CITY OF SAN MARINO
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor www.cityofsanmarino.org Ken Ude, Vice Mayor (626) 300-0700 Phone Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member (626) 300-0709 Fax Susan Jakubowski, Council Member City Hall Council Chamber Steve Talt, Council Member 2200 Huntington Drive Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager San Marino, CA 91108
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M. LOCATION CHANGED TO SAN MARINO CENTER 1800 HUNTINGTON DRIVE SAN MARINO, CA 91108
The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council with valuable information regarding issues of the community.
Regular Meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. Typically, Adjourned Meetings are held on the last Friday of every month at 8:30 a.m.
In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 300-0705 prior to the meeting.
PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 Members of the City Council may teleconference into the meeting without noticing each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting.
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) ADVISORY As a precaution to protect both staff, our constituents, and elected officials, the City is asking members of the public to follow the State Health Department’s guidance on large gatherings when deciding whether to attend this meeting. In that regard, all seating in the Council meeting will be spaced by at least six feet to minimize close contact. Close contact, such as shaking hands, is strongly discouraged. Although public access to the meeting in person will be allowed, if you are sick or identify yourself as being “higher risk” based on the CDC’s guidelines, you are encouraged to watch or listen to the meeting from home, or provide input electronically.
Members of the public may observe and offer comment at this meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JULY 8 2020 PAGE 2 OF 5
1) Public comment will be accepted by email to [email protected] before or during the meeting, prior to the close of public comment on an item, to be read by the City Clerk during public comment. Lengthy public comment may be summarized in the interest of time.
2) Public comment will be accepted electronically via the zoom.us teleconference module.
If you are an individual with a disability and need a reasonable modification or accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) please contact the City Clerk via email at [email protected] or by phone at (626) 300-0705 prior to the meeting for assistance.
How to participate in the meeting from home:
1) Via Computer for Video Streaming: Website: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83045304480 Meeting ID: 830 4530 4480
2) Via Phone for Audio Only: Phone Number: (669) 900-9128 Meeting Id: 830 4530 4480
3) Submit Public Comments via email: Email: [email protected]
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
POSTING OF AGENDA
The special meeting agenda is posted 24 hours prior to each special meeting at the following locations: City Hall, 2200 Huntington Drive, the Crowell Public Library, 1890 Huntington Drive, and the Recreation Department, 1560 Pasqualito Drive. The special meeting agenda is also posted on the City’s website: http://www.cityofsanmarino.org.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City welcomes public input. Members of the public may address the City Council by completing a public comment card and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, the public may address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda. Pursuant to state law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda (Government Code Section 54954.2). The Mayor reserves the right to place limits on duration of comments. Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JULY 8 2020 PAGE 3 OF 5
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
This is an opportunity for the City Manager to inform the City Council and the public of any upcoming events or matters of interest to the community.
MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READINGS
This action permits the City Council to act on ordinances and resolutions without having to read the entire text of the ordinance or resolution. The title of an ordinance on First Reading must be read in its entirety. An ordinance on Second Reading does not require having the title read. However, the City Council may request that an ordinance or resolution be read in its entirety before taking any action.
CONSENT
1. RECEIVE AND FILE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR JUNE 2020 (FINANCE DEPARTMENT)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the Monthly Disbursements Report for the Month of June 2020.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE THE CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2020 (CITY TREASURER)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the investment report for the month of May 2020.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (CITY CLERK)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 13, 2020, special meeting of May 29, 2020, special meeting of June 5, 2020, special meeting of June 10, 2020 (closed session), special meeting of June 10, 2020, and special meeting of June 26, 2020.
4. UPDATE ON CITY RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 RESPONSE PROGRAMS (CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the July 8, 2020
report on the City’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JULY 8 2020 PAGE 4 OF 5
5. AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE ANNUAL STRIPING, MARKING, SIGNING PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 20-9273 IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,000 TO SUPERIOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS OF CYPRESS (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council award a construction agreement to Superior Pavement Markings of Cypress in an amount not-to-exceed $52,000 for the Annual Striping, Marking and Signing Program Project No. 20-9273; and authorize the Parks and Public Works Director to approve change orders and other contingencies in a cumulative amount not-to-exceed $10,400.
6. ACCEPTANCE OF EXCESS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROPOSAL (HUMAN RESOURCES)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council accept the proposals by both Safety National Casualty Corporation and Lyndon Southern to provide Workers Compensation Excess insurance for FY2020-21 in the amount of $71,997 for coverage above the City’s Self-Insured Retention of $1,250,000 from Safety National Casualty Corporation, and in the amount of $49,488 for buffer layer coverage of $750,000 to $1,250,000 from Lyndon Southern
PUBLIC HEARING
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 - 1400 CIRCLE DR., (MI/JAMES V. COANE & ASSOCIATES) (PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council rescind the prior findings and determination and adopt Resolution No. R-20-20, which approves Design Review Committee Case No. DRC 17-08, as revised, subject to the conditions attached.
NEW BUSINESS
8. AUTHORIZATION TO PREPAY CALPERS FY2020-21 UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY (UAL) AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS (FINANCE)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council authorize staff to prepay all of the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 unfunded accrued liability amortization payments to CalPERS in the total amount of $2,187,842.00, and to make such payments no later than July 31, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JULY 8 2020 PAGE 5 OF 5
9. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. R-20-18, ESTABLISHING THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) RATHER THAN LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS). (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council find that this action is exempt from CEQA for the reasons set forth in the staff report and approve Resolution No. R-20-18 adopting ‘vehicle miles traveled’ thresholds of significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.
10. SELECTION OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE TO RENOVATE THE SAN MARINO CENTER (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS)
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction to the City Manager on which implementation plan and schedule option they prefer.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
This is an opportunity to announce any written communications pertaining to the City received by members of the City Council. All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
COUNCIL REPORTS
This is an opportunity for members of the City Council to inform the public of any meetings or conferences they may have attended.
CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
Scheduling dates for future Council meetings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The San Marino City Council will adjourn to FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2020, AT 8:30 A.M. at the San Marino Center, 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
Dated: July 2, 2020 AMANDA MERLO Posted: July 2, 2020 ACTING CITY CLERK
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Paul Chung, Finance Director Mark Siegfried, Accounting Manager/Controller
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS REPORT FOR JUNE 2020
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The City publishes a report on total disbursements each month pursuant to Government Code Sections 37202 and 37208.
There are three source points for disbursement: (1) items disbursed from the City’s General Checking account, including electronic funds transfers (EFTs); (2) items disbursed from the City’s Workers’ Compensation Account (collaboratively managed by City staff and the workers’ compensation third-party administrator); and (3) items disbursed through the payroll process, inclusive of direct deposit transfers to employees, hardcopy checks issued to employees, and electronic transfers to State and Federal taxing authorities.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
Procurement review is not applicable.
1-1 JUNE 2020 DISBURSEMENTS SUMMARY
Schedule of Disbursements - June 2020 Description Amount General Account Checks $ 398,239 General Account Electronic Fund Transfers 541,145 Worker's Compensation Checks 15,547 Salaries and Taxes Paid 1,087,261 $ 2,042,192
EXPENDITURES BY MONTH – PAST SIX MONTHS VERSUS PRIOR YEAR
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed and approved as to form.
2
1-2 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends receiving and filing the Monthly Disbursements Report for the Month of June 2020. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to receive and file the Monthly Disbursements Report for the Month of June 2020.”
ATTACHMENT
1. June 2020 Transactions by Account Summary
3
1-3 Accounts Payable Transactions by Account
User: MSiegfried Printed: 06/30/2020 - 6:14AM Batch: 00000.00.0000
Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-00-1060-0000 Bob Wondries Door Handle 06/05/2020 0 21.00 101-00-1060-0000 Bob Wondries Circuit Breakers 06/19/2020 0 37.66
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 58.66
101-00-1060-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Chains 06/05/2020 0 131.27 101-00-1060-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Mower Parts #6594 06/05/2020 0 132.32 101-00-1060-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Spindles 06/05/2020 0 109.55 101-00-1060-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Filters 06/19/2020 0 56.83 101-00-1060-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Pulleys & Washers 06/19/2020 0 155.08
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 585.05
101-00-1060-0000 Interstate Battery Systems of Battery 06/05/2020 0 518.73 101-00-1060-0000 Interstate Battery Systems of Battery 06/05/2020 0 170.67 101-00-1060-0000 Interstate Battery Systems of Battery 06/05/2020 0 367.62
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,057.02
101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Filters & Coolant 06/05/2020 0 464.24 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Steering Wheel Covers 06/05/2020 0 16.41 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Oil Stabilizer & Filters 06/05/2020 0 162.48 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Belt 06/05/2020 0 38.13 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Oil 06/05/2020 0 564.15 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Plugs & Filters 06/05/2020 0 35.92 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Washer Nozzle 06/05/2020 0 14.78 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Transmission Fluid 06/05/2020 0 54.70 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Clutch & Silicon 06/05/2020 0 46.90 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Bulbs 06/05/2020 0 6.41 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Belt & Tensioner 06/05/2020 0 79.10 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Credit 06/05/2020 0 -37.36
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 1
1-4 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Push Buttons 06/19/2020 0 10.93 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Bulbs 06/19/2020 0 5.72 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Circuit Breaker & Fuses 06/19/2020 0 47.05 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Filters 06/19/2020 0 74.96 101-00-1060-0000 O'Reilly Auto Parts Degreaser & Brakepads 06/19/2020 0 202.01
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,786.53
101-00-1060-0000 TireHub Tires 06/05/2020 12356 508.08
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 508.08
101-00-2048-6990 Toby Chou Refund- Summer Camp (Freewheelers) 06/19/2020 12360 1,888.00 101-00-2048-6990 Toby Chou Refund- Min Day Daycare 06/19/2020 12360 50.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,938.00
101-00-2048-6990 Jennifer Converse Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/19/2020 12361 301.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 301.00
101-00-2048-6990 Vivian Dalton Refund- Min Day Daycare 06/19/2020 12362 25.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 25.00
101-00-2048-6990 Ayumi Hanlon Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/05/2020 12311 858.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 858.00
101-00-2048-6990 Sungjin Ahn Reissue Check- Lost Check-Refund Afterschool06/05/2020 Program 12312 127.62
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 127.62
101-00-2048-6990 Hsuan Zee Reissue Check-Lost Check- Private Guitar & Afterschool06/05/2020 Program 12313 398.60
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 398.60
101-00-2048-6990 Austin Minnich Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/05/2020 12314 1,131.00
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 2
1-5 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,131.00
101-00-2048-6990 Emily Goldblatt Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/05/2020 12315 780.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 780.00
101-00-2048-6990 Rose Chen Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/19/2020 12363 185.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 185.00
101-00-2048-6990 Ruth Chen Refund-Min Day Kindercare 06/19/2020 12364 25.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 25.00
101-00-2048-6990 Russell Lieng Refund- Summer Camp (Freewheeler) 06/19/2020 12365 1,112.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,112.00
101-00-2048-6990 Sarah Miller Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/19/2020 12366 1,445.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,445.00
101-00-2048-6990 Melissa Tan Reissue Checks-Lost Check- Refund Soccer &06/05/2020 Chinese Immersion 12316 565.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 565.00
101-00-2048-6990 Adam Forstadt Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/05/2020 12317 1,204.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,204.00
101-00-2048-6990 Yatang Li Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/05/2020 12318 2,388.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 2,388.00
101-00-2048-6990 Christina Lu Refund-Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/05/2020 12319 612.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 612.00
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 3
1-6 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-00-2048-6990 Anita Shu Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/19/2020 12367 306.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 306.00
101-00-2048-6990 Viviane Studart Refund- Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/19/2020 12368 241.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 241.00
101-00-2048-6990 Karen Ouyang Refund-Summer Camp (Trailblazers) 06/19/2020 12369 858.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 858.00
101-00-3040-0000 California American Water Franchise Fees April-May 2020 06/05/2020 12327 10.79 101-00-3040-0000 California American Water Franchise Fees April-May 2020 06/19/2020 12377 9.90
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 20.69
101-08-4016-0000 John Penido Medical Retirement June 2020 06/05/2020 0 1,433.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 1,433.00
101-08-4376-0000 Decon7 Systems, LLC Disinfectant Spray 06/05/2020 12331 834.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 834.50
101-08-4376-0000 Dynamic Building Maintenance Addtional Cleaning and Santize Police Disptach06/19/2020 May 2020 0 175.00 0000000915
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 175.00
101-08-4376-0000 Extreme Safety, Inc Hydrogen Peroxide 06/05/2020 12335 125.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 125.59
101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation - COVID -19 Update 5/7/2006/05/2020 0 335.40
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 4
1-7 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation - COVID -19 Update 5/14/2006/05/2020 0 306.30 101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation - COVID -19 Update 5/15/2006/05/2020 0 170.00 101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation-COVID-19 Update 5/27/2006/19/2020 0 323.30 101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation-COVID-19 Update 5/28/2006/19/2020 0 170.00 101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation-COVID-19 Update 5/21/2006/19/2020 0 355.25 101-08-4376-0000 Language Network, INC Chinese Translation-COVID-19 Update 5/29/2006/19/2020 0 170.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 1,830.25
101-08-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Latex Gloves-COVID-19 Supplies 06/05/2020 12343 1,675.35 101-08-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Parallax Eyewear-COVID-19 Supplies 06/05/2020 12343 382.92 101-08-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Parallax Eyewear-COVID-19 Supplies 06/05/2020 12343 500.74 101-08-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Goggle Eyewear-COVID-19 Supplies 06/05/2020 12343 94.28 101-08-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Disinfectant Wipes & Latex Gloves-COVID-1906/05/2020 Supplies 12343 1,132.45
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 3,785.74
101-08-4376-0500 IntelesysOne CC Meeting IT Support 5/13/20 06/05/2020 0 493.75 101-08-4376-0500 IntelesysOne City Council Meeting Setup 5/29/20- COVID-1906/19/2020 0 493.75 101-08-4376-0500 IntelesysOne City Council Meeting Setup 6/5/20- COVID-1906/19/2020 0 493.75
Vendor Subtotal for Department:08 1,481.25
101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Addendum NIB (Fire Dept Bay Door Replacement)-Publish06/19/2020 4/24 12394 659.88 101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Notice NIB (Fire Bay Door Replacemnt) Publish06/19/2020 4/24 & 5/1/20 12394 1,583.22 101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Notice Inviting Bids (Project No.19-9273) Publish06/19/2020 4/30 & 5/7/20 12394 1,562.16 101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Additional Publish 5/1/20- Fire Addendum Fire06/19/2020 Bay Doors 12394 3.72 101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Notice (N20-07) Publish 4/30/20 06/19/2020 12394 449.28 101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Notice (NIB Fire Bay Door Replacement) Publsih06/19/2020 5/14 & 5/21/20 12394 1,183.08 101-09-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Notice (NIB Street Light Replacement) Publish06/19/2020 5/14 & 5/21/20 12394 1,183.08
Vendor Subtotal for Department:09 6,624.42
101-09-4376-0000 Office Depot Paper 06/19/2020 12393 87.58
Vendor Subtotal for Department:09 87.58
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 5
1-8 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-10-4001-0000 Courtney Martin Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12434 51.35
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 51.35
101-10-4001-0000 Amy Todd Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12445 17.25
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 17.25
101-10-4106-3415 Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP Legal Service April 2020 06/05/2020 0 314.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 314.50
101-10-4106-3415 Filarsky & Watt LLP Legal Service 4/28/20-5/13/20 06/19/2020 0 2,302.70
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 2,302.70
101-10-4150-0000 Holman Professional Counseling CentersEmployee Assistance Program June 2020 06/05/2020 0 541.68
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 541.68
101-10-4150-0000 USI Insurance Service National, Inc Group Benefit Installment 12 06/05/2020 12359 1,250.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 1,250.00
101-10-4436-0000 CCAC Job Posting - City Clerk Position 06/19/2020 12379 200.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 200.00
101-10-4436-0000 Jobs Available Job Ad- City Clerk 06/19/2020 12388 429.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 429.00
101-11-4001-0000 Lisa Carlson Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12416 32.46
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 6
1-9 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 32.46
101-11-4150-0000 CB Merchant Services Collection Agency - Quarterly Membership Dues06/19/2020 12378 37.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 37.50
101-11-4150-0000 IntelesysOne Fractional CIO Role June 2020 06/05/2020 0 2,250.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 2,250.00
101-11-4150-0000 Revenue & Cost Specialists LLC Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study Payment06/19/2020 3 of 4 12395 6,750.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 6,750.00
101-11-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020 -City Hall 2nd Floor 06/05/2020 12328 253.36
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 253.36
101-11-4316-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Copier Contract Usage 3/15/20-6/14/20 06/19/2020 0 797.30
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 797.30
101-11-4316-0000 GreatAmerica Financial Services Postage Machine Lease 06/05/2020 12339 191.65
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 191.65
101-11-4500-1980 Southern California Edison Electrical Service April-May 2020- City Hall 06/05/2020 12350 4,090.34
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 4,090.34
101-11-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-City Hall 06/05/2020 12354 65.45
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 65.45
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 7
1-10 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-11-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service April-May 2020- City Hall 06/05/2020 12322 130.89 101-11-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service May-June 2020- City Hall 06/19/2020 12375 1,351.33
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 1,482.22
101-11-4500-9025 AT&T Internet City Hall Compound May 2020- City Hall06/05/2020 2nd Floor 12323 125.48
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 125.48
101-11-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Service 5/14/20-6/13/20 -City Hall 06/05/2020 12355 11.11 101-11-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Internet Service 6/6/20-7/5/20 06/19/2020 12399 264.99
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 276.10
101-11-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020- City Hall 06/05/2020 12327 74.05
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 74.05
101-14-3106-0000 Bin Qin Refund- Tree Permit (City Confirmed Dead Tree)06/05/2020 12320 245.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 245.00
101-14-4010-0000 Delta Dental of California Premium Adjustment June 2020 06/05/2020 12332 101.48
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 101.48
101-14-4010-0000 Humana Insurance Co Adjustment Premium June 2020 06/05/2020 12340 2.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 2.00
101-14-4104-6270 The Code Group Inc Fire Plan Check Service 3/29/20-5/2/20 06/05/2020 0 550.00 101-14-4104-6270 The Code Group Inc Plan Check Service 3/29/20-5/2/20 06/05/2020 0 6,697.50
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 8
1-11 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-14-4104-6270 The Code Group Inc Fire Inspections Service 3/29/20-5/2/20 06/05/2020 0 2,202.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 9,449.50
101-14-4150-0000 Richard Caldwell Tree Rebate Program - 907 Roxbury Rd 06/19/2020 12370 350.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 350.00
101-14-4150-0000 Tim Yoo Tree Rebate Program- 1860 Carlisle Dr 06/19/2020 12371 50.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 50.00
101-14-4150-0000 Nick Stonnington Tree Rebate Program-865 Orlando Rd 06/19/2020 12372 250.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 250.00
101-14-4150-0000 Hunt Design Associates Inc Design Right Away Signs (Economic Development06/19/2020 Initiative) 0 825.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 825.00
101-14-4202-0000 LC - M News Inc Notice #N-20-12 Publish Date 5/14/20 06/05/2020 12348 1,123.20
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 1,123.20
101-14-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020-1st Floor City Hall 06/05/2020 12328 128.45
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 128.45
101-14-4316-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Copier Contract Base Rate 6/14/20-7/13/20 06/19/2020 0 44.22
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 44.22
101-14-4376-0000 Office Depot Supplies 06/05/2020 12347 76.55 101-14-4376-0000 Office Depot Paper & Forks 06/19/2020 12393 59.59
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 9
1-12 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 136.14
101-14-4398-0000 Peter Flores Mileage Inspection-5/18, 5/19 & 6/5/20 06/19/2020 0 26.45
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 26.45
101-14-4468-0000 Marlon Cervantes Tuition Reimbursement - FY 2020 06/19/2020 0 2,500.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 2,500.00
101-14-4500-9025 AT&T Internet City Hall Compound May 2020- City Hall06/05/2020 1st Floor 12323 124.94
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 124.94
101-14-4500-9025 Verizon Wireless IPad Data Service 4/24/20-5/23/20- Building Inspector06/19/2020 12405 76.02
Vendor Subtotal for Department:14 76.02
101-36-4150-0000 Top Town Tire LLC Repair Old Engine #1 06/19/2020 12401 5,440.96
Vendor Subtotal for Department:36 5,440.96
101-36-4376-0000 Magnatag Inc EOC Board 06/05/2020 12344 3,643.81
Vendor Subtotal for Department:36 3,643.81
101-36-4399-0000 IntelesysOne Three EOC Laptops 06/19/2020 0 6,899.18
Vendor Subtotal for Department:36 6,899.18
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 10
1-13 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-36-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service April-May 2020- EOC 06/05/2020 12322 275.01
Vendor Subtotal for Department:36 275.01
101-36-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Service 5/8/20-6/7/20 -EOC 06/05/2020 12355 78.51
Vendor Subtotal for Department:36 78.51
101-40-4001-0000 Julio Donayre Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12422 8.11
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 8.11
101-40-4001-0000 Dana Hang Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12428 195.24
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 195.24
101-40-4104-0000 Management Partners Fleet Utilization Study- Report Results & Support06/19/2020 Implemenation 12390 3,300.00 0000000882
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 3,300.00
101-40-4104-0000 Transtech Engineers, Inc Master Traffic Engineering Service 06/05/2020 12357 2,127.00 101-40-4104-0000 Transtech Engineers, Inc Traffic Survey Speed Radar Study 06/05/2020 12357 3,572.50 101-40-4104-0000 Transtech Engineers, Inc Traffic Engineering Review Alley On Misson 06/19/2020 12402 4,500.00 101-40-4104-0000 Transtech Engineers, Inc Traffic Engineering-Sierra Madre Review of Mirrors06/19/2020 12402 215.00 101-40-4104-0000 Transtech Engineers, Inc Traffic Engineering-Master Service 06/19/2020 12402 1,438.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 11,852.50
101-40-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 105.37 101-40-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 22.23 101-40-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 22.23 101-40-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Uniform Cleaning Service 06/19/2020 0 105.38 101-40-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/19/2020 0 22.23 101-40-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/19/2020 0 105.37
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 11
1-14 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 382.81
101-40-4150-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020-PW 06/05/2020 12328 322.99
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 322.99
101-40-4376-0000 DS Service of America , Inc Drinking Water Service -PW 06/19/2020 12397 33.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 33.00
101-40-4492-0003 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 40.12 101-40-4492-0003 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 36.53 101-40-4492-0003 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 36.63 101-40-4492-0003 AmeriPride Services Inc Uniform Cleaning Service 06/19/2020 0 40.12 101-40-4492-0003 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/19/2020 0 36.53 101-40-4492-0003 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/19/2020 0 46.72
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 236.65
101-40-4492-0004 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 39.72 101-40-4492-0004 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 86.05 101-40-4492-0004 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/05/2020 0 39.82 101-40-4492-0004 AmeriPride Services Inc Uniform Cleaning Service 06/19/2020 0 86.04 101-40-4492-0004 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/19/2020 0 39.82 101-40-4492-0004 AmeriPride Services Inc Cleaning Uniform Service 06/19/2020 0 86.20
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 377.65
101-40-4500-9025 AT&T Internet City Hall Compound May 2020- PW Dept06/05/2020 12323 79.24
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 79.24
101-40-4500-9025 Verizon Wireless IPad Data Service 4/24/20-5/23/20- Urban Forester06/19/2020 12405 38.01
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 12
1-15 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:40 38.01
101-42-4001-0000 Daniel Bolton Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12412 89.20
Vendor Subtotal for Department:42 89.20
101-42-4001-0000 Robert Hancock Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12427 39.41
Vendor Subtotal for Department:42 39.41
101-42-4001-0000 Gene Metcalf Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12469 660.57
Vendor Subtotal for Department:42 660.57
101-44-4104-0000 John L Hunter NPDES Stormwater Consulting March 2020 06/05/2020 12341 1,105.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:44 1,105.00
101-44-4150-9020 Athens Services Street Sweeping May2020 06/19/2020 12374 7,209.26
Vendor Subtotal for Department:44 7,209.26
101-48-4001-0000 Jose Castaneda Jr Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12417 119.69
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 119.69
101-48-4001-0000 Benny Macias Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12432 28.02
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 28.02
101-48-4001-0000 Daniel Mendez Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12435 671.10
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 671.10
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 13
1-16 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-48-4001-0000 Orosco James Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12436 4.62
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 4.62
101-48-4001-0000 Luis Rivas Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12440 212.85
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 212.85
101-48-4150-0000 L.A. Co. Dept of Public Works Signal Maintenance April 2020 06/05/2020 12342 248.96
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 248.96
101-48-4150-0000 Siemens Industry Inc Signal Call Outs April 2020 06/05/2020 0 1,762.60 101-48-4150-0000 Siemens Industry Inc Signal Maintenance April 2020 06/05/2020 0 763.12
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 2,525.72
101-48-4376-0000 Crafco Inc Asphalt Cold Patch 06/19/2020 0 614.18
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 614.18
101-48-4376-0000 Ganahl Lumber Company Supplies 06/05/2020 12338 57.33 101-48-4376-0000 Ganahl Lumber Company Fuses 06/19/2020 12386 7.70 101-48-4376-0000 Ganahl Lumber Company Door Holder 06/19/2020 12386 22.59 101-48-4376-0000 Ganahl Lumber Company Supplies 06/19/2020 12386 15.15
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 102.77
101-48-4376-0000 Traffic Management Incorporated 3 Street Community Message Board Rentals 06/05/2020 0 4,365.00 101-48-4376-0000 Traffic Management Incorporated Street Stencils 06/19/2020 0 607.71
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 4,972.71
101-48-4376-0000 Underground Service Alert/SC Dig Alerts Ticket CA State Fee June 2020 06/19/2020 0 38.47 101-48-4376-0000 Underground Service Alert/SC Dig Alerts Ticket June 2020 06/19/2020 0 153.55
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 14
1-17 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 192.02
101-48-4500-1980 Southern California Edison Electrical Service April-May 2020-Streets 06/05/2020 12350 791.40 101-48-4500-1980 Southern California Edison Electrical Service April-May 2020- Streets 06/19/2020 12396 6,219.36
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 7,010.76
101-48-4500-9025 Verizon Wireless IPad Data Service 4/24/20-5/23/20- Street Foreman06/19/2020 & PW Manager 12405 76.02
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 76.02
101-50-4001-0000 Tony Alvarado Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12462 2.85
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 2.85
101-50-4001-0000 Joshue Dennis Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12465 2.63
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 2.63
101-50-4001-0000 John Santillan Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12442 158.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 158.00
101-50-4010-0000 Delta Dental of California Premium Adjustment June 2020 06/05/2020 12332 50.74
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 50.74
101-50-4010-0000 Samuel Estrada Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12423 522.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 522.00
101-50-4010-0000 Humana Insurance Co Adjustment Premium June 2020 06/05/2020 12340 47.00
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 15
1-18 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 47.00
101-50-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service- Pruned & Removed Fruit -Various06/19/2020 Palms Trees 5/11 0 4,650.00 101-50-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service- Pruned Trees Lacy Park 5/4 & 5/5/2006/19/2020 0 7,000.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 11,650.00
101-50-4376-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Gas Cans 06/05/2020 0 190.42
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 190.42
101-50-4376-0000 DS Service of America , Inc Drinking Water Service Park Office 06/19/2020 12397 32.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 32.00
101-50-4404-0000 Norman's Nursery Inc Trees 06/05/2020 12345 294.87
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 294.87
101-50-4404-0000 San Gabriel Nursery & Florist Roses 06/05/2020 12352 788.05 101-50-4404-0000 San Gabriel Nursery & Florist Floral 06/05/2020 12352 118.02 101-50-4404-0000 San Gabriel Nursery & Florist Roses 06/05/2020 12352 944.37 101-50-4404-0000 San Gabriel Nursery & Florist Roses 06/05/2020 12352 788.05
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 2,638.49
101-50-4452-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Edger Blade & Apron Chaps-40'/Six Layer 06/19/2020 0 133.03
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 133.03
101-50-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-Lacy Park 06/05/2020 12354 30.68
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 16
1-19 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 30.68
101-50-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service May-June 2020-Park Office 06/19/2020 12375 20.89
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 20.89
101-50-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Internet Service 5/25/20-6/24/20 06/19/2020 12399 89.95
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 89.95
101-50-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020- Lacy Park 06/05/2020 12327 915.27 101-50-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020-Lacy Park 06/19/2020 12377 3,826.94
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 4,742.21
101-50-4508-0000 Hose-Man Inc Pressure Washer 06/19/2020 12387 263.92
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 263.92
101-52-4001-0000 Larry Burrola Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12413 79.32
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 79.32
101-52-4001-0000 Gino Furiani Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12424 7.17
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 7.17
101-52-4001-0000 Gonzalo Rivas Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12439 984.01
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 984.01
101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc 17 Trees Planted 4/20,4/24/& 4/29/20 06/05/2020 0 3,060.00
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 17
1-20 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service - Watered Recently Planted Trees 06/19/20205/21/20 0 470.00 101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service -Pruned Oak Tree 5/20/20 06/19/2020 0 1,000.00 101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service - Watered Recently Planted Trees 06/19/20205/6/20 0 170.00 101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service - Watered Recently Planted Trees 06/19/20205/13/20 0 170.00 101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service - Planting of 30 Trees 5/18/20 & 5/19/2006/19/2020 0 4,800.00 101-52-4150-0000 Mariposa Tree Management Inc Tree Service- Pruned & Removed Fruit-Various06/19/2020 Palms Trees 5/11 0 350.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 10,020.00
101-52-4316-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Engine Blower Backpack 06/05/2020 0 399.85
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 399.85
101-52-4376-0000 JHM Supply Fuses 06/19/2020 0 28.82
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 28.82
101-52-4404-0000 Norman's Nursery Inc Trees 06/05/2020 12345 787.21
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 787.21
101-52-4500-9025 Verizon Wireless IPad Data Service 4/24/20-5/23/20- Park Foreman06/19/2020 12405 38.01
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 38.01
101-52-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020- Grounds 06/05/2020 12327 1,407.07 101-52-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020-Grounds 06/19/2020 12377 6,320.55
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 7,727.62
101-52-4500-9460 City of Alhambra Utilities Dept Water Service March-May 2020- Grounds 06/19/2020 12380 131.35
Vendor Subtotal for Department:52 131.35
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 18
1-21 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-53-4150-0000 Roger L Mendell AC Maintenance - City Hall 06/19/2020 0 206.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:53 206.00
101-53-4150-0000 Dynamic Building Maintenance Janitorial Service May 2020 06/05/2020 0 6,866.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:53 6,866.00
101-53-4150-0000 Total Exterminating Inc Extermination-Monthly Service -SMC 06/19/2020 0 125.00 101-53-4150-0000 Total Exterminating Inc Extermination-Monthly Service-Library 06/19/2020 0 125.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:53 250.00
101-53-4206-0000 Plumbing Wholesale Outlet Water Filter- PD Ice Machine 06/19/2020 0 86.72 101-53-4206-0000 Plumbing Wholesale Outlet Flush Valve - PD Restroom 06/19/2020 0 156.48
Vendor Subtotal for Department:53 243.20
101-53-4206-0000 Vortex Industries Inc Repair City Hall Gate Key Pad 06/19/2020 12406 2,129.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:53 2,129.59
101-53-4376-0000 Veritiv Operating Company Bleach 06/05/2020 0 28.34
Vendor Subtotal for Department:53 28.34
101-60-4001-0000 Victoria Marshall Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12433 55.91
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 55.91
101-60-4001-0000 Alisa Yingling Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12452 50.13
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 50.13
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 19
1-22 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-60-4150-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Copier Contract Usage 3/1/20-5/31/20 06/19/2020 0 380.01
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 380.01
101-60-4150-0000 SCMAF-San Gabriel Valley Contract Class Insurance 3/19/19-6/19/19 06/05/2020 0 989.90 101-60-4150-0000 SCMAF-San Gabriel Valley Contract Class Insurance 1/13/20-3/7/20 06/05/2020 0 997.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 1,987.40
101-60-4150-0000 DS Service of America , Inc Drinking Water Service-Stoneman 06/19/2020 12397 74.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 74.00
101-60-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020 -Stoneman 06/05/2020 12328 134.53
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 134.53
101-60-4324-0000 Southwest Mobile Storage Inc Stoneman Storage Bins 5/12/20-6/8/20 06/05/2020 0 177.39
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 177.39
101-60-4376-0000 Office Depot Staples 06/19/2020 12393 12.36 101-60-4376-0000 Office Depot Paper & Office Supplies 06/19/2020 12393 573.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 585.95
101-60-4420-0000 LC - M News Inc Recreation Ad San Marino Tribune 06/05/2020 12348 270.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 270.00
101-60-4420-0000 Prographics Inc Envelopes 06/05/2020 12349 189.73
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 20
1-23 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 189.73
101-60-4500-1980 Southern California Edison Electrical Service April-May 2020- Stoneman 06/19/2020 12396 882.99
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 882.99
101-60-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-Stoneman 06/05/2020 12354 15.02
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 15.02
101-60-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service May-June 2020- Recreation 06/19/2020 12375 121.73
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 121.73
101-60-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Internet Fiber Service 5/1/20-5/31/20 -Stoneman06/05/2020 12355 350.00 101-60-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Internet Cable Service 5/1/20-5/31/20 -Stoneman06/05/2020 12355 314.98 101-60-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Fiber Service 6/1/20-6/30/20 06/19/2020 12399 355.00 101-60-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Internet Service 6/1/20-6/30/20 06/19/2020 12399 319.70
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 1,339.68
101-60-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020-Stoneman 06/19/2020 12377 344.72
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 344.72
101-60-4508-0000 Voyager Fleet Systems Inc Fuel 4/25/20-5/24/20 06/19/2020 12407 164.31 101-60-4508-0000 Voyager Fleet Systems Inc Exempted Taxes 4/25/20-5/24/20 06/19/2020 12407 -10.84
Vendor Subtotal for Department:60 153.47
101-62-4001-0000 Alisa Yingling Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12452 18.57
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 21
1-24 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:62 18.57
101-62-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service May-June 2020- Pool Office 06/19/2020 12375 19.23
Vendor Subtotal for Department:62 19.23
101-64-4001-0000 Alisa Yingling Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12452 27.85 101-64-4001-0000 Alisa Yingling Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12452 33.42
Vendor Subtotal for Department:64 61.27
101-66-4001-0000 Victoria Marshall Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12433 9.32
Vendor Subtotal for Department:66 9.32
101-70-4001-0000 Victoria Marshall Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12433 37.27
Vendor Subtotal for Department:70 37.27
101-72-4001-0000 Victoria Marshall Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12433 9.31
Vendor Subtotal for Department:72 9.31
101-72-4001-0000 Alisa Yingling Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12452 18.57
Vendor Subtotal for Department:72 18.57
101-74-4001-0000 Alisa Yingling Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12452 37.14
Vendor Subtotal for Department:74 37.14
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 22
1-25 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-90-4150-0500 Califa Group CENIC Broadband Jan-Mar 2020 06/05/2020 12325 5,266.72 101-90-4150-0500 Califa Group CENIC Broadband April-June 2020 06/05/2020 12325 5,275.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 10,541.72
101-90-4150-0500 OCLC Inc World Share Library Inter Loan Subscription May06/05/2020 2020 12346 96.88 101-90-4150-0500 OCLC Inc Monthly Cataloging Subscription May 2020 06/05/2020 12346 98.77 101-90-4150-0500 OCLC Inc World Share Library Inter Loan - June 2020 06/19/2020 12392 96.88 101-90-4150-0500 OCLC Inc Monthly Cataloging June 2020 06/19/2020 12392 98.77
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 391.30
101-90-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020 -Library 06/05/2020 12328 211.33 101-90-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020 -Library 06/05/2020 12328 190.48
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 401.81
101-90-4316-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Copier Contract Usage 2/14/20-5/13/20 06/19/2020 0 208.80
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 208.80
101-90-4376-0000 Office Depot Paper and Office Supplies 06/19/2020 12393 222.45 101-90-4376-0000 Office Depot Office Supplies 06/19/2020 12393 230.61 101-90-4376-0000 Office Depot Paper Clips 06/19/2020 12393 54.70
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 507.76
101-90-4396-0000 California Library Association Membership-J.Plumley 06/19/2020 12381 40.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 40.00
101-90-4500-1980 Southern California Edison Electrical Service April-May 2020-Library 06/05/2020 12350 5,179.31
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 23
1-26 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 5,179.31
101-90-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-Library 06/05/2020 12354 122.39
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 122.39
101-90-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service April-May 2020-Library 06/05/2020 12322 97.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 97.59
101-90-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Internet Cable Service 5/2/20-6/1/20 -Library 06/05/2020 12355 138.99 101-90-4500-9025 Time Warner Cable Cable Internet Service 6/2/20-7/1/20 06/19/2020 12399 141.07
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 280.06
101-90-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020- Library 06/05/2020 12327 297.07 101-90-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020-Library 06/19/2020 12377 334.18
Vendor Subtotal for Department:90 631.25
101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 2,066.00 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 124.37 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 62.10 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/05/2020 0 204.88 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 35.19 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 42.45 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 460.05 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 646.75 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 36.41 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/05/2020 0 97.82 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/05/2020 0 213.95 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 489.86 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/19/2020 0 584.64 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/19/2020 0 213.40 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 33.47
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 24
