
CITY OF MURRIETA
Engagement Title: Review of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement
Date of Engagement: 2004
•
The City recognized the need to renegotiate its current solid waste
14F&14 CoasultmrtS, 11C 28 Scptcmbcr25, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Section 6: Expericitce and References
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Consulting Services
collection contract and hired HF&H to:
• Review the current agreement
• Review current city services
• Identify standard state-of-the-art contract terms and services
• Recommend improvements to services and contract terms
Service Recommendations
• Improve cart labeling
• Add free commercial recycling services
• Add free service for special events
• Add e -waste collection
• Add City clean-ups
• Add holiday tree collection
• Require container graffiti removal
• Require roll -off load recycling requirements
Contract Recommendations
• Restrict of broad extraordinary rate adjustment clause
• Improve AB 939 indemnification clause
• Improve hazardous substances indemnification clause
• Improve reporting and performance requirements
• Increase low performance bond amount
• Specify liquidated damages to be specified
• Add outreach fee
• Improve assignment clause
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Contact: Al Vollbrecht
Senior Management Analyst
909/461-6003
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement and
Negotiations of Residential and Commercial
Solid Waste Collection Contracts
Date of Engagement: 2001
Client Needs:
The City's franchise agreements were expiring. The City has three residential service
HF&H Coizszdtants, LLC ?9 September 25, 2008
10
City of Diamoui Bar Section 6: P:xperieiice and References
Proposal to Proz7ide Solid Waste Cousultitig Setvices
areas, with the City providing service in one. The City wanted to restructure its
commercial service arrangement of several exclusive commercial service areas to
provide and the City wanted to restructure to provide customers with service
alternatives and thereby improve declining customer service.
HF&H Solution:
After having HF&H assist the City with evaluation of routing and operational issues for
the City's municipal operations, the City again hired HF&H to assist with the
procurement of new collection contracts.
We prepared a Request for Bids (RFB) and collection agreement for exclusive residential
solid waste collection services, allowing haulers to compete for two service area
contracts.
We prepared a RFB and a collection agreement for multiple franchised commercial
haulers, which allowed three new franchised haulers to compete for commercial
customers.
Results:
Results of our conducting the competitive procurement for the City include:
• • Reducing costs to residents by 17% and costs to businesses by 34%
• New Residential Recycling Programs and Service Enhancements, including the
automation of refuse and green waste collection
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
• New Commercial Recycling Programs and Service Enhancements, including free
commercial and multi -family recycling
• Minimum recycling requirements
•
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Rick McGrath
Public Works Director (retired)
HF&H Consultants, LLC
30 23, ZOOS
City of Dianrorut Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Wijste Contracting Assistance
EXHIBIT A: HF&H SERVICE BROCHURES
RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE AUDIT SERVICES
SOLUTIONS RELIABLE RESULTS
Protecting Your Interests
Penalties. Lost business. Litigation. Recordkeeping has
become a high-stakes endeavor. At HF&H, our global
approach to recycling and solid waste audits prevents
problems and protects your jurisdiction by ensuring
accuracy, integrity and excellence at every turn.
Audits You Can Trust
Reliable information makes all the difference. That's
why HF&H has developed a suite of recycling and solid
waste audit services you can trust. Our experts provide
in-depth reviews to determine the accuracy of all your
hauler fee payments, reported tonnage, billing, and rate
adjustment requests.
Dedicated to Details
HF&H clients gain peace of mind from our in-depth
solid waste audits by,
• Verifying that residential and business bills reflect
approved rates and accurate service levels
• Ensuring all franchise, AB 939 or other fees remitted
are accurate.
• Confirming that haulers have complied with recycling
and solid waste service contracts made reasonable,
appropriate rate requests & adjustments; and accu-
rately reported collected tonnage.
• Developing and evaluating viable costs for recycling
and solid waste services.
HF&H Consultants, LLC
Cities and counties throughout the Western United
States have come to rely on HF&H's unparalleled
understanding of the recycling and solid waste industry.
Our expert audit staff has reviewed the financial and
operating records of approximately 100 hauling compa-
nies on behalf of our clients. As a result, individual
clients have recovered in excess of one million dollars
in fees due from haulers.
Conscientious audits, insightful recommendations and
meticulous examinations have allowed our clients to:
• Collect additional franchise, AB 939 and other fees.
• Determine the accuracy of hauler fee payments,
billings, services and reported tonnage
• Establish reasonable and appropriate rate strategies.
• Improve diversion rates by confirming the accuracy of
reported tonnage.
• Validate the accuracy and fairness of hauler rate
adjustment requests.
Clients turn to HF&H when they require
thorough audits, sound financial
reporting and expert advice. Our clients
unanimously report 100% satisfaction
with our resultsl
September 5, 2008
0
•
Citi of Diamond Bar ExlriNt A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Ivr-I Irrc A1JUI1 51-RVICES
HF&H provides recycling and solid waste audit services
tailored to the demands of public agencies
Billing and Service Audits: We audit residential and
commercial customer bills to ensure they reflect
approved hauler rates and snatch the level of services
provided, including the collection frequency and the
size and number of containers sere ced.
Contract Compliance Audits: We evaluate hauler per-
formance records to ensure they provide services to
meet your recycling and solid waste service contracts.
If hauler performance does not comply, HF&H offers
proven solutions
Hauler Fee Payment Audits: We determine the accu-
racy of AB 939 fees and other solid waste disposal fees
based on assessment and hauler information records.
Rate and Cost of Service Studies: We review the
cost of providing recycling and solid waste services in
order to develop suitable rates or rate -adjustment
strategies to meet financial goals.
Reviews of Rate Adjustment Requests: We verify
that hauler rate adjustment requests are sensible and
correctly calculated.
Tonnage Audits: We analyze hauler reports and sup, -
porting records to verify the amount of tonnage collect-
ed and establish correct diversion rates.
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 1008/o satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
urnmend our services to other ju-isdictions with similar
needs.`
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
Way 'We build long-term relationships and delive• long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We apply our expertise to address your particular chal-
lenges and maximize your recycling. solid waste, and
diversion results. We've saved our clients millions of
dollars collectively through expert monitoring uf con-
tractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion coraoliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your auditing se -vices,
'RFs-Ils of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfacticn Survey ..;orieuc_ed by
Johnstor Gremacx & Rossi. LLP, Cenfied Public Accoun arts.
n
Northern California
Southern California
Contrac, tlanagement Services
2175 N. California Boulevard, 4990
3990 Westerly Place. 4195
Recyntmg & Sohn Waste Contract Services
Walnut Creek, CA 94,596
Newport Beach. CA 92660
Recycling & Solid Waste Au& Sera ices
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
vehicle impar' Studies
Bob Hilton
Lath Ezzet
• variagement & Opera :ions Reviews
rhilton(c�hfhconsultants.com
lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
• Program Implementation. Diversion & Sustainability Services
Reuy'-iing & Solid Waste Rai, Services
John Famkopf
Funding Storm Water & Stl Programs
lfarnkopf(a)hfh-consultants.com
www.hth-consultants.com
Service l,rnrhureR are, available !ipnn r•q,ract
"F&H COJIS101711ts, LI.0 ,
5eplcmber a, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Seance Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
SOLUTIONS VALUE
Contract Management Solutions
Do you have limited staff resources to manage and
monitor your recycling and solid waste contracts or per-
mits? Do you need to supplement in-house resources
with recycling and solid waste contracting specialists or
solicit a different perspective? If so, HF&H can provide
staff resources and expertise to manage contracts
strategically for improved service and to monitor con-
tractor performance on an ongoing basis.
Flexibility and Expertise
HF&H is ready to put an entire team of highly experi-
enced experts to work for you. We have specialized
skills across a wide range of disciplines' contract com-
pliance, contract negotiations, diversion program plan-
ning and implementation, auditing and accounting,
legal review, public policy, and public, outreach. Our
most experienced consultants will actively contribute
their expertise to serving your needs.
Measurable Results
Our services have helped more than 200 municipalities
significantly reduce costs and achieve or exceed pro-
gram goals. We have helped to establish and monitor
sound contracts, and effectively deliver collection serv-
ices to residents and businesses. For example, the
City of Lawndale's residential diversion rate increased
30 percentage points in three years with HF&H's
assistance.
Did you know?
You can use AB 939 fees and grant
funds to offset the cost of HF&il
contract management services.
Our contract management services can address all
facets of your contracts, permits, and program needs
and desired goals. We can
• Maximize your ability to meet and exceed program
and diversion goals
• Take a proactive approach to minimize compliance
issues with your contractors, permittees, and/or regu-
lators
• Improve collection services and program performance
by working with contractors and/or permittees to
ensure that:
Performance standards are enforced
Contract requirements are being met
- Contractor payments are timely and accurate
- Customer rates are competitive and accurate
Customer requests and complaints are responded
to in a timely manner
• Monitor programs to identify potential problems and
plan for future changes
"The reason we hire HF&H time and
again is the personal service. They
are extremely responsive to our needs.
i would recommend HF&H to any
jurisdiction faced with challenging
solid waste issues."
Tam[ Piscotty. Assistant to the City Manager.
City of La Pal rna
- -- - - Septe to hei.5, 2008
HF&H Consultants, LLC 3
Is
.7
City of Dinfrrotttl Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Service Brcl
Proposal to Proz�irle _Mid Waste Contracting Assistarfce
SERVICES
Contract Compliance
• Mon Loring compliance with contract requirements
• Tracking and analysis of program data
• Audits of contractor s records
• Verification of requested rate adjustments
• Assessment of diversion and outreach programs
Contract Coordination and Oversight
• Facilitation of regular meetings with contractor
• Development and implementation of performance
improvement plans
• Review and approval of public education materials
• Resoonse to customer complaints
Periodic Contract Management Assistance
• Negotiation of contract amendments
• Preparation of contract management tools
• Development of data tracking and analysis process
• Survey of customers to assess quality of service and
future needs
`In my 25+ years of municipal adminhs-
tration. I have retained and managed the
services of over 15 different consulting firms.
I can truly say that HF&H is probably the
finest firm in terms of personnel, flexibility,
expertise and effectiveness
that t have ever worked with,
Antonia E Acosta. Deputy City Manager'
Leisure Services Director City of Union City
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to otherfurisd ctions with similar
needs.'
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way, We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We ve
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience. we offer comarehensive solut'ons to
your diversion compliance and contract performance
Issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your pub is agency's contract management needs.
'RPF,At5 of 2006 HF&H Cliant S2tisfartinn Survey conoucted by
Johnston.. Greni & Rossi.. LLP Certifier) Public Ace:untacts
Northern California
Southern California
2175 N_ California Boulevard, #990
3990 Westerly Place. #195
contract Managenien. Sor.kos
Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Sorvices
VValnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Recycling & Solid Waste Audit Services
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Vehcle Impact Studies
Bob Hilton
Laith Ill
• Management & gperations Reviews
rhilten@hfh-consuliants.com
lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
• Program Implemente6on Di�ersioa & Sustainar:iI [y Servcas
John Farrel
Recycling & Solid V`iaste Rase Ser ices
jfarnkopf@hfh-sonsultants.com
www.hfh-consultants.com
Funding Stonn',"star & Stre .t Progran ,
'Scrncc rrochure5 are a�'eaa6le uixn rcaucst
HFcn�H Ccutstrltents, I LC - - - _
Septc arbor 7, 2008
City of Diammid Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE CONTRACT SERVICES
SOLUTIONS
Rewarding Contract Solutions
Having trouble developing contract terms? Your
contractor wont sign on the dotted line"? Although the
recycling and solid waste contracting process may
initially seem straightforward, jurisdictions often
discover they need experts to help them navigate the
rugged terrain. At HF&H, our expertise ensures your
contract issues and contractor selection projects
receive focused attention and yield rewarding results.
Your Needs. Our Priorities.
Comprehensive contracts set the stage for future suc-
cess. That's why HF&H makes certain your agreements
will satisfy your unique long-term needs. Our experi-
enced staff of experts can resolve your contract chal-
lenges by:
• Offering intelligent strategies for developing new
agreements and enhancing existing agreements.
• Managing competitive contractor selection processes
that generate numerous proposers and yield
reasonable costs.
• Providing objective, trustworthy contract recommen-
dations to avoid unnecessary deliberation over the
negotiating table or at City Council meetings.
Maximized Results
Our progressive comracting approach maximizes
effectiveness and minimizes inefficiency. HF&H has
assisted approximately 100 California communities in
achieving their recycling and solid waste contract
objectives. Our commitment to excellence has support-
ed successful negotiation of agreements valued at
more than one billion dollars and saved our clients hun-
dreds of millions of dollars. Our deep understanding of
the recycling and solid waste industry and associated
contracting processes allows our team of qualified
experts to:
• Plan efdective diversion programs and contractor
services.
• Generate tight, well -organized, and readable
contracts.
• Negotiate win-win contract terms and conditions
• Provide dependable industry benchmarks for cost
and service comparisons.
• Offer independent, objective proposal evaluations and
contractor recommendations.
"The most telling characterization of your
firm's capability in managing complex
procurement projects was the repeated
accolades from the members of the
Board of Supervisors."
Gerry Newcombe
Solid Waste Management Division Manager
San Bernardino County
HF&H Consul tants, LLC ; september 5, 2008
LJ
0
City of Dianiond B(rr ErlriNt A: HF£,,H Service Brochures
Proposal to ProVide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
SERVICES THAT MEET YOUR NEEDS ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
At HF&H, we offer a suite of recycling and solid waste
contract services that meets the unique demands of
each city and public agency. Our comprehensive solu-
tions are designed to streamline every challenging
contracting process your jurisdiction undertakes.
Competitive Contractor Selection Processes
We develop procurement strategies; evaluate and plan
future program and contract needs; facilitate communi-
ty
:ommun -ty workshops and public input activities; generate
requests for proposals and requests for bids; prepare
collection, processing, and disposal agreements; nego-
tiate agreements: establish rates; revise municipal
codes for consistency with new services; and support
city council presentations.
Contract Negotiations and Amendment Services
We develop contract negotiation strategies, offer rec-
ommendations on new or amended contract language
prepare appropriate contract language, evaluate pro-
posed services and costs, and assess rates compared
to neighboring communities.
Post -Contracting Implementation Services
We provide transition management and monitoring
assistance, post -implementation audits of contractor
Performance, and contract management and oversight
assistance.
Northern California Southern California
2175 N. California Boulevard. *990 3990 W'asterly place. µ195
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Newport Beach, CA 92660
925-977-6950 949-251-8628
Bob Hilton Laith Ezzet
rhdton(d)hfh-consultants.com lezzet(a)hfh-consultants.com
John Farnkopf
ffarnkopfig)hfh-ccnsultants.com www.hfh-consultants.com
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100%
satisfaction with our resutts, hire us again and again,
and recommend our services to other jurisdictions with
similar needs.*
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver
long-term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your contract development and negotiation needs
'Results of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Survey concuc-ed by
Johnstor Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Cer.if, _d Pur,lic Accoun.anls_
• Contract Management Services
- Idecycling & Solid Waste Contrail Services
• Recycling & solid Wasle Audi', Services
• Vehicle Impac- Stuaies
• Nariagerient & Opera:iotis Revwwv
Program Implementa-ion. Diversion & Sustainability Service=
• Recyeligq & solid Wesle Rale Servi� es
=unding Storm Water & Street Programs
`Service hrtnrhu*e<are avaihhle upon �.xliiect
HF£TH Crnrsultrtrrts, 1 EC
6 Septrnrher i, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF£YH Semice Brochures
Proposal to Proinde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, DIVERSION, & SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES
SOLUTIONS
Optimizing Your Options
Compelling analysis Decisive actions. Follow through.
The breakthrough tactics needed to achieve AB 939
mandates can overwhelm jurisdictions strapped for
time and specialized in-house talent. Fortunately, HF&H
has the time, talent, and track record to provide power-
ful options and solutions for all your diversion goals.
Expert Guidance
HF&H clients benefit from our deep knowledge of the
recycling and solid waste industry and our understand-
ing of long-term community needs. We help you
increase diversion volumes and achieve solid -waste
reduction compliance by:
• Developing, implementing, and monitoring cus-
tomized programs and services to meet or exceed
your objectives; including hard -to -reach sectors such
as multi -family, commercial, and G&D generators
• Managing franchise agreements to facilitate optimal
recycling and solid waste operations and ensure con-
tractor compliance_
• Tracking new and pending legislation to ensure that
our clients are prepared to comply with new regula-
tions.
• Increasing used oil, used oil filter, and bottle and can
recycling volumes through grant administration and
program development.
Desirable Results
Our integrated approach to diversion program imple-
mentation has achieved diversion goals for hundreds of
California municipalities. Client success stories illus-
trate the tremendous value of our diversion services:
• Since contracting with HF&H, Lawndale implemented
over a dozen new programs, increased City fees by
over $350,000 per year, and improved contractor
reporting and diversion compliance; all resulting in a
30 percentage point increase in residential diversion
rates in three years.
• HF&H documented over 31,000 :ons of misreported
waste by over 60 unlicensed haulers in La Puente
resulting in a 79 percentage point increase in the
City's diversion rate.
• Alternative Employment Adjustment Factor
Certification in the cities of La Quinta, San Juan
Capistrano, San Clemente and Dana Point increased
diversion rates by 8 to 12 percentage points,
• Tonnage modification reporting for Union City resulted
in increased diverstion rates ranging from 14 to 28
percentage points.
"HF&H has provided critical advice, sup-
port, and program oversight through
their AS 939 compliance services which
has allowed our City to meet the State's
diversion goal."
Marlene Miyoshi
plrector of Piblc Works
City of Lawndale
HF&H Consultants LLC 7
SeptL'711ber 5, 200
CrtJ of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solitl Waste Contracting Assistance
DYNAMIC DIVERSION AND SUSTAINABILITY ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
SERVICES
HF&H offers a broad range of fully integrated services,
which we tailor for every city and public agency we
serve We provide the expert guidance necessary to
achieve or surpass diversion mandates and goals.
AB 939 Implementation Services: We use our in-
depth industry knowledge to develop, evaluate, imple-
ment, and monitor progressive recycling and solid
waste diversion programs to meet or exceed mandated
and community -defined diversion goals. We formulate
public education outreach and media relations curricu-
lums; provide legislative and regulatory updates; and.
review and redraft disposal reconciliation reports and
audits.
Sustainability Services: We determine `sustainability
indicators" to alert our clients of recycling and solid
waste program problems. We attend community meet-
ings to select sustainability indicators and use commu-
nity-based Social marketing techniques to improve
established sustainability indicators in program plan-
ning efforts
• Annual Report Services: We monitor and complete
necessary documents, including: CIWMB Annual
Reports: Disposal Modification and Alternative
Adjustment Method forms: SB 1066 Time Extension
Applications; Creation of a New Base Year; and
Sewage Sludge Diversion Credit Applications
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100°i6 satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We've
saved our clients millions of dollars, collectively,
through expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and arivate
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your program implementation, diversion. and sus-
tainability services.
'ResLlts of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Surrey eoncuc.ed by
Johnstor Gremaux & Rossi, LLP. Certified Pub is Accounants.
Northern California
__....___,.-.....a._...mmffmmpqwwmm
Southern California
Contract Management Services
2175 N. Cal fornia Boulevard, #990
3990 Westerly Place. 4195
tecyclrng & Said Waste Contract Services
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Recycling & Solid Waste Audi, Services
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Vehicle Impart Studies
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
• fVanagement &opera ions Revie,
rhilton'AWIh-consultants.com
lezzeta)hfh-consultants.com
�-
Program Implementation. Diversion & Sustamat:dr Y Service,
• Re!y�iiny &Solid Waste Rale Services
John Farnkopf
Funding Storm Water & Street Programs
ltarnkoofLhfh-ccnsultants.com
www.hfh-consultants.com
'S�YvI:P. Il rnrh.ICPS ;a f[' aV�lliti)�P I�J�tl f,'.ftil,?St
HF&H C0115111ta11tS, LLC - — 8 Septembers, 2008
City of Dianloild Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provitle SoliriWilste Contracting Assistance
MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS REVIEWS
SOLUTIONS
Safeguarding Your Future
As cities grow and develop, needs change. As a result
of this municipal flux, jurisdictions must modify recy-
cling and solid waste programs, services and goals in
order to operate efficiently—but where do they begin?
Without objective evaluations of their management
decisions, financial position, and operational activities,
many end up with more questions than answers. HF&H
has the experience, knowledge and insight to help,
Premium Performance
HF&H is committed to optimizing the efficiency of your
recycling and solid waste programs and services. Our
reviews ensure these operations are cost effective,
achieve waste reduction goals, and meet long-term
community needs by
• Conducting management studies that accurately
assess your management's key assumptions. We
make certain new or modified planning strategies and
objectives are appropriate, financially sound, and
vohle.
• Providing operation evaluations that accurately deter-
mine the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of serv-
ices provided by your operator. We identify causes of
performance shortfalls; offer proven recommenda-
tions to reduce costs and improve productivity and
services; and assist with monitoring program results.
Gratifying Results
We focus on your unique goals and objectives. Our
innovative approach to municipal and franchised opera-
tional reviews identifies and substantiates opportunities
to enhance your recycling and solid waste operations.
As a result of recent HF&H management and opera-
tions reviews, our clients have reported improvements
such as a 10% decrease in routes. approximately
$100,000 in reduced annual costs, and 10% increases
in waste diversion. Our deep understanding of the recy-
cling and solid waste industry allows our team of quali-
fied experts to
• Plan and implement effective diversion programs and
collection systems.
• Evaluate operational effectiveness and develop rec-
ommendations for improvemem-
• Provide dependable industry benchmarks for cost
and service comparisons
• Offer independent, objective appraisal of operational
and financial performance
"Your in-depth analysis of productivity
associated with vehicles, equipment and
testing asset purchases has saved
ratepayers approximately $125,000 over
the last three years."
Mark Bowers
solid Waste Program Manager
City of Sunnyvale
HF&H Consultants, LLC 9 Septembcr 5, 2008
0
•
Citi of Diamond Bar ExhiNt A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
UNSURPASSED SERVICES
HF&H offers a comprehensive collection of services
designed to enhance the performance and effective-
ness of recycling and solid waste programs and servic-
es. We provide Optimal solutions for each public
agency we assist.
Cost of Service and Operation Review: We use
proven industry standards to objectively evaluate the
relationship between your cost of services and opera-
tional productivity to ensure your goals are met or
exceeded.
Facility and Program Design Review: We assess
existing facility and program designs to improve the
bottom-line results of your operations.
Management Studies: We analyze your key assump-
tions and develop strategic long-term plans to assure
Your urisdiction meets projected operational, program,
and capacity demands.
Organizational Studies: We assess existing staffing
and organizational structure to verify proper assign-
ment of responsibility.
Strategic Planning Review: We establish program
goals and systems and provide recommendations of
Operational and programmatic improvements to ensure
long-term needs and goals are met.
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100°% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.'
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maxim ze
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We ve
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your management and operations services
"Results of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Survey �,oncuc-ed by
Johnstor_ Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Cerified Public Accoun.ants.
Northern California
Southern California
• Contract tvlanagement Services
2175 N California Boulevard. 4990
3990 Westerly Place. 4195
Recycling & Solid v✓l;te r;ontrac
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach. CA 92680
Services
Recycling & Solid Waste Audi. Sen -ices
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Vehicle tmpant Studies
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
• vanagement & Opera . iuris Reviews
rhilton,'a)hfh-consultants.ccm
lezze'.Phfh-consultants_Corr
• Program Implementation. Diverion & Sustaina,^illy Services
John Famkopf
Rec yAng &Solid Waste Rale Services
IfarnkopfLhfh-consultants.com
www.hfh-consultants.com
• Funding storm Water & street Programs
'SVice hrcrhures are availahle itibn ranvast
HhETH Corrsill till, ts, [1,C _
10 Septemher:5, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Semice Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE RATE SERVICES
SOLUTIONS First -Rate Results
Our commitment to providing accurate and comprehen-
Defending Your Rates
Fair and sensible collection rates play a key role in
your recycling and solid waste equation. That's why
your jurisdiction needs to know if a request for a rate or
compensation increase from your collection or material
processing contractor makes sense. At HF&H, our in-
depth rate and compensation reviews can prevent
problems and ensure your collection rates are always
right on the mark.
