CDC - Item 3A - Sewer System Management Plan ContractROSEMEAD COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: JEFF STEWART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 12. 2009
SUBJECT: SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP) - CONTRACT
AWARD
SUMMARY
In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Order No.
2006-0003-DWQ, public agencies are required to develop and implement a Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP). The mandate includes the requirement to properly
manage, operate and maintain all parts of the City's local sanitary sewer system,
including the mitigation of any potential sewer overflows.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an agreement with Kimley-Horn &
Associates, Inc. to develop the City's Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and
authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
Background
At its February 10, 2009 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate with
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. to develop the City's Sewer System Management Plan
(SSMP).
Following Council authorization, staff met with Kimley-Horn representatives to negotiate
and refine the firm's proposal. The following items were agreed upon:
Timeline: Kimley-Horn initially proposed to complete all work related to the
SSMP (SWRCB general waste discharge reporting requirements, recommended
capital improvement list, system capacity monitoring, and create geographic
information system (GIS) shape files) prior to the statewide August 2, 2009
deadline. Due to time constraints, staff and contractor have agreed to complete
work in separate phases. The first phase will include the preparation of all
requirements related to SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003 (i.e. a clear definition of
County and City sewer responsibilities, sewer overflow reporting process, and
structure for managing sewer system) prior to the statewide August 2, 2009
deadline. The second phase will include additional analysis, monitoring work,
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM NO.
Community Development Commission Meeting
May 12, 2009
Page 2 of 2
and capital improvement recommendations. This portion will be completed by
the end of 2009.
Scope of Services and Cost: Kimley-Horn's initial proposal consisted of
significant review of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW)
sewer plans and operations. Staff has obtained the DPW's SSMP and has
agreed to assist with the compilation of DPW sewer files, sewer maintenance
information, and other related documents. Kimley-Horn has also agreed to
reduce its fee for SSMP development services to a not-to-exceed cost of
$160,000.
These changes have been included in the attached agreement.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Funding for the project in the amount of $175,000 (Community Development
Commission - $125,000, Gas Tax - $50,000) has been approved and appropriated in
the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Capital Improvement Budget.
ENVIROMENTAL REVIEW
This Project does not require environmental review.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This agenda item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Lucien LeBlanc, P.E.
City Engineer
Submitted by:
Chris Marcarello
Deputy Director of Public Works
Attachments
(1) Draft Agreement for Development of Sewer System Management Plan
(2) Scope of Services
(3) City Council February 10, 2009 Agenda Report and Minutes
(4) City Council November 18, 2009 Agenda Report and Minutes
(5) State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN AND SYSTEM EVALUATION AND
CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this 28th day of April, 2009 by and
between the City of Rosemead, a municipal organization organized under the laws of
the State of California with its principal place of business at 8838 E. Valley Blvd.,
Rosemead, California 91770 ("City") and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. with its
principal place of business at 5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Woodland Hills, CA 91367
("Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to herein as
"Party" and collectively as "Parties."
2. RECITALS.
2. 1.1 City. City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State
of California, with power to contract for services necessary to achieve its purpose.
2.1.2 City. City must comply with the terms outlined in the California State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (GWDRs). Information
gathered through this process will reduce the number and frequency of sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs) and thus decrease the risks to human health and the environment
2.1.3 City. City desires to engage Consultant to develop a Sewer System
Master Plan in compliance with SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003 to develop and
implement a planning guide for improving and upgrading the City's wastewater
infrastructure in compliance with the GWDRs.
2.1.4 City. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has
reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and
desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement.
2.1.5 Consultant. Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for
the provision of certain professional Consultant services required by the City on the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant warrants that it is fully
licensed, qualified, and willing to perform the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 2 of 26
3. TERMS
3.1 Employment of Consultant.
3.1.1 Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to
City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work
necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional Consultant and related
services necessary for the full and adequate completion of the Project consistent with
the provisions of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Services"). The Services
are more particularly described throughout this Agreement, including Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to,
and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, any exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules
and regulations. All Services performed by Consultant shall be subject to the sole and
discretionary approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above
written date, and shall terminate on December 31, 2009, unless terminated earlier as
set forth herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.2 Project Consultant; Key Personnel.
3.2.1 Project Consultant. Consultant shall name a specific person to act
as Project Consultant, subject to the approval of City. Consultant hereby designates Bill
Dvorak to act as the Project Consultant for the Project. The Project Consultant shall: (1)
maintain oversight of the Services at all times; (2) have full authority to represent and
act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement; (3) supervise and
direct the Services using his or her best skill and attention; (4) be responsible for the
means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures used for the Services; (5)
adequately coordinate all portions of the Services; and (6) act as principal contact with
City and all contractors, consultants, engineers and inspectors on the Project. Any
change in the Project Consultant shall be subject to the City's prior written approval,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The new Project Consultant shall
be of at least equal competence as the prior Project Consultant. In the event that City
and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of a new Project Consultant, City
shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause.
3.2.2 Key Personnel. In addition to the Project Consultant, Consultant
has represented to the City that certain additional key personnel, engineers and
consultants will perform the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of
such personnel, engineers or consultants become unavailable, Consultant may
substitute others of at least equal competence upon written approval of the City. In the
event that City and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel,
engineers or consultants, City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause.
As discussed below, any personnel, engineers or consultants who fail or refuse to
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 3 of 26
perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are determined by the
City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of
the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be promptly removed
from the Project by the Consultant at the request of the City. The key additional
personnel, engineers and consultants for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
Bill Dvorak, Mike Fisher
3.3 Hiring of Consultants and Personnel.
3.3.1 Right to Hire or Employ. Consultant shall have the option, unless
City objects in writing after notice, to employ at its expense Consultants, engineers,
experts or other consultants qualified and licensed to render services in connection with
the planning and/or administration of the Project, and to delegate to them such duties as
Consultant may delegate without relieving Consultant from administrative or other
responsibility under this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for the
coordination and cooperation of Consultant's Consultants, engineers, experts or other
consultants. All consultants, including changes in consultants, shall be subject to
approval by City in its sole and reasonable discretion. Consultant shall notify City of the
identity of all consultants at least fourteen (14) days prior to their commencement of
work in order to allow City time to review their qualifications and decline consent to their
participation on the Project if deemed necessary by City in its sole and reasonable
discretion.
3.3.2 Qualification and License. All Consultants, engineers, experts and
other consultants retained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be
qualified to perform the Services assigned to them, and shall be licensed to practice in
their respective professions, where required by law.
3.3.3 Standards and Insurance. All Consultants, engineers, experts and
other consultants hired by Consultant shall be required to meet the same standards and
insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement, unless other standards or
requirements are approved by the City in writing. Unless changes are approved in
writing by the City, Consultant's agreements with its consultants shall contain a
provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
3.3.4 Assignments or Staff Changes. Consultant shall promptly obtain
written City approval of any assignment, reassignment or replacement of such
Consultants, engineers, experts and consultants, or of other staff changes of key
personnel working on the Project. As provided in the Agreement, any changes in
Consultant's consultants and key personnel shall be subject to approval by City.
3.3.5 Draftsman and Clerical Support. Draftsmen and clerical personnel
shall be retained by Consultant at Consultant's sole expense.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 4 of 26
3.4 Standard of Care.
3.4.1 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Consultant shall
perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner,
consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals
in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains
that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services.
Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and
experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents
that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and
approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, including
a City Business License, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained
throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without
reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions
which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care
provided for herein. Any employee of the Consultant or its sub-consultants who is
determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or
timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any
employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the
City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be
re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.
3.4.2 Performance of Employees. Any employee or consultant who is
reasonably determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or
property, or any employee or consultant who fails or refuses to perform the Services in
a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the
Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on
the Project.
3.5 Laws and Regulations.
3.5.1 Knowledge and Compliance. Consultant shall keep itself fully
informed of and in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and
regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Services or the Project, and
shall give all notices required of the Consultant by law. Consultant shall be liable,
pursuant to the standard of care and indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with its Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all
costs arising there from. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials,
officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure to
comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 5 of 26
3.5.2 Drawings and Specifications. Consultant shall cause all drawings
and specifications to conform to any applicable requirements of federal, state and local
laws, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, in
effect as of the time the drawings and specifications are prepared or revised during the
latest phase of the Services described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Any significant
revisions made necessary by changes in such laws, rules and regulations after this time
may be compensated as Additional Services. Consultant shall cause the necessary
copies of such drawings and specifications to be filed with any governmental bodies
with approval jurisdiction over the Project, in accordance with the Services described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
3.5.3 Americans with Disabilities Act. Consultant will use its best
professional efforts to interpret all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and
regulations with respect to access, including those of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"). Consultant shall inform City of the existence of inconsistencies of which it is
aware or reasonably should be aware between federal and state accessibility laws,
rules and regulations, as well as any other issues which are subject to conflicting
interpretations of the law, and shall provide City with its interpretation of such
inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations. Unless Consultant brings such
inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations to the attention of the City and requests
City's direction on how to proceed, the Consultant's interpretation of such
inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations shall be the sole responsibility and liability
of Consultant, and the Consultant shall correct all plans, specifications and other
documents prepared for the Project at no additional cost if its interpretations are shown
to be incorrect. If Consultant brings such inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations
to the attention of the City and request's City's direction on how to proceed, Consultant
shall be responsible to the City only pursuant to the indemnification provision of this
Agreement. City acknowledges that the requirements of the federal and state
accessibility laws are subject to various and possibly contradictory interpretations, and
that the Consultant cannot warrant or guarantee that its interpretation will be correct.
Consultant will adhere to the standard of care provided for in this Agreement and will
use its reasonable professional efforts and judgment in making its interpretations.
3.5.4 Permits, Approvals and Authorizations. Consultant shall provide
City with a list of all permits, approvals or other authorizations required for the Project
from all federal, state or local governmental bodies with approval jurisdiction over the
Project. Consultant shall then assist the City in obtaining all such permits, approvals
and other authorizations. The costs of such permits, approvals and other authorizations
shall be paid by the City.
3.6 Independent Contractor.
3.6.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates. City retains Consultant on
an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. Consultant
is not an employee for state tax, federal tax or any other purpose, and is not entitled to
the rights or benefits afforded to City's employees. Any additional personnel performing
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 6 of 26
the 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.
3.7 Schedule of Services.
3.7.1 Timely Performance Standard. Consultant shall perform all
Services hereunder as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care, as
well as the orderly progress of the Project work so as not to be the cause, in whole or in
part, of delays in the completion of the Project or in the achievement of any Project
milestones, as provided herein. Specifically, Consultant shall perform its Services so as
to allow for the full and adequate completion of the Project within the time required by
the City and within any completion schedules adopted for the Project. Consultant
agrees to coordinate with City's staff, contractors and consultants in the performance of
the Services, and shall be available to City's staff, contractors and consultants at all
reasonable times.
3.7.2 Performance Schedule. Consultant shall prepare an estimated
time schedule for the performance of Consultant's Services, to be adjusted as the
Project proceeds. Such schedule shall be subject to the City's review and approval,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall include allowances for
periods of time required for City's review and approval of submissions, and for
approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over Project approval and funding. If City
and Consultant cannot mutually agree on a performance schedule, City shall have the
authority to immediately terminate this Agreement. The schedule, including any
excusable delays, shall not be exceeded by Consultant without the prior written
approval of City. If the Consultant's Services are not completed within the time provided
by the agreed upon performance schedule, or any milestones established therein, it is
understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage for which the
Consultant will be responsible pursuant to the indemnification provision of this
Agreement.
3.7.3 Excusable Delays. Any delays in Consultant's work caused by the
following shall be added to the time for completion of any obligations of Consultant: (1)
the actions of City or its employees; (2) the actions of those in direct contractual
relationship with City; (3) the actions of any governmental agency having jurisdiction
over the Project; (4) the actions of any parties not within the reasonable control of the
Consultant; and (5) any act of God or other unforeseen occurrence not due to any fault
or negligence on the part of Consultant.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 7 of 26
3.7.4 Request for Excusable Delay Credit. The Consultant shall, within
ten (10) calendar days of the beginning of any excusable delay (unless City grants in
writing a further period of time to file such notice prior to the date of final payment under
the Agreement), notify the City in writing of the causes of delay. City will then ascertain
the facts and the extent of the delay, and grant an extension of time for completing the
Services when, in its sole and reasonable judgment, the findings of fact justify such an
extension. The City's findings of fact thereon shall be final and conclusive on the
parties. Extensions of time shall apply only to that portion of the Services affected by
the delay and shall not apply to other portions of the Services not so affected. If
Additional Services are required as a result of an excusable delay, the parties shall
mutually agree thereto pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement.
Should Consultant make an application for an extension of time, Consultant shall submit
evidence that the insurance policies required by this Agreement remain in effect during
the requested additional period of time.
3.8 Additional Consultant Services.
3.8.1 Request for Services. At City's request, Consultant may be asked
to perform services not otherwise included in this Agreement, not included within the
services listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and/or not customarily furnished in
accordance with generally accepted practices.
3.8.2 Definition. As used herein, "Additional Services" mean: (1) any
work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the
Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary for the
Consultant to perform at the execution of this Agreement; or (2) any work listed as
Additional Services in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Consultant shall not perform, nor be
compensated for, Additional Services without prior written authorization from City and
without an agreement between the City and Consultant as to the scope and
compensation to be paid for such services. City shall pay Consultant for any approved
Additional Services, pursuant to the compensation provisions herein, so long as such
services are not made necessary through the fault of Consultant pursuant to the
indemnification provision of this Agreement.
3.8.3 Examples of Additional Services. Such Additional Services shall
not include any redesign or revisions to drawings, specifications or other documents
when such revisions are necessary in order to bring such documents into compliance
with applicable laws, rules, regulations or codes of which Consultant was aware or
should have been aware pursuant to the laws and regulations provision of this
Agreement above. Such Additional Services may include, but shall not be limited to:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 8 of 26
3.9 City Responsibilities. City's responsibilities shall include the
following:
3.9.1 Data and Information. City shall make available to Consultant all
necessary data and information concerning the purpose and requirements of the
Project, including scheduling and budget limitations, objectives, constraints and criteria.
3.9.6. Fees of Reviewing or Licensing Agencies. Directly pay or
reimburse the payment of all fees required by any reviewing or licensing agency, or
other agency having approval jurisdiction over the Project.
3.9.7 City's Representative. Designate a person to act as its
representative for the performance of this Agreement ("City's Representative"). The
City's Representative shall be authorized to act as liaison between Consultant and City
in the administration of this Agreement and the Construction Documents, and shall have
the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement. Such
person shall assist Consultant in observing construction of the Project and participating
in the preparation of the Punch List Items required by Exhibit "A" attached hereto. City
may designate new and/or different individuals to act as City's Representative from time
to time. The City's Representative shall render decisions in a timely manner so as to
avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Services, as
provided in the excusable delay provisions of this Agreement above.
3.9.8 Review and Approve Documents. Review all documents submitted
by Consultant, including change orders and other matters requiring approval by the City
Council or other officials. City shall advise Consultant of decisions pertaining to such
documents within a reasonable time after submission, so as not to cause unreasonable
delay as provided in the excusable delay provisions of this Agreement above.
3.10 Compensation.
3.10.1 Consultant's Compensation for Basic Services. City shall pay
Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the
Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by
reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this
Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed
One Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($160,000) without prior written
authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this
Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
3.10.2 Payment for Additional Services. Additional Services may be
authorized pursuant to the applicable provisions of this Agreement. If authorized, such
Additional Services will be compensated at the rates and in the manner set forth in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, unless a flat rate or
some other form of compensation is mutually agreed upon by the parties. Consultant
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 9 of 26
shall be paid for Additional Services, as defined by this Agreement, so long as they
have been approved in advance by the City. If City requires Consultant to hire
consultants to perform any Additional Services, Consultant shall be compensated
therefore at the rates and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, unless a flat rate or some other form of compensation
is mutually agreed upon by the parties. City shall have the authority to review and
approve the rates of any such consultants. In addition, Consultant shall be reimbursed
for any expenses incurred by such consultants pursuant to the terms and conditions of
Section 3.10.3.
3.10.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are in addition
to compensation for the Services and Additional Services. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City, which approval may
be evidenced by inclusion in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Such reimbursable expenses
shall include only those expenses which are reasonably and necessarily incurred by
Consultant in the interest of the Project. Consultant shall be required to acquire prior
written consent in order to obtain reimbursement for the following: (1) extraordinary
transportation expenses incurred in connection with the Project; (2) out-of-town travel
expenses incurred in connection with the Project; (3) fees paid for securing approval of
authorities having jurisdiction over the Project; and (4) bid document duplication costs.
3.10.4 Payment to Consultant. Consultant's compensation and
reimbursable expenses shall be paid by City to Consultant no more often than monthly.
Such periodic payments shall be made based upon the percentage of work completed,
and in accordance with the phasing and funding schedule provided in Exhibit A and the
compensation rates indicated in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. In order to receive payment, Consultant shall present to City an itemized
statement which indicates Services performed, percentage of Services completed,
method for computing the amount payable, and the amount to be paid. The statement
shall describe the amount of Services provided since the initial commencement date, or
since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the
statement, as well as those expenses for which reimbursement is requested for that
statement period. The amount paid to Consultant shall never exceed the percentage
amounts authorized by the phasing and funding schedule located in Exhibit A attached
hereto. City shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving such statement, review the
statement and pay all approved charges thereon pursuant to the provisions of Civil
Code Section 3320. Disputed amounts shall be resolved by the parties in a mutually
agreeable manner.
Payments made for Additional Services shall be made in installments, not
more often than monthly, proportionate to the degree of completion of such services or
in such other manner as the parties shall specify when such services are agreed upon,
and in accordance with any authorized fee or rate schedule. In order to receive
payment, Consultant shall present to City an itemized statement which indicates the
Additional Services performed, percentage of Additional Services completed, method
for computing the amount payable, and the amount to be paid. The statement shall
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 10 of 26
describe the amount of Additional Services provided since the initial commencement
date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the
date of the statement. City shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving such statement,
review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon pursuant to the provisions
of Civil Code Section 3320. Disputed amounts shall be resolved by the parties in a
mutually agreeable manner.
Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall be
compensated as set forth in the termination provision herein.
3.10.5 Withholding Payment to Consultant. The City may withhold
payment, in whole or in part, to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the City from
claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or
injuries of any kind to the extent arising out of or caused by the negligent acts, errors or
omissions protected under the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Failure by
City to deduct any sums from a progress payment shall not constitute a waiver of the
City's right to such sums. The City may keep any moneys which would otherwise be
payable at any time hereunder and apply the same, or so much as may be necessary
therefore, to the payment of any expenses, losses, or damages as determined by the
City, incurred by the City for which Consultant is liable under the Agreement or state
law. Payments to the Consultant for compensation and reimbursable expenses due
shall not be contingent on the construction, completion or ultimate success of the
Project. Payment to the Consultant shall not be withheld, postponed, or made
contingent upon receipt by the City of offsetting reimbursement or credit from parties not
within the Consultant's reasonable control.
