HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2012Tuesday, August 21, 2012
6:00 p.m., Closed Session — Room 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
Ling -Ling Chang Jack Tanaka
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
Ron Everett Carol Herrera Steve Tye
Council Member Council Member Council Member
City Manager James DeStefano • City Attorney Michael Jenkins • 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 II 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.CityofDiamonclBaccom
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond ear uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 21, 2012
Next Resolution No. 2012-42
Next Ordinance No. 12 (2012)
CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Room CC -8
Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda
► Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Pending Litigation
City of Diamond Bar et al v. Sheikhpour
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. KC064161
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
6:30 p.m.
Mayor
Pastor Mark Hopper,
Evangelical Free Church of Diamond
Bar
Council Members Everett, Herrera, Tye,
Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka, Mayor Chang
Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 21810 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business
hours.
August 21, 2012 PAGE 2
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
(completion 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 Concerts in the Park — August 22, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Cash Up
Front (Tribute to Johnny Cash) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden
Springs Drive. Sponsored by the Diamond Bar Community Foundation.
5.2 Movies Under the Stars — August 22, 2012 — Puss in Boots - Immediately
following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden
Springs Drive.
5.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — August 23, 2012 — 7:00
p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive
5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — August 28, 2012 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill
Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive.
5.5 Labor Day Holiday — City Offices will be closed in observance of Labor
Day, September 3, 2012. City Offices will reopen, Tuesday, September 4,
2012 at 7:30 a.m.
5.6 City Council Meeting — September 4, 2012 — 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.7 Diamond Bar Day at the Los Angeles County Fair — September 6, 2012 —
Los Angeles County Fair Grounds in Pomona.
5.8 Trail Meeting — Grand View Trail Link — September 11, 2012 — 7:00 p.m.,
Diamond Bar Center, 1600 Grand Avenue.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 City Council Minutes — Regular Meeting of August 7, 2012 — Receive
and File.
August 21, 2012 PAGE 3
6.2 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of June
28, 2012 — Receive and File.
6.3 Ratification of Check Register — Dated August 2, 2012 through August
15, 2012 totaling $897,131.43.
Requested by: Finance Department
6.4 Approval of Adjourning the August 21, 2012 City Council Meeting to
September 18, 2012.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: City Manager
6.5 Approval of the First Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with
Waste Management Establishing a Service Resumption Fee.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: City Manager
6.6 Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Pathfinder Road
Erosion Control Project.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.7 Exoneration of Surety Bond No. 734168S in the Amount of
$1,047,604 Posted by JCCL-South Pointe West, LLC for Tentative
Tract 63623 to Complete Grading Improvements of the Tract
Development.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.8 Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Approving the Application for
$89,639 of Habitat Conservation Grant Funds, which if Awarded,
Requires an $89,639 Match from the City, for the Grand View Trail
Link in the Summitridge Park Trail System.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Community Services Department
August 21,2012 PAGE 4
6.9 Approve Notice of Completion for the Median Modification Project at
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Clear Creek Canyon Drive.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.10 Award of Contract to Torres Construction, Inc. for Construction of
the Accessible Walkway at the Pantera Park Dog Park in the Amount
of $94,491.25; Plus a Contingency of $9,450 (10%) for a Total
Authorization of $103,941.25.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Community Services Department
6.11 Appropriate $8,810 from Proposition C Reserve Fund and Approve
Contract Amendment with TSR Construction and Inspection for the
Copley Drive Bus Stop Relocation Project in the Amount of $8,810
for a Total Authorization Amount of $32,210.
Recommended Action: Appropriate and Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.12 Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Amending the Compensation Plan to
Establish the Classification of Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker
and Amending the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget to Reflect the
Modification.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: City Manager
6.13 Appropriate $33,990 from the Integrated Waste Management Special
Fund and Approve Professional Services Agreement with
Sustainable Environmental Management Company (SEMCO) in an
Amount Not to Exceed $33,990 for Audit of Solid Waste Hauler
Services.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: City Manager
August 21, 2012 PAGE 5
6.14 Award of Design and Construction Administration Services Contract
for the 2012-13 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Curb
Ramp Installation Project to DMS Consultants, Inc. in the Amount of
$30,360, and Authorize a Contingency Amount of $3,000 for Change
Orders to be Approved by the City Manager, for a Total Authorization
Amount of $33,360.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.15 Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Upholding the Applicant's Appeal,
Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision and Approving
Revisions to Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance
No. 2007-06 (Case No. PL 2011-387), A Request to Approve As -Built
Changes to a New Single -Family Residential Project Under
Construction by Increasing Building Pad and Finished Grade
Elevations on a Lot Located at 22909 Ridge Line Road, Diamond Bar
CA 91765, and Further Identified Assessor's Parcel Number 8713-
005-006 ("Project Site").
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Community Development Department
7, PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None.
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda No. 6.1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR �
AUGUST 7, 2012
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ling -Ling Chang called the Regular City
Council meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Carol Herrera led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic
Church, gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carol Herrera, Steve Tye, Mayor
Pro Tem Jack Tanaka, and Mayor Ling -Ling Chang.
Absent: Council Member Ron Everett was excused.
Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Dianna Honeywell, Finance
Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development
Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer;
Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Kimberly
Young, Associate Engineer; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Lauren Hidalgo, Public
Information Specialist; Raymond Tao, Building Official, and Tommye Cribbins, City
Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Presentation by Rick Meza, Southern California Edison Public Affairs.
Mr. Meza spoke about system capacities and stated that this year there is
an additional challenge with San Onofre units 2 and 3 shut down for
repair. To mitigate the loss SCE Independent System Operator (ISO)
along with Orange County Gas and Electric, have in place a contingency
plan for this summer that includes four key components more specific to
Orange County and Southern Orange County as well as, portions of
Riverside. The four key elements are as follows: Transmission — earlier
this year SCE accelerated the upgrades of a couple of its 220 KB
transmission lines to create additional transmission capacity and those
lines came online June 1; Generation — CAL ISO requested Huntington
Beach Steam Plant return two units to service which have been online
since the early part of June; Engaging in Outreach to the Communities —
conservation briefings and social media have been engaged to inform the
public; and, Conservation — every year throughout the SCE service
territory conservation is key. One such program is the Air Conditioning
Recycling Program wherein SCE places a device on the air conditioning
unit and when there is a critical need for conservation the air conditions
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 2
CITY COUNCIL
will be turned off. In turn, those that participate on a residential basis get a
rebate or credit on their bills during the months of June through
September. Another critical component of conservation is with regard to
simple tips for conservation. Peak hours during summer months are from
12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. To compensate for these peak hours
homeowners can set their thermostats to 78 degrees or higher, use
electric fans instead of air conditioning units when practical, turn off
appliances not needed and not in use, shut off lights when leaving a room,
give your appliances the afternoon off, limit how often one opens the
refrigerator door and in the event residents have swimming pools, pool
pumps should be set to operate during off-peak hours. He referred
residents to the following websites for additional information:
www.caliso.com; www.se.com; Twitter and Facebook.
C/Tye said he visited a retailer today about 2:00 p.m. and the store made
an announcement that in cooperation with Edison they would dim the
lights in their store between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m. C/Tye asked Mr. Meza
how many retailers were participating in this program.
Mr. Meza said he was not aware of how many retailers participate but
there are programs for businesses to participate in to reduce their power
which is called the "On Demand" program. As there is for retail, there are
incentives for businesses to reduce consumption during certain hours for
which they receive financial benefit.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Concerts in the Park — NATIONAL NIGHT OUT — August 8, 2012 — 6:30
p.m. to 8:00 p.m., 'The Alley Cats" (Doo Wop) — Sycamore Canyon Park,
22930 Golden Springs Drive.
5.2 Movies Under the Stars — August 8, 2012 — Cars 2 — Immediately
following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden
Springs Drive.
5.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — August 9, 2012 — 7:00
p.m., Windmill Community Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley
Drive.
5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — August 14, 2012 - 7:00 p.m., Windmill
Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive.
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
5.5 Concerts in the Park — August 15, 2012 — 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., "Mike
Sullivan Band" (Acoustic Melodies) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930
Golden Springs Drive.
5.6 Movies Under the Stars — August 15, 2012 — Tin Tin — Immediately
following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden
Springs Drive.
5.7 City Council Meeting — August 21, 2012 — 6:30 p.m.,
SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.8 Last Concerts in the Park — August 22, 2012 — 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
"Cash Up Front" (Tribute to Johnny Cash) — Sycamore Canyon Park,
22930 Golden Springs Drive. Sponsored by the Diamond Bar Community
Foundation.
5.9 Movies Under the Stars — August 22, 2012 — "Puss in Boots" —
Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park,
22930 Golden Springs Drive.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tye moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, to approve the
Consent Calendar as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered
with C/Everett being absent.
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 17, 2012 —
Approved as submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 24, 2012.
6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER - Dated July 12, 2012 through August 1,
2012 totaling $3,267,611.39.
6.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT — Month of June 2012.
6.5 APPROVED SECOND READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 11
(2012): AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
SECTIONS 12.00.430, 12.00.440, 12.00.450 AND 12.00.460
ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE SAFE AND HEALTHY OPERATION
OF THE DOG PARK AT PANTERA PARK.
6.6 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH
ARCHITERRERA DESIGN GROUP FOR DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS FOR THE ADA RETROFIT OF THREE (3) MINI -PARKS IN
LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (LLAD) #39
FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES IN THE DESIGN OF SILVER TIP PARK
AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES FOR SILVER TIP
PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000 FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
OF $77,300 AND EXTENDED THE CONTRACT TO JUNE 30, 2016;
PLUS APPROPRIATED $14,000 IN PARK DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
WITHIN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO THE PROJECT'S BUDGET FOR A
TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $77,300.
6.7 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH
ARCHITERRERA DESIGN GROUP FOR SYCAMORE CANYON PARK
TRAIL PHASE IV IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,250 TO DESIGN THREE
INTERPRETIVE PANELS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE SYCAMORE
CANYON AND SUMMIT RIDGE PARK TRAILS, FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION OF $70,250 AND EXTENDED THE CONTRACT TO
JUNE 30, 2013.
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-40: DENYING THE APPEAL AND
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR VARIANCE NO.
PL 2011-387, A REQUEST TO APPROVE AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UNDER
CONSTRUCTION BY INCREASING BUILDING PAD AND FINISHED
GRADE ELEVATIONS ON A LOT LOCATED AT 22909 RIDGE LINE
ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 8713-005-006 ("PROJECT SITE").
CDD/Gubman provided the Council with guidance on approaching the
public deliberation of this matter. The changes to this previously approved
project as proposed to the Council and the Planning Commission meets
all of the Development Code standards. However, if the approval or
denial of a project was strictly based on code consistency there would be
no reason for this matter to receive a public hearing. The issue before
Council this evening is whether the Findings of Fact which are the
standardized benchmarks upon which decision -makers reach their
judgments, can be made. In order to overturn the Planning Commission's
decisions the Council must make all of the Findings in the affirmative. If
the Council cannot make all of those Findings, it must reject the appeal
and deny the project. There are two contrasting viewpoints by the parties
most directly affected by this project that go beyond the black and white
question of code consistency. The property owner and his agents will
argue that the circumstances leading up to tonight's hearing started with a
survey error through no fault of the owner which was not discovered until a
substantial amount of earthwork and foundation construction was
completed. Moreover, they will attempt to demonstrate that the two -foot
increase in grade elevations is not substantial given the area's terrain, and
will be essentially erased once the landscaping associated with the project
establishes itself. The neighbors to the west will provide testimony to the
affect that the original project design as approved, given the elevations of
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
the building pads and proximity of retaining walls to their property would,
on its own, have had an impact on the use and enjoyment of their property
and that elevating these structures by as much as two more feet would be
unacceptable. The Council may take into account these contrasting
viewpoints when weighing all of the evidence in the record to determine
whether to approve the revised project as submitted, approve the project
subject to additional stipulations, or reject the project altogether. There
are a total of six findings that the Council must make which will be
discussed in greater detail during SP/Lee's presentation. Staff believes
that four of those findings are fairly straightforward and can be made in the
affirmative. Therefore, staff would suggest that the Council focus on the
two much more nuanced Findings that ask the Council to make a
judgment on how the proposed project would affect surrounding
properties.
SP/Lee presented staffs report stating that the property owner and
applicants who are referred to as appellants are requesting approval of "as
built" changes to a new residence which is currently under construction.
The appellants are requesting approval of elevated pads and finished grid
elevations to be approximately two feet higher than the original approval.
Construction of this project was halted at the foundation stage after it was
discovered that a survey error resulted in the building pad elevation to be
approximately two feet higher than what was originally approved by the
Planning Commission in 2007. The project is located at 22909 Ridgeline
Road (north side of Ridgeline Road) within "The Country Estates". The
neighboring down slope residence is located at 22835 Ridgeline Road to
the west of the subject property. On July 24, 2007 the Planning
Commission approved a Development Review application to build a
11,321 square foot three-story single family residence and a minor
Variance to reduce the front setback from 24 feet where 30 feet is required
and increase the height of the retaining walls up to eight (8) feet where six
(6) feet is the maximum height. SP/Lee provided a slide presentation
depicting the front elevation and rendering of the proposed structure.
SP/Lee stated that the appellants are requesting that the City Council
approve the following modifications to their project currently under
construction: Maintain the "as -built" elevated height of the building pad by
approximately two feet, lower the overall height of the structure by two feet
so that the building envelope remains consistent with the height that was
originally approved. The project architect has revised the architectural
plans to reduce the overall height of the house by two feet in order to
offset the raised pad elevation. The appellant is also requesting to reduce
the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the heights
originally approved. However, because the finished grades adjacent to
the walls are higher than originally approved the walls would remain at a
higher elevation. There are several retaining walls that were found to be
constructed with exposed heights that was substantially taller than the
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 6
CITY COUNCIL
original approval a result of the survey error. Some of the walls have
since been cut down to the approved heights and the project engineer has
devised a plan to reduce the exposed heights for the rest of the retaining
walls. The appellant is proposing to add a retaining wall approximately
three to four feet in exposed height at the west property line adjacent to
the neighbor's down slope (22835 Ridgeline) and install additional
landscaping along the westerly portion of the property to screen the
retaining walls and the house in order to mitigate the visual impact of the
elevation change between the subject property and the neighboring down
slope residence.
SP/Lee further stated that as previously mentioned the project was
approved by the Planning Commission in 2007. On August 13, 2007 the
grading plans were approved and a grading permit was issued. Retaining
wall permits were issued on April 26, 2010 and on June 30, 2011 the
City's grading inspector visited the site and found that the retaining wall
heights were not in conformance with the approved grading plans. On
July 19, 2011 staff met with Jim Gardner, "The Country Estates" General
Manager to discuss the property. Mr. Gardner informed staff that "The
Country Estates" hired an engineer to survey the project site and found
the walls and building pad elevations were on average two feet higher
than the approved plans. On July 20, 2011 Mr. Gardner served the
property owner with a letter to stop all work on the property until the height
of the retaining walls and building pads were lowered to comply with the
approved plans. On February 28, 2012 the Planning Commission
reviewed and denied the request after determining that all of the required
Findings for approval could not be made. The Planning Commission's
denial left the appellants with two options — to demolish the improvements
completed to date which includes the retaining walls and the foundation
slab and re -grade the site to the previously approved elevations or,
request the City Council's reconsideration of the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the revision. On March 23, 2012 the appellants appealed
the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council and submitted
additional supporting information. As also previously mentioned, the
proposed changes comply with the Development Code standards;
however, the Planning Commission revisited the Development Review
Findings in light of the proposed changes and determined that the
Findings cannot be made in the affirmative. Specifically, Findings 2 and 5
were required to be revisited. To summarize, the Commission deliberated
on the information presented to them and determined that the proposed
changes would have a negative visual impact and interfere with the use
and enjoyment of down slope and adjacent parcels with sightlines to the
project site. SP/Lee showed photos of the project when it was under
construction. The photos showed that the building pads have been
graded, the concrete foundation has been poured for the lower basement
level and the retaining walls have been constructed. Further, the Power
Point presentation showed the approved grading plan which shows the
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 7
CITY COUNCIL
basement level as well as the main floor and garage finished floors and
various retaining walls on the property. The photos also show the
proposed changes to the finished floors of the basement level and the
main floor as well as, changes to the building height. The overall pads are
elevated two feet higher; however, the building envelope would remain the
same since the ceiling height is being reduced by one foot on the first and
second floors respectively. The presentation showed the elevation of
reductions in wall heights that exist and are proposed. Currently, the walls
range in height from four and one-half (4 '/2) to as high as 11 feet;
however, the appellants are proposing to lower the walls to a maximum
height of eight (8) feet to be consistent with the original approval. The
appellants are also proposing to modify the landscape plan to plant
additional landscaping within the side and rear yards adjacent to the
neighboring down slope residence to provide for additional screening
which would include shrubs such as Texas Privet and New Zealand Flax,
both of which grow up to eight (8) feet in height. The presentation showed
a section view of the proposed landscaping within the sloped area. The
appellants are proposing to construct a three to four foot high retaining
wall along the westerly property line to support the 2:1 slope. The
appellant submitted additional documents supporting the basis for their
appeal. After reading the appeal staff believes that the appellant's
arguments can be reduced down to the following four key points: 1) The
property is located in the hillside community with development challenges
due to the natural topography of the hillside. The existing lots and private
streets were created when the subdivision was approved in 1969, hence
the street grades determine the relative position of each house; 2) the two -
foot increase in finished grades doesn't result in a substantially different
visual impact to the down slope property. To mitigate any negative visual
impacts to the property to the west, the following mitigations are being
proposed: Constructing a three to four foot high retaining wall along the
westerly property line and the planting of trees and shrubs along the
westerly sloped area to screen the retaining walls and the house.
Therefore, the exposed portions of the retaining walls would be screened
and camouflaged in a relatively short time. The top of the roof remains the
same from the original approval and the building envelope remains
consistent with the height that was originally approved. If the revisions are
not granted the appellant will need to tear everything down and start all
over again which would result in a waste of materials and resources and in
addition, would be cost -prohibitive for the appellant causing an extreme
financial and emotional hardship to continue with the project. The street
grade in front of the appellant's property is at an approximate seven
percent slope. The proposed pad and finished grade elevations will be
relatively at level with the street grade. The street grade in front of the
down slope neighboring property located at 22835 Ridgeline is at an
approximately eight percent slope and a portion of the neighbor's house,
the side adjacent to the appellant's property, is approximately nine (9) feet
lower than the street. As shown in the photo, the construction chain link
AUGUST 7. 2012 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
fencing which abuts the street is approximately in line with the first floor of
the house. The building pad of the property directly across the street at
22840 Ridgeline is approximately fifteen feet above the street grade. As
can be seen, a two -foot increase in finished grade does not result in a
substantially different visual impact to the down slope property.
Additionally, the exposed portions of the retaining walls and the house will
eventually be screened with landscaping. As CDD/Gubman mentioned,
specific Findings must be made before a decision-making body may
approve a land use application that is quasi-judicial in nature. These
Findings are an analysis of Fact, Regulations and Policies that explain
how the conclusions of the decision -makers were reached and should
provide a framework for making principled decisions and enhance integrity
of the administrative process, help make analysis orderly and reduce the
likelihood that the Agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusion
and help to persuade the parties that the decision-making is careful,
reasoned and equitable.
SP/Lee concluded by stating that the key issue for the Council in this
matter is to determine whether or not the appellants provided new
evidence or information that in light of all other evidence and testimony
comprising the entire record would lead the Council to conclude that all of
the Findings can be made in the affirmative. The two Findings that are to
be discussed tonight are Finding No. 2 — will the design and layout of the
proposed development not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing and future developments, and will it create traffic and
pedestrian hazards; and Finding No. 5 — would the proposed entitlement
not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or
welfare of the city. In order to determine if Findings No. 2 and No. 5 can
be made in the affirmative the Council would need to answer the following
two questions: Is a vertical difference of raising the building pad two feet
severe and does it have a substantially visible impact on neighboring
properties in a hillside area that has deep terrains and roadway grades
and if so, have the impacts been effectively mitigated. The appellants
argue that there are extreme topographical variations of the shared
property line between the appellant's property and the neighbor down
slope. The appellant is proposing a building pad that is relatively at level
with street grade and follows the slope of the street by having the garage
level stepped lower than the main floor of the house. In addition, the
proposed house is set back approximately 36 feet away from the down
slope neighbor's house providing more than the minimum 25 foot setback
between structures which is required by the City's Development Code.
The appellants are also proposing to mitigate the visual impact as
previously mentioned. In light of the new information submitted by the
appellant, staff recommends that the City Council take all factors, history
and issues into account, consider the appellant's request and after holding
the public hearing and considering all testimony, take one of the following
actions:
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
Reject the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to deny
the proposed revision; or, if the Council determines that there is new
evidence or information to support Findings for approval, continue the
matter to August 21 and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval.
Paul Ghotra, property owner and appellant, 24251 Delta Drive, explained
that this project began about two years ago and was halted about a year
ago due to a surveyor's error. He has hired a new team to resolve the
matter and provide additional information.
Ashok Dhingra, 3168 Windmill Drive, "The Country Estates" said that prior
to moving to DB he lived in San Dimas and served on that city's Planning
Commission for 16 years and is completely familiar with the "Findings"
process. By profession, he is a civil and structural engineer, primarily
working on municipal environmental concrete structures. He said that for
him it is a privilege and honor to address the leaders of the community on
behalf of the property owner. He stated that as the Council just learned,
this project was approved by the Planning Commission in 2007, grading
plans were approved in 2008, retaining wall permits were pulled in April
2010, and in July 2011 the pad was discovered to be two feet higher than
permitted due to a survey error. At the lower level, two feet of dirt was
removed once the discovery was made but at the upper level when the
contractor began to remove the dirt it was discovered that the footing
would be left exposed, so at that point, the project was halted to see if any
other mitigating measure could be found. The project architect went back
to the drawing board and essentially maintained the overall height of thirty-
five feet by reducing the story height of each of the two stories by one foot.
These plans were submitted to the Planning Commission which denied
the request. He asked the Council to look at the overall setting of the lot.
This is a view lot. The Planning Commission's staff report of 2007
mentioned that the slope at the rear of the lot was in excess of fifty
percent. This property is further subject to the hillside ordinance since it
resides within "The Country Estates" and because of the topographical
variations, etc. Ridgeline Road in front of the proposed house is at a
seven percent slope. The residences along Ridgeline Road are either
below street level, at street level or above street level depending on how
the natural terrain was when the lots were cut. Primarily, that was done to
take advantage of the lots that were afforded. The Tract Map was
approved in August 1969 by the LA County Board of Supervisors. At that
time the road gradient was defined and the relative location of each lot
came into being. Tract Map No. 30091 dated August 1969 shows Lot 30,
the subject property, plus Lot 29, the property to the west (22835
Ridgeline Road) and Lot 31 the property to the east (22925 Ridgeline
Road). The road was approved when the Tract Map was approved. Mr.
Dhingra said that the property owner ordered a new survey because he
wanted to know where he stood with this project and in so doing he asked
the surveyor to plot the elevations of the tops of both adjacent properties.
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
He presented an overhead with a cut section showing the relative location
of the two adjacent houses to scale with the new approved house. The
elevation shows two items: The upper as approved and the lower as
constructed. What the owner also did was take the same scale drawing
and super imposed actual pictures from the street level and the street
grade. As SP/Lee mentioned in her presentation the slope gradient slope
in front of 22835 and 22909 goes from seven percent to in excess of eight
percent and by the time it gets to the third house — 22925 Ridgeline Road,
it is a relatively flat grade at about a two (2) percent level. The property
directly across the street is actually fifteen plus feet higher than the street
grade. He also showed a view from across the street at 22840 looking
north to the property line between 22835 and 22909. This elevation
difference is primarily caused by the road being where it was which gives
the ability for each homeowner to build below grade, above grade or at
street level. The visual mitigation that is being proposed with landscaping
is shown in the front elevation and side view which is cut at a level view
above the retaining wall as one looks from west to east. The landscape
along 22835 Ridgeline Road primarily shows three 24" Brisbane boxed
trees along the property line for additional screening and shrubs such as
Texas Privet and New Zealand Flax. These proposed shrubs are
essentially evergreen or perennial so there will be greenery year round
and the exposed portions of the walls would be camouflaged as soon as
the landscaping takes hold. He showed a view of the neighbor's house
and the slope in question and showed the terraces being built by the
neighbor as the same type of terracing affect that would be proposed for
the project site. The applicant/appellant is proposing three to four feet
high walls. He does not know how high the neighbors walls are because
when he went to the City he was told there were no permits for the walls.
There is a purpose for Hillside Ordinances which allows property owners
to be able to build in a difficult terrain. Typically, these types of properties
require a lot of challenges, foresight, innovation and solutions so that one
can afford the view for which one bought the lot initially. As such, it is not
uncommon to have minor deviations from the standards. As a matter of
fact, the July 2007 staff report acknowledged that for this house the design
solution is unique and can be considered necessary because of the site's
topography. The rear elevation of the house contained slopes in that year
that were in excess of fifty percent so to be able to utilize the parcel and
have a nice backyard one needs to build retaining walls and the owner is
grateful that the City allowed the minor variance from six to eight feet.
Mr. Dhingra said that he would focus his comments on the matter at hand,
Finding No. 2 and Finding No. 5. The project, as approved, had a first
floor pad elevation of 1189 feet. Street elevation in the middle of the
house is 1190 feet. The pad, as approved, was at one foot below street
level. The project as constructed first floor pad elevation is 1190.9 feet
and the street elevation is 1190, roughly one foot above street level. The
top of the roofline is the same as approved and as proposed. He offered
AUGUST 7. 2012 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
to the City Council that there is not much appreciable difference between
the approved plan and the as -constructed plan, one which was one foot
below the road and the other which is 11" above the road. Furthermore, in
the design, the garage pad has been stepped lower than the first floor pad
to be more in line with the road slope. The setback between 22835
Ridgeline and the subject property is thirty-six feet. The minimum required
is twenty-five feet. The other point is that the heavily year-round
landscaping and terraced retaining walls would mitigate the visual impact.
