Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 8 B. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
All complaints received by the City associated with the construction alleging damage to private property and vehicles shall be responded to within twenty-four (24) hours of the City’s notification to the Contractor. Failure to comply with this provision may result in a penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) per occurrence.
All trucks which the Contractor proposes to use that exceed the legal load limit, when loaded, will be required to have overweight permits from the City prior to using City streets.
The Contractor shall be responsible for adequate barricading of the Work and controlling of traffic in the vicinity of the Work as specified in Subsection 7-10 of the General Provisions.
The Contractor shall use the required number of barricades to close those areas where the subgrade has been prepared and left overnight prior to installing the pavement surface. The use of cones will not be permitted.
Should the Contractor appear to be neglectful or negligent in furnishing warning and protective devices, the City Engineer may direct attention to the existence of a hazard and the necessary warning and protective measures shall be furnished and installed immediately by the Contractor at their expense.
Should the City point out the inadequacy of warning and protective measures, such action on the part of the City Engineer shall not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for public safety or abrogate their obligation to furnish and pay for these devices. If the Contractor fails to provide such devices, the City Engineer will place the devices or cause the devices to be placed. The cost of placing such devices shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor and shall be paid for at the rate of $45/hour for labor and vehicle use, $15/day per barricade and any other costs incurred by the City relative to traffic control. The costs shall be deducted from the total Contract price for the Work.
C. PROTECTION OF WORK AND PUBLIC
The Contractor shall take all necessary measures to protect the Work and prevent accidents during any and all phases of the Work. The Contractor shall repair all damaged to the Work as a result of vandalism (i.e. vehicle tracks, footprints, writing, spilt asphalt etc.) If deemed necessary by the City, the Contractor shall repair the damaged area in accordance with these special provisions.
D. CONSTRUCTION SIGNING
Construction signing shall consist of furnishing, installing, maintaining and removing construction signs and barricades as required by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA M.U.T.C.D.). The traffic control system shall be installed prior to starting the Work and shall not be removed until all the Work has been completed.
E. TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE
The Contractor shall be responsible for handling vehicular and pedestrian traffic in accordance with Subsection 7-10 of the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 9 The Contractor shall prepare all necessary traffic control plans prior to commencement of the Work and submit traffic control plans to the City for approval. The traffic control plans shall show:
1. Existing and temporary lane lines;
2. Dimensions of the Work zone and street improvements;
3. Advance warning signs on all streets under construction and all side streets that intersect with these streets; and
4. Delineators.
The traffic control plan shall indicate the sequence of lanes or portions of lanes being closed, and the travel plan for each phase of the Work.
The traffic control plans shall:
1. State that the traffic control plan conforms to the "California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD);
2. Identify the emergency contact person and their phone number.
3. Provide the minimum required lane widths and clearances to obstructions.
The Contractor shall cooperate with the City Engineer in handling traffic through the Work area and the Contractor shall make arrangements to assure the Work area is clear of parked vehicles and maintain clear access to driveways.
The Contractor shall provide controlled pedestrian crossings through the Work. Crossings shall provide pedestrians a means of passing over or through the Work without endangering pedestrian safety.
A detour sign will be required for intersections if the delay for the intersections cross-street will be substantial. The detour sign shall include installation of advance signing displaying the anticipated delay time. The sign shall be installed on the cross street and the street where the Work is performed shall be barricaded to through traffic. A detour sign will not be required if a cross road only needs a temporary closer no more than five (5) minutes as the Work progresses through the intersection. The signing of the detour route shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to installation of the detour and closure of the road.
The Contractor's equipment and personal vehicles of the Contractor's employees shall not be parked on the traveled way at any time. Overnight parking of construction equipment in the Work zone or on adjacent roads is not permitted. Parking of construction equipment shall be confined to the approved storage site.
F. STRIPING
Temporary striping and marking for traffic control shall conform to Section 310-5.6.5 of the Standard Specifications. Temporary striping and marking which has no further use shall be removed by wet
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 10 sandblasting, and all sand used in sandblasting shall be removed without delay as the sandblasting operation progresses.
G. RESTRICTIONS ON CLOSURE OF STREETS AND TRAFFIC LANES The Contractor shall conduct all operations so as to provide reasonable access to the adjoining properties with a minimum of inconvenience to the public by having no greater length or quantity of the Work under construction than can be properly prosecuted. No trench shall be left open overnight.
Trenches shall be plated or backfilled flush at the end of each working day.
The Contractor shall provide steel plates and construct temporary A.C. ramps where necessary to provide safe and drivable access to residents and businesses.
H. PAYMENT
Payment for traffic control including the furnishing all materials, labor, equipment and all incidentals necessary to complete the Work in accordance with the Standard Specifications and these special provisions shall be INCLUDED IN THE OTHER ITEMS OF WORK AND NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED. The Contractor shall include the cost of temporary striping and all traffic markings and legend as shown on the plans.
In the event that the Director of Public Works approves a temporary road closure, the Contractor shall notify effected residences and business and the following agencies at least 48 hours in advance:
San Dimas Sheriff Station Local Fire Authority
San Dimas Hospital Bonita Unified School District
Road Closures shall be kept to a minimum, and shall only be allowed where necessary for the Work scheduled for that day. The Contractor shall post notification of the road closure using a changeable message sign forty-eight (48) hours prior to and throughout the closure. Sign verbiage must be approved by the Director of Public Works. The Contractor shall only open the length of trench that the Work can be completed on and the trench backfilled that same day.
SP-14 EXISTING UTILITIES
Facilities of individuals or entities known to have utilities in the Work area are shown on the plans in their approximate location, in those Work areas where conflict is anticipated; however, not all the locations of subsurface utilities are shown on the plans. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to ascertain and determine, at his own risk, the true location of all facilities and utilities in the Work area. The following is a list of individuals or entities which may have facilities or utilities in the Work area. This list is merely informational for the Contractor and may or may not be complete or inclusive:
Sanitary Sewers/Storm Drain City of San Dimas
L.A. County Department of Public Works
L.A. County Sanitation District
Water Golden State Water Co.
Metropolitan Water District
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 11 Gas Southern California Gas Company
Electricity Southern California Edison
Telephone AT&T
Sprint
Verizon/Frontier
Transit MTA/SCRRA
Foothill Transit
Underground Cable Television Spectrum
Underground Service Alert Members (800) 422-4133
Prior to laying pipe, the Contractor shall pothole and locate existing utilities within the Work area.
SP-15 HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the State of California Vehicle Code, the City has determined that, within such areas as are within the limits of the Work and are open to public traffic, the Contractor shall comply with all the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. Attention is directed to the statement in Section 591 of said code which does not relieve any person from the duty of exercising due care. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions for the safe operation of his equipment and the protection of the public from injury and damage from such equipment.
SP-16 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
In compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, the Contractor will be required to implement Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) to prevent and control the entry of pollutants of non-storm water runoff into the City’s storm drain system. The Contractor is hereby advised that the City has adopted Ordinance No. 1017 to regulate Urban Runoff Pollution. The Contractor is further advised that the City has established BMPs to be employed at construction sites, and also has available for the Contractor copies of, “Blueprint for a Clean Ocean,” published by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, an introductory guide to stormwater quality control on construction sites, which contains several principles and techniques that can be used to help prevent stormwater pollution.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 12 INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
IB-1 SECURING DOCUMENTS
The Contract Documents are available for examination without charge in the Parks and Recreation Department, and copies may be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department in the manner specified in the "Notice Inviting Bids."
IB-2 EXAMINATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & SITE OF WORK The bidder is required to carefully examine the plans, specifications, and the Work site. It will be assumed that the bidder has investigated and is satisfied as to:
A. The conditions to be encountered, including all installations and utilities, whether underground, surface, or overhead;
B. The character, quality, and quantities of work to be performed and materials to be furnished; and
C. The requirements of the plans, the specifications, the special provisions, and the Contract.
It is mutually agreed that submission of a proposal shall be considered prima facie evidence that the bidder has made such examination.
Each bidder is hereby notified of a pre-bid site visit at Lone Hill Park, 500 N. Shellman Avenue, San Dimas, on Wednesday May 24, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
All questions or comments regarding this project shall be submitted via email to [email protected] and shall be received by 4:00 PM, Friday, May 26, 2023. Responses will be returned to bidders by end of business day on Friday, May 31, 2023.
The plans show conditions as they are believed to exist, but the Contractor is not to infer that all of the conditions as shown actually existent, nor shall the City or any of its officers be liable for any loss sustained by the Contractor as a result of any variance between conditions shown on the plans and actual conditions revealed during examination or progress of the Work.
IB-3 INTERPRETATION OF DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS
If any bidder finds discrepancies in, or omissions from the plans, specifications, the special provisions or other proposed Contract Documents, or if the bidder should be in doubt as to the true meaning of any part of the Work, they shall at once make a written request to the City Engineer for correction, clarification, or interpretation of the point(s) in question. The person submitting such request shall be responsible for its prompt delivery. Requests for clarification, interpretation or correction must be received a minimum of 2 business days prior to the bid opening in order to allow time for a written response from the City.
In the event that the City Engineer receives such a request, and it should be found that certain essential information is not clearly and fully set forth, or if the City Engineer discovers errors, omissions, or points
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 13 requiring clarification in the plans, specifications, special provisions, or other related Contract Documents, a written addendum will be mailed to each person to whom a set of Contract Documents has been delivered. The City Council will not be responsible for any instructions, explanations, or interpretations of the Contract Documents presented to bidder in any manner other than by written addendum.
IB-4 ADDENDA OR BULLETINS
The effect of all addenda to the Contract Documents shall be considered in the bid, and said addenda shall be and are made a part of the Contract Documents, and shall be returned with them. Before submitting their bid, each bidder shall be responsible to discover whether or not any addenda have been issued, and the bidder’s failure to include any such addenda issued shall render their bid informal, and result in its rejection.
IB-5 BID PROPOSALS
The Contractor shall submit a bid proposal for the Work in accordance with the Bidder’s Proposal included in these specifications. For each subcategory of Work as set forth in the Bidder’s Proposal, all bidders are to provide a subtotal for such work by multiplying the given estimated quantities of Work, as indicated in the Bidder’s Proposal, by the unit prices as submitted by the bidders. In the case of a math error whereby the subtotal for any such work does not equal the quantity of work times the provided unit price, the unit price shall prevail and bids will be computed based upon the unit price and compared on the basis of the corrected subtotals. The award will be made to the lowest responsible bidder based on the “Total Base Bid”, as may be corrected and adjusted by the City as set forth herein.
IB-6 LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS
Before submitting any proposal, ALL persons, firms, partnerships or corporations shall be licensed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9 of Division 111, Business and Professions Code of the State of California, and any applicable ordinances of the City. For this project, the Contractor will be required to possess a “B” General Building Contractor’s License. It is a misdemeanor for any unlicensed person to submit a bid in response to this invitation in the capacity of a Contractor (See Section 7028.15 of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California).
IB-7 PERMITS AND LICENSES
The Contractor and each of its subcontractors will be required to obtain a City of San Dimas business license to operate in the City.
IB-8 TAXES
No mention shall be made of sales tax or use tax, as all bid prices submitted will be considered as including such tax.
IB-9 PROPOSALS
Before a bid will be considered, the bid must be made in accordance with the following instructions:
1. Bids shall be made upon the forms attached herein; all bid items shall be properly filled out; numbers shall be stated both in words and in figures, and the signatures of all
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 14 persons signing shall be in longhand. If there is a conflict in the words and the figures, the words shall govern. Should it be necessary to remove any of the bid document pages for typing the proposal, etc., they shall be reassembled and attached either by ring binder or by stapling together, and submitted.
2. All prices and notations must be in ink or typewritten. No erasures will be permitted.
Mistakes may be crossed out, and corrections typed or written with ink adjacent thereto, and must be initialed in ink by the person or persons signing the bid.
3. Any proposal which, in the opinion of the City Council, is so unbalanced between the various Contract items so as to be detrimental to the best interest of the City will be rejected.
4. Bids shall not contain any recapitulation of the Work to be done. No oral, telegraphic, or telephonic proposals of modifications will be considered.
5. Each bidder shall list his proposed subcontractors on the form accompanying the proposal in accordance with the provisions of the specifications.
6. Each bidder shall furnish a statement of his technical ability, experience, and references properly and fully filled out on the form provided.
7. The City Council may require any bidder to furnish a statement of his financial responsibility.
8. Each bidder must accompany their bid with either a Cashier's Check, upon some responsible bank, or a check upon such bank properly certified, or by a corporate Surety Bond meeting the requirements of Section 2-4 of the Standard Specifications, payable to the City of San Dimas for a sum of not less than ten (10) percent of the aggregate sum of the bid, which check or bond and the monies represented thereby shall be held by the city as a guarantee that the bidder, if awarded the Contract, will, in good faith, enter into such Contract and furnish the required bonds. The bidder agrees that, in case of his refusal or failure to execute the Contract and give the bonds within time limit set herein, after written notice that the Contract has been awarded to the bidder for the Work, such check or bonds and the money represented thereby, shall remain the property of the City. The surety will pay to the City the damages which the City may suffer by reason of the bidder’s failure, not exceeding the sum of ten (10) percent of the amount of the bid. A bid received and not accompanied by such Cashier's or Certified check, or approved bond shall be rejected.
9. Bids shall be delivered to the City Clerk, in the City Hall, on or before the day and hour set for the opening of bids, in the "Notice Inviting Bids," which bids shall be enclosed in a sealed envelope, and bearing the title of the Work and the name of the bidder.
IB-10 DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS
No person, firm or corporation shall be allowed to make, file, or be interested in more than one bid for the same work unless alternate bids are called for. A person, firm, or corporation who has submitted a sub-proposal to a bidder, or who has quoted prices on materials to a bidder, is not hereby disqualified from submitting a bid in his own behalf.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 15 IB-11 WITHDRAWAL OF BID
Any bidder may withdraw their bid in person or by written request at any time prior to the scheduled closing time for receipt of bids.
IB-12 OPENING OF BID PROPOSALS
The City Clerk will in open session publicly open, examine, and declare the bids at the time set forth in the "Notice Inviting Bids." Bidder or their authorized representatives are invited to be present.
IB-13 AWARD OF CONTRACT OR REJECTION OF BIDS
The Contract for the Work will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder complying with these instructions and with the "Notice Inviting Bids." The City Council, however, reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and to waive any informality in the bids received. The City Council also reserves the right to withhold award for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date the bids are received by the City Clerk of the City as specified in the "Notice Inviting Bids." IB-14 WORKMEN AND WAGES
Attention is specifically directed to all provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California with regard to workmen and wages. Wages shall be not less than the prevailing wage rates as determined by the City pursuant to the Labor Code.
The Contractor's attention is directed to the provisions California Labor Code Section 1775 whereby a Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the City Engineer for the Work or craft in which the laborer, workman or mechanic is employed for any public work done under the Contract by them or by any subcontractor under them.
The amount of this penalty shall be determined by the Labor Commissioner and shall be based on consideration of the Contractor's mistake, inadvertence, or neglect in failing to pay the correct rate of prevailing wages, or the previous record of the Contractor in meeting his or her prevailing wage obligations, or a Contractor's willful failure to pay the correct rates of prevailing wages.
This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. No contractor of subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 with limited exceptions for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1 (a). Additionally, no contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5.
IB-15 EMPLOYMENT OF APPRENTICES
The Contractor's attention is directed to the provisions in Section 1777.5 (Chapter 1411, Statutes of 1968) and 1777.6 of the Labor Code of the State of California concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under them.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 16 Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the Contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five, except:
1. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request for certificate; or
2. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five; or
3. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training or an annual basis statewide or locally; or
4. When the Contractor provides evidence that they employ registered apprentices on all of their contracts of an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen.
The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if they employ registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other contractors on the public works site are making such contributions.
The Contractor, of any subcontractor under them, shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
IB-16 NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1735, the Contractor shall not discriminate in the employment of persons engaged to perform the Work covered by the Contract because of race, religious creed, color, nation of origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status or sex of such person, except as provided for in Section 12940 of the Government Code of the State of California. If the Contractor is found to be in violation of Section 1735 while in performance of the Work, the Contractor shall be subject to all penalties imposed in Part VII, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code and deemed to be in material breach of the Contract.
IB-17 EXECUTION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Contract, in the form contained in the Contract Documents, shall be signed by the successful bidder and returned, together with a Performance Bond and a Material Bond as set forth below, within fourteen (14) calendar days after the written notice that said Contract has been awarded to him for the Work.
No proposal shall be considered binding upon the City until the execution of the Contract, and the filing of the required bonds.
The Performance Bond shall be equal to one hundred percent of the Contract price and is to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City, and that all materials and workmanship will be free from original or developed defects. The Performance Bond will remain in effect until the end of all warranty periods set forth in the Contract.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 17 The Material and Labor bond shall be equal to one hundred percent of the Contract price and is to satisfy claims for materials, suppliers, and mechanics and laborers employed by the Contractor for this project. The Material and Labor Bond shall be maintained in full force and effect until the Work is accepted by the City and until all claims for materials and labor are paid, and shall otherwise comply with the Civil Code.
Failure to execute the Contract and to file bonds as provided herein within fourteen (14) calendar days after notification of award by the City shall be just cause for the annulment of the award and the forfeiture of the proposal guaranty.
IB-18 RETURN OF BIDDER'S GUARANTEES
Proposal guarantees will be held until the Contract has been finally executed, after which they will be returned to the respective bidders whose proposals they accompany. The notice to bidders, proposals, bonds, instructions to bidders, general provisions, and detailed specifications shall be deemed incorporated in the Contract by reference.
Upon refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the Contract, the City may award the Contract to the next lowest responsible bidder. If the City awards the Contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City to the difference between the low bid and the next lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder if cash or check is used, or to the surety on the bidder's bond if a bond is used.
IB-19 EXTRA WORK AND TIME AND MATERIAL
All Extra Work claims shall be submitted in the format provided in Appendix B. Any item considered to be extra work must be reported to the City immediately. Work will not be considered as an Extra Work item unless the city is immediately notified (within 10 minutes of encountering the extra work condition) and the report form in appendix B is completed and filed within 24 hours of encountering the extra work.
Submittal of false claims is punishable by State law and in addition, the contractor shall reimburse the City for all employee costs and other fees spent on researching and reconciling the false claim.
All equipment used for extra work items will be paid at the current Caltrans Equipment rates.
Labor surcharge will be paid at Caltrans rates. Submittal of this bid proposal is agreement to these conditions.
A. Work by Contractor
The following percentages shall be added to the Contractor’s costs and shall constitute the markup for all overhead and profits:
1) Labor 15%
2) Materials 15%
3) Equipment Rental 15%
4) Other Items and Expenditures 15%
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 18 B. Work by Subcontractor
When all or any part of the extra work is performed by a Subcontractor, the markup established in 3-3.2.3(a) shall be applied to the Subcontractor’s actual cost of such work. A markup of 10 percent on the first $5,000 of the subcontracted portion of the extra work and a markup of 5 percent on the Work added in excess of $5,000 of the subcontracted portion of the extra work may be added by the Contractor.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 19 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 2023-03
PLAYGROUND SURFACE REPLACEMENT
BIDDER’S PROPOSAL
TO THE SAN DIMAS CITY COUNCIL
The undersigned, as bidder, declares that this proposal is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation; and that the only person or parties interested as principles are those named herein; that he has not accepted any bid from any subcontractor or materialman through any bid depository, the by-laws, rules, or regulations of which prohibit or prevent the Contractor from considering any bid from any subcontractor or materialman which is not processed through said bid depository, or which prevents any subcontractor or materialman from bidding to any Contractor who does not use the facilities of, or accept bids from or through such bid depository; and having carefully examined the site of the proposed work and plans and specifications, therefore, as well as the “Notice Inviting Bids,” all motions by the City Council pertaining thereto, and the proposed Contract, and The Contractor from considering any bid from any subcontractor or materialman which having informed himself fully in regard to the contemplated work, proposes and agrees in the event of the acceptance hereof, to enter into a Contract with the City Council of the City of San Dimas, to perform said proposed work in accordance with the terms of said Contract, and to furnish or provide all material, equipment, labor, tools, apparatus, and other means necessary so to do in accordance with the terms and provisions of said Contract, to wit:
BASE BID – LONE HILL AND HORSETHIEF CANYON PARK PLAYGROUND SURFACE Contractor is Responsible to Verify Quantities Per Site.
Location 1 – Lone Hill Park
ITEM
NO.
LONE HILL PARK PLAYGROUNDS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTI
TY
UNIT UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ $
2 Remove/Dispose of Existing FIBAR 1 LS $ $
3 Base Prep/Fine Grading 1 LS $ $
4 Installation of Base Material 1 LS $ $
5 Installation of Cushion layer 1 LS $ $
6 Installation of Finished/Cap Layer 1 LS $ $
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 20 TOTAL LONE HILL PARK BASE BID, IN WORDS: ______________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________DOLLARS Location 2 – Horsethief Canyon Park
ITEM
NO.
HORSETHIEF CANYON PARK PLAYGROUNDS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTI
TY
UNIT UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ $
2 Remove/Dispose of Existing FIBAR 1 LS $ $
3 Base Prep/Fine Grading 1 LS $ $
4 Installation of Base Material 1 LS $ $
5 Installation of Cushion layer 1 LS $ $
6 Installation of Finished/Cap Layer 1 LS $ $
TOTAL HORSETHIEF CANYON PARK BASE BID, IN WORDS: ___________________________ _______________________________________________________________________DOLLARS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL LONE HILL & HORSETHIEF CANYON PARKS BASE BID $________________________, IN WORDS: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________DOLLARS NOTE: The estimated quantities listed in the Proposal Bid Sheet(s) are supplied to give an indication of the general scope of the work, but the accuracy of these figures is not guaranteed and the bidder shall make his own estimates from the drawings. In case of a variation between the unit price and the totals shown by the bidder, the unit price will be considered to be the bid. Except where a lump sum is requested, in the case of a variation between the unit price and the total(s) shown by the bidder, the unit price will be used to calculate the total for the item based on the number of units involved in the item.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 21 Upon completion of the construction, if the actual quantities show either an increase or decrease from the quantities given in the Proposal Bid Sheet(s), the Contract Unit Price will prevail. Increases or decreases in quantities shall not be subject to Section 3-2.2.1 of the Standard Specifications. Full compensation to be paid will be the contract price for the actual work completed, and no additional compensation will be allowed therefore. Payment will not be made for materials wasted or disposed of in a manner not called for under the Contract, this includes rejected material not unloaded from vehicles.
COMPANY NAME:
___________________________________________________________________________ SUBMITTED BY:
___________________________________________________________________________ STATE CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE NO. _______________________ CLASS __________ DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REGISTRATION NO. ___________________
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 22 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 2023-03
PLAYGROUND SURFACE REPLACEMENT
BIDDER’S SECURITY
Bids will be received until 10:00 AM on Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at the office of the City Clerk, in the City Hall, 245 East Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, California.
To the Honorable City Council
City Hall
San Dimas, CA 91773
Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby proposes and agrees to furnish all of the material, labor, equipment, transportation and services for the construction and completion of the Work listed herein, and in strict conformity with the plans, specifications, and other Contract Documents on file at the office of the City Council in the City Hall, 245 East Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, California, at the total sums listed below.
If awarded the Contract, the undersigned hereby agrees to sign said Contract and furnish the necessary bonds within fourteen (14) calendar days after notice of award of the Contract, begin work within ten (10) calendar days after issuance the notice to proceed, and complete the same within forty (40) working days after starting the Work.
The undersigned has checked carefully all of the prices quoted, and understands that the City will not be responsible for any errors or omissions on the part of the undersigned in making up his bid proposal.
Attached please find the Bidder's Surety Bond or Certified Check, for an amount, which is not less than ten (10) percent of the total amount of this bid.
BIDDER: _________________________________
BY: _________________________________
(Signature of Person Authorized to Sign for the Bidder) _________________________________
(Print Name)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 23 BIDDER'S BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we, ___________________________________________________________ as Principal, and _______________________________________ as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of San Dimas, State of California (hereinafter called "City"), in the penal sum of Ten Percent (10%) of the total aggregate amount of the bid of the Principal above-named, submitted by said Principal to City for the PROJECT described below, for the payment of which sum is lawful money of the United States, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In no case shall the liability of the Surety hereunder exceed the sum of ($ ._).
The condition of this obligation is such that a bid to City for certain construction specifically described as follows, for which bids are to be submitted on Tuesday, June 6, 2023 and opened on Tuesday, June 6, 2023, has been submitted by Principal to City:
Whereas, Principal is hereby submitting a proposal for the PROJECT per the plans and specifications for:
PLAYGROUND SURFACE RELPLACEMENT HORSETHIEF CANYON PARK AND LONE HILL PARK CONTRACT NO. 2023-03
NOW, therefore, if the aforesaid Principal shall not withdraw said bid within the period specified therein after the opening of the same, or, if no period be specified, within ninety (90) days after said opening, and shall within the period specified thereby, or if no period be specified, within fourteen 14 days after the prescribed forms are presented to him for signature, enter into a written contract with City, in the prescribed form, in accordance with the bid as accepted, and file with City the certificates of insurance as stipulated in Section SP-6 Insurance Requirements of the Special Provisions and the two bonds, one to guarantee faithful performance and the other to guarantee payment for labor and materials, as required by law, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force, virtue and effect. And the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said contract or to the PROJECT to be performed hereunder 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 the event suit is brought upon said bond by City/District and judgment is recovered, the Surety shall pay all costs incurred by City in such suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court. Death of the Principal shall not relieve Surety of its obligation hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this ___ day of _______________, 2023.
