San Marino City Council
September 27, 2024

AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 PAGE 1 of 180

CITY OF SAN MARINO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
www.SanMarinoCA.gov
(626) 300-0700 Phone
City Hall Council Chamber
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108

ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 AT 8:30 AM

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2200 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council with valuable information regarding issues of the community.

Regular meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. Typically, adjourned meetings are held on the last Friday of every month at 8:30 a.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a reasonable modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk via email at [email protected] or by phone at (626) 300-0705 prior to the meeting for assistance.

The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person or remotely via Zoom, however, the meeting will proceed as normal even if there are technical difficulties with Zoom. The City will do it’s best to resolve any technical issues as quickly as possible.

How to view or listen to the meeting from home:

Visit www.SanMarinoCA.gov/Zoom
How to offer public comment from home:

Public comment will be accepted by email to [email protected] until 3:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. Written public comment received by 3:00 p.m. will be distributed to City Council during the meeting. Any comments received after 3:00 AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 PAGE 2 of 180
p.m. will be included in the public comment record but not provided to City Council at the meeting.

Written public comment will be accepted electronically via the zoom.us teleconference module during the meeting. Written Zoom comments will be accepted after the in-person comments.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Council Member Chou, Council Member Lo, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Shepherd Romey, and Mayor Huang

POSTING OF AGENDA
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting at the following locations: City Hall, 2200 Huntington Drive, the Crowell Public Library, 1890 Huntington Drive, and the Stoneman Building, 1560 Pasqualito Drive. The agenda is also posted on the City’s website:
http://www.SanMarinoCA.gov.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City welcomes public input. Members of the public may address the City Council by completing a public comment card and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, the public may address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda.

Pursuant to state law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda (Government Code Section 54954.2). The Mayor reserves the right to place limits on duration of comments. Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

NEW BUSINESS

1. MISSION STREET BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT DISCUSSION
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with the final design and bidding of the project to include the elements selected by Council for the beautification of the Mission District. If the Council concurs, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the following elements: complete sidewalk replacement and installation of street tree lighting (and/or any other options that may be selected by Council) to be included in the final design of the project, and direct staff to proceed with the final design and bidding of the project.”
AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 PAGE 3 of 180

CONSENT CALENDAR

2. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-24-1413 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 14.18.07 (MAINTENANCE) AND 23.16.03
(DEFINITIONS) AND ADDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 23.16.24 (PROHIBITION ON ARTIFICIAL TURF AND GRASS) TO PROHIBIT

ARTIFICIAL TURF AND SYNTHETIC GRASS IN THE CITY
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. O-24- 1413. If the City Council agrees, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt Ordinance No. O-24-1413, an Ordinance of the San Marino City Council amending Municipal Code Sections 14.18.07 and 23.16.03 and adding Municipal Code Section 23.16.24 to prohibit the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City.”

3. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR PLAN CHECK SERVICES WITH VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATES, INC. (VCA)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the contract and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the contract renewal for VCA and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.”

4. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MEMORANDUM OF

AGREEMENT WITH SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG) FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

REGIONAL FOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM
Recommendation: Staff recommend that Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement between the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and the City of San Marino for participation in the San Gabriel Valley Regional Food Recovery Program.
“I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement between the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and the City of San Marino for participation in the San Gabriel Valley Regional Food Recovery Program.”

5. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND THE CITY OF SAN

MARINO FOR THE PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE

OF ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES AT THE CROWELL PUBLIC

LIBRARY
AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 PAGE 4 of 180
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council approve the Amendment #1 to the Agreement between the Imperial County Office of Education and the City of San Marino for the provision, installation, and maintenance of advanced network (data) services at the Crowell Public Library. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the Amendment #1 to the Agreement between the Imperial County Office of Education and the City of San Marino for the provision, installation, and maintenance of advanced network (data) services at the Crowell Public Library, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.”

6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. R-24-26, UPDATING THE CONFLICT

OF INTEREST CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution No. R-24-26 updating the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of San Marino. If Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
”I move to adopt Resolution No. R-24-26, updating the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of San Marino.”

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTION
This is an opportunity to announce any written communications pertaining to the City received by members of the City Council. All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108, and will also be included in the public agenda packet that will available for review at the City Council meeting.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION
The City Council will recess to closed session to discuss:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9 (D)(2)
The City Council is meeting with respect to three (3) matters of significant exposure to litigation against the City; one related to CalHDF (letter received is attached), one related to CalRecycle, and one for which no further disclosure is required at this time.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9 (D)(4)
AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 PAGE 5 of 180
The City Council is meeting with respect to one (1) matter of potential initiation of litigation by the City.

3. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
GOVERNMENT CODE 54957 (B)
Title: City Manager

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

ADJOURNMENT
Posted: 9/20/2024 ALISON WALKER

CITY CLERK
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Amber Shah, Parks & Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: September 27, 2024
SUBJECT: MISSION STREET BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT

DISCUSSION

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Attractive, Complementary Business District
Engaged and Connected Residents
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
Safe Community
Well-Maintained Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The Mission District in the northwest area of San Marino is one of the primary commercial centers of the City, with a variety of shops and restaurants. In recognition of the Mission District’s importance in the community and in an effort to enhance the overall appearance of the streetscape in the commercial area, the City Council has appropriated funds in the Capital Improvement Program for a “Mission Street Beautification” project since FY 2020-21. As part of this effort, the City retained the design services of The Arroyo Group in 2021 to develop conceptual plans for the beautification of the Mission District area. These plans were developed with the intent of helping improve business activity in the area and creating a walkable environment with a series of connected gathering spaces. The conceptual plans were presented to the City Council at its July 30, 2021, meeting. At that meeting, the Council voted to move forward with elements for public safety and pedestrian improvements, and directed staff to explore the topic further with the community at a future meeting before bringing the project back to City Council for further direction.

Due to transitions in staff managing this project following the meeting in July Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
PAGE 6 of 180
2021, the project has been on hold. In order to resume moving forward with this project, staff held a community meeting on April 2, 2024, to reintroduce the project and provide members of the public with an opportunity to provide their input on potential improvements that should be prioritized and incorporated into this project. The meeting was promoted on the City’s website, weekly e-newsletter, social media, targeted emails to community stakeholders, and direct mailers to 400+ households and businesses in the Mission District area. Having received this input, staff is now seeking direction from the City Council on how to proceed with potential improvements.

DISCUSSION
On April 2, 2024, a community meeting was held at the San Marino Community Center related to the Mission District beautification. The meeting was well-attended by residents and business owners, who were able to provide input on their preferences for potential improvements. Staff provided attendees with a total of seven (7) potential improvements. Attendees were able to vote for up to four (4) improvements they would like to see prioritized (weighted from 1-4 points), and were also able to provide a “non-support” vote for an idea they were opposed to. The potential improvements were:
· Curb Bulb-Outs
· Tree Lighting
· Street Furniture
· Planter/Plant Pots
· Sidewalk Replacement
· Entry Monuments
· Street Pole Banners
Below is a summary of the scoring for each potential improvement based on voting results. A more detailed breakdown with transpositions of resident/business owner comments is included in Attachment 1.

Point Value Summary
Item Total Points from Votes Non-Support Votes
Curb Bulb-Outs 90 1
Tree Lighting 55 1
Street Furniture 41 0
PAGE 7 of 180
Planter/Plant Pots 35 0
Sidewalk Replacement 25 0
Entry Monuments 8 9
Street Pole Banners 2 4
Based on community input, as well as budget-related considerations, staff recommends proceeding with a complete sidewalk replacement and installation of street tree lighting as the primary improvements in the Mission District area. Replacement of the sidewalk will both improve pedestrian safety as well as improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the area. Replacement of the sidewalk also provides an ideal opportunity to install the electrical conduit and related infrastructure necessary for street tree lighting at the same time, further enhancing the aesthetic improvements in the area.

Although curb bulb-outs received the highest overall score to support it as a potential improvement, they are also the most expensive option to design and construct under consideration and would likely not be able to be completed with the amount of funding contemplated for this project. Significant additional study would also need to take place in order to assess the impact of potential bulb outs on parking availability, traffic flow/turn radii, and other roadway users such as cyclists. Therefore, staff does not recommend incorporating curb bulb-outs in the project at this time based on cost, and site constraints due to limited street parking in the area.

Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on which elements the Council would like staff to include in the project. Staff recommends the City Council discuss and provide direction on the elements staff should move forward with to design and construct. After receiving Council direction, staff proceed with obtaining more specific, refined proposals for the option(s) selected.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The City’s adopted FY 2024-25 budget includes an appropriation of $500,000 in Account No. 394-48-4600-0520 and an additional $500,000 is projected in FY 2025-26 for a total of $1,000,000 for the Huntington Drive/Mission Street Beautification project in the Capital Improvement Program budget. No new appropriation is required based on the rough cost estimates to design and construct the options recommended by staff, as described in the report.

However, should the Council select additional and/or alternative options that exceed the allocated project budget, an additional appropriation would be required in the future. It should also be noted, the original scope of the project PAGE 8 of 180
was to be completed in two phases with beautification on Huntington Drive following the beautification on Mission Street. An additional appropriation would also be required in the future for any improvements on Huntington Drive.

Procurement review is not applicable.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with the final design and bidding of the project to include the elements selected by Council for the beautification of the Mission District. If the Council concurs, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the following elements: complete sidewalk replacement and installation of street tree lighting (and/or any other options that may be selected by Council) to be included in the final design of the project, and direct staff to proceed with the final design and bidding of the project.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Results from April 2, 2024 public meeting

2. City Council Staff Report presented at July 30, 2021 meeting

3. Conceptual Plans presented at July 30, 2021 meeting
PAGE 9 of 180
April 2, 2024
Mission Beautification Community Meeting
On April 2, 2024, City staff held a community meeting to present the options available for Mission District Beautification and gather feedback from attendees. The meeting was promoted on the City’s website, weekly e-newsletter, social media, targeted emails to community stakeholders, and direct mailers to 400+ households and businesses in the Mission District area.

The meeting had 33 resident attendees who signed in and 4 business-owner attendees who signed in. The attached report is the summary of voting and discussion comments submitted by those attendees.

PAGE 10 of 180
1 2
6 18
1 6
7 2
5 5
1 2
2 7
6 5
1 3
3 2
9 6
1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Street Pole Banners
Entry Monuments
Sidewalk Replacement
Street Furniture
Planter/Plant Pots
Tree Lighting
Curb Bulb-Outs
Vote Tallys
4 Point Votes 3 Point Votes 2 Point Votes 1 Point Votes 1 3
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
3 0 1 2 3 4 5
Street Pole Banners
Entry Monuments
Sidewalk Replacement
Street Furniture
Planter/Plant Pots
Tree Lighting
Curb Bulb-Outs
Business Vote Tallys
4 Point Votes 3 Point Votes 2 Point Votes 1 Point Votes PAGE 11 of 180
Point Value Summary
Item Total Points from Votes Non-Support Votes
Curb Bulb-Outs 90 1
Tree Lighting 55 1
Street Furniture 41 0
Planter/Plant Pots 35 0
Sidewalk Replacement 25 0
Entry Monuments 8 9
Street Pole Banners 2 4
Comments (all comments are transposed exactly the way it was written):

Patricia Davis - Resident
• Pedestrian Safey
o Sidewalks
o Ways to “slow” traffic feel
o Streetlight – Los Robles/Mission – Possible to start pedestrian green before cars? Works in downtown LA
o Allys – please install stop signs/speed pumps, etc.

Unnamed Resident
• Palisades Village
• Lido Marina Village (Newport Beach)
Unnamed Resident
• Enforce no turn on red at Los Robles & Mission
Linda Wah – Resident
• Bike friendly corridor. Right now it’s dangerous to ride bikes in City and on Mission. No place to park bikes.

Linda Wah – Resident
• Traffic control – Mission is getting business. Cars often don’t stop at signs. Mission is now a shortcut to Fair Oaks & Fwy.

Steve Domier – Resident
• Banners not needed, since trees obstruct them.
• Entry monuments are unnecessary.

Karen Harrigan – Resident
• Please support businesses in whatever way you can. I’ve lived in the Mission District for 25 years and remember a wonderful Italian Restaurant being closed off od Mission. So excited about how vibrant Mission has recently become. I believe young families want to be able to walk to local businesses. Younger families with children are what our city needs for many (obvious?) reasons.

Carole Hasbun – Resident
PAGE 12 of 180
• Can the area of the bike shop be made into a mini-park setting? • Can some of the office businesses on the southside west of Euclid open their lots for parking?
Howard Brody – Resident
• The objective IMO is an open, easily visible, & aesthetically improved walkways.

Accordingly, curb bulbouts, widening sidewalks, & lighting would improve visibility, walkability & ease of access.
• Street banners, steel furniture, entry monuments are not necessary.

Peter Brassard – Resident
• I love the idea of curb-bulbs, lighting, and improvements to the wonderful shops on Mission. Consider adding more bike amenities (active transportation) such as bike crossing buttons (like South Pasadena). Lots of people bike/walk in the area to visit the shops, go to bike events, and to access the Metro Rail South Pasadena Station.

Unnamed Resident
• RE: Benches
o What’s to stop homeless from using these to sleep on? Jamal Hammadi – Business Owner
• We need this change.
• We need new incentives for new businesses.

Paul Brassard – Resident
• Excellent Meeting. Good process. Well done.

Sally B. – Resident
• Make it like Carmel
• Do as much as possible. Offer new planters, trees, etc for sale to raise money (donations) John Dustin - Resident
• Bulbouts are critical to calm traffic and provide additional outdoor seating for restaurants customers.
• The Arroyo Group identified that the Chinese Pistache trees are not thriving. I agree with that conclusion. Large thriving shade trees are needed! Better tree selection and management is necessary.

Unnamed Resident
• You may consider installing some police emergency buttons somewhere along mission st.

The ones with the blue light I.D.

Shelley Boyle – Resident
• Directionals to parking lots
• Improving Mission improves real estate
Therioult – Resident
• Bring in more resident friendly businesses.
• Mission should not receive all the funds which was voted to be split between Huntington & Mission.

Gail James on behalf of Carolyn Chapman – Resident
• Los Robles Resident Carolyn Chapaman was unable to attend tonight’s meeting & has asked me to deliver the attached comments. (Comments attached to end of this report) PAGE 13 of 180

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
• Safe Community
• Well-Maintained Infrastructure
• Attractive, Complementary Business District

BACKGROUND
One of the many Economic Development goals of the City Council was to launch a beautification project for the commercial areas of both Mission Street and Huntington Drive. The primary goal of the Council was to set aside funds as an investment towards infrastructure-type improvements for both streets. Through the program, the City Council set aside $1,000,000 for Mission Street and Huntington Drive. Last year, staff solicited proposals from various qualified design consultants to assist staff in the preparation of a streetscape project for Mission Street. Given the clear differences between Mission Street and Huntington Drive, the Council and staff found it beneficial to begin this program with Mission Street. Huntington Drive will then receive full attention beginning later in the summer of 2021.

DISCUSSION
With the help of the Economic Development Team, The Arroyo Group was selected to provide the design approach for Mission Street. Over the past year, the Arroyo Group has been meeting with staff and the public to determine community needs and the project scope. The Arroyo Group team set out to achieve the following goals with this project:

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Aldo Cervantes, Community Development Director
Stephanie Britt, Management Analyst
DATE: July 30, 2021
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF DESIGN OPTIONS REGARDING THE MISSION

VILLAGE STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
Ken Ude, Mayor
Susan Jakubowski, Vice Mayor
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member

PAGE 14 of 180
• Help improve business vitality by creating walkable environments and gathering spaces where people could remain.
• Capitalize upon lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and the opportunity to provide active outdoor spaces.
• Help establish an experiential vision for the commercial corridor, with a series of connected spaces and experiences.
• Prioritize improvements while maintaining a longer-term vision for future goals.

The Arroyo Group provided a Concept Package (Attachment 1) where they delineate the Design Framework, the Landscaping Elements, and the estimated overall costs. The design package lays out an overall vision and framework for the streetscape, and a range of possible improvements and costs. The package provides seven potential scenarios (A-G) that constitute various options for beautifying Mission Street. Each scenario provides some level of improvements to Mission Street.

The direction provided to the Arroyo Group was to design a project that would fit the current funding, but still would ensure that the elements of the project would be visually appealing and a necessity for the goals for the street.

As such, Scenario G provides for a project that is not only within the budget, but includes elements such as tree lighting, street furniture and landscaping features. The total estimated cost of this scenario is approximately $461,456. This cost includes hard costs such as the physical improvements and soft costs for additional design work.

While Scenario G provides an option that is within the budget, staff would like the Council to consider some of the other elements included within other scenarios, such as tree planting, enhanced street lighting, and intersection “bulb-outs” (public gathering spaces). Interestingly, the bulb-outs where found to be a very popular concept with the public. During the project’s outreach program, public gathering spaces were at the top of the list for those interviewed.

Scenario G, while under the allocated budget, may not provide the level of improvement the Council had initially intended. In addition to the goals listed above, it is staff’s goal to be good stewards of City funds and refrain from spending money on a project that does not fulfil the needs of the community and the Council.

As you can see from the Design Concept Plan (see attached), the design framework focused on physical changes to the environment. These physical changes were incorporated into the design concept after receiving feedback from the public and the Economic Development Team. As stated

PAGE 15 of 180
above, the physical changes to the street included expanded pedestrian areas such as bulb-outs, which also act as gathering opportunities. These bulb-outs also act as additional safety measures as it narrows or reduces the travel length at the pedestrian crosswalks. Mid-block crossing areas are also included in the concept design to help pedestrian circulation. Finally, new street trees that are designed to fill the existing gaps on the sidewalks and/or pedestrian right-of-way were also included. Street trees enhance the beauty of the street and help provide much needed shade opportunities, which help attract outdoor seating spaces.

In terms of cost, pages 15-16 of the Final Concept design provides a breakdown or menu of each element at the estimated cost of the project. These baseline costs allowed staff and the Arroyo team to strategize the different scenarios. As noted on page 16, the Arroyo Group estimated cost for a basic bulb-out (concrete finish) is $200,949. The Arroyo Group also provides the cost of an enhanced bulb-out, which includes the use of paver or brick materials and more landscape features. The estimated cost for the enhanced bulb-out is $1.5 million. It is also worth noting the difference in the amount of square-footage needed for the bulb-outs. The basic bulb-out design requires less square-footage and the designs are simple and include fewer materials.

If the City Council finds that Scenario G and its elements are a worthy investment, staff will proceed through the final design phase of the project and proceed through the bidding process to secure a contractor. The next step thereafter is to approach the City Council to award the contract. The Council may also direct staff to select a different scenario (scenario A-E) for further study and return with revised design plans and project estimates.

Scenario D for example, which is illustrated on page 10 of the concept plan includes an overall cost estimate of $915,282. This project scope includes new basic bulb-outs at the intersection of Los Robles and Mission Street and new gateway and monument features.

Lastly, an interesting element of scenario F is the overhead Tivoli light canopy, which provides much needed lighting for Mission Street. Such lighting enhances the ambience of the street and increases the potential for evening events. The cost of the lights alone is $405,000.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The Mission Streetscape Program will be funded through the Huntington Drive and Mission Street Beautification Program in account number 394-48-4600-0520, with a budget of $1,000,000.

Scenario G requires no additional appropriations. The selection of an alternative scenario would require an appropriation of funds due to the project’s cost exceeding the allocated budget.

This report requires no procurement review.

PAGE 16 of 180

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the report.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to proceed with a final design for one of the scenarios provided for the Mission Streetscape Program and direct staff to proceed through the bidding process for selecting a contractor.
“I move to approve and select one of the scenarios provided for the Mission Streetscape Program and direct staff to proceed through the bidding process for selecting a contractor.”

ATTACHMENT

1. Mission Street Design Concept

PAGE 17 of 180

MISSION STREET
February 2021
Streetscape Design Concept

CITY OF SAN MARINO, CA
PAGE 18 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
1 INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 DESIGN FRAMEWORK

PHYSICAL FRAMEWORK

PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK

COSTING FRAMEWORK
3 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS

OVERALL COST SUMMARY

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

BULB-OUT IMPROVEMENTS

MAJOR ELEMENTS
4 PHASING SCENARIOS

PHASING SCENARIOS SUMMARY
SCENARIO A: BASIC STREETSCAPES + PRIORITY BULB-OUTS
SCENARIO B: BASIC STREETSCAPES + MODIFIED HIGH-END BULB-OUTS SCENARIO C: STROLLING EXPERIENCE (COMPLETE FULL NORTH SIDE) SCENARIO D: STREETSCAPES AND BULB-OUTS AT LOS ROBLES
SCENARIO E: NO BULB-OUTS - EXISTING STREETSCAPE FOCUSED SCENARIO F: TIVOLI LIGHTING REPLACING PED LIGHTING
SCENARIO G: MINIMUM STREETSCAPES

INTRODUCTION
San Marino Cafe & Marketplace (2020)
PAGE 19 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 3
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Introduction

1.1 Origins of the Project
Mission Street is a village-style commercial district
in the City of San Marino adjacent to the cities of
South Pasadena and Pasadena. It measures less than
one-quarter mile in length between the western City
boundary and El Molino Avenue. Despite its pleasant
pedestrian scale, economic growth has stalled on the
street in recent decades.

In 1998, The Arroyo Group prepared the San Marino
Commercial Plan which outlined several action
strategies for four commercial areas: Mission Street
and three areas along Huntington Drive (shown in the
map at right). The Concept Plan on page 4 shows the
primary physical strategies that were recommended
for Mission Street. Among these were to “create entry
points”, “upgrade street & alley facades & frontage”,
and “create pedestrian friendly crosswalks”.

Since the adoption of the Commercial Plan, various
incremental attempts have been made by property
owners and the City to improve the streetscapes,
but in 2020 the City Council adopted an Economic
Development Action Plan, which focuses on the
investment and beautification of the city’s commercial
areas. This program sets out a goal to redesign Mission Street in the first phase of the project and later
redesign the commercial zones of Huntington Drive.

The FY2020/21 budget has allocated $1,000,000 for
the project and is subject to City Council approval.

This report, therefore, presents a 10% design package
for streetscape improvements along Mission Street.

This draft report is intended to lay out an overall vision and framework for the streetscape and identify the
range of possible improvements and costs. In the last
chapter of the report, different phasing scenarios are
presented to help the City and community prioritize
Mission Street
where to make first improvements. This approach
ensures that:
• The Council and community will have the
opportunity to shape streetscape design at an
early stage of the process.
• Initial streetscape improvements will be based on a
community vision and fall within a larger framework
to be implemented over time.
• The City will be able to decide how to make its
money stretch the furthest by evaluating different
potential projects.

PAGE 20 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 4
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Concept Plan (1998)
PAGE 21 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 5
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.2 Existing Conditions
In November 2020, The Arroyo Group team and
City staff conducted a team site walk to thoroughly
understand the site conditions, to better understand
the site’s potential for improvement, and identify
potential site issues that would need to be addressed.

Further issues were identified by business owners,
residents and others during stakeholder interviews
described on the following page.

Key observations included:
• The corridor has a great urban framework and
retail storefront edge but is largely a disconnected
strolling experience due to long roadway crossings
and breaks in shaded tree canopies.
• There appears to be a very limited sense of arrival
or that the district is a unique destination in the
City. Potential for adding gateway or monument
elements to help demark the district.
• The existing Ficus trees create a wonderful shade
canopy but are causing upturn of sidewalks in some
areas and are not consistent along the corridor.

It was mentioned that seed litter from the trees
is a maintenance concern for the City and local
businesses.
• Chinese Pistache trees were mentioned to now
be replacing the Ficus trees along the corridor.

The new trees that have been installed are not
performing well and still relatively small despite
several years of growth. Limited underground soil
conditions may be one of the primary causes and
something to consider for future new tree planting.
• There appears to be significant under-utilized
corridor space that is not being used by vehicles
or pedestrians and is effectively dead space. Some
of this under-utilized space is at the ends of the
deep angled parking banks but also in other areas
along the corridor. These would be great areas
to potentially recapture and use for pedestrian
spaces.
• Local businesses have installed planters along
the storefronts to help soften and green the
streetscapes. In some cases planters have been
installed across from street trees which causes
very narrow walking conditions and potential ADA
issues.
• Outdoor dining appears to be happening primarily
at Julienne’s and at The San Marino Café &
Marketplace but space is very limited and seating
is crammed in the available streetscape areas, also
creating very tight walkway conditions.