3.10.6 Prevailing Wages. Consultant is aware of the requirements of
California Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California
Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which
require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other
requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Since the Services
are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as
defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and since the total compensation is $1,000 or
more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with and to require its consultants to fully
comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of
the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this
Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for
each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to
interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place
of business and at the Project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the
City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any
claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or of the
Consultant or its consultants to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 11 of 26
3.11 Notice to Proceed.
Consultant shall not proceed with performance of any Services under this
Agreement unless and until the City provides a written notice to proceed.
3.12 Termination, Suspension and Abandonment.
3.12.1 City's Termination for Convenience; Consultant's Termination for
Cause. City hereby reserves the right to suspend or abandon, at any time and for any
reason, all or any portion of the Project and the construction work thereon, or to
terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause. Consultant shall be
provided with at least seven (7) days advanced written notice of such suspension,
abandonment or termination. In the event of such suspension, abandonment or
termination, Consultant shall be paid for Services and reimbursable expenses rendered
up to the date of such suspension, abandonment or termination, pursuant to the
schedule of payments provided for in this Agreement, less any claims against or
damages suffered by City as a result of the default, if any, by Consultant. Consultant
hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under
this Section 3.12, except as set forth herein, in the event of such suspension,
abandonment or termination. Consultant may terminate this Agreement for substantial
breach of performance by the City, such as failure to make payment to Consultant as
provided in this Agreement.
3.12.2 City's Suspension of Work. If Consultant's Services are suspended
by City, City may require Consultant to resume such Services within ninety (90) days
after written notice from City. When the Project is resumed, the Total Compensation and
schedule of Services shall be equitably adjusted upon mutual agreement of the City and
Consultant.
3.12.3 Documents and Other Data. Within Seven (7) calendar days
following suspension, abandonment or termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall
provide to City all preliminary studies, sketches, working drawings, specifications,
computations, and all other Project Documents, as defined below, to which City would
have been entitled at the completion of Consultant's Services under this Agreement.
Upon payment of the amount required to be paid to Consultant pursuant to the
termination provisions of this Agreement, City shall have the rights, as provided in this
Agreement hereinafter, to use such Project Documents prepared by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement. In the event of a dispute regarding the amount of
compensation to which the Consultant is entitled under the termination provisions of this
Agreement, Consultant shall provide all Project Documents to City upon payment of the
undisputed amount. Consultant shall have no right to retain or fail to provide to City any
such documents pending resolution of the dispute. Consultant shall make such
documents available to City without additional compensation other than as may be
approved as a reimbursable expense.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 12 of 26
3.12.4 Employment of other Consultants. In the event this Agreement is
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms
and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
3.13 Ownership and Use of Documents; Confidentiality.
3.13.1 Ownership. All plans, specifications, original or reproducible
transparencies of working drawings and master plans, preliminary sketches, Consultant
presentation drawings, structural computations, estimates and any other documents
prepared pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any other works of
authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression such as writings, physical
drawings and data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes
(hereinafter referred to as the "Project Documents") shall be and remain the property of
City. Although the official copyright in all Project Documents shall remain with the
Consultant or other applicable subcontractors or consultants, the Project Documents
shall be the property of City whether or not the work for which they were made is
executed or completed. Within thirty (30) calendar days following completion of the
Project, Consultant shall provide to City copies of all Project Documents required by
City. In addition, Consultant shall retain copies of all Project Documents on file for a
minimum of three (3) years following completion of the Project, and shall make copies
available to City upon the payment of reasonable duplication costs. Before destroying
the Project Documents following this retention period, Consultant shall make a
reasonable effort to notify City and provide City with the opportunity to obtain the
documents.
3.13.2 Right to Use. Consultant grants to City the right to use and reuse
all or part of the Project Documents, at City's sole discretion with no additional
compensation to Consultant, for the construction of all or part of this Project. City is not
bound by this Agreement to employ the services of Consultant in the event such
documents are used or reused. City shall be able to use or reuse the Project
Documents for their intended purposes or to otherwise complete this Project, if
necessary, without risk of liability to the City. However, any use or reuse by City of the
Project Documents for other than their intended use or on any project other than this
Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City's own risk. If City
uses or reuses the Project Documents on any project other than this Project, it shall
remove the Consultant's seal from the Project Documents and indemnify and hold
harmless Consultant and its officers, directors, agents and employees from claims
arising out of the negligent use or re-use of the Project Documents on such other
project. Consultant shall be responsible and liable for its Project Documents, pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement, only with respect to the condition of the Project
Documents at the time they are provided to the City upon completion, suspension,
abandonment or termination. Consultant shall not be responsible or liable for any
revisions to the Project Documents made by any party other than Consultant, a party for
whom the Consultant is legally responsible or liable, or anyone approved by the
Consultant.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 13 of 26
3.13.3 License. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual
license for City to copy, use, modify or reuse any and all Project Documents and any
intellectual property rights therein. Consultant shall require any and all subcontractors
and consultants to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual
license for the work of such subcontractors or consultants performed pursuant to this
Agreement.
3.13.4 Right to License. Consultant represents and warrants that
Consultant has the legal right to license any and all copyrights, designs and other
intellectual property embodied in the Project Documents that Consultant prepares or
causes to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
City harmless pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement for any
breach of this Section. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in
regard to previously prepared designs, plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates or other documents that were prepared by design professionals other than
Consultant and provided to Consultant by City.
3.13.5 Confidentiality. All Project Documents, either created by or
provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement, shall be
held confidential by Consultant to the extent they are not subject to disclosure pursuant
to the Public Records Act. All Project Documents shall not, without the written consent
of City, be used or reproduced by Consultant for any purposes other than the
performance of the Services. Consultant shall not disclose, cause or facilitate the
disclosure of the Project Documents to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's name or
insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the
Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other
similar medium without the written consent of City.
3.14 Indemnification.
Indemnification. With regard to General Liability, Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents 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, omissions or willful misconduct of
Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising
out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this
Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and
attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at
Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or
other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against City, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 14 of 26
satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its
directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any such suit, action or
other legal proceeding. 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 the City, its directors, officials officers, employees, agents
or volunteers.
With regard to Professional Liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents
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, to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to any negligent
errors or omissions, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors in the performance of the
Consultant's Services, including without limitation the payment of all consequential
damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and
expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and
all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be
brought or instituted against City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, or
volunteers. In the enforcement of this indemnification obligation, Consultant shall pay
and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its
directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or
other legal proceeding, and 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 the City, its directors, officials officers, employees, agents,
or volunteers.
3.15 Insurance.
3.15.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall maintain prior to the
beginning of and for the direction of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in
Exhibit C attached to and part of this agreement.
3.16 Records.
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly
identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business
hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other
documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all
work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a
period of five (5) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 15 of 26
3.17 Limitation of Agreement.
This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the
Project described above and as determined at the time the schematic drawings and site
utilization plans are approved. Any subsequent construction at the site of the Project, or
at any other City site, will be covered by, and be the subject of, a separate Agreement
for Consultant services between City and the Consultant chosen therefore by City.
3.18 Mediation.
Disputes arising from this Agreement may be submitted to mediation if
mutually agreeable to the parties hereto. The type and process of mediation to be
utilized shall be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties.
3.19 Successors and Assigns.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the
successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this
Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or
otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written
consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and
void.
3.20 No Third Party Rights.
This Agreement shall not create any rights in, or inure to the benefits of,
any third party except as expressly provided herein.
3.21 Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by,
the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Los Angeles County.
3.22 Entire Agreement.
This Agreement, with its exhibits, contains the entire agreement of the
parties hereto, and supersedes any and all other prior or contemporaneous
negotiations, understandings and oral or written agreements between the parties
hereto. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or
agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that
any other agreements shall be void. Furthermore, any modification of this Agreement
shall only be effective if in writing signed by all parties hereto.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 16 of 26
3.23 Severability.
Should any provision in the Agreement be held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue
in full force and effect.
3.24 Non-Waiver.
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by
either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.
3.25 Safety.
Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or
damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at
all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and
regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of its employees,
consultant and subcontractors appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions
under which the work is to be performed.
3.26 Delivery of Notices.
All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to
the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the
respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd
Woodlands Hills, CA 91367
Attn: Bill Dvorak
CITY:
City of Rosemead
P.O. Box 399
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attn: Chris Marcarello
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 17 of 26
3.27 Attorney's Fees.
If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal,
administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the
prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing
party reasonable attorney's fees and all other reasonable costs of such action, including
expert witness fees and expenses.
3.28 City's Right to Employ Other Consultants.
City reserves right to employ other consultants, including Consultants, in
connection with this Project or other projects.
3.29 Prohibited Interests.
3.32.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not
employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the
right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.32.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no director,
official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall
have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material
benefit arising therefrom.
3.30 Equal Opportunity Employment.
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it
shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or any other classification
protected by federal or state law. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be
limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer,
recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also
comply with all relevant provisions of City's minority business enterprise program,
affirmative action plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
3.31 Labor Certification.
By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to
be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 18 of 26
accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions
before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.32 Subcontracting.
As specified in this Agreement, Consultant shall not subcontract any
portion of the Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein,
without prior written approval of City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision
making them subject to each and every provision of this Agreement.
3.33 Supplemental Conditions.
Any supplemental conditions shall be attached as an exhibit to this
Agreement, and that exhibit shall be incorporated herein by reference.
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Page 19 of 26
CITY OF ROSEMEAD KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Jeff Stewart, Interim City Manager
By:
Name:
Attest:
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Joseph Montes, City Attorney
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
02/08
Document8
EXHIBIT A
CONSULTANT'S SCOPE OF SERVICES
A-1
EXHIBIT B
RATE SCHEDULE
B-1
PROFESSIONAL i n D
ENGINEERING
4 0
SERVICES
Fee Proposal
It selected, Kimley-horn will prepare a detailed fee proposal for each specific project we are assigned as part of our
contract with the City. Below you will find our current billing rates.
Billing Rates
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Effective: January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008
Classification ................................Labor Rate
Technician $65
Designer
Analyst I
Analyst II
$115
Engineer/Planner
Senior Engineer/Planner..
Project Manager
Senior Project Manager...
Principal
Clerical $85
An allocation charge (currently at 6.15°x) will be added to the labor fee shown above to cover routine expenses, such
as local mileage, copying, fax, mail, telephone, in-house blueprinting, etc.
A $25/hour cost will be charged for engineering software computer usage. Overtime work is charged at 1.5 times the
normal billing rate for non-exempt staff.
Billing rates are subject to change January 1, 2009.
nn "Awn TZ810039.08
C' M L and Assaddm Inc.
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will
maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant
will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage
does not meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement
or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance
coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of
coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance.
[Note: verify minimum limit for each coverage with Risk Manager]
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy form CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less that $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant's employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability
coverage for each such person.
[Note: may need to delete workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance
requirements for certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations without
employees]
Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
[Note: If the required limits for general liability, auto and employer's liability are $1
million or less, the following paragraph may be omitted.]
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit
requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying
coverages. Any such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a
drop down provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-
C-1
insured retention for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella.
Coverage shall be provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in
addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time
insured's liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There
shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one
insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of
Consultant, subconsultants or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required
herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $ per
occurrence.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay
on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
agreement.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the state of California and with an A. M. Bests rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials,
employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an
edition prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and
subcontractors to do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right
of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or
applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the
policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to
the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. 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 City and approved of in writing.
C-1
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not
make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability
or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's
prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at
or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any
insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled
at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not
the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under
this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by
City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums
due Consultant, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of
any cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the
insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any
party will "endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the
requirements of the certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved
with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant.
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. Consultant agrees that upon request, all
agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be
submitted to City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees
that it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Consultant, Engineer or other
entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project
contemplated by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If
C-1
Consultant's existing coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the
deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the
City shall review options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or
elimination of the deductible or selfinsured retention, substitution of other
coverage, or other solutions.
12. The City 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 such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any
steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this
Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the
part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance
requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it
waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until
City executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has
been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter
from Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of
insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these
specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to
City within five days of the expiration of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. 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 limiting or all-
inclusive.
C-1
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of
this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or
impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not
the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these
requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums
or other amounts with respect thereto.
Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no
obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the
handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
C-1
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
Ilw vll ( i R k( h(:ti()l NI)
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has required all public
entities to comply with the terms outlined in Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General Waste
Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (GWDRs). The goal of the GWDRs is
to reduce the number and frequency of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and thus decrease
the risks to human health and the environment. To accomplish this goal, the GWDRs require
each public agency that owns or operates a sanitary sewer system with at least I mile of
sewer pipe meet three general requirements within the defined time schedule.
1. Apply for coverage under the general order by submitting the required Notice of
Intent (NOI) for coverage and paying the application fees;
2. Report all SSOs in accordance with the GWDRs Monitoring and Reporting Program
via the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) on-line SSO reporting
database (starting January 2, 2007 for Region 4 - Los Angeles); and
3. Develop and implement a system-specific Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
and have that document "certified" by the public agencies governing board.
The City of Rosemead (City) owns its wastewater collection system infrastructure, which
consists of approximately 81 miles of gravity sewer pipe. As such, the City is obligated to
meet the requirements of the order as outlined in the GWDRs. However, while the City
maintains jurisdiction over the collection system, operation and maintenance of these assets
is provided by Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) as part of the Consolidated
Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD). Flow from the City system discharges to LACSD
owned trunk sewers at various locations throughout the City, is conveyed to County owned
treatment works and treated at those facilities. Because of this intertwined relationship
between owner (City) and operator (CSMD), compliance with the GWDRs is a joint venture
in which certain elements are the responsibility of the City and others fall to CSMD.
In 2003, the City of Rosemead commenced a major undertaking to update its General Plan.
The intent of this effort is to provide the City a clear vision of goals and policies through the
year 2025. The General Plan is nearing completion and within it the City's stated vision is "a
City where businesses create a strong economic .foundation for high-gualitl? municipal
services... and where the natural environment is protected and enhanced." The City's
General Plan envisions modifications to the land use and zoning that may impact the City's
infrastructure, including its wastewater collection system. The Draft General Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) specifically states that to mitigate the potential impacts
of the proposed General Plan the City shall complete the following.
1. Update Rosemead's Sewer Master Plan, expanding it to cover the entire City.
2. Revise the capital improvements program to include any infrastructure, construction,
modification, replacement, and/or repair replacements called for in the updated Sewer
Master Plan.
The City of Rosemead intends to utilize its SSMP compliance process to develop and
implement a planning guide for improving and upgrading the City's wastewater
infrastructure in compliance with both the GWDRs and General Plan EIR requirements.
E::=Fl Kr*44orn
andAssocare Int , April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
The City has requested Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA or Kimlcy-Horn) provide
civil engineering services necessary to develop the City of Rosemead Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP). Kimlcy-Horn will complete the City's SSMP in phases. As we
complete our services in each defined task (or phase), we will present the City a summary of
the results. Kimley-Horn will use information gathered in each phase of work to guide the
emphasis of effort in subsequent phases. The City agrees that this approach will allow
Kimley-Horn to expend resources as deemed appropriate by Kimley-Horn to complete the
following services.
1. Develop the City of Rosemead's SSMP in compliance with the GWDRs;
2. Submit a final SSMP to City staff in accordance with the schedule presented herein.
(City staff will present that document for certification by the City Council at a public
meeting prior to August 2nd, 2009, as required by the GWDRs time schedule);
3. Update the City's Sewer Master Plan to include analysis of mainlines, collectors and
trunk lines upstream of LACSD owned trunk sewers, and
4. Revise the City Capital Improvements Program to identify new infrastructure,
construction, modification, replacement, and/or repair replacements resulting from
the analysis completed as part of the City Sewer Master Plan Update.
KINII I N-ll(mN, tic (wl ()l. til li\ t
Kimley-Horn will provide services to the City of Rosemead as defined further in the
following tasks (or phases).
TASK I - GAP ANALYSIS / RECORDS RESEARCH
Kimlcy-Horn will complete a gap analysis - with respect to the mandatory elements of the
SSMP outlined in the GWDRs - to determine the current standing of the City's management,
operation and maintenance (MOM) program for their sanitary sewer system. The unique
relationship between collection system owner (City of Rosemead) and operator (CSMD)
presents a challenge to GWDR compliance. CSMD has taken the lead in the regulatory
compliance effort, but they have taking considerable liberties in assuming the City of
Rosemead's responsibility, while only making limited attempts to communicate these
responsibilities to the City. The City of Rosemead is in need of a mechanism to hold CSMD
responsible for providing quality wastewater utility service to City residents.
Kimlcy-Horn understands that most of the requirements of the GWDRs are already being
met through existing CSMD and City procedures that arc already in place. To that end, we
will review CSMD's SSMP and identify those specific portions of the SSMP that are the
City's responsibility, as well as identify ways for the City to hold CSMD accountable for
their portions. We will collect and review the City's existing documentation, sewer studies,
and general plans, as well as interview City staff to identify the City policies and procedures
that arc already in place that can be utilized in the SSMP development.
= Y4AwciaftInt. 2 April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
Kimley-Horn will use our GWDR Gap Analysis Check List to guide us in our review. We
will analyze the combined City and CSMD existing procedures and assign a ranking to each
of them using the following general categories.
1 City is responsible and no current procedure exists
2 City is responsible and current City procedures do not meet GWDRs
3 Meets minimum GWDRs, but not long term City goals / Included in
CSMD's SSMP, but City should set level of service for CSMD
4 Meets GWDRs and long term City goals / Included in CSMD's SSMP, no
additional CSMD communication with City necessary
non-compliance to CSMD
Kimley-Horn will submit to the City a SSMP Gap Analysis Checklist summarizing the
results of our review including the assigned ranking for current procedures within each of the
required elements of the GWDRs.
TASK 1.0 DELIVERABLES
SSMP gap analysis checklist with assigned ratings for each element (A PDF
document will be sent electronically to pertinent City staff)
TASK 2-SSMP DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND INIPLE►1ENTATION SCHEDULE /
PIIASE 1 SSMP ELEMENTS
Kimley-Horn will use the findings of the gap analysis (Task 1) to identify the steps the City
must take for compliance. We will identify existing policies that meet the GWDRs, required
enhancements to policies that are lacking, and completely new procedures that must be
implemented by the City to ensure compliance. KHA will complete a planning level
estimate of City staff annual person-hours (in the form of "full time equivalents" or "FTEs")
required to meet the GWDR requirements. These estimates will be for additional City staff
hours required to implement the required SSMP elements that are the City's responsibility
and should be in City budget. The results will be summarized in a the form of a Draft City
Council Communication that will define the steps the City is going to take toward
compliance and the schedule in which those steps are going to be implemented.