_____________________________ (Seal) _____________________________ (Seal) _____________________________ (Seal) _____________________________ (Seal)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 24 CONTRACTOR'S CLASSIFICATION
The undersigned agrees, if awarded the Contract by the City, to execute the Contract and file the required bonds within fourteen (14) calendar days after notice of award by the City, and to commence work within ten (10) calendar days of after issuance of the notice to proceed. A time limit of forty (40) working days from the date of starting work has been set for the completion of this project.
This bid is submitted in response to the "Notice Inviting Bids and pursuant to all of the documents and instructions for the Work as approved by the City Council. The undersigned person or company is licensed by the State of California, pursuant to Chapter 9, Division 3, of the Business and Professions Code, under STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. _______ CLASS _____, EXPIRATION DATE ______________. The undersigned bidder is:
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTOR NAME: __________________________________ ADDRESS: ______________________________
________________________________________
PHONE: (_____) __________________________
PARTNERSHIP NAME: __________________________________
ADDRESS: ______________________________
________________________________________
PHONE: (______) _________________________
CORPORATION NAME: __________________________________
ADDRESS: ______________________________
________________________________________
PHONE: (______) _________________________
BY: _________________________, PRESIDENT
____________________________, SECRETARY
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF ______________________________
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 25 BIDDER'S STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE The bidder is required to state what work of a similar character to that included in this proposed Contract he has successfully performed in Los Angeles County within the last five years, and provide references which will enable the City Council to judge his responsibility, experience, skill and business standing. Said references shall include the name of the Supervisor responsible for the acceptance of the Work performed.
The undersigned submits herewith a statement of work which he has successfully performed of a character similar to that included in the proposed Contract.
1. JURISDICTION: _______________________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: _______________________ PHONE: (_____) ____________ PROJECT PERFORMED: _______________________________________________
2. JURISDICTION: _______________________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: _______________________ PHONE: (_____) ____________ PROJECT PERFORMED: _______________________________________________
3. JURISDICTION: _______________________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: _______________________ PHONE: (_____) ____________ PROJECT PERFORMED: _______________________________________________
4. JURISDICTION: _______________________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: _______________________ PHONE: (_____) ____________ PROJECT PERFORMED: _______________________________________________
5. JURISDICTION: _______________________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: _______________________ PHONE: (_____) ____________ PROJECT PERFORMED: _______________________________________________
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 26 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS
In compliance with the provisions of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, Sections 4100 through 4114 of the California Public Contract Code, and any amendments thereof, the undersigned bidder has set forth below the name and location of the place of business of each subcontractor who will perform work or labor, or render service to the general Contractor, in or about the construction of the Work or improvement to be performed under the Contract Documents to which the attached bid is responsive, and the portion of the Work which will be done by each subcontractor for each subcontract in excess of one-half of one percent of this total bid.
The bidder understands that if he fails to specify a subcontractor for any portion of the Work to be performed under the Contract, he shall be deemed to have agreed to perform such portion of the Work himself and that he shall not be permitted to subject or subcontract that portion of the Work, except in cases of public emergency or necessity, and then only after a finding reduced in writing as a public record of the City setting forth the facts constituting the emergency or necessity.
1. ITEM: _______________________________________________________________ SUBCONTRACTOR: ___________________________________________________ ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ PHONE: (_____) ____________________ STATE LICENSE NO.: _____________ DIR NO._______________
2. ITEM: _______________________________________________________________ SUBCONTRACTOR: ___________________________________________________ ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ PHONE: (_____) _____________________ STATE LICENSE NO.: ____________ DIR NO._______________
3. ITEM: _______________________________________________________________ SUBCONTRACTOR: ___________________________________________________ ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ PHONE: (_____) _____________________ STATE LICENSE NO.: ____________ DIR NO._______________
(attach sheet for additional subcontractors)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 27 CERTIFICATE AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN REGULATIONS
The Contractor shall furnish, in duplicate, to the City Engineer prior to the acceptance of the Work, a certificate in form substantially as follows:
"I/We hereby certify that all work has been performed and materials supplied in accordance with the plans, specifications, special conditions and other related Contract Documents for the above-work, and that:
a. No alien was employed on the Work in violation of the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2 of the Labor Code.
b. Not less that the prevailing rates of wager as ascertained by the City Council has been paid to laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed on this work. c. There have been no unauthorized substitutions of subcontractors, nor have any unauthorized subcontracts been entered into.
d. No materials of foreign origin supplied by the Contractor were used in the Work, except where materials of domestic origin were not available.
e. No subcontract was assigned or transferred or performed by anyone other than the original subcontractor, except as provided in of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, Sections 4100 through 4114 of the California Public Contract Code, and any amendments thereof.
f. All claims for materials and labor, and other services performed in connection with these specifications have been paid."
BIDDER: _________________________________
BY: _________________________________
(Signature of Person Authorized to Sign for the Bidder) _________________________________
(Print Name)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 28 REJECTION OF BID FOR PRIOR DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL OR
OTHERWISE PREVENTED FROM BIDDING BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OR A SAFETY REGULATION
Each bidder shall complete, under penalty of perjury, the questionnaire appearing in subpart (a) below, inquiring whether the bidder, any officer of the bidder, or any employee of such bidder who has a proprietary interest in such bidder, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a Federal, State, or local government project because of a violation of law or safety regulation, and if so, to explain the circumstances. A bid may be rejected on the basis of a bidder, any officer of such bidder, or any employee of such bidder who has a proprietary interest in such bidder, having been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a Federal, State, or local project because of a violation of the law or a safety regulation. (a) Has any bid of the Contractor, any officer of the Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor who has a proprietary interest in the Contractor ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a Federal, State, or local project because of a violation of the law or a safety regulation?
YES ( ) NO ( )
(b) If the answer to subpart (a) above is “YES”, the bidding Contractor shall describe in detail the reasons the bidder, any officer of such bidder, or any employer of such bidder who has a proprietary interest in such bidder was so disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding or completing such a project, the name of the Federal, State, or local agency or agencies for whom the Work was bid or being performed; the name of the contracting officer or other government official responsible for each such project, the date of each disqualification or removal, or other act to prevent completion of such a project; the nature of the project, and explain any other circumstances, including mitigating factors, that would assist the City in evaluating the bidding Contractor’ qualifications (if sufficient space is not provided, please attach additional pages as necessary, to answer this questionnaire). ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ The questionnaire completed above as executed on this _____ day of _______________________, by the undersigned under penalty of perjury.
BY: _________________________________
(Signature of Person Authorized to Sign for the Bidder) _________________________________
(Print Name)
_________________________________
(Position/Title)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 29 QUESTIONNAIRE TO GENERAL CONTRACTORS
The Contractor shall be required to complete this form entitled, “Questionnaire to General Contractors.” The City will forward this form to the City Attorney’s Office for review.
1. Were bid depository or registry services used in obtaining subcontractor bid figures in order to compute your bid?
( ) YES ( ) NO
2. If the answer to No. 1 is “YES”, please attach a copy of the rules of each bid depository you used.
3. Did you have any source of subcontractors’ bids other than bid depositories? ( ) YES ( ) NO
4. Has any person or group threatened you with subcontractor boycotts, union boycotts, or other sanctions to attempt to convince you to use their services or abide by the rules of one or more bid depositories? ( ) YES ( ) NO
5. If the answer to No. 4 is “YES”, please explain the following details:
(a) Date
(b) Name of person or group:
(c) Job involved (if applicable)
(d) Nature of the threats: (use additional paper, if needed) (e) Additional comments: _______________________________________ _________________________________________________________ BIDDER: _________________________________
BY: _________________________________
(Signature of Person Authorized to Sign for the Bidder) _________________________________
(Print Name)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 30 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 2023-03
NONCOLLUSION AFFIDAVIT TO BE EXECUTED BY
BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF _____________________ )
_____________________________________, being first duly sworn, deposes and says (name)
that he or she is _______________________________________________________ of (position / title)
_______________________________________________________________________, (the bidder)
the party making the foregoing bid; that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of , any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid.
DATED: _________________________ By ______________________________ (Person signing for bidder)
EXECUTE ATTACHED NOTARY ACKNOWLDGMENT,
(California Civil Code Section 1189)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 31 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 2023-03
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF _______________________ )
)
COUNTY OF _____________________ )
On _____________________________, before me, _________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: (Seal)
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 32 APPENDIX A - Scope of Work
PLAYGROUND SURFACE SYSTEMS
PART 1 - GENERAL
Summary
This Section includes the following:
Fine Grading and Minor Excavation.
Concrete Slurry Base.
Playground Rubberized Safety Surface, including cushion pad and color wear course.
Submittals
1. Product Data:
For each type of product indicated.
2. Shop Drawings:
Sample of all specified colors of surfaces (approx. 2”x2”).
3. Complete list of proposed materials for resilient surface system.
4. Certifications that all products used comply with current air pollution/VOC regulations required by the local jurisdictional authority.
5. Certification of compliance with specified impact testing criteria, including shop drawing of cushion thicknesses for all areas of play surfacing.
6. Manufacturer’s Installation Instructions.
7. Maintenance data:
Cleaning and maintenance data.
Procedures for stain removal, repairing surfaces, and cleaning.
8. Warranty.
Quality Assurance
1. Manufacturer Qualifications:
Robertson Recreational Surfaces/TotTurf or approved equal.
2. Company with minimum of five years documented history of producing resilient playground surfacing complying with criteria of this Section.
3. Company with minimum of ten southern California installations in use for a minimum of five years using resilient playground surfacing complying with this Section.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 33 4. Standards meeting the requirements and recommendations of the applicable portions of the latest editions of standards by the American Society of Testing Materials – ASTM – F355/86, and ANSI AC @ Head Form. The surfacing must also meet CPSC and ADA requirements.
Installer Qualifications
1. Installation by factory trained staff is required and by a Company specializing in the specified systems with five years documented experience.
2. Contractor must have a current California Contractor License C61-D12 for synthetic surfaces.
3. Factory Representative shall be provided by the systems manufacturer for substrate review and field installation quality assurance as specified within this Section.
Delivery and Storage
1. Deliver products to site under provisions of the General Conditions.
2. Store and protect products under provisions of the General Conditions.
3. Store materials in a dry, secure area.
4. Maintain minimum temperature of 60 degrees F.
Environmental Requirements
1. Install surfacing systems in accordance with ambient environmental criteria required by manufacturer and local jurisdictional authority.
2. Restrict traffic from area where surfacing has been installed for a period of ten (10) days after installation.
Warranty
1. Special Warranty: Manufacturer's standard form in which manufacturer agrees to repair or replace components of playground surface system that fails in materials or workmanship within specified warranty period.
2. Failures include, but are not limited to, the following:
Reduction in impact attenuation.
Deterioration of surface and other materials beyond normal weathering.
Color fading, distortion or discoloration.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 34 3. Warranty Period: Five (5) years from date of Substantial Completion for all workmanship and materials, including such defects as bubbling, delamination, peeling, loss of integrity, serious color fading, and poor UV stability. This warranty does not include normal wear and tear and acts of vandalism.
PART 2 - PRODUCTS
Unitary Synthetic Seamless Surface
1. In other Part 2 articles where titles below introduce lists, the following requirements apply to product selection:
2. Products: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide the specified product of TotTurf, or approved equal.
3. Basis-of-Design Product: The design for each product is based on the product named.
Subject to compliance with requirements, provide either the named product or an approved equal product.
Inorganic Loose-fill Surface
1. Inorganic Aggregate Materials: Clean, washed, and free of loam, clay, organic matter, debris, and other foreign matter.
2. Product: Fine sand for play areas shall be #20 Type “R” clean, washed Recreation Sand delivered in bulk to the site. Sand must have certification from the supplier that it is clean, washed, recreation sand. Certification will be turned over to the City. Sand is available from Olgebay Norton Industrial Sand (949) 728-0171. (Do not use sand designated / labeled for industrial use).
3. Retain this article if inorganic loose-fill materials are required for Project. If more than one loose-fill system is required, repeat this article to distinguish between systems.
Retain one of first four subparagraphs below.
Concrete Slurry Sub Base:
Concrete Slurry shall meet the following requirements:
2.0 sack slurry mix. 7”maximum
slump.
Size of aggregate: Type 1.
W/C ratio: 2.66.
Gal/sack: 30.00.
Un Wt.: 129.2.
Overall Thickness: Not less than 4 inches.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 35 (Class B base compacted to 95% is an acceptable alternative. Compaction test must be performed by third party Geotech company licensed to perform compaction testing. Testing will be at contractor’s expense and must be submitted in writing).
Unitary Synthetic Seamless Surface
1. Seamless Surface: Dual-density, poured-in-place system with wearing course over cushion course. Provide manufacturer's standard thickness for each layer as required for overall thickness indicated, tested for impact attenuation according to ASTM F 1292 and for accessibility according to ASTM F 1951.
2. Products: TotTurf’s Poured-in-Place.
3. Basemat: 100% recycled blend of shredded and/or chunk SBR and urethane. Top Surface: Blend of recycled EPDM rubber and aromatic urethane binder.
4. Critical Height: As indicated by the manufacturer of the play equipment apparatus and field measured heights.
5. Overall Thickness: Contractor shall provide G-Max and H.I.C test results for the surfacing manufacturer use on the project. Surfacing depths within the play equipment fall zones shall be per the test results for the critical fall heights of the equipment being installed.
6. Primer/Adhesive: Manufacturer's standard primer and weather-resistant, moisturecured polyurethane adhesive suitable for unit, substrate, and location indicated. Wearing Course Color(s): As approved by Landscape Architect from specified colors on Drawings.
7. Color: As indicated on Drawings. (50% Spectra Bright Green / 50% Spectra Green)
8. Filler/Sealant: Manufacturer's standard clear silicone or polyurethane filler/sealant suitable for exterior use.
9. Leveling and Patching Material: Portland cement-based grout or epoxy- or polyurethane-based formulation suitable for exterior use and approved by playground surface system manufacturer.
Technical Requirements
1. Definitions:
ASTM = American Standard for Testing Materials.
DIN = Deutsche Industry Norm (German Industrial Standards).
CST = Center for Sports Technology (Member of the ISS-International Association for Sports Surface Sciences).
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 36 The values shown represent current production laboratory-taken tests which may vary slightly where field-tested.
Flame Spread: Class A Flame Spread rating per ASTM E 108.
Combustibility: Comply with ASTM D 2859 test method, with no specimens extending closer than one inch to edge of test frame.
Impact Resistance: Comply with ASTM F 1292-93, for fall heights as scheduled.
Slip Resistance: Maximum value of 0.90 wet, 1.0 dry, per ASTM D 2047 (James Machine), or approved equal.
Thermal Resistance: R=2.32 (ASTM C 518-76).
Thermal Conductivity: K=0.75 (ASTM D257).
Electrical Conductivity: 1.1x10.4 (Slemans Meter).
Compression Endurance: No Deterioration (10,000 cycles w/ 10-ton load).
Flash Pointe: Between 650°/800°F.
Flame Spread/Smoke Density: Federal Spec LLL-T-43, Type II, Class 1 Pass.
Flammability: Greatest radius: 1” (25mm) Classified: Best Category of Flammability (CST London 90609/1).
Abrasion Resistance: 0.3812 G Loss (ASTM D 1044).
Spike Resistance: According to Otto Graff Institute/Stuttgart approved for ¼” spike.
Flexibility Factor: 0-1 (ASTM F 147).
Accelerated Weathering: No Change (2500 hours).
Durability: Wear Index (g/1000 revolutions), Unaged: 1.64, Air Aged: 2.40 (CST London 90609/1).
Water Aged: 1.61, UV Aged: 1.92 Pass/approved.
Water Permeability: 1.7 ltr/sec/sq. meter (0.4 gal/sec/sq/yd) (DIN 18035 Part G).
Thermal Stability Range: -50°C to 100°C (-58° to 212°F).
Freeze/Thaw: No charge (-50°C or 58°F, 40 cycles).
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 37 Coefficient of Friction: 1.0 dry, 0.9 wet (ASTM D 2047-82).
Slip Resistance: 65-70 units/approved (CST London 90609/1).
Tensile, psi: 200 psi - top surface (ASTM D 412).
Elongation: 173%.
Tear Strength: 64 psi typical (base mat).
Accessory Products:
Primers/Joint Detailing: Provide materials as recommended by manufacturer for application.
Texture and Color: Color layer to be as specified on Drawings.
Texture: Uniform troweled texture, free of skips, ridges or gaps.
Slurry Base shall meet the following requirements:
2.0 slack slurry mix.
7” max slump.
Size of aggregate – WCS:
W/C ratio = 2.66.
Gal/sk = 30.00.
Un Wt = 129.2.
Geosynthetics
Drainage/Separation Geotextile: Nonwoven, needle-punched geotextile, manufactured for subsurface drainage applications and made from polyolefins or polyesters; complying with ASTM D 4759 and referenced standard test methods.
PART 3 - EXECUTION
Installation
Prepare substrates to receive surfacing products according to playground surface system manufacturer's written instructions. Verify that substrates are sound and without high spots, ridges, holes, and depressions.
Aggregate Substrates: Provide sound surface free of laitance, efflorescence, curing compounds, and other contaminants incompatible with playground surface system. Repair unsatisfactory surfaces and fill holes and depressions.
Install geosynthetics according to playground surface system manufacturer's and geosynthetic manufacturer's written instructions.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 38 1. Seamless Surface: Mix and apply components of playground surface system according to manufacturer's written instructions. Prevent traffic over system for not less than 48 hours after installation.
2. Edge Treatment: Flush.
3. Concrete Slurry Sub-Base Installation.
Install base in accordance with Plans and Details, assuring proper sloping to drainage devices.
4. Poured-in-Place Resilient Playground Surface Installation:
a. Apply in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.
b. Install after installation of playground structures and equipment.
c. Provide on-site factory representative for initial four hours of installation to verify Contractor’s use of proper installation procedures and techniques.
d. Prime surfaces as required with approved primer.
e. Install cushion to minimum finished thickness as scheduled. Shape as shown on drawings. Allow to cure a minimum 24 hours.
f. Apply color wear course to minimum 1/2-inch thickness, hand troweled to achieve a uniform surface. Tool edges flush with adjacent surfaces.
g. Mixture to be applied at a minimum rate of 2.44 lbs. per sq. ft.
h. Drainage as shown on drawings.
5. Field Control:
a. Provide flood test of all surfacing as directed by the Landscape Architect.
b. Where ponding exceeding 1/8 inch in depth over a five-foot diameter area occurs, replace all defective surfacing by approved methods.
6. Tolerances:
a. Smoothness: 3/16 inch plus or minus, at any point, measured along a 10-foot straight edge.
b. Adjacent surfaces:1/8-inch maximum difference at any point between adjacent surfaces.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 39 7. Protection:
a. Protect finished installation under provisions of the General Conditions.
b. Do not permit traffic over finished surfaces for ten days, minimum.
8. Maintenance:
a. Provide direction and training to City staff, conducted by factory representative, on cleaning, repair, and resurfacing procedures.
b. Provide recommended list of maintenance products for City's review.
END OF SECTION.
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 40 APPENDIX B - Project Site
1. Lone Hill Park Pre-K Lot and Elementary Lot Playgrounds
2. Horsethief Canyon Park Playground
Department of Parks and Recreation City of San Dimas, California 41 Page 286 – 468
City of San Dimas – Parks and Recreation
Landscape Maintenance Division
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
_____________________________________________________________________________________ DATE: 5/30/2023
PROJECT: CC2023-03 PLAYGROUND SURFACE REPLACEMENT PROJECT _____________________________________________________________________________________ ADDENDUM 1 – ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
1. Please clarify the binder type to be used within the top ½” thick colored wear course layer of the rubberized safety surfacing? Aromatic or Aliphatic?
Aromatic
2. What is the anticipated completion date for this project? 40 working days from start date. Approximately 10 days after award of bid on June 27, 2023.
3. Will the City allow for this work to commence in the Fall of 2023? No. See above.
4. What is the expectation of the finished surface level of the new rubberized safety surfacing at each playground location? Will the new rubber surfacing need to be flush to top of existing concrete curb?
If yes, has each playground already been reviewed to ensure the existing equipment elevations will allow for this installation method?
At appropriate fall height of existing apparatus. No
5. Please note that the Engineers Estimated Value of $268,481 is approximately 30-40% lower than current installation costs. Does the City have permission to proceed with this work if the responsible low bid comes in over budget?
Yes
6. Will the City consider an VE alternate to install 50% Black / 50% Standard Color rubber surfacing with aromatic binder to reduce the total installation cost to remain closer to the Engineers Estimated Value?
Spec is 50% black/50% standard green.
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Lily Flores, Housing Manager
Subject: Approve Participation in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Program for the Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2026-27
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
Every three (3) years, in order to be eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding, the City must agree to participating in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program by signing a Cooperation Agreement (Agreement) with the Los Angeles County Development Authority. This Agreement will begin on July 1, 2024,and end on June 30, 2027.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Adopt Resolution 2023 – 40 Approving participating in the Los Angeles Urban County Development Block Grant Program for a three (3) year period of July 1, 2024 - June 30, 2027; and
Authorize the City Manager, or his designee to execute, any and all documents necessary, including but not limited to amendments and modifications, to further participate in the CDBG Program.
FISCAL IMPACT
Limited Staff time is expected, depending on the nature of the projects and programs considered.
The potential impacts would be funded through CDBG allocations.
BACKGROUND
In order to participate in the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program, the County of Los Angeles (“County”), by and through its agent, the Los Angeles County Development
Approval to Participate in the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG Program Page 2 For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
Authority (“LACDA”), must requalify with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) every three (3) years to obtain entitlement status as an urban county. The County is in the process of submitting its documentation to qualify for this designation. The new three-year period will begin July 1, 2024 and end on June 30, 2027.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On May 5, 2023, cities who are currently participating in the CDBG program for 2021-2023 were asked to either elect to participate or decline to participate in the 2024-2026 Los Angeles Urban County Program.
As a Participating City with LACDA, the City receives CDBG funding based on the number of cities participating in the County’s program, community development need, and a city’s commitment to provide housing and community development. With CDBG funds, the City continues to maintain the City’s affordable housing supply and provide supportive services for targeted low-income groups, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, the youth, and other special needs groups. Historically, the City has funded the Housing Rehabilitation Program and the Youth Scholarship Program with CDBG funds. The existing CDBG programs have been successful and are supported in the community.
In the last Agreement period, the City was allocated the following CDBG funds:
PY 2021: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 - $178,034
PY 2022: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 - $160,875
PY 2023: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 - $157,657
Staff recommends electing to continue to participate in the CDBG Program with the Los Angeles County Development Authority by approving participating in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program for FY 2024-25 thru 2026-27. With these funds, the City will continue its efforts to maintain a safe, decent, and sanitary environment for all its residents.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the option not approve the Resolution which would reduce the amount of eligible CDBG funding available to the City for LACDA and/or other programs. City staff believe retaining participation, is a better option given the estimated resources available, the benefit derived by residents, and the reduction of impact on the General Fund or other Housing Authority resources to provide these funded activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA guidelines Section 15378 (b)(5), continued administrative activities and organization activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment are not CEQA projects. Moreover, under CEQA guidelines Section 15784 (b)(4), government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific projects which may result in a potentially significate physical impact on the environment are not CEQA projects.
Respectfully submitted,
Approval to Participate in the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG Program Page 3 For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
Lily Flores, Housing Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2023-40
2. Participating City Cooperation Agreement for July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2024
3. Amendment to the Agreement for July 1, 2024 - June 30, 2027
RESOLUTION 2023-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES URBAN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM BY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR,
OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE, TO SIGN A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City of San Dimas desires to participate in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the qualification period beginning July 1, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City authorizes the execution of the Cooperation Agreement with the County of Los Angeles Community Development Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that:
SECTION 1. The City Council adopts and approved the County of Los Angeles Participating City Cooperation Agreement between the City of San Dimas and the County of Los Angeles for the time period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027.
SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes Mayor, or his designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including but not limited to amendments and modifications to further participate in the CDBG Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th, day of June 2023. ____________________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 2023- 40 Page 2
2024-2027 CDBG Cooperation Agreement
June 13th, 2023
I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2023-40 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of May 23rd, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
3 Revised 03/2020
HUD as required by the regulations and any failure to adopt required amendments will void the automatic renewal of the Agreement for the subsequent three-year term.
6. This Agreement shall be effective for the period of time required for the expenditure of all CDBG and/or applicable HOME funds allocated to the City under this Agreement and appropriations from any program income therefrom and for the completion of the funded activities. The County and City agree that they cannot terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while it remains in effect.
The City and the County agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, the improvement or development of housing for persons of low- to moderate-incomes, and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Act.
The City and the County in the performance of this Agreement shall take all actions necessary or appropriate to assure compliance with the Urban County's certification under Section 104 (b) of Title I of the Act, as amended, regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act and affirmatively furthering fair housing as cited in 24 CFR 91.225(a); Section 109 of Title I of the Act, which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
Urban County funding is prohibited for activities in, or in support of, any City that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its local jurisdiction or that impedes the County’s action to comply with the Fair Housing Certification.