PAGE 22 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 6
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.3 Stakeholder Interviews
In December 2020, The Arroyo Group conducted a
series of interviews with several residents and local
businesses to discover more about the needs of the
local community and to inform a community-driven
vision for the future of the Mission Village district.

The Arroyo Group also participated in a meeting
of the City’s Economic Development Committee to
discuss this project.

Stakeholders encouraged the streetscape to:
• Attract more families and children by creating
more family-friendly, social gathering spaces.
• Increase new pedestrian streetscape spaces
through re-aligned, new curbs and bulb-outs.
• Identify opportunities to increate streetscape tree
shade while also addressing maintenance issues
associated with existing Ficus tree liter and tripping
hazards.
• Provide nighttime ambience through lighting
improvements.
• Preserve existing or increase parking capacity
along the corridor.
• Improve overall strolling experience as a shopping
and entertainment street.
• Create a sense of arrival and destination for the
district.
• Identify opportunities for additional streetscape
furniture, including benches and trash cans.
• Provide new activity and entertainment
programming to encourage the local community
to ‘stay local’.
• Encourage outside visitors to come to the district
to help support local businesses.
• Temporary ‘pilot project’ solutions are not a desired implementation approach for fear of sending
the wrong message to the local community.

Permanent, full-install solutions are preferred.

PAGE 23 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 7
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.4 Project Goals
The following represent an understanding of the
project’s primary goals based on input received
from the local community, City staff, and the
City’s Economic Development Committee. These
principles became the foundation for guiding The
Arroyo Group’s conceptual design process and work
products, as further described below.

1. Help improve business vitality by creating an
environment where people want to be and
have opportunities to stroll and hang out.

2. Capitalize upon lessons learned during the
COVID-19 pandemic and the opportunity for
activated outdoor spaces.

3. Help establish an experiential vision for the
corridor, with a series of connected spaces
and experiences.

4. Prioritize lower cost improvements in the
near-term while maintaining a longer-term
vision for future improvement goals
PAGE 24 of 180

LOS ROBLES AVE

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST
15 EMPLOYE

PARKING
LOT
7 4
12 10
4 5
5 R25.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 PR
GA
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 8
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Design Framework
Section 2 of this report focuses on our team’s process
for developing a comprehensive, long-term vision
plan for the Mission Village district. The Arroyo
Group believes that great places and successfully
realized projects result when three important forces
converge and can be mutually considered in the
design process: people, place, and economics.

The following descriptions outline more about each
important dynamic.

2.1 Physical Framework (place) - page 11
Some of our team’s very first observations from
preliminary site walks identified an abundance of
potentially under-utilized spaces throughout the
Mission Street corridor that could be opportunities
for adding space back to a usable pedestrian realm.

The Arroyo Group team looked for opportunities
to tighten broad intersection radii to gain additional
sidewalk space and in turn also help slow vehicular
traffic and shorten roadway crossing distances. Our
team noted roadway spaces not being used for either
vehicular circulation or parking as additional viable
opportunities for pedestrian recapture. An example
illustrating these recapture approaches has been
depicted to the right in gray.

Several mid-block crossings and other bulb-out
spaces were also strategically placed to help shorten
pedestrian crossing connections and to facilitate
cross street strolling, mentioned to be an important
consideration from our team’s early outreach
discussions.

The Physical Framework Plan included in Section 2
of this report indicates all the available physical areas our team identified as potentially viable pedestrian
realm recapture opportunities. This plan is intended
to represent a raw figure ground of available spaces
to be considered while developing a new vision and
experience along Mission Street. A range of ideas for
how these new potential spaces could be utilized has
been further explored as part of the Programming
Framework Plan also in section 2.

Filling in missing street trees within the existing
mature urban canopy was another clear opportunity
to physically improve the corridor by providing
a continuous shaded and a comfortable walking
environment. Tree infill opportunities have also been
indicated on the Physical Framework Plan.

Pedestrian
Recapture
Space
Shorter
Crosswalk
New
Tree
Close Gaps
In Mature
Tree Canopy

2.1 Physical Framework Plan
Existing
Sidewalk
PAGE 25 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 9
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Design Framework (continued)

2.2 Programming Framework (people) - pages
12-14
The Programming Framework focuses on activities,
desired experiences and what user groups are being
targeted with improvements to be made within the
spaces identified in the Physical Framework Plan. It
will serve as the design direction for more detailed
schematic phases of streetscape design.

In the area, we identify three types of bulb-out
places: family/kids focused, seating/dining focused
and flexibly programmed; event spaces that can be
created through temporary closures of streets or
parking stalls; signature interactive features; and
district monument/gateway features. These spaces
are then related to a matrix of illustrative activities and events that could be held on the street throughout
the year, and demonstrates that the proposed design
framework provides spaces for all user groups,
particularly families with children, singles/couples,
“ladies who lunch” and visitors to San Marino.

2.3 Costing Framework (economics) - page 15
The Costing Framework Plan helps break down the
project into more digestible components that can
be funded and implemented over time. It identifies
the places that we believe warrant more investment
including high-end treatments, signature interactive
features and monument/gateway features based on
the value that they bring to the streetscape.

2.2 Programming Framework Plan Programming Matrix 2.3 Cost Framework Plan $ $$$
New Outdoor
Dining Place
Higher-end
Improvement
PAGE 26 of 180
10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 10
1 INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 Landscape Elements and Overall Costs
Section 3 of this report describes the types of
landscape elements that are included in the design
framework for the streetscape and gives a rough cost
estimate to implement the full treatment.

3.1 Cost Estimate - pages 16-17
Based on the Costing Framework Plan on page 15, we
have provided a rough cost estimate of approximately
$3.7 million to implement the full suite of streetscape improvements. This is broken into $1.3 million for
streetscape improvements (of which a significant
portion is lighting), $1.9 million for new bulb-out
places and major elements (signature interactive
features and district monument/gateway features),
and $400,000 for soft costs. Cost estimates were
gained from comparisons with similar recent projects
and consultation with practitioners and vendors,
and are subject to a great deal of variation as time
progresses and the design becomes more fixed.

3.2 Landscape Elements - pages 18-28
This section gives photographic examples and key
design direction points for each landscape system:
• Sidewalk Improvements: street trees, sidewalk
pots, pedestrian light fixtures, banner signs,
tree uplighting, street furniture and roadway restriping. We believe that the Chinese pistache tree will be an effective complement to and ultimately
replace the Ficus tree, providing a similar amount
of shade without upturning and littering sidewalks.

However, more soil space (root trenches) will be
required for them to flourish.
• Bulb-out Improvements: basic improvements
and high-end improvements, to be located as
indicated on the Costing Framework Plan. More
information about the cost assumptions for these
improvements is also provided.
• Major Elements: signature interactive features,
such as play structures and fountains, and district
monument/gateway features.

No exact style or design motif is presented at this
point, though community direction has indicated a
desire for continuing the classic American main street
feel of the street, with elements of the California
Mediterranean style associated with San Marino and
interest in other gestures to express the Chinese
ancestry of many of the City’s residents.
4 Phasing Scenarios - pages 29-44
In Section 4 of the report The Arroyo Group has
provided a range of near-term implementation
scenarios to consider for initial, focused investment.

These scenarios were intended to give the City a
process to begin immediate district improvements
while maintaining alignment to longer-term vision
goals for the Mission Village district. The collection of phasing scenarios was developed in conjunction with
City staff and offer an assortment of different budget
and level-of-improvement alternatives. Several
scenarios have been included with sub million-dollar
budgets to meet immediately available City funding.

Each phasing scenario has been presented with a
summary page depicting through imagery and cost
breakdown information what is included for each
scenario’s level of investment. Each scenario also
includes a plan diagram indicating the intended
physical scope and extents for each. A phasing
summary page has been included in this section to
evaluate the full range of scenarios that have been
developed.
4 Phasing Scenarios
PAGE 27 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
Physical Framework Plan
New Bulb-out Place
New Crosswalks
New Trees
Scale: 1” = 100’
2 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 11

DESIGN FRAMEWORK

PHYSICAL FRAMEWORK
PAGE 28 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
Scale: 1” = 100’
2 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 12

PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK
Programming Framework Plan
Bulb-out Place - Family/Kids Focused
Bulb-out Place - Seating/Dining Focused
Bulb-out Place - Flexible Program
Temporary Vehicular Closure Areas for Events
1 Sidewalk Event: Hosted in Closure of Diagonal Parking 2 Small Event: Hosted in Half Parking Lot Closure
3 Larger Event: Hosted in Roadway Closure
Streetscapes
Signature Interactive Feature
District Monument / Gateway Feature
1 2
3 DESIGN FRAMEWORK
PAGE 29 of 180
2 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 13
Programming Opportunties
LOCATION*
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
Holiday Events
4th of July Fireworks o xxxx
Christmas Santa Event, Holiday Shopping Stroll o xx x
Autumn Moon Festival o xx x
Memorial Day Festival o xxx
Labor Day Festival/Walk o xxx
Small Businesses Saturday/Shopping Event o xxx
Lunar New Year o xx x
Mother's Day Brunch o xxx
Halloween Trick or Treat Walk o x
Valentines Date Night o x
Easter Brunch o xxxx
Thanksgiving Pumpkin Carving Contest o xx
New Year's Eve / Day Celebrations o xx x
Periodic Activities/Events
Farmers Market xxxx
Art Walk / Food Truck Night xx
Chalk Festival (Pasadena) xx
Wine Walk (Glendora) xx
Outdoor Movie Night xx x
Temporary Ice Skating Rink xx x
Temporary Outdoor Salon (Covid) xx
Ourdoor Fitness Area x
Arts and Crafts Shows xx
Small Concert and Music Shows xx x
Outdoor Garden Show xx
Bike Event / Bicycle Rally xx x
Block Party xx x
Pop‐up and Sponsored Events xx
Physical Programming
Outdoor Seating and Restaurant Dining xxxx
Overhead Canopy Lighting xxxx
Oversize Chess Board Feature xx
Interactive Gaming Elements: Foosball, Ping Pong xx
Public Art / Sculptures o xxxx
Kids Interactive Water Feature x
Interactive Lighting and Experiential Art Installations xxxx Bike Parking xx x

CALENDAR USERS
Families
with
Children
Ladies
Who Lunch
Visitors
from
Outside
Couples /
Singles
(Residents)

WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL

DESIGN FRAMEWORK

PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK
PAGE 30 of 180
2 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 14
LOCATION*
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

CALENDAR USERS
Families
with
Children
Ladies
Who Lunch
Visitors
from
Outside
Couples /
Singles
(Residents)

WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL
Urban Swings xx x
WIFI Hot Spots o xxxx
Pedestrian Lighting xxxx
Interactive Signage and Wayfinding Kiosk xxxx
Monument and Gateway Elements xxxx
Upgraded Crosswalks xxxx
Kids Play Structure x
Lush Garden Spaces xxxx
Flexible Plaza Spaces xxxx
Fixed Seating Elements for Grouping and People Watching xxxx Sidewalk Art Opportunities xxxx
Special Paving Areas o xxxx
Food and Beverage Kiosks (Temporary or Permanent) xxxx
Social Media 'Selfie' Moment Feature xx x
*Reference Programming Framework Plan for proposed plan locations of programming and activities. o Items could occur across multiple spaces.

Bulb‐out Place ‐ Family/Kids Focused
Bulb‐out Place ‐ Seating/Dining Focused
Bulb‐out Place ‐ Flex To Program
Temporary Vehicular Closure Area
Streetscapes
Programming Framework
Bulb-out Place - Family/Kids Focused
Bulb-out Place - Seating/Dining Focused
Bulb-out Place - Flexible Program
Temporary Vehicular Closure Areas for Events
Streetscapes

DESIGN FRAMEWORK

PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK
PAGE 31 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
Scale: 1” = 100’
2 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 15

DESIGN FRAMEWORK

COSTING FRAMEWORK
Costing Framework Plan
Streetscape Improvements
Bulb-out - Basic Improvement
Bulb-out - High-end Improvement
Signature Interactive Feature
District Monument / Gateway Features
PAGE 32 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 16

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS

O V E R A L L C O S T S U M M A RY
Overall Cost Breakdown and Assumptions
No Improvement Type Quantity Units Unit Cost Sub Total Notes Streetscape Improvements
1 New Sidewalk Trees 25 EA $5,000 $125,000 Includes tree well demolition to cut in new tree wells ($1500 ea), materials & installation for root trench planting soil ($1500 ea), min 36" box tree (~$2000 ea). 2 New Sidewalk Pots 123 EA $1,500 $184,500 Includes simple shrub‐type planting.  Pot type to match other San Marino streetscape elements to replace existing varied‐type planters.  Calc 1: roughly 41 street‐facing businesses @ avg 3 pots each business = 123 pots.  Calc 2: roughly 1500 LF street‐facing store frontage @ 1 pot every 15' = 100 pots.  Calc 3: 2 pots for each street tree, 55 total trees x 2 = 110 pots.  Provisioning for potential max pots as part of this estimate.
3 New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type 47 EA $15,000 $705,000 Replace existing fixtures and add new fixtures to maintain consistent streetscape light levels.

Recommended to space poles at a rate of 3x height of desired pole height.  Assume 18' high pole. 2,550 LF streetscape / 54 = 47 new fixtures.  For reference, existing poles = 6 north side, 7 south side.

Assume some reuse of existing conduits, electrical, transformer, pull boxes.  Consider unique San Marino post fixture to match other streetscape elements. 4 Banner Signs 24 EA $2,800 $67,200 Assume fixed to alternating light pole fixtures.  Coordinated with overall district branding strategy. 5 Tree Uplighting 110 EA $1,000 $110,000 Assume two (2) fixtures per existing and new streetscape trees.  Flush, in‐grade type.  IP67 rated 6 Street Furniture ‐ Bench 24 EA $2,000 $48,000 Assume four (4) streetscape benches per block 7 Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle 12 EA $800 $9,600 Assume two (2) streetscape trash receptacles per block 8 Roadway Re‐Striping 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Inclues parking lines for new and re‐striped spaces on south side, continential crosswalk striping $1,269,300
Bulb‐out Space Improvements*
9 Bulb‐out ‐ Basic Improvement 7,218 SF $27.84 $200,949 Unit costing for civil works and basic landscape treatments only.  See more detailed breakdown of SF unit costs.
10 Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement 12,180 SF $128.18 $1,561,232 Unit costing for basic civil + landscape improvement add‐ons.  See more detailed breakdown of SF unit costs.

Major Elements
11 Signature Interactive Feature 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 Provision for a significant placemaking feature element TBD such as kids' play element, interactive water feature, interactive art element, etc
12 District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type 3 EA $20,000 $60,000 Assume an average cost for an element in the range of $15,000‐$25,000 ea $1,947,182
Soft Costs
13 Design Services ‐ Landscape Architecture 1 LS $160,824 $160,824 Assume ~5% of overall construction costs, Schematic Design to Construction Document scope of work, assumes one full phase for the documentation.
14 Design Services ‐ Civil 1 LS $75,000 $75,000
PAGE 33 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 17

O V E R A L L C O S T S U M M A RY
15 Design Services ‐ Traffic Engineering 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Validate overall design, confirm we are not creating unforeseen safety and traffic issues, provide traffic signal relocation upgrade plans, signing and striping plan. 16 Design Services ‐ Electrical Engineering 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 17 Design Services ‐ Environmental Graphics 1 LS $26,600 $26,600 Monument element design.  Design work for monuments and banners, detail drawings and client meetings.  180‐200 hours = $25,200 ‐ $28,000.  Assume average cost within this range for purposes of this estimate.
18 Design Services ‐ Identify and Branding 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 District‐wide identity and branding strategy.  50‐80 hours = $7,000 ‐ $11,200.  Assume average cost within this range for purposes of this estimate.
19 Design Services ‐ Lighting Design 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 20 Site Survey 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
21 Geotechnical Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
22 Permitting and Approvals 1 LS $0 $0 Assume no permits or CEQA will be required for the project. $437,424
Grand Total $3,653,906
Supplemental Costs
Additional Phasing Construction Upcharge 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Additional construction cost to add to each project phase Not Included ‐‐> Potential Add‐ons
Streetscape Tree Grates 55 EA $3,000 $165,000 Tree grates installed at all existing trees (30) and new trees (25) to maximize constrainted walking conditions and reduce tripping hazards along streetscapes.

City‐wide Wayfinding Signs Directionals and parking directionals, separate proposal. *See pages 23 and 25 for more detailed cost breakdown information for bulb‐out spaces

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 34 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 18
Key points:
• New sidewalk trees to continue with Chinese
Pistache / Pistachia chinensis to replace existing
Ficus over time.
• A subterranean root trench to be installed with
each new tree planting targeting 100 ft3 of planting
soil per tree to provide enough soil volume for the
trees to grow large and provide an adequate shade
canopy. Root trenches would be below paving
areas and to be designed so that surface conditions
can be walked upon.
• Pots to be selected from an available family of
elements so that a range of complimentary pot
sizes and shapes can be implemented across a
range of sidewalk and storefront conditions, and
to offer some variety along the streetscapes.
• Pot should be more traditional in style but not
overly ornate and to be coordinated with the
overall district branding strategy. A custom San
Marino family of pots would be a great way to
uniquely brand the district.

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
1 New Sidewalk Trees 2 New Sidewalk Pots

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
to run
continuous
between
PAGE 35 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 19
Key points:
• Light fixtures will be another good opportunity to
apply branding and district character strategies
to the overall corridor and should be included in
developing that larger strategy.
• Pedestrian light posts to be more traditional in style but not overly ornate and should be complementary
to the more functional roadway lighting fixtures
(where applicable) and other vertical elements to
create a family of vertical features.
• Lighting elements to use LED lighting sources.
• Banner signs and other district identification
systems can be considered for multiple applications
including from streetscape posts, mounted to
storefronts, or perhaps included with the City’s
ongoing awning improvement program.
• Branding signs should be considered as part of a
larger strategy for the district identity.

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
3 New Pedestrian Light Fixtures - Decorative Pole 4 Banner Signs

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 36 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 20
Key points:
• Tree lighting to be an in-grade type, mounted in
paving, cobble, or tree grates at the base of the
trees. Two fixtures per tree. Fixtures to have a high
IP rating to prevent moisture leakage into fixtures,
preferably IP67.
• Consider uplights with an LED light source.

Consider including control system to allow for
color change for holidays and events.
• Alternative tree canopy mounted down lights can
also be considered to light up canopies, with close
attention to how conduit will run up the trees and
be hidden from view. This may not work in the
existing Ficus canopies because of the canopy
denseness, this route will require additional study.

Clear preference is lighting from below to also light
up the trunks.

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

5. Tree Uplighting

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 37 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 21
Key points:
• Similar to pots and light fixtures, benches and
trash receptacles need to be selected as a family
of elements and coordinated to San Marino’s
overall district branding and character approach.

Considering a custom or unique San Marino family
of elements would also be encouraged.
• Painted metal elements preferred over natural
wood for purposes of maintenance and durability.

Manufactured/recycled wood not preferred due to
perceptions associated with quality and longevity.
• Elements to be securely fixed to paving to prevent
movement or theft.

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
6 Street Furniture - Bench
7 Street Furniture - Trash Receptacle

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 38 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 22
Key points:
• Lower level of bulb-out investment.
• Not intended to be heavily programmed with
activities and features. Will be used primarily
to help prioritize a pedestrian oriented district,
shorten roadway crossing distances, and provide
opportunities for creating additional streetscape
greening pockets and softness.
• Bulb-outs intended to include both simple
hardscape and planted softscape spaces at this
basic level of improvement.
• Hardscape surfaces to be implemented with
standard cast-in-place concrete paving to be cost
effective and durable.
• Pedestrian crossings to be striped with clear and
bold patterns to indicate pedestrian priority. Art
crossings can also be considered in conjunction
with a larger art strategy for the district.

BULB-OUT IMPROVEMENTS
9 Bulb-out - Basic Improvement

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 39 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 23
United Contractors
10725 Ellis Avenue, Suite D
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (949) 945-0905
Contractor License #:
949005
Revision:Original Mission Street Improvements
2500 Mission St
San Marino, CA 91108
Printed On: 01/07/2021
Division Total
01 General Conditions $72,408.17
02 Site Work $336,969.59
02-020.S Surveying $8,133.34
02-180.S Temp Fence $2,168.89
02-226.S Concrete Sawing Demolition $2,711.11
02-227.S Demolition $102,725.14
02-310.S Grading $9,217.78
02-370.S Erosion Control $4,120.89
02-500.S Utility Services $3,470.22
02-701.S Paving $11,061.34
02-704 .S Parking Lot Striping $3,795.56
02-754.S Site Concrete $189,565.32
10% Fee $40,937.76
Total $450,315.52
Cost/Sq. Foot (Sq Ft): 16,174 $27.84
United Contractors
10725 Ellis Avenue, Suite D
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (949) 945-0905
Contractor License #:
949005

SCOPE OF WORK
Mission Street Improvements
2500 Mission St
San Marino, CA 91108
Estimator: Jim Jaquette
Architect Number:

Detailed notes explaining our attached Bid Proposal dated on 01/07/2021.

General Bid Notes
Proposal is based on sketch by Commercial Development Resources. Proposal is based on the sawcut and demolition of the existing curb and asphalt, soil prep, forming and pouring concrete as reflected on plans.

1. United Contractors
10725 Ellis Avenue, Suite D
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (949) 945-0905
Contractor License #:
949005
Exclusions & Qualifications
Project:

Mission Street Improvements
2500 Mission St
San Marino, CA 91108
Print Date:
01/07/2021
Proposal presumes that all work is to be completed during normal working hours and within one contiguous phase.

Proposal does not include any modifications to existing city utilities.

Proposal does not include and special, third party, or deputy inspections.

Proposal does not include cost of plancheck, permit, utility or municipal fees.

Cost is based on a prevailing wage standard.

Proposal is based on budgetary sketches and is subject to change upon receipt of construction documents.

Proposal is based on a prevailing wage project.

An allowance of $12,000 for traffic control has been included.

United Contractors
10725 Ellis Avenue, Suite D
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (949) 945-0905
Contractor License #:
949005
Alternates
Project: Mission Street Improvements Print Date: 01/08/2021 Location: 2500 Mission St San Marino CA 91108 Bid Date: 01/07/2021 Area: 16,174.00 SF Revision: Original
Architect Number: Owner Contact: Aaron Albertson
Adding phases $16,104.01
Additional cost to add a phase to the project.

BULB-OUT IMPROVEMENTS

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
Bulb-out - Basic Improvement: Cost Documentation
PAGE 40 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 24
/0123S41567839S:1;S<=>? @S<=<>SACC2D3
E68336SFG3H
AD3;I1D3JSK1DGLC8;G1
SACC2D3


.8UMTTUU U
TT
U

12345U6379:;5<U=3>U?@AB CU?@?AUDEE4F5
E>EF:F:URS5
Key points:
• Higher level of bulb-out investment.
• This level of bulb-out is intended to be more
heavily programmed with activities, elements, and
interesting placemaking features. This bulb-out
will provide additional sidewalk/streetscape spaces
for pedestrians to use and engage in as a series of
experiences along Mission Street.
• A richer range of materials and investment is
intended for this type of bulb-out. Brick paving
with interesting patterns encouraged, along with
planter walls to protect the interior spaces and
offer seating, tree plantings for shade, special
lighting, art, and other unique, programmed
features as described in this report.
• Opportunities to bring in art to draw from and
compliment the other strong civic institutions
in the City such as the Huntington Library and
gardens.