In parallel with the development of the plan and schedule, Kimley-Horn will produce a
working draft SSMP Pamphlet that will summarize and collate the results of the gap analysis
into sections that match the SSMP program elements. We will assist City staff with the
development of the goals and organizational structure sections of the SSMP, which are
required program elements I and 2. Where program elements are the responsibility of
CSMD, Kimley-Horn will incorporate those into the City SSMP by reference.
t, = Fj t+am
hh, = and Assouft Inc. 3 Aprit 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
TASK 2.0 DFIAVERABLES
Draft City Council Communication (A PDF document will be sent
electronically to pertinent City staff)
Draft SSMP Pamphlet (A PDF document will be sent electronically to
pertinent City staff)
TASK 3 - PHASE. I SSMP PROGRAM ELEMENTS CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTAL
The plan and schedule, goals, and organization structure make up the Phase I SSMP Program
Elements. The Council Communication will serve as the City's SSMP Development Plan
and Implementation Schedule (plan and schedule), which is the first mandatory element of
the SSMP that must be approved by City Council at a public meeting. City staff will present
the Phase 1 elements (SSMP Pamphlet and Draft Council Communication) to the City
Council prior to the public meeting.
City staff will provide Kimley-Horn one document with all staff and council comments
summarized. Kimley-Horn will update the Council Communication and SSMP Pamphlet to
reflect mutually agreed upon comments. Kimley-Horn will produce and submit one Final
version of each to the City. City staff will then submit the Phase I SSMP Program Elements
for approval and certification by the City Council during a public meeting.
These phase I program elements were supposed to have been completed by agencies in the
10,000 to 100,000 population group by November of 2007. Because CSMD's SSMP
addresses these sections and the County submitted for coverage of the City's system already,
it is agreed by the City and Kimley-Horn that the City is already considered in compliance
with the Phase I time schedule. So, the intent of this "pre-meeting" presentation and public
meeting approval is to update Rosemead City Council on how City staff intends to continue
in its compliance effort.
TASK 3.0 DF,LIYERABLES
Final City Council Communication and SSMP Pamphlet (PDF sent
electronically and 10 hard copies)
TASK 4 - DRAFT SSMP DEVELOPMENT (PHASE 11 & III ELEMENTS)
Kimley-Horn will develop the remaining program elements of the City's SSMP based on
gaps defined in previous tasks. Kimlcy-Horn will develop the City's SSMP be in the form of
a "supplemental" SSMP to CSMD's. Where program elements are the responsibility of
CSMD, Kimley-Horn will incorporate those into the City SSMP by reference. We will
reference sections of the CSMD SSMP in your "supplemental" SSMP and develop from
scratch only those portions that are determined to be specifically the City's responsibility
Kimley-Horn will complete development of the City's SSMP with the understanding that
GWDRs do not actually require completion of compliance efforts for every element by the
specified deadline in the time schedule; it requires that every agency have the specific tasks
for compliance defined and a schedule for completing those tasks developed. During this
F, 6 y+iorn r
IE ardAssobaoes,Ix 4 April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
phase of work, Kimley-Horn will communicate approximate City staffing and budget needs
to complete the compliance tasks. Kimley-Horn will make an effort to develop the
compliance tasks and schedule with the intent of:
1. Utilizing current City practices and staff resources to implement the required MOM
enhancements; and
2. Requiring consulting services for only those elements that require specialized
expertise or have implementation schedules that cannot be met with the City's
current resources.
Kimley-Horn used the following assumptions when developing our anticipated level of effort
for completing of the City of Rosemead SSMP.
SSMP Element 7: the System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance (SECAP)
A significant portion of Kimley-Horn's assistance to the City will be on SSMP element 7, the
System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP). Our approach to developing this
section will maximize the use of previous master planning efforts (1996, 1988, and 1994
reports) to expedite compliance with the GWDR regulatory timeline. Kimley-Horn has
reviewed the 1984, 1988 and 1996 sewer master planning documents. These generally
indicated that most of the City's collection system had sufficient capacity to meet ultimate
build-out conditions of the General Plan upon which they were based. However, the 1996
report does reveal the first signs of pipes that were nearing their design capacity. Some of
these pipes were identified for additional analysis and repair. Kimley-Horn will use a
combination of the 1996 report, a summary of work that was completed since then, and an
update to the City's schedule and trigger points for completing additional capacity related
projects to meet the requirements of the GWDRs.
This section of the SSMP will include a schedule for completing a new analysis to
accommodate the General Plan update. This further analysis (detailed under subsequent
task) will include an update to the City's SECAP element (or Sewer Master Plan) to address
mitigation requirements of the General Plan Draft EIR, but define a time schedule that is
driven by the City's General Plan implementation, not the GWDRs time schedule.
Other SSAIP Elenrc tits
Kimlcy-Horn identified specific elements of the CSMD SSMP where the County references
the City as responsible for certain compliance requirements, as well as instances where they
omit the City completely on elements where the City should be involved. Kimley-Horn will
develop the City's Supplemental SSMP to define the City's compliance approach to each, as
well as define the City's understanding of the County responsibility within each:
• CSMD's makes no reference to the City as part of its organizational structure or SSO
reporting notification process, yet they applied for coverage by naming the City of
Rosemead as the responsible agency. (According to the CIWQS On-Line SSO
Reporting Database, CSMD reported four (4) SSOs within the City boundaries in
2007 alone, and yet they have never communicated that fact to the City.)
= tcr+lan
\Z- andAssoaaftInc. 5 Aprit 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
• CSMD's legal authority section makes no reference to the relationship between the
individual Cities where it operates, nor is there any agreement in place that defines
that relationship.
• CSMD's SSMP includes considerable CCTV condition assessment work in
Rosemead scheduled for 2007-2009, yet they do not coordinate those activities with
the City. (This can be a considerable issue when large scale traffic disruptions and
traffic control are required to complete their work, or they plan work inside a Caltrans
right of way without obtaining permission or even alerting them.)
• CSMD references their standards within element 5, but indicates that City specific
design requirements and construction standards take precedence, and the City is
responsible for construction inspection within City boundaries. (This could be an
issue if City building inspectors do not know to review sewer collection system
related design and construction items required by the SSMP.)
• CSMD specifically indicates that it is the City's responsibility to ensure the collection
system pipelines have sufficient capacity to carry the sewer flow load, and all
hydraulic deficiencies shall be the responsibly of the individual City to remedy. Yet
they define no process by which these hydraulic deficiencies (if any) shall be
measured or reported to the City. (This is particularity important when determining
the "need" for completing a more comprehensive capacity assessment, whether wet
weather flow monitoring should be conducted, etc.)
• CSMD employs a "Hot Spot" list for priority pipes that require higher frequency of
preventative maintenance, but makes no attempt to let the City know whether lines in
the City are on that list. (This information can be helpful to the City when responding
to problem calls or questions from City residents.)
CSMD describes a public outreach program for issues such as fats, oils and grease
(FOG) mitigation, but indicates that it is the City's responsibility to assist with
enforcement. Yet, three of the four SSOs in the City last year were FOG related and
the City was not made aware of this fact. (Not to mention the fact that CSMD may
not be taking into account the changing demographics of the Rosemead community,
where language and style of communication may be better suited for City staff to help
them target their message in the appropriate manner.)
CSMD has a list of performance indicators to measure the level of service they are
providing, but they do not indicate any process for the City to examine the level of
service that is being provided to their citizens. (This results in the City having no
way to hold the County responsible for meeting a defined service level for the City
residents.)
Kimley-Horn's "supplemental" SSMP approach will define the specific responsibilities of
the City, as well as define what elements are CSMD's responsibility and the process by
which the City can measure their performance and hold them accountable for a defined level
of service to the citizens of Rosemead. Kimley-Horn will produce a draft version of the City
of Rosemead "supplemental" SSMP and submit it to the City.
C! irmieyHOM
M;, andAts um.1m 6 April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
We will work with the City to review CSMD's compliance matrix (found in section 12 of
their SSMP) to verify that the dates and responsibilities listed on that document are consistent
with the City's understanding of responsibility. We will develop a "working draft"
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the City can submit to CSMD for mutual
signature in conjunction with the responsibility matrix. This can serve as a vehicle for the
two parties to define their relationship with respect to GWDRs compliance and set
expectations for both parties now and into the future.
TASK 4.0 DELIVERABLES:
Draft "Supplemental" SSMP (A PDF document will be sent electronically to
pertinent City staff)
"Working Draft" Memorandum of Agreement between City and CSMD (A
PDF document will be sent electronically to pertinent City staff)
TASK 5-SSMP REVIEw, REVISIONS AND CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION
Kimley-Horn facilitate one (1) review meeting with City administrative, management and
engineering staff to go review the "Working Draft" MOU and Draft "Supplemental" SSMP.
City staff will provide Kimley-Horn one document with all staff and council comments
summarized. Kimley-Horn will update the draft documents to reflect mutually agreed upon
comments. Kimley-Horn will produce and submit one Final "Supplemental" SSMP. We
will assist the City in presenting the Final SSMP to City Council at a public meeting and
answer questions regarding its development and implementation. The Final SSMP must be
"certified" by the City Council at a public meeting prior to August 2, 2009.
TASK 5.0 DELIVERABLES:
Final "Supplemental" SSMP (PDF document and source file format
documents sent via electronic mail to the City, and 5 bound hard copies)
TASK 6-SENDER VASTER PLAN /SECAP UPDATE
Kimley-Horn will use the information gathered during the SSMP development and approval
phase, combined with the updated land use and zoning changes identified in the Gencral Plan
to complete a Sewer System Master Plan Update. Kimley-Horn will complete this work in
five distinct steps.
Develop a GIS based hydraulic model using pipe location and attribute data from
CSMD's AutoCAD and GIS files, as well as additional attribute data from previous
City studies and record documents. It is assumed that we will have access to the
source files for the County's Sewer GIS and City's General Plan GIS shape files.
These will include the attribution necessary to build the model, including but
necessarily not limited to: horizontal location of manholes and pipes (and other
pertinent wastewater assets), invert elevations for manholes and pipes, pipe size,
material, age, lift station data (location, size, age, operational parameters, force main
alignments) land use (current and proposed), parcel information, street centerlines,
ROW and casements.
G_ I 1 a nd=*H"a
. - Pssodates,lnc. 7 April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
2. Assign flows to the model using parcel maps, land use and zoning data from the
General Plan with CSMD and City standard design flows per equivalent dwelling
unit (EUDs).
3. Run peak flow condition in model, analyze the results, and identify deficiencies.
4. Develop a list of capital improvements projects that must be completed to support the
City's General Plan Update.
5. Update the City of Rosemead SECAP element of the SSMP to account for new
information.
Kimley-Horn will not produce a stand-alone Sewer Master Plan document, but instead the
SECAP section of your SSMP will serve this purpose. Kimley-Horn will update the SECAP
section to describe the hydraulic model and how it was developed; defined a list of identified
deficiencies; and include a list of prioritized, time-phased improvements that the City is
committed to completing (if any). The updated SECAP section will define how the model
can be used during the new General Plan implementation to verify capacity now and into the
future.
Kimley-Horn will develop the updated SECAP section to meet the two mitigation
requirements of the General Plan Draft Program EIR.
1. Provide an updated City Sewer Master Plan, covering the entire City; and
2. Define a capital improvements program that ensures sufficient infrastructure.
The updated SECAP section will meet the mitigation requirements above as defined below:
1. It will include analysis of mainlines, collectors and trunk lines (all pipes greater than
8-inch in diameter and select 6-inch pipes serving as mainlines) upstream of LACSD
owned trunk sewers, and
2. It will include a revised Capital Improvements Program that identifies new
infrastructure, construction, modification, replacement, and/or repair replacements
resulting from the analysis.
In addition, the implementation schedule of the SECAP section will be updated to identify
trigger points for additional analysis, such as wet weather flow monitoring. We recognize
that the 1996 report already recommended wet weather monitoring, but this requirement will
be verified using the updated model based on the new General Plan land use and flows. Wet
weather flow monitoring is not included in this scope of services.
TAsh 6.0 DELIVERABLES:
Model files, including GIS layer of pipes and nodes (model source files and
ArcGIS 9.2 compatible shape file)
Final "Supplemental" SSMP with updated SECAP Section (PDF document
and source file format documents sent via electronic mail to the City, and 10
bound hard copies)
C,=I1 Iw,+iorn
M. ardAssod",Ix 8 April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
TASK 7 - PROJF?CT ADMINISTRATION
Project Management
Kimley-Horn will keep the City project manager informed on the status of the project
through a combination of verbal, written, electronic snail, and telephone correspondence.
KHA will provide internal financial management of our budget and schedule, in order to
execute the project in accordance with the agreed upon schedule and budget. Kimley-Horn
will coordinate internally to identify, assign, and verify completion of tasks required to
execute the project. Kimley-Horn will utilize our standardized correspondence and file
maintenance procedures to maintain project records. Invoicing will be on a percent complete
of total budget basis and will include a summary of hours by person. No project status report
will be required as part of the invoicing approval and payment process.
Kick-Off Meeting
Our team will facilitate a kick-off meeting with the City's project manager and select staff.
The purpose of this meeting will be to identify the goals and expectations for the project, and
to establish major milestones and tasks within the process. Both City staff and Kimley-Horn
will review the schedule for the project meetings, workshops, and deliverables. Kimley-Horn
and the City will review project scope and summarize the approach that will be used as the
basis for completing the work. City staff will identify to Kimley-Horn the appropriate
individuals at the City who should be contacted to give input on specific tasks. These staff
members will be available to participate in workshops or interviews as mutually agreed upon
by the City and the Kimley-Horn project manager.
Meetin.,Ts
Kimley-Horn will participate in a maximum of two (2) meetings, additional to the kick-off
meeting to complete the project. Meetings will be held at the City offices or via
teleconference. The timing and format of each meeting will be as determined appropriate by
City and Kimley-Horn based on project progression and will generally include discussion of
project status, analysis of research results, interviews with staff, and review of deliverables.
If at the end of any meeting the City and Kimley-Horn agree that the meeting's content
warrants, Kimley-Horn staff will formalize notes and send them to all attendees to verify
conclusions and action items.
City Board Presentations
Kimley-Horn will assist the City in developing one presentation to the City Council. This
presentation will be held at a time mutually agreed upon by the City. It is anticipated that the
presentation will be for approval of the "Final" SSMP. The timing of the presentation will be
as determined appropriate by City and Kimley-Horn staff based on project progression and
will generally include discussion of SSMP implementation status, analysis of research
results, and summary of document contents and its use.
C MMM/1 aKxndAssociaad*As_ ton,
es.lnc. 9 April 28, 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
Kimley-Horn will assist the City in developing one PowerPoint presentation with a
maximum of 10 slides for the presentation. Kimley-Horn will assist City staff in developing
speaking notes to coincide with each slide. City staff will complete the presentation to City
Council. Kimley-Horn will attend the City Council presentation and support City staff in
answering questions regarding the Final "Supplemental" SSMP.
Quality Assurance lQuality Control
KHA will follow our internal quality assurancc/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. The
QA/QC procedures describe the general process by which project work and deliverables are
internally checked, corrected, and back-checked prior to releasing them to the County. Such
procedures may be modified by Kimley-Horn from time to time as appropriate to our
professional practice.
Kimley-Horn will assign a Project Quality Manager, who will coordinate adherence to the
guidelines through periodic participation in internal meetings and periodic review of the
procedures' implementation. Kimley-Horn will utilize these QA/QC procedures to the extent
practical in rendering services in accordance with the standard of professional care.
TASK 7.0 DELIVERABLES:
"Final" SSMP Board Presentation (Microsoft PowerPoint)
Meeting agenda(s) (5 hard copies will provided at each meeting)
Meeting notes, if necessary (PDF sent electronically to documented attendees)
IN IOUNI kIION 141:91 HUI) 1OI4f 11w1%Im.-Um CrlI
KHA shall be entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of all information provided
by the City. The City shall provide all information requested during the project, including
but not limited to:
1. Access to all documents, maps, computer programs, manuals, procedures, protocols,
specifications, ordinances or other documentation that may assist with the
identification and understanding of current management and operation of the City
Sanitary Sewer Collection System.
2. Provide city specific information, documents, maps, data, etc. as deemed necessary
and requested by KHA to complete SSMP.
3. Active Participation in the Draft SSMP Meetings, Workshops, and Review Sessions.
4. Provide meeting rooms as required.
5. Participate in project meetings and interviews as requested by KHA.
6. Timely review and comments on submittals
7. Assistance scheduling meetings and coordinating with CSMD, as deemed necessary
by KHA, to obtain additional information and electronic files (e.g., GIS, AutoCAD
maps, CCTV data, etc.).
C~ii• ~aar+ian
M►1 ax1As ,k. 10 April 28. 2009
City of Rosemead SSMP and SECAP Scope of Services
kiml I I()N ~I svluN I( r"
Any services not specifically provided for in the above scope will be considered additional
services and can be performed at our then current hourly rates.
s li\ Ic t-:` No l I`I I.I I>rn
Any other services not specifically defined by this scope of service, including but not limited
to the following, are not included in this Agreement.
8. Surveying or mapping
9. Condition assessment
10. Rate studies or any other financial analysis.
11. Obtaining any required construction permits.
12. Legal review of documents.
13. Expert witness services (may be offered under a separate contract).
14. Environmental review or clearances (may be coordinated under a separate contract).
15. Coordination with any agency or entity other than the City of Rosemead.
16. Determination of Opinions of Probable Construction Cost.
17. Engineering design of identified improvements.
18. Construction phase services
IIII)lII
We will provide our services as expeditiously as practicable to meet the attached mutually
agreed upon schedule.
I, I r .%\u BII I.Iti(.
KHA will perform the Scope of Services for a lump sum fee of $160,000.00 (ONE
HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS). All permitting, application, and
similar project fees will be paid directly by the Client. A person hour estimate for the service
described herein has been attached for reference only. Fees will be invoiced monthly based
upon the percentage of services performed as of the invoice date.
G M„ etas. Im 11 April 28, 2009
C
co
a
Y
O
O
qS
Q
U
W
N
C
is
a
2
N
U)
v
R
a.
E
a~
H
O
d'
O
U
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2009
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH KIMLEY-
HORN AND ASSOCIATES TO DEVELOP A SEWER SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY
In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Order No.
2006-0003-DWQ, public agencies are required to develop and implement a Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP). The mandate includes the requirement to properly
manage, operate and maintain all parts of the City's local sanitary sewer system,
including the mitigation of any potential sewer overflows.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to open negotiations with Kimley-
Horn & Associates, Inc. to develop a contract for the City's Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP).
Background
Project Description/Scope of Services
The City of Rosemead local sewer system provides wastewater collection service to a
population of approximately 60,000, as well as numerous commercial and industrial
customers. The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 81 miles of gravity
sewer main ranging in sizes from 6-inches to 12-inches in diameter and assisted by one
pump station. The City's collection system discharges to the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District trunk sewers at various locations within the city.
The City of Rosemead is entirely within the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District
(CSMD) formerly known as County Sanitation District No. 15 that was formed in 1945.