7. The City and County agree that CDBG and HOME funding is prohibited for any activities in or in support of any cooperating City that do not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impede the County's action to comply with its fair housing certification.
8. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501 (b), the City is subject to all requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement as set forth in 24 CFR 570.503.
9. The City shall report to the County of any income generated by the use of CDBG or HOME funds received by the City. Any such program income must be remitted to the County within 30 days of receipt if applicable. Such program income may be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG and HOME requirements as may then apply.
10. The County shall be responsible for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any program income; therefore, the City shall be required to maintain appropriate record keeping and reporting for this purpose.
11. The City may not sell, trade or otherwise transfer all or any portion of CDBG funds to another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in
May 2023 1
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATING CITY
COOPERATION AGREEMENT
This COOPERATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is being entered into on this «Day» day of «MONTH_YEAR», to be effective on the 1st day of July 2024, by and between the CITY OF «PARTICIPATING_CITY», hereinafter referred to as “City,” and the County of Los Angeles, by and through the Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as “County,” and shall remain in effect for the County's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2026. The County and the City are collectively referred to as the “Parties” or individually “Party.”
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, in 1974, the U.S. Congress enacted and the President signed a law entitled, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, herein called the “Act”; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community development, community renewal of lower-income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, the improvement or development of housing for persons of low- to moderate-incomes, and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Act, the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (“NAHA”), and the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended; WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships (“HOME”) Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant (“ESG”) Program are required to have an approved comprehensive housing strategy as authorized under NAHA;
WHEREAS, the County has requested of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to as “HUD”, that the County be designated as an urban county, hereinafter referred as to the “Los Angeles Urban County”; WHEREAS, the City has participated with the County in the Los Angeles Urban County Program and desires to renew its participation with the County in said Los Angeles Urban County Program for the County's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2026; WHEREAS, as the Los Angeles Urban County designee, the County will take responsibility and assume all obligations of an applicant under federal statutes, including: the analysis of needs, the setting of objectives, the preparation of community development and housing assistance plans, the consolidated plan, and the assurances of certifications; ATTACHMENT 3
May 2023 2
WHEREAS, the terms and provisions of this Agreement are fully authorized under state and local law, and this Agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing; and WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the Parties hereby give notice of the intention to participate in the Los Angeles Urban County Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. The City hereby authorizes the County to perform, or cause to be performed, those acts necessary or appropriate to implement the community development and housing assistance activities. Specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, improvement or development of housing for persons of low- to moderate-income, and other community or urban renewal activities authorized under the Act for the City in the County's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2026, which will be funded from the CDBG Program, and, where applicable HOME and ESG Programs, from federal annual appropriations and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds.
In the event this Agreement extends into succeeding fiscal years and funds have not been appropriated, this Agreement will automatically terminate as of June 30 of the then-current fiscal year. The County will endeavor to notify the City in writing within ten (10) days of receipt of non-appropriation notice.
2. This Agreement covers the following formula funding programs administered by HUD where the County is awarded and accepts funding directly from HUD: The CDBG Program, the HOME Program, and the ESG Program.
3. In executing this Agreement, the City understands the following:
a. The County has the final responsibility for selecting CDBG, and, where applicable, HOME and ESG, activities and submitting the Consolidated Plan to HUD.
b. The City is not eligible to apply for grants under the State CDBG (“Small Cities CDBG”) Program for appropriations for the County's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2026.
c. The City may participate in the HOME Program only through the Los Angeles Urban County Program. Thus, even if the County does not receive a HOME formula allocation, the City cannot form a HOME consortium with other local governments.
d. The City may participate in the ESG Program only through the Los Angeles
May 2023 3
Urban County Program.
4. The term of this Agreement shall be for the County's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2026 and commence on July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027 ("Urban County Term"). The Parties agree that they cannot terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while it remains in effect. The City provides written notice at least 60 days prior to June 30 2026 that it elects not to participate in the next urban county qualification period. Towards the end of the second year of the Urban County Term, the County will notify the City in writing of its right not to participate in the County's successive Consolidated Plan for the next three-year period.
The Parties agree to adopt amendments to this Agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in HUD’s Urban County Qualification for Participation Notice, prior to the subsequent threeyear extension of the term.
5. This Agreement shall be effective for the Urban County Term and for such period of time for the expenditure of all CDBG funds, or where applicable, HOME and ESG funds, allocated to the City under this Agreement and appropriations from any program income therefrom and for the completion of the funded activities. The Parties agree that they cannot terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while it remains in effect.
6. The Parties agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower-income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, the improvement or development of housing for persons of low- to moderate-incomes, and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Act.
The Parties in the performance of this Agreement shall take all actions necessary or appropriate to assure compliance with the Los Angeles Urban County Program’s certification under Section 104(b) of Title I of the Act, as amended, that the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 1, and the Fair Housing Act, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 100, and will affirmatively further fair housing. See 24 CFR § 91.225(a) and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications (86 FR 30779, June 10, 2021), to be codified at 24 CFR 5.151 and 5.152, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-12114/restoringaffirmatively-furthering-fair-housing-definitions-and-certifications.
Furthermore, the Parties in the performance of this Agreement shall take all actions necessary or appropriate to assure compliance with Section 109 of Title I of the Act, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 6, which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 8, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the implementing
May 2023 4
regulations at 28 CFR Part 35, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 146, and Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
The Parties agree that CDBG and, where applicable, HOME and ESG funding is prohibited for any activities in, or in support of, any cooperating City that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the County’s action to comply with its fair housing certification. The City acknowledges and agrees to HUD’s 424-B Form, Assurances and Certifications.
7. Pursuant to 24 CFR § 570.501(b), the City is subject to all requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement as set forth in 24 CFR § 570.503.
8. The City shall report to the County of any income generated by the use of CDBG and, where applicable, HOME and ESG funds received by the City. Any such program income, if applicable, must be remitted to the County within 30 days of receipt. Such program income may be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG and, where applicable, HOME and ESG, requirements as may then apply.
9. The County shall be responsible for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any program income; therefore, the City shall be required to maintain appropriate record keeping and reporting for this purpose.
10. The City may not sell, trade or otherwise transfer all or any portion of CDBG, and, where applicable, HOME and ESG funds to another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG, and, where applicable, HOME and ESG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or non-federal consideration, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the Act.
11. In the event of grant close-out or termination of this Agreement, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to the County within 60 days after grant closeout or termination of this Agreement.
12. All program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property acquired or improved by the City using CDBG and, where applicable, HOME and ESG, funds or program income, during the Urban County Term, shall be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
13. Any real property which is acquired or improved by the City during the term of this Agreement, in whole or in part, using CDBG and/or HOME and ESG funds or program income in excess of $25,000, shall be subject to the following standards:
May 2023 5
a. The County shall be notified by the City in writing of any modification or change in the use or disposition of such real property from that planned at the time of the acquisition or improvement. Such notification shall be made prior to the modification, change in use or disposition. b. If such real property is sold within five (5) years or transferred for a use which does not qualify as an eligible activity under CDBG and/or HOME and ESG regulations, the City shall reimburse to the County an amount equal to the pro-rata share of the current fair market value of the property or proceeds from the sales. The pro-rata share shall be calculated by multiplying the current market value by the percentage of the purchase price paid with CDBG funds or program income.
14. The City shall make available for inspection and audit to County’s and HUD’s representatives, upon request, at any time during the duration of this Agreement and for a period of five (5) years thereafter, all of its books and records relating to CDBG and, where applicable, HOME and ESG, program activities and income.
15. Following the end of the three-year reimbursable contract period and after resolving any financial or programmatic findings, if the City elects to leave the Los Angeles Urban County Program and is not eligible to become an entitlement city, the City will be unable to request that its allocation or any remaining balance be transferred to the City. Any remaining balance will be transferred to the funding pool of the Supervisorial District in which the City is located.
16. The City has adopted and is enforcing:
a. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
b. A policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
17. The City shall provide a drug-free workplace by:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the City’s workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. b. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
May 2023 6
ii. The City’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; iii. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
iv. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
c. Making it a requirement that each employee who will be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph “a” of this Section 17.
d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph “a” of this Section 17 that, as a condition of employment funded by the CDBG, and where applicable, HOME and ESG grant, the employee will:
i. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
ii. Notify the City in writing of his or her conviction of a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) calendar days after such conviction.
e. Notifying the County in writing, within ten (10) calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph d(ii) of this Section 17 from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of any such conviction; and the City must provide written notice, including position or title, of any City employees convicted of any criminal drug statute to every County officer or other designee who processed a CDBG, HOME, or ESG grant which funded any activity on which the convicted employee was working, unless HUD has designated an identification number(s) of each affected grant. f. Taking one (1) of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph d(ii) of this Section 17, with respect to any employee who is so convicted:
i. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
ii. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purpose by a federal, state, local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
g. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through the implementation of paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, and f, of this Section
17.
May 2023 7
18. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be effective only upon delivery, and therefore shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same document, for the same effect as if all parties hereto had signed the same signature page.
The facsimile, email, or other electronically delivered signature of the Parties shall be deemed to constitute original signatures, and facsimile or electronic copies hereof shall be deemed to constitute duplicate originals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this Agreement to be subscribed by the Executive Director of the LACDA, and the City has subscribed the same through its duly authorized officers, on the day, month, and year first above written.
County Counsel Certification
The office of the County Counsel hereby certifies that the terms and provisions of this Agreement are fully authorized under state and local laws, and that the Agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and public assisted housing.
By: ___________________________________ ___________________________ Principal Deputy County Counsel Date
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By: ________________________________
EMILIO SALAS, Executive Director
Los Angeles County Development Authority
ATTEST:
City Clerk
By: ________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
By: ________________________________
BEHNAZ TASHAKORIAN
Principal Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF «PARTICIPATING_CITY»
By: ________________________________
MAYOR OR DESIGNEE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Subject: Approval of a Letter to Los Angeles County Sheriff and Board of Supervisors Opposing Mandatory Rotation of Deputies as Recommended by the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
This item results in the approval of a letter recommended by Councilmember Eric Weber for the City to oppose the recommended practice to require mandatory rotation of deputies as part of an effort to combat deputy gangs and cliques.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends the City Council:
• Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to transmit a draft opposition letter to the Los Angeles County Sheriff and Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The item requires minimal staff time to implement.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2023, Councilmember Eric Weber requested the City take an oppose position on a recommendation issued by the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) requiring mandatory re-deployment and rotation of deputies as a mechanism to combat deputy gangs and cliques. This item provides the opportunity to take the oppose position.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
In March 2022, the County of Los Angeles engaged a Special Council with assistance from the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy to investigate the issue of deputy gangs and cliques in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The investigation included
Letter Opposing Mandatory Deputy Rotations Page 2
For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
interviews of numerous members and former members of the LASD, and review of numerous documents, court filings, deposition transcripts, public statements by LASD representatives, published reports relating to prior investigations, and numerous relevant media reports. As of February 2023, the COC had conducted seven public hearings devoted to the investigation, most of which involved the taking of witness testimony under oath pursuant to the COC’s subpoena authority.
The COC considered and recommended a report prepared by the Special Counsel (Attachment 3), which included a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations included the mandatory re-deployment or rotation of deputies as a mechanism to limit deputy gangs and cliques. This staff report and letter refers to only the issue of re-deployment and rotation at the San Dimas station.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative #1 – The City can take no action resulting in no official position being taken.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Constantin, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Letter of Opposition
2. June 2, 2023, City Manager Letter of Concern
3. Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission Report
Director of Administrative
Services
Michael O’Brien
Director of Community
Development
Henry K. Noh
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Scott Wasserman
Director of Public Works
Shari Garwick
245 East Bonita Avenue ∙ San Dimas ∙ California 91773-3002 ∙ (909) 394-6200 ∙ Fax (909) 394-6209 sandimasca.gov City Council
Emmett Badar, Mayor
John Ebiner, Mayor Pro Tem - District 3
Ryan A. Vienna - District 4
Eric Weber - District 1
Eric Nakano - District 2
City Manager Chris Constantin
Assistant City Manager
Brad McKinney
City Attorney
Jeff Malawy
June 13, 2023
Sheriff Robert Luna
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
211 W Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: URGING OPPOSITION OF RELYING ON RE-DEPLOYING AND
TRANSFERRING DEPUTIES TO ELIMINATE FORMATION AND REEMERGENCE OF DEPUTY GANGS AND CLIQUES Dear Sheriff Robert Luna,
The San Dimas City Council is grateful for the support provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) to improve public safety services in our community and across the county. To this end, we wish to support your efforts. This letter speaks specifically about the redeploying and rotation of deputies and concerns we have about their impact on our San Dimas station. Further, you should also be in receipt of a letter from our City Manager dated June 2, 2023 which provides more details aligned with the position of the City Council.
The specific recommendation we wish to address involves mandating deputy sheriff assignment rotations as recommended under Section C, Re-Deployments and Rotations, of the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission Report dated February 2023. While we can understand the Civilian Oversight Commission is looking to some successes in other jurisdictions to relocate problem officers/deputies as a promising approach for the LASD, we believe an ill-conceived implementation of such a recommendation would have negative effects on the San Dimas station and our community.
San Dimas does not want to lose quality deputies unilaterally, nor does the City want to see deputies forced to join San Dimas station when they do not desire to be a part of the fabric of our community. We are happy with the performance of our deputies and their ability to build relationships with San Dimas residents and businesses. Implementing forced re-deployments or rotations would deplete the successful community-oriented relationships our deputies built with the community over many years.
Our concerns are specific to how San Dimas will be impacted and any change impacting other stations should be considered with input from their jurisdictions. We highlight one deputy as an ATTACHMENT 1
Letter of Opposing Mandatory Deputy Rotations Page 2
June 13, 2023
245 East Bonita Avenue ∙ San Dimas ∙ California 91773-3002 ∙ (909) 394-6200 ∙ Fax (909) 394-6209 sandimasca.gov example where this policy would result in a negative secondary effect. Deputy Kevin Martin has provided traffic enforcement duty to San Dimas since the beginning when our station was the Walnut/San Dimas station. He has built an incredible reputation of fairness and communityoriented policing which takes years to build. Mandatory rotation would take away this incredible deputy, and worse, may precipitate his early retirement from the department. In either case, our City and the department would lose a solid and dedicated asset.
We recommend you hold off implementing such a recommendation until much more work can be performed. Further, we desire our San Dimas station to remain a station deputies voluntarily select to join.
Thank you for your time and effort on this important issue, and we look forward to working together.
Sincerely,
Emmett G. Badar,
Mayor
cc: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Director of Administrative
Services
Michael O’Brien
Director of Community
Development
Henry K. Noh
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Scott Wasserman
Director of Public Works
Shari Garwick
245 East Bonita Avenue ∙ San Dimas ∙ California 91773-3002 ∙ (909) 394-6200 ∙ Fax (909) 394-6209 sandimasca.gov City Council
Emmett Badar, Mayor
John Ebiner, Mayor Pro Tem - District 3
Ryan A. Vienna - District 4
Eric Weber - District 1
Eric Nakano - District 2
City Manager Chris Constantin
Assistant City Manager
Brad McKinney
City Attorney
Jeff Malawy
June 2, 2023
Sheriff Robert Luna
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
211 W Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: URGING CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RELYING ON RE-DEPLOYING AND TRANSFERRING DEPUTIES TO ELIMINATE FORMATION AND REEMERGENCE OF DEPUTY GANGS AND CLIQUES Dear Sheriff Robert Luna,
As City Manager of San Dimas, I am deeply grateful for the support provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) to improve public safety services in our community and across the county. Based on our interactions and priorities you have articulated; I am confident that you understand and appreciate the need to identify and respond to issues which negatively impact our Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. To this end, I wish to support your efforts by adding to the conversation. In this letter, I will speak specifically about the re-deploying and rotation of deputies.
My background in government service includes a unique mix of experience beneficial to this discussion and includes serving or having served in overlapping roles such as:
• 13 years as an elected official responsible for an organization which included a California POST law enforcement agency;
• 10 years in California executive roles overseeing operations of law enforcement agencies; • 20 years in accountability roles charged with ensuring California government agencies, including law enforcement agencies, are held accountable; • 17 years as a California sworn law enforcement officer who also taught defensive tactics/use of force; and
• 6 years as a regional accreditor of educational institutions in California, Hawaii and the Pacific which accredited colleges overseeing California POST academies.
It is because of our support for your efforts and my broad expertise that I convey my concern over at least one of the recent recommendations by the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight ATTACHMENT 2
2 245 East Bonita Avenue ∙ San Dimas ∙ California 91773-3002 ∙ (909) 394-6200 ∙ Fax (909) 394-6209 sandimasca.gov Commission (“COC”) in their “Report and Recommendations of the Special Counsel to Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission Regarding Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department” dated February 2023 (“Report”).
The specific recommendation I wish to address involves mandating deputy sheriff assignment rotations as recommended under Section C, Re-Deployments and Rotations, of the Report. While I can understand the Civilian Oversight Commission is looking to some successes in other jurisdictions to relocate problem officers/deputies as a promising approach for the LASD, I believe an ill-conceived implementation of such a recommendation would further exacerbate an already broken internal accountability system creating other secondary effects which would countervail the intent of improving the quality of the overall deputies and the department.
While no one recommendation can be taken alone, it is this one that I believe has a serious risk of negative outcomes if it is implemented without fully evaluating, at a minimum, the:
1) Root cause(s) that is/are being addressed;
2) Impact on other key processes that may be affected by implementing a form of mandated rotation/re-deployment (e.g. training, accountability systems, liability experiences of the specific deputies, etc.); and
3) Current experiences of contract cities in how lack of control over where a deputy, and more specifically relevant, a “problem deputy”, is assigned can impact the overall system and outcomes at the specific location such deputy is assigned.
As a member of the Contract Cities Liability Trust Fund Claims Board, I see the liability cases which result in millions of dollars of recommended settlements and how such recommendations are premised on weaknesses in the County’s case. Such weaknesses include attributes specific to the deputies, training, negligence, and many other factors; however, what is consistent is all the weaknesses speak to the department’s internal accountability system. Force moving a deputy from one station to another may have some impact on the perceived gang or clique, but it ignores the fundamental focus on accountability which is a serious concern for contract cities.
Contracts cities have no say in what deputies are assigned to their local stations. Thus, we each rely upon the department to employ an effective, responsive, and rational system which does not allow a problem to just be moved from one location to another. Unfortunately, this transfer of problems is occurring, and contract cities do not have the ability to stem the losses caused by such transfers.
Consequently, the contract cities incur liability settlements which are now threatening the viability of the entire contract model. Adding mandated transfers as a driver would only exacerbate this problem.
While there are certain problems we do incur by virtue of having a law enforcement agency, most of our deputies are solid and successful assets. We are happy with their performance and ability to build relationships in our community. Implementing forced re-deployments or rotations would deplete the successful community-oriented relationships our deputies built with the community over many years. This is another serious consequence of implementing such a recommendation without much thought and consideration.
3 245 East Bonita Avenue ∙ San Dimas ∙ California 91773-3002 ∙ (909) 394-6200 ∙ Fax (909) 394-6209 sandimasca.gov More specifically, my concerns are specific to how San Dimas will be impacted and any change impacting other stations should be considered with input from their jurisdictions. I am remiss not to highlight one deputy where this policy would result in a negative secondary effect. Deputy Kevin Martin has provided traffic enforcement duty to San Dimas since the beginning when our station was the Walnut/San Dimas station. He has built an incredible reputation of fairness and community-oriented policing which takes years to build. Mandatory rotation would take away this incredible deputy, and worse, may precipitate his early retirement from the department. In either case, our City and the department would lose a solid and dedicated asset.
Recommendations
My first recommendation to you is to hold off implementing such a recommendation until much more work can be performed. All parties, including deputies, contract cities, County partners, research experts, etc. should be brought into the conversation to better evaluate, modify, and or approach such a broad-based recommendation. Then, concepts should be tested, evaluated, tested again, and measured objectively to determine if they may make sense before being implemented broadly.
Further, I also recommend the department focus more heavily on its internal accountability system and leveraging the local contract cities in having more of a role in what type of deputy fits within their community. In the end, the authority of police to act is premised on the peoples’ concurrence with granting them such authority is a bedrock principle of modern policing. This is missing from our contract cities model, appears to be part of the root cause that is not being addressed, and is a better starting point for success than moving blindly forward with a broad mandated re-deployment and rotation program.
Thank you for your time and effort on this important issue, and I am available to assist you in any way that I can to keep the LASD, the best County law enforcement agency in the nation.
Sincerely,
Chris Constantin,
City Manager
cc: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO SHERIFF CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT COMMISSION REGARDING
DEPUTY GANGS AND DEPUTY CLIQUES IN THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
February 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission
COMMISSIONERS
Sean Kennedy, Chair Jamon R. Hicks, Vice
Chair
Irma Hagans Cooper
James P. Harris Hans Johnson
Luis S. Garcia Patricia Giggans
Robert C. Bonner Lael Rubin
Brian K. Williams, Executive Director
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE COMMISSION
Lead Special Counsel: Bert Deixler of Kendall Brill & Kelly Other Special Counsel included
Bart Williams and Susan L. Gutierrez of Proskauer
Ashley Bowman and Ariel Neuman of Bird Marella
Carolyn Kubota and Ellen Choi of Covington
William Forman of Winston & Strawn (on behalf of Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy)
L. Ashley Aull and Robyn Bacon of Munger Tolles & Olson (on behalf of Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy)
Naeun Rim and Sarah Moses of Manatt
Clark Brown, former General Counsel L.A. County Bar
Richard Drooyan, Consultant
Adam Dawson, lead investigator
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE .........................................................................................................................1
THE EXISTENCE OF DEPUTY GANGS AND DEPUTY CLIQUES IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT.........................................................................3 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................3 II. INVESTIGATION.....................................................................................................5 III. FACTUAL FINDINGS...............................................................................................7 A. History of Deputy Gangs and Cliques..........................................................7 B. Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques Currently in the Department ..............10 C. Obstacles to Eliminating Deputy Cliques in the Department.....................35 D. The Elimination of Deputy Cliques is Constitutionally Permissible............41 IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS SUMMARY...........................................................................43 V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELIMINATE DEPUTY GANGS AND CLIQUES..................44 A. LEADERSHIP AND SUPERVISION................................................................45 B. POLICY AND TRAINING..............................................................................49 C. RE-DEPLOYMENTS AND ROTATIONS.........................................................53 D. ACCOUNTABILITY......................................................................................55 VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................61
1 PREFACE
In November 2021, the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission (“COC”) directed the Chair of the COC to engage pro bono Special Counsel to assist the COC to investigate the existence and activities of problematic deputy groups, often referred to as “deputy gangs” or “cliques,” within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“Department”). Although prior commissions have documented the existence of deputy gangs and cliques over several decades, the COC wished to determine whether such groups continued to exist and to understand their impacts on the Department, its employees, and members of the public it serves.
By March 2022, a pro bono team of Special Counsel were engaged by the County and the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, and the COC launched the investigation of deputy gangs and cliques. The investigation included interviews of numerous members and former members of the Department, and review of numerous documents, court filings, deposition transcripts, public statements by Department representatives, published reports relating to prior investigations, and numerous relevant media reports. To date, the COC has conducted seven public hearings devoted to the investigation, most of which involved the taking of witness testimony under oath pursuant to the COC’s subpoena authority.
This Report and Recommendations is a result of the Special Counsel’s investigation on behalf of the COC. It is in two parts: Factual Findings, entitled The Existence of Deputy Gangs and Cliques in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Recommendations to Rid the Department of Deputy Gangs and Cliques that fall under four headings: Leadership/Supervision, Policy/Training, Assignments/Rotations, and Accountability.
2 A word about nomenclature used in this Report. Special Counsel has chosen to use the term “Deputy Gangs” when referring to deputy groups engaged in egregious conduct such as violations of law, the excessive use of force, threats to the public or Department members and to use the term “Deputy Cliques” in discussing the broader concerns that the exclusionary subgroups pose to the mission of the Department, the careers and morale of other Department members, and the public, even when their activities do not violate specific laws. The term “Deputy Cliques” has historically been understood to include Deputy Gangs and exclusionary subgroups and their problematic behavior however configured. By using this term in this report, we do not intend to minimize the harm done by these groups to the Department, to other Department personnel, and to the public. The Findings confirm such harms.
The origins of Deputy Gangs and Cliques within the Department dates back decades. They may have started with benign intentions, but history has proved that Deputy Cliques have often evolved into Deputy Gangs whose members not only use gang-like symbols but engage in gang-type and criminal behavior directed against the public and other Department members. These groups, both historically and currently, also exalt the use of excessive force against civilians, harass other deputies, and undermine the chain of command within the Department. However denominated, the existence of these groups and their impact adversely affects the mission of the Department and undermines public trust in the Department.