BULB-OUTS IMPROVEMENTS
10 Bulb-out - High-end Improvement

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 41 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 25

BULB-OUTS IMPROVEMENTS
10 Bulb-out - High-end Improvement

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 42 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 26
Landscape Cost Build‐up per SF
Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement
Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Sub Total Notes
Hardscape ‐ Paving ‐ Saw‐cut CIP Concrete 916 SF $0.00 $0 75% of bulb‐out space ‐ CONC ALREADY COVERED IN CIVIL Hardscape ‐ Planter Wall 240 FF $225 $54,000 ~70% of bulb‐out perimeter to protect the interior spaces, assume 3' high concrete wall (2' above grade, 1' below grade) x 80 LF, sand blast finish
Hardscape ‐ Brick Paving Upgrade 916 SF $15 $13,736 Concrete sub‐slab provided as part of base Civil works Softscape ‐ Trees 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 Provision one (1) large installed tree per bulb‐out (assume 36" box) Softscape ‐ Root Trench 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 10' x 20' x 5' deep sub‐terrain soil volume, assuming $40/CY planting soil fill, includes excavation and installation
Softscape   Groundcover/Shrubs 305 SF $6.75 $2,060 25% of bulb‐out space; 5‐gallon plants @ 2' oc triangular spacing (.25 plants / SF) Irrigation ‐ Softscape Areas 305 SF $2.00 $611
Site Furnishings ‐ Loose Tables and Chairs 12 EA $500 $6,000 Assume this is a public seating space, used by the adjacent businesses Lighting ‐ Tree Uplights 2 EA $800 $1,600 Assume 2 lights per tree Lighting ‐ Decorative Lighting Provision 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Lighting ‐ Transformer, wiring, connectors 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Art ‐ Provision for Art Implementation TBD 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Total $87,507
Contingency (10%) $8,751
Prevailing Wage Provision (30%) $26,252
Grand Total $122,510
San Marino Café & Marketplace Bulb‐out Area 1,221 SF units; includes bulb‐out area from back of curb and side walk area within bulb‐out extents Applied Cost $100.34 Cost per SF

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS

BULB-OUT IMPROVEMENTS
Cost Documentation for Additional Costs to Create High-end Improvements PAGE 43 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 27
Key points:
• This feature is intended to be a major district
investment and to offer a highly unique and
memorable placemaking experience along the
corridor. A broad range of options can be
considered for this feature but the experience
should be interactive and inviting for guests to
engage with. This feature should be reflective of
the larger district character, theme, etc. in some
way.
• Some preliminary ideas for this feature include:
a themed kid’s play element, an interactive water
feature with pop jets, a multi-media art experience
etc.
• Feature is envisioned to be an important driver for
attracting families and kids to Mission Street to
gather and hang out.

MAJOR ELEMENTS
11 Signature Interactive Feature

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 44 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 28

MAJOR ELEMENTS

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
11 Signature Interactive Feature
PAGE 45 of 180
3 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 29
Key points:
• This feature is intended to be a major placemaking
element and to help provide better identification
to the larger Mission Village district. The feature
is envisioned to enhance a sense of arrival and
destination to the district with a clear sense that you have left the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
• The feature to be considered in conjunction with
overall district branding strategies and should be
a complimentary element to the other landscape
elements.
• No specific form or exact application for this feature has been defined at this point but may be more
monument or pylon based due to constrained site
spaces. We anticipate this element to take more
specific shape under a separate project focused on
district-wide branding and identification.

MAJOR ELEMENTS

12. District Monument Gateway Features - Major type

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AND OVERALL COSTS
PAGE 46 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 30

PHASING SCENARIOS

PHASING SCENARIOS SUMMARY
Phasing Scenarios
Cost Notes
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb‐outs
Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Sidewalk Trees, Sidewalk Pots, Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle
New Bulb‐outs ‐ Prority at San Marino Café and Julienne's $331,345 2,585 SF @ $128.18/SF (Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$963,944
Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High‐end Bulb‐outs Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle New Bulb‐outs ‐ ALL Proposed High‐end Bulb‐outs with Modified Landscape Program (No Perimeter Walls)
$1,016,543 EXCLUDE PERIMETER PROTECTION WALLS, REPLACE WITH POTS; At San Marino Café, Los Robles NW corner, Julienne's (both sides), and El Molino NW corner (12,180 total SF).  Assume $83.46 / SF for modified landscape program (previously $128.18 / SF with walls).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$1,649,141
Scenario C: Strolling Experience (Complete Full North Side) Streetscape Improvements ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $647,150 Full scope streetscape improvements, north side only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $1,776,454 Bulb‐outs include perimeter protection walls.

Soft Costs $218,712 Assume 50% of total soft costs.
$2,642,316 Without bulb‐out walls, this option can be just under $2 million.

Scenario D: Streetscapes and Bulb‐outs at Los Robles
Streetscape Improvements ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $112,200 Full scope streetscape improvements, Los Robles intersection only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $649,984 INCLUDES: one (1) Monument/Gateway Feature.

Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$915,282
Scenario E: No Bulb‐outs ‐ Existing Streetscape Focused Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTING $799,300 REDUCE: Pedestrian lighting by 2/3.  EXCLUDES: ALL Monument/Gateway Features at bulb‐outs Soft Costs $284,326 Assume 65% of total soft costs.
$1,083,626
PAGE 47 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 31

PHASING SCENARIOS SUMMARY
Scenario F: Tivoli Lighting Replacing Ped Lighting
Streetscape Improvements ‐ NO PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTING $479,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle Overhead Tivoli Lighting Canopy 1 $405,000 Provisional sum pending more exact pricing and available design information.  Pricing breakdown includes:  Support posts: assume 25'‐30' tall, 12 total posts (6 per side x 1 blocks; spaced 60' oc) x $20,000 each including footing = $240,000.  Tensioned wire support system: $25,000.  LED lighting strips: spaced 1' on‐center x 20 rows wide x 300' along overall application length = $100,000.

Electrical and control system: wiring, conduit, controls, transformers, etc. = $40,000 Soft Costs $284,326 Assume 65% of total soft costs.
$1,168,826
Scenario G: Minimum Streetscapes
Streetscape Improvements ‐ MOST MINIMUM $352,100 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Pots (123 ea), Tree Uplighting, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle, .  EXCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3)
Soft Costs $109,356 Assume 25% of total soft costs.
$461,456
Notes:
1 Costs for this item to be considered a guiding provisional sum only.  There are a range of variables for this overall assembly that could vary costs significantly.  This item will need specialist review and consultation when more is known about a direction for the feature.

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 48 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 32
SCENARIO A: BASIC STREETSCAPES + PRIORITY BULB-OUTS
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb-outs
Streetscape Improvements - Reduced Scope
Priority Bulb-out - High-end Improvement
District Monument Feature

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 49 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 33
SCENARIO A: BASIC STREETSCAPES + PRIORITY BULB-OUTS
Phasing Scenarios
Cost Notes
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb‐outs
Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Sidewalk Trees, Sidewalk Pots, Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle
New Bulb‐outs ‐ Prority at San Marino Café and Julienne's $331,345 2,585 SF @ $128.18/SF (Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$963,944
Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High‐end Bulb‐outs Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle New Bulb‐outs ‐ ALL Proposed High‐end Bulb‐outs with Modified Landscape Program (No Perimeter Walls)
$1,016,543 EXCLUDE PERIMETER PROTECTION WALLS, REPLACE WITH POTS; At San Marino Café, Los Robles NW corner, Julienne's (both sides), and El Molino NW corner (12,180 total SF).  Assume $83.46 / SF for modified landscape program (previously $128.18 / SF with walls).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) f$f l f



#



.8UMTTUU U
TT
U

12345U6379:;5<U=3>U?@AB CU?@?AUDEE4
G9;559UHI5J
DF5>K3F5LUN3FIOE;>I3
UDEE4F5
??PBUQE>EF:F:URS5
10 Bulb-out High-end Improvement

PHASING SCENARIOS

#




.SBMRMSSS MM
S


/0123S41567839S:1;S<=>? @S<=<>SACC2D3
E68336SFG3H
AD3;I1D3JSK1DGLC8;G1
SACC2D3
<<<NSOC;CD7D7SPQ3
12 District Monument 10 Bulb-out High-end Improvement
1 Sidewalk Trees 2 Sidewalk Pots 5 Tree Uplighting
PAGE 50 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 34
SCENARIO B: BASIC STREETSCAPES + MODIFIED HIGH-END BULB-OUTS Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High-end Bulb-outs Streetscape Improvements - Reduced Scope
Priority Bulb-out - High-end Improvement
District Monument Feature

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 51 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 35
Phasing Scenarios
Cost Notes
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb‐outs
Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Sidewalk Trees, Sidewalk Pots, Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle
New Bulb‐outs ‐ Prority at San Marino Café and Julienne's $331,345 2,585 SF @ $128.18/SF (Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$963,944
Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High‐end Bulb‐outs Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle New Bulb‐outs ‐ ALL Proposed High‐end Bulb‐outs with Modified Landscape Program (No Perimeter Walls)
$1,016,543 EXCLUDE PERIMETER PROTECTION WALLS, REPLACE WITH POTS; At San Marino Café, Los Robles NW corner, Julienne's (both sides), and El Molino NW corner (12,180 total SF).  Assume $83.46 / SF for modified landscape program (previously $128.18 / SF with walls).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$1,649,141
Scenario C: Strolling Experience (Complete Full North Side) Streetscape Improvements ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $647,150 Full scope streetscape improvements, north side only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $1,776,454 Bulb‐outs include perimeter protection walls.

Soft Costs $218,712 Assume 50% of total soft costs.
$2,642,316 Without bulb‐out walls, this option can be just under $2 million.

Scenario D: Streetscapes and Bulb‐outs at Los Robles
Streetscape Improvements ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $112,200 Full scope streetscape improvements, Los Robles intersection only. 10 (sim) Modified high-end bulb out without perimeter walls SCENARIO B: BASIC STREETSCAPES + MODIFIED HIGH-END BULB-OUTS

PHASING SCENARIOS
1 Sidewalk Trees 2 Sidewalk Pots 5 Tree Uplighting
12 District Monument
PAGE 52 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 36
SCENARIO C: STROLLING EXPERIENCE (COMPLETE FULL NORTH SIDE) Scenario C: Strolling Experience (Complete Full North Side) Streetscape Improvements
Bulb-out - High-end Improvement
Bulb-out - Basic Improvement
Signature Interactive Feature
District Monument Feature

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 53 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 37
Phasing Scenarios
Cost Notes
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb‐outs
Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Sidewalk Trees, Sidewalk Pots, Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle
New Bulb‐outs ‐ Prority at San Marino Café and Julienne's $331,345 2,585 SF @ $128.18/SF (Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$963,944
Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High‐end Bulb‐outs Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle New Bulb‐outs ‐ ALL Proposed High‐end Bulb‐outs with Modified Landscape Program (No Perimeter Walls)
$1,016,543 EXCLUDE PERIMETER PROTECTION WALLS, REPLACE WITH POTS; At San Marino Café, Los Robles NW corner, Julienne's (both sides), and El Molino NW corner (12,180 total SF).  Assume $83.46 / SF for modified landscape program (previously $128.18 / SF with walls).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$1,649,141
Scenario C: Strolling Experience (Complete Full North Side) Streetscape Improvements ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $647,150 Full scope streetscape improvements, north side only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $1,776,454 Bulb‐outs include perimeter protection walls.

Soft Costs $218,712 Assume 50% of total soft costs.
$2,642,316 Without bulb‐out walls, this option can be just under $2 million.

Scenario D: Streetscapes and Bulb‐outs at Los Robles
Streetscape Improvements ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $112,200 Full scope streetscape improvements, Los Robles intersection only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $649,984 INCLUDES: one (1) Monument/Gateway Feature.

Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$915,282



#




.SBMRMSSS MM
S


/0123S41567839S:1;S<=>? @S<=<>SACC2D3
E68336SFG3H
AD3;I1D3JSK1DGLC8;G1
SACC2D3
<<<NSOC;CD7D7SPQ3 SCENARIO C: STROLLING EXPERIENCE (COMPLETE FULL NORTH SIDE) 10 High-end Bulb-out

PHASING SCENARIOS
1 Sidewalk Trees 2 Sidewalk Pots
5 Tree Uplighting
12 District Monument
4 Banner Signs
3 Pedestrian Light Fixtures
6 & 7 Street Furniture - Bench &
Trash Receptacle
PAGE 54 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 38
SCENARIO D: STREETSCAPES AND BULB-OUTS AT LOS ROBLES
Scenario D: Streetscapes and Bulb-outs at Los Robles
Streetscape Improvements
Bulb-out - High-end Improvement
Bulb-out - Basic Improvement
District Monument Feature

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 55 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 39
Phasing Scenarios
Cost Notes
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb‐outs
Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Sidewalk Trees, Sidewalk Pots, Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle
New Bulb‐outs ‐ Prority at San Marino Café and Julienne's $331,345 2,585 SF @ $128.18/SF (Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$963,944
Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High‐end Bulb‐outs Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle New Bulb‐outs ‐ ALL Proposed High‐end Bulb‐outs with Modified Landscape Program (No Perimeter Walls)
$1,016,543 EXCLUDE PERIMETER PROTECTION WALLS, REPLACE WITH POTS; At San Marino Café, Los Robles NW corner, Julienne's (both sides), and El Molino NW corner (12,180 total SF).  Assume $83.46 / SF for modified landscape program (previously $128.18 / SF with walls).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$1,649,141
Scenario C: Strolling Experience (Complete Full North Side) Streetscape Improvements ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $647,150 Full scope streetscape improvements, north side only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $1,776,454 Bulb‐outs include perimeter protection walls.

Soft Costs $218,712 Assume 50% of total soft costs.
$2,642,316 Without bulb‐out walls, this option can be just under $2 million.

Scenario D: Streetscapes and Bulb‐outs at Los Robles
Streetscape Improvements ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $112,200 Full scope streetscape improvements, Los Robles intersection only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $649,984 INCLUDES: one (1) Monument/Gateway Feature.

Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$915,282
Scenario E: No Bulb‐outs ‐ Existing Streetscape Focused Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTING $799,300 REDUCE: Pedestrian lighting by 2/3.  EXCLUDES: ALL Monument/Gateway Features at bulb‐outs Soft Costs $284,326 Assume 65% of total soft costs.
$1,083,626
SCENARIO D: STREETSCAPES AND BULB-OUTS AT LOS ROBLES
9 & 10 Bulb-outs (High-end and Basic) and Pedestrian Crossings

PHASING SCENARIOS
1 Sidewalk Trees 2 Sidewalk Pots
5 Tree Uplighting
12 District Monument
4 Banner Signs
3 Pedestrian Light Fixtures
6 & 7 Street Furniture - Bench &
Trash Receptacle
PAGE 56 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 40
SCENARIO E: NO BULB-OUTS - EXISTING STREETSCAPE FOCUSED Scenario E: No Bulb-outs - Existing Streetscape Focused Streetscape Improvements - Reduced Scope

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 57 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 41
Phasing Scenarios
Cost Notes
Scenario A: Basic Streetscapes + Priority Bulb‐outs
Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Sidewalk Trees, Sidewalk Pots, Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle
New Bulb‐outs ‐ Prority at San Marino Café and Julienne's $331,345 2,585 SF @ $128.18/SF (Bulb‐out ‐ High‐end Improvement).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$963,944
Scenario B: Basic Streetscapes + Modified High‐end Bulb‐outs Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED SCOPE $419,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle New Bulb‐outs ‐ ALL Proposed High‐end Bulb‐outs with Modified Landscape Program (No Perimeter Walls)
$1,016,543 EXCLUDE PERIMETER PROTECTION WALLS, REPLACE WITH POTS; At San Marino Café, Los Robles NW corner, Julienne's (both sides), and El Molino NW corner (12,180 total SF).  Assume $83.46 / SF for modified landscape program (previously $128.18 / SF with walls).

District Monument/Gateway Features ‐ Major Type $60,000 Three (3) Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$1,649,141
Scenario C: Strolling Experience (Complete Full North Side) Streetscape Improvements ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $647,150 Full scope streetscape improvements, north side only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ FULL NORTH SIDE ONLY $1,776,454 Bulb‐outs include perimeter protection walls.

Soft Costs $218,712 Assume 50% of total soft costs.
$2,642,316 Without bulb‐out walls, this option can be just under $2 million.

Scenario D: Streetscapes and Bulb‐outs at Los Robles
Streetscape Improvements ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $112,200 Full scope streetscape improvements, Los Robles intersection only.

New Bulb‐outs ‐ AROUND LOS ROBLES ONLY $649,984 INCLUDES: one (1) Monument/Gateway Feature.

Soft Costs $153,098 Assume 35% of total soft costs.
$915,282
Scenario E: No Bulb‐outs ‐ Existing Streetscape Focused Streetscape Improvements ‐ REDUCED PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTING $799,300 REDUCE: Pedestrian lighting by 2/3.  EXCLUDES: ALL Monument/Gateway Features at bulb‐outs Soft Costs $284,326 Assume 65% of total soft costs.
$1,083,626
SCENARIO E: NO BULB-OUTS - EXISTING STREETSCAPE FOCUSED

PHASING SCENARIOS
1 Sidewalk Trees 2 Sidewalk Pots
4 Banner Signs 5 Tree Uplighting
3 Pedestrian Light Fixtures (reduced)
6 & 7 Street Furniture - Bench &
Trash Receptacle
PAGE 58 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 42
SCENARIO F: TIVOLI LIGHTING REPLACING PED LIGHTING
Scenario F: Tivoli Lighting Replacing Ped Lighting
Streetscape Improvements - Reduced Scope
District Monument Feature
New Overhead Tivoli Lighting Canopy

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 59 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 43
Scenario F: Tivoli Lighting Replacing Ped Lighting
Streetscape Improvements ‐ NO PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTING $479,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle Overhead Tivoli Lighting Canopy 1 $405,000 Provisional sum pending more exact pricing and available design information.  Pricing breakdown includes:  Support posts: assume 25'‐30' tall, 12 total posts (6 per side x 1 blocks; spaced 60' oc) x $20,000 each including footing = $240,000.  Tensioned wire support system: $25,000.  LED lighting strips: spaced 1' on‐center x 20 rows wide x 300' along overall application length = $100,000.

Electrical and control system: wiring, conduit, controls, transformers, etc. = $40,000 Soft Costs $284,326 Assume 65% of total soft costs.
$1,168,826
Scenario G: Minimum Streetscapes
Streetscape Improvements ‐ MOST MINIMUM $352,100 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Pots (123 ea), Tree Uplighting, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle, .  EXCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3)
Soft Costs $109,356 Assume 25% of total soft costs.
$461456
SCENARIO F: TIVOLI LIGHTING REPLACING PED LIGHTING

PHASING SCENARIOS
Overhead Canopy Lighting System
1 Sidewalk Trees 2 Sidewalk Pots 5 Tree Uplighting
12 District Monument
PAGE 60 of 180

EL MOLINO AVE

LOS ROBLES AVE

LAS FLORES AVE

JULIENNE FINE

FOODS AND

CELEBRATIONS

SAN MARINO
CAFÉ &

MARKETPLACE

THE CUB
HOUSE
MARK
TAYLOR
SALON

MISSION ST

EUCLID AVE
4 6
15 EMPLOYEE

PARKING
LOT
PUBLIC

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT
4 4
7 3
4 4
12 PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

12.00 10
4 5
5 R25.00
R35.00
2 1

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE

PARKING
LOT

PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY 20.00

28.00 4.00

4.00 2

PRIVATE
GARAGE
0 50' 100'
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 44
S C E N A R I O G : M I N I M U M S T R E E T S C A P E S Scenario G: Minimum Streetscapes
Streetscape Improvements - Reduced Scope

PHASING SCENARIOS
PAGE 61 of 180
4 10% CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - FEBRUARY 2021 45
S C E N A R I O G : M I N I M U M S T R E E T S C A P E S Scenario F: Tivoli Lighting Replacing Ped Lighting
Streetscape Improvements ‐ NO PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTING $479,500 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Streetscape Pots, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3), Tree Uplighting.  EXCLUDES: New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle Overhead Tivoli Lighting Canopy 1 $405,000 Provisional sum pending more exact pricing and available design information.  Pricing breakdown includes:  Support posts: assume 25'‐30' tall, 12 total posts (6 per side x 1 blocks; spaced 60' oc) x $20,000 each including footing = $240,000.  Tensioned wire support system: $25,000.  LED lighting strips: spaced 1' on‐center x 20 rows wide x 300' along overall application length = $100,000.

Electrical and control system: wiring, conduit, controls, transformers, etc. = $40,000 Soft Costs $284,326 Assume 65% of total soft costs.
$1,168,826
Scenario G: Minimum Streetscapes
Streetscape Improvements ‐ MOST MINIMUM $352,100 INCLUDES: New Streetscape Pots (123 ea), Tree Uplighting, Street Furniture ‐ Bench, Street Furniture ‐ Trash Receptacle, .  EXCLUDES: New Streetscape Trees, New Pedestrian Light Fixtures ‐ Decorative Pole Type, Banner Signs, Roadway Re‐Stripping, New District Monument/Gateway Features (3)
Soft Costs $109,356 Assume 25% of total soft costs.
$461,456
Notes:
1 Costs for this item to be considered a guiding provisional sum only.  There are a range of variables for this overall assembly that could vary costs significantly.  This item will need specialist review and consultation when more is known about a direction for the feature.

PHASING SCENARIOS
2 Sidewalk Pots 5 Tree Uplighting
Streetscape Improvements - Most Minimum
6 & 7 Street Furniture - Bench &
Trash Receptacle
PAGE 62 of 180

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
PAGE 63 of 180
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
DATE: September 27, 2024
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-24-1413 AMENDING
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 14.18.07 (MAINTENANCE)
AND 23.16.03 (DEFINITIONS) AND ADDING MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 23.16.24 (PROHIBITION ON ARTIFICIAL

TURF AND GRASS) TO PROHIBIT ARTIFICIAL TURF AND

SYNTHETIC GRASS IN THE CITY

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Attractive, Complementary Business District
Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Neighborhoods
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Engaged and Connected Residents
Safe Community

BACKGROUND
Due to concerns expressed by the community in regards to the installation of artificial turf on existing single-family residential properties, especially in light of recent activity and the potential for additional unregulated installations, the City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. O-23- 1408-U) that temporarily prohibited the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City for forty-five days at its September 13, 2023, meeting.

The City Council extended the moratorium by adopting an interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. O-23-1410-U) at its October 27, 2023, regular meeting. This ordinance extended the moratorium for an additional ten months and fifteen days—until September 12, 2024. The temporary Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
PAGE 64 of 180
moratorium allows City staff the time to research and prepare an ordinance, which would contain development standards and specifications, as well as a process to regulate the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass.

Previously, Government Code section 53087.7 barred the City from prohibiting the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass on residential property.

Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 676 into law on October 8, 2023. Senate Bill 676, which becomes effective on January 1, 2024, removes the City’s inability to ban the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass on residential property.

On October 27, 2023, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would prohibit the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass within the City. The City Council also directed staff to include potential exceptions in the draft ordinance that could allow for the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass to facilitate putting greens (recreational) and to integrate with other hardscape designs generally in addition to driveway pavers such as pool areas, rear yard pavers and other hardscape features.

On August 29, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review and take public comment on Ordinance No. O-24-1413. The Planning Commission discussed the complete and partial prohibition of the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass on residential property. The draft Ordinance included a provision that would limit the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass to the rear yard for recreational purposes such as putting greens with a maximum area not to exceed 200 square feet. The Planning Commission voiced concerns that the partial allowance for the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass for recreational and decorative purposes would continue to pose a harm to the community for the following reasons:
• Health risks to the community related to the PFAS chemicals (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA present in artificial turf and synthetic grass; • Potential contamination to the City’s water table and drainage issues; • Lack of natural vegetation due to the construction of residential expansions and accessory dwelling units associated with existing and future State laws that limit outdoor space in smaller lots; • Inconsistent with the City’s adopted Residential Guidelines that identify the use of natural vegetation for landscaping;
• Difficulty of enforcing and monitoring the Ordinance due to limited staff resources;
• Smell and unsightly maintenance issues associated by the use of pets; and
• Out of character with the City’s founding principles of a garden city.

PAGE 65 of 180
The Planning Commission unanimously voted (5-0) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR-24-07, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. O-24-1413 inclusive of a total prohibition.

On September 11, 2024, the City Council conducted a public hearing to review and take public comment on the proposed Ordinance. The City Council voted 4-1 on a motion to adopt interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. O-23- 1410-U) that temporarily prohibited the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City. The extension ordinance would extend the moratorium for one year, the period provided for in Government Code section 65858 or until a permanent change to the interim ordinance is adopted and goes into effect, whichever comes first.