The Finished grade pad across the street is over fifteen feet above street
level. Finished grade of the southeast corner of 22835 is roughly nine
feet below grade. He believes that a Finding can be made that the design
and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing and future developments. Relative to
Finding No. 5, construction on the property has been stopped for more
than a year and if construction is not resumed it will result in deteriorated
site conditions, which is not aesthetically pleasing. If one were to drive by
the project site at this time because of the weeds and other materials, one
could see that it is not aesthetically pleasing now. It would also pose
unsafe conditions if the project is not restarted and will negatively impact
property values. With these considerations he would suggest to the
Council that a Finding can be made that the proposed development will
not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or material injurious
— in explanation, have negative values on the property. With that, the
applicant/appellant most humbly requests that the City Council overturn
the Planning Commission's decision and approve the project as
constructed and that a permit be issued to restart the project with the pad
"as -is" with the mitigation measures that have been incorporated in the
landscaping.
MPT/Tanaka asked if all of the retaining walls have been reduced to a
maximum of eight feet and confirmation that there are no retaining walls in
excess of eight feet.
Mr. Dhingra said there are walls that are in excess of eight feet which will
be brought down to eight feet as soon as construction is allowed to
resume.
M/Chang asked if the height of the proposed structure is the same as the
height of the approved structure.
MPT/Tanaka asked if the retaining wall on the west side of the property is
proposed to be between three and four feet.
Mr. Dhingra responded that it would be terraced three to four feet with
landscaping to camouflage the exposed concrete.
MPT/Tanaka asked how the applicant proposes to camouflage the three
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
to four foot wall on the property line that faces the adjoining property.
Mr. Dhingra responded that it will be built inside of the project site so there
is room for landscaping between the project site and the neighbor's
property to the west.
With no further questions from Council, M/Chang opened the Public
Hearing.
George Madanat, 22835 Ridgeline Road, said he had been a property
owner in "The Country Estates" since 1985 and is the owner of the
property adjacent to the subject property. He said he did not want to
create any animosity with his neighbors but felt he has rights that he feels
have to be protected. He invited the City Council to look at his back yard.
The 22909 lot was originally about the same slope as his lot. If the owner
had gone five or six feet below street level he could have built a gorgeous
home next to the speaker's home and would not have had to build a dam
of dirt and concrete that buried his house. Mr. Madanat said his home
burned down on March 18, 2007. He was given a permit to rebuild in
2009 and is still working on his house but cannot finish his backyard
because there is now an avalanche of dirt and mud which buried the five
foot wall on his side of the property and is only four to five feet from his
pool. The project site walls were to have been built at six feet. The City
granted a Variance to eight feet but they were built at twelve feet. The
problem is that the neighbor dumps dirt next to the wall and the visible
portion of the wall is only eight or nine feet but if one goes to the
foundation which is the actual height of the floor, the wall is fourteen feet.
So the two feet of the pad is meaningless if one compares how the lot
looks now compared to the way it looked before construction started. The
walls have been double poured and are unsafe. A contractor who builds
freeways came to his home to look at putting decking around his pool and
said the walls were double poured and were not safe. He said that if there
were an earthquake less than the magnitude of the Northridge
Earthquake, all of the dirt would be in his backyard and pool. He said he
has had nightmares about the walls.
Paul Ghotra said he will cut down the walls. His pool is lower than his
neighbor's pool and he does not understand how the dirt will adversely
affect his neighbor.
Fadi Madanat, 22835 Ridgeline Road, said he was concerned about the
presentation. While topography can be a challenge to construction it does
not make it impossible. When he looks at pictures of adjacent properties
he wonders if it is a minor variation when one is set to build a four foot wall
and builds it to eight or nine feet or builds a double poured fourteen foot
wall. At the heart of Mr. Ghotra's argument is a survey error. When one
looks at
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
all of the facts in the record it does not seem that there is evidence of a
survey error. The fact is that Mr. Bhogal applied for the plans. He sat in
the HOA meetings and sat with the Planning Commission at every stage
was given the approval to construct. Mr. Bhogal supervises the project.
He hires and fires the employees and calls all of the shots. He orders
pouring dirt to hide the height of the walls. He has photographs and video
footage of him standing on the top of the walls and ordering bulldozers to
come in to pack in more dirt. So he questions how this can be called a
"survey error." And if there is a survey error what is the purpose of
packing in more and more dirt and what is the purpose of double pouring
walls. Is the survey error the possibility that the plans were not properly
drawn and the only way to come anywhere near compliance was to
double pour the walls? Where is the survey error? Regarding Finding No.
5, the public well-being, emotional and financial hardship, if one takes a
willful action that is contrary to any approvals and those actions cause
harm to a third party and the City or governing body wants to come in and
enforce corrective sanctions, does it make sense to come in and wave a
flag and say hold on - if we're forced to correct our mistakes we're going to
suffer financial and emotional hardship, when one willfully takes those
actions that are contrary to law, contrary to principle and completely goes
beyond the scope of due process that folks are typically afforded in these
types of appeals. When all facts and circumstances are considered no
rational neutral decision -maker could come to the conclusion that this
never happened because it makes a mockery of planning, codes and
regulations. It was clear from day one that the applicant/appellant was in
violation and it was proven by an HOA, by independent surveyors, by the
Planning Commission, and by staff. An appeal of this decision would
afford a party that made a willful action to essentially evade corrective
sanction.
Mr. Dhingra asked to have a letter from a neighbor entered into the record.
He said he wanted to clarify two items that have been misrepresented by
the last two speakers. First, the staff report said that there were poor
joints before the double pours. They are looking at the form work and
construing it to be a poor joint. Second, the dirt that was above the
retaining wall is to bring it up to the first level which is per the approved
grading plan. There was no dirt poured over a wall to hide a wall. It was
the wall in front above which the floor of the garage needed to be poured
which is all permitted grading. The walls that are in excess of eight feet
will all be cut down to eight feet once the construction resumes and the
project will fully comply with the landscaping plan shown to the Council
tonight. Lastly, to state that this property owner could have built the home
exactly like the neighbors home is not legitimate. Property owners have a
choice about the type of home they wish to build. He pointed out that
survey errors are not uncommon.
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
Vinod Kashap, 21452 Chirping Sparrow Road is a licensed civil engineer
in the State of California and says as an engineer that he visited the
subject site and that it looks like a disaster zone because work has been
stopped for a year. I his line of work errors are fairly common and that
there are provisions which allow projects to perform mitigating measures.
There is not a single job built anywhere that does not involve changes.
Mr. Madanat asked for the opportunity to rebut the appellant.
CA/Jenkins stated that the rules for the hearings are set forth on the
Council agenda. Those rules provide that persons are given one
opportunity to speak except for the appellant who is given the opportunity
for a rebuttal. Five minutes is a very generous time allocation for
speakers and there is a substantial written record before the City Council
from which the City Council can certainly consider the evidence.
M/Chang closed the Public Hearing
C/Tye said that he had a discussion with Mr. Kashap as a person
representing Mr. Ghotra. The reason for the discussion was because an
effort was made to have a meeting to go over the information presented
this evening. During that discussion, C/Tye informed Mr. Kashap that it
would not be necessary because the Council would see all of the
information tonight and make its decision based on the information the
Council sees. His question is, how in the world did this happen and how
does someone an applicant trusts with his project make an error like that.
The error is made and here we are and now what do we do about it. The
time he was on the Planning Commission he would often tell people that
he was a utilitarian. He does not believe in wasting anything if it can be
helped and he felt it would be a shame to destroy what is there if it can be
made to work. So for him the question is, how do we make that work?
He sees in all of the presentations that if this were being presented to the
Planning Commission as it is being suggested now it would probably be
approved by the Planning Commission. That is not the case. There are a
few things in the way and he wants clarification from staff about the
information that was given that walls that were approved at four feet are
actually eight feet and some walls are eleven feet. 'His question for the
applicant is, how does that happen? There is a difference to Mr. Kashap's
point about changes being made. He believes changes have to be made
or nothing would get done. But what he is concerned about is that
changes that were made versus a wanton disregard relative to the plans
that were approved. So, how does the City fix this and how does the City
make this work and how does the City monitor it going forward because
what he heard Mr. Dhingra say is that walls that are eleven feet are going
to be brought into compliance at eight feet — well, what is the monitor from
staff's perspective that indeed that will happen and will move forward.
How does the City set up the procedure to make sure that what the
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
Councilis hearing is suppose to happen tonight will happen if the Council
decides to move this project forward. Also, he wanted everyone
to understand the difference between the wall's height and what is
considered the base or anchor of the block wall.
CM/DeStefano asked that the appellant address C/Tye's questions and
concerns after which staff would address staff's role in overseeing through
an inspection process of the project and staff's role with respect to
ensuring that any changes made to the project such as the walls being
brought back down to the appropriate height, would be properly monitored
through a procedure staff will articulate.
M/Chang asked if the proposed modifications met all of the City's Code
requirements.
CDD/Gubman responded affirmatively, the proposed modifications are in
conformance with the Development Code standards.
M/Chang said she heard comments about playing by the rules and she is
assuming that the rules have been broken.
CDD/Gubman responded that clearly the retaining walls have been
constructed significantly beyond the maximum height limitations that were
originally approved by the Planning Commission's action in 2007 and after
the building permits were granted for walls at the specified heights. So
those discrepancies in the field will have to be corrected and brought back
into compliance with the approved height limits and the monitoring and
inspection at remediation would be set forth in the Conditions of Approval
should this appeal be granted.
C/Herrera asked if the walls are measured from dirt level up or does it
include the concrete foundation. How does staff determine the overall
height that is within the code?
CDD/Gubman responded that with any structure whether it is a building,
garden wall or retaining wall it will have a foundation or what is called a
footing. That is the counterbalancing support that is subterranean that
provides the stability for the structure above -ground. The footing is buried
below ground for a retaining wall depending on the amount of dirt it is
going to be supporting which is one of the factors that dictates how deeply
the footing must be buried. There will be soil that backfills above that
footing level. The total height of a wall to a footing could be twice the
height of the actual wall height which is measured from the ground level to
the top of the wall. The overall structure exposed is always going to be
higher than when all of the finish grading backfills that initial grading.
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
C/Herrera disclosed that she received a phone call from a DB resident
regarding this agenda item but she did not talk with the property owner.
MPT/Tanaka asked if the proposed project is approved as amended, is
the westerly wall the only modification that is necessary to allow the pad to
be two feet above the original level?
CDD/Gubman responded that MPT/Tanaka was correct. The wall that
would need to be constructed at or close to that site property line is
necessary to maintain a 2:1 slope as the side slope works its way up to
the building pad. For every two feet horizontally a slope can only go up
one foot vertically. Since the pad at the top of the slope has been
elevated two feet there is a vertical gap that needs to be made up
because the steepness of the slope cannot be increased. Therefore, that
wall needs to go at the bottom to maintain the 2:1 slope as the steps of the
retaining walls are stepped up. That is the only new structure that would
be required. The rest of the work would involve restoring or correcting the
discrepancies where retaining walls currently standing are in excess of
what was approved.
MPT/Tanaka said that minus the proposed landscaping the issue is the
three to four foot height of the retaining wall on that property line.
CDD/Gubman said "correct."
Mr. Dhinga stated that to C/Tye's question about how the walls came to be
higher than what was proposed, it was not discovered until the first floor
pad was to be built that everything was two feet higher. The basement
floor level was two feet higher but the walls before that were not, so as the
contractor progressively built up it went two feet up and another two feet
up and by the time it was stepped up to the first floor level the walls were
maybe eleven feet higher. As mentioned earlier, the walls will be cut back
and brought into compliance to the eight foot wall which has been
engineered and preliminary sketches were provided to the staff and are
included in staffs report this evening.
M/Chang reiterated the issue before Council to make its decision. In her
opinion, the appellant has proposed mitigation to provide evidence that
both Finding No. 2 and Finding No. 5 are in the affirmative.
C/Herrera said she believed everyone recognizes that the topography
within "The Country Estates" is very steep and irregular which does not
provide the opportunity for all houses to be built on the same level and at
the same grade. Some of the photos illustrate that point well. The house
across the street from the project site is fifteen feet higher than the street
level. She finds that there have been modifications on the part of the
property owner, particularly to bring the height of the house down two feet
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL
so that the overall impact is the same as what was approved by the City
and she is also prepared to make a decision finding Finding No. 2 and
Finding No. 5 in the affirmative.
MPT/Tanaka said it was very unfortunate that the final grading ended up
being two feet above the original approved height but he believed that
under the circumstances, the proposed modifications meet all of the City's
requirements and with the proposed reduction of the walls that were
initially approved and with the landscape mitigation that these are
probably the best solutions the applicant could provide.
C/Tye said he would say that the Council can answer affirmatively to
Finding No. 2 and Finding No. 5. He does not think when the Council has
to decide whether the proposed project would interfere or not interfere with
the use and enjoyment of the doctor's residence and as the City watches
these buildings rise up they are huge and spectacular. He thinks in a
year, two or five one will drive down Ridgeline Road and not think twice
about whether that pad at 22909 was originally two feet higher than it
should have been and some of the concessions were that it can only be
35 feet from the finished grade to peak of the roof. So it is going to be
within 35 feet because of the modifications that they are making in ceiling
height. He does not believe that the proposed entitlement will be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of
the City or the neighbors or "The Country Estates" or anyone else. As he
said earlier, how does the City make this work and he thinks that the City
makes this work with the mitigations as proposed and go forward. He
hoped that if this body decides to go forward the applicant will follow the
letter of the approval and not after the fact try to fix things that went awry.
C/Herrera moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, that the City Council determine
that there is new evidence and information to support findings for approval
and that the City Council continue the matter to August 21, 2012 and
direct staff to prepare a Resolution for Approval based on the positive
Findings articulated by the Council. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tye, MPT/Tanaka,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMERS: Everett
CA/Jenkins clarified that the Council's final action will occur when the
Council adopts a Resolution at the next meeting. This is not an action but
merely a direction to staff to return with a final Resolution.
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
7.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-41 FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2010 CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089 FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
AS PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY.
SP/Lee presented staffs report stating that staff is asking the City Council
to adopt a Resolution finding Diamond Bar to be in compliance with the LA
County CMP for the reporting period of June 1, 2011 through May 31,
2012. All counties in the state are required to have a congestion
management program in place. The CMP's are mandated under the
provisions of the Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of
1990. The CMP has two primary goals: 1) to mitigate traffic impacts in the
County that are associated with new development and 2) to develop a
partnership among transportation decision -makers on devising appropriate
transportation solutions that include all modes of travel. The LA County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the agency responsible for
preparing and monitoring compliance with the County's CMP. DB, along
with all other local agencies, is required to meet the program requirements
in order to be eligible to receive state gas tax funds and maintain eligibility
for other transportation funding. DB is expected to receive approximately
$1.6 million in gas tax funds for the prior fiscal year. The CMP Program
mandates self certification at the local level through the adoption of a
Resolution demonstrating compliance with the 2010 CMP and submittal of
a local development report to MTA. A Public Hearing is required prior to
adopting this Resolution and as described in staffs report, DB remains in
compliance with the CMP for LA County and staff therefore recommends
City Council adoption of the Resolution.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, M/Chang closed
the Public Hearing.
C/Tye moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2012-41
finding the City Of Diamond Bar to be in Conformance with the 2010
Congestion Management Program (CMP) And Adopting the CMP Local
Development Report, In Accordance with California Government Code
Section 65089 for Los Angeles County as prepared by the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMERS:
Herrera, Tye, MPT/Tanaka,
M/Chang
None
Everett
AUGUST 7. 2012 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None.
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Tye said that it is with sadness that DB says goodbye to staff member Rick
Yee who moves to Yorba Linda as Assistant City Engineer. He wished Mr. Yee
all the best and thanked him for the difference he made and the help he has
given the City over the years. He acknowledged an article in State Tech
highlighting staff member Ken Desforges and his article entitled One Small Move,
One Giant Leap for /T. C/Tye said he had a difficult time understanding all that
was involved in the move to the new City Hall and it was nice to see Ken get the
recognition he deserves. He said he is very proud of the staff. C/Tye said he
hoped to see everyone at Concerts in the Park tomorrow night.
C/Herrera expressed her appreciation for the wonderful July 28 celebration
honoring the opening of the new library. Residents visited the facility during the
day and The Friends of the Library hosted a dinner that evening. Everyone was
thrilled with the new facility and it was a great and happy day for DB concluding
many years of work toward this unveiling. Some have worked for 20 and 30
years on this dream and she thanked everyone who made such a great effort.
MPT/Tanaka congratulated Rick Yee and wished him well. The past three weeks
on Wednesday evenings he has enjoyed Concerts in the Park and Movies Under
the Stars, great events for residents and folks from surrounding cities. On
Friday, July 20 he attended Teen Night Out hosted by DB4Youth and held at
Sycamore Canyon Park. Last Monday he attended the DB Day of the Fair
Committee meeting, Thursday, July 26 he attended the Public Safety Committee
meeting and attended the DB Seniors Luau Dinner Dance. This coming
Saturday will be the end of the season for the Children's Reading Program at the
library with activities at Pantera Park from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. On Saturday, July
28 he attended the ribbon -cutting ceremonies for the new LA County Library and
thanked staff for coordinating another successful event. That evening the DB
Friends of the Library hosted a celebration and gala dinner in the new Library
with music provided by DBHS musicians and last night he attended the PUSD
Board meeting. He asked that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of Ilse
Boykin.
M/Chang stated that her comments on Facebook and Twitter are time stamped.
She congratulated Rick Yee on his new appointment. She and C/Tye attended
the Contract Cities Executive Board meeting. She attended the League Board
meeting at Northrop Grumman and was installed as the Vice President of the LA
Division. She attended the wonderful grand opening of the library and thanked
Congressman Miller, Congressman Royce, State Senator Huff and Supervisor
Don Knabe for attending. Remarks were given by "Friends of the Library"
representative Rosette Clippinger and County Librarian Margaret Todd. She also
AUGUST 7, 2012 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
attended the "Friends of the Library" gala that evening which was a great event
during which CM/DeStefano and ACM/Doyle, Project Manager, were honored.
She thanked them for completing the library and building on time. She
announced that one again the has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers
Association for the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; thanked the
Finance Department for doing such a great job; and, congratulated Ken
Desforges and his team on a great story.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Chang adjourned the
Regular City Council Meeting at 8:20 p.m. in memory of Ilse Boykin and Ruth Pitkin,
mother of Tricia Bowler.
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2012.
LING -LING CHANG, MAYOR
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Agenda No. 6.2
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
DIAMOND BAR CITY HALL - THE WINDMILL ROOM
21810 COPLEY DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, -CA 91765
JUNE 28, 2012
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Herndon called the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at
7:02 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Roberto led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Ted Owens, Dave Roberto and Chairman Lew Herndon. Vice
Chairman Benny Liang arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Absent: Commissioner Dave Grundy was excused.
Staff Present: Bob Rose, Community, Services Director; Anthony Jordan, Parks and
Maintenance Superintendent; Christy Murphey, Recreation Superintendent; Mickey
McKitrick, Recreation Specialist; Cloris Vargas, Recreation Specialist Senior Programs,
and Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Coordinator.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None
PRESENTATION OF 2012 YOUTH SOCCER SPORTSMANSHIP AWARDS —
RS/McKitrick
RECESS: Chair/Herndon recessed the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Herndon reconvened the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS: As presented by CSD/Rose.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.1 Approval of Minutes for the May 24, 2012 Regular Meeting.
1.2 Receive and File transmittal of `Thank You" letter to Latter Day Saints
Church volunteers.
C/Roberto moved, C/Owens seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar
as presented. Motion carried with the following Roll Call vote:
JUNE 28, 2012 PAGE 2 P&R COMMISSION
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Owens, Roberto, Chair/Herndon
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
Liang
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Grundy
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
2.1- Recreation Program Update _ RS/Murphey
Chair/Herndon asked if there was duplication with seniors attending more
than one group and RS/Murphey responded that there was some overlap
for the DB Evergreen, the Diamond Age Seniors and the Super Diamond
Age Seniors. Chair/Herndon asked if staff could begin working on a grant
for a trail from Silver Tip to Pantera Park and CSD/Rose said staff could
pursue that matter. Staff's priority at this time is to get the trails in the
Summitridge Park trail system completed. The City obtained Land and
Water Conservation grants for two more trails, the Grandview Trail and
the Grandview Trail link which pays for only 50 percent of the cost so staff
is working on additional grant funds for these two trails and the Silver Trip
access to the Pantera Trail will be the next trail that staff pursues.
Chair/Herndon said he noticed there was nothing budgeted for the
Sheriff's Department and wondered if staff had not yet received the bill.
RS/Murphey responded that Chair/Herndon was correct in his
observation.
2.1.1 Power Point Presentation on her biography and the City's Senior
Clubs — RSNargas
C/Owens asked for a definition of Super Diamond Bar Age seniors.
RSNargas responded that Diamond Age and Super Diamond Age were
once a single club. Due to philosophical issues, they split into two clubs.
C/Owens asked if there were a lot of out-of-town participants in the bingo
group. RSNargas said that it is basically the same group except that
during the summer members will bring family members who are from out
of town. Bingo is for 18 and over so it is a different age group.
VC/Chair/Liang asked if staff intended to designate a senior award to a
member of all five groups rather than three. RS/Murphey said that each
club can still make a nomination. Some clubs choose to not submit a
nominee each year. RSNargas said that this year, two of the clubs chose
not to turn in an application. Usually, everyone that has applied or turned
in an application has received an award. She felt that it was because of
the split in September; those were the two clubs that did not turn in a
nomination.
Chair/Herndon asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to
send a letter of congratulations. He asked if the activities were self -
funding —the dances, bingo, etc. RSNargas explained that bingo is
JUNE 28, 2012
PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION
sponsored by the senior club and the only thing DB offers is coffee, facility
and staff time. DB has appropriate funding set aside for the dances.
CSD/Rose stated that all of the senior activities are programmed to break
even. That does not include full time staff and facility rental costs. The
transportation for excursions is subsidized with Prop A funds. For regular
adult excursions staff collects 70 percent in revenue of the Prop A funds.
For the senior excursions no revenue is collected to reimburse Prop A,
only the General Fund costs. RS/Murphy added that the next two staff
reports will have a financial summary of all of the senior dances as well
as, a summary of all of the senior excursions. Chair/Herndon asked what
the average age was and RS/Vargas responded that all senior activities
are for 55 and over. Mt. SAC classes tend to be 65-70. Mobility from
Exercise ranges from 57-85. CSD/Rose explained that as mentioned, DB
is the only City that has five clubs like this and DB is probably the only City
that operates in this manner. Most cities have a dedicated senior center
where they run a lunch program which is the primary reason for
attendance. Many people who come to those programs are termed "frail
and elderly." DB has a more active senior program. Lunches are
delivered to homebound seniors through a separate program run out of
Rowland Heights. The Diamond Bar Center program attracts more active
seniors so the ages are anywhere from 50 something to 90 something.
The majority of attendees are relatively healthy and active.
C/Owens asked who provides the lunches to home bound seniors to
which CSD/Rose responded that it is "Meals on Wheels."
2.2 Parks Report — PMS/Jordan
2.2.1 Power Point Presentation on the Sycamore Canyon Park
Lodgepole Fence Installation — PMS/Jordan
2.3 CIP Projects — CSD/Rose
2.3.1 Sycamore Canyon Park Trail — Phase IV — CSD/Rose stated that
staff is developing new signs for the exercise stations because the
ones that came with it do not sufficiently explain how to use them
as well as they could have. The interpretive panels have been
ordered but not yet received.
2.3.2 Silver Tip Mini -Park — CSD/Rose indicated that the reopening
ceremony was held on Saturday, June 16 with about 75 residents
in attendance. The picnic tables and barbecue were delivered the
Tuesday after the opening and are now available for public use.
2.3.3 Larkstone Park — CSD/Rose reported that Building and Safety has
requested updated structural calculations based on updated code
requirements. Apparently the Calculations that were provided in
2007-08 are outdated since the building codes have changed. The
JUNE 28, 2012
PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION
request has been forwarded to the developer.
2.3.4 Design of Sycamore Canyon Creek Repair — CSD/Rose stated that
as reported by PMS/Jordan the lodgepole fencing was installed.
The design of the Sycamore Canyon Creek Repair has been
postponed due to budget issues and the item is now on the five.
year CIP. Unless something happens that pushes the need for
earlier construction he believes it will not happen for a few years.
2.3.5 Trails Free Standing Interpretive Exhibits — CSD/Rose indicated
that as previously stated, the panels have been ordered for
Sycamore Canyon Mesa Trail and the Summitridge Park Trails and
will be installed when received.
2.3.6 Dog Park at Pantera Meadow — CSD/Rose reported that City
Council awarded a contract to Kormx, Inc. on June 5 to construct
the accessible walkway to the dog park. The preconstruction
.meeting is scheduled for next Monday and construction is slated to
commence on July 9 with completion and opening by the end of
August.
2.3.7 ADA Improvements at Longview South and Stardust Mini Parks —
CSD/Rose stated that the plans have been completed and both
construction projects are delayed with Longview South being in the
2014-15 Fiscal Year and Stardust in the 2015-16 Fiscal Year.
2.3.8 Grandview Trail — CSD/Rose reported that the design of the
Grandview Trail is included in this Fiscal Year budget and
construction is scheduled for the 2013-14 Fiscal Year. A grant is
paying for the design and the City has Park Development Funds for
matching funds. The City has construction funds from the Land
and Water Conservation but the City needs to come up with the
matching funds.