1-27 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 67.40 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 188.40 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 121.23 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/19/2020 0 192.25 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 11.14 101-91-4370-0335 Ingram Library Services Materials 06/19/2020 0 1,396.57
Vendor Subtotal for Department:91 7,288.33
101-91-4370-0335 Senseio Bookstore Inc Chinese Magazine Subscription 6/20-5/21 06/05/2020 12351 3,027.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:91 3,027.00
101-92-4001-0000 Tera Torres Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12446 46.72
Vendor Subtotal for Department:92 46.72
101-93-4150-0000 Xinmu Qiu Chinese Cataloging Feb 2020 06/05/2020 0 1,150.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:93 1,150.00
Subtotal for Fund: 101 218,588.45
102-00-2010-0000 CA State Disbursement Unit PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Earnings Withholding05/29/2020 Order 0 822.19 102-00-2010-0000 CA State Disbursement Unit PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Earnings Withholding06/12/2020 Order 0 822.19
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,644.38
102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Life Insurance-After 05/01/2020Tax 0 902.49 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Critical Illness 05/01/2020 0 35.67 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Cancer Insurance-Before05/01/2020 Tax 0 178.10 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Cancer Insurance-After05/01/2020 Tax 0 81.30 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Disability STD-After05/01/2020 Tax 0 365.73 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Accident Insurance-After05/01/2020 Tax 0 105.24 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00701.05.2020 Accident Insurance-Before05/01/2020 Tax 0 263.10
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 25
1-28 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Disability STD-After05/15/2020 Tax 0 365.73 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Life Insurance-After 05/15/2020Tax 0 902.46 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Accident Insurance-Before05/15/2020 Tax 0 263.10 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Cancer Insurance-After05/15/2020 Tax 0 81.30 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Critical Illness 05/15/2020 0 35.67 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Cancer Insurance-Before05/15/2020 Tax 0 178.10 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Accident Insurance-After05/15/2020 Tax 0 105.24 102-00-2011-0000 American Fidelity Assurance Adjustment Premium June 2020 06/05/2020 0 304.07
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 4,167.30
102-00-2012-3080 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Deferred Comp-City 05/29/2020Manager 0 76.93 102-00-2012-3080 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Deferred Comp-4% City05/29/2020 Manager 0 314.91 102-00-2012-3080 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Deferred Comp-City 06/12/2020Manager 0 76.93 102-00-2012-3080 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Deferred Comp-4% City06/12/2020 Manager 0 314.91
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 783.68
102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Deferred Comp-Loan05/29/2020 Payback 0 595.31 102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Deferred Comp-Loan05/29/2020 Payback 0 1,134.13 102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Deferred Comp-Loan05/29/2020 Payback 0 30.96 102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Deferred Comp-Loan06/12/2020 Payback 0 30.96 102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Deferred Comp 06/12/2020 0 9,643.57 102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Deferred Comp-Loan06/12/2020 Payback 0 1,134.13 102-00-2012-3190 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Deferred Comp-Loan06/12/2020 Payback 0 595.31
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 13,164.37
102-00-2012-6050 U.S. Bank PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PARS Employer Portion06/12/2020 0 392.99 102-00-2012-6050 U.S. Bank PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PARS Employee Portion06/12/2020 0 392.99 102-00-2012-6050 U.S. Bank PR Batch 00702.06.2020 PARS Employee Portion06/26/2020 0 394.45 102-00-2012-6050 U.S. Bank PR Batch 00702.06.2020 PARS Employer Portion06/26/2020 0 394.45
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,574.88
102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00518.05.2020 PERS Employer Share05/27/2020 0 142.76
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 26
1-29 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00518.05.2020 PERS Employee Paid05/27/2020 (Full Time) 0 115.29 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00518.05.2020 PERS Survivor Benefit05/27/2020 0 0.93 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00703.05.2020 PERS Employee Paid05/29/2020 (Part-Time) 0 486.14 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00703.05.2020 PERS Survivor-4th Level05/29/2020 0 0.32 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00703.05.2020 PERS Employee Paid05/29/2020 (dont use) 0 448.36 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00703.05.2020 PERS Employee Paid05/29/2020 (Full Time) 0 30,099.64 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00703.05.2020 PERS Survivor Benefit05/29/2020 0 99.51 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00703.05.2020 PERS Employer Share05/29/2020 0 53,377.78 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PERS Employer Share06/12/2020 0 58,972.78 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PERS Employee Paid06/12/2020 (Part-Time) 0 454.34 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PERS Employee Paid06/12/2020 (Full Time) 0 32,778.17 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PERS Survivor-4th Level06/12/2020 0 0.32 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PERS Survivor Benefit06/12/2020 0 100.44 102-00-2012-6160 PERS PR Batch 00701.06.2020 PERS Employee Paid06/12/2020 (dont use) 0 531.97
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 177,608.75
102-00-2012-7030 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00703.05.2020 Retirement Health Savings05/29/2020 Plan 0 3,626.16 102-00-2012-7030 TIAA-Cref Financial Services PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Retirement Health Savings06/12/2020 Plan 0 3,626.16
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 7,252.32
102-00-2014-0000 Humana Insurance Co PR Batch 00702.05.2020 ER Paid Life Insurance05/15/2020 12340 1,075.30
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,075.30
102-00-2015-0000 CA Law Enforcement Assn PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Police Dept LTD/12505/15/2020 Plan 12324 355.25
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 355.25
102-00-2020-0000 Delta Dental of California PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Dent Ins/125 Plan/PPO05/15/2020 12332 5,107.62 102-00-2020-0000 Delta Dental of California Premium Adjustment June 2020 06/05/2020 12332 1,018.46
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 6,126.08
102-00-2020-0000 Delta Dental Insurance Company PR Batch 00702.05.2020 Dent Ins/125 Plan/HMO05/15/2020 12333 642.54
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 27
1-30 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
102-00-2020-0000 Delta Dental Insurance Company Premium Adjustment June 2020 06/05/2020 12333 44.12
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 686.66
102-00-2024-2530 San Marino Firefighters Assn PR Batch 00701.06.2020 Firefighter Dues 06/12/2020 0 813.84 102-00-2024-2530 San Marino Firefighters Assn PR Batch 00702.06.2020 Firefighter Dues 06/26/2020 0 813.84
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,627.68
102-00-2024-2750 San Marino City Employees Assn PR Batch 00701.06.2020 San Marino City Employee06/12/2020 Assn 0 420.00 102-00-2024-2750 San Marino City Employees Assn PR Batch 00702.06.2020 San Marino City Employee06/26/2020 Assn 0 420.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 840.00
102-00-2024-2850 San Marino Supervisory Employee AssociationPR Batch 00701.06.2020 SM Supervisory Employees06/12/2020 Dues 0 150.00 102-00-2024-2850 San Marino Supervisory Employee AssociationPR Batch 00702.06.2020 SM Supervisory Employees06/26/2020 Dues 0 150.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 300.00
102-00-2024-6490 San Marino Police Officers Asn PR Batch 00701.06.2020 San Marino PD Assn06/12/2020 0 844.86 102-00-2024-6490 San Marino Police Officers Asn PR Batch 00702.06.2020 San Marino PD Assn06/26/2020 0 814.86
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 1,659.72
Subtotal for Fund: 102 218,866.37
103-30-3201-0000 Pasadena Humane Society Less License Credit May 2020 06/19/2020 0 -542.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 -542.50
103-30-3331-3550 Department of Justice Live Scan Fee May 2020 06/19/2020 12383 66.00 103-30-3331-3550 Department of Justice Live Scan Fee April 2020 06/19/2020 12383 145.00
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 28
1-31 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 211.00
103-30-4001-0000 Ana Alatorre-Rivera Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12408 362.12
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 362.12
103-30-4001-0000 Jeanette Alvarez Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12410 398.31
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 398.31
103-30-4001-0000 Frank Calistro Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12414 3,214.58
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 3,214.58
103-30-4001-0000 Robert Cervantes Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12418 199.47
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 199.47
103-30-4001-0000 Kevin Cordischi Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12464 503.93
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 503.93
103-30-4001-0000 Jose Corney Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12420 279.60
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 279.60
103-30-4001-0000 De Lira Eric Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12421 39.20
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 39.20
103-30-4001-0000 Patrice Garcia Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12425 69.48
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 69.48
103-30-4001-0000 Vanessa Golden Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12466 802.06
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 29
1-32 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 802.06
103-30-4001-0000 Danny Gutierrez Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12467 922.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 922.59
103-30-4001-0000 Nia Hernandez Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12429 301.21
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 301.21
103-30-4001-0000 Joseph Jacoy Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12430 516.03
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 516.03
103-30-4001-0000 William Liev Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12431 4,693.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 4,693.59
103-30-4001-0000 Robert Matthews Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12468 110.70
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 110.70
103-30-4001-0000 Sylvia Ramirez Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12437 1,100.81
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 1,100.81
103-30-4001-0000 Jason Richardson Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12438 627.25
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 627.25
103-30-4001-0000 Tyler Roach Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12441 721.34
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 721.34
103-30-4001-0000 Candice Torres Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12470 6,233.51
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 6,233.51
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 30
1-33 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
103-30-4001-0000 Vince Wilson Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12450 2,168.11
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 2,168.11
103-30-4001-0000 Brian Wong Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12451 944.71
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 944.71
103-30-4010-0000 CA Law Enforcement Assn LTD City Portion June 2020 06/05/2020 12324 355.25
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 355.25
103-30-4010-0000 Delta Dental Insurance Company Premium Adjustment June 2020 06/05/2020 12333 33.24
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 33.24
103-30-4150-0000 Dr. Detail P.H,D Wash Patrol Vehicles 4/15/20 & 4/27/20 06/05/2020 12334 960.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 960.00
103-30-4150-0000 Pasadena Humane Society Animal Control Service May 2020 06/19/2020 0 4,639.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 4,639.00
103-30-4150-0000 Phoenix Group Information Systems Citations Processing Service April 2020 06/05/2020 0 760.68
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 760.68
103-30-4150-0000 Superior Court of California County ofRevenue LA Distribution County Fees April 2020 06/05/2020 12353 597.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 597.50
103-30-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020-PD 06/05/2020 12328 155.82
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 31
1-34 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 155.82
103-30-4316-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Freight on Toner 06/05/2020 0 13.30 103-30-4316-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Copier Contract Base 6/8/20-7/7/20 06/19/2020 0 108.90
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 122.20
103-30-4316-0000 Foothill Communication LLC Radio Repair- Unit # 4 06/19/2020 12384 175.00 103-30-4316-0000 Foothill Communication LLC Dispatch Radio Repair 06/19/2020 12384 525.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 700.00
103-30-4376-0000 IntelesysOne Replacement Battery Cartridge for APC - PD 06/05/2020 0 88.02
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 88.02
103-30-4376-0000 DS Service of America , Inc Drinking Water Service-PD 06/19/2020 12397 93.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 93.00
103-30-4376-0000 Brian Wong Reimbursement - Tools & Connectors for Camera06/19/2020 System 0 32.69
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 32.69
103-30-4415-0000 National Training Concepts Training- Ofc.Wu 06/19/2020 12391 315.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 315.00
103-30-4420-0000 Prographics Inc Envelopes 06/05/2020 12349 616.73
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 616.73
103-30-4492-0003 Citi Card Keystone - Uniform Ofc. Mills 06/05/2020 12329 1,235.08
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 32
1-35 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
103-30-4492-0003 Citi Card National Emblem - Uniform Badges 06/05/2020 12329 1,247.82 103-30-4492-0003 Citi Card Midway- Tactical Helmet Bags 06/05/2020 12329 248.43
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 2,731.33
103-30-4492-0004 U.S. Armor Corporation Concealable Vest- Ofc. Mills 06/19/2020 12404 851.97
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 851.97
103-30-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-PD 06/05/2020 12354 24.09
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 24.09
103-30-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service April-May 2020-PD 06/05/2020 12322 155.04 103-30-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service May-June 2020- PD 06/19/2020 12375 394.47
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 549.51
103-30-4500-9025 AT&T Internet City Hall Compound May 2020- PD 06/05/2020 12323 290.03
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 290.03
103-30-4500-9025 AT&T Mobility Mobile Computer Service 4/24/20-5/23/20 06/19/2020 12376 193.75
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 193.75
103-34-4001-0000 Anthony Alvarado Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12409 10,262.31
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 10,262.31
103-34-4001-0000 Michael Batterson Reimbursement Taxes on Flores Liquidated Damages06/23/2020 7/1/17-9/28/19 12463 5,836.21
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 5,836.21
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 33
1-36 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
103-34-4001-0000 Sam Benites Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12411 11,699.14
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 11,699.14
103-34-4001-0000 Brian Campbell Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12415 8,516.90
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 8,516.90
103-34-4001-0000 Timothy Chow Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12419 1,165.65
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 1,165.65
103-34-4001-0000 Eric Gashi Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12426 11,247.71
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 11,247.71
103-34-4001-0000 Jason Sutliff Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12443 27,492.53
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 27,492.53
103-34-4001-0000 David Tannehill Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12444 3,305.69
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 3,305.69
103-34-4001-0000 Jeffrey Tsay Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12447 15,327.78
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 15,327.78
103-34-4001-0000 Michael White Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12448 7,941.35
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 7,941.35
103-34-4001-0000 Russell Wilcox Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12449 25,579.05
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 25,579.05
103-34-4010-0000 Delta Dental of California Premium Adjustment June 2020 06/05/2020 12332 152.22
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 34
1-37 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 152.22
103-34-4010-0000 H. Wilson Insurancenter Inc LTD City Portion June 2020 06/05/2020 0 330.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 330.00
103-34-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Towels & Mat Service 06/05/2020 0 140.24 103-34-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Towels & Mat Service 06/19/2020 0 139.73 103-34-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Towels & Mat Service 06/19/2020 0 100.32 103-34-4150-0000 AmeriPride Services Inc Towels & Mat Service 06/19/2020 0 102.32
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 482.61
103-34-4150-0000 UC Regents Nurse Eductor June 2020 06/19/2020 12403 2,344.60
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 2,344.60
103-34-4316-0000 Canon Financial Services Inc Copier Lease May 2020 -FD 06/05/2020 12328 124.84
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 124.84
103-34-4316-0000 CopyFree Technology Inc Copier Contract Base Rate 5/22/20-6/21/20 -FD06/05/2020 0 23.70
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 23.70
103-34-4316-0000 Turnout Maintenance Co LLC Cleaning Turnouts 06/05/2020 12358 261.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 261.50
103-34-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Ambulance Supplies 06/05/2020 12343 2,286.36 103-34-4376-0000 Life-Assist Inc Ambulance Supplies 06/19/2020 12389 133.28
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 2,419.64
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 35
1-38 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
103-34-4376-0000 Office Depot Paper 06/05/2020 12347 38.31 103-34-4376-0000 Office Depot Toner 06/05/2020 12347 111.74 103-34-4376-0000 Office Depot DVD Writer 06/19/2020 12393 37.22
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 187.27
103-34-4376-0000 233-Praxair Distribution Inc Oxygen 06/05/2020 0 51.24 103-34-4376-0000 233-Praxair Distribution Inc Oxygen 06/19/2020 0 51.24 103-34-4376-0000 233-Praxair Distribution Inc Oxygen 06/19/2020 0 287.29
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 389.77
103-34-4376-0000 DS Service of America , Inc Drinking Water Service -FD 06/19/2020 12397 16.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 16.00
103-34-4492-0004 Allstar Fire Equipment Inc Bunker Boots 06/19/2020 12373 380.36
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 380.36
103-34-4492-0004 Galls, LLC Install Patch to Garment 06/05/2020 12337 26.09 103-34-4492-0004 Galls, LLC Uniform- Chief Rueda 06/19/2020 12385 798.64
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 824.73
103-34-4492-0004 Tom's Uniforms Belt-R.Wilcox 06/19/2020 12400 21.90
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 21.90
103-34-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-FD 06/05/2020 12354 108.96
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 108.96
103-34-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service April-May 2020-FD 06/05/2020 12322 56.95 103-34-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service May-June 2020- FD 06/19/2020 12375 1,364.73
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 36
1-39 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 1,421.68
103-34-4500-9025 AT&T Internet City Hall Compound May 2020-FD 06/05/2020 12323 79.24
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 79.24
103-34-4500-9025 Verizon Wireless Mobile Computer Service 4/24/20-5/23/20- FD06/19/2020 12405 291.33
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 291.33
103-34-4508-0000 Garvey Equipment Company Chainsaw Motor Oil 06/19/2020 0 377.91
Vendor Subtotal for Department:34 377.91
Subtotal for Fund: 103 176,599.49
104-66-4420-0000 The Sauce Creative Service Corp 4th July Home Decorating Lawn Signs 06/19/2020 12398 2,552.95 104-66-4420-0000 The Sauce Creative Service Corp 4th July Home Decorating Mailer 06/19/2020 12398 2,034.50
Vendor Subtotal for Department:66 4,587.45
Subtotal for Fund: 104 4,587.45
105-82-4001-0000 Victoria Marshall Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12433 46.59
Vendor Subtotal for Department:82 46.59
105-82-4150-0000 DS Service of America , Inc Drinking Water Service -SMC 06/19/2020 12397 32.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:82 32.00
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 37
1-40 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
105-82-4500-1980 Southern California Edison Electrical Service April-May 2020- SMC 06/19/2020 12396 702.51
Vendor Subtotal for Department:82 702.51
105-82-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-SMC 06/05/2020 12354 40.24
Vendor Subtotal for Department:82 40.24
105-82-4500-9025 AT&T Phone Service April-May 2020-SMC 06/05/2020 12322 136.97
Vendor Subtotal for Department:82 136.97
105-82-4500-9460 California American Water Water Service April-May 2020-SMC 06/19/2020 12377 185.29
Vendor Subtotal for Department:82 185.29
Subtotal for Fund: 105 1,143.60
206-84-4001-0000 Victoria Marshall Flores Liquidated Damages 7/1/17-9/28/19 06/19/2020 12433 27.95
Vendor Subtotal for Department:84 27.95
206-84-4500-4950 The Gas Company Gas Service April-May 2020-Thurnher House 06/05/2020 12354 0.40
Vendor Subtotal for Department:84 0.40
Subtotal for Fund: 206 28.35
207-11-4208-1330 City of Pasadena Dial -A-Ride Jan- March 2020 06/19/2020 12382 2,728.69
Vendor Subtotal for Department:11 2,728.69
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 38
1-41 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Subtotal for Fund: 207 2,728.69
281-92-4370-0000 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 25.98 281-92-4370-0000 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 43.04 281-92-4370-0000 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 845.93 281-92-4370-0000 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 357.06
Vendor Subtotal for Department:92 1,272.01
281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 27.95 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 345.82 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 29.94 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 23.39 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books on Disc 06/05/2020 0 38.72 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/05/2020 0 17.45 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 541.89 281-92-4370-2575 Ingram Library Services Books 06/19/2020 0 19.67
Vendor Subtotal for Department:92 1,044.83
Subtotal for Fund: 281 2,316.84
394-46-4150-0001 Dudek Stormwater System Assessment Progress Payment06/05/2020 # 8 0 40,648.75
Vendor Subtotal for Department:46 40,648.75
394-48-4600-0500 Transtech Engineers, Inc Traffic Survey Speeding Sierra Madre Review 06/05/2020of Mirrors 12357 390.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 390.00
394-48-4600-9272 FS Contractors, Inc Retention for Sidewalk Replacement Project 202006/05/2020 12336 18,415.88
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 39
1-42 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Vendor Subtotal for Department:48 18,415.88
394-50-4600-7027 Cal- State Site Service Portable Restrooms 6/4/20-7/1/20 06/05/2020 12326 2,260.56
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 2,260.56
394-50-4600-7150 Courts Construction Company Inc Rose Arbor Progress Payment # 4 06/05/2020 12330 54,651.84
Vendor Subtotal for Department:50 54,651.84
Subtotal for Fund: 394 116,367.03
591-30-4613-0500 Adamson Police Products Defense Technology 40 mil Launcher 06/05/2020 12321 1,970.00 0000000904 591-30-4613-0500 Adamson Police Products Freight Fee 06/05/2020 12321 15.00 0000000904 591-30-4613-0500 Adamson Police Products Sales Tax 06/05/2020 12321 187.16 0000000904
Vendor Subtotal for Department:30 2,172.16
Subtotal for Fund: 591 2,172.16
595-10-4150-0000 AdminSure Inc Workers' Comp Claims Admin June 2020 06/05/2020 0 1,880.00
Vendor Subtotal for Department:10 1,880.00
Subtotal for Fund: 595 1,880.00
609-00-2002-0000 Metro Water Domestic Water April 2020 06/19/2020 0 194,105.39
Vendor Subtotal for Department:00 194,105.39
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 40
1-43 Account Number Vendor Description GL Date Check No Amount PO No
Subtotal for Fund: 609 194,105.39
Report Total: 939,383.82
AP-Transactions by Account (06/30/2020 - 6:14 AM) Page 41
1-44 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice-Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager BY: Annie Han, City Treasurer DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2020
BACKGROUND
The City of San Marino’s Investment Policy adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2020 Section 13.0, Reporting, stipulates that the Treasurer shall review and render monthly reports to the City Council of all cash and investments held by the City.
The report shall include the following information for all cash accounts and bank deposits:
• Balance at the end of the month
• Interest rate (for all interest-bearing active deposits)
The report shall include the following information for all investments:
• A listing of individual securities held at the end of the month, by security type
• Issuer, date of maturity, date of purchase, par and the dollar amount invested
• Coupon, discount or earnings rate
• Current market value as of the date of the report and the source of this same valuation
• The weighted average maturity and weighted average yield of all investments combined
The above information may be submitted in the form of copies of statements received by the custodial institution. For investments with LAIF, the most recent statement or statements received from the State Treasurer may be included in the monthly report in lieu of the information noted above.
2-1 The report shall include a listing of all investment transactions for the month (Government Code Section 53607), and must also include a statement of compliance of the portfolio to the statement of investment policy, or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance, as well as statement denoting the ability of the local agency to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or an explanation as to why sufficient money all or may not be available (Government Code Section 53646).
Reports shall be rendered to the City Council and City Manager within 30 days following the end of the month of the period covered by the report.
PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
The City maintains petty cash on City facilities, cash in bank, cash in a transactional investment account, deposits with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and investments in negotiable Certificates of Deposit, and investments in Federal Agency bonds. All items are detailed in the attachment to this report.
A summary of portfolio content is found below. The attachment to this report offers specific detail on each category of investment.
City of San Marino Cash and Investments Portfolio Summary Allocation
Petty Cash on City Premises $2,150 0% Cash in Bank-checking accounts 3,910,981 10% Cash in Bank-IMMA 7,772,246 20% Deposits with LAIF 22,175,369 58% Certificates of Deposit 3,969,000 10% Notes/Agency Bonds 500,000 2%
Cash and Investments $38,329,746
PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
As of 5/31/2020, the annual percentage yield earned on the bank IMMA is 1.77%. The effective yield for LAIF deposits is 1.363%. The average yield on CDs is 1.79%. The average yield on Agency bonds is 1.75%.
Total combined portfolio yield for May 2020 is 1.52%
2
2-2 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Total Cash and Investments Average Monthly Effective Yields
2019 2020 2019 2020
Jan 2.355 1.967 Jan $30,692,212 $34,904,352 Feb 2.392 1.912 Feb $31,144,497 $35,268,272 Mar 2.436 1.787 Mar $30,429,443 $33,331,529 Apr 2.445 1.648 Apr $34,853,089 $37,801,586 May 2.449 1.363 May $36,957,220 $38,329,746 Jun 2.428 Jun $36,039,778 Jul 2.379 Jul $31,291,450 Aug 2.341 Aug $30,409,792 Sep 2.280 Sep $28,620,632 Oct 2.190 Oct $28,003,137 Nov 2.103 Nov $26,933,290 Dec 2.043 Dec $33,389,986
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed and approved as to form.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this report be received and filed. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to receive and file the Cash and Investment Report for the Month of May 2020.”
ATTACHMENT
Treasurer’s Report as of May 31, 2020
3
2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 LAIF Date Type of Transaction Amount Notes 5/6/2020 Transfer to US Bank Account (200,000.00) Excess Cash Balance Transferred to Purchase HSBC Bank USA CD 5/20/2020 Transfer from East West Bank Money Market Account 3,000,000.00 Excess Cash Balance Invested with LAIF
East West Bank Money Market Account Date Type of Transaction Amount Notes 5/7/2020 Transfer to East West Bank Operating Account (300,000.00) To Cover Operating Expenses for Month of May 2020 5/20/2020 Transfer to East West Bank Operating Account (3,000,000.00) Excess Cash Balance Invested with LAIF
US Bank Date Type of Transaction Amount Notes 5/7/2020 HSBC Bank USA CD Was Purchased (248,000.00) 1.300% Interest 5/18/2020 Jonesboro State Bank CD Was Called 249,000.00 2.050% Interest 5/22/2020 BMW Bank North America CD Matured 248,000.00 1.950% Interest 5/28/2020 FHLMC Security Was Called 250,000.00 1.530% Interest
2-8 Weekly Call Report Certification Local Agency Security Program
Institution: East West Bank Weekly as of Date: 5/27/2020
Two authorized officers are required to executed the Weekly Call Report pursuant to CCR§16005.1.1(a).
The authorized signers of East West Bank each declares, for himself or herself alone and not for the other: I hereby verify that I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in the Weekly Call Report (as of 05/27/2020) submitted pursuant to GC§ 53663(b) and CCR§16005.4.2 to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained therein is true and correct.
5/28/20 5/28/20 Signature Date Signature Date
Angela Foo, FVP‐Treasury Manager Lily Li, VP‐Assistant Treasury Operation Manager Name and Title Name and Title
2-9 Weekly Call Report Local Agency Security Program California Department of Business Oversight
Institution Name: East West Bank CID #: 194
Mailing Address: 135 N Los Robles Ave, 8th Floor ; Pasadena, CA 91101
Weekly Report As of Date: 5/27/2020 Submission Date: 5/28/2020
Pool #1 (x110%) Pool #2 (x150%) Pool #3 (x105%) Total Total Deposits & Accrued Interest: $ - $ - $ 965,758,858.43 $ 965,758,858.43 Less: Deposits Subject to Waivers: $ - $ - $ 320,018,653.92 $ 320,018,653.92 Less: Interest: $ - $ - $ - $ - Less: Uncollected Funds: $ - $ - $ - $ - Less: CDAR Deposits: $ - $ - $ 33,725,867.07 $ 33,725,867.07 Less: Other (Specify on Line 17): $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Secured Deposits: $ - $ - $ 612,014,337.43 $ 612,014,337.43 Minimum Collateral Required: $ - $ - $ 642,615,054.30 $ 642,615,054.30
Agent of Depository: Bank of New York Mellon Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco
Market Value of Pledged Securities as of Weekly Report Date: $ - $ - $ 700,000,000.00 $ 700,000,000.00 Excess/Deficiency in Pledged Collateral: $ - $ - $ 57,384,945.70 $ 57,384,945.70
Description of Other Deposits:
Preparer Name: Alice Luo Preparer Phone #: 626-768-6482 Preparer Title: Treasury Analyst Preparer Email Address: [email protected]
Authorizer #1 Name: Angela Foo Authorizer #1 Title: FVP-Treasury Manager
Authorizer #2 Name: Lily Li Authorizer #2 Title: VP-Assistant Treasury Operation Manager
2-10 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Amanda Merlo, Acting City Clerk
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents • Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
BACKGROUND
The City Council of the City of San Marino, at a Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, April 9, 2014, approved the action minute format for City Council and all advisory board meetings.
DISCUSSION
Attached for Council consideration are the following City Council minutes:
1. Special meeting of May 13, 2020; 2. Special meeting of May 29, 2020; 3. Special meeting of June 5, 2020; 4. Special meeting of June 10, 2020 (closed session); 5. Special meeting of June 10, 2020; 6. Special meeting of June 26, 2020.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
None.
3-1 LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the staff report as to legal form.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 13, 2020, special meeting of May 29, 2020, special meeting of June 5, 2020, special meeting of June 10, 2020 (closed session), special meeting of June 10, 2020, and special meeting of June 26, 2020. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 13, 2020, special meeting of May 29, 2020, special meeting of June 5, 2020, special closed session meeting of June 10, 2020, special meeting of June 10, 2020, and special meeting of June 26, 2020.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Special meeting of May 13, 2020; 2. Special meeting of May 29, 2020; 3. Special meeting of June 5, 2020; 4. Special meeting of June 10, 2020 (closed session); 5. Special meeting of June 10, 2020; 6. Special meeting of June 26, 2020.
2
3-2 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M. SAN MARINO CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd Romey called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Shepherd Romey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: Michelle Gastelum, Pasadena
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Marcella Marlowe shared items of interest with the City Council and community.
MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READINGS
Council Member Jakubowski moved, seconded by Council Member Huang, to waive the reading of the entire text of the ordinances or resolutions.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
CONSENT
City Manager Marlowe announced that Items 3, 10, and 11 were being pulled from tonight’s agenda.
Senior Counsel Carol Lynch announced the results of the closed session as follows:
With respect to item 1, which was existing litigation in the case of Zhenya He vs. City of
3-3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 9
San Marino, City Council of the City of San Marino, Mayor Shepherd Romey and Council Member Jakubowski recused themselves from the discussion. Discussion occurred among Vice Mayor Ude and Councilmembers Huang and Talt, and no reportable action was taken.
With respect to item 2, which was discussion of anticipated litigation, discussion occurred and no reportable action was taken.
Senior Counsel Lynch also read the title of Item 12, An Amendment To Urgency Ordinance No. O-20-1363-U, Extending Certain Planning And Building Entitlements And Relaxing Certain Zoning Standards Related To Commercial Signs And Uses And Declaring The Urgency Thereof In Response To COVID-19.
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Council Member Huang, to approve the remaining consent calendar items.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
1. RECEIVE AND FILE THE DISBURSEMENTS REPORT FOR APRIL 2020 (FINANCE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council received and filed the monthly Disbursements Report for the month of April 2020.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE THE CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2020 (CITY TREASURER)
The City Council received and filed the investment report for the month of March 2020.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (CITY CLERK)
This item was pulled from the agenda.
4. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD FOR A JAIL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council approved the Pasadena Police Department Jail Section Agreement for Inmate Booking and Housing in the Pasadena City Jail Facility between the City of Pasadena and City of San Marino.
3-4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 9
5. UPDATE ON CITY RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT)
The City Council received and filed the May 13, 2020 report on the City’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
6. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM A RESIDENT FOR THE SAN MARINO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAN MARINO FIRE DEPARTMENT (FINANCE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council accepted and appropriated $10,000 of the donated funds to the San Marino Police Department to Account 281-30-3601-0000 (Police Donations Received) and $10,000 of the donated funds to the San Marino Fire Department to Account 281-34-3601-0000 (Fire Donation Received).
7. APPROVAL FOR THE APPROPRIATION FROM THE COPS FUND RESERVE OF $12,737.48 TO PURCHASE SIX TABLETS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council approved the appropriation of $12,800 in FY 2019-20 from COPS Grant Fund reserves to account 233-00-2550-0000 (Unreserved Fund Balance).
8. APPROVAL OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024 (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
The City Council adopted Resolution No. R-20-14 authorizing the City Manager to execute and enter into a Cooperation Agreement between the Los Angeles County Development Authority and the City of San Marino for participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024.
9. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SAN MARINO 2020 INVESTMENT POLICY (FINANCE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council adopted Resolution No. R-20-15, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Marino, California adopting the 2020 Investment Policy.
10. SUPPORT OF METRO NEXTGEN TRANSIT PLAN ELIMINATION OF TWO BUS ROUTES THROUGH SAN MARINO (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
This item was pulled from the agenda.
3-5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 9
11. APPROVAL OF THREE-PARTY TENDER AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL FINAL RELEASE AS TO THE SURETY AND OBLIGEE FOR THE LACY PARK RESTROOM REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / CITY ATTORNEY)
This item was pulled from the agenda.
12. ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO URGENCY ORDINANCE NO O-20-1363-U EXTENDING CERTAIN PLANNING & BUILDING ENTITLEMENTS AND RELAXING CERTAIN ZONING STANDARDS RELATED TO COMMERCIAL SIGNS AND USES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF IN RESPONSE TO COVID- 19 (CITY ATTORNEY)
The City Council read by title only, waived further reading, and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. O-20-1364-U, an amendment to Urgency Ordinance No. O-20- 1363-U of the City of San Marino extending certain Planning and Building entitlements for 90 days and the relaxing of certain zoning standards related to the commercial signs and uses and declaring the urgency thereof.
13. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR ANIMAL CARE/CONTROL SERVICES (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement approved by the City Attorney with Pasadena Humane Society for animal care/control services.
14. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO FOR LABOR RELATIONS LEGAL SERVICES (HUMAN RESOURCES)
The City Council approved the agreement for Special Legal Services for Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo to provide labor relations legal support services for the City of San Marino, authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement, and appropriated $45,000 from account number 101-10-4106-3415 Contract Legal Services - Labor from the General Fund Reserves.
15. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR POLICE TOW SERVICES WITH NAVARRO’S TOWING (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a two-year exclusive police tow service agreement with Navarro’s Towing with an option to extend one (1) additional year.
3-6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 5 OF 9
PUBLIC HEARING
16. APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 - 1400 CIRCLE DR., (MI/JAMES V. COANE & ASSOCIATES) (PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT)
Mayor Shepherd Romey stated that she spoke against the project when it came before the Planning Commission and recused herself pursuant to Government Code §18700.
Council Member Jakubowski stated that she was a Planning Commissioner at the time this project originally came before the Planning Commission and recused herself pursuant to Government Code §18700.
Planning and Building Director Cervantes and Senior Counsel Lynch presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Ude acknowledged that the public hearing had been opened prior to the staff report being presented.
The following person(s) spoke: Richard McDonald, James Coane, and Kasey Conley – Applicant Liz and Steve Gleason - Appellant Saul Roe, San Marino Shirley Jagels, San Marino
Vice Mayor Ude closed the public hearing.
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Council Member Huang, to reopen the public hearing and continue the matter to June 10.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Talt, and Vice Mayor Ude NOES: None ABSTAIN: Council Member Jakubowski (recused), Mayor Shepherd Romey (recused) ABSENT: None
The Vice Mayor called for a recess at 7:23pm and the Mayor reconvened at 7:31pm.
NEW BUSINESS
17. RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 3RD QUARTER (JANUARY 2020 THROUGH MARCH 2020)
3-7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 6 OF 9
Finance Director Chung and City Treasurer Han presented the financial report.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Vice Mayor Ude moved, seconded by Council Member Talt, for the City Council to receive and file the financial report reflecting the City’s revenues and expenditures as of March 31, 2020.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
18. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH FISCAL YEAR 2020- 21 PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL TAX LEVY (FINANCE DEPARTMENT)
Finance Director Chung presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Council Member Jakubowski, to approve Resolution No. R-20-08, establishing the Public Safety Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2020-21, amended to reflect a 0% increase.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
19. DETERMINATION REGARDING THE 2020 INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 CONSIDERATIONS (COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT)
Interim Community Services Director Espinosa presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: Saul Roe, San Marino
The City Council directed the City Manager to utilize the existing FY 2019-20 3-8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 7 OF 9
budget for the Fourth of July and present options for a celebration that does not include fireworks or drones.
20. APPROVAL TO PROCURE AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS FROM FLOCK SAFETY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $88,000 AND WAIVE BIDDER REQUIREMENTS PER SMMC 02.06.05.B.2B (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
Police Chief Incontro presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: Saul Roe, San Marino
Council Member Huang moved, seconded by Council Member Talt, for the City Council to waive the bidding requirement of Municipal Code 02.06.05.B.2.b, approve the procurement and installation of 22 Automated License Plate Reader cameras by Flock Group Inc., in an amount not to exceed $88,000, and authorize the City Manager to enter into the agreement.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
21. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. O- 20-1365 RELATING TO SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
Police Chief Incontro presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: Saul Roe, San Marino
Council Member Jakubowski moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Ude, for the City Council to waive full reading and introduce for first reading by title only, Ordinance No. O-20-1365, an Ordinance of the City of San Marino amending the San Marino Municipal Code to add Section 14.09.04 (Safe Firearms Storage) to Article 9 (Weapons) of Chapter 14 (Miscellaneous) to regulate the storage of firearms within a residence.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
3-9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 8 OF 9
NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
22. APPROVAL OF SPRING 2020 PUBLIC TREE REMOVAL LIST (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
Parks and Public Works Director Throne and Urban Forester Estrada presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Council Member Huang, for the City Council to approve the Spring 2020 recommended tree removal list and authorize the Director of Parks and Public Works to move forward to properly remove the trees on this list, with the exception of the two trees located at 2200 El Molino and the one tree at 2580 Lorain Road.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
23. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. O- 20-1366 AMENDING SECTION 02.06.05 OF THE SAN MARINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE CITY MANAGER’S PURCHASING AUTHORITY, UPDATE BIDDING LIMITS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS, AND INCLUDE THE DESIGN-BUILD METHOD OF PROJECT DELIVERY (CITY ATTORNEY)
City Attorney Cao presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Ude, for the City Council to waive full reading and introduce for first reading by title only, Ordinance No. O-20-1366, an Ordinance of the City of San Marino Amending Section 02.06.05 of the San Marino Municipal Code to clarify the City Manager’s Purchasing Authority, update Bidding Limits for Public Projects, and include the Design-Build Method of Project Delivery.
Motion passed by the following vote:
3-10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2020 PAGE 9 OF 9
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
None
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Members offered various comments on matters impacting the community.
CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey adjourned the meeting at 9:53 PM to FRIDAY, May 29, 2020, AT 8:30 A.M. in the San Marino Center, 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
3-11 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2020 AT 8:30 A.M. SAN MARINO CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd Romey called the special meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the San Marino Center – 1890 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Shepherd Romey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: None
NEW BUSINESS
1. SUPPORT OF METRO NEXTGEN TRANSIT PLAN ELIMINATING BUS ROUTE 258 (OAK KNOLL) THROUGH SAN MARINO (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER)
Parks and Public Works Director Throne presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: Ghassan Roumani, San Marino Stephanie Johnson, San Marino
Acting City Clerk Merlo summarized emails from the following person(s): Saul Roe, San Marino Stephanie Johnson, San Marino Ghassan Roumani, San Marino
Mayor Shepherd Romey moved, seconded by Council Member Talt, to authorize Mayor Shepherd Romey to submit a letter, as revised and amended by the Council, to Metro indicating the City’s support for discontinuing bus transit line 258 and 79 in San Marino.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, , Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: Council Member Jakubowski ABSTAIN: None
3-12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 2
ABSENT: None
2. PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 PROPOSED BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES (FINANCE)
City Manager Marlowe and Finance Director Chung presented the staff report for this item.
The Council reviewed the proposed budget and provided direction to staff.