Covered, Every Detail
Our clients trust HF&H to provide expert evaluations of
contractor rate/compensation modification applications,
financial statements, operation records, and rate struc-
tures. Our objective reviews and studies arm your juris-
diction with every statistic necessary to successfully
address contractor rate/compensation queries by:
• Calculating contractor rates/compensation and alter-
native rate structures to cover specified contractor
and municipal costs and to maximize waste reduction
goals.
• Ensuring all current and requested recycling and solid
waste rateslcompensation are reasonable and sup
ported by accurate documentation.
is Your Hauler Requesting Rate increases Due
to Extraordinary Costincreases (e.g., il"i
HFSH can review the request and help you
identify offsetting cost Savings such as
reduced worlter'S COrrIhAnSAtiliri C09'".
sive rate and compensation studies and reviews allows
us to consistently detect omissions, errors and over-
sights. We have assisted approximately 100 communi-
ties throughout the Western United States in success-
fully analyzing requested ratelcompensation increases.
The results? Individual clients have saved millions of
dollars in avoided contractor rate and compensation
increases.
• A recent HF&H collection rate review resulted in a
reduction in a collection contractor's requested rate
increase from 21.9% to 7.9% (based on more than a
$1,400,000 reduction to the hauler's projected rev-
enue requirement and a $342,000 increase in the
hauler's projected revenue for the forthcoming rate
period).
• A recent HF&H processing facility compensation
review resulted in a reduction in the facility operators
requested 2007 compensation from $29.8 million to
$27.8 million—a savings of $2.0 million.
"With each review of Marin Sanitary
Service's Rate Application, your team's
focus on details and industry experience
has produced results that prove
beneficial to the City... yet are
acceptable to the Company."
Ke) Nordhoff
Assistant City Manager, Clty of San Rafael
17
HF&H Cnisrfltants LLC - September 5, 2008
•
0
•
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Scrvice Brocluires
Proposal to Provide Solid. Waste Contracting Assistance
UNRIVALED RATE SERVICES
HF&H provides recycling and solid waste rate services
tailored to meet the unique demands of each city and
public agency. We provide consulting services exclu-
sively to public agencies In order to avoid conflicts of
interest in appearance and in fact that may arise in
firms that serve both the public and private sectors.
Our team of experts will work diligently to help you
reduce costs and provide creative solutions to achieve
your program goals_ Our reviews provide you with the
assurance of an independent, expert, a -id thorough
verification of the reasonableness and necessity of the
contractor's requested rate/ compensation increase.
Compensation Procedures Reviews: We develop
policies and procedures that streamline and standard-
ize the preparation and review of requested ratcicom-
pensafon increases to ensure common expectations
and avoid antagonistic relationships
Cost of Service Studies/Rate Reviews: We analyze
hauler revenue and expense financials. operat ons
records, future plans, and projected financial 'esults of
operations to analyze the reasonableness of requested
rate!compensation increases. We determine the equity
of projected costs for providing a wide range of recy-
cling and solid waste related services including the
use of split -body trucks. weekly versus bi-weekly col-
lection, and residential and commercial food waste col-
lection and processing.
Rate Structure Reviews: We establish alternative nol-
lection rate structures to encourage more efficient serv-
ce, waste reduction, and d version,
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 10014. satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions with sire tar
needs."
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive Dublin sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your recycling and solid waste rate services
"Res�,lts of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Survey corcuc.ed by
Johrstor. Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Cecifiad Public Accuun:ars.
Northern California
Southern California
Contract Uanagement services
2175 N. California Boulevard, 4996
3990 Westerly Place. 4195
Rf,.ychng ,& Solin waste Contract Serviees
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Recycling & SLlid Waste Audi. Ser: s
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Vehicle impac- Studies
• vamagernent & Opera ions Revieeds
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
- Program Implementation. Diversion & Sustainatnlity Service
rhilton(a?hfh-consultants.com
lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
Reayd,,4n & Solid Waste Rate Services
John Farrip f
• Funding Storm Water & Street Programs
tfarnkopfLhfh-consultants.com www.hfh-consultants.com
'Senl,v hrorhurec ara avaiwble rpon -,qnest
HF€7H Consultants, LLC
72 Septcmber 5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Fxhihit A: HF&H Service Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Weste Contracting Assistance
VEHICLE IMPACT STUDIES
SOLUTIONS
Street Maintenance Dilemma
Many cities now struggle with the difficult task of fund-
ing adequate street maintenance. State and local budg
ets continue to decrease. Gas taxes are stretched thin.
Public street use continues to grow. As if this weren't
enough, statistics prove that refuse, construction, and
transit vehicles can cause up to 60% of total vehicle
damage to public streets annually—which can cos:
jurisdictions tens of thousands to millions of dollars to
repair. How can this damage from heavy-duty vehicles
be proven and how can maintenance expenses be
recovered from parties creating the damage?
Fortunately, HF&H has solutions.
Premium Studies, Lucrative Solutions
Clients rely on HF&H when they need experts to evalu-
ate street deterioration factors, measure the impact of
refuse, construction and transit vehicles—and provide
street maintenance funding solutions. As leaders in this
arena, we help jurisdictions achieve street maintenance
funding goals by:
• Conducting proven impact studies to assess and doc-
ument the detrimental effects that heavy-duty vehi-
cles impose on public streets
• Developing innovative funding strategies to equitably
recover maintenance costs from responsible parties.
Innovative Ideas Abound
HF&H understands `.hat jurisdictions must find new
ways to acquire revenue in order to maintain safe,
high-quality roadways. Our studies substantiate that
one way to fund street maintenance is to initiate
Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees in addition to franchise
fees. Our experts help clients calculate and establish
appropriate Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees based on vehi-
cle usage for regular collection services and, if applica-
ble, at solid waste and/or recycling facilities within juris-
dictions—which can contribute hundreds of thousands
of dollars annually toward street maintenance.
Remarkable Results
California jurisdictions have reaped the rewards of
HF&H refuse vehicle and facility host impact studies
• The City of Fresno identified $726,000 in Refuse
Vehicle impacts: $597,000 in Transit Vehicle impacts:
and $7,912,000 in Construction Vehicle impacts.
• The City of Livermore now collects approximately
$1,823,000 annually to assist with street mainte-
nance related to Refuse and Construction vehicles.
"On behalf of the City of Livermore
Public Works Department, I would like to
take this opportunity to express my
satisfaction and appreciation for the
outstanding services provided by HF&H"
Dan McIntyre, P.E.
Public Woks Director, City of Livermore
HF&H Consultants, LLC 13 September 5, 2008
0
0
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Sciit>ice Brocldrres
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
VALUABLE IMPACT STUDY SERVICES
HF&H studies accurately measure the damage caused
to city streets by refuse- construction and transit vil
Iles Our studies often find that the damage caused by
heavy-duty vehicles produces a disproportionate finan-
cial burden that can oe alleviated.
HF&H performs the following studies to help determine
the 'impact of various vehicles and facilities on street
quality:
Recycling and Solid Waste Vehicle Impact Studies:
Vire collaborate with our clients' service providers to dis-
tinguish the physical impact of and associated mainte-
nance expenses from collection vehicles regularly ope•-
ating on public streets.
Construction Vehicle Impact Studies: We analyze
building permit volumes, construction categories. traffic
classifications, and street quality to determine street
maintenance impacts and associated maintenance
expenses of building activity
Transit Vehicle Impact Studies: We study vehicle
types, routing, ridership. and trip frequencies of bus
transit systems to calculate the impact on public streets
and associated maintenance expenses.
Facility Impact Studies: We work with host jurisdic-
tions and facility operators to establish the impacts of
hosting regionally used facilities in their jurisdictions
and to set reasonable host fees for those facilities.
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100'/0 satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again & again, and recom-
mend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.'
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert financial analysis.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive publ c sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer coni
hensive solutions to your diversion ccrnpliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your vehicle impact study and street maintenance
funding solutions services
`ResLlts of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Survey concuc'.ec by
Johnsor Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Cenifed Public Accoun'arts.
HF&H Consultants, LLC 14 September 5 2008
Northern California
Southern California
Contract Management Services
2175 N. California Boulevard. 4990
2990 Westerly Place, 4195
Recycling 8 Solid waste Contract Services
Walnut Creek, CA 94.59Fi
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Recyclinq & Sulid ATaste Audit Services
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Vehicle impar- Stucies
• Nanayement & Opera -ions Revue✓.,a
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
• Program Implerner�lation. Diversion & Suslainabdry Services
rhlton(Gilhfh-consultants.com
lezzet(cy)hfh -cons ultants.eom
Recv_Iing & Solid Waste Rate Se; vices
John Farnkopf
• Funding Storrn Water & Street Programs
jfarnkopfL&hfh-con sultan ts.com
www.hfh-consultants.com
it r\'If. P. hft)rll.lre5 arP. aVrll at�tP. Ilpf]n rP.rIiIP.Gt
HF&H Consultants, LLC 14 September 5 2008
City of Diaruoid Bar Fxhibit B: Client List
Proposal to ProzMt, Solid Waste Co meting Assistance
EXHIBIT B: CLIENT LIST
Aerojet General Corporation
City of Carson
Alameda County Clean Water Program
City of Carson City, Nevada
Alameda County Waste Management
City of Cerritos
Authority
City of Chandler
Alameda County Water District
City of Chula Vista
Alameda Joint Refuse Rate Review
City of Clovis
Committee
City of Compton
Alameda Solid Waste Advisory Committee
City of Corte Madera
Amador Water Agency
City of Cotati
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation
City of Covina
Agency
City of Cudahy
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
City of Cupertino
Bold, Polisner, Maddow
City of Daly City
Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc.
City of Dana Point
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates
City of Davis
California Water Service Company
City of Del Mar
Carmichael Water District
City of Diamond Bar
Castro Valley Sanitary District
City of Downey
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
City of Dublin
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
City of East Palo Alto
City of Adelanto
City of El Centro
City of Alameda
City of El Cerrito
City of Albany
City of El Monte
City of Anaheim
City of Elk Grove
City of Arcadia
City of Emeryville
City of Ashland
City of Encinitas
City of Atherton
City of Eugene
City of Atwater
City of Fair Oaks
City of Azusa
City of Fairfield
City of Barstow
City of Fairfield
City of Bellflower
City of Fillmore
City of Belmont
City of Florence
City of Belvedere
City of Folsom
City of Benicia
City of Fort Bragg
City of Beverly Hills
City of Fort Collins, CO
City of Brentwood
City of Fortuna
City of Burbank
City of Foster City
City of Burlingame
City of Fremont
City of Calabasas
City of Fresno
City of Camarillo
City of Fullerton
City of Campbell
City of Garden Grove
City of Canyon Lake
City of Gilroy
City of Carlsbad
City of Glendale, Arizona
City of Carpinteria
City of Glendale, California
HF&H Consultants, LLC
September 5, Zoos
City of Diirulond Bar Ezhihit B: Clicnt list
Proposal to Prcvide Solid Waste CoWracting Assistawc
i
City of Glendora
City of Mill Valley
City of Goodyear
City of Millbrae
City of Gridley
City of Milpitas
City of Guadalupe
City of Mission Viejo
City of Hawthorne
City of Modesto
City of Hayward
City of Monrovia
City of Healdsburg
City of Montclair
City of Hercules
City of Monte Sereno
City of Hesperia
City of Monterey Park
Town of Hillsborough
City of Morgan Hill
City of Hollywood
City of Mountain View
City of Imperial Beach
City of Murrieta
City of Indian Wells
City of Napa
City of Indio
City of Newark
City of Inglewood
City of Newport Beach
City of Irvine
City of Newport, OR
City of Kensington
City of Northridge
City of La Canada-Flintridge
City of Oakland Public Works Agency
City of La Habra
City of Ogden, UT
City of La Palma
Town of Old Sacramento
City of La Puente
City of Ojai
.
City of La Quinta
City of Orange
City of La Verne
City of Oxnard
City of Laguna Beach
City of Pacifica
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Palm Desert
City of Lake Forest
City of Palm Springs
City of Lancaster
City of Palmdale
City of Lathrop
City of Palo Alto
City of Lawndale
Town of Paradise
City of Lincoln
City of Pasadena
City of Litchfield Park, Arizona
City of Paso Robles
City of Livermore
City of Peoria, AZ
City of Lodi
City of Petaluma
City of Long Beach
City of Piedmont
City of Los Altos
City of Pinole
Town of Los Altos Hills
City of Pleasanton
City of Los Angeles
City of Pomona
City of Los Banos
City of Port Hueneme
Town of Los Gatos
City of Portland
City of Lynwood
City of Portola Valley
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Poway
City of Manteca
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Martinez
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
•
City of Menlo Park
City of Redondo Beach
City of Mesa Consolidated
City of Redwood City
HV&H Cousultrouts, I IC
- Septeur(�cr i, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Exhibit B: Client List
Proposal to Proaide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
City of Rio Vista
City of Vallejo
City of Riverside
City of Vancouver, WA
City of Rohnert Park
City of Vernon
City of Roseville
City of Visalia
City of Sacramento
City of Walnut Creek
City of Saginaw
City of Watsonville
Town of San Anselmo
City of West Hollywood
City of San Bernardino
City of West Linn, OR
City of San Bruno
City of Whittier
City of San Buenaventura
Town of Windsor
City of San Carlos
City of Winters
City of San Clemente
City of Woodland
City of San Diego
City of Yountville
City & County of San Francisco
Citygate Associates
City of San Jose
Clackamas County
City of San Juan Capistrano
Coachella Valley Association of
City of San Leandro
Governments
City of San Luis Obispo
Contra Costa Water District
City of San Mateo
County of El Dorado
City of San Rafael
County of Humboldt
City of San Ramon
County of Kern
City of Sandy
County of Los Angeles
City of Sanger
County of Marin
City of Santa Ana
County of Mariposa
City of Santa Barbara
County of Mendocino
City of Santa Clarita
County of Merced
City of Santa Cruz
County of Mono
City of Santa Monica
County of North San Diego
City of Santa Paula
County of Riverside
City of Santa Rosa
County of Sacramento
City of Santee
County of San Bernardino
City of Seattle
County of San Luis Obispo
City of Sebastopol
County of San Mateo
City of Sedona, AZ
County of Santa Barbara
City of Selma
County of Sutter
City of South Gate
County of Tulare
City of South San Francisco
County of Ventura
City of Sunnyvale
County of Yolo
City of Temecula
David M. Griffith & Associates
City of Thousand Oaks
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
Town of Tiburon
East Bay Municipal Utilities District
City of Torrance
East Palo Alto Sanitation District
City of Tustin
Fairfield -Suisun Sewer District
City of Union City
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
City of Upland
Fremont Unified School District
HF&H Corrsrrltants, LLC 3
Septernrller 5, 2008
Cita ofDiani(irnd Bar
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistawc
Glenn County Public Works
Greater Vancouver Water District
Groveland Community Services District
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy
Humboldt Waste Management Authority
Integrated Waste Management & Recycling
Josephine County/ Grants Pass SWA
Kensington Police Protection
Lake County / City Area Planning Council
Lane County Waste Management
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Los Trancos County Water District
Lukins Brothers Water Company
Malaga County Water District
Marin County Community Development
Agency
McCutchen Doyle Brown & Emersen, LLP
Metropolitan Water District
Morrison & Foerster
Mountain View Sanitary District
• North American Development Bank
North Coast County Water District
Novato Sanitary District
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Orange County
Orange County/City Mans SW Working
Group
Oro Loma Sanitary District
Placer County Water Agency
Riverside County Waste Resources
Management District
Ross Valley Sanitary District
RTI International
Exhibit B: Client List
San Francisquito Creek JPA
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Juan Water District
Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
Sausalito -Marin City Sanitary District
Scotts Valley Water District
SCS Engineers
Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
Somach, Simmons and Dunn
South Bayside Waste Management
Authority
South County Fire
South El Monte Joint Defense Group
Southeast Water Coalition JPA
Stanislaus County
SWANA
Tamalpais Community Services District
The State Bar of California
Tri -City Waste Management
Union Sanitary District
Veterans Home Administration
Waste Management of Los Angeles
West Bay Sanitary District
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
Management
West Valley Cities SWPM
West Valley Sanitary Waste Management
West Valley Solid Waste Management
Authority
Western Municipal Water District
Western Riverside Council of Government
HF&H Consultan#s, I VC September:), 2008
Citi/ of Diamorud Bar Exhibit C. Staff Resuiiics
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
EXHIBIT C: STAFF RESUMES
LAITH EZZET, CMC, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Mr. Ezzet's expertise lies in integrated waste management program planning
and funding, solid waste collection operations, recycling and yard waste
programs, procurement and negotiation of solid waste services contracts,
waste diversion studies, community involvement and public outreach,
regulatory policy, service cost tracking, rate setting, landfill funding, cost -
benefit analysis, efficiency studies, financial and economic modeling,
industry surveys, and statistical market research.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF &H Consultants, LLC: Senior Vice President, 1996 to Present, Senior
Associate, 1991 to 1995
Price Waterhouse: Manager, 1990 to 1991; Senior Consultant, 1988 to 1990; Associate, 1987
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Branch: Economist, 1983 to 1986
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
California Resource Recovery Association (Past Director and Chapter Treasurer)
Institute of Management Consultants
Solid Waste Association of North America (Corporate Director, Southern California Founding
Chapter)
Southern California Waste Management Forum
ARTICLES AND SPEECHES
Moderator, "Managing Unique and Special Wastes," SWANA Workshop, September 9, 2004
"An Overview of Solid Waste Rates & Market Conditions in Southern California," presented to
the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Solid Waste Committee, June 27, 2001
"Are the Trash Wars Over in Southern California?" presented at the Southern California Waste
Management Forum, Pomona, May 2001
"Consolidation in the Southern California Waste Hauling Market: Effects on Rates, Services,
Cities and Service Providers", presented at SWANA's 29th Annual Western Regional
Solid Waste Symposium, Palm Springs, May 2000
"Solid Waste Services and the Purchasing Power of 100 Large Public Service Providers in North
America", presented and published at WASTECON, Reno, October 1999
"How to Maximize Your Savings from Competitive Proposals for Contract Collection
Operations", presented at SWANA's 3rd Annual Planning & Management Symposium,
New Orleans, July 1999
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
M.B.A., Tuck School of Business Administration at Dartmouth College, 1988
M.B.A., course work at the London Business School, 1987
A.B., cum laude, Economics, Occidental College, 1984
Certified Management Consultant (CMC Professional Certification)
HF&H Cornsnitarits, LLC 7 September 5, 2008
•
Citi/ of Dirimojid Bar
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
LISA KEATING, JD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
E.rltibit C Staff Resumes
Lisa Keating has assisted cities with procurement processes for the past nine
years. She assisted the cities of Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Compton, El Centro,
Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Mission Viejo, Palm Desert, Rancho Palos
Verdes, Riverside, Santa Clarita, Tustin, and Goodyear (Arizona), and the
County of Orange through the procurement process for new solid waste
collection and recycling agreements. She has drafted both Requests for
Proposals and Requests for Bids, and the related agreements. She has
reviewed hauler proposals for solid waste collection, recycling and disposal ¢,
services.
Ms. Keating assisted the cities of Dana Point, Inglewood and Palmdale to re -negotiate their
collection contracts. She assisted the cities of Carlsbad, Dana Point, Garden Grove and Murrieta
with contract reviews to evaluate re -negotiation options.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF&H Consultants, LLC; Senior Associate, 1999 to present.
• M. Tam International, Inc.; Legal Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 1998 to 1999
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter; Financial Advisor, 1989 to 1998
Cutler Productions, Director of Publicity; 1988 to 1989
Nikko Securities International; 1987 to 1988
•
ARTICLES AND SPEECHES
"Construction & Demolition Debris: Diversion, Disposal & Reporting", presented at the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Government's Workshop on the Disposal Reporting System,
West Covina, February 2001.
"Construction & Demolition Debris Ordinance and Program Possibilities", presented at the
California Resource Recovery Association Annual Conference, Pasadena, July 2001.
"C&D Ordinance & Program Options", presented at the Solid Waste Association of North
America's Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting and Annual Collection
and Transfer Conference, San Diego, February 2004.
"Pain Free: Cities in California are Trying Contractor Friendly Methods to Promote C&D
Recycling" C&D Recycler magazine, March/ April 2002, p. 20.
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
J.D., cum laude, Western State University, College of Law, Fullerton, CA
B.A., Economics, University of California at Los Angeles
Accounting for Managers, University of California at Irvine
Member, California State Bar
HV&H LLC 2 tieptendier 5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit C: Staff Resuitics
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
DARRELL BICE, CPA, DIRECTOR OF RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE AUDITS
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Darrell Bice is a Certified Public Accountant with 32 years of auditing and r`"
accounting experience, including experience in public accounting and in the
solid waste industry. During his time in public accounting, he participated
in and supervised the annual audits of a major public solid waste company.
He served as an assistant corporate controller for five years and as a division
controller for two years in the solid waste industry for a major solid waste
company. As an assistant corporate controller, he reviewed the results of
operations for ten California divisions, which included the analysis of
financial statements and operating reports to evaluate the performance of the
division and report to corporate management. While a division controller,
Mr. Bice assisted in the development of a commercial refuse pricing model, incorporating the
full cost of service and desired profit levels. Additionally, he participated as a team member in
the development of the cost -of -service and resulting pricing structures for proposals to several
southern California municipalities. As a solid waste consultant, during the past seven years,
Mr. Bice has participated in a variety of solid waste projects for over 30 municipalities and
governmental agencies. He participated in procurement/ negotiation support projects for two
southern California cities.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF&H Consultants, LLC: Senior Associate, January 1998 to present
HF&H Consultants, LLC: Associate, May 1996 to January 1998
Western Waste Industries, Division Controller, July 1994 to May 1996
Western Waste Industries, Assistant Corporate Controller, March 1989 to June 1994
Majestic Realty & Commerce Construction Company, Controller, 1986 to 1988
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Assistant Controller, 1985 to 1986
Ernst & Whinney (Young), Audit Manager, 1979 to 1985
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
B.A. (1975), Accounting, California State University, Fullerton
Certified Public Accountant
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Southern California Waste Management Forum (Director and Vice -Chair)
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society of Certified Public Accountants
PRESENTATIONS
"Are the Books Cooked, or Just Slightly Sauteed?" presented to the Solid Waste Association of
North America (SWANA), Palm Springs, May 2003.
"Evaluation of Rate Adjustment Requests", presented to the Solid Waste Association of North
America (SWANA), Lake Tahoe, May 2002; to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments,
West Covina, June 2001; and to the South Bay Cities workgroup (SBBEC), Redondo Beach,
October, 2003.
HF&H C011S111ta71f5, LLC 3 September 5, 2008
City ofDiaiiioiid Bar Exhibit C: Staff Rcsi-afrE,s
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
0 DEBBIE MORRIS, SENIOR ASSOCIATE
•
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Ms. Morris has over twenty-three years of experience with local
government, public accounting, and solid waste consulting firms. For the
past fifteen years she has worked for HF&H, where she has been the
principal analyst responsible for gathering and tabulating data for the solid
waste surveys of programs, rates, services, and facilities used by cities in
the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. She has performed data input and assisted with
model development for several large regional solid waste system studies,
including the Orange County RELOOC study, the Riverside County
Cooperative Waste Management study and others. She has also assisted m
the gathering and analysis of data for a conversion technologies project for the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). In-depth descriptions of her annual report, AB
939 compliance, franchise management and auditing experience are included below.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1992 to present: HF&H Consultants, LLC, Newport Beach, California.