2.3.9 Grandview Trail Link — CSD/Rose indicated that staff was just
notified that the City received a $95,000 grant from the Land and
Water Conservation which will allow the City to extend the
Summitridge Trails to a loop completely around from the east
parking lot of the Diamond Bar Center to the west parking lot of the
Diamond Bar Center. The Land and Water Conservation believes
that such a large loop trail is a significant accomplishment and staff
is hoping that since most of the trail is completed different
organizations will be incentivized to award grants for completion.
Staff will be checking with Supervisor Knabe for Prop A funds,
some of which were provided for the Phase III Sycamore Canyon
Trail project and Silver Tip Park completion. Staff is also checking
with the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy which provided
JUNE 28, 2012 PAGE 5 P&R COMMISSION
funding to the recently completed Mesa Trail at Sycamore Canyon
Park.
C/OWenS asked who writes grants for the City and CSD/Rose
responded CSC/Alison Meyers.
2.4 List of pending Commission requests — CSD/Rose.
Chair/Herndon asked if anything has been done on the MOU approved by
the City Council and CSD/Rose responded not at this time. Staff needs to
schedule meetings with the school districts to move forward on this item.
3. OLD BUSINESS: None
4. NEW BUSINESS:
4.1 Proposed Dog Park Rules:
CSD/Rose reported that the City plans to open a Dog Park by the end of
August. The draft set of rules came from the Southern California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority which recommends design, features and
other items to be included in the development of the dog park as well as,
the rules to limit liability to the City. These items were reviewed by the
City Attorney and the Inland Valley Humane Society. Staff also looked at
rules posted at other dog park locations in Fullerton, San Dimas,
Claremont, Huntington Beach and Arcadia. These rules will be set forth
as an Ordinance and ultimately become a part of the Diamond Bar
Municipal Code. These are considered infractions which means that the
first violation is subject to a $100 fine, second violation in a year to a $200
fine, and third violation in the same year, a $500 fine. As with most park
rules very few citations are ever issued and the rules primarily serve as a
guideline for individuals using the dog park. Most dog parks are self-
monitoring so that people who use the facility work with each other to
create a good environment for the dogs. If someone shows up that has a
non-cooperative attitude, that is usually the instance in which the rules are
enforced.
CSD/Rose went through the proposed rules for dog owners and their dogs
with a limit of 3 at a time per owner. Within the fenced area dogs are to
be off -leash. Owners will use the dog park at their own risk — the City is
not responsible. The City reserves the right to eject individuals. Children
under 14 must be accompanied by an adult. There is no admission
charge. Dogs cannot be left unattended. Dogs must have current
licenses and vaccination tags. Unruly dogs are not allowed. Female dogs
in heat are not allowed. There are two parks — the small dog park is for
dogs weighing less than 25 pounds and the large dog park is for dogs
weighing 25 pounds and over. Dog owners must clean up after their
dogs. No digging allowed and holes must be filled in by the owner. There
JUNE 28, 2012
PAGE6 P&R
is no alcohol allowed and no drugs allowed on premises. There are no
spectators permitted inside the fenced area of the dog park (there will be
benches outside of the fenced park area). Dog owners may not bring
equipment and obstacles into the dog park. No food or eating allowed.
No glass containers. Permits are required for special events. CSD/Rose
stated that staff intends to include information about the dog park being
adjacent to a wildlife habitat and small dogs in particular may need
protection from predators.
Chair/Herndon asked about spiked collars, service dogs and puppies
under 4 months old being included in the dog park rules.
Chair/Herndon said he would like to see prohibition of spiked collars and
puppies under four months old included.
VC/Liang asked if there should be a specific exclusion about professional
dog walkers. CSD/Rose said staff felt the 3 -dog limitation would
accomplish that.
CSD/Rose said he would include no spiked collars allowed and puppies
under 4 months not allowed.
C/Owens moved, C/Roberto seconded, to recommend the City Council
approve the rules with additions. Without objection, the motion was so
ordered with C/Grundy being absent.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
C/Roberto thanked staff for their reports and lodgepole fence and thanked
RS/McKitrick for his soccer program.
C/Owens said he attended the Washington Park dedication and was impressed
with the large number of people in attendance. He also thanked staff for all their
work, and for the informative power point presentations.
VC/Liang said he missed the Washington Park dedication but may be able to get
to the Silver Tip dedication. It was a great event. Yesterday he was in the
Diamond Bar Center and noticed that the chairs were soiled. He said he was
very surprised and pleased about the proactive customer service and
commended staff members for their dedication and professionalism. CSD/Rose
should be very proud of his great staff. All of his colleagues who attended the
meeting commented very positively about staff and the service.
Chair/Herndon echoed comments about staff and said that the City was very
blessed with a tremendous staff. He attended the Washington and Silver Tip
park dedications and felt the community was very pleased with improvements to
both parks, which was very rewarding. He requested that the Commission be
informed of any and all of all income to the City that might come from the Site D
JUNE 28, 2012 PAGE 7 P&R COMMISSION
sale and subsequent building process.
ADJOURNMENT: C/Owens moved, VC/Liang seconded, to adjourn the
meeting. With no further business before the -Parks & -Recreation Commission,
Chair/Herndon adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28 day of June , 2012.
bmitted,
ECRETARY
Attest:
LEW HERNDO , CHAIRMAN
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Mem
FROM: James DeStefano, City
TITLE: Ratification of Check Register
2012 totaling $ 897,131.43.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Expenditure of $ 897,131.43 in City funds.
Agenda # 6 _ -1
Meeting Date. August 21st, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
of the City Council
August 2, 2012 through August 15,
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 August 2, 2012 through August
15, 2012 for $ 897,131.43 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:
Luisa Fua
Accounting Technician
REVIEWED BY:
16� t, 40w4pta,
Finance Director —V 0%9
Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 08/2/12 through 08/15/12.
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 August 2, 2012 through August 15, 2012 has been audited and
is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in these
amounts:
Description
General Fund
Com Org Support Fund
Prop A - Transit Fund
Prop C - Transit Tax Fund
Integrated Waste Mgt Fund
AB2766-Air Qlty Mgt Fund
Com Dev Block Grant Fund
LLAD 38 Fund
LLAD 39 Fund
LLAD 41 Fund
Capital Imp Projects Fund
Self Insurance Fund
Signed:
Dianna Honeywell
Finance Director
Amount
$739,606.07
$200.00
$19,478.12
$6,801.56
$8,646.66
$2,402.50
$18,885.91
$2,590.99
$2,428.57
$2,509.96
$78,446.09
$15,135.00
$897,131.43
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total CheckAmount
8/2/2012
100349
JACCESS CONTROL SECURITY
ISECURITY SVCS -JUN 12
0015333
45010
1 238.50
$238.50
8/2/2012
100350
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION-SILVERTIP
2505310
R46415
4,483.05
$4,867.76
8/2/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION-SILVERTIP
2505310
R46415
287.25
8/2/2012
100357
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONTRUCTION-SILVERTIP
2505310
R46415
27.75
$1,771.25
8/2/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION-SILVERTIP
2505310
R46415
69.71
8/2/2012 1 100351 CACONSTRUCTION IRETENTIONS PAYABLE - 250 1 20300 1 35,655,341 $35,655.34
8/2/2012
100352
CHICAGO TITLE
TITLE SVCS -283 S PLATINA
1255215
44000
18.00
$69.00
8/2/2012
CHICAGO TITLE
TITLE SVCS -23705 M/FALLS
1255215
44000
18.00
8/2/2012
100357
CHICAGO TITLE
TITLE SVCS -20580 CALPET
1255215
44000
33.00
$1,771.25
8/2/2012 100353 CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE MAINT-TRFFC SIGNAL 0015554 45507 1 1,098.59 $1,098.59
8/2/2012
100354
CRAFCO INC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0015554
41250100.05
-125.10
$1,917.31
8/2/2012
CRAFCO INC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0015554
41250
136.90
8/2/2012
100357
CRAFCO INC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0015554
41250
1,680.36
$1,771.25
8/2/2012
100355
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2009-375
001
34430
-125.10
$895.28
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC -
PROF.SVCS-EN 2011-428
001
23010
166.76
8/2/2012
100357
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2011-428
001
23010
30.02
$1,771.25
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2011-428
001
34430
-30.02
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2009-375
001
23010
23.46
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2009-375
001
23010
4.22
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2009-375
001
34430
-4.22
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2011-428
001
23010
10.06
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2011-428
001
23010
1.81
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2011-428
001
34430
-1.81
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC
PROF.SVCS-FPL 2009-375
001
.23010
695.00
8/2/2012
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC
ADMIN FEES -FPL 2009-375
001
23010
125.10
8/2/2012
100356
DIAMOND BAR/WALNUT YMCA
CHILD CARE -JUN 12
1 1255215
1 42355
14,700.00
$14,700.00
8/2/2012
100357
DUNN'S FENCE COMPANY
TEMP FENCE -RENTAL
0015340
1 42210
1,771.25
$1,771.25
Page 1
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fundl Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total CheckAmount
8/2/2012
1 100358
IFEHR & PEERS
ITRFFC ENG SVCS-SR57/60
0015554
1 44520
1 344,931
$344.93
8/2/2012
100359
GO LIVE TECHNOLOGY INC -
PROF.SVCS-CITY VIEW
0014070
1 44000 1
61000.00
$6,000.00
8/2/2012
1
KENS HARDWARE
TOOLS -ROAD MAINT
0015554
41300
71.75
8/2/2012
100360
IHARDY & HARPER INC
SIDEWALK REPAIR -CITY
0015554
1 45504 1
64,821.70
$64,821.70
8/2/2012
100361
LEW HERNDON
P & R COMM -5/24
0015350
1 44100
45.00
$45.00
8/2/2012
100362
J H DOUGLAS & ASSOCIATES
PROF.SVCS-EIR UPDATE
0015210
1 44220
301517.50
$30,517.50
8/2/2012
100363
KENS HARDWARE
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT0015554
0015551
41250
224.72
$296.47
8/2/2012
1
KENS HARDWARE
TOOLS -ROAD MAINT
0015554
41300
71.75
8/2/2012 1 100364 YOUNG SEUNG KIM - CONTRACT CLASS -SPRING 0015350 1 45320 1 102.00 $102.00
8/2/2012
100365
LAE ASSOCIATES INC
PROF.SVCS-HSIP & DBE
0015551
45221
575.00
$4,650.00
8/2/2012
1
LAEASSOCIATES INC
PROF.SVCS-CHINO HILLS PKWY
0015510
45221
4,075.00
8/2/2012
100366
LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECH SVCS -PATHFINDER
0015551
1 45224 1
400.001
$400.00
8/2/2012
1
ONWARD ENGINEERING
PROFSVCS-AREA 1A
2505510
46411
1
12,453.75
8/2/2012
100367
BENNY LIANG - -
P & R COMM -5/24
0015350
1 44100 1
45.00
$45.00
8/2/2012 1
100368
ILOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.
HELICOPTER SVCS -JUN 12
0014411
1 45401 1
249.89
$249.89
8/2/2012
100369
ONWARD ENGINEERING
RD MAINT PROJ-ZONE 6
2505510
46411
4,035.00
$16,488.75
8/2/2012
1
ONWARD ENGINEERING
PROFSVCS-AREA 1A
2505510
46411
1
12,453.75
8/2/2012 1 100370 TED OWENS P & R COMM -5/24 0015350 1 44100 1 45.00 $45.00
8/2/2012
100371
R F DICKSON COMPANY INC
ST SWEEPING SVCS-MAY/JUN
0015554
45501
8,292.84$16,585.68
$13,036.83
8/2/2012
1
R F DICKSON COMPANY INC
ST SWEEPING SVCS -JUN
0015554
45501
1
8,292.84
8/2/2012
100372
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-JUN
0015554
45507
4,102.00
$13,036.83
8/2/2012
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-JUN
0015554
45507
7,534.83
8/2/2012
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-DBI
0015554
45507
1,400.00
8/2/2012 1 100373 RKA CONSULTING GROUP PROESVCS-PLAN CHECK 0014093 44000 1 450.00 $450.00
Page 2
Check Date
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Vendor Name
Fund/ Dept I Acct # 1 Amount I Total Check Amount
8/2/2012
100374
DAVID A ROBERTO
P & R COMM -5/24
0015350
44100
45.00
$45.00
8/2/2012
100414
ISJC 3 CONSULTING INC
CONSULTANT SVCS -JUN 12
1255215
44000
1
1,500.00
$200.00
8/2/2012
100375
S C SIGNS & SUPPLIES LLC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0015554
41250
11024.97 1$1,024.97
8/2/2012 1
100415
CHRISTINEANNANGELI
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
21.60
$21.60
8/2/2012
100376
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
PLAQUE-P/INFO
0014095
44000
612.50
$612.50
8/2/2012
100377
SJC 3 CONSULTING INC
CONSULTANT SVCS -MAY 12
1255215
44000
1,500.00
$3,000.00
8/2/2012
100414
ISJC 3 CONSULTING INC
CONSULTANT SVCS -JUN 12
1255215
44000
1
1,500.00
$200.00
8/2/2012 1 100378 UNITED TRAFFIC SERVICES SUPPLY SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015554 41250 1 2,258.65 $2,258.65
8/2/2012
100379
ACCESS CONTROL SECURITY
SECURITY SVCS-JUL
0015333
45010
655.88
$0.00
8/2/2012
100414
ACCESS CONTROL SECURITY
SECURITY SVCS-JUL
0015333
45010
-655.88
$200.00
8/2/2012
100413
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -RECREATION
0015350
41200
1,130.90
$1,247.98
8/2/2012
100414
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -RECREATION
0015350
41200
24.39
$200.00
8/2/2012
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -CONCERTS
0015350
45305
92.69
8/2/2012
100419
BOY SCOUT TROOP 777
REIMB-FOOD 4TH OF JULY
0015350
41200
101.00
$165.00
8/2/2012 1
100414
ALISAANN RUCH BURN FOUNDATION
DONATION-AARBF CHRTY ELF
0114010
1 42355 1
200.00
$200.00
8/2/2012 1
100415
CHRISTINEANNANGELI
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
21.60
$21.60
8/2/2012 1
100416
APEX UNIVERSAL INC
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0015554
1 41250 1
2,051.57
$2,051.57
8/2/2012
100417
AT&T MOBILITY
CELL CHRGS-CMGR
0014030
1 42125 1
52.95
$52.95
8/2/2012
100418
BENESYST
8/3/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS
001
21105 1
1,035.79
$1,035.79
8/2/2012
100419
BOY SCOUT TROOP 777
REIMB-FOOD 4TH OF JULY
0015350
41200
101.00
$165.00
8/2/2012
1
BOY SCOUT TROOP 777
REIMB-CONCERT IN PARK
0015350
45305
64.00
8/2/2012 1 100420 AMANDAJ CLICK ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 1,269.601 $1,269.60
8/2/2012
100421
COMMUNITY OFFICERS RESOURCE EXCHANG
TRNG-FLACKS
0015230
42340
15.00
$30.00
8/2/2012
1
COMMUNITY OFFICERS RESOURCE EXCHANG
TRNG-FREIHOLTZ
0015230
42340
15.00
Page 3
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total CheckAmount
8/2/2012
1 100422
IDA HULA STUDIO
ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320
1 630.00
$630.00
8/2/2012
100423
DELTA DENTAL
AUG 2012 -DENTAL PREMIUMS
001
21104 1
4,643.261
$4,643.26
8/2/2012
JOSUE PABLO ESPINO
CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 7/26
0015210
44000
1
3,040.00
8/2/2012
100424
IDOG DEALERS INC
ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
41.40
$41.40
8/2/2012
100425
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-JUL
1 0014093
1 45300 1
816.00
$816.00
8/2/2012
100426
JOSUE PABLO ESPINO
CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 7/12
0015210
44000
2,356.00
$5,396.00
8/2/2012
JOSUE PABLO ESPINO
CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 7/26
0015210
44000
1
3,040.00
8/2/2012 1 100427 HARDY & HARPER INC ROAD MAINT-PAVEMENT 0015554 1 45502 1 3,500.00 $3,500.00
8/2/2012
100428
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
EXCURSION -VALLEY CASINO
0015350
45310
263.90
$910.00
8/2/2012
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION
1125350
45310
1
646.10
8/2/2012 1
100429
IN -N -OUT BURGER
MEALS -LIBRARY EVENT
0014095
1 44000 1
2,435.37
$2,435.37
8/2/2012
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
001
21109
12,305.81
1
8/2/2012 1
100430
INSPECTOR PLAYGROUND INC
INSPECTION -PARKS
5104081
1 47200
15,135.00
$15,135.00
8/2/2012 1
100431
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
SUPPLIES -COM SVCS
0015350
1 41200
60.36
$60.36
8/2/2012 1
100438
ENCE CORP
CONTRACT CLASS SUMMER
0015350
1 45320
1,656.00
$1,656.00
8/2/2012 1
100433
PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS INC.
LONG DIST SVCS-JUL/AUG
001409
1 42125
656.92
$656.92
8/2/2012
100434
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
SURVIVOR BENEFIT
001
21109
45.57
$12,351.38
8/2/2012
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
001
21109
12,305.81
1
8/2/2012 1
100435
RAGING WATERS SAN DIMAS
EXCURSION -DAY CAMP
0015350
1 42410 1
2,178.90
$2,178.90
8/2/2012 1
100436
ISILVERADO STAGES INC
SHUTTLE SVCS -CONCERTS
1125350
45310
1,243.92
$1,243.92
8/2/2012 1
100437
SMART & FINAL
SUPPLIES -SR BINGO
1 0015350
41200
260.661
$260.66
8/2/2012 1
100438
SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0015350
41200
895.001
$895.00
Page 4
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total Check Amount
8/2/2012
100439
THE ALLEY CATS MUSIC INC
BAND -CONCERT IN THE PARK
0015350
45305
1,250.00
$1,250.00
8/2/2012
100440
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
AD -PUBLIC HEARING
0015210
42115
170.84
$573.52
8/2/2012
1
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-22909 RIDGE LINE
001
23010
1
402.68
8/2/2012 1
100441
JIMMYE LOU THIES
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
540.00
$540.00
8/2/2012
1
VANTAG-POINT TRNSFRAGNTS-303248
8/03/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS
001
21108
23,fi48.86
8/2/2012 1
100442
US BANK
CITY CREDIT CARD-JUL 2012
0014411.
45405 1
18,669.07
$18,669.07
8/2/2012
100443
VANTAGEPOINTTRNSFRAGNTS-303248
8/03/12 -LOAN DEDUCTIONS
001
211081,676.47
goo.0ol
$25,325.33
8/2/2012
1
VANTAG-POINT TRNSFRAGNTS-303248
8/03/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS
001
21108
23,fi48.86
8/2/2012 1
100444
WOW PARTY RENTALS
ENTERTAINMENT -SUMMER BLST
0015350
1 45300 1
goo.0ol
$900.00
8/9/2012
1
ARROWHEAD
WATER SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
57.20
8/2/2012 1
100445
YOUNG REMBRANDTS CORP
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
712.80
$712.80
8/9/2012 1
100446
RAMONABREGO
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
1 23002
550.00
$550.00
8/9/2012 1
100447
ACCESS CONTROL SECURITY
ISECURITY SVCS -WK 7/13
0015333
1 45010
655.881
$655.88
8/9/2012
100448
IJOSEPHADLING
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
001
1 23002 1
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012
100449
AGI ACADEMY CORP
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
3,456.00
$3,456.00
8/9/2012 1
100450
MARINAANDRES
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 23002 1
350.001
$350.00
8/9/2012
100451
ARROWHEAD
EO RENTAL -DBC
0015333
42130
11.95
$69.15
8/9/2012
1
ARROWHEAD
WATER SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
57.20
8/9/2012 1 100452 ARTESIA ICE SKATING TRAINING CTR LL CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 165.00 $165.00
8/9/2012
100453
AT&T
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
44.48
$117.31
8/9/2012
AT & T
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
72.83
8/9/2012
100454
BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES -DBC
001533342210
287.99
$1,441.30
8/9/2012
BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
240.06
8/9/2012
BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
42210
913.25
Page 5
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date ICheckNumberl Vendor Name I Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct # I Amount I Total Check Amount
8/9/2012
100455
RICK BETACOURT
IV15EO PRODUCTION SVCS
1 0014095
1 44000 1
840.00
$840.00
8/9/2012
CONTRACT LAW FUND
MTG-COUNCIL/CMGR
0014030
1
42325
60.00
8/9/2012
100456
BLACKBOARD CONNECT INC
CONNECT SVCS
I
0014440
11BLACKBOARD
44000
34,830.98
$34,830.98
8/9/2012
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34120
46.80
8/9/2012
100457
CAREERTRACK
TRNG-LEE
1 0015210
1 42340 1
249.00
$249.00
8/9/2012
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34355
1.00
8/9/2012 1
100458
BRENDACASIMIRO
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
36615
400.00
$400.00
8/9/2012
100459
LAWRENCE CATTANI
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 23002 1
100.00
$100.00
8/9/2012
100460
CERTIFIED TRANSPORTATION SVCS INC
TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION
1125350
45310
646.07
$646.07
8/9/2012
100461
SUN JOO CHOI
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
1 23002 1
100.001
$100.00
8/9/2012
100462
DENNY CHU
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
1 23002 1
500.00
$500.00
8/9/2012 1
100463
EDWARD COCKS
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780 1
85.001
$85.00
8/9/2012
100464
CONTRACT LAW FUND
MTG-V/PATROL
0014415
42325
140.00
$200.00
8/9/2012
CONTRACT LAW FUND
MTG-COUNCIL/CMGR
0014030
1
42325
60.00
8/9/2012
100465
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34110
52.72
$193.36
8/9/2012
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34350
0.50
8/9/2012
100467
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34130
45.06
$45.00
8/9/2012
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34120
46.80
8/9/2012
100468
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34140
47.28
$129.41
8/9/2012
CREST CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING
REFUND -BLDG PERMIT FEE
001
34355
1.00
8/9/2012
100466
LUKE CRISTOBAL
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
001
1 23002 1
200.00
$200.00
8/9/2012 1
100467
DAVID J. GRUNDY
P & R COMM -7/26
1 0015350
44100
45.00
$45.00
8/9/2012 1
100468
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -DOG PARK
2505310
46415
129.41
$129.41
8/9/2012
100469
DEMSEY FILLIGERAND ASSOCIATES LLC
PROF.SVCS-GASB 45
0014050
1 44000
3,000.001
$31000.00
Page 6
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
I Total Check Amount
8/9/2012
100470
MAYADEVI
ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
45320
72.00
$72.00
8/9/2012
100471
IDIAMOND BAR MOBIL
FUEL CHRGS-JUL 2012
1 0015310
1 42310 1
281.14
$281.14
8/9/2012
DIVERSIFIED PRINTERS
PRINT SVCS -CITY NEWS JUL
0014095
44000
3,433.00
8/9/2012
100472
DIAMOND BAR SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB
INS REIMB-FY 12/13
1255215
1 44000 1
500.00
$500.00
8/9/2012
100473
DIVERSIFIED PRINTERS
PRINT SVCS -CITY NEWSAUG
0014095
44000
7,513.00
$10,946.00
8/9/2012
DIVERSIFIED PRINTERS
PRINT SVCS -CITY NEWS JUL
0014095
44000
3,433.00
8/9/2012 1
100474
IDOG DEALERS INC
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
288.00
$288.00
8/9/2012
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
45300
816.00
8/9/2012 1
100475
DOLPHIN RENTS INC
EQ RENTAL -LIBRARY EVENT
1 0014095
1 44000 1
291.15
$291.15
8/9/2012
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
45300
270.00
8/9/2012 1
100476
ANA KURTOVIC CASAS
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780 1
61.50
$61.50
8/9/2012
100477
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-JUL
0014093
45300
32.99
$2,740.49
8/9/2012
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
45300
816.00
8/9/2012
100483
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
45300
1,621.50
$1,944.00
8/9/2012
EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC
LANDSCAPE MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
45300
270.00
8/9/2012 100478 KRISTIN ERBST FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 50.00 $50.00
8/9/2012
100479
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANTMAINT-DBC
0015333
45300
1 177.00
$689.00
8/9/2012
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANT MAINT-HERITAGE PK
0015340
42210
135.00
8/9/2012
100483
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANT MAINT-CITY HALL
0014090
42210
270.00
1
$1,944.00
8/9/2012
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANT MAINT-LIBRARY
0014090
42210
107.00
8/9/2012 1 100480 IEXECUTIVE PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS INC PROMO SUPPLIES-P/INFO 10014095 1 41400 1 937.43 $937.43
8/9/2012
100481
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0014090
42120
76.83
$177.77
8/9/2012
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0014090
42120
70.97
8/9/2012
100483
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2011-452
001
23010
29.97
$1,944.00
8/9/2012 1
100482
JDAVID FERNANDEZ
CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320
475.20
$475.20
819/2012
100483
FILLMORE &WESTERN RAILWAY CO
EXCURSION -TRAIN RIDE
0015350
45310
1,944.00
$1,944.00
Page 7
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total CheckAmount
8/9/2012
1 100484
PATRICIA HAMILTON
IFACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 23002
1 550.001
$550,05-
8/9/2012 1 100485 LEW HERNDON P & R COMM -7/26 0015350_F44100 45.00 $45.00
8/9/2012
100486
HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS &ASSOCIATES
AUDIT SVCS -SALES TAX
0014090
44010
1,225.81
$2,125.81
8/9/2012
HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS &ASSOCIATES
CONTRACT SVCS -3RD QTR
0014090
1
44010
900.00
8/9/2012 1
100487
IJEFFREY HIROSE
CONTRACT CLASSSUMMER
0015350
45320 1
672.00
$672.00
8/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL AD -FPL 2011-445
001
23010
419.54
8/9/2012 1
100488
DALE HOPPOCK
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
1 001
1 23002 1
200.001
$200.00
8/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALADDOG PARK
2505310
46415
219.62
8/9/2012
100489
NIKO HOUSTON
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 23002 1
800.00
$800.00
8/9/2012
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS -FINANCE JUL
0014020
44020
74.00
8/9/2012
100490
CHERYL HUGHES
FACILITY REFUND -MAPLE HILL
001
23002 1
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012 1
100491
SHAHEEN IDRIES
IFACILITY REFUND -DBC
1001
1 23002 1
500.001
$500.00
8/9/2012
100492
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL ADCC MTG
0015210
42115
166.70
$1,207.76
8/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL AD -FPL 2011-445
001
23010
419.54
8/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALAD-FPL 2012-471
001
23010
401.90
8/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALADDOG PARK
2505310
46415
219.62
8/9/2012 1 100493 EVELYN ISLAS FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 23002 500.00 $500.00
8/9/2012
100494
MOHAMAD R JAHANVASH
FOOD REIMB-4TH OF JULY
0015350
41200
81.00$159.00
$3,644.50
8/9/2012
MOHAMAD R JAHANVASH
FOOD REIMB-CONCERT
0015350
45305
78.00
8/9/2012
100495
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS -SITED JUL
0014020
44020
129.50
$3,644.50
8/9/2012
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS-PANORKS JUL
0014020
44020
666.00
8/9/2012
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS -COMM SVCS JUL
0014020
44020
444.00
8/9/2012
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS -COM DEV JUL
0014020
44020
1,017.50
8/9/2012
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS -GENERAL JUL
0014020
44020
1,313.50
8/9/2012
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
LEGAL SVCS -FINANCE JUL
0014020
44020
74.00
8/9/2012 100496 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 1,917.60 $1,917.60
�m
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
8/9/2012
1 100497
JDANIEL LAM
RECREATION REFUND
1 001
1 34740
1 40.00
$40.00
8/9/2012
100498
LANDS' END BUSINESS OUTFITTERS
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
41200
210.73
$517.35
8/9/2012
LANDS' END BUSINESS OUTFITTERS
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
41200
1
306.62
8/9/2012 1
100499
JACOB LEAL
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 23002 1
550.00
$550.00
8/9/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
NAME BADGE -CRUZ
0014090
42113
1
14.20
8/9/2012 1
100500
JEFF LEE
FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN
001
1 23002 1
200.00
$200.00
8/9/2012
100501
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -LIBRARY
0014090
42113
202.28
$216.48
8/9/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
NAME BADGE -CRUZ
0014090
42113
1
14.20
8/9/2012
100502
BENNY LANG
P & R COMM -7/26
1 0015350
1 44100 1
45.00
$45.00
8/9/2012
MULTIVISTA LA
PHOTO DOC -CITY HALL
0014093
45000
500.00
8/9/2012
100503
MARSHA D ROA
REIMB-SUPPLIES LIBRARY
0014095
141200 1
187.011
$187.01
8/9/2012
100504
MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP
SUPPLIES -HELIUM
0015350
41200 1
24.00
$24.00
8/9/2012
100505
MOBILE RELAYASSOCIATES INC
REPEATER SVCS -AUG 12
0014440
42130 1
78751
$78.75
8/9/2012 1
100506
JADE MOORE
FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN
001
23002 1
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012
100507
MULTIVISTA LA
PHOTO DOC -LIBRARY
0014093
45000
875.00
$1,375.00
8/9/2012
MULTIVISTA LA
PHOTO DOC -CITY HALL
0014093
45000
500.00
8/9/2012
100508
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL-SYC CYN
0015340
42210
66.06
$218.66
8/9/2012
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL -DIST 38
1385538
45500
63.37
8/9/2012
100511
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL-PANTERA
0015340
42210
89.23
$800.00
8/9/2012 1 100509 TED OWENS P & R COMM -7/26 0015350 1 44100 1 45.00 $45.00
8/9/2012 1
100510
TEJAL PATEL
RECREATION REFUND -
001
34780 1
85.00
$85.00
8/9/2012 1
100511
IVERNELL PEEVY
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002 1
800.00
$800.00
8/9/2012 1
100512
POMONA VALLEY TOWING INC
TOWING SVCS -COMM SVCS
1 0015310
1 42200 1
170.00
$170.00
Page 9
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
I Total Check Amount
8/9/2012
100513
CHINNAPONNAGANTI
FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN
001
23002
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012
100514
PROTECTION ONE INC
ALARM SVCS -DBC
1 0015333
1 42210 1
103.26
$103.26
8/9
IREINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS
0014090
42110
636.19
8/9/2012
100515
NINAQUINTOS
FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA
1 001
1 23002 1
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012
100516
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -SUPPLIES
0014090
42110
315.38
$951.57
8/9
IREINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS
0014090
42110
636.19
8/9/2012 1
100517
DAVIDA ROBERTO
P & R COMM -7/26
0015350
44100
45.00
$45.00
8/9/2012
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
CITY NEWS -AUG 2012
0014095
1
44000
1,550.00
8/9/2012
100518
NINA ROMERO
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
001
23002
50.001
$50.00
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -PARKS
0015340
42126
3,883.36
8/9/2012
100519
SECTRAN SECURITY INC.