Council Member Jakubowski, seconded by Council Member Huang, moved to approve the title change from Planning and Building Director to Community Development Director.
Council Member Talt stated he would prefer this item to be properly noticed.
Council Member Jakubowski withdrew her motion.
The following person(s) spoke on this item: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey adjourned the meeting at 11:38 a.m.
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
3-13 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2020 AT 8:30 A.M. SAN MARINO CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd Romey called the special meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the San Marino Center – 1890 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Shepherd Romey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: None
NEW BUSINESS
1. PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES AND CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FINANCE)
City Manager Marlowe and Finance Director Chung presented an overview of the Community Services Department operational expenditures and an overview of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
The Council reviewed the Community Services budget and Capital Improvement Plan and provided direction to staff.
The following person(s) spoke: Shirley Jagels, San Marino
Acting City Clerk Merlo read comments from the following person(s): LB, San Marino
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3-14 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 5, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 2
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
3-15 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2020 AT 5:30 P.M. SAN MARINO CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd Romey called the special meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Shepherd Romey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: None
CLOSED SESSION
At 5:32 p.m., the Council recessed to closed session to discuss the following:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)): Case name: In re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Increase its Revenues for Water Services by $25,999,990 or 10.60% in the year 2021, by $9,752,550 or 3.59% in the year 2022, and by $10,754,500 or 3.82% in the year 2023 Case Number: Application 19-07-004 2.
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
At 5:55 p.m., the Council reconvened to open session.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
On Item 1: Discussion occurred. No reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
3-16 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M. SAN MARINO CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd Romey called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Shepherd Romey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Marcella Marlowe shared items of interest with the City Council and community.
MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READINGS
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Council Member Huang, to waive the reading of the entire text of the ordinances or resolutions.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
CONSENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey pulled Agenda Item No. 8 for discussion.
Council Member Jakubowski moved, seconded by Council Member Talt, to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11.
3-17 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 6
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
1. RECEIVE AND FILE THE DISBURSEMENTS REPORT FOR MAY 2020 (FINANCE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council received and filed the monthly Disbursements Report for the month of May 2020.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE THE CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2020 (CITY TREASURER)
The City Council received and filed the monthly Disbursement Report for the month of April 2020
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (CITY CLERK)
The City Council approved the minutes.
4. UPDATE ON CITY RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE)
The City Council received and filed the June 10, 2020 report on the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FROM THE SAN MARINO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION AND THE ROTARY CLUB OF SAN MARINO (COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT)
The City Council accepted the donation of $2,000 from the Foundation and $800 from the Rotary Club; amended the FY 2019-20 revenue budget to recognize revenue of $2,000 in the Donations Fund at Account 281-90-3601- 0000 (Library Donations Received); amended the FY 2019-20 revenue budget to recognize revenue of $800 in the Donations Fund at Account 281-91-3601-0000 (Adult Materials Donations – Other); approved a FY 2019-20 expenditure budget amendment by an appropriation of $2,000 to the Donations Fund Account 281-90-4370-0000 (Library Materials – Electronic Resources); and approved a FY 2019-20 expenditure budget amendment by an appropriation of $800 to the Donations Fund Account 281-91-4370-0000 (Adult Materials – Other).
3-18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 6
6. APPROVAL OF ARCADIA RANGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council approved the FY 2020-21 Arcadia Range Memorandum of Understanding and Hold Harmless Agreement between the City of Arcadia and the City of San Marino, for the total amount of $5,000.
7. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT EXTENSION TO ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an extension to the agreement approved by the City Attorney with All City Management Services for crossing guard services.
8. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-20-1366 AMENDING SECTION 02.06.05 OF THE SAN MARINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE CITY MANAGER’S PURCHASING AUTHORITY, UPDATE BIDDING LIMITS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS, AND INCLUDE THE DESIGN-BUILD METHOD OF PROJECT DELIVERY (SECOND READING) (CITY ATTORNEY)
Senior Counsel Carol Lynch presented the staff report for this item.
The following person(s) spoke: LB, San Marino
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Vice-Mayor Ude to waive full reading, read by title only, and adopt Ordinance No. O-20-1366, an ordinance of the City of San Marino amending Section 02.06.05 of the San Marino Municipal Code to clarify the City Manager’s purchasing authority, update bidding limits for public projects, and include the design-build method of project delivery.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, and Vice Mayor Ude NOES: Mayor Shepherd Romey ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
9. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-20-1365 RELATING TO SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS (SECOND READING) (POLICE DEPARTMENT)
3-19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 6
The City Council read by title only, waived further reading and adopted Ordinance O-20-1365, an ordinance of the City of San Marino amending the San Marino Municipal Code to add section 14.09.04 (Safe Firearms Storage) to Article 9 (Weapons) of Chapter 14 (Miscellaneous) to regulate the safe storage of firearms within a residence.
10. AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE FIRE STATION APPARATUS BAY DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 19-0887 IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,000 TO GMAT INC. OF COLTON (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
The City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Fire Station Apparatus Bay Door Replacement Project No. 19-0887; awarded a construction agreement to GMAT Inc. DBA Inland Overhead Door, of Colton in an amount not-to-exceed $59,000 for the Fire Station Apparatus Bay Door Replacement Project No. 19-0887; authorized the Parks and Public Works Director to approve contract change orders and other contingencies in a cumulative amount not-to-exceed $5,900.
11. AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 19-9273 IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,425 TO CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING, INC. OF LA PUENTE (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
The City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Streetlight Replacement Program Project No. 19-9273; awarded a construction agreement to California Professional Engineering, Inc. of La Puente in an amount not-to- exceed $36,425 for the Streetlight Replacement Program Project No. 19-9273; directed the Director of Parks and Public Works to replace the streetlight poles on Belhaven Road with the concrete acorn-style pole and authorized the Director to approve contract change orders in a cumulative amount not-to- exceed $8,575.
PUBLIC HEARING
12. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 - 1400 CIRCLE DR., (MI/JAMES V. COANE & ASSOCIATES) (PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT)
Mayor Shepherd Romey stated that she spoke against the project when it came before the Planning Commission and recused herself pursuant to Government Code §18700.
Council Member Jakubowski stated that she was a Planning Commissioner at the time this project originally came before the Planning Commission and recused herself pursuant to Government Code §18700.
3-20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2020 PAGE 5 OF 6
Vice Mayor Ude opened the public hearing.
Planning and Building Director Cervantes presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: Elizabeth Gleason, Appellant
Acting City Clerk Merlo read written comments into the record from the following person(s) Jim and Gail Ellis, San Marino Shirley Jagels, San Marino
Council Member Huang moved, seconded by Council Member Talt, to continue the matter to the meeting of July 8, 2020.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Talt, and Vice Mayor Ude NOES: None ABSTAIN: Council Member Jakubowski (recused), Mayor Shepherd Romey (recused) ABSENT: None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
13. RECEIVE AND FILE THE REVISED 2020 INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 (COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT)
The City Council received and filed the report on the revised 2020 Independence Day Celebration.
NEW BUSINESS
14. APPROVAL TO PROCURE MOBILE DATA CENTERS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT PATROL VEHICLES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $51,883 FROM DELL EMC COMPUTERS (POLICE)
Police Chief Incontro presented the staff report for this item.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Jakubowski moved, seconded by Council Member Talt to purchase nine (9) Dell MDC units in an amount not to exceed $51,883 in FY2019-20 from account 591-30-4613-0580 - Capital Equipment Fund.
3-21 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2020 PAGE 6 OF 6
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
None
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Members offered various comments on matters impacting the community.
CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following person(s) spoke: None
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Case name: In re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Increase its Revenues for Water Services by $25,999,990 or 10.60% in the year 2021, by $9,752,550 or 3.59% in the year 2022, and by $10,754,500 or 3.82% in the year 2023 Case Number: Application 19-07-004 2. Senior Counsel Lynch reported that discussion occurred and that there was no reportable City Council action.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey adjourned the meeting at 6:38 PM to FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2020, AT 8:30 A.M. in the San Marino Center, 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
3-22 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2020 AT 8:30 A.M. SAN MARINO CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd Romey called the special meeting to order at 8:32 a.m. in the San Marino Center – 1890 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Shepherd Romey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Acting City Clerk Merlo read comments from the following person(s): Saul Roe, San Marino Cordelia Donnelly, San Marino
NEW BUSINESS
1. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM THE HUNTINGTON LIBRARY, ART MUSEUM & BOTANICAL GARDENS OF $100,000 FOR RECEIPT IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (CITY MANAGER)
City Manager Marlowe presented the staff report.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Council Member Jakubowski, to accept the donation of $100,000 from the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens, authorize the Finance Department to receipt the donation in the Capital Projects Fund, and amend the FY 2019-20 revenue budget to recognize revenue of $100,000 in the Capital Projects Fund (Account # 394-00- 3601-0000).
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
3-23 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 30, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 4
2. APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LACY PARK ROSE ARBOR PROJECT NO. 18-9271 (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS)
Parks and Public Works Director Throne presented the staff report for this item.
The following person(s) spoke: Dennis Kneier, San Marino
Council Member Jakubowski moved, seconded by Council Member Huang, to accept the Lacy Park Rose Arbor Reconstruction Project No. 18-7150 constructed by Courts Construction of Glendora as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file the notice of completion.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
3. APPROVAL OF A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH PREMIER PIPE OF UPLAND FOR REPLACEMENT OF A DRAINAGE CULVERT IN THE INTERSECTION OF VIRGINIA AND LORAIN ROADS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $64,997 (PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS)
Parks and Public Works Director Throne presented the staff report for this item.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Ude, moved to approve a construction agreement with Premier Pipe of Upland for the replacement of the drainage culvert at the intersection of Virginia and Lorain Roads in an amount not-to-exceed $64,997 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City; and authorize the Director of Parks and Public Works to approve change orders as may be needed to complete the work in an amount not-to-exceed $6,500.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 3-24 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 30, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 4
ABSENT: None 4. ADOPTION OF OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21(FINANCE)
City Manager Marlowe and Finance Director Chung presented the staff report for this item.
Acting City Clerk Merlo read comments from the following person(s): Saul Roe, San Marino
Council Member Talt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Ude, to approve Resolution No. R-20-16, adopting the Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and appropriating the amounts specified therein from the funds and for the purposes indicated; and approve the revised classification for “Community Development Director,” including a title change from “Planning & Building Director.”
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
5. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. R-20-17, ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 (FINANCE)
Finance Director Chung presented the staff report for this item.
The following person(s) spoke: None
Council Member Huang moved, seconded by Council Member Jakubowski, to approve Resolution No. R-20-17, establishing the appropriations limit and the appropriations subject to limitation for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Huang, Council Member Jakubowski, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Ude, and Mayor Shepherd Romey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
3-25 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 30, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 4
Council Member Talt stated the Council Members received letters from Cordelia Donnelly. Council Member Jakubowski shared updates on the Council of Governments, Metro plans, and water issues.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Shepherd Romey adjourned the meeting at 10:08 a.m.
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
3-26 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: M. D. Rueda, Fire Chief Paul Chung, Finance Director Amanda Merlo, Acting Community Engagement Manager
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CITY RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents • Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Safe Community • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2020, the City Council proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal government, State of California, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and the Los Angeles County Health Officer have also taken action to declare public health emergencies. On March 19, 2020, both the County and State issued “Stay at Home” orders. Modifications to these orders are being announced gradually. The most recent version of the Health Officer’s order is now referred to as “Reopening Safer at Work and in the Community for Control of COVID-19”. It allows for the reopening of in-person retail shopping, on-site dining, hair salons and barbershops, places of worship, music/film/television production, day camps, gyms, museums, cardrooms and wagering facilities, and personal care establishments subject to certain safety protocols. Under the June 18, 2020 order, bars were also permitted to reopen. On June 28, 2020, Governor Newsom announced the required closure of bars in seven counties, including Los Angeles, in response to the increase in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations.
On April 24, 2020, staff provided Council with a comprehensive update on response efforts to date. Every month going forward, staff will provide an update on the City’s COVID-19 response and key actions taken during the reporting period.
4-1 In March, the Finance Department established a cost center for all COVID-19 related expenses to track procurement of materials, supplies, and staff time associated with this emergency for future reimbursement. On April 24, 2020, Council unanimously approved the appropriation of $55,000 to purchase emergency supplies for COVID-19 transmission mitigation on an as-needed basis and $30,000 for personnel costs also related to the City’s COVID-19 response. This monthly report will also provide a breakdown of money spent on COVID-19 response to date.
DISCUSSION
COVID-19 Department Response Update
The City of San Marino’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be forward leaning. The City has made every effort to provide a coordinated response to ensure resident and employee safety while still providing essential City services. While our overall response efforts have been managed by the City Manager’s Office and the Fire Department, each City department has played an active role in the development and execution of new policies and procedures, both in response to orders from the County Health Officer and State of California, and based on the specific needs of our own community. The City’s Executive Team continues to meet frequently to coordinate efforts, update each other on conversations with other agencies, discuss necessary changes or adaptations to our City services and procedures, and proactively plan for the weeks and months ahead.
More information on each department’s specific actions during this reporting cycle are provided below.
City Manager’s Office - Citywide Communications and Coordination • The City Manager’s Office is coordinating with other departments on how to safely reopen City facilities. This includes conducting staff training, obtaining supplies, and installing physical improvements such as plexiglass barriers for public counter areas.
• The City Manager’s Office continues to work in coordination with the Fire Department, other City departments, community partners like SMUSD and the Huntington, and Mayor Shepherd Romey to prioritize effective and helpful communication to the community.
• The City Manager’s Office continues to see growth in our engagement efforts. We have more than tripled our email subscribers since March, expanded our social media presence, provided additional video content, and continue to utilize a texting partnership with COVIDSMS to be able to send out text alerts related to COVID-19. Reassessments of engagement efforts are ongoing to ensure we are reaching our residents.
• The City Manager’s Office also continues to coordinate with other local cities and the County and stay appraised of all state and federal actions that will impact San Marino through attendance on all regional, county, state, and federal briefings and coordinating calls.
2
4-2 Fire Department • The Fire Department continues to manage the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and coordinate with the City’s Disaster Management Area and Los Angeles County. The Resident Support Hotline in the EOC continues to provide a lifeline for residents in need of critical supplies and information. The City EOC remains open during business hours at Level 3, this level provides for regular monitoring of information briefs and reporting to the County and State on the City’s COVID response, monitor PPE for City Departments, and prepare documentation for cost recovery.
• The Fire Department continues to provide training to the City Departments in decontamination procedures with the product D7. This training and product will eventually provide all Departments with the capability of deep cleaning and sanitizing their own facilities.
• The Fire Department developed a Communications and Services survey for residents of San Marino to provide valuable input on the City’s communication efforts and enhanced service offerings during the COVID-19 response. The survey is available for residents online at https://forms.gle/L9UotNHxWafewNV26. Residents without an internet connection may also participate in the survey by contacting the Resident Support Hotline at (626) 300-0731. Results from the survey indicate a very strong approval rating for the City’s outreach and communication during the pandemic.
• Lastly, the Fire Department has led the initial Recovery Leadership Team Meetings. This effort has provided a process to identify help identify recovery issues that will be faced by the City, and to document lessons learned during this disaster response. Each City Department has developed their Department specific policies and procedures for the reopening of City facilities.
Police Department • The Police Department continues to follow the same COVID-19 responses; all employees must wear their masks inside the station, except at their individual work stations.
Finance Department • The Finance Department has reached out to the various City vendors encouraging them to enroll into ACH direct-payment option. This limits the administrative process of issuing a physical check and provides contactless payment. The Department was able to add 2 new vendors to the ACH program.
• The Department has enrolled into FEMA’s grants portal and is preparing to submit our first reimbursement related to COVID-19 which would cover expense from March to June 2020. The City will be reimbursed 75% of COVID-19 related expenses. The State portion of the reimbursement is still being discussed and staff is waiting on funding clarity from CalOES.
3
4-3
Human Resources • Human Resources continues to keep employees informed of important and necessary changes in the law and impacts on employees. Staff is also working with the Fire Department on preparations for employees when City facilities are officially opened.
Planning and Building Department • The Department continues to support San Marino local businesses by providing information via the website and social media, as well as through direct contact and support. This has become increasingly important due to the rapid changes in Health Department Orders concerning restaurant operations.
• The Department also is continuing to support and promote the “Great American Takeout” marketing campaign to encourage the community to order take out from local restaurants. This includes publishing an updated list of businesses that remain open or decide to open in San Marino.
• In order to continue spurring economic development, Planning and Building has conducted research and prepared various sign programs that will create signage for the business districts. In addition, the Department is currently drafting and preparing a survey of residents to better understand what names are most appropriate for each of our business districts. Staff has provided local businesses with floor decals and new “Re-opening” signs in light of the new orders.
Parks and Public Works Department • The Department continues to monitor the daily attendance at Lacy Park to ensure compliance with the County’s physical distancing requirements while still encouraging outdoor activity and wellness.
• The Department continues to maintain the increased frequency of sanitizing and cleaning park benches, patrol cars, and city facilities. Department staff will be undergoing training to provide weekly sanitizing of all City office space.
• In preparation of re-opening the City, the Department procured and installed clear acrylic plastic screens at the City Hall Public Counter and in the City Clerk’s area. We also procured desktop screens for staff at the Stoneman Recreation Facility, and are testing a variety of manual and no-touch hand sanitizing devices for deploying to City Hall, the Library, Stoneman, and San Marino Center.
Community Services Department • The Community Services Department has been developing and promoting activities for an alternate 4th of July Celebration. Included in the activities are a Home Decorating Contest, virtual face painting tutorials, and virtual patriotic arts n’ crafts. To date, 167 households have registered to participate in the Home Decorating Contest!
4
4-4 • The Community Services Department requested pictures from the community of past favorite memories from Lacy Park 4th of July celebrations. The community responded by submitting 40-pictures. 20-pole banners were printed and are currently being displayed in city center.
• The Community Services Department is accepting applications for its annual Active Military Banner Program. Community members who are actively serving in the U.S. Armed Forces or attending a military academy will be honored with personalized street banners on poles displayed throughout the center of town early September through mid-November. Active Military Banner application must be submitted by July 10, 2020.
• On June 22 Crowell Library launched its annual Summer Reading Club with the theme, “Dig Deeper: Read, Investigate, Discover!” During the next two months, the library will host online reading challenges for all ages to encourage and support a love of reading. Participants can enter to win prizes from local businesses for reaching their reading goals, such as a gift cards to Vroman’s Bookstore, San Marino Toy & Book Shoppe, Julienne, The Monogrammed Home, The Cub House, Starbucks, and more. Registration runs through August 7, 2020. https://cityofsanmarino.beanstack.org
• The Crowell Pubic Library in partnership with the Old Mill Foundation hosted its first ever Zoom “Paint and Sip” event. The event was successful with 18 participants joining in the activity.
• The Community Services Department has been steadily preparing for in-person summer camp reopening following County of Los Angeles Health Department protocol. Registration was open to resident on June 25th and is now open to non-residents beginning June 30th. Camps being the week of July 6th and will run through the end of July.
COVID-19 Expense Update
As of June 20, 2020, the City has incurred $68,842 of materials & supplies and personnel expenses related to COVID-19. These expenditures utilized the proper procurement process and are within the City Manager’s regular purchasing authority for purchases under $30,000. The following table breaks out expenses already reported to City Council and new expenses that have occurred.
5
4-5 Materials & Supplies Expenses Costs Date Vendor Description Expense Type $ 4,406 3/25/2020 Life Assist PPE: Disinfectant, latex gloves Reported to CC 4/08/2020 $ 1,547 4/10/2020 Life Assist & Lionheart Safety PPE: Gloves, gowns, sanitary wipes Reported to CC 4/24/2020 $ 1,737 4/10/2020 Language Network Chinese translation Reported to CC 4/24/2020 $ 1,478 4/10/2020 Curvy Senses PPE: 300 Cloth masks Reported to CC 4/24/2020 $ 120 4/22/2020 AT&T Mobility Mobile Hotspot during emergency Reported to CC 5/13/2020 $ 1,351 4/22/2020 Life Assist & Veritiv PPE: Gloves, gowns, sanitary wipes Reported to CC 5/13/2020 $ 561 4/22/2020 Language Network Chinese translation Reported to CC 5/13/2020 $ 944 4/30/2020 US Bank - City credit card Purell wipes, spray head bottles, paper Reported to CC 5/13/2020 towels, plastic bags, $ 834 4/22/2020 Intelesys - City's IT contractor Virtual Council meeting setup, Reported to CC 5/13/2020 Emergency ID setup $ 555 4/30/2020 Zoom - Telecommunication Annual subscription to Zoom software Reported to CC 5/13/2020 $ 2,944 5/8/2020 Life Assist & Veritiv PPE: Gloves, thermometers Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 1,440 5/8/2020 Intelesys - City's IT contractor Virtual Council meeting setup Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 243 5/8/2020 Bishop Company PPE: Masks Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 4,980 5/22/2020 Dr. Detail P.H.D Sanitize PD Vehicles Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 2,430 5/22/2020 Decon7 Systems Disinfectant Spray Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 1,735 5/22/2020 Language Network Chinese translation Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 130 5/22/2020 AT&T Mobility Mobile Hotspot during emergency Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 7,329 5/28/2020 US Bank - City credit card Purell wipes, spray head bottles, Reported to CC 6/10/2020 thermometers $ 647 5/28/2020 US Bank - City credit card Virtual Council meeting equipment Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 577 5/28/2020 Zoom - Telecommunication Annual subscription to Zoom software Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 123 5/28/2020 US Bank - City credit card Groceries for Seniors Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 68 5/28/2020 SCW Impact LLC SMS Text Service Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 3,786 06/05/2020 Life Assist PPE: Disinfectant, latex gloves, parallax New Expense eyewear $ 835 06/05/2020 Decon7 Systems Disinfectant Spray New Expense $ 126 06/05/2020 Extreme Safety, Inc. Hydrogen Peroxide New Expense $ 175 06/05/2020 Dynamic Building Maintenance Additional Cleaning & Santize Police New Expense Dispatch May 2020 $ 1,830 06/19/2020 Language Network Chinese translation New Expense $ 1,481 06/19/2020 Intelesys - City's IT contractor Virtual Council meeting setup New Expense $ 44,412 Total Materials & Supplies Expenses
Personnel Overtime Expenses Costs Date Personnel Description Expense Type $ 7,713 3/15 - 4/15 Fire Captain, Fire staff EOC Operations Reported to CC 4/24/2020 $ 2,734 4/16 - 4/30 Fire Captain, Fire staff EOC Operations Reported to CC 5/13/2020 $ 10,431 5/01 - 5/31 Fire Captain, Fire staff EOC Operations Reported to CC 6/10/2020 $ 3,552 6/01-6/20 Fire Captain, Fire staff EOC Operations New Expense $ 24,430 Total Personnel Expenses
$ 68,842 Total COVID-19 Expenses to date 6
4-6 FISCAL IMPACT AND PROCUREMENT REVIEW
There is no fiscal impact or procurement review at this time.
LEGAL REVIEW
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to receive and file the July 8, 2020 report on the City’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
ATTACHMENTS
None.
7
4-7
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Michael Throne, PE, Director of Parks and Public Works/City Engineer Jacqueline Ruiz, Management Analyst
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE
ANNUAL STRIPING, MARKING, SIGNING PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 20-9273 IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,000 TO SUPERIOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS OF CYPRESS
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Well-Maintained Infrastructure • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
BACKGROUND
In 2019, the City Council approved a program to refresh all pavement markings, legends, lane striping, and to replace faded street signs over a 3 year period. Year 1 includes a review of all legends, markings, striping and signage by the traffic engineer, Transtech Engineers. Subsequent years will include necessary updates to plans and specifications recommended by the traffic engineer.
This year (Year 1) includes the following scope of work: striping, yellow school crossing and lettering and replacement of missing road pavement markers.
Striping The listed locations include striping (all 4 corners of the intersections), pavement markers and stop bars: • Del Mar Avenue; Huntington Drive S/B to Longden Avenue • Lorain Road; San Gabriel Boulevard to West Drive and St. Albans Road to Sherwood Road
5-1 Yellow School Crossing and Lettering • Huntington Drive; San Gabriel Boulevard to Garfield Avenue (all 4 corners of the intersection and side streets off of Huntington Drive) • Sherwood Road and West Drive • Virginia Road and Roanoke Road • Library entrance off of West Drive • Winston Road and Cumberland Road • Winston Road and Ridgeway Road • Winston Avenue and Robles Avenue
Replacement of Missing Road Markers • Huntington Drive at Granada (west bound) to Los Robles • Monterey from Oak Knoll to El Molino • Monterey from Virginia to Old Mill • 1485 Virginia to Euston • Virginia from Euston Mill Lane • Virginia from Mill Lane to Circle Drive • Rosalind Road from Shenandoah to Oak Grove • 1739 Euston (double yellow) • Euston from Wembly to Cambridge • Oxford and Stratford (intersection north side) • Oxford at Orlando • S/B Sierra Madre at Lombardy intersection • S/B Sierra Madre from Euston to Huntington • E/B Huntington at St. Albans • Rumble strips on Shenandoah from Woodstock to Virginia • Rumble strips on Virginia S/B from Shenandoah to Euston • Rumbly strips at 1726 Euston • Rumble strips at 1824 Euston
DISCUSSION
The Department received a total of 3 proposals from Superior Pavement Markings, PCI and J and S Striping. The received proposals ranged from $52,000 to $82,111. Superior Pavement Markings of Cypress provided the lowest proposal. After carefully reviewing their qualifications, experience and understanding of our scope of work, we are recommending a construction agreement to Superior Pavement Markings. This contractor comes highly recommended. A summary of the proposals received is shown below.
2
5-2 Contractor Proposed Cost
Superior Pavement Markings $52,000
PCI $62,825
J and S Striping $82,111
Engineer’s Estimate of Probable $90,000 Cost
Work is scheduled to take 60 working days and planned to start in August and to be completed by September. School crossings will be prioritized and completed prior to the start of school.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The adopted FY 2020-21 capital improvement budget includes $90,000 for this project which includes a total of $45,000 re-appropriated from FY 2019-20. A summary of the revenues and estimated expenses for the project are as shown in the table below.
REVENUE SOURCE AMOUNT Capital Improvement Fund #394-48-4600-9273 ...... $90,000 Total Revenues ...... $90,000
EXPENDITURES AMOUNT Engineering Design (City Engineer) ...... Included in Operating Budget Construction contract (Superior Pavement Markings) ...... $52,000 20% construction contingency...... $10,400 Total Estimated Expenditures ...... $62,400
As the bids came in lower than the anticipated budget, the remaining CIP funds after project completion will be returned to the CIP Fund Balance reserves for future projects. The Department recommends a 20% construction contingency for unforeseen conditions and change orders.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s office reviewed the contract documents for legal conformance, and their comments were incorporated into this report. They also have reviewed this report and approve it as to legal form.
3
5-3 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council proceed ahead with the Annual Striping, Marking and Signing Program and award a construction agreement to Superior Pavement Markings. If the City Council concurs, the appropriate motion would be:
“I move to award a construction agreement to Superior Pavement Markings of Cypress in an amount not-to-exceed $52,000 for the Annual Striping, Marking and Signing Program Project No. 20-9273” and;
“I move to authorize the Parks and Public Works Director to approve change orders and other contingencies in a cumulative amount not-to-exceed $10,400.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bid proposals 2. Draft construction agreement
4
5-4 ATTACHMENT 1-1
Superior Pavement Markings, Inc. �@rrD@ff 5312 Cypress St Pavement Marl'fings Cypress, Ca 90630 Phone 714.995.9100 License# 776306 Exp 8/31/21 Fax 714.995.9400 Union Local 1184 Proposal & Contract 33598 DIR# 1000001476 Exp 6/30/22 Submit To: I Contact: [Project City Of San Marino Dean Werner•Office 626-300 City Wide Striping 2200 Huntington Drive -0711 •Fax 626-300 San Marino San Marino, Ca 91108 -0709•Dwerner@cityofsanmarino .org
Date: I Estimator I 5/1/20 I Raul Guzman I # Descrietion Otl um Price Ext Price Citywide Striping Locations Remove All Pavement Markers, Restripe With 2 Coats Of Paint, Install 1 LS 49,902.00 49,902.00 New Pavement Markers, And Repaint All Markings With One Coat Of Paint Missing Pavement Marker Locations Replace Missing Pavement Markers 1 LS 7,854.00 7,854.00 Performance Bond Furnish Bond 1 LS 1,650.00 1,650.00 Deleation Of Montrery 1 LS -7,406.00 -7,406.00
Quote Includes: Traffic Paint [YES] - Thermoplastic [NO] - Rpm's [YES] - Removals [NO] Signing [NO] - Prevailing Wages [YES] - Bonds [YES]
Superior Pavement Markings, Inc. Total $52,000.00 by: Estimator - Superior Pavement Markings, Inc. (Subject to office approval) Proposal valid for 30 days from 5/1/2020. All areas to be free and clear offaLL debris prior to Superior Pavement Markings' crews arriving on-site. All moves and job requirement are mentioned in notes- nothing is implied unless specificallynoted . Not responsible forscheduling other sub's work or scheduling conflictswith other subs. We DOT NOT provide shop drawings of any type unless prior arrangementsare made. Not responsible forremoving temporary striping or temporary "tabs", tape or chip seal markers unless specificallynoted . Signs on signal poles, overhead or truss structuresnot included unless specifically mentioned in proposaL Superior Pavement Markings is a union company and all jobs are bid using current union or prevailing wage rates. Aceepfance of Proposaland ContrarJ; I/we accept the within proposal. You are authorized to perform the work comprehended here under and I/we agree to pay the said amount in accordance with the terms set forth. By signing this Proposal/Contract below I/we agree to the attached Terms and Conditions.
Date:______Owner/Customer: ______Print: ______PLEASE SIGN AND REMIT THIS 1 PAGE DOCUMENT TO ABOVE ADDRESS.
page 1 of 1
5-5 ATTACHMENT 1-2
5-6 ATTACHMENT 1-3
5-7 ATTACHMENT 1-4
5-8 ATTACHMENT 1-5
5-9 ATTACHMENT 1-6
5-10 ATTACHMENT 1-7
5-11 ATTACHMENT 1-8
5-12 ATTACHMENT 1-9
5-13 ATTACHMENT 1-10
5-14 ATTACHMENT 1-11
5-15 ATTACHMENT 1-12
5-16 ATTACHMENT 1-13
5-17 ATTACHMENT 1-14
5-18 ATTACHMENT 1-15
5-19 ATTACHMENT 1-16
5-20 ATTACHMENT 1-17
5-21 ATTACHMENT 1-18
5-22 ATTACHMENT 1-19
5-23 ATTACHMENT 1-20
5-24 ATTACHMENT 1-21
5-25 ATTACHMENT 1-22
5-26 ATTACHMENT 1-23
5-27 ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
CHECKLIST FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
TO BE SUBMITTED BY SUCCESSFUL BIDDER:
____ Two (2) executed and notarized copies of the Contract
____ Evidence satisfactory to the City indicating the capacity of the person(s) signing the Contract to bind the Contractor
____ Payment Bond in amount of the Contract
____ Performance Bond in amount of the Contract
____ Workers’ Compensation Certificate
____ Liability insurance certificate in the amounts specified in Section 5-4.2 of the General Provisions, naming the City as a co-insured
____ Automobile insurance certificate in the amount specified in Section 5-4.4 of the General Provisions, naming the City as a co-insured
____ Copy of City business license
____ Additional insured endorsement – comprehensive general liability
____ Additional insured endorsement – automobile liability
____ Additional insured endorsement – excess liability
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc Cheklist Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-28 ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
CONTRACT
CITY OF SAN MARINO CONTRACT FOR STRIPING, MARKING, SIGNING PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 20-9273
THIS CONTRACT (“Contract”) is made and entered this ______, 20__ (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SAN MARINO, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Superior Pavement Markings, a ______[Legal Form of Entity and state of formation, e.g., California corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company] (“Contractor”). Contractor’s California State Contractor’s license number is ______; Class ____). Contractor’s DIR registration number is ______.
In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents consist of this Contract, the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Bid (including documentation accompanying the Bid and any post- Bid documentation submitted before the Notice of Award), the Bonds, permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, General Provisions, Special Provisions, Plans, Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, Reference Specifications, Addenda, Change Orders, and Supplemental Agreements. The Contract Documents are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Scope of Services. Contractor shall perform the Work in a good and workmanlike manner for the project identified as Annual Striping, Marking, Signing Program Project No. 20-9273, as described in this Contract and in the Contract Documents.
3. Compensation. In consideration of the services rendered hereunder, City shall pay Contractor a not to exceed amount of fifty-two thousand and no cents ($52,000) in accordance with the prices as submitted in the Bid.
4. Incorporation by Reference. All of the following documents are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Workers’ Compensation Certificate of Insurance, Additional Insured Endorsement (Comprehensive General Liability), Additional Insured Endorsement (Automobile Liability), and Additional Insured Endorsement (Excess Liability).
5. Antitrust Claims. In entering into this Contract, Contractor offers and agrees to assign to City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq.) arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials pursuant to the Contract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor without further acknowledgment by the parties.
6. Prevailing Wages. City and Contractor acknowledge that the Project is a public work to which prevailing wages apply.
7. Workers’ Compensation. Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, the Contractor certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc C-1 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-29 ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of this Contract.”
8. Titles. The titles used in this Contract are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Contract or any part of it.
9. Authority. Any person executing this Contract on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
10. Entire Agreement. This Contract, including the Contract Documents and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Contractor. This Contract supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Contract may not be modified or amended, nor any provision or breach waived, except in a writing signed by both parties that expressly refers to this Contract.
11. Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterpart originals, duplicate originals, or both, each of which is deemed to be an original for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Contract the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN MARINO
By: City Manager
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By: City Clerk City Attorney
Dated: (“CONTRACTOR”)
By:
By:
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc C-2 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-30 ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
Bond No. ______
PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:
WHEREAS the City of San Marino (“City”), State of California, has awarded to
(“Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor)
a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows:
(Project name)
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, the Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the Work, to file a good and sufficient payment Bond with the City to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and
(Name and address of Surety)
(“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code in the penal sum of
Dollars ($ ), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to this Work or labor, that the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this Bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing this obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this Bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond.
Upon expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and upon expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2, if the condition of this Bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc LMB-1 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-31 ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract or the Specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body.
Dated:
“Principal” “Surety”
By: By: Its Its
By: By: Its Its
(Seal) (Seal)
Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc LMB-2 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-32 ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
Bond No. ______
PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:
WHEREAS the City of San Marino (“City”), has awarded to
(“Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor)
a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows:
(Project name)
WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a Bond for the faithful performance of the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and
, (Name and address of Surety)
(“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of
Dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than the total Contract Price, in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on the Principal’s part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety hereby waives any statute of limitations as it applies to an action on this Bond.
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or of the Work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc PB-1 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-33 ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this Bond and has all rights of a party hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body.
Dated:
“Principal” “Surety”
By: By: Its Its
By: By: Its Its
(Seal) (Seal)
Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc PB-2 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-34 ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
WHEREAS, the City of San Marino (“City”) has required certain insurance to be provided by:
NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned insurance company does hereby certify that it has issued the policy or policies described below to the following named insureds and that the same are in force at this time:
1. This certificate is issued to:
City of San Marino City Hall ______, California ______
The insureds under such policy or policies are:
2. Workers’ Compensation Policy or Policies in a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner of California covering all operations of the named insureds as follows:
Policy Number Effective Date Expiration Date
By: Its Authorized Representative
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-1 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-35 ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY
Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”):
Name and address of insurance company (“Company”):
General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows:
1. The City of San Marino (“City”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.
2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.
3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company’s liability.
4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company’s limits of liability as provided under the policy.
5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds.
6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) Days before the effective date thereof. In the event of Company’s failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement.
7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-2 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-36 ATTACHMENT 2 - 10
8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance.
9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to City at: City Manager City of San Marino City Hall ______, California ______10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES FROM/TO LIABILITY
11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes:
□ Contractual Liability □ Explosion Hazard □ Owners/Landlords/Tenants □ Collapse Hazard □ Manufacturers/Contractors □ Underground Property Damage □ Products/Completed Operations □ Pollution Liability □ Broad Form Property Damage □ Liquor Liability □ Extended Bodily Injury □ □ Broad Form Comprehensive □ □ General Liability Endorsement □
12. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one).
13. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one).
14. This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number .
I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company.
Executed , 20
Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted)
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-3 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-37 ATTACHMENT 2 - 11
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”):
Name and address of insurance company (“Company”):
General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured: Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows:
1. The City of San Marino (“City”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.
2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.
3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company’s liability.
4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company’s limits of liability as provided under the policy.
5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds.
6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) Days before the effective date thereto. In the event of Company’s failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement.
7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-4 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-38 ATTACHMENT 2 - 12
8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance.
9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to City at:
City Manager City of San Marino City Hall ______, California ______
10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached.
TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES FROM/TO LIABILITY
11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes:
□ Any Automobiles □ Truckers Coverage □ All Owned Automobiles □ Motor Carrier Act □ Non-owned Automobiles □ Bus Regulatory Reform Act □ Hired Automobiles □ Public Livery Coverage □ Scheduled Automobiles □ □ Garage Coverage □ 12. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one).
13. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one). 14. This endorsement is effective on ______at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number ______.
I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company.
Executed , 20
Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted)
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-5 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-39 ATTACHMENT 2 - 13
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT EXCESS LIABILITY
Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”):
Name and address of insurance company (“Company”):
General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows:
1. The City of San Marino (“City”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.
2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.
3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the Company’s liability.
4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company’s limits of liability as provided under the policy.
5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds.
6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) Days before the effective date thereto. In the event of Company’s failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement.
7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-6 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-40 ATTACHMENT 2 - 14
8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance.
9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to City at:
City Manager City of San Marino City Hall ______, California ______10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached.
TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES FROM/TO LIABILITY
□ Following Form □ Umbrella Liability □
11. Applicable underlying coverages:
INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NUMBER AMOUNT
12. The following inclusions, exclusions, extensions or specific provisions relate to the above coverages:
13. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one).
14. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one).
15. This endorsement is effective on ______at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number ______.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-7 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-41 ATTACHMENT 2 - 15
I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company.
Executed , 20
Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted)
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc INS-8 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-42 ATTACHMENT 2 - 16
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 0. GENERAL PROVISIONS DEFINED
0-1 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
The 2018 edition of “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (“Standard Specifications”), as amended by the Contract Documents, is incorporated into the Contract Documents by this reference. The Work described herein shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Specifications, as amended by the Contract Documents.
0-2 NUMBERING OF SECTIONS
The number of sections and subsections in these General Provisions are compatible with the numbering in the Standard Specifications.
0-3 SUPPLEMENTATION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
The Sections that follow supplement, but do not replace, the corresponding provisions in Part 1 (General Provisions) of the Standard Specifications, except as otherwise indicated herein. In the event of any conflict between the Standard Specifications and these General Provisions, these General Provisions shall control.
SECTION 1. GENERAL, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, UNITS OF MEASURE, AND SYMBOLS
1-2 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Whenever in the Standard Specifications or in the Contract Documents the following terms are used, they shall be understood to mean the following:
Agency – The City of San Marino.
Board – The City Council of the City of San Marino.
Contract Documents – As defined in Standard Specifications Section 1-2, but also including these General Provisions.
Engineer – The City Engineer, acting either directly or through properly authorized agents. Such agents shall act within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them.
Inspector – An authorized representative of the City, assigned by the City to make inspections of Work performed by or materials supplied by the Contractor.
Laboratory – A laboratory authorized by the City to test materials and Work involved in the Contract.
Notice of Completion – The notice authorized by Civil Code Section 9204.
Project – See Work.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-1 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-43 ATTACHMENT 2 - 17
Submittal – Any drawing, calculation, specification, product data, samples, manuals, requests for substitutes, spare parts, photographs, survey data, traffic control plans, record drawings, Bonds or similar items required to be submitted to the City under the terms of the Contract.
1-3.3 Institutions
The institutions listed in Section 1-3.3 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications shall be supplemented by the list below:
Abbreviation Word or Words AAN ...... American Association of Nurserymen AGCA ...... Associated General Contractors of America APWA ...... American Public Works Association CRSI ...... Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute CSI ...... Construction Specifications Institute NEC ...... National Electric Code NFPA ...... National Fire Protection Association SSS ...... State of California Standard Specifications, Latest edition, Department of Transportation SSP ...... State of California Standard Plans, Latest edition, Department of Transportation
1-7.2 CONTRACT BONDS
The Faithful Performance Bond shall remain in force until the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion and the end of all warranty periods set forth in the Contract Documents. The Material and Labor Bond shall remain in force until expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and until the expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2.
All Bonds must be submitted using the required forms, which are in the Contract Documents, or on any other form approved by the City Attorney.
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
2.2 PERMITS
Before starting any construction work, the Contractor will be required to obtain all necessary permits from the City, which may include obtaining a no fee encroachment permit for Work within the public right-of-way, as well as all other permits required from all other agencies. Should this Project require construction of trenches or excavations which are five (5) feet or deeper and into which a person is required to descend, the Contractor shall obtain a Cal/OSHA permit and furnish the City with a copy before Work can commence on this Project. Contractor shall bear all cost for fees for all agencies except for the City’s permit fees.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-2 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-44 ATTACHMENT 2 - 18
2.4 COOPERATION AND COLLATERAL WORK
The Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating all Work with the City’s street sweeping, trash pick-up, and street maintenance contractors, emergency services departments, utility companies’ crews, and others when necessary. Payment for conforming to these requirements shall be included in other items of Work, and no additional payment shall be made thereof.
2-5.4 Haul Routes
Subsection 2-5.4 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications shall be deleted and replaced as follows:
The Contractor must obtain the City Engineer’s approval before using any haul routes. Further detail requirements for haul traffic are delineated in the Special Provisions.
2-7 CHANGES INITIATED BY THE AGENCY
2-7.1 General.
The City reserves the right, without notice to the Surety, to increase or decrease the quantity of any item or portion of the Work described in the Contract Documents or to alter or omit portions of the Work so described, as may be deemed necessary or expedient by the City Engineer, without in any way making the Contract void. Such increases, alterations or decreases of Work shall be considered and treated as though originally contracted for, and shall be subject to all the terms, conditions and provisions of the original Contract. The Contractor shall not claim or bring suit for damages, whether for loss of profits or otherwise, on account of any decrease, alteration or omission of any kind of Work to be done.
2-8 EXTRA WORK
New and unforeseen work will be classified as Extra Work only when the Work is not covered and cannot be paid for under any of the various items or combination of items for which a Bid price appears on the Bid. The Contractor shall not do any Extra Work except upon written order from the City Engineer.
SECTION 3. CONTROL OF THE WORK
3-1 ASSIGNMENT
Any purported assignment without written consent of the City shall be null, void, and of no effect, and the Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives with respect to any claim, demand or action arising from or relating to any unauthorized assignment.
If the City opts to consent to assignment, the City’s consent shall be contingent upon: (1) a letter from the Surety agreeing to the assignment and assigning all of the Bonds to the assignee without any reduction, or the assignee supplying all new Bonds in the amounts originally required under the Contract Documents; and (2) the assignee supplying all of the required insurance in the amounts required in the Contract Documents. Until the Surety assigns all of the Bonds or the assignee supplies all of the new Bonds, and until the assignee supplies all of the required insurance, an assignment otherwise consented to in writing by the City shall not be effective.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-3 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-45 ATTACHMENT 2 - 19
Even if the City consents to assignment, no assignment shall relieve the Contractor of liability under the Contract.
3-5 INSPECTION
The Contractor shall arrange and pay for all off-site inspection of the Work required by any ordinance or governing authorities. The Contractor shall also arrange and pay for other inspections, including tests in connection therewith, as may be assigned or required.
3.7 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
3-7.1 General
In addition to the requirements under Section 3-7.1 in the Standard Specifications, the Contractor shall maintain a control set of Plans and Specifications on the Project site at all times. All final locations determined in the field, and any deviations from the Plans and Specifications, shall be marked in red on the control set to show the as-built conditions. This control set of Plans shall also be edited for all Addenda, Requests for Information, Change Orders, field changes not involving cost, and any other variation that occurred during construction. Upon completion of all Work, the Contractor shall return the control set to the City Engineer. Final payment will not be made until this requirement is met.
Where a work feature is shown on the drawings or identified in the Specifications but is not specifically indicated as an item in the Bid sheets, and there is no ambiguity regarding the requirement to construct, install, or construct and install that work feature, the Contractor is required to complete the work feature. All costs to the Contractor for constructing, installing, or both constructing and installing such a work feature shall be included in the Bid.
3-7.2 Precedence of the Contract Documents
With regard to Section 3-7.2 in the Standard Specifications, the General Provisions shall control over the Special Provisions, and the Notice Inviting Bids and Instructions to Bidders (in that order) shall control over the Bid, such that the order of precedence shall be as follows:
1. Permits issued by regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. 2. Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements, whichever occurs last. 3. Contract/Agreement. 4. Addenda. 5. Notice Inviting Bids. 6. Instructions to Bidders. 7. Bid/Proposal. 8. General Provisions. 9. Special Provisions. 10. Plans. 11. Standard Plans. 12. Standard Specifications. 13. Reference Specifications.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-4 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-46 ATTACHMENT 2 - 20
3-9 SUBSURFACE DATA
If the City or its consultants have made investigations of subsurface conditions in areas where the Work is to be performed, such investigations shall be deemed made only for the purpose of study and design. If a geotechnical or other report has been prepared for the Project, the Contractor may inspect the records pertaining to such investigations subject to and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth. The inspection of the records shall be made in the office of the City Engineer. It is the Contractor’s sole responsibility to determine whether such investigations exist, and the City makes no affirmative or negative representation concerning the existence of such investigations.
The records of any such investigations are made available solely for the convenience of the Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City, the City Engineer, their agents, consultants or employees assume no responsibility whatsoever with respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of any investigations, the records thereof, and the interpretations set forth therein. No warranty or guarantee is expressed or implied that the conditions indicated by any such investigations or records are representative of those existing in the Project area. The Contractor agrees to make such independent investigations and examination as necessary to be satisfied of the conditions to be encountered in the performance of the Work.
The Contractor represents that it has studied the Plans, Specifications and other Contract Documents, and all surveys and investigation reports of subsurface and latent physical conditions, has made such additional surveys and investigations as necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, and that it has correlated the results of all such data with the requirements of the Contract Documents. No claim of any kind shall be made or allowed for any error, omission or claimed error or omission, in whole or in part, of any geotechnical exploration or any other report or data furnished or not furnished by the City.
3-10 SURVEYING
3-10.1 General
The Contractor shall verify all dimensions on the drawings and shall report to the City any discrepancies before proceeding with related Work. The Contractor shall perform all survey and layout Work per the benchmark information on the Project Plans. All surveying Work must conform to the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act (Business and Professions Code Section 8700 et seq). All Project surveying notes and “cut-sheets” are to be provided to the City after the completion of each surveying activity and all final surveying notes shall be provided before final payment to the Contractor.
Construction stakes shall be set and stationed by Contractor at its expense. Unless otherwise indicated in the Special Provisions, surveying costs shall be included in the price of items bid. No separate payment will be made. Re-staking and replacement of construction survey markers damaged as a result of the Work, vandalism, or accident shall be at the Contractor’s expense.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-5 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-47 ATTACHMENT 2 - 21
3-11 CONTRACT INFORMATION SIGNS
The names, addresses and specialties of the Contractor, Subcontractors, architects or engineers may not be displayed on any signage within the public right-of-way. This signage prohibition includes advertising banners hung from truck beds or other equipment.
3-12 WORKSITE MAINTENANCE
3-12.1 General.
Clean-up shall be done as Work progresses at the end of each day and thoroughly before weekends. The Contractor shall not allow the Work site to become littered with trash and waste material, but shall maintain the same in a neat and orderly condition throughout the construction operation. Materials which need to be disposed shall not be stored at the Project site, but shall be removed by the end of each Working Day. If the job site is not cleaned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the cleaning will be done or contracted by the City and shall be back-charged to the Contractor and deducted from the Contract Price.
The Contractor shall promptly remove from the vicinity of the completed Work, all rubbish, debris, unused materials, concrete forms, construction equipment, and temporary structures and facilities used during construction. Final acceptance of the Work by the City will be withheld until the Contractor has satisfactorily complied with the foregoing requirements for final clean-up of the Project site.
3.12.4 Storage of Equipment and Materials.
3-12.4.1 General
The Contractor shall make arrangements for storing its equipment and materials. The Contractor shall make its own arrangements for any necessary off-site storage or shop areas necessary for the proper execution of the Work. Approved areas within Work site may be used for temporary storage; however, the Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary permits from the City. In any case, the Contractor’s equipment and personal vehicles of the Contractor’s employees shall not be parked on the traveled way or on any section where traffic is restricted at any time.
The Contractor shall deliver, handle, and store materials in accordance with the manufacturer’s written recommendations and by methods and means that will prevent damage, deterioration, and loss including theft. Delivery schedules shall be controlled to minimize long-term storage of products at the Project site and overcrowding of construction spaces. In particular, the Contractor shall provide delivery and installation coordination to ensure minimum holding or storage times for materials recognized to be flammable, hazardous, easily damaged, or sensitive to deterioration, theft, and other sources of loss.
Storage shall be arranged to provide access for inspection. The Contractor shall periodically inspect to assure materials are undamaged and are maintained under required conditions.
All costs associated with the clean-up and storage required to complete the Project shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-6 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-48 ATTACHMENT 2 - 22
3-12.4.2 Storage in Public Streets
The first sentence of Section 3-12.4.2 shall not be incorporated and shall instead be replaced with the following:
Construction materials and equipment shall not be stored in Streets, roads, or highways unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions or approved by the City Engineer.
3-13 COMPLETION, ACCEPTANCE, AND WARRANTY
3-13.1 Completion.
The Contractor shall complete all Work under the Contract within 60 Working Days from the Notice to Proceed.
3-13.2 Acceptance
The Project will not be considered complete and ready for City Council direction to staff regarding recordation of the Notice of Completion until all required Work is completed, the Work site is cleaned up in accordance with Section 3-12 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications and the Special Provisions, and all of the following items have been received by the City Engineer:
1. A form of Notice of Completion, with all information required by the California Civil Code;
2. All written guarantees and warranties;
3. All “as-builts”;
4. Duplicate copies of all operating instructions and manufacturer’s operating catalogs and data, together with such field instructions as necessary to fully instruct City personnel in correct operation and maintenance procedures for all equipment installed listed under the electrical, air conditioning, heating, ventilating and other trades. This data and instructions shall be furnished for all equipment requiring periodic adjustments, maintenance or other operation procedures.
The Contractor shall allow at least seven (7) Working Days’ notice for final inspection. Such notice shall be submitted to the City Engineer in writing.
3-13.3 Warranty
For the purposes of the calculation of the start of the warranty period, the Work shall be deemed to be completed upon the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion. If that direction is contingent on the completion of any items remaining on a punchlist, the Work shall be deemed to be completed upon the date of the City Engineer’s acceptance of the final item(s) on that punchlist.
The Contractor shall repair or replace defective materials and workmanship as required in this Section 3-13.3 at its own expense. Additionally, the Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from claims of any kind arising from damage, injury or death due to such defects.
The parties agree that no certificate given shall be conclusive evidence of the faithful performance of the Contract, either in whole or in part, and that no payment shall be construed to be in
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-7 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-49 ATTACHMENT 2 - 23
acceptance of any defective Work or improper materials. Further, the certificate or final payment shall not terminate the Contractor’s obligations under the warranty herein. The Contractor agrees that payment of the amount due under the Contract and the adjustments and payments due for any Work done in accordance with any alterations of the same, shall release the City, the City Council and its officers and employees from any and all claims or liability on account of Work performed under the Contract or any alteration thereof.
SECTION 4. CONTROL OF MATERIALS
4-1 GENERAL
The Contractor and all Subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors shall guarantee that the Work will meet all requirements of this Contract as to the quality of materials, equipment, and workmanship.
4-4 TESTING
Except as elsewhere specified, the City shall bear the cost of testing materials and workmanship that meet or exceed the requirements indicated in the Standard Specifications and the Special Provisions. The cost of all other tests, including the retesting of material or workmanship that fails to pass the first test, shall be borne by the Contractor.
4-6 TRADE NAMES
If the Contractor requests to substitute an equivalent item for a brand or trade name item, the burden of proof as to the comparative quality and suitability of alternative equipment or articles or materials shall be upon the Contractor, and the Contractor shall furnish, at its own expense, all information necessary or related thereto as required by the City Engineer. All requests for substitution shall be submitted, together with all documentation necessary for the City Engineer to determine equivalence, no later than 2 Days after the award of Contract, unless a different deadline is listed in the Special Provisions.
SECTION 5. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5-3 LABOR
5-3.1 Public Work
The Contractor acknowledges that the Project is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq. (“Chapter 1”), and that this Project is subject to (a) Chapter 1, including without limitation Labor Code Section 1771 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Director of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. The Contractor shall perform all Work on the Project as a public work. The Contractor shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in (a) and (b) as though set forth in full herein.
5-3.2 Copies of Wage Rates
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Project are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any Work, the Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-8 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-50 ATTACHMENT 2 - 24
wages, and the Contractor shall post such rates at each job site covered by these Contract Documents.
The Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contractor shall, as a penalty paid to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to these Contract Documents by the Contractor or by any Subcontractor.
5-3.3 Payroll Records
The Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires the Contractor and each Subcontractor to (1) keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776, (2) certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776, and (3) inform the City of the location of the records. The Contractor has ten (10) days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of a written notice requesting these records, or as a penalty to the City, the Contractor shall forfeit one hundred dollars ($100) for each Day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. Upon the request of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, these penalties shall be withheld from progress payments then due.
The Contractor and each Subcontractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1771.4(a)(3), which requires that each Contractor and each Subcontractor shall furnish the records specified in Section 1776 directly to the Labor Commissioner at least monthly, in a format prescribed by the Labor Commissioner.
5-3.4 Hours of Labor
The Contractor acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. The Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. The Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty paid to the City, forfeit twenty- five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Project by the Contractor or by any Subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one (1) calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of the Contractor in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the basic rate of pay.
5-3.5 Apprentices
The Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Before commencing Work on this Project, the Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within sixty (60) Days after concluding Work, Contractor and
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-9 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-51 ATTACHMENT 2 - 25
each of its Subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Contract.
5-3.6 Debarment or Suspension
The Contractor shall not perform Work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or State law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. The Contractor and Subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or State law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If the Contractor or any Subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the Project, the Contractor shall immediately notify the City.
5-3.7 Registration with the DIR
In accordance with Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, no contractor or subcontractor shall be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5.
5-3.8 Compliance Monitoring and Posting Job Sites
This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. The Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation.
5-3.9 Subcontractors
For every Subcontractor who will perform Work on the Project, the Contractor shall be responsible for such Subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and the Contractor shall include in the written Contract between it and each Subcontractor a copy of the provisions in this Section 5-3 of the General Provisions and a requirement that each Subcontractor shall comply with those provisions. The Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure Subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the Subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the Subcontractor to pay its workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. The Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure.
5-3.10 Prevailing Wage Indemnity
To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at the Contractor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed in Section 5-3 of the General Provisions by any Person (including the Contractor, its Subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any Work undertaken or in connection with the Contract Documents, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of the Contractor under this Section 5-3.10 shall survive expiration or termination of the Contract.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-10 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-52 ATTACHMENT 2 - 26
5-4 INSURANCE
5-4.1 General
The first paragraph of Section 5-4.1 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications shall not be incorporated and shall instead be replaced with the following:
The Contractor shall provide and maintain insurance naming the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, designated volunteers, and independent contractors in the role of City officials as insureds or additional insureds regardless of any inconsistent statement in the policy or any subsequent endorsement whether liability is attributable to the Contractor or the City. The insurance provisions shall not be construed to limit the Contractor’s indemnity obligations contained in the Contract. The City will not be liable for any accident, loss, or damage to the Work before completion, except as otherwise specified in Section 6-5.
5-4.2 General Liability Insurance
The Contractor shall at all times during the term of the Contract carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect the insurance referenced in Section 5-4 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications, as modified below.
5-4.2.1 Additional Insureds
The City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, designated volunteers, and independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be the insured or named as additional insureds covering the Work, regardless of any inconsistent statement in the policy or any subsequent endorsement, whether liability is attributable to the Contractor or the City.
5-4.2.2 No Limitation on Indemnity
The insurance provisions shall not be construed to limit the Contractor’s indemnity obligations contained in these Contract Documents.
5-4.2.3 Replacement Insurance
The Contractor agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage. The Contractor agrees that if it does not keep the required insurance in full force and effect, and such insurance is available at a reasonable cost, the City may take out the necessary insurance and pay the premium thereon, and the repayment thereof shall be deemed an obligation of the Contractor and the cost of such insurance may be deducted, at the option of the City, from payments due the Contractor. This shall be in addition to all other legal options available to the City to enforce the insurance requirements.
5-4.2.4 Certificates of Insurance with Original Endorsements
The Contractor shall submit to the City certificates of insurance with the original endorsements, both of which reference the same policy number, for each of the insurance policies that meet the insurance requirements, not less than one (1) day before beginning of performance under the Contract. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-11 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-53 ATTACHMENT 2 - 27
coverage on its behalf. Endorsements may be executed on the City’s standard forms titled “Additional Insured Endorsement,” copies of which are provided in the Contract Documents, or on any other form that contains substantially the same terms and is approved by the City’s Risk Manager. In any case, the endorsements must specifically name the City of San Marino and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, designated volunteers, and independent contractors in the role of City officials as insureds or additional insureds. Current insurance certificates and endorsements shall be kept on file with the City at all times during the term of this Contract. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.
5-4.2.5 Subcontractors
The Contractor shall ensure all Subcontractors and their employees are listed as additional insureds on all of the Contractor’s insurance.
5-4.5 Insurance Requirements not Limiting
If the Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required in this Section 5-4, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
5.7 SAFETY
5-7.8 Steel Plate Covers
5-7.8.1 General
The Contractor shall cover all openings, trenches and excavations at the end of each Work Day with steel plate covers.
Section 5-8 is hereby added to Section 1 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications, as follows:
5-8 INDEMNIFICATION
5-8.1 Contractor’s Duty
To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor hereby agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to defend with competent defense counsel approved by the City Attorney, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, volunteers, attorneys, agents (including those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City representatives), successors, and assigns (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, charges, obligations, damages, causes of action, proceedings, suits, losses, stop payment notices, judgments, fines, liens, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever, in any manner arising out of, incident to, related to, in connection with or resulting from any act, failure to act, error or omission of the Contractor or any of its officers, agents, attorneys, servants, employees, Subcontractors, material suppliers or any of their officers, agents, servants or employees, and/or arising out of, incident to, related to, in connection with or resulting from any term, provision, image, plan, covenant, or condition in the Contract Documents; including, without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages,
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-12 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-54 ATTACHMENT 2 - 28
attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and other related costs and expenses (individually, a “Claim,” or collectively, “Claims”). The Contractor shall promptly pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against any of the Indemnitees as to any such Claim. The Contractor shall reimburse Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. The Contractor’s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Contractor or Indemnitees. This indemnity shall apply to all Claims regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable or whether the Claim was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitees.
5-8.2 Civil Code Exception
Nothing in this Section 5-8 shall be construed to encompass Indemnitees’ sole negligence or willful misconduct to the limited extent that the underlying Contract is subject to Civil Code Section 2782(a) or the City’s active negligence to the limited extent that the underlying Contract Documents are subject to Civil Code Section 2782(b), provided such sole negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction.
5-8.3 Nonwaiver of Rights
Indemnitees do not and shall not waive any rights that they may possess against the Contractor because the acceptance by the City, or the deposit with the City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to these Contract Documents. This indemnity provision is effective regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by Indemnitees and shall operate to fully indemnify Indemnitees against any such negligence.
5-8.4 Waiver of Right of Subrogation
The Contractor, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all Claims arising out of or incident to the activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor regardless of any prior, concurrent or subsequent active or passive negligence by Indemnitees.
5-8.5 Survival
The provisions of this Section 5-8 shall survive the term and termination of the Contract, are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State, and are in addition to any other rights or remedies that Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against the Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision.
SECTION 6. PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS OF THE WORK
6-1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK
6-1.1 Construction Schedule
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-13 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-55 ATTACHMENT 2 - 29
One (1) week before the scheduled pre-construction meeting, the Contractor must submit to the City Engineer for review and approval the construction schedule required by the first paragraph of Section 6-1.1. The Contractor shall make revisions as required by the City Engineer. The schedule must account for all subcontract work, as well as the work of the Contractor, submittals, coordination with the other contractors performing concurrent work and the Traffic Control Plan. The Contractor shall update this Construction Schedule when directed by the City Engineer, or when:
a. A Change Order significantly affects the Contract completion date or the sequence of construction approach or activities; or
b. The actual sequence of the Work, or the planned sequence of the Work, is changed and does not conform to the Contractor’s current accepted Project construction schedule.
The Contractor shall submit an updated construction schedule with its monthly invoice every month. Progress payments shall be contingent upon the receipt of monthly updated construction schedules.
6-1.1.1 Pre-Construction Conference
Approximately 1 Days before the commencement of Work at the site, a pre-construction conference will be held at the City and shall be attended by the Contractor’s Project manager, its on-site field superintendent, and any Subcontractors that the Contractor deems appropriate. Attendance by the Contractor and any Subcontractors designated is mandatory.
Contractor shall submit its twenty-four (24) hour emergency telephone numbers to the City Engineer for approval a minimum of two (2) Working Days before the pre-construction conference. Unless previously submitted to the City Engineer, the Contractor shall bring to the pre- construction conference copies of each of the following:
1) Construction Schedule. 2) Procurement schedule of major equipment and materials and items requiring long lead time. 3) Shop drawing/sample submittal schedule. 4) Preliminary schedule of values (lump sum price breakdown) for progress payment purposes. 5) Written designation of the on-site field superintendent and the Project manager. Both daytime and emergency telephone numbers shall be included in the written designation.
The purpose of the conference is to designate responsible personnel and establish a working relationship. The parties will discuss matters requiring coordination and establish procedures for handling such matters. The complete agenda will be furnished to the Contractor before the meeting date. The Contractor shall be prepared to discuss all of the items listed below.
1) The Contractor’s construction schedule. 2) Notification of local residents before starting any Work and keeping them informed throughout the Project. 3) Procedures for transmittal, review, and distribution of the Contractor’s submittals. 4) Processing applications for payment.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-14 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-56 ATTACHMENT 2 - 30
5) Maintaining record documents. 6) Critical Work sequencing. 7) Maintaining sewage service during construction, including proposed by-passes. 8) NPDES requirements, if any. 9) Field decisions and Change Orders. 10) Use of Project site, office and storage areas, security, housekeeping, and the City’s needs. 11) Major equipment deliveries and priorities. 12) Traffic control. 13) Any other item that the City representative states is relevant to the meeting.
6-1.1.2 Weekly Progress Meetings
Progress meetings will be held each week during the course of the Project. The meeting location, day of the week and time of day will be mutually agreed to by the City and the Contractor. The Contractor shall provide a two (2) week “look ahead” schedule for each meeting. The construction manager will preside at these meetings and will prepare the meeting agenda, meeting minutes and will distribute minutes to all persons in attendance. As the Work progresses, if it is determined by agreement of the attendees, that weekly meetings are not necessary, the weekly progress meetings may be changed to bi-weekly progress meetings.
6-1.2 Commencement of the Work
The Contractor shall not begin any construction activity at the site before the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Any Work that is done by the Contractor in advance of the Notice to Proceed shall be considered as being done at the Contractor’s own risk and responsibility, and as a consequence will be subject to rejection.
Section 6-1.3 is hereby added to Section 6 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications, as follows:
6-1.3 Working Days And Hours
The Contractor shall do all Work between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. No Work will be allowed on Saturday, Sunday or City holidays, which are as follows: Independence Day.
In addition, no Work will be allowed on any special election Day that may be declared. Should a special election Day be declared, a time extension of one (1) Working Day will be granted for each such Day.
A permit may have other hours or Days for the Contractor to do the Work, and those hours and Days shall supersede any hours and Days written in this Section.
Whenever the Contractor is permitted or directed to perform night Work or to vary the period during which Work is performed during the Working Day, the Contractor shall give twelve (12) hours’ notice to the City Engineer so that inspection may be provided. A charge may be made to the Contractor for approved overtime or weekend inspections requested by the Contractor.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-15 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-57 ATTACHMENT 2 - 31
6-4 DELAYS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME
6-4.1 General.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, an adjustment to the Contract time by reason of a Change Order shall be agreed to at the time the Change Order is issued and accepted by Contractor. If the Change Order does not reserve the right of the parties, or either of them, to seek an adjustment to the Contract time, then the parties forever relinquish and waive such right and there shall be no further adjustments to the Contract time.
6-4.2 Extensions of Time
In the event it is deemed appropriate by the City to extend the time for completion of the Work, any such extension shall not release any guarantee for the Work required by the Contract Documents, nor shall any such extension of time relieve or release the Sureties on the Bonds executed. In executing such Bonds, the Sureties shall be deemed to have expressly agreed to any such extensions of time. The amount of time allowed by an extension of time shall be limited to the period of the delay giving rise to the same as determined by the City. Notwithstanding any dispute which may arise in connection with a claim for adjustment of the Contract time, the Contractor shall promptly proceed with the Work.
6-4.3 Payment for Delays
Notwithstanding any other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, the City shall have no obligation whatsoever to increase the Contract Price or extend the time for delays.
Unless compensation and/or markup is agreed upon by the City, the Contractor agrees that no payment of compensation of any kind shall be made to the Contractor for damages or increased overhead costs caused by any delays in the progress of the Contract, whether such delays are avoidable or unavoidable or caused by any act or omission of the City or its agents. Any accepted delay claim shall be fully compensated for by an extension of time to complete the performance of the Work.
This Section shall not apply to compensable delays caused solely by the City. If a compensable delay is caused solely by the City, the Contractor shall be entitled to a Change Order that: (1) extends the time for completion of the Contract by the amount of delay caused by the City; and (2) provides equitable adjustment, as determined by the City, to the Contractor.
6-8 TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONVENIENCE
The following sentence is added to Section 6-8:
In no event (including termination for impossibility or impracticability, due to conditions or events beyond the control of the City, for any other reason or for no reason) shall the total amount of money to Contractor exceed the amount which would have been paid to Contractor for the full performance of the services described in the Contract.
6-9 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
For the purposes of the calculation of the start of the liquidated damages, the Work shall be deemed to be completed when the same has been completed in accordance with the Plans and
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-16 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-58 ATTACHMENT 2 - 32
Specifications therefor and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and the City Engineer has certified such completion in accordance with Section 3-13.1 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications.
SECTION 7. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
7.3 PAYMENT
7.3.1 General
The unit and lump sum prices to be paid shall constitute full compensation for all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required to complete the Project as outlined in these Contract Documents and as directed by the City Engineer. In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 7107, if no claims have been filed and are still pending, the amount deducted from the final estimate and retained by the City will be paid to the Contractor except such amounts as are required by law to be withheld by properly executed and filed notices to stop payment, or as may be withheld for any other lawful purposes.
7-3.2 Partial and Final Payment
7-3.2.1 Monthly Closure Date and Invoice Date
For purposes of Section 7-3.2, the monthly closure date shall be the last Day of each month. A measurement of Work performed and a progress estimate of the value thereof based on the Contract and of the monthly payment shall be prepared by the Contractor and submitted to the City Engineer before the tenth (10th) Day of the following month for verification and payment consideration.
7-3.2.2 Payments
The City shall make payments within thirty (30) Days after receipt of the Contractor’s undisputed and properly submitted payment request, including an updated construction schedule pursuant to Section 6-1.1 of the General Provisions. The City shall return to the Contractor any payment request determined not to be a proper payment request as soon as practicable, but not later than seven (7) Days after receipt, and shall explain in writing the reasons why the payment request is not proper.
7-3.2.3 Retention
The City shall withhold not less than five percent (5%) from each progress payment. However, at any time after fifty percent (50%) of the Work has been completed, if the City Council finds that satisfactory progress is being made, it may, at its discretion, make any of the remaining progress payments in full for actual Work completed. The City shall withhold not less than five percent (5%) of the Contract Price from the Final Payment Amount (defined in Section 7-3.2.4) until at least thirty-five (35) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion, or recordation of a notice of completion or cessation, but not later than the period permitted by Public Contract Code Section 7107.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-17 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-59 ATTACHMENT 2 - 33
7-3.2.4 Final Invoice and Payment
Whenever the Contractor shall have completely performed the Contract in the opinion of the City Engineer, the City Engineer shall notify the City Clerk that the Contract has been completed in its entirety. The Contractor shall then submit to the City Engineer a written statement of the final quantities of Contract items for inclusion in the final invoice. Upon receipt of such statement, the City Engineer shall check the quantities included therein and shall authorize a payment amount, which in the City Engineer’s opinion shall be just and fair, covering the value of the total amount of Work done by the Contractor, less all previous payments and all amounts to be retained under the provisions of the Contract Documents (“Final Payment Amount”). The City Engineer shall then request that the City accept the Work and that the City Clerk be authorized to file, on behalf of the City in the office of the County Recorder, a Notice of Completion of the Work herein agreed to be done by the Contractor. In addition, the final payment will not be released until the Contractor returns the control set of Plans and Specifications showing the redlined as-built conditions.
7-3.2.5 Substitute Security
In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22300, the Contractor may request that it be permitted to substitute securities in lieu of having retention withheld by the City from progress payments when such payments become due or, in the alternative, the Contractor may request that the City make payments of earned retentions directly to an agreed upon designated escrow agent at the Contractor’s expense. If the Contractor selects either one of these alternatives, the following shall control.
7.3.2.5.1 Substitution of Securities for Performance Retention
At some reasonable time before any progress payment would otherwise be due and payable to the Contractor in the performance of Work under these Contract Documents, the Contractor may submit a request to the City in writing to permit the substitution of retentions with securities equivalent to the amount estimated by the City (“estimated amount of retention”) to be withheld. The Contractor shall deposit such securities with the City or may, in the alternative, deposit such securities in escrow with a State or federally chartered bank in California, as the escrow agent, at the Contractor’s expense. Such securities will be the equivalent or greater in value of the estimated amount of retention. If the Contract is modified by written Modifications or Change Orders or the Contractor otherwise becomes entitled to receive an amount more than the Contract Price at the time the securities are deposited, the Contractor shall, at the request of the City, deposit with the City or escrow agent, whichever is applicable, additional securities within a reasonable time so that the amount of securities on deposit with the City or escrow agent is equivalent or greater in value than the amount of retention the City would otherwise be entitled to withhold from progress payments due or to become due to the Contractor as the Work progresses. The City shall withhold any retention amount that exceeds the security amount until the additional securities are deposited and, if the deposit is with an escrow agent, the City has confirmation from that escrow agent of the new total value of securities. Upon satisfactory completion of the Contract, which shall mean, among other things, that the City is not otherwise entitled to retain proceeds from progress payments as elsewhere provided in the Contract or under applicable law, the securities shall be returned to the Contractor. The City shall, within its sole discretion, determine whether the amount of the securities on deposit with the City or escrow agent is equal to or greater than the amount of estimated retention of progress payments that could otherwise be held by the City if the Contractor had not elected to substitute same with securities.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-18 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-60 ATTACHMENT 2 - 34
7-3.2.5.2 Deposit of Retention Proceeds with an Escrow Agent
As an alternative to the substitution of securities, as provided above, or the City otherwise retaining and holding retention proceeds from progress payments, the Contractor may request the City to make payments of retentions earned directly to an escrow agent with the same qualifications as required in Section 7-3.2.5.1 above and at the expense of the Contractor. At its sole expense, the Contractor may direct the investment of such retention payments into only such securities as mentioned in Section 7-3.2.5.4 below and shall be entitled to interest earned on such investments on the same terms provided for securities deposited by the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the Contract, which shall mean when the City would not otherwise be entitled to withhold retention proceeds from progress payments had the Contractor not elected to have such proceeds deposited into escrow, the Contractor shall be allowed to receive from the escrow agent all securities, interest and payments deposited into escrow pursuant to the terms of this Section. The Contractor shall pay to each Subcontractor, not later than ten (10) Days of receipt of payment, the respective amount of interest earned, net of costs attributed to retention withheld from each Subcontractor, on the amount withheld to ensure performance of the Contractor.
7-3.2.5.3 Subcontractor Entitlement to Interest
If the Contractor elects to receive interest on any moneys withheld in retention by the City, then the Subcontractor shall receive the identical rate of interest received by the Contractor on any retention moneys withheld from the Subcontractor by the Contractor, less any actual pro rata costs associated with administering and calculating that interest. In the event that the interest rate is a fluctuating rate, the rate for the Subcontractor shall be determined by calculating the interest rate paid during the time that retentions were withheld from the Subcontractor. If the Contractor elects to substitute securities in lieu of retention, then, by mutual consent of the Contractor and the Subcontractor, the Subcontractor may substitute securities in exchange for the release of moneys held in retention by the Contractor. The Contractor shall pay each Subcontractor, not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of escrow moneys, the amount owed to each Subcontractor from the moneys plus the respective amount of interest earned, net of costs attributed to the retention held from each Subcontractor, on the amount of retention withheld to ensure performance of the Subcontractor.
7-3.2.5.4 Securities Eligible for Investment
Securities eligible for investment shall include those listed in Government Code Section 16430, bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit, interest-bearing demand deposit accounts, standby letters of credit, or any other security mutually agreed upon between the Contractor and the City. The Contractor shall be the beneficial owner of any securities substituted for any monies withheld and shall receive any interest thereon.
7-3.2.5.5 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention
The escrow agreement that shall be used for the deposit of securities in lieu of retention shall substantially conform to the form prescribed in Public Contract Code Section 22300(f).
7-3.2.5.6 Inconsistencies with Prevailing Statutory Requirements
If there is any inconsistency between or differences in Public Contract Code Section 22300 and the terms of this provision, or any future amendments thereto, Section 22300 shall control.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-19 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-61 ATTACHMENT 2 - 35
Section 7-3.9 is hereby added to Section 7-3 of Part 1 of the Standard Specifications, as follows:
7-3.9 AUDIT
The City or its representative shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by the Contractor in preparing its billings to the City as a condition precedent to any payment to the Contractor or in response to a construction claim or a Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) request. The Contractor will promptly furnish documents requested by the City at no cost. Additionally, the Contractor shall be subject to State Auditor examination and audit at the request of the City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Contract. The Contractor shall include a copy of this Section 7-3.9 in all contracts with its Subcontractors, and the Contractor shall be responsible for immediately obtaining those records or other written material from its Subcontractors upon a request by the State Auditor or the City. If the Project includes other auditing requirements, those additional requirements will be listed in the Special Provisions.
SECTION 8 FACILITIES FOR AGENCY PERSONNEL
8-1 General
No field offices for City personnel shall be required; however, City personnel shall have the right to enter upon the Project at all times and shall be admitted to the offices of the Contractor to use the telephone, desk and sanitary facilities provided by the Contractor for its own personnel.
Section 9 is hereby added to Part 1 of the Standard Specifications, as follows:
SECTION 9. ADDITIONAL TERMS
9-1 NONDISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYMENT
The Contractor shall not unlawfully discriminate against any individual based on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation or military and veteran status. The Contractor understands and agrees that it is bound by and will comply with the nondiscrimination mandates of all statutes and local ordinances and regulations.