The local sewage system is under the jurisdiction of the City of Rosemead and is
operated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Order
No. 2006-0003-DWA requiring all public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer
system comprised of more than one mile of sewer lines, which convey untreated
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM NO.
City Council Meeting
February 10, 2009
Page 2 of 4
wastewater to a public owned treatment facility in the State of California, to develop and
implement a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The mandate further requires
public agencies to electronically report all sanitary sewer overflows to the State Board's
database. Noncompliance with the mandate could subject the City to penalties and
potential fines.
Since the City of Rosemead's sewer system falls within the Los Angeles County's
Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD), the City is planning to adopt its
required SSMP in two (2) elements. The first element has been prepared by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works under its scope of sewer maintenance and
repair operations performed for the City as an agency member of the CSMD. The
second element is that which will be prepared to supplement the first element and to
complete the City obligation under the Order.
These regulations were born out of growing concern about the water quality impacts of
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO), particularly those that cause beach closures or pose
serious health and safety or nuisance problems.
The SWRCB Order established a series of SSMP compliance milestones. The most
important ones are the following:
Task Required
Completion Date
• Develop Overflow Emergency Response Program, May 2, 2009
Operation& Maintenance Program, and Fats, Oil and
Grease Control; Review Legal Authority
• Develop, Design and Performance Standards, and August 2, 2009
System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan;
Submit Final SSMP
Revuest for Proposal Process
At its regularly scheduled Council
approved the scope of work for
Management Plan (SSMP). In adc
proposals from the four (4) qualifiec
contract with the City.
meeting on November 18, 2008, City Council
the development of the City's Sewer System
tion, the City Council authorized staff to solicit
on-call engineering consulting firms, currently on
Staff prepared a request for proposal (Attachment 1) which was provided to all four (4)
consulting firms as directed by the City Council. Three (3) proposals were received prior
to the deadline Wednesday, December 17, 2008, with ECM group declining to submit a
proposal. Staff carefully evaluated the proposals to rank the three firms that submitted
proposals, using the criteria outlined below.
City Council Meeting
February 10, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Evaluation Criteria
• Qualifications & experience
• Understanding of project scope & objectives
• Project team qualifications & experience
• References given for similar clients & projects
• Quality of proposals received
• Ability to complete work in a timely & efficient manner
Evaluations of proposals were based entirely on qualifications. Following the City
Council's consideration of this item, staff will enter into negotiations with one firm to
determine appropriate pricing for the work.
Recommendation
Based on the evaluation of bids using the criteria above, City staff has determined that
the most qualified firm to perform this work is Kimley-Horn and Associates (KH). KH
has prepared Sanitary Sewer Management Plans for several public agencies including
the City of Woodland, the City of Fresno, the City of Lincoln, and the City of Redding,
among others. During the RFP interview process, KH's project team demonstrated a
high level of project experience in sewer system master plans and sewer operations.
Upon approval by the City Council, staff will open negotiations with Kimley-Horn to
develop a contract scope of work, schedule, and fee budget. Barring any unforeseen
items, staff will present a final contract award recommendation to the City Council on
March 10, 2009.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Funding for the project in the amount of $175,000 (Community Development
Commission - $125,000, Gas Tax - $50,000) has been approved and appropriated in
the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Capital Improvement Budget.
ENVIROMENTAL REVIEW
This Project does not require environmental review.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This agenda item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Lucien LeBlanc, P.E.
City Engineer
City Council Meeting
February 10, 2009
Page 4 of 4
Submitted by:
Brian Saeki Chris Marcarello
Assistant City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
Attachments:
(1) Request For Proposal for the Development of Sewer System Management Plan
(2) November 18, 2008 City Council Agenda Report and Minutes
(3) Bid Proposals - AAE, Inc.; Kimely-Horn and Associates; Willdan
(4) Attachment A - Consultant List
(5) Sample Consultant Agreement
(6) State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
Minutes of the
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 10, 2009
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Tran at 7:03 p.m.
in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead,
California.
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tern Nunez
INVOCATION: Council Member Clark
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Mayor John Tran, Mayor Pro Tern John Nuriez, Council
Member Margaret Clark, and Council Member Polly Low
OFFICERS ABSENT: Council Member Gary Taylor
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Chi, City Attorney t
Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Director of Finance
Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator
Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda.
sistant City Manager Saeki,
irector of Parks and Recreation
Deputy Public Works Officer
Mayor Tran announced that public comment would be moved up on the agenda.
2. PUBLIC
Barbara Murphy - addressed
Council regarding the Rosemead Park Trail, which has been
completed since October 2008
. Stated the trail was the most popular thing the City had ever done.
She added that 400 people ha
ve signed up to the 100 mile challenge and many were also excited
about the exercise equipment.
Stated some people who walk the trail are from neighboring cities
and they had asked her to com
e and thank whoever was responsible for building it. Asked Council
Member Margaret Clark for an
apology for the comment she'd made last summer regarding the
petition she submitted with 40
0 signatures of people who wanted the park trail. Asked that she also
apologize for insinuating those
people did not know what they were signing.
Council Member Clark - respo
nded that because opposition made it better I actually voted for the
rubberized asphalt and stated
she had simply asked if the people knew about the trail being built
through the picnic area.
Ron Gay - thanked Mayor Tran, Mayor Pro Tern Nunez, and Council Member Low for the
Rosemead Park Trail; stated he lives right across from the park and has observed a lot of people
walking on the park trail. He commented that the health benefit and what we are teaching the kids
is great. Also wanted to thank Council for the support to the Rosemead Youth Association; just had
an event where two of the kids from the association were drafted to professional baseball teams.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 1 of 20
Lastly, he stated he wanted to direct himself to Council Member Clark, it is time to end the trifle
bickering. He added that the Council majority have done nothing but positive things for the City.
Marlene Shinen - addressed Council regarding the $400 thousand dollar settlement. Directed
herself to Mayor Tran and stated she was puzzled and asked him if he had seen the settlement
Wal-Mart had paid to the SOC members.
Mayor Tran - responded that as stated many times before he had not seen a copy of the
settlement agreement.
Ms. Shinen continued, she stated she did not understand why he did not have a copy if he had
asked for it before. She stated that on October 14, 2008 she received a response to her CPRA
from the city manager; it was a document that was not dated and not fully executed by all parties.
Stated that on the 10114 City Council Meeting she, Council Member Clark, and Mayor Tran
requested for a copy of this settlement At the 10/28 City Council meeting, Mr. Flournoy stated he
had a final copy of the settlement and Council Member Taylor asked him for a copy. Mr. Flournoy
responded that he would have to check with the board. Stated that at this point all the council
members had requested a copy of this agreement and it was now on record, She asked Mayor
Tran how much of the $400 thousand dollar settlement Wal-Mart intended for the people went to
his political campaign.
Mayor Tran - responded, zero dollars, he asked Ms. Shinen 9 she received any money.
Sergio Nava - thanked council members for helping the RYA league and stated he was hoping to
get more help when it came to their field needs. Stated he was here with support of other parents;
reminded council the league had been here since 1952 and asked that council continue to help
them and thanked council for all their qreat work.
Jerry Faustino - thanked council for supporting the youth program. Stated there was a lot of
support from the community that felt strongly about the program. He added he would be helping as
a coach this year in the league. Stated this was his 15th year with the league and that they were
expecting 500 registrants this year. He added the league was putting together an advisory
committee of senior past officials, he introduced a couple of past officials, and thanked council
once again for their ongoing support to the league. He also stated he would like to see a
skateboard park built in the City of Rosemead.
Oscar Magania - President of Rosemead Youth Association, thanked council for their support to
their program and read the RYA mission statement. Once again thanked council for their past and
present support and asked that they continue doing so.
Sandra Armenta - stated she was a former participant of RYA and added that she was here to
speak on the importance of organized sports. She stated children turned to sports to learn about
being team players, to show respect, and stay physically active. Sports give children an outlet
instead of gang out in the streets. As an educator I see the importance of keeping children active
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10. 2009
Page 2 of 20
in organized sports and keeping them off the streets.
Jean Hall - stated she would like to speak on various issues. She stated she had enjoyed herself
at the 50th Anniversary party and acknowledged staff for their originality and doing a good job
putting the event together. She commented on the issue of sports and added she thought they
were very important for the children. She also spoke in regards to an incident that occurred on her
street on Marshall and Muscatel; she saw food vendors and noticed that traffic was piling up more
than usual to the point where cars were honking their homs. She added that at one time the city
was not welcoming street vendors and there was some kind of regulation put together. Her last
comment was in regards to the campaigning some of the candidates were conducting. She
concluded by stating that some residents had been offered gift cards if they allowed political signs
on their yards.
Julie Gentry -stated she wanted to congratulate the city
the 50t~ Anniversary party and also with the Oktoberfest (
member of the Dinsmoor House museum she looked fort
added their committee was very grateful to see the progri
Dinsmoor House.
Mayor Tran - called Jim Flournoy to the podium and asked
Mart/SOC settlement agreement.
would
staff on the magnificent job done with
Ms. Gentry commented that as a
to seeing the house restored. She
nade in the restoration of the
rn to provide a copy of the Wal-
:wart) and had concluded that no copy of the settlement
anyone. He stated no one had a copy of the settlement
that even if there was a copy the money had been
mt and the agreement would not show how SOC asked their
to clarify what he meant by "the attorney's advice to
Council Member
settlement.
board (the officers who were himself, Lary Bevington, and
Mr. Flournoy if Mr. Tran had received any money from that
Mr. Flournoy responded he had addressed that issue before and that no one from SOC, including
Mr. Tran, had received any money. He stated the city had a less contentious election this year
because of the agreement and added the city was better off because of it. He stated the copy you
have is a draft, not the final copy. Mr. Flournoy also spoke on the closed session item that would
be discussed later on the agenda.
City Manager Chi clarified the settlement agreement between SOC and Wal-Mart was not a city
document and the city was not required to have a copy of such document.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 3 of 20
agreement other than the SOC; add
deposited in their attorney's trust ac
attorney to disburse the funds.
Velia Navarro - stated she was concerned with the statements Mr. Flournoy had made because
he stated there were no more members of SOC and she was under the impression she was still a
member. She then addressed Mayor Tran and asked him if he got elected again as Mayor would
he then give the slaughter house business a business license again.
Mayor Tran responded that he would not.
Ms. Navarro then addressed the issue of verbatim minutes and asked why minutes were not being
produced in that manner any longer. She stated she had previously asked that her comments be
recorded in the minutes verbatim and no one informed her they would not be done that way.
Mayor Tian informed Ms. Navarro that minutes had never been done verbatim but rather in
summary format.
Ms. Navarro also expressed her concerns with the purchase of the Rosemead Inn and stated she
did not see the benefit the residents of Rosemead would receive from this purchase. Ms. Navarro
concluded with commenting on the staffs behavior when Mr. Juan Nuftz addresses the city
council and asked that staff and council members address him with respect.
Hugo Carrillo - Regional Commissioner of AYSO, stated he wanted to talk about the park fees
approved in December by council. He thanked Mayor Tran for reaching out and bridging the
communication gap between them and for his support to the program. He added his region
represented Rosemead and San Gabriel and they reached out to both communities. Wanted to
say that the groups who run the program are all volunteers. Mr. Carrillo concluded with thanking
council again for reaching out to his program and stated he was looking forward to meeting in
March with the other youth program and distributing the fields' usage.
Juan Nunez - addressed Mayor Pro Tern Nunez on the idea he had brought up in regards to
having street sweeping on one side of the streets one day and then the other side on a different
day; he asked N cost had been considered when bring up this issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Nunez responded that staff would need to put a bid together and gather
information on the matter.
Mr. Juan Nunez that money would also be spent in putting up signs and not only in retaining street
sweeping services.
Alejandro Gandara - commented on the improvement of graffiti removal. He also commented on
the issue Council Member Clark had brought up previously in regards to finding it difficult to take an
English class in the Rosemead Community Recreation Center. He stated he was glad she had
brought the issue up because he did not agree with English not being spoken at that class and
wanted to make sure classes were being offered in the English language. Mr. Gandara then
directed himself to Council Member Clark and stated she was running with a candidate whose
mother had sued the city and stopped an election because she did not speak English. He also
addressed a mailer he had received regarding the slaughter house business and the avian flu and
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 4 of 20
asked Council Member Clark if she had brought forth a policy to protect the city, if such a disease
would break out.
Steven Ly - stated he wanted to speak about the slaughter house but since his mother had been
brought up he would clarify and speak on that issue. Mr. Ly stated his mother had been involved in
a lawsuit a couple years ago with Jay Imperial because she had been mislead and asked to sign a
petition she was told was in support of the Wal-Mart; she later learn the petition she signed was not
about that (it was against the Wal-Mart). Mr. Ly also stated he wanted to thank Council Member
Clark for bringing the slaughter house issue to the public's attention because prior to that no one
had really attended the council meetings when that issue was being discussed. He concluded with
stating he was honored to be running with Council Member Clark and Sandra Armenta and he was
honored to be a Rosemead resident.
Mayor Tran called for a short recess at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
:f
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on the Project
On November 20, 20007, the Rosemead Co
rnunity Development Commission
rith Urban Futures Incorporated
and 2. The benefit of merging
?nt funds generated in one area in
w tax exempt bond proceeds as
a No.1 to be spent in Project Area
like street rehabilitation, public
)until conduct a public hearing, review,
2009-03, and Ordinance No. 871.
Mayor Tran read the following statement 'I now declare open the public hearing on the proposed
merger amendment to the redevelopment plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area
No.1 and the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, and the related Negative
Declaration.'
Mayor Tran opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m.
Economics Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez reviewed the staff report and the
procedures for the above public hearing.
Paul Showalter, Urban Features Inc., the city's consultant who assisted with the merger process
gave a presentation on the Merger Amendment, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,
and the Commission's report to the City Council.
Juan Nuhez - asked why the city was taking money from one area to benefit the other.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 5 of 20
The City Clerk stated there were no other comments written and/or oral to be presented.
The public hearing was closed at 8:56 p.m.
Council Member Clark referred to the map provided and stated she opposed this merger because
as stated during the public hearing the merger was being done so that generated funds from one
area could be utilized on the other project area. It was stated that the areas were created to
eliminate blight and it was clear on the map that there were more blighted areas on the Valley
Boulevard side (intended to say Garvey). Mrs. Clark added that it did not make sense to take
funds from the more blighted area and put it in the less blighted area. She stated it was being
done so that the money recently spent on the purchase of the hotel could be replaced with new
funds.
Council Member Low stated that in looking at the map the
and the council should be a little more aggressive in elimir
approving the merger the city would have flexibility to do n
and allow the residents to live more comfortable.
City Manager Chi stated that Project Area No.1
and Project Area No. 2 generates approximatel)
Mayor Pro Tom Nuhez - stated the reason
the city to improve one project area, if neec
Council Member Low made a motion, sec
Resolution No. 2009-03. Vote resulted in:
Yes:
not done many redevelopments
ght. Mrs. Low stated that by
aggressive in removing blight,
illion in tax increments per year
tax increments per year.
f the flexibility it provided
other.
Tom Nunez, to approve
Mayor Pro Tom Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt
Ordinance No. 871. Vote resulted in:
No: Clark
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
Tran
B. Public Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009.10 Annual Action Plan
The City of Rosemead is a federal entitlement grant recipient of Community
Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As part of the process to
receive funding, the City must undertake development of a Consolidated Plan and
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 6 of 20
Annual Action Plan. It is called a Consolidated Plan because it consolidates the
application process for HUD's four (4) entitlement grants into one consolidated
plan and application. The four grants are: Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). All four
grants are driven by an entitlement formula process set by the federal government.
The City is eligible to participate in two (2) of these programs: CDBG and HOME.
As part of the requirements of the federal Consolidated Plan process, the City is
required to hold a public hearing regarding the projected use of funds prior to
adoption of its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. In order to receive the
FY 2009-10 allocations, the City must comply with the following requirements of
the Consolidated Plan final rule regarding pre-submission requirements:
Fulfill citizen participation requirements by conducting a public
hearing to receive citizen input regarding annual funding needs;
Publish a draft Plan and Annual Action Plan for a 30-day comment
period in order to receive citizen input regarding the final
document; and
Conduct a public hearing adopting the final Plan and the Annual
Action Plan.
The Annual Action Plan is a part of the Consolidated Plan, which takes all HUD
requirements regarding planning, needs analysis, reporting, budgeting, citizen
participation and certifications and incorporates them into one process. The full
Consolidated Plan must be completed once every five (5) years and the Annual
Action Plan must be completed annually.
Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take public
testimony on the Annual Action Plan covering the period July 1, 2009 - June 30,
2010. No further City Council action is necessary.
Mayor Tran opened the public hearing at 9.11 p.m.
Economics Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez addressed council and reviewed the staff
report for the above public hearing.
John Lovato - Rosemead School District, addressed council and thanked them for the Block
Grant awarded to the Rosemead School District this year. He stated that in partnership with Panda
Corporation they are implementing a parenting program that is new to Steven Covey and other
Panda schools. Mr. Lovato stated they had one hundred families enroll in their programs and he is
looking forward to the continuing support Rosemead School District receives from the City of
Rosemead.
Holly Kna - thanked council for their assistance and their help. Thanked Parks & Recreation
for doing what they did during Christmas time, they received over 10 thousand plus can goods from
the city, they received 5 pallets of food from Wal-Mart, and stated the food was really needed at
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 7 of 20
this time because more and more people were in need of it. She stated she was very proud of the
City of Rosemead for always being very generous with their CDBG funds compared to the
surrounding cities in the area and hoped the city would continue with their generosity.
Frances Espinoza - Housing Rights Center, stated their organization provided housing services to
Rosemead residents; they counsel landlords and tenants of their rights. She commented on the
fact that the city has helped fund their organization for a very long time and hoped the city will
continue to do so.
George Nalbach, Ph.D. - Family Counseling Services, thanked council for the CDBG funds that
have been given to their organization since 1999. Dr. Nalbach went over the services provided to
Rosemead residents by their counseling organization. Thanked council once again for continuing
to fund their organization.
Juan Nunez - asked if the city was going to participate in the CDBG and HOME programs.
The public hearing was closed at 9.33 p.m.
Council Member Clark asked for clarification on the letters sent to the organizations and asked why
this process was being delayed.
Economics Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez clarified that the process was not being
delayed, the current social services had been asked to submit their request so they would be
available to present at this council meeting, and in addition, the organizations will have to meet with
staff for an annual evaluation, which can be done at any time through out the year.
No action was taken on this matter.
C. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 08-08
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
On December 15, 2008, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 08-08, to allow the co-location of an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility on an existing T-Mobile monopine at 2244 Walnut
Grove Avenue, in the C-3 (Medium Commercial Zone.
On January 5, 2009, the City Clerk's office received an appeal letter from Verizon
Wireless, requesting to modify conditional of approval number 5.
Recommendation: That the City Council UPHOLD the language in Conditional
Approval Number 5 of Conditional Use Permit 08-08, as approved and adopted by
the Planning Commission on December 15, 2008.