At the same meeting, the City Council voted 3-2 to waive full reading and introduce by title only Ordinance No. O-24-1413 with amendments to the Ordinance to allow for the installation of a maximum of 200 square feet of artificial turf and synthetic grass only to the rear yard of a residence with the issuance of a building permit to ensure that the installation is completed based on the standards identified within the Ordinance.

The City Council voted 4-1 to reconsider full reading and introduction by title only of Ordinance No. O-24-1413 in order to reexamine the inclusion of an amortization period to remove all legal nonconforming artificial turf and synthetic grass, with the exception of the maximum 200 square feet to the rear yard of a residence. The City Council deliberated the merits of the inclusion of a sunset date and voted unanimously (5-0) to include an amortization period that would require all legal nonconforming artificial turf and synthetic grass, with the exception of the maximum 200 square feet to the rear yard of a residence to be removed by no later than 6 years from the adoption of the Ordinance. The amended Ordinance (Attachment 1) reflects the changes adopted by the City Council.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Ordinance is to codify the prohibition on artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City with the exception of a maximum of 200 square feet to the rear yard of a residence, include an amortization period for removal and regulate existing installations of artificial turf and synthetic grass. The proposed ordinance would:
• Delete a reference to artificial turf in the yard maintenance section of Municipal Code Section 14.18.07;
• Add identical definitions of “artificial turf” and “synthetic grass” as “[a] man-made surface manufactured from synthetic materials which PAGE 66 of 180
simulate the appearance of live turf, grass, sod, or lawn” to Municipal Code Section 23.16.03;
• Add Section 23.16.24 to the Municipal Code to prohibit the installation of artificial turf or synthetic grass in the City with the exception of a maximum of 200 square feet to the rear yard of a residence; • Regulate existing legal nonconforming artificial turf or synthetic grass in the City;
• Include an amortization period that would require all nonconforming artificial turf and synthetic grass, with the exception of the maximum 200 square feet to the rear yard of a residence to be removed by no later than 6 years from the adoption of the Ordinance ;and • Prohibit the installation of artificial landscaping such as, but not limited to trees, hedges, bushes, and other artificial landscape features as determined by the Community Development Director.

CEQA
In accordance with Section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the ordinance, which prohibits the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City is not subject to CEQA review because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) provides that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
Apart from the reallocation of staff resources needed to address this matter, there is no new financial impact.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. O-24-1413. If the City Council agrees, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt Ordinance No. O-24-1413, an Ordinance of the San Marino City Council amending Municipal Code Sections 14.18.07 and 23.16.03 and PAGE 67 of 180
adding Municipal Code Section 23.16.24 to prohibit the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. O-24-1413
PAGE 68 of 180
ORDINANCE NO. O-24-1413

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

MARINO PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

AND SYNTHETIC GRASS IN THE CITY OF SAN MARINO BY
AMENDING SAN MARINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 14.18.07
(MAINTENANCE) AND 23.16.03 (DEFINITIONS) AND ADDING
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 23.16.24 (PROHIBITION ON ARTIFICIAL

TURF AND GRASS)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the City adopted a temporary moratorium (Urgency Ordinance No. 0-21-1385-U) prohibiting the installation of artificial turf or synthetic grass within the City at its September 13, 2023 City Council meeting, finding that the unregulated installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the moratorium lasts for a period of 45 days, unless extended after conducting a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council extended the moratorium at its October 27, 2023 meeting until September 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, it is known to the City that certain types of artificial turf and synthetic grass create impenetrable barriers which prohibit or severely limit the absorption of ground water, and when unmitigated, create the serious risk of overwhelming the capacity of the City's stormwater drainage system that has been designed under flow analysis, projections, and assumptions that did not take into account impermeable artificial turf and synthetic grass being installed throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, numerous studies, including an on-going study by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, have identified that artificial turf and synthetic grass contain a wide range of chemicals depending on their source materials, which have the capability to leach into the environment and cause irreparable damage to the City's ecosystem and watershed; and
WHEREAS, there are additionally other unknown health impacts that artificial turf and synthetic grass pose to residents, especially children, given the wide-ranging types of chemicals found in artificial turf and synthetic grass, including chemicals that are known to be toxic and cause cancer, and left completely unregulated, the discharge of such chemicals could pose health risks to residents; and
PAGE 69 of 180
WHEREAS, the state of California continuously experiences cycles of drought which create an increased demand for drought tolerant landscaping, including artificial turf and synthetic grass and some property owners have recently installed synthetic grass on their properties; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 53087.7 prohibits the City from banning the installation of “drought-tolerant landscaping using living plant material on residential property;” and WHEREAS, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 676 into law on October 8, 2023, which amended Government Code section 53087.7 to exclude artificial turf and synthetic grass from the definition of “drought-tolerant landscaping;” and
WHEREAS, under the police powers granted to it by the California Constitution, the City has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City desires to prohibit the installation of artificial turf and synthetic landscaping as permitted by Senate Bill 676.

SECTION 2. San Marino Municipal Code Section 14.18.07 (Maintenance) is amended to read as follows with deletions marked in strikethrough:

A. Vacant properties shall not be kept in a substandard condition. Vacant properties shall be, in comparison to the neighborhood standard, kept free of weeds, dry brush, dead vegetation, trash, junk, debris, building materials, any accumulation of newspapers, circulars, flyers, notices (except those required by federal, state or local law), discarded personal items, including, but not limited to, furniture, clothing, large and small appliances, printed material or any other items that give the appearance that the property is vacant or abandoned. The property shall be maintained free of graffiti, tagging or similar markings by removal or painting over with an exterior-grade paint that matches the color of the exterior of the structure. Visible front and side yards shall be landscaped and maintained to the neighborhood standard existing at the time registration was required.

B. Pools and spas shall be kept in working order so the water remains clear and free of pollutants and debris or in a condition that could be a breeding ground for mosquitoes and other vectors, or shall be drained and kept dry. In either case properties with pools or spas must comply with the minimum security fencing requirements of the State of California.

C. Yard Maintenance: Front, side, and rear yards, including landscaping, shall be maintained in a clean and thriving condition in accordance with the applicable Code(s). Yard maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, grass, ground covers, bushes, shrubs, hedges or similar plantings, decorative rock or bark or artificial turf/sod. Acceptable maintenance of yards and/or landscape shall not include weeds, broken concrete, asphalt or similar material.

Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, cutting and mowing of required ground cover or landscaping, and removal of all trimmings.

D. Vacant properties shall be maintained so as not to become a refuge for coyotes, vermin or other wildlife.

PAGE 70 of 180
E. Failure to adhere to the maintenance standards for vacant properties shall be a public nuisance, subject to abatement or summary abatement in accordance with this code.

SECTION 3. San Marino Municipal Code Section 23.16.03 (Definitions) is amended to add the following terms (in alphabetical order):

The terms used in this article have the meanings set forth below:

ARTIFICIAL TURF: A man-made surface manufactured from synthetic materials which simulate the appearance of live turf, grass, sod, or lawn.

ARTIFICIAL PLANTS/ARTIFICIAL VEGETATION: A man-made or synthetically derived product that is meant to imitate a plant, tree, shrub, grass, herb, fern or moss.

SYNTHETIC GRASS: A man-made surface manufactured from synthetic materials which simulate the appearance of live turf, grass, sod, or lawn.

SUBGRADE: The native ground underneath a synthetic grass and artificial turf installation.

Subgrade does not include concrete, pavers or impermeable hardscape.

SECTION 4. San Marino Municipal Code Section 23.16.24 (Prohibition on Artificial Turf and Synthetic Grass) is added to read as follows:

A. No artificial turf or synthetic grass shall be installed within the City.

B. No artificial plant or artificial vegetation shall be installed within the City as part of a landscaping plan.

C. This section shall not apply to a designated recreational area limited to no more than 200 square feet located in the rear yard of a residence and must be installed under the following conditions:

1. Synthetic grass and artificial turf installations must be maintained pursuant to its manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, in an attractive and clean condition, and must not contain holes, tears, stains, discoloration, seam separations, lifted surfaces, loose or separated nap and netting, buckling, heat degradation, or excessive wear.

2. Existing installations must remain tight and flush with subgrade.

3. Existing installations must allow permeability of storm water.

4. Adjacent hardscape, ground cover and natural landscaped areas must be kept free of residual debris from synthetic grass and artificial turf such as plastic blades, netting and crumb rubber.

PAGE 71 of 180
D. D. This section shall not apply to facilities owned and used by schools.

E. E. This section shall not apply to driveway pavers if the Community Development Director determines that the driveway has adequate pervious surfaces, which must cover 50% or more of the driveway at a minimum.

F. Synthetic grass and artificial turf installations damaged or destroyed, by any means, to the extent of thirty-five percent (35%) of its replacement cost, must be removed and replaced with water-efficient natural landscaping.

G. Existing artificial turf, synthetic grass, artificial plant, or artificial vegetation within the City shall be replaced by natural turf and non-artificial vegetation once it has reached the end of its use or is unable to be maintained as required by this section.

H. F. Existing synthetic grass and artificial turf legally installed prior to September 131, 20243, is permitted to remain under the following conditions:

1. The issuance of a building permit is required prior to the installation of synthetic grass and artificial turf.

2. Synthetic grass and artificial turf installations must be maintained pursuant to its manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, in an attractive and clean condition, and must not contain holes, tears, stains, discoloration, seam separations, lifted surfaces, loose or separated nap and netting, buckling, heat degradation, or excessive wear.

32. Existing installations must remain tight and flush with subgrade.

43. Adjacent hardscape, ground cover and natural landscaped areas must be kept free of residual debris from synthetic grass and artificial turf such as plastic blades, netting and crumb rubber.

54. Synthetic grass and artificial turf installations damaged or destroyed, by any means, to the extent of thirty-five percent (35%) of its replacement cost, must be removed and replaced with water-efficient natural landscaping.

65. Notwithstanding the foregoing, eExisting artificial turf, synthetic grass, artificial plant, or artificial vegetation within the City legally installed prior to September 13, 2023, must be removed no later than October 31, 2030.shall be replaced by natural turf and non-artificial vegetation once it has reached the end of its use or is unable to be maintained as required by this section.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Chapter, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

PAGE 72 of 180
SECTION 6. CEQA.

The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The ordinance, which prohibits the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass in the City is not subject to CEQA review because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) provides that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 7. PUBLICATION
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days following publication by title and summary. ________________________
STEVEN W. HUANG, DDS,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________

CITY CLERK

ALISON WALKER
PAGE 73 of 180
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

JOSEPH MONTES

CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 74 of 180
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
DATE: September 27, 2024
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR PLAN CHECK
SERVICES WITH VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATES, INC.
(VCA)

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government

BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department (Department) is seeking to renew the agreement with VanDorpe Chou Associates, Inc. (VCA) to provide Building Code services that include building plan check and inspection services (Exhibit A). VCA has been providing building inspection and plan check services for the City since 1990. VCA has also provided the City with other professional engineering services as required to assist staff in delivering services to residents, which include fire prevention inspections.

DISCUSSION
The current agreement dated September 8, 2021, includes an hourly rate schedule for specific services. VCA Code has submitted a request to increase the Plan Check services from $110 to $122 per hour and the Building Inspection services from $85 to $95 per hour. In collaboration with the City’s Fire Department, the Department also utilizes VCA for fire prevention inspection services.

The attached agreement extends VCA Code’s services for an additional 3 years and includes an annual cap of $221,000. This cap reflects the projected Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
PAGE 75 of 180
volume of work, grading services, and fee increases. Per the agreement, the contract will expire on September 27, 2027.

Currently, the City’s Park & Public Works Director/City Engineer reviews grading plans. The amended contract will allow VCA to review all grading plans to assist staff to deliver services to residents in an efficient and effective manner.

In preparation of the contract renewal, staff took the opportunity to solicit proposals from two other engineering consulting agencies that perform similar services. As a result, staff received proposals from Willdan Engineering and Transtech Engineers, Inc., Willdan submitted an hourly rate of $145 for plan check services while Transtech Engineers, Inc. included an hourly rate between $145 and $160 for the same service. VCA’s fees are below both of the aforementioned engineering consulting firm fees and VCA’s knowledge and familiarity with the City’s Municipal Code and policies enhances their value to the City. Attachment 2 contains VCA’s scope of work and fee schedule.

Staff has been highly satisfied with the quality and reliability of services provided by VCA over the past thirty-four years. Given the Department's longstanding relationship with VCA, staff is confident that the exemplary level of service will continue. Additionally, it is important to highlight that VCA has provided valuable support by temporarily filling critical Departmental positions during periods of vacancy. Furthermore, VCA offers specialized grading services to assist the Public Works Department and fire prevention inspections to assist the Fire Department, which further enhances VCA’s value to the City.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
A budget amendment to the FY 2024-25 operating budget is not required as the City Council approved an appropriation of $250,000 in Community Development Department Contract for Building & Safety Services account 101-14-4104-6270 and in Parks and Public Works Administration, Contract Engineering Services account 101-40-4104-0000. However, there is a limited impact to these accounts because these charges are generally reimbursed through revenue generated by permit and inspection fees paid by applicants.

The Finance Director has reviewed this report and concluded that this agreement is in the best interest of the City.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

PAGE 76 of 180

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the contract and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the contract renewal for VCA and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Professional Services Agreement

2. Scope of Work & Fee Schedule
PAGE 77 of 180
1 of 17

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
between
The City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
&
The Code Group, Inc.

DBA: VCA Code
1845 W. Orangewood Ave., #210
Orange, CA 92868
This Professional Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) is made as of September 27, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), by and between The Code Group, Inc. DBA: VCA Code (“Consultant”), and the City of San Marino (“City”), a California municipal corporation, (collectively, “the Parties”).

PAGE 78 of 180
2 of 17

RECITALS
A. City desires certain professional services as specified in this Agreement.

B. Consultant represents that it is qualified and able to provide City with such services.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties’ performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1.0 Scope of Services

1.1. Consultant shall provide those services (“Services”) set forth in the attached Exhibit A.

1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City.

1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations.

1.4. Consultant shall not be compensated for any work performed unless it is specified in Exhibit A or City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. Any work so authorized by City shall become part of the Services for purposes of this Agreement.

2.0 Term
The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue through September 27, 2027 unless sooner terminated as provided in Section

5.0 of this Agreement.

3.0 Consultant’s Compensation
City will pay Consultant in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B but in no event will the City pay more than $221,000 annually. Any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Section 1.4 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, unless otherwise approved by City in writing.

Pursuant to Section 02.06.05 of the San Marino City Code, this Agreement shall not be effective unless previously approved by the City Council if it is for professional services of greater than thirty-thousand dollars ($30,000.00).

4.0 Method of Payment

4.1. Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for all services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end PAGE 79 of 180
3 of 17
of the month during which the services were rendered and shall describe in detail the services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Consultant all undisputed charges within 30 days of receiving Consultant’s invoice.

City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other required or authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant.

4.2. Upon 24-hour notice from City, Consultant shall allow City or City’s agents or representatives to inspect at Consultant’s offices during reasonable business hours all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. City’s rights under this Section 4.2 shall survive for two years following the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.

5.0 Termination

5.1. City may terminate this Agreement at any time, at will, for any reason or no reason, after giving written notice to Consultant at least thirty (30) calendar days before the termination is to be effective.

5.2. Consultant may terminate this Agreement for cause in the event City fails to cure a default under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after Consultant has given City notice of such default.

5.3. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall cease all work under this Agreement and deliver to City all materials, reports, documents, notes or other written materials compiled through the last working day this Agreement is in effect. City shall pay Consultant for all services satisfactorily rendered through the last working day this Agreement is in effect; provided that in no event, including but not limited to termination, shall Consultant be entitled to receive more than the maximum compensation set forth in Section 3. Neither party shall have any other claim against the other party by reason of termination pursuant to this Section 5.0.

6.0 Reports, Information, and Work Product

6.1. Consultant shall deliver to City: (1) any reports on the status of the Services upon City’s request and in such time and in such form as City may require; and (2) all material furnished to Consultant by City upon City’s request and/or upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

6.2. Unless the Parties agree in writing, all draft and final reports, documents, and other written material, and any and all images, ideas, concepts, designs including without limitation any website designs, source code, object code, electronic data and files, and/or other media whatsoever created or developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement (collectively, “Work Product”) shall be considered to be “works made for hire” for the benefit of City. All Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final PAGE 80 of 180
4 of 17
payment being made. Consultant shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any of the Work Product. Consultant hereby assigns to City all rights of ownership to the Work Product, including but not limited to any and all related intellectual property and proprietary rights that are not otherwise vested in the City pursuant to this paragraph.

6.3. Consultant warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals necessary to the production of the Work Product, and that upon final payment, City shall have full legal title to the Work Product, and full legal authority and the right to use and reproduce the Work Product for any purpose.

Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city officials, harmless from any loss, claim, or liability in any way related to a claim that any use by the City of any of the Work Product violates federal, state, or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any rights or laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents, or other means of protecting intellectual property rights, and/or interests in products, ideas, or inventions.

Consultant shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret, or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices, or processes in connection with its provision of the Work Product produced under this Agreement. If any use by city of any of the Work Product or other deliverables is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Consultant, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City the right to continue using such Work Product and/or other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (b) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become noninfringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement.

6.4. Consultant’s obligations under this Section 6.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

7.0 Party Representatives

7.1. City’s representative for purposes of this Agreement is the City Manager or the person designated in writing by the City Manager. The City Manager’s designee may exercise the authority of the City Manager provided in this Agreement excepting approval of any expenditure that would exceed a total compensation allowed under the Agreement.

7.2. Rick Bergin is Consultant’s representative for purposes of this Agreement.

8.0 Notices

8.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses:

PAGE 81 of 180
5 of 17
To City: City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California 91108
Attn: City Manager
To Consultant: The Code Group, Inc.

DBA VCA Code
1845 W. Orangewood Ave., #210
Orange, CA 92868

8.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

9.0 Independent Consultant

9.1. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of City. All services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the services. Any additional personnel performing services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.

9.2. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs, and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Consultant’s personnel practices. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. All duties of Consultant under this Section

9.2 shall survive termination of this Agreement.

9.3. In the event that Consultant provides any of the Services by or through any employee or any person whose work under this Agreement becomes cause for any payment or contribution required by law, including but not limited to the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), to the Public Employee Retirement System, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all such payments or contributions.

Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs, and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Consultant’s failure to make any PAGE 82 of 180
6 of 17
such payment or contribution. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. All duties of Consultant under this Section

9.3 shall survive termination of this Agreement.

10.0 Subcontractors
Unless otherwise specified in Exhibit A, no portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City Manager. Consultant is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors, if any.

11.0 Assignment
Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement whether by assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of City Manager. Any purported assignment without such consent shall be void and without effect.

12.0 Insurance

12.1. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this Section. Consultant shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements, including but not limited to additional insured endorsements, effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City, if requested. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

12.2. General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

12.3 Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned, or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

12. 4 Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in PAGE 83 of 180
7 of 17
connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three years after completion of the services required by this agreement.

12.5 Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (statutory limits) and Employer’s Liability insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

Consultant shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of Agency, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

12.6 Cyber security and privacy liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence/loss, $2,000,000 general aggregate, which shall include the following coverage:
a. Liability arising from the theft, dissemination and/or use of confidential or personally identifiable information; including but not limited to personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), security codes, access codes, passwords, etc.
b. Network security liability arising from the unauthorized use of, access to, or tampering with computer systems, including hacker or denial of service attacks. c. Liability arising from introducing a computer virus into or otherwise causing damage to vendor (first-party) or customer’s (third party) computer, computer system, network, or similarly related property and the data, software, and programs. d. Liability arising from professional misconduct or lack of the requisite skill required for performing services defined in the contract or agreement. e. Costs associated with restoring, updating, or replacing data. f. Costs associated with a privacy breach, including notification costs, customer support, forensics, crises management, public relations consulting, legal services of a privacy attorney, credit monitoring, and identity fraud resolution services for affected individuals.

If coverage is maintained on a claims-made basis, consultant shall maintain such coverage for an additional three (3) years following termination of the contract.

12.7 Cyber technology errors and omissions. Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence/loss, $2,000,000 general aggregate, which shall include the following coverage:

PAGE 84 of 180
8 of 17
a. Liability arising from the unauthorized release of information for which an entity has the legal obligation to keep private, such as personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information(PHI).
b. Network security liability arising from the unauthorized use of, access to, or tampering with computer systems, including hacker or denial of service attacks. c. Liability arising from the failure of technology products (software and hardware) required under the contract for Consultant to properly perform the intended services. d. Claims alleging the failure of computer security that result in the transmission of malicious code, deletion, destruction or alteration of data, or the denial of service. e. Electronic Media Liability arising from personal injury, plagiarism or misappropriation of ideas, domain name infringement or improper deep-linking or framing, and infringement or violation of intellectual property rights. f. Liability arising from the rendering, or failure to render, professional services. g. Defense costs in regulatory proceedings (state and federal) involving a violation of privacy laws or intellectual property rights.
h. Crisis management and other expert services.

If coverage is maintained on a claims-made basis, the Consultant shall maintain such coverage for an additional three (3) years following termination of the contract.

Other provisions or requirements

12.8. Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance and required endorsements to Agency as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by Agency’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with Agency for the contract period and any additional length of time required thereafter. Agency reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

12.9 Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the contract period, and any additional length of time required thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, or financial loss which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees, or sub-consultants.

12.10Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by Agency shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall PAGE 85 of 180
9 of 17
also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of Agency before the Agency’s own insurance or self- insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

12.11 Agency’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Agency has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by Agency will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Agency will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Agency may cancel this Agreement.

12.12 Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the Agency’s Risk Manager.

12.13 Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against Agency, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against Agency and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.

12.14 Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the Agency to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the Agency nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

12.15 Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Agency requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Agency.

12.16 Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide the Agency with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. If any of the Consultant’s insurers PAGE 86 of 180
10 of 17
are unwilling to provide such notice, then Consultant shall have the responsibility of notifying the Agency immediately in the event of Consultant’s failure to renew any of the required insurance coverages, or insurer’s cancellation or non-renewal.

12.17 Additional insured status. General liability, automobile liability, and umbrella/excess liability insurance policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that Agency and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies.

12.18 Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to Agency and approved of in writing.

12.19 Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any crossliability exclusions.

12.20 Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party who is brought onto or involved in the project/service by Consultant (hereinafter collectively “Subcontractor”), provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. However, in the event Consultant’s Subcontractor cannot comply with this requirement, which proof must be submitted to the Agency, Consultant may still be able to utilize the Subcontractor provided Consultant shall be required to ensure that its Subcontractor provide and maintain insurance coverage and endorsements sufficient to the specific risk of exposure involved with Subcontractor’s scope of work and services, with limits less than required of the Consultant, but in all other terms consistent with the Consultant’s requirements under this Agreement. This provision does not relieve the Consultant of its contractual obligations under the Agreement and/or limit its liability to the amount of insurance coverage provided by its subcontractors. This provision is intended solely to provide Consultant with the ability to utilize a Subcontractor who may be otherwise qualified to perform the work or services but may not carry the same insurance limits as required of the Consultant under this Agreement given the limited scope of work or services provided by the subcontractor.

Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with Subcontractors, and others engaged in the project and/or services, will be submitted to Agency for review.

12.21 Agency’s right to revise specifications. The Agency reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of PAGE 87 of 180
11 of 17
such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the Agency and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.

12.22 Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by Agency. Agency reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention through confirmation from the underwriter.

12.23 Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give Agency prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.

12.24 Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend

12.25 To the maximum extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, its agents, or its subcontractors in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys’ fees and other related costs and expenses, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. With respect to any and all such aforesaid suits, actions, or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Indemnitees, Consultant shall defend Indemnitees, at Consultant’s own cost, expense, and risk, and shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award, or decree that may be rendered against Indemnitees. Consultant shall reimburse City and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.

Consultant’s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement.

12.26 Consultant must obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in Section 0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of the Services. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnities, Consultant shall be fully PAGE 88 of 180
12 of 17
responsible and indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, whether actual, alleged, or threatened, arising or claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to the acts or omissions of Consultant’s subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors, or their respective officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant’s subcontractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Claims arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties.