9-3 CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK
Until the final acceptance of the Work by the City Council in accordance with Section 3-13.2 of the General Provisions, the Contractor shall have the charge and care thereof and shall bear the risk of injury or damage to any part of the Work by the action of the elements, criminal acts, or any other cause. The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore and make good all injuries or damages to any portion of the Work occasioned by any cause before its completion and acceptance and shall bear the expense thereof, except for such injuries or damages arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents or employees. In the case of suspension of Work from any cause whatever, the Contractor shall be responsible for all materials and the protection of Work already completed, shall properly store and protect them if necessary, and shall provide suitable drainage and erect temporary structures where necessary.
9-4 PROCEDURE IN CASE OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-20 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-62 ATTACHMENT 2 - 36
Any portions of curb, gutter, sidewalk or any other City improvement damaged by the Contractor during the course of construction shall be replaced by the Contractor at its own cost. The cost of additional replacement of curb, gutter or sidewalk in excess of the estimated quantities shown in the Bid form and Specifications, and found necessary during the process of construction (but not due to damage resulting from carelessness on the part of the Contractor during its operation), shall be paid to the Contractor at the unit prices submitted in his or her Bid.
9-5 REMOVAL OF INTERFERING OBSTRUCTIONS
The Contractor shall remove and dispose of all debris, abandoned structures, tree roots and obstructions of any character encountered during the process of excavation. It is understood that the cost of any such removals are made a part of the unit price bid by the Contractor under the item for excavation or removal of existing Work.
9-6 SOILS ENGINEERING AND TESTING
A certified materials testing firm may be retained by the City to perform materials tests during the Contractor’s entire operation to ascertain compliance with the Contract requirements. The City shall be responsible for the first series of tests. If the initial tests do not meet the Contract requirements, the Contractor shall bear the cost of all subsequent tests.
If the City requires other tests or more specific requirements for testing regarding this Project, those details will be included in the Special Provisions.
9-7 ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
Unless otherwise stated in the Special Provisions, the Contractor shall be responsible for all fees and costs associated with securing permission to access private property for any portion of the Project.
9-9 CLAIM DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of any dispute or controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever, the Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation in or of Work, but shall proceed with the performance of the Work in dispute. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. The Disputed Work will be categorized as an “unresolved dispute” and payment, if any, shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law. The Contractor shall keep accurate, detailed records of all Disputed Work, claims and other disputed matters.
All claims arising out of or related to the Contract Documents or this Project, and the consideration and payment of such claims, are subject to the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) with regard to filing claims. All such claims are also subject to Public Contract Code Section 9204 and Public Contract Code Section 20104 et seq. (Article 1.5), where applicable. This Contract hereby incorporates those provisions as through fully set forth herein. Thus, the Contractor or any Subcontractor must file a claim in accordance with the Government Claims Act as a prerequisite to filing a construction claim in compliance with Section 9204 and Article 1.5 (if applicable), and must then adhere to Section 9204 and Article 1.5 (as applicable), pursuant to the definition of “claim” as individually defined therein.
9-10 THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-21 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-63 ATTACHMENT 2 - 37
The City shall have full authority to compromise or otherwise settle any claim relating to the Project at any time. The City shall timely notify the Contractor of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Project. The City shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs incurred in providing this notice.
9-11 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time the Contractor performs pursuant to the Contract Documents.
9-12 CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS
By signing the Contract, the Contractor represents, covenants, agrees, and declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that: (a) the Contractor is licensed, qualified, and capable of furnishing the labor, materials, and expertise necessary to perform the services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Contract Documents; (b) there are no obligations, commitments, or impediments of any kind that will limit or prevent its full performance under the Contract Documents; (c) there is no litigation pending against the Contractor that could adversely affect its performance of the Contract, and the Contractor is not the subject of any criminal investigation or proceeding; and (d) to the Contractor’s actual knowledge, neither the Contractor nor its personnel have been convicted of a felony.
9-13 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Contractor agrees not to accept any employment or representation during the term of the Contract or within twelve (12) months after acceptance as defined in Section 3-13.2 of the General Provisions that is or may likely make the Contractor “financially interested,” as provided in Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100, in any decisions made by the City on any matter in connection with which the Contractor has been retained pursuant to the Contract Documents.
9-14 APPLICABLE LAW
The validity, interpretation, and performance of these Contract Documents shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding California’s choice of law rules. Venue for any such action relating to the Contract shall be in the Superior Court with geographic jurisdiction over the City.
9-15 TIME
Time is of the essence in these Contract Documents.
9-16 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Contractor and Subcontractors shall at all times remain, as to the City, wholly independent contractors. Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or any of their officers, employees, or agents, except as herein set forth, and the Contractor and Subcontractors are free to dispose of all portions of their time and activities that they are not obligated to devote to the City in such a manner and to such Persons that the Contractor or Subcontractors wish except as expressly provided in these Contract Documents. The Contractor and Subcontractors shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of the City, bind the City in any manner, or
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-22 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-64 ATTACHMENT 2 - 38
otherwise act on behalf of the City as agents. The Contractor and Subcontractors shall not, at any time or in any manner, represent that they or any of their agents, servants or employees, are in any manner agents, servants or employees of the City. The Contractor and Subcontractors agree to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to them under the Contract, and to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against the City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by the Contract Documents. The Contractor shall include this provision in all contracts with all Subcontractors.
9-17 CONSTRUCTION
In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of these Contract Documents shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Contract Documents or who drafted that portion of the Contract Documents.
9-18 NON-WAIVER OF TERMS, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
Waiver by either party of any one (1) or more of the conditions of performance under these Contract Documents shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under these Contract Documents. In no event shall the making by the City of any payment to the Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by the City of any breach of covenant, or any default that may then exist on the part of the Contractor, and the making of any such payment by the City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the City with regard to such breach or default.
9-19 TERM
The Contract is effective as of the Effective Date listed, and shall remain in full force and effect until the Contractor has fully rendered the services required by the Contract Documents or the Contract has been otherwise terminated by the City. However, some provisions may survive the term listed within this Section, as stated in those provisions.
9-20 NOTICE
Except as otherwise required by law, any notice or other communication authorized or required by these Contract Documents shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during the City’s regular business hours or (b) on the third (3rd) business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses listed on the Contractor’s Bid and City Hall, or at such other address as one party may notify the other.
9-21 SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of these Contract Documents is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of these Contract Documents shall continue in full force and effect.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc GP-23 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-65 ATTACHMENT 2 - 39
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
The Sections that follow supplement, but do not replace, the corresponding provisions in Part 4 (Existing Improvements) of the Standard Specifications, except as otherwise indicated herein. In the event of any conflict between the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions, these Special Provisions shall control.
SECTION 400 - PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
400-1 GENERAL
All costs to the Contractor for protecting, removing, restoring, relocating, repairing, replacing, or reestablishing existing improvements shall be included in the Bid.
SECTION 402 - UTILITIES
402-1 LOCATION
The location and existence of any underground Utility or substructure has not been obtained. The methods used and costs involved to locate existing elements, points of connection and all construction methods are the Contractor’s sole responsibility. Accuracy of information furnished, as to existing conditions, is not guaranteed by the City. The Contractor, at its sole expense, must make all investigations necessary to determine locations of existing elements, which may include contacting Underground Service Alert and other private underground locating firm(s), utilizing specialized locating equipment, hand trenching, or both. For every Dig Alert Identification Number issued by Underground Service Alert during the course of the Project, the Contractor must submit to the City the following form. The Contractor shall be responsible for preserving the integrity of the existing underground utilities at the site.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc SP-1 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-66 ATTACHMENT 2 - 40
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FORM
No excavation will be permitted until this form is completed and returned to the City.
Government Code Section 4216 et seq. requires a Dig Alert Identification Number to be issued before a permit to excavate will be valid.
To obtain a Dig Alert Identification Number, call Underground Service Alert at 811 a minimum of three (3) Working Days before scheduled excavation. For best response, provide as much notice as possible up to ten (10) Working Days.
Dig Alert Identification Number: ______
Dated: (“CONTRACTOR”)
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Note: This form is required for every Dig Alert Identification Number issued by Underground Service during the course of the Work. Additional forms may be obtained from the City upon request.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc SP-2 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-67 ATTACHMENT 2 - 41
402-1.3 Entry by Utility Owners
The right is reserved to the owners of public Utilities or franchises to enter the Project site for the purpose of making repairs or changes in their property that may be necessary as a result of the Work as well as any other reason authorized by the City. When the Contract Documents provide for the Utility owners to alter, relocate or reconstruct a Utility, or when the Contract Documents are silent in this regard and it is determined by the City Engineer that the Utility owners must alter, relocate or reconstruct a Utility, the Contractor shall schedule and allow adequate time for those alterations, relocations or reconstructions by the respective Utility owners. City employees and agents shall likewise have the right to enter upon the Project site at any time and for any reason or no reason at all.
402-2 PROTECTION
If Contractor damages or breaks the Utilities, it will be the Contractor’s responsibility to repair the Utility at no cost to the Utility or the City.
402-3 REMOVAL
Facilities encountered during the prosecution of the Work that are determined to be abandoned shall be removed by the Contractor as required for the Work, unless directed otherwise by the City Engineer. The remaining portion of the existing Utility which is left in place shall be accurately recorded, in elevation and plan, on the control set of Contract Drawings.
402-4 RELOCATION
The Contractor shall cooperate fully with all Utility forces of the City or forces of other public or private agencies engaged in the relocation, altering, or otherwise rearranging of any facilities that interfere with the progress of the Work. The Contractor shall schedule the Work so as to minimize interference with the relocation, altering, or other rearranging of facilities.
402-6 COOPERATION
The Contractor’s attention is directed to the fact that Work may be conducted at or adjacent to the site by other contractors during the performance of the Work under this Contract. The Contractor shall conduct its operations so as to cause a minimum of interference with the work of such other contractors, and shall cooperate fully with such contractors to provide continued safe access to their respective portions of the site, as required to perform work under their respective contracts. Compensation for compliance shall be included in the various items of the Work, and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefor.
402-7 NOTIFICATION
The Contractor shall notify the City Engineer and the owners of all Utilities and substructures not less than forty-eight (48) hours before starting construction.
S7130-0001\2304592v1.doc SP-3 Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2019 5-68 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Scott Pilch, Human Resources Manager
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF EXCESS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROPOSAL
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
BACKGROUND
Workers’ Compensation is a program that provides coverage for employees for injuries and illnesses that arise out of their employment with the City. In addition to payment for treatment, injured employees receive their wages, or portion of their wages, while they are off work for the treatment and recovery of such injuries or illnesses.
The City is “self-insured” for the workers’ compensation program. This means the City is responsible for all costs that arise from the program. For FY 2020-21, the City set a Self- Insured Retention (SIR) amount of $750,000 per claim. The City has purchased Excess Workers’ Compensation Buffer insurance, with a $750,000 to $1,250,000 insurance policy with Lyndon Southern and a $1,250,000 to statutory limits insurance policy with Safety National Casualty Corporation (Safety National). The SIR is the dollar amount that must be paid by the City before the insurance policy will respond to a loss.
With the City’s Excess Workers’ Compensation insurance due for renewal, Gallagher, the City’s Risk Management Consultant/Insurance Broker, sought proposals for Excess coverage for FY 2020-21.
6-1 DISCUSSION
Last year, Safety National acquired Midlands Management, which resulted in a positive change for the City of San Marino. This year, Gallagher completed a thorough marketing of the San Marino program while, in the marketplace, Governor Gavin Newsom enacted Executive Order N-62-20 which indicates that “any COVID-19 related illness” is presumed compensable if it met certain requirements.
The market for excess workers’ compensation has historically been soft, however as we currently head into unchartered territory with the COVID-19 pandemic, Gallagher is starting to see increases in rates. Gallagher received a quote of $71,997 to renew the Safety National Self- Insured Retention, $1,250,000 to statutory limit, which is an 22% increase from the $59,126 the City paid in FY 2019-20. Gallagher also received a quote of $49,488 to renew the Lyndon Southern buffer layer insurance, $750,000 to $1,250,000, which is an 18% increase from the $41,764 the City paid in FY 2019-20. Overall, to maintain our current Workers Compensation program with SIR of $750,000 the total cost will be $121,485, which represents a 20% increase.
While the increase rate of 20% seems excessive, the reason behind the increase is due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the high-hazard exposure of police and fire personnel. Gallagher approached a handful of other markets, all which gave indications that were in excess of 15% more in premium than what we received from Safety National. Considering pricing and the services Safety National offers, their offer is the best to date. Furthermore, even with the rate increases due to the impact of COVID-19, rates are still less than the City’s FY 2017-18 & FY 2018-19 program.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget allocated $104,000 for the City’s Excess Worker’s Compensation insurance. Even though the insurance premium proposal provided by Safety National and Lyndon Southern of $121,485 is higher than the allocated budget, no additional appropriation of funding is required at this time as staff will seek budget savings during the year to cover the costs.
The Finance Director has reviewed the procurement of this proposal and determined it is in accordance with San Marino City Code 02.06.05.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the staff report as to legal form.
RECOMMENDATION 2
6-2
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Excess Workers Compensation insurance proposal submitted by Safety National Casualty Corporation providing coverage above the City of San Marino’s Self-Insured Retention amount of $1,250,000 at a cost to the City of $71,997 for FY 2020-21, and buffer layer coverage of $750,000 to $1,250,000, with Lyndon Southern, at a cost to the City of $49,488. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to accept the proposals by both Safety National Casualty Corporation and Lyndon Southern to provide Workers Compensation Excess insurance for FY2020-21 in the amount of $71,997 for coverage above the City’s Self Insured Retention of $1,250,000 from Safety National Casualty Corporation, and in the amount of $49,488 for buffer layer coverage of $750,000 to $1,250,000 from Lyndon Southern.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Gallagher Client Authorization to Bind Coverage
3
6-3
City of San Marino
Client Authorization to Bind Coverage
After careful consideration of Gallagher's proposal dated 6/10/2020, we accept the following coverage(s). Please check the desired coverage(s) and note any coverage amendments below:
COVERAGE/CARRIER
☐ Accept ☐ R eject Excess Workers' Compensation - $1,250,000 SIR (as per expiring) Safety National Casualty Corporation TRIA Cannot Be Rejected
☐ Accept ☐ R eject Excess Workers' Compensation – Buffer Layer ☐ Option # 1 Lyndon Southern Insurance Company – As per expiring ($500k xs $750K) ☐ Option # 2 Lyndon Southern Insurance Company – Option 2 ($300k xs $750K) ☐ Option # 3 Lyndon Southern Insurance Company – Option 3 ($300k xs $950K) TRIA Cannot Be Rejected
The above coverage may not necessarily represent the entirety of available insurance products. If you are interested in pursuing additional coverages other than those addressed in the coverage considerations included in this proposal, please list below: ______
Producer/ Insured Coverage Amendments and Notes:
Exposures and Values We confirm the payroll, values, schedules, and other data contained in the proposal, and submitted to the underwriters, are compiled from information provided by you and we acknowledge it is our responsibility to see that such information is updated and maintained accurately. For renewal policies, if no updates were provided to Gallagher, the values, exposures and operations used were based on the expiring policies.
Gallagher's liability to Client arising from any acts or omissions of Gallagher shall not exceed $20 million in the aggregate. Gallagher shall only be liable for actual damages incurred by Client, and shall not be liable for any indirect, consequential or punitive damages or attorneys' fees. No claim or cause of action, regardless of form (tort, contract, statutory, or otherwise), arising out of, relating to or in any way connected with this Agreement or any Services provided hereunder may be brought by either party any later than two (2) years after the accrual of such claim or cause of action.
Gallagher has established security controls to protect Client confidential information from unauthorized use or disclosure. For additional information, please review Gallagher’s Privacy Policy located at https://www.ajg.com/privacy-policy/.
18
6-4
City of San Marino
I have read, understand and agree that the above information is correct and has been disclosed to us prior to authorizing Gallagher to bind coverage and/or provide services to us.
By: ______Print Name (Specify Title)
______Company
______Signature
Date: ______
19
6-5 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Aldo Cervantes, Planning and Building Director
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 - 1400 CIRCLE DR., (MI/JAMES V. COANE & ASSOCIATES)
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents • Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods
BACKGROUND
Stephen Gleason, the owner of the adjacent property at 1380 Circle Drive, filed this appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Design Review Case (“DRC”) 17-08 concerning the development of a residential project on 1400 Circle Drive (the “Property” or “property”). The project would include a two-story, six-bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four- car garage. A Design Review action is required for new or replacement residential structures (SMCC 23.15.03B).
The Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project at its regular meeting of September 27, 2017, and after considering all evidence presented during the hearing, denied approval of DRC17-08, DRC17-68, and CUP17-25 for the original project because the it could not make the findings required under the City Code for approval of any of the applications.
On October 4, 2017, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Commission’s denial of DRC17-08 and DRC 17-68 to the City Council (“Council”).
On December 5, 2017, the Applicant submitted new plans for the project and an historic assessment report on the Property prepared by Tim Gregory (the “Report”).
The Council considered the Applicant’s appeal at its regular meeting of December 13, 2017. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at
7-1 the meeting, the Council remanded the project back to the Commission for further consideration without direction.
On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised project (the “Project”), after which it determined that the required findings could be made and approved the project. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 3-0 vote. One member of the Planning Commission was absent, and Chairman Brody recused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. Subsequent to this decision, the property owner at 1380 Circle Drive filed this appeal.
At the April 11, 2018 City Council meeting, staff presented the Council with the options to address the Project on appeal. Pursuant to Section 23.15.10 of the City Code, the Council had the option of taking one of the following actions: (a) affirm the Commission’s action; (b) require a summary of all evidence upon which the Commission made its decision, and based on such evidence, deny, approve, or conditionally approve the application; (c) refer the matter back to the Commission, with or without direction; or (d) set the matter for a de novo hearing by the Council within forty (40) days. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at the meeting, the Council moved to approve option D, to set the appeal for a de novo public hearing within 40 days.
On May 21, 2018 and June 11, 2018, the City Council held the duly noticed de novo public hearing. At this hearing, two Council Members did not participate due to prior involvement with the case when it was before the Planning Commission. The City Council voted 2-1 to deny the Project on the grounds that the house was a potential historic resource due to the identity of the architect, Mr. Robert Finkelhor, and, therefore, the proposed house was not compatible with the neighborhood.
The Applicant subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking a writ to set aside the City Council’s decision.
On November 20, 2019, the Superior Court issued a tentative ruling, which it adopted as its final ruling, granting the Applicant’s petition to overturn the City Council’s decision. The Court’s ruling is attached as Attachment 10, and the writ that the Court subsequently issued is attached as Attachment 11. To briefly summarize, the Court found that the City’s findings to deny the Project did not “bridge the analytic gap” between the evidence that was relied on by the Council showing that the existing residence at the Property potentially is an historic resource with the City Council’s ultimate conclusion that the proposed structure is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Court directed that the City Council set aside its decision and remanded the matter back to the City Council to reconsider the application and render a decision that is consistent with the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the City Council must rescind its prior decision, conduct a public hearing to hear the appeal again, and make a determination that is supported by the facts in the record and which is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code regarding design review.
On May 13, 2020, the City Council commenced the public hearing and continued the public hearing to June 10, 2020, in order to provide the applicant’s architect with the opportunity to
2
7-2 redesign the proposed house so as to incorporate some of the design or structural elements of the existing home into the new house. Subsequent to this hearing, the applicant submitted a request to continue the matter from the June 10, 2020 hearing to the July 8, 2020 hearing. The applicant requested additional time to present plans pursuant to the direction of the City Council. On June 10, 2020, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing, heard some additional testimony, and continued the public hearing to the meeting this evening. Also, it is worth noting that the appellant provided public comment at the June 10, 2020 hearing reiterating their desire to maintain the 20-foot side yard wall. In addition, a letter in support of the project was provided by the neighbors located across the street at 1435 Circle Drive.
PROPOSAL
The applicant requests permission to construct a revised Project for a two-story residence with a basement containing six (6) bedrooms and an attached four (4)-car garage. Although the project includes keeping a large part of the front façade, a majority of the structure behind the existing façade will be replaced. This requires one design review action pursuant to City Code Section 23.15.03B.
DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 – New Residential Structure
This project was first presented to the Planning Commission on September 27, 2017, and the project scope included a seventh bedroom in the basement and a front yard fence and gate. Following the Commission’s denial of the original project, the architect deleted those components of the application, which eliminated the requirement for a conditional use permit. Following is a general summary of the Project, as currently proposed:
General Plan: Estate Residential 0-2 du/acres. The proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The proposed Project maintains the appropriate mass and scale as compared with the residential neighborhood. Zoning: R-1, Area District 1. Location: The subject property is located on the north side of Circle Drive between Rosalind Road and the Circle Drive bridge. Existing Use: Two-story single-family home with an attached three-car garage. Proposed Use: A two-story house with an attached four-car garage Surrounding Uses: Adjacent land uses include single-family homes in R-1, Area Districts 1. Environmental Determination: The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 15303(a), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
3
7-3
PROVIDED BY CRITERIA CODE PROJECT ZONING: R-1, D I 6,581 sq. ft. Livable area. Maximum Living Area/Lot 5,481 sq. ft. Lot Coverage 6,600 sq. ft. coverage HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed 35 ft. 25 ft. 4 in. YARDS: Front 50 ft. 64 ft. – 7 inches 38 feet and 1 inch to the north and 28 feet and 5 inches to the Side 20 ft. south Rear 40 ft. 51 ft. PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Garage Spaces Three-car garage Four-car garage DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. n/a n/a IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Percentage 45% 35% DESIGN: Architectural Style Italianate Italianate
Historic Assessment Findings:
The owner of the subject site commissioned the assistance of Tim Gregory to prepare an historic evaluation of the property and the original Architect, Robert Finkelhor. The property was evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources and the City of San Marino criteria. Page 11 of the Historic Assessment finds that Robert Finkelhor is not a notable architect. According to the report, Robert Finkelhor “remains almost completely undocumented in architectural research sources and index.” “Finkelhor did not have a significant style that would make his houses easily identifiable visually, unlike those by such top-tier architects as Wallace Neff and Paul Williams, whose works in the area have recognizably consistent quality. In addition, “It should be mentioned that Finkelhor concentrated his work in the west side of Los Angeles Basin and had little impact on the local scene, with 1440 Circle Drive being his only design documented in San Marino thus far.”
4
7-4 With regards to this home, the report found that the “design features of 1400 Circle Drive do not surpass in quality, distinctiveness, or detailing those of the many other more modest Italian Period Revival of its type still extant in the City of San Marino.” It was also found that, due to a significant addition to the house in 2006, the home has lost any integrity it may have once had. At a prior public hearing before the City Council, Mr. Gregory testified that the breezeway on the front of the house had been closed by a previous owner in 1996, which also changed Mr. Finkelhor’s design. On the other hand, opponents presented a prior article in the Los Angeles Times to the City Council in which Mr. Gregory described Mr. Finkelhor as a locally significant architect.
Because of the change in position by Mr. Gregory, the applicant has submitted another report by Sapphos Environmental Inc., which states that the existing home is not a significant historical structure. (See Attachment 14.)
Due to the reports and the fact that the existing home has not been designated as an historic resource by the City and is not listed on the National or State Historic Registers, and the fact that the home has been altered from Mr. Finkelhor’s original design, staff recommends that the City Council find that the project remains categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 15303(a), New Construction.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has submitted a revised project that consists of salvaging the front façade of the home with the exception of a number of elements. As noted on the cover sheet of the plans, the small single-story turret has been removed; the windows and doors have been adjusted to line up with the openings of the arches found at the arcade, and the north façade that includes the existing garage doors has been removed.
The façade that currently makes up the existing garage could not be maintained due to the fact that this section of the house encroaches into the required side yard setback. Due to the large scope of working being done to the house and the exceedance of the 50% rule, this section of the house must be removed to conform to current codes. The applicant may choose to apply for a variance to maintain this deficiency, but at this moment, the applicant has not expressed the desire to submit this application, and staff questions whether the findings to grant a variance could be made.
On a related note, this section of the house is also the section the neighbors (the appellants) desire to be kept, which has been referred to as the “20-foot” wall. This wall provides a privacy screen between the subject property and the appellants’ property, which is located upslope to the north of the subject property. As stated above, this section of the home cannot be maintained due to the fact that the Code requires elimination of this side of the home to conform to the City’s setback requirements. Most importantly, this wall is not a freestanding wall as you would traditionally see between properties. This wall is an integral part of the existing home. The wall is the side façade of the home, and if a majority of the home is removed, it would seriously compromise the structural integrity of this wall. It would be very difficult to remove the home and maintain this wall, as said wall was not designed or built as a
5
7-5 freestanding wall. In order to maintain this wall, it would likely need to be completely removed and rebuilt as a freestanding 20-foot wall. In addition, a variance would be required to construct a wall that exceeds 8 feet in height.
As an alternative solution to this issue, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to construct an 8- foot side yard wall that will provide a privacy screen. A request to construct an 8-foot side yard wall can be handled by staff via a Minor Exception application. The applicant has also agreed to maintain the dense landscaping along the shared property line and to plant new landscaping where there are gaps in the foliage. This foliage can be allowed to grow to a height of twenty feet, as requested by the appellant. The requirements for the construction of an 8- foot wall, subject to staff approval of a Minor Exception permit, and the foliage requirements have been included as conditions of approval.
With respect to the new project, the architecture of the home continues to be an Italianate style. The neighborhood consists of Georgian, Neo-Classical, Colonial, Mission style, Italianate and Spanish architecture. One could argue that the homes in the neighborhood are designed in the most purist way and include the architectural elements that truly define the homes. An inspection of the neighborhood found that the neighborhood is very eclectic including homes with various architectural styles. In addition, the massing and scale of the homes on these properties are proportionate to the size and width of the lots.
Since the initial design submittal, the architect has made significant modifications to the home. The front entryway, which was once grand, has been reduced in size and mass; the front door has been reduced from a double door to a single door, and the quoins that once lined the edges of the structure have been removed. These changes help simplify the design of the house in a manner that now is consistent with the homes in the neighborhood.
To further simplify the project’s design, the applicant followed the City Council’s direction to maintain the front façade of the home, which is simple in design. The home includes red tile roofing, a smooth stucco finish, balconies, and arches. These are elements that are appropriate for this style of home and are within the Residential Design Guidelines.
In addition, the large side and rear yard setbacks, which greatly exceed the Code requirements, allow for increased space between the proposed home and the homes on the neighboring properties, which will enhance privacy, along with the planting of additional foliage.
In evaluating a project that requires design review, all of the following findings must be met:
1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, and 2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code, 3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines,
6
7-6 4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
As stated above, the neighborhood consists of a variety of different architectural styles. In fact, the neighborhood includes several homes that are Italianate designs. Maintaining the front façade of the home and making the subtle changes to the windows, doors and other design elements has reduced visual mass, simplified the design to be more consistent with the neighboring homes, and resulted in the home being consistent in height, mass and scale with other homes in the neighborhood, all of which contribute to finding that the proposed home meets the applicable required findings described above.
The privacy issue can be mitigated solely by the distance between the subject site and the appellant’s home, which is located upslope to the north. To help mitigate any potential privacy intrusion, the applicant is maintaining the side yard landscaping and constructing an 8-foot side yard wall. Any gaps in the landscaping will be addressed with new landscaping (See conditions of approval). Along the north façade of the proposed home are 5 windows, one of which is a small bathroom window. These windows can be screened from the north property by the proposed landscaping.
In addition, staff has informed the appellants of the revised plans received from the applicant. Upon receiving the revised plans, staff contacted the Gleasons to invite them to see the plans. Staff received a message back indicating that they were not able to visit City Hall to review the plans and requesting a copy of the plans. Unfortunately, under state law, staff is unable to duplicate the plans without the permission of the owner and licensed professional. Staff did suggest to the applicant’s architect that he provide the plans to the appellant, but the architect has not responded.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact as a result of this project.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the staff report as to legal form.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the legal findings listed above, the context of the neighborhood, the existing eclectic styles of homes within the legal neighborhood, the mass and scale of the proposed home in comparison with the homes in the legal neighborhood, the large setbacks that will enhance privacy between the proposed house and the houses on the adjacent properties, and the changes that the applicant has made to the design of the home, staff recommends that the City Council make the four technical findings that the Project is compatible with the neighborhood, subject to the attached conditions of approval, which require a landscaping plan that will retain
7
7-7 the two large trees and require retaining and augmenting the tall vegetation between this property and the appellant’s property to the north, the requirement that an eight-foot wall be constructed, subject to approval of a minor exception permit, and a covenant that will prevent any portion of the basement from being converted into a bedroom.
Staff recommends the City Council approve Design Review Case No. DRC17-08 with the conditions attached (Attachment 9). If the Council concurs with the Staff recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to rescind the prior findings and determination and to adopt Resolution No. R- 20-20, which approves Design Review Committee Case No. DRC17-08, as revised, subject to the conditions attached.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Appeal Letter dated March 6, 2018 2. Planning Commission Staff Report – February 28, 2018 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 28, 2018 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR18-02 5. Color and Materials Information 6. City Council Staff Report – June 11, 2018 7. City Council Approved Findings 2018 8. Historic Assessment Report prepared by Tim Gregory – November 30, 2017 9. Conditions of Approval 10. The decision by the Superior Court. 11. Writ issued by the Superior Court 12. June 10, 2020 City Council Report 13. May 13, 2020 City Council Report 14. Historic Study Rebuttal from applicant 15. Draft City Council Resolution R-20-20
8
7-8 7-9 7-10 7-11 7-12 7-13 7-14 7-15 7-16 7-17 7-18 7-19 7-20 7-21 7-22 7-23 7-24 7-25 7-26 7-27 7-28 7-29 7-30
City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCELLA MARLOWE, PH.D., CITY MANAGER
BY: ALDO CERVANTES, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND Steve Talt, Mayor BUILDING Steven W. Huang, DDS, Vice-Mayor
DATE: JUNE 11, 2018 Susan Jakubowski, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. Member
DRC17-08 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW Ken Ude, Council Member HOUSE, 1400 CIRCLE DRIVE
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS:
• Engaged and Connected Residents • Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods
BACKGROUND:
Stephen Gleason, the owner of 1380 Circle Drive, filed this appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Design Review Case (“DRC”) 17-08 concerning the development of a residential project on 1400 Circle Drive. The project would include a two-story, six-bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four- car garage. A Design Review action is required for new or replacement residential structures (SMCC 23.15.03B).
On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project, after which it determined that the required findings could be made and approved the project. Subsequent to this decision, the property owner at 1380 Circle Drive, filed this appeal.
At the April 11, 2018 City Council meeting, staff presented the Council with the options in handling the project on appeal. Pursuant to the Sections 23.15.10 of the Code, the City Council may do one of the following:
A. Affirm the action of the commission; or
B. Require a summary of all evidence upon which the commission made its decision; after receiving such evidence, the council shall take such action based on standards contained in section 23.15.08 of this article as, in its opinion, is indicated by such evidence alone; or
C. Refer the matter back to the commission, with or without direction; or
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7-31 Page 2 of 4
D. Instruct the city clerk to set the matter for hearing within forty (40) days before itself. At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice herein prescribed for the commission.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council moved to approve option D, to set the appeal for public hearing within 40 days.
The City Council held a public hearing on this matter on May 21, 2018. Subsequant to public comments, the City Council moved to continue the matter to a future noticed public hearing.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests permission to construct a two-story residence with basement containing six (6) bedrooms and an attached four (4) car garage. This requires one design review action pursuant to City Code Section 23.15.03B.
DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 – New Residential Structure
This project was first presented to the Planning Commission on September 27, 2017 and the project scope included a seventh bedroom in the basement and a front yard fence and gate. At that hearing, the Planning Commission denied the project due to the failure of meeting the design review conditions. The Planning Commission also discussed the significance of the original architect, Robert Finkelhor. Subsequent to the denial, the applicant submitted a timely appeal of this decision to the City Council. At the City Council meeting held on December 13, 2017, the City Council remanded the project back to the Commission to allow for the review of the new information. The new information included a historic assessment of the property and design modifications to the proposed house.
General Plan: Estate Residential 0-2 du/acres. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The proposed project maintains the appropriate mass and scale as compared with the residential neighborhood. Zoning: R-1, Area District 1.
Location: The subject property is located on the north side of Circle Drive between Rosalind Road and the Circle Drive bridge. Existing Use: Two-story single family home with an attached three-car garage. Proposed Use: A two-story house with an attached four-car garage Surrounding Uses: Adjacent land uses include single family homes in R-1, Area Districts 1.
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 15303(a), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
7-32 Page 3 of 4
CRITERIA CODE PROVIDED
ZONING: R-1, D I 6,531 sq. ft. Livable area. Maximum Living Area/Lot Coverage 6,600 sq. ft. 4,957 sq. ft. Lot coverage HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed 35 ft. 27 ft. 7.5 in. YARDS: Front 50 ft. 51 ft. - 4.5 inches 37 feet to the north and 39 feet to Side 20 ft. the south Rear 40 ft. 58 ft. PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Garage Spaces Three-car garage Four-car garage DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. n/a n/a IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Percentage 45% 35% DESIGN: Architectural Style Italianate Italianate
Historic Assessment Findings:
The owner of the subject site commissioned the assistance of Tim Gregory to prepare a historic evaluation of the property and the original architect, Robert Finkelhor. The property was evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources and the City of San Marino criteria. Page 11 of the Historic Assessment finds that Robert Finkelhor is not a notable architect. According to the report, Robert Finkelhor “remains almost completely undocumented in architectural research sources and index.” “Finkelhor did not have a significant style that would make his houses easily identifiable visually, unlike those by such top-tier architects as Wallace Neff and Paul, whose works are recognizably consistent quality.” In addition, “it should be mentioned that Finkelhor concentrated his work in the west side of Los Angeles Basin and had little impact on the local scene, with 1440 Circle Drive being his only design documented in San Marino thus far.”
With regards to the home, it was found that the “design features of 1400 Circle Drive do not surpass in quality, distinctiveness, or detailing those of the many other more modest Italian Period Revival of its type still extant in the City of San Marino.” It was also found that due to a significant addition to the house in 2006, the home has lost any integrity it may have once had.
Due to these findings, staff maintains that the project remains categorically exempt form CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 15303(a), New Construction.
7-33 Page 4 of 4
ANALYSIS:
Design Review
The neighborhood consists of Georgian, Neo-Classical, Colonial, Mission style, Italianate and Spanish architecture. One could argue that the homes in the neighborhood are designed in the most purist way and include the architectural elements that truly define the homes. An inspection of the neighborhood did find that the neighborhood is very eclectic with respect to various architectural styles. In addition, the massing and scale of the homes on these properties are proportionate to the size and width of the lots.
The proposed house is presented as an Italianate architectural style. Since the previous hearings, the architect has made significant modifications to the home. The front entry way, which was once grand, has been reduced in size and mass, the front door has been reduced from a double door to a single door and the quoins that once lined the edges of the structure have been removed. These changes help simplify the design of the house in a manner now consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. The home includes red tile roofing, a smooth stucco finish, balconies, and arches. These elements are described to be appropriate for this style of home within the Residential Design Guidelines.
In evaluating a project that requires design review, all of the following findings must be met:
1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, and 2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code, 3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines, 4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
As stated above, the neighborhood consists of a variety of different architectural styles. In fact, the neighborhood includes several Italianate designs. A combination of the subtle changes made to the design to help reduce visual mass, simplifying the design to be more consistent with the neighboring homes, and designing the home to be consistent in height, mass and scale with the neighborhood all lend to the home meeting the required findings described above.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the legal findings as listed above, the context of the neighborhood, the existing styles of homes within the legal neighborhood, the mass and scale of the proposed home in comparison with the homes in the legal neighborhood, and the changes that the applicant has made to the design of the home, staff makes the technical findings that the project is compatible with the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve Design Review Case No. DRC17-08 as submitted.
Attachments: Application Location/Radius Map
7-34 RESOLUTION NO. R18-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THEIR DECISION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT FOR DESIGN REVIEW CASE NUMBER DRC17-08, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400 CIRCLE DRIVE.
THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Stephen Gleason, the owner of 1380 Circle Drive, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Design Review Case (“DRC”) 17-08 concerning the development of a residential project on 1400 Circle Drive on March 6, 2018. The project would include a two-story, six-bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four-car garage. A Design Review action is required for new or replacement residential structures (SMCC 23.15.03B)
SECTION 2. On May 21, 2018, the City Council held a meeting to discuss a motion to either 1) Affirm the action of the commission, 2) Require a summary of all evidence upon which the commission made its decision; after receiving such evidence, the council shall take such action based on standards contained in section 23.15.08 of this article as, in its opinion, is indicated by such evidence alone, 3) Refer the matter back to the commission, with or without direction, or 4) Instruct the city clerk to set the matter for hearing within forty (40) days before itself. At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice herein prescribed for the commission.
SECTION 3. After conducting the meeting on May 21, 2018, the City Council motioned to instruct the city clerk to set the matter for hearing within forty (40) days before itself. At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice herein prescribed for the commission.
SECTION 4. A legally noticed public hearing was conducted on June 11, 2018. Both oral and written testimony was presented to the City Council.
SECTION 5. The following facts were presented to the City Council:
A. The subject property is located on the north side of Circle Drive between Rosalind Road and the Circle Drive bridge. The adjacent land uses include single family homes in R-1, Area Districts 1.
B. The property contains 29,257 square feet of land and is improved with a 6,806 square-foot two-story residence with an attached three-car garage. The
1 7-35 proposed project was found to satisfy all zoning requirements in the San Marino City Code.
C. The applicant proposes a new 6,531 square-foot two-story house with an attached four-car garage.
D. The proposed architectural style is “Italianate.” This is characterized as having the two-story volume, smooth stucco finish, balconies with balustrades, quoins along the edges of the structure, exterior molding around the windows and doors and a two-piece mission clay roof.
E. A historic assessment was provided to the City Council by Tim Gregory. The property was evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources and the City of San Marino criteria. Page 11 of the Historic Assessment found that the original Architect, Robert Finkelhor was not a notable architect. According to the report, Robert Finkelhor “remains almost completely undocumented in architectural research sources and index.” “Finkelhor did not have a significant style that would make his houses easily identifiable visually, unlike those by such top-tier architects as Wallace Neff and Paul; Williams whose works are recognizably consistent quality. In addition, “It should be mentioned that Finkelhor concentrated his work in the west side of Los Angeles Basin and had little impact on the local scene, with 1400 Circle Drive being his only design documented in San Marino thus far.”