The Deputy Cliques addressed in this Report and several prior reports have been variously referred to as deputy “gangs,” “cliques,” “subcultures” and “secretive subgroups. ”Deputy Cliques” are Sheriff’s deputies assigned to a particular Department patrol station, bureau, unit, or location in a jail who self- associate, and identify and act as a subgroup that excludes other deputies assigned to the same station, bureau, unit,
3 or jail location. They identify themselves by names such as the Banditos, Executioners, Regulators, Spartans, Reapers, Rattlesnakes, Cowboys, Vikings, Wayside Whities, 3000 Boys, and 4000 Boys. Members often have matching and sometimes sequentially numbered tattoos and use language and gestures associated with street gangs. By their actions Deputy Cliques invariably evolve into Deputy Gangs.
The Factual Findings section of this Report documents the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, still exist and engage in harmful activities in several of the Department’s patrol stations and bureaus. They victimize the Department, its members, and the public.
The Recommendations section identifies the reforms needed to eliminate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques and to extinguish the culture of the Department that has permitted their existence and harmful influence within the Department for the past 50 years. The Recommendations provide an immediate call to action to the Sheriff, the Department leadership and every member of the Department. There can be no more delays!
THE EXISTENCE OF DEPUTY GANGS AND DEPUTY CLIQUES IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Department currently contains several active groups that have been, and still are, engaged in harmful, dangerous, and often illegal, behavior. Some of these groups have engaged in acts of violence, threatened acts of violence, placed fellow Deputies at risk of physical harm, engaged in acts celebrating officer involved shootings, and created a climate of physical fear and professional retribution to those who would speak publicly about the misconduct of such groups. Publicly released deputy body camera video illustrates such misconduct directed to a member of the public. For that reason, going back 30 years to the Commission led by Judge James J.
4 Kolts, these groups have been fairly referred to as “Deputy Gangs.” Deputy Cliques that evolve into Deputy Gangs meet the definition of “law enforcement gang” in California Penal Code Section 13670.1 The problems they cause
in the Department, however, go beyond their “gang-like” behavior. Deputy Cliques are rooted in secrecy and exclusivity. They undermine the Department’s leadership and supervision, foster insubordination, and are detrimental to the morale of other deputies and staff by exercising power and decision making that is fundamentally inconsistent with the para-military, chain of command structure of law enforcement agencies such as the Department. By exercising influence ordinarily reserved for supervisors and management, such as controlling assignments, schedules, and promotions, their existence within stations, bureaus and units of the Department violates fundamental principles of professional policing. But Deputy Cliques, whether they meet the definition of “law enforcement gangs” must be eradicated as they are the seeds from which Deputy Gangs develop.
While the prior Sheriff publicly asserted that he had acted to eliminate Deputy Gangs, in fact he facilitated their continued presence by, among other things, 1 Penal Code 13670 provides, in pertinent part: (2) “Law enforcement gang” means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including but not limited to, excluding, harassing or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons… and retaliation against officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group. Further, these groups often discriminate on the basis of gender, race and ethnicity in deciding who can become a member of the Deputy Cliques. Such workplace discrimination violates the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and federal anti- discrimination law.
5 appointing known tattooed members of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques to leadership positions in the Department, permitting the revival of emblems signifying membership in such groups and repeatedly relying upon an erroneous statement of law to avoid promulgating and enforcing a policy prohibiting Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques in the Department. The claim that Deputy Gangs no longer exist in the Department is flatly and inarguably false. Moreover, Deputy Cliques continue to exist.
The COC Policy recommendation prohibiting Joining and Participation in Deputy Cliques is constitutionally permissible, and it is factually supported by the investigation and multiple interviews conducted by the COC’s Special Counsel as well as the testimony given in the COC’s public hearings. The COC urges Sheriff Luna to adopt a policy that prohibits deputies from being members of Deputy Cliques and thereby ending Deputy Gangs.
II. INVESTIGATION
As part of the COC’s investigation, Special Counsel interviewed approximately eighty witnesses. The witnesses were current and former Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, Commanders, Assistant Sheriffs, and Undersheriffs; a former Sheriff; and former law enforcement officials from other law enforcement agencies.
The witnesses also included attorneys representing current and former litigants against the Department and the County and certain of the litigants themselves. Many witnesses were interviewed multiple times.
Special Counsel coordinated with, interviewed and received information from the Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Loyola Law School and the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office.
Special Counsel received and reviewed dozens of depositions and sworn
6 statements, and associated exhibits generated in connection with past and pending litigation involving the Department; multiple media reports; body camera footage; and extensive reports prepared by the Kolts Commission, the United States Commission on Civil Rights, the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy (‘Loyola Law School Report”), the Rand Corporation, the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice, and the Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence.
Special Counsel attended virtual briefings by the former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and repeatedly sought to meet with the former Sheriff and his Undersheriff, Timothy Murakami. They declined to meet or to be interviewed. Each was also invited to voluntarily appear and testify publicly before the COC. The former Sheriff declined to do so unless provided in advance with the questions and any documents that would be presented. The Undersheriff declined, asserting that his physical condition precluded his testimony, but not his other duties as Undersheriff. As a result, the COC subpoenaed both the Sheriff and Undersheriff to testify. Each refused, and both are now subject to legal proceedings to enforce the subpoenas and/or to hold each in contempt.
The COC held seven public hearings in which approximately fifteen witnesses publicly testified and numerous members of the public spoke. The overwhelming majority of witnesses who testified did so pursuant to subpoena. Several witnesses would only testify anonymously, and some did so remotely, using a voice distortion device out of fear of physical or professional retaliation. Several witnesses who had agreed to testify withdrew, often the night before the proposed testimony, out of similar fears.
In addition to witnesses who testified publicly, approximately sixty other witnesses were interviewed by the Special Counsel’s team. Many witnesses spoke only
7 after receiving assurances that they would not be identified publicly or even confidentially identified to the COC. The witnesses expressed concerns for their physical safety and the physical safety of family members, many of whom are Department employees. In addition, many witnesses insisted upon anonymity in interviews for fear of professional retribution often described as “career suicide.” Some of the factual findings recited in this Report are the product of these witness interviews.
III. FACTUAL FINDINGS
A. History of Deputy Gangs and Cliques
Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques have existed in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department since at least 1973. That year, an internal Department memo dated December 5, 1973, documented the existence of a group known as the “Little Devils,” and identified 38 members who bore sequentially numbered tattoos of a devil.
In 1992, the Kolts Commission’s report confirmed the existence of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, including a Deputy Gang called the Vikings, in the Department.
After holding evidentiary hearings in Los Angeles in 1993 and 1996, the United States Commission on Civil Rights in 1999 issued a report focusing on the violence and trauma that Deputy Gangs had inflicted on communities of color and people struggling with mental illness, and urged the LASD to take decisive action to eradicate Deputy Gangs from its ranks.
In 2012, the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence (“CCJV”) found that Deputy Cliques existed in patrol and on certain floors of Men’s Central Jail (”MCJ” ) and that they contributed to the use of excessive force in the jail. The CCJV’s report contains five pages of recommendations to address the problem.
The Loyola Law School Report documented the Department’s long history of
8 Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques in 2021; and the Rand Corporation also confirmed their existence in its report titled Understanding Subgroups Within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in 2021.
The Los Angeles County Inspector General, Max Huntsman, testified before the COC about his office’s report entitled Analysis of the Criminal Investigation of Alleged Assault by Banditos that confirmed the involvement of the Banditos in the severe beating of non-Banditos deputies in an incident at Kennedy Hall in 2018.
As part of its investigation, the COC received and reviewed a September 13, 2004, memorandum from the then Undersheriff William T. Stonich to Sheriff Leroy Baca about efforts to address “inappropriate and potentially damaging behavior” at the Department’s Century Station. Among other conclusions the memorandum reported on rumored unethical activity engaged in by Century station personnel as follows:
“Mexican Mafia”, rumored to be a small select group of deputies of Hispanic decent (sic). They have been accused of holding positions of influence within the station (i.e.: detective, scheduling, watch deputy and field training officer positions) and are alleged to control much of the negative behind the scenes activity such as fund raising through means of unit level extortion for non -sanctioned events, unfair or biased granting of time off requests, controlling patrol and interior work assignments, etc.”
The COC also reviewed an October 1, 2007, memorandum from then Commander Willie Miller to Sheriff Baca reporting on an investigation of a group of deputies named the “Regulators” at Century Station. Among other things, the memorandum concluded that:
“The Regulators philosophy is that if a sergeant, lieutenant, or captain was weak at Century Station they would run over them, essentially speaking, they would run the station as a subculture fraction (sic).
9 They would not respect rank. They openly displayed the Regulators logo of the ‘skull and flames’ symbol on their motorcycles as well as body tattoos.”
The COC also reviewed hundreds of Department documents regarding the 2012 discovery in a patrol car of a written creed for a Deputy Gang named “The Jump Out Boys.” Members of the Jump Out Boys shared a common numbered tattoo that depicts a red-eyed skull wearing a bandana with the letters “O.S.S.” and holding a revolver next to an ace of spades and an 8 of spades, the so called “dead man’s hand” in poker.
Their creed recited that members understand “when the line need (sic) to be crossed, and crossed back” and that they “sometimes need to do things they don’t want to in order to get where they want to be.” It also directed members to keep a “black book” that records the date of every deputy involved shooting that authorized each shooter to embellish his common tattoo with smoke coming out of the gun. Seven Jump Out Boys members were fired, but because there was no clear policy against joining a Deputy Gang at the time, the Civil Service Commission reinstated four of them.
It is indisputable that for nearly 50 years, Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques have existed within the Department and their existence and negative impacts were known to the leadership of the Department. Yet there was no sustained effort during this period to eradicate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques from the Department. All prior efforts were inadequate, lost continuity and failed to eliminate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. Owing to this failure, Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques are embedded in the culture of the Department, either tolerated or ignored. Indeed, during the tenure of Sheriff Baca, the Undersheriff, Paul Tanaka, was a tattooed member of the Vikings. According to numerous witness interviews, former Sheriff Villanueva’s Undersheriff, Tim Murakami, has a Caveman tattoo.
While law enforcement cliques are not unknown in other law enforcement
10 agencies, no other large law enforcement agency in the nation has allowed such cliques to exist and flourish as they have in the Department.
B. Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques Currently in the Department There is at least a half dozen, and possibly more, Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques currently in the Department, primarily at patrol stations. They include the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys and the Reapers. There are reports that new Deputy Cliques are forming as members of existing Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques retire or otherwise leave the Department.
There is some evidence indicating that Deputy Cliques are re-emerging in the Los Angeles County jails as the 4000 Boys.
Merely transferring members of Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques has not proved particularly effective. After the CCJV’s 2012 findings confirmed the existence of the 2000 and 3000 Boys on the second and third floor of MCJ, many of these deputies were transferred out of the jail to patrol. Many of the 3000 Boys sought assignments to Compton Station and became Executioners; many 2000 Boys sought assignment to Century Station and became Spartans. As discussed below, transfers or rotation of deputies must be much more intentional to avoid aggregating in a new location deputies involved in, or susceptible to influence by, Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques.
All the Deputy Cliques share harmful characteristics. While not all Deputy Cliques engage in identical unprofessional conduct, most share at least some of the following characteristics, and they have done and continue to do certain acts of unprofessional and dangerous policing. Deputy Cliques run the stations or units where they exist, as opposed to the sergeants, lieutenants and the captain who are charged with the duty to run the station; exercise influence over and often decide assignments and shifts, training, and overtime; exclude deputies from the Deputy Cliques, often based on race,
11 ethnicity or gender; intimidate deputies that are not part of the Deputy Cliques; give orders not to provide backup to disfavoreddeputies who are not members of the Deputy Cliques; order work slowdowns if management of a station attempts to rein them in; encourage a “we-they” attitude, not just between them and the public, but with other deputies within the station; operate in secrecy; lie in reports to protect each other; and threaten the public with use of excessive force without justification and belittle deputies unwilling to engage in such acts. Most troubling, they create rituals that valorize violence, such as recording all deputy involved shootings in an official book, celebrating with “shooting parties,” and authorizing deputies who have shot a community member to add embellishments to their common gang tattoos.
Typically, to be invited to become a member of a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique, a deputy must demonstrate “toughness” that is frequently associated with use of excessive force or other forms of unconstitutional policing. Often the euphemistic term “peer leader” is used to describe the members.
Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques also have used and continue to use assaultive behavior against fellow deputies who do not belong to their groups as a show of power and influence. Certain of these altercations have led to public exposure in the media.
The COC investigation uncovered other incidents including threatened use of weapons by deputies upon other deputies.
The pernicious effects of these groups go well beyond assaulting other deputies.
Recent publicly released body camera footage of a deputy threatening to shoot a man in a parked car without any evidence of wrongdoing illustrated in real time gang behavior characteristic of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques interacting with the public served.
Not all members of Deputy Cliques engage in acts of misconduct. Even those
12 members who do not engage in misconduct, however, contribute to the unprofessional influence of Deputy Cliques and their negative impact on the Department and on other deputies. Deputy Cliques have and continue to do great damage to the reputation of the Department, and the public hearings demonstrated that they have unquestionably destroyed trust between the Department and the public it serves.
Membership in a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique is a liability for the County. One of the essential job qualifications of a deputy sheriff is the ability to testify credibly in a court of law. Deputies who belong to Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques that value loyalty to their members over their commitment to the Department and the public are likely to be disbelieved when their conduct is at issue. As Lieutenant Eric Strong, a 22- year member of the Department, put it, “If you are a member of a law enforcement gang, you cannot be trusted, you cannot be relied upon, your credibility is lacking.” Under the principles set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v.
Maryland, such information that bears on the credibility of prosecution witnesses must be disclosed by the prosecution to the defense in criminal cases and is likely discoverable in civil lawsuits.
Deputies sued in civil lawsuits arising from the alleged use of excessive force cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles County tens of millions of dollars in judgments and settlements. It has been estimated that the additional cost to the County in these cases is upwards of $55 million. That number can only rise based upon pending and newly filed lawsuits and administrative claims. In addition to judgments and settlements, the County incurs seven-figure legal bills from outside litigation counsel hired by and paid for by the County to defend the misconduct of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
Set forth below is some of the evidence developed by Special Counsel during the
13 COC’s investigation of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
1. Compton Station
Lieutenant Larry Waldie testified before the COC that he was a tattooed member of a deputy group known as the “Gladiators.” He obtained the tattoo during his initial tour of duty at Compton Station and that another group known as the “Executioners” subsequently ran aspects of that station. Waldie said that Compton was a “fast station,” and it was considered a desirable post for deputies wanting exposure to incidents of crime requiring active law enforcement.
Waldie testified that many of the Executioners had served on the 3000 floor at MCJ. The CCJV noted the existence of the “3000 Boys” at MCJ and recommended that the it be disbanded. It appears, however, that many of the “3000 boys” transferred to Compton Station and formed or joined the Executioners. A witness who worked at MCJ and who insisted on anonymity for fear of reprisal, reported that a new version of the “3000 Boys” operating on the 4000 floor and calling itself the “4000 Boys” currently operates at MCJ.
Another witness currently assigned to the Compton Station disclosed that deputies who had worked on the 3000 floor at MCJ received preferential treatment at Compton. The witness reported being ridiculed based upon gender and race by the scheduling deputy, Jaime Juarez, an Executioner, and that Executioner members regularly discriminated against and ridiculed women.
Waldie testified that Deputy Juarez was the “shot caller” during Waldie’s tenure at Compton Station. The Commission received evidence that Juarez participated in four officer involved shootings. Juarez was subsequently removed from patrol, and interacting with the public during Sheriff McDonnell’s tenure, but was returned to patrol after Sheriff Villanueva took office. Waldie identified Deputies Ruiz,
14 Cuevas, Barajas, Ingersoll, Raisa and Ruben as Executioners. Waldie stated that based upon his observations Executioner membership apparently excluded females and African Americans.
The Commission received a photograph of Deputy Juarez’ truck which depicted an Executioner emblem on a flag. In a deposition in civil litigation brought by Waldie, Deputy Juarez admitted that he had attended approximately seven “inking parties.” He confirmed that Deputies Barajas, Ingersoll, Bray, Jimenez, and Reese attended Executioner inking parties as well. According to Juarez, Ingersoll was the last Executioner to receive an Executioner tattoo.
The Commission also received a photograph of a tattoo of a skeleton holding an automatic rifle on the calf of Deputy Aldama, a self-acknowledged Executioner. Other evidence indicates that, much like the Mafia, there are “made” members of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques who are entitled to wear the tattoo associated with the group. The tattoos typically exalt the use of excessive force and are entirely unprofessional.
Deputy Aldama, and his partner, Mizrain Orrego, were named as defendants in two separate shootings of community members, Sheldon Lockett and Donta Taylor. In each instance the deputies claimed that the victims had guns. In neither case was a gun located and much evidence suggested that in fact neither had guns. The County settled both cases with the families of the deceased for a total amount just short of ten million dollars. Since outside counsel was engaged in each case substantial legal fees were incurred on top of the settlement amounts.
Waldie testified that the Executioners held positions of authority during his time at Compton Station. Those positions included scheduling deputy, training officer, detective, and gang task force membership. Waldie explained that the position of
15 scheduling deputy was powerful because it afforded the scheduler the ability to assign deputies to shifts, vacations and days off, desirable assignments on patrol or less desirable assignments in preferred or less desirable locations.
During 2019, when Waldie served as Acting Captain of Compton Station, Deputy Juarez was scheduled to be removed as scheduling Deputy and transferred from the station. Juarez told Waldie that his successor as scheduling Deputy should be another Executioner, but Waldie declined the request. In response, Juarez led the Executioners in a work slowdown in March 2019, and pressured non-Executioners to adhere to it.
The COC received an internal LASD document demonstrating that during the work slowdown, crime rose significantly compared to the preceding year and compared to the months before and after the slowdown. During the slowdown, arrests dropped precipitously, citizen calls were responded to slowly, and pro-active policing initiatives did not occur.
In addition to the statistical evidence documenting the work slowdown, the COC received the content of a text between Waldie and a deputy confirming the work slowdown directed by Deputy Juarez. The deputy supplying the information insisted upon anonymity: “But please between you and I. This could ruin my career. I don’t want my name mentioned at all please. I can’t have that.” Waldie testified that the culture of the Department created a justified fear among honest deputies that if it were believed that they had reported on the misconduct of fellow deputies, especially those belonging to a Deputy Clique, it would lead to harassment, ostracism, threats, or interference with career advancement.
A deputy who requested anonymity was suspected of cooperating with the COC and has been continuously subject to harassment and ostracism at the deputy’s current station. Another witness who testified anonymously has reported that another
16 deputy, who was wrongly suspected of having provided the anonymous testimony, has been repeatedly harassed at that deputy’s current station.
Waldie testified that after an officer involved shooting the deputies involved participated in a celebratory “debrief” at a bar in Fullerton. Waldie identified the pair of deputies, Ingersol and Barajas, as Executioners. Other evidence suggested that they were not yet tattooed Executioners, but were “chasing ink.” That is, they engaged in “aggressive” activities in the hope of becoming members.
Copies of texts reviewed by the COC revealed that Waldie brought the celebration to the attention of the captain heading Compton Station. Waldie testified that despite the seriousness of the circumstances, the captain did not take any action.
After Sheriff Villanueva took office, the captain was promoted to commander and retired from that position. He declined to be interviewed by Special Counsel’s team.
The evidence demonstrates that community needs in Compton were ignored or responded to slowly to pressure a station leader to act in accordance with the Executioners’ demands, and celebrations of officer involved shootings were neither stopped nor criticized. Waldie agreed that the conduct of the Executioners violated “fundamental principles of professional policing.” During her testimony before the COC, then-Chief, now Acting Undersheriff, April Tardy reviewed this evidence and acknowledged that the Executioners were a “law enforcement gang” within the meaning of California Penal Code section 13670.
2. East L.A. Station
Much public testimony before the COC focused upon the East L.A. Station and particularly on an incident at Kennedy Hall involving a brutal beating inflicted upon junior deputies by senior deputies who were members of the “Banditos.” The behavior can only be fairly described as that of a gang. This episode resulted in widely publicized
17 civil litigation brought by the victim deputies against the Bandito Deputies. Even though the defendants assaulted other members of the Department and did so in an after- hours offsite location, County Counsel approved the County paying outside counsel to defend them.
Former Sheriff Villanueva trained at the East L.A. Station and was widely believed to have shown favoritism toward the station and its deputies. He was roundly criticized for the reservation of front row seats for East L.A. deputies at his inauguration when the Kennedy Hall incident had received much negative publicity and was still an open investigation. He also restored the “Fort Apache, kick in the pants” logo at the entrance of the East L.A. Station. The COC also heard much testimony that refuted his repeated assertion that he had replaced a weak captain with a strong one and had transferred many deputies to address discipline problems. In fact, no deputy was involuntarily transferred out of the East LA Station, and many of the transferred deputies were not Banditos.
Finally, there has been substantial evidence that the administrative and potential criminal investigation into the Kennedy Hall incident was obstructed at the direction of the former Sheriff’s then Chief of Staff, Larry Del Mese, an acknowledged tattooed member of the “Grim Reapers.” Matthew Burson, who retired from the Department as a Chief, testified that when he was the Captain at the Internal Affairs Criminal Bureau he was instructed by Del Mese not to have the investigator of the Kennedy Hall incident ask about “sub-cultures” at the station. Burson understood that Del Mese was conveying an order from the former Sheriff, and he passed the instruction on to Sergeant Jeffrey Chow, who was investigating the incident. It is reasonable to infer that Sheriff Villanueva, despite its obvious relevance, ordered that no questions were to be asked about the Banditos or their role in the Kennedy Hall
18 “beat- down”.
Sergeant Chow testified that he believed the conduct of the assaulting deputies was criminal, but that he was directed not to ask questions about “sub- culture” activity at the station. He understood this to mean that no questions were to be asked about the Banditos/Deputy Cliques and its/their role in the gang style assault on other deputies, and he followed the orders because he worked in a “para-military organization.” After Chow testified, the COC learned of attempts to intimidate him and his wife, Vanessa, a Deputy Sheriff. The intimidation included an unmarked sheriff’s car following Chow home after his testimony before the COC and an undercover car parked conspicuously near the residence. (Captain Angela Walton reported a similar intimidation effort involving the parking of an undercover car directly in front of her home after her public testimony.)
Retired Chief Joseph Gooden described the early portion of his career at the East L.A. station and the presence of members of the “Cavemen” at the station. Despite having a degree from U.S.C. when fewer than 10% of the deputies had four-year college degrees, a Caveman told Gooden that there was “no way” he could become a training officer. Gooden observed that under 2% of the deputies at the East L.A. station wereAfrican American.
Years later, when Gooden was a Chief, he oversaw the Kennedy Hall investigation. Chief Gooden testified that he directed that the investigation be conducted as a criminal investigation, and that determining the motive of the involved deputies was an important part of the investigation. The instruction to Sergeant Chow not to ask questions about “sub-culture” activity in the East L.A. Station was directly contrary to Chief Gooden’s expectation and direction. It was also contrary to investigating the motive for the assault and the standard expected of a professional
19 police force.
The investigative report of the Department’s Internal Criminal Investigation Bureau regarding the Kennedy Hall incident was transmitted to the District Attorney’s Office to consider potential criminal charges. The report failed to mention that the investigating sergeant had been instructed not to ask questions about the Banditos or their role in the assault, even though the evidence related directly to a criminal motive for the attack.
An anonymous witness currently stationed at the East L.A. Station testified using a voice distorter because of a fear of physical and professional retribution. The witness identified current “shot callers” at East L.A. as Deputies Ortiz and Valle. The witness testified that Rene Munoz, one of the defendants in civil litigation relating to the Kennedy Hall beating, was the shot-caller prior to his departure from the East L.A.
Station. The witness testified that all three were tattooed Banditos.
The anonymous witness also identified the broad authority of the scheduling deputy, a Bandito, at the East L.A. Station, who gave assignments, schedules, days off and vacations, assigned areas for patrol and directed selection of training officers and assignment of trainees to them. The witness testified that the power of the Banditos was such that they were able to thwart the promotion of a disfavored deputy to training officer even though the deputy was ranked number one in the County for that promotion.
The witness also testified to various means of intimidation and ostracism inflicted by Banditos upon non-Banditos. This included a locker room argument in which a Bandito pointed his gun at the head of another deputy; the turning of backs when a disfavored deputy entered the hallway or room; and the refusal to answer back up calls when summoned by a disfavored deputy. The witness explained how
20 disfavored deputies received “jackets” i.e., reputational slanders intended to thwart their careers.
Another witness testified that the Banditos assaulted “disfavored” deputies, who would be challenged to a fight. The disfavored deputies would be told that they did not belong in East L.A. and that they were a “zero” as a provocation to a fight. The Banditos would surround the disfavored deputies in groups thus employing physical intimidation. This conduct is characteristic of gang activity. Like other Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, the Banditos exert control by forcing disfavored, non-Bandito deputies to transfer to other stations.
Another witness who insisted upon anonymity described how a training officer humiliated trainees, especially women, at the East L.A. Station. Those efforts included name calling and tossing the trainees’ written work product to the ground with the goal of embarrassing and ostracizing the trainee before peers. According to this witness, the training officer who engaged in such unprofessional, intimidating conduct was a Bandito. The witness was certain that the Bandito’s control of the station was widely known. He stated that Deputy Valdez was the shot caller at East L.A. at the time and that he arranged the deputies’ schedules. As noted, Deputy Valdez was widely known to be a Bandito.
