Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/02/2013
City of Diamond Bar City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:45 p.m., - Study 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 Jack Tanaka Mayor Ling -Ling Chang Council Member City Manager/ames DeStefano Carol Herrera Council Member • City Attorney Ron Everett Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye Council Member • City Clerk Tommye Cribbins Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodations) 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.CityofDiamondBar.com Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA April 2, 2013 Next Resolution No. 2013-06 Next Ordinance No. 01(2013) STUDY SESSION: 5:45 p.m., Room CC -8 ► Grand Avenue Beautification Project — Discussion and Action. Public Comments CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 6:30 p.m. Mayor Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic Church Council Members Chang, Herrera, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Everett, Mayor Tanaka Mayor 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 Proclaiming April, 2013 as "DMV/Donate Life California Month". 1.2 Presentation of City Tile to Lt. Steven Katz, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Diamond Bar/Walnut Sub Station. 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. April 2, 2013 PAGE 2 NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.3 Presentation of Certificate Plaque to "Bull Demon King", 1155 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, Unit E as New Business of the Month, April, 2013, 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (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 Planning Commission Meeting — April 9, 2013 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.2 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — April 11, 2013 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.3 24th Annual City Birthday Party — Saturday, April 13, 2013 — 11:00 a.m. — 5 p.m. (Carnival rides open until 6:00 pm). - Pantera Park, 738 Pantera Drive 5.4 City Council Meeting — April 16, 2013 — 6:30 p.m.., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 8.1 Approval of Contract with Woodruff, Spradlin, Smart for City Attorney Services. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: City Council April 2, 2013 PAGE 3 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 City Council Minutes — Regular Meeting of March 19, 2013 — Approve as submitted. 6.2 Ratification of Check Register — Dated March 14, 2013 through March 27, 2013 totaling $614,096.64. Requested by: Finance Department 6.3 Treasurer's Statement — Month of February, 2013. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: Finance Department 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be heard. 7.1 Adopt Ordinance No. OX (2013): Extending Ordinance No. 07(2012) Prohibiting the Issuance of Permits for Establishment of Land Uses on the Parcels on the Northwest Corner of the SR60/Grand Avenue Interchange in Accordance with the Provisions of Government Code Section 65858 (Honda Property). Recommended Action: Receive Staff's Presentation; Open the Public Hearing; Receive Testimony; Close the Public Hearing and Adopt. Requested by: Community Development Department 7.2 Ordinance No. 0X(2013): Amending Tables 2-5 and 2-6 of Section 22.10.030 of the Municipal Code. Recommended Action: Table the Matter. Requested by: Community Development Department 7.3 Conditional Use Permit (Planning Case No. PL2013-033). Recommended Action: Table the Matter. Requested by: Community Development Department 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 MARCH 19, 2013 CLOSED SESSION 6:00 p.m., Room CC -8 Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda — None offered. ► Government Code Section 54957 — City Attorney CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jack Tanaka called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA. ACA/Cotti reported that tonight's Meeting began with Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the City Attorney appointment and evaluation process. The Closed Session was recessed at approximately 6:20 p.m. to the Regular Meeting with no reportable action taken. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MPT/Everett led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Randy Lanthripe, Church of the Valley, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Member Chang, Mayor Pro Tem Everett and Mayor Tanaka. Absent: Council Members Herrera and Tye were excused. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; John Cotti, Assistant City Attorney; Ken Deforges, IT Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Ryan McLean; Assistant to the City Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Clark Rucker, 10 Rancho Laguna Drive, Phillips Ranch, a member of the Walnut Valley Education Foundation, Max 7 President at Diamond Bar High School, and concerned parent, encouraged the City Council and residents to attend the annual Teddy Bear Tea on Saturday, April 20, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Royal Vista Golf Course, 20055 East Colima Road, Walnut. This event is the MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL major fundraiser for the Education Foundation that supports the WVUSD. Reservations are required and event information is available on the website. Nancy Lyons, 22536 Ridgeline Road, representing DB Friends of the Library, invited everyone to attend the Friends of the Library Annual Wine Soiree on Sunday, April 21 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the Diamond Bar Center. Tickets are available at US Bank, California Bank Trust, DB Library and Basically Books. There will a live auction for a weekend use of a Lamborghini. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 State of the City — Presented by Mayor Jack Tanaka — March 21, 2013 — 6:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1600 Grand Avenue. 5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — March 26, 2013 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. (meeting cancelled) 5.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — March 28, 2013 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 Annual Easter Egg Hunt — March 30, 2013 — 10:00 a.m. - Pantera Park, 738 Pantera Drive (Pancake Breakfast hosted by Fire Explorers Post 19 beginning at 8:30 a.m.) 5.5 City Council Meeting — April 2, 2013 — 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, MPT/Everett seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, MPT/Everett, M/Tanaka NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tye 6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of March 5, 2013 -Approved as submitted. 6.1.2 Special Closed Session Meeting of March 6, 2013 — Approved as submitted. MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of February 12, 2013. 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of February 26, 2013. 6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 24, 2013, 6.4 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated February 28, 2013 through March 19, 2013 totaling $920,187.13. 6.5 LANDSCAPE DISTRICT NUMBERS 38,39 AND 41: a) APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBERS 38, 39 AND 41 FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $12,965. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2013-03: ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 AND ANY ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FY 2013-14. c) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04: ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACE IN THE CITY LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 AND ANY ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FY 2013-14. d) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2013-05: ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACE IN THE CITY LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 AND ANY ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FY 2013-14. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: None 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Chang reminded attendees that she could be followed on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Foursquare. Last week she was in Washington D.C. for the National League of Cities and Asian -Pacific American Municipal Officer's MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL Board as a representative for Southern California. She along with CM/DeStefano, PWD/Liu and C/Herrera were there for the 57/60 Confluence Project. Every year City representatives travel to Washington D.C. to remind the Federal Government that it needs to look at this particular piece of the freeway, the "National Goods Movement Corridor", because it is very important to DB to reduce the number of fatalities along the corridor. This past Sunday she, MPT/Everett and M/Tanaka attended the Miss Diamond Bar Pageant, congratulations to the new Queen and her Court. MPT/Everett stated that on March 6, acting as the City's liaison, he attended the WVUSD Board's study session to hear a review, projection and look forward of the IT Programs that support the District. One of the major opportunities discussed was improving communications with students, teachers, staff, parents and the community. There is currently a search for a superintendent and if residents of DB would like to provide input it is welcomed by the District at www.wvusdk12.ca.us/superintendentsearchsurvey and www.ci.diamond- bar.ca.us — click on WVUSD Superintendent Search Survey under "In the Spotlight" on the home page. The next activity that he participated in was the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee. Every city in Los Angeles County is represented and this meeting usually follows the League of Cities LA County Division. During the Selection Committee on March 7 one member was selected to the Metropolitan Transit Authority from the north county San Fernando Valley sector. These positions are voted on by each City. The other significant appointment of the selection committee is LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission). When City boundary changes are being considered, they must be approved by LAFCO. The reason he was there with M/Tanaka and CM/DeStefano was that there were five selections for the Los Angeles County Library Commission. There are 10 appointments for supervisor cities, two for each Supervisor. Diamond Bar is located in the 4th District represented by Supervisor Don Knabe's. The 4th District also includes 12 other cities. It was his privilege to be selected to succeed Richard Montgomery, Council Member from Manhattan Beach. Last Saturday he attended the Grand Opening for SAT Professionals, located at the former Denny's location where he met the Director Daniel Lee. On Sunday, he along with his colleagues attended the Miss Diamond Bar Beauty Pageant. He thanked 2012 Miss Diamond Bar Alexandra Miller and her Court of four princesses, Elyse, Alena, Madisen and Krista. They were wonderful ambassadors for the City during the past year as well as, positive role models. He thanked the volunteer directors of Miss Diamond Bar Pageant who have served for many years, Janice Giardina, Linda Headlee, Kristi Keuning and Scarlett Kwong and until this year Pam Brookhausen, who has volunteered and served faithfully for 20 years and is retiring this year. There were nine contestants vying for Miss Diamond Bar and it was a real privilege to watch the development of the candidates during the two month training program and see the improvement in their interviewing skills, grace and poise. Best wishes to new MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL Miss Diamond Bar 2013 and her Court M/Tanaka reported that a couple of weeks ago he had a chance to host a group of nine cub scouts from Pack 737 Den 8 who, with the assistance of SMA/Santos, toured the different departments in City Hall and the library. That evening he attended a public hearing on the improvements to the SR57/60 Interchange hosted by Caltrans and attended by representatives from Diamond Bar and Industry as well as, representatives from Metro, AQMD and the public. The League of California Cities LA County Division meeting was held along with the LA County Cities Selection Committee. Guest speaker that evening was Dr. Raphael Sonenshein from Cal State LA who spoke on the changing Los Angeles political landscape. He congratulated MPT/Everett on being selected for the Los Angeles County Library Commission to represent the 4th Supervisorial District. On Friday he read to a couple of classes at Golden Springs Elementary School as part of the "Read Across America" celebration. Last Wednesday the Diamond Bar Senior Citizens celebrated with a St. Patrick's Day Dinner Dance. He congratulated Daniel Lee on his Grand Opening of SAT Professionals and thanked Music Director Steve Acciani from DBHS for presenting such a wonderful musical program during the ribbon -cutting ceremonies. The former Denny's building has been converted into wonderful offices and classrooms so that students can continue their after school education. Last Saturday he had a chance to stop by the Windmill Room at City Hall to watch over 100 students take written exams and participate in a spelling contest to narrow down a field of about 30 -plus spellers for the Inland Valley Regional Spelling Bee. This annual event is sponsored by the Diamond Bar Friends of the Library. This past Sunday was the 46th Annual Miss Diamond Bar Pageant which was held at the DBHS Theater. After on-stage interviews, and a swim suit and evening gown competition the nine candidates were reduced to five finalists. He congratulated the new Miss Diamond Bar for 2013, Annemarie Branks and her Court, Princesses Serena Avila -Mott, Melina Di Palma, Chika Udengwu and Danielle Ritchie. He thanked Miss Diamond Bar 2012, Alexandra Miller and Princesses Krista Hoechmann, Alena Gluschenko, Madisen Rodman and Elyse Goin. These young women truly worked as a team this past year and were wonderful ambassadors for the City. He looks forward to the 2013 Miss Diamond Bar and her Court participating with the City as well. He also thanked Pam Brookhausen who served on the Miss Diamond Bar Board for the past 20 years and congratulated her on her retirement. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tanaka adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:58 p.m. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2013. JACK TANAKA, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Agenda # 6.2 Meeting Date. April 2nd, 2013 AGENDA REPORT FROM: James DeStefano, City M TITLE: Ratification of Check Register d ted March 14, 2013 through March 27, 2013 totaling $ 614,096.64. RECOMMENDATION: Ratify. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Expenditure of $ 614,096.64 in City funds. BACKGROUND: The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: The attached check register containing checks dated March 14, 2013 through March 27, 2013 for $ 614,096.64 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: t-- h Finance Director Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 03/14/13 through 03/27/13. 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 March 14, 2013 through March 27, 2013 has been audited and is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in these amounts: Description Amount General Fund $488,992.18 Com Org Support Fund $1,100.00 Prop A - Transit Fund $20,807.19 Prop C - Transit Tax Fund $41,342.12 Integrated Waste Mgt Fund $9,282.54 AB2766 -Air Qlty Mgt Fund $1,367.50 Com Dev Block Grant Fund $4,206.91 LLAD 38 Fund $2,908.99 LLAD 39 Fund $1,249.38 LLAD 41 Fund $4,048.43 Capital Imp Projects Fund $38,791.40 $614,096.64_ Signed: a Dianna Honeywell Finance Director Le O O 0 o N M M o m r N Ll o o co o co co r ai co N � �v m O N M M tD N d' EA O (O M V N O Ql V V �1J O O N N (D V M N O Z V O M N L N O N N U M O O O a O O U1 O O 4i EA V O M O V M O O M N M O N M N M O N M N N M N M N N O V M 0 OJ 0 O 0 O 0 l0 0 O 0 O 0 I O f O O (O O t0 N I� m t0 N N M O N N O N N O N N a a a� a b a a LL � N K ❑ O O O O N M O O O O O Ll N d' U M UJ � ❑ :n VI N Q M ON N O Ql V V �1J O O N N (D V M N O Z V O M N O N N U M O O O a O O O O O V O M O V M O O M N M O N M N M O N M N N M N M N N O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O W z w w K ❑ z ❑ Z O of w N z N g U U � O O H U w ❑ a N Q m M ❑ z Of z c w W Q ❑ � W z C) mO a > z QU a N m > W o Ll d' U M UJ � ❑ :n VI N Q M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N M N M ON O Ql V N� V O O N (O (D O] M M O Z V O M M O N N U M O O O a O O O O O M M V M M O M M V N N M N N M N N M OO O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N N O N N a a a� a a a a LL K ❑ w w w C) w w O w w > ❑ > K > w w F w lWi w tWi LE z z z z w z z a ❑Q ❑Q a a ¢ ¢ a -z z z z z z CD z Q "' Z_ Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 QO QQ 0 0 0 0 w Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q > w w F > O_ > W > N N J Z Z O U K U � 2 W W F Z Q W Q LL Q H Q Q M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N 11 ie M N M ON O Ql V N� V O O N (O (D O] M M O V V O M M O N N N M O O O O O O O O O M M V M M O M M V N N M N N M N N M OO O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N N O N N a a a� a a a a LL w w C) w w N w w > > > w w w lWi w tWi LE z z z z w z z a ❑Q ❑Q a a ¢ ¢ a -z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q > w w w > > > > > Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N N O M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N V V V V V V V V V M M M M M M M M M 11 ie C O O O O N O O O O O C O O O 61 O �O (O O O n W O r N t0 O t0 E r m o o M r M M M v3 cn cn e? m � U m F o M o r o 0 0 o N o o 0 0 0 0 o v o 0 o m o O W. O N O O O O O O O O N N vi n ri o M o o m o 0 0 �i m o io cn n O v o r o r O N to Ol r M M E Q v v v v v v v v v v M a v v v v o- M M V V m M m O] Ol O] O> V N r N N O ❑ O M M M O M O O O O � N O O O M � M O M M O � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W a w ❑ ❑ �2 m K z K z z z M } W w UF J W w y Q y J ¢ F z ¢ 2 } � o a= o 0 0 > w z _ o z m a z m m r o U U U U U U d d �_ ❑ > J r W N ¢ _ m w H z N m S Ip z >>>>> 2 Q N N U J r Z J K J U cn cn U m �n m U O U > cn a U ¢ U U Q Q Q Q Q (D C7 U U U Q tq U U N U F d F U U K R 1= F- > > Ua F- U F- to U > K K K 0L � O O z N 0 J z to m Z K (n W W m OO ¢NO OO0 0 2 w¢ g ai D-� z 0zOQCCQQg g z z O wO > O O O K O aa ss> U U w a a U K a a ti U w U w U z O Q N z W W � 0 J z U U } F - o m vm in U ❑ m cwn K K K O g J w K O O O cn Q I- H 2 m F 0 CL K CL W O U U U U U O O U z m F F m W m z z z z z K K � a J w Z Z Z U Q m p U U z z z z z z Q a Q ❑ Q z z z ~ w w m O O z W W W W W m m m W U m w w wW w z = d d r ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ¢ w w w z m c� ❑ z z z z z z z z N a m e w -� G¢¢¢ Q O O O tY w CD CD C7 U ¢ w ¢ N wQ 0 w w w > Q Q Q > O O OO U ❑ 0 0 0 0 ❑ cl O O w w w W U' S S m s E m o N M 3 N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V z m m m m m rn m o m w m m m m m y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O Or O O O O O O O N r r r r r r r r c r r r � r U N ❑ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C- 77 r 7 N 7 U7 V r .- .- c\"l c\") 1 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O w N M O V E ¢ N S O O N n � M V d o N N N z �j W a ❑ z U F- U U z OU W z U UU z OU z ~ O ¢ N O m U z o � W H W ¢ <- W F- w m Y a a O o ❑ O (n ❑ < J > U K W z U z OU v v v a v v a O v v N M O O O O O O v Ov O N O m O m O O O rn O O m O m O m O m O m O C �l m N t0 N M T N MO V N N N M O E O O O O Q O O N O O O M M O O O O O U ON V V M 0 O 0 0 0 O O 9 ❑ 0 M V V 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O LL O O Z O ❑ a m 2N 0Z a 0 o vf0i m U Y m a W d (n > w J y O m W Z OS > ¢ J Q l¢L M a U Q W ❑ � U O O > U U J U U > > J¢¢ 0 J J, K W LL C6 c7 z U > N LL '> g m N K J O K W Z o > U > a N of U W W UO UO N �z( z 2 2 2 z C7 Z a o = LL a a a J J J Z Z Z z z Z Z o 0 dJ W W W O W OW OS w w > > z z g 3 Z Z U > OU Z- 0 0 0 =S S c� w5 w 0 0 z z z Y Y Y Z Z z W" Q¢ Z Z O O (D 0 ¢¢ W W O O N a Z V M v O Q V rn N O N m N O t0 m N O 1� m N O N L U N ❑ O O O O O O O O O Y N N N N N N N N N N L U M !"l C7 t7 C'I t"l C1 C"l M (O O O O O O 4 m O O O O O O O O O w N M O V S O O N N N J O N N N z �j W a ❑ z L aW > F m z S O F' z 0 N N N to w w w w a a a a r=ig u=i u=i u7i F- U U z OU W z U UU z OU z ~ O ¢ N O m U z o � W H W ¢ <- W F- w 0 � O C� :3 Y a a O o ❑ O (n ❑ < J > U K W z U z OU v v v a v v a v v v v v v Ov O m m O rn O m O m O m O m O m O m m N m N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O U d w Z Y J F z �j W a ❑ z L aW > F m z S O F' z 0 N N N to w w w w a a a a r=ig u=i u=i u7i F- U U z OU W z U UU z OU z ~ O ¢ N O m U z o � W H W ¢ <- W F- w 0 � O C� :3 Y a a O o ❑ O (n ❑ < J > U K W z U z OU U d w Z J F O w = J O K K K K Q Q Q Q a< a¢ 2 2 2 2 Y Y Y Y of W U U O U > O Y z J g W m C7 ❑ zz7 J W J °m W g ¢ z g N Y U Q o LL Q U LL o S CDZ w N N U W a W a W F J z O Z > ¢ O z U W w U z ~ N • m m rn m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N\ N N N N N N N N th 41 U o m r o o r O 0 o v o M � N O M (O O O � M N ��=M o v o 0 d of O (p O] O N O m O M N c0 O O V N N ~ w z m W F-- m z Ow co o w ❑ M o m m P m a M z o � M cD OU OJ t❑n w U V r O O M N a M M O 0 M M I IM M �M w(If LU w z z w w U U w w U U w ww w m � H a M M N m O O N c0 � W F Z O U K V W z Q � U a Z5> N ~ w z m W F-- m z Ow co o w ❑ F - o m m P m a M z r K M cD OU OJ t❑n w U M M I IM M �M w(If LU w z z w w U U w w U U w ww w m � H a M M N (O O O N c0 V O N O co w m o m m rn m a M N r M cD O O O O M r M M M M M O O O O O O N N N N z N M M I IM M �M w(If LU w z z w w U U w w U U w ww w m � H a M M N (O O O N c0 V O N O co w ro o � m 0 o a M N r M cD N r M Vi fA O C 0 rn co N O M N o ni m. r O N co m o N m N •- N OJ M r N V N b O O O [O N N N N N N N N N N M O o o m M N N N N N N N N N W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 M J J J F- F z z z Z Z Z O O O ❑ F- 4- H � U U U U U N N U U U U U W W W W W J J J J J W W W W W z z z z z O O O O O W W M M N 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q K K z z 0 0 0 0 0 Li U U U U U z z z z z W W W W W > > > > > O o 0 0 0 r 0 M M M M M O O O O O N N N N N V V V O V th M M M M M N m a O O O O O O w N O N O M M N M C9 M ❑ W O O O O z Z N O M M M N V N N N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 rn co N O M N o ni m. r O N co m o N m N •- N OJ M r N V N b O O O [O N N N N N N N N N N M O o o m M N N N N N N N N N W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 M J J J F- F z z z Z Z Z O O O ❑ F- 4- H � U U U U U N N U U U U U W W W W W J J J J J W W W W W z z z z z O O O O O W W M M N 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q K K z z 0 0 0 0 0 Li U U U U U z z z z z W W W W W > > > > > O o 0 0 0 r 0 M M M M M O O O O O N N N N N V V V O V th M M M M M N m a a w O z M C9 M ❑ W O z Z a M J O a m cn 0 n J W > K y 0 O U c7 uJ H � W C 0 rn co N O M N o ni m. r O N co m o N m N •- N OJ M r N V N b O O O [O N N N N N N N N N N M O o o m M N N N N N N N N N W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 M J J J F- F z z z Z Z Z O O O ❑ F- 4- H � U U U U U N N U U U U U W W W W W J J J J J W W W W W z z z z z O O O O O W W M M N 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q K K z z 0 0 0 0 0 Li U U U U U z z z z z W W W W W > > > > > O o 0 0 0 r 0 M M M M M O O O O O N N N N N V V V O V th M M M M M N m a O z C9 K O z z M J w Z 0 n J W a y w = a co r M m o ro N N o r rn m rn rn m N N N N N O O O O O M M M M M O O O O O N N N N N M M M M [] C 0 rn co N O M N o ni m. r O N co m o N m N •- N OJ M r N V N b O O O [O N N N N N N N N N N M O o o m M N N N N N N N N N W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 M J J J F- F z z z Z Z Z O O O ❑ F- 4- H � U U U U U N N U U U U U W W W W W J J J J J W W W W W z z z z z O O O O O W W M M N 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q K K z z 0 0 0 0 0 Li U U U U U z z z z z W W W W W > > > > > O o 0 0 0 r 0 M M M M M O O O O O N N N N N V V V O V th M M M M M N m a V 6 In v O O O O O O W O lwl OJ W N O O w O M O N N M O M N N z O O O z N a O V Z N 0 0 co Z N M M m O N O M w w N LQ m N m N M > ❑ m N J O > M W = J m U O J w O C) O vO O a O W O O Q O 4 U U O 6 In v O O O O O O W O lwl OJ W N O O w O M O N N M O M N N z O O O z N a O V Z N 0 0 co Z N M M m O N O M w N m N m N M > ❑ m N J O > M W = J m U O J w O C) O vO O a O W O O Q O 4 U U O UU 0 W 0 > 0 U 0 M 0 w 0 0 M o M M U o ZLU o F m Ia. U o N N Z❑F r N 2 r U N m N U K N N Z N Z M Y O W N M N > M N U O V U M N O C M N O V M N JO d 0 o o O 'Q M N > N. NM p 00 Q N O O O O O z O O O O O W O M H O O O O O O O O O O O O r O M M( M IM I ll� 1171M M Ili IM IM I M M -i I M M Ili IM IM M M T, w lwl M M r r ❑ r Z x N z m w z J O a U ro Z F 0 0 co Z w H z Z m N ❑ w >Q > w J ? W U O m N w m N m N m N m N > ❑ m N J m N > m N W = J m U O J w O C) O vO O a O W O O Q O 4 U U O UU W > U F M w M M M ❑ U ZLU F Ia. U W a LU Z❑F n W w 2 O U F 0 Z U K O O Z O Z O Y O W O Z > M M( M IM I ll� 1171M M Ili IM IM I M M -i I M M Ili IM IM M M T, w M r r ❑ r Z x O m w J O U ro F 0 0 co Q L oW Z w Z ❑ w J > N ❑ w >Q > w J ? Q z m N w m N m N m N m N > ❑ m N J m N z m N W M J O U O J O O O O O O O Q O 4 O J O n M n M M M M M M ❑ } F Ia. ❑ M M z O Z❑F O O 2 O Z O 0 Z U Q O O O O � O O O N N U N U N N N N U JO d N N N N > N N p N Q N z W H M M( M IM I ll� 1171M M Ili IM IM I M M -i I M M Ili IM IM M M T, M r r ❑ r r r O m w J O U ro m ZK U Q Z ZJ °u co Q L oW Z w z % ❑ w J > N ❑ w >Q > w J ? U z ❑ z F = w Z Q M M( M IM I ll� 1171M M Ili IM IM I M M -i I M M Ili IM IM M M T, r r r r r r r m w M m ro m co w m N m N m N o N o N m N m N m N m N m N m N m N m N m N m N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M( M IM I ll� 1171M M Ili IM IM I M M -i I M M Ili IM IM M M T, 0 O 0 O N 0 O M O O O (O O O o M m o O O f0 r O N N N [O V r o O M O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O � � O O O O r d ❑ C O O O O OJ O N U_ O N O N O O O V O O O N � O O N r O Q O N N M M N O N r O O O O z z N N O M O V O z z z a w a N N J O Z r N O r M N M O ❑ O O t0 4i fR �- 0 0 r FA O E9 N > r n N a U U1 M Z F fp £R M W EA I � O V3 > di W N Vi O o N V3 EA Z 0 0 w W m ❑ O U 7E Z 0 o O o o r o o m r r o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O z O W r N N r O m O O V z m m m m m0 M O O Q O (O Z Z U U U C7 U) M J J V O W O N M O M CD O O d O O E M m M O O f0 M O N N N M V r Z O M N O O N N N O N O O O O O O O O O V M � � O O O O N N N N N N O O d ❑ C M M N O O r O V O O N M N O O � O O U_ O O N (O O V O N N O O V O N V N N V N � O O N r O Q O N N M M N O N r O O O O z z N N O M O V O z z z a w a J Z N Q M K K M M M W W K U U m N o m a m m OZ - Z U O Z N W ~ Z Z U l=i l�L N w w H ❑ _ N K K Z K U Z U Y W Q ¢ U Q >>Q Q H QF_ J W 0 Y W U U W U U m U F K K m E m W M M 9 CD U d M E M M � M M N O M W Z N N O N O O O O O O O W W U U H O U O a r W W M M M CD U d M M M M � M M M M M � QJ O Q O O O O O O O W W U O H O U O O _ U_ ❑ N U N N N N 2 N U N N N N N N N _ z z z z z z z a w a J Z N Q ❑ 0 0 J11 J N > n a U U1 Z Z F W W O > W O o N Z w W m ❑ O U z Z Q Z F z Z Z U W m z m m m m m0 Q N Z Z U U U C7 U) M J J m rn m m m m w o O O O O O O O O W W M M M M U M M M M M � M M M M M � QJ O Q O O O O O O O W W U O O O O O O _ U_ ❑ N U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N _ z z z z z z a w a Z N }w ❑ 0 0 J11 J N > n a O O O O O O O O O O M W M M M M M M M M M M � M M M M M M O O Q O O O O O O O W W O O O O O O O N U_ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ❑ 0 0 O N > U U Z Z F W O > W ? o O O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T A O Ol 0 0 o a o N O N N o N n w o o O O (p V w O N d O M O M N N V c- (D O fn fA V N fA U o O Ol O N N O N N N O O M N F- O Q O (p N M V M O M O M N N V V V N N V �n U o MM 0 W Z ro o M o 0 0 ~ w O O O O O O O O O O O O m o c o 0 0 0 0 0 4J O O O N N O N O VJ EA fA � f9 V3 EA f9 N N N N O V O O O O O -6- 6 O