ICOURIER SVCS -AUG 2012
1 0014090
1 44000 1
308.46
$308.46
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DBC
0015333
42126
9,001.83
8/9/2012 1
100520
ISILVERADO STAGES INC
JSHUTTLE SVCS -CONCERTS
1125350
1 45310 1
1,243.921
$1,243.92
8/9/2012
100521
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
AD -DBC
0014095
44000
215.00
$1,765.00
8/9/2012
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
CITY NEWS -AUG 2012
0014095
1
44000
1,550.00
8/9/2012
100522
SMART &FINAL
SUPPLIES -TINY TOTS
0015350
41200
839.36
$1,378.82
8/9/2012
SMART & FINAL
SUPPLIES -DB 4YOUTH
0015350
41200
450.41
8/9/2012
SMART & FINAL
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0015350
41200
89.05
8/9/2012 1 100523 LORI SNUGGS RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 36625 1 20.00 $20.00
8/9/2012
100524
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 41
1415541
42126
230.76
$14,806.63
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 38
1385538
42126
501.26
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 39
1395539
42126
171.45
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -PARKS
0015340
42126
3,883.36
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 38
1385538
42126
48.11
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DBC
0015333
42126
9,001.83
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL
0015510
42126
700.49
8/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL
0015510
42126
269.37
8/9/2012 100525 SOUTHWEST SALES INC SUPPLIES -DB 4YOUTH 0015350 41200 435.00 $435.00
Page 10
Check Date lCheck
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct # I Amount
8/9/2012
100526
SPARKLETTS
EQ RENTAL-SYC CYN PK
0015340
4213012.00
700.00
$249.65
8/9/2012
SPARKLETTS
WATER SUPPLIES-SYC CYN
0015340
41200
39.16
8/9/2012
100528
SPARKLETTS
EQ CHRGS
0015340
42130
2.47
$1,504.69
8/9/2012
SPARKLETTS
WATER SUPPLIES-C/HALL
0014090
41200
185.27
8/9/2012
100529
SPARKLETTS
EQ RENTAL -CITY HALL
0014090
42130
10.75
$10,275.00
8/9/2012 1
100527
GLENN STEINBRINK
CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 7/31
0014050
44000
700.00
$700.00
8/9/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-LLAD#38
1385538
42115
1,914.88
8/9/2012 1
100528
STUBBIES PROMOTIONS
PROMO ITEMS-P/INFO
0014095
41400 1
1,504.691
$1,504.69
8/9/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-LLAD #41
1415541.
42115
2,279.20
8/9/2012 1
100529
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICA
BUS SVCS -DAY CAMP
1125350
1 45310 1
10,275.00
$10,275.00
8/9/2012 1
100530
MICHAEL J SULLIVAN
BAND -CONCERT 8/15
0015350
1 45305 1
1,400.00
$1,400.00
8/9/2012 1
100531
TENNIS ANYONE INC
ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER
0015350
1 45320 1
4,392.151
$4,392.15
8/9/2012
100532
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-FPL 2012-471
001
23010
369.56
$6,820.76
8/9/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-LLAD#38
1385538
42115
1,914.88
8/9/2012
100536
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-LLAD #39
1395539
42115
2,257.12
$50.00
8/9/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-LLAD #41
1415541.
42115
2,279.20
6/9/2012 1 100533 THE SAUCE CREATIVE SERVICES SHIRTS -ADULT BASKETBALL 0015350 1 41200 1 675.91 $675.91
8/9/2012
100534
TIME WARNER CABLE
CABLE SVCS -HERITAGE
0015340
42125
116.01
$1,066.01
8/9/2012
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNET SVCS -CITY HALL
0014070
44030
950.00
8/9/2012 1
100535
AMBER TOLBERT
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002 1
300,001
$300.00
8/9/2012
100536
TRICHIATRAN
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
001
1 23002 1
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012 1
100537
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
IEXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0014090
1 42120 1
15.29
$15.29
8/9/2012 1
100538
JUS HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
1 0014060
1 42345 1
476.00
$476.00
8/9/2012
100539
EMILY VAQUERA
IFACILITY REFUND-REAGAN
001
23002 1
50.001
$50.00
Page 11
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
8/9/2012
100540
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-HERITAGE
0015340
42125
96.56
$1,563.10
8/9/2012
100543
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DIAL IN ACCESS MD
0014090
42125
86.31
$50.00
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
97.19
8/9/2012
100549
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
35.57
$14,388.37
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
505.51
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-HERITAGE C/CTR
0015340
42125
41.55
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-FAX LINE-CMGR
0014030
42125
36.61
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-CITY HALL
0014093
42125
171.01
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-CITY HALL -
0014093
42125
111.85
8/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
JPH. SVCS -DBC
0015333
42125
380.94
8/9/2012
100541
W.W. GRAINGER INC.SUPPLIES-CITY
HALL
0014093
41200
232.27
$497.53
8/9/2012
1
W.W. GRAINGER INC.
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
41200
265.26
8/9/2012
100542
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DESIGN FEE -WATER METER
0015510
1 45221 1
300.00
$300.00
8/9/2012
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
6.41
8/9/2012
100543
FRANK WANG
FACILITY REFUND-REAGA
0014093
1 23002 1
50.00
$50.00
8/9/2012
100544
WAXIE SANITARYSUPPLY
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
41200
1,309.57
$2,323.66
8/9/2012
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
6.41
8/9/2012
100548
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
11.90
$1,340.15
8/9/2012
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
522.64
8/9/2012
100549
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
41200
473.14
$14,388.37
8/9/2012 1 100545 WEST COAST MEDIA AD -CONCERTS 0014095 1 42115 1 700.00 $700.00
8/9/2012
100546
ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC
PROF.SVCS-EN 12-758
001
23012
420.00
$4,320.00
8/9/2012
ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC
ADMIN FEES -EN 12-758
001
23012
75.60
8/9/2012
100548
ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC
ADMIN FEES -EN 12-758
001
34650
-75.60
$1,340.15
8/9/2012
ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC
ENG SVCS -MAY 2012
0015551
45222
3,900.00
8/9/2012 1
100547
ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
CROSSING GUARD-MAY/JUN
0014411
1 45410 1
5,679.96
$5,679.96
8/9/2012 1
100548
AMERITECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
IPRINTER MAINT-JUN 12
0014090
1 42100 1
1,340.15
$1,340.15
8/9/2012 1
100549
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION DOC-SYC CYN
2505310
46415
425.001
$14,388.37
Page 12
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total Check Amount
8/9/2012
100549...
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION DOC-SYC CYN
2505310
46415
476.25
$14,388.37 ...
8/9/2012
100551
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION DOC-SYC CYN
2505310
46415
15.00
$100.00
8/9/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION DOC-LNIEW
2505310
46415
760.00
8/9/2012
100552
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION DOC-LNIEW
2505310
46415
7,565.62
$200.00
8/9/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION DOC-LNIEW
2505310
46415
3,077.40
8/9/2012
100553
JARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
1CONSTRUCTION DOC-S/DUST
2505310
46415
2,069.10
$100.00
8/9/2012 1
100550
ARMIJO NEWS & ABC PR
AD -4TH OF JULY BLAST
1 0014095
42115
150.00
$150.00
8/9/2012
1
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL -JUN 12
0015340
42210
1
66.06
1
8/9/2012 1
100551
WILLIAM DUTTON
IFACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
100.00
$100.00
8/9/2012 1
100552
CHRIS GORGLINE
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
001
23002
200.00
$200.00
8/9/2012 1
100553
LAUREN GORSKI
FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA
001
1 23002 1
100.00
$100.00
8/9/2012 1
100554
AGNES GROTENHUIS
IFACILITY REFUND-PANTERA
001
1 23002 1
100.00
$100.00
8/9/2012 1
100555
JUDICIAL DATA SYSTEM CORP
PARKING CITE ADMIN -JUN
0014411
1 45405 1
453.44
$453.44
8/9/2012 1
100558
KOA CORPORATION
TRFFC MGMT SVCS -JUN
1 1185098
1 44030 1
2,402.50
$2,402.50
8/9/2012 1
100557
SISSI DIHN LUONG
RECREATION REFUND
001
34760 1
95.00
$95.00
8/9/2012
100558
ORKIN PESTCONTROLINC
PEST CONTROL-B/CYN
1385538
45500
63.37
$129.43
8/9/2012
1
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL -JUN 12
0015340
42210
1
66.06
1
8/9/2012
100559 1
PC MALL GOV INC
TRFFC MGMT-MONITORS
1 2505510
1 46412 1
6,696.84
$6,696.84
8/9/2012 1
100560
CHERYL PENAIA
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
1 23002
500.00
$500.00
8/9/2012 1
100561
RKA CONSULTING GROUP
BLDG & SFTY SVCS -JUN 12
1 0015220
1 45201 1
33,868.89
$33,868.89
8/9/2012 1
100562
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL
1 0015510
1 42126 1
2,146.68
$2,146.68
8/9/2012 1
100563
STUBBIES PROMOTIONS
PROMO SUPPLIES-P/INFO
1 0014095
1 41400 1
1,514.42
$1,514.42
8/9/2012 1
100564 -
THE COMDYN GROUP INC
CONSULTING SVCS -WK 6/29
0014070
1 44000 1
2,325.62
$2,325.62
Page 13
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 08/02/2012 thru 08/15/2012
Date ICheckNumberl Vendor Name I Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount
8/9/2012
100565
TRENCH PLATE RENTAL CO
- EQ RENTAL-DBB/STEEP CYN
1 0015554
1 42130 1
225.00
$225.00
8/9/2012
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
RETENTIONS PAYABLE
001
20300
-17,185.32
8/9/2012
100566
WARREN SIECKE
TRFFC ENG SVCS -JUN 12
1 0015554
1 44520 1
318.00
$318.00
8/9/2012
100567
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
RETENTIONS PAYABLE
001
20300-105.00
174,214.24
$155,612.90
8/9/2012
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
RETENTIONS PAYABLE
001
20300
-17,185.32
8/9/2012
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
CONSTRUCTION -LIBRARY
0014093
46310
171,853.22
8/9/2012
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
CONSTRUCTION-C/HALL
0014093
46310
.1,050.00
8/9/2012 1 100568 JOHNNY WU RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 255.00 $255.00
8/2/2012
12 -PP 16
PAYROLL TRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER -12/99 16
001
10200
174,214.24
$195,702.48
8/2/2012
PAYROLL TRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER -12/9916
112
10200
5,423.11
8/2/2012
PAYROLLTRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER -12/9916
113
10200
6,801.56
8/2/2012
PAYROLLTRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER -12/9916
115
10200
8,646.66
8/2/2012
PAYROLLTRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER -12/9916
125
10200
616.91
$897,131.43
Page 14
Agenda # 6 .4
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Man r
TITLE: Adjourn August 21, 2012 City Co ncil Meeting to September 18, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
BACKGROUND: Due to an anticipated lack of quorum, it is being suggested that the Council
consider the cancellation of the City Council Meeting scheduled for September 4, 2012. There are no
pressing matters or public hearings scheduled and therefore adjourning the meeting will not cause
the City any hardship.
Should the City Council concur, it is recommended that at the close of the August 21, 2012 meeting,
the Mayor adjourn to the Council Meeting of September 18, 2012.
Pr pared by'
fbmmyb Cribbins, City Clerk
Reviewed Wy 1
David Do le; ss . Manager
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6 5
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma a
gil_
TITLE: APPROVAL OF THE FIRS F AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT ESTABLISHING A SERVICE
RESUMPTION FEE
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendment would not result in any cost to the City. The fee would be accounted
for in Waste Management's (WM) annual gross revenue totals, but it is not expected that the
new fee would generate substantive revenue to the City.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
To resume residential solid waste services that have been discontinued or suspended due to
non-payment (after 90 days past due), WM incurs costs, including:
Costs of picking up and restoring containers to customers after the service suspension
has been lifted (upon payment of the delinquent account)
Communications and systems costs related to restoring the customer to the route
Administrative overhead to process payments and clear delinquencies
Because the current franchise agreement does not establish a service resumption fee, WM
has requested that the City approve the implementation of a fee of $35 to recover these costs.
The proposed fee is not a property -related fee under Proposition 218, and would be collected
directly by the hauler. The City would not collect the fee or bill the customer.
Since the fee reimburses WM for incurred costs and can be easily avoided by Diamond Bar
residents by simply keeping their accounts current, staff recommends the Council approve the
proposed fee and First Amendment to the Franchise Agreement.
PREPARED BY
d.�
Ryan an, Assistant to the City Manager
FIRST AMENDMENT TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND USA
WASTE OF CALIFORNIA DBA WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SAN GABRIEL/POMONA VALLEY
FOR RESIDENTIAL CART CUSTOMER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
("Amendment') is executed as of , 2012 by and between the City of Diamond Bar,
California, a municipal corporation ("City") and the USA Waste of California, dba Waste
Management of San Gabriel/Pomona Valley ("Contractor"), hereinafter together occasionally
referred to as "the parties".
RECITALS
A. In August 2010, Contractor entered into an Agreement for Integrated Solid Waste
Management Services ("Agreement') with the City to provide for the collection, transportation,
recycling, processing, and disposal of residential solid waste and other solid waste services.
B. The parties desire to amend the Agreement to establish a service resumption fee.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, City and Consultant hereby agree to
amend the Agreement as follows:
A new paragraph 4 is added Section 5.1.6.1 of Article 5 of the Agreement to read:
4. Contractor is authorized to charge a service resumption fee of $35.00 to recover
its administrative costs incurred in resuming service to customers whose service has been
suspended pursuant to this Section.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Professional
Services Agreement as of the date and year first written above.
Dated: ,2012
Dated: ,2012
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By:
James DeStefano
City Manager
M
Its:
CONSULTANT
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: August 21 2012
CITY COUNCIL11 ;011"AGENDA REPORT
Foil rte
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA:
TITLE:
James DeStefano,
City Ma 4
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE PATHFINDER ROAD EROSION
CONTROL PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and File.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council awarded a construction contract to Robert D. Gosney on June 5, 2012 in
an amount not to exceed $44,780 with a contingency amount of $5,220, for a total
authorization amount of $50,000. The City authorized the Notice to Proceed for the project
effective on July 9, 2012. As originally designed, the erosion control project consisted of
the construction of a new slough wall and sidewalk extension along the south side of
Pathfinder Road from Diamond Bar Blvd. to just west of Presado Drive.
One change order was issued for additional sidewalk based on actual quantities completed
in the field. The total change order cost was $600.00. Final construction cost of the
project is $45,380.00 which is within the authorized budget.
Robert D. Gosney has completed all work required in accordance with the plans and
specifications as approved by the City. A final job walk was conducted on August 1, 2012.
Staff is recommending acceptance of all improvements.
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly M. Youn , Associate Engineer
REVIE D�iY
Y.
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Notice of Completion
DATE PREPARED:
August 13, 2012
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21810 COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765
ATTENTION: CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion.
Notice is hereby given that
1. The undersigned is the owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter
described:
2. The full name of the owner is Citv of Diamond Bar
3. The full address of the owner is 21810 Cooley Drive
4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is;
(If other In. fee, strike "In fee' and insert, for example, "purchaser voder emormu ofpurchese," or "leseee")
5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if arty, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common
are: - NAMES ADDRESSES
6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on August 1 , 2012. The work done was:
Pathfinder Road Erosion Control Project.
7. The time of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was Robert D Gosnev
June 19, 2012
0fno comactor for work ofimprovementreawhole,insert"cone") (DateofContract)
9. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Diamond But, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, and is described as follows: Construction of a slough wall and sidewalk extension along the south side of
Pathfinder Road from Diamond Her Blvd to just west of Presado Drive.
9. The street address of said property is
Dated:
Yen icedion for Individual Owner
(iron street address has been officially assigned, insert "none")
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Signature ofcwner or sm mare officer of owner named in paagaph 2 or his agent
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Director of Public Works the declarant of the foregoing
("resident 0', "Maresca of,' `A partner 01, "Owner of, etc.)
notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contests thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is hue and correct.
Executed on , 20 _, at Diamond Bar , California.
(Date ofsignature) (City whem signed)
(Personal signature of the individual who is swearing that the contents of
the notice of completion are no)
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6 . '7
Meeting Date: August 21 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma & —��
TITLE: EXONERATION OF SURETY E OND NO. 734168S IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,047,604.00 POSTED BY JCCL-SOUTH POINTE WEST, LLC FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT 63623 TO COMPLETE GRADING
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE TRACT DEVELOPMENT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the exoneration.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This action has no financial impact on the City.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the entitlements granted through tentative tract map approval for the property
located within the City of Diamond Bar but along Morning Sun Avenue which is in the
unincorporated area of Los Angeles County known as the community of Rowland
Heights, the subdivider, JCCL-Southpointe West, LLC, for Tentative Tract 63623 was
required to mitigate the landslide that occurred in 2005. As a result of the grading
operations that were conducted on the landslide repair the developer was required to
post a grading bond for the entire site as they had originally planned to repair the
landslide and subsequently grade the entire tract shortly thereafter.
At the completion of the landslide removal, Leighton & Associates issued a report dated
December 11, 2007 which determined that the removal of the landslide from the
western portion of Tract 63623 and along Morning Sun Avenue was completed to their
satisfaction. The City's geotechnical engineering consultants concurred with Leighton's
conclusion and the City Engineer's office accepted all grading activities for the landslide
removal within City Limits.
Due to the downward turn of the economy, the developer decided not to pursue tract
developments for the immediate future and has requested the grading bond that was
posted in 2007 be exonerated. The tentative map remains valid as the state has
granted automatic extensions of tentative map approvals in an effort to aid developers
through this difficult economic downturn.
Currently, as the project stands, improvement plans have been approved however the
final map has not been approved or recorded. Permits that were issued for the tract
improvements have expired and are no longer valid. Once the developer decides to
either pursue construction of the public improvements or proceed with final map
approval new guarantees of security for faithful performance, labor and materials will be
required. Therefore, at this time it is appropriate to exonerate the grading bond that was
posted for the landslide repair and tract grading since the landslide repair has been
completed and accepted by the City. The tract grading improvements will not
commence until a new grading permit is issued and new bonds are posted once the
developer decides to pursue construction of the project.
DISCUSSION:
Upon receiving written request from Lewis Operating Corp. and JCCL-South Pointe
West, LLC on August 9, 2012, the Public Works Department reviewed the project file
and determined that release of the grading bond would be appropriate.
The following surety bond is recommended for exoneration:
Surety Bond No. 734168S in the amount of $1,047,604.00
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly M. Young, Associate Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
David G. LYu Director of Public Works
Attachments:
DATE PREPARED:
August 13, 2012
LETTER OF REQUEST, dated August 9, 2012
2
Lewis Operating Corp.
1156 North Mountain Avenue/ P.O. Box 670 /Upland, California 91785-0670
Telephone: (909) 949-6744 FAX: (909) 931-5528
August 9, 2012
Kimberly Young
City of Diamond Bar, DPW
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: South Pointe West (Tr. 63623) Bond 9734168S Exoneration Request
Dear Kimberly:
Lewis Operating Corp and JCCL South Pointe West, LLC would like to formally request
that grading bond #734168S be exonerated. We do not deem it necessary as we do not
plan to record the Final Map (Tr. 63623) in the immediate future. Please call or email if
you have any questions.
Best Regards,
v
Daniel Coburn
Project Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Agenda # 6 , 8
Meeting Date: 8/21/2012
AGENDA REPORT
VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma
TITLE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION N . 2012 -XX OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR $89,639 OF HABITAT CONSERVATION
GRANT FUNDS, WHICH IF AWARDED, REQUIRES A $89,639 MATCH FROM THE CITY, FOR
THE GRAND VIEW TRAIL LINK IN THE SUMMITRIDGE PARK TRAIL SYSTEM.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Development of the Grand View Trail Link is estimated to cost $179,278.
The Habitat Conservation grant of $89,639, if awarded will cover half of this cost. The City has
already been awarded a Land and Water Conservation grant in the amount of $89,608, which will
cover the majority of the remaining cost. The final $31 will be covered with Prop A Youth at Risk
funds to complete the funding.
BACKGROUND: The Grand View Trail Link is part of the Summitridge Trail System included in the
City's Recreational Trails Master Plan. This project will complete 2,448 feet of trail from the Grand
View Trail to the Canyon Loop Trail in the center of the trail system. Estimated cost to fund these
improvements is $179,278 The Habitat Conservation grant provides an opportunity to complete the
funding needed to develop this phase of the trail. Once this phase is completed, a hiker will be able to
hike from the east parking lot of the Diamond Bar Center, continue in a large loop on the Summitridge
Trail System, and end up at the west parking lot of the Diamond Bar Center, a distance of almost 2'/
miles.