1985 to 1992: Price Waterhouse, Newport Beach, California
1983 to 1985: City of Irvine, Irvine, California
EDUCATION
B.S. studies, Concordia University, Irvine
A.S. Business, Irvine Valley College
HF&H Consultants, LLC Scptearber i, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Prot>ide Solid LVaste Contracting Assistance
EXHIBIT D: CLIENT TESTIMONIAL LETTERS
May 30, 2007
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkoph & Hobson 3990
Westerly Place, Suite 195 Newport
Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith,
The City of El Centro would like to thank you for your expertise on solid waste
issues, your connections in the industry that attracted qualified proposers, and
your detailed understanding of our community. It all came together to provide
quality service to our residents.
Hiring Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson resulted in significant financial rewards, from
both the billing analysis you conducted as well as the new franchise agreement
youhelped us develop. Even though there has not been a rate increase in four
years, City of El Centro residents will see only a 2 % increase in rates while the
City will increase its revenue by nearly 27% as a result of your efforts.
The integrity with which HF&H navigated the City through this process was
above reproach. City council members, as you know, praised your work methods,
thoroughness, and professionalism. Your work exceeded our expectations and
will help the City take control of aspects of its waste hauling services.
Sincerely,
Terry Hagen, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Public Works Department
1275 Main Sireet, EI Centro, CA 92243 (760) 337-4505 Fax (760) 337-3172
91— Mdienuue D*LA.' Swpu9&M..DMdu U.&=..WUtftJ.Dh4&. VAtr T—a iD*Ad-
307Wid &i/;am.Yma+e 3L7K'esr&,&-A— 307ftr&Ifi*nA— X153 U&af-f.
'A05 A0A&..
17 Cavq CA92243 V C"v CA92243 S) Coirµ CA92263 6! Cavo, CA922V 8 Q6 Wm CA 922 6
S Cerhq CA 9ne
HF&H Consultants, 1.1C t
September 25, 2008
•
•
0
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Inglewood 0 California
ruo'uc works Department
Te r z '3'0 j? Cx 2
JE72Yr� "IVEHS
Decccmher -3. 1004
Mr. Laith Ezzet
Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf and Hohson
3900 Westerly Place. Suite 195
few purl Beach. CA 92660-2311
De;u- Mr. Ezzct:
The City of In flcwood �%ould like to thank you and your firm, Hilton. Farnkopf. & Hob:sou. for
your pnrlcssional assistance in helping the city procure an exclusive provider contract for nea
and enhanced waste and recycling services.
The new service will help the City improve its environmental profile by adding services and
pru21-ams that will increase our diversion efforts in the preservation of our natural rasourcCs.
It was rewarding to successfully navigate through such a long and coiriplex proces Your
dedicated and knowledgeable staff approached each aspect of the contract negotiations with the
integrity and thoroughness we have come to admire and respect. Your guidance and expertise
made this challenging process mutually beneficial for the City and its constituents.
Hilton, Farnkopf. & Hobson's specialized knowledge in analyzing and assessing informanon as
it related to waste �cry ices helped secure the City's largest contract for public NCI "ILcs. \k 1111C
'hcgotiating overall a ; `4 cost reduction o obtain these services.
On behalf of the Public Works staff of the City of Inglewood, I would like to again thank you for
plaving a key role in the City's successful acquisition of services that will ensurc the City's
cnMronmental commitment for vears to come.
Sincerely,
te=
Thomas Coates
Emironmental Services Administrator
TCInt
HF&H Cimsultants, LLC tielhtember 25, 2008
Citil of Diamond Bar Exhihit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
FLOOD CONTROL • GIMS • REGIONAL PARKS • SOLID WASTE • SURVEYOR r TRANSPORTATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
222 West Hospitality Lane, Second Floor • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0017
(909) 386-8722 • Fax (909) 386-8786
March 29, 2001
Laith Ezzet Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND PUBLIC SERVICES GROUP
KEN A_MILLER
Director of Public Works
GERRY NEWCOMBE
Solid Waste Division Manager
It is with great pleasure that I pause and write to thank you for the excellent job you and
your staff did in assisting the County of San Bernardino with its procurement of a solid
waste system operations contractor. Our satisfaction with Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
from previous engagements was surpassed by your performance throughout this year-
long process that just reached its successful conclusion.
Perhaps the most telling characterization of your firm's capability in managing complex
procurement projects were the repeated accolades from members of the Board of
Supervisors. These elected officials, on several occasions, expressed their complete
satisfaction with the thoroughness and integrity of the RFP process and complimented
your ability to produce a well reasoned and easy to understand analysis. I join them in
their assessment of your work, and would add that the smooth coordination between
your staff and the Solid Waste Management Division staff added to the success of the
final product.
Thank you again for exceeding our expectations for this project and I look forward to
working together in the future.
Sincerely,
_�ABMJ
Gerry Newcombe
Division Manager
HF&H Consultants, LLC - 3 - September 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
November 17, 2004
CITY OF
15-1,F�J�[FF'OMM'7,
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, California 90706.5494
(562) 804-1424 0 FAX: (562) 925-8660
h tt p: /.!www. b e l l fl ow a r. o rg
Mr. Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Mr. Ezzet:
DOROTHY R. KING
RANDY BOMGAARS
SCOTT A. LARSEN
JOHN K. PRATT
RAY T. SMITH
. The City of Bellflower wishes to thank you for the hard work provided by Hilton,
Farnkopf & Hobson during the City's process to select a waste management services
provider. The ten month process to make that selection was well coordinated and
thoroughly administered. Yours and Lisa Keating's professionalism are especially noted
in making the process so.
•
The final selection of the provider produced an agreement that will be $1.4 million
dollars a year less than the current exclusive agreement. Each component of the
community, single family residential, multi -family properties and commercial accounts
will realize a relief in rates and an increase in services.
The City of Bellflower is very satisfied with the use of your firm for this process. We will
not hesitate to consider Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson for future waste management
services related projects.
Sincerely,
Brian R. Smith
Assistant Director of Public Works
Hr&H Cmisultants, I LC 4 5ertember 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
r
TELLS
r
July 9, 1997
Laith Ezzet, Principal
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
Commercecenter One
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
I have been meaning to send you a brief note for some time now to express my
appreciation for your technical assistance and support during our solid waste
procurement process. Your expertise and professionalism were instrumental in
bringing closure to a very long and at times tumultuous process. We could still
be in negotiations today hadn't it been for your diplomatic tact and "good guy"
mentality
For your information and records, I have enclosed a copy of the final franchise
agreement. Please feel free to share this document with other clients.
Again, on behalf of the City of Indian Wells, thank you for a job well done.
Although our contract has now come to a close, I hope that you will stay in touch
in the future
Sincerely,
�r
Troy L Bu laff
Assista t the City Manager
Enclosure
HF&H Consultants; LLC 5 Septt"Inber 25, 2008
•
Citta u(Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Proi idc SOlid i'Uaste Contracting Assistance
OF LA W,l
14717 BURIN AVENLE • LAWN DALE, CALIFORNIA 90260 • (310) 970-2100 • FAX(310)644-4556
April 6, 1998
Mr. Laith Ezzet
Vice President
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Commercenter One
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newporl Beach, California 92660-2311
Dear Laith,
• I have been meaning to send you a brief note for some time now to express my
appreciation for your technical assistance and support during our solid waste franchise
renewal process. Your expertise and professional stvlc was key to bringing an automated
waste collection service to the City. Our City Council appreciated your innovative
approach to consensus building including several key community based workshops
The City's transition from manual to automated service has been well received by our
citizenry Your willingness to assist us in negotiating a new vendor contract as well as a
transition plan exceeded our expectation of your services as a consultant.
Again, on behalf of the City of Lawndale, thank you for a job well done
Sincerely.
�3 ielarter
ssistant to the City Manager
cc Michael Sorg. City Manager
HF&H Consldtants, LI_C 6 tiehtember25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Proz4de Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
OV AWH
14717 BURIN AVENUE
CAUFDS10'
December 8, 2004
LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA 90260 - 131C) 970-2100 • FAX (310) 644-4556
Re: Letter of Reference for Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
To "horn It May Concern:
This letter of reference describes the work performed by Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
("HF&H") on behalf of the City of La%Nndale. HF&H has provided solid waste consulting
services to the City of Lawndale since 1997. In 1997 and 2002, HF&H assisted the City in the
preparation of INNo Requests For Proposals ("RFP") and franchise agreements for solid waste
collection, curbside recycling, and vard waste collection services.
• During the first procurement process in 1997, the City's ratepayers saved approximately
5130.000 in the first year and $651,000 over the contract terni, an I I% decrease aver
prior rates_ The RFP process in 2002 further lowered the City's first year costs by
5171,000, resulting in savings of $1 2 million over the contract terns and a 16% decrease
over prior rates. As a result of these procurement processes, the City also increased
residential recycling and yard waste services, and improved the City's overall diversion
percent a Le.
• In 2002, HF&H assisted in the establislunent of a commercial permit system to
track commercial hauling activities in Lawndale, and the revision of the City's
solid wasto ordinance to establish new AB 939 fees. Through permit
management activities }performed by HF&H, the Citv has collected an additional
5100,000 per year in AB 939 fees, and all nine haulers are up-to-date in their fee
payments to theCity.
HF&H has also provided assistance to the City by evaluating programs for
implementation to increase the City's diversion rate. These }programs were included in
a Plan of Correction developed under the guidance of HF&H which was submitted and
subsequently approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
An important, contributing factor to our increased diversion rate and collection of fees
is the residential contract and commercial permit program oversight performed by
HF&H. Through HF&H's procurement and negotiation assistance, and HF&H's
ongoing* assistance with AB 939 program implementation, contract and permit
oversigTit, our Citi s residential diversion rate has increased from 16% in 2003 to 3814,
to -elate.
I would highly recommend the use HF&H's services to any city needing assistance with
solid waste collection and diversion activities. if there are have any questions, I can be
reached at (310) 973-32(1(1.
Sincerely,
�-
acting it, anager
HF&H Consultants, LLC 7 September 25, 2008
•
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
November 20, '_'001
Public Works Depanmeul 3621 Bell A\enUC Manhattan Beach. CA 90266-4791
Telephone (31(1) 802-5300 FAX (310) 546-1752
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerlv Place_ Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
• 1 would like to commend you and vour staff for the technical expertise that you and your firm brought to
OUT current solid waste contract procurement process. It has been clear to us that Your experience with
many similar procurements has turned what we believed would be a very difficult process into a process
that seems much more routine Also, your experience and guidance were essential in convincing the Cin
Council that the process you proposed would be objective, fair and well reasoned
•
I look forward to working, with you to complete this complex procurement project.
Sincerely,
Neil Miller
Director of Public Works
HFA>H Consultants, LLC
Cite of Manhattan Beach Web Site httpl uv-Nw ci.mzuthattsm-beach.ca.us
September 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
October 12, 2000
Laith Ezzet. Senior Vice President
Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-23 1 1
Dear Laith.
Thank you for working with the City of Mission Viejo on the procurement of a fi-anchise
agreement for residential and commercial integrated solid waste management services. I
appreciate all of your work that successfully resulted in a multi-million dollar solid waste
franchise. I fully understand why other cities and our City Attorney, from Richards.
Watson & Gershon highly recommended Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson for this project.
Your experience and guidance was invaluable as we set out to develop a new, three -cart
automated system, including drafting the Request for Proposal, participating in all of the
Council subcommittee meetings. meetings with the community, the Chamber of
Commerce, and finally development of a new consolidated franchise agreement. These
efforts will save Mission Viejo residents and businesses $6.4 million over the next eight
years and feedhack from the community is already very positive.
You did an outstanding job in !Mission Viejo and I will continue to speak highly of the
team of professionals at Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson to my counterparts in other cities.
Thank void
Sincerely. 1
r -
Karen F. Wylie
Assistant to the Citv MIILer
25909 Pala • Suite 200 • Assion 1`iejo, California 92691
http:"�ti�+�u.ci.mission vieio.ca.us
a,
949;470 3051
FAX 24M59 -1k6
HF &H Consultants, LI.0 9 Septem her 25, 2008
Sherri A Butterfield
City Mission Viejo
Aluuu,
,{Ilan,.
of
Pur Po emr-at,
igqo Trm�„rc
_____.,_.._.._.,._._..�__..a...._._.._._...,_.._._...._....e._...�a „..m...._.,e,._...�. _�,..
1 oga S. Fduhel
C--1 bfrm6n
Office of the City Manager
'onnl'aul LP.''k'�`smd
<u�an N'ithn��c
t'ii.i �l;i"✓yr•
Laith Ezzet. Senior Vice President
Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-23 1 1
Dear Laith.
Thank you for working with the City of Mission Viejo on the procurement of a fi-anchise
agreement for residential and commercial integrated solid waste management services. I
appreciate all of your work that successfully resulted in a multi-million dollar solid waste
franchise. I fully understand why other cities and our City Attorney, from Richards.
Watson & Gershon highly recommended Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson for this project.
Your experience and guidance was invaluable as we set out to develop a new, three -cart
automated system, including drafting the Request for Proposal, participating in all of the
Council subcommittee meetings. meetings with the community, the Chamber of
Commerce, and finally development of a new consolidated franchise agreement. These
efforts will save Mission Viejo residents and businesses $6.4 million over the next eight
years and feedhack from the community is already very positive.
You did an outstanding job in !Mission Viejo and I will continue to speak highly of the
team of professionals at Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson to my counterparts in other cities.
Thank void
Sincerely. 1
r -
Karen F. Wylie
Assistant to the Citv MIILer
25909 Pala • Suite 200 • Assion 1`iejo, California 92691
http:"�ti�+�u.ci.mission vieio.ca.us
a,
949;470 3051
FAX 24M59 -1k6
HF &H Consultants, LI.0 9 Septem her 25, 2008
•
C:
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid Vv17StC Contracting Assistance
^3920 Valmnin RIM7 Phonp �
Sci1e 300 6511 <69-<d 89
Santa Clarla Fax'
Gentornia 1355-2196 ;6611259-8125 --
`rdebsite� m.,.mw sai�ta-clanta mm ..
City of
Santa Clarita
V.
Hiltr�❑ F ntF.c�al cK Hobson. LLC
to thank \.1u ieuin Cor your ussistanec �vAll the Cite of
R Cai n. Itl: Yrono>al:, RFP) for the collection o1 1--�sidC7 ii.11 and
hart i,tiheCi'.� 1 alans.�c r11I [� rr>idrnr,.[�
and comm-lji d >.:-NiL-L"
[Cyt.Ct �.a
L., : 0 .,ri.t!c aIt`.1o.: h l: Ci1� sled lut t7unr u�1�c< m.[n� ul �1i�1 �
>ti: ' _i� �1. ���� and Li,.l Kcatin,,
_ .I,.0 r,_wtr d'. alCr> to suit JIer; to :i1. Cit -r'- nre lti
ai-r t I_�tot�y�rc C i '!:)Cco[ t _-
;1���::n 101 �dh ;. u,,
1 ..5l L u.
_:112P � � ! LI! II V. ,eI i
(XI
U r��tur [�I Ficid Serci��>
M TL: AL:ct
ti IIEL`)ti� c.51'CA 5R� ['S 9UL11 .1 'r1: 4'�C 11 S1.FP�HFH i.,, _. J,�
HF&H Consultants, LLC 10
SCptcmher 25, 2003
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testintonial Letters
Proposal to ProzUe Solid Waste Contacting Assistance
Mayor
Neil C, Blais
Mayor Pro Tempore
Jerry Holloway
Council Members
L. Anthony Beall
Gary Thompson
James M. Thor
City Manager
D. James Hart, Ph.D.
CITY OF RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
May 7, 2004
Mr. Laith Ezzet, Sr. Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith.
The City of Rancho Santa Margarita would like to thank you for your
professional assistance in helping our City procure exclusive solid
wastelrecycling services for our residential and commercial constituents. The
year-long process was marked with integrity and thoroughness. Even those
applicants not awarded the contact spoke highly of the fairness of the process.
At the end of the process the City will be passing through savings of
approximately $8 inillion dollars over the 10 -year contract, which is a 271/0
savings to the residents and businesses of Rancho Santa Margarita.
Our City has used your consulting firm for other solid waste services. but the
recently concluded and highly complex franchise process was exemplary in its
execution. Thank you again.
Sincerely
aures Hart, Ph.D.
City Manager
cc: T. Wheeler. City Enuineer
3G?t i :Ivcoida ee as Baneeras Sage -Or • marc^o Sa,�ta Varga, to • Ca!'orr a 9_688
Phone, 1949)635-1800 • Fax (949) 635-184C 6uwv� cityofrsm org
HF&H Consultants, LLC 17 September 25, 2009
•
•
0
Cita or Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Clicirt Tcstimonial Letters
Proposal to Providc Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION Mr. Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
AND PUBLIC Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
WORKS 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith.
The City of West Hollywood would like to thank you for your
professional assistance in helping our city procure exclusive solid
wasteirecycling services for our residential and commercial
constituents. The year-long process was marked with integrity and
thoroughness. Even those applicants not awarded the contract spoke
highly of the fairness of the process. Our mayor and city council
members also commented on the process by which they could easily
review pertinent criteria and compare each proposal to match the city's
needs.
At the end of the process the City will be passing through savings to its
constituents of almost $9 million dollars over the S year contract. We
have increased the recycling services markedly and are embarking on
a truly innovative food diversion program.
Our City has used your consulting firm for other solid waste services,
but the recently concluded and highly complex franchise process was
exemplary in its execution. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Jan Harmon
Environmental Programs Specialist
Sharon Perlstein
City Engineer
www.weho.org
�••
CITY OF
...
WEST HURYWOOD
Crry Hnu-
9300 S,NiA WriwA
WFsT Hoi i.vwwr.. CA
()(969-6216
TF1.' 1323) Y43-637
FAX, (32Y 84sfi564
December 1, 2003
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION Mr. Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
AND PUBLIC Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
WORKS 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith.
The City of West Hollywood would like to thank you for your
professional assistance in helping our city procure exclusive solid
wasteirecycling services for our residential and commercial
constituents. The year-long process was marked with integrity and
thoroughness. Even those applicants not awarded the contract spoke
highly of the fairness of the process. Our mayor and city council
members also commented on the process by which they could easily
review pertinent criteria and compare each proposal to match the city's
needs.
At the end of the process the City will be passing through savings to its
constituents of almost $9 million dollars over the S year contract. We
have increased the recycling services markedly and are embarking on
a truly innovative food diversion program.
Our City has used your consulting firm for other solid waste services,
but the recently concluded and highly complex franchise process was
exemplary in its execution. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Jan Harmon
Environmental Programs Specialist
Sharon Perlstein
City Engineer
www.weho.org
Agenda # 8.2(c)
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
CITY COUNCIL ` = AGENDA REPORT
tiCURPIizA1'1/
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man r
TITLE: AWARD CONTRACT TO N FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
(HF&H) IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 FOR AS -NEEDED SOLID
WASTE NEGOTIATION SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION:
Award Contract.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Appropriate from General Fund Reserve. It is typical in the industry for costs to be
reimbursed by solid waste haulers as an administrative fee for the amount the City
incurred in connection with entering the Agreement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
Our ten (10) year contract with Valley Vista Services and Waste Management Inc. is
coming to an end in August 2010 and can possibly be renewed for another ten (10)
years if negotiations are successful. For such a lengthy contract, the City will need
expert assistance in negotiating favorable contract terms that will address the future
solid waste and recycling needs for Diamond Bar residents and businesses.
Proposals to provide solid waste contracting assistance were received from the
following consulting firms: D. Edwards Incorporated (Hourly Rate $75-$225), Economics
($66,810), Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson ($90,000-$110,000), Huls Environmental
Management ($20,000), and MSW Consultants ($26,500).
HF&H has a long history of successful negotiations of solid waste service agreements
with Waste Management on behalf of jurisdictions and audited both Waste Management
and Valley Vista in 2005 on behalf of the City. They are familiar with the solid waste
rates, services, and programs implemented throughout Southern California and are
experts in the procurement of services agreements for refuse, recycling and green
waste collection, material processing services, and disposal.
During the October 16, 2008 Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting, the Subcommittee
member recommended awarding solid waste negotiation services to HF&H and keeping
parallel tracks for preparations of a Request for Proposals (RFP) packet for immediate
release in the case that the outcome of the negotiations are not favorable.
PREPARED BY:
Joyce Lee, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY: 0i
David G. Liu, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Page 2 of 2
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: 949/251-8628
Fax: 949/251-9741
zozvzu.lTf,'z-consultants. com
September 25, 2008
Ms. Joyce Lee
Senior Management Analyst
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
.� Y Services to Municipal Management
Re: Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Dear Ms Lee:
Robert D. Hilton
John W. Famkopf
Laith B. Ezzet
Richard J. Simonson
HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Diamond Bar
(City) to provide solid waste contracting assistance. HF&H has a long history of successfully
providing contracting assistance exclusively to local governments. We believe that HF&H
brings the following unique qualifications and benefits to the City:
We audited both Waste Management and Valley Vista Services for the City of
Diamond Bar in 2005. As a result, we are familiar with both companies and the services
they provide in Diamond Bar.
We are experts in the procurement and negotiation of solid waste services agreements,
having assisted more than 50 California jurisdictions with the development of RFP's
and agreements, evaluation of proposals, and negotiation of solid waste services
agreements for refuse, recycling and green waste collection, material processing services,
and disposal. In some of our competitive procurements, costs to the ratepayers have
been reduced by as much as 40%.
3. 'Our municipal focus ensures that we meet the needs of public agencies and officials.
]HF&H does not work for private waste haulers order to avoid conflicts of interest that
inay arise in firms that attempt to serve both the public and private sectors. We believe
chis independence is particularly important for objective proposal evaluation and
effective negotiations during the procurement of a solid waste services agreement.
4. HF&H has a history of developing attainable and enforceable recycling plans for its
clients. In 2000, we assisted the City of Los Angeles in developing a program -specific
plan to reach 70% diversion. Our collection contracts included not only city-wide
diversion goals, but specific, measurable requirements for tonnage under the hauler's
control.
5. In addition to our extensive experience assisting public agencies with the specific
services your City has requested, we also have a broad base of experience assisting
Advisory Services to Municipal Management
Ms. Joyce Lee
September 25, 2008
Page 2 of 2
approximately 250 California cities and counties with planning, implementation,
evaluation, and monitoring of their solid waste collection, diversion, and disposal
programs. As a result, we are intimately familiar with the requirements for cost
effective solid waste program planning, and understand the related public policy issues
that must be addressed to make individual programs successful.
6. We are familiar with the solid waste rates, services, and programs implemented
throughout Southern California as a result of our previous projects and on-going
surveys of 200 cities in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego and Ventura. As a result, we understand current trends in the local solid
waste industry and we are familiar with the capabilities of the potential proposers.
7. Our staff includes accountants, economists and public policy experts. The varied
backgrounds of our consultants provides substantial added value to our clients, value
that can rarely be achieved by individual engineering, accounting, or management
consulting firms. HF&H provides clients with the breadth of experience of a national
firm with the responsiveness, accountability, and personal commitment of a local
firm.
S. The engagement will be managed and staffed from our Southern California office,
making our staff readily available to participate in project meetings in a cost-effective
manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information. We look forward to an
opportunity to meet with you and the appropriate City staff to present our proposal, and learn
how we might best assist the City. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(949) 251-8902 or lezzet@hfh-consultants.com.