13.0 Equal Opportunity
Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or age. Such non-discrimination includes, but is not limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination.

14.0 Labor Certification

14.1. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code. Consultant shall provide evidence of such coverage before commencing the performance of the Services.

14.2. Consultant certifies that in the performance of the Services, Consultant shall not, in any manner, employ any person or contract with any person so that any Services so performed by such person would be subject to the workers’ compensation laws of the State of California unless and until Consultant gives City a certificate of consent to self-insure or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage.

14.3. In the event Consultant hires a subcontractor who has employees to perform the Services or any part thereof, then Consultant shall either require the subcontractor to obtain Workers’ Compensation Insurance Coverage, or must obtain Workers’ Compensation Insurance Coverage for the subcontractor’s employees.

14.4. Any Workers’ Compensation Insurance Coverage required by or for this Agreement shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of City for all work performed by Consultant, its employees, its agents, and its subcontractors.

15.0 Entire Agreement
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties.

PAGE 89 of 180
13 of 17

16.0 Severability
The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement.

17.0 Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

18.0 No Third Party Rights
No third party shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party as a result of this Agreement.

19.0 Waiver
No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

20.0 Headings
Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be deemed a part of this Agreement.

21.0 Force Majeure
Consultant shall not be liable for any failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement if Consultant presents that City in its sole judgment deems acceptable that such failure was due to strikes, lockouts, labor disputes, embargoes, acts of God, governmental restrictions, governmental regulations, governmental controls, judicial orders, enemy or hostile governmental action, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, or other causes beyond Consultant’s reasonable control and not due to any act by Consultant.

22.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release
Consultant’s acceptance of City’s final payment under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Consultant for the Services or anything done or furnished relating thereto. Neither City’s payment to Consultant nor approval of payment constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Consultant, its employees, sub-contractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such or payment or approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents.

PAGE 90 of 180
14 of 17

23.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest

23.1. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services.

Consultant shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Consultant “financially interested” (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained.

23.2. Consultant further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Consultant paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Consultant hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift.

23.3. Consultant warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws as described in this subsection.

24.0 Attorneys’ Fees
If either party commences any legal, administrative, or other action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith.

25.0 Exhibits
Each exhibit referenced in this Agreement is hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control.

PAGE 91 of 180
15 of 17

26.0 Corporate Authority

26.1. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of Consultant and that by his or her execution, Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

26.2. Consultant certifies it is aware of the requirements of Sections 313 of the California Corporations Code. If Consultant is a corporate entity, it shall either:
(a) provide City written proof that each person executing this Agreement on Consultant’s behalf is duly authorized to bind Consultant; or (b) provide two signatories to this Agreement, of whom the first must be Consultant’s chairman of the board, president, or a vice president and the second must be Consultant’s secretary, an assistant secretary, its chief financial officer, or an assistant treasurer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF SAN MARINO
By:_________________________
Philippe Eskandar
City Manager
Attest:

By:_________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

By:_________________________
Joseph Montes
City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By:_____________________________
(Sign)
Name:__ Tom VanDorpe_________
(Print)
Title: ___ CEO/Sr. Principal_______
(Print)
By:_____________________________
(Sign)
Name:__________________________
(Print)
Title: __________________________
(Print)
PAGE 92 of 180
16 of 17
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
PAGE 93 of 180
17 of 17
Exhibit B
Fee Schedule
PAGE 94 of 180
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
SECTION 1. BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services listed below on behalf of the City. When necessary to provide the services, employees of Consultant shall have the powers and duties of a City Building Inspector and/or City Engineer as provided in the City's codes and ordinances.

A. Plan Check Services: Consultant shall review building, grading, and related plans submitted to the City for compliance with the CITY'S codes and ordinances and any applicable discretionary Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council approvals (collectively referred to as "CITY Requirements"). CONSULTANT shall maintain a close liaison with the CITY'S Planning and Building Director, City Engineer, and City Fire Marshal and shall insure that all plans reviewed by CONSULTANT comply with the CITY Requirements.

CONSULTANT shall send the plans to all other public agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The CONSULTANT shall approve the plans only if they comply with all of CITY'S Requirements and each agency having jurisdiction over the plans has informed CONSULTANT that the plans satisfy the requirements of that agency.

B. Building Inspection: CONSULTANT shall provide building inspection services during the course of construction of those projects assigned by the Planning and Building Director to assure that the construction is performed in compliance with CITY'S Requirements and requirements of other agencies having jurisdiction. In the performance of such duties, CONSULTANT shall provide prompt inspection for each project at the completion of the various stages of construction. CONSULTANT shall also provide other services as customarily assigned to a City Building Inspector including, but not limited to, conducting minor plan checks, answering public inquiries by phone or in person, and processing permits.

C. Facilities for Records: CONSULTANT shall assemble and maintain records customarily maintained by a City Building Department. Such records shall at all times be the property of the CITY and shall be kept at City Hall.

D. Construction Inspection on CITY, San Marino Recreation Department, and San Marino City Library Projects: CONSULTANT shall provide construction inspection on CITY, San Marino Recreation Department, and San Marino City Library capital projects as assigned in writing by the City Manager. In the performance of such duties, CONSULTANT shall provide prompt inspection at a levelsatisfactory to the Planning and Building Director. CONSULTANT shall assemble and maintain all records related to construction inspection customarily PAGE 95 of 180
maintained by a construction inspector. Such records shall at all times be the property of the CITY and shall be kept at City Hall.

E. Professional Engineering Services: CONSULTANT shall provide support to City Staff on all matters requiring senior level professional engineering experience at the discretion and/or request of the City Manager or Planning and Building Director.

F. Collection of Fees: As part of CONSULTANT’S services, CONSULTANT shall calculate and collect from applicants all required fees for plan checking and permit issuance. Said fees shall be collected in the San Marino City Hall and shall be immediately provided to the appropriate City employee or official.

SECTION 2. PERFORMANCE LEVELS. CONSULTANT shall provide sufficient qualified staff to attain and maintain the following performance levels:

A. Plan Checks:

1. Residential remodeling and additions-Plans returned within five (5) working days of date received.

2. Residential accessory construction (i.e.pools, patios)-Plans returnedwithin five (5) working days of the date received.

3. New residential construction-Plans returned within ten (1O) working dates of date received.

4. Commercial remodeling-Plans returned within five (5) working days of the date received.

5. New commercial construction-Plans returned within ten (1O) working days of date received.

B. Building Inspections: Inspections will be performed the following day if CONSULTANT is notified of the inspection by 4:00 p.m. of the previous day; otherwise inspections will be performed within two (2) working days after notification. When CONSULTANT'S inspector is already in the CITY, the inspector will perform the inspection on the same day the request is made, if possible.

Certain inspections may be required to take place on Saturday upon prior arrangements.

C. Construction Inspection of City Facilities: A schedule for inspections shall be arranged with the Planning and Building Director during the pre-job conference with the contractor.

PAGE 96 of 180
VCA Code | 1845 W. Orangewood Ave., #210, Orange, CA 92868 | 714.363.4700 VCA Code Rate Structure:

Contract Staffing Functions (DOE/Certs) Hourly Rate
Outsourced Plan Review to VCA Offices (includes
pickup and delivery at no cost to the City)
$122.00 per hour
Plan Check Engineer assigned to work at the City
I
$125.00 to $135.00
ICC Certified Plans assigned to work Examiner at City $115.00 to $125.00 ICC Sr. Building Inspector $90.00 to $100.00
ICC Combination Inspector $90.00 to $105.00
ICC Electrical Inspector $95.00 to $105.00
ICC Building Inspector I / Mechanical / Plumbing Insp. $85.00 to $95.00 Grading Inspector / Soils Inspector $90.00 to $105.00
Fire Inspector $85.00 to $95.00
CASp Services (Inspection and plan review) $140.00 to $150.00 ICC Certified Permit Technician $70.00 to $80.00
CALGreen Inspector / Manager Services $105.00 / $135.00 Code Enforcement Officer / Code Enforcement Supr. $80.00 to $100.00 City Planner / Project Manager / Planning Manager $175.00 to $195.00 Senior Planner / Principal Planner $145.00 to $165.00
Zoning Administrator $125.00 to $145.00
Associate Planner $100.00 to $130.00
Assistant Planner/Counter Services $90.00 to $100.00
Planning Technician/Assistant $80.00 to $90.00
Administrative Personnel $60.00 to $70.00
Client Consultation at City Hall (CBO/Sr. Management) $145.00 Building Official $145.00 to $175.00
VCA charges current IRS mileage rates for VCA staff driving to / from job sites.

Overtime rates are 1.5x the hourly rate
PAGE 97 of 180
Exhibit B
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Amber Shah, Parks & Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: September 27, 2024
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MEMORANDUM

OF AGREEMENT WITH SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG) FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY REGIONAL FOOD RECOVERY

PROGRAM

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government

BACKGROUND
In September 2016, the passage of Senate Bill 1383 established statewide targets to reduce the disposal of organic waste from landfills and increase recovery of currently disposed edible food for human consumption. To recover 20 percent of edible food that would otherwise be sent to landfills by 2025, SB 1383 requires local jurisdictions to establish food recovery programs and strengthen their existing food recovery networks.

City staff are working with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) to provide a regional approach for SB 1383 compliance. The Regional Food Recovery Program, known as FRESH SGV, was established to help member agencies comply with SB 1383's food recovery mandates and reduce food waste in the San Gabriel Valley. Known as one of the largest regional food recovery programs in California, the Program assesses commercial edible food waste generators, identifies and fosters partnerships with local food recovery organizations, implements outreach and education endeavors, and develops and implements inspection protocols. Last year, the Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
PAGE 98 of 180
SGVCOG issued grant awards to God’s Pantry located in Pomona, Heart of Compassion located in Montebello, and Foothill Unity Center located in Monrovia to develop regional “food hubs” which help recover and redistribute excess edible food to people experiencing food insecurity. Seventeen (17) cities are currently participating in FRESH SGV.

In Spring 2022, the City was awarded Round One SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant funding from CalRecycle in the amount of $21,274. This noncompetitive grant program provided funding to local jurisdictions to assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383.

In the first round of the grant program, the City of San Marino had an individual grant agreement with CalRecycle and utilized these funds to pay for various organics products that would assist the City in SB 1383 compliance. Round Two of the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program allowed Joint Powers Authorities to apply on behalf of member agencies. Another change to the grant was the increase in the base award for jurisdictions from $20,000 to $75,000, with remaining funds distributed based on per capita calculations. With these changes, SGVCOG submitted a regional application for the Round Two Grant and was awarded $2.1 million in funding to implement the Program on participating cities’ behalf. This includes an allocation of $75,000 for the City of San Marino of which $25,000 has been designated for participation in the SGVCOG lead Regional Food Recovery Program (FRESH SGV).

Round Two eligible projects include edible food recovery, inspection and enforcement, and education and outreach, among other activities related to SB 1383 implementation. SGVCOG’s regional application included funding for the inspection and enforcement program, the hub development program to continue the recovery of excess edible food, city-specific programs, and project management costs for SGVCOG staff and consultants.

DISCUSSION
The City of San Marino and SGVCOG previously entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which SGVCOG coordinated Program services and was reimbursed by the City. The SGVCOG is now the direct recipient of the CalRecycle grant funding on behalf of the City. As the direct recipient of CalRecycle grant funding, the SGVCOG will utilize a portion of the grant funds to continue to provide Program services in the City. The SGVCOG has drafted the proposed MOA / Letter Agreement, which outlines the terms, services, and respective responsibilities of SGVCOG and the City of San Marino to support the Program. The agreement term begins upon execution and extends until all work under the program is completed.

PAGE 99 of 180
When originally presented to the City Council at its November 8, 2023, meeting, staff had tentatively proposed the City could use its portion of the grant funds (in the amount of $50,000) designated for City-specific SB 1383 services to obtain solid waste/recycling tracking and compliance monitoring software, pending any other needs that could be identified. After further consideration, staff believes it would be more beneficial to utilize the funds to support other SB 1383 initiatives for compliance that may include:
• Procurement of recycled organics products such as compost, mulch, etc. • SB 1383 resident outreach for transition to 3-container program • Consultant services to assist with annual reporting, implementation record, compliance tracking and waiver program
• SB 1383 required inspections, including contamination monitoring • Procurement of 3-stream waste containers for City facilities • Other grant compliant purchases identified by staff
This will allow the City to retain flexibility in the use of the Round Two SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant funding from CalRecycle to make purchases tailored towards the community and ensure compliance with SB 1383 regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
Per the MOA/Letter Agreement the City will spend up to $50,000 in program eligible expenses. Then the City will submit for reimbursement from SGVCOG.

Procurement review is not applicable.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement between the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and the City of San Marino for participation in the San Gabriel Valley Regional Food Recovery Program.
“I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement between the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and the City of San Marino for participation in the San Gabriel Valley Regional Food Recovery Program.”
PAGE 100 of 180

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Memorandum of Agreement
PAGE 101 of 180
1596561.1

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF SAN MARINO FOR

PARTICIPATION IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY REGIONAL FOOD

RECOVERY PROGRAM
This Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) is dated for identification purposes as of September 27, 2024 by and between the City of San Marino, a municipal corporation (“City”), and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, a California joint powers authority (“SGVCOG”). City and SGVCOG may be referred to herein collectively as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party.” RECITALS:

A. The passage of SB 1383 (Lara, 2016) implemented statewide targets to reduce statewide disposal of organic waste and increase recovery of currently disposed edible food for human consumption. Specifically, SB 1383 aims to recover at least 20% of currently disposed edible food for human consumption by 2025. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has developed regulations entitled “Short-lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reductions” (hereafter “SLCP Regulations”), which regulations are codified at Chapter 12 of Division 7 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 18981.1 et seq.1 B. To recover 20% of edible food that would otherwise be sent to landfills by 2025, SB 1383 requires local jurisdictions to establish food recovery programs and strengthen their existing food recovery networks.

C. The SGVCOG was established to have a unified voice to maximize resources and advocate for regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley by the member cities and other local governmental agencies and has established and is administering a Regional Food Recovery Program (the “Program”).

D. The SGVCOG is the direct recipient of the OWR 4 CalRecycle 1383 Local Assistance Grant for Program services on behalf of the City. The City has expressed its desire to receive such Program services, which will be funded by the SGVCOG.

E. City and SGVCOG desire to set forth the terms of their ongoing collaboration with respect to this effort in this MOA and further agree as follows:

I. RECITALS
The above Recitals are made a substantive part of this MOA.

II. TERM:

A. The term of this MOA shall commence on July 31, 2024 and shall continue 1 All Section references herein are to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations unless otherwise stated.

PAGE 102 of 180
1596561.1
through the completion of all work completed under this MOA. The term of this MOA may be extended by mutual written MOA of the Parties.

III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES:

A. SGVCOG Responsibilities:

1. Manage and administer CalRecycle and consultant agreements to ensure successful implementation of the Program.

2. Manage the budget for the Program, which includes utilizing any surplus funds from the Original MOA to support Program implementation. Manage invoicing and payments to be made to consultants.

3. Provide a point-of-contact to serve as the SGVCOG’s Project Manager.

4. Respond to and address City questions regarding Program implementation.

5. Coordinate conference calls and/or meetings with City and consultant as necessary.

6. Hold joint city food recovery meetings to support information sharing.

7. Provide support to the selected regional food recovery hub(s) and the food recovery network.

8. Review submitted invoices from the City. Upon receipt of a proper invoice, reimburse the City up to a not to exceed amount of $50,000, as described in the budget attached in Attachment B (the “Project Budget”) for expenditures that are in compliance with the CalRecycle grant.

9. Provide payment to the City for eligible expenses within 30 days of approval of City’s invoice.

B. City Responsibilities:

1. Maintain membership in the SGVCOG during the entire term of the Program.

2. Designate a point-of-contact to serve as the City’s Project Manager to provide direction and support and manage the day-to-day coordination with the SGVCOG and consultants.

3. Respond to requests, provide data and information as requested, review materials, and provide input to the SGVCOG and its consultants to support the implementation of the Program.

4. Coordinate City resources as needed to facilitate implementation of the Program within the City.

5. Participate in scheduled monthly conference calls and/or meetings with the SGVCOG and consultants throughout the term of the Program.

6. Participate in monthly joint city food recovery meetings.

7. Review and provide comments to, as applicable, consultant or the SGVCOG, on deliverables as necessary. Approve within five (5) business days any deliverables that can be approved by staff or ten (10) business days any items that need to be approved by city attorney or city manager.

8. Provide feedback and elevate questions to the SGVCOG’s Project Manager on the implementation of the Program.

9. Comply with requirements of jurisdictions under SB 1383.

10. Expend funds on goods, equipment, and services consistent with the Scope of PAGE 103 of 180
1596561.1
Work and Project Budget.

11. Submit detailed invoices to the SGVCOG in accordance with the Scope of Work and Project Budget. Reimburse the SGVCOG for payments the SGVCOG has made to the City for City expenditures that are later determined by the SGVCOG through an audit or otherwise, to be not in compliance with the Scope of Work or Project Budget.

II. INELIGIBLE EXPENSES:

A. Work within the Scope of Work and Project Budget but funded by another source.

B. Work or expenditures not completed during the term of this MOA, including work performed prior to the effective date of this MOA.

C. Any other activities or expenditures not set forth in Attachment A or Attachment B.

III. INVOICING:

A. City shall submit invoices for any eligible expenses on a quarterly basis. Grantee must provide all necessary documentation, including but not limited to timesheets, invoices, or receipts, as support for the invoice. City shall not invoice the SGVCOG for expenditures which require the SGVCOG’s pre-approval and such pre-approval was not obtained.

IV. AMENDMENTS:

A. For any change which materially affects the project scope of work, or in any way modifies any term or condition included under this MOA, an amendment to the MOA shall be prepared and executed by the City and by the SGVCOG for such change to be effective.

B. Minor changes to the project scope of work or budget may be approved by the SGVCOG’s Project Manager, who shall in writing and in his or her reasonable discretion determine whether the change is minor. Any increase in the not to exceed amount of this MOA shall require an amendment.

IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT:

A. For the purposes of this MOA, SGVCOG designates the following individual as its Project Manager: Mackenzie Bolger, Principal Management Analyst, whose contact information is set forth below.

B. For the purposes of this MOA, the City designates the following individual as its representative: Amber Shah, Parks and Public Works Director whose contact information is set forth below.

PAGE 104 of 180
1596561.1
C. Either Party may change the designations set forth herein upon written notice to the other Party.

V. DEFAULT; REMEDIES:

A. Default. A “Default” under this MOA is defined as any one or more of the following: (i) failure of either Party to comply with the terms and conditions contained in this MOA; and/or (ii) failure of either Party to perform its obligations set forth herein satisfactorily or make sufficient progress towards completion of the Regional Food Recovery Program.

B. Remedies. In the event of a Default by either Party, the non-defaulting Party will provide a written notice of such Default and thirty (30) days to cure the Default. In the event that the defaulting Party fails to cure the Default or commit to cure the Default and commence the same within such 30-day period and to the satisfaction of the non-defaulting Party, the non-defaulting Party may terminate this MOA. Such termination shall be effective immediately upon the provision of written notice by the non-defaulting Party to the defaulting Party. The remedies described herein are non-exclusive. In the event of a Default by either Party, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to seek any and all remedies available at law or in equity.

V. INDEMNIFICATION:

A. City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold free and harmless the SGVCOG, its member agencies, and their respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, at City’s sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought against the SGVCOG, its member agencies, and their respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising out of or relating to the acts or omissions of City in connection with this MOA.

B. SGVCOG agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold free and harmless the City, its employees, and volunteers, at SGVCOG’s sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its employees, and volunteers arising out of or relating to the acts or omissions of SGVCOG in connection with this MOA.

VII. INSURANCE:

A. City and SGVCOG shall maintain and keep in full force and effect during the term of this MOA insurance or a program of self-insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise in connection with City’s or SGVCOG’s performance of its obligations hereunder.

VIII. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

PAGE 105 of 180
1596561.1
A. Notices. All notices required herein shall be sent by email, except for a notice of termination, default, or failure to cure, which shall be sent by certified mail, postage pre-paid, return receipt requested. Either Party may change its Project Manager or contact upon written notice to the other Party and shall promptly update the other Party in writing of any such changes.

To SGVCOG: Mackenzie Bolger
Principal Management Analyst
1333 S. Mayflower Ave., Suite 360
Monrovia, CA 91016
(626) 214-1316
[email protected]
with a copy to: Marisa Creter
Executive Director
1333 S. Mayflower Ave., Suite 360
Monrovia, CA 91016
[email protected]
To City: Amber Shah
Parks and Public Works Director
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
[email protected]
B. No Partnership. This MOA is not intended to be, and shall not be construed as, an agreement to form a partnership, agency relationship, or a joint venture between the Parties. Except as otherwise specifically provided in the MOA, neither Party shall be authorized to act as an agent of or otherwise to represent the other Party.

C. Entire MOA. This MOA constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This MOA may be modified only in writing and signed by the Parties in interest at the time of such modification.

D. Governing Law. This MOA shall be governed by and construed under California law and any applicable federal law without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this MOA, the Parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Los Angeles County, California.

E. Excusable Delays. Neither Party shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by unforeseen causes including acts PAGE 106 of 180
1596561.1
of God, floods, earthquakes, fires, acts of a public enemy, pandemic, epidemic, and government acts beyond the control and without fault or negligence of the affected Party. Each Party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any such circumstances claimed to delay, hinder, or prevent performance of any obligations under this MOA.

F. Waiver. Waiver by any Party to this MOA of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. No waiver of any provision of this MOA shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought.

G. Headings. The section headings contained in this MOA are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the contents to which they relate.

H. Assignment. Neither Party may assign its interest in this MOA, or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of the other Party. Any assignment without consent shall be void and unenforceable.

I. Severability. If any provision of this MOA is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

J. Authority to Execute. The person executing this MOA on behalf of a Party warrants that they are duly authorized to execute this MOA on behalf of said Party, and that by doing so said Party is formally bound to the provisions of this MOA.

K. Counterparts. This MOA may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

L. Electronic Signatures. This MOA may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code Section 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. [Signature page to follow.]
PAGE 107 of 180
1596561.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this MOA to be executed and to be effective on the date it has been fully executed by the Parties as set forth below.

FOR THE CITY OF San Marino:

By:__________________________
Philippe Eskandar
City Manager
Date:_________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alison Walker
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Joseph Montes
City Attorney

FOR THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS:

By: ____________________________
Marisa Creter
Executive Director
Date:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
David DeBerry
General Counsel
PAGE 108 of 180

ATTACHMENT A - SCOPE OF WORK
The SGVCOG Regional Food Recovery Program services under this agreement include the following:

Program Management
SGVCOG will organize meetings with the City and SGVCOG representatives to discuss the project deliverables and receive feedback on the project progress. The SGVCOG will also the following program management duties:
• Oversee consultant work,
• Track program budget, and
• Monitor, amend, and enforce contracts
Inspections and Enforcement
• Identification of food recovery organizations (FROs) and Tier 1 and Tier 2 edible food generators (EFGs) within the City
• Annual inspections of Tier 1 and 2 EFGs and FROs in the City, with reports of inspection outcomes
• Assessment of total amount of edible food generated by Tier 1 and 2 EFGs and available capacity of FROs to accept edible food
Public Outreach and Engagement
• Regional workshops to educate grocery stores, restaurants, and food recovery organizations on regulations and to share best practices and resources • Development of outreach materials, such as SB 1383 fliers • One-on-one engagement with Tier 1 and Tier 2 EFGs and FROs to provide education and guidance on 1383 compliance
Food Recovery Hub Development/FRO Support
• Coordination with and support of food recovery hubs to expand the region’s capacity to recover food and address food insecurity
• Support to smaller food recovery organizations to allow more local groups to sustain operations and comply with SB 1383
City-Specific Services
The SGVCOG has also allocated funds to support city-specific SB 1383 initiatives, which may include organics procurement, supplies, software, SB 1383 implementation staff time, or other preapproved purchases. The budget for such services is outlined in Attachment B.