O O O N Yl N N N N N (p N O O O O O Kl O N N N N N N O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O 00 o a o o 0 0 0 00 o v 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N r W W 7 CD Z 0 a U U Q J J J Z J ❑ 0 S S W a LL a CD ua. N ❑ 0 z ❑ ❑ n:D D N w w w w w W U Z Z K K K KK} K o U W W W W W J J J J J J ti CL a a a s Z w U U U U U U a X X X X X Z K Q Q Q Q Q Q H Z z z f H F Z Z Z Z 0 0 7 0 7 U � O O O O O Z U U U U U N U ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q > F H IW- IW- IW- w W U W N Z K0 0KO O KKO CCOLL U' m m a m m OJ < K K K K K U O O O O O O ¢ m J J J J J J W 0 ¢¢ Q ¢ _ N H w U U O U F W v� fn U M U O a O ¢¢ O ¢ O (n fn to vJ N U w O O C7 C7 UIL 0 W w ❑ ❑ z �- > x x x x x ¢ w ¢¢ o o w w w w w w w ❑❑ ❑ w c� O N N O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r M U a ? m V m m w > N ❑ d Q m ❑U U< m Z U l¢L ¢ w Z U IQl M N F- O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O m o c o 0 0 0 0 0 4J O O O N N O N O VJ EA fA � f9 V3 EA f9 N N N N O V O O O O O -6- 6 O O O O N Yl N N N N N (p N O O O O O Kl O N N N N N N O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O 00 o a o o 0 0 0 00 o v 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N r W W 7 CD Z 0 a U U Q J J J Z J ❑ 0 S S W a LL a CD ua. N ❑ 0 z ❑ ❑ n:D D N w w w w w W U Z Z K K K KK} K o U W W W W W J J J J J J ti CL a a a s Z w U U U U U U a X X X X X Z K Q Q Q Q Q Q H Z z z f H F Z Z Z Z 0 0 7 0 7 U � O O O O O Z U U U U U N U ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q > F H IW- IW- IW- w W U W N Z K0 0KO O KKO CCOLL U' m m a m m OJ < K K K K K U O O O O O O ¢ m J J J J J J W 0 ¢¢ Q ¢ _ N H w U U O U F W v� fn U M U O a O ¢¢ O ¢ O (n fn to vJ N U w O O C7 C7 UIL 0 W w ❑ ❑ z �- > x x x x x ¢ w ¢¢ o o w w w w w w w ❑❑ ❑ w c� O N N O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r M U Z K U w Z W Z � Z ~ w Q> a C) Z Z a U Q H ¢ Q W p N p O w U J W Z ° 5 W r O O O O O O O O O O O O m o c o 0 0 0 0 0 4J O O O N N O N O VJ EA fA � f9 V3 EA f9 N N N N O V O O O O O -6- 6 O O O O N Yl N N N N N (p N O O O O O Kl O N N N N N N O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O 00 o a o o 0 0 0 00 o v 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N r W W 7 CD Z 0 a U U Q J J J Z J ❑ 0 S S W a LL a CD ua. N ❑ 0 z ❑ ❑ n:D D N w w w w w W U Z Z K K K KK} K o U W W W W W J J J J J J ti CL a a a s Z w U U U U U U a X X X X X Z K Q Q Q Q Q Q H Z z z f H F Z Z Z Z 0 0 7 0 7 U � O O O O O Z U U U U U N U ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q > F H IW- IW- IW- w W U W N Z K0 0KO O KKO CCOLL U' m m a m m OJ < K K K K K U O O O O O O ¢ m J J J J J J W 0 ¢¢ Q ¢ _ N H w U U O U F W v� fn U M U O a O ¢¢ O ¢ O (n fn to vJ N U w O O C7 C7 UIL 0 W w ❑ ❑ z �- > x x x x x ¢ w ¢¢ o o w w w w w w w ❑❑ ❑ w c� O N N O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r M I L� O N O O m d O W O o M o m m o 0 o 0 o Yi v m o N N M O 0 O O O O M V V O N O O V N N N N N � V3 (O N V3 M N (A O fA N N N N N N N N N N N 43 v v o v v a v v v v 0 0 �- O N O � M •- O tD m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m (O o O m V t0 M Z Z Y Y Y Y Y O O U U U U U N J a w w w w w of m m cf N (O W w U U U U U N z z z z z a a J Q J J J Z z a a a Z Z J J J J a a Q Q W W z Z U U U U U U U M m y N N N m W L W LLil:0 LL w w N Z L 0 � Z 0 � Of of 0 M 000000 V a a a a a a a U U U U U U U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z N O O 0 r 0 O 0 O O O O K m K K K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 0 0 N N N N z N \ N N N N N M M M M m M N O U o W J N m rn ry N m m a a W LL LL Q a o Q Q Q w w w j C) w W O a w Q z Z U Z Z 0 0 m m a s O O Z > z a LL w L)i M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N \ N N N N N N O N O O d O W O o M o o m o 0 o 0 o v m o 0 0 0 O 0 1p O Y d N V O N � N fR N � V3 V3 V3 M (A O fA N N N N 43 v v o O v v O O O N O O O N M •- O tD m m O N O N O❑ N V N O O O N O M N O N V N O z O O O o¢ O m (O o O m V t0 M O N 2 (O V V ¢ Q O Q M m N J a V J a J a of m m cf N (O W W W N U U N N U N CD m N N N O O O O O Z Z J J J J Z Z Q Q W W z Z Z Z Z M M M M M 0 (O 0 N N [D N M N Z N N N Z Z 0 V 0 V V 0 M 000000 V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K K 0 K m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O 0 r 0 O 0 O O O O M M O M N N M O O O O M M 0 O O 0 0 0 0 N N N N z N \ N N N N N M M M M m M O U o W J N m rn ry N m m a a W LL LL Q a o Q Q Q w w w j C) w W O a w Q z Z U Z Z 0 0 m m a s U LL W LL O Z > z a LL w L)i z Z Z U U z z J J J W W m m m U U w J J J O O U n N K ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Q 0 Q Q = ❑ >7 = Q Q Q Z Q J. J J Z Z Z INS N QO Q N z 2' W F ol 'If= W W Y Y -� O z J Z Y _ Z W O U O O O O O O O O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O O O O O O O O O O O O M, m O W Vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Y O N O N � O M O N N N N N v v o v v v N M N N N O❑ N N O O N O N N N N z z o¢ o m m 2 ¢ Q Q Q m m J a J a J a J a of m m cf W W W W U U N M U U CD m Z Z J J J J Z Z Q Q W W z Z Z Z Z o 0 0 0 z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 K K 0 K m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M O M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N \ N N N N N M M M M m M M, m N�IN Im z z W Z z O 0 o N o o N O O N ti O O N N m E O N O O T N Q � t+3 M � V Y ON V3 Fii V3 N Q O N N m O N L � J 01 N O W LL W Q Q O U U W N�IN Im 0 z z W Z z LL' 0 `o o 0 0 O o � ti O M N N O N N I� ON U J p 0 Q O N N m O N � 01 O W LL W Q Q U U W 0 z z W Z z LL' 0 `o o 0 0 O o � 6 ON U J p � Q O m tL � 01 O W W Q Q U U W O W W pJ pJ z LL' J N Z O M O M F O M O M O M O M s V O O O O O O O IQi W U !Qi U > LL' m E z z W Z z LL' Q Q `o o 0 0 O o � h 0 0 O V O :9 O O O O O O O O O O O O I� M C OJ a M N N V V V d V V N N N N N N N N N � O O O O N N O O N N M ` a LL LLL W � Z Q U U NN O M o a Z z a z_ J H Z Q > > cl z z Q O O 0 O U U Of K U' Z z z U' Z Z Z Of K K w w w w w w w w w z z Z Z z O O Z Z Z z z W W W W 0 O � LL' K m LL' z z z z Z Z Z Z O O O O V O O M M M M O O O O N N N N N N N N (7 M M M O W O O N O N � O QMI M I �nil "I z z z o 0 0 O o O U a 01 W Q Q U U W O W W pJ pJ LL' J N Z O M O M O M O M O M O M O M s V O O O O O O O L U UJ N N N N N N N N 0 0 O V O :9 O O O O O O O O O O O O I� M C OJ a M N N V V V d V V N N N N N N N N N � O O O O N N O O N N M ` a LL LLL W � Z Q U U NN O M o a Z z a z_ J H Z Q > > cl z z Q O O 0 O U U Of K U' Z z z U' Z Z Z Of K K w w w w w w w w w z z Z Z z O O Z Z Z z z W W W W 0 O � LL' K m LL' z z z z Z Z Z Z O O O O V O O M M M M O O O O N N N N N N N N (7 M M M O W O O N O N � O QMI M I �nil "I N M al 2 O J m N Z n � O M ff3 K rn� rn� m m n M n V V L7 h F M� N m (D V V m tD M M N Q C) N N N N N n N nv M > z N (O (O tp c0 (O (D (O (D (O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N > 0 0 o m m o 0 0 V V V M M 0 N N N M tC O N Z LD K W WQ w O O W O O O O 0 O O O O O O z z O Q a O U C9 o O o 0 o U UM U U U LLV V O o M M F- IOL IUL LUL N ~ U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F- F- F 0 U U U U U U U U U W W W W W W W w W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U U U U U U U U U S= S S W x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n O y N N N !n to !n O M O M M M M C2 M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N O O O O (D V V V V d � W o o M M n 0 N N a a O O O � J W J Z U � O 2 K W F V 0 U O Q C) 0W U S N > z N h z z w Z Q Q Z Q fn > 0 0 a N M V N [D M to M N N O O O O O M M M M M O O O O O 11 of 2 0 0 U h (D z O z Q U Z Z z z z w Z 0 0 a 5 0 OW Z Z Z K W WQ w O W W 0 O z z O Q a O U C9 N M V N [D M to M N N O O O O O M M M M M O O O O O 11 of m m O W V N M N m O V N M M M (O O tD O O1 r r (O N V m l[l O> N N N N N N N N N N N N N V V V V V V o m m M M V M M d M m w m o 0 M M a o 0 0 0 J J m Y n v I a O ❑ ❑ ❑ U N 6 6 6 N U U U U U U W W W W W W H F F F F- U U U U U U tO. U N N m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 m w W W W w W w W w W w Q Q Q Q Q Q Y Y Y Y Y Y W W W W W W J J J J J J J > J > J > J > J > J > z z z z Z z Z Z Z z Z Z J J J >J >J >J 0 0 M O M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N M C'l M M O 0 d V M m r M (p N V co v ori r � M O m N r O h O M N M V M M O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N O O O O O O N M M M M M O O O O O a a a a a a a a LL a M M M M M K K K K K W W W W W LL LL LL LL LL O m O z m z z z z z K K CL fL m a a a a i K K K K K W W W W W LL LL LL LL LL N Z z z N Z z Z Z Z J J J J J J J J J J 0 0 z 0 z Y Y Y Y Y a a a a a 0 a a M M M M M M O O O O O N N N N N V V V V < Cl M M M M CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Mang TITLE: Treasurer's Statement — February 013 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the February 2013 Treasurer's Statement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact BACKGROUND: Agenda # 6.3 Meeting Date: Apr. 2, 2013 AGENDA REPORT Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City Council's review and approval. This statement shows the cash balances with a breakdown of various investment accounts and the yield to maturity from investments. This statement also includes an investment portfolio management report which details the activities of the investments. All investments have been made in accordance with the City's Investment Policy. PREPARED BY: Susan Full, Senior Accountant REVIEWED BY: C. Finance Director Attachments: Treasurer's Statement, Investment Portfolio Report ac Assista ity Ma ger CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - CITY TREASURER'S REPORT CASH BALANCE AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2013 IQ*elILI1011►[KNF9:I:7_1A V [el% �7[.9:�7xiT�►��tt $22,602,723.78 Cash Receipts $1,563,736.14 Total Cash Received $1,563,736.14 $24,166,459.92 EXPENDITURES Checks Written ($1,063,154.78) Payroll Transfers (345,771.51) Wire Transfers 0.00 Returned Checks (3,273.60) Charge Card Fees & Other Adjustments (2,205.53) Total Expenditures ($1,414,405.42) CASH BALANCE AS OF: February 28, 2013 $22,752,054.50 TOTAL CASH BREAKDOWN Active Funds General Account ($478,255.15) Payroll Account $176,578.50 Change Fund $1,000.00 Petty Cash Account $500.00 Cash With Fiscal Agent $0.18 Unamortized Discount on Investments $2,740.78 Total Active Funds ($297,435.69) Investment Funds: Local Agency Investment Fund $11,232,745.56 Corporate Notes $2,000,000.00 Federal Agency Callable $3,997,811.42 Negotiable CDs $5,206,447.80 US Treasury Money Market Account $612,485.41 Total Investment Funds $23,049,490.19 CASH BALANCE AS OF: February 28, 2013 $22,752,054.50 Average Yield to Maturity 0.683% FY2012-13 Year -To -Date Interest Earnings $113,240.08 FY2012-13 Budgeted Annual Interest Earnings $189,600.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY REPORT for the Month of February 2013 PERCENT OF DAYS TO INVESTMENTS BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TERM MATURITY YIELD TO MATURITY Local Agency Investment Fund. $11,232,745.56 48.73% 1 1 0.286 Corporate Nates $2,000,000.00 8.68% 1279 887 1.183 Federal Agency Issues - Callable $3,997,811.42 17.34% 1,690 669 0.825 Negotiable CD's - Bank $5,206,447.80 - 22.59% 1,374 983 1.317 Wells Fargo Sweep Account $612,485.41 2.66% 1 1 0.010 Sub -total Investments and Averages $23,049,490.19 100.00% 715 416 0.683 TOTALS TOTAL INTEREST EARNED $23,049,490.19 100.00% N/A N/A N/A MONTH ENDING February 28, 2013 $12,301.06 FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE 2012-13 $113,240.08 d. I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments Jarm�s DeStefano and is in conformity with the investment policy of the City of Diamond Bar City Treasurer approved by City Council and on file in the City Clerk's office. The investment program herein provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated `Yl �Ii79n�� expenditures. Date Page 1 U N 16.2 0 9 v o voi a `e V v V N N [O N N O O O d V o 0 o m r o 0 o a N O O r N N O O N (O N C N n m m C m O e n C M 6 N O N W t N r O N p M C O N N N rG, N 0 N U J N N J N v E m U ¢ LL N a C C LL ? U J N N v E m U ¢ N v 0 v m o > U T v , W T O NO C C N❑� Z N U d o, d Q a m w > o O Q o M L,« m m m r` m r m v v M m r c �2 M n `°.: r a` r J a. y C a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p¢ n m? v M O O O O NO M M M O 6 i 0 O O O O O O N N N m [p r m NO O O N O O O O O O r p m O m N n r m m O O - o - .- .- .- .- .- - o - - ¢. � E c OM y OOi (O O C' n N N m N N N N fD m V' m m V m O N t0 Or] N N M <O m N (D N N N cJ N N O OI r m m r V r m P m m m r W m OV 'O a a m N N OM1 O O N N N N O h O m m m m O r OO. O. 0 0 0 0. N N 0 0 0 M r Ol q O (O N N- O - - -" e- - - O - - N a m m o o p M V M N o o p o 0 0 0 0 o p m L qO O O O n m m m m O p 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p O O O o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y n n O O O O n O r n V O m O O_ 0 O O O O _ O_ o O O_ O O O O O m m m m m m W m W m O m M N M N O O O O N V m V V V m O1 OI V V V N N N d' V N V V V V V V P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d m {D O O O 00 00 Lq O O p O m cD N P N Ol m m V' M N n V V N M O r n N r 01 (9v o i ? p o v v m <n e v �- d Y V C 01 ` 01 N V O N N V t0 V m M" N N N N N N N m Gi ; O a N N O O p p N _ C m vi O O o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0, O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q f� — > v r n o o p 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 o_ O. o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 o C 1 � R N N O p O __ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m m m M m m m m m W m m (p C N a N_ M N 0 0 O O 0 O N h O N h N N 0' O v v v a v v v v v c v v v v v e N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ,- v Z _ .p O O ,a 41 OLL as �N NNN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o m m m N ro m o c m rI m o e v n M m O � M O �- N N N Q N � N N � Q N N t\ N O O O N N N N Q Q as o 0 mu n o ry d C N O O N O A p O N M Q] � n O O 01 m m D1 m- � El U U m E E E E o o m F o" x c m m a ii m Z `o U Y @ > LL LL LL 1 2 Z Z > N a G U Y N Y v O a Q N N a N N N N N N N 9 N U a T Q1 y A d> m N N O m O 8 o d w w d 9v m v �m v 1° -" E o aOi ami Q Q O O O al a a N # 9 N W c C a E ti N 0 O 0 0 W m Q Q V V CJ V O O N O O N N N N O N N 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ul ry m > U C y d U C Z a ry m>¢ m LL z Z m m Lv" voi a i vnl m Y o Q M S r r M Z o 4 0 0 0 N % 2 LL> Y IU+I 1p W U Z p Q O. N I O O. C9 C7 N N d W W U' U U' O d O F Y d 2 Q W o vl h O m n V r v� d IQi rI m V v M ro O � O M M d �2 M �2 O O O O � M m m U J U LL M tO m M M m m Z O O N N COI Cml p p �d a �2 r c m N N N N N C N O O O O O �❑ N N N N N M N a Y A � fC C �J d E N m m m v m .- E y r U m Q> @ N N a r O r m N M Y d O W a Y m Y Y N � O + — V O N W O m V <o r co a M m �o 0 a a n m o m m a' O O O O O d d A r Qm o 0 0 0 v a N m do 0 o O 2 o 0 0 o CO m m o 0 0 o r 00 0 n e CD 00 e C O 0 r m m N N N N N N N x t0 m V r1 N co v, n n v m N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O of � ro m ai N N N N N oie el ale N N N N ososs N N N N N d_ O O 0 0 0 0 N M N a Y A � fC C �J d E N m m m v m m _ E y r r N m Q> @ N N a Y d O W a Y m Y Y N � O + — d LL d a V a 0 0 �o 0 a a n m o m m a' O O O O O d d A Qm x t0 m V r1 N co v, n n v m N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O of � ro m ai N N N N N oie el ale N N N N ososs N N N N N m m O O 0 0 0 0 v > m z M a w m �n M m O) O N O O d N m m m v m M N C N m Y d N m U Y m Y Y N O a ry O Z LL Q o >`o m � <n in w 0 a w n m o m m O O M N O O O O O 0 u N F3 v > m z O w m �n M m O) O N O O d a m m m v m tt Agenda # 7.1 Meeting Date: April 2, 2013 CITY COUNCIL </+�.� AGENDA REPORT �"RPO 0 t9SN TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man r i TITLE: AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, EXTENDING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 07(2012) PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND USES ON THE SITE OF THE FORMER DIAMOND BAR HONDA DEALERSHIP AND ITS ADJACENT PARCELS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SR60/GRAND AVENUE INTERCHANGE NxK�L4hril�l�l�7_��[�PF Adopt Ordinance No. XX(2013). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On April 3, 2012, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 07(2012), which placed a 45 -day moratorium on issuing permits for the establishment land uses on the parcels located at the northwest corner of the SR60/Grand Avenue interchange, with street addresses of 525 and 527 Grand Avenue, and Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8719-020-001, 8719-020-006 and 8719-020-007. On May 1, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 07A(2012), which extended the moratorium an additional 10 months and 15 days to provide additional time to conduct research and propose changes to the City's Development Code. The current moratorium extension is set to expire on April 3, 2013. Staff has begun working with AECOM on the preparation of a municipal highest and best use analysis of the Honda property in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. The study will take 12 to 16 weeks to complete, and will provide the foundation for a land use strategy and new zoning regulations to guide the establishment of new uses that would support the goal of yielding the highest municipal returns, while generating sufficient private returns to be of interest to the private development community. Interim Urgency Ordinance Extension #2—Honda Property Page 1 Government Code Section 65858 authorizes Council to extend the Urgency Ordinance for one additional year at a noticed public hearing. To allow the additional time necessary to complete the market analysis and updated zoning regulations that would provide the appropriate planning template for the Honda property, staff recommends a final extension of the moratorium. If the City Council adopts these new standards within the coming year, it retains the authority to rescind the moratorium prior to the revised expiration date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308, the City has determined that this activity is categorically exempt. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this hearing was published in San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 22, 2013, in a 118 page display, and was mailed to all owners of property within a 1000' foot radius of the subject property. CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE §65858 California Government Code Section 65858(d) states, "(t)en days prior to the expiration of (an) interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. The March 5, 2013, City Council staff report describing the scope of work being undertaken for the aforementioned market analysis satisfies this Government Code requirement. PREPARED BY: Greg Gubman, AICP Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. XX(2013) 2. Ordinance No. 07A(2012) 3. Ordinance No. 07(2012)U REVIEWED BY: Dave Assistant City Manager Interim Urgency Ordinance Extension #2—Honda Property Page 2 Amended Item 7.1 ORDINANCE NO. XX(2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07(2012) BAR PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND USES ON THE PARCELS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SR60/GRAND AVENUE INTERCHANGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as follows Section 1. Moratorium Extended. Ordinance No. 07(2012), adopted April 3, 2012, and subsequently extended by Ordinance 07A(2012) on May 1, 2012, is hereby extended for one year. Section 2. Penalties. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in County jail for not to exceed six (681 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law. Section 3. Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 4. Purpose and Findings: Urgency. Diamond Bar Honda was an automotive dealership that occupied premises located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue/State Route 60 interchange, with the remainder of the property perimeter bounded by Old Brea Canyon Road. In 2008, Diamond Bar Honda vacated the premises. The location remains vacant at the time of this ordinance. Coincident to the closure of Diamond Bar Honda, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) commenced the preparation of plans to construct a direct westbound on-ramp to SR 60 at the Grand Avenue interchange, immediately adjacent to the premises. The current design proposed for this on-ramp will require the acquisition of approximately 0.71 acres of the southern portion of the premises (which will result in the removal of a freeway -oriented pylon sign that provides critical freeway visibility for any businesses occupying the premises) and the elimination of one of its two drive approaches along Grand Avenue. Page 2 of 3 Under an agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Industry, the loss of acreage to accommodate the aforementioned on-ramp would be offset by the vacation and granting of right-of-way to the premises, which would result from the realignment of Old Brea Canyon Road in conjunction with the construction of a National Football League stadium planned to the northwest of the premises, in the City of Industry. However, because a competing stadium project was subsequently proposed in downtown Los Angeles, it remains uncertain as to whether the Industry stadium project will come to fruition. If the Industry stadium project is not developed, then the land area of the premises formerly occupied by Diamond Bar Honda will then be reduced by approximately 0.71 acres. Staff has begun working with an economic consultant on the preparation of a municipal highest and best use analysis of the Honda property. in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. The study will provide the foundation for a land use strategy and new zoning regulations to guide the establishment of new uses that would support the goal of yielding the highest municipal returns, while generating sufficient private returns to be of interest to the private development community. Because of the time required to complete the market analysis and update the zoning regulations accordingly, this Ordinance is intended to place an interim prohibition on the establishment of new facilities and uses on the site as of the date of adoption hereof until new permanent regulations are prepared and adopted by the City Council. Section 5. Conflicting Laws. For the term of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern over any conflicting provisions or any other City code, ordinance, resolution or policy. Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act Finding. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308, the City has determined that this activity is categorically exempt. Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2013. Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 2nd day of April, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: "NIX -11 Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk Tommye Cribbins From: James DeStefano Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:49 AM To: Tommye Cribbins; David Doyle Subject: FW: City Council Agenda Item #7.1 (Honda Moratorium) Attachments: urgency ordinance honda property - extension .pdf fyi From: Greg Gubman Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: Council Mail Cc: James DeStefano; David A. DeBerry Subject: City Council Agenda Item #7.1 (Honda Moratorium) Dear Mayor Tanaka and Members of the City Council: Attached is a revised version of the ordinance extending the Honda property ordinance. Under State Law, the ordinance must include a finding which articulates "a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare" as the basis for imposing the moratorium. To better defend against a legal challenge, the City Attorney provided language that has been added to Section 4 of the attached ordinance. This new paragraph is underlined and highlighted in yellow. I will mention this revision during the public hearing tonight. Also, two typographical errors have been corrected, and are also highlighted for your convenience. Section 2 in the parenthetical, the number "60" is changed to "6)" and in Section 3, the word "peon" should be "person." Greg Gubman, AICP I Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar I Community Development Department 21810 Copley Drive I Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909.839.7031 1 909.861.3117 (f) www.DiamondBarCa.Gov 1 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. XX(2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07(2012) BAR PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND USES ON THE PARCELS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SR60/GRAND AVENUE INTERCHANGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Moratorium Extended. Ordinance No. 07(2012), adopted April 3, 2012, and subsequently extended by Ordinance 07A(2012) on May 1, 2012, is hereby extended for one year. Section 2. Penalties. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in County jail for not to exceed six (60 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law. Section 3. Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any peon or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 4. Purpose and Findings: Urgency. Diamond Bar Honda was an automotive dealership that occupied premises located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue/State Route 60 interchange, with the remainder of the property perimeter bounded by Old Brea Canyon Road. In 2008, Diamond Bar Honda vacated the premises. The location remains vacant at the time of this ordinance. Coincident to the closure of Diamond Bar Honda, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) commenced the preparation of plans to construct a direct westbound on-ramp to SR 60 at the Grand Avenue interchange, immediately adjacent to the premises. The current design proposed for this on-ramp will require the acquisition of approximately 0.71 acres of the southern portion of the premises (which will result in the removal of a freeway -oriented pylon sign that provides critical freeway visibility for any businesses occupying the premises) and the elimination of one of its two drive approaches along Grand Avenue. Page 2 of 3 Under an agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Industry, the loss of acreage to accommodate the aforementioned on-ramp would be offset by the vacation and granting of right-of-way to the premises, which would result from the realignment of Old Brea Canyon Road in conjunction with the construction of a National Football League stadium planned to the northwest of the premises, in the City of Industry. However, because a competing stadium project was subsequently proposed in downtown Los Angeles, it remains uncertain as to whether the Industry stadium project will come to fruition. If the Industry stadium project is not developed, then the land area of the premises formerly occupied by Diamond Bar Honda will then be reduced by approximately 0.71 acres. Staff has begun working with an economic consultant on the preparation of a municipal highest and best use analysis of the Honda property in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. The study will provide the foundation for a land use strategy and new zoning regulations to guide the establishment of new uses that would support the goal of yielding the highest municipal returns, while generating sufficient private returns to be of interest to the private development community. Because of the time required to complete the market analysis and update the zoning regulations accordingly, this Ordinance is intended to place an interim prohibition on the establishment of new facilities and uses on the site as of the date of adoption hereof until new permanent regulations are prepared and adopted by the City Council. Section 5. Conflicting Laws. For the term of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern over any conflicting provisions or any other City code, ordinance, resolution or policy. Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act Finding. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308, the City has determined that this activity is categorically exempt. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2013. Mayor Page 3 of 3 I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 2nd day of April, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: ATTEST Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. 07A(2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07(2012) BAR PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND USES ON THE PARCELS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SR60/GRANA AVENUE INTERCHANGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Moratorium Extended. Ordinance No. 07(2012), adopted April 3, 2012, is hereby extended for 10 months and 15 days. Section 2.. Penalties. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in County jail for not to exceed six (60 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law. Section 3.: Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any peon or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 4. Purpose and Findings: Urgency. Diamond Bar Honda was an automotive dealership that occupied premises located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue/State Route 60 interchange, with the remainder of the property perimeter bounded by Old Brea Canyon Road. In 2008, Diamond Bar Honda vacated the premises. With the exception of a Burger King restaurant also located on the premises, the location remains vacant at the time of this ordinance. Coincident to the closure of Diamond Bar Honda, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) commenced the preparation of plans to construct a direct westbound on-ramp to SR 60 at the Grand Avenue interchange, immediately adjacent to the premises. : The current design proposed for this on-ramp will require the acquisition of approximately 0.71 acres of the southern portion of the premises (which will result in the removal of a freeway -oriented pylon sign that provides critical freeway visibility for any businesses occupying the premises) and the elimination of at least one of its two drive approaches along Grand Avenue. Sight distance and lane geometry issues still being studied may require the elimination of both existing driveways along the Grand Avenue frontage of the premises, completely eliminating vehicular access to the premises from this major arterial roadway. Page 2 of 3 Under an agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Industry, the loss of acreage to accommodate the aforementioned on-ramp would be offset by the vacation and granting of right-of-way to the premises, which would result from the realignment of Old :Brea Canyon Road in conjunction with the construction of a National Football League stadium planned to the northwest of the premises, in the City of Industry. However,. because a competing stadium project was subsequently proposed in downtown Los Angeles, it remains uncertain as to whether the Industry stadium project will come to fruition. if the Industry stadium project is not developed, then the land area of the premises formerly occupied by Diamond Bar Honda will then be reduced by approximately 0.71 acres. The City is currently studying new development -standards and zoning for the vacant dealership site. Because of the uncertainty regarding the final size, configuration and access to the former Diamond Bar Honda premises, the viability of the site to attract stable land uses that will benefit both the property owners and the City of Diamond Bar is unclear at this time. Because of its prominent, freeway -adjacent location, proper development of the site is critically important to the City for reasons including, but not limited to, aesthetics, services available to Diamond Bar residents, and economic impacts on residents and the City itself. It is likely that zoning standards for the site will change as a result; of this update. Because time will be required to prepare and adopt these new regulations and update the zoning ordinance, this Ordinance is intended to place an interim prohibition on the establishment of new facilities and uses on the site as of the date of adoption hereof until new permanent regulations are prepared and adopted by the City Council. Section 6. Conflicting Laws. For the term of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern over any conflicting provisions or any other City code, ordinance, resolution or policy, Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act Finding. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308, the City has determined that this activity is categorically exempt. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May, 2012. s r Page 3 of 3 I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 1St day of May, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: Everett, Herrera;.Tye, MPT/Tanaka, M/Chang NOES: Council Members: crone ABSENT: Council Members: None ABSTAIN: Council Members:None ATTEST � L ', oi,, Z Tommye ribbins,-City Clerk City of Diamond Bar Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO.07 (2012)U AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND USES ON THE PARCELS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SR60/GRAND AVENUE INTERCHANGE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Purpose and findings. Diamond Bar Honda was an automotive dealership that occupied premises located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue/State Route 60 interchange, with the remainder of the property perimeter bounded by Old Brea Canyon Road. In 2008, Diamond Bar Honda vacated the premises. With the exception of a Burger King restaurant also located on the premises, the location remains vacant at the time of this ordinance. Coincident to the closure of Diamond Bar Honda, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) commenced the preparation of plans to construct a direct westbound on-ramp to SR 60 at the Grand Avenue interchange, immediately adjacent to the premises. The current design proposed for this on-ramp will require the acquisition of approximately 0.71 acres of the southern portion of.the premises (which will result in the removal of a freeway -oriented pylon sign that provides critical freeway visibility for any businesses occupying the premises) and the elimination of at least one of its two drive approaches along Grand Avenue. Sight distance and lane geometry issues still being studied may require the elimination of both existing driveways along the Grand Avenue frontage of the premises, completely eliminating vehicular access to the premises from this major arterial roadway. Under an agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Industry, the loss of acreage to accommodate the aforementioned on-ramp would be offset by the vacation and granting of right-of-way to the premises, which would result from the realignment of Old Brea Canyon Road in conjunction with the construction of a National Football League stadium planned to the northwest of the premises, in the City of Industry. However, because a competing stadium project was subsequently proposed in downtown Los Angeles, it remains uncertain as to whether the Industry stadium project will come to fruition. If the Industry stadium project is not developed, then the land area of the premises formerly occupied by Diamond Bar Honda will then be reduced by approximately 0.71 acres. The City is currently studying new development standards and zoning for the vacant dealership site. Because of the uncertainty regarding thesfinal size, configuration and access to the former Diamond Bar Honda premises, the viability of the site to attract stable land uses that will benefit both the property owners and the City of Diamond Bar is unclear at this time. Because of its prominent, freeway -adjacent location, proper Page 4 of 3 development of the site is critically important to the City for reasons including, but not limited to, aesthetics, services available to Diamond Bar residents, and economic impacts on residents and the City itself. It is likely that zoning standards for the site will change as a result of this update. Because time will be required to prepare and adopt these new regulations and update the zoning ordinance, this Ordinance is intended to place an interim prohibition on the establishment of new facilities and uses on the site as of the date of adoption hereof until new permanent regulations are prepared and adopted by the City Council. SECTION 2. The issuance of permits for any uses or facilities on the parcels in the City of Diamond Bar more commonly known as the former site of Diamond Bar Honda, located northwest of the Grand Avenue(SR60 interchange, with street addresses of 525 and 527 Grand Avenue (APNs 8719-020-001, 8719-020-006 and 8719-020-007) (the "Site'), is hereby prohibited. Notwithstanding any provision of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code to the contrary, no zoning permits or approvals, subdivision maps or building permits for any new facilities or uses shall be approved or issued for the Site during the pendency of this Ordinance or any extension thereof. SECTION 3. Penalties. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in County jail for not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law. SECTION 4. Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. SECTION 5. Urgency. Based on the findings set forth in Section 1 hereof, the potential uncontrolled development of the site poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. This Ordinance is necessary to alleviate and address that threat by prohibiting the establishment of new facilities or uses that may be inconsistent with new zoning standards currently being developed until those revised regulations can be established and adopted. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 and shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of its adoption unless extended by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 7. Conflicting Laws. For the term of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern over any conflicting provisions of any other City code, ordinance, resolution or policy. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2012. n angMa 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 3rd day of April 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Council Member: Everett, Herrera, Tye, MPT/Tanaka, M/Chang NOES: Council Member: None ABSTAIN: Council Member: None ABSENT: Council Member: None f Tommie Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bea Page 3 of 3 CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 7.2 Meeting Date: April 2 2013 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Manaer TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. XX(2013) OFT E CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TABLES 2-5 AND 2-6 OF SECTION 22.10.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICANT: Ryan Farsai, 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DMBC) Section 22.10.030 requires gas stations with a convenience store component to be located at least 150 feet from "any" school in order to be eligible to sell packaged alcoholic beverages. The DBMC broadly defines "school' to include not only K-12 education, but also a wide array of commercial uses and non -degree programs, including art, dance and martial arts studios, fitness training, and commercial tutoring centers. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Development Code to limit the above described 150 -foot distance requirement to public and private elementary, middle and high schools only. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council table the matter for consideration at a future date in order to allow staff and the City Attorney to further study the matter. Should Council action be required, this matter will be renoticed and readvertised in accordance with local and State requirements. Respectfully submitted: Greg Gubman, AICP Community Development Director CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 7.3 Meeting Date: April 2, 2013 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLANNING CASE NO. PL2013-022) PROPERTY OWNER: Mahnaz Farsai, 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100, Laguna APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Hills, CA 92653 Ryan Farsai, 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 3302 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. The Applicant currently operates a convenience store in conjunction with the sale of motor fuels at the Project Location (dba ARCO/ampm), and possesses a "Type 20" license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to sell packaged beer and wine for offsite consumption. The Applicant requests City Council approval to seek ABC authorization to obtain a "Type 21" license, which would allow the sale of packaged distilled spirits in addition to beer and wine (also for offsite consumption only). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council table the matter for consideration at a future date. Should Council action be required, this matter will be renoticed and readvertised in accordance with local and State requirements. Respectfully submitted: Greg Gubman, ICP Community Development Director CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Membe of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Mai fa r� TITLE: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH WOODRUFF, SMART FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: Approve contract. Agenda # 8.1 Meeting Date: April 2 2013 AGENDA REPORT SPRADLIN, & FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed City Attorney rates are listed in the background section below. Overall costs are driven by the varying level of legal services required in a given year. In an average year (free of any unforeseen litigation or extraordinary legal issues), total City Attorney costs have remained within the $185,000 annual budget. Staff is confident the annual costs going forward will remain within this range. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION: After 17 years as City Attorney, Mike Jenkins of Jenkins & Hogin has elected to separate from the City. With this development effective April 17, 2013, the City Council, City Manager, and staff began the process of securing a new law firm to provide the same high quality legal services as offered by Jenkins & Hogin over the years. Following an initial round of research into effective municipal law firms, a targeted group of seven qualified firms were invited to submit proposals for City Attorney services. Upon review of the six proposals that were submitted, the City Council chose to narrow - - the search to the top three firms. Interviews were subsequently held, with the City Council unanimously selecting the firm Woodruff, Spradlin, & Smart and proposed City Attorney David DeBerry as the top choice. Woodruff, Spradlin, & Smart (WSS) is a full service law firm with 36 years of experience representing municipal and government agencies, including cities in the Southern California region. Mr. DeBerry is an experienced City Attorney, spending 18 years as in-house counsel for the City of Orange, where he provided a full range of municipal legal services to the City Council and staff. The firm's roster of experienced attorneys also includes Omar Sandoval and James Eggart, both of whom are proposed to serve as Diamond Bar's Assistant City Attorneys. Mr. Sandoval has 19 years of municipal law experience and currently serves as City Attorney for the City of Hawaiian Gardens. Mr. Eggart currently serves as primary counsel to the Planning Commissions of Rancho Santa Margarita and Garden Grove, and is proposed to serve in the same function for Diamond Bar. This extensive team -wide experience in legal matters ranging from land use to general governance and the Brown Act, to special litigation, combined with the firm's interview performance and understanding of the City Attorney's role in Diamond Bar make WSS the recommended choice for the next City Attorney. Upon choosing WSS as its preferred candidate, the Council directed the City Manager to begin negotiations, resulting in the following agreed-upon hourly rates: All Attorneys (general legal services): $195/hour Special Litigation: $250/hour for directors, $225 for associates Paralegals: $155/hour The standard rate for All Attorneys will increase to $205/hour beginning July 1, 2014 with adjustments by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all wage earners Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties each year thereafter. In surveying current City Attorney rates, staff is confident the proposed costs are competitive and fair for both parties. The proposed City Attorney agreement was drafted with the assistance of Christi Hogin of Jenkins & Hogin and contains all relevant clauses and protections to ensure the City is served effectively. Among the City's standard insurance and indemnification, non- discrimination, conflict of interest, termination, and rate establishment terms, the agreement also stipulates that no changes may be made to the identified City Attorney and Assistant City Attorneys without the City's authorization. This provision ensures that the City is represented by experienced attorneys throughout the life of the agreement. With the search, interview and contract negotiation processes complete and a qualified law firm/attorney identified, staff recommends the City Council approve the attached City Attorney agreement with WSS/David DeBerry. Prepared by- Ryan,It ean, Assistant to the City Manager Attachments: Agreement with Woodruff, Spradlin, & Smart for City Attorney Services Agenda Item 8.1 The original of the Proposal for Attorney Services by Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart is available for review in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Diamond Bar located at 21810 Copley Drive. Hours available for review — 7:30a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday 7:30a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Friday AGREEMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of , 2013, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and the law firm of WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART, a Professional Corporation (hereinafter "WS&S"). RECITALS A. The City Council, as the governing body of the City of Diamond Bar, pursuant to its authority under Government Code section 37103, desires to contract with WS&S to provide city attorney services for the City and to provide legal services required to be performed by the office of the City Attorney of the City. B. The City Council desires, pursuant to its authority under Government Code section 36505 to appoint David DeBerry, an attorney with WS&S, to act as the City Attorney for the City. C. WS&S desires to provide the foregoing services and to perform legal services as necessary for the proper function of the office of the City Attorney for the City. D. City and WS&S wish to provide for the terms and conditions of retaining and employing WS&S to provide legal services as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Retention of WS&S. City hereby retains and employs WS&S to provide all legal services incident to city attorney representation for the City Council and the City. In this regard, David DeBerry is designated as the City Attorney for the City. The City Attorney shall serve as the chief legal advisor to the City Council. Omar Sandoval and James H. Eggart are designated as Assistant City Attorneys for the City. With written consent of the City Manager, Mr. DeBerry is authorized to assign other attorneys of the law firm who may serve as Assistant and Deputy City Attorneys, or as otherwise authorized by the City Council. The City Council may at any time request that the Firm assign a different attorney in the law firm to act as City, Assistant or Deputy City Attorney. 2. Scope of Duties. City retains and employs WS&S to provide legal services required in connection with City's operation as a California general law city.The legal services to be performed shall include those generally understood to be within the field of municipal law and as is further set forth in the City's 2013 Request for Proposal for City Attorney Services. WS&S shall provide those legal services reasonably required to advise and represent City and shall take reasonable steps to keep City informed of the progress of the representation and to respond in a timely manner to the inquiries of City regarding pending matters. The City Council may, in its discretion, assign legal services to attorneys other than the WS&S. It is understood that the legal services to be performed and the functions of the City Attorney shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 2.1 Represent and advised the City Council and all City officers in matters of law pertaining to their office. Give advice or opinion on the legality of all matters under consideration by the City Council or by any of the boards and commissions or officers of the City; 2.2 Attend all meetings of the City Council and all meetings of the Planning Commission for the City, and attend all other meetings of City boards, commissions, and committees when so requested by the City Council or the City Manager; 2.3 Assist in the preparation and review of ordinances, resolutions, contracts, deeds, leases and other legal documents; 2.4 As requested, approve the form of contracts made by and between the City and bonds given to the City, endorsing same; 2.5 Upon request, prepare legal opinions for City departments, the City Council, boards and commissions; 2.6 Oversee services provided by other legal specialists retained by the City for specialized legal issues, as deemed appropriate by the City Council; 2.7 Coordinate legal activities with other City departments, divisions, and outside agencies; 2.8 Represent the City in civil litigation; and 2.9 Perform such other legal duties as may be required by the City Council in the performance of the functions list in subparagraphs A -H. 3. Independent Contractor. WS&S and any attorneys or other persons employed by WS&S, shall at all times be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of the City and not entitled to any benefits of the City's employees. Except to the extent provided herein, the City and its employees shall not have any control over the conduct of WS&S. 4. Fees. Costs and Expenses. 4.1 City agrees to pay WS&S at the rates set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and is incorporated `herein by reference. Rate will be increased in accordance with Exhibit "A". 4.2 City agrees to pay out-of-pocket costs and expenses associated with WS&S' work pursuant to Exhibit "A". 5. Statements/Task-Billine. WS&S shall prepare and present to City detailed monthly statements for professional and other services rendered to City for the month preceding the statement, indicating each task performed by WS&S. City shall pay the statements within 30 days of receipt of the same. WS&S shall update City, upon request, regarding the status of WS&S' billings. 6. Insurance and Indemnification. 6.1. WS&S shall carry Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions and Automotive Liability insurances in an amount not less than $2 million per occurrence and $4 million in aggregate. The City shall be named as a certificate holder and an additional insured on the Automotive Liability policy. All insurance coverage shall be provided by an insurance company with a rating of A-, VII or greater in the latest edition of Best's Insurance Guide and authorized to do business in the State of California. Such policies shall not be canceled or materially changed absent 30 days' prior written notice to the City. With respect to Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions insurance, WS&S agrees to maintain such insurance for at least three years after termination of this Agreement as long as such insurance is reasonably available on the market. 6.2. WS&S agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the City, its City Council, officers, agents and employees from and against and claim, demands, damages, injury or judgment which arises out the negligent performance or willful misconduct of WS&S in performing under this Agreement. 7. Arbitration. Any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined by binding arbitration in the County of Los Angeles, before one arbitrator. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, an arbitrator shall be selected through the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The Arbitrator shall have the authority to set procedures and discovery in the arbitration. In any such matter, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Judgment on the arbitrator's written award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The arbitrator's remedial power shall be the same as the remedial power a court would have over the dispute. This clause shall not preclude the parties from seeking provisional remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The parties shall be jointly responsible for the arbitration fees and the arbitrator's compensation and expenses. The arbitrator shall award costs to the prevailing party which shall include reasonable attorney's fees and any other costs not jointly agreed to be shared between the parties. In the event one party has paid more than its share of the arbitration fees and expenses, the arbitrator may award fees and expenses to such party. This section shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. 8. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on April 2„ 2013, until terminated by either party. WS&S shall serve under the terms of this Agreement at the pleasure of City, and by a majority vote of the City Council, City hereby reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon 10 days written notice to WS&S for any reason or to require substitute attorney personnel. When WS&S' services are terminated, all unpaid charges shall be due and payable to WS&S for work actually performed up to the time of termination and for any other work it completes at the direction of the City. WS&S may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon 90 days written notice to the City. 9. Notice. Any notices required by this Agreement shall be given by personal service or by delivery of such notice by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Such notices shall be addressed to each party at the address listed below. Either parry may change the information in such notice upon written notice as provided herein. City: City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attn: James DeStefano, City Manager Phone: 909-839-7010 WS&S: Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Kennard Smart, Managing Director Phone: 714-558-7000 10. Non -Discrimination. WS&S shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, disability or national origin. 11. Conflicts of Interest. WS&S represents that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in any legal representation which is in conflict with the legal services to be provided the City under this Agreement. WS&S represents that no City employee or official other than the members of WS&S has a material financial interest in WS&S. During the term of this Agreement and/or as a result of being awarded this contract, WS&S shall not offer, encourage or accept any financial interest in WS&S's business from any City employee or official. 12. Files. All legal files of WS&S pertaining to the City shall be and remain the property of City. WS&S shall control the physical location of such legal files in a secure and accessible location during the term of this Agreement and be entitled to retain copies of such files, at WS&S' expense, upon termination of this Agreement. 13. Modifications to the Agreement. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, modifications relating to the nature, extent or duration of WS&S' professional services to be rendered hereunder shall require the written approval of the parties. Any such written approval shall be deemed to be a supplement to this Agreement and shall specify any changes in the Scope of Services and the agreed-upon billing rate to be charged by WS&S and paid by the City. 14. Assignment and Delegation. This Agreement contemplates the personal professional services of WS&S and it shall not be assigned or delegated without the prior written consent of the City. WS&S shall supervise delegated work, except where precluded from doing so by virtue of a conflict of interest and where otherwise agreed to by the parties hereto. 15. Legal Construction. 15.1 This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall, in all respects, be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of California. 15.2 This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the persons who drafted its various provisions. Each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though each of the parties participated equally in the drafting of same, and any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement. 1.5.3 The article and section, captions and headings herein have been inserted for convenience only, and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. 15.4 Whenever in this Agreement the context may so require, the masculine gender shall be deemed to refer to and include the feminine and neuter, and the singular shall refer to and include the plural. 16. Entire Aereement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and contains all covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to such matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated in the preamble to this Agreement and represent that they are authorized to bind their respective parties. ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR By: City Clerk Jack Tanaka Mayor WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART IN Kennard R. Smart, Jr. President/Managing Director EXHIBIT "A" WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART Rates and ,Billing Practices Hourly Rates for Legal Personnel All Attorneys Specialty Litigation:i Paralegals Billing Increment $195.00 $250 — Directors; $225 - Associates $155.00 • Attorneys shall bill in increments of one-tenth of an hour (six minutes), • Attorneys shall not bill for secretarial time, including time spent for faxing, mailing, arranging for messengers, or calendaring. Costs and Expenses Extraordinary photocopying Parking at Courthouse Filing fees, messenger fees Jury fees, & expert fees Phone $0.25 per page or actual cost if sent out Actual cost Actual cost Actual cost No cost Effective on July 1, 2014, the hourly rate for attorneys, other than for Specialty Litigation, shall be adjusted to $205. Effective July 1, 2015, and each year thereafter, the hourly rates for Retainer Services and Legal Personnel shall be adjusted in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles -Orange County Metropolitan Area, all wage earners, for the period between June 1—May 30 of the prior 12 month period. Each hourly rate shall be rounded to the nearest $1.00 increment. ' Such as Environmental/Land Use/Eminent Domain/Personnel 2 Must be approved in advance by the City Manager OATH OF OFFICE California Constitution Article 20, Section 3 I, DAVID A. DeBERRY, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. David A. DeBerry STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this day of March, 2013, by , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me. (seal) Signature D SMART PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF Duait'vic-Vu z- 555 ANTON BOULEVARD,,SUTTE 1200 ■ COSTA MESA, CA 92626 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE No. A. LETTER OF TRANSA117TAL........................................................................................................... B. SUMMARY ..................................................... ........................... .............. ......................................... C. STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING............................................................................................ D. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE............................................................................................. 1. FIRmNAME; ADDRESS ANDT}'PEoFEvTITY....................................................................................... 2. FIRMB.ACKGROUND................................... .......................... ................ .............................................. 3. FIRME,YPERTIsE................................................................................................................................ 4. LOCATION OF OFFICE THA 7' WOULD SERVE THE CITY......................................................................... J. FlRlvf'S SUPPORT STAFF...................................................................................................................... E. FIRMSAPPROACHTOLEGAL SERVICES ................................................................................. 1. THE ROLE OF THE CITYATTORNEY................................................... 2. METHODISTYLEOFINTERACTIONWITH VARIOUS CITY GROUPS ......... 3. DELEGATION OFASSIGNMENTS........................................................ 4. ADVISING THE CITYOFLEGALDF.VELOP,LIENTS................................. S. KEEPING THE CITY INFORMED OF ONGOING LITIGATION ................... 6. EVAL UATING THE COST/BENEFIT OF LITIGATING OR ,SETTLING CASES 7. EXAMPLE OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ......................................... 8. METHODS FOR TRACKING AND MANAGING LEGAL COSTS .................. 9. CONTINUING EDUcATION...... .............. ............................................. 10. SPECIALTY SERVICES THE FlRAI DOES NOT PROVIDE ...................... F. PROPOSEDATTORNEYS............................................................ G. REFERENCES AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. 1.4. REFERENCES FOR DESIGNATED CITYATTORNEY ............................ IB. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR THE FIRLf...................................... 2. LIST OF PUBLIC CLIENTS AND FORESEEABLE CONFLICTS .................. 3. ADVERSE DECISIONS OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS— ......................... 4. MALPRAcTTcEAcTIoNs............................:......................—...I.......I. H COMPENSATIONAND REIMBURSEMENT ............................... 1. HOW THE FIRML'JTENDS TO CHARGE FOR SERVICES ......................... 2. RATES .................. ....... ..... ....................... ....... ..................... ............ . 3. COSTSANDEXPENSEs............ ................................ .......................... 1. IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................... 1 2 2 4 14 17 22 EXHIBITS A. Writing Sample B. Invoice Sample C. Draft Agreement D. Non -Collusion Affidavit A. Letter of Transmittal Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart appreciates the opportunity to respond to the City of Diamond Bar's ("City") Request for Proposal for City Attorney Services ("RFP"). We are an established Orange County law firm that has been representing a variety of government agencies for 36 years, including a number of cities in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, both full-service and primarily contract. We also represent several regional public agencies and special districts in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. We believe this gives us unique insight into local government at a number of levels and given that many of the City's services are provided by such regional agencies and special districts, uniquely positions us to advise the City in its interactions with these other public agencies. The Firm is rated as AN by Martindale -Hubbell, the highest possible rating. Inquiries concerning this Proposal and all correspondence should be directed to David DeBerry, 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Phone number is 714-558- 7000 and email address is ddeberry@wss-law.com. If Mr. DeBerry is unavailable please contact the Firm's Administrator, Toni Burnside, at the same address and phone number. Her e-mail address is tburnside@wss-law.com. This Proposal and the fee schedule contained herein shall be valid and binding for 120 days from February 20, 2013. Sincerely, WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART A Professional Corporation Dated: February J 1 , 2013 Kennard R. Smart, Jr. Prg,aitient and Managing Direc or Dated: February _L� 2013 Al j,, G David . De -{ry Director Womwrr SP21DLIN & ShMRT Proposal for City Attorney Services Page B. Summary Our Finn has both the ability and the expertise to provide the full range of City Attorney services referenced in the RFP or as detennined by the City, those deemed necessary and prudent. With 43 attorneys we can and do provide the entire range of transactional, litigation and code enforcement services. Our number one objective is to facilitate the goals and policies of the City Council. We recognize that the members of the City Council have been chosen to represent the community and to set the City's priorities. Our objective is to pave the way for implementation of the chosen goals and policies in a manner which is legally sound, reduces potential exposure and effectuates its purpose. Our Firm's approach is practical, efficient, flexible, value -conscious and team -oriented. The Firm proposes to assign David DeBerry to act as the City Attorney, who we believe is uniquely qualified. Mr. DeBerry was the in-house city attorney for the City of Orange for 15 years, recently joining the fine in May of 2012. He ran an office of four attorneys which provided the full range of legal services to Orange and was able to reduce the budget of the City Attorney office by making his office work more efficiently so that the use of outside counsel was minimized. Mr. Omar Sandoval would be assigned by the Firm as the primary assistant city attorney. He specializes in municipal law, land use, and franchising. Mr. Sandoval has been practicing municipal law continuously since 1994. He currently serves as City Attorney for the city of Hawaiian Gardens and General Counsel for the Rossmoor-Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. Mr. James Eggart would be assigned to the Planning Commission, a role he currently performs for the cities of Garden Grove and Rancho Santa Margarita. These three individuals, all Directors in the firm, would perform the vast majority of the work. We believe we bring an attractive package in that our representation of regional agencies and attorneys with in-house public agency experience at both the City Attorney and County Counsel level, give us a unique perspective of government at a number of levels. Because we are a mid-sized law firm, we have been able to develop and hire attorneys with a specialized skill set in just about any issue that the City may face. This is significant in today's complex legal which is trending away from the general practice attorney to one who is specialized. The Firm is split evenly as between our Public Law Department attorneys and Litigation Department attorneys. While the Public Law Department side practices in a manner to keep our public agency clients out of litigation, when it becomes necessary, the Firm has a team of expert and experienced litigators headed up by one of the state's premier public agency litigators, Mr. Daniel Spradlin. They have the ability to respond to just about any type of lawsuit the City may face and is a qualified firm for Joint Insurance Pools such as the one that handles litigation for the City. C. Statement of Understanding We acknowledge and understand the entirety of the services being requested. The range of services sought is substantially similar to the services we currently provide to the cities of Garden Grove, Hawaiian Gardens, Laguna Hills, Palm Springs, Rancho Santa Margarita and Tustin, some of which are full service cities and others primarily contract. Having been an in- i¢700DRUFF, SPRADLIN & SA4.ART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 2 house City Attorney for 15 years and running an office which provided 90% or more of all the legal work required by the City of Orange, Mr. DeBerry fully understands the full range of services that the City may require. Similarly, Mr. Sandoval, as both City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney, has significant experience providing a full range of services for cities. Mr. DeBerry, Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Eggart have significant experience in attending City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Mr. DeBerry has 15 years of experience of being the primary legal representative at City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings and four additional years as general counsel for special districts. Mr. Sandoval has been the chief legal representative at City Council and Planning Commission meeting for 18 years. Mr. Eggart has been the chief representative for several Planning Commissions for over five years and currently is in that position for two of the Firm's cities and has taken a number of City Council meetings when the City Attorney was not able to be present. Mr. DeBerry is available for both City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Sandoval is available for City Council meetings and Mr. Eggart for Planning Commission meetings. Since he recently joined the firm, Mr. DeBerry does not have any current clients for which he acts as the City Attorney or General Counsel, other than a Fire Training Joint Powers Authority which meets only once quarterly at a time which does not conflict with City meetings. Thus, he does not have any conflicts with Diamond Bar's requirements and can devote whatever time the City demands. Mr. DeBerry has 18 years of experience in providing legal opinions, advice, assistance and consultation on a daily basis, three years as an assistant city attorney and 15 years as a city attorney. He also spent five years in private practice with WS&S doing similar work prior to going to Orange. The range of advice covers all matters noted in the RFP. He has been a guest speaker, trainer and litigator on many of the topics set forth in the RFP. As an in-house City Attorney, Mr. DeBerry daily communicated with the City Council, City Manager and City staff and has developed excellent interpersonal skills in this regard. Both Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Eggart have significant experience in these areas as well having been in the municipal law practice since, respectively, 1994 and 2004. In addition to his current duty as City Attorney for Hawaiian Gardens, Mr. Sandoval has been an Assistant City Attorney for Chino, Coachella, and San Juan Capistrano, as well as General Counsel for the Rossrnoor-Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. He has, since 1999, been the primary legal counsel at meetings of Public Housing Authorities, Public Finance Authorities, Redevelopment Agencies and others. He has advised a number of agencies on a wide range of municipal issues. He would be quite capable of stepping into any situation in which the City required legal counsel. Mr. Eggart has likewise had significant interaction with the Finn's public agency clients on a range of matters, including office hours at the City of Garden Grove. WS&S's litigation department is capable of representing the City in nearly all litigation matters and as noted elsewhere in this Proposal provides such services for both its city attorney and general counsel clients, but also to agencies represented by other firms and joint insurance pools. Daniel Spradlin is one of the state's foremost public agency litigators and heads the Finn's litigation department. Lois Bobak has significant experience in litigating land use and writ matters and heads the Firm's appellate practice. Mr. DeBerry personally represented the City of Orange in several land use, election and Political Reform Act matters. He has successfully argued before the appellate court on several occasions during his representation of Orange. Both WOODRUIT SPR.ADLIN & Smnrtr Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 3 Mr. DeBerry and Mr. Sandoval have provided training and advice on Brown Act, AB 1234 and conflict of interest laws, including the Political Reform Act. The Finn recognizes that its role is to assist in the implementation of policies as set by the City Council. It is our goal to facilitate such policies and the management decisions that follow in a manner which is legally sound. We will be successful when the City Council is successful. We will act with integrity and treat everyone with respect be they Council Members, the City Manager, City staff or members of the public. D. Background and Experience 1. Firm Name, Address and True of Entity Woodruff Spradlin & Smart, APC, 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200, Costa Mesa, California 92626. The Firm is a professional corporation, duly formed and existing under the laws of the State of California. 2. Firm Background Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart was organized in 1976 and has been serving municipal clients since that time. The Finn has enjoyed steady growth over the years and currently includes 43 attorneys in two nearly equal staffed departments, the Public Law Department and the Litigation Department. While due to its growth the Firm has some clients that are relatively new, it has many long-standing clients as well, having acted as City Attorney for Tustin for approximately 30 years and the City of Garden Grove for 20 years. We have also acted as General Counsel for the Orange County Transportation Authority and for the Orange County Sanitation District each for approximately 25 years. The Firm's history has been one of almost exclusive public agency representation and we do not represent private clients with interests adverse to public agencies. 3. Firm Expertise As a mid-sized law firm we have been able to develop and hire attorneys who have an expertise in just about any matter that the City might face. Two areas of practice which we typically do not engage are re -negotiations of labor bargaining agreements and bond counsel work. While we provide advice to our public agencies during negotiations and have an expertise in matters covered in such negotiations, we believe that if the City is going to use legal counsel directly in such negotiations, that it is better in the long run to be a law firm which is not providing City Attorney services. We are, however, infinitely familiar with the Meyers Milias Brown Act and matters covered by collective bargaining and do provide advice on such matters. We believe that Bond counsel may have a financial interest in the issuance of the bonds which could create potential conflicts. We have experience in advising out clients on bonds, interacting with bond counsel and bond covenants. The areas of expertise we have developed include the following: WOODRUFF, SPRADL[N & SMART Proposal far City Attorney Services Page 4 Personnel, Employee Relations, and Employee Discrimination Claims. The Firm advises and defends public agencies in cases involving discrimination, wrongful discharge, workplace harassment, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Public Safety Officers and Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Acts, and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. We regularly defend cities, special districts, and joint powers agencies against employment-related claims in both administrative and judicial proceedings. The Firm's employment law section is directed by Ms. Barbara Raileanu who has devoted her professional career to public law and the representation of government agencies. She specializes in providing public agencies with day-to-day advice and representation on the wide range of personnel issues listed above, along with the hiring process, conducting investigations, the interactive process, reasonable accommodations, labor negotiations, PERS issues, etc. Ms. Raileanu has conducted close to one hundred administrative hearings with an almost impeccable success rate and has presented more than three hundred seminars on topics from conflict of interest issues to harassment, discrimination and reasonable accommodation. Land Use. The Firm's Attorneys are very experienced in all aspects of land use law including, general plans, specific plans, zoning, conditional use pennits, variances, development agreements and low and moderate income housing projects. As more fully set forth elsewhere in this Proposal, Mr. DeBerry has handled a wide variety of land use matters at both the Superior Court and Appellate Court level and recently advised the City of Orange on its 2010 General Plan Update. He has negotiated and drafted a number of development agreements, zoning ordinances, general plan amendments, conditions of approval and litigated a number of land use cases. Omar Sandoval has negotiated agreements with Habitat for Humanity for workforce housing and assists public housing authorities in the rental of affordable housing units as well as a full range of land use documents. In addition to having been general counsel to the Tustin Planning Commission, Ms. Lois Bobak has successfully litigated a number of land use related matters and has developed a particular expertise in appellate matters. Tort Litigation/Police Defense, The Finn's Litigation Department is headed by Daniel Spradlin who has devoted his entire legal career to the representation of public agencies in litigation matters. His unique talents and success in jury trials have been acknowledged by his peers and in two separate profiles in Verdict Magazine. In addition to heading the litigation department of the Firm, Mr. Spradlin specializes in defense of cities in police liability matters, complaints of dangerous conditions of public property, employment, and environmental claims. Mr. Spradlin has obtained defense verdicts in the vast majority of cases he has taken to trial. The strength of the Firm's litigation department is reflected in the fact that not only does the Firm provide litigation services for its own city attorney and general counsel clients, it provides litigation services to public agencies and joint risk management pools who are represented by other law firms, such as school districts and the City of Irvine. Attached hereto is a partial listing, general description and disposition of cases that our litigators have recently tried, received summary adjudication, or handled on appeal. Public Works Construction. The Firm is intimately familiar with Public Contract Code requirements and the intricacies of Public Works projects. In addition to advising our city clients on public works projects and competitive bidding, the Firm has been responsible for oversight, review and approval of engineering contracts involving billions of dollars on behalf of the U700DRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for Crty A¢awey Services Page 5 Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Transportation Authority. The Firm's Litigation Department has considerable experience in defending and prosecuting Public Works construction claims. This has included successful defense of clients against a variety of delay and disruption claims brought by contractors. The claims experience also includes prosecution of affirmative claims against contractors and design professionals involving such things as acceleration, trade stacking, lien and bond enforcement, change orders, defective work, terminations, bid protests, and liquidated damages. Joe Forbath is the Principal in charge of construction law in the Firm's Litigation Department. Mr. Forbath has personally successfully handled eight jury trials, numerous court trials, and nearly 100 arbitrations. Environmental Law. The Firm regularly provides advice and handles litigation on a wide variety of environmental matters for its public agency clients on development and public works construction matters, including issues arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the state Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), federal and state superfund laws, and a myriad of other environmental laws. As General Counsel to the Orange County Sanitation District, the Firm advises the second-largest sanitation agency west of the Mississippi River on all environmental issues including CEQA/NEPA and ocean discharge issues arising under the CWA. The Firm's environmental section is directed by Brad Hogin, a Principal of the Firm, who has substantial experience in counseling public agencies on CEQA compliance for public projects. Mr. Hogin has served as CEQA counsel to the Los Angeles Unified School District and other public agency clients. Ms. R cia Hager acts as Mr. Hogin's primary assistant on environmental matters. Code Enforcement. We recognize the City has retained another law firm to prosecute violations of City laws and fully support the continued retention of that firm as long as the City is satisfied with the service. If necessary, our Firm has significant experience in code enforcement work and could support the prosecution of City laws when and if the need arises. We recognize that many persons who are in violation of the municipal code are generally otherwise law- abiding. We attempt to treat everyone with respect and working in partnership with city code enforcement officers, to obtain compliance in a cost-effective manner without the rancor. Code enforcement matters are overseen by Attorney Jason McEwen. In the past year, the Firm has successfully prosecuted over 100 code violators. Mr. McEwen also assists our city clients in their administrative citation programs, and has represented cities in appeals filed from administrative citation hearings. Eminent Domain. The Firm has a detailed working knowledge of eminent domain law. Craig Farrington, a Principal in the Litigation Department, has handled eminent domain matters for public agency clients for over 14 years. The Firm worked closely with the Orange County Transportation Authority to oversee and coordinate all of the property acquisitions, including litigation when necessary for the recently completed widening of the SR 22 Freeway. The Firm was recently chosen by the San Bernardino Association of Governments to represent that agency in land acquisition matters related to a number of multi-million dollar transportation improvements undertaken in San Bernardino County. The Firm is currently handling dozens of complicated land acquisition/utility relocation matters related to railroad -street grade separation projects and freeway improvement projects and recently hired several experienced eminent 6VOODRUFI', SPRADLl.N & SMAR7' Proposal for CityAttorney Serniees Page 6 domain lawyers, including Gary Weisberg, formerly a partner with Palmeiri Tyler Winer Wilhelm & Waldron, who has over 25 years experience in eminent domain law. Elections Code. Members of the Firm regularly advise our clients on elections issues. Mr. DeBerry advised the City Council and City Clerk in Orange on election matters during his entire tenure and at the time this proposal was drafted had been retained by Orange to continue his representation of the City Clerk and City Council in litigation relating to a referendum which is now on appeal after a successful defense by Mr. DeBerry in the trial court. Doug Holland provides elections advice to Coronado, Del Mar, and Poway, three cities that we do not represent as city attorney, and has assisted the cities of Tustin, Lake Elsinore, and Garden Grove in resolving difficult elections issues involving referenda and an initiative. Cable Television and other Franchises. Members of the Firm regularly provide advice and representation in Cable Television, Telecommunications, and other Franchises. More specifically, Omar Sandoval has extensive experience in drafting, reviewing, and negotiating franchises and agreements for telecommunications and solid waste services and Mr. DeBerry has negotiated and drafted two cable television franchises and three solid waste franchises. Mr. Sandoval negotiated and drafted renewals of Cable Television franchises for the cities of Tustin, Laguna Hills, and Hawaiian Gardens. He worked with city staff and consultants to audit the cable companies' services, compliance with existing franchises, and compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Mr. Sandoval has also drafted and negotiated telecommunications license agreements for the cities of Tustin, Laguna Hills, and Hawaiian Gardens with Level 3 Communications, Qwest Communications, and PF.Net in conjunction with those companies' installation and maintenance of fiber optic facilities in public rights-of-way. The Firm also has experience in advising our city clients with respect to the regulation of cellular tower antennas and the negotiation of leases of city property for the installation and operation of such antennas on city property. The Firm has extensive knowledge on issues pertaining to solid waste franchise services, including regulatory requirements of the State's Waste Management Board. Governance. Our attorneys regularly advise our clients on the Public Records Act, Political Reform Act, other conflict of interest laws, the Brown Act and other laws relating to the governing of cities. Mr. DeBerry, Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Eggart all have significant experience in advising their clients on these issues on a nearly weekly basis. Mr. DeBerry was retained by Orange to continue his representation of three council members in litigation charging them with a violation of the Political Reform Act's conflict of interest rules. The case is now on appeal after the trial court granted the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. He also assisted an Orange Council Member in having the Fair Political Practices Commission rescind a warning letter in 2012. 