Mayor Tran opened the public hearing at 9.36 p.m.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 8 of 20
Principal Planner Sheri Bermejo reviewed the staff report on the appeal of Conditional Use Permit
08-08.
Ramon Salazar - stated he was representing Verizon Wireless in regards to this subject matter
and he extended their gratitude to the Planning Commission for approving the Conditional Use
Permit. He explained that Verizon was leasing the site, as well as, a tower from T-Mobile and they
should not be held accountable for Conditional Approval Number 5. He stated the reason for the
appeal was based on ownership and the division of responsibility. Mr. Salazar stated Verizon was
asking to put brackets on the idea that whatever Verizon touches on that site Verizon should take
responsibility for and added that T-Mobile should be the responsible party.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez - asked if additional technology was needed and addition items needed to
be attached to the tower and in turn make it unattractive or intrusive to the City, should the city not
have the right to state the Conditional Use Permit was not approved for the change.
Mr. Salazar agreed and stated that if additional equipment would be needed they would be forced
to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. He added he did not think it was the city's
purview to monitor what technology each site had.
City Manager Chi responded it was the City's purview and explained that the Conditional Use
Permit process was for that purpose. Mr. Chi continued by saying that based on Mr. Salazars
comments, which stated no changes would be made, he didn't understand the reason for the
appeal to the language that protects the City in the event Verizon decides to do something different
on that site.
Juan Nunez - stated that some people expressed concerned on how the tower was going to look
in front of their homes. Asked if there would be any health issues or television interruption due to
this tower.
The public hearing was closed at 9.49 p.m.
Council Member Clark stated her experience with these permits were that they were simply
formality and if changes needed to be made they were brought back to the city. If there was no
opposition from anyone then the permits would be approved. She said the City should maintain
control over the issue and agreed that the council should uphold the language in the Conditional
Use Permit.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Low, to UPHOLD the
language in Conditional Approval Number 5 of Conditional Use Permit 08.08. Vote resulted
in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 9 of 20
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
B. Resolution No. 2009.04 Claims and Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2009-04, for
payment of City expenditures in the amount of $1,293,073.76 numbered 60139
through 60182 and 100001 through 100009 and 64925 through 65045.
C. Resolution No. 2009-10 Claims and Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2009-10, for
payment of City expenditures in the amount of $816,063.43 numbered 100010
through 100068 and 65046 through 65201.
E. - Notice of Completion - Rosemead Park Trail
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2007-08 Capit,
Council approved a project to complete recreal
Park. The project included the addition of a
rubberized asphalt pad for tai-chi and volleybal
new stationary exercise units. The project has
satisfaction of the City's Public Works Services
Recommendation: That the City Council:
Accept the completed work.
the City
raiKing trau, a new
and the addition of
been completed to the
ness Unit.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion
3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days
after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with
applicable portions of the Civil Code.
4. Release the Faithful Performance Bond 1 year after City Council
acceptance.
G. Adoption of Ca1PERS Resolution of Intention to Exclude Administrative
Interns from CaIPERS Membership
Presently the City has three interns that worts in various business units and are
gaining valuable experience in their respective fields of interest. These team
members work approximately 20 hours per week in order to ensure that they stay
under the 1,000 hour threshold so that the City does not have to enroll them into
Ca1PERS. The City's current contract with CalPERS requires that all team
members who work 1,000 hours or more in a fiscal year to be enrolled into
CaIPERS for the remainder of their employment with the City.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of Februaty 10, 2009
Page 10 of 20
Staff has been working with CaIPERS and has made the determination that
Administrative Interns could be categorically exempt from CalPERS membership
due to the temporary nature of their position along with other factors. Staff has
received authorization from CalPERS to move forward with this request and is
brining before the City Council a Resolution of Intention to amend the contract with
CAPERS.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution of Intention
(Resolution No. 2009-09) to amend the Contract with CaIPERS.
Annual 2008-2009 Slurry Seal Project -Approval of Plans/Specifications and
Authorization to Solicit Bids
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program, the City
Council approved a program entitled, 'Targeted Public Works Projects', which
consists of public improvements to the City's local streets and public right-of-way
areas. This project will help extend the life of local streets and improve community
aesthetics. This project is funded through the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program which requires that the funds be spent on specific project
types and in specific targeted areas. This project meets CDBG requirements.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
Approve the plans and specifications for the Annual 2008-09
Slurry Seal Project.
2. Authorize staff to advertise this project and solicit bids to complete
the improvement project.
City Tree Planting Project- Approval of Specifications and Authorization to
Solicit Bids
City Trees are an important asset to the character of the community that help
enhance community aesthetics and the City's environmental well-being. Trees
help to provide a lasting benefit for the community today and for future
generations. In reviewing the City's street tree vacancy list and conducting filed
inspections, staff has identified several locations in need of new street trees.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the City Tree Planting
Project.
2. Authorize staff to advertise this project and solicit bids to complete the
improvement project.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 11 of 20
J. Annual 2008-2009 Curb Ramps Construction Project- Approval of
Plans/Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Bids
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program, the City
Council approved a program entitled, "Targeted Public Works Projects', which
consists of public improvements to the City's local streets and public right-of-way
areas. This project will improve American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance
by retrofitting and adding eighty (80) curb ramps in accordance with ADA
guidelines. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are restricted to
certain project types and must be completed in CDBG Target Areas. This
proposed project meets CDBG requirements.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Annual 2008-09 Slurry
Seal Project.
2. Authorize staff to advertise this project and solicit bids to complete the
improvement project.
L. Hellman Avenue/Ramona Boulevard at Walnut Grove Avenue Striping
Modifications
The Traffic Commission reviewed a request to make street striping modifications
on Ramona Boulevard at Walnut Grove Avenue. Commissioners expressed
concerns that existing street striping conditions at this location cause delays due t
the lack of separate left and right turning lanes. After visiting this site, staff
concurred with these findings and recommended that striping modifications be
made to create a dedicated right-tum lane and a combined left-tum/through traffic
lane.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's
recommendation and authorize staff to take necessary steps to implement traffic
safety enhancements at the intersection of Ramona Boulevard and Walnut Grove
Avenue.
M. Lease Purchase Agreement - 37 Foot Aerial Truck
As part of the City's Vehicle Replacement Budget, staff included the purchase of a
37 foot aerial truck. The aerial truck will be used by the Public Works Services
Business Unit for the maintenance of light fixtures, banner installation, minor tree
trimming, and emergency responses. After researching truck vendors and types,
the City learned that the City of Santa Fe Springs recently conducted a competitive
bid for the aforementioned vehicle. Staff has obtained information related to the
Santa Fe Springs bid and requests the City Council's approval to use this bid to
purchase and aerial truck.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 12 of 20
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the lease-purchase of a 37
foot aerial truck from Alec Industrial, Inc. using the City of Santa Fe Springs
competitive bid process conducted on September 25, 2008.
N. County of Los Angeles Request for Re-designation of Local Enforcement
Agency for Solid Waste Management
In July 2006, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services reorganized
its functions and created the Department of Public Health (DPH). The DPH Solid
Waste Management Program acts as the County agency responsible for enforcing
all laws and regulations relating to the management of solid waste handling,
transport, and disposal. The City was recently asked to formally designate the
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health as the Local Enforcement
- Agency (LEA) for all laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste management
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2009-06 approving
the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Program (SWMP) as the Local
Enforcement Agency responsible for enforcing all laws and regulations pertaining
to the management of solid waste within the City.
Mayor Pro Tom Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Low, to approve the
Consent Calendar with the exception of hems A, D, F, and K. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nutiez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
A. Minutes
December 16, 2008 - Adjourned Meeting
Mayor John Tran made a motion, seconded by Council Member Margaret Clark, to defer the
minutes and bring them back to council with Velia Nevarro's comments in verbatim format.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
D. 2009.08 Supporting the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Gold
Line Eastside Transit Phase 2, Alternative 1
On January 22, 2009 the MTA Board of Directors approved their Planning and
Programming Committee's recommendation to approve the Metro Eastside Transit
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minuses of February 10, 2009
Page 13 of 20
Corridor Phase 2 Altemabves Analysis Study. Additionally, the Board approved
the recommendation for further study in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report, including Advanced Conceptual
Engineering for four route altematives. Altemative 1, proposes that the Metro
Gold Line Eastside extension be built along State Route 60. Altemative 1 is the
only line that would pass through Rosemead.
As part of a coalition of four cites, which include Rosemead, EI Monte, South El
Monte and Montebello, each City has been asked to approve and adopt a
resolution supporting the Gold Line Eastside Transit Phase 2, Alternative 1 as the
most viable option for the region. Assemblyman Mike Eng's office has also
requested that we formalize our support by adopting a resolution in support of
Alternative 1.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2009-08,
supporting the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Gold Line Eastside
Transit Phase 2, Altemative 1.
Juan Nunez - asked if the city would be acquiring property from this phase.
Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to
approve Resolution No. 2009-08. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
F. CaIPERS Waiver of 960-Hour Rule for Don Anderson
The City Council approved Resolution No. 2008-79 on December 16,2008;
however staff was recently informed by CalPERS staff that the appointment date
needed to be amended.
Public Employee Retirement Law prohibits a retired annuitant from working more
than 960 hours in a fiscal year unless a resolution is adopted in accordance with
Government Code Section 21224 (h). Don Anderson, a retired CAPERS
annuitant has been working for the City for approximately two years and is close to
his hour limit for the current fiscal year. Staff is currently working on a permanent
plan for his position and will be ready to move forward by July 1, 2009.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2009-05
requesting an employment extension per Government Code Section 21221(h).
Juan Nunez - asked for clarification on this item.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 14 of 20
City Manager Chi reviewed the staff report for Mr. Nunez.
Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to
approve Resolution No. 2009.05. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: Clark
Absent: Taylor
K. San Gabriel Boulevard South of Garvey Avenue - Turning Movement at
Walgreen's Driveway
- The Traffic Commission reviewed a i
movements from the Walgreen's driu
Commissioners expressed concerns
movements out of this shopping cent
conditions, especially during peak tra
recommended that red curbing be ad
address these issues.
red curbing and restrict left turn
and cause
and left turn
turns be restricted to help
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's
recommendation and authorize staff to take necessary steps to implement traffic
safety enhancements along San Gabriel Boulevard at the Walgreen's driveway.
Alejandro Gandara - addressed council on the motion previously made regarding the December
1 Dh council minutes. Mr. Gandara stated he was against verbatim minutes because he felt they
were self serving.
Council Member Clark stated for clarification that she had not asked for verbatim minutes for over a
year.
Juan Nuflez - stated he had spoken on this item before and did not understand why staff had not
fixed the problem yet.
Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem John Nunez, to
approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation and authorize staff to take necessary
steps to implement traffic safety enhancements along San Gabriel Boulevard at the
Walgreen's driveway. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10. 2009
Page 15 of 20
4. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Creation of an Ad Hoc Youth Committee
in an effort to better assess and meet the social and recreational needs of the
youth of Rosemead, we are proposing the establishment of an Ad Hoc Youth
Committee. Staff surveyed a number of local agencies to get a view of various
approaches to such committees. While the names and make-up of the groups are
fairly diverse, the advisory boards generally serve the same function. They
primarily exist to help assess the needs of local youth and encourage peer
participation in community activities and programs.
To accomplish these, the seven-member
- Parks and Recreation Department in the de
and in the annual implementation of com
they would coordinate an annual Youth in
in conjunction with one City Council
awareness and involvement in local govern
Public Affairs with the development of we
and services available to Rosemead youth
needed basis (though presumably monthly
its goals.
Committee will work directly with the
velopment of youth and teen programs
munity-wide special events. Additionally,
Government Program to be conducted
meeting each year to increase youth
ment. Lastly, the Committee will assist
b-based resources detailing programs
. The Committee will meet on an as-
during the school year) to accomplish
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2009-07
establishing an Ad Hoc Youth Committee.
Director of Parks and Recreation David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report regarding the
Ad Hoc Youth Committee.
Council Member Low stated this was a great idea and asked who had brought the issue to light;
she also asked if the city had previously had a similar committee.
City Manager Chi responded that this, if approved, would be the first time such committee would
exist in the city.
Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Margaret Clark, to
adopt Resolution No. 7009.07. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 16 of 20
B. Award of Contract- Dinsmoor Heritage House Preservation Plan
At its regular meeting on October 14, 2008, City Council approved the issuance of
a Request for Proposals for a Preservation Plan for the Dinsmoor Heritage House.
The completed Preservation Plan will include a Historic Structures Report (in
accordance with federal standards for historic preservation). This will provide an
inventory and assessment of the structure and its various systems (electrical,
mechanical, plumbing) and recommendations for renovation.
Requests for Proposals (RFP) were solicited, with responses received from three
(3) firms. Staff reviewed the proposals for completeness, relevant experience,
understanding of the scope of work, qualifications of the project team, proposed
work schedule, and cost effectiveness. All three firms were invited to participate in
interviews with the following results:
Historic Resources Group was ranked the highest. They submitted the most
comprehensive proposal that met the City's timelines and project requirements.
They have completed similar preservation plans for a number of historic sites.
References were checked and their performance was deemed better than
satisfactory. Their proposal is also one of the most cost effective.
Estimates for the Preservation Plan meet the City's budgeted amount of $30,000
for this service. However, it is prudent to include a contingency in the event
additional services are requested (i.e., community surveys, additional stakeholder
meetings, architectural drawings, etc.). Therefore, an additional allocation of
$10,000 is recommended to cover fees in excess of the budgeted amount.
Recommendation: That the City Council award the contract to Historic Resources
Group and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the contract.
Director of Parks and Recreation David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the above mentioned staff
report.
Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez stated he wanted to make sure the contract stayed closed to the
$30,000 for services and did want to pay additional money for surveys or drawings brought forth by
the contractor after the initial agreement was executed.
Mr. Montgomery-Scott clarified that any additional funds would have to be approved in writing.
Council Member Polly Low asked what funds were being utilized for this protect.
City Manager Chi responded there was insurance money from the water damage the Dinsmoor
House endured and also CIP funds that will be use to fund this project.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 17 of 20
Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Margaret Clark,
to award the contract to Historic Resources Group and authorize the City Manager and City
Clerk to execute the contract. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: Low
Absent: Taylor
C. Authorization to Enter Into Negotiations with Kimley-Horn and Associates to
Develop a Sewer System Management Plant
in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Order
- No. 2006-0003-DWQ, public agencies are required to develop and implement a
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The mandate includes the requirement
to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the City's local sanitary
sewer system, including the mitigation of any potential sewer overflows.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to open negotiations with
Itimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. to develop a contract for the City's Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP).
Deputy Public Works Officer Chris Marcarello reviewed the above mentioned staff report.
Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Margaret Clark,
to approve staffs recommendation. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
D. Award Contract - Landscape Maintenance Services for City Parks, Facilities
and Public Right-of-Way
At its December 16, 2008 meeting, the City Council approved specifications to
solicit landscape maintenance services from qualified contractors. The existing
contract for these services with Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises expired in June
2007 and the City has continued to work with Mariposa on a month-to-month
basis. The services in this contract include turf mowing, turf edging, blowing, turf
aeration, weed eradication, pest control and general cleanup for City parks,
facilities and the public right-of-way. The City Council further authorized staff to
seek proposals from a list of fifteen (15) qualified landscape maintenance
providers.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 18 of 20
Request for Proposals (RFP) were solicited and on January 13, 2009, six (6)
proposals were received. Staff reviewed the proposals for completeness,
understanding of scope of work, methodology, experience, and proposed cost.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into
a contract with TruGreen Landcare for a fixed annual cost of $210,060 for the first
three (3) years, with an annual option to renew for the following two (2) years.
Mayor Pro Tern John Nuriez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to
approve staffs recommendation. Vote resulted In:
Yes-, Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
-Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
E. Award of Contract - Ramona Boulevard Beautification Project
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program, the City
Council approved a project to improve the Ramona Boulevard sound wall area
from Walnut Grove Avenue to Rosemead Boulevard. This project includes a
complete landscape makeover including a new irrigation system, ground cover,
trees, shrubs, vines and minor concrete work. On January 28, 2009, bids were
received and reviewed for the project.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
Authorize the City Manager and the City Clark to enter into a contact with
Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises, Inc. for the Ramona Boulevard
Beautification Project in the amount of $51,625.65.
2. Establish an amount of $10,325.05 to cover the cost of unforeseen
construction expenses.
Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Margaret Clark, to
approve staff's recommendations. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Taylor
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 19 of 20
5. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Jim Floumov - addressed council on the closed session item.
City Council recessed to closed session at 10:52 p.m.
6. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council will recess to a Closed Session pursuant to:
1) Government Code 54956.9(a):
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
Name of Case: Floumoy v. City of Rosemead
City Council reconvened at 11:08 p.m, and Mayor Tran stated there was no reportable action taken
by council; however announced that a settlement agreement had been made with the Flournoy v.
City of Rosemead case.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take
place on February 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Margaret Clark
Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of February 10, 2009
Page 20 of 20
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2008
SUBJECT: APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT ENGINEERING
PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY
In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Order No.
2006-0003-DWQ, public agencies are required to develop and implement a Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP). The mandate includes the requirement to properly
manage, operate and maintain all parts of the City's local sanitary sewer system,
including the mitigation of any potential sewer overflows.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the attached scope of work for the development of the City's Sewer
System Management Plan
2. Authorize staff to solicit proposals from the four (4) qualified on-call engineering
consulting firms, currently on contract with the City (Attachment A)
DISCUSSION
Proiect Descrivtion/Scope of Services
The City of Rosemead local sewer system provides wastewater collection service to a
population of approximately 60,000, as well as numerous commercial and industrial
customers. The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 81 miles of gravity
sewer main ranging in sizes from 6-inches to 12-inches diameter and assisted by one
pump station. The City's collection system discharges to the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District trunk sewers at various locations within the city.
The City of Rosemead is entirely within the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District
(CSMD) formerly known as County Sanitation District No. 15 that was formed in 1945.
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
City Council Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 2 of 3
The local sewage system is under the jurisdiction of the City of Rosemead and is
operated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Order
No. 2006-0003-DWA requiring all public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer
system comprised of more than one mile of sewer lines, which convey untreated
wastewater to a public owned treatment facility in the State of California, to develop and
implement a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The mandate further requires
public agencies to electronically report all sanitary sewer overflows to the State Board's
database.
Since the City of Rosemead's sewer system falls within the Los Angeles County's
Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD), the City is planning to adopt its
required SSMP in two (2) elements. The first element has been prepared by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works under its scope of sewer maintenance and
repair operations performed for the City as an agency member of the CSMD. The
second element is that which will be prepared to supplement the first element and to
complete the City obligation under the Order.
These regulations were born out of growing concern about the water quality impacts of
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO), particularly those that cause beach closures or pose
serious health and safety or nuisance problems.