The witness also described a practice of ostracism at the East L.A. Station. When the witness walked into the station the deputies would turn their backs as the witness walked down the hall. The witness explained that Banditos “stepped on the radio” i.e., interfered with the ability to communicate from the patrol car by speaking over the deputy while the witness spoke. The Banditos persistently criticized the witness for a “culture violation.”
The witness reported a refusal to provide requested back up. A specific incident
21 involved a report of a person with a gun in a dangerous part of Boyle Heights. Because of the danger of a night call in that area the witness requested back up, but it was not forthcoming, and the witness abandoned the call. The proffered excuse that the deputies all were “busy” was proved false by review of time records.
A training officer at the East L.A. Station required that trainees keep the car fully stocked with snacks and demanded “good imagination on reports.” That the witness understood meant to lie to justify the acts of the deputies. The witness was informed that the training officer was a tattooed Bandito. The stocking of the car was a form of the “tax” imposed by the Banditos. The trainee had to pay for all meals, drinks and anything else the training officer required.
The witness observed that the Department enabled the Banditos control of the station and that known Banditos received promotions under Sheriff Villanueva. The witness claimed that the Banditos brought gifts to the wife of Sheriff Villanueva to procure promotions or to retain power positions. It was widely believed, and confirmed in testimony by Eli Vera, that the Sheriff consulted his wife on promotions even though she held no official position in the LASD. The witness also claimed that the Homicide Bureau is filled with Banditos.
The witness learned that Banditos had to be Mexican American and that Central Americans could not become Banditos. Another witness confirmed that, with one exception, all Banditos were Hispanic males, and none were women.
Another witness who insisted upon anonymity observed that the Banditos also directed work slowdowns that resulted in increased response times to calls and for arrests to cease. The most recent slowdown occurred because the Banditos believed that the Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau had pursued too many disciplinary investigations of deputies.
22 The witness testified that there were between 12 to 15 Banditos currently in the East L.A. Station, and that they held positions as “acting” detectives and training officers. The witness testified that there were also “associate” deputies who wished to be initiated and were “chasing ink.” One incident that the witness regarded as “chasing ink” involved the transportation of a shooting victim to a hospital. The witness stated that the deputies went off route and assaulted the victim. Such conduct can only be viewed as the act of a gang member and its indisputable harm to the community.
In an interview, retired Chief Gooden recounted that during his year and a half at the East L.A. Station the dominant group was the “Cavemen.” He believes that the Banditos grew out of the Cavemen.
Chief Gooden was one of several witnesses who disputed former Sheriff Villanueva’s claim that he had transferred 36 members from East L.A. for misconduct at the station. The anonymous witness claimed that there were no involuntary transfers of Banditos. No transferees were “overnighted,” i.e., subject to immediate involuntary transfer. Rather the transfers reflected voluntary departures related to deputy requests, promotions, or retirements.
Retired Chief Eli Vera also refuted the former Sheriff’s claim. He agreed with the testimony of Captain Ernie Chavez in a civil deposition that the deputies were transferred from the East L.A. Station for non- disciplinary reasons. One witness said in an interview, however, that a number of the transferees were “whistle blowers” who had objected to the Banditos’ control of the station. The witness described them as “the resistance.”
Another witness who required anonymity described the witness’ tenure at East L.A. Station as one in which deputies who “speak like gangsters” surrounded the witness. The witness described the unprofessional language used on radios, including
23 the use of nicknames and derogatory statements. Further, the witness reported that because the Banditos mistrusted the witness, they would not allow the witness to enter a house when they conducted a search. The witness said that contrary to Department policy, the fact and results of such searches were often undocumented.
The witness also experienced that calls for back up by disfavored deputies were not heeded. Such failures to provide requested back up imperiled the safety of these deputies. The civil case brought by the victims of the Banditos beating at Kennedy Hall included the deposition testimony of Deputy Concepcion Garcia, who witnessed calls for back up ignored by Banditos.
The anonymous witness had justifiable safety concerns. On one occasion, when the witness drove a personal vehicle from the East L.A. station, the witness observed that the lug nuts from the car wheels had been loosened. The witness said that to be part of the East L.A. anti-gang unit it was necessary to be an “inked” member of the Banditos.
The witness also confirmed the practice of a “tax” being levied by senior Banditos upon trainees to pay for food, “fund raising” and other financial demands of the Bandito training officers. The trainees who participated did so because of a fear that they would not get off training.
The witness also was supervised by, or worked with, “Cavemen” and “Regulators” They were Caucasian males in positions of authority. The witness stated that supervisors were well aware of the existence of these groups but did not act to interfere.
Another witness who spent nearly a decade in East L.A. and who also required anonymity for fear of physical retaliation, also described the Cavemen and the Banditos. The witness, said that the Banditos insisted that others “do what they want
24 you to do.” The witness also described the Banditos as “gangs behind the badge.” The witness says that everybody in the Department knows of the Banditos; their actions are not a “secret.”
This witness also confirmed that the Banditos imposed “taxes” on new deputies.
The witness was told by a Bandito training officer to “bring your credit card.” The witness was aware of the tattooed members of the Banditos and believed that there were as many as 80 Banditos during the witnesses’ tenure at East L.A. The witness said the Banditos would use force to discipline non-Banditos they did not like. This too is the behavior of a gang.
The Banditos exploited the junior deputies by, for example, requiring that they write reports for the Banditos and stay on uncompensated overtime if necessary to get the report done. The witness said that the Banditos recruited deputies to “chase ink”, i.e., to do what was necessary to be noticed and “stand apart.” That included writing reports to make problematic arrests appear legal. (Another anonymous witness described this practice as “working backwards.”)
An aspect of “chasing ink” was a desire to get into shootings. These deputies would follow a suspect believed to have a gun so that a shooting would be justified.
The witness said that there was pressure to “get numbers up” from time to time, meaning arrests. The witness was instructed by Banditos that they could always get somebody arrested as “under the influence” and “refused to take a test.” The goal was to raise arrest numbers.
Another witness, now retired after 24 years in the Department, was a training officer in East L.A. The witness ran afoul of the scheduling sergeant, Patty Estrada. The witness described Estrada as a female associate of the Banditos who did their bidding and conveyed favors and punishments on their behalf. The witness had a trainee
25 “pulled” by Estrada and observed that the trainee was assigned to a Bandito training officer.
Another witness testified anonymously about working at the East L.A. station.
Although warned that East L.A. was a difficult place to work due to harassment and hazing, the witness chose to work there anyway and was subjected to this conduct.
Like others, the witness affirmed that the Banditos were an open and notorious gang within the East LA Station. The witness believed that it was appropriate to refer to the Banditos as a “gang” that manifested its power by recruiting desired deputies and isolating others. Having become disfavored, the witness experienced, as did others, dispatch sending the witness a high volume of calls throughout the patrol area.
Additionally, when the witness called for backup, it would not arrive. The witness believed that the inability to receive back up when performing services increased considerably the risks of the work.
The witness was aware of “cigar night.” Those were evenings when female deputies would act to raise funds at Bandito “events” by circulating among deputies who were drinking and playing cards and selling cigars to those in attendance for support of other Bandito “sponsored” events. The witness described these cigar selling efforts as done upon the demand of the Banditos. The witness acknowledged that deputies were pressured to give money upon a Bandito solicitation. That trainees were “taxed” was well known in the station and in the Department more generally.
Gooden stated that when Sheriff McDonnell assumed office, he barred the East L.A. Station “Fort Apache kick in the pants logo.” Gooden regarded the logo as unprofessional and insulting to the East L.A. community. Gooden observed that the logo was reintroduced when Sheriff Villanueva assumed office.
26 3. Lennox Station (Now South L.A. Station)
Recently released shocking body camera footage shows South L.A. Station deputy Justin Sabatine repeatedly threatening to shoot an African American civilian sitting in his car in a parking lot. Several witnesses, including two current Department captains, have asserted that Sabatine was a member of a Deputy Clique. One captain believed that Sabatine was a Reaper. A public report based upon an anonymous source also claimed Sabatine is a Reaper. A second captain believed that Sabatine may not be a Reaper, but rather a member of a newly formed Deputy Clique in the South L.A.
Station. A captain reported learning that Sabatine threatened that there would be a work slow-down in South L.A. if the body camera footage was released.
As proof of the consequences to the Department and the County of gang like activities, the County has already been sued based upon Sabatine’s conduct. The Complaint demands $10,000,000. The County likely will engage outside counsel to represent the County and Sabatine.
The type of conduct revealed in the Sabatine body camera footage is consistent with a lengthy history of gang behavior at South L.A. Station. A current deputy who has served in the Department for more than 25 years insisted on anonymity for fear of physical retaliation. The witness described the activities of the group of deputies known as the Reapers at Lennox Station (now the South L.A. Station.) The witness saw the tattoos of the members, all of whom were Caucasian males. The witness observed that the Reapers now consist primarily of Hispanic deputies.
The witness stated that Reapers were involved in multiple shootings. The witness recounted a conversation in which the witness was criticized after the witness confronted two African Americans, a male and female, one of whom had a gun. The witness apprehended the suspects without firing a weapon. Later a Reaper criticized
27 the witness, and asked “why did you not shoot her?” The Reaper described it as a “freebie.”
According to the witness, another Reaper encouraged the witness to seek a warrant when there was no basis to do so. The witness declined and believes that this was a source of the mistrust of the witness among certain deputies.
A former deputy who served in the South L.A. Station described Carl Mandoyan as the shot caller at the station at the time. The witness claimed that it was widely known in the Department that Mandoyan was a Reaper. As in other stations, the witness noted that unpopular directives were “pushed back” against by work slowdowns. Some of the friction was with a captain who was acting in accordance with a directive from Sheriff McDonnell to “crackdown” on deputy misconduct.
The witness reported that to get into the Reapers one needed to have a “force incident” and look for an opportunity to shoot people. The other condition was that you “not be a rat.”
The witness’s experiences as a non-Reaper included being “slammed on calls.” The dispatcher repeatedly instructed the witness to answer calls for which other deputies refused to provide back up the witness requested. The witness described one incident in which the witness made a traffic stop and asked for a unit to back up. None came and the suspect ran away.
Another deputy who required anonymity described an incident at the beginning of the witness’s career in patrol. The witness pulled over a suspect who was apparently intoxicated and “out of it”. The witness said that the suspect appeared unaware that there was a gun on the passenger side front seat, did not reach for the gun, and did not resist arrest. When reporting the incident and booking the gun a Reaper ridiculed the witness for not shooting the suspect and claiming that he had “reached” for the
28 weapon.
Captain Angela Walton testified that in her 27 years of service there have always been Deputy Cliques in the Department and that they continue to exist to this day.
Walton described her experience at Lennox Station at the beginning of her career when the Reapers were a well-recognized presence in the station. She identified Larry Del Mese, who later became Sheriff Villanueva’s first Chief of Staff, as the “shot caller” at Lennox.
Walton observed that the Reapers were running the Lennox Station, particularly the early morning shift. After Walton obtained a position as a training officer on an interim basis, she was driven to a golf course and told by a deputy Reaper “we don’t like you.”
Walton testified that the Reapers set out to make her fail as a training officer.
She recalled, for example, a trainee who was a father. Walton allowed the trainee to call his children to say good night. The Reapers roundly criticized her for that accommodation and for allowing her trainee to eat lunch.
Walton described an attempt to intimidate her by posting her business card on a bulletin board at the station with a large “X” drawn through it. Further attempts at intimidation were frequent service calls from a Reaper in charge of dispatch. Walton said that the volume of calls alone adversely affected her ability to perform her job.
Walton experienced the scope of the Reapers influence when she delivered a prisoner to the Compton Station. While in Compton, Walton encountered a former colleague, and engaged in social “catch up” conversation. Walton’s brief delay from work for this social purpose was relayed by a Reaper who worked at Compton to a Reaper who worked at Lennox. According to Walton, her conversation with a former colleague demonstrated that the Reaper influence was not confined to a single station,
29 and it was used as a basis for criticism of her by the Reapers as part of their attempt to drive her from the station. When Walton sought a position at the Lancaster Station, she realized that she had a “jacket;” i.e., a negative reputation spread by the Reapers which included this supposed transgression.
4. Century Station
Retired Chief Gooden, who had more than 25 years of service in the Department, described how Century Station essentially operated on its own, apart from the Department’s command structure. He heard from deputies that if there were “problems” that the deputies would “handle that” and there was to be no involvement of the operations leadership of the station.
Chief Gooden recounted that during his tenure at MCJ the “2000 boys and 3000 boys” staged gladiator fights between jail inmates. Another witness stated that the 2000 boys were “heavy-handed white guys” who encouraged the use of force in large numbers at MCJ and eventually transferred to Century Station.
Chief Gooden also testified about the Department employees’ fear of retaliation should they speak out. He recounted female custody assistants explaining their concern to him in connection with deputy misconduct in MCJ.
When Gooden became a captain at Century Station he was concerned about the history of problems associated with the station. He learned that deputies were involved in personnel decisions, including determining who would receive the coveted position of training officer.
There were two problematic groups of deputies at Century Station at the time.
One was the Regulators. The other was the Spartans. Gooden described the competition for control of the station between them and recounted how there was even a dispute over one group taking and refusing to allow the other group to use a
30 station canopy for an event.
A witness requiring anonymity who worked at Century Station for approximately a decade said that the Regulators and Spartans were actively engaged in misconduct.
The witness said that the Regulators’ shot caller was the scheduling deputy. The witness claimed that Commander Kerry Carter and then Chief April Tardy knew of the presence and activities of the Regulators at the station. According to retired Assistant Sheriff Robert Olmstead, the entire Department leadership knew about the Regulators because the Regulators installed a large monument honoring themselves on the premises of the Century Station that remained in place for several years.
The anonymous witness described a Regulator sponsored fundraising poker game to support the Baker to Vegas run. The Regulators used female deputies as “cocktail waitresses” at the event. The female deputies received personal and administrative days off so they could work at the poker game. The witness reported that the Spartans were angered by the event and sought an equal amount of time off.
A Spartan left a threatening note under the door of the captain who denied the request.
The COC reviewed the content of a March 16, 2015, anonymous letter to Sheriff McDonnell that claimed the Spartans’ tattoo “represents ‘putting in work,’ such as unjustified beatings, falsifying reports of beatings, gladiator fighting, and intimidating other employees or inmates who interfered.”
Another witness who insisted on anonymity for fear that the witness’ career would “be over” if the cooperation were revealed, stated that there was a “book” that the witness had reviewed that identified the name and the date each Regulator received a tattoo. The witness said that there were twenty-five identified members.
The book also recited the creed that reflected a commitment to “proactive policing.”
31 The witness described the creed as “propaganda.”
The witness also described the “tax” the witness was required to pay. For example, in connection with the Baker to Vegas run the witness was required by a training officer to pay more than $100 for a photograph of the 1960s “Rat Pack” celebrities.
The training officer mirrored the language of former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka by instructing the witness to “work the gray” and “work backwards,” which the witness was taught meant “fudging” probable cause. The witness used as an example the “teaching” that all searches in high crime areas are to be defined as with “consent.” The witness said that nobody in high crime areas ever consents. The witness said that the goal was to get arrest statistics. When the witness protested “working backwards,” the witness was described by the training officer as “a rat.” That reputation was spread through the station.
The witness said that with the passage of time the Department is filled with “gang” members, including members of the command staff. The witnesssaid that at least 15 of the 25 Regulators have been promoted. The witness asserted that many of the promotions resulted from Undersheriff Tanaka’s efforts to promote favored deputies.
The witness said that the influence of the Regulators affected the goals of young deputies. Because of the perception that the Regulators were in control, young deputies wished to “make their bones” to gain acceptance. The witness said that goal encouraged deputies to get into shootings to establish their “bona fides.” Special Counsel also received confidential information corroborating the assertion of multiple interviewed witnesses that tattooed Deputy Clique members currently hold important positions within the Department. Special Counsel was
32 informed that one specific area of influence is in the Civil Rights and Public Corruption section of the Department. Sheriff Luna has eliminated that section. It was that section which led a search of former Board of Supervisor’s member Sheila Kuehl and current COC member Patricia Giggans.
Chief Gooden recounted that Interim Sheriff John Scott ordered that the Deputy Clique logos be abandoned. Shortly thereafter, however, Gooden learned that there was offsite sale of clothing with the prohibited logos.
5. Lancaster and Palmdale Stations
Angela Walton described her experience with Lancaster Station over several years. She testified that when her Vice Squad participated in an undercover operation, they would not reveal to the Lancaster deputies or supervisors the operation for fear that the suspects would be tipped off. While not specifically tied to Deputy Clique activity, the testimony illustrated inter- Departmental mistrust related to the absence of chain-of-command organizational supervision and the perception that sub-groups had conflicted loyalties.
Walton applied to be the Captain at Lancaster. She was the only “full Captain” applying. Since Lancaster is a contract city, city officials interviewed her for the position. She met with the Vice-Mayor who told her that he had received negative information about her. Walton understood that there was a Reaper at Lancaster Station and that the “jacket” she had obtained almost two decades before prevented her from becoming Captain of Lancaster Station.
Two non-Caucasian witnesses claimed to have been subjected to serial harassment by training officers at Lancaster Station. All training officers are Caucasian.
One of the witnesses asserted that there were “bad stops” that led to searches, most often of people of color. The witness said that young deputies were pressured to write
33 reports of searches in “a certain way” to make the stops legally justifiable even though the reports contained false information. The witness said that the training officers insisted that certain reports be constructed either to conceal actions taken or to reflect things which did not occur. The witness has reported that these assertions are now the subject of an investigation by the Internal Affairs Bureau.
The witness’ statement was consistent with a report issued by the U.S.
Department of Justice in a June 28, 2013, finding that deputies in Lancaster and Palmdale “engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unlawful searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.” The Department of Justice went on to note that “Some Antelope Valley Deputies wear tattoos or share paraphernalia with an intimidating skull and snake symbol as a mark of affiliation with the Antelope Valley stations.”
In a deposition in a wrongful death case, Oleg Polissky, a Palmdale Station deputy, testified that he received a Cowboys tattoo and attended a celebration with at least twenty similarly tattooed deputies. A similar tattoo appeared on the leg of a former deputy who was shot by another deputy while on a camping trip. A photo of the victim’s leg was displayed at a Special Hearing of the COC. A witness who required anonymity was told that the shooting was in retaliation for an act objected to by the Cowboys. The retaliatory shooting of out of favor compatriots is classic criminal gang activity prosecuted regularly. Another witness with direct knowledge of the circumstances, and who was the source of the first witness’ knowledge of the shooting, declined to be interviewed.
6. Aero Bureau
Aero Bureau is responsible for the Department’s helicopters. It has a small
34 number of assigned deputies who have the necessary pilot skills and wear a helmet that has as its logo a chicken being choked. The group is widely referred to as the “Ghetto Birds.”
A witness interviewed by COC’s staff described systematic harassment by the three senior Caucasian deputies in the Aero Bureau. The witness described them as a “clique” and the three as “shot callers.” The witness said that there were no African Americans assigned to the Aero Bureau and that as far as the witness knew there had been only one African American ever assigned to the Bureau.
Another witness, a current deputy with 20 years of service who insisted upon anonymity for fear of retribution, confirmed that the Aero Bureau takes pride in the “Ghetto Bird” logo. The witness said that a leader of the Aero Bureau openly stated that he was a Viking and was a founder of the Regulators. Another leader is a tattooed member of the Spartans. The witness described the process of coordinated “humiliation” efforts directed by the shot callers to disfavored deputies. The shot callers encouraged the others at Aero Bureau to ignore disfavored deputies.
The witness described systematic and routine harassment that caused many new deputies to leave the Bureau. The witness observed the shot callers mocking the accent of a Hispanic deputy and said that disfavored deputies had their pictures placed and defaced on bathroom walls.
The action of a small, self-selected racially harmonious sub-group is consistent with evidence regarding how Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques acted in numerous stations throughout the Department. The use of racially charged and disparaging logos is also consistent with their problematic conduct. Such conduct is inconsistent with fundamental principles of professional policing.
35 C. Obstacles to Eliminating Deputy Cliques in the Department Among those who must participate in the solution to longstanding and widespread problem of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques in the Department are the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (“ALADS”) and County Counsel. Neither ALADS nor County Counsel have been helpful in the past.
1. ALADS
Most deputies who are members of ALADS are not tattooed members of a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique. According to the Rand Report as many as 15 to 20% of deputies belong to Deputy Cliques. ALADS should, accordingly, recognize that the elimination of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques is in the best interests of the vast majority of its members.
The Special Counsel’s investigation has revealed, however, numerous instances in which ALADS has protected Deputy Gang and Deputy Clique members. This has included protecting deputies who engaged in gang activities involving serious misconduct against other deputies who presumably are ALADS members. There is no dispute that pursuant to the Myers-Milias-Brown Act and the National Labor Relations Act, ALADS owes a duty of fair representation to all its members. Special Counsel believes, however, that ALADS can meet its obligations without condoning the existence of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, the harm they cause to the Department, or the attendant unprofessional conduct in which members of those groups engage.
ALADS has opposed efforts by the Department to require the disclosure of tattoos affiliated with Deputy Cliques. In one example, ALADS procured a legal opinion that the First Amendment prohibits the Department from barring deputies from having tattoos associated with these groups. That opinion, which is it at odds with the
36 applicable law discussed below, was provided to Sheriff Villanueva, who relied upon it to assert that he was constitutionally unable to restrain the use of tattoos by Deputy Cliques even if they constituted “police gangs” as defined by California Penal Code section 13670.
In a very recent example ALADS contacted a current captain who sent an email advising deputies at his station not to get Deputy Gang/Deputy Clique tattoos because it could hurt their careers. ALADS protested that advice and told the captain to cease and desist from advising deputies about tattoos. Such communication serves both to undermine the command structure of the Department and to normalize open display of Deputy Gang and Deputy Clique membership.
Steve Biagini, a retired 37-year veteran of the Department who served as Captain in the East L.A. station, observed that because of actions by ALADS and PPOA (Professional Peace Officers Association), the supervisor’s union, he could not question an incoming transferee’s “fitness” to serve at the East L.A. station. Rather, if the deputy was on an incoming transfer list, he had no discretion to refuse the transfer.
Similarly, he lacked the ability to transfer problematic deputies from the station.
Biagini blamed ALADS for this limitation on supervisorial discretion and the consequential harm to the Department of requiring unfit deputies to remain in stations where their problems arose.
Michael Gennaco, who was the head of the Office of Independent Review, described the institutional problems attributable to ALADS. He expects that ALADS will oppose more detailed and explicit training of deputies about the dangers of Deputy Clique affiliation, will oppose changes in the transfer and rotation system to reduce the influence of Deputy Cliques at stations and jails, and will not acknowledge the existence of problems associated with Deputy Cliques, notwithstanding the evidence
37 set forth above.
Gennaco used as an example ALADS’ involvement in the Quiet Canon episode, another fight among deputies, some of whom were ultimately terminated. Gennaco said that ALADS ostracized the whistle blowers but backed “to the hilt” the accused.
ALADS’s reaction to the Internal Affairs investigation of the Kennedy Hall incident involved a similar defense of the accused even though the victims were also deputies (and presumably ALADS members).
ALADS also created obstacles to Special Counsel’s investigation. Those include making a baseless contention that the COC has no subpoena power because the grant of that power by Measure R violates the deputies’ collective bargaining agreement with the County. Further ALADS has contacted witnesses subpoenaed by the COC and urged them to seek specific lawyers to assist the witnesses in avoiding testimony. A subpoenaed witness reported a specific direction to call a designated lawyer who would arrange for the witness not to testify.
It is imperative that ALADS supports the elimination of the Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques for the benefit of its members. The repeated gang style behavior of certain Deputy Cliques has led to enormous litigation costs borne, in part by ALADS, to the detriment of ALADS’ members, and significant harm to the Department’s reputation with the public. Each special hearing of the COC included multiple public witnesses calling out gang behavior by deputies and expressing a community fear and hatred of deputies simply because they were members of the Department. The level of anger and mistrust publicly expressed is the tip of a sizable iceberg in the community. Elimination of Deputy Gangs and Cliques is in the best interest of all Department members. The public enmity alone increases the risk of harm to deputies.
If only for reasons of their members safety, ALADS’ should be a leader in eliminating
38 Deputy Cliques and the Deputy Gangs that grow out of them.
2. County Counsel
County Counsel bears some responsibility for enabling Deputy Cliques. After the Kolts Commission issued the first report to publicly acknowledge the existence of Deputy Cliques in the Department in 1992, Judge Kolts recommended that the County establish a civilian oversight board to ensure the Sheriff implemented reforms aimed at reducing uses of force and eradicating Deputy Gangs. The County Counsel, however, issued an opinion advising that a civilian oversight board without the Sheriff’s agreement would violate state law. The Department leadership used this opinion to successfully oppose civilian oversight for many years. During this period without civilian oversight deputy gangs flourished.
The County Counsel has approved the use of County resources to pay by the hour litigation counsel to defend Deputy Gang and Deputy Clique members who have engaged in misconduct far outside the scope of their duties as deputies. Deputies who engaged in an after-hours beat downs of co-workers as an exercise of their power over other co- workers were not acting within the course and scope of their duty and yet they are supported in litigation by the County.