4. Location of Office That Would Serve the City The City would be served from our one and only office in Costa Mesa, which is located at the interchange of the 55 and 405 Freeways. WOODRUFF, SPRADWN & SMART Proposal for City Altor ney Services Page 7 5. Firm's Support Staff The Finn's attorneys are supported by legal assistants, secretaries, paralegals, accounting coordinators, and an information technology manager. The support staff is under the direction of the office administrator, Toni Burnside, who has been in that position since 1995. She is available to respond to client questions at all times and oversees a staff of motivated long -tern employees who have decades of experience and have undergone continual training so that the Firm can provide its clients with an excellent customer service in a cost-effective manner. Mr. DeBerry's legal assistant, Connie Jo Smith, has been with the Firm for over 25 years. Steady growth of the Finn since its inception has allowed the Firm to offer a very attractive working environment for its employees which in turn has led to very little turnover in personnel. We will assign routine legal matters to our paralegals, who have decades of experience, when practical to reduce costs. We have experienced personnel in the office who will be committed to the City and we will make adjustments as may be necessary or desirable to ensure that the City receives a high level of legal services. Our offices are open every day from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., although there are attorneys and support staff typically in the office beginning at 7:30 a.m. until 7 p.m. or later. E. Firm's Approach to Legal Services 1. The Role of the City Attorney Advise the City Council and Further Its Policies. The most important role of the City Attorney is to provide sound legal advice to the City Council and to keep the City Council advised at all times of developments of legal significance. The legal business of a city is not simple and staying abreast of the law is paramount. City government can exercise only those powers granted by the California Constitution and the State Legislature and the ultimate role of the City Attorney is to advise the City Council of the legal consequences of its action and how to stay within the legal framework in reaching its goals. The Firm believes that honesty, integrity, humility, and a genuine desire to further the business of the City are nearly as important traits to being a good city attorney as knowledge of the law. Our agenda will be the agenda set by. the City Council and as implemented by the City Council. We will provide advice that is accurate, straightforward and unbiased. We believe that the overall strength of our relationship will be defined by the desire we have to meet and exceed the City's expectations, the breadth of knowledge that is available within the Firm, and our adaptability and flexibility to ensure that the City achieves its goals. In order to fully achieve the City's expectations, we will need the City's input. We foresee that modifications in our delivery of service will be made during the course of our representation to address current events and changes in the law. We view this as a never-ending process of asking ourselves and the City if we are meeting expectations and whether we can improve on what we are doing, with the ultimate goal of exceeding the City's expectations. WOODRUM,, SPRADLIN & SMAlBT Proposal,for City Attorney Services Page 8 Know the Law. The City will and should fully expect its City Attorney to know the law. Because public agency representation encompasses the vast majority of our practice, we have significant understanding and expertise of the work to be performed. While every city has its nuances, nearly all aspects of the scope of work that needs to be performed will fall within the expertise developed by attorneys in the Firm who have seen it from a variety of angles. The legal field is complex and getting more so for public agencies with every passing year. We keep abreast of changes in the law, court decisions which impact our clients and stress continuing education for our lawyers and administrative staff. We can best assist the City by fully comprehending the law and then providing timely, accurate and high quality legal representation. Be a Facilitator. Our objective is to facilitate the policies and goals of the City Council and to do so in a responsive, timely, pro -active and cost-conscious manner. In order to accomplish this objective our attorneys need to know the law, explain it in a way that it can be understood, advise the City on the benefits and risks of a particular course of action and then once that course of action is chosen, facilitate its implementation in a manner which preserves the best interests of the City. Be Involved. To the extent requested, we propose to actively participate in the day-to- day activities of the City in order to spot legal issues as they arise so they can be addressed before becoming a liability. We cannot be strangers and at the same time provide the services required by the City. This means being on-call at all times, being on-site when needed, being available by phone, e-mail or text both during and outside of business hours and becoming familiar to the City Council, City staff and the community. We will be available when the need arises, not just when it is convenient for us. Develop Trust. This requires us to be fair, impartial and to serve with integrity. Our legal advice will not depend upon who within the City is requesting it. We believe that the City Council and. City Staff are much more likely to accept our legal advice if they perceive it has been given without favoritism and with diplomacy. We are politically aware, but strive to be apolitical. We seek to portray this fairness and impartiality to the community as well, as we believe the community will more readily accept the decisions of the City's decision -makers if they believe the process was fair and the information balanced. Communicate. The City's decision -makers need to be apprised of any legal problems of which we become aware and to be advised at the earliest possible time and in a way it can be understood so good decisions can be made. This not only avoids potential City liability, it also helps avoid possible embarrassment to decision -makers. It is more effective and cost-efficient to make City officials aware of possible legal pitfalls before they fall into them, as opposed to extracting them from them. The Firm would provide a reporting mechanism and/or log of pending projects that will inform the City about the nature of the task, who has been assigned and the status. Regular reports on litigation would be provided on a periodic basis and additional reports upon the occurrence of a significant development would be provided to the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney and Risk Manager. We will return phone calls and e-mails promptly, advise City officials when we may be out of town, appoint backups in such an event, and advise City officials of changes in the law and/or issues that arose with our other public agency clients that may impact how they conduct their business. FFoouauFF, SPMAIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Semces Page 9 Provide Accurate and Useful Billing Information. The Firm will track its costs on particular projects and would work closely with the City to track such costs in a manner which is most useful to the City. This tracking will assist the City in recovering processing fees that it may charge to applicants who come before the City seeking licenses, permits and project approvals. We are Unique. We believe the variety and depth of our representation of public agency clients and the range of experiences of our attorneys provides a base of knowledge which is unique among law firms and of special benefit to the City. We represent a range of cities from full-service to primarily contract cities that face many of the same issues as Diamond Bar and can draw from that knowledge. Because our Firm provides legal services to regional and local special districts similar to those which provide services within the City such as the Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Fire Authority, South Coast Water District and San Bernardino Associated Governments, we have a unique understanding of local government at a number of levels. The Finn's focus is on public agency law and we do not take private clients who could potentially have interests that may be inconsistent with that of our public agency clients. 2. Method/Style of Interaction with Various City Groups City Council. While the City Council is faced with many complex issues, we do not believe that interaction with the City Council or any other City constituents needs to be complicated. Our basic principles are to treat all Council Members, no matter whether they are in the majority or minority on issues, with respect and fairness. We will be the City Attorney for the City Council and not for any particular council member. We will serve with integrity and be honest, straightforward, accessible, and maintain confidentiality. We believe it is appropriate to advise individual council members on matters that are of concern to them, while recognizing that legal opinions on matters concerning the entire City Council must be shared with all council members. We will be politically astute, but will avoid being political. We recognize,that the City Council has pressures which are unique and being aware of the chemistry and politics of a situation and being able to address that situation appropriately is as important as providing correct legal advice. City Manager. The same basic principles will guide our relationship with the City Manager. We anticipate that the City Attorney and City Manager will have a team -oriented approach to facilitating the policies of the City Council and that the City Manager should be able to approach the City Attorney with concerns without having every conversation reported back to the CityCouncil. The City Manager has perhaps the most difficult job in the City and sometimes needs a sounding board. We will act to facilitate the day-to-day operations of the City in coordination with the City Manager. However, we will also be mindful of the policy directions of the City Council and not shy away from having discussions with the City Manager as to whether the City's actions are consistent therewith and appraising the City Council when we believe they are not. TVOODRUF$ SPRADLN& SAIART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 10 Planning Commission. Our approach with the Planning Commissioners will be similar to that of the City Council, but limited by and tempered by the fact that our ultimate client is the City Council. Our primary role with the Planning Commission is to provide advice at Planning Commission meetings, ensure that its members have accurate information to make informed decisions and that its members stay within the confines of the law in rendering those decisions. City Staff. Good relations with City staff is paramount to being a good City Attorney and as an in-house City Attorney, Mr. DeBerry has 15 years of working with staff on a daily basis and perhaps a unique understanding of their jobs. They often provide the information and the expertise that are necessary to providing sound legal advice. We recognize they know more about their fields than we do and their opinions and experience are to be respected. We will encourage City staff to be open and balanced with the information they provide the City Manager and the City Council. The Public. The public is deserving of the same respect and fairness afforded City personnel and often more patience as the public's knowledge base of City operations, what it can and, cannot do, is typically less than those within City Hall. Mr. DeBerry had significant interaction with the public during his 15 years with Orange and strove to ensure that the public felt its concerns were being heard and communicated to those within the City who could address them. Having said that, sometimes the public needs to be reminded that the City Attorney is the attorney for the City Council, not the community as a whole and that principal will guide our interactions with the public. 3. Delegation of Assignments We propose that all significant requests for legal services go through the City Attorney, who would then assign the request. Requests for services can be provided to us in person during visits to the City for meetings or transmitted directly to us via phone, e-mail, fax, or normal mail. We believe that e-mail provides an effective combination of immediacy and accuracy of communication, particularly when multiple parties are involved, so we encourage the use of e- mail communications with our clients for the transmittal of questions, requests, and materials. We anticipate legal requests would include basic information such as the requesting person, the nature of the request and the requested due date. The vast majority of the work will be handled directly by the City Attorney and the designated Assistant City Attorneys. All are accustomed to addressing all aspects of legal work required by cities, from reviewing routine contracts, to drafting ordinances and complicated legal opinions. Associates and paralegals will be utilized to perform some support work and if there is an attorney with a particular expertise in a matter that has arisen, that attorney will be utilized when it is the most efficient. By assigning the vast majority of work to experienced individuals, completion of the work will take less time, be less costly and be more accurate. 4. Advising the City of Legal Developments As to general legal developments which may impact all cities and/or public agency clients, the Firm will typically provide a written legal memo, the costs of preparation of which will be shared by our public agency clients. As a recent example of cost sharing, the Firm WOODRUFF, SPRADUN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 11 prepared a memo to our affected pubic agency clients concerning a recent Supreme Court decision on the methodology used by the County of Los Angeles to calculate its property tax administrative fee which has implications for Diamond Bar, as well as Orange County cities we represent since the County of Orange used the same methodology. There was also cost-sharing for a Firm memo on the affect of recent state legislation on public employee retirement systems. 'If the City only desires such memos when requested, we can tailor our service in that manner, although we believe that keeping the City abreast of such developments is a key to being a good City Attorney. The memo will be provided to those within the City it will impact, but the City Manager will be copied on all such memos. As to legal issues unique to the City, our general approach is to orally advise the City Manager and/or City Council depending on the nature of the legal issue and to only provide written legal opinions on such matters when requested or when prudent. We typically will not generate written legal opinions to the City Council unless requested by a majority of the City Council, by the City Manager or when pertinent to a matter upon which the City Council is about to make a decision. We will exercise sound discretion in determining when written legal opinions should be generated. 3. Keeping the City informed of Ongoing Litigation Due to the confidentiality of pending litigation, we would propose that regular reports on the status of all litigation be provided to the City Council, its City Manager, and the Risk Manager. We anticipate that these reports would be handled in two ways. First, there would be individual reports on each case upon the occurrence of any significant development, especially those that might change the settlement posture or other litigation strategy of the City. For example, the City Council should be made aware of all cases proceeding to trial at least 30 days in advance or appraised of any discovery that significantly affects our evaluation of a case. Second, we will provide you with monthly or quarterly reports, at the City's discretion on all outstanding litigation to ensure that the City Council and the City Manager have an overall grasp of the City's litigation picture at all times. Third, we can generate year end reports summarizing existing litigation and the disposition of any litigation during the course of the year. 6. Evaluating the Cos"eneft of Litigating or Settling Cases We believe in closely evaluating cases in the beginning and providing our clients with initial evaluation memos which estimate the costs of the litigation, the likelihood of particular outcomes and the potential exposure and to continually evaluate these factors as a case progresses. It is ultimately up to City's decision -makers to determine whether the best interests of the City are served by settling or litigating cases. It is our role to ensure these decisions are informed. However, settling cases for expediency's sake can have a long-term detrimental effect on the City's finances. Public agencies can develop reputations for being an easy mark and we generally do not encourage the settling of claims that are frivolous just to make them go away. Developing a reputation for being aggressive in defending the City can in and of itself ward off some lawsuits. Having said that, we recognize that there are times for settling marginal lawsuits for relatively small amounts when the exposure of losing is substantial. We also believe there are opportunities for settling lawsuits in creative ways which can work to the benefit of both P✓OODRURR, SPRADL/N & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 12 parties and have several examples where that has occurred. Several years ago Mr. DeBerry negotiated a settlement of a lawsuit between the Orange Unified School District and the Orange Redevelopment Agency which resulted in seed money for a badly needed artificial surface and track refurbishment at a local high school stadium, which facility is used by both the School District and the City for various events. 7. Example of Written Communication Attached as Exhibit "A" is a staff report written by Mr. DeBerry to the City Council of Orange concerning a referendum. 8. Methods for Traekine and Managing Legal Costs The Finn customarily provides detailed monthly statements based on task billing for all services. The Firm adapts its invoices to its clients' needs, and wherever possible, the Firm would work with City staff to ensure that billing task codes used in statements for legal services are consistent with City task codes for budgetary, development services, and other cost -recovery programs, for instance. From the statements, the reader can see the task that was accomplished, the attorney working on the task, the time spent by that attorney and the dollar amount for the time spent. Expenses are separately described. Backup for expenses will be provided upon request. The Firm will work cooperatively on any audit of its statements. We expect that our statements will be reviewed carefully each month and that if there are questions, prompt responses will be provided by the City Attorney. It is our protocol to send such invoices, signed by the City Attorney personally confirming the accuracy of the invoice, directly to the City Manager for review and for payment authorization. Our Finn's invoices will be broken down in tenth of an hour (.1) increments (every 6 minutes) and will be organized by City department so that the City Manager and the Department Heads can confirm the accuracy of the billings or some other break down at the City's request. Every invoice will be made immediately available to any City Council Member upon request at anytime by making such request to either the City Manager or the City Attorney. If any member of the City Council has any questions or concerns regarding any aspect of legal services invoicing, they should contact the City Attorney. We will not charge for billing inquiries. We want to ensure that the City Council is satisfied with the manner in which our invoices are prepared, organized, submitted, reviewed, and authorized for payment. For time, billing, and accounting software, the Firm uses Omega Legal Systems. An example of a typical invoice is submitted as Exhibit "B". 9. Continuing Education The Firm's attorneys are encouraged to apprise other attorneys in the Firm of new legal developments and issues as they arise. Monthly public law meetings and city attorney meetings within the Firm also provide an additional forum for our attorneys to alert each other about new developments in the law and issues they are currently facing and to take advantage of the 61100DRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attornev Services Page 13 combined expertise of the Firm's attorneys. The Finn is qualified as a provider for continuing education for our attorneys and at least monthly, hosts a continuing education program. We are active in the Orange County City Attorneys Association, which hosts monthly meetings at which education programs are provided and a number of other professional organizations. Several attorneys are on the California League of Cities attorney list serve, which is a forum for discussion by city attorneys throughout the state. In addition, our attorneys often attend conferences sponsored by the California League of Cities and are guest speakers on a wide range of topics. 