SECTION 6. Pursuant to City Code Section 23.15.08, The City Council shall approve the application if it finds all of the following to be true:
A. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, and
B. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code,
C. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines,
D. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
SECTION 7. In regards to the design review action, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed house is presented as an Italianate architectural style. The proposed new home is not compatible with the neighborhood. While the
2 7-36 front of the home blends in fairly well with other homes in the statutory neighborhood, the sides of the structure visually overwhelm the other homes in the statutory neighborhood. This problem is exacerbated by the overall height of the house and the attachment of the four-car garage to the south side of the proposed house. The front entry way provides a grand appearance that is not found in the legal neighborhood. Due to this, the proposed home is not compatible with the neighborhood.
B. The proposed scale and size of the house will negatively affect the two adjacent neighbors because the mass and scale of the north and south elevations are very pronounced, massive, and differ greatly from other homes in the neighborhood. The massing is exacerbated on the south elevation with the attachment of the four car garage to the house.
SECTION 8. Based upon the aforementioned findings in Section7, the City Council hereby approves the appeal denying Design Review Committee Case No. DRC17-08.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11th day of July, 2018.
______STEVE TALT, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______VERONICA RUIZ CITY CLERK
3 7-37 7-38 7-39 7-40 7-41 7-42 7-43 7-44 7-45 7-46 7-47 7-48 7-49 7-50 7-51 7-52 7-53 7-54 7-55 7-56 7-57 7-58 7-59 7-60 7-61 7-62 7-63 7-64 7-65 7-66 7-67 7-68 7-69 7-70 7-71 7-72 7-73 7-74 7-75 7-76 7-77 7-78 7-79 7-80 7-81 7-82 7-83 7-84 7-85 7-86 7-87
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: 1400 Circle Drive DRC 17-08 SUBJECT: New House and garage APPLICANT: He
LOCATION: 1400 Circle Drive
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (626) 300-0713, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, ___/___/___ its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
B. Time Limits
1. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not ___/___/___ commenced within 1 year from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which ___/___/___ include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning and Building Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Zoning Code regulations.
2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code ___/___/___ and Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the San Marino Fire Department and the Building Department to show 1 7-88 Project No. ______Completion Date
compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy.
3. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be ___/___/___ submitted for Planning review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ___/___/___ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Code, all ___/___/___ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
6. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property ___/___/___ owner, or other means acceptable to the City.
D. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting landscaping in the case of ___/___/___ residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by the Fire Department. The landscaping plan shall include retaining the two mature trees and other mature vegetation along the north property line to screen the view of the property to the north and the planting of large plants to fill any gaps in the vegetation to the satisfaction of the Director or the Director’s designee.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place, including the two mature trees along the ___/___/___ north property line, shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the City Code Section 25.01.08, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
E. OTHER CONDITIONS
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record a covenant against the property in a form that is satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Director, which prohibits any of the area within the basement from being used as a bedroom.
2. Prior to submitting any plans for approval in connection with the construction of the home that is the subject of this application, the applicant shall apply to the City for a minor exception permit to allow the construction of a new eight-foot high freestanding wall along the north property line.
2 7-89 HE v. CITY OF SAN MARINO Case Number: BS174993 Hearing Date: November 20, 2019
[Tentative] ORDER GRANTING WRIT PETITION IN PART AND REMANDING MATTER TO THE CITY PURSUANT TO TOPANGA ASSOCIATION FOR A SCENIC COMMUNITY v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Petitioner Zhenya He requests the court issue a writ compelling the City of San Marino to set aside its decision denying Petitioner's application to demolish her existing two-story single- family house to construct a smaller two-story single-family house. Respondents City of San Marino, City Council, and the Planning Commission for the City (collectively, the City) opposes the petition.
The petition is GRANTED IN PART. The matter is remanded to the City pursuant to Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Cmty. v. Cty. of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506 on the City Council's finding Petitioner's proposed project "is not compatible with the neighborhood."(AR 649.) In all other respects, the petition is denied.
The City has requested judicial notice (RJN) of an ordinance of the City and certain sections of the City's Municipal Code (City Code). The ordinance and City Code sections are judicially noticeable. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (b).)
Petitioner opposes the request for judicial notice arguing the material submitted violates the "general rule ... that a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency." (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd.(1987) 188 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881.)
The City's request for judicial notice is granted. The material is relevant to the proceedings before the City Council. The ordinance relates to the City Council's findings and is specifically referenced in its decision.(AR 648.) The City Code sections address the City Council's authority to continue the hearing on the appeal. The material is not "new evidence" previously not before the City Council—the material is applicable law.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 9, 2017, Petitioner filed a design review application to demolish her existing two- storysingle-family house with an attached three-car garage (Residence), and construct a new, smaller two-story, single family house with an attached four-car garage (Proposed Project).(AR 1-2, 30, 49.)
Page7-90 1 of 10 On September 27, 2017, the City's Planning Commission held a hearing on Petitioner's design review application for the Proposed Project.(AR 27-39.) The Planning Commission denied Petitioner's application for the Proposed Project finding it did not comply with the City's design review guidelines.(AR 33-34, 38-39, 72, 103-106.) Petitioner appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.(AR 73-74.)
On December 13, 2017, the City Council heard Petitioner's appeal. The City Council remanded Petitioner's application to the Planning Commission for further review because Petitioner submitted plan changes between the Planning Commission's denial and the appeal to the City Council.(AR 111-112, 115-117, 126, 140.)
On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Proposed Project. (AR 151, 153.) After evaluating the evidence presented, the Planning Commission found the Proposed Project complied with the City's design review requirements and approved the application for the Proposed Project, subject to certain conditions.(AR 161-162, 199.)
Neighbors adjacent to the Residence appealed the Planning Commission's decision approving the Proposed Project to the City Council.(AR 198.)
On April 11, 2018, the City Council took action on the appeal.(AR 212-213.) The City Council instructed the City Clerk to set a de novo hearing concerning the Proposed Project within 40 days.(AR 208-209, 212-213.) The City Clerk complied and set the matter for hearing 40 days later, on May 21, 2018.(AR 226.)
On May 21, 2018, at the commencing of the de novo appeal hearing, Petitioner requested Vice- Mayor Huang recuse himself.1 (AR 239.) Vice-Mayor Huang did not do so.(AR 239.) During the hearing, the neighbor appealing the Planning Commission's decision moved for a continuance. (AR 252.) The City Council granted the continuance and set the matter for further hearing on June 11, 2018.(AR 252-253, 258, 459.)
Just before the continued de novo appeal hearing, the City Council received additional relevant information about the Residence. The information came through a 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times describing the Residence and quoting a building historian whose opinion Petitioner was relying upon to obtain approval of the Proposed Project and to defend against the appeal.(AR 316-317, 475-476.) The article quoted Petitioner's expert, Tim Gregory, as stating a "locally significant architect" designed the Residence, the Residence was in a "good state of preservation," and the Residence had contributed "to the architectural and historical context of its San Marino neighborhood."(AR 476.) Gregory believed, according to the article, the Residence was "eligible for inclusion on the California Inventory of Historical Resources." (AR 476.)
' While it is not entirely clear from the record, it appears Petitioner requested the vice-mayor recuse himself because he had voted earlier not to remand the Proposed Project with its changes to the Planning Commission.
Page7-91 2 of 10 On June 11, 2018, at the de novo appeal hearing, the City Council evaluated the evidence before it and, after deliberating, directed City staff to prepare written findings in support of granting the appeal thereby denying approval of the Proposed Project.(AR 357-358.) On September 12, 2018, the City Council adopted written findings reflecting its rationale for denying approval of the Proposed Project and for finding the Proposed Project was incompatible with the neighborhood.(AR 648-649.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioner seeks relief before the court pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b), the issues for review of an administrative decision are: whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.(Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (b).)
To determine the applicable standard of review of agency action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, courts must examine whether the administrative decision "substantially affects] vested, fundamental rights." (Bixby v. Pierno (1971)4 Cal.3d 130, 143.) If the administrative agency's decision substantially affects a vested fundamental right, the trial court uses the independent judgment standard of review and determines whether the weight of the evidence supports the agency's findings. (Ibid.) However, "[i]n all other cases, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record."(Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (c).)
Here, the parties agree the substantial evidence standard applies.
"Under this standard, the trial court will affirm the administrative decision if it is supported by substantial evidence from a review of the entire record, resolving all reasonable doubts in favor of the findings and decision.(M.N. v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 607, 616.) The court must "accept all evidence which supports the successful party, disregard the contrary evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences to uphold the [administrative decision]. [Citation.] Credibility is an issue of fact for the finder of fact to resolve [citation], and the testimony of a single witness, even that of a party, is sufficient to provide substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. [Citation.]"(Doe v. Regents of the University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1074.)
Under this "deferential" standard, the court presumes the correctness of the administrative ruling. (Patterson Flying Service v. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 411, 419; see also Doe v. Regents of the University of California, supra, 5
Page3of107-92 Cal.App.Sth at 1073 [substantial evidence standard is "extremely deferential standard of review'].)
Issues of law related to the administrative decision, such as interpretation of statutes and regulations, are addressed de novo by the court. (Hoitt v. Department of Rehabilitation (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 513, 522.) Additionally, "[a] challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo ...because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law."(Nasha L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 482.)
ANALYSIS
Petitioner attacks the City's decision denying approval of the Proposed Project on four grounds. First, Petitioner contends the City's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, Petitioner claims her due process rights were violated through a post hoc rationalization of the decision. Third, Petitioner asserts the City Council's decision is invalid because the City Council was biased against the Proposed Project. Finally, Petitioner contends the City's failure to act within 40 days from the appeal invalidated the City's decision.
The City's Decision and Substantial Evidence:
In the administrative proceeding, the City Council was not required to determine whether the Residence is an historic resource. The importance the City places on such resources, however, provides a context to the City's decision here on the Proposed Project. The City expressly recognizes the importance of preserving historical resources within its boundaries.(RJN, Ex. A, p. 4.) The City's historic preservation ordinance provides a property may be considered a historic resource if it "embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction," "exemplifies the work of awell-recognized architect or builder," or is or was associated with an important event or person.z (AR 575; RJN, Ex. A, p. 7.)
After considering the Proposed Project, the City Council found it "not compatible with the neighborhood."(AR 649.) Such a finding under the City Code authorizes the City Council to deny approval of the Proposed Project.(AR 33; City Code § 23.15.08, subd. (A).) Thus, the validity of the administrative action turns on the City Council's conclusion from the evidence the Proposed Project is "not compatible with the neighborhood."
Petitioner contends substantial evidence does not support the City's finding the Proposed Project is not compatible with the neighborhood. Petitioner contends the only evidence before the City Council—the Director of Planning and Building's recommendation of approval (AR 559),
2 As noted by the City's attorney at the hearing: "...the historic preservation ordinance is an expression of the City's policy on historic preservation issues, the underlying goals of the ordinance can inform the council's deliberations regarding the importance of [the] property to its neighborhood and its compatibility."(AR 320.)
Page7-93 4 of 10 City staff analysis, Petitioner's expert's report and testimony as well as testimony from several other witnesses, including the architect—could lead only to approval of the Proposed Project. Finding otherwise, Petitioner contends, was arbitrary and capricious.
The court is not persuaded the evidence before the court could only lead to one conclusion. That said, it is not at all clear from the record what evidence the City Council relied upon to support its conclusion the Proposed Project is "not compatible with the neighborhood."
There is no question, the City Council considered and deliberated about evidence presented during the de novo appeal hearing. For example, the City Council considered Gregory's written report concerning whether the Residence was historically significant.(AR 656.) In the report, Gregory concluded the Residence's architect—Robert Finkelhor—was not a notable or master architect.(AR 575-576.) He further opined the Residence did not qualify for historic designation under any applicable criteria (national, state or local), and due to significant construction and remodeling in 2006, the Residence had lost "some of the original integrity" such that it was no longer even eligible for historic designation.(AR 141, 155, 477, 567, 575-576.)
Gregory also responded to the apparent conflict between his report and the comments attributed to him in a 2003 Los Angeles Times article. Gregory explained his current opinion was based on additional research he conducted after 2003 concerning Finkelhor.(AR 332, 575-576, 588-592.) Through that research, Gregory learned Finkelhor was not listed in any of the major biographies of architects and no longer seemed to have any prominence as an architect.(AR 332.)
Here, in its findings the City noted the Residence dates to 1931, and Finkelhor designed it in the Italianate style.(AR 648.) The City concluded Finkelhor was an "award-wining and locally significant architect."(AR 648.) The City determined the Residence was "potentially a historic landmark," that its demolition would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, and that the Project was incompatible with the neighborhood.(AR 648-649.)
The City reached this conclusion, it argues, having properly weighed Gregory's contradictory evidence and by drawing a reasonable inference from earlier statements made by Gregory in the 2003 Los Angeles Times article. (AR 476.) Specifically, the Residence was eligible for inclusion in the California Inventory of Historic Places because of its "association with a locally significant architect, its good state of preservation, and its contribution to the architectural and historical context of its San Marino neighborhood."3 (AR 476.)
Gregory's report also revealed four of Finkelhor's estates had previously "appeared in the pages of the Architectural Digest," and Finkelhor won the Beaux Arts award, a "prize offered by the
At the hearing, a City staff person informed the City Council he had spoken with the real estate broker identified in the Los Angeles Times article who verified Gregory told her "Finkelhor was a significant architect —for the property as well as the neighborhood."(AR 317.)
Page7-94 5 of 10 Beaux Arts Institute of Design in recognition of fine examples of architectural work done in traditional styles."(AR 575, 589.)
The City asserts the record presents conflicting evidence as to Gregory's conclusion that later 2006 renovations impacted the architectural significance of the Residence. Gregory's report suggests his 2003 Los Angeles Times comments would no longer be accurate because of "major addition" to the Residence in 2006.(AR 576.) Gregory specified the renovations consisted of the addition of "a large two-story loggia wing attached to the northerly rear corner of the house which significantly changed the appearance of the original rear elevation."(AR 576.) Gregory concluded the addition, coupled with "a noticeable lack of maintenance," negatively impacted the integrity of the Residence.(AR 576.)
In contrast to Gregory's report on the major addition, the 2006 building permit for this renovation listed the improvements as follows: "34 [inch] pilasters and fountain in the front yard, outdoor fireplace, fountain, loggia, seatwalls and bbq cook center in the rear yard."(AR 602.) Based on this evidence, one City Council member disagreed with Gregory and disbelieved the Residence had sustained major alterations in 2006.(AR 355.)
To further discredit Gregory's report written in 2017, the City observed Gregory did not consider the City's historic preservation standards in Ordinance No. 0-18-1334 enacted as City Code section 23.18.030. Under this ordinance, the City argues a "proposed landmark need not retain all ...original aspects" to maintain its integrity, and "[n]either ...deferred maintenance ...nor [a] dilapidated condition shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity."(AR 648- 649; RJN Ex. A [City Code § 23.18.030, subd. (C).)
Certainly, in the context of the de novo appeal hearing, the City Council had to consider the evidence and resolve conflicts in that evidence. Thus, the City Council was free to determine Gregory's earlier statements reflected in the 2003 Los Angeles Times article were more credible than his written report.
That said, it is unclear how the historical nature of the Residence informs on the City Council's ultimate finding that the Proposed Project is "not compatible with the neighborhood." The court recognizes (as did the City's attorney at the hearing) the findings required by the City Council "do not directly address the historic nature of the home."(AR 318.) The historic nature of the home, however, may be relevant to neighborhood compatibility "whether or not that is an important part of this property's relationship to other properties in the neighborhood ...." (AR 318.)
A fair reading of the transcript of the City Council meeting reveals the City Council focused extensively (and almost exclusively) on whether the Residence was historical. Those facts, however, do not necessarily demonstrate a lack of neighborhood compatibility. The court cannot determine on this record the basis for the City Council's finding the Proposed Project is "not compatible with the neighborhood." The City Council's findings did not bridge the
Page7-95 6 of 10 analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or order.4 Accordingly, remand is appropriate to provide the City with an opportunity to do so. (Id. at 522.)
The City's Process Did Not Violate Petitioner's Due Process Rights:
Petitioner contends the City's findings were a post hoc rationalization for a decision already made, thereby violating Petitioner's due process rights. (It appears to the court, however, Petitioner's due process argument will be addressed through remand because the City Council will illuminate the City Council's decision-making process.)
Petitioner complains the City Council announced its decision to deny the Proposed Project on June 11, 2018. The City did not issue its written findings, however, until September 12, 2018— three months later, a "baffling delay," according to Petitioner. (Opening Brief 14:14.) Further, Petitioner notes despite not having referenced City Code section 23.18.04 (erroneously referred to as Section 23.18.030) during the hearing, the City later relied on the City Code section to justify its decision.
Petitioner's argument is unpersuasive. As noted by the City, in La Costa Beach Homeowners' Assn. v. California Coastal Com.(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, the Court of Appeal rejected a similar post hoc rationalization argument. The Court of Appeal reasoned the later made "revised findings" were not a "post hoc rationalizations of adecision that was not otherwise supported" but instead "did nothing more than reflect in writing the rationale that the Commissioners and staff articulated on the record" at the public hearing. (Id. at 819.)
Thus, Petitioner has not met her burden of showing an improper post hoc rationalization by merely presenting evidence the City prepared written findings after the City decided to deny Petitioner's application. Moreover, the manner in which the City Council's resolved conflicts in the evidence before it does not suggest a post hoc rationalization.
The Record is Devoid of Any Evidence of Bias:
Petitioner argues the City voted to deny Petitioner's application—despite record evidence supporting the application—because of biased decision-makers on the City Council.
"Absent a financial interest, adjudicators are presumed impartial." (Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 219.) Specifically, it is presumed "agency adjudicators are people of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a
4 "Absent such roadsigns, a reviewing court would be forced into unguided and resource- consumingexplorations; it would have to grope through the record to determine whether some combination of credible evidentiary items which supported some line of factual and legal conclusions supported the ultimate order or decision of the agency."(Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Cmty. v. Cty. of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal. 3d at 517.)
Page7-96 7 of 10 particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances." (Id. at 221-222 [internal quotations omitted].)"To show nonfinancial bias sufficient to violate due process, a party must demonstrate actual bias or circumstances in which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." (Id. at 219 [internal quotations omitted].) This is an objective test. (Ibid.) "[D)ue process violations generally are confined to the exceptional case presenting extreme facts." (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted])
Here, Petitioner argues the City Council relied on campaign promises made by individual council members as the grounds for denying the Proposed Project. Specifically, Petitioner contends Vice-Mayor Huang and Mayor Talt advocated against the Proposed Project in a manner similar to that of the decision maker in Nasha, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 125 Cal. App.4th at 470.
In Nasha, a planning commission reversed the planning staff's approval of a mitigated negative declaration for a controversial, local development. (Id. at 477-478.) Prior to a hearing before the local planning commission on this project, however, a member of the planning commission authored a newsletter article hostile to the project under consideration. (Id. at 476.) The article demonstrated an "unacceptable probability of actual bias" requiring the commissioner to recuse himself on the matter. (Id. at 483-484.)
According to Petitioner, Vice-Mayor Huang twice demonstrated his bias against Petitioner's Proposed Project. First, by his refusal at the May 21, 2018 City Council hearing to recuse himself, which was warranted due to his previous vote at the December 13, 2017 hearing to allegedly deny Petitioner's Proposed Project. Second, during the July 11, 2018 City Council hearing, during which Vice-Mayor Huang expressed his bias in favor of "keep[ing] the integrity of this neighborhood" so as to "not to change too much."(AR 352-353.)
Petitioner suggests Mayor Talt also demonstrated an unacceptable probability of actual bias by expressing his desire to appease his political base. During the hearing, Mayor Talt referenced his reason for running for public office as "protect[ing] our historic resources and protecting] our traditional neighborhoods."(AR 354. ["I'm going to have to go to my base and my base is to protect homes like this."])
The court agrees with the City on this issue; Petitioner mischaracterizes the record. Petitioner contends Vice-Mayor Huang's voted "to deny Petitioner's Project" at the hearing on December 13, 2017, thereby demonstrating bias. With respect to Vice-Mayor Huang Vice's vote that day, however, Vice-Mayor Huang voted against remanding the Proposed Project, but did not vote to "deny" the Proposed Project.(AR 126.) Moreover, a councilmember's vote alone cannot be sufficient to demonstrate bias; to hold otherwise would illogically allow the court to find bias based solely on a negative vote.
Further, the record before the court is not analogous to Nasha. There is no evidence any City Council member took a position against the Proposed Project before considering the evidence
Page7-97 8 of 10 and arguments at the public hearing on the matter. The comments made by Vice-Mayor Huang and Mayor Talt were made at the conclusion of the public hearing—after taking testimony and hearing evidence.
Therefore, on the record before the court, there is no evidence that there existed "an unacceptable probability of actual bias" on the part of the mayor orvice-mayor. The procedure, as it applied to Petitioner and consideration of her Proposed Project, was fair and did not violate due process.
The City Council Complied with the City Code in Hearing the Appeal:
In Petitioner's opening brief, Petitioner argues the City Council is required to instruct the City Clerk to "set the [appeal of Planning Commission decisions] for hearing within forty (40) days before itself." (City Code § 23.15.10, subd. (D).) Petitioner argues that there is no provision for setting hearings beyond the 40-day window.
Here, the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed on March 6, 2018.(AR 198.) On April 11, 2018, the City Council instructed the City Clerk to set the de novo hearing for May 21, 2018, the last day on which the appeal could be heard.(AR 226.) After beginning the hearing, on a motion, the City Council continued the May 21, 2018 hearing to June 11, 2018, which was more than 40 days after April 11, 2018.5 (AR 212-213, 223-224.)
Petitioner asserts the court must find the Proposed Project is approved because the City exceeded its own jurisdiction by failing to act on the application within the time limits set forth under section 23.15.10, subdivision (D) of the City Code.
In opposition, the City agrees the City Council was required to instruct the city clerk to set the matter for hearing within forty days. The City also notes the relevant City Code section continues as follows: "At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice herein prescribed for the commission." (City Code § 23.15.10, subd. (D).)
The same chapter of the City Code at section 23.15.06 states: "Any such hearing may be continued or adjourned to a later date if, prior to such continuation or adjournment, the [Design Review Committee] chairman or commission chairman presiding announces the time, place, and date to which it will be continued or adjourned." (City Code § 23.15.06.) Based on these ordinances, the City persuasively argues the City Code permits continuances of public hearings.
The court disagrees with Petitioner's conclusion the City Code's continuance language applies to hearings before the Design Review Committee or Planning Commission only. Petitioner's
5 There is no question the City Council commenced the de novo appeal hearing on the fortieth day. Nothing in the City Code provides the appeal must be heard and decided within 40 days.
Page7-98 9 of 10 argument ignores the City Code specifically applying commission hearing rules to appeals before the City Council. (City Code § 23.15.10, subd. (D). ["Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice herein prescribed for the commission."])
The court finds the matter was properly continued pursuant to the City Code and the City Council had jurisdiction to consider and decide the matter.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is granted in part. The matter is remanded pursuant to Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Cmty. v. Cty. of Los Angeles. In all other respects, the writ is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 20, 2019 Hon. Mitchell Beckloff Judge of the Superior Court
Page7-99 10 of 10 7-100 7-101 7-102 7-103 7-104 7-105 7-106 7-107 7-108 7-109 7-110 7-111 7-112 7-113 7-114 7-115 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Aldo Cervantes, Planning and Building Director Carol Lynch, Senior Counsel
DATE: June 10, 2020
SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO.
DRC17-08
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods
BACKGROUND
Stephen Gleason, the owner of 1380 Circle Drive, filed this appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Design Review Case (“DRC”) 17-08 concerning the development of a residential project on 1400 Circle Drive (the “Property” or “property”). The project would include a two-story, six-bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four-car garage. A Design Review action is required for new or replacement residential structures (SMCC 23.15.03B).
The Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project at its regular meeting of September 27, 2017, and after considering all evidence presented during the hearing, denied approval of DRC17-08, DRC17-68, and CUP17-25 for the original project because the Commission could not make the findings required under the City Code for approval of any of the applications.
On October 4, 2017, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Commission’s denial of DRC17-08 and DRC 17-68 to the City Council (“Council”).
On December 5, 2017, the Applicant submitted new plans for the project and an historic assessment report on the Property prepared by Tim Gregory (the “Report”).
The Council considered the Applicant’s appeal at its regular meeting of December 13, 2017. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at
7-116 the meeting, the Council remanded the project back to the Commission for further consideration without direction.
On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised project (the “Project”), after which it determined that the required findings could be made and approved the revised project. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 3-0 vote. One member of the Planning Commission was absent, and Chairman Brody recused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. Subsequent to this decision, the property owner at 1380 Circle Drive, filed this appeal.
At the April 11, 2018 City Council meeting, staff presented the Council with the options to address the Project on appeal. Pursuant to Section 23.15.10 of the City Code, the Council had the option of taking one of the following actions: (a) affirm the Commission’s action; (b) require a summary of all evidence upon which the Commission made its decision, and based on such evidence, deny, approve, or conditionally approve the application; (c) refer the matter back to the Commission, with or without direction; or (d) set the matter for a de novo hearing by the Council within forty (40) days. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at the meeting, the Council moved to approve option D, to set the appeal for a de novo public hearing within 40 days.
On May 21, 2018 and June 11, 2018, the City Council held the duly noticed de novo public hearing . At this hearing,, two Council Members did not participate due to prior involvement with the case when it was before the Planning Commission. The City Council voted 2-1 to deny the Project on the grounds that the house was a potential historic resource due to the identity of the architect, Mr. Robert Finkelhor, and, therefore, the proposed house was not compatible with the neighborhood.
The Applicant subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking a writ to set aside the City Council’s decision.
On November 20, 2019, the Superior Court issued a tentative ruling, which it adopted as its final ruling, granting the Applicant’s petition to overturn the City Council’s decision. To briefly summarize, the Court found that the City’s findings to deny the Project did not “bridge the analytic gap” between the evidence that was relied on by the Council showing that the existing residence at the Property potentially is an historic resource with the City Council’s ultimate conclusion that the proposed structure is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Court directed that the City Council set aside its decision and remanded the matter back to the City Council to reconsider the application and render a decision that is consistent with the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the City Council must rescind its prior decision, conduct a public hearing to hear the appeal again, and make a determination that is supported by the facts in the record and which is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code regarding design review.
On May 13, 2020, the City Council commenced the public hearing and continued the public hearing to June 10, 2020, in order to provide the applicant’s architect with the opportunity to redesign the proposed house so as to incorporate some of the design or structural elements of the existing home into the new house. 2
7-117 REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been difficult for the architect and staff to meet to discuss the options for redesigning the home in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code and the direction provided by the City Council. It is important to note that staff had a conversation with the architect about the project and the direction provided by the City Council subsequent to the May 13 hearing. In addition, staff and the architect met on June 3rd to discuss the project even further. In both cases, staff presented possible options and alternatives to the architect. No new plans were submitted to staff by the architect at the June 3rd meeting. However, we understand that the applicant is willing to make modifications to the project in response to the City Council’s direction.
Accordingly, the applicant’s attorney has requested that this public hearing be continued again to the next regular City Council meeting to be held on July 8, 2020, to allow more time for the architect to develop some design options for the City Council to consider at the continued hearing and to meet with staff prior to the next hearing to discuss those options.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact as a result of continuing this public hearing.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the staff report as to legal form.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council open the continued public hearing, hear any testimony from individuals who cannot attend the public hearing on July 8th and continue the public hearing to July 8, 2020. If the Council concurs with the Staff recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to continue the public hearing on this project to July 8, 2020.”
3
7-118
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Aldo Cervantes, Planning and Building Director
DATE: May 13, 2020
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 - 1400 CIRCLE DR., (MI/JAMES V. COANE & ASSOCIATES)
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Engaged and Connected Residents
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods
ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE SAME BACKGROUND
Stephen Gleason, the owner of 1380 Circle Drive, filed this appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Design Review Case (“DRC”) 17-08 concerning the development of a residential project on 1400 Circle Drive (the “Property” or “property”). The project would include a two-story, six-bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four-car garage. A Design Review action is required for new or replacement residential structures (SMCC 23.15.03B). The Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project at its regular meeting of September 27, 2017, and after considering all evidence presented during the hearing, denied approval of DRC17-08, DRC17-68, and CUP17-25 for the original project because the it could not make the findings required under the City Code for approval of any of the applications.
On October 4, 2017, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Commission’s denial of DRC17-08 and DRC 17-68 to the City Council (“Council”).
On December 5, 2017, the Applicant submitted new plans for the project and an historic assessment report on the Property prepared by Tim Gregory (the “Report”).
The Council considered the Applicant’s appeal at its regular meeting of December 13, 2017. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at
7-119
the meeting, the Council remanded the project back to the Commission for further consideration without direction.
On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised project (the “Project”), after which it determined that the required findings could be made and approved the project. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 3-0 vote. One member of the Planning Commission was absent, and Chairman Brody recused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. Subsequent to this decision, the property owner at 1380 Circle Drive filed this appeal.
At the April 11, 2018 City Council meeting, staff presented the Council with the options to address the Project on appeal. Pursuant to Section 23.15.10 of the City Code, the Council had the option of taking one of the following actions: (a) affirm the Commission’s action; (b) require a summary of all evidence upon which the Commission made its decision, and based on such evidence, deny, approve, or conditionally approve the application; (c) refer the matter back to the Commission, with or without direction; or (d) set the matter for a de novo hearing by the Council within forty (40) days. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at the meeting, the Council moved to approve option D, to set the appeal for a de novo public hearing within 40 days.
On May 21, 2018 and June 11, 2018, the City Council held the duly noticed de novo public hearing. At this hearing, two Council Members did not participate due to prior involvement with the case when it was before the Planning Commission. The City Council voted 2-1 to deny the Project on the grounds that the house was a potential historic resource due to the identity of the architect, Mr. Robert Finkelhor, and, therefore, the proposed house was not compatible with the neighborhood.
The Applicant subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking a writ to set aside the City Council’s decision.
On November 20, 2019, the Superior Court issued a tentative ruling, which it adopted as its final ruling, granting the Applicant’s petition to overturn the City Council’s decision. The Court’s ruling is attached as Attachment 10, and the writ that the Court subsequently issued is attached as Attachment 11. To briefly summarize, the Court found that the City’s findings to deny the Project did not “bridge the analytic gap” between the evidence that was relied on by the Council showing that the existing residence at the Property potentially is an historic resource with the City Council’s ultimate conclusion that the proposed structure is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Court directed that the City Council set aside its decision and remanded the matter back to the City Council to reconsider the application and render a decision that is consistent with the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the City Council must rescind its prior decision, conduct a public hearing to hear the appeal again, and make a determination that is supported by the facts in the record and which is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code regarding design review.
2
7-120
PROPOSAL
The applicant requests permission to construct the revised Project that was last considered by the City Council for a two-story residence with a basement containing six (6) bedrooms and an attached four (4)-car garage. This requires one design review action pursuant to City Code Section 23.15.03B.
DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC17-08 – New Residential Structure
This project was first presented to the Planning Commission on September 27, 2017 and the project scope included a seventh bedroom in the basement and a front yard fence and gate. Following the Commission’s denial of the original project, the architect deleted those components of the application, which eliminated the requirement for a conditional use permit. Following is a general summary of the Project, as currently proposed:
General Plan: Estate Residential 0-2 du/acres. The proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The proposed Project maintains the appropriate mass and scale as compared with the residential neighborhood. Zoning: R-1, Area District 1. Location: The subject property is located on the north side of Circle Drive between Rosalind Road and the Circle Drive bridge. Existing Use: Two-story single-family home with an attached three-car garage. Proposed Use: A two-story house with an attached four-car garage Surrounding Uses: Adjacent land uses include single-family homes in R-1, Area Districts 1. Environmental Determination: The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 15303(a), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
3
7-121
PROVIDED BY CRITERIA CODE PROJECT ZONING: R-1, D I 6,531 sq. ft. Livable area. Maximum Living Area/Lot 4,957 sq. ft. Lot Coverage 6,600 sq. ft. coverage HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed 35 ft. 27 ft. 7.5 in. YARDS: Front 50 ft. 51 ft. - 4.5 inches 37 feet to the north and 39 feet to the Side 20 ft. south Rear 40 ft. 58 ft. PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Garage Spaces Three-car garage Four-car garage DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. n/a n/a IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Percentage 45% 35% DESIGN: Architectural Style Italianate Italianate
Historic Assessment Findings:
The owner of the subject site commissioned the assistance of Tim Gregory to prepare an historic evaluation of the property and the original Architect, Robert Finkelhor. The property was evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources and the City of San Marino criteria. Page 11 of the Historic Assessment finds that Robert Finkelhor is not a notable architect. According to the report, Robert Finkelhor “remains almost completely undocumented in architectural research sources and index.” “Finkelhor did not have a significant style that would make his houses easily identifiable visually, unlike those by such top-tier architects as Wallace Neff and Paul Williams, whose works in the area have recognizably consistent quality. In addition, “It should be mentioned that Finkelhor concentrated his work in the west side of Los Angeles Basin and had little impact on the local scene, with 1440 Circle Drive being his only design documented in San Marino thus far.”
With regards to the home, the report found that the “design features of 1400 Circle Drive do not surpass in quality, distinctiveness, or detailing those of the many other more modest Italian Period Revival of its type still extant in the City of San Marino.” It was also found that, due to a significant addition to the house in 2006, the home has lost any integrity it may have once had. At the last public hearing before the City Council, Mr. Gregory testified that the breezeway on the front of the house had been closed by a previous owner in 1996, which also changed Mr.
4
7-122
Finkelhor’s design. On the other hand, opponents presented a prior article in the Los Angeles Times to the City Council in which Mr. Gregory described Mr. Finkelhor as a locally significant architect.
Due to the report and the fact that the existing home has not been designated as an historic resource by the City and is not listed on the National or State Historic Registers, staff recommends that the City Council find that the project remains categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 15303(a), New Construction.
DISCUSSION
The neighborhood consists of Georgian, Neo-Classical, Colonial, Mission style, Italianate and Spanish architecture. One could argue that the homes in the neighborhood are designed in the most purist way and include the architectural elements that truly define the homes. An inspection of the neighborhood did find that the neighborhood is very eclectic including homes with various architectural styles. In addition, the massing and scale of the homes on these properties are proportionate to the size and width of the lots.
The proposed house is presented as an Italianate architectural style. Since the initial design submittal, the architect has made significant modifications to the home. The front entryway, which was once grand, has been reduced in size and mass; the front door has been reduced from a double door to a single door, and the quoins that once lined the edges of the structure have been removed. These changes help simplify the design of the house in a manner that now is consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. The home includes red tile roofing, a smooth stucco finish, balconies, and arches. These are elements that are appropriate for this style of home and are within the Residential Design Guidelines.
In addition, the large side and rear yard setbacks, which greatly exceed the Code requirements, allow for increased space between the proposed home and the homes on the neighboring properties, which will enhance privacy.
In evaluating a project that requires design review, all of the following findings must be met:
1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, and 2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code, 3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines, 4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
Because this is an entirely new home, the relevant findings are Findings 1 and 2 above. As stated above, the neighborhood consists of a variety of different architectural styles. In fact, the neighborhood includes several homes that are Italianate designs. A combination of the subtle
5
7-123
changes made to the design has reduced visual mass, simplified the design to be more consistent with the neighboring homes, and resulted in the home being consistent in height, mass and scale with other homes in the neighborhood, all of which contribute to finding that the proposed home meets the applicable required findings described above.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact as a result of this project.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the staff report as to legal form.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the legal findings listed above, the context of the neighborhood, the existing eclectic styles of homes within the legal neighborhood, the mass and scale of the proposed home in comparison with the homes in the legal neighborhood, the large setbacks that will enhance privacy between the proposed house and the houses on the adjacent properties, and the changes that the applicant has made to the design of the home, staff continues to recommend that the City Council make the technical findings that the Project is compatible with the neighborhood, subject to the attached conditions of approval, which require a landscaping plan that will retain the two large trees and require the planting of a tall hedge, and a covenant that will prevent any portion of the basement from being converted into a bedroom.
Staff recommends the City Council approve Design Review Case No. DRC17-08 with the conditions attached (Attachment 9). If the Council concurs with the Staff recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to rescind the prior findings and determination and approve Design Review Committee Case No. DRC17-08 subject to the conditions attached.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Appeal Letter dated March 6, 2018 2. Planning Commission Staff Report – February 28, 2018 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 28, 2018 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR18-02 5. Color and Materials Information 6. City Council Staff Report – June 11, 2018 7. City Council Approved Findings 2018 8. Historic Assessment Report prepared by Tim Gregory – November 30, 2017
6
7-124
9. Conditions of Approval 10. The decision by the Superior Court. 11. Writ issued by the Superior Court
7
7-125 June 15, 2020 Job Number: 2515-001 Historical Resources Assessment Report for 1400 Circle Drive, San Marino, California
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 2.6 2515-001.M01
TO: Law Offices of Richard A. McDonald (Mr. Richard A. McDonald, Esq.)
FROM: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Ms. Carrie Chasteen)
SUBJECT: City Council May 13, 2020 Rebuttal Memorandum for the Record for 1400 Circle Drive, San Marino, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Memorandum for the Record (MFR) was prepared in response to three questions raised at the May 13, 2020 City Council meeting: (1) Is Robert Finkelhor a master architect? (2) does the neighborhood qualify for designation as a historic district? (3) does a potential historic district of residences designed by Roland E. Coate Sr. exist?
Based upon research conducted for this MFR, none of Finkelhor’s works are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. No (0) buildings designed exclusively by Finkelhor were identified as potentially significant in SurveyLA. Based upon a review of reputable sources, Finkelhor is not considered a master architect.