DISCUSSION: The application for this grant is being prepared by Community Services staff. The
trail will be developed from the Grand View Trail, which starts at the west parking lot of the Diamond
Bar Center, to the Canyon Loop Trail, which is in the center of the trail system near Dare Court. The
design will include the development of a route to link the Grand View Trail to the Canyon Loop Trail.
The project will include construction of a hard pan trail with lodge pole fencing, railway tie steps, a
foot bridge, benches and interpretive/directional signage. The application is due October 1, 2012,
This Resolution is a required element of the grant application. This is one of many applications that
staff has submitted in an effort to obtain funds to construct improvements identified in the Trails
Master Plan. Examples include funding for the four phases of the Sycamore Canyon Park Trail and
the trailheads at Steep Canyon and the east side of the Diamond Bar Center property. For this
particular project, half the funding was secured when the Land and Water Conservation Grant was
awarded to Diamond Bar in June, 2012.
PREPARED ByY:
A;
AAlison Meyers
C.S. Coordinator
R `I D Y:
b6bAoseV
Director of Community Services
RESOLUTION NO: 2012 — XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND
PROGRAM FOR THE GRAND VIEW TRAIL LINK
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife
Protection Act of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local
agencies to acquire, enhance, restore or develop facilities for public recreation and fish and
wildlife habitat protection purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the
responsibility for the administration of the HCF Program, setting up necessary procedures
governing project application under the HCF Program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before
submission of said application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete
the project(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an application for the Habitat Conservation Fund Program; and
2. Certifies that said applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on
the project included in this application, the required match and sufficient funds to complete the
project; and
3. Certifies that the applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
project(s),and
4. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the provisions contained
in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide; and
5. Delegates the authority to the City Manager of the City of Diamond Bar to conduct all
negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications,
agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the
completion of the project.
6. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations and guidelines.
Approved and adopted the 21St day of August, 2012.
Ling Ling Chang
Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 21St day of August 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6 , 9
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man
r
TITLE: APPROVE NOTICE OF C MPLETION FOR THE MEDIAN
MODIFICATION PROJECT AT DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND
CLEAR CREEK CANYON DRIVE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council awarded a construction contract to LSC Construction on December 6,
2011 in an amount not to exceed $25,831.00 with a contingency amount of $3,000.00
for a total authorization amount of $28,831.00. The City authorized the Notice to
Proceed for the construction project on February 29, 2012.
LSC Construction has substantially completed all the work required as part of this
project in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. However,
removal of all the Underground Service Alert (USA) street markings is the responsibility
of the contractor and is still pending. Numerous efforts have been made by staff to have
the USA markings removed, but the contractor continues to be nonresponsive. After
consulting with the City Attorney on this matter, staff has been advised to file the Notice
of Completion and to inform the contractor of City's intent to use the project retention
fund to remove the USA markings.
The median modification at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Clear Creek Canyon Drive
realigned the southbound median nose to improve the line of sight for vehicles making
left turns from Diamond Bar Boulevard into Clear Creek Canyon Drive. The final
construction cost of the project is $25,831.00 which is $3,000 under budget. No
contract change orders were issued for this project.
PREPARED BY:
Christian Malpica, Associate Engineer Date Prepared: August 14, 2012
INANIA§9:ab7-yS
David O. Li1T Director of Public Works
Attachments: Notice of Completion
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR MEDIAN MODIFICATION PROJECT AT DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
AND CLEAR CREEK CANYON.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21825 COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765
ATTENTION: CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion
Notice is hereby given that:
1. The undersigned is the owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter
described:
2. The full name of the owner is City of Diamond Bar
3. The full address of the owner is 21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar CA 91765
4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is; "In fee's
(If mbeArm fq strike "In tee" and insert, for exempla, "putehascr under contract pro ... nor," or "lessee")
5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common
are: NAMES ADDRESSES
6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on June 10, 2012. The work done was:
The Median Modification Project at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Clear Creek Canyon allowed for realignment
of the southbound median nose to improve the line of sight for vehicles making left turns from Diamond Bar
Boulevard into Clear Creek Canyon.
7. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was LSC Construction
December 6, 2011
(lino contractor for work of improvement as a whole,insert"rove") (Date of Commoo
8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, and is described as follows: Project located at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Clear Creek Canyon along
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
9. The street address of said property
Dated:
Verification for Individual Owner
(Ifno street address has been officially assigned, insert "none")
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Signature of owner or corporate officer of owner named in paragraph 2 or his agent
VERIFICATION
1, the undersigned, say: I am the Director of Public Works the declarant of the foregoing
("resident of', "Manager of," "A partner of," "Owner of," etc.)
notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contests thereof, the same is true of try own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on .20 , at Diamond Bar , California.
(Date ofslgnatu) (City where signed)
(Peaonal platoons of the individual who is swearing that the contents of
the notice of completion are true)
Agenda #
Meeting Date:
8/21/12
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Man r
TITLE: AWARD CONTRACT TO TORRE CONSTRUCTION, INC FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THF ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY AT THE PANTERA PARK DOG PARK IN THE
AMOUNT OF $94,491.25; PLUS A CONTINGENCY OF $9,450 (10%) FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION OF $103,941.25.
RECOMMENDATION: Award contract.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: At the June 5, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council authorized a total
budget of $235,000 for the construction of the Dog Park at the Pantera Park meadow. The cost of this
contract to build the ADA accessible walkway is $94,491.25, plus a 10% contingency of $9,450, for a
total authorization of $103,941.25. This contract amount is within the $235,000 budget. Funding
resources for this project are Park Development Funds of $151,911; Quimby Funds of $27,550; and
General Fund Reserves of $55,539.
BACKGROUND: On June 5, 2012, the City Council awarded a contract to Kormx, Inc in the
amount of $96,875 to construct the accessible walkway for the Dog Park at Pantera meadow. Kormx
was unable to obtain the bonding required to execute the contract and on July 17, 2012, the City
Council rejected the bid from Kormx, rejected all other bids, and directed staff to go back out to bid.
Staff took this project back out to bid on July 23, 2012. Ten contractors submitted bids, which were
opened and publicly read on August 14, 2012. Bids ranged from a low of $94,491.25 to a high of
$133,000. The apparent low bidder is Torres Construction, Inc. and the bid they submitted is
$2,383.75 lower than the bid submitted by Kormx in June that the City Council rejected.
DISCUSSION: Staff checked the status of the contractor license of Torres Construction, Inc. with
the State of California and it is active and clear. Staff checked references provided by the contractor
and there were no issues presented. If this contract is awarded on August 21, construction by the
contractor should begin by late September. The contract allows 30 days to complete the work, so it
should be completed by early November, 2012, weather permitting.
Geotechnical inspection services during construction will be provided by Leighton & Associates. Plan
check and building inspection services will be provided by RKA. Claude Bradley, Facilities
Maintenance Supervisor, will serve as the Project Manager in the field.
REPO CO P ETED AND REVIEWED BY:
Bob e
Director of Community Services
Attachments: Agreement
Bid Opening Results dated August 14, 2012
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 Torres Construction, 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 or Proposals, bids were received, publicly opened,
and declared on the date specified in the notice; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of CONTRACTOR Torres Construction, Inc._ and;
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute a written contract with CONTRACTOR for
furnishing labor, equipment and material for Construction of Accessible Walkway to Pantera Park Dog Park in
the City of Diamond Bar.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed:
1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall furnish all necessary labor, tools,
materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the Construction of Accessible Walkway to
Pantera Park Dog Park in the City of Diamond Bar. The work to be performed in accordance with the plans and
specifications, dated July 23, 2012 (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 Proposal dated August 14, 2012,
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. The CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work within 30 calendar days from the date of the
notice to proceed.
4, 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.
5. 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 insured 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 ($25.00) 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.
9. 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.
10. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers, agents and
employees ("Indemnitees") 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 workers or employees of
CONTRACTOR, of its subcontractors 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. CONTRACTOR shall be
responsible for any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from
any cause whatsoever.
CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnities 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 CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees,
subcontractors or invitees provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive negligence on the part
of City. In connection therewith:
a. 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, expert fees and costs incurred in connection therewith.
b. CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against CONTRACTOR or
Indemnitees covering such claims, damages, penalties, obligations and liabilities arising
out of or in connection with such work, operations or activities of CONTRACTOR
hereunder, and 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 CONTRACTOR for damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with
the work, operation or activities hereunder, 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.
Contractor's obligations under this section apply regardless of whether or not such claim, charge,
damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability
was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee. However, without affecting the rights of City under any
provision of this agreement, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability
attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement
between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to
have been actively negligent and where City active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability
involved, the obligation of Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to
the active negligence of City.
So much of the money due to 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.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and
inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California. 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 coverage
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 out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the
CONTRACTOR regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent passive negligence by the Indemnitees.
11. 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.
12. 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 Auffust 14, 2012 .
1.3. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by either party to
enforce any term of provision of this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorney's fees
and costs incurred with respect thereto.
14. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without cause, upon the
giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of
termination 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.
Date
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
By:
Date LING -LING CHANG
MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
Date TOMMYE CRIBBINS
CITY CLERK
CONTRACTOR'S Business Phone
Emergency Phone at which CONTRACTOR can be reached at any time
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
BID SUBMITTAL/OPENING WORKSHEET
PROJECT. PANTERA PARK DOG PARK GRADING & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BID OPENING DATE: August 14, 2012 10:00 a.m.
NO.
CONTRACTOR
AMOUNT OF BID
BID BOND
ADDENDUM
COMMENTS
I
l Pg)N1Vno
C
pf ��
�d (a V7,ys
PAGE / OF
PROJECT. PANTERA PARK DOG PARK GRADING & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BID OPENING DATE: August 14, 2012 10:00 a.m.
NO.
CONTRACTOR
AMOUNT OF BID
BID BOND
ADDENDUM
COMMENTS
/6 pd
Z7O
S
133 o°°
P�
a;KG� /nc�
PAGE - OF ,;),
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda 4 6.11
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma
TITLE: APPROPRIATE $8,"0 FROM THE PROP C RESERVE FUND AND
APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH TSR CONSTRUCTION
AND INSPECTION FOR THE COPLEY DRIVE BUS STOP
RELOCATION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,810 FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $32,210
RECOMMENDATION:
Appropriate and Approve.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: 41
�
In Fiscal Year 2011/2012, an appropriation of $200 of Prop C Funds was authorized
to fund the Copley Drive Bus Stop Relocation Project. The previously authorized
contract amount of $23,400, including a contingency amount of $3000, is not sufficient
to cover the additional items of work. The final total project cost is detailed below:
Original Contract
Amount
Construction
(including contingency)
Contract Change Order
Total
$20,400
$23,400
$8,810
$32,210
DISCUSSION:
The project is located in front of the new Diamond Bar City Hall (21810 Copley Drive) on
Copley Drive. The project consisted of sidewalk improvements to accommodate two (2)
bus stop relocations closer to City Hall, retrofit of the existing access ramps at the
crosswalk to comply with ADA, and installation of two (2) flashing beacons to enhance
visibility at the existing crosswalk. Due to unforeseen field conditions during
construction, several field changes were necessary to mitigate impacts at the northerly
and southerly bus stop boarding areas and curb ramps.
These are: (1) Relocation of an irrigation main line at the northerly bus stop area; (2) A
new slough wall at the southerly bus stop area to contain the slope by further precluding
runoff of dirt and debris onto the boarding area; and (3) Modifications to the curb ramp
design to meet existing grades and stay within ADA slope tolerance. After accounting
for these project contingencies an additional amount of $8,810 is necessary.
It should be noted that cost savings were achieved in construction management
services by providing in-house daily inspection services for the work. Additionally, the
engineer's estimate for the project was originally listed at $36,000.
PREPARED BY:
Christian Malpica, Associate Engineer Date Prepared: August 14, 2012
REVIEW
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works
2
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6 .12
Meeting Date: August 21 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma
TITLE: RESOLUTION 2012 -XX, A RES LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE COMPENSATION
PLAN TO ESTABLISH THE CLASSIFICATION OF SENIOR FACILITIES
MAINTENANCE WORKER AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-
13 BUDGET TO REFLECT THE MODIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The establishment of a Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker requires funding in the
amount of $78,306.60 (including benefits). The proposed elimination of four vacant
part-time Maintenance Worker positions results in salary savings of $44,733, bringing
the effective cost of the Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker to $33,573.60 for FY 12-
13. This difference is then offset by salary savings related to current and past
vacancies (Human Resources Technician, Senior Engineer), minimizing the position's
budget impact for the remainder of this fiscal year. Any unforeseen impacts resulting
from this request will be brought before the Council for consideration as part of the FY
2012-13 mid -year budget adjustment process.
However, upon the expiration of these vacancies, the City may incur additional costs of
up to $33,573.60 annually beginning in FY 13-14.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Upon taking ownership of the approximately 55,000 square foot facility that now houses
City Hall and the Diamond Bar Library, the City became responsible for overall building
maintenance operations. While daily basic cleanings of both floors are handled by a
contractor, City staff is often called on for as -needed everyday repairs, including those
for various systems (HVAC, lighting, locks & doors, plumbing, irrigation, etc.), and
building infrastructure, furniture, and fixtures.
In preparing for the building's opening, staff estimated that ongoing building
maintenance duties could be managed by two part-time employees. However, after
more than seven months of operating City Hall and the recent opening of the Library, it
has become clear that City operations would be better served by a single full-time
Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker with specific skills in the disciplines listed above.
This employee will support existing full-time maintenance staff while providing greater
efficiency, increased institutional knowledge and productivity, and reduced overall
facility downtimes due to repairs or building malfunctions. Further, the specialized skills
of the Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker may also reduce the City's reliance on
outside contractors for some building repairs.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Council approve the following by adopting the
attached resolution:
• Eliminate three existing part-time Maintenance Worker I positions budgeted for
the Civic Center, providing salary savings of $30,982. These positions are
currently vacant.
• Eliminate one existing Maintenance Worker II position budgeted for the Civic
Center, providing salary savings of $13,751. This position is currently vacant.
• Establish the new classification of Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker at Salary
Grade 10NE within the City Compensation Plan. The annual cost for this
classification at G -Step (including benefits) is $78,306.60.
PREPARED
Ryan Mf yean, Assistant to the City Manager
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IN
AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN TO ESTABLISH THE PERSONNEL
CLASSIFICATION OF SENIOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER AND AMENDING
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 BUDGET TO REFLECT THE MODIFICATION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has approved and adopted
the annual budget for fiscal year 2012-13; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar amends Resolution 2012-
32, Compensation Plan FY 2012-13 to update Schedule C and establish the new
classification of Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker as a full-time non-exempt position at
Salary Grade 10NE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby amend
Resolution 2012 -XX as cited above.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21St day of August, 2012.
Ling Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its adjourned regular meeting held on
the 21st day of August, 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
I--Kfl*0 u�7l�Al i!1e3 X91
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk
3
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.13
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Maa r
TITLE: APPROPRIATE $33,990 FR THE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
SPECIAL FUND AND APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY (SEMCO) IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $33,990 FOR AUDIT OF SOLID WASTE HAULER
SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The audit will be funded by the Integrated Waste Management Fund and will not impact the General
Fund. Per the terms of the City's solid waste franchise agreements with Waste Management and
Valley Vista Services, funds expended for this project will be reimbursed up to $50,000 per hauler.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
The City's current solid waste franchise agreements authorize the City to conduct an audit of both
haulers during the first two years of the franchise agreement (August 2010 to December 2011). The
audits will include a review of overall performance, customer service levels and billing, fee payments,
gross receipts, tonnage, and verification of diversion rate. The audits provide assurance that the
City's waste haulers are meeting the terms of the Council -approved franchise agreements, identify
any areas in need of improvement, and protect the interests of Diamond Bar customers.
In July, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) regarding the audit services. The City
received three proposals from HF&H ($70,000), SEMCO ($33,990), and Muni Services ($29,040).
A panel of staff from the Public Works and City Manager's office reviewed the proposals initially
without reference to price, and the proposal submitted by SEMCO was the highest ranked based on
the firm's qualifications, long standing working relationship with the City overseeing the existing
agreements, ability to complete the audit within 75 days of contract award. The SEMCO proposal
was the highest ranked based on a combination of these factors and the fee proposal.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council appropriate $33,990 from the Integrated Waste
Management Fund and approve the agreement with SEMCO in the amount not to exceed $33,990.
Anthony Santos, Sr. Management Analyst
REVIEWE Y:
,
R a cLean
Assi4hnt to the City Manager
Attachments:
1. City Request for Proposals.
2. SEMCO Proposal.
3. SEMCO Fee Proposal.
4. Consulting Services Agreement.
tf Z, -
Da i
Public Works Director
City of Diamond Bar
21810 Copley Drive . Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7000 • Fax (909) 861-3117
www.DiamondBarCA.gov
July 24, 2012
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR COMPREHENSIVE
AUDIT FOR CONTRACT COMPLIANCE BY COMMERCIAL
& RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
NOTE: PROPOSALS SHALL BE DELIVERED NO LATER THAN 12
P.M. ON MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2012, IN A SEALED
ENVELOPE MARKED PROPOSAL FOR DIAMOND BAR
WASTE HAULER AUDIT, WITH THE PRICE PROPOSAL
INCLUDED INSIDE A SEPARATE SEALED ENVELOPE.
To Interested Consultants/Firms:
The City of Diamond Bar (City) is requesting proposals from qualified firms to
audit the City's two (2) waste haulers' records relating to the service provided
under contract for the period beginning August 2010 through December 2011.
Ling -Ling Chang
BACKGROUND:
Mayor
The City of Diamond Bar presently has one (1) exclusive residential hauler,
Jack Tanaka
Waste Management Inc. (WMI) and one (1) exclusive commercial hauler, Valley
Mayor Pro Tem
Vista Services (VVS). Cumulatively, there are approximately 400 commercial
Ron Everett
and 15,000 residential accounts served.
Council Member
SCOPE OF WORK:
Carol Herrera
Council Member
The scope of the audit will be determined by City and may include, but is not
limited to, compliance with terms of the Agreement between the City and waste
Steve Tye
Council Member
haulers, customer service levels and billing, fee payments, gross receipts,
tonnage, and verification of diversion rate. The audit shall be completed during
calendar year 2012, and will be based on the Contractor's reports and records
from the start of the Agreement through calendar year 2011.
The following tasks shall be completed:
A. Review the Diamond Bar Municipal Code and hauler contracts.
B. Conduct on-site reviews of the City's two (2) waste haulers' records
relating to the services provided under the contract, including but not
limited to, financial records, route maps, customer lists, billing records,
weight tickets, maps, AB 939 records, and customer complaints for the
period of August 2010 to December 2011.
1
C. Overall identification of those revenue items required for inclusion in the
calculation of gross revenues.
D. Inclusion in gross revenues of, among other things, all residential and
commercial customer fees for collection of solid waste, including recyclable
solid waste and green waste, temporary bins and roll -off boxes, and special
pickup fees.
E. Verification of diversion rate for both residential and commercial/multi-family
service accounts, and recommendations if the mandatory rate has not been
met in accordance with the contract provisions between the City and the
waste haulers.
F. Ensure the proper application of the franchise fee percentage and accurate
calculations.
G. Complete a final report with findings and recommendations especially if
there is identification of any discrepancies or inaccuracies of the records
and reports made to the City.
H. Recommend any program changes regarding the assessment of fees and
the permitting of haulers.
I. Review, and if necessary, revise the City's "Monthly Recycling Progress
Report" form.
Once the audit is completed, the Consultant shall compile a detailed report of the
findings, and explain any payment discrepancies and penalties. All noncompliance
items noted during audit should be reported specifically identifying the area(s) of
noncompliance, and the nature of the noncompliance action(s), including
recommended actions and the waste hauler's response. The contents of the report
may be discussed at a City Council meeting or other forum deemed necessary by
the City, where the Consultant will be present to answer questions regarding the
results of the audit.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S RESPONSIBILITIES:
List of items the City will provide to the proposing firm in order to assist it with the
audit:
A. Chapter 8.16. Solid Waste, Recyclable and Compostable Materials
Collection of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code
B. Agreements between solid waste haulers and City.
C. City of Diamond Bar's most recent AB939 Annual Report to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.
D. Monthly Reports from the commercial and residential waste haulers.
E. Other mutually agreed upon items that may be necessary for the audit.
PROPOSAL FORMAT:
In order to assist our panel in making a selection, the City requires that all
Consultants adhere to the response format outlined in this section. Firms failing to
meet this requirement will be evaluated negatively. Responses shall be simply
prepared, brief and to the point. Responses to this Request for Proposal shall be
prepared in a two -envelope format and include the following material in the order
so designated:
2
I . Cover letter that includes the name of company, name and title of contact
person, street address, mailing address, telephone/fax number, electronic
mail address, and brief summary indicating interest in and understanding of
this RFP and its requirements.
2. General information about the firm. State the names and phone numbers of
the project team who will be involved in this project. Include the
responsibilities of each team member in the audit and their qualifications.
Resumes may be included.
3. Five (5) references including company's name, contact person, address,
term of project, and telephone numbers with explanations of similar/related
projects. Emphasis should be placed on experience performing similar
work for other municipalities/governmental agencies.
4. A written plan of action in completing the Scope of Work with an estimated
schedule of completion per task. The work plan shall also include the
project approach and methodology.
5. A staffing chart indicating the estimated number of staff hours required, by
job description or title, for each task of the scope of work.
6. Qualification of the firm, including a comprehensive list of previous and/or
ongoing related experience/projects in auditing City refuse collection firms.
Must indicate the best approach selected and why such method(s)
was/were used. Using such method(s), clearly provide explanation of
results, relevant findings and recommendations, especially if discrepancies
and inaccuracies were identified as a result of the audit.
7. The Consultant must include in their proposal a written statement
acknowledging that all terms and conditions of this RFP and Consulting
Services Agreement, including the insurance required in the Insurance
Requirements section referenced in the attached sample Agreement are
acceptable.
8. A total fee for the project shall be provided in a separate sealed envelope
marked "Fee Proposal — City of Diamond Bar Comprehensive Audit of
Commercial and Residential Waste Haulers." The fee proposal shall be
prepared as a not -to -exceed lump -sum (including costs for supplies and
materials that are required to complete the scope of work).
SELECTION CRITERIA/BASIS OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION:
The following is a list of criteria that will be used to evaluate and select the
Consultants. Please note that these criteria is in no particular order, any one item
may or may not be weighed more than another.
• Relevant experience and qualifications of individual team members assigned to
3
the audit.
• Understanding of project as demonstrated by the thoroughness of the
proposal.
References from clients for whom similar work was performed.
• Depth of staff available to perform services.
• Timeliness of the proposed project schedule.
• Ability to perform all of the services without having to resort to subcontracting.
The Consultant's cost proposal.
• The resources and fee required to perform the requested services.
• Correlation of proposed costs to actual work required by City.
• The Consultant's comments on the Consulting Services Agreement.
• The City reserves the right to enter into a contract with the Consultant who is
determined by the City to be best suited and qualified to perform the work.
Additionally, please note that the responses to this RFP are subject to the
following conditions:
Acceptance of Terms
Submission of a proposal shall constitute acknowledgment and acceptance of all
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in the RFP unless otherwise expressly
stated in the proposal.
Right of Reiection by the City
Not withstanding any other provisions of this RFP, the City reserves the right to
reject any and all proposals and to waive any informality in a proposal. All
proposals submitted to the City in response to this RFP shall become the property
of the City.
Financial Responsibility
The Consultant understands and agrees that the City shall have no financial
responsibility for any costs incurred by the Consultant in responding to this RFP.
Proposers are entirely responsible for the costs incurred in preparing and
submitting their proposals.
Award of Contract
The selected Consultant shall be required to enter into a written contract with the
City of Diamond Bar. This RFP and the proposal, or any part thereof, will be
incorporated into and made a part of the final contract; however, the City reserves
the right to further negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract with the
selected Consultant. The contract will, in any event, include a maximum "not -to -
exceed cost" to the City of Diamond Bar.
4
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:
The Consultant shall provide Certificate of Insurance evidencing minimum
coverage of $1,000,000 in Professional Liability, General Liability, Automobile
Liability Coverage and Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no
less than A-, VII, licensed to do business in California and satisfactory to the
City. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by
the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
DISCRETION AND LIABILITY WAIVER:
The City reserves the right to reject any/all proposals or to request and obtain
supplementary information as may be necessary for City staff to analyze the
proposals pursuant to the Consultant Selection Criteria contained herein.
The City may require Consultants to participate in additional negotiations and
meetings before the ultimate selection of a Consultant is made. These meetings
could encompass revisions of the submittal criteria in response to the nature and
scope of the initial proposals.
The Consultant, by submitting a response to this RFP, waives all rights to protest
or seek any legal remedies whatsoever regarding any aspect of this RFP and the
awards of such. The City may choose to interview one or more of the firms
responding to this RFP.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
No officer or employee of the responding Consultant shall have any interest or
relationship, direct or indirect, with the City Diamond Bar and/or Waste
Management and/or Valley Vista Services. If the potential of any such interest
does exist, please disclose the interest and/or potential conflict which may exist.
The responding Consultant covenants that it has, at the time of the submittal of its
response, no interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or
degree with the performance of services required under the contract, nor shall it
acquire any such interest at any time during such performance of services. The
responding Consultant further covenants that during the performance of the
contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed by the successful
Consultant.
AGREEMENT:
Attachment A is a copy of the City's professional services agreement. A statement
MUST be made in the proposal stating that all terms and conditions are
acceptable.