10. Specialty Services the Firm Does not Provide As noted, the Finn does not act as bond counsel, although it does have significant experience advising its clients on bond issuances and bond covenants. We also generally do not engage in direct negotiations of new bargaining agreements with employee unions, although we do provide advice during the course of such negotiations. If an attorney is going to be retained to negotiate for the City, we believe that it is better for a law firm other than the firm providing city attorney services to do so. We recognize that the City utilizes Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore for a variety of personnel services. While our Firm can provide such services as well, Mr. DeBerry utilized Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore while at Orange and enjoys a good working relationship with a number of attorneys at Liebert. F. Proposed Attorneys City Attorney David DeBerry. The Finn is proposing to assign Mr. DeBerry to act as City Attorney for Diamond Bar. He joined the Firm in May of 2012 after serving as the in-house City Attorney for the City of Orange for the past 15 years. He worked for the Finn for five years before taking a position with Orange and was admitted to practice in 1989. He graduated from San Diego State University with a degree in journalism in 1980. After four years working at Saddleback Community College in its public information office, Mr. DeBerry began attending Western State University. He worked full-time while attending, first at Saddleback College and then as a law clerk. His resume, along with selected resumes of the Finn's attorneys, are attached to this Proposal. At the City of Orange he was General Counsel to the Orange Redevelopment Agency and North Net Fire Training Joint Powers Authority and was providing general counsel services to both the City as the Successor Agency and the Oversight Board. He is a member of and twice past president of the Orange County City Attorneys Association and for two years served as the Orange County representative on the California League of Cities Legal Advocacy Committee. At Orange Mr. DeBerry headed an office of four attorneys which handled the vast majority of legal services required by the city and reduced the cost of providing legal services even as the workload and the size of the city increased. He personally handled a wide range of litigation matters, including personnel, land use, Political Reform Act, Public Records Act, election, eminent domain, and two litigation matters relating to the Orange County bankruptcy, which, along with the County's legal action, ultimately led to the City recovering $6.2 million, exceeding its bankruptcy loss of $5.6 million. In May of 2012, Mr. DeBerry received a WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & Swam Proposal for City Altorney Services Page 14 favorable ruling involving several novel and complex land use and initiative issues related to the City's approval of a residential development and the City Council's interpretation of the General Plan. A week later, a trial court granted his summary judgment motion rejecting a tow truck operator's claim that the City Council violated the Political Reform Act during the award of police tow contracts. Both cases are up on appeal and Mr. DeBerry has been retained by Orange for representation. In his 15 years as City Attorney, the City never lost a challenge to the City Council's approval or denial of a development project or land use permit and no City Council member was ever successfully sued or fined for any violation of the Brown Act, Political Reform Act or any other conduct related to their office. Although the Orange City Attorney's Office had a successful litigation track record, Mr. DeBerry believes his strongest suit is avoiding litigation. This can be achieved by foreseeing exposure, engaging in creative and honest negotiations, and careful drafting of ordinances. He was able to establish a reputation in the community as being fair-minded and respectful. On several occasions he was able to resolve initially hostile eminent domain actions by bringing forward creative settlements which ultimately led to "friendly condemnations." In the course of considering and then adopting a sidewalk/private property solicitation ordinance, Orange was threatened with lawsuits by various day labor rights groups. Mr. DeBerry was able to convince these groups that the ordinance was constitutional and no lawsuits were filed. Discrimination claims filed by sober living facility operators against the City's sober living facility ordinance drafted by Mr. DeBerry were found by the U.S. Department of Justice to lack merit. Mr. DeBerry has a wide-ranging background in land use matters and provides advice on CEQA, general plans, specific plans, zoning, real estate, and environmental laws relating to hazardous waste. He advised city staff on Orange's recently updated general plan, which was completed in 2010. He has negotiated numerous easements, licenses and purchases of properties, including two parcels that now comprise the 42 -acre Grijalva Park, upon which Orange recently built its first gymnasium. He has negotiated five development agreements, two with hospitals and three residential developments, including a 4,000 -unit development in East Orange. He has also been a guest speaker for local planning associations. He has advised city staff and the city council on a number of personnel matters, including employee discipline, family medical leave, workers' compensation, PERS and union negotiations. Ms. Raileanu and Mr. DeBerry would be the primary contacts on personnel matters. Mr. DeBerry has drafted numerous ordinances including ordinances related to campaign contributions, boarding houses, sober living facilities, marijuana dispensaries and solicitation from public sidewalks that have been emulated in a number of other jurisdictions. He has on several occasions spoken to different state-wide groups on some of these ordinances. Mr. DeBerry advised and trained applicable staff, board members, and elected officials on the Public Records Act, Brown Act, Political Reform Act, and the Elections Code, including matters related to initiatives, referendums, and Orange's campaign contribution and term limits laws. Assistant City Attorney Omar Sandoval. Mr. Sandoval would be assigned as the primary assistant city attorney. He specializes in municipal law, land use, and franchising. Mr. WOODRUN,, SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 15 Sandoval received his degree in law in 1994 from the UCLA School of Law. Mr. Sandoval was a member of the Chicano -Latino Law Review editorial board while at UCLA. Mr. Sandoval was admitted to the California Bar in 1994. He is a member of the Orange County Bar Association, the Orange County City Attorney's Association, and is a member of the Public Law section of the California State Bar. Mr. Sandoval has been practicing municipal law continuously since 1994. In 1994, he joined the Law Offices of Jimmy L. Gutierrez where he commenced his specialty in municipal law and land use law, serving as Assistant City Attorney for the Cities of Chino and Coachella from 1994 to 1999. During this time, in addition to handling the municipal transactional and advisory matters described below, Mr. Sandoval handled civil litigation matters involving tort claim defense, administrative and traditional writs, inverse condemnation, contract disputes and public works. In 1999, Mr. Sandoval joined the Public Law Department of Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, specializing in land use and planning, franchising, and telecommunications. He currently serves as City Attorney for the City of Hawaiian Gardens. He has served as Assistant City Attorney and Planning Commission Counsel for the City of Hawaiian Gardens, Deputy City Attorney and Planning Commission Counsel for the City of San Juan Capistrano, Assistant General Counsel for the Midway City Sanitary District, and General Counsel for the Rossmoor- Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. The following is a partial list of his experience and accomplishments in the area of municipal law: • Since 1994 he has provided counsel at meetings of City Councils, Planning Commissions, and Mobile Home Park Rent Review Boards. • Since 1999 he has provided counsel at meetings of Public Housing Authorities, Public Finance Authorities, Redevelopment Agencies, Redevelopment Agency Project Area Committees, Sanitary Districts, and County Water Districts. • Since 1994 he has advised cities, special districts and their respective Department Heads and employees on general government law and principles, particularly the Brown Act, Political Reform Act, Conflict of Interest Statutes and Principles, Constitution, Public Records Act, Government Tort Claims Act, Public Contracts Code, code enforcement, CEQA, Legislation, Uniform Building Codes, land use and redevelopment law. • Since 1999 he has advised Administrative, Recreation, and Public Works departments on compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) pertaining to the accessibility of public facilities, public programs, and activities. Assistant City Attorney James Eggart. Mr. Eggart would be the primary attorney for the Planning Commission. He currently is the chief advisor for the Planning Commissions in both Garden Grove and Rancho Santa Margarita, both of which meet at times that do not conflict with Diamond Bar's meetings. He has been advising several of the Firm's Planning Commissions for more than five years. Mr. Eggart received his bachelor's degree from the University of Montana in 1998 with high honors, his MBA from the Eller Graduate School of Management and law degree, cum laude, both from the University of Arizona in 2001. Mr. Eggart practiced civil litigation between 2002-2004 with the law firm of Smith, Smith & McFaul and then joined the Firm in 2004 as a transactional associate, becoming a Principal in the Firm in 11100u2urP, SPaanirN & Smarr Proposal for Citv Aflorney Seiviees Page 16 2011. He regularly advises the Firm's public agency clients on a wide variety of legal issues, including land use, water quality and other environmental regulations, along with the Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act and other conflict of interest laws. The Firm anticipates that other attorneys in the Firm would provide services to Diamond Bar as well, including Lois Bobak, a Principal in the firm who is an accomplished litigator in both state and federal courts and has briefed and argued over 25 cases in state and federal court; and Ricia Hager, who specializes in land use environmental law. The resumes of Ms. Bobak and Ms. Hager are attached. Brief resumes of all of the Firm's attorneys can be found on the Woodruff Spradlin & Smart website. Mr. DeBerry would perform the vast majority of the work required by the City, with direct support from Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Eggart. Litigation matters would be assigned to attorneys in the Firm who are best equipped to handle them. If there are other matters which arise in which support is needed and/or in which another attorney in the firm has a special expertise or is familiar with the particular issue, they would be utilized. G References and Potential Conflicts of Interest ]a. References for Desi,-nated MY Attorney Carolyn Cavecche, Former Mayors Resources City of Orange CEO Orange County Taxpayers Association Phone (714) 478-9399 25 Orchard Lake Forest, CA 92630 caveeche@aol.com Theresa Smith, Current Mayor City of Orange CEO of Catholic Charities Phone (714) 381-7027 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Tita.homegrown@sbeglobal.net 1h. Additional References for the Firm Will Kempton, CEO Orange County Transportation Authority Phone (714) 560-5584 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92863 Steven Pham, Director of Human City of Orange Phone (714) 744-7255 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 spham@cityoforange.org Spencer Covert, Esquire General Counsel, Orange Unified Parker & Covert Phone (714) 573-0900 17862 E. 17th Street, Suite 204 Tustin, CA 92780 scovert@parkercovert.com Jeffrey Parker, City Manager City of Tustin Phone (714) 573-3012 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 4 The City of Diamond Bar is free to call any current or former member of Orange's City Council, whose contact information can be provided upon request. WOODRUFF, SP1Z4D1,IN & SMART Proposal for Ci p, Attorney Services Page 17 wkempton@octa.net Ernesto Marquez, City Manager City of Hawaiian Gardens Phone (562) 420-2641 ext, 201 21815 Pioneer Blvd. Hawaiian Gardens, CA emarquez@hgcity.org jparker@tustinca.org Bruce Channing, City Manager City of Laguna Hills Phone (949) 707-2600, Ext. 615 24035 El Toro Road Laguna Hills, CA bchanning@ci.laguna-hills.ca.us 2. List of Public Clients and Foreseeable Conflicts The Firm's private clients, which are a small portion of our business, do not present any conflicts with respect to our public agency clients. As a matter of Firm policy, we generally do not represent private persons or businesses in lawsuits or other adversarial actions against cities or other local governmental entities. We do not foresee any potential conflicts involving the City of Diamond Bar. Since he has just recently returned to private practice, Mr. DeBerry does not presently act as City Attorney for any other cities. As noted, he is general counsel for the North Net Joint Powers Training Authority, but it meets in the morning and does not generate significant work. He is currently assisting the Firm where needed. He is the primary backup for the Orange County Fire Authority and devotes a significant amount of time to the City of Tustin and the Orange County Transportation Authority. Other than quarterly meetings of North Net, he is not currently committed to attending regular meetings of any of the Firm's other clients. The Firm's General Counsel/City Attorney Clients are as follows: Children & Families Commission of Orange County City of Garden Grove City of Laguna Hills City of Rancho Santa Margarita City of Tustin Girl Scout Council of Orange County Midway City Sanitary District North Net Joint Powers Training Authority Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Public Law Library Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Transportation Authority Regional Center of Orange County Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District Southland Industries City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Palm Springs Riverside Transit Agency San Diego Regional Solid Waste Association WOODRNRP SPRADL(N & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 18 The Firm's Tort Liability Defense/Special Counsel Clients are as follows: CalOptima Capistrano Unified School District City of Anaheim City of Costa Mesa City of Fullerton City of Irvine City of Laguna Beach City of Newport Beach City of Orange Air Quality Management District County of Orange North Orange County Community College District Saddleback Valley Unified School District South Orange County Community College District Underground Service Alert Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Program Authority for California Cities Excess Liability City of Riverside City of San Bernardino City of Torrance County of Riverside County of San Bernardino San Bernardino Associated Governments California Joint Powers Insurance Authority 3. Adverse Decisions Over the Past Five Years. In City of Tustin v. Orange Unified School District, the City sued the School District alleging the School District violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to conduct an analysis of the environmental impacts on using a newly constructed school the District had represented to the community would be a K-8 and instead using it for a Continuation High School. The Court found the School District's change in use was not subject to CEQA. In Scalzo v. San Juan Capistrano the Firm represented the City in a developer's challenge to 17 of 120 conditions of approval of a subdivision map. The trial court invalidated seven of those conditions, which were thereafter removed by the City. The developer also sued for inverse condemnation for a temporary taking. Despite the fact the City had removed the conditions which allegedly resulted in the temporary taking, the court held the City could be held liable for a temporary taking. Although the Firm believed the judge was wrong on the law, the City decided to settle rather than appeal. Just months later in a different case with analogous facts but involving a different Orange County city, the Court of Appeals confirmed that a public agency can avoid a temporary taking by rescinding the offending conditions. W000>zoPR SPNADI.IN & SAIART Proposal for City.Aitorney Services Page 19 In Hanson v. Citv of Fullerton the Firm represented the City in an inverse condemnation case brought by 22 residential property owners whose homes were situated on a top of a slope. The City had undertaken a trail improvement at the bottom of the slope, which the property owners alleged resulted in slope failure. The City disputed liability contending the failure was caused by nature forces and the property owners own negligent maintenance and cross-complaint against the homeowners. Prior to trial the property owners paid the City for its claims. At trial the City was found to be a substantial cause of the failure and damages were awarded. 4. Malpractice Actions The Firm has been sued twice for malpractice in its 36 -year history. Indio v. WS&S arose out of a 50 -year lease agreement that the Indio Redevelopment Agency entered into with KEB Enterprises. A former employee of the Finn was serving as City Attorney. Pursuant to the agreement KEB was to build and manage a transportation center on Agency owned property. Prior to the start of construction, City staff learned KEB did not have the financing necessary to undertake the project. The City Attorney was directed by staff to send KEB a letter notifying it of the Agency's intent to terminate the lease, which was ratified by the Agency Board. KEB sued the Agency for breach. The Agency settled with KEB and assigned its rights for malpractice against the Firm to KEB, which then sued WS&S. The Firm denied liability and the case ultimately settled for less than the cost of defense. In Placentia v. WS&S Placentia commenced a project to eliminate eleven at -grade street railroad crossings in the late 1990s, prior to the Firm becoming city attorney. A separate legal entity, On Trac, was created by Placentia and the Placentia Redevelopment Agency to carry out the project. On Trac had separate legal counsel. Placentia received millions in state and federal funds for the project, but was required to return a portion of the funds after the state determined that On Trac used inadequate accounting practices and that several On Trac consultants (not associated with WS&S) had conflicts of interest. Placentia sued all of these consultants and WS&S, contending the Finn should have done more to advise Placentia of the potential conflicts when On Trao's counsel failed to do so. The Firm denied liability and the matter was settled by the Firm's insurance carrier. H. Compensation and Reimbursement I. How the Firm Intends to Char, -e for Services The Firm's practice has been to charge at a blended rate for attorneys on the vast majority of the work it provides. We believe this formula results in our clients paying only for the services that are provided and enables the client to obtain the services of experienced and highly qualified Directors of the Firm at a reasonable cost. We believe that this approach produces bills which are straightforward and easy to understand and monitor. We will be sensitive to the needs of the City to keep its legal expenses low. We believe the most economical way of ensuring quality services within the City's budget is by providing you with a versatile and experienced public lawyer who can provide quick, efficient responses with minimum research and drafting requirements. Simply stated, the best way to keep your N'OODRUPT, SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Semces Page 20 costs down is to reduce the number of and time spent on research projects and memoranda and written opinions, increase the use of standard forms, utilize paralegals when appropriate and provide straightforward legal responses based on long time experience in the field of municipal law. Mr. DeBerry was able to significantly reduce the budget of the Orange City Attorney's Office by utilizing many of these techniques even as the workload in his office increased, actually reducing the office from four attorneys to three during his last two years. 2. Rates All Attorneys: $215.00 Specialty Litigation: Environmental/Land Use/Eminent Domain/ Personnel: $295.00 Paralegals: $155.00 Attorneys will bill in increments of one-tenth of an hour (six minutes). Attorneys will not bill for secretarial time, including time spent for faxing, mailing, arranging for messengers, or calendaring. 3. Costs and Expenses In -office photocopying: Mileage: Parking at Courthouse: Filing fees, messenger fees: Jury fees and expert fees: Word Processing: Phone: $0.25 per page (after 25 pages per copy job) In accordance with the IRS Standard Mileage Rate (currently $0.565 per mile) Actual cost Actual cost Actual cost No cost, unless overtime required, then at cost No cost Effective on July 1, 2014, and each year thereafter we propose that the hourly rates for Retainer Services and Legal Personnel be adjusted in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles -Orange County Metropolitan Area, all wage earners, for the period between June 1—May 30 of the prior 12 month period. Each hourly rate shall be rounded to the nearest $1.00 increment. Any contract entered into will include the right of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar to terminate our services at any time for any reason and the individual appointed as City Attorney shall serve solely at the pleasure of the City Council. A Legal Services Retainer Agreement is attached as Exhibit "C". WOODRUFF, SPRADUAI & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 21 L Implementation If chosen, the primary attorneys would immediately meet with the City Council, City Manager and Department Heads to share thoughts on logistics, lines of communication, and to make modifications to our Proposal that would best suit the City and to iron out any remaining details of the contract. We would make ourselves available to meet with any other stakeholders as the City directs. Mr. DeBerry does not at this time have any clients for which he has primary responsibility, other than a small joint powers authority which takes very little of his time. He can be made available to whatever extent Diamond Bar needs. Our attorneys would need to meet with the City's staff and current attorneys to discuss the status of projects and litigation matters to effectuate an orderly transition. We would discuss our recommended system of controls and communication channels with the City and make modifications thereto that best suit the City. That would include identification of who at the City is authorized to request legal services. We anticipate that the City Manager would be the primary filter for such requests and would also be reviewing the Firm's billing or assign it to someone. Mr. DeBerry would be responsible for managing and overseeing all Firm billings before it reached the desk of the City Manager or other individual designated to review the billings. Sincerely, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Pr Corporation Kennard R. Smart, Jr. President and Managing Dire or CK i ?, '^ c David A.beBe Director 9100DRUIT, SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 22 DAVID A. DEBERRY EDUCATION: San Diego State University, Bachelor of Arts, Journalism, 1980 Western State University, (J.D., December of 1988) American Jurisprudence Award, Property Admitted to Practice, May of 1989. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: California League of Cities Legal Advocacy Committee—Orange County Representative, 2007- 2009 President, Orange County City Attorneys Association, 2001 & 2009, and current member State Bar of California PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: City Attorney, City of Orange (1997-2012) Assistant City Attorney City of Orange (1994-1997) Associate Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart (1989-1994) General Counsel, Los Alamitos County Water District (1993-1994) General Counsel, Midway City Sanitary District (1991-1994) General Counsel, Los Alamitos County Water District (1991-1994) Other: 2011 Panelist on Sober Living Facility forum 2011 Presenter, Solid Waste Conference in Coronado, Proposition 62 impacts on solid waste fees 2009 Presenter, Orange County City Attorneys' Association, When Things Go Wrong 2008 Presenter, League of California Cities Fall Conference, Group Homes 2008 Presenter, Orange County Division of League of California Cities, Group Homes 2006 Author, Western City Magazine, Group Homes in the Neighborhood Presenter, annual conference of League of Cities, City Attorney Division on Group Homes Presenter, Finance Directors Association, Ethics and Expense Reimbursement Requirements for Local Officials Presenter to various other groups on solid waste franchises, limits on imposition of taxes and fees, land use matters, etc. W001X?UF7,; SPR'IDLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 23 OMAR SANDOVAL EDUCATION: Pomona College, Claremont (B.A., 199 1) University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law (J.D., 1994) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: State Bar of California Orange County Bar Association Orange County City Attorneys Association PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS: Admitted to California Bar, 1994 Admitted to California Supreme Court, 1994 Admitted to United States District Court, Central District of California, 1994 Admitted to United States Court of Appeals, Ninth District, 1994 City Attorney, City of San Juan Capistrano, 2008-2012 (Assistant 1999-2007) City Attorney, City of Hawaiian Gardens, 2009 -present General Counsel, Rossmoor-Los Alamitos Area Sewer District, 1999 -present General Counsel, Midway City Sanitary District, 2005-2007 (Assistant, 1999-2004) Assistant City Attorney, City of Indio, 2005-2011 Assistant City Attorney, City of Garden Grove, 2006 -present Assistant City Attorney, City of Hawaiian Gardens (1999-2005) Assistant City Attorney, City of Paramount (2000-2005) Assistant City Attorney, City of Chino (1994-1999) Assistant City Attorney, City of Coachella (1994-1999) Mr. Sandoval began his legal career in 1994 clerking at the law offices of A. Tod Hindin, Los Angeles, where he worked on civil litigation matters. After graduating from law school, he joined the law offices of Jimmy Gutierrez, in Chino, Califomia, where he served as Assistant City Attorney for the Cities of Chino and Coachella from 1994 to 1999. Mr. Sandoval joined Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart in 1999 where he handles transactional work and serves in an advisory capacity for public entity clients. He became a Principal of the Firm in 2005. WOODRUFF•, SP2ADI,1N & SMART Proposal for Cio, Attorney Services Page 24 M. LOIS BOBAK EDUCATION: University of California, Irvine (B.A., Cum Laude, 1983) McGeorge School of Law (J.D., with Distinction, Order of the Coif, 1986) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: State Bar of California Orange County Bar Association Peter M. Elliot Inn of Court PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS: Admitted to California Bar, 1987 Admitted to United States District Court, Central District of California Assistant City Attorney, City of Laguna Hills, 1993 - Present Assistant City Attorney, Cypress, 1989 - 1992 Assistant City Attorney, Dana Point, 1989 - 1991 Assistant City Attorney, Mission Viejo, 1988 — 1992 Deputy City Attorney, City of Tustin, 1993 - Present Ms. Bobak began her practice at Burke, Williams & Sorensen in Los Angeles. Her work there consisted of litigation of municipal law matters including writs, appeals and criminal code enforcement for the City of Paramount. Ms. Bobak also has substantial transactional experience including advising city planning commissions and city councils. In 1993, Ms. Bobak joined Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart where she practices municipal law, land use and transportation law. Ms. Bobak became a Principal of the Firm in 1996. Ms. Bobak is an accomplished litigator in both state and federal courts. She handles a variety of municipal law litigation, including constitutional, land use, environmental, taxation, elections and employment matters. Ms. Bobak has extensive experience in writ and appellate matters. She also represents public entities and public employees in administrative proceedings. Ms. Bobak has previously served as primary legal counsel to the Planning Commissions of the cities of Mission Viejo (1988-1992), Dana Point (1989-1991), Gardena (1991-1993), and Tustin (1994- 2000). Ms. Bobak is a member of the Firm's Executive Committee. In the last five years, Ms. Bobak has briefed and argued over twenty-five cases in the state and federal appellate courts. She prevailed, in whole or in part, in all of these cases. Every one of the more than twenty summary judgment/summary adjudication motions filed by Ms. Bobak in the past five years has been granted in whole or in part, and she has successfully defended over twenty five writ petitions during the same time period. FV00DRUr1, SPR.4DLhY & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 25 JAMES H. EGGART EDUCATION: University of Montana (B.A., 1998, High Honors) Eller Graduate School of Management, University of Arizona (M.B.A., 2001) James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona (J.D., 2001, cum laude) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: State Bar of California Orange County Bar Association PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS: Admitted to California Bar, 2002 James Eggart began his legal career in 2001 as a legal intern with the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. He was also law clerk for the law firer of Mtmger Chadwick in Tucson, Arizona. After moving to California in 2002, Mr. Eggart worked as an associate for the law firm of Smith, Smith & McFaul in Santa Ana. Mr. Eggart joined Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart in 2004, where he specializes in the representation of public agencies and serves as an assistant city attorney in a number of cities and chief advisor to two Planning Commissions. He is the primary assistant city attorney to the City of Garden Grove and the chief legal advisor to the Garden Grove and Rancho Santa Margarita Planning Commissions, Mr. Eggart regularly advises public clients on the requirements of water quality laws and other environmental regulations. He also advises agency clients on public law issues, including compliance with the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and conflict of interest laws_ Mr. Eggart has also developed an expertise in real property matters and has assisted buyers, sellers, landlords, tenants and developers of real property in negotiating, structuring and documenting real estate transactions. He has handled purchase and sale agreements, leasing, exchange, and development of real property for the Firm's public agency clients. Mr. Eggart served as a legal intern with the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMAR? Proposal far City Attorney Services Page 26 RICIA R. HAGER EDUCATION: University of California, Irvine (B.A., cum laude, 2000) University of California, Hastings College of Law (J.D., 2004) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: State Bar of California Orange County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section Los Angeles County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section Association of Environmental Professionals PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS: Judicial Extern to Hon. Maxine M. Chesney, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 2003 Admitted to California Bar, 2004 Admitted to United States District Court, Cental District of California, 2004 Admitted to United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2007 Editor, Municipal Law Handbook Update (Exactions: Fees & Dedications), 2009 Ms. Hager joined Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart in 2007 and specializes in land use and environmental law. Ms. Hager routinely advises public and private clients on compliance with complex regulatory schemes including the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Clean Air Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Hager also litigates land use and environmental cases in state and federal courts. WOODRUFF, STRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 27 EDUCATION: University of California at Los Angeles (B.A., 1995) University of California at Davis, King Hall (J.D., 1999) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: State Bar of California Orange County Bar Association American Bar Association PUBLICATION: "Supreme Court Clarifies Confusion Surrounding At -Will Employment," published by the Orange County Business Journal (November 2000). PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Admitted to California Bar, 1999 Ms. Raileanu began her legal career as a law clerk with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing as well as with the labor and employment firm of Reich, Adell, Crost & Cvitan in Los Angeles. She worked as a litigator while at the firm of Kring & Brown in Irvine before joining Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart in 2001. She became a Principal of the Firm in 2010 heading up the Firm's employment law department. She specializes in providing public agencies with day-to-day advice and representation on a wide range of issues, including: the hiring process; conducting investigations that comply with the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Act; overtime and wage issues arising out of the Fair Labor Standards Act; leaves of absence and other forms of reasonable accommodations, including the interactive process, render the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disability Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act; workplace harassment and discrimination matters arising out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; labor negotiations; interpretation and application of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; interpretation of memoranda of understanding; disciplinary matters including progressive discipline•, service and disability retirement issues arising out of Public Employee Retirement Laws; the interpretation and application of the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act and Firefighters Bill of Rights Act; and the interpretation and general application of other employment and constitutional laws. Ms. Raileanu has conducted close to one hundred administrative hearings with an almost impeccable success rate and has presented more than three hundred seminars on topics from conflict of interest issues to harassment, discrimination and reasonable accommodation. WOODRUFF, SPRADLW & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 28 DANIEL K. SPRADLIN EDUCATION: University of California at Los Angeles (B.A. Cum Laude, 1975) Pepperdine University School of Law (J.D. 1978) Law Review 1977-1978 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: State Bar of California Orange County Bar Association Association of Southern California Defense Counsel American Board of Trial Advocacy (ABOTA is a national organization of leading trial attorneys. Membership, which is granted only by unanimous consent of the members, requires the trial of 20 cases to verdict before juries.) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS: Admitted to California Bar, 1978 Admitted to United States District Court, Central District of California, 1979 Admitted to United States Corot of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1979 Judge Pro Tempore, Orange County Superior Court PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: "Preparing for a Formal Hearing with Your Air Pollution Control District," California Association of Sanitation Agencies, Agency Managers Meeting (1985) "The Use of a Class 8 or Class 21 Categorical, Exemption: Effective Enforcement Tool or a Mere Transfer of Environmental Burden?", Public Law News, Vol. 8, No. 22, Spring 1984 "Conflict of Interest in the Defense of Police Liability Cases - Some Nagging Questions," Public Law News, Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 1983 "Enslavement in the Twentieth Century: The Rights of Parents to Retain their Children's Earnings," Pepperdine School of Law, Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1978 "Mens REA, Due Process and the Burden of Sanity or Insanity," Pepperdine University School of Law, Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1977 Mr. Spradlin has devoted his entire legal career to the representation of public agencies in litigation matters. His unique talents and success in jury trials have been acknowledged by his peers and in two separate profiles in Verdict Magazine. In addition to heading the litigation department of the Firm, Mr. Spradlin specializes in defense of cities in police liability matters, complaints of dangerous conditions of public property, employment, and environmental claims. Mr. Spradlin joined Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart in 1978 and became a Principal in 1985. WOODRUFF, SPRADLRJ& SMART Proposal for City Altooaey Services Page 29 LITIGATION SAMPLING LAND USE / SITE PLANNING Velasquez v. Garden Grove — This petition for writ of mandate challenged the City's revocation of a conditional use permit for the operation of a bar. The trial court denied the petition, affirming the City's decision to revoke the permit. The decision was affirmed on appeal. Howell v City of Costa Mesa - In this case, the City revoked the conditional use permit of a neighborhood restaurant that had been converted into a bar. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Woodruff, Spradlin and Smart was retained to defend the judgment on appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the City. Garcia v. Tustin - Petition for writ of mandate challenging an amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Tustin's General Plan. Judgment was entered in favor of the City in the trial court, and affirmed on appeal. The Lease Outlet v. City of Costa Mesa - Successfully defended the City of Costa Mesa in a land use challenge to the City's denial of a use permit sought by a car leasing business. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION (CEQA) W.M. Barr & Co v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. — In a published decision the Firm successfully defended the SCAQMD in a state court challenge by W.M. Barr, a large manufacturer of paint thinners, to air quality regulations governing paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents at both the trial court and on appeal. The SCAQMD adopted Rule 1143 limiting the volatile organic compound content of paint thinners and multi- purpose solvents sold throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Rule 1143 reduces the emission of volatile organic compounds by 9.75 tons per day. Svcamore Gardens Homeowners Association v. City of Tustin - A homeowners group filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City's approval of an FIR prepared for a project involving street widenings and other transportation improvements. The court denied the petition, ruling for the City on all issues. Mitchell v. Los Angeles Unified School District - The petitioner in this case challenged the District's preparation of two negative declarations for two separate new elementary school projects. The case was dismissed with prejudice on the eve of trial in exchange for LAUSD's agreement to waive costs. Santa Ana v. Orange County Transportation Authority - This action involved a CEQA challenge brought by the City of Santa Ana to OCTA's acquisition of property for a bus ht'ooutrorr, SP2sncnv & Ami7, Proposal for Oty Attorney Seiviees Page 30 base. The trial court ruled for OCTA on all issues, finding that OCTA did not violate CEQA in acquiring the property. Barthelemy v. Chino Basin Municipal Water District - Successful defense of the Chino Basin Municipal Water District in a CEQA challenge to an environmental impact report for the construction and operation of a dairy manure and wastewater sludge composting project. The case resulted in a published decision. Citizens Association for the Sensible Development of Warland Center v. City of Cypress Successful defense the City of Cypress in a CEQA challenge to the City's reliance on a specific plan EIR in approving a regional carpet warehouse distribution center. Judgment in favor of the City was affirmed on appeal. Tustin Hills Environmental Alliance v. City of Tustin, et al - Successful defense of the City of Tustin in a CEQA challenge to an environmental impact report prepared for a residential development project. Judgment in favor of the City was affirmed on appeal. Neighbors of Harbor Center, et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, et al - CEQA lawsuit challenging the City of Costa Mesa's approval, based on a mitigated negative declaration, of a shopping center development, including a Home Depot store. We successfully negotiated a settlement through which the project was allowed to proceed based on the mitigated negative declaration originally adopted by the City. Morelli v. Citv of Costa Mesa - Successfiully defended the City of Costa Mesa in legal challenge to the City's approval of a Target retail project. The Petitioner alleged that the City failed to follow its procedures for reconsideration and thereby denied Petitioner's due process rights. Petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandate compelling the City to set aside its project approval, and grant Petitioner's rehearing request. Petitioner also sought an order halting construction of the project and compensatory damages and punitive damages. HAZARDOUS WASTE Beatrice-Hunt/Wesson v. County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County - Successful defense of the Sanitation District's wastewater discharge regulations and permit requirements in lawsuits filed on behalf of Beatrice-Hunt/Wesson Company. The lawsuits challenged the Sanitation District requirements mandating that Beatrice-Hunt/Wesson's tomato cannery in the City of Fullerton comply with the Sanitation District's biochemical oxygen demand discharge limits. The Sanitation District's regulations and permit requirements were upheld in all respects. County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County v. Universal Circuits. Inc. - Based on a covert sampling plan, developed by the Sanitation District in conjunction with Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, the Sanitation District uncovered evidence that a national printed circuit board manufacturer, located in Orange County, was discharging copper and zinc at levels greatly exceeding applicable wastewater discharge limits. We handled [VOODRUFF, SPRADUN & SMART Proposalfor City Attorney Services Page 31 administrative proceedings resulting in the revocation of the discharger's Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit, which revocation was upheld in all respects by the Orange County Superior Court and successfully pursued a civil penalty action against the discharger totaling $142,000.00. People of the State of California v. Cartel Electronics, Inc., et al. - Successfully defended the Orange County Sanitation District and two of its employees against allegations of civil rights violations through an allegedly improper investigation of the hazardous waste discharges to the sewer system and by allegedly improperly referring the matter to the District Attorney's office for prosecution. ZC, Inc. v. County of Orange - Successfully defended the Garden Grove Agency for Community Development in site contamination case alleging contamination of groundwater and soil on former landfill property. Adams -Campbell Co. v. Industrial Alloys - Successfully defended business against allegations of groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin. La Mirada Redevelopment Agency v. Treat -Schweitzer Properties, Billy Benson - Successfully defended business owner against site contamination allegations. CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTERS People v Clavtor, People v. Griffin, People v. Cloud - (Operating an escort service without the required escort service permit). Conviction on offense charged. Sentenced to pay fine with a term of two years probation. People v Camacho, People v. Le. People v. Wang, People v. Joung. People v. Ngo, People v. Do - (Operating a massage business without permits) These cases involved the operation of an illegal massage parlor. Some of the defendants were operating a massage establishment in their homes, while others were operating a massage business as part of a chiropractic office, In each case, the defendants were convicted and received a fine and a lengthy terns of probation. Citv of Tustin v. Harchol - This superior court action involved a property owner who refused to repair or demolish a dangerous building. A judgment was entered against the owner, the substandard house was demolished and the City was awarded $145,986 in administrative costs and attorneys' fees. People v. Adams - This criminal matter was premised upon the defendant's failure to maintain his property in accordance with the terms of the Garden Grove Municipal Code. The defendant stored and maintained numerous items such as household furnishings, construction equipment, and other materials in his front and side yards. His neighbors complained about the condition of his property and the impact it had on property values. The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to a lengthy term of probation and was fined over $1,000 for his violations. WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 32 CIVIL RIGHTS I POLICE LIABILITY Acosta v. Costa Mesa — Successfully defended the City against claims of violation of due process, First Amendment rights and wrongful arrest arising of plaintiffs removal from a City Council meeting for disruption of the meeting. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Carmona v. City of Costa Mesa/Cityy of Irvine (Cities retained Firm jointly) - United States District Court. Alleged wrongful arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and municipal liability. Summary judgment in favor of both Cities entered on all claims. Shipp v. Costa Mesa, et. al. Superior Court - Alleged state and federal claims for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, municipal liability, and various other state torts. Directed verdict entered in favor of the City following presentation of all evidence. Judgment affirmed on appeal. ROADWAY LIABILITY Willis v. City of Irvine - Superior Court - Driver ran red light and struck bicyclist, resulting in catastrophic injuries. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the City based on design immunity. Hawthorne v. City of Newport Beach - Superior Court - Plaintiff alleged defective traffic signals following a traffic accident. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the City based on design immunity. Pellan v. North Orange Countv Community College District - Superior Court Jury Trial. Wrongful death of pedestrian who was run over by a truck. Our client, the College District, was dismissed three days into the trial on condition that our attorneys would not assist a remaining co-defendant in any aspect of the trial. Fife v. City of Tustin - Superior Court Jury Trial. Allegation of dangerous condition of roadway, inadequate lighting and design. Defense verdict in favor of City. Cornwell v. City of San Juan Capistrano - Superior Court Jury Trial. Catastrophic injury case, allegation of dangerous condition of roadway — pedestrian hit in crosswalk. Defense of design immunity granted in favor of City. Mach/Lee v. City of Fullerton - Superior Court — summary judgment granted in favor of City in action arising out of death of a child in a crosswalk. WOODRUFF, SPR.4DLI.N & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 33 MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY Williams v. Orange County Transportation Authority - Superior Court Jury Trial. Pedestrian hit by bus while in crosswalk. Defense verdict in favor of OCTA. Doan v. Orange County Transit District - Superior Court Jury Trial. Wrongful death — violation of red light by bus. Defense verdict in favor of OCTD. Ochoa v. Orange County Transit District - Superior Court Jury Trial. Passenger injury. Defense verdict in favor of OCTD. Rizvi v. Orange Countv Transit District - Superior Court Jury Trial. Injury case — alleged negligent bus operation. Defense verdict in favor of OCTD. White v. City of Costa Mesa - Superior Court Jury Trial. Pedestrian hit by City vehicle. Defense verdict in favor of City. EMPLOYMENT LIABILITY Goodman v. County of Riverside - Superior Court Jury Trial. Wrongful termination, sexual harassment and retaliation. Defense verdict in favor of County. Spencer v. County of Riverside - Superior discrimination alleged by terminated Public County granted on eve of trial. Court. Wrongful termination and gender Defender. Summary Judgment in favor of Rodarte v. Orange County Fire Authority - Superior Court. Alleged wrongful termination and the breach of an alleged obligation by the Fire Authority to pay the salary of a disabled firefighter during the pendency of a disability retirement application. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and, in a published opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed. Romine v. City of Costa Mesa - Superior Court Jury Trial. Alleged wrongful termination, gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Defense verdict in favor of City. Watson v. San Bernardino Municipal Water Department - Superior Court. Whistleblower action alleging retaliation for reporting alleged spills at a water reclamation facility. The plaintiff also alleged a violation of his federal free speech rights. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff then agreed to waive his right to appeal and to resign in exchange for a nominal settlement. Sangermano v. Orange County Sanitation District - Superior Court. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart was retained to represent the Orange County Sanitation District on appeal following a jury award of $750,000 to a former employee in a wrongful termination WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & S 1ART Proposal for City Attorney Se Mees Page 34 action defended at trial by other counsel. On appeal, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was reversed in its entirety, and judgment was entered in favor of the District. Fuhrman v. Anaheim - Superior Court. Sexual harassment and retaliation action by a female Anaheim police officer, claiming $500,000 in damages. On the eve of trial, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the civil action with prejudice. She received a nominal settlement in a separate workers' compensation claim. WRITS OF MANDATE Morningside v. Newport Beach — Successfully defended the City against a writ of mandate challenging the revocation of a Development Agreement that had allowed Morningside to operate up to eight sober living facilities for violations thereof. Children & Families Commission v. Brown — Successfully challenged the constitutionality of a state law requiring county children and families commissions to collectively transfer almost one billion dollars to the state. The statute was invalidated by the trial court and the state did not appeal. Crow Winthrop v. Orange County Sanitation District - Petition for writ of mandate filed by developer seeking to invalidate the capital facilities capacity charges imposed by the Orange County Sanitation District. The CFCC is a major funding mechanism for the District, and its loss would have significantly impaired the ability of the District to meet its long-term capital facility needs. We prevailed in the trial court and on appeal. Gordon & Williams v. Orange County Fire Authority - This petition for writ of mandate challenged the award of the contract for the Fire Authority's new headquarters and training facilities. We successfully defeated the writ. A loss would have cost the Fire Authority close to $1 million in delay costs. Parsons V. Orange County Sanitation District - Petition for writ of mandate challenging a termination under an "automatic resignation" provision of an MOU. The trial court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed. Hulka v. Laguna Hills - Petition for writ of mandate challenging the denial of a massage parlor permit by the City of Laguna Hills. The trial court denied the petition, and no appeal was taken. Nadon Y. Citv of Tustin - Petition for writ of mandate challenging the City's refusal to accept a referendum seeking to vacate the City's award of a solid waste franchise. The referendum and subsequent writ petition were funded by a solid waste hauler who unsuccessfully competed for the franchise. The trial court held that the award of the franchise was an administrative act, and therefore not subject to referendum. WOODRUFF; SPRADLIN & SMART Proposal for City Attorney Services Page 35 V TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council THRU: John W. Sibley City Manager 0 FROM: David DeBerry City Attorney 1. SUBJECT ReviewedNer tedBy: City Manager Finance Direct r To Be Present : D d De Berry Cons Calendar _ City Mgr Rpts Council Reports _ Legal Affairs Boards/Cmtes _ Public Hrgs X Admin Reports PlantEnviron RESOLUTION NO. 10579--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange Rescinding and Repealing Resolution No. 10566, General Plan Amendment 2007-0001, Relating to the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates Project. RESOLUTION NO. 10580--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election on November 6, 2012, for the Submission to the Voters Resolution No. 10566, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-0001 Related to the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates Project. RESOLUTION NO. 10581--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate the General Municipal Election to be held on November 6, 2012, With the Statewide General Election to be held on that date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code. RESOLUTION NO. 10582--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Municipal Election on June 5, 2012, for the Submission to the Voters Resolution No. 10566, General Plan Amendment No, 2007-0001 Related to the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates Project, RESOLUTION NO. 10583--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate the Special Municipal Election to be held on June 5, 2012, with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on that date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code. ITEM %l Exhibit A 09/06/11 RESOLUTION NO. 10584--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments [Approving Rebuttal Arguments] and [Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis]. RESOLUTION NO. 10585--A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Municipal Election on for the Submission to the Voters Resolution No. 10566, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-0001 Related to the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates Project. 2. SUMMARY Referendum petitions ("Referendum") were circulated in the City requesting the City Council to either repeat Resolution No. 10566, a resolution approving a general plan amendment related to the Ridgetine Equestrian Estates project (the "GPA Resolution's or to place the GPA Resolution before the voters. The GPA Resolution was one of several approvals adopted by the City Council to permit the development of approximately 51 acres of land for a residential development consisting of 39 one -acre residential units, a public ride -in -only equestrian arena, 1.7 acres of public and private trails and dedication of a 3.7 acre equestrian center (the "Project"). In order to qualify for an election, proponents of the Referendum were required to obtain signatures of 10% (7,144) of the City's registered voters. The Registrar of the County of Orange ("Registrar") verified 7,729 signatures. City Clerk Mary Murphy has submitted a declaration to the City Council declaring the sufficiency of the Referendum, thus qualifying it for an election. At its meeting on August 90i, the City Council requested a report from the City Attorney related to the impact of repealing the GPA Resolution. That report was delivered on August 23`d and subsequently a privileged City Attorney communication to the City Council was delivered as an addendum to that report. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9241 (all section references are to the Elections Code), the City Council must either: (a) put the GPA Resolution to a vote at the next general municipal election; (b) call a special election for that purpose; or (c) repeal the GPA Resolution. If the GPA Resolution is repealed or not approved by a majority of the voters in an election, it would preclude the enactment of a substantially similar measure for at least one year from the date of those actions, whichever may be the case. If the GPA Resolution is approved at election, it would be effective immediately. 3. RECOMMENDATION Alternative courses for the City Council are as follows; 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10579 repealing the GPA Resolution. ITEM _ 2 09/06/11 2. Adopt Resolution Nos. 10580 and 10581 calling a general election and consolidating a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. Adopt Resolution No. 10584 as determined relating to written arguments and impartial analysis by the City Attorney. 3, Adopt Resolution Nos. 10582 and 10583 calling a special election and consolidating a Special Municipal Election with the Statewide Primary Election. Adopt Resolution No. 10584 as determined relating to written arguments and impartial analysis by the City Attorney. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 10585 calling a special election, but without consolidating it with either the State Primary Election or the City's next General Municipal Election. Adopt Resolution No. 10584 as determined relating to written arguments and impartial analysis by the City Attorney. 4. FISCAL IMPACT If a special election is held solely for the purpose of voting on the referendum, the Registrar has estimated the cost between $256,500- $288,500. If the referendum is consolidated with the June 5, 2012, State Primary Election, the Registrar's estimated the cost between $95,500 - $118,500. If the referendum is consolidated with the next General Municipal Election on November 6, 2012, the Registrar's estimated cost is $8,500. 15. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) I Not applicable. 6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Not applicable. 