Very truly yours,
HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC
Laith-Ezzet, CMC
Senior Vice President
City of Diamond Bar Table Cf Confents
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE ................................ ...........1
SECTION 2: FEES AND BILLING................................................................. 5
...................
SECTION3: SCHEDULE................................................................................. 7
SECTION 4: FIRM INFORMATION........................................................................................8
SECTION5: PROJECT TEAM.............................................................................................11
SECTION 6: EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES ..........................................
EXHIBITS
A. HF&H Service Brochures
B. Client List
C. Staff Resumes
D. Letters of Reference
HF&H C011sidtants, LLC - - — Scptcmhcr?5, 2008
i
City of Diamond Bar Section 1: Scope of Work and Fee Estimate
Proposal to Proz;ide Solid ti'Vaste Contracting Assistance
SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE
OPTION 1: FEE ESTIMATE TO RENEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS WITH
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND VALLEY VISTA SERVICES - $90,000 TO
$110,000
Waste Management provides exclusive residential solid waste collection services and
Valley Vista Services provides exclusive commercial solid waste collection services in
the City of Diamond Bar. The goal of this option would be to renegotiate the City's
residential and commercial franchise agreements with the existing contractors in order
to obtain two comprehensive, state-of-the-art agreements with services that meet the
needs of the City's customers, and position the City to be in full compliance with
current and proposed waste diversion requirements and other legislation.
We will initiate the process by reviewing the City's existing franchise agreements,
including amendments, and profile them against the terms and conditions contained in
a modern agreement in order to identify potential service enhancements and
improvements to contract terms. We will subsequently confirm with City staff and/or
the City's solid waste subcommittee the desired service and contract enhancements, and
document the City's direction in writing. This will provide the outline for the updated
franchise agreements.
We will subsequently prepare a draft residential franchise agreement and draft
commercial franchise agreement for the desired services and contract terms. City staff,
including the City Attorney, will subsequently review the draft agreements, and the
City will be responsible for consolidating comments from the City's various reviewers
into a single "redline" of the agreement, which we will then use to prepare updated
draft agreements.
We recommend that the draft agreements be provided to Waste Management and
Valley Vista Services documenting the City's desired services and contract terms. The
contractors can then propose rates that are consistent with the City's desired terms and
conditions contained -inthe_draft_ agreements. __The_result_of_the. contactors'_r_evie_w_of-the-
agreements will likely be a series of points that they desire to address and proposed
rates that may or may not be satisfactory. HF&H will then assist in negotiating
reasonable rates. We will also work with City staff to guide the City through its
determination of which service provider concerns are minor and which are valuable
enough not to negotiate away without a substantial offsetting gain for the City.
— — — Septcmbc�r 25, 2004
HF&H Cnsilltarnts, LLC
Cita of Diamond Bar Section 1: Serape of NO'* and Fee Estimate
Proposal to Provide Solid I Vaste Contracting Assistance
Service statistics, such as the number of customers, container size and frequency of
collection, can be used to determine the overall value of the contract at proposed rates.
Typically, we determine and compare the overall current compensation to the service
provider at current rates to the renegotiated rates in order to demonstrate the true
overall financial impact to the rate payer. For example, a decrease in the rate for a
common service level is more valuable than a decrease in a rate for a service that is
seldom used. With the proper data, we can compare the overall proposed company
compensation on a similar basis with a few other comparable jurisdictions.
Our work products for this task will be:
• Preparation of a negotiation draft of the residential and commercial franchise
agreements documenting the City's desired services, terms and conditions.
• An analysis of the proposed rates to be used by the City's negotiating committee.
• Participation in negotiation sessions with City staff and the contractors.
• Preparing "redline' versions of the draft agreement to reflect the results of the
negotiations.
■ Presenting the final negotiated agreements to the City Council.
Because the complexity of the negotiations and the number of issues to be negotiated
cannot be known in advance, the project costs cannot be precisely estimated. Based on
our experience in other cities, we estimate the cost to be between $45,000 and $55,000
per agreement, or $90,000 to $110,000 for both the residential and commercial
agreements.
OPTION 2: FEE ESTIMATE FOR COST OF SERVICE STUDY - $30,000 1-0
$40,000
If there is uncertainty whether the current or proposed rates are reasonable, and if the
rate comparisons to other jurisdictions do not provide sufficient information for the
City -to determine whe�er tie rates -are reasonable, --the City -could-perform a cost of
service study, with the contractors' cooperation and support, to evaluate the
reasonableness of the current rates. This would require Waste Management and Valley
Vista Services to "open their books" to the City in order to verify current rate revenues
and operating costs. This would allow the City to analyze each Contractor's actual cost
of providing service, and to compare the profitability of the Diamond Bar operations to
industry averages. Additionally, if significant service changes are proposed to
collection operations, we would need to estimate the impact of the proposed service
HF&H Coltsirltai1ts, i 1 C --- -- - �------------
September 25, 2008
Citi of Diamond Bar Section 1: Scope of Work and Fee Estimate
Proposal to Protide Solid lVaste Contracting Assistance
changes on the cost of operations. The estimated cost to perform this work is $15,000 to
$20,000 per hauler, assuming that we also perform the negotiation assistance described
in Option 1. This is an additional task that may or not be performed depending on the
City's needs and the cooperation of the contractors.
OPTION 3: FEE ESTIMATE FOR COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL PROCESS -
$110,000 TO $150,000
If the City prefers to seek competitive proposals rather than to renegotiate with Waste
Management, our estimated cost to manage the process for the City is $110,000 to
$150,000. Our services would include:
■ Reviewing in detail the current service arrangements and existing contract terms.
■ Confirming the desired services with City staff and the City Council prior to
developing the RFP.
• Preparing a draft RFP with separate residential and commercial franchise
agreements for review by City staff, the City Attorney, and potential proposers for
comment. The RFP will be structured so proposers can propose on the residential
and commercial services separately, and propose a discount if awarded both
contracts.
■ Contacting potential proposers via telephone to determine their interest in
proposing on the City's RFP, and soliciting feedback regarding the draft documents.
• Revising the RFP and franchise agreements after reviewing submitted comments.
■ Distributing the RFP to potential proposers based on our knowledge of likely
proposers. We will also provide the documents to the waste haulers' association
and other organizations that may ensure a wider distribution.
■- p _p and - —prep - g
Conducting a p re- ro osal conference nd re arin _ an addendum to answer
questions submitted by the attendees.
■ Evaluating the proposals and preparing a draft evaluation report.
■ Sending the evaluation section related to each company's proposal to that proposer
for review to confirm our understanding of their proposal.
----- 3 - Sc Member 25, 200
HF&H Consultants, LLC
City of Diammid Bar Section 1: Scope of Mork anal Fee Estimate
Proposal to Provide Solirt IA�aste Co�2tracti»gASSiSMII.Ce
• Interviewing top ranked proposers.
• Briefing the City's solid waste subcommittee on the results of the evaluation prior to
negotiating final agreements with top ranked proposers.
• Negotiating and finalizing franchise agreements with the proposer(s) selected by the
City's evaluation committee for final consideration.
• Presenting the recommended proposers and final agreements to the City Council for
consideration and possible award.
This estimate assumes that a single service option is proposed upon in the RFP for each
contract (residential and commercial). Limiting the RFP to one desired service option
will maximize the likelihood that contractors will propose on the City's RFP, and it will
make the proposal evaluation and selection process much clearer for City staff and the
City Council. The fee estimate assumes that a maximum of five proposals will be
evaluated. Additional proposals will be reviewed at a cost of $5,500 each.
Note: If the City attempts to negotiate with Waste Management and Valley Vista Services first
under Option 1, and those negotiations are unsuccessful, the subsequent cost for the competitive
proposal process under Option 3 717ould be reduced because a portion of the work performed
under Option 1 rvould benefit Option 3.
HF&H Consultauts, LLC 4 - -- Sclitenrher 25, 2008
City of Diainon.d Bar Section 2: Fees and Billireg
Proposal to Proz7ide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
SECTION 2: FEES AND BILLING
FEE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
In order to provide our services at minimum cost, the fee estimates for all of the options
described above assume that any public outreach or public involvement activities
associated with the effort, such as customer surveys and/or community workshops, is
performed by City staff. Of course, we would be happy to lead or participate in such
public outreach activities if requested and adjust our fee estimate accordingly.
Under Options 1 and 3, the City attorney will be responsible for obtaining
documentation from the contractor for insurance/bonds and the parent -company
guaranty, and obtaining required signatures.
BILLING
We will assist the City based on time and materials, and our actual costs could be lower
or higher than the amounts estimated above, depending on the level of effort required.
We will bill you once per month based on the number of hours worked multiplied by
our hourly billing rates, plus out-of-pocket expenses incurred.
Hourly rates for our consultants through December 31, 2008 are as follows and are
subject to a $5.00 per hour adjustment on January 1, 2009.
Senior Vice President $235
Director $195
Sr. Associate $175 to $190
Associate $135
Assistant Analyst $95
Out-of-pocket expenses for mileage will be billed at the standard IRS allowance,
currently $0.585 per mile. Black and white document reproduction over 15 pages per
_run,will_be billed _at_$0.15_per_page, and color copies_ at $Q.75 per page. Subcontractors
will be billed at actual cost plus 15%. Postage, overnight mail, and other out-of-pocket
expenses will be billed at actual cost.
HF£sH Consultants, LLC September 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 2: Fees and Billing
Proposal to PY00ide Solid 1.1'raste Contracting Assistance
COST REIMBURSEMENT
In most jurisdictions the City's contracting cost is usually required to be reimbursed to
the City by the contractor upon approval of the new franchise agreement.
HF&T4 COnSniMWS, CLC
September 25, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Section 3: Schedule
Proposal to Provide Solid IVaste Contracting Assistmice
SECTION 3: SCHEDULE
The existing 10 -year agreements expire in August 2010.
We estimate it will take approximately six months to negotiate new agreements with
the current waste haulers under Option 1 from the date of project initiation to award of
the new agreements by the City Council.
If a competitive RFP process is to be performed, it should start at least 18 -months prior
to the start of a new agreement. Therefore, the competitive RFP process should begin
around February 2009 in order to allow sufficient time for a successful proposal
evaluation process and implementation period.
HF«H Consultants, LLC
September 25, 2008
City of Diarnon-d Bar Scction d: Firm Information
Proposal to Provide Solid 11,aste Contracting Assistaucc
SECTION 4: FIRM INFORMATION
OVERVIEW OF HF&H QUALIFICATIONS AND CLIENT SATISFACTION
While we have been engaged by clients throughout the United States, our focus is on California.
With offices located in Newport Beach and Walnut Creek, we have an in-depth understanding
of both state and regional conditions (e.g., laws, values, issues, resources, and service providers)
in Northern, Central, and Southern California. Please see Exhibit A (HF&H Service Brochures)
for a description of the services offered by HF&H.
Through more than 1,000 engagements over the past 18 years, we have served more than 250
municipal agencies in California. We have included a complete list of HF&H's clients in Exhibit
B. Some important measures of our client's satisfaction are:
"Your experience and
guidance were
essential in
convincing the City
Council that the
process would be
objective, fair and well
reasoned."
Neil Miller, Public
Works Director
City of City of
Manhattan Beach
• The majority of our engagements in any year are received through
sole -source processes and result from prior experience with the
client or strong referrals from past clients.
• In any year, 70% of our clients have previously engaged us within
the past two years.
• In each of the past three independent client satisfaction surveys
spanning the past 12 years, 100% of respondents have said they
would use HF&H again and would recommend us to other
municipal agencies.
• We have received numerous testimonials (samples of which are
included in Exhibit D) regarding the quality and effectiveness of our
work.
SOLII3 WASTE ADVISORY SERVICES
We provide our clients with a comprehensive range of solid waste advisory services. They
include, but are not limited to:
• RFP Development and Negotiations • Public Outreach and Education
• Recycling Planning • Contractor Selection and Management
• Performance Management • Rate Structure and Fee Studies
• Economic and Cost -of -Service Studies • Litigation Consulting
• - Recycling and -Resource Management - - - -• Regulatory Support- - -- -
Most clients do not realize the broad range of our services. From among the more than 800
engagements we have performed, we have selected the following few examples to demonstrate
the range of our services:
HF&H C��rrsrFlta>>t;, LLC — g — - --- �eptcmbcr?5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Scction 4: Finn Information
Proposal to Proc4de Solid b'Vaste Contracting Assistance
"The G hj of La
Quinta has
continuously renewed
its contract with
HF&H to provide
solid waste consulting
services since 1998.
7irougli HF&H's
consulting services,
the City's diversion
rate lias increased
front 42% to 59%
during these past
several years."
Douglas R. Evans,
Director of
Community
Development
City of La Quinta
"The highly complex
franchise process was
exemplary in its
execution."
Sharon Perlstein,
City Engineer
City of West
Hollywood
"You were able to
acquire City services
beyond what was
requested, while at the
same time
significantly lowering
rates for both
• Long term solid waste system planning - for Orange County,
Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and the City of San Diego.
• Transition from non-exclusive to exclusive collection systems - for
cities such as Beverly Hills and Santa Clarita and counties such as
Riverside and San Bernardino.
• Competitive selection of recycling and solid waste service
contractors - for agencies as large as the City of Santa Clarita
(population 177,000) and as small as the town of Gridley (population
5,000) that have provided expanded services while saving ratepayers
hundreds of millions of dollars.
• Sole -source negotiation - renegotiation of solid waste services
contracts for cities such as Inglewood, which added services and froze
residential rates for three years.
• Reviews of rate applications - by such national companies as Waste
Management and Allied, as well as regional companies such as Marin
Sanitary Service and Norcal, and smaller companies such as Gilton
Disposal, which have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in
savings to ratepayers.
• Design and implementation of rate structures - as incentives for
waste reduction in cities as diverse as Pasadena, Alameda, Livermore,
and Union City.
• Cost -based regulatory fees - for landfill operations in Alameda and
Marin counties and collection impact fees for operations in more than
30 California cities, generating millions of dollars for pavement
HF��H Consultants, LLC
management programs.
Regulatory support - to such agencies as La Quinta and Lawndale,
increasing their calculated diversion rates by 17% and 20%,
respectively.
Used oil recycling - outside Lawndale's Kragen Auto Supply store, as
well as AutoZone and Kragen Auto Supply stores throughout the
Coachella Valley;
Hands-on technical assistance - (Including dumpster diving) - to the
New Haven School District in Union City.
Large venue/event recycling management - for the City of Newark's
"Newark Days" and the City of San Jose's Airport and Jazz Festival.
Benchmarking municipal collection operations - in cities such as San
Diego, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Brentwood, and El Cerrito.
Litigation support - to the City of Fresno regarding the County of
Fresno's landfill disposal fees, resulting in the retention of our firm by
both litigants in order to help determine appropriate contract terms
and rate processes.
September 25, 2008
City of Diarnond Bar' Section 4: Firm hrformatiorn
�•
Proposal to Provide So}id lhaste Contracting Assistance
A WELL MANAGED AND EQUIPPED TEAM OF SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLING EXPERTS
"Your knowledgeable
staff approached the
contract negotiations
with integrity and
thoroughness we liaz,e
come to admire and
respect. "
Thomas Coates,
Environmental
Services Supervisor
City of Inglewood
Our team of planners, accountants, engineers, and management
consultants are well trained, have extensive experience, and have access
to proprietary databases and analytical tools. Many have advanced
degrees and/or possess professional certifications and are leaders in their
professional organizations (e.g., California Resource Recovery
Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, the Southern
California Waste Management Forum, the Institute of Management
Consultants, and the Municipal Section of the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants). Many have a decade or more of
government and/or industry experience, prior to becoming consultants.
Our employees use proprietary databases of industry operations, cost,
and rate data, as well as proprietary analytical tools and templates to
apply to issues related to your project.
HF&H is more than the sum of its individual members and databases. We offer a management
structure that ensures expertise is consistently delivered to our clients with high-quality
analyses and work products in a timely, cost-effective manner. Each project includes a team of
consultants. A principal reviews work plans and schedules, reviews analyses, and drafts and
present-, work products. A manager prepares and supervises the performance of detailed work
plans, provides status reports, drafts work products, and participates in presentations. Under
supervision, qualified staff perform those tasks for which they are well-qualified. This structure
has resulted in a consistent level of quality, regardless of the office or consultants working on
your project.
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND IMPROVING PUBLIC
SERVICES
Our mission is to be the first choice and recognized leader among municipal agencies to help
them manage environmental resources and improve public services. We approach this mission
with certain core values:
• We serve our clients: exceptionally; with a focus on each engagement's objectives; and,
with an understanding of each client's broader goals.
• We relate to each other: positively; supporting our professional development; and,
----providing-opportunities for -personal rewards-.--- --- - -
• We operate the firm with: a commitment to the environment and public service; and,
integrity.
HF�TH G rrtirrltarrtti, 11 C ----- -- ---- --- — — --
t0 Septernrher25. �Oos
Section 5: Project Team
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Pro nde Solid Waste Consitilting Setdices
SECTION 5: PROJECT TEAM
The project manager for this engagement will be Laith Ezzet, HF&H Senior Vice President. Mr.
Ezzet has been the project manager on every contractor selection and negotiation process that
HF&H has conducted in Southern California in the past 15 years, including the public outreach
component of each of these projects. Team members will provide additional expertise in
multiple key areas, including drafting solid waste agreements, AB 939 compliance, and rate and
cost analysis.
ORGANIZATION CHART
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Laith Ezzet
Project Manager
Lisa Keating 11 11 Debbie Morris
Darrel Bice Recycling Analyst
Rate/Cost Analyst11 1 Procurement/
Contract Specialist
TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES
LAITH EZZET, PROTECT MANAGER
Mr. Ezzet is a Certified Management Consultant and Senior Vice President of our Southern
California solid waste consulting practice. Mr. Ezzet has over 20 years of experience as an
economist and solid waste consultant and has assisted over 100 public agencies to plan,
implement, and monitor their solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal programs. During
the course of these engagements, he has conducted more than 100 public workshops and public
meetings for City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and citizens' advisory groups. Mr. Ezzet is a
-past-me m-ber--of theBoard-of-Directors-of-the California -Resource -Recovery --Association and -
currently a Director of the Southern California Founding Chapter of the Solid Waste Association
of North America.
Mr. Ezzet has managed numerous procurement engagements for solid waste services contracts,
including RFP preparation, proposal evaluation, and negotiation support. Examples of clients
for whom he has helped to procure new solid waste services contracts include the cities of
Beverly Hills, Bellflower, Cerritos, Dana Point, El Centro, Imperial Beach, Indian Wells,
Inglewood, Lake Forest, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Mission Viejo, Orange, Palm Desert,
__ --- --- — — September 25, 2008
HFCH C0n5711ta1#5, LLC 71
City of Diarrnend Bar Section 5; ProjcctTeani
P7•0110sol to PWZ4dC Solid IA47Ste Consulting SCIVices
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Santa Margarita, Riverside, Santa Clarita, Tustin, West
Hollywood, and others. He managed the procurement of a new solid waste system operator for
San Bernardino County's landfills and transfer stations. He has negotiated solid waste
agreements with a total value in excess of $1 billion. The competitive procurements managed
by Mr. Ezzet have saved public agencies more than $160 million. He assisted the Orange
County City Managers' Solid Waste Working Group negotiate 10 -year waste disposal
agreements with the County of Orange. He authored a paper entitled "How Much Can You
Save through Competitive Proposals?" that was presented at SWANA's Western Regional
Symposium.
LISA KEATING, PROCUREMENT/CONTRACT SPECIALIST
Lisa Keating has assisted the cities of Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Compton, El Centro, Lawndale,
Manhattan Beach, Mission Viejo, Palm Desert, Rancho Palos Verdes, Riverside, Santa Clarita,
Tustin'. and Goodyear (Arizona), and the County of Orange through the procurement process
for new solid waste collection and recycling agreements, and is currently assisting the City of
Orange through the competitive procurement process. She has drafted both Requests for
Proposals and Requests for Bids, and the related agreements. She has reviewed hauler
proposals for solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services.
Ms. Keating assisted the cities of Dana Point, Inglewood, and Palmdale to re -negotiate their
collection contracts. She assisted the cities of Carlsbad, Dana Point, Garden Grove, and Murrieta
with contract reviews to evaluate re -negotiation options.
Ms. Keating reviewed and evaluated proposals for the development and use of a transfer
station for the City of Palm Springs. Ms. Keating prepared the Request for Proposals and draft
agreement for commercial recycling services in the city of Lawndale. Lisa assisted the City of
Lancaster with its procurement of a street sweeping contract, after having prepared the Request
for Proposals and draft agreement for these services. Ms. Keating also prepared the Request for
Proposals for the County of San Bernardino's procurement of an operations contractor for its
transfer station and landfill system, and developed a Request for Proposals and draft operations
and maintenance agreement for operating a materials recovery facility for the City of Oxnard.
DARR.ELL BICE, RATE/COST ANALYST
Darrell Bice, Senior Associate, is a Certified Public Accountant with 30 years of auditing and
accounting experience, including experience in public accounting and in the solid waste
industry. During his time in public accounting, he participated in and supervised the annual
- --audits_of-amajor public solid waste company. He served as an assistant corporate controller for
th
five years and as a division controller for two years in e solid waste industryfor a major solid
waste company. As an assistant corporate controller, he reviewed the results of operations for
ten California divisions, which included the analysis of financial statements and operating
reports to evaluate the performance of the division and report to corporate management. While
a division controller, Mr. Bice assisted in the development of a commercial refuse pricing
model, incorporating the full cost of service and desired profit levels. Additionally, he
participated as a team member in the development of the cost -of -service and resulting pricing
structures for proposals to several Southern California municipalities. As a solid waste
HF&H Cornsultaiifs LLC 7� --- - Sel7tcIII rberZ5, 200-8
Citic of Diamond Bar Section 5: Project Tema
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste C017siilti17 scrzoiccs
consultant, during the past seven years, Mr. Bice has participated in a variety of solid waste
projects for over 25 municipalities and governmental agencies. He participated in
procurement/ negotiation support projects for two Southern California cities.
DEBBIE MORRIS, RECYCLING ANALYST
Ms. Morris is a Senior Associate and has specialized in consulting to government clients on
solid waste issues for over 15 years. Ms. Morris' experience includes assistance with diversion
studies, AB 939 compliance, construction and demolition debris ordinance preparation,
construction and demolition debris program implementation and monitoring, new base -year
studies, contract management, audit services, and rate reviews. Since 1991 she has been the
primary researcher conducting surveys of solid waste programs and rates in the 200 cities in
Southern California.
Ms. Morris has performed an integral role in assisting jurisdictions with the requirements of AB
939. This ongoing support has included contract management assistance. To assist clients in
increasing diversion rates, and complying with the CIWMB's increased emphasis on program
implementation, Ms. Morris meets regularly with a city's solid waste haulers to closely monitor
performance and contract compliance. Ms. Morris reviews the effectiveness of public outreach
strategies; monitors hauler reports; reviews rate adjustment requests; monitors current
diversion program performance; and, assists with implementation of new diversion programs.
HF&H Co)is11Gtavts, LLC 13 September?7, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar SCCti077 6: 1 ipefience and References
Proposal to Proaide Solid I Vaste Consulting Scroices
SECTION 6: EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES
This section provides a representative sample of engagements, including references, relevant to
the City's current procurement effort.
EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN CONTRACT PROCUREMENT SERVICES
HF&H has extensive experience providing services similar to those requested in the City's
Request for Statement of Qualification and Proposal. Table 2 presents 19 previous procurement
engagements and the results and details of those engagements.