PAGE 109 of 180
ATTACHMENT B – Budget and Invoicing
The SGVCOG has allocated a total not-to-exceed amount of $50,000 to support city-specific SB 1383 initiatives as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Budget
Category Description Total Funds
City-Specific Services
Organics procurement, supplies, software, SB 1383
implementation staff time, or other pre-approved
purchases $50,000.00
Total Budget $50,000.00
PAGE 110 of 180
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Cathi Johnson, Community Services Director
DATE: September 27, 2024
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

AND THE CITY OF SAN MARINO FOR THE PROVISION,

INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ADVANCED

NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES AT THE CROWELL PUBLIC

LIBRARY

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
Inviting and Relevant City Facilities

BACKGROUND
Since 2015, the Crowell Public Library has participated in the California Library Connect program. This program supports California public libraries by connecting them to the California Research and Education Network (CalREN).

CalREN is a high-capacity, roughly 8,000-mile, fiber-optic-based network which supports the vast majority of K-20 students together with educators, researchers, and others working in California’s public-serving institutions. It is through this program that the Library receives access to high-speed broadband at a discounted rate.

California Library Connect program is supported through the partnership of three agencies: the California State Library, the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), and a third agency that manages billing and contracting. On May 8, 2024, the City Council approved of a novation agreement transferring the billing and contracting responsibilities of Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
PAGE 111 of 180
the third party from Columbia Telecommunications Corporation to Imperial County Office of Education (ICOE).

DISCUSSION
As part of this contract, CENIC contracts for circuits for each of the public libraries. These circuits allow them to connect to CENIC’s fiber optic backbone, and are currently up for renewal. The new circuits have a useful life of five years and have different costs than the existing circuits, which need to be reflected in the contract amendment.

The cost of the existing circuits consists solely of a monthly cost of $1,108.80.

The cost of the new circuits consists of a monthly cost of $846.95 for years 1 through 5. The City will also be responsible for an annual cost of equipment maintenance of $1,110.78 in Year 1, and $4,523.58 in Years 4 & 5; no equipment maintenance costs will be incurred in years 2 and 3.

The below table lists the Library’s estimated cost of high-speed broadband for the next five years. Note: the cost billed to the City should not exceed the below amounts per ICOE; however, the rebates and subsidies fluctuate based on state and federal funding allowances.

Fiscal
Year
Cost Billed
to City
Estimated
Rebates /
Subsidies
Estimated
Cost After
Rebates /
Subsidies
2024-25 $11,274.18 $6,736.38 $4,537.80 *
2025-26 $10,163.40 $6,736.38 $3,427.02
2026-27 $10,163.40 $6,736.38 $3,427.02
2027-28 $14,686.98 $6,736.38 $7,950.60 **
2028-29 $14,686.98 $6,736.38 $7,950.60 **
* Cost in FY 2024-25 is higher due to a one-time cost of $1,110.78 for maintenance of existing equipment.
** Costs in FY 2027-28 and 2028-29 are tentatively higher as the State does not yet know if there will be grants available to cover the cost of equipment maintenance in these years. It is possible that a grant will become available and the cost for these two years will decrease.

Note: the costs of this program are competitive. A Request for Proposals was conducted by Columbia Telecommunications Corporation prior to ICOE taking over.

PAGE 112 of 180
Also reflected in this contract amendment are insurance requirements. ICOE will be required to provide proof of general liability insurance and worker’s compensation.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
No budget appropriations are needed at this time and future annual costs will be included each year in CSD’s annual operating budget.

Procurement review is not applicable.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council approve the Amendment #1 to the Agreement between the Imperial County Office of Education and the City of San Marino for the provision, installation, and maintenance of advanced network (data) services at the Crowell Public Library. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the Amendment #1 to the Agreement between the Imperial County Office of Education and the City of San Marino for the provision, installation, and maintenance of advanced network (data) services at the Crowell Public Library, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Agreement between City of San Marino and Columbia
Telecommunications Corporation

2. Novation Agreement between City of San Marino and Imperial County Office of Education

3. Proposed Amendment #1 between City of San Marino and Imperial County Office of Education
PAGE 113 of 180
PAGE 114 of 180
PAGE 115 of 180
PAGE 116 of 180
PAGE 117 of 180
7/18/2022
PAGE 118 of 180
PAGE 119 of 180
Quote For Crowell
Customer: Crowell Public Library
Budget Summary Description: 1 Gbps to CENIC Hubsite
Quote Date:

Quote Expiration:

Contract Number:

Line Item NRC
Non-Recurring Cost
MRC
Monthly Recurring Cost
ARC
Annual Recurring
Cost
1 Equipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 Installation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 Circuit $0.00 $1,108.80 -
Total $0.00 $1,108.80 $0.00
Annual Cost $13,305.60
E-rated Annual Cost† $3,991.68
Total for Year 1 $13,305.60
E-rated Total for Year 1† $3,991.68
*Pricing does not include applicable taxes, surcharges, and fees. These costs may vary and will be included in invoices at CENIC’s actual cost.
*If an Out of Band line is required, customer must provide a phone line for OOB or allow CENIC to order one and be reimbursed for both the one-time installation and ongoing monthly recurring costs. *NRC items are one-time costs billed upon execution of contract. *MRC items are billed quarterly.
†E-rate discount: percent discount indicated is an estimate based on data available at the time the quote was generated. Actual discount percentage will be identified by the E-rate authorities at a later point †E-rate and CTF reimbursements are dependent upon the continued funding of these programs. CENIC/Califa cannot guarantee the E-rate and CTF discounts, and these discounts are subject to change. †E-rate Costs may take up to 18 months to activate due to USAC processing time Version: 1.0
PAGE 120 of 180
Crowell Carrier Costs
*Pricing does not include applicable taxes, surcharges, and fees. These costs may vary and will be included in
invoices at CENIC’s actual cost.

E-rate discount: percent discount indicated is an estimate based on data available at the time the quote was generated. Actual discount percentage will be identified by the E-rate authorities at a later point
LOC A** Carrier Info E-rate Discount 40.00% Total Discounted MRC Total Discounted NRC Site Name Site Name Service
Provider
Requested
Bandwidth
Est Contract End
Date
Non Recurring
Cost
MRC for 5 year
term
Discounted NRC Discounted MRC $332.64 $0.00
Crowell Public Library - Crowell
Public Library CENIC Hubsite AT&T 1 Gbps 7/1/2025 $0.00 $1,108.80 $0.00 $332.64 PAGE 121 of 180
PAGE 122 of 180
PAGE 123 of 180
PAGE 124 of 180
PAGE 125 of 180
AMENDMENT 1 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
AND

CITY OF SAN MARINO

FOR THE PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES.

This amendment was entered into on July 1, 2024.

The purpose of this amendment is to add language regarding General Liability and Worker’s Compensation insurance minimums and to replace Appendix #1, “Provision, Installation, and Maintenance of Advanced Network (Data) Services: Reimbursement of Circuit Costs,” to the Agreement between the City of San Marino and the Imperial County Office of Education executed on June 17, 2024.

1. Insurance:
a. Each party shall obtain, pay for, and maintain in effect during the life of this Agreement a Commercial General Liability insurance policy that includes coverage for Premises Operations, Products/Completed Operations, Contractual, Independent Contractors, Broad Form Property Damage, and Personal Injury; with a minimum combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 for Bodily Injury and Property Damage (each occurrence) and a $2,000,000 aggregate. b. Nothing in this Insurance section shall reduce a party’s liabilities or obligations under the Indemnification section of this Agreement.
c. The Parties acknowledge that ICOE is permissibly self-insured under California law.
d. Upon request, each Party shall provide proof of insurance to the other Party. e. The Library will be named as additional insured with respect to general liability.

Nothing in this Insurance section shall reduce a party’s liabilities or obligations under the Indemnification section of this Agreement.
f. Each party shall obtain, pay for, and maintain in effect during the life of this Agreement workers compensation coverage as required by California Law. This requirement may be met with a combination of insurance and/or self-insurance. A waiver of subrogation will apply to workers' compensation coverage.

2. Appendix #1A: Appendix #1, “Provision, Installation, and Maintenance of Advanced Network (Data) Services: Reimbursement of Circuit Costs,” is hereby replaced in entirety with the attached Appendix #1A effective July 1, 2024. The purpose of this revision is to renew the Crowell Library connection(s) to CalREN as detailed in Appendix #1A.

All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement remain in place and unchanged.

PAGE 126 of 180
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives.

For City of San Marino
Signature
Name
Title
Date
For ICOE
Signature
Name
Title
Date
PAGE 127 of 180
APPENDIX #1A

PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES:

Reimbursement of Circuit Costs
This Appendix lists the circuits contracted for by CENIC on behalf of ICOE and the Library for connecting CENIC’s fiber optic backbone to the Library and for library connections that are not direct connections to CENIC’s fiber optic backbone, e.g., direct connections between libraries (defined as “Services” in the Agreement). Library understands that CENIC will bill ICOE, and ICOE will bill the Library for the costs of circuits charged by network service providers, including any taxes and surcharges and any one-time installation fees. Prior to approval of CENIC’s E-rate Consortium Library Application, not all applicable E-rate and CTF discounts will be reflected on invoices. After the E-rate Application for any given year is approved, the network service provider will coordinate with CENIC to provide appropriate credits. Such credits will be passed from CENIC to ICOE and from ICOE to the Library. Such credits are typically issued sometime during the fiscal year after the year in which the circuits are installed and Services are first provided. In subsequent years, credits continue to be issued in the fiscal year after the year for which Services have been provided. Library further understands that the exact discounted cost of circuits will not be known until after the E-rate Consortium Library Application is approved. The actual start date of the service and circuit costs will depend on coordination among CENIC, the Library, and the network service provider. Any one-time (Non-recurring or NRC) costs included below are typically invoiced by carriers prior to circuit installation and will be invoiced to the Library upon receipt of the invoice to CENIC from the network service provider.

PAGE 128 of 180
PAGE 129 of 180
PAGE 130 of 180
PAGE 131 of 180
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Alison Walker, City Clerk
DATE: September 27, 2024
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. R-24-26, UPDATING THE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN
MARINO

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government

BACKGROUND
The Political Reform Act requires that every local government agency conduct a biennial review of its Conflict of Interest Code to determine if it is accurate or whether the code should be amended. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is charged with enforcing the provisions of the Political Reform Act and has adopted a Model Conflict of Interest Code that can be incorporated by reference by the City. The Model Code will be amended by the FPPC from time to time to conform with any amendments to the Political Reform Act.

DISCUSSION
The City’s Conflict of Interest Code was last updated on October 12, 2022.

Since then, there have been personnel and job specification changes in the City that necessitate an update to the Conflict of Interest Code. Exhibit A of the Resolution makes updates to the Conflict of Interest Code by adding several positions to the list of designated employees. There are no changes to the disclosure categories for each designated employee or Appendix B and C of the Resolution Exhibit.

Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
PAGE 132 of 180

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution No. R-24-26 updating the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of San Marino. If Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
”I move to adopt Resolution No. R-24-26, updating the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of San Marino.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution No. R-24-26

2. Exhibit A Conflict of Interest Code Redlined

3. Exhibit A Conflict of Interest Code Clean
PAGE 133 of 180
RESOLUTION NO. R-24-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, UPDATING THE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF SAN
MARINO
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes; and
WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18730, containing the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Marino is amending the previous Conflict of Interest Code to incorporate updated department positions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The terms of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18730, and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference, as specified in the attached “Exhibit A.” Exhibit “A” hereto, including the Appendices, is hereby adopted by reference and constitutes the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of San Marino.

SECTION 2. Persons holding designated positions shall file Statements of Economic Interest with the City Clerk of the City of San Marino who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction pursuant to Government Code Section 81008. Upon receipt of the Statements of the City Council members, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and Planning Commission members, the City shall make and retain a copy and forward the original of these Statements to the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Statements for all other designated employees will be retained by the City of San Marino.

SECTION 3. The provisions of all Conflict of Interest Codes and amendments thereto previously adopted for the City of San Marino are hereby superseded with the Conflict of Interest Code adopted herein.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, at an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Marino, California, on this 27th day of September, 2024.

PAGE 134 of 180
CITY OF SAN MARINO RESOLUTION NO. R-24-26

_____________________________
STEVEN W. HUANG, DDS, MAYOR

CITY OF SAN MARINO
ATTEST:
_______________________________

ALISON WALKER

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF SAN MARINO )
I, Alison Walker, City Clerk of the City of the City of San Marino, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. R-24-26 was adopted by the City Council of the City of San Marino at an Adjourned Regular Meeting held on the 27th day of September, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________

ALISON WALKER

CITY CLERK
PAGE 135 of 180
Updated: October 12September 27, 20242
Exhibit A
City of San Marino

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
PAGE 136 of 180
Updated: October 12September 27, 20242
The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act.

Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. The regulation and the attached Appendix designating positions, and establishing disclosure requirements, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of San Marino.

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interest with the Office of the City Clerk which will retain the statements and make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Government Code Section 81008) PAGE 137 of 180
Updated: October 12September 27, 20242

APPENDIX A

SCHEDULE OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES

DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
(See Appendix B for Description)
City Manager’s Office
Assistant to the City Manager 1
City Clerk 2
Finance
Finance Director 2
Accounting Manager/Controller 2
Human Resources
Human Resources Director 2
Human Resources Analyst 2
Community Development Department
Community Development Director 2,3,4
Senior Planner 3,4
Assistant Planner 3,4
Associate Planner 3,4
Plan Checker 3,4
Building Inspector I / Building Inspector II 3,4
Permit Technician I / II 3,4
Code Enforcement Manager 3,4
Management Analyst 3,4
Parks and Public Works Department
Parks & Public Works Director / City Engineer 2,3,4
Public Works Manager 2,3,4
Public WorksStreet Foreman 2
Parks Foreman 2
Shop Foreman 2
Urban Forester 2
Management Analyst 2
Police Department
Police Chief 1
Commander 1
Administrative Sergeant 2,3
Management Analyst 2
Administrative Assistant 2
Fire Department
PAGE 138 of 180
Updated: October 12September 27, 20242
Fire Chief 1
Division Chief 1

DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Fire Department
Fire Chief 1
Division Chief 1
Management Analyst 2
Community Services Department
Community Services Director 2,3,4
City Librarian Library Manager 2
Librarian I / II 2
Recreation Manager 2
Recreation Supervisor 2
Management Analyst 2
Advisory Bodies
Design Review Committee Members 3,4
Consultants as defined in Title 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18700 (a)(2) (see Appendix C)
Note: The Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and Planning Commissioners are not covered by this code because they must file under Government Code Section 87200.

PAGE 139 of 180
Updated: October 12September 27, 20242

APPENDIX B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 1 (full disclosure – broad and indefinable duties) Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable interests in real property.

Designated employees in this category shall also disclose all reportable investments, business positions, and income.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 2 (disclosure relating to services and supplies associated with job assignment only)
Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income of the type which:

Provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the Designated Employee’s Department.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 3 (disclosure for those approving, issuing, or regulating permits or licenses)
Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income of the type which:

Are subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the Designated Employee’s Department.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 4 (disclosure for those who make decisions affecting real property interests)
Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable interests in real property.

Designated employees in this category shall also disclose all reportable investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income of the type which:

Engage in land development, construction, or the acquisition or sale of real property in the jurisdiction of the City.

PAGE 140 of 180
Updated: October 12September 27, 20242

APPENDIX C

CONSULTANTS
With respect to Consultants performing work for the City of San Marino, the City Manager (or their designee) may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements under this Conflict of Interest Code. The City Manager’s (or their designee’s) determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Government Code Section 81008.) Commission Regulation 18700 states that “a public official at any level of state or local government has a prohibited conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decisions when he or she knows or has reason to know he or she has a disqualifying financial interest.” The Regulation further defines "Public Official" as “every member, officer, employee, or consultant of a state or local government agency,” and “Governmental decision” as “any action taken by a government agency that has a financial effect on any person other than the governmental agency making the decision.”
PAGE 141 of 180
Updated: September 27, 2024
Exhibit A
City of San Marino

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
PAGE 142 of 180
Updated: September 27, 2024
The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act.

Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. The regulation and the attached Appendix designating positions, and establishing disclosure requirements, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of San Marino.

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interest with the Office of the City Clerk which will retain the statements and make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Government Code Section 81008) PAGE 143 of 180
Updated: September 27, 2024

APPENDIX A

SCHEDULE OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES

DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
(See Appendix B for Description)
City Manager’s Office
Assistant to the City Manager 1
City Clerk 2
Finance
Finance Director 2
Accounting Manager/Controller 2
Human Resources
Human Resources Director 2
Human Resources Analyst 2
Community Development Department
Community Development Director 2,3,4
Senior Planner 3,4
Assistant Planner 3,4
Associate Planner 3,4
Plan Checker 3,4
Building Inspector I / II 3,4
Permit Technician I / II 3,4
Code Enforcement Manager 3,4
Management Analyst 3,4
Parks and Public Works Department
Parks & Public Works Director / City Engineer 2,3,4
Public Works Manager 2,3,4
Street Foreman 2
Parks Foreman 2
Shop Foreman 2
Urban Forester 2
Management Analyst 2
Police Department
Police Chief 1
Commander 1
Administrative Sergeant 2,3
Management Analyst 2
Administrative Assistant 2
PAGE 144 of 180
Updated: September 27, 2024

DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Fire Department
Fire Chief 1
Division Chief 1
Management Analyst 2
Community Services Department
Community Services Director 2,3,4
Library Manager 2
Librarian I / II 2
Recreation Manager 2
Recreation Supervisor 2
Management Analyst 2
Advisory Bodies
Design Review Committee Members 3,4
Consultants as defined in Title 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18700 (a)(2) (see Appendix C)
Note: The Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and Planning Commissioners are not covered by this code because they must file under Government Code Section 87200.

PAGE 145 of 180
Updated: September 27, 2024

APPENDIX B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 1 (full disclosure – broad and indefinable duties) Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable interests in real property.

Designated employees in this category shall also disclose all reportable investments, business positions, and income.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 2 (disclosure relating to services and supplies associated with job assignment only)
Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income of the type which:

Provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the Designated Employee’s Department.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 3 (disclosure for those approving, issuing, or regulating permits or licenses)
Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income of the type which:

Are subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the Designated Employee’s Department.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORY 4 (disclosure for those who make decisions affecting real property interests)
Designated employees in this category shall disclose all reportable interests in real property.

Designated employees in this category shall also disclose all reportable investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income of the type which:

Engage in land development, construction, or the acquisition or sale of real property in the jurisdiction of the City.

PAGE 146 of 180
Updated: September 27, 2024

APPENDIX C

CONSULTANTS
With respect to Consultants performing work for the City of San Marino, the City Manager (or their designee) may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements under this Conflict of Interest Code. The City Manager’s (or their designee’s) determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Government Code Section 81008.) Commission Regulation 18700 states that “a public official at any level of state or local government has a prohibited conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decisions when he or she knows or has reason to know he or she has a disqualifying financial interest.” The Regulation further defines "Public Official" as “every member, officer, employee, or consultant of a state or local government agency,” and “Governmental decision” as “any action taken by a government agency that has a financial effect on any person other than the governmental agency making the decision.”
PAGE 147 of 180
April 12, 2024
City of San Marino
Re: Required Notice under Government Code Section 65009 By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear San Marino City Council, City Manager, Planning Department, and City Attorney:

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) writes to inform the City that the Housing Element to its General Plan, adopted on February 9, 2022, fails to comply with state law on numerous points. These failures are detailed below. Unless the City immediately and fully corrects them, CalHDF intends to sue the City. This letter serves as the notice required by Government Code section 65009.1
I. The City Does Not Adequately Review the Failures of Its Previous Housing Element
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65588, subds. (a) and (b), the City is required to review its previous housing elements and adjust the programs in its current cycle housing element to reflect the results of this review. The City’s review of its previous housing element is inadequate.

The Housing Elements needs to quantify the results of the prior cycle’s programs. For example, the Housing Element doesn’t report how many second units were created during 1 “A cause of action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall not be maintained until 60 days have expired following notice to the city or clerk of the board of supervisors by the party bringing the cause of action, or his or her representative, specifying the deficiencies of the general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or other action described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). A cause of action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall accrue 60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes a final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first.” Gov. Code § 65009, subd. (d)(3)(A).
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org PAGE 148 of 180
Letter for Closed Session Item 1
the prior planning period, though this should be an easily obtainable figure. Knowing exactly how many second units were created will inform the current Housing Element’s programs.

The previous housing element also insufficiently analyzed the housing needs of special needs populations, including the disabled, seniors, large households, farmworkers, homeless, and female-headed households.

On page 23 the element simply states that Program 1.5 (Encourage the use of second units for senior housing and housing for persons with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities)) was “Achieved and being revised in new 6th Cycle Programs 1.3 and 1.4.” There is no further analysis or quantification of the results of the previous planning cycle for this program. Similarly, Program 1.7 (Continue community outreach and education regarding the development process) was “Achieved and expanded in new 6th Cycle Program

1.4 …” without explanation of how it was achieved.

Program 2.3 (Continue to implement the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Target limited resources to extremely low-income households and persons with disabilities.) has results listed as “Achieved but at a lower rate than projected. Will continue the program into the 6th Cycle.” It is unclear what the “rate” even refers to, or what the projections were.

There are many other such examples. To comply with state law, the housing element must be revised to comply with § 65588, subd. (a) and (b).

II. The City Fails to Analyze Governmental Constraints
The Housing Element Law mandates that the City’s Housing Element analyze governmental constraints on housing development. (Gov. Code § 65583, subds. (a)(5), (a)(6).) The current Housing Element does not do this in enough depth to satisfy the law. This is particularly troubling in light of the absence of multi-family housing options in San Marino.

Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(5), as detailed below, requires the City to analyze governmental constraints on the development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities:

An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove 2 of 21 PAGE 149 of 180
governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

Furthermore, pursuant to Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(3), the Housing Element must not only analyze constraints on housing for persons with disabilities but also remove those constraints:

Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).

While the City has done some analysis, it does not go into how different governmental constraints affect housing at different income levels, or housing for persons with disabilities. And it does not adequately address how the City will remove such constraints.

Furthermore, the statute requires the City to specifically analyze constraints on the types of housing identified by Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(1), including “... multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” The City fails to adequately conduct such an analysis. The City does acknowledge that "the RHNA cannot be accommodated on existing sites with appropriate zoning, San Marino has a ‘RHNA shortfall’ and the City must rezone adequate new sites to meet its regional need and to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583 c. 1, which requires zoning for all types of residential uses including multi-family and manufactured homes.” (Page 18) And on page 74 of the background report: “There are currently no residential designations in the City which permit the density of development that will accommodate multi-family housing that might be affordable to Very Low and Low-income households and rezoning to allow the City’s default density of 20 units per acre will be required.” However, the City fails to analyze how other governmental constraints will constrain the development of housing as required by § 65583 subd. (a)(5), as discussed below. 3 of 21 PAGE 150 of 180
Parking
While the Housing Element (page 75) states that “As zoning changes are made to allow more residential units in commercial areas and to allow multi-family housing, new parking requirements will need to be adopted consistent with state laws,” the Housing Element does not state what those parking requirements will be, nor how the new parking requirements will reflect an analysis of how existing rules constrain housing production. The current zoning requires two parking space for homes of 1-4 bedrooms, and in the C-1 zone, where 2/3rds of the rezoning sites are located, the “parking requirements will be determined by the Planning Commission, based upon either the requirements for the most comparable use specified in the Zoning Code, or upon a special study of parking requirements for that use.” (page 75)
The Housing Element also states on page 75,
Parking requirements in San Marino are typical for a city of its size and character, as shown in Table 20. The number of parking spaces required for a single-family unit is related to number [sic] of bedrooms. These characteristics do not constrain the development of housing directly, although a greater amount of acreage is required for meeting parking requirements as the number of bedrooms increase.

The Housing Element fails to analyze how its parking requirements constrain the development of housing, instead simply stating that parking requirements are not a constraint.

Height
Beyond the assumption of two story development on page 44, and Table 19 that lists allowable heights for single family homes, the Housing Element fails to analyze whether height limits constrain the development of housing. Height limits directly limit the number of units on a parcel, and can also increase construction costs by forcing parking to be underground. The Housing Element must therefore analyze how height limits would constrain development of its RHNA. The City should then add programs to address the findings of a full analysis of height limits as a constraint.