The SWRCB Order established a series of SSMP compliance milestones. The most
important ones are the following:
Task
Required
Completion Date
• Develop Overflow Emergency Response Program, May 2, 2009
Operation& Maintenance Program, and Fats, Oil and
Grease Control; Review Legal Authority
• Develop, Design and Performance Standards, and August 2, 2009
System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan;
Submit Final SSMP
Due to time constraints and fast approaching deadlines the City will have to timely send
the RFP to the four (4) qualified on-call engineering consulting, currently on contract
with the City (Attachment A). The consultant proposals are due to the City by
Wednesday, December 17, 2008.
Following submittal, staff will carefully evaluate the proposals. The screening and
selection process for award will not be solely based on the fee schedules and costs
included in the submitted proposals. Instead, the evaluation criteria will have to include
City Council Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 3 of 3
the experience of the consultants in similar projects, service fees, management abilities
and references. Man-hours and hourly rates are being requested from the consultants
as part of their proposals, to determine that there is a sufficient time allocated to do the
work required. Barring any unforeseen issues, staff will present a contract award
recommendation to the City Council at its scheduled meeting of January 13, 2008.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Funding for the project has been approved and appropriated in the Capital Improvement
Fund, budgeted in Fiscal Year 2008-09, account no. 4760-4214-P46329.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project does not require environmental review.
LEGAL REVIEW
This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Prepared by:
Lucien LeBlanc
City Engineer
Farid Hentabli
Senior Management Analyst
Submitted by:
Brian Saeki
Assistant City Manager
Chris Marcarello
Deputy Director of Public Works
Attachments:
(1) Request For Proposal for the Development of Sewer System Management Plan
(2) Attachment A - Consultant List
(3) Sample Consultant Agreement
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
November 18, 2008
Overview
The City of Rosemead is requesting proposals from qualified Civil Engineering
firms to develop the City of Rosemead Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).
The Plan must comply with all of the elements required by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ - Statewide
General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems.
The City of Rosemead wishes to adopt its required SSMP in two elements. The
first element has been developed by the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works under its scope of sewer maintenance and repair operations
performed for the City of Rosemead, as member agency of the Consolidated
Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD). The second element will cover and address
the remaining mandates under the State Order.
In addition, the City of Rosemead wishes to update the City's 1984 Master Plan of
Sewers in order to develop a comprehensive planning guide for improving and
upgrading the City's Sewer System over the next ten (10) years. This planning
guide will be an essential component of the SSMP, and will enable the City to
meet State and Federal standards as well as provide dependable service to the
residents of the City of Rosemead.
The City of Rosemead requires three (3) copies of your proposal to be submitted
to the City Clerk's Office by 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 17, 2008. As
part of the proposal, cost estimates should be submitted in a separate sealed
envelope. After the RFP is sent out to consultants, all communications from
consultants to City staff regarding the proposal, or requesting specific information
about the RFP, shall be shall be made in writing. Late proposals will not be
accepted. Please address proposals to:
Lucien J. LeBlanc, City Engineer, PE,
Public Works Business Unit
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770.
The proposal package needs to sealed and labeled as follows: Proposal For
Sewer System Management Plan - CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
Background
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a
Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting
Program (WDR) by issuing Order No. 2006 - 0003. The regulations contained in
the Order were born out of a growing concern about the water quality impacts of
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO), particularly those that cause beach closures or
pose serious health and safety or nuisance problems.
There are two major components of the WDR: Requirements that those owners
and operators of publicly-owned collection sewer systems, which are one mile
long or greater, apply for coverage under the WDR and develop/ implement a
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).
The City of Rosemead local sewer system provides wastewater collection service
to a population of approximately 60,000, as well as numerous commercial and
industrial customers. The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 81
miles of gravity sewer main ranging in sizes from 6-inches to 12-inches diameter
and assisted by one pump station. The City's collection system discharges to the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District trunk sewers at various locations within the
city. The City of Rosemead is entirely within the Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance District (CSMD) formerly known as County Sanitation District No.
15, which was formed in 1945. The local sewage system is under the jurisdiction
of the City of Rosemead and is operated and maintained by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works Maintenance forces.
The last sanitary sewer report was prepared for the City by Willdan Engineering in
1984. It was subsequently updated by Willdan in 1988 as part of a broader
infrastructure management report. Copies of these reports are on file in the City's
Engineers office at City Hall.
Earlier this year, the City of Rosemead received the Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP) for the Sewer Maintenance District of Los Angeles County, which
was adopted by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. The District's
SSMP is also currently available on the Department of Public Works website. The
District's SSMP may be utilized as a guide in developing the City of Rosemead's
specific SSMP.
-3-
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services to be performed shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the
following items that are required under the SWRCB Order No. 2006-0030-DWQ,
summarized below:
1) Assist the City with establishing the Organizational Structure to implement
the City's SSMP
2) Assist the City with establishing the proper Legal Authority
3) Review the City's existing Operation and Maintenance Program and
update as necessary
4) Review the City's existing Design and Performance Provisions and update
as necessary
5) Review the City's existing Overflow Emergency Response Plan and update
as necessary
6) Review the City's existing Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program
7) Prepare the City's System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (City's
Sewer Master Plan)
8) Establish Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications as
appropriate to the City's SSMP
9) Assist the City in developing a Communication Program that allows public
input as the City's SSMP is developed
10) Prepare all submittals required by the WDR
The purpose of this project is to complete all components of the City's SSMP, as
required by the State Order, for submittal to the SWRCB prior to August 2, 2009.
The following completion dates are established by the WDR for populations
between 10,000 and 100,000. Please refer to the State Order and all related
material for all of the sections and components. It is expected that all elements
will be completed in a manner that will allow the City to submit them to the
SWRCB on time. The project schedule is critical to the success of the project.
-4-
Following are some of the critical deadlines:
Mailing of RFP to Consultants November 19, 2008
Receipt of Written Requests for Clarification (if AppIicable)December 1, 2008
Mailing Addendum Addressing Requests for Clarification December 9, 2008
Receipt of Consultant Proposals December 17, 2008
Award of Contract by City Council January 13, 2009
Legal Authority (Section D13 iii) May 2, 2009
Operations & Maintenance Program (Section D13 iv) May 2, 2009
Overflow Emergency Response Program (Section D13 vi) May 2, 2009
Grease Control Program (FOG) May 2, 2009
Design & Performance (Section D13v) August 2, 2009
System Evaluation & Capacity Assurance Plan (Section D13 viii)August 2, 2009
Final SSMP (All Required Elements Included) August 2, 2009
During the course of the project, it may be necessary to utilize prior City sewer
studies. The City's sewer plans, maps, or other information are available at City
Hall. The consultant shall make arrangements to come to City Hall whenever
such information is required and locate the needed materials, arrange for their
reproduction if necessary, and return the materials to the proper location from
which they were removed.
-5-
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
All proposals must include the following information:
1. A description of the firm's qualifications
2. Biographical data for the key personnel to be assigned to the project
and their technical experience in the development of Sewer System
Management or Sewer Master Plans
3. A list of similar projects that the firm has completed within the last five
years
4. Name and addresses of at least three references, which the City may
contact
5. A detailed fee estimate for each phase, broken down into tasks, should
be provided on a not-to-exceed basis for each item. As part of the
proposal, this cost estimate should be submitted in a sealed envelope,
separate from proposal.
6. A schedule of man-hours and rates for the project
A Comprehensive schedule of phases with appropriate milestones;
allowing for City review time
The City does not recognize the US Postal Service, or any other organization, as
its agent for purposes of accepting proposals. All proposals received after the
deadline will be rejected and returned unopened. No extensions will be granted.
All proposals will become the property of the City and will be made available for
public inspection after an award is made or all proposals are rejected.
Resection
All proposals will be reviewed to determine conformance with the RFP
requirements. Any proposal that the City deems incomplete, conditional, or non-
responsive the requirements of the RFP may be rejected. The City reserves the
right to reject any and all proposals as well.
-6-
The City's Project Selection Committee will review and evaluate all proposals
received. The Committee may select finalists for interviews or make a
determination based on the written proposals submitted alone.
Proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria listed below. The evaluation of
proposals received will consider the qualifications of the consultant and any sub-
consultant, the demonstrated experience of the Project Manager and Project
Team, the approach for completing the work and the financial implications. In
addition, proposals will be evaluated on the basis of, but not limited to:
1. Project Understanding - Firms' understanding of the project needs and
priorities and the City's expectations of the selected firm
2. Project Approach - Innovativeness shown on other projects and
creative approach to this project based on firm's understanding of the
City's needs
3. Recent Experience of Key Team Members - Firms key team members'
experience that parallels the City's needs
4. Organization - Functional and administrative interface between team
members and the City
5. Staff Logistics - Location and availability of staff to be responsive to the
City on a cost effective basis
6. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures - Policy and procedures
implemented for appropriate reviews and demonstrated reliability
7. Financial Understanding - Understanding of relative manpower
demands for various project phases and tasks; reputation for meeting
project performance requirements on a cost effective and competitive
basis
City staff is available to provide information and materials to facilitate your
proposal. Please make your requests for information/ clarification in writing and
forwarded to Lucien J. LeBlanc, City Engineer. The City reserves the right to
reject any and all proposals should it choose to do so, and reserves the right to
withdraw this Request for Proposals at any time. All submitted proposals will
become the property of the City of Rosemead and will not be returned.
Negotiations may or may not be conducted with consultant; hence, the proposal
should include the consultant's most favorable terms and conditions since
selection may be made without discussion with any consultant. Additionally, the
City also makes no representations that any contract will be awarded to any
consultant responding to this RFP.
-7-
Award of contract will be made only after a consultant is determined to be the
most qualified of the respondents, approved by the City Council at its scheduled
meeting on January 13, 2008 and after execution of the final version of the
Agreement.
Professional Services Agreement
No agreement shall be binding upon the City until a Professional Services
Agreement is completely executed by the Consultant, City Council, and approved
by the City Attorney. Failure to execute and return the contract agreement and
acceptable insurance documentations in a timely manner may be just cause for
the City to rescind the contract offer. A sample professional services agreement
has been attached as a reference.
Minimum Insurance Requirements
The Consultant shall, at its own expense, procure and maintain for the duration of
the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
Agreement by the Consultants, its agents, representatives, employees, or
subcontractors. Consultants shall also require all of its subcontractors assigned
to the project to procure and maintain the same insurance requirement for the
duration of Agreement.
Conflict of Interest
It shall be the duty of the Consultant to comply with all applicable State and
Federal laws relating to prohibited conflicts of interest. As part of its response to
this RFP, the Consultant shall disclose in writing any financial, business,
employment, or other relationships with the City or with any of its officers,
employees, or agents that are or were in existence during the twelve (12)
calendar months immediately preceding, and including, the date the Consultant's
response to the RFP is filed. In addition, the Consultant shall disclosed in writing
any financial, business, employment or other relationships with any contractor or
engineering who may have a financial in securing design and/or construction
contracts for the project. The Consultant shall have a continuing obligation to
keep the foregoing disclosures current and up-to-date during the term of this
contract, and the Contractor's failure to timely disclose the existence of such a
relationship shall be grounds for immediate termination of the contract.
Permits and Local Licenses
The Consultant shall obtain and pay for a business registration as necessitated
for doing work within the City of Rosemead. Valid licensure shall be in place for
life of the contract as stipulated in the executed Professional Services Agreement.
Attachment: Sample Letter of Agreement for SSMP Support Services
8-
Sewer System Master Plan
Request For Proposal
November 18, 2008
ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF CONSULTANTS:
1. ADVANCED APPLIED ENGINEERING, INC.
2. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT GROUP
3. KIMLEV-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4. WILLDAN ENGINEERING
Minutes of the
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 18, 2008
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Tran at 7:00 p.m.
in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead,
California.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Clark
INVOCATION: Council Member Low
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Council
Nunez, Mayor Tran.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Chi, City
Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Director
Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Adr
Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda. lb._
1. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE
Marlene Shinen - a
13, 2008 requesting
Community. 5
Ron Gay -
wasted timE
this issue.
Low, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern
P
ssistant City Manager Saeki,
)irector of Parks and Recreation
Deputy Public Works Officer
CPRA submitted by her to the City on October
reement between Wal-Mart and Save Our
stated that he felt there was too much
Jean Hall addressed Coun'c`i14embersLow and stated that she had taken an issue with a quote
she had give frt the Tribune onan article regarding Measure CC. Ms. Hall also asked that City
Council consider having their 60* uncil meetings in a larger location when there is a popular item on
the agenda.
.t
Todd Kunioka - stated~it bothered him that the City was spending so much time on a CPRA
regarding a document that had nothing to do with the City. Mr. Kunioka also mentioned Measure
CC and stated he had received mailers with misinformation regarding the Measure.
Juan Nunez - addressed Council regarding Measure CC and stated he was glad that this
measure was defeated.
Brian Lewin - stated to City Council that he had noticed that the Planning Department has been
adding as standard conditions, new measures to improve water efficiency and electrical efficiency;
he stated he was glad to see the City moving in that direction.
Rosemead City Council Meeting ITEM NO. 3~\
Minutes of November 18, 2008.
Page 1 of 10
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
September 23, 2008 - Regular Meeting
October 14, 2008 - Regular Meeting
October 28, 2008 - Regular Meeting
The Minutes of October 14, 2008 were deferred to the next City Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Membeow, to approve the
Minutes of September 23, 2008 and October 28, 2008. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nufiez, Tran
No: Clark, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. Resolution No. 2008-74 Claims and
Recommendation: Adopt
expenditures in the amour
and 64158 through 64304.
No. 2008574 for payment of City
J12.99 numbe ed 59901 through 59938
C.
2008-75, for payment of City
8 numbered 59939 through 59980 and
Ordinance 867 -Second Reading: Zone Change 05.223 Southern California
Edison Rig of-Way on the South Side of Marshall Street between Earle
Avenue andRockhold Avenue (APN: 5371-013-801)
311'50ton be- 22008, the City Council reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program at the first public
art:
hearing,,which resulted in a motion of approval. The project is now before Council
at the'required second reading.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2008-72 and
Resolution No, 2008-73.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November] 8, 2008
Page 2 of 10
Item 2F - Stop Signs at Jackson and Garvalia has been removed from the agenda.
Request for Stop Signs at Jackson Avenue and Garvalia Avenue
On September 4, 2008, Traffic Commission reviewed a request to add a four-way
stop at the intersection of Jackson Avenue and Garvalia Avenue. After visiting the
site, staff found that current traffic conditions do not warrant the addition of stop
signs due to low traffic volumes. However, after considering additional visibility
concerns, the Traffic Commission decided that a four-way stop was warranted at
this location.;.
At the request of the City Council, the
memorandum explaining the other factors th
stop sign at a location. Based on the existing
Jackson and additional visibility constraint's'
stop signs is appropriate.
Recommendation: That the City Counci
recommendation and authorize staff to tc
stop intersection at Jackson Avenue and
engineer prepared a
;idered when adding a
turning vehicles onto
eg.r
, Lggrees that adding
Traffic Commission's
steps to install a four-way
H. Housing Element Request f r Proposals
The State of California requir that all ciitees prepare and adopt a Housing
Elemenevery five years (Government Code sections 65580-65589.8). The
Housing Element must include identification and analysis of existing and projected
t
housing,' eeds, resources and constraints to address these needs, overall housing
goals ands policies; and scheduled programs for the maintenance, improvement
and, development.of housing for all economic segments of the community. The
Rosemead, Housmg&lement was last prepared and approved by the State in June
o,
2002 andmust nowbe~updated and resubmitted to the State for their review and
endafion: That the City Council authorize staff to issue a Request for
to seek and obtain a qualified professional consultant to update the
_lement in accordance with State Law.
J. Radaf Speed Survey- Rosemead Boulevard
The California Vehicle Code requires that the City conduct a citywide speed
analysis (Radar Speed Survey) of local streets every 7 years in order to allow the
use of radar in speed enforcement of local streets. For state-owned highways the
City must complete the analysis every 10 years for speed limits to be enforceable.
To meet this requirement, staff has coordinated an' analysis to evaluate the
existing speed zones with the City of Rosemead.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 3 of 10
Recommendation: That the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 869
establishing the speed limit zones contained in the Rosemead Municipal Code.
Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to
approve Consent Calendar with the exception of Items E, G, I, and F. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
E. Resolution Approving City Payment of the Employer Paid Member
Contribution (EPMC) AL
Since the City first signed a contr,
has been paying the employee's I
required by CaIPERS. CaIPERS
files to ensure compliance with all
Government Code sections relate
has never approved the ne~c6ssar
EPMC. On October 3, 2008 City,
i
informed by CalPERS that the rec
December 31., 208 or the InternF
City to maIe~h 0-AE- payments
the
t wiff CaIPERS on Augusf`1,1992, the City
iron of the member contribution (EPMC)
cen , onducted~an audit of all. eir member
nternaltR,ev dunue Code and California
to retireebenefits and discovered that the City
resolutions re ated to the payment of the
aff was notified of tis necessity and was
igNesolutions must be adopted prior to
Revenue Service would no longer allow the
adopt Resolution No. 2008-77 and
ant of EPMC under Internal Revenue
vernment Code Section 20691.
Juan Nunez - asked h6w many employees-the City had; and how many employees were enrolled
in CaIPERS~
Mayor Pro Tem John Nunez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to
approve Consen Glenda . em 2E. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 4 of 10
G. Traffic Study Priorities
During Fiscal Year 2007-08, staff noticed an increase in the number of traffic study
requests. Traffic studies typically fall into two categories, routine studies or special
studies. Routine studies include requests to add roadway markings, roadway
signage, and traffic safety improvements. Special studies include more time and
analysis, including the development of traffic policies, parking studies, and citywide
traffic improvements.
Both routine and special studies are conducted in
petitions, and business requests, among others. I
the cost involved in preparing traffic studies,
Commission to review the process for requesting
the cost and work time associated with them..Ove
Commission has compiled its priority listjol `special
the City's Council's consideration.
Recommendation: That the City Coup
list of traffic studies and authorize staff
projects. %%§I
Mayor Pro Tem John Nunez made a motif
approve Consent Calendar Item 2G. Vote
Yes:
No: I
Absent:
Sewer
by
onse to citizen requests,
o budget constraints and
worked with the Traffic
traffic studies, as well as
ast several months the
es,iand,Dreured them for
affic Commission's priority
on the three recommended
Polly Low, to
to Solicit Engineering Proposals to Develop a
Plan
h the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No.
public agencies are required to develop and implement a Sewer
nent Plan (SSMP). The mandate includes the requirement to
operate, and maintain all parts of the City's local sanitary sewer
the mitigation of any potential sewer overflows.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve the scope of work for the development of the City's Sewer
System Management Plan.
2. Authorize staff to solicit proposals from the four (4) qualified on-call
engineering consulting firms, currently on contract with the City.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 5 of 10
Jim Flournoy - asked that staff and the Planning Commission look at a plan for the sewer water
system infrastructure for the next 18 years.
Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern John Nufiez, to
approve Consent Calendar Item 21. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Low, Nufiez, Tran
No: Clark
Abstain: Taylor
Absent: None
3. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Proposed Changes to
City of Rosemead parks, pools, and spo ffacilitieslare in very greatTdemand by
Jess
I _ .--CiY
ties~since 1993. It is necessary to do so as
policies long te~ or rnai fees governing these facili
we strive to_maintain high qualigram a~c~ilities, and services, provide for
ty,pro
Polices
residents, community organizations; youthysports groups, "travel" clubs/teams,
schools, non-residents, and City of Rosemead outh and adult sports programs.
These facilities include Rosemead Park and PoolGarve~y Park and Pool, and th
e
Gonzalez Sports CompIex~~Th.j;eCit of Rosemead&has not reviewed the
not reflect the
and field
a
am subsidies, and because current rates do
e occurred in the 15 years since they were
dsorbs most of the supervision, maintenance
is associated with use of these facilities. A
that existing fees are much lower than those
In order to decrease the''City's costs associated with use of these facilities, staff
I ft, recommends`consolidating supervision and expanding the responsibilities of
,regular user groups (i.e,, youth sports groups). First, two staff would be assigned
to us perviseiall sites during evening and weekend use in lieu of assigning one staff
to each ohthree sites. Further, select user groups would assume responsibility for
direct supervision of the facilities that they regularly use. They would also handle
field preparation and minimal maintenance of those facilities. All cities surveyed
currently operate in this manner. Reductions in staff costs will be achieved by
transferring the responsibility for field preparation, setup, and direct supervision to
the regular users and reducing the number of City staff involved in supervision.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the proposed facility application
including rules and regulations, fee schedule, and cancellation policy, and regular
user responsibilities as outlined effective January 1, 2009.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 6 of 10
Jean Hall - commended employee Alice from the Rosemead Community Center for all her help
during and event that took place in that facility. In addition, Ms. Hall had a complain against the
Rosemead Community Center due to the appearance of the facilities during the same event.
Item 3A was removed from the agenda and it was stated that this item be revisited and
brought back at a future City Council agenda.
4. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
A. Resolution Supporting the Funding,
Gabriel River Discovery Center
Operation of the San
At the request of Mayor Pro Tern Nunezz iffi
WW - matiibn regarding the funding,
development, and operation of the Sani)Gabriel River Discovery' Center was put on
the agenda for City Council's dis russion and possible support.
The mission of the San Gabriel River Discovei,, tenter (SGRDCA) is to inspire
environmental stewardship by providing accessi~ble~ and engaging watershed and
environmental education to the,public. The SGRDC is asking for the support of
cities to collaborate in any future outreach for the Di~sccovery Center Project by
approving a resolution.
Recommendation: That the City Council fOrrnali a the City's position on
suppo ~,,Y.~t~„ram en ~9i1lAp
rt~gbthe~funding, development, and operation of the San Gabriel River
Discovery Center nn`d discuss whether to approve Resolution No. 2008-76.
Hum Garcia
regarding this
available to answer any questions
San Gabriel River Sierra Club and added they were
in favorr ofithis item.
Brian Lewin stated he had
Todd Kunioka -
River.
at this project and added it will serve our area well.
a good project and will help and benefit the entire San Gabriel
Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern John Nunez, to
approve Resolution No. 2008.76. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran
No: Taylor
Abstain: Low
Absent: None
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 7 of 10
B. Revised Community Center Rates and Polices
At the request of Councilmember Gary Taylor, information regarding our recently
adopted facility policies and user fees was put on the agenda for City Council's
discussion. City Council approved the application and Policies and Guidelines for
use of Rosemead and Garvey Community Centers at its regular meeting on May
13. Several factors guided the revision process including a disproportionate level
of non-resident use, exposure to liability, the absence of a long-term maintenance
plan, and because rates and policies had not been reviewed since 1993.
Team members conducted a survey of other local citie§46'r `""comparison. Even after
the increase, we remain well below the average inthe egion. The largest increase
is for non-resident use of facilities (their rates are>an average of 50% higher than
those of residents). In addition to rate increeaases several k~ey~policy changes were
effected. First, an insurance requirement for-all, general publicuse was mandated
per the recommendation of CJPIA. Weleated a Building Maintenance Fund by
setting aside 10% of all facility userfee_ sWe alsoelarified our use policy.
The revised policy identifies "the City of Rosemead, other government, and
Rosemead-recognized Community Service/Non-Profit Organizations" as having
priority use. It makes a feMemption possible to specified groups. However, to
qualify for the exemption, organizations must provr ) current non-profit status
and (B) demonstrate that theyprovidserrices that,are of significant direct benefit
. ; .
to the community or a significant portion of itscesidents and is open to the public
"'4a ce with non-disc 01 ni ation laws' Lastly, current policy limits facility
and in co~mpli
use too"recreation, social, educational, or governmental functions only."
The propo~'sebgate and>policy chang were designed to improve and expand use
of City facilities, ter abuse ffa ilities, eliminate undue liability, and increase
City Council discuss this item and provide staff with
Julie Gentrv - statedwHoly Knapp could not be at the meeting this evening but wanted to invite the
community to Peoples oar People's pancake breakfast. Also, Ms. Gentry added that People for
People should be except,from any fees to use the City's facilities.
Bob Bruesch - stated that both school districts have MOU's with the City regarding its facilities
and asked if these changes would affect them.
No action was taken on this item.
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 8 of 10
C. Resident Concern Regarding Non-English Instruction in Special Interest
Classes
Recently, a resident expressed concern about non-English instruction in a City of
Rosemead Special Interest Class (SIC) to Council Member Clark. It appears that
the resident also inquired as to the legality of offering such classes and any
potential liability faced by the City as a result of this practice.
Of the sixty-nine SIC classes offered by the City of Rosemead there are five for
which English is not the primary language of the instructor. These five classes are
offered at the Garvey Center and include Latin Dance~l.SUaiial.Dance, Chinese
Fitness Dance, Advanced Ballroom, and Violin. Furthermore, in the City's Parks &
Recreation brochure, these classes are listed as beingrtaught by instructors who
have limited English language ability.
An initial legal evaluation of the iss
apparent legal liability by offerings,
primary language of the instructor.
that the City of%Rosemead has no
or which English s noVhe
In an effort to make our'contract classes more equitable for al members of the
Community Council MembeCl~a Chas requestedthat staff investigate the
possibility of implementing someytype;of require mentyto nsure that concerns
about the City's SIC are addessed."`Among the potential solutions suggested
include the possibility of requiring tra slators.at;such classes or requiring a
minimum<standard;of English proficiency for all class instructors.
Recomendation That the City N
of uncil provide direction in regards to the matter
En lis~lan a instruction for Sp ecial Interest Classes.
r
Ms. Trujillo - stated'sh'e=agreed"'ith?Ms. Clark's concerns.
I yy.~
n'4~47Ia • ti ,
Jim'Flournoy -stated he did not think there was any impotency on the City side in determining
what the classes are going to,be and who they are going to target.
Todd Kunioka - stated these classes were a great opportunity for all residence; he added if the
4"Fr;~ .~vP
City required a translatorfor•`all these classes they would become unaffordable to all residence.
Steve Ly - stated he felt that the City should take great consideration in offering these classes in
all languages to avoid isolating a population.
Mayor John Tran made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to form a
committee and appoint Council Member Clark and Council Member Low to the same
committee. Vote resulted in:
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 9 of 10
Yes: Clark, Low, Tran
No: Nunez, Taylor
Abstain: Low
Absent: None
Mayor Tran recessed to Closed Session at 9:30 p.m.
5. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council will recess to a Closed Session
1) Government Code 54956.9(a):
Conference with Legal Counsel -
Name of Case: Randy Haro ands
The Council reconvened back from Closed SessiMat 9:58
no reportable action taken.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting was adjourned in r
is scheduled to take place onhDecember 16,
John Tran
Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City
Rosemead City Council Meeting
Minutes of November 18, 2008
Page 10 of 10
V.
The Mayor staf there was
next City Council meeting
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER NO. 2006-0003-DWQ
STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
The State Water Resources Control Board, hereinafter referred to as "State
Water Board", finds that:
All federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public
entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in
length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to comply
with the terms of this Order. Such entities are hereinafter referred to as
"Enrollees".
2. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are overflows from sanitary sewer systems of
domestic wastewater, as well as industrial and commercial wastewater,
depending on the pattern of land uses in the area served by the sanitary sewer
system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic
organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic compounds, oil
and grease and other pollutants. SSOs may cause a public nuisance,
particularly when raw untreated wastewater is discharged to areas with high
public exposure, such as streets or surface Waters used for drinking, fishing, or
body contact recreation. SSOs may pollute surface or ground waters, threaten
public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and
aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters.
3. Sanitary sewer systems experience periodic failures resulting in discharges that
may affect waters of the state. There are many factors (including factors related
to geology, design, construction methods and materials, age of the system,
population growth, and system operation and maintenance), which affect the
likelihood of an SSO. A proactive approach that requires Enrollees to ensure a
system-wide operation, maintenance, and management plan is in place will
reduce the number and frequency of SSOs within the state. This approach will in
turn decrease the risk to human health and the environment caused by SSOs.
Major causes of SSOs include: grease blockages, root blockages, sewer line
flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station mechanical
failures, power outages, excessive storm or ground water inflow/infiltration,
debris blockages, sanitary sewer system age and construction material failures,
lack of proper operation and maintenance, insufficient capacity and contractor-
caused damages. Many SSOs are preventable with adequate and appropriate
facilities, source control measures and operation and maintenance of the sanitary
sewer system.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 2 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLANS
5. To facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, each
Enrollee must develop and implement a system-specific Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP). To be effective, SSMPs must include provisions to
provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of
sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and
cost benefit analysis. Additionally, an SSMP must contain a spill response plan
that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to an SSO in a
manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance
conditions.
6. Many local public agencies in California have already developed SSMPs and
implemented measures to reduce SSOs. These entities can build upon their
existing efforts to establish a comprehensive SSMP consistent with this Order.
Others, however, still require technical assistance and, in some cases, funding to
improve sanitary sewer system operation and maintenance in order to reduce
SSOs.
7. SSMP certification by technically qualified and experienced persons can provide
a useful and cost-effective means for ensuring that SSMPs are developed and
implemented appropriately.
It is the State Water Board's intent to gather additional information on the causes
and sources of SSOs to augment existing information and to determine the full
extent of SSOs and consequent public health and/or environmental impacts
occurring in the State.
9. Both uniform SSO reporting and a centralized statewide electronic database are
needed to collect information to allow the State Water Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to effectively analyze the extent
of SSOs statewide and their potential impacts on beneficial uses and public
health. The monitoring and reporting program required by this Order and the
attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003-DWQ, are necessary
to assure compliance with these waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
10. Information regarding SSOs must be provided to Regional Water Boards and
other regulatory agencies in a timely manner and be made available to the public
in a complete, concise, and timely fashion.
11. Some Regional Water Boards have issued WDRs or WDRs that serve as
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to sanitary
sewer system owners/operators within their jurisdictions. This Order establishes
minimum requirements to prevent SSOs. Although it is the State Water Board's
intent that this Order be the primary regulatory mechanism for sanitary sewer
systems statewide, Regional Water Boards may issue more stringent or more
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 3 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
prescriptive WDRs for sanitary sewer systems. Upon issuance or reissuance of
a Regional Water Board's WDRs for a system subject to this Order, the Regional
Water Board shall coordinate its requirements with stated requirements within
this Order, to identify requirements that are more stringent, to remove
requirements that are less stringent than this Order, and to provide consistency
in reporting.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
12. California Water Code section 13263 provides that the State Water Board may
prescribe general WDRs for a category of discharges if the State Water Board
finds or determines that:
• The discharges are produced by the same or similar operations;
• The discharges involve the same or similar types of waste;
• The discharges require the same or similar treatment standards; and
• The discharges are more appropriately regulated under general discharge
requirements than individual discharge requirements.
This Order establishes requirements for a class of operations, facilities, and
discharges that are similar throughout the state.
13.The issuance of general WDRs to the Enrollees will:
a) Reduce the administrative burden of issuing individual WDRs to each
Enrollee;
b) Provide for a unified statewide approach for the reporting and database
tracking of SSOs;
c) Establish consistent and uniform requirements for SSMP development
and implementation;
d) Provide statewide consistency in reporting; and
e) Facilitate consistent enforcement for violations.
14.The beneficial uses of surface waters that can be impaired by SSOs include, but
are not limited to, aquatic life, drinking water supply, body contact and non-
contact recreation, and aesthetics. The beneficial uses of ground water that can
be impaired include, but are not limited to, drinking water and agricultural supply.
Surface and ground waters throughout the state support these uses to varying
degrees.
15. The implementation of requirements set forth in this Order will ensure the
reasonable protection of past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of
water and the prevention of nuisance. The requirements implement the water
quality control plans (Basin Plans) for each region and take into account the
environmental characteristics of hydrographic units within the state. Additionally,
the State Water Board has considered water quality conditions that could
reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors that affect
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 4 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
water quality in the area, costs associated with compliance with these
requirements, the need for developing housing within California, and the need to
develop and use recycled water.
16. The Federal Clean Water Act largely prohibits any discharge of pollutants from a
point source to waters of the United States except as authorized under an
NPDES permit. In general, any point source discharge of sewage effluent to
waters of the United States must comply with technology-based, secondary
treatment standards, at a minimum, and any more stringent requirements
necessary to meet applicable water quality standards and other requirements.
Hence, the unpermitted discharge of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system to
waters of the United States is illegal under the Clean Water Act. In addition,
many Basin Plans adopted by the Regional Water Boards contain discharge
prohibitions that apply to the discharge of untreated or partially treated
wastewater. Finally, the California Water Code generally prohibits the discharge
of waste to land prior to the filing of any required report of waste discharge and
the subsequent issuance of either WDRs or a waiver of WDRs.
17. California Water Code section 13263 requires a water board to, after any
necessary hearing, prescribe requirements as to the nature of any proposed
discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge. The
requirements shall, among other things, take into consideration the need to
prevent nuisance.
18. California Water Code section 13050, subdivision (m), defines nuisance as
anything which meets all of the following requirements:
a. Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
b. Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any
considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
c. Occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes.
19. This Order is consistent with State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (Statement
of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California) in that
the Order imposes conditions to prevent impacts to water quality, does not allow
the degradation of water quality, will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses of
water, and will not result in water quality less than prescribed in State Water
Board or Regional Water Board plans and policies.
20. The action to adopt this General Order is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) because it is
an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the protection of the
environment and the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the
environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15308). In addition, the action to adopt
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 5 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
this Order is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Cal.Code Regs., title 14, §15301 to
the extent that it applies to existing sanitary sewer collection systems that
constitute "existing facilities" as that term is used in Section 15301, and §15302,
to the extent that it results in the repair or replacement of existing systems
involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.
21.The Fact Sheet, which is incorporated by reference in the Order, contains
supplemental information that was also considered in establishing these
requirements.
22. The State Water Board has notified all affected public agencies and all known
interested persons of the intent to prescribe general WDRs that require Enrollees
to develop SSMPs and to report all SSOs.
23. The State Water Board conducted a public hearing on February 8, 2006, to
receive oral and written comments on the draft order. The State Water Board
received and considered, at its May 2, 2006, meeting, additional public
comments on substantial changes made to the proposed general WDRs
following the February 8, 2006, public hearing. The State Water Board has
considered all comments pertaining to the proposed general WDRs.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pursuant to California Water Code section 13263, the
Enrollees, their agents, successors, and assigns, in order to meet the provisions
contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted
hereunder, shall comply with the following:
A. DEFINITIONS
Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) - Any overflow, spill, release, discharge or
diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer
system. SSOs include:
(i) Overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that
reach waters of the United States;
(ii) Overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that do
not reach waters of the United States; and
(iii) Wastewater backups into buildings and on private property that are
caused by blockages or flow conditions within the publicly owned portion
of a sanitary sewer system.
2. Sanitary sewer system - Any system of pipes, pump stations, sewer lines, or
other conveyances, upstream of a wastewater treatment plant headworks used
to collect and convey wastewater to the publicly owned treatment facility.
Temporary storage and conveyance facilities (such as vaults, temporary piping,
construction trenches, wet wells, impoundments, tanks, etc.) are considered to
be part of the sanitary sewer system, and discharges into these temporary
storage facilities are not considered to be SSOs.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 6 of 20
Statewide General VVDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
For purposes of this Order, sanitary sewer systems include only those systems
owned by public agencies that are comprised of more than one mile of pipes or
sewer lines.
3. Enrollee - A federal or state agency, municipality, county, district, and other
public entity that owns or operates a sanitary sewer system, as defined in the
general WDRs, and that has submitted a complete and approved application for
coverage under this Order.
4. SSO Reporting System - Online spill reporting system that is hosted,
controlled, and maintained by the State Water Board. The web address for this
site is http://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov. This online database is maintained on a
secure site and is controlled by unique usernames and passwords.
5. Untreated or partially treated wastewater - Any volume of waste discharged
from the sanitary sewer system upstream of a wastewater treatment plant
headworks.
6. Satellite collection system - The portion, if any, of a sanitary sewer system
owned or operated by a different public agency than the agency that owns and
operates the wastewater treatment facility to which the sanitary sewer system is
tributary.
7. Nuisance - California Water Code section 13050, subdivision (m), defines
nuisance as anything which meets all of the following requirements:
a. Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
b. Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any
considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
c. Occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes.
B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Deadlines for Application - All public agencies that currently own or operate
sanitary sewer systems within the State of California must apply for coverage
under the general WDRs within six (6) months of the date of adoption of the
general WDRs. Additionally, public agencies that acquire or assume
responsibility for operating sanitary sewer systems after the date of adoption of
this Order must apply for coverage under the general WDRs at least three (3)
months prior to operation of those facilities.
2. Applications under the general WDRs - In order to apply for coverage pursuant
to the general WDRs, a legally authorized representative for each agency must
submit a complete application package. Within sixty (60) days of adoption of the
general WDRs, State Water Board staff will send specific instructions on how to
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 7 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 517106
apply for coverage under the general WDRs to all known public agencies that
own sanitary sewer systems. Agencies that do not receive notice may obtain
applications and instructions online on the Water Board's website.
3. Coverage under the general WDRs - Permit coverage will be in effect once a
complete application package has been submitted and approved by the State
Water Board's Division of Water Quality.
C. PROHIBITIONS
1. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater
to waters of the United States is prohibited.
2. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater
that creates a nuisance as defined in California Water Code Section 13050(m) is
prohibited.
D. PROVISIONS
1. The Enrollee must comply with all conditions of this Order. Any noncompliance
with this Order constitutes a violation of the California Water Code and is
grounds for enforcement action.