Furthermore, the City of San Marino’s historic preservation consultant, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), did not identify the neighborhood as a potential historic district in 2019. Additionally, the neighborhood does not possess a cohesive character in terms of architectural style and building ages and does not merit designation as a historic district.
Lastly, the fact that some of the homes on Circle Drive were designed by Ronald 430 North Halstead Street Coate, Sr. does not change that conclusion. Accordingly, the subject property is not a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Demolition of the subject property would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. P.O. Box 655 Sierra Madre, CA 91025
www.sapphosenvironmental.com 7-126 BACKGROUND
Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Ms. Kasey Conley and Ms. Carrie Chasteen) was engaged to prepare a Historical Resources Assessment Report (HRAR) for 1400 Circle Drive, San Marino, California in January 2020. The HRAR was prepared in response to the applicant’s desire to demolish the existing building located on the subject property and to construct a new single-family residence (project). Ms. Chasteen possesses a Master of Science in Historic Preservation, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History, and has more than 18 years of experience in the field of cultural resources management. Ms. Conley possesses a Master of Arts in Heritage Conservation, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the field of Architectural History, and has more than three years of experience in the field of cultural resource management.
The purposes of the HRAR was to determine if the subject property meets the definition of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if demolition of the subject property would result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The findings presented in the HRAR indicate the subject property is not individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or for designation as a Historic Landmark. Furthermore, the neighborhood does not qualify for designation as a historic district because there is no cohesive pattern of design or development. Therefore, the subject property is not a historical resource, and the project would not result in a substantial adverse change pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Thereafter, Ms. Chasteen attended the May 13, 2020 City Council meeting where the council reviewed the proposed project. During the hearing, three questions were raised (1) Is Robert Finkelhor a master architect? (2) does the neighborhood qualify for designation as a historic district? (3) does a potential historic district of residences designed by Roland E. Coate, Sr. exist?
As explained in the HRAR submitted for the May 13, 2020 hearing, Robert Finkelhor is not a master architect, and the neighborhood does not qualify for designation as a historic district. Those findings are reiterated below.
Roland Coate, Sr. Residences
With regard to the residences designed by Roland Coate, Sr., according to the Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD), Coate worked as a draftsman at Trowbridge and Livingston, Architects, in New York, New York from circa 1915 to 1917. Following his service in World War I, Coate moved to California in 1918. In 1921, he became partner in the firm Kaufman and Coate, Architects where he worked from 1921 to 1925. From 1925 to 1947, Coate was sole proprietor of an architecture firm with offices in downtown Los Angeles. Coated worked with the engineering firm Bechtel, McCone, and Parson in Alabama from 1942 to 1944. Following that, Coate resumed practice in Los Angeles until retiring circa 1956. Some of Coate’s noted works are the Automobile Club of Southern California, Headquarters, the Hale Solar Laboratory located at California Institute of Technology, and the Pasadena Town Club. Coate designed many noted residences which are primarily located in Pasadena, Los Angeles, and Beverly Hills. Coate was very successful competing for residential awards sponsored by the architectural press in the early 1930s and was a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects.1
1 Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Roland Eli Coate, Sr.” Available at: http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/316/
Historic Resource Assessment Report for 1400 Circle Dr., San Marino, California Memorandum for the Record June 15, 2020 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\2515\2515-001\MFR\1400 Circle Drive Rebuttal Memo.doc Page 2 7-127
Coate was primarily known for his Colonial Revival-style residences, especially the Monterey Colonial Revival style.2 According to the San Marino Heritage website,3 Coate designed the following residences in San Marino:
• 674 Canterbury Road • 1550 Circle Drive • 1435 Circle Drive • 1705 Oak Grove Avenue • 1288 Oak Grove Avenue • 2080 Lombardy Road
Based upon a review of the architects identified by San Marino Heritage, no additional buildings on Circle Drive were designed by noted architects.
Of those properties, only two properties designed by Coate are located on Circle Drive: 1435 and 1550. 1288 Oak Grove is arguably close enough to be considered for a potential historic district in the 1400 and 1500 blocks of Circle Drive; however, 1288 Oak Grove Avenue was constructed in 1930 and does not reflect Colonial Revival style architecture. According to the Los Angeles County Property Assessment Information System,4 1435 Circle Drive was improved in 1931 and again in 1950. 1500 Circle Drive was improved in 1936 and again in 1966. The second improvement dates are a result of substantial development which triggered reassessment of the properties by the Assessor.
Based upon a review of Gebhard and Winter’s An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles, the commonly accepted bible of architecture in the greater Los Angeles area including San Marino, 1435 Circle Drive is noted as a “a turn at Georgian Revival.”5 1500 Circle Drive, and for that matter 1288 Oak Grove Avenue, are not even mentioned. Gebhard and Winter noted several other residences designed by Coate in San Marino; however, no additional residences on Circle Drive or its proximity are noted.
Ms. Chasteen also conducted a site visit on June 10, 2020 to review Circle Drive and also the other properties identified by San Marino Heritage for the purposes of considering the resources as a potential historic district of buildings designed by Coate. In so doing, Ms. Chasteen noted there are 26 properties on the 1400 and 1500 blocks of Circle Drive. Of those buildings, many are Ranch, Colonial Revival, and Norman Revival in terms of style of architecture. The two buildings designed by Coate reflect 7.6 percent of the total housing stock under consideration and does not reflect a significant concentration. The only linkage between 1435 and 1500 Circle Drive is the work of Coate; however, they were designed for separate private clients and there is no indication that Coate was trying to develop a planned community such as Gregory Ain’s Mar Vista Tract in the City of Los Angeles. There are also three intervening properties, only one of which was developed in the 1930s; the remainder
2 Lozano, Camille. “708 Winston Ave. Achieves Local Historical Landmark Status.” San Marino Tribune. 16 November 2017. Available at: https://sanmarinotribune.com/tags/roland-coate/ 3 San Marino Heritage. “Roland Coate.” Accessed June 2020. Available at: http://www.sanmarinoheritage.org/architects/architect.php?id=Roland_Coate 4 Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property Assessment Information System. Available at: http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/GVH_2_2/Index.html?configBase=http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/Geocortex/Es sentials/REST/sites/PAIS/viewers/PAIS_hv/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default 5 Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. 2003. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, p. 440.
Historic Resource Assessment Report for 1400 Circle Dr., San Marino, California Memorandum for the Record June 15, 2020 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\2515\2515-001\MFR\1400 Circle Drive Rebuttal Memo.doc Page 3 7-128 were constructed in 1950 and 2007. This does not reflect a continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.
Since the National Park Service defines a district as: “A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development,”6 based upon research and personal on-site investigation, Ms. Chasteen concluded that there is no concentration, linkage, or continuity to support designation as a historic district based upon Coate’s two residences.
POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
The survey map developed by ARG, the City of San Marino’s historic preservation consultant, did not identify Circle Drive as a potential historic district.7 As noted in the HRAR prepared in support of this project, Circle Drive does not reflect a cohesive pattern of design or development. Therefore, the independent third-party peer review of the City of San Marino’s historic preservation consultant confirms Circle Drive does not meet the criteria to be considered a historic district.
ROBERT FINKELHOR
According to the National Park Service, "The work of a master" refers to the technical or aesthetic achievements of an architect or craftsman:
A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master's career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft.
A property is not eligible as the work of a master, however, simply because it was designed by a prominent architect. For example, not every building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright is eligible under this portion of Criterion C, although it might meet other portions of the Criterion, for instance as a representative of the Prairie style.
The work of an unidentified craftsman is eligible if it rises above the level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context. 8
To determine if Finkelhor is a recognized master architect, the following sources were consulted:
• National Register of Historic Places • HistoricPlacesLA • Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD)
6 Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf 7 Los Angeles County Office of the Ambassador. [May 2018] May 2020. San Marino Citywide Historical Resources Survey Resource Reconnaissance Map. City of San Marino. Accessed June 2020. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Recon%20Map%20Update%208 %205.15.20.pdf 8 Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf
Historic Resource Assessment Report for 1400 Circle Dr., San Marino, California Memorandum for the Record June 15, 2020 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\2515\2515-001\MFR\1400 Circle Drive Rebuttal Memo.doc Page 4 7-129 • American Institute of Architects (AIA) historic directories • State of California Department of Consumer Affairs • Los Angeles Times • Los Angeles Sentinel • City of San Marino
The National Archives is the permanent repository of National Register of Historic Places documentation and is searchable by architect name.9 The spreadsheet of listed properties was last updated on January 8, 2020. No (0) properties designed by Finkelhor are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. No (0) properties designed exclusively by Finkelhor were identified in SurveyLA, the comprehensive city-wide survey of the City of Los Angeles. The PCAD indicates Finkelhor served in the military in World Wars I and II and that he only belonged to the AIA from 1920 to 1923. The only property associated with Finkelhor in PCAD is the Bob Hope estate in the Toluca Lake neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles.10 The historic AIA directories are only available online for 1956, 1962, and 1970. Because Finkelhor was not a member during those years, there is no entry with information pertaining to him in the historic AIA directories. The State of California Department of Consumer Affairs maintains a database of licensed architects, regardless of the date of expiration of the license. According to PCAD, Finkelhor studied architecture at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; however, he did not possess a license to practice architecture in the State of California based upon a search of the State database conducted on June 3, 2020. Historic issues of the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Sentinel (ProQuest) identify a single (1) residence associated with Finkelhor. A 1937 article in the Los Angeles Times noted Finkelhor designed an English Revival- style home on Stone Canyon Road in the Bel Air community of Los Angeles.11 The Bel Air home is not noted for being award winning or achieving excellence in design. The street address is not noted in the newspaper article, but a search of HistoricPlacesLA by the architect’s name does not indicate this property was found to be significant in SurveyLA. Lastly, the San Marino Historic Context Statement does not mention Finkelhor. Based upon this review of commonly accepted sources of information pertaining to architects, there is no substantial evidence that Finkelhor can be considered a known master architect.
Although Finkelhor was an unknown craftsman, the subject property does not rise above the level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context. As noted in the HRAR prepared in support of the project, the building is not a significant example of Mediterranean Revival- style architecture due to minimal architectural detailing and substantial alterations resulting in loss of integrity. Other better examples are known to exist in San Marino in the neighborhoods surrounding the Huntington Library and Gardens. Additionally, the Architectural Resources Group (ARG), the City of San Marino’s historic preservation consultant, survey results did not identify the subject property as individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or designation as a Historic Landmark.12 Based upon the preponderance of substantial evidence, the subject property is not the work of a master architect. Therefore, the subject
9 Nation Park Service. National Register Database and Research. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm 10 Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Robert Finkelhor (Architect).” Available at: http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/6578/ 11 “Bel-Air Sees Activity Trend.” 25 April 1937. Los Angeles Times, p. E4. 12 Los Angeles County Office of the Ambassador. [May 2018] May 2020. San Marino Citywide Historical Resources Survey Resource Reconnaissance Map. City of San Marino. Accessed June 2020. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Recon%20Map%20Update%208 %205.15.20.pdf
Historic Resource Assessment Report for 1400 Circle Dr., San Marino, California Memorandum for the Record June 15, 2020 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\2515\2515-001\MFR\1400 Circle Drive Rebuttal Memo.doc Page 5 7-130 property is not a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Demolition of the subject property would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Should there be any questions regarding the information contained in this MFR, please contact Ms. Carrie Chasteen at (626) 683-3547, extension 102.
Historic Resource Assessment Report for 1400 Circle Dr., San Marino, California Memorandum for the Record June 15, 2020 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\2515\2515-001\MFR\1400 Circle Drive Rebuttal Memo.doc Page 6 7-131 RESOLUTION NO. R-20-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW CASE NUMBER DRC17-08, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400 CIRCLE DRIVE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the owner of the property at 1400 Circle Drive, filed applications to approve a residential project on 1400 Circle Drive (the “Property”). The project originally would have included a two-story, seven- bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four-car garage. The original project required approval of a conditional use permit (CUP 17-25) and two design review approvals (DRC17-08, DRC17-68).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission (Commission) held a duly noticed public hearing on the original design of the project at its regular meeting of September 27, 2017, and after considering all evidence presented during the hearing, denied the applications for DRC17-08, DRC17-68, and CUP17-25 because the Commission could not make the findings required under the Municipal Code for approval of any of the applications.
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2017, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Commission’s denial of DRC17-08 and DRC 17-68 to the City Council (“City Council” or “Council”).
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the Applicant submitted new plans for the project and an historic assessment report on the Property prepared by Tim Gregory (the “Report”). The new plans eliminated the seventh bedroom and other design features (the front yard fence and gate) so that only one design review approval (DRC17-08) is required for a new or replacement residential structure (SMCC 23.15.03B). The revised project would include a two-story, six-bedroom house with a basement, and an attached four-car garage.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Applicant’s appeal at its regular meeting of December 13, 2017. After considering all of the evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at the meeting, the City Council remanded the project back to the Commission for further consideration without direction so the Commission could consider the revised Project.
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised project (the “Project” or “project”), after which it determined that the required findings could be made and approved the Project. The Planning Commission approved the Project by a 3-0 vote. One member of the Planning Commission was absent, and Chairman Brody recused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest.
WHEREAS, Stephen Gleason, the owner of the adjacent property at 1380 Circle Drive, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review Case (“DRC”) 17-08.
WHEREAS, at the April 11, 2018 City Council meeting, staff presented the City Council with the options to address the Project on appeal. Pursuant to Section 23.15.10 of the Municipal Code, the City Council had the option of taking one of the following actions: (a) affirm the Commission’s action; (b) require a summary of all evidence upon which the Commission made its decision, and based on such evidence, deny, approve, or conditionally approve the application; (c) refer the matter back to the Commission, with or without direction; or (d) set the matter for a de novo hearing by the Council within forty (40) days. After considering all of the
1 7-132
evidence, including all written evidence and testimony presented at the meeting, the Council moved to approve option D, to set the appeal for a de novo public hearing within 40 days.
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2018 and June 11, 2018, the City Council held the duly noticed de novo public hearing. At this hearing, two Council Members did not participate due to prior involvement with the case when it was before the Planning Commission. The City Council voted 2-1 to deny the Project on the grounds that the house was a potential historic resource due to the identity of the architect, Mr. Robert Finkelhor, and, therefore, that the proposed house was not compatible with the neighborhood.
WHEREAS, the Applicant subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking a writ to set aside the City Council’s decision.
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2019, the Superior Court issued a tentative ruling, which it adopted as its final ruling, granting the Applicant’s petition to overturn the City Council’s decision. The Court found that the City’s findings to deny the Project did not “bridge the analytic gap” between the evidence that was relied on by the City Council showing that the existing residence at the Property potentially is an historic resource with the City Council’s ultimate conclusion that the proposed structure is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Court directed that the City Council set aside its decision and remanded the matter back to the City Council to reconsider the application and render a decision that is consistent with the Court’s decision.
WHEREAS, an historic assessment was provided to the Planning Commission by Tim Gregory. The property was evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources and the City of San Marino criteria. Page 11 of Mr. Gregory’s Historic Assessment finds that Robert Finkelhor is not a notable architect. According to the report, Robert Finkelhor “remains almost completely undocumented in architectural research sources and index.” “Finkelhor did not have a significant style that would make his houses easily identifiable visually, unlike those by such top-tier architects as Wallace Neff and Paul Williams, whose works are recognizably consistent quality. In addition, “It should be mentioned that Finkelhor concentrated his work in the west side of Los Angeles Basin and had little impact on the local scene, with 1400 Circle Drive being his only design documented in San Marino thus far.” However, at a prior point in time, Mr. Gregory had concluded that Mr. Finkelhor was a significant architect. Mr. Gregory also testified that the breezeway on the front of the house had been enclosed by a previous owner in 1996, which changed Mr. Finkelhor’s design, in addition to a significant addition that was made to the house in 2006. These changes to the home have caused it to lose much of the architectural integrity it may have once had. Because of the change in position by Mr. Gregory regarding the significance of the original architect, the applicant submitted another report to the City Council by Sapphos Environmental Inc., which also concludes that the existing home is not a significant historical structure.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2020, the City Council commenced the public hearing and continued the public hearing to June 10, 2020, in order to provide the applicant’s architect with the opportunity to redesign the proposed house so as to incorporate some of the design or structural elements of the existing home into the new house.
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a request to continue the public hearing again from the June 10, 2020 Council meeting to the July 8, 2020 Council meeting. The applicant requested additional time to redesign the Project plans pursuant to the direction from the City Council. Accordingly, on June 10, 2020, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing; heard additional testimony, and continued the public hearing to the July 8, 2020 City Council meeting.
2 7-133
WHEREAS, the most recent design of the structure includes keeping a large part of the front façade; however, a majority of the structure behind the existing façade still will be replaced. This application requires one design review action pursuant to City Code Section 23.15.03B.
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2020, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing, heard additional testimony and other evidence and determined as follows:
SECTION 1. Each of the foregoing recitals is true and correct and is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. At a prior public hearing regarding this matter, Mr. Gregory testified that the breezeway on the front of the house had been enclosed by a previous owner in 1996, which changed Mr. Finkelhor’s design, in addition to a significant addition that was made to the house in 2006. These changes to the home have caused it to lose much of the architectural integrity it may have once had. Due to the reports prepared by Mr. Gregory and a more recent report by Sapphos Enviornmental, Inc.; the fact that the existing home has not been designated as an historic resource by the City and is not listed on the National or State Historic Registers, and the fact that the home has been altered from Mr. Finkelhor’s original design, the City Council hereby finds that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15303(a), because the project is new construction of one single family residence.
SECTION 3. The following facts were presented to the City Council:
A. The subject property is located on the north side of Circle Drive between Rosalind Road and the Circle Drive bridge. The adjacent land uses include single family homes in R-1, Area District 1.
B. The property contains 29,257 square feet of land and is improved with a 6,806 square-foot two- story residence with an attached three-car garage.
C. The applicant proposes a new 6,581 square-foot two-story house with an attached four-car garage. As set forth in the staff report, the proposed project satisfies or exceeds all zoning requirements in the San Marino Municipal Code, including providing very large setbacks from the adjacent neighboring properties.
D. The proposed architectural style is “Italianate.” This is characterized as having two-stories, a smooth stucco finish, balconies with balustrades, exterior molding around the windows and doors, and a two-piece mission clay roof.
E. The applicant has submitted a revised project that consists of salvaging the front façade of the home with the exception of a number of elements. As noted on the cover sheet of the plans, the small single-story turret has been removed; the windows and doors have been adjusted to line up with the openings of the arches found at the arcade, and the north façade that includes the existing garage doors has been removed.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 23.15.08, The City Council shall approve the application if it finds all of the following to be true:
A. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, and
3 7-134
B. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code,
C. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines,
D. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
SECTION 5. In regards to the design review action, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed house is an Italianate architectural style. Since previous hearings, the architect has made significant modifications to the home. The front entry way, which was once grand, has been reduced in size and mass; the front door has been reduced from a double door to a single door and the quoins that once lined the edges of the structure have been removed. These changes help simply the design of the house in a manner that is consistent and compatible with the homes in the neighborhood, especially the existing Italianate-designed homes. The home includes red tile roofing, a smooth stucco finish, balconies, and arches. These elements are described to be appropriate for this style of home within the City’s Residential Design Guidelines. To further simplify the project’s design, the applicant followed the City Council’s direction to maintain the front façade of the home, which is simple in design. This change further enhances the Project’s compatibility with the neighborhood.
B. The neighborhood consists of a variety of different architectural styles, including several Italianate designs. A combination of the subtle changes made to the design of the project help to reduce the visual mass of the project, simplify the design to be consistent and compatible with the neighboring homes, and to be consistent in height, mass and scale with other homes in the neighborhood, all of which contribute to the home satisfying the required finding of neighborhood compatibility described in Section 4 above.
C. The large side and rear yard setbacks, which greatly exceed the Code requirements, allow for increased space between the proposed home and the homes on the neighboring properties, which will enhance privacy, along with the planting of additional foliage. Accordingly, the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicant to develop their property within the restrictions of the Municipal Code.
D. The revised design of the home, which maintains the design of the front elevation of the existing home, incorporates colors and materials and a roof design that are compatible with those of the existing residence.
E. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Project satisfies all of the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Section 23.15.08.
SECTION 6. To comply with the Court’s order, the City Council hereby rescinds its prior decision regarding the Project, and based upon the facts presented at the public hearings and the findings in Section 5
4 7-135
above, the City Council hereby approves DRC17-08, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 7. The decision of the City Council is final. The decision is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and must be filed in accordance with the time periods specified therein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 8th day of July, 2020.
______KEN UDE, VICE MAYOR
ATTEST:
______AMANDA MERLO ACTING CITY CLERK
5 7-136
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: 1400 Circle Drive DRC 17-08 SUBJECT: New House and garage APPLICANT: He
LOCATION: 1400 Circle Drive
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (626) 300-0713, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against ___/___/___ the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
6 7-137
B. Time Limits
1. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not ___/___/__ commenced within 1 year from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans ___/___/__ which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning and Building Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Zoning Code regulations. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California ___/___/__ Building Code and Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the San Marino Fire Department and the Building Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 3. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval ___/___/__ shall be submitted for Planning review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be ___/___/__ coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning ___/___/__ Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 6. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the ___/___/__ property owner, or other means acceptable to the City. D. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting landscaping in the ___/___/__ case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by the Fire Department. The landscaping plan shall include retaining the two mature trees and other mature vegetation along the north property line to screen the view of the property to the north and the planting of large plants to fill any gaps in the vegetation to the satisfaction of the Director or the Director’s designee.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place, including the two mature trees along ___/___/__ the north property line, shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance
7 7-138
with the City Code Section 25.01.08, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
E. OTHER CONDITIONS
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record a covenant against the property in a form that is satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Director, which prohibits any of the area within the basement from being used as a bedroom.
2. Prior to submitting any plans for approval in connection with the construction of the home that is the subject of this application, the applicant shall apply to the City for a minor exception permit to allow the construction of a new eight-foot high freestanding wall along the north property line.
8 7-139
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Paul Chung, Finance Director Mark Siegfried, Accounting Manager/Controller
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO PREPAY CALPERS FY 2020-21 UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY (UAL) AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
BACKGROUND
The City’s required payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) each year consists of two parts: (1) the employer’s “normal cost,” which represents the estimated cost of pension benefits to be earned by active employees for the year; and (2) an amortization payment to pay down the unfunded accrued liability (UAL), which is the amount by which the value of pension fund assets falls short of the value of the projected pension benefits.
The employer’s “normal cost” payments must be made throughout the year. However, for the UAL amortization payments, CalPERS allows its member agencies an option to either make the required payments monthly or to prepay the annual amount by no later than July 31st each year. CalPERS offers a discount for the annual, advance payment option.
The City has nine separate plans with CalPERS, three each (Tiers 1, 2 and PEPRA) for its Miscellaneous, Police and Fire employees. The annual prepaid option is available for each of these nine separate plans.
8-1 DISCUSSION
Many public agencies are taking advantage of the annual prepaid option for their UAL obligations as a way of saving money. The discount rate offered by CalPERS is attractive and the primary consideration is whether there is sufficient cash flow to allow for the sizable disbursement in July.
Attachment 1 illustrates the amount of savings that CalPERS is offering the City for each of our nine separate pension plans to take advantage of the annual prepaid option for our UAL obligations. The potential gross savings for all nine plans combined total $75,278.92, which is the difference between the sum of the monthly payments and the sum of the annual prepayment amounts. The amount of the advance payment for all nine plans combined would be $2,187,842.00.
The discount rate that CalPERS is offering us with these advance payment options is approximately 6.295%. This discount rate is far greater than the approximately 1.25% rate of interest the City could earn on its own investments, were the City to invest the advance payment amount and make the required monthly payments, instead of making the advance payment. If the City makes the advance payments, the City would lose a certain amount of interest earnings by not having that cash available to invest during the year. Assuming a 1.25% interest rate on City investments, there would still be net savings of $60,784.59 from prepaying, as summarized on Attachment 1.
The FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget included requested expenditures to pay the total of the 12 monthly payment amounts for all nine pension plans. Accordingly, prepayment would result in budgetary savings.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The net budgetary impact of taking advantage of the option to prepay the CalPERS UAL amortization payments for FY 2020-21 is a net savings to the City of $60,784.59, assuming a 1.25% rate of interest on City investments. The City has sufficient cash reserves to make this payment in July and still meet its other obligations.
Procurement review is not applicable.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed this report and approved it as to legal form.
2
8-2 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City prepay its FY 2020-21 UAL amortization payments to CalPERS for an estimated net savings of $60,784.59. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to authorize staff to prepay all of the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 unfunded accrued liability amortization payments to CalPERS in the total amount of $2,187,842.00, and to make such payments no later than July 31, 2020.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Amortization Payments and Savings – FY 2020-21
3
8-3 Attachment 1:
CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Amortization Payments and Savings FY 2020-21 If Gross $ Net $ Monthly Total Prepaid Savings Savings *
Misc - Tier 1 $ 44,136.08 $ 529,632.96 $ 512,016.00 $ 17,616.96 $ 14,224.88 Misc - Tier 2 296.33 3,555.96 3,438.00 117.96 95.18 Misc - PEPRA 633.25 7,599.00 7,346.00 253.00 204.33
Police - Tier 1 69,187.92 830,255.04 802,638.00 27,617.04 22,299.61 Police - Tier 2 274.67 3,296.04 3,187.00 109.04 87.92 Police - PEPRA 390.50 4,686.00 4,530.00 156.00 125.99
Fire - Tier 1 71,240.83 854,889.96 826,453.00 28,436.96 22,961.76 Fire - Tier 2 2,031.08 24,372.96 23,562.00 810.96 654.86 Fire - PEPRA 402.75 4,833.00 4,672.00 161.00 130.05
$ 2,263,120.92 $ 2,187,842.00 $ 75,278.92 $ 60,784.59
* Gross Savings, net of lost interest earnings at 1.25% interest rate
8-4 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Michael Throne, PE, Director of Parks and Public Works/ City Engineer Bahman Janka, PE, Transtech Engineers
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. R-20-18, ESTABLISHING THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) RATHER THAN LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS).
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that each development and improvement project must be analyzed to establish its impact onto the transportation system that serves it. In September, 2013, the Governor approved SB 743 that legislated the use of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for evaluating the environmental impact on transportation instead of the traditional street intersection level of service (LOS). This shift in analysis now focuses the analysis of environmental impacts from vehicle delay at an intersection to the miles a vehicle must travel between a dwelling and commerce, recreation and/or work. The intent is to encourage different land use and transportation decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emission, support in-fill development and improve public health through active transportation. In December 2018, the guidelines were finalized and the time came for implementation by all local jurisdictions in California.
The City’s existing thresholds of significance rely on Level of Service (“LOS”) criteria. Staff believes that this approach is still valid for analyzing local impacts to intersections in proximity to proposed projects, and the City could amend its General Plan to incorporate LOS criteria so the City can continue to use the LOS analysis, even though the LOS analysis cannot be used anymore for CEQA analysis. By taking this approach, proposed projects would be analyzed under both
9-1 metrics.
DISCUSSION
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), working on behalf of its member agencies, selected Fehr & Peers to perform the requisite land use and transportation modeling, and prepare project thresholds, evaluation criteria and toolboxes on behalf of its membership. On June 24, 2020 Staff presented the attached report to the Planning Commission, which contains greater detail about VMT analysis and was approved by a unanimous vote of the Commission. Attachment 2 provides a comprehensive analysis of the new state mandate.
Fehr & Peers is working to complete the SGVCOG VMT analysis model. Upon completion of the model, city planners will utilize it to analyze project-related VMT to determine whether transportation impacts from proposed developments will constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. A representative from Fehr & Peers will make the primary presentation to the City Council this evening.
There will be little impacts to processing of developments in San Marino as a result of adopting these new thresholds. San Marino is almost entirely built out, and the City primarily receives applications for single family home remodeling/renovation projects, which are consistent with the General Plan and will comply with the new thresholds. It is expected that the environmental review process will slightly accelerate, saving both time and money for private development applicants.
FISCAL IMPACT REVIEW
The adoption of new local CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts and the adoption of new Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines will not have a fiscal impact. 26 cities joined the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government to share the total cost of the VMT. The one time shared costs per City was $12,229, which was significantly less that the estimated $25,000 to $40,000 if the City had hired its own consultant. No additional budget appropriation is required as it was paid through budget savings. It will cost $300 per year for our participation in maintenance of the model, which will be paid out of Planning and Building Department budget.
No procurement process is required at this time.
LEGAL REVIEW
The adoption of new local CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts and the adoption of new Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines will not have a significant environmental impact and are exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of
2
9-2 the California Code of Regulations because the two actions are undertaken by the City for the protection of the environment. The revised CEQA thresholds will be compliant with a State mandate (SB 743) and will be used in a regulatory process (CEQA process) that involves procedures for the protection of the environment. Accordingly, Staff is recommending that the City Council find the adoption of the Resolution exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. R-20-18 and find that the action is exempt from CEQA and adopt the proposed thresholds of significance. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to find that this action is exempt from CEQA for the reasons set forth in the staff report and to approve Resolution No. R-20-18 adopting ‘vehicle miles traveled’ thresholds of significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.”
ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. R-20-18 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 24, 2020
3
9-3 Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-20-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING “VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED” THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYZING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”) encourage public agencies to develop and publish generally applicable “thresholds of significance” to be used in determining the significance of a project’s potential environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(a) defines a threshold of significance as “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant”; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(b) requires that thresholds of significance must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulations, developed through a public review process, and be supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c), when adopting thresholds of significance, a public agency may consider thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies provided that the decision of the agency is supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 743, enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of proposed projects; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, new CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) – meaning the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project – as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s potential transportation impacts on the environment; and
WHEREAS, as a result, automobile delay, as measured by “Level of Service” and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA; and
9-4 CITY OF SAN MARINO RESOLUTION NO. R-20-18 PAGE 2 OF 4
WHEREAS, the City’s project review process will retain the “Level of Service” analysis to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 goes into effect on July 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Marino, following a public review process consisting of a staff presentation before the Planning Commission and the City Council, wishes to adopt the VMT thresholds of significance for determining the significance of transportation impacts of proposed projects on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the adoption of new local CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts and the adoption of new Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines will not have a significant environmental impact on the environment and are exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the two actions are undertaken by the City for the protection of the environment. The revised CEQA thresholds will be compliant with a State mandate (SB 743) and will be used in a regulatory process (CEQA process) that involves procedures for the protection of the environment. Accordingly, the City Council finds the Resolution exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the VMT thresholds of significance as shown in Table 1, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Marino, California, on this 8 day of July, 2020.
______GRETCHEN SHEPHERD ROMEY, MAYOR CITY OF SAN MARINO
9-5 CITY OF SAN MARINO RESOLUTION NO. R-20-18 PAGE 3 OF 4
ATTEST:
______AMANDA MERLO, ACTING CITY CLERK CITY OF SAN MARINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SAN MARINO )
I, Amanda Merlo, Acting City Clerk of the City of San Marino, California, hereby certify that Resolution No R-20-18 was adopted by the City Council of the City of San Marino at a Regular Meeting held on the 8 day of July, 2020, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______AMANDA MERLO, ACTING CITY CLERK CITY OF SAN MARINO
9-6 CITY OF SAN MARINO RESOLUTION NO. R-20-18 PAGE 4 OF 4 Exhibit A VMT Baselines and Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with State CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, the City of San Marino is adopting the project baselines and thresholds of significance set forth in Table 1 to guide the City in determining when a proposed project will have a significant transportation impact.
TABLE 1
Project Type Thresholds
Land Use Plan 1) Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the plan would exceed the applicable baseline VMT rate.
2) Cumulative Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. Land Use Project 1) Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the project would exceed the applicable baseline VMT rate.
2) Cumulative Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. Retail Project (over 1) Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the 50,000 square feet) VMT rate for the project would exceed the applicable baseline VMT.
2) Cumulative Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total VMT in the study area compared to baseline conditions. Transportation A significant impact would occur if the project causes a net Project increase in total regional VMT compared to baseline conditions, opening year no project conditions, or cumulative no project conditions. All land use and A significant impact would occur if the project is inconsistent transportation with the RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable projects Communities Strategy). Note: Baseline VMT rate is defined as the rate for SGVCOG per applicable service population. The baseline VMT may be changed pending updates to the SCAG’s RTP model.
9-7 ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT
TO: CHAIRMAN WRIGHT AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Jeri Wright, Chairman John Dustin, Vice- Chairman FROM: MICHAEL THRONE, PE, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC Raymond Cheng WORKS/CITY ENGINEER Se-Yao Hsu BY: BAHMAN JANKA, PE, TRANSTECH ENGINEERS Shelley Boyle James Okazaki, Alternate DATE: JUNE 24, 2020 Monte Ross, Alternate
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PCR20-03 – ESTABLISHING THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR AN ANALYSIS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) RATHER THAN LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS).
BACKGROUND
The City is participating with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) to create the San Gabriel Valley Regional VMT Analysis Model along with 25 other cities in the San Gabriel Valley. The new VMT requirements are mandated by state law. Fehr and Peers was selected by the SGVCOG as the most qualified firm to provide professional consultant services to complete the San Gabriel Valley Regional VMT Analysis Model. Upon completion of the Model, Staff will utilize it to analyze project-related VMT to determine whether transportation impacts from proposed developments will constitute a significant environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The San Gabriel Valley VMT analyses effort analyzed existing traffic conditions in the region to arrive at a baseline standard from which to determine significance thresholds for future land use and transportation projects. It will result in recommendations for establishing methodology, thresholds, and technical tools and procedures for CEQA analysis and transportation impacts of land use and transportation projects and plans in the local jurisdictions within the San Gabriel Valley.
Changes in State Law On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process intended to fundamentally change how transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of the CEQA review of projects. SB 743 eliminates Level of Service (LOS) as the basis for determining transportation impacts under CEQA and requires the use of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) instead. The state is shifting the focus of CEQA traffic analysis from measuring a project’s impact on automobile delay (LOS) to measuring the amount and distance of automobile travel that is
9-8 ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
attributable to a project (VMT). The State’s goal in changing the metric used to determine a significant transportation impact under CEQA is to encourage land use and transportation decisions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through active transportation.
The new changes in state law require the City to adopt new CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts. For the purposes of CEQA these changes will modify how the City evaluates projects for transportation impacts. Specifically, the City is required to use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS) as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts in CEQA documents such as Environmental Impact Reports. Outside of the CEQA process the City can choose to continue to evaluate projects using the LOS metric and impose conditions of approval on projects to address those impacts. Based on guidance provided through an implementation process led by the San Gabriel Council of Governments, City staff has prepared new CEQA transportation impact thresholds for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. This report summarizes the state mandate that requires modifying the CEQA thresholds, discusses the City staff recommendations, and includes a draft Resolution to adopt the new CEQA transportation thresholds.
ANALYSIS
CEQA and Thresholds of Significance CEQA requires jurisdictions to review the impact a project would have on the existing environment and to disclose those impacts to the public and decision makers and as a result address those impacts deemed significant. CEQA establishes four categories of environmental impacts:
1. No impact 2. Less than significant impact 3. Less than significant impact with the adoption of mitigation measures (a way of reducing an impact’s effect) 4. Significant unavoidable impacts
A threshold of significance is the point at which an impact moves from less than significant to significant. CEQA defines a significant impact as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine what that means for the 18 areas studied in a CEQA document an agency adopts defined thresholds of significance. In relation to traffic, the City for many years has used the Level of Service (LOS) methodology to determine if a project would create a significant impact.
Traffic Analysis & Level of Service The focus of most traffic analysis is on a project’s impact on nearby intersections and roadway segments. This analysis compares how the existing intersection or roadway segment functions prior to development of a proposed project in comparison to how it will function when the project is complete. At the heart of this analysis, is how an intersection or street segment should function. To analyze this, engineers and/or planners look at the intersections’ and roadway segments’ level of service (LOS). LOS, in its simplest form, is a ratio of an intersection’s or roadway segment’s volume to its capacity. If the volume of traffic exceeds the intersection’s
9-9 ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
capacity, one would expect to find traffic delays. If the capacity exceeds volume, one expects to find an absence of congestion.
Existing Thresholds of Significance The City’s existing thresholds of significance rely on the LOS criteria. Staff believes that this approach is still valid for analyzing local impacts to intersections in proximity to proposed projects. While the LOS analysis cannot be used for CEQA analysis anymore, the City can choose to continue to use these thresholds outside of CEQA. Therefore, staff is recommending that these thresholds be adopted as an official policy by the City Council.
The Movement Toward VMT In September of 2013, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 743. This law sent the State down a course of measuring a project’s environmental impact not by its creation of congestion, but by whether and how much it increases total vehicle miles traveled. Vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is the number of miles all vehicles travel, and it is the State’s goal to reduce VMT and thereby reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation was spurred by occasions where the CEQA analysis concluded that a project would have a negative effect on the environment even though the purpose of the project was to improve the environment. While SB 743 changes the focus of traffic analysis to reducing VMT, it also does not prohibit cities from setting LOS standards in its General Plan for infrastructure planning purposes. SB 743 reorients CEQA away from traffic congestion and toward the negative environmental effects of automobile trips (air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) thus refocusing the CEQA analysis on the environment, which is its purpose.
VMT Discussion Points While State law now requires cities to adopt VMT thresholds there are still some points on which the City has some discretion. The bullets below highlight these points and provide staff’s recommendation.
• Screening Out Projects – The State allows cities to filter or “screen out” local serving projects so that they do not even require a traffic study to look at VMT impacts. The idea behind this is that that since these projects will serve the local population, they are likely reducing the need for people to drive farther away and thus are reducing VMT. City staff is recommending adopting a list of local serving project types that are consistent with the state’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) guidance. This list includes new retail buildings that are less than 50,000 square feet in floor area, local parks, K-12 schools, day care centers, churches, and such. The list also includes projects generating less than 110 daily trips, which nominally translate to projects such as 11 single-family units, 16 multi-family units, and 10,000 square feet of office space. For a full list see Exhibit 2. The City can adopt a lower number of daily trips or projects of a small size; but higher thresholds are not allowed.