In connection with Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 18-CV-5838-PJW in a December 2022 “Summary of Corrective Action” an Assistant County Counsel addressing the beating and tasering by Deputies Aldama and Orrego of Sheldon Lockett alleged to have been motivated by the deputies involvement in the Executioners Deputy Gang wrote “to date, there is no information or evidence obtained through any Sheriff’s Department investigation to substantiate this claim[that the use of force by the deputies was motivated by their membership in the Executioners.]” In fact, as was revealed at the hearing, Aldama displayed his
39 Executioner tattoo at a deposition. The Court denied the County’s lawyer’s attempt to keep from the jury evidence of the tattoos of the deputies. The question of the relationship between the use of force, a claim ultimately settled by the County for more than two million dollars, and action in furtherance of gang membership surely was a reasonable inference to be drawn from the history of the Executioners and the disturbing facts that led to the multi-million dollar settlement.
It appears that County Counsel refused to accept the inference in light of the facts publicly known. For example, in the case of the shooting of Donta Taylor by the same deputies, Aldama admitted not only that he had an Executioner tattoo but that up to twenty other deputies had the same tattoo. The Taylor case settled for seven million dollars. It appears that notwithstanding almost ten million dollars in County paid settlements that the County Counsel refused to accept the inference widely drawn by the media and the community.
As Michael Gennaco has made clear, County Counsel has not supported meaningful risk management and other efforts to address the problem of Deputy Cliques on the front end; that is, working to root out the problems before they result in litigation as opposed to paying after-the-fact litigation costs, settlements, and adverse judgments. He recalled a handwritten document describing a Regulator tattoo, which stated that “if you kill add smoke” to the tattoo. Gennaco stated that County Counsel urged no action because of concern that the Department would be sued if it took action in response to the tattoo.
The COC believes that County Counsel is aware that former Sheriff Villanueva relied upon a withdrawn and legally erroneous 2014 opinion to claim that he could not end the tattooed Deputy Cliques. Despite the COC’s request, the COC has been informed that County Counsel has advised the Board of Supervisors not to release an
40 opinion that fully sustains the COC’s recommended policy change. By this simple act County Counsel gave cover to a regime that at minimum tolerated, if not rewarded Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
The conduct of County Counsel creates a reasonable inference that, whatever its intentions, by its actions and inactions it has not provided meaningful assistance to eliminating Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
3. Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office
The District Attorney’s Office has in many instances ignored deputies who participate in Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques and who engage in gang-related misconduct. The Justice System Integrity Division (JSID) of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office investigates alleged criminal misconduct by deputies, as well as all deputy involved shootings to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. In conducting its analyses, the JSID repeatedly refrains from pursuing evidence that a sheriff’s deputy accused of potential criminal activity or unconstitutional is affiliated with a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique. For example, JSID declined to file criminal charges against four alleged Banditos who severely beat other deputies at an offtraining party at Kennedy Hall. Despite substantial evidence that incident was, in effect, a “gang beat down,” the JSID discounted a gang-related motive, writing:
“Although there was some mention of a subculture of “Bandtios” existing at the ELA station, the Banditos was not a focus of this investigation nor were suspects identified as being part of this subculture.… At no point in this investigation did any witnesses indicate that the Banditos were equivalent to a gang or any type of criminal enterprise.”
The JSID memo is factually wrong—several witnesses interviewed in Special Counsel’s investigation have characterized the Banditos as a “gang”—and betrays a
41 reluctance to pursue any evidence of gang affiliation or a gang-related motive for alleged misconduct. As the Inspector General concluded in his October 2020 report, “Having received what appears to be a purposefully perfunctory investigation by ICIB (which did not gather evidence of the motive behind the alleged assault at Kennedy Hall) the LADA office did not request statements be taken from the uncooperative witnesses or compel a grand jury to compel statements.” The District Attorney’s Office also has failed to require the Department to disclose the identity of known Deputy Gang and Deputy Clique members who are to testify as prosecution witnesses in criminal trials. The District Attorney’s Office does not require Deputy District Attorneys to ask prosecution witnesses whether they belong to a Deputy Gang. The failure to obtain and to disclose potentially exonerating or impeaching testimony favorable to the defense raises significant constitutional issues under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S.83.
D. The Elimination of Deputy Cliques is Constitutionally Permissible Applicable law permits disciplinary actions, including termination, based upon a deputy’s joining or participating in an internal Deputy Clique. The overwhelming evidence presented at the public hearing, and developed in extensive interviews, demonstrates that Deputy Cliques encourage excessive force, undermine supervision, destroy public trust, are discriminatory, disruptive, and act contrary to fundamental principles of professional policing. With these elements Deputy Cliques are properly defined as gangs within the definition of Penal Code Section 13670. These characteristics make the elimination of the Deputy Cliques constitutionally permissible.
Indeed, they make the elimination of these Deputy Cliques and Deputy Gangs a constitutional imperative.
The activities of and dangers created by Deputy Cliques meet the balancing test
42 required to ban or limit membership in these groups. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) established the required “balancing” test. The Ninth Circuit applied the test in Hudson v. Craven, 403 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2005). The balance to be weighed is: “(1) [W]hether the speech that led to the adverse employment action [i.e., prohibiting Deputy Cliques] relates to a matter of ‘public concern’; and (2) whether, under a balancing test, the public employer can demonstrate that its legitimate interests outweigh the employee’s First Amendment rights.” Based upon the “public comment” at COC’s special hearings and COC regular meetings and the multiple public reports going back to the Kolts Commission in 1992, the existence and conduct of Deputy Cliques are plainly matters of “public concern.” The COC has heard moving statements by friends and family members of deceased or injured individuals impacted by the activities of Deputy Cliques. The treatment and gang activities of Deputy Clique members toward their brothers and sisters in uniform is a chilling statement of the paramount interest of the Department and the County in protecting its own employees and not tolerating persistent violations of law and fundamental principles of professional policing. The public is well advised to be “concerned” and to view the evidence of such misconduct directed toward fellow deputies and assume that they, as outsiders of the organization, can only expect worse treatment.
In Piscottano v. Murphy, 511 F. 3d. 247, 274-277 (2nd Cir. 2007), the court concluded that correctional officers’ membership in the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, an organization that had engaged in criminal activity, presented an issue of “public concern.” Here, both extensive law enforcement testimony and evidence and the public comments demonstrate that Deputy Clique membership is a matter of public concern. Accord, Godwin v. Rogue Valley Youth Corr. Facility 656 App’x 874, 875 (9th
43 Cir. 2016).
In the balancing of competing interests prong of the test, the employer needs to show that “the employee’s activity is disruptive to the internal operations of the governmental unit in question” and the disruption is significant enough so that it “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships…or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Melzer v. Bd. of Educ of City Sch. Dist. of City of New York, 336 F.3d 185, 197 (2nd Cir. 2003).
Courts have consistently found that a “law enforcement agency has a heightened need for order, loyalty, morale and harmony which affords a police department more latitude in responding to the speech of its officers than other government employers.” See e.g., Doggrell v. City of Anniston, Alabama, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1258 (N.D. Ala. 2017); Turner v. United States Capital Police, 34 F. Supp. 3d 124, 143 (D.D.C. 2014); McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1985) (Ku Klux Klan membership sufficient to terminate a Sheriff’s deputy.). Further, the efficiency, security, and integrity of the Department law enforcement function easily outweighs the “associational rights” of a Deputy Clique member.
In short, the applicable law establishes that, based upon the facts found by Special Counsel, and the evidence offered in public hearings conducted by the COC that the elimination of Deputy Cliques is well within the constitutional bounds of the Department. Not only is it permissible, but it is also a necessity.
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS SUMMARY
Special Counsel’s investigation of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques in the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department demonstrates that it is time to eradicate this 50-year plague upon the County of Los Angeles, its residents and the Department’s employees
44 who do not belong to, or wish to be associated with, the Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques. The fine distinction, if any, between “Deputy Gangs” and “Deputy Cliques” is not important. The evidence has shown that Deputy Cliques regularly devolve into discriminatory, exclusionary, and dangerous associations that challenge the core goals of law enforcement.
Accordingly, Special Counsel sets forth below recommendations to the COC to urge Sheriff Robert Luna to accomplish this goal. The COC should work with the Sheriff and the Department in facilitating enactment of the recommendations and monitoring the results.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELIMINATE DEPUTY GANGS AND CLIQUES On February 14, 2020, the COC passed a resolution recommending that the Department enact a policy “prohibiting joining and participation in deputy cliques.” A copy of the resolution and preamble is attached as Exhibit A.
The COC defined Deputy Cliques “as groups of Sheriff’s deputies within a particular patrol station, bureau or unit who self- associate as a subgroup to the exclusion of others in their station or unit.“ The term “Deputy Cliques” when used within the Department was intended to minimize the problem created by such groups.
The harmful effects of groups of deputies who self-associated and acted to exclude other deputies by identifying with symbols and names designed to separate themselves from the Department had a principal focus upon the harm caused to the Department and to excluded members. Special Counsel urges the COC to reiterate its request that the Sheriff enact a policy prohibiting deputies from joining, participating in or soliciting others to join a Deputy Clique.
However, Special Counsel urges the COC to go further. As expressed above, as defined in the COC proposal, the term “Deputy Cliques” encompasses subgroups that
45 engage in misconduct directed against the community such as excessive force and violations of constitutional rights. The factual investigation has revealed widespread, deliberate misconduct that at minimum violates fundamental principles of professional policing and in many cases appears to violate the law. The time has now come for a policy that expressly prohibits not just the internally harmful effects of Deputy Cliques, but the external, community harmful acts of Deputy Gangs. Such harmful acts include falsified police reports, unlawful searches and seizures, misuse and excessive use of force and discriminatory enforcement of law. Proof that the community, particularly the communities of color, are suffering because of gang behavior is epitomized in the recently released body-camera footage of Deputy Sabatine as he exercised his authority by pointing a gun at an African American man sitting in his parked car without any evidence of a crime.
Now is the time to eliminate all these problematic groups, Deputy Cliques and Deputy Gangs. The factual findings compel the COC to urge the Sheriff to adopt the following recommendations:
A. LEADERSHIP AND SUPERVISION
1. The Sheriff must clearly, promptly and unequivocally articulate his vision, policies, and objectives in addressing the problem of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, and their adverse effects on the community and the Department need to be eliminated. This is easier said than done, but it will never be done unless the Sheriff promptly announces that Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques will no longer be tolerated. He should make clear that this is a top priority, and he should state his intention to make this happen immediately. He must also promptly adopt policies calculated to achieve this goal and see that these policies are enforced.
46 2. Adopt a policy that clearly prohibits deputies from participating in Deputy Gangs, as defined in Penal Code Section 13670.
Special Counsel’s investigation has revealed that, despite 50 years of known Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques within the Department, these problematic groups continue to operate at several of the Department’s patrol stations, engage in gang like activities and no Sheriff has adopted a policy banning participation in such groups.
Moreover, the State legislature has mandated that every law enforcement agency in the State of California “shall maintain a policy that prohibits participation in law enforcement gangs and make violation of that policy grounds for termination.” PC Section 13670(b). Moreover, the legislature has defined the term “law enforcement gang.” The current Sheriff’s predecessor failed to implement a policy banning law enforcement gangs within the Department. Such a policy should be adopted without further delay.
3. Adopt a policy that prohibits deputies from joining, participating in and soliciting others to join Deputy Cliques.
Given the Department’s long history of exclusionary deputy subgroups, it will not be enough merely to prohibit participation in deputy or law enforcement “gangs.” Ending this problem requires a prohibition against joining and participating in Deputy Cliques. In April 2021, the COC proposed that the Department adopt a policy that prohibits deputies from joining, participating in, or soliciting others to join a Deputy Clique. The COC’s proposed policy was accompanied by a preamble that explained the need for such a policy and provided definition to the term Deputy Clique.
As noted above, Special Counsel urges that the Sheriff adopt the COC’s proposed policy. Violators of the policy would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. The indispensable element to ending this 50-year harm to the
47 Department and the public is adopting the recommended policy to send a strong message that belonging to a Deputy Clique is no longer going to be tolerated, that gang behaviors are a thing of the past and this Sheriff is fully committed to rid the Department of these groups.
All Deputy Gangs have sprung from Deputy Cliques, and the clique-culture is deeply embedded in the Department. This cancer in the Department must be excised.
4. The Sheriff should develop a departmentwide initiative to end Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
As noted above in the Factual Findings, Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques are secretive, exclusive, and often employ intimidating, unprofessional, or controversial graphics, including body tattoos. They diminish the public’s trust in the Department, undermine supervision and the chain of command, are detrimental to the morale of other Department members, and negatively impact the Department’s effectiveness and professionalism in executing its mission. The elimination of these groups requires buy-in at all levels of the Department. The Sheriff should announce a department-wide initiative banning Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. All executives, managers, and supervisors must be openly and unequivocally committed to conveying the Sheriff’s policy, and objectives to Department personnel. As the Rand study stated, “Culture eats policy.” The Sheriff’s leadership teammust change the culture of stations, jails, and other bureaus or units where these groups exist.
5. The Sheriff should seek the support of ALADS and PPOA, for his vision, policies and objectives regarding Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
ALADS and PPOA need to be part of the solution and recognize that the elimination of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques is in the overall best interests
48 of their members.
6. Any captain who is unable or unwilling to support the Sheriff’s policy without reservations should be subject to appropriate discipline ranging from transfer to a less critical position with little or no presence of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques to
termination for insubordination in the Sheriff’s considered judgment and pursuant to required due process.
7. The Department should consider assigning a senior captain and a newly promoted captain to larger, high activity stations to ensure maximum supervision and mentoring of lieutenants and sergeants while retaining full accountability within the paramilitary structure of the Department.
Although a single captain heads Sheriff’s patrol stations, there is a precedent for having two captains oversee a facility in the Custody Division. MCJ, Twin Towers Correctional Facility, and North County Correctional Facility all have two captain organizations—one for operations and one for administrative functions. Assigning two captains to larger, busier patrol stations, particularly those with a history of entrenched Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, will enhance the ability of captains to address the continuing problem of these groups and help ensure that such groups will not be formed in the future. If the Sheriff does not believe a two-captain approach is well advised, he should report his reasons to the COC.
49 B. POLICY AND TRAINING
1. As set forth in recommendations A (2) and A (3) above, the Sheriff should adopt and promptly implement a clear policy to address the need to eliminate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques and prohibit tattoos that depict violence which must be supported, and explained by the Sheriff’s leadership team.
As defined earlier in this Report, a Deputy Clique is an association of deputies within a station or unit that is secretive and invidiously exclusionary and often adopts images, including matching tattoos depicting violence or the use of deadly force. These sub-groups have been fairly and frequently defined as Deputy Gangs. As stated in Recommendations No. A (2) and A (3) above, the Sheriff should immediately bar all deputies from joining, participating in, or soliciting others to join Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. In addition to adopting this policy, the Sheriff should promulgate additional polices to help eradicate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, including a policy that prohibits new deputies hired after the date of the issuance of Recommendations A (2) and A (3) from having tattoos that depict violence, the use of deadly force or any iconography that might reasonably be found offensive to the public. Current Department members should also be prohibited from acquiring such tattoos after the date of the issuance of the policy. Any current Department member who acquired a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique tattoo prior to the adopting of the policy should be required to ensure that it is not visible while the member is on-duty, on Department or County property, or is representing the Department away from the workplace.
A review of stations and jails should be conducted to determine which facilities have unprofessional station/jail/bureau logos. Unit commanders should be
50 accountable for the removal of decals, flags, bumper stickers, decorations, or other depictions of unprofessional symbols inappropriate for representing Department units.
All managers and supervisors must be responsive to the existence of graphics or other symbols representing prohibited Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques or offensive station/jail/bureau logos such as “Ghetto Birds” or “Ft. Apache.” They should be removed, and misconduct investigations should be initiated to determine which personnel are responsible for such graphics or symbols if they reappear in the future.
2. The Department should investigate violations of the policy banning joining or participating in Deputy Gang and Deputy Cliques and refer violations for discipline.
A primary consequence of any violation of the Sheriff’s policies regarding Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques should be a misconduct investigation followed by appropriate discipline which should range from suspension through demotion to discharge consistent with due process. Department personnel should also be advised that the Department will enforce Penal Code Section 13670.
3. The Department’s leadership team should consistently and recurrently emphasize the adverse career consequences of creating or joining a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique.
Although this task belongs to personnel of every rank, the time commitment must increase with each successively lower rank. Notwithstanding the importance of a captain-level manager to set the tone for deputies, lieutenants and sergeants, lieutenants and sergeants spend the most time with deputies. They therefore must be most accountable for communicating to deputies under their supervision the adverse consequences of becoming involved with Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. Captains ultimately are responsible for and must be held accountable for the performance of
51 lieutenants and sergeants.
4. The Department must implement a procedure for notifying the District Attorney’s Office if a deputy testifying as a witness participates in a prohibited Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique.
Compliance with Federal and State law, including compliance with Brady v.
Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, requires the District Attorney’s Office to disclose if a deputy testifying as a prosecution witness participates in a prohibited Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique that might bear upon the witnesses’ credibility. The confidentiality of law enforcement personnel files does not relieve the prosecution of its constitutional obligation to disclose impeaching information for any deputy testifying as a prosecution witness. Sheriff Luna and his designees should consult with the District Attorney’s Office to devise an appropriate procedure for the Department to notify the District Attorney’s Office that a deputy is participating in a prohibited Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique so that prosecutors can make the required disclosures, if any, to the defense.
5. The Department should actively investigate violation of the policy prohibiting joining, participating in or soliciting deputies to join Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques
Sheriff Luna should remedy the Department’s longstanding failure to investigate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. After Recommendation No. 2, above is adopted, the Department should make reasonable efforts to learn whether deputies continue to participate in such groups, as the Department did in 1973 with the Little Red Devils and in 2013 with the Jump Out Boys.
52 6. The Department should train supervisors how to mentor deputies about the adverse consequences of involvement in Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
In 2016 the Department initiated a departmentwide mentoring program for deputy personnel named the “Sergeants’ Mentoring Initiative.” The objective of the program was to equip and inspire the sergeants to provide to their deputies meaningful, practical, recurrent mentoring about decision-making and conduct in law enforcement and custodial services. The program was designed to (1) emphasize the high aspirations associated with public safety services, (2) stress the importance and difficulty of the decisions required of peace officers, (3) acknowledge the temptations and pressures prevalent in law enforcement, and (4) enhance deputies’ capacity to apply foresight, perspective and wisdom to their decision- making and conduct.
7. The Department should implement a series of community meetings involving patrol station captains, commanders, and chiefs to ascertain the impact of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques on community relations.
The Department should implement at every station a Community Advisory Committee (“CAC”). The committees should consist of community members who have been vocal in their criticisms of law enforcement in addition to station “boosters” who volunteer formembership.
The periodic meetings should be attended by committee members, other members of the community, and station personnel, including the captain, dedicated lieutenant, sergeants, and special assignment and other deputies as necessary. These meetings constitute excellent forums for Department personnel to learn about community concerns. The topic of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques must be an
53 agenda item of these meetings.
C. RE-DEPLOYMENTS AND ROTATIONS
Special Counsel recognizes the complexity of the Department, as well as the difficulty of managing the second largest local law enforcement agency in the country, with its large geographical area, responsibilities for operating the largest county jail system and the largest local court system in America and its duty to police over four million residents.
Special Counsel also recognizes that re-deploying or transferring deputies who belong to a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique from one unit or patrol station to another has in certain circumstances resulted in moving but not necessarily solving the problem. The clearest illustration of this was the transfer of substantial numbers of deputies who were members of the 2000 and 3000 Boys to the same patrol stations they selected as their preferences, i.e., Compton and South L.A. Stations, respectively.
Nonetheless, the use of the Sheriff’s authority to re-deploy, transfer and rotate assignments is a valuable tool that can help eliminate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques within the Department and, importantly, preventing their formation and reemergence.
In interviewing non-Department law enforcement managers, as well as former Department leaders, Special Counsel recognizes that other law enforcement agencies use re-deployment and assignment rotation to minimize the risk of problematic officer or deputy groups forming in those agencies. It is an available and appealing strategy here. While not a panacea, it would provide an additional remedy and the mere announcement of the policy could serve a prophylactic effect.
Moreover, the evidence adduced demonstrates that the Department’s decentralized station-based structure has played a significant role in fostering Deputy
54 Gangs and Deputy Cliques. Deputies’ loyalties extend to the station rather than to the Department as a whole. Indeed, tattoos often are associated with the first or “home” station of the deputy.
At a minimum, the Sheriff should provide a report to the COC on his perception of the viability and likelihood of success of the rotational plan set forth below.
Special Counsel urges that the Sheriff implement the following recommendation for re-deployment and periodic rotations of deputies within patrol and custody:
1. The Sheriff should use his authority to re-deploy and rotate deputies based upon the needs of the Department for the Department to eliminate the formation and re-emergence of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
The Sheriff should consider making such re-deployments or transfers within a geographic patrol or custody division, where possible, to avoid undue hardships. The Sheriff should also consider rotating all patrol deputies (after completion of field training) no later than the end of their first year in patrol to another patrol station within the Division. The Sheriff should also consider rotating all patrol deputies in periodic rotations, no longer than every five years, or sooner, to another station. The CCJV recommended and the Department implemented frequent rotations of deputies within the facilities of the County Jails. The rotational policy played a role in breaking up of the 2000 and 3000 Boys and reducing excessive force in MCJ. The rotation of deputies serving in Custody divisions should continue.
To effectively use the Sheriff’s authority to re-deploy, Unit Commanders should take necessary actions to address the problem of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques under their commands, including recommending to their Chiefs transfers of problematic deputies. Captains must be focused upon the rotation options and actively
55 participate in informing Commanders and Chiefs of the utility and results of such transfers.
2. The Department should re-assess the dual career track for Custody/Court Services and provide a written report to the COC explaining what factors impede implementation.
Having more deputies in Custody or Court Services who want careers in those Divisions may allow other deputies to go directly to patrol from the academy or shorten the time that other deputies spend in Custody after the academy.
3. The Department should assess the feasibility of first assignments to patrol rather than jail facilities and provide a written report to the COC explaining what factors exist, if any, impede
implementation.
D. ACCOUNTABILITY
1. The Sheriff should ensure that senior executives and unit leaders, notably captains and commanders are implementing the Sheriff’s policy, vision and objectives regarding Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
A segment of the weekly Executive Planning Council meeting (Sheriff, Undersheriff, Assistant Sheriff, Division Chiefs and various staff members) should be devoted to discussion of the progress of the initiative to end Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. Identified obstacles should be remedied quickly.
2. The Office of Inspector General should monitor implementation of the policy banning, joining or participating in Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
Because of the imperative of implementing policies to eliminate Deputy Gangs
56 and Deputy Cliques, Special Counsel recommends that the COC request the Office of Inspector General to deploy its resources as additional “eyes and ears” to ensure the policy recommendations A (2) and A (3) are implemented fully and with alacrity.
3. Promotional considerations should include an evaluation of evidence that a member under consideration for a promotion is currently involved in a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique, including the nature and extent of the member’s involvement and whether it was before or after the date of the policy issued by the Sheriff.
Past administrations have promoted tattooed Deputy Gang members to the highest levels of leadership in the Department. Most notably, Sheriff Baca promoted Paul Tanaka, a tattooed Viking, to Undersheriff. More recently, Sheriff Villanueva promoted Timothy Murakami, a tattooed Caveman, to Undersheriff and Lawrence Del Mese, a tattooed Grim Reaper, to Chief of Staff.
Promoting Deputy Gang members into leadership positions reinforces the power of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques and undermines the ability of officials to implement reforms aimed at eliminating them within the Department. For example, former Undersheriff Tanaka’s recommendation encouraging investigative tactics “close to the line”and “in the gray area” became part of the Jump Out Boys creed.
Current or former Deputy Gang and Deputy Clique members in leadership positions will have difficulty enforcing new prohibitions against other deputies joining a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique because their own tattoos and past participation renders them vulnerable to accusations of, at minimum, hypocrisy. Former Chief of Staff Del Mese testified that he had his Reapers tattoos removed at about the same time as the former Sheriff appointed him Chief of Staff because he understood that the tattoo had come to be a “liability” and “a bad look.”
57 Consequently, the Department should inquire if a deputy under consideration for a promotion is or was Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique affiliated and must carefully evaluate the Department wide implications of promoting those who actively participated in such groups.
4. The Department should include a standard set of questions regarding a deputy’s current affiliations with Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques in the use of force review process and in administrative and internal criminal investigations.
This recommendation does not assume a per se causal connection between membership in a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique, or the fact that a deputy has a tattoo reflecting involvement in such a group, and unlawful use of force or misconduct. It is, however, important to recognize that the community widely assumes such a causal connection.
Members of communities policed by Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques widely infer a connection between such groups and excessive uses of force. The U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights report, the Loyola Report and the report of the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice noted that stations with active Deputy Gangs have significantly more deputy involved shootings than stations without Deputy Gangs, even when the overall crime rates in the station-districts are comparable.
The questions must enable an assessment of the possibility or likelihood of a connection, without any presumption. If there is evidence indicating even a possible connection between a deputy’s membership in a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique and a use of force incident or misconduct, investigative steps should be taken to determine the nature and extent of the connection. In any such cases, the Office of the Inspector General should be notified and asked to monitor the progress of the investigation.