5
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT:
The agreement shall be signed by the successful Consultant and returned within
ten (10) days, not including Sundays and legal holidays, after the City has
provided written notice that the contract has been awarded.
Should the successful Consultant decline to execute a contract, City Council has
the option to either reject all proposals and call for new proposals or accept one of
the other proposals.
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR DELIVERY:
• Proposals must be submitted on 8'/z inch by 11 inch paper.
• Submit five (5) copies of the proposal in one envelope.
• Submit five (5) copies of the Fee Proposal in a separate envelope.
• The proposal shall be signed by an official authorized to bind the Consultant
and shall contain a statement indicating that the proposal is valid for ninety
(90) days. You will be notified before the end of the 90 -day period of the
City's decision regarding the status of your proposal.
• All proposals and accompanying collateral materials become the sole
property of the City of Diamond Bar and may not be reproduced without the
permission of the City.
• Facsimile or electronic mail submittals will not be accepted.
Copies of the proposals shall be delivered in a sealed envelope, with the fee
proposal included inside a separate sealed envelope, no later than 12 p.m. on
Monday, August 13, 2012 at the following location: City of Diamond Bar, Public
Works Department, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Consultants
wishing to mail proposals in a "sealed fashion" shall address same to the City of
Diamond Bar, Public Works Department, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (Attention:
David G. Liu). Please note: Proposals must be marked on the outside of the
envelope, "City of Diamond Bar Comprehensive Audit of Commercial and
Residential Waste Haulers Proposal,"
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Anthony Santos, Sr. Management
Analyst at (909) 839-7013 or by email at asantos@diamondbarca.gov.
Since eiy,
Dav G. Liu, P.E.
Director of Public. Works
Attachment A — Consulting Services Agreement
Cc: James DeStefano, City Manager
Waste Management
Valley Vista Services
3
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
2012 AUG [ 3 Ati 11: 20
CIi ,' PIANAGER'S OFFfCr
CITY OF DIAXOND 3A2
FOR COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT FOR
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE BY COMMERCIAL
& RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
PROPOSAL TO
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21810 COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
SUBMITTED BY
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY (SEMCO)
-A D/B/A of HULS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC-
P.O. Box 4519
COVINA, CA 91723
TEL: (626) 332-7514
FAx: (626) 498-2806
EMAIL: S.COSTANDI@SUSTAINABLE-ENV.COM
AUGUST 13, 2012
August 13, 2012
David Liu, PE
Public Works Director
City of Diamond Bar
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT FOR CONTRACT COMPLIANCE BY
COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
Dear Mr. Liu,
Please accept this proposal from Sustainable Environmental Management Company
(SEMCO), a D/B/A of Huls Environmental Management, LLC, to perform the subject services
pursuant to a Request for Proposal dated July 24, 2012. SEMCO is currently under contract
with the City of Diamond Bar (City) to perform hauler management activities and has served
in this capacity since the beginning of the existing hauler contracts. We respectfully submit
herein our technical and cost specifications.
We are very interested in the proposed project, and work with several cities on similar
efforts. Our staff is well qualified to perform a comprehensive audit that will measure
financial and performance compliance in accordance with the terms of the hauling contracts
as well as the City's Municipal Code. Since August 2010, we have assisted the City in
managing its hauler contracts and we have performed our due diligence with respect to
program compliance. However, a comprehensive audit has not been performed to date, and
we concur with the direction of the City to perform such an undertaking.
Our overall cost is provided in a separately sealed envelope as dictated by the RFP. Both
technical and fee proposals are valid for ninety (90) days. SEMCO also attests that all terms
and conditions of the RFP and the sample Consulting Services Agreement, including the
insurance required in the Insurance Requirements section referenced in the sample
Agreement are acceptable.
We appreciate your consideration of this proposal. If you have any specific questions or
desire additional information, please feel free to contact Sandy Costandi at (626) 332-7514 or
by email at s.costandi@sustainable-env.com.
Sincerely,
f. J. Michael Huls
Reviewing Principal
Attachments: Technical I Cost Proposal I Receipt of Addendum No.1
>.
62613327514 p.o. bnx 4519
vao,. 6?6 1498 2806 Covina, ca 91723 ,.tee sustairabfe-env.com
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR — REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT FOR CONTRACT COMPLIANCE BY
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
Understanding of the Project
As part of our continuing service to the City of Diamond Bar (City), Sustainable Environmental
Management Co. (hereinafter referred to as SEMCO, a D/B/A of Huls Environmental Management, LLC) is
pleased to offer its unsurpassed forensic analytical services to fulfill the City's objectives of performing a
comprehensive review of its two waste haulers for compliance with the terms of their respective
contracts with the City as well as the Municipal Code.
The topical areas to be evaluated will include customer service levels and billing, fee payments, gross
receipts, tonnage, verification of diversion, service levels and practices, and proper application of
franchise and AB 939 fees structures. SEMCO will recommend any changes regarding the assessment of
fees, contract compliance, and hauler reporting forms. It will also determine the presence of any
discrepancies in fees, applications, diversion reporting, and service levels, and propose a solution for the
City. Waste Management and Valley Vista Services are the two firms that will be analyzed separately,
for the specific period of August 2010 through December 2011. If there are specific findings that
necessitate the review of any earlier time period, SEMCO will inform the City before proceeding.
General Information about the Firm
Huls Environmental Management, LLC, d.b.a. 'Sustainable Environmental Management Company
(SEMCO) is a small business enterprise established in 1995 and incorporated in California in January
2000 as Limited Liability Company (LLC). SEMCO's licenses and permits are current. Its Federal Tax
Identification Number (TIN) is 95-4783042. The Principal and founder of the company is Prof. 1. Michael
Huls, a world expert in environmental management and zero waste systems. Its Managing Director is
Ms. Sandy Costandi, who is an environmental scientist.
SEMCO was established in 1995 to serve Southern California municipalities in all aspects of
environmental management. We are particularly adept at designing, implementing, and funding
innovative and sustainable refuse and recycling programs. SEMCO has specialized in developing state
and nationally recognized and sustainable recycling programs for a number of customers including
Verizon, City of Gardena, City of Corona, City of EI Monte, City of Diamond Bar, City of Paramount, and
many other jurisdictions. It crafted the AB 939 plans for over 60 jurisdictions. Most importantly, SEMCO
has pioneered the field of forensic analysis of municipal refuse management firms, which is directly
applicable in the proposed project.
SEMCO has a unique history of undertaking extremely difficult and challenging assignments, and
fulfilling all expectations and more of its clients. It has worked on large projects as well as small projects
for a variety of clients ranging from nonprofit organizations to large municipal agencies. For instance,
SEMCO implemented an incredibly complex C&D debris recycling program for the County of Los
Angeles. It managed the far-ranging recovery of old telephone directories throughout California for
Verizon (formerly GTE). It famously represented successfully the City of Gardena for over five (5) years
in its dealing with the former Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle) when Gardena
was the first City in California faced with a Compliance Order for failure to achieve the AB 939 diversion
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 1 I P a g e.
mandate. SEMCO also assisted the City of Corona in a landmark forensic study of its refuse hauler,
focused on unpaid fees and restructuring of its rate system that resulted in the recovery of $35 million
for the City.
Regardless of the issues, the circumstances, the timing, and the obstacles, SEMCO has always loyally
represented its clients and provided desired outcomes.
Staff, ina
The project team and their qualifications will include the following:
Prof. J. Michael Huls — Reviewing Principal
(213) 840-9279; mhuls9@gmail.com
Prof. Huls is the founder of SEMCO, and is an acknowledged international expert in refuse and recycling
management and zero waste systems, and he has pioneered the field of forensic evaluations of refuse
management firms. Degreed in Environmental Geography — Earth and Marine Sciences from CSU
Dominguez Hills (BA 1976), he is currently Professor of Zero Waste Communities in the Earth Science
Department at Santa Monica College. In his career spanning 42 years, he has consulted to the World
Bank and United Nations, the US EPA, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and Fortune 500
businesses such as IBM and Verizon. He was a founding Board Member of the National Recycling
Coalition in 1976, and was a co-founder of the California Resource Recovery Association in 1974.
Role: His primary role in the project is to act as the reviewing principal, to assure that the techniques
and activities conducted by SEMCO achieve the high standards that Mr. Huls has maintained throughout
his 42 years of practice, and to provide quality assurance in the assembly and reporting of information
to the City. In addition, he will conduct specific research into diversion, service levels and practices,
tonnage, and verification of diversion. Mr. Huls will assist in the final report preparation and editing. He
will be available to present the findings with the City and the hauler(s).
Sandy Costandi — Project Manager
(626) 332-7514; s.costandi@sustainable-env.com
Ms. Costandi has acquired a diverse and extensive knowledge of the solid waste and recycling industry
since earning her degree in Environmental Science from USC (BS 1997). Ms. Costandi performs ongoing
hauler compliance activities for multiple jurisdictions. Such activities include in depth review of hauler
reports; verification of tonnages reported and comparison with accounts serviced; verification of
franchise and AB 939 fee calculations; correlation between gross receipts, tonnages reported, fees paid,
and accounts serviced; and comparison of data across quarters.
Role: For the proposed audit, Ms. Costandi will be the Project Manager and the Principal Investigator.
Not only will she manage the project, but she will take a coordinating role in compiling and analyzing all
data submitted by the haulers related to diversion, service levels and practices, billing, fee payments,
gross receipts, and proper application of franchise and AB 939 fees. She will work closely with Ms.
Amelia Liman to develop the findings into a concise report of findings, conclusions and
recommendations. Ms. Costandi will investigate any discrepancies discovered during the course of the
audit, present the impact associated with the discrepancies, and discuss likely resolutions with the City.
She will also be the lead writer on the report to the City.
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 2 1 E a g e
Amelia Liman — Project Analyst
(626) 332-7514; alenviro@gmail.com
Amelia is the firm's financial analyst and associate consultant. She has an MBA in Business
Administration from Cal Poly Pomona. She is adept in analytical studies and hauler auditing. For
instance, she was instrumental in identifying nearly $50,000 in overcharges by Diamond Bar's refuse
hauler in her audits of all nonresidential accounts in 2002. She was instrumental in reviewing rate
increase requests from haulers in several cities including Rancho Cucamonga, San Gabriel, Lynwood, and
Gardena. She is also currently involved in managing the hauler contracts for the City of Diamond Bar.
She also conducted a complete forensic assessment of diversion and service levels for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, including residential and nonresidential services. Her investigation clearly identified and
confirmed diversion to a level found exemplary by the Integrated Waste Management Board
(CalRecycle) in its Finding of Conformance in 2004 when the City was being investigated for
noncompliance. Additionally, the investigation disclosed specific sources of easily diverted materials
and identified the potential for wet -dry routing. By implementing her recommendations, the haulers
were able to achieve 50% diversion of commercial accounts.
Role: Ms. Liman will conduct a thorough review of customer service levels and billing, fee payments,
gross receipts, tonnage, verification of diversion, and proper application of franchise and AB 939 fees
using her skills. She will prepare all data and evaluation tables.
Five References
Our expertise also includes the ability to assist municipalities to obtain fair equitable rates and services
in recycling and solid waste collection for their residential and nonresidential constituents. Among the
firm's accomplishments include effective RFPs, hauler audits and administration, rate studies and
analyses, outreach, funding, programming, training, reporting, and technical assistance. We provide a
few similar/related projects for review that are keyed to the requested reference information as
identified in the RFP.
City of Corona
Key Contact: Greg Irvine, Assistant City Manager, 951-736-2294 12005-06
Address: 400 S. Vicentia Ave., Corona, CA 92882
SEMCO conducted a landmark comprehensive cost of service and rate study of Corona's refuse and
recycling fund in 2005-06. The primary goal of the study was to determine if the current fund was
structured and sufficient to meet fiscal obligations now and in the future, and to identify if and how
related environmental activities could be incorporated into fund revenue sources. SEMCO met the
objectives of the project, and it was able to develop an innovative deal that increased City revenues
from the rate structure, and increased services and community benefits, without any rate increases to
rate pavers. The SEMCO forensic analysis disclosed that the franchise hauler was not accurately
reporting gross receipts resulting in the loss of several million dollars in revenue to the City. SEMCO
brokered a deal for the City with the hauler in which the hauler received a 5 -year extension to the
remaining five years on its agreement; agreed to compensate the City by $35 million over the full 10
year term; and the franchise fee rate was increased from 2% to 12.5% without increasing rates. This
allowed the City to save important services for the community without resorting to any rate increase,
something they had not even conceived of when the project started. SEMCO's experience and expertise
was the difference maker for this extremely favorable outcome.
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 3 1 P c g 2
City of EI Monte
Key Contact: Rene Bobadilla, City Manager 626-580-200112004 until present
Address: 11333 Valley Blvd. EI Monte, CA 91731
The City of EI Monte entered into an agreement with Huls Environmental Management, LLC (i.e.,
SEMCO) in August 2004. Since then, SEMCO has provided the City with consulting services in refuse and
recycling management for its four franchise haulers. SEMCO has assisted in establishing new waste
hauler contracts for the residential, commercial, multi -family, and temporary sectors. SEMCO has also
assisted the Environmental Services Division with a variety of additional tasks, including the
implementation of all of the City's recycling grant programs. SEMCO has been able to save the City tens
of thousands of dollars in implementation costs, and directly recovered over $2 million in unpaid fees
due the City from its previous haulers. Through it efforts, the City has been able to improve its diversion
rate to 58% with a 2015 goal of 75%. Since December 2009, under a revised agreement with the City,
SEMCO has been contracted to manage all aspects of the Environmental Services Division. Currently,
SEMCO provides a dedicated staff person to work from city office two days per week, as well as off-site
support staff.
City of Paramount
Key Contact: John Moreno, Assistant City Manager, 562-220-20221 ongoing since 1998
Address: 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723
SEMCO performed a Solid Waste Generation Study for the City of Paramount. A team of 10 staff
members completed 60+ discard/process audits. Mr. Huls was responsible for sample selection,
sampling design, and statistical analysis. Mr. Huls was also instrumental for designing the generator
based survey instruments. The California Integrated Waste Management Board approved the new base
year study in 2001.
Since then, SEMCO has continued its efforts in the City to develop complementary diversion programs
for the commercial sector. SEMCO developed a MRF processing system, negotiated the incentive based
pricing system, guided implementation through Council approval, and has headed up a generator based
waste auditing program offered to dozens of accounts who wished to avoid higher disposal costs by
recycling.
In a directly applicable project, SEMCO conducted an evaluation of the franchise refuse hauler's
extraordinary rate increase request. After an exhaustive review of all available data, diversion
programming, service levels and other analytical aspects, SEMCO found that the request for an
extraordinary rate increase was not justified. The recommendation was accepted by the City, which in
turn denied the hauler's request, saving the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased
costs.
City of Santa Fe Springs
Key Contact: Anita Jimenez, Recycling Coordinator, 562- 868-051112010
Address: 11710 E. Telegraph Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
SEMCO recently performed a refuse hauler fee compliance review for the City of Santa Fe Springs for its
primary franchise hauler. This involved an exhaustive multi-year review of all hauler reports, hauler fee
payments, and customer account histories. The study confirmed that the franchise waste hauler
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 4 1 2 a g
accurately reported gross revenues during the review period, and applied and paid the appropriate
franchise and AB 939 fees to the City.
City of Gardena
Key Contact: Mitchell G. Lansdeil, City Manager, 310-217-9503 1 Ongoing since 1999
Address: 1700 West 162nd Street, Gardena, CA 90247
AB 939 and AB 341 technical assistance; construction and demolition waste recycling program for
developers and contractors; C&D debris recycling ordinance; multifamily recycling program
implementation; development of new select load routing in the business sector; process audits;
business recycling workshops; RFP process; governmental relations; hauler management and forensic
audits.
SEMCO is currently engaged with the City of Gardena on a variety of projects. It has worked
continuously in the City since August of 2001. The City had difficulty with recalcitrant haulers and the
burden of a compliance order that was placed on the City prior to SEMCO's engagement. For Gardena,
we conducted an RFP process in 2001-02 to select up to four semi -exclusive haulers for the commercial -
industrial sector. This process was very fast paced; beginning in September 2002 with a bidding process,
and completed by the end of that calendar year. All aspects were handled by SEMCO including
publication of the RFP, preparation of the agreements and RFP, review and evaluation,
recommendations, and coordination with staff and council. The project was performed within budget.
SEMCO has worked with the City to design, develop, and implement a series of programs that range
from hauler management to construction and demolition waste recycling, to mandatory separation
ordinances for businesses. SEMCO has developed mandatory ordinances for recycling of commercial
and C&D waste. In particular, we devised a funding mechanism for staff to recoup its costs of
monitoring and inspecting job sites and evaluating contractor compliance with the C&D regulations. In
2006, we devised the City's public venue event ordinance and have implemented the program for the
City.
SEMCO also conducted an aggressive program in the business community to help avoid unnecessary
cost increases by providing technical assistance in process audits and implementation of zero wasting
programs. One notable process audit resulted in the diversion of over 100 tons of waste per month.
SEMCO took physical samples of the waste material (nonhazardous filter cake) and successfully
brokered the materials to a recycling processing center for use in various aggregates.
Methodolo¢y. Scope of Work and Estimated Schedule
SEMCO's essential approach is to collect the required data; evaluate the data with respect to customer
service levels and billing, fee payments, gross receipts, tonnage, verification of diversion, service levels
and practices, and proper application of franchise and AB 939 fee structures; conduct limited site and
phone surveys to confirm findings; and craft a final report. SEMCO will recommend any changes
regarding the assessment of fees, contract compliance, and hauler reporting forms. It will also
determine the presence of any discrepancies in fees, applications, diversion reporting, and service
levels, and propose a solution for the City. Waste Management and Valley Vista Services are the two
firms that will be analyzed separately, for the specific period of August 2010 through December 2011. If
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 5 1 P a g e
there are specific findings that necessitate the review of any earlier time period, SEMCO will inform the
City before proceeding.
Each task desired by the City is listed below, followed by an explanation of our proposed activities.
A. Review the Diamond Bar Municipal Code and hauler contracts
Our firm helped craft and interpret the municipal code provisions related to refuse and recycling
over a decade ago. We are familiar with the Code, as well as the new solid waste ordinance
which was adopted by the City in November 2011. SEMCO is already familiar with the hauler
contracts, as we are currently contracted by the City for all hauler management activities. We
also developed the previous haulers' contracts for the City and helped negotiate them, which
had similar terms and provisions.
B. Conduct onsite reviews of the City's two waste haulers' records
Since August 2010, our firm has performed ongoing reviews of the waste haulers' records. This
has included the inspection of quarterly reports, routes, customer lists, diversion records, and
billing records. As part of the proposed audit, we will expand our investigation to include
financial records, route maps, weight tickets, and customer complaint logs. In our review, we
will compare all related data for consistency. Tonnages reported, accounts serviced, and
revenues should all correlate appropriately. With many years of auditing experience, SEMCO is
very familiar with the specific areas in which discrepancies may be discovered. Any understated
or misreported revenues may result in a monetary loss to the City, and must be corrected
immediately. In addition to financial compliance, customer service standards will also be
surveyed. Exemplary customer service is of key importance to the City. Customer complaint
logs, and associated resolutions, will be reviewed for adequacy. SEMCO will also conduct
limited customer satisfaction surveys among residents and businesses. Additionally, we will
contact each haulers customer service line with "typical requests" to assess helpfulness,
accuracy of information provided, response time, etc. Any discrepancies or areas that require
improvement will be cited and detailed in our final report to the City, along with any
recommendations.
C. Overall identification of those revenue items required for inclusion in the calculation of gross
revenues
Franchise and AB 939 fees paid to the City are calculated as a percentage of gross revenue. For
this reason, gross revenues must be reported to the City accurately. SEMCO will utilize each
hauler's customer account listing in order to identify all services rendered. The customer
account listing will list each service address, along with the service(s) provided to that address,
and the monthly charge. We will ensure that all revenues are being reported, including
revenues associated with extra carts, extra pickups, fee based bulky waste pickups, locking lids,
overage charges, bin rentals, etc. As part of this process, we will also verify that the haulers are
charging the City approved rates. To verify services, limited site surveys will be conducted.
D. Inclusion in gross revenues of, among other things, all residential and commercial customer fees
for collection of solid waste, including recyclable solid waste and green waste, temporary bins
and roll -off boxes, and special pickup fees
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 6 Pa g__
As described in letter "C" above, SEMCO will utilize each hauler's customer account listing to
identify all services that should contribute to the reported gross revenues. Based on this data,
we will quantify the expected gross revenue for comparison to the reported gross revenue.
SEMCO will report to the City any discrepancies that are found to be beyond a reasonable
margin of error.
Oftentimes, such audits reveal revenue categories that are not reported by a hauler, whether
accidental or intentional. For example, temporary services can easily be under -reported. We
may also discover residential or commercial accounts that are being serviced, but not being
charged by their service provider. This can be the result of a simple oversight as haulers manage
numerous stop services and restarts, particularly during times of economic hardship. Please
note that Waste Management performed a residential route audit in November 2010 and
discovered approximately 300 residential accounts in Diamond Bar that were receiving
refuse/recycling services, but were not receiving a quarterly invoice.
E. Verification of diversion rate for both residential and commercial/multi-family service accounts,
and recommendations if the mandatory rate has not been met in accordance with the contract
provisions between the City and the waste hauler
Tonnage reports submitted by haulers will be used to calculate the diversion rates achieved in
each sector (sectors: residential, commercial/multi-family, and temporary). If necessary, SEMCO
will obtain select tonnage reports from receiving facilities in order to verify tonnages reported.
To date, Valley Vista Services is in compliance with the diversion rate required by the City. With
SEMCO's assistance, Waste Management has progressively increased its city-wide diversion rate
over time, but remains slightly short of the required goal. Through the proposed audit, we will
identify the problematic areas, and recommend ways if increasing diversion in order to achieve
the rate required by contract.
F. Ensure the proper application of the franchise fee percentage, AB 939 fee, and accurate
calculations
SEMCO will perform an analysis of franchise fee and AB 939 applications, calculations, and
payments. We will determine the extent, if any, of discrepancies and/or inaccuracies of the
reports made to the City.
Our three-step analysis will consist of the following interrelated subtasks:
Step 1: Analyze and Compare Quarterly Reports from Haulers
Each quarter, the City's haulers are required to submit reports of disposal tonnage, recycling
tonnage, diversion percent, AB 939 fees, franchise fees, gross receipts, and other important
information. Each piece of this quarterly data tells an intricate story of the fees that were paid,
what should have been paid, and the difference in under or over -payments. SEMCO will conduct
an analysis of the reported information to ensure that the appropriate franchise fees and AB
939 fees were paid as they correlate to existing route sheets, disposal estimates, cubic yardage
reported, service levels indicated, and diversion achieved. Each of these indicators are
important to perform an initial accuracy evaluation of the reported fees due the City. In
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 7 1 P a g e
addition, each haulers quarterly data will be compiled into annual segments to compare with
previously submitted quarterly reports from preceding or subsequent years to cross-check for
any significant discrepancies. These discrepancies may be attributed to 1) route acquisition, 2)
route growth, 3) loss of accounts, 4) inaccurate bookkeeping, 5) misinformation, 6)
misunderstanding of City requirements, 5) under or over estimations of fees, or other potential
inaccuracies.
Step 2 - Comparative Analysis of Reported Information with County, State and Industry Data
SEMCO is elite in its approach to City fee evaluations. The approach used by SEMCO is unique to
the industry and has allowed us to negotiate larger settlement amounts for our clients. This
subtask is accomplished by comparing the following data:
Hauler tonnage reports with County and State data.
• Reported cubic yardage with respect to industry standard volume density for MSW.
• Gross receipts with disposal component weights reported by Solid Waste CPAs.
• Recycling diversion reports with associated disposal data.
• Reported equipment utilized to collect solid waste with operational industry data.
These items are important to determine the accuracy of fees associated with the quarterly
reports submitted by the haulers. Without these cross -comparisons, the City must rely on the
haulers for the accuracy of data submitted. Unfortunately in the economic climate of the Los
Angeles County solid waste industry, it is not prudent to maintain this degree of professional
innocence with respect to City finances. It should be a matter of course that all cities regularly
perform similar evaluations to confirm that the appropriate funds are being received from their
haulers.
Step 3 - Final Analysis and Recovery Process
In order to complete the financial compliance evaluation, SEMCO will compile all collected data
into a proper format for documentation and review. This is a key component of the fee
verification process. The documentation will include an estimate of under/over-payments to the
City using "generally accepted auditing standards' and, if warranted, we will suggest a formal
recovery process to recover unpaid fees. SEMCO will assist the City in the recovery process until
all underpayments are received or negotiated to the satisfaction of the City. The recovery
process can be quit challenging as haulers may not be amenable to paying "past due fees"
belonging to the public.
G. Complete a final report with findings and recommendations especially if there is identification of
any discrepancies or inaccuracies of the records and reports made to the City
Once the evaluation is complete, SEMCO will compile its findings, method, and
recommendations into a concise report. We will thoroughly document and provide backup for
all claims, assumptions, calculations, and estimations, as warranted.
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 8 1 P a d e
H. Recommend any program changes regarding the assessment of fees and contract compliance
It is envisioned that as a result of this analysis, there may be one or more recommendations that
could be made regarding the assessment of fees and contract compliance. These changes may
be achieved by modifying the City Municipal Code through ordinance, amending the hauling
contracts, or effecting change in reporting formats and information.
Furthermore, the data developed in the cost models and reviews may likely uncover potential
for fee recovery or programmatic issues that could related to fee assessment.