Takla 7- Prnnin —4- Q--- !'1 —4.
�urisdiction
i
Bellflower
Year
2004
# of
Proposers
5
Contract
Term
8years
Old Contract
Value
$49,688,000
New Contract
Value*
$38,400,000
Total Savings
$11,288,000
% Savings
23%
EI Centro
2007
4
8 years
$34,209,000
$43,608,000
$0
n/a
Imperial Beach
1999
4
7years
$13,692,000
$13,153,000
$539,000
4%
Lake Forest
1996
5
7years
$29,500,000
$22,800,000
$6,700,000
23%
Lancaster
2006
3
5 years
$3,413,000
$2,540,000
$873,000
26%
Lawndale
1997
5
5years
$6,127,000
$5,476,000
$651;000
11%
Lawndale:
2002
5
7years
$7,546,000
$6,349,000
$1,197,000
16%
Manhattan Beach
2002
7
7years
$22,400,000
$21,800,000
$600,000
3%
Mission \riejo
2000
6
8 years
$54,784,000
$48,395,0001
$6,389,000
12%
Palm Desert
2000
6
7years
$46,252,000
$40,553,000
$5,699,000
12%
Rancho Palos Verdes
1999
7
7 years
$22,034,000
$20,647,000
$1,387.000
6%
Rancho Santa Margarita
2004
5
8 years
$28,704,000
$20,864,000
$7,840,000
27%
Riverside — Residential
2001
7
7 years
$20,272,D00
$16,793,000
$3,479,000
17%
Riverside—Commercial
2001
6
7years
$97,506,DD0
$64,354,000
$33,152,000
34%
County of San Bernardino
2001
10
7 years
$144,892,000
$118,633,000
$26,259,000
18%
Santa Clarita — Residential
2003
6
7 years
$100,204,000
$70,409,000
$29,795,000
30%
Santa Clarita - Commercial
2003
6
9 years
$39,256,000
$34,099,000
$5,157,000
13%
Tustin
2000
8
7years
$42,392,000
$25,011,000
$17,381,000
41%
West Hollywood
2003
9
8 years
$42,376,000
$33,512,DDD
$8,864,000
21%
TOTAL
$814,646,000
$647,396,000
$167,2501000
21%
- -- HAULING -COMPANY EXPERIENCE- -- - -- -- ----- - -
HF&H does not work for hauling companies in order to avoid the conflicts of interest that may
arise ire firms that attempt to serve both public and private sectors. However, HF&H has
extensive experience in auditing and negotiating with hauling companies, including likely
proposers, through our work on behalf of other municipalities.
HF&H C'017s10,71its, LLC —�74 — September 25, 2008
City of Diainon.d Bar
Proposal to Provide Solid LVaste Consulting Sera,ices
Section 6: Expeiiewe and References
REFERENCES FOR SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS
We have provided 12 references below. We would be pleased to provide additional references
upon your request.
CITY OF BELLFLOWER
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Solid
Waste Contract
Date of Engagement: 20041;B1 lLkl.Ca`'lt
Client Needs:
After 40 years with the same waste collector, the City of Bellflower conducted a
competitive procurement for a new residential and commercial collection agreement.
The City needed to implement new programs that would increase waste diversion to
meet State goals. Accurate service data was not readily available for use in an RFP.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H developed the City's RFP and draft agreement, conducted the RFP process,
evaluated the proposals and assisted in negotiating a new franchise agreement This
new agreement increased recycling and customer services while lowering costs to rate
payers and increasing City revenues. In order to address the City's issues, we audited
the hauler data to be included in the RFP, including tons recycled and disposed, amount
billed, and franchise fees paid in order to provide proposers confidence in the service
data. We conducted public outreach meetings for customer groups.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 23%, saving ratepayers $11.3 million over the 8 -year term
Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• $347,500 in annual funding to the City for its solid waste related expenses
• Collection at no additional charge from City facilities and at City -sponsored events,
and free disposal of street sweepings
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Processing of all multi -family refuse and roll -off box loads
• Transformation of refuse to meet CIWMB diversion requirements
• Electronic waste collection and processing
• Diversion of manure from horse properties
• New collection vehicles and new residential carts
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating, Darrell Bice
Client Contact: Brian Smith
Assistant Director of Public Works
562/804-1424
HF& H CO17S7dta11tS, LLC ��t3 Septetraber 25, 2008
City of Dimncnd Bar
Proposal to Pi -conic Solid Waste Consulting Seiviees
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
Section 6: Experience and References
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Separate
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Contracts
Date of Engagement: 2000
Client Needs:
The City maintained separate residential and commercial contracts with different service
providers. The City's diversion rate was 38%, and the City needed to implement new
recycling services. The City had service challenges such as attached housing in need of
individual services, but limited storage space for carts, and shopping centers with
limited bin space and collection vehicle access issues. The City had an unsatisfactory
experience during its previous transition from another hauler.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H managed the City's competitive procurement process. We toured the City,
discussing service issues with the City and current haulers. We collected and analyzed
tonnage and other service data to provide proposers an accurate account of the services
which they will be providing. We drafted a commercial agreement and a residential
agreement that included the City's intent to fully automate residential services and to
provide incentives for businesses to recycle. We made arrangements for smaller carts
and other special service arrangements for space constrained customers.
We evaluated the proposals received and assisted the City in negotiating favorable
contracts for both residential and commercial services with the current commercial
hauler, thereby limiting transition issues, while lowering rates.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 12% saving the ratepayers $6.4 million over the 8 -year term
• Smooth transition
• City reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Contractor remits an Abandoned Item Collection Fee of $65,000 per year to City
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• A smooth transition to automated residential recycling and green waste collection
• Curbside electronic waste collection at no additional charge
• New alternative fuel' collection vehicles- powered by- compressed natural gas and
new residential carts
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating, Darrell Bice
Client Contact:
Karen Wylie
Assistant to the City Manager
949/470-8409
HF&H Consuitant-, LLC — -- - 16 --- --- tiep017her25, 2008
Citi of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience ajid Referoices
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste Coiisidting Seg L'ices
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Solid Waste
Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2000
Client Needs:
The City's current solid waste collection agreement was expiring. The City was
interested in implementing more effective recycling programs. All residential services
were manual, and the co -collection of refuse and green waste was ineffective. The City
had conducted a limited pilot program for automating service. Varying terrain and
container storage capacity were issues.
HF&H Solution:
The City retained HF&H to prepare an RFP and franchise agreement, manage the
procurement process, evaluate proposal, interview finalists, and negotiate the final
agreement.
We determined that the majority of the City in the inland area was suitable for
automated refuse, recycling and green waste service and implemented three cart service.
Manual collection was retained in the coastal area where streets were too narrow and
properties too small to accommodate larger automated vehicles. The coastal area
generated little green waste, so only refuse and recyclables service was provided in this
area.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 3%, saving ratepayers $600,000 over the 7 -year term
• Residential curbside diversion increased to 45% to 50%
• Over 95% residential recycling program participation rate
• Commercial recycling accounts increased from 60 to 355 in two years
• Commercial diversion increased from 6% to 25% in two years
• Fixed disposal costs for contract term
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Collection at no additional charge at City -sponsored events
• Recycling fee of $20,000 per year remitted to City
• Three -cart automation of majority of City, all new carts
-' New residential-conta-iners-throughout City ---- — - — — - -- - - -
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
Electronic waste collection
Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Neil Miller, retired
Public Works Director
HF&HCorrs1i.ltanhs LLC
Septeiiiber 25, 2008
City of Dia»voiid Bar Section 6: Experiewe and References
Proposal to Prooide Solid Waste Consulting Se7vices
CITY OF INGLEWOOD
Engagement Title: Review of Proposed Solid Waste Rates and
Negotiated Terms of a New Solid Waste
Agreement
Date of Engagement: 2004
Client Needs:
The City's solid waste contract was expiring. The City was under a compliance order
and required to implement several diversion problems in a matter of months.
Maintaining low, stable rates was a top priority for the City.
HF&H Solution:
• Identify desirable contract terms, based on the City's needs and industry standards
• Evaluate proposed deal with contract hauler and compare to industry standard
terms
• Compare rates to those of four other area cities, based on the City's specific basket of
services
• Determine whether deal was reasonable
• Negotiate and prepare final contract terms
Results:
• Reduced residential rates by 5 % and froze for three years
• Froze existing commercial rates for one additional year
• Capped future increases in disposal rates at the change in CPI
• $510,000 u1 new annual fees to the City
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Reimbursement of costs to join Los Angeles Regional Agency
• Collection at no additional charge from City facility roll -off boxes, at City -sponsored
events, from street litter containers, and of abandoned items
• Transformation and mixed waste processing required at no cost to meet AB 939
requirements
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Automation of residential recycling and green waste collection
• Electronic waste collection
• Used motor oil and filter recycling
---------------------- ---
• Biennial curbside Household Hazardous Waste—even ts
• Alternative collection vehicles
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Contact: Angela Williams
310/412-8722
HFA°rH Consitltan#s, LLC -- — 18 ---- Sehteniher 25. 2008
Citi/ of Diarnrnmd Bar Section 6: Ezpeiieizce acid References
Proposal to Proz,ide Solid 1l7aste Cojisultiaag Seizoices
CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Solid Waste
Contract
Date of Engagement: 2004 ' t
Client Needs:
The City needed a new contract with improved recycling services, as the City was under
a time extension with the CIWMB to meet diversion goals. The City consists of
predominantly multi -family units and had already implemented a comprehensive
multi -family recycling program, but lacked recycling opportunities in other areas. The
City's high density, narrow streets and hilly terrain provided collection challenges.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H managed the procurement process, reviewing proposals, interviewing proposers
and negotiating the final agreement. We conducted community outreach meetings and
worked with the City to identify recycling improvements to be made for single-family,
commercial and restaurant customers.
We considered the City's unique geography, high number of multi -family residents, and
extreme density when working with staff to determine the ideal service package for its
constituents. The City received nine proposals, a high number for this type of
procurement process, and awarded the contract to a new service provider.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 21 %, saving ratepayers $8.9 million over the 8 -year term
• City was reimbursed for procurement costs by new contractor
• Implemented an AB 939 Fee of $100,000 per year that contractor pays City
• Collection at no additional charge from street litter containers.
• Restaurant food waste diversion program tailored to the City's high density
• Free commercial recycling
• Mixed waste processing of commercial waste
• Automation of single family refuse, recycling and green waste
• Biennial neighborhood cleanup campaigns
• Curbside electronic waste collection at no additional charge
• New alternative fuel collection vehicles and new residential carts
• Improved -reporting and performance requirements -
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Jan Harmon
Environmental Programs Manager
323/848-6499
September 25, 2008
HF&H CoftSHIM-ts, LLC �g
P7
Gi y of Dirimoir.d Bar
�v
Propos'll to Provide SOl7d 1Vt7$te C011b]ll1iito SL'1 ILEE
CITY OF LAWNDALE
5ectren 6: Expeilewc and References
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Residential Solid
Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2002 It
Client Needs:
The City's residential solid waste collection agreement was to expire soon and the City
was in need of additional recycling programs. The City had issues with collection,
recycling and reporting in the open commercial sector as well.
HF&H Solution:
Having been pleased with our previous work for the City when we conducted its solid
waste contract procurement process in 1997, we were again hired to prepare the RFP
and franchise agreement, conduct the process, evaluate the proposals and negotiate the
final agreement.
We have continued to assist the City with development of commercial hauler permitting
system, preparation of municipal code text revisions, contract compliance, auditing of
tonnage reported and fees remitted.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 16%
• Saved the ratepayers $1.2 million over the 7 -year term
(Note: Savings from our 1997 procurement were 11%, or $651,000 over the 5 -year
term)
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Annual Source Reduction and Recycling Surcharge - $30,000
• Collection at no additional charge at City -sponsored events
• Abandoned items collected at no additional charge
• Improved residential recycling and green waste diversion programs
• Required transformation of refuse
• Three City-wide clean up events per year
• Electronic waste collection
• Used oil recycling
• Alternative fuel vehicles
Improved reporting and -performance requirements - - - — --
]Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating, Debbie Morris
Client Contact: Ms. Marlene Miyoshi
Director of Public Works
310/973-3260
HFA -H &1ZS1ltr711ts, LLC - '0 ---- Schtembo,25, 20oS
Citp of Diamond Bar Section 6: Eaperi�caue and References
Proposal to Proz'ide SoIidWaste Consz[lti?zg Selvices
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Solid Waste
Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2000
Client Needs:
The City needed a consultant to:
• Determine the services to be proposed upon
• Prepare the RFP and franchise agreement
• Audit the hauler operating data
• Conduct community outreach meetings for stakeholder groups
• Evaluate proposals
• Negotiate final contract terms
• Present the final agreement to the City Council
WLp
A D
E`
M S
E
R
T
L
The City offered many challenges, including numerous homeowners' associations, each
with unique service requirements, such as in -ground containers, both manual and
automation, different waste streams serviced, backyard service, and collection day
restrictions.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H assisted the City in the procurement of a new residential and commercial solid
waste franchise agreement.
We tailored a contract to meet the needs of all of the City's various communities, and
simplified the hauler's complex rate schedule.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 12%
• Saved the ratepayers $5.7 million over the 8 -year term
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Collection at no additional charge of abandoned items
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Used motor oil and filter recycling
• B-ck_y_ard, in-ground,_manual _and-automated_aptions__
-- - -- -----
• Once versus twice -per -week collection options
• Alternative collection vehicles
Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Contact: Ms. Sheila Gilligan
Asst. City Manager
760/346-0611
HF&H Coitsidtants, I LC 23 Septemhe-r Zb, 20DS
Citic of Dirzni.oiui Bar Sectioi7 6: Experien.ce and References
Proposal to Prozlide Solid IVt?ste Cons,11titzg Sec pices
CITY OF DANA POINT
Engagement Title: Negotiation of a Solid Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2005
The City needed a new contract with improved recycling services. The City needed
guidance as to whether it should renegotiate with the current hauler or seek competitive
proposals. As the City was pleased with prior work HF&H had performed for the City
HF&H was hired to assist with determining procurement strategy, drafting the
franchise agreement and negotiating the final agreement.
HF&H Solution:
In order to meet the City's goals, HF&H:
• Evaluated the benefits of renegotiation versus competitive procurement, briefing the
City Council and City staff on the benefits of each option
• Assisted the City in determining that first negotiating with the current hauler could
achieve the desired results
Drafted the draft agreement
Assisted in the negotiations process
Compared the proposed rates and services to comparable cities and competitively
procured agreements to assist the City in determining that the agreement was
reasonable and met its needs
Results:
The new contract provided the City with:
• Mixed waste processing of all multi -family refuse and roll -off box loads
• Mixed waste processing of 50% of commercial bin refuse
• Required site visits to establish commercial and multi -family recycling programs
• Increased franchise fees
• Funding to City for recycling efforts
• Annual $75,000 funding of staff time
• Reimbursement of contract negotiations costs
• Phasing in of alternative fuel vehicles
- _ �� Hauler=funded biennial audits - _ - - - _ -
• Increased performance security and insurance levels
• Free bulky item collection for multi -family customers
• Retains lowest residential rate in a four -city area, or "quad cities"
• Free electronic waste collection
• Required dedicated routes to improve tonnage reporting accuracy
HF&H Team Members: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
HF&H Corisriltrnits, LLC �? Seph'inbcr 75, ZOOS
City of DiaiTroaui Sar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Promle Solid Waste Corin-dting SetC'ices
Client Contact: Brad Fowler
Public Works and Engineering Services
(949) 248-3554
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement and Negotiations of
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Contracts. r
1
Date of Engagement: 2002
Client Needs:
The City had three residential haulers operating in three exclusive areas. The same three
haulers offered commercial services City-wide on a competitive basis under a maximum
City -approved rate. Residential and commercial contracts ended years apart. The City
wanted to:
• Restructure the franchise arrangement
• Analyze regional transfer station and MRF options
• Analyze variable can rate implementation options
HF&H Solution:
We prepared a RFP and drafted agreement for separate residential and commercial
contracts with the same end date. We conducted public outreach meetings, evaluated
six proposals, and negotiated contracts with three potential haulers, including an
agreement to develop a materials recovery facility in the City.
Results:
• City will save an estimated $35 million over the terms of the contracts, with a 30%
reduction in residential rates and a 13% reduction in commercial rates
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractors
Recycling Fee of $70,000 per year paid to City
• $5.50 per ton of commercial recyclables paid to City
• Collection at no additional charge from City facilities and at City -sponsored events
-City has the option, at the end of the term, to purchase a MRF built by the
commercial hauler below market value
Free commercial and multi -family recycling
Free mixed waste processing of at least half of commercial loads
• New residential carts and enhanced recyclables and green waste collection
• Optional diaper recycling program
• Electronic waste collection and processing
Diversion of manure from horse properties
HF&H Cotisztlta�t.ts, LLC -- �3 September 25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 6: Experience and References
Proposal to Provide Solid IMask Consulting Seiviees
• Alternative fuel vehicles
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Mr. Travis Lange
Environmental Services Manager
661/255-4337
CITY �OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of Solid
Waste Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 1999
Client Needs:
The City has two separate franchise areas each with twice weekly refuse collection.
The smaller area had only 5% of the City's residential customers, and had unique
service requirements because it contained horse properties. The entire City had
operational challenges due to steep hills and overhanging trees.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H assisted the City in the procurement of new residential solid waste franchise
agreements. We prepared the RFP and agreement, conduct the procurement process,
evaluated the proposals and negotiated the final contract terms.
We addressed difficult terrain issues with "Scout service" (small trucks that can access
containers more easily than collection trucks and re -position containers for collection).
We conducted public outreach meetings. We surveyed and tabulated responses from
more than 3,000 customers regarding their service preferences for once versus twice
per week collection.
• Reduced overall rates by 6%, saving the ratepayers $1.4 million over the 7 -year term
Reimbursement of -procurement -costs -by -contractor - - - - -
• Abandoned items collected at no additional charge
• New Recycling Programs and Service Enhancements
• Customer acceptance of automation of recyclables and green waste, with new carts
• Electronic waste collection
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
HF&H Team Members: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
HF&H Coasjiltrmts LLC �� Septclilivi-25, 2008
Citi of Diamoizd Bar Section 6: Experioice acid References
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste C011S1-116110 Selz)ices
Contact: Lauren Ramezani
Senior Administrative Analyst
(310) 541-6500
CITY OF RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
Engagement Title: Competitive Procurement of a Solid Waste
Collection Contract
Date of Engagement: 2004
Client Needs:
The newly incorporated City was entering into its first franchise agreement, after having
been serviced under a county contract for five years. Residential services were not
consistent throughout the City and the City lacked sufficient recycling programs.
HF&H Solution:
After previously assisting the City with negotiations, the City hired us again to conduct
the City's first solid waste RFP process. We develop an RFP and franchise agreement for
single-family, multi -family and commercial refuse, recycling and green waste collection
services, managed the procurement process, evaluated the proposals, interviewed
proposers and negotiated the final agreement.
Results:
• Reduced overall rates by 27%, saving the ratepayers $7.8 million over the 8 -year
term
• Implementation of a 5% franchise fee
• Reimbursement of procurement costs by contractor
• Outreach Fee of $60,000 per year to City
• Collection at no additional charge from City facilities and at City -sponsored events
• Collection of abandoned items at no additional charge
• New collection vehicles and new residential carts
• Biennial curbside cleanup campaigns
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
New recycling programs and service enhancements, including:
Free commercial and multi -family recycling, site visits required _
Automation of green waste collection
• Mixed waste processing of all roll -off box loads
Electronic waste collection
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Mr. D. James Hart, City Manager
Currently with the City of Adelanto
760/256-2300 ext. 3016
22008
HF&H CoTsultmi.ts, LLC �; Septe»ibei 1)
G(y of Dia)nond Bar Sectio» 6: Expeficiia? acid Refere:rees
Proposal to Proznde Solid t'Vaste Consulti:2g Set -,,ices
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Engagement Title: Waste Hauling Franchise Negotiations
Date of Engagement: 2003
Client Needs:
The County of San Bernardino contracts with haulers to
provide residential and commercial collection services in more than 25 areas and sub
areas within the unincorporated county. The County was establishing five new county
franchise areas in need of haulers and collection agreements. The County received
proposals to service these areas, as well as proposals to make revisions to existing
contracts. Service areas received different services at different rates. Proposals were
received in a variety of formats. The County needed to determine costs and services to
be negotiated in each area.
HF&H Solution:
First, HF&H worked closely with County staff to assist staff in gaining a better
understanding of their own complex network of franchise agreements.
Proposals had been solicited without strict guidelines; therefore, some information was
incomplete and the proposals were difficult to compare. We profiled proposed and
existing service arrangements by hauler and new county franchise area in a way to
permit the reader to understand and compare the various proposed services and terms
for each area.
We provided rate evaluations to identify and evaluate the reasonableness of proposed
rates. The County was grateful for the detailed layout of rates that we provided, as the
format assisted in reviewing fees and over -charges as well.
For proposals relating to existing franchise areas, HF&H summarized proposed contract
changes by hauler and franchise area, listing recommended changes and corresponding
rate effects.
We provided contract language for use in the contract revisions and new franchise area
agreements to provide the County with clearer and more complete service requirements
and contract language that will enable the County to enforce these requirements.
Results:
As_a result of our assistance, County staff gained:
• Improved contract language for County contracts
• More consistency in service levels
• Equitable rates
• A better understanding by the County as to services provided in various areas under
many franchise agreements.
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
NF&H CO 17sitIIoiit5, LLC 26 Septernlvr 25, ?DOS
Citi/ of Diana.olzd Bar Section 6: ExpoielT.ce and References
Proposal to ProzMe Solid I'Vaste Consl'(ltilig Sclvices
Client Contact: Kathleen Bingham
Solid Waste Programs Administrator
909/386-8739
CITY OF EL CENTRO
Engagement Title Competitive Procurement and Negotiations of 0
a Solid Waste Collection Contract .... .... N
Date of Engagement: 2007
Client Needs:
The City's solid waste collection contract with the only major hauler in the region was
expiring and the hauler offered a short extension. The local landfill and materials
recovery facility were owned and operated by the City's current hauler. The City
wanted to conduct a competitive procurement but had limited time, limited hauler
options, and limited disposal options. Rates had not been increased since 2003 and were
expected to increase significantly. Service data was difficult to obtain.
HF&H Solution:
We drafted the RFP and collection agreement, conducted public outreach meetings,
evaluated four proposals, and negotiated contracts with two proposers.
Results:
• The City received four quality proposals
• Increased franchise fee
• New AB 939 fee
• New refuse vehicle impact reimbursement of 590,000 per year
• New hauler agreed to establish a new facility within City limits
• Optional used oil and oil filter collection
• New residential carts
• Site visits to all businesses to promote recycling
• Free commercial and multi -family recycling
• Free mixed waste processing of at least half of commercial loads
• Electronic waste collection and processing
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
• Improved rate adjustment method, including a mechanism to adjust rates upon the
opening of the Mesquite Landfill, if it is used
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Ms. J.B. West
Public Works Analyst
760/337-4538
HF&H Consult(717ts, LLC Septelii1er25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Section 6: Ej7cficrace acid References
Propos(al to Provide Solid Wt7ste Colisult o Se) vices
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Engagement Title: Commercial Solid Waste Procurement;
Transition to Exclusive Franchise System
Date of Engagements: 1994, 2000, 2003
Client Needs:
The City had multiple private haulers under contract to provide commercial collection
services. In 1994, 2000 and 2003, the City was in need of assistance in procuring new
collection agreements. The City's Public Works Department provides residential service.