Setbacks
The Housing Element fails to analyze how the setbacks required by the City’s zoning code restrain development. Table 19 on pages 74-75 list the setbacks required by each zoning district, but there is no analysis of how these setbacks might affect the development of housing. For instance, the C-1 district requires a front setback of 25 feet, a side setback of 18 feet for multistory buildings, and a rear setback of 20 feet. The C-1 district is particularly relevant, as 2/3rds of the sites slated for rezoning, listed in Tables 13 and 15, are zoned C-1. 4 of 21
PAGE 151 of 180
III. The City Fails to Analyze Non-Governmental Constraints Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(6) requires the following:
(6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

The Housing Element fails to specifically analyze non-governmental constraints on housing at different income levels and on housing for disabled persons. As stated in the statute above, the analysis must demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between housing planning and housing construction.

For land costs and construction costs, the housing element fails to adequately analyze the origins of these constraints and also fails to demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints, instead stating that they are outside the City’s control. From page 70, “Land costs in San Marino are a significant constraint to the development of housing; this is a factor that is outside of the City’s control.” From page 74, “The construction cost of housing affects the affordability of new housing and is a significant constraint to housing in San Marino that is outside of the City’s control.”
However, it is not true that these non-governmental constraints are outside the City’s control. For land cost, the Housing Element even states this during the governmental constraints section. From page 74:

Density is a critical factor in the development of affordable housing. Maintaining low densities typically increases housing costs per unit, while higher densities lower the per unit land cost and. [sic] This situation is amplified in San Marino… the City’s founding vision of San Marino as a high quality, low density residential community, together with the fact that it was essentially built out by 1970, has helped to drive up the land costs and results in a market cost for housing in the City that is well beyond the reach of median- or moderate-income households …
In this single paragraph the City states outright that its land use regulations created the very land cost problem that it previously stated was out of the City’s control. 5 of 21
PAGE 152 of 180
Similarly, regarding construction costs, it is well documented that allowing modular (i.e. factory-built) housing, which the City must allow pursuant to Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(1), can reduce construction costs by 20%.
2 However, this is not acknowledged in the Housing
Element.

Additionally, as stated above, Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(6) requires the Housing Element to report requests to develop at densities below those required by the analysis in Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd.(c), and also the typical time elapsed between receiving approval for a development and applying for a building permit. The Housing Element reported neither.

IV. The City Fails to Commit to Implementation
Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c) requires the following:

A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available … However, the Housing Element’s language fails to make clear that the City will take actions and that it intends to implement the policies contained in the Housing Element. Instead, the City states that it will “consider” a variety of policies without stating clearly that they will undertake to implement the policies, as the law requires. Below are examples (emphasis add throughout)
● Program 1.2 (page 29): “Consider adoption of a program to financially assist low-income property owners in the development of junior attached accessory dwelling units …”
● Program 1.3 (Page 29): “If the City is not meeting its fair share objectives for ADUs by 2024, consider the following actions …”
● Program 1.6 (page 31): “Within three years from the date of adoption of the Housing Element, evaluate the City Code as it relates to residential and live-work development in the C-1 Zone. Consideration shall be given to the following changes …”
● Program 1.7 (page 31): “Consider adoption of a housing overlay zone …” 2 J.K. Dineen, “Modular homes cost less and are used all over California. Why not in San Francisco?” San Francisco Chronicle (September 26, 2022)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/modular-homes-san-francisco-17463783.php 6 of 21
PAGE 153 of 180
● Program 1.9 (page 32): “Consider adopting an additional City density bonus program that is at least as permissive as the state program …” ● Program 2.6 (page 37): “Consider adopting the conservation measures in the Energy Action Plan …”
● Program 2.7 (page 37): “Explore use of the housing land trust model …” ● Program 2.8 (page 37): “Explore the nature of the prolonged home vacancies within the City. If appropriate, consider adoption of an annual “vacancy tax” on vacant homes …”
● Program 3.4 (page 39): “Consider amending the Zoning Code to address the provision of single-room occupancy housing as a conditionally permitted use in the C-1 Zone.”
● Program 3.5 (page 39): “Consider adoption of a Universal Design program …” ● Table 13 (page 55): “Sites to Consider for Rezone to Default Density of 20 units/acre”
Perhaps most troubling is the footnote on page 63, which adds the following disclaimer to Table 16, which sums the number of potential units that could be generated from rezonings (emphasis added):

Table 16 reflects maximum potential units and is intended to demonstrate how San Marino could meet its regional housing need through a combination of Rezonings and adoption of the Programs outlined in the Housing Element. Itis notintended to committhe City to adopting Programs and Rezonings to allow all units that are reflected above.

In other words, the City is refusing to commit to any of the rezonings required for its RHNA.

The law requires the City to establish a schedule of actions, the officials responsible for those actions, and a timeline of implementation so that the programs will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c).) The City must also ensure – which it does not currently do – that its programs slated for implementation will address issues flagged in the Constraints Analysis portion of the Housing Element (for both governmental and non-governmental constraints). The City’s Housing Element, as demonstrated by the examples above, does not fulfill these requirements.

CalHDF also notes that Program 1.4 is slated to be implemented starting in 2022. Given that it is now 2024, the City should revise the anticipated timeline for this program. It should also ensure that the implementation timelines for its programs more generally are realistic given the delays in finalizing its Housing Element, and, more basically, that all programs include an explicit implementation timeline. Program 1.2, for example, includes no timeline beyond a commitment to annual monitoring and reporting – notwithstanding its inclusion 7 of 21
PAGE 154 of 180
of potential specific policy changes that would have to be implemented on a specific date and cannot be implemented through mere monitoring and reporting.

V. The Proposed Sites Inventory and Rezoning Program Falls Short of the Legal Requirements
The City’s Housing Element must provide an inventory of sites where housing is likely to be built in the upcoming cycle. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) This inventory must satisfy certain requirements. (See Gov. Code §§ 65583.1, 65583.2.) The inventory in the City’s current Housing Element does not do this.

Constraint Mitigation
For development regulations, including parking minimums, height limits, and setback requirements, the housing element simply does not address how these constraints will affect development. Rather, the Housing Element’s analysis simply assumes development capacity of 85 percent of gross area, without explanation. Furthermore, the Housing Element assumes that buildout will be similar to neighboring jurisdictions, without undertaking a comparison of how the City’s specific zoning code would affect buildout.

The City’s programs must reflect the constraints analysis to a greater degree. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(5), the analysis must demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints:

The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

Given that the City’s constraints analysis is inadequate and must be augmented, so must the City's programs.

Small sites
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A), sites smaller than one half acre cannot be designated for lower income households unless the Housing Element demonstrates either a track record of developing such sites for lower-income households or other evidence that such sites are adequate for lower-income households. Furthermore, each site for lower-income households must accommodate at least 16 units (id. at subd. (h)).

The Housing Element states that each lower-income site will allow at least 16 units: “Each site selected for rezoning for the remaining lower-income RHNA of 77 units will have capacity to accommodate at least 16 units,” (page 52) but Table 13 and Table 15 contradict this statement.
8 of 21
PAGE 155 of 180
Table 13 lists certain sites with developer interest that the City will “consider” rezoning to 20 units/acre, as well as the assumed affordability levels. The table specifies that 810-860 Huntington Drive, a site made up of three parcels, only has a realistic site capacity of 10 units, yet the Housing Element identifies the site for low-income households. The city cannot include this site for low-income households without changing the proposed zoning and development standards (not just “considering” changing them) to allow for more than 16 units.

It is unclear, moreover, exactly what the Housing Element proposes for 810 Huntington Drive, as Table 11 identifies it for two units of moderate/above moderate income housing.

However, it is impossible for the public to know what the City is planning for this site, as there is no comprehensive site inventory in the Housing Element.

According to the HCD letter dated April 11, 2022, the City did submit an electronic site inventory to HCD (albeit incorrectly formatted, according to the letter), but that site inventory is not reproduced in the publicly available Housing Element. The City should include a map of its sites and a comprehensive site list, following HCD’s format, in its publicly accessible Housing Element in order to substantially fulfill requirements of Gov.

Code § 65585, subd. (b), given that the sites inventory is an integral part of the Housing Element and should be available for the public to review.

Table 15 lists sites under consideration for a separate rezoning program for a housing overlay. Of those six sites, only two would have a realistic capacity of at least 16 units if rezoned. The city cannot include these sites for low-income households without changing the proposed zoning and development standards to allow for more than 16 units on each site.

Inadequate rezoning program - height limits, setbacks, and parking The Housing Element does not state what the parking requirements will be for the rezoning sites, nor does it take into account how the existing discretionary process for parking requirements in the C-1 district might prevent or discourage development.

While it does not state what the parking requirements or height limits will be for its housing overlay, the Housing Element assumes two floors of housing with “tuck-under” (underground) parking during its site specific analysis (page 44). The Housing Element justifies this as follows: “Requirements for on-site parking can be met with tuck-under parking and structures; because land values are so high in San Marino, this type of construction is used to provide sufficient parking to larger projects.” (page 43) The Housing Element fails to take into account how the added expense of “tuck-under” and structured parking would prevent the development of housing for low and very-low income 9 of 21
PAGE 156 of 180
households. Instead, the City points to high land values as making such parking feasible, (page 44) failing to analyze whether its assumptions about structured/underground parking might constrain the development of affordable housing.

Regarding setbacks, while the Housing Element states on page 43, “Capacities must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for development and must consider the impact of environmental considerations as well as development controls like setbacks, parking requirements and height limitations,” the Housing Element doesn’t address the City’s setback requirements into its rezoning program.

Inadequate rezoning program - density
Because the city cannot accommodate its RHNA on sites already zoned for residential use (Housing Element page 51), state law requires that the city include a rezoning program that will facilitate development on sites that lack the appropriate zoning. To accommodate the low/very-low income portion of its RHNA, the rezoning program must allow for sites that are zoned for a minimum of 20 units per acre. (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h)) However, the Housing Element states many times that the rezoning program, a housing overlay, will allow 16-24 units per acre, not a minimum of 20 units per acre.

allow either the underlying land use; multifamily housing at a density minimum of 16 to a maximum of 24 units per acre; or both.”

will include changes to the zoning code; a program to allow duplexes and triplexes in single-family zones; the rezoning of sites to multifamily, 20 units per acre; rezoning to add the Housing Overlay with densities of 16-24 units per acre…

acre) to multiple sites meeting location criteria for proximity to transit and jobs. Sites to be considered include the 8-acre Southwestern Academy, a 1-acre portion of the Huntington Library site, two sites on church properties, and two sites of over one acre each along Huntington Drive (total of at least 81 units realistic capacity).”

Code and will allow housing projects at a density of 16 to 24 units per acre…”

types, tenures, and densities to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing for seniors; the local workforce, including teachers, small households, and 10 of 21
PAGE 157 of 180
first-time homebuyers. Allowable densities would range from 16 to 24 units per acre…”
Inadequate rezoning program - by right development
Rezonings to make up for RHNA shortfall for low-income households must allow by-right development if at least 20% of the units of the proposed development will be affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h).) However, the City’s housing element is inconsistent in its discussion of whether such rezonings will actually allow by-right development where 20% of units are affordable.

Program 1.6 (page 31) states, in reference to zoning changes to allow residential in C-1 districts, “Allow these developments by-right if at least 20% of project units are provided as affordable to low-income households and design & development standards are met.”

acre as a use by-right if at least 20% of project units are provided as affordable.”

developments by-right if at least 20% are affordable, subject to objective design & development standards…”

both a density bonus and for by-right processing.”
However, this is contradicted by specific program text (emphasis added):

Program 1.7 on page 32 states, in reference to the proposed housing overlay zone, “For projects which comply with the SB 35 Guidelines, permit owner-occupied and leased multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.” And Program 1.11 on page 33 states, “For projects which comply with the SB 35 Guidelines, permit owner-occupied and leased multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.”
SB 35 imposes a variety of specific conditions on projects and does not create a by-right process for all projects with at least 20% affordable (Gov Code §65913.4), and therefore the Housing Element does not plan for generally allowing by-right development.

Inadequate rezoning program - use of overlay
The Housing Element states that the overlay zone would not supplant the base zoning:
11 of 21
PAGE 158 of 180

underlying land use; multifamily housing at a density minimum of 16 to a maximum of 24 units per acre; or both.”
This is a problem: the California Court of Appeal, 5th District, recently held that a zoning overlay does not satisfy the 20 unit per acre minimum density requirement for low-income sites in Government Code section 65583.2(h). (See Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 244.) If the base zoning permits a density below what the Housing Element Law requires – as it does here – an overlay zone will not bring the City into compliance. (Id.) Inadequate Rezoning Program - single-room occupancy
The Housing Element states that the City did not update its Zoning Code during the previous planning cycle to allow single-room occupancy (SRO) uses, stating it was “Not specifically achieved but deemed possible under existing allowances for residential uses in the C-1.” However, C-1 zoning requires a conditional use permit for residential development, requires 5,000 square feet of lot area per family, and does not list SRO as an allowable use.

Program 3.4 suggests allowing SRO uses in C-1, but is noncommittal (page 39): “Consider amending the Zoning Code to address the provision of single-room occupancy housing as a conditionally permitted use in the C-1 Zone.”
State law requires that the City facilitate the provision SRO uses. Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(1) states (emphasis added), “Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” By only stating that the City will “consider” allowing SRO uses, the Housing Element fails to satisfy state law.

Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
The Housing Element includes a number of sites that the City states it will rezone to allow multifamily use, including the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanic Gardens as well as Southwestern Academy.

the private Southwestern Academy campus; and a portion of the Huntington property.”
These are non-vacant sites. In order for the City to include such non-vacant sites in its site inventory, state law (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (g)) requires the following (emphasis added):
12 of 21 PAGE 159 of 180
(1) For sites [in the site inventory, the housing element] shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

The City made no such findings upon adoption of its housing element (See Council Resolution No. R-22-06). Furthermore, the Housing Element does not analyze whether or not the existing use constitutes an impediment to additional residential development.

CalHDF reminds the City that this analysis must be site-specific, and a failure to provide such site-specific analysis renders the Housing Element non-compliant. (Californians for Homeownership v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. 23STCP00143, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Ruling Issued Sep. 12, 2023, pp. 8-9 [attached for reference] [finding housing element non-compliant because it neglected to engage in site-specific analysis as required by section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(1)].) The analysis must also consider specific, statutorily-enumerated factors, including existing leases on the sites and regulatory standards and incentives for development on the sites. (Ibid.) In the case of the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanic Gardens, Table 15 on page 59 identifies two acres of the site as appropriate for housing and also states “workforce housing needed.” Section 3.5.3 on page 57 also discusses the suitability of the site for housing for workers. However, the Housing Element does not specify which two acres of the 207 total acres will be used for housing, nor does it cite any evidence that the owner has expressed interest or intent in redevelopment for workforce housing, nor does it cite any evidence that the existing use of such two acres will be discontinued during the planning period. Adding to the confusion, Section 3.4.1 on page 53 states that only one acre of the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanic Gardens site will be rezoned to facilitate multifamily development.

Southwestern Academy is identified for its redevelopment potential.

construction of housing for teachers as well as the potential for conversion of existing dorm rooms into full units …”
13 of 21 PAGE 160 of 180
Again, no evidence is cited that the owner has expressed interest in redevelopment of the site, or that the current use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

The Housing Element also includes church sites, particularly parking lots. The City has very large parking requirements for church use, specifically one off-street space per 35 gross square feet. With 300-350 square feet per space being typical, a church requires approximately ten times as much space for parking as it contains for religious purposes.

For the proposed housing overlay zone, the Housing Element assumes that the underlying land use will continue:

and only the underutilized portion of the site would be used to provide housing, at an average density of 20 units per acre.”
Therefore, a church site would have to be of adequate size to accommodate both enough parking to be zoning compliant for the church use in addition to enough land to accommodate the residential structure and residential accessory parking.

The Congregational Church at 2560 Huntington Drive is identified in Table 15 for eight units of very low-income housing. The church site is already non-conforming with respect to parking. With dimensions approximately 150 feet by 100 feet, the church has a floorplate of approximately 15,000 square feet. For churches, San Marino’s zoning code requires one off-street parking spot per 35 gross square feet. This means that the church requires approximately 428 parking spaces. There are 29 parking spots in the church’s off street parking lot. The zoning code would therefore not allow this church to rededicate its parking lot to residential use, given that today it is nonconforming by supplying less than 10% of the parking required by the zoning code. The Housing Element does not take this into account.

Furthermore, the Housing Element does not cite any evidence that the church has expressed interest in redevelopment. For instance, the church could conceivably have plans to disestablish, making the land available for multifamily, or to move to a different building.

No such communication or evidence was cited.

Similarly, the church site at 2975 Huntington Dr and 1155 S. San Gabriel Blvd is identified for 12 units of extremely low-income housing and three units of moderate income housing.

Other than a note of “long term vacancy issues” in the office building at 2975 Huntington Dr, there is no other discussion of whether there is any interest on the part of the landowners to develop housing on site, nor is there an analysis of whether the current uses are likely to discontinue. Of note, there are currently two churches on site (St Edmund’s Episcopal Church and the Holy Byzantine Catholic Orthodox Church), a daycare center, and an office building. As with the Congregational Church above, the Housing Element did not include any 14 of 21
PAGE 161 of 180
analysis as to whether the churches are non-conforming with respect to zoning, and therefore whether or not redevelopment would be possible, even with a housing overlay.

For the other private sites, the only evidence actually cited is a single sentence on page 54, “the sites in Table 13 below are included as having realistic redevelopment potential because of interest previously expressed by developers in building multi-family housing on these sites.” The Housing Element does not include copies of any such communication as evidence. This is not sufficient for compliance with state law. (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (g).) Missing Middle Program
The City proposes for 150 units of its 397-unit RHNA to be developed as a part of a potential “missing-middle” zoning program, Program 1.8. However, the Housing Element’s discussion of the program violates state law in two ways: it does not list the specific sites in its site inventory; and it does not analyze and make appropriate findings that the current uses will discontinue.

The program, as described in the Housing Element:

new “missing middle” housing units suitable for households with very low to middle incomes, subject to adopted design and development standards. Missing Middle projects containing four or more units would be subject to Use Permit.” Of note, the program description on page 32 varies from the program as described in the RHNA shortfall table 12. The program description states that it will create capacity for 250 units for very low to middle income households, but Table 12, RHNA shortfall, states that it will create capacity for 150 moderate and above moderate income households.

Furthermore, it is unclear how the program would substantially differ from what is currently allowed under state law for ADU development, which allows for one ADU and one JADU per parcel in addition to a single family home (Gov. Code § 65852.2), as the below excerpt demonstrates:

three dwelling units (the main dwelling, an ADU and a JADU), allowing duplexes and triplexes does not increase allowable densities within designated single-family neighborhoods. Instead, this flexibility will allow badly needed smaller, more affordable units to be created through interior remodeling of homes to add private living spaces for families and renters without changing a home’s appearance from the street.”
15 of 21
PAGE 162 of 180
In fact, the program may be actually less attractive than ADU development to interested landowners. For one, the program appears to restrict development to the interior of extant homes, whereas state law allows for both conversion of interior space to ADU/JADUs and for detached, new construction of ADUs:

City will adopt a program allowing duplexes and triplexes within existing single-family homes in the single-family neighborhoods near jobs and transit, where those neighborhoods do not fall within a historic district.”

into duplexes or triplexes in neighborhoods near jobs and transit, and to consider other missing middle housing solutions.”
And the possibility of developing four or more units, which goes beyond what state law allows for ADUs, would require discretionary approval, as cited above on page 32. The Housing Element identifies discretionary approval as a barrier to development, given that community resistance can have a major impact during discretionary processes (emphasis added):

development. Community members may pressure the Planning Commission and City Council to deny projects, and in some cases may also threaten legal action. This environment increases risk for developers and may discourage them from bringing development proposals to the City. It also means that development proposals, especially multifamily residential development or development at a higher density than currently exists, will likely require more time and resources in the development process to address community concerns. Constraints from community resistance in discretionary decision-making and design review processes make it even more important for the City to adopt objective design and development standards for residential and live-work projects.

The City should eliminate discretionary review for larger missing middle developments to ensure this constraint does not pose a barrier to the program’s success.

Unrealistic Assumptions about ADU Development
The Housing Element relies on Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) for the bulk of its low-income housing quota. Its assumptions, however, are too rosy as to the number of ADUs that will be built. The Housing Element (page 41) predicts that 221 ADUs will be constructed over the planning cycle – an average of more than 30 per year. This number is not reflected by recent ADU construction levels in the City. According to HCD’s letter dated April 12, 2022, the City has averaged only 9 ADUs per year since 2018. The Housing Element cites the 37 16 of 21
PAGE 163 of 180
ADUs permitted in 2020 as evidence that the City’s recent changes to its ADU ordinance as evidence that ADU development will be sustained over time, but this is at variance with HCD Guidance - HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, dated June 10, 2020, states that cities may base ADU projections on the number of ADUs and JADUs generated in the prior planning period, and cities are to use trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production given changes in state ADU laws. This guidance does not allow cities to base projections on a single year’s production.

VI. The City fails to address the housing needs of the disabled Govt. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(7) requires the Housing Element to provide, “An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability…” And, as discussed above, Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(5) requires the Housing Element to remove governmental constraints on housing for disabled persons.

While page 10 of the Housing Element discusses the number of disabled persons in San Marino and the general categories of disabilities, it does not analyze the housing needs of the disabled. Rather, the Housing Element lists some resources available for the disabled in Program 4.3.1 Housing Resources. The Housing Element does not, for instance, analyze whether disabled persons in the community might need integrated supportive housing.

The Housing Element’s primary strategy for housing the disabled seems to be ADUs and JADUs, in addition to voluntary universal design standards:

and ADUs and JADUs, two forms of housing that will best assist the City to meet its identified housing needs for aging and disabled households.” Additionally, the City is relying on discretionary exceptions to zoning to accommodate the disabled. Program 3.1 from page 38 (emphasis added):
“The City shall continue implementation of the reasonable accommodation ordinance consistent with Government Code section 8899.50 by administering its housing and community development programs in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing access. This includes allowing for exceptions to the zoning code when necessary to provide an equal opportunity for housing. Monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance; identify and address any constraints to accommodating the housing needs of persons with disabilities.

However, exceptions to zoning would involve a variance or a zoning change, inherently discretionary and public processes. As discussed above, the Housing Element elsewhere 17 of 21
PAGE 164 of 180
acknowledges the challenges posed by community resistance as expressed during discretionary review. The Housing Element fails to analyze whether such exceptions to zoning, and the accompanying constraints, are meeting the housing needs of the disabled.

The City must revise the Housing Element to include such analysis and also must revise its programs to remove constraints on housing for the disabled, as required by Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(5).

Furthermore, as discussed above in the constraints section, the City must conduct a more thorough examination of the ways government policies and market factors constrain the production and maintenance of housing for persons with disabilities. It must then update and augment the current proposed programs around housing for persons with disabilities in light of this more robust analysis.

VII. The City Fails to Accommodate Extremely Low-Income Households Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(2) requires that the Housing Element “Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.” The Housing Element relies on JADUs and several rezoning sites to accommodate extremely-low income (ELI) households. This is insufficient. Given that San Marino is a wealthy enclave, the Housing Element has not demonstrated why JADUs would be rented to ELI households, when they could just as easily be rented to wealthy relatives. To facilitate housing for ELI households, the City must make it more attractive for sites to be developed as deeply affordable housing or integrated supportive housing than as market-rate. To achieve this, the City could institute fee waivers, a density bonus, capital subsidies, or dedicate City land.

In terms of City Land, the City is currently proposing that the Stoneman site be used for mixed-income housing with 6 ELI units, 6 very-low income units, 8 moderate income units, and 8 above moderate income units. However, the Stoneman site (discussed on page 56 of the Housing Element) could accommodate many more than 28 units given that there are

1.66 acres available for development. Furthermore, the income mix proposed by the City does not match what is typically funded by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). To satisfy its obligations under state law, the City could consider disposing of the Stoneman site for 100% affordable housing, with a more robust portion of ELI units than is currently envisioned.