I. Review of the City's two haulers Monthly Reports and recommend modifications to the
information contained in the reports
SEMCO will review the report formats currently used by the haulers and, if warranted, identify
modifications that would increase reporting accuracy. In or final report to the City, we will
discuss any reporting modifications that we recommend, and we will gladly develop uniform
reporting forms for future use by the haulers. Ideally, data should be reported separately for
each service sector (sectors: residential, commercial, multi -family, and commercial). This would
allow for easy identification of changes over time, and/or easy identification of discrepancies
that require further investigation.
Schedule
Our schedule for completion of the proposed audit is presented below. The start date will be the date
our firm receives an official notice -to -proceed from the City.
Task Description
A Review of Municipal Code and hauler contracts
B Conduct onsite reviews of haulers' records
C Identification of revenue items, gross revenue
calculations
D Gross revenue inclusion
E Verification of diversion rate
F Franchise fee and AB 939 fee validation
G Completion of final report
H Recommendation of any program changes
regarding assessment of fees and contract
compliance
I Review and modification recommendation
to hauler reports
Completion
within 10 days of notice -to -proceed
within 30 days of notice -to -proceed
within 45 days of notice -to -proceed
within 45 days of notice -to -proceed
within 60 days of notice -to -proceed
within 60 days of notice -to -proceed
within 75 days of notice -to -proceed
within 75 days of notice -to -proceed
within 75 days of notice -to -proceed
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 9 1 P 2 , e
Staffing Chart
Below we have provided a staffing chart indicating the estimated number of hours by personnel for each
task of the scope of work.
Personnel
A
B
C
D
E=
F
G '
H
Total
Principal
2
2
2
2
16
2
8
8
2
44
Manager
3
25
20
16
20
25
12
10
6
137
Analyst
3
25
20
16
20
20
6
8
4
122
Total
8
52
42
34
56
47
26
26
12
303
Qualification of the Firm
SEMCO is highly qualified for this type of task due to its years of experience in developing, managing and
monitoring exclusive and non-exclusive solid waste systems for a number of municipalities. In addition,
we have secured millions of dollars for municipalities in lost services, grants, and fee systems. Given our
experience with haulers and Franchise Agreements, we are able to rapidly identify discrepancies in the
financial and performance records of the haulers. Our references above are repeated below along with
some additional projects.
City of Corona
SEMCO conducted a landmark comprehensive cost of service and rate study of Corona's refuse and
recycling fund in 2005-06. The primary goal of the study was to determine if the current fund was
structured and sufficient to meet fiscal obligations now and in the future, and to identify if and how
related environmental activities could be incorporated into fund revenue sources. SEMCO met the
objectives of the project, and it was able to develop an innovative deal that increased City revenues
from the rate structure, and increased services and community benefits, without any rate increases to
rate pavers. The SEMCO forensic analysis disclosed that the franchise hauler was not accurately
reporting gross receipts resulting in the loss of several million dollars in revenue to the City. SEMCO
brokered a deal for the City with the hauler in which the hauler received a 5 -year extension to the
remaining five years on its agreement; agreed to compensate the City by $35 million over the full 10
year term; and the franchise fee rate was increased from 2% to 12.5% without increasing rates. This
allowed the City to save important services for the community without resorting to any rate increase,
something they had not even conceived of when the project started. SEMCO's experience and expertise
was the difference maker for this extremely favorable outcome.
City of EI Monte
The City of EI Monte entered into an agreement with Huls Environmental Management, LLC (i.e.,
SEMCO) in August 2004. Since then, SEMCO has provided the City with consulting services in refuse and
recycling management for its four franchise haulers. SEMCO has assisted in establishing new waste
hauler contracts for the residential, commercial, multi -family, and temporary sectors. SEMCO has also
assisted the Environmental Services Division with a variety of additional tasks, including the
implementation of all of the City's recycling grant programs. SEMCO has been able to save the City tens
of thousands of dollars in implementation costs, and directly recovered over $2 million in unpaid fees
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 10i r' agc
due the City from its previous haulers. Through it efforts, the City has been able to improve its diversion
rate to 58% with a 2015 goal of 75%. Since December 2009, under a revised agreement with the City,
SEMCO has been contracted to manage all aspects of the Environmental Services Division. Currently,
SEMCO provides a dedicated staff person to work from city office two days per week, as well as off-site
support staff.
City of Paramount
SEMCO performed a Solid Waste Generation Study for the City of Paramount. A team of 10 staff
members completed 60+ discard/process audits. Mr. Huls was responsible for sample selection,
sampling design, and statistical analysis. Mr. Huls was also instrumental for designing the generator
based survey instruments. The California Integrated Waste Management Board approved the new base
year study in 2001.
Since then, SEMCO has continued its efforts in the City to develop complementary diversion programs
for the commercial sector. SEMCO developed a MRF processing system, negotiated the incentive based
pricing system, guided implementation through Council approval, and has headed up a generator based
waste auditing program offered to dozens of accounts who wished to avoid higher disposal costs by
recycling.
In a directly applicable project, SEMCO conducted an evaluation of the franchise refuse hauler's
extraordinary rate increase request. After an exhaustive review of all available data, diversion
programming, service levels and other analytical aspects, SEMCO found that the request for an
extraordinary rate increase was not justified. The recommendation was accepted by the City, which in
turn denied the hauler's request, saving the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased
costs.
City of Santa Fe Springs
SEMCO recently performed a refuse hauler fee compliance review for the City of Santa Fe Springs for its
primary franchise hauler. This involved an exhaustive multi-year review of all hauler reports, hauler fee
payments, and customer account histories. The study confirmed that the franchise waste hauler
accurately reported gross revenues during the review period, and applied and paid the appropriate
franchise and AB 939 fees to the City.
City of Gardena
AB 939 and AB 341 technical assistance; construction and demolition waste recycling program for
developers and contractors; C&D debris recycling ordinance; multifamily recycling program
implementation; development of new select load routing in the business sector; process audits;
business recycling workshops; RFP process; governmental relations; hauler management and forensic
audits.
SEMCO is currently engaged with the City of Gardena on a variety of projects. It has worked
continuously in the City since August of 2001. The City had difficulty with recalcitrant haulers and the
burden of a compliance order that was placed on the City prior to SEMCO's engagement. For Gardena,
we conducted an RFP process in 2001-02 to select up to four semi -exclusive haulers for the commercial -
industrial sector. This process was very fast paced; beginning in September 2002 with a bidding process,
and completed by the end of that calendar year. All aspects were handled by SEMCO including
publication of the RFP, preparation of the agreements and RFP, review and evaluation,
recommendations, and coordination with staff and council. The project was performed within budget.
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 111 P 21 g e
SEMCO has worked with the City to design, develop, and implement a series of programs that range
from hauler management to construction and demolition waste recycling, to mandatory separation
ordinances for businesses. SEMCO has developed mandatory ordinances for recycling of commercial
and C&D waste. In particular, we devised a funding mechanism for staff to recoup its costs of
monitoring and inspecting job sites and evaluating contractor compliance with the C&D regulations. In
2006, we devised the City's public venue event ordinance and have implemented the program for the
City.
SEMCO also conducted an aggressive program in the business community to help avoid unnecessary
cost increases by providing technical assistance in process audits and implementation of zero wasting
programs. One notable process audit resulted in the diversion of over 100 tons of waste per month.
SEMCO took physical samples of the waste material (nonhazardous filter cake) and successfully
brokered the materials to a recycling processing center for use in various aggregates.
City of Covina
SEMCO performed an audit of the franchisee for purposes of providing the City with additional
information to advantageously negotiate an extension. The study allowed the City to request additional
sweeteners from the franchisee.
City of San Gabriel
The City engaged SEMCO to conduct a full evaluation of its rate structure prior to implementing a MRF
based system and adopting a long term agreement with its hauler. Rates were decreased substantially
in exchange for a long-term agreement, and green wastes were arranged to be collected separately
from refuse.
City of Torrance
The City engaged SEMCO to evaluate its commercial haulers for fee payments and service compliance.
Several haulers were found to be out of compliance, and the City was able to recoup significant
revenues.
City of Glendora
SEMCO has managed the City's hauler for several years, and maintains reasonable rates for the
community through its management services.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SEMCO conducted service audits of the two permitted haulers for the City. It conducted forensic studies
of every load collected and processed at the local MRF. The study resulted in increased diversion
through development of wet -dry routing and targeted diversion capture at large generators.
City of Los Angeles
SEMCO conducted reviews of the City's MRF contractors. Rates and services were evaluated for
compliance with diversion levels. Recommendations were made to the City to improve royalty payment
systems from the MRFs.
City of South Pasadena
The City selected SEMCO to conduct a thorough review of the franchise hauler's gross services and the
rate structure. The assignment resulted in improved rates and increased services for the community.
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar - 12 1 ':' ;, g e
City of Lynwood
SEMCO conducted a review of the existing hauler in the City and discovered discrepancies in gross
receipts reporting and fee payments to the City. The report was provided to the City for subsequent
action.
Acknowledgment Statement
SEMCO acknowledges that all terms and conditions of the RFP and the sample Consulting Services
Agreement, including the insurance required in the Insurance Requirements section referenced in the
sample Agreement are acceptable.
Fee Proposal
Our cost proposal is provided in a separate sealed envelope as indicated by the RFP.
Comprehensive Audit, City of Diamond Bar 13 1 P a g e
AIJDE;NDL'N1i NO. 1
CI'T'Y OF DIAVIOND BAR
CALIFORNIA
OFFICLAL \T(-)TICL:
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS {RFP} FOR COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT
FOR CONTRACT COMPLIANCE BY COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL
WASTE HAULERS
ADDENDUM. NO. I
Che fotloti°its changes to for the above project shall he incorporated into the Pkequest for
Prop )sal Docunxettts as part of this project.
The Cormdtarrt shall sign this pare as adtiowledgement of receipt of Addendum No. I and
attach it to the Proposal.
r V1,
� -- `L
A111110=ry SaritOti Date
Sr. Management Anatyst
Consultant's Authorized Signaturc
August 13, 2012
David Liu, PE
Public Works Director
City of Diamond Bar
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SUBJECT: FEE PROPOSAL FOR COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT FOR CONTRACT COMPLIANCE BY
COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
Dear Mr. Liu,
Please accept this fee proposal from Sustainable Environmental Management Company
(SEMCO), a D/B/A of Huls Environmental Management, LLC, to perform the subject services
pursuant to a Request for Proposal dated July 24, 2012. SEMCO is currently under contract
with the City of Diamond Bar (City) to perform hauler management activities and has served
in this capacity since the beginning of the existing hauler contracts. Herein, we submit our
fee proposal.
Our overall not -to -exceed lump sum cost is $ 33,990. This is estimated on the basis of 303
hours at an average billing rate of $110 per hour. This cost includes all direct and indirect
charges. This fee proposal is valid for ninety (90) days.
If you have any specific questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact
Sandy Costandi at (626) 332-7514 or by email at s.costandi@sustainable-env.com.
Sincerely,
Oprlof.. J. Michael Huls
Reviewing Principal
-. C26 / 332 7514 p.o. box 4519
<_ 626 i 498 2806 Covina, ca 91723 , _n_ suskai natie-enn.com
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of August 21 , 2012 by and between the City
of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and Sustainable Environmental
Management Company (SEMCO) , Inc., ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor
to provide consulting services to City as set forth in Exhibit "A", the City's Request for
Proposals dated July 24 , 2012.
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 "B" the Consultant's
Proposal, dated August 13 , 2012 to the City's Request for Proposals.
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 "B."
2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect August 21 , 2012,
and shall continue until January 31, 2013 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 "C." 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 Thirty Three Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety Dollars ($33,990).
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: Consultant:
James DeStefano, City Manager J. Michael Huls, Principal
City of Diamond Bar SEMCO
21810 Copley Drive P.O. Box 4519
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Covina, CA 91723
6. Status as Independent Contractor.
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.
D. Consultant shall, at Consultant's sole cost and expense fully secure
and comply with all federal, state and local governmental permit or licensing
requirements, including but not limited to the City of Diamond Bar, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, and California Air Resources Board. Consultant further
agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply
with the requirements in Section 6. Additionally, the City shall have the right to offset
against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement for any amount
or penalty levied against the City for Consultant's failure to comply with 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 shall indemnify, defend with counsel
approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without
`a
limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of
litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant 's performance
of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this
Agreement, regardless of City's passive negligence, but excepting such loss or damage
which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should
City in its sole discretion find Consultant's legal counsel unacceptable, then Consultant
shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable
attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The Consultant
shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers) covered by this indemnity obligation. It is expressly
understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and
inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination
of this Agreement.
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 authorized
to do business in the State of 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 at least $1,000,000
aggregate; 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
authorized 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,
3
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.
D. Self Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this
Agreement shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-insured retention
("SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the Owner (as the named insured)
should Owner fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or
deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director.
Owner understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express
condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by Owner as primary
insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement.
Should City pay the SIR or deductible on Owner's behalf upon the Owner's failure or
refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured
under the policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any action against
Owner for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by City
due to the breach.
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. Consultant may, however,
make and retain such copies of said documents and materials as Consultant may
desire.
12. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not
acquire any interest, direct 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
S
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.
N7
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. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Mediation. Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in
connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties
hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as
agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally
by the parties hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the
mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral, third
party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree
to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted
to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral
of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same
thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding,
whether at law or in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
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.
5
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:
92
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
22
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
"CONSULTANT"
By:
Its:
N
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.14
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Mana(6
TITLE: AWARD OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE 2012-2013 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CURB RAMP INSTALLATION
PROJECT TO DMS CONSULTANTS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,360,
AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 FOR
CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A
TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $33,360.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Award.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Fiscal Year 2012-2013 CIP Budget includes an allocation of $165,965 of Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Curb Ramp Installation Project within the vicinity of
Pathfinder/Peaceful Hills neighborhood and the Gateway Corporate Center.
BACKGROUND:
As shown in the attached Exhibits "A" & "B", a total of sixty-two (62) curb ramp locations are
anticipated to be designed and constructed within the vicinity of Pathfinder/Peaceful Hills
neighborhood and the Gateway Corporate Center. The majority of the 62 ramp locations are
existing curb ramps previously installed but will have to be removed and replaced to meet current
ADA guidelines while the remainder will be new curb ramp installations where currently no ramps
exist.
DISCUSSION:
On July 24, 2012, the Public Works Department requested proposals for professional engineering
services. The request included preparation of plans, specifications and estimates, construction
administration/inspection, and construction staking services.
A total of four (4) proposals were received on August 10, 2012. The table below shows the
proposed fees of each consulting firm.
1
Consultant
Total
DMS Consultants, Inc.
$30,360.00
Onward Engineering
$31,370.00
Hall & Foreman, Inc.
$42,590.00
Harris & Associates
$55,200.00
The four proposals were reviewed and evaluated by the selection committee. Staff concluded that
DMS Consultants, Inc. was the qualified consultant for the FY 2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp
Project because of their design approach, project team, public relations views, knowledge of local
conditions, as well as knowledge with CDBG Requirements.
DMS Consultants, Inc. scope of work includes:
• Research of City, County and utility company records
• Locate all existing utilities
• Prepare plans, specifications and cost estimates for CDBG project
• Survey and construction staking
• Construction Administration Services
• Provide all inspection services and daily reports
• Address Complaints and Concerns received from Neighborhood and Citizens
• Prepare "Punch List"
• Approve all Progress Payments
The tentative schedule of this project is as follows:
Design, Specifications and Estimate Complete
Construction Contract Award
Construction Completion
PREPARED BY: DATE PREPARED:
Kimberly M. Young, Associate Engineer August 16, 2012
REVIEWE
6
Davin .Liu. Director of Public Works
Attachments: Exhibit "A" & "B"
Consulting Services Agreement
October 2012
December 2012
February 2012
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of August 21, 2012 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 as set forth in Exhibit "A", the City's Request for
Proposals dated July 24, 2012.
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 "B" the Consultant's
Proposal, dated August 10, 2012 to the City's Request for Proposals.
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 "B."
2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect August 21, 2012,
and shall continue 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 "C". 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 Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Dollars ($30,360.00).
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: James DeStefano, City Manager Consultant: Surender Dewan, President
City of Diamond Bar DMS Consultants, Inc.
21825 Copley Drive 12371 Lewis Street, Suite 203
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Garden Grove, CA 92840
11
6. Status as Independent Contractor.
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.
D. Consultant shall, at Consultant's sole cost and expense fully secure
and comply with all federal, state and local governmental permit or licensing
requirements, including but not limited to the City of Diamond Bar, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, and California Air Resources Board. Consultant further
agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply
with the requirements in Section 6. Additionally, the City shall have the right to offset
against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement for any amount
or penalty levied against the City for Consultant's failure to comply with 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 shall indemnify, defend with counsel
approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without
limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of
litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant 's negligence,
recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder or its failure to
PA
comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or
damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City
(meaning that Consultant shall indemnify and defend City notwithstanding any alleged
or actual passive negligence of City which may have contributed to the claims,
damages, costs or liability). Should City in its sole discretion find Consultant's legal
counsel unacceptable, then Consultant shall reimburse the City its costs of defense,
including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs
and fees of litigation. The Consultant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered
against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) with respect to
claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the Consultant's
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct. It is expressly understood and agreed
that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted
by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.
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 authorized
to do business in the State of 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 at least $1,000,000
aggregate; 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 insured 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 insured 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 authorized 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
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.
D. Self Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this
Agreement shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-insured retention
("SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the Owner (as the named insured)
should Owner fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or
deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director.
Owner understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express
condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by Owner as primary
insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement.
Should City pay the SIR or deductible on Owner's behalf upon the Owner's failure or
refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured
under the policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any action against
Owner for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by City
due to the breach.
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. Consultant may, however,
make and retain such copies of said documents and materials as Consultant may
desire.
12. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not
acquire any interest, direct 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
13
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.
5
D. Executive Order 11246 requires that during the performance of this
Agreement, Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, sex, color or national origin. Consultant will take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are
treated during employment, without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national
origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion, or transfer, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and
selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant agrees to post in
conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to
be provided by the Consultant setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination
clause.
E. Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968,
as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq., requires that, to the greatest extent feasible,
opportunities for training and employment be given to lower income residents of the
project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to
business concerns which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing
in the area of the project.
F. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person shall,
on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance.
G. Section 109, Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 provides that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin,
or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program of activity funded in whole or in part with funds made
available under this title.
H. Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped
individual, as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, shall also apply.
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. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
18. 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
0
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.
19. 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.
20. Mediation. Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in
connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties
hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as
agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally
by the parties hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the
mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral, third
party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree
to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted
to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral
of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same
thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding,
whether at law or in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
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. County Lobbying Certification.
The Consultant certifies that:
(A) It is understood that each person/entity/firm who applies for a
Community Development Commission contract, and as part of that process, shall certify
that they are familiar with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Code Chapter
2.160, (Los Angeles County Ordinance 9.-0031) and;
7
(B) That all persons/entity/firm who seeks a contract with the
Community Development Commission shall be disqualified therefrom and denied that
contract and, shall be liable in civil action, if any lobbyist, lobbying firm, lobbyist
employer or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the above named firm fails to
comply with the provisions of the County Code.
25. Contractor's Warranty of Compliance with County's Defaulted
Property Tax Reduction Program:
A. The Contractor acknowledges that the County has established a
goal of ensuring that all individuals and businesses that benefit financially from the
County through contract are current in paying their personal and real property tax
obligations (secured and unsecured roll) in order to mitigate the economic burden
otherwise imposed upon the County and its taxpayers. Unless the Contractor qualifies
for an exemption or exclusion, the Contractor warrants and certifies that to the best of
its knowledge it is now in compliance, and during the term of this Contract will maintain
compliance, with the County's Defaulted Tax Program, found at Los Angeles County
Ordinance No. 2009-0026 and codified at Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 2.206.
B. Failure of the Contractor to maintain compliance with the
requirements set forth in the "County's Defaulted Property Tax Reduction Program "
shall constitute default under this Contract. Without limiting the rights and remedies
available to the City under any other provision of this Contract, failure of the Contractor
to cure such default within 10 days of notice shall be grounds upon which the City may
suspend or terminate this contract pursuant to the County's Defaulted Property Tax
Reduction Program found at Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 2009-0026 and
codified at Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 2.206.
25. Lobbying Certification.
The Consultant certifies that:
(A) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or
on behalf of the Consultant, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of any Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan
or cooperative agreement.
(B) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid
or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Consultant shall complete and
submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosures Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with
its instructions.
0
(C) The Consultant shall require that the language of this certification
be included in all subcontracts and that all subcontracts shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
27. Records and Audits. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and
records, including personnel, property and financial records, adequate to identify and
account for all costs pertaining to this Agreement and such other records as may be
deemed necessary by the City to assure proper accounting for all projects, both federal
and non-federal shares. These records will be made available for audit purposes to the
City or any authorized representative, and will be retained five years after final
payments are issued and other pending matters are closed. (24 CFR Part 84, Sec.
84.53)
28. 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.
29. 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:
Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk
Approved as to form
By:
City Attorney
"CONSULTANT"
By:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
0
0
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
Ling -Ling Chang
Mayor
Jack Tanaka
Mayor Pro Tem
Ron Everett
Council Member
Carol Herrera
Council Member
Steve Tye
Council Member
July "14, LU11
City of Diamond Bar
21810 Copley Drive • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 839-7000 • Fax (909) 861-3117
www.Diamonc[BarCA.gov
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for the Design, Construction
Administration/Inspection, Surveying and Staking
Services for the 2012-2013 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Curb Ramp Installation Project
To Civil Engineering Firms:
INTRODUCTION
The City of Diamond Bar Public Works Department is seeking to retain the
services of a professional civil engineering consultant firm for the design,
construction administration/inspection, survey and staking services of the
2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Curb Ramp
Installation Project. The curb ramp improvements required will upgrade
existing curb ramps and add curb ramps in existing right-of-way to provide
continuity for pedestrian access and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
accessibility.
Proposed curb ramp locations are located within the neighborhoods of
Peaceful Hills/Pathfinder and the Gateway Corporate Center. Please see
Exhibits A & B attached.
The project is federally funded through 2012-2013 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds. Please find attached
requirements and Consulting Services Agreement that must be met and
included in the proposal package. (Exhibit "C"). The total budget for the
project is $165,965 which includes, design, construction and construction
management services.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
The City of Diamond Bar requires the services of a professional civil
engineering consultant firm to provide the technical design, construction
administration/inspection, surveying and staking services for the
aforementioned project areas under Section I.
Page 2
RFP — Design, Construction Administration/Inspection, Surveying & Staking Services
July 24, 2012
The professional civil engineering consultant firm shall prepare plans,
specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the project. The proposal shall
identify tasks to be included as part of the project. At a minimum, these
tasks shall include:
1) Conduct utility search within the project limits. Review the location of
existing utilities, surface and subsurface structures and proposed
improvements. If the proposed improvements interfere with existing
utilities, necessary arrangements shall be made. Contact and
coordinate with all utility agencies and verify any possible
discrepancies.
2) Prepare technical plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and bid
schedule. Technical plans shall have typical plan views and sections to
fit 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch sheets or 11 inch by 17 inch sheets folded to fit
the size of 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch and shall be in the "Appendix" section
of the specifications. Specifications shall be submitted in electronic
format in Microsoft(D Word format. Cost estimates shall include each
bid item description, quantity, unit cost and total cost and shall be
submitted in tabular form in Microsoft(D Excel format.
3) Final Plans and specifications will be required to be submitted in
electronic format to be posted on the City's website.
The professional civil engineering consultant firm shall also perform
inspection, surveying and staking for the project. The proposal shall
identify tasks to be included as part of the project. At a minimum, these
tasks shall include:
1. Observe construction for the duration of the project. Number of hours
anticipated for adequate observation shall be identified.
2. Prepare and submit daily logs and weekly reports of construction
activities.
3. Conduct Labor Compliance Employee Interviews per CDBG
Requirements.
Page 3
RFP — Design, Construction Administration/Inspection, Surveying and Staking Services
July 24, 2012
4. Provide construction surveying and staking services as necessary to
assist the contractor in construction of the proposed improvements per
the plans and specifications.
• Identify and mark the center line, dimension of the upstream
and downstream X of the new ramps. Ensure that curb ramps
are constructed with the correct grade and gutters have
adequate elevations to allow water to flow.
• Identify, quantify, and recommend to the City in a timely
manner the removal and replacement of damaged sidewalk,
curb and gutter in the immediate vicinity of the curb ramps.
5. Respond and address contractor's request for information/questions
regarding design and construction issues.
6. Review and monitor contractor's progress and schedule.
7. Conduct final job walk and prepare the punch list.
8. Recommend final acceptance of project.
9. Maintain project construction records and prepare record drawings to
be given to the City at the end of project.
10. Monitor, evaluate, and approve change order requests.
III. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
The consultant's proposal shall contain the following information and shall
be organized as follows:
1. Cover letter summarizing the proposal.
2. Statement of qualifications including a list of design, inspection,
surveying and staking projects that have been successfully
implemented within the last three (3) years with at least two (2) CDBG
Projects included.
3. Brief discussion of understanding of the City's needs.
Page 4
RFP — Design, Construction Administrationlinspection, Surveying and Staking Services
July 24, 2012
4. Detailed work plan which itemizes and describes each task to be
completed.
5. Project staffing and organization.
6. Resumes of project staff.
7. Minimum three (3) references with contact names, addresses and
telephone numbers.
8. A written statement of your firm's willingness to accept the terms of the
Consulting Services Agreement (Exhibit "C")
9. Additional information regarding the firm, sample reports, outputs or
pertinent insight about the design, inspection, surveying and staking
services may be included.
The consultant's fee proposal shall contain the following information:
1. Not -to -exceed (NTE) figure and hourly billing rates for typical staff
classifications and cost breakdown per task. All assumptions upon
which the costs are based shall be stated. Fee proposal shall be
submitted in a separate sealed envelope.