58 5. The Department should ensure that captains are notified of deputies involved in force incidents or personnel misconduct investigations who have affiliations with Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques, including tattoos associated with such groups.
The Department should codify this recommendation as a rule in the Department Manual of Policy and Procedures. The responsibility for making this notification will normally fall to an investigator at the captain’s own unit of assignment, or to an Internal Affairs Bureau or to Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau investigator.
However, anyone who obtains such knowledge must promptly notify the concerned captain, either directly or through the chain of command.
6. The Department should ensure that the CompStat process for risk management indicators regarding the existence of Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques within a patrol station or other Department unit is implemented and is effective in assessing the risk mitigation efforts of unit commanders.
The Department previously instituted a CompStat process, also referred to as the Sheriff’s Critical Issues Forum (SCIF). The Department initially used it primarily in patrol divisions, but later extended to every division involved with large scale risk management issues. LAPD has successfully employed a CompStat process that allows measurable results. Such statistics driven analyses can assess unit commanders’ efforts to successfully manage their responsibilities. SCIF or other statistics driven analyses will assist in the responsible operating of the Department and provide another forum for evaluating progress on efforts to end Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. The Department should track force incidents by shifts or deputy partners, checking for, and assessing, patterns that may indicate the need for re-assignments, transfers or,
59 discipline.
The Department should implement a “performance mentoring” process, overseen by Risk Management Bureau (“RMB”). The object of the program should be to identify “at-risk” employees by means of the automated “early identification and intervention system”.
Active management will determine the cause and the means of rectifying patterns of problematic conduct. Where leadership perceives the behavior as curable and non-recurrent, a mentoring program specifically designed to help the employee avoid future misconduct should be enacted.
7. The Department must ensure that captains hold sergeants and lieutenants accountable for deputies under their supervision involved in Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
It is essential that captains and lieutenants back up sergeants who face insubordination from members of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. Fulfilling this recommendation is a fundamental duty of captain- and lieutenant-level managers.
They must assess lower ranking managers and supervisors as to their commitment to convey, support and enforce the Sheriff’s vision and intentions about Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques. Failure on the part of a captain to meet this obligation should be grounds for transfer or other appropriate employment action.
8. The Department must ensure that sergeants actively and recurrently mentor deputy personnel and enforcement of the policy prohibiting Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques.
For sergeants to succeed in conducting the policy prohibiting Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques they must be supported by the chain of command. The persistence of these groups is due in part to sergeants perceiving that higher ranking officers will not
60 support them. With that perception, much of the incentive for a sergeant to actively seek to eliminate such groups is removed. Creation and systematic use of a data base tracking the date, time, setting, duration, topics covered, personnel in attendance, and identity of mentor will allow assurance that the policy of the Sheriff is reenforced by those closest to the deputies who might consider participation in a Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique.
9. The Sheriff should flatten the chain of command by eliminating at least one layer of supervision between him and the captains running patrol stations.
As noted earlier in this Report, the Department’s decentralized station- based structure has played a significant role in fostering Deputy Gangs and Deputy Clique.
Deputies’ loyalties are extended to the station rather than to the institution of the Department as a whole.
Despite some Sheriffs’ prior efforts to eradicate Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques some patrol station captains where these groups have flourished have found it easier to do nothing than take them on. The COC interviewed several captains of stations with widely known, active Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques who professed to know nothing about them despite extensive media coverage of scandals and widespread awareness of deputies of their presence. Because of the relative ease of the “do nothing” choice, information has not consistently flowed up to Commanders, Chiefs, and Assistant Sheriffs. That must change. Shortening the chain of command will assist the Sheriff in seeing that his policies will be enforced.
Currently, there are six layers of reporting from a Captain of a Patrol Station to the Sheriff (Captain to a Commander to a Chief to an Assistant Sheriff to the Undersheriff to the Sheriff). This top-heavy structure has led to a level of autonomy at
61 certain patrol stations that has contributed to the continuation of these groups. Some have equated patrol stations to functioning more like fiefdoms than integral parts of a command structure where policy is implemented throughout the Department.
This level of autonomy would be ameliorated by a shorter chain of command which the Sheriff could accomplish in a number of ways. At a minimum, the Assistant Sheriff for Patrol Operations should be a direct report to the Sheriff.
10. The prohibition against joining or participating in Deputy Gangs or Cliques should be a condition of employment.
Once the Sheriff adopts Recommendation No. 2, above, non-participation in Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques should be an express condition of employment. Such a condition will make clear from inception what will not be tolerated by the Department.
VI. CONCLUSION
Special Counsel respectfully urges the COC to consider the factual findings and recommendations in this report and to deliver the report to Sheriff Luna for his consideration.
There can be no doubt that Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques have been, and still are, responsible for undermining discipline, morale, and safety of the public and Department personnel. Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques, as the seed from which Deputy Gangs grow, must be eliminated. Sheriff Luna has an opportunity to set the Department on the right path in the best interests of the Department and the community. Special Counsel recommends that the COC adopt the Report and Recommendations and deliver it to the Sheriff.
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
From: Chris Constantin, City Manager
Prepared by: Debra Black, City Clerk
Subject: Consideration, Review and Direction on Amendments to the City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
The City Council requested staff bring back the Boards, Commission, and Committee Handbook with the revisions discussed by Council at the February 4, 2023, Study Session for discussion and adoption. At the March 14, 2023, Regular Meeting the item was continued to a future date for more discussion.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff request the City Council:
• Adopt Resolution 2023-14 approving the proposed revisions and updates to the BCC’s Handbook identified at the February 4, 2023, Study Session.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action.
BACKGROUND
On March 30th and April 13th, 2021, the City Council met to propose revisions to the Handbook. City staff utilized the discussion to formulate language changes to the Handbook. During the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting, the complete Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook was approved with revisions and set in place a practice for annual reviews.
At the February 22, 2022, City Council meeting, Council requested staff bring back a discussion of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook now that the City of San Dimas was moving from at-large to district elections. Additionally, Councilmembers requested that City staff
City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook Page 2 For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
conduct a survey of other jurisdictions to ascertain how other cities make appointments to commissions. The item was agendized for the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting where Councilmembers Vienna and Bertone requested the item be tabled while the City completed the districts transition after the election.
On February 4, 2023, the City Council met to review proposed changes. The agreed upon changes can be found in (Attachment 1) of this staff report. During the discussion on February 4, 2023, Council agreed to provide an opportunity for the Chairs of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Senior Commission to weigh in on the composition of the BCC’s. Any changes as a result of the information provided by the Commission Chairs can be incorporated to the proposed BCC Handbook at Council direction.
At a March 14, 2023, Study Session, Council discussed consideration of merging the Development Plan and Review Board (DPRB) into the Planning Commission and delayed the discussion on establishing an Arts & Culture Commission. Staff will provide a report at the June 27th, 2023, meeting for discussion on the DPRB and Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to adopt revisions to the BCC Handbook that were discussed and agreed upon at the February 4, 2023, meeting. At this meeting, the Council discussed the implications of moving to District based nominations and appointments.
Below are a few details that were considered for the discussion on the nominations/appointments process:
1. Cities that have moved to district-based nomination/appointments have populations that are two to four times larger than San Dimas, and have larger resident pools to pull from for qualified candidates,
2. How would the City respond to ensure all commission positions are filled, with smaller candidate pools?
3. What role does the entire Council have in selecting, interviewing, and approving a commissioner candidate?
As specified in the attachments, there were a number of changes recommended to the BCC Handbook which included:
Equestrian, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, Senior Commission, Planning Commissions composition changed to five members.
Section II B - Add City Manager is an ex officio member of all Commissions, Committee or Boards created by the City Council or established by state law, with the right to participate in all deliberations or actions by such Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section II B - changed staff liaison from Assistant City Manager to Director of Parks and Recreation
Section II B - to five Commissioners with non-voting Youth Commissioner Section II B - deleted Youth Commissioner language
Section II E - added designee
Section II F - update to five members
City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook Page 3 For the Meeting of June 13, 2023
Section IV A - changed to include nominations from each Councilmember Section IV A - added voter registration requirement
Section IV B - changed terms of office to two full terms for all Commissions, Committees or Boards
Section IV B - added term language for DPRB
Section IV D - Appointment of Employee’s Relative added parent Section IV G - updated title to Resignation and Removal Section IV G - added vote requirement for removal
Section IV H - changed unexcused absences to two
Section IV H - added attendance report requirement
Section IV J - added must be included in budget and pre-approved Section IV K - added AB1234 and AB1661 language
Section IV L - updated to Rosenberg’s Rules
Section V K - deleted requirement to have attended meeting to approve minutes
Section V K - added except for clerical errors
Section VI B - deleted Councilmember Liaison
Section VI B - added requirement for Chairs to present an annual report to City Council
Section VII B - added language public not required to identify themselves At the conclusion of the February 4, 2023, meeting, Council directed staff to bring the revised BCC Handbook back to Council for adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Constantin Debra Black
City Manager City Clerk
Attachments:
1. Current Handbook with Suggested Revisions
2. Resolution 2023-14
Revision 4 1 March 2023
COMMISSIONERS HANDBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 41
PURPOSE OF COMMISSIONS 41
SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT SAN DIMAS 63
A. HISTORY OF SAN DIMAS 63
B. THE CITY’S MISSION STATEMENT 74
SECTION II: CITY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 5
A. CITY COUNCIL 5
B. CITY MANAGER 5
C. CITY ATTORNEY 5
D. CITY CLERK 5
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CITY TREASURER 96 F. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND 96
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
G. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 96
H. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 107
I. PUBLIC SAFETY 10
SECTION III: COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES AND BOARDS 118
A. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW BOARD 119
B. EQUESTRIAN COMMISSION 129
C. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 129
D. PLANNING COMMISSION 1210
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION 1310
F. SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION 1310
G. GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1311
SECTION IV: PERTINENT INFORMATION 152
A. NOMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS 1512
B. TERM OF OFFICE 1612
C. APPOINTMENT OR ELIGIBLITY OF FORMER EMPLOYEEES 1713
D. APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEE’S RELATIVE 1713
E. APPOINTMENT OF RELATIVES OF CITY COUNCIL OR CITY
MANAGER
1713
F. COMMISSION SEEKING PERSONAL INTEREST OR BENEFIT 1814 G. RESIGNATION 1814
H. ATTENDANCE 1814
I. BENEFITS 1814
J. INCIDENTAL EXPENSES 1814
K. ETHICS TRAINING 1915
L. ROSENBERG’S RULES 19
ATTACHMENT 1
Revision 4 2 March 2023
SECTION V: OPERATING PROCEDURES 2116
A. REGULAR MEETINGS 2116
B. ADJOURNED MEETINGS 2116
C. SPECIAL MEETINGS 2116
D. QUORUM 2116
E. RALPH M. BROWN ACT 2116
F. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING 2217
G. HEARING PROCEDURES 2217
H. MOTIONS 2318
I. ADJOURNMENT 2419
J. AGENDA 2419
K. MINUTES 2419
L. AGENDA PACKETS 2520
M. POLITICAL REFORM ACT 2520
N. CITY OF SAN DIMAS MUNICIPAL CODE 2520
O. AREA OF INTEREST 2520
P. SUB-COMMITTEES 2621
Q. ROLE OF CHAIR 2621
SECTION VI: RELATIONSHIPS 2722
A. INTERACTION WITH STAFF 2722
B. INTERACTION WITH CITY COUNCIL 2823
C. INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC 2823
SECTION VII: COMMISSION EFFECTIVENESS 3025
A. FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIORS 3025
B. EFFECTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 3126
SECTION VIII: APPROVALS AND MODIFICATIONS 3328
CONCLUSION 28
APPENDIX 3429
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REVIEW BOARD
EQUESTRIAN COMMISSION
GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
PARKS AND RECREATION
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION
ROSENBERG’S RULES OF ORDER
ROSENBERG’S RULES OF ORDER RALPH M. BROWN ACT
RALPH M. BROWN ACTREVISIONS
Revision 4 3 March 2023
INTRODUCTION
The quality of life and public safety is a major interest of San Dimas residents and the City Council. Commissioners provide an invaluable service in achieving a comfortable and safe community. Your advice will be welcomed by the City Council, City Manager and the director of the departmentdepartment director with which you are affiliated.
The Commission Handbook has been prepared to aid in orienting you to the functions and activities of the advisory position to which you have been appointed. The handbook is designed to contribute to your general knowledge and understanding of public affairs and to aid you in fulfilling your commission responsibilities.
A Commission, Board or standing Committee is established by ordinance or resolution to serve as an on-going advisory group to facilitate public input and citizen participation in the operations of the City. The City Council has the final decisionmaking authority on any most issues dealing with service delivery and the expenditure of city funds.
Appointment to a Commission, Committee, or Board is a privilege and an honor which signifies the City Council’s confidence in your desire to participate and serve. It demonstrates the Council’s desire to have the benefit of your guidance and participation in the discussion of City operationsmatters that impact the quality of life and operations of the City.
As a member of one of the City’s Commissions, Committees or Boards you will focus upon community needs that require your understanding, dedication, enthusiasm, vision, and experience.
As an advisor to the City Council, you must be continually aware that the decisions formed by that body, even after receiving and evaluating your recommendations, are not easily made. The Council has the ultimate political and legal responsibility for the conduct of local government and the welfare ofthe entire community. Yours is an important role in assisting the City Council to fulfill its obligations to our citizens.
Participation on a Commission or Committee can be a satisfying and challenging experience, as well as a responsibility. It provides an opportunity to become intimately aware of the operating policies and issues of municipal government in general, and of a specific departmental unit, and programmatic areas within the purview of your respective Commission, Committee, or Board. It personifies citizens’ participation in their community. It gives you an opportunity to play a vital role in the communication process between citizen and elected representatives.
A challenging and meaningful experience awaits you! Immediate satisfaction should come from the sense of a coordinated effort in sharing your thoughts and
PURPOSE OF COMMISSIONS
Revision 4 4 March 2023
insights with those of your fellow commissioners as you deal with a variety of conditions, issues, and situations in our City.
Even more rewarding, satisfactions will come as you learn more of the City operations, its of the City’s responsibilities, and how to be an effective participant in your city government. It must be recognized that not all of the recommendations made by the advisory Commissions, Committees, or Boards will be accepted. Recommendations are generally advisory, and Ddeclining the Commission’s advice in a given situation does not imply lack of confidence or disinterest in the advisory bodies’ decisions. Those receiving the advice must weigh it against other information and considerations as they reach the decisions for which they are ultimately responsible.
Revision 4 5 March 2023
SECTION I
A. HISTORY OF SAN DIMAS
The City of San Dimas is a general law city incorporated on August 4, 1960, located approximately 30 miles east of Los Angeles. The city has a four-member City Council and Mayor elected by direct vote of the people. The City is approximately 15 square miles in area with a population of approximately 36,000. The City has a CouncilManager form of government.
San Dimas is a community whose historical roots go deep into the nineteenth century.
The first Americans arriving in the locality presently known as San Dimas were a band of explorers headed by Jedediah Strong Smith who camped at a cienega, later called Mud Springs, in 1826. In 1837, two Spanish Dons, Ignacio Palomares and Ricardo Vejar, came into these vast semi-arid and wilderness pastures. Their immense land grant was christened Rancho San Jose and was range for great herds of cattle.
Outlaws operating from inaccessible haunts in a canyon often made raids on these cattle, and Palomares, expressing his anger, referred to the outlaws as Dismas, the repentant thief on the cross. The Don’s allusion suggested a name for the canyon – “San Dimas Canyon.” The City of San Dimas assumed its name from the canyon.
Since its incorporation in 1960, the thoughtful and steady growth of San Dimas has transformed the City from an essentially rural to a well-balanced community offering industrial, commercial, and residential living.
An abundance of recreational facilities, including the 2,500-acre Frank G. Bonelli recreational area which lies within city boundaries, popular San Dimas Canyon Park, and nine neighborhood parks are available to citizens of San Dimas. City services are provided on an economical yet highly efficient basis. In addition, the school district is effectively working on the dual challenges of providing first-class education today, while laying the foundations for tomorrow’s ever-increasing educational demands.
An impressive, state-of-the-art civic center houses all departments of city services, as well as providing meeting rooms for various community activities. The San Dimas Civic Center includes the City Hall, Stanley Plummer Community Building, the Senior Citizen/Community Center, and the Los Angeles County regional library. The expanded civic center includes a post office, Sheriff’s Station, Fire Station and City Maintenance Yard.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT SAN DIMAS
Revision 4 6 March 2023
B. THE CITY’S MISSION STATEMENT
In December, 1986, the City Council adopted a Mission Statement which guides and directs the policies of the City Council and day-to-day operations of City employees.
The City of San Dimas is committed to excellence in the planning of the community with due consideration for the physical and social environment. The City Council and all city employees are committed to well-maintained facilities and to being responsive to the needs of residents by
providing necessary programs.
The City recognizes that its function is to serve the San Dimas residents and businesses and to address their
concerns in a cooperative and courteous manner. San
Dimas acknowledges that the community has a character
which is enhanced by the preservation of its history,
historical buildings, and terrain. The City serves as a resource giving all people a sense of belonging to the City through programs, organizations, and activities.
Revision 4 7 March 2023
SECTION II
A. CITY COUNCIL
The residents elect four of their fellow citizens to the City Council for overlapping fouryear terms. The Mayor is directly elected for a two-year term. The Mayor presides at the City Council meetings and has one vote in the Council, the same as the other four members.
The City Council is the legislative body that makes all policy determinations for the City through the enactment of ordinances and resolutions. The City Council also adopts an annual budget to determine how the City will obtain and spend its funds; appoints all members to advisory boards and committees; the Mayor and Councilmembers represent the City on public and ceremonial occasions; and members carry out a great variety of other municipal responsibilities.
The City Council meets the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Council meetings are broadcast live and re-broadcast on KWST, Channel 3. They are also available on KWST Video on Demand library, Live Streaming and On-Demand Internet Streaming.
B. CITY MANAGER
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council and is the chief administrative officer of the City. It is the City Manager’s responsibility to manage, direct, and coordinate the municipal services and business affairs of the City. The City Manager is responsible for the enforcement of all ordinances passed by the City Council and directs the various departments in the execution of Council policies. In order to keep the Council advised of the needs of the City, the City Manager makes or initiates studies on a multitude of issues and presents to the City Council alternative recommendations and solutions.
The City Manager also is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the annual budget to the City Council for its review and adoption.
The City Manager is an ex officio non-voting member of all Commissions, Committees, or Boards created by the City Council or established by state law, with the right to participate in all deliberations or actions by such Commissions, Committees, or Boards.
C. CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney is appointed on a contract basis by the City Council. The City Attorney acts as legal advisor to the City Council, City Manager, the various City Departments and all City Commissions, Committees, and Boards. The City Attorney prepares and approves for legality all proposed city ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other legal documents.
D. CITY CLERK
The City Clerk is appointed by the City Manager. The City Clerk administers the cityGOVERNMENT AND STRUCTURE
Revision 4 8 March 2023
wide records management program and is responsible for the care and custody of all official records and documents of the City. Those records include all City and Agency deeds, contracts, leases, ordinances, resolutions, minutes, and the Municipal Code.
The office publishes public notices and ordinances as required by law and assists staff and public in researching information. The City Clerk manages public inquiries and relationships and arranges for ceremonial and official functions.
The City Clerk is the local official who administers democratic processes such as elections, access to city records, and all legislative actions ensuring transparency to the public. The City Clerk and City Attorney act as the compliance officers for federal, state, and local statutes including the Political Reform Act, the Brown Act, and the Public Records Act.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT & CITY TREASURER
Administrative Services includes Finance, Budget, Accounting, Human Resources, Information Technology, Franchise and Contract Management, Risk Management, Overnight Parking, Transportation, and Economic Development.
The City Treasurer is responsible for managing the City’s financial resources.
F. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
The Community Development Services Department includes: planning, building and safety and code enforcement. The Planning Division is responsible for long-term planning of the community, development review, subdivision review, and environmental review. The City Engineer provides civil engineering services for the City, such as reviewing proposed construction, drainage, and setting standards for infrastructure (e.g. streets and storm drains). The Building & Safety Division is responsible for administering and enforcing the Uniform Building Codes and the construction section of the San Dimas Municipal Code to ensure minimum standards to protect life and property through plan checks, permit issuance, and inspection. The goal of the City’s Code Enforcement program is to promote and maintain a quality living environment for residents. City Codes are developed to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The department also is involved in special projects, such as open space preservation.
G. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works is responsible for administering the City’s Public Works program and providing engineering functions. The Department is divided into two divisions: Engineering and Maintenance.
The Engineering Division is primarily responsible for the design, preparation and checking of plans for all facilities within streets’ rights-of-way, including those within private developments, and City-owned property. The Division prepares necessary plans, designs and specifications involving streets, storm drains, sewers, parks, and parkways.
The Maintenance Division maintains the cleanliness of all public streets, alleys, and Page 395 – 468 Revision 4 9 March 2023
storm drains, and is responsible for the maintenance and repair of City streets, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The Division is also responsible for the upkeep of City vehicles and equipment.
H. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
The Department is comprised of three divisions: Recreation Services, Landscape Maintenance, Community Forest, and Facilities Maintenance.
The Recreation Services activities include recreation classes for adults and children, adult and youth sports programs, teen and senior citizen programs, special events, and excursions. The City’s Swim and Racquet Club is the responsibility of this department, as is scheduling of the SportsPlex, a major athletic facility located at San Dimas High School.
The Facilities Maintenance Division cares for all city buildings, including routine custodial care and preventative maintenance as well as the scheduling and reservation of public rooms.
The Landscape Maintenance Division is responsible for the upkeep of all City parks, trees, parkways, medians, and grounds landscaping.
I. PUBLIC SAFETY
Law enforcement services are provided to the City of San Dimas by contract service with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. As a part of that service, the Sheriff’s Department maintains a station here in San Dimas, located at 270 S. Walnut Avenue.
Law enforcement services provide patrol operations, special assignment deputies, traffic enforcement, crime prevention activities, helicopter service, investigations, and jail operations. Additionally, the City has deployed Flock license plate reading cameras to leverage technology in protecting the community.
Fire services in the City of San Dimas are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department through its Fire District with dedicated property tax assessment. The Department provides full fire protection services including air and wildland fire support, emergency medical, and fire prevention. The Department also has countywide resources that may be called upon if needed.
Regional emergency planning and operations are performed by a regional arrangement with Area D Disaster Management. Area D provides coordination, training, and response assistance before, during, and after an emergency event or disaster. The City also created a Community Emergency Response Team with formal recognition as disaster service workers to support City efforts to prepare and respond to emergencies. The City maintains a Safety Element within its General Plan which supports the organization of residents to prepare for disasters.
Revision 4 10 March 2023
SECTION III
The City highly values the input and participation of its community members serving on a Commission, Committee, and Board, and it is beneficial to provide actionable input to the City Council and City staff. To this end, the scope of each Commission, Committee, and Board will be interpreted broadly, and the input, perspective, and recommendations of each Commission, Committee, and Board should be weighed and considered by the City Council and City staff.
The City Council is assisted by seven citizen advisory commissions, committees, and boards. These bodies are charged with the following responsibilities:
• Advise the City Council and City Manager on matters within their area of responsibility and interest, as prescribed by the City Council and its ordinances and resolutions.
• Help focus attention on specific issues and concerns within their scope of responsibilities and recommend actions and alternatives for Council consideration.
• Act as channels of communication and information between City government, the general public, and interest groups.
• Consider a variety of viewpoints and determine a consensus to provide direction toward achievement of citywide goals and objectives.
• Encourage broad citizen participation in the definition and formulation of City goals and actions for their achievements.
Each Commission shall have a nonvoting position for any interested student applicant who is a resident in the City of San Dimas staring at age 16 but under the age of 21. They will serve one-year term increments from date of appointment and will be selected by City Staff in collaboration with the local schools:
The Commissions, Committees, and Boards and their meeting schedules are as follows:
A. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW BOARD
The Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) reviews applications for site design, makes recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding the approval or disapproval of architectural elevation and conceptual landscaping plans for development projects and approves final working drawings consisting of site plans, elevations and various architectural drawings, and suggests modifications or imposes conditions in accordance with the standards set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (Title
COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
Revision 4 11 March 2023
18 beginning at Section 18.12.020). The Code charges the DPRB with ensuring that development preserves the rural character and natural beauty of the City and complies with the requirements of the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
DPRB also functions as the License and Permit Hearing Board of the City and has the power to grant all permits required by Chapters 5.28, 5.32, 5.36 and 5.68 of the Municipal Code and to revoke or suspend any permit or license granted by DPRB.
The DPRB includes four public members, including one Planning Commissioner, one member appointed by the Chamber of Commerce and two members appointed by the City Council. The other members of the Board are the City Manager, Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works or their designee. The staff liaison to the DPRB is the Senior Planner.
B. EQUESTRIAN COMMISSION
The Commission shall review and make recommendations to the City Council concerning issues that impact the equestrian community; reviews the City’s equestrian trail system and recommends improvements and new trails.
The Commission meets on the first Tuesday of odd months, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room.