HF&H Solution
We have assisted the City of Beverly Hills on an ongoing basis since 1993, including
negotiating collection agreements in 1994, 2000 and 2003, auditing haulers, and
performing rate studies.
In 1994, HF&H assisted the City in transitioning from a non-exclusive commercial
system with an unlimited number of haulers to a non-exclusive system limited to only
five haulers. Challenges of such a transition, which HF&H overcame, included
providing proposers with sufficient service data gathered from multiple haulers.
In subsequent engagements, HF&H then helped the City transition from five
commercial haulers to one.
Results:
In 1994, the City executed five-year non-exclusive commercial solid waste collection
agreements with five haulers, significantly reducing its number of haulers.
In 2003, the City competitively procured a new commercial hauler, providing free
recycling services, mixed waste processing of all waste, and commercial green waste
collection.
Key HF&H Staff : Laith Ezzet, Darrel Bice, Lisa Keating
Client Contact: Shana Epstein
Assistant Utility Services Manager
310/285-2570
-
CITY OF MURRIETA
Engagement Title: Review of Solid Waste Franchise Agreement
Date of Engagement: 2004
I'he City recognized the need to renegotiate its current solid waste
HFH Consultant LLC -
-'3 Schtcljiber 25, 2008
Citi/ of Dianaoiad Bar Secticni b: Experience and References
Proposal to Proi�ide Solid Waste Coluultiirg Serdices
collection contract and hired HF&H to:
• Review the current agreement
• Review current city services
• Identify standard state-of-the-art contract terms and services
• Recommend improvements to services and contract terms
Service Recommendations
• Improve cart labeling
• Add free commercial recycling services
• Add free service for special events
• Add e -waste collection
• Add City clean-ups
• Add holiday tree collection
• Require container graffiti removal
• Require roll -off load recycling requirements
Contract Recommendations
• Restrict of broad extraordinary rate adjustment clause
• Improve AB 939 indemnification clause
• Improve hazardous substances indemnification clause
• Improve reporting and performance requirements
• Increase low performance bond amount
• Specify liquidated damages to be specified
• Add outreach fee
• Improve assignment clause
Key HF&H Staff: Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Contact: Al Vollbrecht
Senior Management Analyst
909/461-6003
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Engagement Title:- Competitive Procurement -and --
Negotiations of Residential and Commercial
Solid Waste Collection Contracts
Date of Engagement: 2001
Client Needs:
The City's franchise agreements were expiring. The City has three residential service
HF&H Consnitan#s, LLC
-)9
September 25, 2008
Citta c?f Diarnozd Bmr SectioT 6: Experience and References
Proposal to P1"oinde Solid J1`aste Cofisulting Services
areas, with the City providing service in one. The City wanted to restructure its
commercial service arrangement of several exclusive commercial service areas to
provide and the City wanted to restructure to provide customers with service
alternatives and thereby improve declining customer service.
HF&H Solution:
After having HF&H assist the City with evaluation of routing and operational issues for
the City's municipal operations, the City again hired HF&H to assist with the
procurement of new collection contracts.
We prepared a Request for Bids (RFB) and collection agreement for exclusive residential
solid waste collection services, allowing haulers to compete for two service area
contracts.
We prepared a RFB and a collection agreement for multiple franchised commercial
haulers, which allowed three new franchised haulers to compete for commercial
customers.
Results:
Results of our conducting the competitive procurement for the City include:
• Reducing costs to residents by 17%o and costs to businesses by 34%
• New Residential Recycling Programs and Service Enhancements, including the
automation of refuse and green waste collection
• Improved reporting and performance requirements
• New Commercial Recycling Programs and Service Enhancements, including free
commercial and multi -family recycling
• Minimum recycling requirements
Key HF&H Staff:
Client Contact:
Laith Ezzet, Lisa Keating
Rick McGrath
Public Works Director (retired)
HF&H C'Mnsidtrmfs, LLC
30 SeptemherZi, ZDOS
Citic of Dialnoiul Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Ser price Brochures
� �,�. ar YYGY rt+.ray 11tlWI�YYIi1lYYf11110 � " "
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
EXHIBIT A: HF&H SERVICE BROCHURES
RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE AUDIT SERVICES
SOLUTIONS y J RELIABLE RESULTS
Protecting Your Interests
Penalties. Lost business. Litigation. Recordkeeping has
become a high-stakes endeavor. At HF&H, our global
approach to recycling and solid waste audits prevents
problems and protects your jurisdiction by ensuring
accuracy, integrity and excellence at every turn.
Audits You Can Trust
Reliable information makes all the difference. That's
why HF&H has developed a suite of recycling and solid
waste audit services you can trust. Our experts provide
in-depth reviews to determine the accuracy of all your
hauler fee payments, reported tonnage, billing, and rate
adjustment requests.
Dedicated to Details
HF&H clients gain peace of mind from our in-depth
solid waste audits by:
• Verifying that residential and business bills reflect
approved rates and accurate service levels.
• Ensuring all franchise, AB 939 or other fees remitted
are accurate.
• Confirming that haulers have complied with recycling
and solid waste service contracts; made reasonable,
appropriate rate requests & adjustments; and accu-
- rately reported collected tonnage-.-- -- -- -
• Developing and evaluating viable costs for recycling
and solid waste services.
Cities and counties throughout the Western United
States have come to rely on HF&H's unparalleled
understanding of the recycling and solid waste industry.
Our expert audit staff has reviewed the financial and
operating records of approximately 100 hauling compa-
nies on behalf of our clients. As a result, individual
clients have recovered in excess of one million dollars
in fees due from haulers.
Conscientious audits, insightful recommendations and
meticulous examinations have allowed our clients to:
• Collect additional franchise, AB 939 and other fees.
• Determine the accuracy of hauler fee payments,
billings, services and reported tonnage.
• Establish reasonable and appropriate rate strategies.
• Improve diversion rates by confirming the accuracy of
reported tonnage.
• Validate the accuracy and fairness of hauler rate
adjustment requests.
Clients turn to HF&H_when they require
thorough audits, sound financial
reporting and expert advice. Our clients
unanimously report 100% satisfaction
with our resultsl
HF&H Consultants, LLC l Sel3te71717er5, 2008
City of Dianiond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Sen>ice Broclrnres
Proposal to Provide Solid I,Vaste Contracting ASS1 Stance
TOP -TIER AUDIT SERVICES ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST �I
HF&H provides recycling and solid waste audit services
tailored to the demands of public agencies.
Billing and Service Audits: We audit residential and
commercial customer bills to ensure they reflect
approved hauler rates and match the level of services
provided, including the collection frequency and the
size and number of containers serviced.
Contract Compliance Audits: We evaluate hauler per -
fon -lance reco-cis to ensure they provide services to
meet your recycling and solid waste service contracts.
If hauler performance does not comply, HF&H offers
proven solutions.
Hauler Fee Payment Audits: We determine the accu-
racy of AB 939 fees and other solid waste disposal fees
based on assessment and hauler information records.
Raise and Cost of Service Studies: We review the
cost of providing recycling and solid waste services in
order to develop suitable rates or rate -adjustment
strategies to meet financial goals.
Reviews of Rate Adjustment Requests: We verify
that hauler rate adjustment requests are sensible and
correctly calculated.
Tonnage Audits: We analyze hauler reports and sup-
porting records to verify the amount of tonnage collect-
ed 3nd establish correct diversion rates_
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.*
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We apply our expertise to address your particular chal-
lenges and maximize your recycling, solid waste. and
diversion results. We've saved our clients millions of
dollars collectively through expert monitoring of con-
tractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your auditing services,
'Results of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfact cn Survey corcuc:ed by
lohnstpr. Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Cer_fied Public Accour:ants.
Northern California
Southern California
contract Management Services
2175 N, California Boulevard, *r'990
3990 Westerly Place. 4195
Recycling & Solid waste Contract Services
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Vewport Beach, CA 92660
Recycling & 3olic Waste Audit Services
925.977-6950
949-251-8628
vehicle mpaci Studies
- Management & Opera,ions Reviews
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
Prograr- Implementation, Diversion & Sustainability Services
rhilton@hth-consultants.com
lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
Recycling & Solid Waste Rate Services
John_Farnkopf _
_
Funding Storm Water & Street Programs
jfarnkopf@hfh-consultants.com
www,hfh-consulfants.com
— - -
'Semce bro^hures are available upon request
a.
�M
_
v
r •' �fi „r^ i � k 2A
HF&H COnsidtants, LLC
Septicniber5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Set vice Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
SOLUTIONS
Contract Management Solutions
Do you have limited staff resources to manage and
monitor your recycling and solid waste contracts or per-
mits? Do you need to supplement in-house resources
with recycling and solid waste contracting specialists or
solicit a different perspective? If so, HF&H can provide
staff resources and expertise to manage contracts
strategically for improved service and to monitor con-
tractor performance on an ongoing basis.
Flexibility and Expertise
HF&H is ready to put an entire team of highly experi-
enced experts to work for you. We have specialized
skills across a wide range of disciplines: contract com-
pliance, contrac` negotiations, diversion program plan-
ning and implementation, auditing and accounting,
legal review, public policy, and public outreach. Our
most experienced consultants will actively contribute
their expertise to serving your needs.
Measurable Results
Our services have helped more than 200 municipalities
significantly reduce costs and achieve or exceed pro-
gram goals. We have helped to establish and monitor
sound contracts, and effecc-.ively deliver collection serv-
ices to residents and businesses. For Pxample, the
City of Lawndale's residen'ial diversion rate increased
30 percentage points in three years with HF&H's
assistance.
VAL U E
Our contract management services can address all
facets of your contracts, permits, and program needs
and desired goals. We can:
• Maximize your ability to meet and exceed program
and diversion goals
• Take a proactive approach to minimize compliance
issues with your contractors, permittees, and/or regu-
lators
• Improve collection services and program performance
by working with contractors and/or permittees to
ensure that:
Performance standards are enforced
Contract requirements are being met
Contractor payments are timely and accurate
Customer rates are competitive and accurate
Customer requests and complaints are responded
to in a timely manner
• Monitor programs to identify potential problems and
plan for future changes
"The reason we hire HF&H time and
again is the personal service. They
are extremely responsive to our needs.
i would recommend HF&H to any
jurisdiction faced with challenging
solid waste issues."
Tami Pismtty, Assistant to the City Manager,
City of La Palma
HF&H C011Stdtants, LLC 3 September 5, 2008
a
VAL U E
Our contract management services can address all
facets of your contracts, permits, and program needs
and desired goals. We can:
• Maximize your ability to meet and exceed program
and diversion goals
• Take a proactive approach to minimize compliance
issues with your contractors, permittees, and/or regu-
lators
• Improve collection services and program performance
by working with contractors and/or permittees to
ensure that:
Performance standards are enforced
Contract requirements are being met
Contractor payments are timely and accurate
Customer rates are competitive and accurate
Customer requests and complaints are responded
to in a timely manner
• Monitor programs to identify potential problems and
plan for future changes
"The reason we hire HF&H time and
again is the personal service. They
are extremely responsive to our needs.
i would recommend HF&H to any
jurisdiction faced with challenging
solid waste issues."
Tami Pismtty, Assistant to the City Manager,
City of La Palma
HF&H C011Stdtants, LLC 3 September 5, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar ExhiNt A: HF&H Service Br-ocrrucs
Proposal to Prozride Solid IVaste Contracting Assistance
SERVICES
Contract Compliance
• Monitoring compliance with contract requirements
• Tracking and analysis of program data
• Audits of contractor s records
• Verification of requested rate adjustments
• Assessment of diversion and outreach programs
Contract Coordination and Oversight
• Facilitation of regular meetings with contractor
• Development and implementation of performance
improvement plans
• Review and approval of public education materials
• Response to customer complaints
Periodic Contract Management Assistance
• Negotiation of contract amendments
• Preparation of contract management tools
• Development of data tracki-ig and analysis process
• Survey of customers to assess quality of service and
future needs
"In my 25+ years of municipal adminis-
tration, I have retained and managed the
services of over 15 different consulting firms.
t can truly say that HF&H is probably the
finest firm in terms of personnel, flexibility,
expertise and effectiveness
that i have ever worked with."
Antonio E Acosta, Deputy City Manager;
Leisure Services Director, City of Union City
Northern California
Southern California
2175 N. California Boulevard, 4990
3990 Westerly Place. #19
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach, CA 9266
925-977-6950
949-29-1-8628
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
rhiIto n@hfh-consultants corn
lezzet@hfh-consultants.co
John Farnkopf
jfarnkopf@hfh-consultants.com
www.hfh-consultants.cor
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions wit,) similar
needs.'
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term re'aticr ips and deliver long-
term value.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results. We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we offer comorehensive solutions to
your diversion compliance and contract performance
issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your public agency's contract management needs.
'Results of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Survey conductec by
Johnstun, Gremaux & Rossi, LLP Certified Public ACCOUntarts.
• Contract Managemert Services.
5 Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Services
0 • Recycling & Solid Waste Audit Services
• Vehicle Impac: Studies
• Management & Operations Reviews
• Program Implementation. Diversion & Sustainability Services
m Recyclirg & Solid Waste Rate Services
• Funding Storrs Waler & Street P-ograms
HF(':7H Consultants, LLC Septcnrher5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhilnt A; HF&H Seaztice Brochures
Proposal to Proinde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE CONTRACT SERVICES
SOLUTIONS
Rewarding Contract Solutions
Having trouble developing contract terms? Your
contractor won't sign on the dotted line? Although the
recycling and solid waste contracting process may
initially seem straightforward, jurisdictions often
discover they need experts to help them navigate the
rugged terrain. At HF&H, our expertise ensures your
contract issues and contractor selection projects
receive focused attention and yield rewarding results.
Your Needs. Our Priorities.
Comprehensive contracts set the stage forfuture suc-
cess. Tha-'s why HF&H makes certain your agreements
will satisfy your unique long-term needs. Our experi-
enced staff of experts can resolve your contract chal-
lenges by:
• Offering intelligent strategies for developing new
agreements and enhancing existing agreements.
• Managing competitive contractor selection processes
that generate numerous proposers and yield
reasonable costs.
• Providing objective, trustworthy contract recommen-
dations to avoid unnecessary deliberation over the
negotiating table or at City Council meetings.
HF&H Consultants, LLC
Maximized Results
Our progressive contracting approach maximizes
effectiveness and minimizes inefficiency. HF&H has
assisted approximately 100 California communities in
achieving their recycling and solid waste contract
objectives. Our commitment to excellence has support-
ed successful negotiation of agreements valued at
more than one billion dollars and saved our clients hun-
dreds of millions of dollars. Our deep understanding of
the recycling and solid waste industry and associated
contracting processes allows our team of qualified
experts to:
• Plan effective diversion programs and contractor
services.
• Generate tight, well -organized, and readable
contracts.
• Negotiate win-win contract terms and conditions.
• Provide dependable industry benchmarks for cost
and service comparisons.
• Offer independent, objective proposal evaluations and
contractor recommendations.
"The most telling characterization of your
firm's capability in managing complex
procurement projects was the repeated
accolades from the members of the
Board of Supervisors."
Gerry Newcombe
Solid Waste Management Division Manager
San Bernardino County
Septeml7er ), 2005
Ciht of Dianond Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Service Briclna"es
Proposal to Provide ;Olid W17.5te Contracting Assistance.
SERVICES THAT MEET YOUR NEEDS
At HF&H, we offer a suite of recycling and solid waste
contract services that meets the unique demands of
each city and public agency. Our comprehensive solu-
tiors are designed to streamline every challenging
cortracting process your jurisdiction undertakes.
Competitive Contractor Selection Processes
We develop procurement strategies; evaluate and plan
future program and contract needs; facilitate communi-
ty workshops and public input activities; generate
requests for proposals and requests for bids; prepare
collection, processing, and disposal agreements; nego-
tiate agreements; establish rates; revise municipal
codas for consistency with new services; and support
city council presentations.
Contract Negotiations and Amendment Services
We develop contract negotiation strategies, offer rec-
ommendations on new or amended contract language,
prepare app-opriate contract language, evaluate pro-
posed services and costs, and assess rates compared
to neighboring communities.
Post -Contracting Implementation Services
We provide transition management and monitoring
assistance, post -implementation audits of contractor
performance. and contract management and oversight
assistance.
Northern California Southern California
2175 N. California Boulevard, 4990 3990 Westerly Place, 9195
Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Newport Beach, CA 92660
925-977-6950 949-251-8628
Bob Hilton
rhiltor @hfh-consultar.ts.com
John Famkopf
jfamkopf@hfh-corsultants.com
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 1001%
satisfaction w.tn our results, hire us again and again,
and recommend our services to other jurisdictions with
similar needs.'
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver
long-term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results. We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your contract development and negotiation needs.
"Results of 2006 Hi Client Satisfaction Survey concuc:ed by
.ohnstor, Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Certified Public Accoun:ants.
Laith Ezzet
lezzet@hfh-consultor :s -com
www.hfh-conSL[Itants.com
Contract Management ServlCt3
- Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Audi. Services
• k!ehioe Impact Studies
• vanagemeni & Opera:ions Reviews
Program Implementation. Diversion & Sustainabll ty Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Rale Services
Funding Storm Water & Street Programs
-Service brochures are available ipnn request
Y
t r €
HFA'*H Ctnsrrltant,, LLC
6 Seytennccr ti, 200
City of Diamond Bar Exl iW A: HF&H Selzvice Brochures
PI•oposal to PrMde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, DIVERSION, & SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES
SOLUTIONS
Optimizing Your Options
Compelling analysis. Decisive actions. Follow through.
The breakthrough tactics needed to achieve AB 939
mandates can overwhelm jurisdictions strapped for
time and specialized in-house talent. Fortunately, HF&H
has the time, talent, and track record to provide power-
ful options and solutions for all your diversion goals.
Expert Guidance
HF&H clients benefit from our deep knowledge of the
recycling and solid waste industry and our understand-
ing of long-term community needs. We help you
increase diversion volumes and achieve solid -waste
reduction compliance by:
• Developing, implementing, and monitoring cus-
tomized programs and services to meet or exceed
your objectives; including hard -to -reach sectors such
as multi -family, commercial, and C&D generators.
• Managing franchise agreements to facilitate optimal
recycling and solid waste operations and ensure con
tractor compliance.
• Tracking ne,..v and pending legislation to ensure that
our clients are prepared to comply with new regula-
tions.
• Increasing used oil, used oil filter, and bottle and can
recycling volumes through grant administration and
program development.
HF&'H Consnitants; LLC
Desirable Results
Our integrated approach to diversion program imple-
mentation has achieved diversion goals for hundreds of
California municipalities. Client success stories illus-
trate the tremendous value of our diversion services:
• Since contracting with HF&H, Lawndale implemented
over a dozen new programs, increased City fees by
over $350,000 per year, and improved contractor
reporting and diversion compliance; all resulting in a
30 percentage point increase in residential diversion
rates in three years.
• HF&H documented over 31,000 tons of misreported
waste by over 60 unlicensed haulers in La Puente
resulting in a 79 percentage point increase in the
City's diversion rate_
• Alternative Employment Adjustment Factor
Certification in the cities of La Quinta, San Juan
Capistrano, San Clemente and Dana Point increased
diversion rates by 8 to 12 percentage points.
• Tonnage modification reporting for Union City resulted
in increased diverstion rates ranging from 14 to 28
percentage points.
"HFBH has provided critical advice, sup-
port, and program oversight through
their AB 939 compliance services which
has allowed our City to meet the State's
diversion goal."
Marlene Miyoshi
Director of Public Works
City of Lawndale
September 5, 2005
Ci(y of Diantond Bar Fxhihit A: HF&H Scrnicc Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistanec
DYNAMIC DIVERSION AND SUSTAINABILITY
SERVICES
HF&H offers a broad range of fully integrated services,
which we tailor for every city and public agency we
serve. We provide the expert guidance necessary to
achieve or surpass diversion mandates and goals.
AB 939 Implementation Services: We use our in-
depth industry knowledge to develop, evaluate, imple-
ment, and monitor progressive recycling and solid
waste diversion programs to meet or exceed mandated
and community -defined diversion goals. We formulate
public education outreach and media relations curricu-
lums; provide legislative and regulatory updates; and,.
review and redraft disposal reconciliation reports and
aucits.
Sustainability Services: We determine "sustainability
indicators" to alert our clients of recycling and solid
waste program problems. We attend community meet-
ings to select sustainability indicators and use commu-
nity-based social marketing techniques to improve
established sustainability indicators in program plan-
ning efforts.
Annual Report Services: We monitor and complete
necessary documents, including: CIWMB Annual
Reports, Disposal Modification and Alternative
Adjustment Method forms; SB 1066 Time Extension
Applications; Creation of a New Base Year; and
Sewage Sludge Diversion Credit Applications.
y. -
Northern California . Southern California
2175 N. California Boulevard, k990 3990 Westerly Place, 4195
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our se -vices to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.*
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results. We've
saved our clients millions of dollars, collectively,
through expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive,solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to !snow us and discover why we're the right choice
for your program implementation, diversion, and sus-
tainability services.
*Results of 2006 HP&H Client Satisfaction Survey coneuc'ied by
Johnstor, Gremaux & Rossi. LLP, Certified Public Accountants.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach, CA 92660
925-977-695D
949-251-8628
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
rhilto,)@hfh-consultants.com
lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
John Farnkopf
jfarnk.opf@hfh-consultants.com
www.hfh-consultants.com
HF&H Consultants, LLC
Contract Management Service,
• Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Services
• Recvcling & Solid Waste Audi: Services
Vehicle Impact Studies
• Wanagemenl & Operations Reviews
Program Implementation, Diversion &.Suslainability Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Rate Services
Funding Storm Water & Street Programs
Service hrochures are available upon request
t� x
r d
tieptcinhei- 5. 2008
Cit/ of Diamond Bar ExhiNt A: HF&H Service Brochures
Aw—
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS REVIEWS
SOLUTIONS
Safeguarding Your Future
As cities grow and develop, needs change. As a result
of this municipal flux, jurisdictions must modify recy-
cling and solid waste programs, services and goals in
order to operate efficiently—but where do they begin
Without objective evaluations of their management
decisions, financial position, and operational activities,
many end up with more questions than answers. HF&H
has the experience, knowledge and insight `o help.
Premium Performance
HF&H is committed to optimizing the efficiency of your
recycling and solid waste programs and services. Our
reviews ensure these operations are cost effective,
achieve waste reduction goals, and meet long-term
community needs by:
• Conducting management studies that accurately
assess your management's key assumptions. We
make certain new or modified planning strategies and
objectives are appropriate, financially sound, and
viable.
• Providing operation evaluations that accurately deter-
mine the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of serv-
ices provided by your operator. We identify causes of
performance shortfalls; offer proven recommenda-
tions to reduce costs and improve productivity and
services: and assist with monitoring program results.
HF&H Cousultants, LLC
Gratifying Results
We focus on your unique goals and objectives. Our
innovative approach to municipal and franchised opera-
tional reviews identifies and substantiates opportunities
to enhance your recycling and solid waste operations.
As a result of recent HF&H management and opera-
tions reviews, our clients have reported improvements
such as a 10% decrease in routes, approximately
$100,000 in reduced annual costs, and 10% increases
in waste diversion. Our deep understanding of the recy-
cling and solid waste industry allows our team of quali-
fied experts to:
• Plan and implement effective diversion programs and
collection systems.
• Evaluate operational effectiveness and develop rec-
ommendations for improvement.
• Provide dependable industry benchmarks for cost
and service comparisons.
• Offer independent, objective appraisal of operational
and financial performance.
"Your in-depth analysis of productivity
associated with vehicles, equipment and
testing asset purchases has saved
ratepayers approximately $725,000 over
the last three years."