VIII. The Housing Element Does Not Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The City has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”) in preparing its Housing Element. (See Gov. Code § 8899.50 and § 65583 (c)(5).) The Housing Element itself, moreover, must assess fair housing within the City. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The current 18 of 21
PAGE 165 of 180
Housing Element falls short. While the Housing Element accurately shows that San Marino is an unusually privileged community, it denies that it has a problem with segregation, stating on page 16, ‘It is a well-integrated community.” Meanwhile, Table 26 indicates that the community is only 1.9% Black and only 6.3% Latino, though Los Angeles County is 8.1% Black and 48.6% Latino. There is a 48.5 percentage point difference in the combined Black and Latino populations of San Marino and LA County. In other words, San Marino is a highly privileged, White and Asian enclave in the middle of a county that is eight times more Black and Latino than San Marino itself.

While Goal 3 is “Ensure the accessibility to housing for all segments of society,” Policy 3.1 states which society the Housing Element is concerned with - existing City residents, not outsiders (emphasis added):
“Policy 3.1: Promote equal housing opportunity for all economic, racial, and social groups currently residing in the City”
The Housing Element does not aim to increase access to housing in the City for marginalized groups outside the City. Such programs might include more robust commitments to allowing and encouraging a broad variety of housing types, including and especially multi-family and affordable housing, as outlined elsewhere in this letter.

Also, the city’s current zoning code restricts single-family homes to use by “but one family” and prohibits “taking in of boarders who do not operate as or participate in a single housekeeping unit”, (San Marino municipal code § 23.02.01). On page 82, the Housing Element states, “This definition is inclusive of all types of households and does not serve to constrain housing for persons with disabilities.” However, this definition would seem to exclude a live-in caretaker for a disabled person, which is discriminatory against persons with disabilities.

Furthermore, the Housing Element Law requires the City to lay out its fair housing priorities and goals and establish the metrics it will use to gauge its progress towards those goals. (Gov.

Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A)(iv)-(v).) These metrics must be concrete and, crucially, quantifiable. (Id. at subd. (b)(1).) They must address the full sweep of fair housing concerns in the City, and state law additionally mandates that they set a specific maximum number of housing units that can be built, conserved, or rehabilitated over five years, broken out by income category. (Ibid.) The City lists its fair housing goals on pages 20 et seq. but does not establish metrics to measure progress on them. Nor does it set a maximum number of housing units that can feasibly be built in a five-year time period, broken out by income category and analyzed with a view to fair housing. (It does, on page 41, provide numbers for the rehabilitation and conservation of some types of housing units, but the assessed timeline is the full eight-year planning period, rather than the five years demanded by the fair housing sections of the Housing Element Law.) The City must correct these omissions, 19 of 21
PAGE 166 of 180
revise its fair housing programs to guarantee progress towards fair housing goals, and commit to monitoring the concrete, quantified fair housing objectives it identifies.

Furthermore, the site inventory (discussed in greater detail earlier in this letter) must include analysis of how its sites interact with the City’s fair housing goals. (Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (a)(3), (c)(1); 65583.2, subd. (c).) Currently, this is missing; it must be included before the City’s Housing Element can be found in substantial compliance.

Because of these shortcomings in the current draft Housing Element, the City has not yet met the statutory requirements for AFFH.

IX. To Achieve Compliance, the City Must Complete the Required Rezonings Section 65588, subd. (e)(4)(C)(i) states:

For the adoption of the sixth revision and each subsequent revision, a local government that does not adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the applicable deadline described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (3) shall comply with subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 and subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 within one year of the statutory deadline to revise the housing element.

Section 65588, subdivision (e)(4)(C)(iii) states:

A jurisdiction that adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (3) shall not be found in substantial compliance with this article until it has completed the rezoning required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 and subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.

Thus, the statute mandates the jurisdiction "shall not be found in substantial compliance" until completing the rezoning. (ibid.)
As applied here, the City's statutory deadline to adopt a substantially compliant 6th cycle housing element was October 15, 2021. The City submitted its draft housing element to HCD on October 15, 2021. (AR 443.) Because the City failed to secure certification of its 6th cycle housing element within 120 days of its statutory deadline of October 15, 2021 (see AR 443-447), October 15, 2022 served as the City's deadline to complete its required rezoning. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
Pursuant to the plain language of section 65588, subdivision (e)(4)(C)(iii), the City "shall not be found" in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law until the City completes its required rezonings.
20 of 21
PAGE 167 of 180
◆◆◆
Overall, and throughout the Housing Element, the City must provide more than it has in the way of programs and policies to address problems identified in the analyses of barriers to housing development. These programs and policies must be specific, detailed, and well-tailored to erode or remove such barriers. (See Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c).) Right now, the Housing Element commits the City to fewer and weaker actions than it should, or does not commit to anything beyond “considering” zoning changes.

The City should commit to doing more. In particular, CalHDF is concerned that the current Housing Element’s programs will not do enough to ensure the site inventory develops as promised. We are also concerned that the City has not outlined a strong enough pathway for creating housing accessible to more household types, especially low-, very low-, and extremely low-income families. The City’s history of building almost exclusively large, expensive single-family homes compounds these concerns. San Marino can and should do more to allow and encourage a variety of housing options – multi-family housing developments should be a major focus – and this entails better, more detailed policy commitments to create incentives for and remove barriers to such development.

CalHDF urges the City to take its legal obligations seriously. The problems presented here are major shortcomings, and the law demands they be addressed. If the City does not address them on its own, CalHDF will seek a writ of mandate from the courts.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
21 of 21
PAGE 168 of 180
• FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
SEP 12 2023
David W. Slayton, Exeartive Officeritlerk of Court

CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP, INC.,
vs.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS,
Petitioner,
Respondent.

Case No. 23STCP00143

RULING ON VERIFIED FIRST

AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE
Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
Petitioner Californians for Homeownership, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent City of Beverly Hills to adopt a revised housing element pursuant to Government Code§ 65754.

I. Factual Background
The State of California requires each city to have a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development" of the city. (Gov. Code§ 65300.)1 Each general plan must have a housing element.(§ 65302(c).) The housing element consists of 'standards and plans for housing sites in the municipality that 'shall endeavor to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.' [Citations.]" (California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 444; see also § 65580 [legislative findings concerning housing element law].)
"A municipality must review its housing element for the appropriateness of its housing goals, objectives, and policies and must revise the housing element in accordance with a statutory schedule." (Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 222, citing§ 65588(a), (b).) "The interval between the due dates for 1 All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise specified.
1 PAGE 169 of 180
the revised housing element is referred to as a planning period or cycle, which usually is eight years." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 222, citing§ 65588(e)(3), (f)(l).) "A revised housing element's assessment of needs must quantify the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, which includes the locality's proportionate share of regional housing needs for each income level." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing § 65583(a)(l).) "The projected regional housing needs for a planning period are determined by the HCD [Department of Housing and Community Development] in consultation with regional 'councils of government."' (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing§§ 65584(a) & (b), 65584.01, 65588(e)(3).) "Based on the HCD's regional housing needs determination, each regional council of governments adopts a 'final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need' among the cities and counties within its region." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing§ 65584(b).) For the 2021-2029 planning period, the City Council of respondent City of Beverly Hills ("City") adopted a housing element on October 12, 2021 and submitted it for review to HCD. (JR 776.) On January 14, 2022, HCD determined that the · housing element did not fully comply with the housing element law and provided necessary revisions. (JR 1309-16.)
On September 28, 2022, the City submitted a revised housing element to HCD. (JR 776.) On November 28, 2022, HCD determined that the revised housing element did not fully comply with the housing element law and provided necessary revisions. (JR 1318-24.)
On February 21, 2023, after having revised the September 2022 housing element, the City adopted the revision. (JR 5.) On February 21, 2023, petitioner • Californians for Homeownership, Inc., who monitors local compliance with the housing element law, sent a letter to the City asserting that the revised housing element was inadequate for reasons identified by HCD and petitioner. (JR 1584-85.) On May 12, 2023, HCD determined that the housing element does not substantially comply with housing element law. (RJN Ex. B.)
II. Procedural History
On January 18, 2023, petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandate.

On May 24, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, petitioner filed a verified first amended petitioner for writ of mandate.

On June 22, 2023, during the trial setting conference, the Court set the hearing on the instant petition for September 12, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, petitioner filed an opening brief. On August 15, 2023, respondent filed an opposition. On August 31, 2023, petitioner filed a reply. 2 PAGE 170 of 180
III. Request for Judicial Notice
Petitioner's requests for judicial notice are ruled on as follows:
• Exhibit A (September 15, 2017 Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1397 (2017- 2018 Session))- GRANTED (Evid. Code§ 452(c); Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742, 751, fn. 4)
• Exhibit B (May 12, 2023 Letter from HCD to City) - GRANTED (Evid. Code § 452(c))
• Exhibit C (Staff Report for June 22, 2023 Meeting of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit D (Minutes of June 22, 2023 Meeting of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit E (Resolution No. 1907 of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit F (2022 Form 10-K for Creative Media & Community Trust Corporation (Excerpts)) - DENIED
• Exhibit G (June 10, 2020 Memorandum of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, Entitled "Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook")- GRANTED (Evid. Code§ 452(c))
• Exhibit H (City of Gardena's 2021-2029 Housing Element, Table C-1) - GRANTED (Evid. Code § 452(c))
With respect to denying the request for judicial notice of Exhibits C, D, E, and F, the Court notes these exhibits are extra-record evidence petitioner presents to demonstrate that certain sites listed in the sites inventory of the housing element are improperly included. For the reason stated in section V.C below, this is improper.

The exhibits are accordingly irrelevant. (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 ["Although a court may judicially notice a variety of matters (Evid. Code, § 450 et seq.), only relevant material may be noticed"].) IV. Standard of Review
CCP § 1085(a) provides: "A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to 3 PAGE 171 of 180
which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person."
"Any action brought by any interested party to review the conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of this article."(§ 65587(b); see also§ 65751.) Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 237, internal citations omitted.) "[A] city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative enactment, something which is generally entitled to some deference." (Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191.) "If the municipality has substantially complied with statutory requirements, we will not interfere with its legislative action, unless that action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support." (Ibid.) The challenging party has the burden to demonstrate that the housing element is inadequate. (Ibid.)
V. Analysis
A. This Dispute is Not Moot
As a preliminary matter, respondent asserts that the City anticipates adopting a revised housing element in November of this year to address concerns about the current housing element. (Wiener Deel. ,r 2.) However, there is no guarantee that a .revision will be completed by November or that the City will adopt a revision at that time, or at any time thereafter. The Court can only rule based on the current housing element. The instant petition is entitled to preference. (§ 65752.) Further, if the Court were to enter judgment in favor of petitioner, the housing element law provides deadlines for the City to address the deficiencies in the housing element and to submit the revision to HCD. (§ 65754(a).) If respondent were to appeal, the appeal would be given preference also. (§ 65752.) Accordingly, there is no reason to delay ruling on the merits of the operative first amended petition.

B. Whether Sites Inventory Meets Statutory Requirements

1. Realistic Development Capacity
The inventory in a housing element must "specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing." (§ 65583.2(c).) For a city that does not require a 4 PAGE 172 of 180
minimum residential density, 2 the city "shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for [each] site ... will be accommodated." (§ 65583.2(c)(l).) As part of the calculation," [t]he number of units calculated ... shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities." (§ 65583.2(c)(2).) An "assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs" shall include an "analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels ... including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development." (§ 65583(a)(5).)
To demonstrate that its inventory is adequate, respondent relies on a Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("Overlay Zone") adopted by ordinance on November 17, 2020, where the maximum residential density within the zone was increased from O in commercial areas to 79.2 units/acre. (JR 200, 209.) The Overlay Zone spans the length of the City from east to west and partially north to south, along its largest commercial corridors, including Wilshire Boulevard, Robertson Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, South Doheny Drive, and South Beverly Drive. (JR 125; see also JR 213 [map of Overlay Zone].) In the housing element, the City describes the purported benefits of the Overlay Zone: "This wide-scale rezoning allows for the creation or conversion of non-residential space into residential units, and therefore will create all net new housing, since it does not involve the displacernent of any existing occupied housing/residents." (JR 125.)
Respondent argues that the maximum residential density exceeds the minimum 30 units per acre that is statutorily deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income individuals. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv).) Respondent also argues that existing commercial buildings in the Overlay Zone may obtain a permit to convert to a mixed-use building and obtain relief from having to comply with standards concerning parking requirements, loading facilities, outdoor living space, commercial-residential transitional setbacks, or height limits if compliance is physically infeasible. (JR 1636; see also Chen Deel. Ex. G [Beverly Hills Municipal Code ("BMMC") § 10-3-1888].) The vacancy rates for commercial buildings also purportedly create an incentive for commercial building owners to convert their buildings to mixed-use projects. (JR 201.)
2 It is undisputed Beverly Hills does not mandate a minimum residential density.
5 PAGE 173 of 180
For commercial properties listed in the sites inventory of the housing element that were designated for conversion or indicated as having conversion potential (JR 229-34), to calculate the total number of units on the site, the City multiplied the total parcel size by the maximum allowable residential density.3 However, the total parcel size listed in the sites inventory refers to land area, not the square footage of ·the existing building that can accommodate residential units. Contrary to respondent's contention, the sites inventory does not account for floor area capacity; the sites inventory lists the height limit of the building, not the number of stories to be converted to residential use. (See, e.g., JR 229 [column name is "Height Limit (stories)," 233 [8500 Wilshire Blvd. described as "8 story building- conversion," but height limit is 3 stories].) As a result, for buildings to be converted to mixed use, the housing element does not demonstrate how the number of units indicated in the sites inventory will be accommodated, as required by section 65583.2(c)(l).

Moreover, as petitioner points out in the reply, most of the sites in the City's sites inventory are not designated as conversions or potential conversions. (JR 229-

34.) For sites not indicated as conversions, any construction of residential units is subject to land use and building controls. For example, multi-family developments are subject to height limits from three to five stories. (JR 153-54.) Any building in the Overlay Zone must include commercial uses on the ground floor, and residential uses on the first floor within the first 40 feet from the street are prohibited. (BMMC §§ 10- 3-1877(C), 10-3-1879.) Moreover, each multi-family development must have at least 200 square feet for each dwelling unit, excluding front yards, balconies, and pedestrian accessways. (BHMC §§ 10-3-1886, 10-3-2803.)
The sites inventory contains no adjustment based on land use controls for new construction, as required by section 65583.2(c)(2). Rather, like the sites designated as conversions, the number of units for each site is calculated based on the land area multiplied by the maximum residential density. Moreover, the housing element contains no meaningful consideration and analysis of the governmental constraints on the development of housing, as required by § 65583(a)(5). Rather, the City relies on prior approved and proposed developments in arguing in conclusory fashion that "the current standards are not inhibiting development of housing." (JR 158-159, 203-

04.) Accordingly, the housing element, including the sites inventory, fails to account for the realistic development capacity for the sites listed in the inventory.

With respect to respondent's contention that the maximum residential density exceeds the density set forth in section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), this only means that the 3 For example, for 8730 Wilshire Blvd., the parcel size is 11,863 square feet. (JR 233.) There are 1/43,560 acres in one square foot. (See https://www.britannica.com/science/acre-unit-of-measurement [43,560 square feet in 1 acre].) 11,863 square feet multiplied by 1/43,560 acre per square foot is 0.27 acres.

0.27 acres multiplied by 79.2 units per acre is approximately 21 units. 6 PAGE 174 of 180
City does not have to provide an analysis demonstrating how its adopted density accommodates its share of the regional housing need for lower income households. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(A-B).) However, the City still must adjust the number of units for each site based on the realistic development capacity of the site under section 65583.2(c)(l) and (c)(2) and provide an "analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the ... development of housing for all income levels" under section 65583(a)(5).

Petitioner also argues that the City designated the majority of the sites on the sites inventory as 100% low-income or 100% moderate-income housing without explaining the basis for such designation. (OB at 10:6-7.) Petitioner further argues that the City did not adjust the unit counts based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction," as required by section 65583.2(c)(2). (OB 10:7-8.) Petitioner, however, does not reference any statute that requires an explanation for the basis for the low-income or moderate-income housing designation. The housing element law only requires that the City specify "the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing" and demonstrate "how the number of units determined for that site ... will be accommodated." (§ 65583.2(c), (c)(l).) The sites inventory indicates the total number of units for each site. (JR 229 ["Total Units" column].) By indicating the number of units that are designated as low-income or moderate-income housing, the City also indicates "whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing [or] moderate-income housing." (JR 229 ["Lower" and "Mod" columns].) While the City did not explain how the total number of units will be accommodated for the reasons stated above, the designation of housing as low-income or moderate-income is not deficient.

Nevertheless, it is not apparent from the sites inventory whether the City adjusted the numbers for low-income and moderate-income housing based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction." (§ 65583.2(c)(2).) By multiplying the land area by the maximum residential density of 79.2 units per acre and designating all housing as low- or moderate-income housing, the City assumes that all units built on the site will be low-income or moderate-income housing. The City does not account for the possibility that only a certain percentage of the housing on the site will be designated for residents with low- or moderate-income. A revised housing element would need to contain an adjustment based on typical densities at similar affordability levels.

In sum, with respect to realistic development capacity, the housing element is deficient for the following reasons: (1) for conversions, the sites inventory calculates the total number of units based on a product ofland area and the maximum residential density without accounting for the floor area of the building; (2) the sites 7 PAGE 175 of 180
inventory does not contain any adjustments based on land use controls for new construction; (3) the housing element contains no analysis of the governmental constraints on the development of housing; and (4) the sites inventory does not contain any adjustments based on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at similar affordability levels in the City.

2. Nonvacant Sites
For nonvacant sites, the housing element law imposes the following additional requirement:
[T]he city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.
(§ 65583.2(g)(l).)
Petitioner argues that the City does not explain how its methodology relates to the sites it has included or excluded in the sites inventory. For underutilized nonvacant sites, respondent explains that it selected sites that were more likely to be redeveloped or converted based on evidence of a lack of investment in the property, such as a lack of maintenance or lack of recent upgrades and improvements; parcels with underutilized improvements; and parcels with existing commercial buildings that are higher than 3 stories but whose floor plan is conducive to residential conversion. (JR 202-03, 210-11.) Respondent also explains that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because the creation of the Overlay Zone creates opportunities for residential development; conversion from non-residential to residential use costs less than new construction; and high residential property values in the City create financial incentives for residential development. (JR 209-10.) However, respondent discusses its methodology for determining development potential generally, without engaging in any site-specific analysis.

Respondent contends that it need not engage in an analysis of the methodology of the development potential for each site. The Court disagrees. Section 8 PAGE 176 of 180
65583.2(g)(l) states that, for nonvacant sites, "the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential." Reading the subdivision as a whole, the City is required to provide an explanation of the methodology for each site in the sites inventory. Among the factors that the methodology must consider are "the current market demand for the existing use" and "an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development." (§ 65583.2(g)(l).) These factors necessarily relate to specific sites and cannot be discussed generally. Because the Legislature included these factors, the Legislature surely intended that the City provide "an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential" for each site.

Without a site-specific analysis, it is unclear how the methodology was applied. For example, as petitioner points out in the opening brief, the City purports to have excluded commercial buildings that contained medical uses and car dealerships from the sites inventory. (JR 210.) However, the sites inventory includes medical buildings and car dealerships. (See, e.g., JR 229-30 [153 S. Doheny Dr., 239 S. La Cienega Blvd., 8833 W. Olympic Blvd., 8845 W. Olympic Blvd., 9134 W.

Olympic Blvd.].) The City does not explain how the existing use does not serve as an impediment to residential development.

For the foregoing reasons, with respect to section 65583.2(g)(l), the housing element is deficient because the City did not provide an explanation of the · methodology used to determine the development potential for each site, including a discussion of the factors probative of likelihood of redevelopment set forth in section 65583.2(g)(l).

Further, the sites inventory shows that the City is meeting all of its share of the need for lower-income housing through nonvacant sites. Accordingly, section 65583.2(g)(2), quoted below, is implicated: •
In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
(§ 65583.2(g)(2).)
• 9
PAGE 177 of 180
For nonvacant sites, the "Field Notes/Existing Conditions & Analysis for Keeping/Removing" column in the sites inventory only indicates the existing use of the site and whether the site is designated for conversion or has conversion potential. (JR 229-34.) The City does not engage in any discussion of occupancy rates, lease terms, viability of the business operating at the sites. Nor does the City present any other discussion demonstrating that the existing use for each site "does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element."(§ 65583.2(g)(2).) Without any evidence concerning the existing use of each site, the existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development. (Ibid.)
Respondent maintains that Culver City and Gardena obtained HCD approval based on a chart similar to its sites inventory. However, unlike Beverly Hills, Gardena's sites inventory sets forth the existing use of each site and why the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. (Reply RJN Ex. B; cf.

Chen Deel. Ex.Bat 71 [listing criteria used in selection of sites].) With respect to Culver City, the sites inventory does not set forth the reason why the existing use is likely to be discontinued. (Chen Deel. Ex. A at Appendix B.) However, elsewhere in the housing element, Culver City discusses sites that present opportunities for development based on positive responses from property owners and developers. (Chen Deel. Ex. A at B-9 to B-10.) Unlike Beverly Hills, Culver City discussed how the existing use at certain sites would not impede residential development. Beverly Hills did not engage in any site-specific analysis concerning how the existing use would not impede additional residential development.

Respondent contends that the Court of Appeal in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 determined that no site-specific analysis concerning the methodology used to determine development potential and additional development factors is required. This is not quite accurate. In Martinez, the Court of Appeal found that section 65583.2(g)(l) "does not mandate the City 'specify the additional development potential for each [nonvacant] site within the planning period and ... provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential' in the housing element itself." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 248-49, emphasis added.) While specification of the additional development potential for each site does not have to be part of the housing element, the City still must demonstrate the additional development potential for each site. In Martinez, for example, the City of Clovis provided evidence outside of the housing element to demonstrate the development potential of a nonvacant site. (Id. at 249-51.) Here, there is no analysis of the additional development potential for each site listed in the sites inventory in the housing element or elsewhere. Further, the housing element does not contain findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses of nonvacant sites are likely to be discontinued, as required by section 65583.2(g)(2) .•
10 PAGE 178 of 180
In sum, with respect to nonvacant sites, the housing element is deficient for the following reasons: (1) the City did not provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential for each site in the sites inventory, including a discussion of the factors probative of likelihood of redevelopment set forth in section 65583.2(g)(l); and (2) the City fails to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the existing use for each site in the sites inventory does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.

C. Specific Sites
Petitioner also contends that certain sites were improperly included in the sites inventory. (OB at 15:6-17:1.) Petitioner maintains that the City did not make the findings based on substantial evidence that are required to rebut the presumption under section 65583.2(g)(2) that the existing use will impede additional residential development. (Reply at 4:13-14.)
However, in contending that additional residential development is not possible on certain sites, petitioner relies on extra-record evidence. For example, for 55 North La Cienega, the sites inventory indicates that the property will have 70 low-income units. (JR 229.) However, petitioner presents a Planning Commission Report and meeting minutes to assert that the City's Planning Commission approved development on the site with only 11 units of very low-income housing. (Gelfand Deel. Exs. C at 1, D at 3-4.)
"[W]here the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence." (Cinema West, LLC v. Baker (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 194, 208.) Petitioner cannot challenge the inclusion of sites in the inventory based on extra-record evidence.

Ironically, petitioner would have the Court consider the propriety of certain sites based on extra-record evidence, but then bar respondent from presenting extrarecord evidence to rebut petitioner's argument. (Reply at 4:18-5:13.) With respect to sites which petitioner contends are unlikely to disappear based on their existing use (OB at 16:21-17:2; JR 1557-58), the Court already finds that respondent did not make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use for each nonvacant site in the sites inventory is likely to be discontinued. The City must make such findings in revising the housing element. 11 PAGE 179 of 180
VI. Conclusion
The petition is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), petitioner shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment and proposed writ of mandate. •
Date: September 12, 2023 ,t:::_::_ HON. CURTIS A. KIN
12 PAGE 180 of 180