The Commission shall consist of five members who will be appointed to two-year terms with a maximum length of service of three two full consecutive terms. The staff liaison to the Commission is the Assistant City ManagerDirector of Parks and Recreation..
C. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Commission reviews plans and programs relating to existing and new parks; and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the development of recreation activities within the community.
Commission meetings are held on the third Tuesday of odd months, at 6:00 p.m., in the Senior Citizen/Community Center meeting room.
The Commission consists of seven five Commissioners, six all of whom, who will be appointed to two-year terms with a maximum length of service of three two full consecutive terms.. The seventh commissioner will be a Youth Commissioner who serves one-year term increments. The Youth Commission will be selected by City staff in collaboration with local schools. The staff liaison to the Commission is the Director of Parks and Recreation.
D. PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission participates in the administration of the zoning laws and policies of the City. The Commission makes recommendations to the City Council regarding land use, zoning; reviews proposed development projects, and advises as to the overall development and maintenance of the General Plan of the City. The Commission also conducts necessary public hearings to administer the planning laws and policies of the City and acts on applications for zoning amendments, conditional Page 398 – 468 Revision 4 12 March 2023
use permits, variances, subdivisions, and other related functions as may be assigned by the Council. The Commission’s powers and duties are specifically enumerated in State planning law (Government Code Section 61500 et seq.) and in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 2.40).
There are five members of the Planning Commission who serve two-year terms with no maximum length of service. The regular public meetings of the Planning Commission are held the first and third Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The staff liaison to the Commission is the Director of Community Development.
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
The Commission receives presentations and updates on a variety of public safety topics offering their observations and thoughts; enlists and represents the community interest to support the work of law enforcement, crime prevention, and other public safety issues.
The Commission generally meets the third Tuesday of odd months, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room.
The Commission is composed of five members appointed by the City Council and two members that serve as members of the San Dimas Sheriff’s Station Civilian Advisory Board. Commissions are appointed to two-year terms with a maximum length of service of three two full consecutive terms, including appointees from the Civilian Advisory Board. The staff liaison to the Commission is the City Manager or designee.
F. SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION
The Commission shall review plans and programs for all activities relating to senior citizens; and make recommendations to the City Council on appropriate policies and programs to involve and to benefit senior citizens throughout the community.
The Commission meets the first Thursday of odd months of the year, at 6:00 p.m. in the Senior Citizen/Community Center meeting room.
The Commission shall consist of nine five members who shall be appointed to two-year terms with a maximum length of service of three two full consecutive terms. The staff liaison to the Commission is the Director of Parks and Recreation.
G. GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Committee receives presentations and updates regarding the operations of the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course. They may make recommendations to the City Council regarding the operation of the Golf Course and Clubhouse and coordinates with the lessee responses to customer complaints regarding the maintenance, condition, and operation of the golf course, as needed.
The Committee consists of three members of the Recreational Facilities Authority; two representing the City of San Dimas and one representing the City of La Verne and two Page 399 – 468 Revision 4 13 March 2023
public members appointed by the San Dimas City Council. At their discretion, the Cities may appoint an elected official or public member to serve as an alternate.
The two public members of the Committee shall be eligible to serve three two consecutive two-year terms, with reappointment to be confirmed by Council at the conclusion of each term.
The Committee meets quarterly, at the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course on the third Tuesday of January, April, July and October at 7:30 a.m. The staff liaisons to the Committee are the City Manager and the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Revision 4 14 March 2023
SECTION IV
A. NOMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
Applications for commission, committee, and board appointments must be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on the form established by the City Clerk. A separate application is required for each body to which the applicant is seeking appointment. Applications are maintained by the City Clerk’s office in an active status for beginning one yearthe calendar year in which they were submitted or the following calendar year if the application was received after November 1st, after which time they become inactive and new applications must be submitted if the applicant still wishes to be considered for appointment. Each application will be posted to the City’s website for public review.
Effective upon approval of this Handbook and expiring on September 1, 2023, all commission, committee, and Board appointments will end on August 31, 2023. All Commission, Committee, and Board appointments will be determined by a process identified by the City Council and provided as follows:.
1. For a commission, committee, and board whose membership includes five City Council appointed positions (Equestrian, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Public Safety, and Senior Citizen commissions), each member of the Council shall nominate an individual for appointment to each respective commission, committee, and board.
a. All appointments will be made at the 2nd City Council meeting in August, with a September 1st, effective date.
b. Applications will be submitted by potential appointees in the manner established in Section IV.A of this Handbook and the City Clerk. c. Applications will be listed in a City Council agenda packet as a nominated and to be appointed applicant. Applicants vital information will be redacted. d. Each respective City Councilmember making such a nomination will interview the applicant prior to consideration.
e. All appointments listed on a City Council agenda will be considered as one action and not separated. In the case a member of the City Council desires to remove an individual from appointment consideration, a member will motion for removal, second, and affirmative vote of the City Council with no less than three (3) votes. If Council rejects a Councilmembers 1st nomination a 4/5ths vote is needed to reject the second nomination or any subsequent nominations.
2. For all other commissions, committees, and boards whose membership does not include five City Council appointed positions (DPRB, Golf Course Advisory, or other commission, committee, and board not listed), each appointment shall be set as follows:
a. All appointments will be made at the 2nd City Council meeting in August with a September 1st effective date.
b. Applications will be submitted by potential appointees in the manner
COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
Revision 4 15 March 2023
established in Section IV.A of this Handbook and the City Clerk. c. The Mayor will interview each candidate and make a recommendation to the City Council for consideration for appointment, the application will be listed on a City Council agenda as a nominated and to be appointed applicant, and the recommendation will be presented to the City Council. Applicants vital information will be redacted.
d. All appointments listed on a City Council agenda will be considered as one action and not separated. In the case a member of the City Council desires to remove an individual from appointment consideration, a member will motion for removal, second, and affirmative vote of the City Council with no less than three (3) votes.
When a vacancy occurs, a notice shall be published and applications solicited. . If the number of applicants does not exceed the number of commission vacancies, the application deadline may be extended. After completing interviews of the applicants, the City may choose to extend and continue the recruitment process. An applicant is appointed to fill that vacancy by the affirmative vote of the majority of the City Council.
Appointments to newly created advisory bodies are made in the same manner.
It should be noted that appointment to a some City commissions, committees, or boards is recognition of expertise and interest in a specific area as well as an honor bestowed upon a citizen. Members of an advisory body serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed from their appointment at the Council’s sole discretion. The City Council can also adjust the number of commission seats as it sees fit. All appointees must be registered to vote in the City of San Dimas, or in their City of residence if the applicant is appointed to a body that accepts non-San Dimas appointees.
Pursuant to policy approved in 2001, members of a Commission, Committee, or Board cannot concurrently serve on two or more commissions.
B. TERM OF OFFICE
With the exception of the Planning Commission and Development Plan ReviewBoard, candidates are appointed to a term of two years and can serve a maximum of three terms or as otherwise specified under Section III. After serving twohree consecutive terms, Commission, Committee, or Board members must wait one year before being eligible to reapply for service on the same commission. If they serve one year or longer of an unexpired term, it is considered a term and therefore, are eligible to serve two additional terms.
Planning Commissioners are appointed to two-year terms; however, there are no limits to the number of terms that members may serve.
Development Plan Review Board members are also appointed to two-year terms; however, there are no limits to the number of terms that members may serve.– researching for term limit language for council appointments and CAB member – may need to add if nothing found Page 402 – 468
Revision 4 16 March 2023
The City Clerk shall notify the City Council of expiring terms of office for any member presently serving on a Commission, Board or Committee. Upon receipt and review, the City Council may reappoint an eligible member; fill the vacancy from an existing list of active applications; or direct the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy.
Revision 4 17 March 2023
C. APPOINTMENT OR ELIGIBILITY OF FORMER EMPLOYEES
To be eligible to serve on a Commission, Committee, or Board, former employees must wait one year after being discharged from regular or part time City service.
D. APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEE’S RELATIVE
It shall be the Commission applicant’s responsibility to disclose any relation to a current city employee., particularly in the city department the Commission serves. Employed relative is defined as a relation to either the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s spouse as follows:
Relative of Commissioner Relative of Spouse
Spouse Brother
Brother Sister
Sister Parent or Step Parent
Brother’s spouse Grandparent
Sister’s spouse Child or stepchild
Grandparent
Child or stepchild
Child or stepchild’s spouse
Parent or Step Parent
Furthermore, the Commission member shall agree to abstain from any discussion or recommendation on matters that may directly or indirectly benefit, influence, or affect their employee relative. Commission member shall not become involved in any way to seek influence on behalf of the employee relative or become involved in any way with the supervision or work performance of the relative employee. Failure to follow these requirements and guidelines may lead to the Commissioner being released from their appointment to the Commission.
E. APPOINTMENT OF RELATIVES OF CITY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER No relative of a member of the City Council or of the City Manager shall be appointed to or serve on any Commission, Committee or Board. If any such relationship arises, the Relative’s seat is immediately vacated. “Relative” shall be defined as a City Councilmember’s or City Manager’s:
- Spouse
- Sibling
- Child or Stepchild
- Child’s spouse
- Brother’s Spouse/Sister’s Spouse
- Parent/Parent-in-law
- Grandparent/ Spouse’s grandparent
- Grandchild
- Cousin
- Uncle or Aunt
- Nephew or Niece Page 404 – 468
Revision 4 18 March 2023
F. COMMISSION SEEKING PERSONAL INTEREST OR BENEFIT
A Commission member shall not seek any personal interest or benefit from their participation or service as a Commissioner. They must abstain from any discussion or recommendation on matters that may directly or indirectly benefit themselves, their local business, or the interest of any family member, friend or associate. Commission members are not to seek influence of other commissioners or the city staff to obtain any personal interest or benefit for themselves, family, friends or associates. Failure to follow these requirements and guidelines may lead to the Commissioner being released from their appointment to the Commission.
G. RESIGNATION AND REMOVAL
If an appointee resigns from office before the end of the term, a letter announcing the resignation shall be forwarded through the City Clerk to the Mayor. Copies will be forwarded to the City Council, the City Manager, and the commission, committee or board secretary.
The City Council may remove any member of a commission, committee, or board with a vote of three (3) City Councilmembers.
H. ATTENDANCE
It should be emphasized that regular attendance at meetings is critical to the effective operation of any commission, committee or board. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion.
As a result, a member may be removed when absent from threetwo meetings in a rolling year or when a pattern of repeated absences becomes apparent except in the case of illness or excused absences by prior permission of the commission, committee or board.consecutive meetings in a term or, when a pattern of repeated absences becomes apparent, except in the case of illness or excused absence by prior permission of the commission, committee, or board. Any removal is subject to ratification of the City Council. Nothing herein shall limit the City Council’s sole discretion to remove any member of any commission, committee, or board at any time for any reason pursuant to Paragraph A.
An attendance report will be prepared and submitted by the City Clerk’s Office quarterly to City Council. Three unexcused absences startsresults in the automatic removal of a commissioner and starts the recruitment process by the Councilmember who nominated such commissioner.
I. BENEFITS
Planning Commissioners shall receive a $50 per meeting stipend. No other Commissioners and Committee Members receive any monetary stipend. Members are covered by workers compensation while providing service as Commissioner or Committee appointee.
Revision 4 19 March 2023
J. INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Any commission, committee, or board member who is required to travel in the performance of his or her duties, attend an authorized meeting or conference which isof benefit to the City shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred for transportation, meals, lodging and incidentals pursuant to the City’s Travel Reimbursement Policy and has been pre-approved through budget process. It should be noted that spouses will not be covered for any such expenses.
In the event that a member purchases an item(s), with prior approval from city staff, for the benefit of that commission, committee, or board, or for a City-sponsored activity or event, a receipt for that item(s) must be submitted before the member may be reimbursed. All reimbursement requests must be pre-approved by the senior staff member assigned to the commission, committee or board.
Officials should recognize that some expenditures may be subject to reporting under the Political Reform Act and/or other laws, or may be prohibited altogether. All city expenditures are public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Planning Commissioners are required to file Form 700-Statement of Economic Interests (GC § 87200)
K. ETHICS AND OTHER TRAINING
In order to meet the requirements of California state law (AB 1234), the City Council and Planning Commissioners, as well as all appointed advisory members of any body of the City that is subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Open meeting law”) shall be required to receive no less than two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics law at least once every two years, (or as frequently as the law may subsequently be amended to provide.) Newly appointed advisory members should complete the required ethics training within the first six months of appointment. Officials shall submit copies of their certification to the City Clerk within thirty (30) days of completion of the curriculum.
AB 1234, now California Government Code Section 53234 ,was signed into law on October 7, 2005. This law requires, among other things, that all local agencies that provide compensation, salary, or a stipend to, or reimburses the expenses, of members of a legislative body must provide Ethics Training to local agency officials by January 1, 2007, and every two years thereafter. The Council has determined such training shall be extended to and include all employees and members of advisory bodies, such as boards, commissions, and task forces.
Assembly Bill 1661, now California Government Code Section 53237, was signed into law on September 29, 2016. This law requires local agency officials to receive sexual harassment prevention training and education if the local agency provides any type of compensation to those officials, to be completed within the first year of appointment.
The law also requires an entity that develops curricula to satisfy this requirement to consult with the city attorney regarding its sufficiency and accuracy.
The City Council and Planning Commissioners, as well as all appointed advisory members of any body of the City will also be required to participate in training on
Revision 4 20 March 2023
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, and Sexual Harassment within the first year of appointment.
Live training sessions are offered throughout the year and self-study courses are available through League of California Cities and the Fair Political Practices Commission online at www.cacities.org. and Local Officials Training Course.
Follow the directions below:
Click on the Institute for Local Government tab at the top Then select Ethics, Ethics Laws, and
Click the self-study link on that page.
In addition, other training material and/or classes are available through the City Clerk’s Office. If you have questions whether or not to attend an Ethics Training session, Rosenberg’s Rules or Order, and/or Sexual Harassment training, please consult with your City staff liaison or City Clerk.
If you have questions whether or not to attend an Ethics Training session, please consult with your City staff liaison or City Clerk.
L. ROSENBERG’S RULES
Each commission, committee, and board will use Rosenberg’s Rules to perform their meetings efficiently and effectively. Staff liaisons will advise their respective commission, committee, and boards on the appropriate meeting rules.
Revision 4 21 March 2023
SECTION V
A. REGULAR MEETINGS (California Government Code § 54954) The commissions, committees, and boards will have an established meeting schedule for each year. Such meetings are considered regular meetings.
If it is known in advance that a quorum cannot be achieved, consideration should be taken to notify all members and persons interested in the business before the body. A notice must be posted by the secretary advising the public that the meeting had has been canceled due to a lack of quorum.
If it is known in advance that there is a lack of business for the commission, committee, or board to address, a regularly scheduled meeting may be canceled. A notice shall be posted by the secretary within 24 hours of the cancellation, informing the public that the next regularly scheduled meeting has been canceled due to a lack of business.
B. ADJOURNED MEETINGS (GC § 54955)
If for any reason the business to be considered at the regular meeting cannot be completed, the body may then adjourn to a specified time and location. A notice announcing the adjournment must be posted in the standard location within 24 hours of the adjournment. This type of meeting is referred to as an adjourned meeting.
C. SPECIAL MEETINGS (GC § 54956)
Special meetings are those called by the advisory body in order to discuss an important issue that needs to be addressed outside of the regular meeting date and time by delivering personal notice to each member and to the public press and posted in City Hall at least 24 hours in advance of such special meeting. A special meeting may be called by 1) the Chair and Staff Liaison or 2) by concurrence of a majority of the board, commission or committee membership.
D. QUORUM
A quorum consists of a majority of the members of the commission in attendance at a meeting. A quorum is required to conduct business at any meeting, whether or not it is a regular, adjourned, or special meeting. The Staff liaison or Chair should be notified if a member knows in advance that he or she will be absent.
E. RALPH M. BROWN ACT (GC § 54950 et seq)
The Brown Act is a state law enacted in 1953 that requires all local government business to be conducted in open and public meetings, with the exception of a limited number of defined subjects that may be discussed in a closed session of a local government body. Those exceptions to open and public meetings include, but are not limited to, discussions of personnel matters, pending, proposed or anticipated litigation with the City Attorney where open discussion would be detrimental to the City’s interest.
OPERATING PROCEDURES
Revision 4 22 March 2023
The purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies.
The Brown Act applies to the legislative body including, but not limited to the City Council, Commission, Committee, or Directors, and shall include any board, commission, committee or other body on which officers of a local agency serve in their official capacity as members. It includes, but is not limited to, the Planning Commission, Equestrian Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Safety Commission, Senior Citizens Commission, Development Plan Review Board, Golf Course Advisory Committee, Oversight Board, and other ad-hoc or permanent boards or commissions of a local agency.
The Commission shall provide for the conduct of business by the Commission, the time and place for holding regular or adjourned meetings, and a brief description of each topic to be discussed. The agenda for the meeting must be posted in a public place in public view a minimum of 72 hours before a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting. Furthermore, no discussion or action may be taken on those items which are not listed on the meeting agenda. No action may be taken on an item at any meeting without a quorum.
The Brown Act expressly prohibits serial meetings. Typically, a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involve less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body’s members. This would also include situations in which technological devices are used to connect people at the same time. Commissioners, Committee Members, and Board Members are also required to disclose any communication they have had regarding an agenda item.
Minutes of the proceedings must be taken to be entered into the public record.
F. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
A formal public hearing is one that must be conducted according to state laws or City ordinances and is designed to solicit comment from the general public.
An official Notice of Public Hearing will be published in a local paper of general circulation.
G. HEARING PROCEDURES
Hearings held by an advisory body should be fair and impartial. If a member is biased or has a personal interest in the outcome of the hearing, that member should disqualify himself/herself and not participate.
Persons and/or groups who may be affected by the subject of the hearing should be given sufficient notice of the time and place of the hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. They may be represented by counsel and be permitted to present oral and documentary evidence. They should also be permitted to rebut any statements made by others.
Revision 4 23 March 2023
At the appropriate time, the chair should open the hearing and explain to the audience the hearing procedures. If there are numerous persons who would like to participate, and all represent the same views and opinions, the chair may ask that a spokesperson be selected to speak for the group. If this arrangement cannot be made, the chair may restrict each speaker to a limited time (generally three minutes) so all may be heard.
Irrelevant and off-the-subject comments should be ruled out of order by the chair.
The usual procedure after the hearing has been opened is for staff to present the staff report, followed by commissioners’ questions relating to the report. Proponents should be given the opportunity to present their case first. This is followed by an opportunity for opponents to present their case. The proponents then have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal to arguments against their case.
After all interested persons have had an opportunity to speak the hearing is closed, ending audience participation. Commission, committee or board members may discuss the proposal and take an action on the proposal.
A summary of the hearing proceedings is prepared by staff and forwarded to the City Council for their information. In certain instances, recommendations made to the City Council should be in the form of a resolution (i.e. Planning Commission recommendations for zone changes.)
H. MOTIONS
When a member wishes to propose an idea for the body to consider, the member must make a motion. This is the only way an idea or proposal from a member may be presented to the body for discussion and possible action. A motion goes through the following steps:
1. The member asks to be recognized by the Chair.
2. After being recognized, the member makes the motion (I move…)
3. Another member seconds the motion.
4. The Chair states the motion and asks for discussion.
5. When the Chair feels there has been sufficient discussion, the debate is closed (i.e. “Are you ready for the question?” or “Is there any further discussion?”).
6. If no one asks for permission to speak, the Chair puts the question to vote.
7. After the vote, the Chair announces the decision (“The motion is carried” or “The motion fails,” as the case may be.)
Phrasing a motion is often difficult and corrections may be necessary before it is acted upon. Until the Chair states the motion (Step 4) the member making the motion may rephrase or withdraw it. After an amendment, the amended motion must be seconded and then voted upon. It is particularly important when a motion is amended that the Chair restates the motion in order that members are clear as to what they are voting on.
Revision 4 24 March 2023
In making a motion, members should try to avoid including more than one proposal in the same motion. This is especially important when members are likely to disagree. If a member would prefer to see proposals divided and voted upon separately, the member should ask the Chair to divide the motion. If other members do not object, the Chair may proceed to treat each proposal as a distinct motion to be acted upon separately. The request to divide may also be made by motion.
I. ADJOURNMENT
When a commission, committee, or board has finished its business, a motion to adjourn is in order. This motion is not debatable; therefore, it is the duty of the Chair to see that no important business is overlooked.
If the body wishes to meet before the next regularly scheduled meeting, a motion may be made to adjourn the meeting to a designated time and place. If this is done, a notice of the adjourned meeting must be posted on the door of the regular meeting place within 24 hours after the time of adjournment.
J. AGENDA
Any item that a member wishes to include on a future agenda must first be agreed upon by two members of that commission, committee, or board. Requester should provide sufficient detail to determine the nature of the topic to be discussed. Staff may add more detail as reasonable to inform discussions. Nothing shall restrict the Chair and Staff liaison from adding items to the agenda as appropriate to execute the commission, committee, or board’s charge.
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, no action may be taken on an item that has not been placed on the noticed agenda, except when it has been determined by majority vote that the matter in question constitutes an emergency (GC 54956.5) or there is a need for immediate action which cannot reasonably wait for the next regularly scheduled meeting (GC 54954.2(b) (2)). And that the need to act arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.
K. MINUTES
The staff liaison is responsible for the preparation of minutes of all commission meetings. Written minutes, upon approval by the commission, committee, or board, constitute the official record of the actions taken and a summary of the important topics raised in the discussion.
Additions and corrections of the minutes may be made only in public meetings, with the approval of the body, and not by the private request of individual members, except for clerical errors.. Minutes are not deemed official until approved by the Commission.
It is the policy of the City Council that minutes are not verbatim. They are, instead, action minutes, recording the essence of the decisions made and significant action taken.
Revision 4 25 March 2023
For the convenience of the recording secretaries, meetings may be recorded in order to facilitate the preparation of minutes. However, any recordingstapes of meetings do not become part of official city records and can be destroyed at any time if the purpose for which it was made and retained was solely to facilitate the preparation of the minutes of the meeting.
Minutes of all meetings are to be forwarded to the City Council and the City Clerk after approval by the Commission.
L. AGENDA PACKETS
Agenda packets detailing the items of business to be discussed and any communications to be presented generally will be prepared by staff and delivered to the members of the body within a reasonable amount of time before the meeting, but no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting. In order to be prepared for meetings, members should read these packets and contact the Chair or staff if there are any questions regarding information presented in the staff reports.
M. POLITICAL REFORM ACT
The Political Reform Act states that public officials shall perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interest or the financial interests of persons who have supported them. The Political Reform Act establishes regulations regarding Conflicts of Interests and Campaign Receipts and Expenditures. (Gov. Code Sections 87100-87350)
In accordance with State law, City Officials, Planning Commissioners, and employees are required to annually disclose all financial interests that may be affected by decisions made in their official capacity, including investments, real property and income.
Disclosure is made by filing Conflict of Interest statements with the Fair Political Practices Commission upon assuming office, on an annual basis, and when leaving office. Filed forms are public documents and must be made available upon request. (Gov. Code Section 81002(c))
Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners must also disqualify themselves from making or participating in making or influencing any governmental decision that will have a foreseeable material financial effect on any economic interest of the Council Member, Planning Commissioner, or certain family members.
N. CITY OF SAN DIMAS MUNICIPAL CODE
The Municipal Code consists of codified ordinances, as well as the Zoning Code that define the regulations and laws that help guide how the city operates and functions.The purpose of the code is to make laws accessible and provide documentation of past legislation. It is available on the City’s website at www.sandimasca.gov and a copy in the Office of the City Clerk.
O. AREA OF INTEREST
When a commission, committee, or board is established by the City Council, the specific duties of that body are set forth in the ordinance or resolution that creates it. It is Page 412 – 468 Revision 4 26 March 2023
implicitly understood that the advisory body is limited to the consideration of those matters which are specifically assigned to its jurisdiction. In special or unusual circumstances, when interest spreads into an area beyond its jurisdiction, the commission, committee, or board should formally request specific authorization from the City Council to consider the matter and to formulate recommendations in that area. In some cases, the Council will call a joint meeting or study session with a commission or committee to explore an issue or issues in depth.
P. SUB-COMMITTEES
• In certain instances, a commission, committee, or board may determine that it is necessary to form a sub-committee to study a particular matter relating to that body in some detail.
• A sub-committee may be formed by a majority vote of the commission, committee, or board members taken at a regular meeting but may not be comprised of a majority of the members.
• Appointments to the sub-committee are made by the consensus of the commission, committee, or board.
• A sub-committee is a temporary committee which will usually last no longer than six months.
• After the completion of the particular study and presentation of recommendation to the commission, committee, or board, the sub-committee should be disbanded.
Q. ROLE OF CHAIR
It is incumbent upon the Chair of the commission, committee, or board to ascertain the responsibility of his/her advisory body and to limit the discussion and deliberation to appropriately assigned areas of responsibility.
The Chair exists to encourage the input of ideas, to guide discussions in a logical and orderly fashion, and to overall facilitate the decision-making process. He or she should clarify ideas as they are discussed and repeat motions made in order that all members fully understand the wording of the item on which they are voting.
The Chair and the staff may be in contact prior to each regularly scheduled meeting in order to coordinate activity pertaining to items pending before the commission, committee or board.