Mark Bowers
Solid Waste Program Manager
City of Sunnyvaie
September o, 2008
Citi) of Diamond Bar ExhiHt A: HF&H Set -rico Broclrrires
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
UNSURPASSED SERVICES
HF&H offers a comprehensive collection of services
designed to enhance the performance and effective-
ness of recycling and solid waste programs and servic-
es We prov de optimal solutions for each public
agency we assist.
Cost of Service and Operation Review: We use
proven industry standards to objectively evaluate the
relationship between your cost of services and opera-
tional productivity to ensure your goals are met or
exceeded.
Facility and Program Design Review: We assess
existing facility and program designs to improve the
hottom-line results of your operations.
Management Studies: We analyze your key assump-
tions and develop strategic long-term plans to assure
your jurisdicton meets projected operational, prog-am,
and capacity demands.
Organizational Studies: We assess existing staffing
and organizational structure to verify proper assign-
ment of responsibility.
Strategic Planning Review: We establish program
goals and systems and provide recommendations of
operational and programmatic improvements to ensure
lone -term needs and goals are met.
1._..- --------------------
ADVANTAGES
------------- -- _— ._--____- -_- -___
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.;
Incomparable Support
HF&H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for yo -Ir management and operations services
"Results of 2006 HF&H Client Saiisfacticn Survey concuc:ed by
Johnstor, Gremaux & Rossi, LLP; Certified PublicAccoun;ants
Con-ract Management Ssrvice3
• Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Audis Services
• Vehicle Impact Studies
• Management & operations Reviews
Program Implementation, Diversion & Sustainability Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Rale Services
• Funding Storni Water & Street Programs
Northern California
Southern California
2175 N. California Boulevard, 4990
3990 Westerly Place. 4195
Walrut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beech, CA 92660
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Bob Hilton
Laith Ezzet
rhilton@hfh-consultants.com
lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
John r Farnkopf
jfaml:opf@hfh-consultarts.com
www.hfh-consultants.com
Con-ract Management Ssrvice3
• Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Audis Services
• Vehicle Impact Studies
• Management & operations Reviews
Program Implementation, Diversion & Sustainability Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Rale Services
• Funding Storni Water & Street Programs
Citi/ of Diammid Bar Exhibit A: HF&H Senzoice Brochures
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE RATE SERVICES
SOLUTIONS
Defending Your Rates
Fair and sensible collection rates play a key role in
your recycling and solid waste equation. That's why
your jurisdiction needs to know if a request for a rate or
compensation increase from your collection or material
processing contractor makes sense. At HF&H, our in-
depth rate and compensation reviews can prevent
problems and ensure your collection rates are always
right on the mark.
Covered, Every Detail
Our clients trust HF&H to provide expert evaluations of
contractor rate/compensation modification applications,
financial statements, operation records, and rate struc-
tures. Our objective reviews and studies arm your juris-
diction with every statistic necessary to successfully
address contractor rate/compensation queries by
• Calculating contractor rates/compensation and alter-
native rate structures to cover specified contractor
and municipal costs and to maximize waste reduction
goals.
• Ensuring all current and requested recycling and solid
waste rates/compensation are reasonable and sup-
ported by accurate documentation.
First -Rate Results
Our commitment to providing accurate and comprehen-
sive rate and compensation studies and reviews allows
us to consistently detect omissions, errors and over-
sights- We have assisted approximately 100 communi-
ties throughout the Western United States in success-
fully analyzing requested rate/compensation increases.
The results? Individual clients have saved millions of
dollars In avoided contractor rate and compensation
increases,
• A recent HF&H collection rate review resulted in a
reduction in a collection contractor's requested rate
increase from 21.9% to 7.9% (based on more than a
$1,400,000 reduction to the hauler's projected rev
enue requirement and a $342,000 increase in the
hauler's projected revenue for the forthcoming rate
period).
• A recent HF&H processing facility compensation
review resulted in a reduction in the facility operator's
requested 2007 compensation from $29.8 million to
$27.8 million—a savings of $2.0 million
,With each review of Marin Sanitary
Service's Rafe Application, your team's
Focus on details and industry experience
has produced results that prove
beneficial to the City ... yet are
acceptable to the Company."
Ken Nordhoff
Assistant City Manager, City of San Rafael
HF&H Consultants, LLC 11 Septennher 5, 200$
Cita of Dian7071d Bar ExhiNt A: HF&H Ser -vice Broclrraes
Proposal to Provide Solid L'Vaste Contracting Assistance
UNRIVALED RATE SERVICES
I HF&H provides recycling and solid waste rate services
I tailored to meet the unique demands of each city and
public agency. We provide consulting services exclu-
sivaly to public agencies In order to avoid conflicts of
interest in appearance and in fact that may arise in
firms that serve both the public and private sectors.
Our team of experts will work diligently to help you
reduce costs and provide creative solutions to achieve
Your program goals. Our reviews provide you with the
assurance of an independent, expert, and thorough
verification of the reasonableness and necessity of the
contractor's requested rate/ compensation increase.
Compensation Procedures Reviews: We develop
policies and procedures that streamline and standard-
ize the preparation and review of requested raleicom-
persation increases to ensue common expectations
anc avoid antagonistic relationships,
Cost of Service Studies/Rate Reviews: We analyze
hauler revenue and expense financials, operations
records, future plans, and projected financial results of
operations to analyze the reasonableness of requested
rate Joompensation increases. We determine the equity
of projected costs for providing a wide range of recy-
cling and solid waste related services—including the
use of split -body trucks, weekly versus bi-weekly col-
lection, and residential and commercial food waste col-
lection and processing.
Rats Structure Reviews: We establish alternative col-
lection rate structures to encourage more efficient serv-
ice, waste reduction, and dive-sion.
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 100% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again and again, and rec-
ommend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.*
Incomparable Support
HF&H delvers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results. We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert monitoring of contractor compliance.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaherate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues.
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your recycling and solid waste rate services.
*Results of 2006 HF&H Client Satisfaction Survey concuc-,ed by
Johnston, Gremaux & Rossi, LLP Cer.ified Public Accoun.ant=_.
x
HF&H CMi1;i ltimfs' LLC t� Septettli,rr i, 2008
Northern California
Southern California
Contraet Management Services
2175 N. California Bculevard, 4990
3990 Westerly Place, 4195
Recycl ng & Solid Waste Contract Services
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Newport Beach, CA 92,360
Recycling & Solid Waste Audi: Services
925-977-6950
949-251-8628
Vehicle Impact Studies
Management & Operations Reviews
Bob Hilton
Lath Ezzet
Program Implementation. Diversion & Sustainabilry Services
rhilton@hfh-consultants.com
lezzet@hfh-consulta-its.com
Recychgn & Solid Waste Rale Services
John Famkopf
Funding Storm Water & Street Programs
jfamhopf@hfh-consultants.com
wwvv.hfh-consultants.com
`Service brochures are available 'upon request
x
HF&H CMi1;i ltimfs' LLC t� Septettli,rr i, 2008
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Protide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
VEHICLE IMPACT STUDIES
Exhibit A: HF&H Service Brochtcres
SOLUTIONS
Street Maintenance Dilemma
Many cities now struggle with the difficult task of fund-
ing adequate street maintenance. State and local budg-
ets continue to decrease. Gas taxes are stretched thin.
Public street use continues to grow. As if this weren't
enough, statistics prove that refuse, construction, and
transit vehicles can cause up to 60% of total vehicle
damage to public streets annually—which can cost
jurisdictions tens of thousands to millions of dollars to
repair. How can this damage from heavy-duty vehicles
be proven and how can maintenance expenses be
recovered from parties creating the damage?
Fortunately, HF&H has solutions.
Premium Studies, Lucrative Solutions
Clients rely on HF&H when they need experts to evalu-
ate street deterioration factors, measure the impact of
refuse, construction and transit vehicles—and provide
street maintenance funding solutions. As leaders in this
arena, we help jurisdictions achieve street maintenance
funding goals by:
• Conducting proven impact studies to assess and doc-
ument the detrimental effects that heavy-duty vehi-
cles impose on public streets.
• Developing innovative funding strategies to equitably
recover maintenance costs from responsible parties.
00 Tow
rr
HF&H Consultants, LLC
Innovative Ideas Abound
HF&H understands -,hat jurisdictions must find new
ways to acquire revenue in order to maintain safe,
high-quality roadways. Our studies substantiate that
one way to fund street maintenance is to initiate
Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees in addition to franchise
fees. Our experts help clients calculate and establish
appropriate Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees based on vehi-
cle usage for regular collection services and, if applica-
ble, at solid waste and/or recycling facilities within juris-
dictions—which can contribute hundreds of thousands
of dollars annually toward street maintenance.
Remarkable Results
California jurisdictions have reaped the rewards of
HF&H refuse vehicle and facility host impact studies:
• The City of Fresno identified $726,000 in Refuse
Vehicle impacts; $597,000 in Transit Vehicle impacts;
and $7,912,000 in Construction Vehicle impacts.
• The City of Livermore now collects approximately
$1,823,000 annually to assist with street mainte-
nance related to Refuse and Construction vehicles,
13
"On behalf of the City of Livermore
Public works Department, i would like to
take this opportunity to express my
satisfaction and appreciation for the
outstanding services provided by HF&H"
Dan McIntyre, P.E.
Public Works Director, City of Livermore
September 5, 2008
Citta of'Diatnond Bay,
Propos,,d to Pmztide Solid TMaste Contracting Assistance
VALUABLE IMPACT STUDY SERVICES
HF&H studies accurately measure the damage caused
to city streets by refuse, construction and transit vehi-
cles. Our studies often find that the damage caused by
heavy-duty vehicles produces a disproportionate finan-
cial burden that can be alleviated.
HF&H performs the following studies to help determine
the impact of various vehicles and facilities on street
quality:
Recycling and Solid Waste Vehicle Impact Studies:
We collaborate with Our clients' service providers to dis-
tincuish the physical impact of and associated mainte-
nance expenses from collection vehicles regularly oper-
ating on public streets
Construction Vehicle Impact Studies: We analyze
building permit volumes, construction categories, traffic
classifications, and street quality to determine street
maintenance impacts and associated maintenance
experses of building activity.
Transit Vehicle Impact Studies: We study vehicle
types, routing, ridership, and trip frequencies of bus
transit systems to calculate the impact on public streets
and associated maintenance expenses.
Facility Impact Studies: We work with host jurisdic-
tions and facility operators to establish the impacts of
hosting regionally used facilities in their jurisdictions
and to set reasonable host fees for those facilities.
Northern California Southern California
2175 N. California Boulevarc, 4990 3990 Westerly Place, 4195
Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Newport Beach, CA 92660
925-977-6950 949-251-8628
Exhibit A: HF&H Settrice Brocdnu-t,s
ADVANTAGES YOU CAN TRUST
Client Satisfaction
Our clients have unanimously reported 1 Xl% satisfac-
tion with our results, hire us again & again, and recom-
mend our services to other jurisdictions with similar
needs.'
Incomparable Support
HF8.H delivers outstanding support every step of the
way. We build long-term relationships and deliver long-
term value for every client.
Substantial Results
We address your particular challenges and maximize
your solid waste, recycling and diversion results. We've
saved our clients millions of dollars collectively through
expert financial analysis.
One -Source Solutions
As a team with extensive public sector and private
hauler experience, we collaborate and offer compre-
hensive solutions to your diversion compliance and
contract performance issues
Get to know us and discover why we're the right choice
for your vehicle impact study and street maintenance
funding solutions services,
`Results of 2006 HF&H Cliem Satisfaction Survey conducted by
Johnston, Gremaux & Rossi, LLP, Cerified PublicAccoumarts.
Bob Hilton Laith Ezzet
ri oa rif-iconsultants.com lezzet@hfh-consultants.com
John Farnkopf
Ifamkoof@hfh-con sultan ts.com www,hfh-cOnsultants.com
`M
#t'
• Contract Management Service;
• Recycling & Solid Waste Contract Services
• Recycling & Solid Waste Audit Services
• Vehicle Impact Studies
• Management & Operations Reviews
Program Implementation, Diversion & Sustainability Services
Recycling & Solid Waste Rate Se -vices
Funding Storm VVater & Street Programs
'Service h'OrhllreS are availah,e upon request
HF&H Consultants, LLC 7 i September S, Z00�4
Citi of Diammid Bar Exhil7it B: Climt List
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste Colltracti�zg Assistance
EXHIBIT B: CLIENT LIST
Aerojet General Corporation
Alameda County Clean Water Program
City of Carson
City of Carson City, Nevada
Alameda County Waste Management
City of Cerritos
Authority
City of Chandler
Alameda County Water District
City of Chula Vista
Alameda Joint Refuse Rate Review
City of Clovis
Committee
City of Compton
Alameda Solid Waste Advisory Committee
City of Corte Madera
Amador Water Agency
City of Cotati
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation
City of Covina
Agency
City of Cudahy
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary
City of Cupertino
Bold, Polisner, Maddow
City of Daly City
Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc.
City of Dana Point
Bryan A. Stirrat &Associates
City of Davis
California Water Service Company
City of Del Mar
Carmichael Water District
City of Diamond Bar
Castro Valley Sanitary District
City of Downey
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
City of Dublin
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
City of East Palo Alto
City of Adelanto
City of El Centro
City of Alameda
City of El Cerrito
City of Albany
City of El Monte
City of Anaheim
City of Elk Grove
City of Arcadia
City of Emeryville
City of Ashland
City of Encinitas
City of Atherton
City of Eugene
City of Atwater
City of Fair Oaks
City of Azusa
City of Fairfield
City of Barstow
City of Fairfield
City of Bellflower
City of Fillmore
City of Belmont
City of Florence
City of Belvedere
City of Folsom
City of Benicia
City of Fort Bragg
City of Beverly Hills
City of Fort Collins, CO
City of Brentwood
City of Fortuna
City of Burbank
City of Foster City
City of Burlingame
City of Fremont
City of Calabasas
City of Fresno
City of Camarillo
City of Fullerton
City of Campbell
City of Garden Grove
City of Canyon Lake
City of Gilroy
City of Glendale, Arizona
City of Carlsbad
City of Carpinteria
City of Glendale, California
HP&H Considtaos, LLC 1 Septemher5, 2008
Cita of-Dianuond Bar Exhibit B: Client List
Proposal to Protnde Solid tA?aste Cor7tractino Assistance
City of Glendora
City of Mill Valley
City of Goodyear
City of Millbrae
City of Gridley
City of Milpitas
City of Guadalupe
City of Mission Viejo
City of Hawthorne
City of Modesto
City of Hayward
City of Monrovia
City of Healdsburg
City of Montclair
City of Hercules
City of Monte Sereno
City of Hesperia
City of Monterey Park
Town of Hillsborough
City of Morgan Hill
City of Hollywood
City of Mountain View
City of Imperial Beach
City of Murrieta
City of Indian Wells
City of Napa
City of Indio
City of Newark
City of Inglewood
City of Newport Beach
City of Irvine
City of Newport, OR
City of Kensington
City of Northridge
City of La Canada-Flintridge
City of Oakland Public Works Agency
City of La Habra
City of Ogden, UT
City of La Palma
Town of Old Sacramento
City of La Puente
City of Ojai
City of La Quinta
City of Orange
City of La Verne
City of Oxnard
City of Laguna Beach
City of Pacifica
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Palm Desert
City of Lake Forest
City of Palm Springs
City of Lancaster
City of Palmdale
City of Lathrop
City of Palo Alto
City of Lawndale
Town of Paradise
City of Lincoln
City of Pasadena
City of Litchfield Park, Arizona
City of Paso Robles
City of Livermore
City of Peoria, AZ
City of Lodi
City of Petaluma
City of Long Beach
City of Piedmont
City of Los Altos
City of Pinole
Town of Los Altos Hills
City of Pleasanton
City of Los Angeles
City of Pomona
City of Los Banos
City of Port Hueneme
Town of Los Gatos
City of Portland
City of Lynwood
City of Portola Valley
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Poway
City of Manteca
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Martinez
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of Menlo Park
City of Redondo Beach
City of Mesa Consolidated
City of Redwood City
HF&H Consultants, LLC SeUtennccr5, 2008
City of Diamond Bar ExIiiirit B: Ciimt List
Proposal to ProzMe solid Waste Coiztracting Assistair.ce
City of Rio Vista
City of Riverside
City of Rohnert Park
City of Roseville
City of Sacramento
City of Saginaw
Town of San Anselmo
City of San Bernardino
City of San Bruno
City of San Buenaventura
City of San Carlos
City of San Clemente
City of San Diego
City & County of San Francisco
City of San Jose
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of San Leandro
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Mateo
City of San Rafael
City of San Ramon
City of Sandy
City of Sanger
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Clarita
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Monica
City of Santa Paula
City of Santa Rosa
City of Santee
City of Seattle
City of Sebastopol
City of Sedona, AZ
City of Selma
City of South Gate
City of South San Francisco
City of Sunnyvale
City of Temecula
City of Thousand Oaks
Town of Tiburon
City of Torrance
City of Tustin
City of Union City
City of Upland
HF&H Coiisidttmts, LLC
City of Vallejo
City of Vancouver, WA
City of Vernon
City of Visalia
City of Walnut Creek
City of Watsonville
City of West Hollywood
City of West Linn, OR
City of Whittier
Town of Windsor
City of Winters
City of Woodland
City of Yountville
Citygate Associates
Clackamas County
Coachella Valley Association of
Governments
Contra Costa Water District
County of El Dorado
County of Humboldt
County of Kern
County of Los Angeles
County of Marin
County of Mariposa
County of Mendocino
County of Merced
County of Mono
County of North San Diego
County of Riverside
County of Sacramento
County of San Bernardino
County of San Luis Obispo
County of San Mateo
County of Santa Barbara
County of Sutter
County of Tulare
County of Ventura
County of Yolo
David M. Griffith & Associates
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
East Bay Municipal Utilities District
East Palo Alto Sanitation District
Fairfield -Suisun Sewer District
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Fremont Unified School District
Septemivr 5, 2008
City o)`Dianron.cl Bar Exhibit B: Clicnt List
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Colltractina Assistance
Glenn County Public Works
Greater Vancouver Water District
Groveland Community Services District
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy
Humboldt Waste Management Authority
Integrated Waste Management & Recycling
Josephine County/ Grants Pass SWA
Kensir►gton Police Protection
Lake County / City Area Planning Council
Lane County Waste Management
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Los Ajageles County Sanitation District
Los Trancos County Water District
Lukins Brothers Water Company
Malaga County Water District
Marin County Community Development
Agency
McCui:chen Doyle Brown & Emersen, LLP
Metropolitan Water District
Morrison & Foerster
Mountain View Sanitary District
North American Development Bank
North Coast County Water District
Novato Sanitary District
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Orange County
Orange County/City Mans SW Working
Group
Oro Loma Sanitary District
Placer County Water Agency
Riverside County Waste Resources
Management District
Ross Valley Sanitary District
RTI International
HF&H Cmisultants, LLC
San Francisquito Creek JPA
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Juan Water District
Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Santa Margarita Water District
Sausalito -Marin City Sanitary District
Scotts Valley Water District
SCS Engineers
Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
Somach, Simmons and Dunn
South Bayside Waste Management
Authority
South County Fire
South El Monte joint Defense Group
Southeast Water Coalition JPA
Stanislaus County
SWANA
Tamalpais Community Services District
The State Bar of California
Tri -City Waste Management
Union Sanitary District
Veterans Home Administration
Waste Management of Los Angeles
West Bay Sanitary District
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
Management
West Valley Cities SWPM
West Valley Sanitary Waste Management
West Valley Solid Waste Management
Authority
Western Municipal Water District
Western Riverside Council of Government
SE°pte��iher i, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Exliirn't C: Staff Resumes
Proposal to Protide Solid Waste Contracting Assistailce
EXHIBIT C: STAFF RESUMES
LAITH EZZET, CMC, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Mr. Ezzet's expertise lies in integrated waste management program planning
and funding, solid waste collection operations, recycling and yard waste
programs, procurement and negotiation of solid waste services contracts,
waste diversion studies, community involvement and public outreach,
regulatory policy, service cost tracking, rate setting, landfill funding, cost -
benefit analysis, efficiency studies, financial and economic modeling,
industry surveys, and statistical market research.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF&H Consultants, LLC: Senior Vice President, 1996 to Present; 5eruor
Associate, 1991 to 1995
Price Waterhouse: Manager, 1990 to 1991; Senior Consultant, 1988 to 1990; Associate, 1987
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Branch: Economist, 1983 to 1986
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
California Resource Recovery Association (Past Director and Chapter Treasurer)
Institute of Management Consultants
Solid Waste Association of North America (Corporate Director, Southern California Founding
Chapter)
Southern California Waste Management Forum
ARTICLES AND SPEECHES
Moderator, "Managing Unique and Special Wastes," SWANA Workshop, September 9, 2004
"An Overview of Solid Waste Rates & Market Conditions in Southern California, presented to
the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Solid Waste Committee, June 27, 2001
"Are the Trash Wars Over in Southern California?" presented at the Southern California Waste
Management Forum, Pomona, May 2001
"Consolidation in the Southern California Waste Hauling Market: Effects on Rates, Services,
Cities and Service Providers", presented at SWANA's 29th Annual Western Regional
Solid Waste Symposium, Palm Springs, May 2000
"Solid Waste Services and the Purchasing Power of 100 Large Public Service Providers in North
America", presented and published at WASTECON, Reno, October 1999
"How to Maximize Your Savings from Competitive Proposals for Contract Collection
Operations", presented at SWANA's 3rd Annual Planning & Management Symposium,
New Orleans, July 1999
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
M.B.A., Tuck School of Business Administration at Dartmouth College, 1988
M.B.A., course work at the London Business School, 1987
A.B., cum laude, Economics, Occidental College, 1984
Certified Management Consultant (CMC Professional Certification)
Septembef 5, 200S
HF&H Corisidtaws, LLC 7
City of Dianion.d Bar Exhibit C: Staff Rcsurrics
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
LISA KEATING, JD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE
RANIJE OF EXPERIENCE
Lisa Keating has assisted cities with procurement processes for the past nine
years. She assisted the cities of Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Compton, El Centro,
Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Mission Viejo, Palm Desert, Rancho Palos
Verdes, Riverside, Santa Clarita, Tustin, and Goodyear (Arizona), and the
County of Orange through the procurement process for new solid waste
collection and recycling agreements. She has drafted both Requests for
Proposals and Requests for Bids, and the related agreements. She has
reviewed hauler proposals for solid waste collection, recycling and disposal
services. 1
Ms. Keating assisted the cities of Dana Point, Inglewood and Palmdale to re -negotiate their
collection contracts. She assisted the cities of Carlsbad, Dana Point, Garden Grove and Murrieta
with contract reviews to evaluate re -negotiation options.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF&H Consultants, LLC; Senior Associate, 1999 to present.
M. Tam International, Inc.; Legal Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 1998 to 1999
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter; Financial Advisor, 1989 to 1998
Cutler Productions, Director of Publicity; 1988 to 1989
Nikko Securities International; 1987 to 1988
ARTICLES AND SPEECHES
"Construction & Demolition Debris: Diversion, Disposal & Reporting", presented at the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Government's Workshop on the Disposal Reporting System,
West Covina, February 2001.
"Construction & Demolition Debris Ordinance and Program Possibilities", presented at the
California Resource Recovery Association Annual Conference, Pasadena, July 2001.
"C&D Ordinance & Program Options", presented at the Solid Waste Association of North
America's Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting and Annual Collection
and Transfer Conference, San Diego, February 2004.
"Pain Free: Cities in California are Trying Contractor Friendly Methods to Promote C&D
Recycling" C&D Recycler magazine, March/April 2002, p. 20.