7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted the GPA Resolution, which made text amendments to the Orange Park Acres Plan, which is part of the City's General Plan. This approval, along with other approvals including ordinances approving a zone change and a development agreement were ultimately adopted as part of the Project approvals. Opponents of the Project circulated referendum petitions in an effort to have the City Council's approval of the GPA Resolution either rescinded by the City Council or placed on the ballot to be voted upon by the City's voters. hi order to qualify for an election, the referendum must contain signatures constituting of at least 10% of the City's registered voters. The City Clerk put that number at 7,144. The Registrar of Voters has verified 9,550 signatures and found 7,729 signatures to be valid, so the referendum has qualified for an election. As a result, the effective date of Resolution No. 10566 has been suspended. ITEM _ 3 09/06/11 The primary decision that needs to be made by the City Council is whether to direct the City Attorney to draft resolutions that either: (a) repeal the GPA Resolution; or (b) put the matter before the voters at a general or special election. If the direction is to call for an election, the City Council must determine the following: (a) whether to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, (b) whether it or a council member is going to be authorized to submit an argument in favor of the GPA Resolution; and (c) whether or not to permit rebuttal arguments. Due to the Referendum's qualification for the ballot, the GPA Resolution has been suspended. The GPA Resolution would not go into effect unless a majority of the votes cast voted in its favor. If the GPA resolution is repealed by the City Council or is rejected by the voters at the election, it cannot be enacted again within one year of the repeal or the disapproval by the voters, as may be the case. If approved by the voters, the GPA Resolution would become effective immediately. 1. Date of the Election If the decision is to call an election, the election must be at Ieast 88 days after the City Council adopts a resolution calling the election and held the earlier of the next General Municipal Election (November 6, 2012) or a special election called for that purpose. The next available election date at which the election can be consolidated is in June 5, 2012, the Statewide Primary Election. If the decision is to hold a special election for the single purpose of voting on the Referendum, it appears the City Council may pick any date, which is more than 88 days after the City Council adopts a resolution ordering the election (December 6, 2011, is the first Tuesday more than 88 days from September 6), as Iong as it is before November 6, 2012.. Section 1405 generally requires a special election to be called not less than 88 days and no more than 103 days after the call for the election and Section 1000 sets forth five different Tuesdays as established yearly elections dates. However, Section 1003 states that the dates don't apply to city referendum elections. Thus, for a special election not consolidated with a general election, the City Council may hold it at any time between December 6, 2011, and November 6, 2012, noting that the purpose of holding a special election is to get the matter in front of the voters as soon as possible, although as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report, there is an associated cost. 2. City Attorney Impartial Analysis Although Section 9280 is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the City Council may or shall direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, the more logical reading is that it is discretionary. It does not appear that any courts have addressed whether the impartial analysis by the City Attorney is mandatory or discretionary. However, in the view of one author who has written a treatise on initiatives and referendums, Ballot Box Navigator, and in the City Attorney's opinion, the better reading of Section 9280 is that the City Council has the discretion. ITEM _ 4 09/06/11 The impartial analysis cannot exceed 500 words and must show "the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure." It must be written without any influence from the City Council, proponents or opponents of the GPA Resolution. 3. Ballot Arguments The City Council may authorize a specified council member(s) to draft a written argument in favor of the GPA Resolution or leave that to others. Due to open meeting laws, no more than two council members could be involved in the drafting of the argument outside of a noticed public meeting. The City Council could select among its membership, two or fewer to draft the argument and then present it to the City Council for approval or could simply authorize one or two of its members to draft the argument. Up to five persons are authorized to sign the argument. Another option is to allow any member of the City Council to file a written argument, but then that would place the City Clerk in the position of having to choose one. A last option is to not authorize any council member to submit an argument in favor of the GPA Resolution and leave that to someone else. Arguments for and against the measure can be submitted by various persons or groups. The City Clerk ultimately has to pick one argument for and one argument against, guided by the priority of selection set forth in Section 9287, which is: (a) City Council or a member or members of the City Council who are authorized by the City Council to do so; (b) the sponsors or proponents of the referendum and/or the GPA Resolution; (c) citizen associations; and (d) individuals who are eligible to vote on the measure. Within 14 days of the City Council calling the election, the City Clerk, based on the time reasonably necessary to print the arguments, is required to fix a date that the arguments are due. Ballot arguments cannot be false, misleading or inconsistent with the measure and should be free of personally insulting material and arguments totally unrelated to the ballot measure. It is good practice to submit the ballot argument in advance of the deadline, just in case errors are discovered. The printed name and signature of the persons(s) submitting the argument must accompany the argument. Direct ballot arguments are limited to 300 words, remain confidential until after the date they are due and changes cannot be accepted after that time. Once the filing deadline has passed, there is a 10 day public examination period in which the arguments can be challenged in court. The City Council may also permit rebuttal arguments, which must be fried with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date that is set for filing direct arguments and are limited to 250 words. The rebuttal arguments would be submitted by the person(s) who submitted the direct argument. In sum, the City Council's alternatives are: 1. Adopt Resolution Rescinding the GPA Resolution. a. No further City Council action required. ITEM _ 5 09/06/11 2. Call for an election. a. Determine election date. b. Determine whether City Attorney will submit an impartial analysis. C. Determine whether the City Council or a council member will submit argument. d. Determine whether rebuttal arguments will be permitted. 8. ATTACHMENTS a Resolution Nos. 10579-10585 ITEM _ 6 09/06/11 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A P r o f e s s i o n a l C o r p o r a t i o n Invoice 41189 ATTN: October 31, 2010 AMMINNOMM CA ID: 7069-00001 - TFN Re: GENERAL MATTERS For Services Rendered Through 10/31/2010 Previous Balance 12,355.34 Payments Through 10/31/2010 -4,458.50 Balance Forward 7,896.84 Current Fees 4,107.00 Current Disbursements 54.54 Total Current Charges 4,161.54 Total Due 12,058,38 Fees Date Arty Description Hours Amount 10/01/10 JHE CONFERENCE WITH TOM NIXON RE LEGAL ISSUES WITH 18.50 SOLICITING DONATIONS FOR INCENTIVES FOR CUSTOMERS TO SIGN UP FOR ELECTRONIC BILLING. 10/01/10 TFN REVIEW 9/29 E-MAIL AND MEMO OF KANE THUYEN RE 351.50 WATER BILLING ISSUE; RESEARCH RE SAME. 10/01/10 TFN REVIEW 9/24 AND 9/30 E-MAILS OF AND 18.50 TRAM TRAN RE dINSHNINWWATtk, LINE RELOCATION. 10/01/10 KXT CONFERENCE WITH TOM NIXON RE WATER UTILITY 92.50 COMPLAINT LETTER AND ADDITIONAL RESE_ARCH., 10/01/10 TFN CONFER WITH JAMES EGGART RE E-MAIL WATER BILL 37.00 DONATIONS/GIFTS; CONFER WITH DOUG HOLLAND RE SAME. 10/04/10 TFN REVIEW 10/4 E-MAILS OF RE 55.50 AGENDA REPORT; REVIEW DRAFT REPORT; REVIEW NNOWMEEMMUNICIPAL CODE RE PROCUREMENT ISSUES; DRAFT RESPONSE TO 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SUtiE 1200 COSTA NESA, CA 92626-7670 (714)558-7000 FAX (714)835-7787 .FEDF77P,LTAX1.D.#953678827 NN4lNSNSS LAW.60M Exhibit B Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart APC October 31, 2010 I.D. 7069-00001 -TFN Invoice 41189 Re: GENERAL MATTERS Page 2 Date Atty Description Hours Amount 10/05/10 TTT PHONE CALL WITH MMIMMMOMWE 37.00 RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT AND OWNER'S DEMAND THAT COST FOR ADDITIONAL METERS BE COVERED BY CITY. E-MAIL TO TOM NIXON RE SAME. 10/05/10 KXT RESEARCH RULES OF INTERPRETATION AND CONFLICT 869.50 OF LAWS; REVISE WATER UTILITY BILL MEMO. 10/05/10 RRH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TOM NIXON RE 18.50 SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 10/07/10 TTT PHONE CALL WITH &MENNEN RE STATUS OF RIGHT 37.00 OF ENTRY AGREEMENTS FORINSIMENINOM AND DISCUSSION WITH TOM NIXON RE OWNER OF DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL WATER METERS. 10/07/10 TFN CONFER WITH TRAM TRAN RE RIGHT OF 18.50 ENTRY AGREEMENT. 10/08/10 TIT REVIEW AND REVISE RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT FOR 111.00 . E-MAIL TO RE SAME. 10/08/10 TFN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MORGEOM RE aw 37.00 DRILLING NOISE FOR SON= PROJECT. 10/08/10 TFN REVIEW 10/8 E-MAILS OF AND TRAM on 18.50 TRAN RE WATER LINE RELOCATION. 10/11/10 JHE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RE 18.50 PROPOSED GET -A -WAY LINE AND DISCUSSIONS WITH 10/11/10 ITT REVISE RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENTS PER DISCUSSION 74.00 WITH MINESISM11910 PHONE CONFERENCE WITH TOM NIXON RE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY TO RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT. 10/11/10 TFN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TRAM TRAN RE WATER 18.50 LINE RELOCATION AGREEMENT, 10/17/10 TTT REVIEW AND REVISE STAFF REPORT RE RIGHT OF ENTRY 117.00 AGREEMENTS_ FOR GENNIMMEW AND PROPERTIES. 10/13/10 TFN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH 1211WRE WATER 37.00 ISSUES. 10/13/10 KXT REVISIONS TO MEMO CONCERNING STATUTORY 592.00 INTERPRETATION AND AUTHORITY RE WATER UTILITY BILL ISSUE. 10/15/10 JHE REVIEW TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS, DRAFT LETTER, aw 111.00 AND MEMORANDUM FROM RE GETAWAY PIPELINE AND POTENTIAL SWAP OF SERVICE AREAS WITH 10/18/10 TFN REVIEW 10/14 MEMO OFIENNOMM RE so 18.50 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1200 cosTA MmA, CA 92626-7670 (714)558-7000 FAX (714)83577787 - _- F®ER4l. TAX I.D.#95-3678627 WJNN.VJSS-LAW.COM Woodruff; Spradlin & Smart APC October 31, 2010 I.D. 7069-00001 - TFN Invoice 41189 Re: GENERAL MATTERS Page 3 Date Atty Description Hours Amount PROJECT. 10/19/10 JHE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RE 18.50 GETAWAY LINE AND SWAP OF SERVICE AREAS WITH 10/19/10 JHE .TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH REEMMMEW RE 18.50 MENROM ISSUE. 10/19/10 TTT PHONE CALL WITH TOM NIXON RE RIGHT OF ENTRY 18.50 AGREEMENT FOR 10/19/10 TFN REVIEW DRAFT AGENDA REPORT AND AGREEMENT RE 55.50 NEW WATERLINE AT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TRAM TRAN RE SAME. 10/19/10 TFN REVIEW DRAFT AGENDA REPORT AND AGREEMENT RE dw 37.00 WATER LINE AT 10/19/10 JMD TELEPHONE CALL FROM RE BID PROTEST RE 37.00 INNOPURCHASE. 10/20/10 TFN MEET WITH RE WATER COMMODITY 37.00 ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE. 10/21/10 JHE MEETING WITH RE GET -A -WAY LINE 4= 259.00 AND POTENTIAL SWAP OF SERVICE AREAS WITH SNOW 10/25/10 TFN REVIEW 10/13 E-MAILS OF AMEMNEW AND JAMES 18.50 EGGART RE WATER LINE PLANNING ISSUE. 10/26/10 TFN REVIEW AND REVISE DRAFT AGENDA REPORT RE WATER ow 333.00 COMMODITY CHARGE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH Ok _ - .._ RE SAME. 10/28/10TFN CONFER WITH JAMES EGGART RE ISSUES WITH801W sw 74.00 COMPANY. 10/28/10 TFN REVIEW 10/25 E-MAIL 0178NEWREIMMM 18.50 WATER BILLS. 10/29/10 KXT REVIEW GOMM WATER BILL MEMO FOR CONSISTENCY 18.50 AND FINALIZE MEMO TO CLIENT. 10/29/10 TFN CONTINUE DRAFT OF MEMO TO §00M RE WATER 259.00 SERVICE ISSUE. 10/29/10 TFN CONTINUE REVIEW OF ISSUE RE WATER NOTICES. am 18.50 10/29/10 TFN CONFER WITH KANE THUYEN RE WATER SERVICE ISSUE. 18.50 10/29/10 TFN CONFER WITH TRAM TRAN RE 1&50 WATER BILLS. 10/29/10 TTT REVIEW Me BANKRUPTCY PLEADINGS 148.00 RE WATER BILLS. Total Fees 4,107.00 Disbursements 555 ANION BOULEVARD, SURE 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92626-7670 (714)558-7d00 FAX (714)835-7787 FEDERAL TAX LD. # 95-3678827 WuMMSS-LAWCOM Woo drug Spradlin & Smart APC October 31, 2010 I.D. 7069-00001 - TFN Invoice 41189 Re: GENERAL MATTERS Page 4 Date Description Amount 10/31/10 COMPUTERIZED LEGAL RESEARCH; RE REASONABLE REGULATIONS; 54.54 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER Total Disbursements 54.54 Fee Recap 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SWE 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92626-7670 (714)558-7000 FAX (714)835.7787 ""---F®ERP.LTAX LD.#953878827 VNINN.WSS=CAW.COM"`"" Hours Rate/Hour Amount THOMAS F. NIXON PARTNER JAMES M. DONICH PARTNER JAMES H. EGGART PARTNER RICIA R. HAGER ASSOCIATE ow me KANE X. THUYEN ASSOCIATE TRAM T. TRAN ASSOCIATE dawn Totals 4,107.00 Open Invoices Invoice Invoice Original Payments Date Number Amount and Credits Balance 09/30/10 40938 7,896.84 0.00 7,896.84 Totals 7,896.84 0.00 7,896.84 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SWE 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92626-7670 (714)558-7000 FAX (714)835.7787 ""---F®ERP.LTAX LD.#953878827 VNINN.WSS=CAW.COM"`"" AGREEMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of , 2013, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and the law firm of WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART, a Professional Corporation (hereinafter "WS&S"). RECITALS A. The City Council, as the governing body of tare G fy of Diamond Bar, pursuant to its authority under Government Code section 37103, desire's_ t'o contract with WS&S to provide city attorney services for the City and to provide legalsery ces_ required to be perfornied by the office of the City Attorney of the City. B. The City Council desires, ptMJ4It to its authori y.:� ruder Government Code section 36505 to appoint David DeBerry, an aftQi ney with WS&S, to act'a_the City Attorney for the City. C. WS&S desires to necessary for the proper function D. City and WS&S wish employing WS&S to provdelegal ser NOW, TH herein, the parties legal seivices incident to'`eiy regard, David DeBerry is des serve as the M1 ;legal advis attorneys of the"' o authorized by the Ci y Coune different attomey in tle'law f ;goirigserces and to perfonri legal services as the City _ttomey for the City. set conditions of retaining and and covenants contained City heely retains and employs WS&S to provide all .Wpresentation for the City Council and the City. In this ed as hp City Attorney for the City. The City Attorney shall the Cty`Council. Mr. DeBerry is authorized to assign other serve as Assistant and Deputy City Attorneys, or as otherwise ie City Council may at any time request that the Firm assign a act as City, Assistant or Deputy City Attorney. 2. Scope of Duties. City retains and employs WS&S to provide legal services required in connection with City's operation as a California general law city. The legal services to be performed shall include those generally understood to be within the field of municipal law and as is further set forth in the City's 2013 Request for Proposal for City Attorney Services. WS&S shall provide those legal services reasonably required to advise and represent City and shall take reasonable steps to keep City informed of the progress of the representation and to respond in a timely manner to the inquiries of City regarding pending matters. The City Council may, in its discretion, assign legal services to attorneys other than the WS&S. It is understood Proposal —Diamond Bar City Attorney Legal Services Proposed Agreement for City Attorney Services Exhibit C that the legal services to be performed and the functions of the City Attorney shall include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Represent and advised the City Council and all City officers in matters of law pertaining to their office. Give advice or opinion on the legality of all matters wider consideration by the City Council or by any of the boards and commissions or officers of the City; B. Attend all meetings of the City Council and all meetings of the Planning Commission for the City, and attend all other meetings of City boards, commissions, and committees when so requested; by the City Council or the City Manager; C. Assist in the preparation and review of ordinances, resolutions, contracts, deeds, leases and other legal documents; D. As requested, approve the form of contracts made by and between the City and bonds given to the City, endorsing same; E. Upon request, prepare legal opinions for City departments, the City Council, boards and commissions; F. Oversee services provided by other legal specialists retained by the City for specialized legal issues, as deemed appropriate by the City Council; G. Coordinate legal activities with other City departments, divisions, and outside agencies; H. Represent the City in civil litigation; and I. Perform such other legal duties as may be required by the City Council in the performance of the functions list in subparagraphs A -H. 3. Independent Contractor. WS&S and any attorneys or other persons employed by WS&S, shall at all times be considered an independent contractor and not an employee of the City and not entitled to any benefits of the City's employees. Except to the extent provided herein, the City and its employees shall not have any<control over the conduct of WS&S. 4. Fees. Costs and Expenses. A. City agrees to pay WS&S at the rates set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference. Rate will be increased in accordance with Exhibit "A". B. City agrees to pay out-of-pocket costs and expenses associated with WS&S' work pursuant to Exhibit "A". Proposal —Diamond Bar City Attorney Legal Services Proposed Agreement for Cil), Atiorney Services 5. Statements/Task-Billing. WS&S shall prepare and present to City detailed monthly statements for professional and other services rendered to City for the month preceding the statement, indicating each task performed by WS&S. City shall pay the statements within 30 days of receipt of the same. WS&S shall update City, upon request, regarding the status of WS&S' billings. 6. Insurance and Indemnification. A. WS&S shall carry Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions and Automotive Liability insurances in an amount not less than $2 million per occurrence and $4 million in aggregate. The City shall be named as a certificate holder and an additional insured on the Automotive Liability policy. All insurance coverage shall be provided by an insurance company, with a rating of A-, VII or greater in the latest edition of Best's Insurance Guide and authorized to do business in the State of California. Such policies shall not be canceled or materially changed absent 30 days' prior written notice to the City. With respect to Professional Liability/Errors and Omissionsinsurance, WS&S agrees to maintain such insurance for at least three years after termination of this Agreement as long as such insurance is reasonably available on the market. B. WS&S agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the City, its City Council, officers, agents and employees from and against and claim, demands, damages, injury or judgment which arises out the negligent performance or willful misconduct of WS&S in performing under this Agreement. 7. Arbitration. Any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, including the determination of the scope or, applicability of this agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined by binding arbitration in the County of Los Angeles, before one arbitrator. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, an:arbitrator shall be selected through the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The Arbitrator shall have the authority to set procedures and discovery in the arbitration. hi any such matter, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Judgment on the arbitrator's written award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The arbitrator's remedial power shall be the same as the remedial power a court would have over the dispute. This clause shall not preclude the parties from seeking provisional remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The parties shall be jointly responsible for the arbitration fees and the arbitrator's compensation and expenses. The arbitrator shall award costs to the prevailing party which shall include reasonable attorney's fees and any other costs not jointly agreed to be shared between the parties. In the event one party has paid more than its share of the arbitration fees and the arbitrator's compensation and expenses, the arbitrator may award against any other party the fees, compensation and expenses that the party owes with respect to the arbitration. This section shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. 8. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on 2013, until terminated by either party. WS&S shall serve under the terms of this Agreement at the pleasure of City, and by a majority vote of the City Council, City hereby Proposal — Diamond Bar City Attorney Legal Services Proposed Agreement for City Attorney Services reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon 10 days written notice to WS&S for any reason or to require substitute attorney personnel. When WS&S' services are terminated, all unpaid charges shall be due and payable to WS&S for work actually performed up to the time of termination and for any other work it completes at the direction of the City. WS&S may terminate this Agreement with or Mthout cause upon 90 days written notice to the City. 9. Notice. Any notices required by this Agreement shall be given by personal service or by delivery of such notice by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Such notices shall be addressed to each party at the address listed below. Either party may change the information in such notice upon written notice as provided herein. City: City of Diamond Bar Woodruff, SpradIin & Smart 21810 Copley Drive 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Attn: Kennard Smart, Managing Director Phone: Phone: 714-558-7000 10. Non -Discrimination. EWS&S shall not -discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, disability or national origin. 11. Entire Amreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and contains all covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to such matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated in the preamble to this Agreement and represent that they are authorized to bind their respective parties. ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR By: City Clerk Mayor WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART Kennard R. Smart, Jr. President/Managing Director Proposal— Diamond Bar City Attorney Legal Services Proposed Agreement for City Attorney Services EXHIBIT "A" WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART Rates and Billing Practices Hourly Rates for Legal Personnel (All other legal services) Attorneys $215.00 Specialty Litigation: $295.00 Environmental/Land Use/Eminent Domain/Personnel Paralegals $155.00 1. Billing Increment • Attorneys shall bill in increments of one-tenth of an hour (six minutes). • Attorneys shall not bill for secretarial time, including time; spent for faxing, mailing, arranging for messengers, or calendaring. • Attorneys shall not bill for mileage or travel time to and from City Hall. 2. Costs and Expenses In -office photocopying $0.25 per page (only after 25 pages per copy job) Mileage $0.565 per mile Parking at Courthouse Actual cost Filing fees, messenger fees Actual cost Jury fees, & expert fees Actual cost Word Processing No cost, unless overtime is required, then at cost Phone No cost Effective on July 1, 2014, and each year thereafter, the hourly rates for Retainer Services and Legal Personnel shall be adjusted in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles -Orange County Metropolitan Area, all wage earners, for the period between June 1—May 30 of the prior 12 month period. Each hourly rate shall be rounded to the nearest $1.00 increment. Proposal—Diamond Bar 0ty Attorney Legal Services Proposed Agreement for CityAttorney Services Exhibit A" Proposer's Name: Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES Proposer declares that this proposal is not made in the interest of or on behalf of any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization or corporation; that such proposal is genuine and not collusive or sham; that said proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other proposer to put in a false or sham proposal and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any proposer or anyone else to put in a sham proposal, orthat anyone shall refrain from submitting a proposal; that said proposer has not in any manner directly or indirectly sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the proposal price of said proposer or of any other proposer, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of such proposal price, or of that of any other proposer, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the Agreement for anyone interested in the proposed Agreement; that all statements contained in such proposal are true, and further, that said proposer has not directly or indirectly submitted his proposal price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid and will not pay any fee in connection therewith, to any corporation,. partnership, company, association, organization, proposal depository, or to any member or agent thereof, or to any other individual except to any person or persons as have a partnership or other financial interest with said proposer in this general business. The above Non -Collusion Affidavit is part of the proposal. Signing this proposal on the signature page thereof shall also constitute signature of this Non -Collusion Affidavit. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this 19th day of February, 2013, by David A. DeBerry, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me. l Signature Connie Jo Smith, INotary Public _ CONNIE JO SMITH COMM.91839304 rr, 0 NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA ORANOE CBuutt MY -COMM. EXP. MAR. L4U Exhibit D q � }� (� 11/4 \ »\�� • O t 1 d' • cq f Pik k T;� +�x r7a.y..a9 � � � � ??\ � � \ � \/ \\\ 2, � \� \\� ����\\\.. \\\���\\�\ \\ � � � � � \ \ \�/ � � � \� � \\ 2 \ / \\� \\ � }\\ � \� �� \� \ \ � \\ /\< \� � \ \ j :� �)y dd�: � . � : %d[y} �� \ / y>q �. � \\\\� \ . � v°� \\�<�2: \$ § �� � � \� < \ » . Cn a q� V U 0 0 , :U � l . \�� \� \"ol : «?Q?� » »CU < 0 r--0 v o > > � m N � V) Co O Ln O u 0 rd � � N U > v U > > Q Q c c CZ M U U Y�r Y 1� u z ..< • --Wk k� ;ter r--0 v o > > � m N � V) Co O Ln O u 0 rd � � N U > v U > > Q Q c c CZ M U U W 0 0 N r 0 a .z r Hh r 11 W 0 0 N r 0 a \PIC$ \\�\< « »$< \y�\< sx ¥ © : \4.0\ \\�\< « »$< \y�\< ? ? 2< d » /\\04 2 k k ig § k m | .. .anUSAV rS .., N 0>> � L y V,m,3 ' 0 > v,o � 2 0 res '? � 33oiyy�ga a^p �C i Q > �q ffiY� s !. anuany PueJE) v $ e W iP In VM «. 9 C O a r ti Q a G ! N _N O C rz � ro U � > HIM MW m, enueny pueJO PIZ I Q ti Z W 40 g$qW a Ull m v C. a Q tG a xR. z a Is =a;`, �'.' +ate '=�, • 1. 4 �x • yy • 4 7 T • • v n 3•• f a� �x i