• Screening Out Projects in Low VMT Areas – The State allows cities to filter out regions of the City that are already considered “low VMT” traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The rationale here is that the area likely already has a good mix of uses and adding additional uses in this area provides for less and/or shorter trips and bundling of trips. Staff is
9-10 ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
recommending that to be consistent with OPR guidance to screen out residential and office projects located in low VMT areas. Low VMT is defined as areas of the City where the VMT falls below the City’s adopted threshold of significance (see maps on Exhibit 3).
• Screening Out Projects in Transit Priority Areas (TPA) - The City staff recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance to screen out projects in Transit Priority Areas, which are defined as locations within half-a-mile of a transit stop or station with a minimum of 15-minute headways during peak commute hours. Currently there are no TPAs in the City of San Marino, but over time as transit service changes or increases portions of the City may fall into a TPA. Transit Priority areas are shown on Exhibit 4.
• Screening Out Affordable Housing – The City staff recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance to screen out affordable housing developments or affordable housing units within mixed-use developments.
• Setting a Baseline VMT - The Baseline VMT is defined as the average VMT for the area represented by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), as measured by VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population. A project’s VMT will be compared to the baseline VMT when determining potential significant impacts. The City can choose different baselines including the City’s existing VMT, a subarea of the SGVCOG, the SGVCOG or the SCAG region. Staff recommends choosing the VMT rates for the SGVCOG as the baseline VMT.
• When a VMT Impact Becomes Significant (Land Use Plans) – The City staff recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance; significant impacts will occur if the VMT per service population for the land use plan exceeds 15 percent below the baseline VMT.
• When a VMT Impact Becomes Significant (Projects) – The City staff recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance; significant impacts will occur if a project generates VMT (per capita, per employee, or per service population) higher than 15 percent below the baseline VMT.
• When a VMT Impact Becomes Significant (Transportation Projects) – The City staff recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance; significant impacts will occur if the project results in a net increase in VMT.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The adoption of new local CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts and the adoption of new Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines will not have a significant environmental impact and are exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the two actions are undertaken by the City for the protection of the environment. The revised CEQA thresholds will be compliant with a State mandate (SB 743) and will be used in a regulatory process (CEQA process) that involves procedures for the protection of the environment. Accordingly, the City Council will consider the recommendation to find the Resolution exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
9-11 ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. PCR20-03 recommending that the City Council find that the action is exempt from CEQA and adopt the proposed thresholds of significance.
EXHIBITS 1. Resolution No. PCR20-03 2. List of Projects that can be Screened Out based on Type 3. Low VMT Areas (3 maps) 4. Transit Priority Areas (one map)
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Attachment 1: What is VMT? (Video) Attachment 2: FAQ – Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Attachment 3: Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, and Recommendations
9-12 ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC20-03
9-13 ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. PCR20-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT “VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED” THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYZING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE SAN MARINO PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”) encourage public agencies to develop and publish generally applicable “thresholds of significance” to be used in determining the significance of a project’s environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(a) defines a threshold of significance as “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant”; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(b) requires that thresholds of significance must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulations, developed through a public review process, and be supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c), when adopting thresholds of significance, a public agency may consider thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies provided that the decision of the agency is supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 743, enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts proposed of projects; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, new CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) – meaning the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project – as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a proposed project’s transportation impacts on the environment; and
1 9-14 ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
WHEREAS, as a result, automobile delay, as measured by “Level of Service” and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City’s project review process will retain “Level of Service” analysis to ensure consistency with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 goes into effect on July 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Marino, following a public review process consisting of a staff presentation before the Planning Commission, wishes to adopt the VMT thresholds of significance for determining the significance of transportation impacts in order to comply with state law.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the adoption of new local CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts and the adoption of new Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines will not have a significant environmental impact and are exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the two actions are undertaken by the City for the protection of the environment. The revised CEQA thresholds will be compliant with a State mandate (SB 743) and will be used in a regulatory process (CEQA process) that involves procedures for the protection of the environment. Accordingly, the City Council will consider the recommendation to find the Resolution exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the VMT thresholds of significance as shown in Table 1 on the following page.
SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution No. PCR20-03 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of San Marino, California at its regular meeting of June 24, 2020.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 24th day of June 2020.
2 9-15 ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
______ATTEST: JERI WRIGHT Chair, San Marino Planning Commission
ALDO CERVANTES, Secretary, San Marino Planning Commission
3 9-16 ATTACHMENT 2 - 10
VMT Baselines and Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with State CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, the City of San Marino has adopted the project baselines and thresholds of significance set forth in Table 1 to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact.
TABLE 1
Project Type Thresholds
Land Use Plan 1) Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the plan would exceed the applicable baseline VMT rate.
2) Cumulative Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. Land Use Project 1) Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the project would exceed the applicable baseline VMT rate.
2) Cumulative Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. Retail Project (over 1) Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the 50,000 square feet) VMT rate for the project would exceed the applicable baseline VMT.
2) Cumulative Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total VMT in the study area compared to baseline conditions. Transportation A significant impact would occur if the project causes a net Project increase in total regional VMT compared to baseline conditions, opening year no project conditions, or cumulative no project conditions. All land use and A significant impact would occur if the project is inconsistent transportation with the RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable projects Communities Strategy). Note: Baseline VMT rate is defined as the rate for SGVCOG per applicable service population. The baseline VMT may be changed pending updates to the SCAG’s RTP model.
4 9-17 ATTACHMENT 2 - 11
Exhibit 2
List of Projects that Can Be Screened Out Based on Type
9-18 ATTACHMENT 2 - 12
Exhibit 2
List of Projects that Can Be Screened Out Based on Type
OPR identified local serving project types that may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail projects (less than 50,000 square feet) generally improve the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. The City of San Marino will screen out the following projects.
The following uses are presumed to have a less than significant impact (absent substantial evidence to the contrary) as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local serving retail (retail establishments less than 50,000 square feet in size) • Local-serving K-12 schools • Local parks • Day care centers • Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, including: o Gas stations o Banks o Restaurants o Shopping Center • Local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels) • Student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus • Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) • Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government) • Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing • Assisted living facilities • Senior housing (as defined by HUD) • Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) • Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials: o 11 single family housing units o 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units o 10,000 sq. ft. of office • Public parking garages and public parking lots
9-19 ATTACHMENT 2 - 13
Exhibit 3
Low VMT Areas
9-20 ATTACHMENT 2 - 14
West Del Mar Bl East Del Mar Boulevard
e
u
n
e
v
A
a
n
SouthAvLake
e
d
a
s
a P
West California Bl East California Boulevard
Orange Grove Boulevard Cali East fornia Bl
l
B
v e
r A
d
a a
n
e M
d a
a r
s r
a e
i
P
S SouthOaksFairAvenue
h
t SouthArroyo Pw
u
o
S Huntington Drive Huntington %&710 Library and Glenarm Street Botanical Gardens
Columbia Street Duarte Road
·110 Los Robles Avenue
d
r
a
v
e
l
u
o SanGabriel Boulevard
B
Monterey Road d
a
e
m
e
s
o R
Fair OaksFair Av
Huntington Drive
ive s Dr una Garfield Avenue s T La
Las Tunas Drive !( N AtlanticN Boulevard Main St Home-Based VMT per Capita Comparison Transit Priority Area (TPA) Test Project !( Hotel 15% or more below SGVCOG Average City Boundary !( Mixed Use !( Medical 0 to 15% below SGVCOG Average !( Multi-Family Residential !( Industrial Higher than SGVCOG Average !( Single-Family Residential No Residents Daily Residential Home-Based VMT per Capita for San Marino (2012) 9-21 ATTACHMENT 2 - 15
West Del Mar Bl East Del Mar Boulevard
e
u
n
e
v
A
a
n
SouthAvLake
e
d
a
s
a P
West California Bl East California Boulevard
Orange Grove Boulevard a East C lifornia Bl
l
B
e
v r A d
a a n
M e
d a
r a
r s
e
a i
P S
SouthOaksFairAvenue SouthArroyo Pw h
t
u
o
S Huntington Drive Huntington %&710 Library and Glenarm Street Botanical Gardens
Columbia Street Duarte Road
·110 Los Robles Avenue
d
r
a
v
e
l
u
o SanGabriel Boulevard
B
Monterey Road d
a
e
m
e
s
o R
Fair OaksFair Av
Huntington Drive
ive s Dr una Garfield Avenue s T La
Las Tunas Drive !( N AtlanticN Boulevard Main St
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Comparison City Boundary Test Project !( Hotel 0 to 15% below SGVCOG Average Transit Priority Area (TPA) !( Mixed Use !( Medical 15% or more below SGVCOG Average !( Multi-Family Residential !( Industrial Higher than SGVCOG Average !( Single-Family Residential
Daily Home-Based Work VMT per Employee for San Marino (2012) 9-22 ATTACHMENT 2 - 16
East Del Mar Boulevard
e
u
n
e
v
A
a
n
e
d
a
s
a P
West California Boulevard East California Boulevard
Orange Grove Boulevard Grove Orange
v A
a n e
d
a
s South FairOaks Avenue
a SierraMadre Bl
P
h
t South ArroyoPw
u
o S Huntington Drive Huntington %&710 Library and Botanical Gardens
Duarte Road
110 · Los Robles Avenue
d
r
a
v
e
l
u SanGabriel Boulevard
o B
Monterey Road d
a
e
m
e
s
o R
FairOaks Av
Huntington Drive
ive s Dr una s T Garfield Avenue La
Las Tunas Drive
!( N AtlanticBoulevard
VMT per Service Population Comparison City Boundary Test Project !( Hotel 15% or more below SGVCOG Average Transit Priority Area (TPA) !( Mixed Use !( Medical 0 to 15% below SGVCOG Average !( Multi-Family Residential !( Industrial Higher than SGVCOG Average !( Single-Family Residential
Daily VMT per Service Population for San Marino (2012) 9-23 ATTACHMENT 2 - 17
Exhibit 4
Transit Priority Areas
9-24 ATTACHMENT 2 - 18
256 258
762
264/267
South ArroyoPw
187 South FairOaks Avenue
Huntington Library and Huntington Drive Botanical Gardens
San Marino 266
d
r
a
v
e
l
u o B
d
a
e
m
e
s
o
78/79 R
176 !! !! !!
FairOaks Av
Huntington Drive
260 ive s Dr una s T La
Las Tunas Drive
487/489 N AtlanticBoulevard Main St
! Transit Stop with Frequent Service LA Metro Bus (Simplified) City Boundary Transit Priority Area LA Metro Rail Metrolink Foothill Transit SGVCOG SB 743: Transit Priority Areas - San Marino 9-25 ATTACHMENT 2 - 19
Additional Resources
Attachment 1
What is VMT? (Video)
Please click on the link below to watch a short video on VMT. https://youtu.be/UE4TJItVdJ8
9-26 ATTACHMENT 2 - 20
Additional Resources
Attachment 2
FAQ – Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
9-27 ATTACHMENT 2 - 21
FAQ Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Based on New Guidelines as Directed by SB 743
What was the legislative intent of SB 743 (2013)?
1 Balance the needs of congestion management with the following statewide goals a Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions b Infill development c Public health through active transportation 2 Ensure that the environmental impacts of traffic such as noise, air pollution, and safety concerns continue to be addressed and mitigated through CEQA
What does the new CEQA Section 15064.3 adopted by the state in December 2018 require?
1 A project’s effect on automobile delay (i.e., Level of Service) shall not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. 2 A lead agency may adopt these provisions immediately, but no later than July 1, 2020. 3 VMT is the “most appropriate” measure of transportation impacts. 4 Other relevant considerations may include effects on transit and non-motorized travel. 5 VMT exceeding an applicable threshold may indicate a significant impact 6 Projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if they are located in a transit priority area (TPA) or would reduce VMT. 7 A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT 8 A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT, and may revise those VMT estimates based on substantial evidence 9 Any assumptions used to estimate VMT must be documented and explained
What decisions do a local agency need to make to implement these new guidelines?
1 VMT Metric? a VMT in absolute terms or b VMT per capita, VMT per employee, VMT per service population … 2 VMT Methodology? a How to calculate VMT – travel model, spreadsheet tool, other methods
Page | 1 9-28 ATTACHMENT 2 - 22
FAQ Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Based on New Guidelines as Directed by SB 743
b Total VMT or partial VMT associated with select vehicle types, land uses, and/or trip purposes/tours c Project generated VMT versus project effect on VMT 3 VMT Impact Significance Threshold? a Threshold: Level of reduction in VMT below existing conditions? b Thresholds: (1) Project VMT and (2) Cumulative Impacts (project’s effect on VMT) c Thresholds: (1) Land Use Projects, (2) Land Use Plans, (3) Transportation Projects d Is the level of VMT reduction compared to regional VMT, citywide VMT, or other baseline? e For cities and counties, are VMT impacts best addressed at the general plan level given that all land use decisions only influence land use supply and CEQA Section 15183 provides streamlining for subsequent projects? 4 VMT Mitigation Options? a VMT mitigation options for land use projects involve either changing the physical design of the project (i.e., its density, mix of use, street design, etc.) or requiring trip reduction strategies as part of a transportation demand management (TDM) program. i Are cities and counties willing to require stringent TDM programs with annual monitoring and adjustments if projects do not accomplish required VMT reductions? ii Should cities and counties instead rely on mitigation programs such as impact fee programs that are based on a VMT-reduction nexus?
How does the OPR Technical Advisory recommend implementing CEQA Section 15064.3?
1 If a lead agency uses a travel model as the basis for establishing thresholds, that same model must be used for subsequent project level VMT analyses. 2 For land use projects and plans, the Technical Advisory states, “OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold” based on substantial evidence related to the state’s GHG reduction goals. a Residential Project Threshold – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or city VMT per capita. b Office Project Threshold – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. c Retail Project Threshold – A net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.
Page | 2 9-29 ATTACHMENT 2 - 23
FAQ Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Based on New Guidelines as Directed by SB 743
d Mixed-Use Projects – Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included… Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. 3 For transportation projects, the Technical Advisory states: a Because a roadway expansion project can induce substantial VMT, incorporating quantitative estimates of induced VMT is critical to calculating both transportation and other impacts of the projects. b Transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. 4 The Technical Advisory expands Section 15064.3 options for VMT impact screening using the presumption that certain projects will have less than significant VMT impacts based on location within a low VMT generating area or by being a locally serving retail project. 5 Impacts to Transit – lead agencies should consider impacts to transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian networks. …a project that blocks access to a transit stop or blocks a transit routes itself may interfere with transit functions.
Is a lead agency required to follow recommendations in the Technical Advisory?
1 The Technical Advisory helps lead agencies think about the variety of implementation questions they face with respect to shifting to a new VMT metric. 2 The guidance is not a recipe for SB 743 implementation since lead agencies must still make their own specific decisions about methodology, thresholds, and mitigation. For cities and counties, these decisions must be consistent with their general plan, which may not be aligned with state GHG reduction goals upon which the Technical Advisory is based. 3 A lead agency has the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds to evaluate a project’s VMT. A lead agency may take into account both its own policy goals and context in developing a VMT methodology and thresholds.
Page | 3 9-30 ATTACHMENT 2 - 24
FAQ Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Based on New Guidelines as Directed by SB 743
What are the pros and cons of following the Technical Advisory guidance with respect to CEQA defensibility?
PROS CONS 1 Aligns with state goals for GHG reduction, 1 Recommends only reporting partial VMT for infill development, transit, active individual land uses, trip purposes/tours, and transportation, and public health. vehicle types. This could be interpreted as 2 Requires limited effort to implement. presenting an inadequate or incomplete 3 Creates VMT impact screening opportunities analysis when compared to the current for housing, employment, transit, bicycle, practice of reporting total VMT for air quality, pedestrian, and minor roadway projects. GHG, and energy impact analysis. 4 Includes specific thresholds. 2 Includes evidence that a 15 percent reduction from baseline may not be sufficient to achieve statewide goals for GHG reduction. 3 Does not consider local general plan role in setting threshold expectations. 4 Includes inconsistent threshold expectations based on the same land use and transportation context.
What other challenges should a lead agency consider?
1 Direct application of the Technical Advisory results in significant and unavoidable VMT impacts for projects in jurisdictions with limited transit service and low land use densities even when those projects are consistent with the local general plan. 2 Lead agencies have often used transportation demand management (TDM) strategies as mitigation to reduce VMT. Most TDM strategies are project site and building tenant dependent. Since this information is typically unknown during the project entitlement and environmental review process, a lead agency must think about whether it can guarantee TDM mitigation outcomes. This implies that ongoing monitoring and adjustment of the TDM strategies may be required and that impacts are likely to remain significant even with mitigation due to the uncertainty associated with building tenant performance over time. 3 Caltrans has published a Draft TISG (February 2020) that endorses the OPR Technical Advisory methodology and thresholds (Page 8). This sets the expectation that local agencies will use the OPR recommended VMT impact thresholds for all land use plans and projects.
Page | 4 9-31 ATTACHMENT 2 - 25
Additional Resources
Attachment 3
Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, and Recommendations
9-32 ATTACHMENT 2 - 26 SB743 Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, and Recommendations
Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations
What form of the VMT 1 Total VMT Metrics other than total VMT Include all forms of VMT needed for 2 Total VMT per service population1 and total VMT per service screening and complete analysis (this Metric? 3 Household generated VMT per population represent only includes total VMT by speed bin for air resident (activity/tour-based models) partial VMT (i.e., some vehicle quality, GHG, and energy impact 4 Work tour VMT per employee types and trip purposes are analysis). Examples below are for trip- (activity/tour-based models)) excluded in the models used to based models. 5 Home-based VMT per resident estimate VMT). This may be 1 Total VMT 6 Home-based work VMT per acceptable for screening 2 Total VMT per service population employee purposes but not for a 3 Home-based VMT per resident complete VMT impact analysis. 4 Home-based work VMT per employee
What methodology to use 1 Caltrans Statewide Travel Demand Statewide and regional models Use regional or local models after Model have limited sensitivity and calibrating and validating for local in estimating and 2 Regional MPO or RTPA travel accuracy for local scale project scale sensitivity/accuracy and forecasting VMT? demand model applications off the shelf. appending trip length data for trips 3 City or County travel demand model Regional and local models often with external trip ends. Use these 4 Sketch planning tool or spreadsheet2 truncate trips at model models to analyze both ‘project boundaries. Sketch and generated VMT’ and ‘project effect on spreadsheet tools do not VMT’. Land use projects only change capture the ‘project effect on land supply. As such, the analysis of VMT’. project effect should recognize this condition.
Is use of VMT impact Projects that reduce VMT or are located Screening does not provide Rely on screening if consistent with within transit priority areas (TPAs) should information about the actual applicable general plan and supported screening per 15064.3 be presumed to have a less than VMT changes associated with by substantial evidence. desired?3 significant impact on VMT. the project.
9-33 ATTACHMENT 2 - 27 SB743 Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, and Recommendations
Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations
What is the VMT impact 1 Lead agency discretion consistent Difficult for lead agencies to Since VMT is already used in air quality, with general plan and expectations determine what level of VMT GHG, and energy impact analysis, lead significance threshold for for ‘project scale’ VMT reductions change is unacceptable when agencies should review thresholds for land use projects under not accounted for in general plan viewed solely through a those sections to help inform new EIR and supported by substantial transportation lens. thresholds exclusively for transportation baseline conditions? evidence. purposes. 2 OPR 15% below baseline average for Uncertainty of VMT trends a city or region (automobiles only)4 contributes to difficulty in Lead agencies should carefully consider 3 ARB 14.3% below baseline (2015- setting thresholds. Connecting how they value state goals for 2018) average of jurisdiction (all a VMT reduction expectation to VMT/GHG reduction in light of other vehicles) baseline helps to reduce general plan and community objectives. 4 ARB 16.8% below baseline (2015- uncertainty associated with Translating state goals into VMT 2018) average of jurisdiction future conditions. thresholds should carefully consider (automobiles only) substantial evidence such as California 5 Any increase above baseline total for No evidence provided in OPR, Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan- the study area or jurisdiction (all ARB, or Caltrans guidance to Identified VMT Reductions and vehicles) support treating land use and Relationships to State Climate Goals, 6 Caltrans threshold5 transportation projects January 2019, CARB. differently when it comes to threshold expectations. Absent development of a specific VMT Transportation and retail land threshold, lead agencies may rely on use projects are subject to a those of other state agencies. The ARB threshold where any increase in thresholds are supported by substantial total VMT causes a significant evidence related to state air quality and impact whereas residential and GHG goals, but do not consider recent office land use projects only VMT trends or the potential influence have impacts when their VMT of emerging mobility options such as generation rates are not at least autonomous vehicles (AVs). 15% lower than existing land uses.
9-34 ATTACHMENT 2 - 28 SB743 Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, and Recommendations
Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations
What is the VMT impact 1 Use a regional model to analyze the Uncertainty of VMT trends Analyze the project’s effect on land ‘project’s effect on VMT’ based on makes a cumulative impact supply and VMT using an appropriate significance threshold for RTP/SCS consistency (projects finding less certain. valid model. For impact findings, land use projects under should not increase the total consider all available substantial regional VMT forecast used to Ability for a lead agency to evidence including 2018 Progress cumulative conditions? support the RTP/SCS air quality identify the project’s effect on Report, California’s Sustainable conformity and SB 375 GHG targets). land supply and corresponding Communities and Climate Protection 2 A lead agency can use the project VMT. Land use projects change Act, November 2018, CARB and current analysis above if based on an land supply and the allocation research on the long-term effects of efficiency metric form of VMT and of future population and transportation network companies evidence exists to demonstrate that employment growth. As such (TNCs), new mobility options, and cumulative trends in VMT rates are cumulative analysis should autonomous vehicles (AVs). Specific declining. maintain the same control totals research examples include Fehr & Peers 3 Establish a VMT reduction threshold of regional population and AV effect model testing. for cumulative conditions consistent employment growth. with general plan objectives especially those related to air Requires knowledge of the pollution and GHG reduction. forecasting tools available to test the project’s effect on land supply and VMT.
What is the VMT impact Lead agencies have discretion to choose Continued use of LOS is Consult CEQA legal advice about their own metrics and thresholds for uncertain because of CEQA whether lead agency discretion allows significant threshold for transportation project impact analysis. If Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) continued use of LOS and whether VMT transportation projects VMT is selected, OPR recommends and 15064.7(d)(2). is required. VMT is required as an input treating projects that reduce, or have no to air quality, GHG, and energy impact under baseline impact on, VMT to be presumed to have Transit, especially on-demand analysis and should include induced conditions? a less than significant impact. transit service, can generate vehicle travel effects. new VMT, which should be considered as part of impact conclusions.
9-35 ATTACHMENT 2 - 29 SB743 Summary of Lead Agency Decisions, Options, and Recommendations
Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations
What VMT reduction Menu of built environment and Built environment strategies Develop a VMT mitigation program transportation demand management require modifying the project, using any of the following approaches. mitigation strategies are (TDM) mitigation strategies contained in which may create 1 Impact fee program based on a feasible? Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation inconsistencies with the project VMT reduction nexus (see City of Strategies, CAPCOA, 2010. description and financial Los Angeles example). feasibility. 2 In-lieu fee program for VMT reducing actions. TDM strategies are often 3 VMT mitigation bank or exchange building tenant dependent so program. their use requires on-going 4 TDM ordinance applying to all monitoring and adjusting to employers (and potentially new account for changes in building residents). tenants and their travel behavior.
Ad-hoc project-by-project mitigation is less effective for reducing VMT than larger scale program-based approaches such as an impact fee program.
Notes: (1) Service population includes population plus employment and may include students or visitors; it is intended to include all independent variables used in estimating trips. (2) This method has limitations if using a citywide or regional average for a threshold. (3) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that projects that would reduce VMT or are located in a TPA should be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. The OPR Technical Advisory contains other potential screening options. (4) The OPR threshold was not developed through analytical or scientific study. It reflects OPR advice after reviewing various planning studies and state goals documented in the Technical Advisory. ARB used the OPR 15% threshold as an input to their threshold guidance and assumed that California statewide VMT would be 15% lower by 2050 compared to the 2015-2018 average. This means that all future residents are expected to perform at this level and that VMT from other sources (e.g., visitors) would also be 15% lower. Failure to meet these expectations would result in the State’s failure to meet GHG reduction goals. ARB’s threshold guidance also relied on calculations that use California’s clean fuel standards and electric vehicle adoption rates. The threshold guidance is not consistent with the SAFE Vehicle Rule, does not consider the 2019 update to statewide population forecasts, which reduced California’s population by about 5 million by 2050, and does not consider the long-term influence of transportation network companies, internet shopping, new mobility options, or autonomous vehicles 9-36 Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor Ken Ude, Vice Mayor Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member Susan Jakubowski, Council Member Steve Talt, Council Member TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager BY: Michael Throne, PE, Director of Parks and Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: July 8, 2020
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE TO RENOVATE THE SAN MARINO CENTER
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents • Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services • Well-Maintained Infrastructure • Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government • Inviting and Relevant City Facilities
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2019, City staff began discussing, as part of the recreation re-visioning process, the potential of relocating the recreation program to alternate City facilities from its current location in the Stoneman building on Pasqualito. The best choice appeared to be the City-owned San Marino Center (SMC), which has hosted numerous City and community programs, events, and activities for decade. In order to get a better sense of what that move would look like, the City Manager enlisted the assistance of Crane Architectural Group to work with staff and develop potential floor plans that would facilitate a relocated recreation program. Getting a conceptual design enabled staff to review functionality and feasibility, and estimate a rough cost for design, construction and construction management. Those cost estimates are critical if a project is going to be proposed and incorporated into the Capital Improvement Plan.
On January 5, 2020, the City Council included the “Renovation of the San Marino Center” as a potential Priority Initiative for the FY20-21 budget and directed staff to refine the proposal for further consideration. The conceptual floor plan included (1) improvements to the building interior so that it would be more suitable for all types of community activities and events (not
10-1 just recreation programs), (2) keeping the building within its current footprint, and (3) designing an exterior aesthetic to match the Crowell Public Library.
On May 12, staff met with Vice Mayor Ude and Council Member Talt, who serve as the Council Liaisons to the Recreation Commission, which has included facilitation of the plan to re-envision Recreation. We discussed the re-envisioning path for Recreation, the conceptual design of the San Marino Center, and proposed implementation plans and schedules for the interplay between the two. All of this presumed final City Council approval of the renovation project into the CIP at the June 5, 2020, Council meeting.
Two implementation options were presented to the liaisons:
Option 1: This option would have “fast-tracked” the design process and gotten the City more quickly to construction. In this plan, staff would have spent the month of June soliciting community input by publishing the conceptual designs (in print media, on social media, and on our website), publishing a video of the City Engineer explaining the conceptual plan choices and the options available, and offering multiple venues for feedback in this COVID-19 era. Armed with the feedback, staff would have made a recommendation at the July 8 Council meeting to award the full design contract to Crane Architectural Group (given their familiarity with the facility and the City), including approval of the design with any changes requested by the community. If that contract were awarded on July 8, construction could have begun as early as March 2021.
Option 2: The second option would have included a highly robust public input process, which would have lengthened the project completion period. Staff would have solicited input from the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission, the Recreation Commission, residents and current “renters,” such as the City Club, and hosted a virtual open house. All input would be assembled for the City Council, who would have had the opportunity to give direction for a new conceptual design. Once approved by the City Council, the Department would have gone through the procurement process to secure an architecture firm (that the City Council would approve) to design the renovation accordingly. (In this option, there’s no significant value in directly utilizing Crane because we would using a new design, not building on their existing one.) This path forward would have had construction beginning in November 2021.
The Council Liaisons, in agreement with staff, preferred Option 1, as a middle-of-the-road approach that both received community input and utilized an expedited construction schedule. Vice Mayor Ude suggested that an expedited process would better allow the City to take advantage of a potentially more favorable bidding climate due to the impacts of the pandemic on building construction. Separately from the conversation with the Liaisons, Council Member Jakubowski expressed that it would be ideal to take advantage of the COVID-driven building vacancies to renovate the San Marino Center sooner rather than later. Option 1 had the
2
10-2 advantage of accomplishing all of these practical goals, while still dedicating a full month to receiving community input on the design elements.
Staff formally shared this path forward with the City Council on May 21, 2020, and, as planned in Option 1, publicly released the conceptual plans on the City’s website and to the San Marino Tribune to begin the process of soliciting feedback from the community. In the week thereafter, we received a handful of email comments and suggestions on the aesthetic features of the exterior.
On June 5, 2020, the City Council did indeed vote to include “Renovating the San Marino Center into a State-of-the-Art Community Center” as a Priority Initiative for FY20-21, as a capital project. However, in response to concerns raised by Mayor Shepherd Romey, the Council directed staff to bring back process options for direction and decision by the full City Council in lieu of continuing with the path laid out by the Council Liaisons in conjunction with staff.
Consequently, instead of presenting the award of contract with a synopsis of community feedback, staff is offering the City Council choices about how to proceed.
DISCUSSION
Tonight, the City Council is being presented with two implementation plans, as the Liaisons were in May 2020. The key difference between the two options is the additional 8 months of time it will take to engage in and respond to a public input process.
Option 1 remains the option to “fast-track” construction while still soliciting community feedback. We could still get back on that track, if the City Council desires. To select and implement this option, a majority of the City Council would need to support the overall direction of the conceptual designs (Attachment 1) at tonight’s July 8 meeting. Staff would spent the next few weeks pushing out as much information as possible to the community and proactively solicit community feedback on the design elements. Staff would then compile that feedback and present it to the City Council at the July 31 meeting, where a final decision on design direction would be needed (based on the community’s comments) and the design contract would be awarded. The City would then be back on track for an expeditious completion.
If Option 2 is chosen, relocating recreation programming to the San Marino Center will be pushed out to the summer of 2023 (one full year later than in Option 1). During that time, the City will be obligated to continue to maintain the Stoneman facility in a suitable fashion for recreation use. This additional programming year will have to be factored into future program planning, may delay implementation of some components of recreation re-visioning, and will likely impact the recreation budget in future years.
3
10-3
Regardless of the option chosen, after the City Council approves a floor plan and elevation, the project will take 7 months to design and advertise for bids, and then between 12 and 18 months to construct. The Department will be recommending that the prequalification process employed with the recently completed Lacy Park Rose Arbor be used to ensure the competency of the selected building contractor. The two options are attached to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The project is included in the FY 2020-21 capital improvement plan and this year’s budget for design activities is $400,000. The City’s purchasing ordinance will be followed to secure the services of an architect.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney reviewed the staff report and has approved it to legal form.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction to the City Manager on which implementation plan and schedule option they prefer. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be either:
“I move to support the general direction of the San Marino Center conceptual plans, direct the City Manager to move forward with San Marino Center renovation project implement plan and schedule Option 1, and actively solicit community feedback in advance of the July 31 City Council meeting.”
OR
“I move to direct the City Manager to move forward with San Marino Center renovation project implement plan and schedule Option 2.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. San Marino Center Conceptual Plans 2. San Marino implementation plan and schedule – Options 1 and 2 3. Excerpt from FY 2020-21 capital improvement plan
4
10-4 5(9,6,216 %< 10-5 ATTACHMENT 1-
'5$:1
&+(&.('
'$7(
6&$/(
-2%12
6+((7
2) 6+((76 5(9,6,216 %< 10-6 ATTACHMENT 1-2
'5$:1
&+(&.('
'$7(
6&$/(
-2%12
6+((7
2) 6+((76 5(9,6,216 %< 10-7 ATTACHMENT 1-3
'5$:1
&+(&.('
'$7(
6&$/(
-2%12
6+((7
2) 6+((76 SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
OPTION 1
Estimated Duration Approximate Task Description Date CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE Crane Architectural Group prepares conceptual Summer to Prepare conceptual design and plans and cost estimate using input provided by 3 months (completed) December cost estimate Community Services Department, Planning & 2019 Building and PPW Duration/Completion 3 months Completed PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE Approve implementation plan Council reviews and approves this plan July 8, 2020 July 8, 2020 and schedule City Council approves the conceptual plan and conceptual cost estimate at a Friday workshop and directs the City Manager to move forward with preparing plans and specifications as Adopt conceptual plan and hire modified by the Council at the workshop. 3 weeks July 31, 2020 architect Council also awards a design contract to Crane to prepare the contract documents. CEQA environmental documentation process commences. Estimated Duration/Completion 1 month July 2020 FINAL DESIGN PHASE Architect prepares plans, specifications and draft cost estimate suitable for public bidding and issuance of a building permit while the Department simultaneously brings-in a August to Prepare plans and specifications consultant construction manager (their contract 5 months December will require City Council approval) to be 2020 involved in the design and assist with value engineering and constructability (a design/construction management best practice) 5 months December Estimated Duration/Completion 2020 CONSTRUCTION PHASE Using the bidder pre-qualification process to identify responsible contractors, PPW advertises January to Advertise for bids and award the project for bids and recommends an award 2 months February of a construction contract and environmental 2021 determination March 2021 Renovate the building in accordance with the Construct 12 to 18 months to February approved plans and specifications 2022 (earliest) February Estimated Duration/Completion 14 to 20 months 2022 (earliest)
1 ATTACHMENT 2 10-8 SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
OPTION 2
Estimated Approximate Task Description Duration Date CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE Crane Architectural Group prepares conceptual plans Summer to Prepare conceptual design and 3 months and cost estimate using input provided by Community December cost estimate (completed) Services Department, Planning & Building and PPW 2019 Duration/Completion 3 months Completed PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE Approve implementation plan Council reviews and approves this plan July 8, 2020 July 8, 2020 and schedule PPW presents the conceptual design to the design review committee, the planning commission, the July to Host public input sessions to recreation commission and other interested community 3 months September review conceptual design members (including current event users such as City 2020 Club) for their input. PPW hosts a virtual open house and tour at San Marino Center. Crane Architectural Group revises the plans and October to Revise conceptual plan updates the cost estimate 6 weeks November 2020 City hosts two public input sessions to ensure all November Host public input sessions on relevant and practicable ideas have been heard and 1 month 2020 to revised conceptual plans potentially incorporated into plan January 2021 City Council approves the revised preliminary plan and cost estimate at a Friday workshop and directs the City Present revised conceptual January 29, Manager to move forward with issuing a request for 1 months plan for approval 2021 architectural services proposals; CEQA environmental documentation process commences Award contract for City Council approves a professional services February to 2 months architectural services agreement for architecture March 2021 Estimated Duration/Completion 9 months March 2021 FINAL DESIGN PHASE Architect prepares plans, specifications and draft cost estimate suitable for public bidding and issuance of a building permit while the Department simultaneously Prepare plans and brings-in a consultant construction manager (their April to 5 months specifications contract will require City Council approval) to be August 2021 involved in the design and assist with value engineering and constructability (a design/construction management best practice) Estimated Duration 5 months August 2021
2 ATTACHMENT 2 10-9 SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE Using the bidder pre-qualification process to identify responsible contractors, PPW advertises the project for September to Advertise for bids and award 2 months bids and recommends an award of a construction October 2021 contract and environmental determination November Renovate the building in accordance with the approved 12 to 18 2021 to Construct plans and specifications months October 2022 (earliest) October 14 to 20 Estimated Duration/Completion 2022 months (earliest)
3 ATTACHMENT 2 10-10 CITY OF SAN MARINO CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST
XXXX
PROPOSING DEPARTMENT YEAR FIRST PROPOSED CAPITAL EXPENSE TYPE Parks & Public Works FY18/19 Civic Facilities Civic Facilities
City Council Priority Initiative. Renovate San Marino Center per a to-be- developed scope of work based on the recommendations of the 2020 recreation re-visioning process.
DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
TOTAL ANTICIPATED FUNDING
FUNDING SOURCE (IF KNOWN) AMOUNT
Capital Fund (394) 4,800,000
PHOTOGRAPH OR DIAGRAM
TOTAL ESTIMATED FUNDING $ 4,800,000
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES BY YEAR
5-YR. CATEGORY FY19/20 PROPOSED FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 TOTALS BUDGET FY20/21
ACQUISITION 0
ENGINEERING 400,000 $ 400,000
ENVIRONMENTAL 0
CONSTRUCTION 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
CONST. MGT. 400,000 $ 400,000
LEGAL 0
TOTALS $ 0 $ 400,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,800,000 COST ESTIMATE NOTES A construction cost estimate would be established upon completion of conceptual plans based of potential public use of facility. 10-11 ATTACHMENT 3 - 1 Capital Expense Request Template 2.5 Ver Renovate the San Marino Center into a State-of-the-Art Community Center The purpose of this proposed priority initiative would be to revitalize the former 1950s-era building into a contemporary community center and meeting space for senior and youth recreation programs. The goal would likely be to relocate the recreation program to the San Marino Center, thereby creating a beautiful and inviting “community services complex” with the Crowell Public Library. The aesthetic design of the San Marino Center would match that of the Library and create another jewel for our community to utilize.
Dept. Critical Success Key Actions Resource Assessment Lead Factor Staff Demand: High to Moderate (the project can be expected to have a high staff demand at the onset due to the need to prepare a comprehensive needs study that would incorporate community engagement, then a moderate • Determine space needs using the results demand as the project moves into design and construction) from the 2020 recreation program
10-12 revisioning process to establish how the Total Cost Estimate: from $2 million to $4 million (in 2020 Inviting and Public building is going to be used now and over dollars and excluding architectural and construction Relevant City Works the next 20 years management fees and construction contingency), depending Facilities • Prepare architectural plans to establish a on extent of renovation construction budget • Construct the rejuvenated building Other Things to Consider: For minimal and continued use of the San Marino Center, a thorough condition assessment (including a review of building code and accessibility needs) should occur. Also, the life of this project is likely approximately two years to completion. ATTACHMENT 3 - 2
Staff Recommendation: Forward progress is critical for Recreation, the San Marino Center, and Stoneman. Committing to the renovation of the San Marino Center as the future home of the recreation program achieves movement on two of these critical components and creates opportunities for Stoneman that might not otherwise arise. Staff recommends that the City Council approve this initiative’s inclusion into the CIP Year 1 budget. Once approved, the City Council would appropriate funding to prepare preliminary architectural plans detailed enough to establish a construction budget that would likely span into Year 2.