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
J.D., cum laude, Western State University, College of Law, Fullerton, CA
B.A., Economics, University of California at Los Angeles
Accounting for Managers, University of California at Irvine
Member, California State Bar
HF�TH Cimsultrmts, LLC �
Septetrtbc'r 5, 2008
Exhibit C: Staff Resutncs
Citi o{Diamond Bar
Proposal to Prmde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
DARRELL BICE, CPA, DIRECTOR OF RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE AUDITS
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Darrell Bice is a Certified Public Accountant with 32 years of auditing and
accounting experience, including experience in public accounting and in the
solid waste industry. During his time in public accounting, he participated
in and supervised the annual audits of a major public solid waste company.
He served as an assistant corporate controller for five years and as a division
controller for two years in the solid waste industry for a major solid waste
company. As an assistant corporate controller, he reviewed the results of i
operations for ten California divisions, which included the analysis of
financial statements and operating reports to evaluate the performance of the
division and report to corporate management. While a division controller,
Mr. Bice assisted in the development of a commercial refuse pricing model, incorporating the
full cost of service and desired profit levels. Additionally, he participated as a team member in
the development of the cost -of -service and resulting pricing structures for proposals to several
southern California municipalities. As a solid waste consultant, during the past seven years,
Mr. Bice has participated in a variety of solid waste projects for over 30 municipalities and
governmental agencies. He participated in procurement/ negotiation support projects for two
southern California cities.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF&H Consultants, LLC: Senior Associate, January 1998 to present
HF&H Consultants, LLC: Associate, May 1996 to January 1998
Western Waste Industries, Division Controller, July 1994 to May 1996
Western Waste Industries, Assistant Corporate Controller, March 1989 to June 1994
Majestic Realty & Commerce Construction Company, Controller, 1986 to 1988
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Assistant Controller, 1985 to 1986
Ernst & Whinney (Young), Audit Manager, 1979 to 1985
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
B.A. (1975), Accounting, California State University, Fullerton
Certified Public Accountant
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Southern California Waste Management Forum (Director and Vice -Chair)
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society of Certified Public Accountants
PRESENTATIONS
"Are the Books Cooked, or Just Slightly Sauteed?" presented to the Solid Waste Association of
North America (SWANA), Palm Springs, May 2003.
"Evaluation of Rate Adjustment Requests", presented to the Solid Waste Association of North
America (SWANA), Lake Tahoe, May 2002; to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments,
West Covina, June 2001; and to the South Bay Cities workgroup (SBBEC), Redondo Beach,
October, 2003.
— _ 3 September 5, 2008
HF&H Consnlfants, LLC
City of Diammid Bar Exhilnt C Staff Resunres
Proposal to Proz ide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
DEBBIE MORRIS, SENIOR ASSOCIATE
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Ms. Morris has over twenty-three years of experience with local
government, public accounting, and solid waste consulting firms. For the
past fifteen years she has worked for HF&H, where she has been the
principal analyst responsible for gathering and tabulating data for the solid
waste surveys of programs, rates, services, and facilities used by cities in
the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. She has performed data input and assisted with
model development for several large regional solid waste system studies,
including the Orange County RELOOC study, the Riverside County
Cooperative Waste Management study and others. She has also assisted in
the gathering and analysis of data for a conversion technologies project for the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). In-depth descriptions of her annual report, AB
939 compliance, franchise management and auditing experience are included below.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1992 to present: HF&H Consultants, LLC, Newport Beach, California.
1985 to 1992: Price Waterhouse, Newport Beach, California
1983 to 1985: City of Irvine, Irvine, California
EDUCATION
B.S. studies, Concordia University, Irvine
A.S. Business, Irvine Valley College
HF&H Consultants, LLC Septerrrher5, 2008
Citi/ of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste CoiitractiiigAssistance
EXHIBIT D: CLIENT TESTIMONIAL LETTERS
May 30, 2007
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Famkoph & Hobson 399D
Westerly Place, Suite 195 Newport
Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith,
The City of El Centro would like to thank you for your expertise on solid waste
issues, your connections in the industry that attracted qualified proposers, and
your detailed understanding of our community. It all came together to provide
quality service to our residents.
Hiring Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson resulted in significant financial rewards, from
both the billing analysis you conducted as well as the new franchise agreement
you b elped us develop. Even though there has not been a rate increase in four
years, City of El Centro residents will see only a 2% increase in rates while the
City will increase its revenue by nearly 27% as a result of your efforts.
The integrity with which HF&H navigated the City through this process was
above reproach. City council members, as you know, praised your work methods,
thoroughness, and professionalism. Your work exceeded our expectations and
will help the City take control of all aspects of its waste hauling services.
Sincerely,
Terry Hagen, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Public YYorks Department
1275,Vlain Street, El Centro, CA 92243 (760) 337-4505 Fax (760) 337-3172
91nxiMN�+r+rwr DLllon S�Vvat4Msa Dhid�n tlobr Er �►�we DWtdea UndeQmuld UtYWU DtufOoa Wase Ua Tmft.�D"ide W. T--,Dj.b
307Wiabr OnArenc 307 Msr9rpJronA+nsee 3071Het3r wrA�.se 307 FV tZrie*bn Avw —I55 UB,...4—, :OPOSSrRkh wear
1D C¢ kq CA912a S Ce . CA92243 A 0. . C49224U El C.*., CAR2243 8 G#% CA92: 6 tI Ce M'4 C49:2l3
HF&H Cofisultants, LLC 1 Septelnber25, 2098
Citi/ of'Diainond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Provide Solid I'Vaste Contracting Assistmice
Inglewood 1611, _ California
Puohc ;Norks Depart,'Y�ant
n1E!,_, d".� Lo _ _'I'1G QDK,ca��
TAiep o �� _ry
i-'-5-,3- a
JrRRY V GIVE14S � ci�ofinglewocc o�, �=
Deceember 23, 2004
Mr. Laith Ezzet
Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Mr. Ezzet:
The City of Inglewood would like to thank you and your firm, Hilton, Farnkopf, & Hobson. for
your professional assistance in helping the city procure an exclusive provider contract for new
and enhanced waste and recycling services.
The new service will help the City improve its environmental profile by adding services and
programs that will increase our diversion efforts in the preservation of our natural resources.
It was rewarding to successfully navigate through such a long and complex process. Your
dedicated and knowledgeable staff approached each aspect of the contract negotiations with the
integrity and thoroughness we have come to admire and respect. Your guidance and expertise
made this challenging process mutually beneficial for the City and it's constituents.
Hilton, Farnkopf, & Hobson's specialized knowledge in analyzing and assessing *Information as
it related to waste ser��ices helped secure the Citv's largest contraet for public services. �khile
negotiating a i �c overall cost reduction to obtain these services.
On behalf of the Public Works staff of the City of inglcrs�ood, I would like to again thank you for
playing a key role in the City's successful acquisition of services that will ensure the City's
environmental cnmmitment for years to come.
Sincerely,
Thomas Coates
Environmental Services Administrator
TC:bv
HF&H Consultants, LLC — Scptembcr25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Piozxide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
DINO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
March 29, 2001
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
It is with great pleasure that I pause and write to thank you for the excellent job you and
your staff did in assisting the County of San Bernardino with its procurement of a solid
waste system operations contractor. Our satisfaction with Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
from previous engagements was surpassed by your performance throughout this year-
long process that just reached its successful conclusion.
Perhaps the most telling characterization of your firm's capability in managing complex
procurement projects were the repeated accolades from members of the Board of
Supervisors. These elected officials, on several occasions, expressed their complete
satisfaction with the thoroughness and integrity of the RFP process and complimented
your ability to produce a well reasoned and easy to understand analysis. I join them in
their assessment of your work, and would add that the smooth coordination between
your staff and the Solid Waste Management Division staff added to the success of the
final product.
Thank you again for exceeding our expectations for this project and I look forward to
working together in the future.
Sincerely,
Gerry Newc mbe
Division Manager
I
fiR.,d P,Yr,
September 25, ZOOS
HF&H Consliltan-ts, LLC 3
COUNTY MI SAN DEVELBERNAOPMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FLOOD CONTROL • GIMS • REGIONAL PARKS • SOLID WASTE - SURVEYOR • TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC SERVICES GROUP
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
KEN A Works
piic w
Director of Public
222 West Hospitality Lane, Second Floor • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0017
(909) 386-8722 - Fax (904) 386-8786
GERRY NEWCOMBE
Soid Waste Division Manager
March 29, 2001
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
It is with great pleasure that I pause and write to thank you for the excellent job you and
your staff did in assisting the County of San Bernardino with its procurement of a solid
waste system operations contractor. Our satisfaction with Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
from previous engagements was surpassed by your performance throughout this year-
long process that just reached its successful conclusion.
Perhaps the most telling characterization of your firm's capability in managing complex
procurement projects were the repeated accolades from members of the Board of
Supervisors. These elected officials, on several occasions, expressed their complete
satisfaction with the thoroughness and integrity of the RFP process and complimented
your ability to produce a well reasoned and easy to understand analysis. I join them in
their assessment of your work, and would add that the smooth coordination between
your staff and the Solid Waste Management Division staff added to the success of the
final product.
Thank you again for exceeding our expectations for this project and I look forward to
working together in the future.
Sincerely,
Gerry Newc mbe
Division Manager
I
fiR.,d P,Yr,
September 25, ZOOS
HF&H Consliltan-ts, LLC 3
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Prvrnde Solid 1A/aste Contracting Assistance
November 17, 2004
Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Lettere
CITY OF
LC))L�,S�sLs'n'0�"y � s,-
16600 Civic Censer Drive
Bellflower, California 9D705.5494
(562) 004.1424 s SAX: (562) 925-0550
h ttp:j,h�Mn,-, bel IFl ower.org
Mr. Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson. LLC
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Mr. Ezzet:
DOROTHY R. KFNC
Mayor
RANDY BOMGAARS
M—, a, Tem
SCOTFA. TARSEN
CT: r.aembe,
10HN K. PRArr
Council. Ue,b,
RAY T. SMITH
coun_n 14—e
The City of Bellflower wishes to thank you for the hard work provided by Hilton,
Farnkopf & Hobson during the City's process to select a waste management services
provider. The ten month process to make that selection was well coordinated and
thoroughly administered. Yours and Lisa Keating's professionalism are especially noted
in making the process so.
The final selection of the provider produced an agreement that will be $1.4 million
dollars a year less than the current exclusive agreement. Each component of the
community, single family residential, multi -family properties and commercial accounts
will realize a relief in rates and an increase in services.
The City of Bellflower is very satisfied with the use of your firm for this process. We will
not hesitate to consider Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson for future waste management
services related projects.
Sincerely,
t.
Brian R. Smith
Assistant Director of Public Works
HF&l Consultants, LLC
4 Septerlrher25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Pro -L> de Solid l�iaste Contracting Assistance
July 9, 1997
44-g50 DIOMdO 7'live tnuian WC11 CA
ae is Ca,u_
Laith Ezzet, Principal
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
Commercecenter One
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
have been meaning to send you a brief note for some time now to express my
appreciation for your technical assistance and support during our solid waste
procurement process. Your expertise and professionalism were instrumental in
bringing closure to a very long and at times tumultuous process. We could still
be in negotiations today hadn't it been for your diplomatic tact and "good guy"
mentality.
For your information and records, I have enclosed a copy of the final franchise
agreement. Please feel free to share this document with other clients.
Again, on behalf of the City of Indian Wells, thank you for a job well done.
Although our contract has now come to a close, I hope that you will stay in touch
in the future
Sincerely,
TroyL��BU laff
Assista t the City Manager
Enclosure
September 25, 2005
HF&H Consultants, LLC
-
Citi of Dianlrnt.d Bay, FAJiibit D: Clienf Testimonial Letters
Propo<al to Prot>tde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
OF LA tyt,
ur 147', 7 BURIIN AVENUE LAWN DALE, CALIFORNIA 90260 ;310) 970-2100 F FAX(310)644-4556
4` 4llFOP uA
April 6, 1998
Mr. Laith Ezzet
Vice President
Hilton Parnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Commercenter One
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, California 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
I have been meaning to send you a brief note for some time now to express my
appreciation for your technical assistance and support during our solid waste franchise
renewal process. Your expertise and professional style was key to bringing an automated
waste collection service to the City. Our City Council appreciated your innovative
approach to consensus building including several key community based workshops.
The City's transition from manual to automated service has been well received by our
citizenry Your willingness to assist us in negotiating a new vendor contract as well as a
transition plan exceeded our expectation ofyour services as a consultant.
.Again, on behalf of the City of Lawndale, thank you for a job well done
Sincerely,
J ie�arter
ssistant to the City Manager
cc Michael Sore, City Manager
HF&H C,)nsidtart#s, LLC 6September Za, ZOOS
City of Diant.c 2d Bar Exhibit D. Client Testimonial Letters
Proposal to Proz4d.e Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
�yoF LAwNo9`�
14717 BURIN AVENUE ' LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA 90260 • (310) 970-2100 . FAX (310) 644-4556
CA UFOW"P'
December S. 2001
Re: Letter of Reference for Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
To Whom It May Concern:
TI -ds letter of reference describes the work performed by Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
("HF&H") on behalf of the City of Lawndale. HF&H has provided solid waste consulting
services to the City of Lawndale since 1997. In 1997 and 2002, HF&H assisted the City in the
preparation of two Requests for Proposals ("UP") and franchise agreements for solid waste
collection, curbside recycling, and yard waste collection services.
• During the first procurement process in 1997. the City's ratepayers saved approximately
S130.000 in the first year and $651,000 over the contract tern, au 11% decrease over
prior rates. The RFP process in 2002 further lowered the City's first year costs by
5171,000, resulting in savings of $1.2 million over the contract tern and a 16% decrease
over prior rates. As a result of these procurement processes, the City also increased
residential recycling and yard waste services, and improved the City's overall diversion
percentage,
1n 2002, HF&H assisted in the establishment of a commercial permit System to
track commercial hauling activities �n Lawndale, and the revision of the City's
solid vvaste ordinance to establish new AB 939 fees. Through pern-lit
management activities performed by HF&H, the City has collected an additional
$100,000 per year in AB 939 fees, and all nine haulers are up-to-date in their fee
payments to the City.
HF&H has also provided assistance to the City_ by evaluating programs for
implementation to increase the City's diversion rate. These programs were included in
a Plan of Correction developed under theguidance of HF&H which was submitted and
subsequently approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
An important, contributing factor to our increased diversion rate and collection of fees
is the residential contract and conunercial permit program oversight performed by
HF&H. Throu;h HF&H's rocurement and negotiation assistance, and HF&H's
ongoing assistance with AB 939 program implementation, contract and permit
oversigSt, our City's residential diversion rate has increased from 16% in 2003 to 38°%
to -date.
I would highly recommend the use HF&H's services to any city needing assistance with
solid waste collection and diversion activities. If there are have any questions, I can be
reached at (310) 973-3200.
Sincerely,
nc
Acting City anagen
I1. jt- 9irH 11r0 Rcl',ilc
HF&H Consultants, LLC 7 September 25, 2008
City o(Diamond Bar Exhibit D: Client Testi,71otzial Letters
Proposal to Proznde Solid iVaste Contracting Assistance
November 20, 2001
Public Works Department 3621 Bell Avenue Matdtauan Bmcli. CA 90266-1795
Telephone (310) 802-5300 FAX (_ 10) 546-1752
Laith Ezzet. Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf& Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92650-2311
Dear Laith:
1 would like to commend you and your staff for the technical expertise that you and your firm brought to
our current solid waste contract procurement process. It has been clear to us that your experience with
many similar procurements has turned what we believed would be a very dii�icult process into a process
that seems much more routine Also, your experience and guidance were essential in convincing the City
Council that the process you proposed would be objective, fair and well reasoned.
1 look forward to working with you to complete this complex procurement project.
Sinceerel-y,
Neil Miller
Director of Public Works
Cita ofManhanan Beach wcb Site: hnp://ittirt�.ci.manhattan-bcach.ca.us
HF&H C�/iSlditMtS, LLC Septcntber25, 2008
City of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Proznde Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Exhibit D: Client Testintoitiial Letters
October 12, 2000
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith,
Thank you for working with the City of Mission Viejo on the procurement of a franchise
agreement for residential and commercial integrated solid waste management services. I
appreciate all of your work that successfully resulted in a multi-million dollar solid waste
franchise. 1 fully understand why other cities and cur City attorney, from Richards,
Watson & Gershon highly recommended Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson for this project.
Your experience and guidance was invaluable as we set out to develop a new, three -cart
automated system, including drafting the Request for Proposal, participating in all of the
Council subcommittee meetings, meetings with the community, the Chamber of
Commerce, and finally development of a new consolidated franchise agreement. These
efforts will save Mission Viejo residents and businesses $6.4 million over the next eight
years and feedback from the community is already very positive.
You did an outstanding job in Mission Viejo and I will continue to speak highly of the
team of professionals at Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson to my counterparts in other cities.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
r
" It
Karen E. Wylie
Assistant to the City Manjiger
29,19 Pala • Su!te 200 • Mission l'ieio, California 92691
hltp.!rm'�N-N,• ci.mission vwic.ca,us
HF&H Consultants, LLC
949,10-3D51
FAX 9441659-1355
September 25, 2005
Sher M.BWterfield
Apr
Craycrait
City of Mission Viejo
ayar Tcmpn.e
!fM.M.,mP,..
Roger S. Fabbel
Council Mem An
Office of the City Manager
!ohn Paul `J.F: Ledesma
0,rren(,tfrmher
Sasar. W ithrua
i'nuncd Memirr
Ddll id ?, kslah
i,fy lfa to
October 12, 2000
Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith,
Thank you for working with the City of Mission Viejo on the procurement of a franchise
agreement for residential and commercial integrated solid waste management services. I
appreciate all of your work that successfully resulted in a multi-million dollar solid waste
franchise. 1 fully understand why other cities and cur City attorney, from Richards,
Watson & Gershon highly recommended Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson for this project.
Your experience and guidance was invaluable as we set out to develop a new, three -cart
automated system, including drafting the Request for Proposal, participating in all of the
Council subcommittee meetings, meetings with the community, the Chamber of
Commerce, and finally development of a new consolidated franchise agreement. These
efforts will save Mission Viejo residents and businesses $6.4 million over the next eight
years and feedback from the community is already very positive.
You did an outstanding job in Mission Viejo and I will continue to speak highly of the
team of professionals at Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson to my counterparts in other cities.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
r
" It
Karen E. Wylie
Assistant to the City Manjiger
29,19 Pala • Su!te 200 • Mission l'ieio, California 92691
hltp.!rm'�N-N,• ci.mission vwic.ca,us
HF&H Consultants, LLC
949,10-3D51
FAX 9441659-1355
September 25, 2005
Cit1j of Diamond Bar
Proposal to Provide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
City of
Szntta Clarita
2392C Valencia Blvtl
Suite 300
Santa Clarita
Galitornia 91355-2196
Website: - santa-claritacon
Mr. f iiit', `=lt
Hilton Farnkonf & Hobson, LLC
lq:
Xe,apoll, Ca 92660-2 11
Deur \ i- F=i
Exlzibit D: Client Testimonial L,z#ters
Phone
(661 1259 2489
Fax
(661) 259-6125 •�
1 mould like to thank you ipain for your assistance \s ith '.lie City of Santa Clsrhas
Request for Proposals (RFP) for the collection of residential and commercie] solid
«aste. Your assistance to as nn imtegrd pati in [lie Citv obtuinin_e exempt u� residential
and comvnercial senices.
\i c ashei[ for a lame number of Services fran our haulers- v,'illile requestin= thLnl tile.
decrc [se nun rates- A!thoaeh the City asked for man,, sersaccs. manv of \N hich a; e m:x
eoritnu ; _n our r2 g;on. %ou un,d LisaKeatino s�'ere able to preFse excellent
cements :hat r,= red the kL.,j!els to stnctl\ adhere to the C—Lv7s needs and des;;es.
Tu n,a}:e :hin_s better. c�en ,�i!h the excellent franchise agreements..ou and lila
v; ere al:o able to inquire C1tv s.r%ices beyond as requested_ :N hiie at the sal e
-e viii:-_ tl� i��nerin_ s:es :erboth ;estdens and local businesses.
Ti1:,r.[: �ou lhr asci �;r., us in obtain3r.s ;hese _ e:.t ..u[evme[:�s. �4 e are ;`r
uitin of eurtlec, serr'ices and n oatanls as s result ofth,s RFP.
Simce:elR-
C1: , D�ste
DireC[,r of Field Ser% i -es
CD:TLBAL:cf
S ,FIELDS\ C'S:EVI SB i'CS,SOLN% AST".F',A.NCHISQ: FPFH rcc Lncr.do-
PRINTED Dx RECYCLEC PAPER
HF&H Cnnsnitants, LLC 70 September 25, 2008
n; 11-4 Bar
Exhibit D: Client Testinarnual Letters
Ctty of c
Proposal to Proz ide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
Mayor
Neil C. Blais
Mayor Pro Tempore
Jerry Holloway
Council Members
L. Anthony Beall
Gary Thompson
James M. Thor
City Manager
D. Jamr> Hart- Ph P
CITY OF RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
May 7, 2004
Mr. Laith Ezzet, Sr. Vice President
Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach. CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
The City of Rancho Santa Margarita Would like to thank you for your
professional assistance in helping our City procure exclusive solid
waste/recycling services for our residential and commercial constituents. The
year-long process was marked with integrity and thoroughness. Even those
applicants not awarded the contact spoke highly of the fairness of the process.
At the end of the process the City will be passing through savings of
approximately $8 million dollars over the 10 -year contract, which is a 271'/'0
savings to the residents and businesses of Rancho Santa Margarita.
Our City has used your consulting fiml for other solid waste services, but the
recently concluded and highly complex franchise Process was exemplary in its
execution. Thank you again.
Sincerely
A•
r
aures Hart, Ph.D.
City Mana,7er
cc: T. wheeler, City Engineer
3021' Avenida de las Banderas, Suite 101 • Rancho Santa Idargarita I Calitomla 92688
Phone(949) 635-1800 • Fax- (949) 635-1840 • wMw citY0`r5m.or9
September 25, ZOOS
HF&H Consultants, LLC >>
Citi/ of Diamond Bar
Exhibit D: Client Ti°sthnorrial Letters
Proposal to Proz ide Solid Waste Contracting Assistance
CITY HALL
830D 5„NTA MUNILA BLV^.
W”,
AOLLMW D. C.4
9f%9-6216
TEL (323) 84f{-6375
FAx: M31 848-65(A
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
ANO PUBLIC
WORKS
��ur�orF.
CITY OF
WEST HURYWOU0
December 1, 2003
Mr. Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311
Dear Laith:
The City of West Hollywood would like to thank you for your
professional assistance in helping our city procure exclusive solid
waste/recycling services for our residential and commercial
constituents. The year-long process was marked with integrity and
thoroughness. Even those applicants not awarded the contract spoke
highly of the fairness of the process. Our mayor and city council
members also commented on the process by which they could easily
review pertinent criteria and compare each proposal to match the city's
needs.
At the end of the process the City will be passing through savings to its
constituents of almost $9 million dollars over the 8 year contract. We
have increased the recycling services markedly and are embarking on
a truly innovative food diversion program.
Our City has used your consulting firm for other solid waste services,
but the recently concluded and highly complex franchise process was
exemplary in its execution. Thank you again,
Sincerely,
j
Jan Harmon ✓
Environmental Programs Specialist
S aron Perlstein
City Engineer
www.weho.org
HF&H Consirltunt, LLC ]1� Septcrrrber S, 2008
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK l
FROM: 7 1 5 DATE: d
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
PHONE: q o? wo C'66 qq
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please h the Council Minutes
reflect my name and address as written above.
Signature
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.