IV. SELECTION OF QUALIFIED CONSULTANT
The City will select the consultant for this project based on a combination
of factors such as qualifications, past experience with similar projects,
approach to this particular service and references. There may be
interviews of some or all consultants who submit proposals. The selected
firm shall enter into the Consulting Services Agreement with the City of
Diamond Bar, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." A statement MUST be
made in the proposal that all terms and conditions are acceptable.
Proof of Insurance requirements addressed in the professional services
agreement of this Request for Proposal shall be submitted by the selected
consultant upon execution of the contract for submittal to the City Council.
The selected consultant must submit a "Statement Certifying Insurance
Coverage" certifying that the required insurance coverage will be obtained
by the consultant, and that the consultant understands said coverage is
prerequisite for entering into an agreement with the City. The consultant
Page 5
RFP — Design, Construction Administration/Inspection, Surveying and Staking Services
July 24, 2012
is required to confirm with its insurance carrier that it can meet all the
requirements for insurance. Failure to meet with insurance regulations as
set forth shall result in the consultant's disqualification.
The City has the right to reject all proposals at any point in the selection
process with no financial obligation to the consultants.
V. PROPOSAL
Consultants interested in responding to this Request for Proposal shall
submit a proposal by 4:00 p.m. on August 10, 2012. The proposal shall
be organized as described in the "Proposal Contents."
Three (3) sets of proposals shall be presented in one (1) sealed envelope,
and one (1) fee proposal shall be presented in one (1) sealed envelope.
Envelopes bearing the name, address and telephone number of individual or
entity submitting the proposal and shall be addressed to:
Ms. Kimberly Young, P. E,
Associate Engineer
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar. CA 91765
Envelope for proposals shall be clearly marked with the notation: "DO NOT
OPEN- PROPOSAL."
Envelope for fee proposal shall be clearly marked with the notation: "DO
NOT OPEN- FEE PROPOSAL."
For any questions regarding this Request for Proposal, please contact Ms.
Kimberly Young, Associate Engineer, at (909) 839-7044.
Sincere
David G. Liu, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Attachments
Exhibits "A" & "B" -Vicinity Maps
Exhibit "C" - Consulting Services Agreement
xI-1T V�> -
PROJr-CT APPROACH
DESIGN PHASE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
In a consultation meeting with the City, the scope of work, procedure and the precise limits of the
project improvements will be reviewed.
Obtain from the County of Los Angeles centerline tie notes for all intersections requiring
curb ramp installation.
UTILITY COORDINATION
® Request information from utility companies for existing facilities within the project area.
® Throughout the duration of the contract, our field inspector will coordinate as necessary with utility
companies to ensure smooth completion of the project.
DESIGN SURVEY
Conduct a topographic survey for intersections requiring design survey (total of 4) as identified in
the Project Understanding section. Set temporary bench marks for curb ramps and BCRs.
Identify removal and replacement of damaged sidewalk, and curb and gutter in the vicinity of curb
ramps.
Prepare preconstruction comer records and submit to City and to County of Los Angeles.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
s Prepare base maps using computer aided drafting (AutoCAD).
■ Record drawings provided by utility companies will be used in conjunction with field data showing
manholes, valves, and other appurtenances located during the design survey.
® Curb ramp improvements:
Prepare vicinity map identifying location of proposed curb ramps.
Prepare access ramp work sheets. Work sheets to identify location of ramp, type of ramp
per case and standard. Work sheets will also identify removal of any sidewalk or curb and
gutter adjacent to curb ramp.
Prepare details for curb ramps requiring detailed topo to identify the limits of sidewalk
removal for conformance with maximum permissible grades per SPPWC standards.
Prepare preliminary estimate of probable cost.
FINAL DESIGN
e Prepare final plans and work sheets on 8'/2'x11" sheets to be included in the bid package.
® Prepare project specifications, cost estimates and bid package.
Page 14
2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp Installation
PROJECT APPROACH
The project specifications will include the required CDBG certification form. The certification
established conforming to provisions of Section 1605 - Use of American Iron, Steel, and
Manufactured Goods. In addition to certifying that the materials comply with the specifications,
contractors shall also certify that all manufacturing processes for the materials occurred in the
United States, except for the exemptions allowed in paragraph IV of the Bulletin. Note that these
requirements do not prevent a minimal use of foreign steel and iron materials if the total combined
cost of such materials used does not exceed one-tenth of 1% of the total contract cost or $2,500,
whichever is greater. The contractor shall furnish the project engineer with acceptable
documentation of the quantity and value of any foreign steel and iron prior to incorporating such
materials into the work.
COMMUNICATIONS
a DMS Consultants, Inc. is extremely aware of the impact the project will have on the community and
the surrounding businesses. We will closely review the contractor's proposed method of
construction, schedule and traffic control, and will develop construction phasing/sequencing so as
to ensure that the impact to residents, commuters and businesses is minimized.
o We will emphasize to the contractor the necessity of maintaining access to all properties at all
times, except as required for construction for a reasonable period of time. We will also ensure that
the contractor notifies all affected properties least 48 hours prior to any temporary construction of
access in accordance with the project specifications.
TRASH PICKUP AND STREET SWEEPING
® We will provide the contractor with street sweeping and trash pickup schedules at the pre -
construction meeting and will require the contractor to develop his construction schedule
accordingly, so as to minimize any inconvenience to residents, and to make certain that trash is
picked up on the regularly scheduled day.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Our inspector will ensure that all traffic control devices are in place every morning prior to
construction and the contractor has proper signage in place for detour of pedestrian traffic in the
project area. We will also confirm that at the end of each work day all portable traffic controls have
been removed from the construction area.
COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES REQUIREMENTS
® Our inspector will ensure all construction activities are conducted in a manner to protect storm
drains and bodies of water from pollution.
Page 15
2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp Installation
PROJECT AFFKOACH
o During construction catch basins in the project area will be protected by placement of filter fabric,
sand bags or combination thereof to protect polluted water from running into storm drain system.
® The contractor will be required to comply with all requirements of the NPDES permit including
preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
POST CONSTRUCTION CORNER RECORDS
® At completion of project, reset ties destroyed by curb ramp construction and file post
construction corner records with County of Los Angeles.
PROJECT CLOSEOUT
■ Coordinate a final walk-through and prepare "Punch List" items, certify completion of the project
and recommend acceptance.
■ Submit contractor's approved record drawings to the City.
® Finalize all change orders and prepare final estimate per measured quantities.
® Recommend final acceptance of the project.
QUALITY CONTROL
® The importance of quality control cannot be overemphasized. The project manager will review and
check all documents before they are issued or submitted to the City.
Page 16
2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp Installation
PROJECT APPROACH
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION &
INSPECTION PHASE
CONSTRUCTION STAKING
Mark in field the limits of removals per the type of ramp proposed at locations to be staked.
Mark in the field the centerline locations of the ramps and dimensions of upstream and
downstream "x" of the ramps.
CDBG COMPLIANCE
■ Conduct field interviews of each contractor, subcontractor, and trade.
• Ensure all equal employment opportunity, labor, and wage decision posters have been posted.
• Review contractor's affirmative action plan.
• Ensure contractor submits all required HUD documents, including monthly employment utilization
reports to the City and notify contractor if documents are not submitted in a timely manner.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Field inspector will perform inspector/administrator's duties as set forth in the scope of work for the
project. Guidance for the manner in which those duties are carried out is best described in:
• Project Plans and Specifications
• Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, latest edition
• Public Works Inspector Manual
DAILY/ WEEKLY REPORTS
Field inspector will prepare daily logs addressing progress of the project, weather conditions,
number of workers on site, subcontractors present on site, directions given to the contractor, and
potential problems which may cause delay or extra work.
MONITOR CONTRACTOR PROGRESS
• Field 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. If necessary, the contractor will be
immediately notified when his progress falls behind schedule. Our inspector, with concurrence of
City staff, will immediately resolve the design issue between the contractor and designer in order to
minimize any potential delays.
Page 17
2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp Installation
Rr-SOURCr REQUIREMENTS
2012-2013
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Curb Ramp Installation Project
DMS Consultants, Inc.
I 2 -Man
Project Project Design Field Total
Description Manager Engineer Engineer Inspector Survey Clerical Hours
Crew
DESIGN SERVICES
Preliminary Design Development
Utility Coordination
Topographic Survey
Pre -Construction Corner Records
Project Plans
Project Specifications and Estimate
Assistance During Bidding Phase
FA
2
4
2 8
4 20 24
8
Included
2 4
2 4
4
10
48
16 24
CONSTRUCTION STAKING &
INSPECTION SERVICES
Pre -Construction Meeting 2 2 4
Construction Administration 16 16
Construction Inspection 152 152
Construction Staking/Removals 4 4
Post -Construction Corner Records 8 8 16
TOTAL: 34 30 24 154 24 20 286
Page 30
2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp Installation
2-,
DMS
DMS CONSLTANT5, INC.
FEEPROPOSAL
2012.2013
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Curb Ramp Installation Project
Design Services
Preliminary Design Development..........................................................................................................$430.00
UtilityCoordination.................................................................................................................................$320.00
TopographicSurvey...............................................................................................................................
$780.00
Pre Construction Corner Records........................................................................................................$1,780.00
ProjectPlans.......................................................................................................................................
$5,660.00
Project Specifications and Estimate....................................................................................................$1,880.00
Reproductions.......................................................................................................................................$200.00
Assistance During Bidding Phase .................. ............... ........ .............................................................
... Included
SUBTOTAL: $11,050.00
Construction Staking and
Inspection Services
Pre -Construction Meeting.......................................................................................................................$490.00
Construction Administration - Project Manager...................................................................................$2,560.00
Construction Inspection - Field Inspector.......................................................................................... $12,920.00
Construction Staking/ Removals.............................................................................................................$780.00
Post Construction Corner Records......................................................................................................$2,560.00
SUBTOTAL: $19,310.00
NOT -TO -EXCEED FEE: $30,360.00
DMS
S
CONSULTANTS. INC'.
1, I V 11. E N G I N E E R S
RE-souKcr- Kr_(2 IIREMr-NT5
2012-2013
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Curb Ramp Installation Project
DMS Consultants, Inc.
Description
Project
Project
Design
Field
2 -Man
Survey
Clerical
Total
Manager
Engineer
Engineer
Inspector
Crew
Hours
DESIGN SERVICES
Preliminary Design Development
2
2
4
Utility Coordination
2
2
4
Topographic Survey
4
4
Pre -Construction Corner Records
2
8
10
Project Plans
4 20 24
48
Project Specifications and Estimate
8
16
24
Assistance During Bidding Phase
Included
CONSTRUCTION STAKING &
INSPECTION SERVICES
Pre -Construction Meeting
2 2
4
Construction Administration
16
16
Construction Inspection
152
152
Construction Staking/Removals
4
4
Post -Construction Corner Records
8
8
16
TOTAL:
34 30 24 154
24
20
286
Page 30
2012-2013 CDBG Curb Ramp Installation
Agenda It .15
Meeting Date: August 21, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano City Mane
TITLE: Appeal of Planning Commission rision to Deny Case No.
PL 2011-387 Proposed Revisions to Development Review
No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 (Case No. PL
2011-387
APPELLANTS:
• PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Ghotra, 1241 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
• APPLICANTS: Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765 and Pete Volbeda, 180 N. Benson #D,
Upland, CA 91786
PROJECT LOCATION: 22909 Ridge Line Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (Los
Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 8713-005-006)
SUMMARY:
On August 7, 2012, the City Council held a public hearing regarding requested as -built
changes to a new residence under construction at the Project Location referenced
above.
The City Council took public comment, discussed the matter, and directed staff to
prepare a resolution approving the requested project revisions.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving
revisions to the design of a new single-family residence as set forth under Case No. PL
2011-387 based on the findings contained therein.
Prepared by:
Gra S. Le
Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
David Doy e
Assistant City Manager
Attachment:
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -XX
Reviewed by:
ZQ!!G
Greg Gubman, AICP
Community Development Director
Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA ("CITY"), UPHOLDING THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL, REVERSING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING REVISIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-38 AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2007-06 (CASE
NO. PL 2011-387), A REQUEST TO APPROVE AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY
INCREASING BUILDING PAD AND FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ON A LOT
LOCATED AT 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765, AND FURTHER
IDENTIFIED ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 8713-005-006 ("PROJECT SITE")
THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
A. THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DECLARES THAT:
1. On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Development Review
No. 2006-38 for an 11,321 square -foot, three-story residence, and Minor
Variance No. 2007-06 to reduce the front setback to 24 feet (30 feet is required
in the Rural Residential zoning district) and increase the height of the proposed
retaining walls to 8 feet (6 feet is the maximum height allowed by the
Development Code) on the Project Site, as depicted on the preliminary grading,
site, landscaping and architectural plans on file with the City's Planning Division
("Project"),
2. The legal description of the parcel on which the Project Site is located is Lot 30
of Tract 30091.
3. On August 13, 2008, the City approved the grading plan for the Project.
4. On August 25, 2008, the City issued a grading permit authorizing earthwork to
commence on the Project Site as prescribed by the approved grading plan.
5. On April 26, 2010, the City issued a building permit authorizing the construction
of the Project's retaining walls.
6. On October 11, 2010, the Project's engineer of record at the time, Gerald E.
Ronnebeck (R.C.E. 42853, exp. 3-31-12) certified the rough grading elevations
and retaining walls on the Project Site to be in compliance with the elevations
prescribed on the approved grading plan.
7. On November 15, 2010, the City's Public Works Inspector ("Inspector")
inspected the rough grading conditions and related documentation pertaining to
the project site, including, among other things, the rough grading certification
letter from the Project's engineer of record. The Project "passed" the rough
grading inspection on the basis of the Inspector's finding that the earthwork
completed on this date was in compliance with the stipulations set forth on the
grading permit.
1
8. On June 30, 2011, the Inspector reinspected the Project Site and found that
alterations to the earthwork and retaining walls had occurred subsequent to the
November 15, 2010 rough grading inspection.
9. On July 15, 2011, land surveyor James S. McDonough (LS 6823, exp. 9-30-12)
prepared a survey map of the Project Site after surveying the pad and wall
elevations on the Project Site. The survey map documents that the building
pad elevations on the Project Site are, in general, approximately two feet higher
than the building pad elevations specified on the approved Project grading plan.
10. On September 22, 2011, Applicants Pete Volbeda and Sam Bhogal
("Applicants"), on behalf of property owner Paul Ghotra ("Owner'), filed
Planning Application No. PL 2011-387 with the City, requesting that the
Planning Commission approve modifications to the Project ("Project
Revisions"). The requested Project Revisions include the following items:
• To maintain the as -built, elevated heights of the building pads;
• To lower the overall height of the dwelling by two feet to effectively negate
the visual impact of the elevated pad heights;
• To reduce the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the
heights originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007
(however, because the finished grades adjacent to the walls are higher than
what is shown on the original plans, the walls would be at higher elevations);
• To build a retaining wall, approximately 3 to 4 feet in exposed height, at the
west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road); and
• Install landscaping along the west portion of the property to screen the view
of the retaining walls from 22835 Ridge Line Road.
11. On February 17, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners
within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project Site and the notice was published in the
San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A
notice display board was posted at the Project Site, and a copy of the notice
was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites.
12. On February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all
interested individuals, concluded said hearing on that date, directed staff to
prepare a resolution denying the requested Project Revisions, and continued
the matter to March 13, 2012.
13. On March 13, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
adopted Resolution No. 2012-09, denying the requested Project Revisions.
14. On March 23, 2012, the Owner and Applicants filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the Project Revisions.
15. On July 27, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within
a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice
display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the
2
City's three designated community posting sites.
16. On August 7, 2012, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted
a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested
individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date, directed staff to
prepare a resolution approving the requested Project Revisions, and continued
the matter to August 21, 2012.
IT The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the City
of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division,
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under
Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DMBC) Section 22.48.40, and upon substantial
evidence in the administrative record, the City Council finds as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Part A
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Project Revisions are subject to and must satisfy the same findings for
Development Review as the original project. Pursuant to Section 22.48.040 of
the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following
findings and conclusions regarding revisions to Development Review and
Minor Variance No. PL 2011-387:
a. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with
the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district,
design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme
areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevard or planned
developments.)
The evidence presented to the City Council shows that the Project
Revisions proposed in this application are minor in nature and entirely
consistent with the applicable RR zone Development Standards and
Design Guidelines. The mass, scale and appearance of the project will
not be materially changed by the Project Revisions and are consistent
with surrounding single-family development in the neighborhood.
b. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere
with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
The Project Site is located in a hillside community, with variation in
topography and roadway grades. Building pads are typically placed near
the adjacent roadways, resulting in those roadway grades determining
the building pad elevations. Because building pads are level, the vertical
3
differences between the pads and the abutting roadways are not
constant.
The roadway segment that runs adjacent to the Project Site and the
neighboring downslope property located at 22835 Ridge Line Road has a
grade of seven -to -eight percent. The portion of the neighboring building
pad closest to the Project Site is approximately 9 feet below the facing
street grade. The pad elevation difference between the upper pad of the
residence at 22835 Ridge Line Road and the originally approved upper
pad of the project site was approximately 16 feet. With the proposed
Project Revisions, the elevation difference between these two pads will
be approximately 18 feet.
The proposed two -foot increase in the finished grades associated with
the Project Revisions would not result in a substantially different visual
impact to the neighboring downslope property or any other properties
with sight lines into the Project Site, particularly given the relatively steep
and varied topography in the vicinity of the Project Site. The City Council
gave consideration to the objections raised by the neighboring property
owner of 22835 Ridge Line Road, but finds that when the compensating
two -foot reduction in the height of the structure is taken into
consideration, the visual impact of the revised project is substantially the
same as the originally approved project, that the revisions are de
minimus in character and that the revised Project does not interfere with
the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property.
Additional factors that support the conclusion that the design and layout
of the Project Revisions will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future developments include the following:
• The landscaping within terraced slopes between the Project Site and
the westerly property line adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road will be
increased to further screen the retaining walls and future dwelling.
Proposed plant materials in this area include Texas Privet and New
Zealand Flax, which grow to approximately eight feet in height. New
Zealand Flax is a perennial and Texas Privet is an evergreen,
therefore, landscaping will be foliated year-round. In addition, three
24" box Brisbane Box specimen trees will be installed in this area for
additional screening. Therefore, the exposed portions of the retaining
walls would be screened and camouflaged in a relatively short time.
• The Project Revisions incorporate lowering the height of the Project
dwelling by two feet, to negate the overall height increase that would
have otherwise resulted from the elevated building pad heights.
C. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with
the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and
enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development
11
contemplated by Development Code Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, or
any applicable specific plan.
The Project Revisions do not materially alter the originally approved
design of the proposed single-family residence and accessory structure,
which was previously found to be consistent with the terms and
conditions of the long-range planning policy documents adopted by the
City of Diamond Bar and compatible with the scope, scale and
appearance of the surrounding existing homes.
d. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its
neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color
that will remain aesthetically appealing.
The Project Revisions do not modify the originally approved project's
design and use of construction material, which were originally found to
be consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood.
e. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare or materially injurious [e.g., negative effect on property
values or resale(s) of property] to the property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The visual impact of the requested Project Revisions to the adjacent and
downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line
Road), as well as to parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, would not
be materially increased by elevating the finished grades as proposed,
and, as detailed in Section 2.b. above, will not be detrimental to the
welfare of the occupants of the aforementioned properties.
f. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The originally approved Project, with the incorporated Project Revisions,
is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19
Section 15303(a) (Construction of a New Single Family Residence) of
the CEQA Guidelines.
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under DBMC
Section 22.48.040, the City Council hereby finds and approves the Revisions to
Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL2011-387, subject to the following
conditions:
5
A. GENERAL
1. All previously -issued public works, grading and building permits for this
project are hereby deemed expired. New permits shall be applied for
and granted for all aspects of construction including grading, retaining
walls, and other structures that are non-exempt from permitting
requirements. Moreover, the Owner shall be responsible for payment of
all fees associated with plans examining, permit issuance and
inspections based on the value of construction to be completed.
2. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the
Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its
officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to
attack, set-aside, void or annul the approval of Revisions to Development
Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011-387 brought within the time
period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event
the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of
any such action:
a. Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the
City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including
reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
b. Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against
the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of
any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the
defense thereof.
3. This approval shall not be effective until the Applicant and Owner of the
Project Site involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days following the
adoption of this Resolution, at the City of Diamond Bar Community
Development Department, an affidavit stating that they are aware of and
agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval
shall not be effective until the Applicant pay the remaining City
processing fees, school fees, and fees for the review of submitted
reports.
4. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Public Works/Engineering Department. Erosion control measures
shall be established and maintained on the Project Site within thirty (30)
days following the adoption of this Resolution. Erosion control measures
and any required shoring shall be in place and approved by Public
Works/Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division.
5. Within six (6) months following the adoption of this Resolution, the
Applicant shall:
a. Apply for and obtain a grading permit for all earthwork required for
rough grading pad certification and the construction of all retaining
0
walls depicted on the rough grading plan in accordance with Section
B below.
b. Apply for and obtain building permits for all retaining walls depicted
on the rough grading plan, which have not been constructed.
c. Apply for and obtain building permits for the construction of the
dwelling in accordance with Section C below.
Any extension(s) to this deadline shall be requested in writing with good
cause and submitted for the Community Development Director for review
and approval.
6. The Applicant shall at all times comply with the Conditions of Approval
attached hereto and referenced herein. No occupancy permit shall be
granted, until all improvements required by this approval have been
properly constructed, inspected, and approved.
7. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
8. Signed copies of this Resolution shall be included on all construction
plans. The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the
construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet
signed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
9. The Project Site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with
the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable Federal,
State, or City regulations.
10. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of
the Development Code and all other applicable City ordinances in effect
at the time of grading or building permit issuance.
11. The Owner or Applicant shall effect removal of the public hearing notice
board within seven (7) days of Project approval.
12. Any revisions to the plans approved by the City Council shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval.
13. The Project Site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris
both during and after the construction. The removal of all trash, debris,
and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done
only by the Owner, Applicant or by the City's officially franchised waste
hauler.
7
14. All other conditions of approval adopted under Planning Commission
Resolution 2007-37, except as amended or superseded herein, remain
valid and in full force and effect.
B. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND
RETAINING WALL PERMITS
1. A geotechnical memo shall be issued by the geotechnical engineer of
record indicating that the revised grading plan has been reviewed and is
in conformance with their approved geotechnical recommendations. Any
changes in recommendations for the revised grading plan shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Public Works/Engineering
Department prior to commencing corrective grading operations.
2. The revised grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Public Works/Engineering Department. A separate grading permit
with all applicable fees, will be required prior to commencing corrective
grading operations.
3. Site conditions shall be certified by a surveyor verifying that grading,
retaining walls, and building pads match the approved grading plan
specifications.
4. Following the completion of corrective measures to restore existing
retaining walls to conform to the height limitations established on the
approved construction plans, the Building Official may, with good cause,
determine additional requirements for the engineer of record to submit
for compliance with the structural code requirements for said walls.
5. As directed by the Building Official, the engineer of record shall examine
the retaining wall at the northwesterly portion of the property for cold
joints and submit a formal assessment of its structural integrity to the
Building Official. The findings of the assessment shall provide the basis
for the Building Official to determine whether or not remediation work
shall be performed on the retaining wall in order to assure its structural
integrity.
6. Updated plans and details shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Division for review and approval of all retaining walls constructed on the
property indicating existing or new work and any retrofit or changes
necessary.
7. Prior to construction of any walls, the locations shall be staked and/or
clearly identified for building and grading inspector verifications and shall
remain in place during construction.
&3
C. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ALL OTHER
BUILDING PERMITS
1. Upon completion of the corrective grading operations and prior to release
of building permits, the rough grade shall be re -certified by both the civil
and geotechnical engineers of record. An updated geotechnical report
certifying the rough grading shall be submitted at the completion of the
corrective grading and retaining wall operations for review and approval
by the Public Works/Engineering Department.
2. Revised architectural plans incorporating changes to the reduced
building height shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning and Building & Safety Divisions.
3. Revised landscape and irrigation plans incorporating the changes
approved shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and
approval.
D. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION
1. All existing open excavations for footings and underground plumbing
shall be reinspected.
2. All grading, wall heights, building pads, height of building, landscaping
and other items depicted on any City approved plans shall be strictly
adhered to. Modifications to approved plans and specifications shall first
be submitted to the City for review and approval.
3. All City -approved plans, job cards, and permits shall be on site during all
inspections. Failure to have any plans available may result in a "stop
work" order until these plans are produced at the site to the satisfaction
of the building inspector.
4. Prior to building permit final inspection release or release of any utilities,
a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall prepare a duly stamped
and signed height and final survey of the grading, retaining walls, and
building heights.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to the
property owner: Paul Ghotra, 1241 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91765;
and the applicants Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar, CA
91765 and Pete Volbeda, 180 N. Benson #D, Upland, CA 91786.
p�
C. RELIANCE ON RECORD.
Unless otherwise provided, each and every one of the findings and conclusions in this
Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
conclusions constitute the independent findings and conclusions of the City Council in
all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole. Unless otherwise provided, all summaries of information in this
Resolution are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any
particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is
not based in part on that fact.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s'DAY OF AUGUST 2012, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
M
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of August 2012,
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member:
NOES: Council Member:
ABSENT: Council Member:
ABSTAIN: Council Member:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
10
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
>/A) CO2
ORGANIZATION
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
DATE:
IS�1)XO ZiVC- PHONE: 69�CP
expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have 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.
CST
HERE
ivss
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK 1
FROM: DATE: t1 11z -
ADDRESS: 2 \` Q0 -PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes
reflect my name and address as written above.
ig ure
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.