2. It is the intent of the State Water Board that sanitary sewer systems be regulated
in a manner consistent with the general WDRs. Nothing in the general WDRs
shall be:
(i) Interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Clean
Water Act, or supersede a more specific or more stringent state or
federal requirement in an existing permit, regulation, or
administrativerjudicial order or Consent Decree;
(ii) Interpreted or applied to authorize an SSO that is illegal under either the
Clean Water Act, an applicable Basin Plan prohibition or water quality
standard, or the California Water Code;
(iii) Interpreted or applied to prohibit a Regional Water Board from issuing an
individual NPDES permit or WDR, superseding this general WDR, for a
sanitary sewer system, authorized under the Clean Water Act or
California Water Code; or
(iv) Interpreted or applied to supersede any more specific or more stringent
WDRs or enforcement order issued by a Regional Water Board_
3. The Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to eliminate SSOs. In the event that an
SSO does occur, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate
the impacts of an SSO.
4. In the event of an SSO, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to prevent
untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging from storm drains into
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 8 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
flood control channels or waters of the United States by blocking the storm
drainage system and by removing the wastewater from the storm drains.
5. All SSOs must be reported in accordance with Section G of the general WDRs.
6. In any enforcement action, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will consider
the appropriate factors under the duly adopted State Water Board Enforcement
Policy. And, consistent with the Enforcement Policy, the State and/or Regional
Water Boards must consider the Enrollee's efforts to contain, control, and
mitigate SSOs when considering the California Water Code Section 13327
factors. In assessing these factors, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will
also consider whether:
(i) The Enrollee has complied with the requirements of this Order, including
requirements for reporting and developing and implementing a SSMP;
(ii) The Enrollee can identify the cause or likely cause of the discharge event;
(iii) There were no feasible alternatives to the discharge, such as temporary
storage or retention of untreated wastewater, reduction of inflow and
infiltration, use of adequate backup equipment, collecting and hauling of
untreated wastewater to a treatment facility, or an increase in the
capacity of the system as necessary to contain the design storm event
identified in the SSMP. It is inappropriate to consider the lack of feasible
alternatives, if the Enrollee does not implement a periodic or continuing
process to identify and correct problems.
(iv)The discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporary, and caused by
factors beyond the reasonable control of the Enrollee;
(v) The discharge could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable
control described in a certified SSMP for:
• Proper management, operation and maintenance;
• Adequate treatment facilities, sanitary sewer system facilities,
and/or components with an appropriate design capacity, to
reasonably prevent SSOs (e.g., adequately enlarging treatment or
collection facilities to accommodate growth, infiltration and inflow
(1/1), etc.);
• Preventive maintenance (including cleaning and fats, oils, and
grease (FOG) control);
• Installation of adequate backup equipment; and
• Inflow and infiltration prevention and control to the extent
practicable.
(vi)The sanitary sewer system design capacity is appropriate to reasonably
prevent SSOs.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 9 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
(vii) The Enrollee took all reasonable steps to stop and mitigate the impact of
the discharge as soon as possible.
7. When a sanitary sewer overflow occurs, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps
and necessary remedial actions to 1) control or limit the volume of untreated or
partially treated wastewater discharged, 2) terminate the discharge, and 3)
recover as much of the wastewater discharged as possible for proper disposal,
including any wash down water.
The Enrollee shall implement all remedial actions to the extent they may be
applicable to the discharge and not inconsistent with an emergency response
plan, including the following:
(i) Interception and rerouting of untreated or partially treated wastewater
flows around the wastewater line failure;
(ii) Vacuum truck recovery of sanitary sewer overflows and wash down
water;
(iii) Cleanup of debris at the overflow site;
(iv) System modifications to prevent another SSO at the same location;
(v) Adequate sampling to determine the nature and impact of the release;
and
(vi) Adequate public notification to protect the public from exposure to the
SSO.
8. The Enrollee shall properly, manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the
sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee, and shall ensure that
the system operators (including employees, contractors, or other agents) are
adequately trained and possess adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities.
9. The Enrollee shall allocate adequate resources for the operation, maintenance,
and repair of its sanitary sewer system, by establishing a proper rate structure,
accounting mechanisms, and auditing procedures to ensure an adequate
measure of revenues and expenditures. These procedures must be in
compliance with applicable laws and regulations and comply with generally
acceptable accounting practices.
10. The Enrollee shall provide adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak
flows, including flows related to wet weather events. Capacity shall meet or
exceed the design criteria as defined in the Enrollee's System Evaluation and
Capacity Assurance Plan for all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or
operated by the Enrollee.
11. The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board
upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the
Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved
by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 10 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
12. In accordance with the California Business and Professions Code sections 6735,
7835, and 7835.1, all engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments shall
be performed by or under the direction of registered professionals competent and
proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Specific elements of the
SSMP that require professional evaluation and judgments shall be prepared by
or under the direction of appropriately qualified professionals, and shall bear the
professional (s)' signature and stamp.
13.The mandatory elements of the SSMP are specified below. However, if the
Enrollee believes that any element of this section is not appropriate or applicable
to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system, the SSMP program does not need to
address that element. The Enrollee must justify why that element is not
applicable. The SSMP must be approved by the deadlines listed in the SSMP
Time Schedule below.
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
(i) Goal: The goal of the SSMP is to provide a plan and schedule to properly
manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system.
This will help reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as mitigate any SSOs
that do occur.
(ii) Organization: The SSMP must identify:
(a) The name of the responsible or authorized representative as
described in Section J of this Order.
(b) The names and telephone numbers for management,
administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for
implementing specific measures in the SSMP program. The
SSMP must identify lines of authority through an organization chart
or similar document with a narrative explanation; and
(c) The chain of communication for reporting SSOs, from receipt of a
complaint or other information, including the person responsible for
reporting SSOs to the State and Regional Water Board and other
agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County
Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water Board, and/or State
Office of Emergency Services (OES)).
(iii) Legal Authority: Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary
sewer system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally
binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary legal authority to:
(a) Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system
(examples may include I/I, stormwater, chemical dumping,
unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.);
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 9 9 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
(b) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed
and constructed;
(c) Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for
portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Public
Agency;
(d) Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris
that may cause blockages, and
(e) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances.
(iv) Operation and Maintenance Program. The SSMP must include those
elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the
Enrollee's system:
(a) Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system,
showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping
facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater
conveyance facilities;
(b) Describe routine preventive operation and maintenance activities
by staff and contractors, including a system for scheduling regular
maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more
frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem
areas. The Preventative Maintenance (PM) program should have
a system to document scheduled and conducted activities, such
as work orders;
(c) Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and
prioritize system deficiencies and implement short-term and long-
term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The
program should include regular visual and TV inspections of
manholes and sewer pipes, and a system for ranking the
condition of sewer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation and replacement should focus on sewer pipes that
are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to
pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan
should include a capital improvement plan that addresses proper
management and protection of the infrastructure assets. The plan
shall include a time schedule for implementing the short- and
long-term plans plus a schedule for developing the funds needed
for the capital improvement plan;
(d) Provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer
system operations and maintenance, and require contractors to
be appropriately trained; and
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 12 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
(e) Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including
identification of critical replacement parts.
(v) Design and Performance Provisions:
(a) Design and construction standards and specifications for the
installation of new sanitary sewer systems, pump stations and other
appurtenances; and for the rehabilitation and repair of existing
sanitary sewer systems; and
(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation
of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for
rehabilitation and repair projects.
(vi) Overflow Emergency Response Plan - Each Enrollee shall develop and
implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies
measures to protect public health and the environment. At a minimum,
this plan must include the following:
(a) Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and
regulatory agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner;
(b) A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows;
(c) Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory
agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health
agencies, Regional Water Boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs
that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State
in accordance with the MRP. All SSOs shall be reported in
accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State
Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDRs or NPDES
permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who
will receive immediate notification; -
(d) Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor
personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan
and are appropriately trained;
(e) Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and
crowd control and other necessary response activities; and
(f) A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain
and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated
wastewater to waters of the United States and to minimize or
correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from the
SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may
be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 13 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
(vii) FOG Control Program: Each Enrollee shall evaluate its service area to
determine whether a FOG control program is needed. If an Enrollee
determines that a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must provide
justification for why it is not needed. If FOG is found to be a problem, the
Enrollee must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to
reduce the amount of these substances discharged to the sanitary sewer
system. This plan shall include the following as appropriate:
(a) An implementation plan and schedule for a public education
outreach program that promotes proper disposal of FOG;
(b) A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the
sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of
acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to
adequately dispose of FOG generated within a sanitary sewer
system service area;
(c) The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and
identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by
FOG;
(d) Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or
interceptors), design standards for the removal devices,
maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping
and reporting requirements;
(e) Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement
authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect
and enforce the FOG ordinance;
(f) An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to
FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance
schedule for each section; and
(g) Development and implementation of source control measures for
all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for
each section identified in (f) above.
(viii) System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan: The Enrollee shall
prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will
provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for
dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design
storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the plan must include:
(a) Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the
sanitary sewer system that are experiencing or contributing to an
SSO discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation
must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from SSOs
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 14 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5121196
that escape from the system) associated with conditions similar to
those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of key
system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including components
of the system with limiting capacity) and the major sources that
contribute to the peak flows associated with overflow events:
(b) Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are
deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to
establish appropriate design criteria; and
(c) Capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to
establish a short- and long-term CIP to address identified
hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, afternatives
analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe
size, Ill reduction programs, increases and redundancy in
pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an
implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding.
(d) Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion
dates for all portions of the capital improvement program
developed in (a)-(c) above. This schedule shall be reviewed and
updated consistent with the SSMP review and update
requirements as described in Section D. 14.
(ix) Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications: The Enrollee
shall:
(a) Maintain relevant information that can be used to
establish and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities;
(b) Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate,
measure the effectiveness of each element of the
SSMP;
(c) Assess the success of the preventative maintenance
program;
(d) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on
monitoring or performance evaluations; and
(e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends, including:
frequency, location, and volume.
(x) SSMP Program Audits - As part of the SSMP, the Enrollee shall
conduct periodic internal audits, appropriate to the size of the system
and the number of SSOs. At a minimum, these audits must occur every
two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. This audit
shall focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 95 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
Enrollee's compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in this
subsection (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies in the
SSMP and steps to correct them.
(xi) Communication Program - The Enrollee shall communicate on a
regular basis with the public on the development, implementation, and
performance of its SSMP. The communication system shall provide the
public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the program is
developed and implemented.
The Enrollee shall also create a plan of communication with systems that
are tributary and/or satellite to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system.
14. Both the SSMP and the Enrollee's program to implement the SSMP must be
certified by the Enrollee to be in compliance with the requirements set forth
above and must be presented to the Enrollee's governing board for approval at a
public meeting. The Enrollee shall certify that the SSMP, and subparts thereof,
are in compliance with the general WDRs within the time frames identified in the
time schedule provided in subsection D.15, below.
In order to complete this certification, the Enrollee's authorized representative
must complete the certification portion in the Online SSO Database
Questionnaire by checking the appropriate milestone box, printing and signing
the automated form, and sending the form to:
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
Attn: SSO Program Manager
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812
The SSMP must be updated every five (5) years, and must include any
significant program changes. Re-certification by the governing board of the
Enrollee is required in accordance with D.14 when significant updates to the
SSMP are made. To complete the re-certification process, the Enrollee shall
enter the data in the Online SSO Database and mail the form to the State Water
Board, as described above.
15. The Enrollee shall comply with these requirements according to the following
schedule. This time schedule does not supersede existing requirements or time
schedules associated with other permits or regulatory requirements.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 16 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
Sewer System Management Plan Time Schedule
Task and
Completion Date
Associated Section
Population >
Population
Population
Population <
100,000
between 100,000
between 10,000
2,500
and 10,000
and 2,500
Application for Permit
Coverage
6 months after WDRs Adoption
Section C
Reporting Program
6 months after WDRs Adoption'
Section G
SSMP Development
9 months after
12 months after
15 months after
18 months after
Plan and Schedule
WDRs Adoption2
WDRs Adoption2
WDRs 2
WDRs 2
No specific Section
Adoption
Adoption
Goals and
Organization Structure
12 months after WD Rs Adoption2
18 months after WDRs Adoption2
Section D 13 CI) & (ii)
Overflow Emergency
Response Program
Section D 13 vi
Legal Authority
Section D 13 iii
24
th
ft
30
th
ft
36 months after
39 months after
mon
s a
er
mon
s a
er
Operation and
Maintenance Program
WDRs Adoption2
WDRs Adoption2
WDRs 2
Adoption
WDRs 2
Adoption
Section D 13 iv
Grease Control
Program
Section D 13 vii
Design and
Performance
Section D 13 v
System Evaluation and
Capacity Assurance
Plan
36 months after
39 months after
48 months after
51 months after
Section D 13 viii
WDRs Adoption
WDRs Adoption
WDRs Adoption
WDRs Adoption
Final SSMP,
incorporating all of the
SSMP requirements
Section D 13
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 17 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
In the event that by July 1, 2006 the Executive Director is able to execute a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the California Water Environment
Association (CWEA) or discharger representatives outlining a strategy and time
schedule for CWEA or another entity to provide statewide training on the adopted
monitoring program, SSO database electronic reporting, and SSMP development,
consistent with this Order, then the schedule of Reporting Program Section G shall
be replaced with the following schedule:
Reporting Program
Section G
Regional Boards 4, 8,
8 months after WDRs Adoption
and 9
Regional Boards 1, 2,
and 3
12 months after WDRs Adoption
Regional Boards 5, 6,
and 7
16 months after WDRs Adoption
If this MOU is not executed by July 1, 2006, the reporting program time schedule will
remain six (6) months for all regions and agency size categories.
2. In the event that the Executive Director executes the MOA identified in note 1 by
July 1, 2006, then the deadline for this task shall be extended by six (6) months.
The time schedule identified in the MOA must be consistent with the extended time
schedule provided by this note. If the MOA is not executed by July 1, 2006, the six
(6) month time extension will not be granted.
E. WDRs and SSMP AVAILABILITY
1. A copy of the general WDRs and the certified SSMP shall be maintained at
appropriate locations (such as the Enrollee's offices, facilities, and/or Internet
homepage) and shall be available to sanitary sewer system operating and
maintenance personnel at all times.
F. ENTRY AND INSPECTION
1. The Enrollee shall allow the State or Regional Water Boards or their authorized
representative, upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be
required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the Enrollee's premises where a regulated facility or activity
is located or conducted, or where records are kept under the
conditions of this Order;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this Order;
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006.0003-DWQ Page 18 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated
or required under this Order; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring
compliance with this Order or as otherwise authorized by the California
Water Code, any substances or parameters at any location.
G. GENERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Enrollee shall furnish to the State or Regional Water Board, within a
reasonable time, any information that the State or Regional Water Board may
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing,
or terminating this Order. The Enrollee shall also furnish to the Executive
Director of the State Water Board or Executive Officer of the applicable Regional
Water Board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order.
2. The Enrollee shall comply with the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. 2006-0003 and future revisions thereto, as specified by the Executive
Director. Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified in
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003. Unless superseded by a
specific enforcement Order for a specific Enrollee, these reporting requirements
are intended to replace other mandatory routine written reports associated with
SSOs.
3. All Enrollees must obtain SSO Database accounts and receive a "Usemame"
and "Password" by registering through the California Integrated Water Quality
System (CIWQS). These accounts will allow controlled and secure entry into the
SSO Database. Additionally, within 30days of receiving an account and prior to
recording spills into the SSO Database, all Enrollees must complete the
"Collection System Questionnaire", which collects pertinent information regarding
a Enrollee's collection system. The "Collection System Questionnaire" must be
updated at least every 12 months.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5411.5, any person who, without
regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any untreated wastewater or
other waste to be discharged in or on any waters of the State, or discharged in or
deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged in or on any surface waters
of the State, as soon as that person has knowledge of the discharge, shall
immediately notify the local health officer of the discharge. Discharges of
untreated or partially treated wastewater to storm drains and drainage channels,
whether man-made or natural or concrete-lined, shall be reported as required
above.
Any SSO greater than 1,000 gallons discharged in or on any waters of the State,
or discharged in or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged in or on
any surface waters of the State shall also be reported to the Office of Emergency
Services pursuant to California Water Code section 13271.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 19 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106
H. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP
This Order is not transferable to any person or party, except after notice to the
Executive Director. The Enrollee shall submit this notice in writing at least 30
days in advance of any proposed transfer. The notice must include a written
agreement between the existing and new Enrollee containing a specific date for
the transfer of this Order's responsibility and coverage between the existing
Enrollee and the new Enrollee. This agreement shall include an
acknowledgement that the existing Enrollee is liable for violations up to the
transfer date and that the new Enrollee is liable from the transfer date forward.
INCOMPLETE REPORTS
1. If an Enrollee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in any
report required under this Order, the Enrollee shall promptly submit such facts or
information by formally amending the report in the Online SSO Database.
J. REPORT DECLARATION
1. All applications, reports, or information shall be signed and certified as follows:
All reports required by this Order and other information required by the
State or Regional Water Board shall be signed and certified by a person
designated, for a municipality, state, federal or other public agency, as
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official, or by a duly
authorized representative of that person, as described in paragraph (ii) of
this provision. (For purposes of electronic reporting, an electronic
signature and accompanying certification, which is in compliance with the
Online SSO database procedures, meet this certification requirement-)
(ii) An individual is a duly authorized representative only if:
(a) The authorization is made in writing by a person described in
paragraph (i) of this provision; and
(b) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or
activity.
K. CIVIL MONETARY REMEDIES FOR DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS
1. The California Water Code provides various enforcement options, including civil
monetary remedies, for violations of this Order.
2. The California Water Code also provides that any person failing or refusing to
furnish technical or monitoring' program reports, as required under this Order, or
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 20 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies &M6
falsifying any information provided in the technical or monitoring reports is
subject to civil monetary penalties.
L. SEVERABILITY
1. The provisions of this Order are severable, and if any provision of this Order, or
the application of any provision of this Order to any circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of
this Order, shall not be affected thereby.
2. This order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive
privileges. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the commission
of any act causing injury to persons or property, nor protect the Enrollee from
liability under federal, state or local laws, nor create a vested right for the
Enrollee to continue the waste discharge.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the State Water Board does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a full, true, and correct copy of general WDRs duly and regularly adopted at a
meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on May 2, 2006.
AYE: Tam M. Doduc
Gerald D. Secundy
NO: Arthur G. Baggett
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Song Her
Clerk to the Board
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 2006-0003-DWQ
STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
This Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) establishes monitoring, record keeping,
reporting and public notification requirements for Order No. 2006-2003-DWQ,
"Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems."
Revisions to this MRP may be made at any time by the Executive Director, and may
include a reduction or increase in the monitoring and reporting.
A. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REPORTING
SSO Categories
Category 1 - All discharges of sewage resulting from a failure in the Enrollee's
sanitary sewer system that:
A. Equal or exceed 1000 gallons, or
B. Result in a discharge to a drainage channel and/or surface water; or
C. Discharge to a storm drainpipe that was not fully captured and returned to
the sanitary sewer system.
2. Category 2 - All other discharges of sewage resulting from a failure in the
Enrollee's sanitary sewer system.
3. Private Lateral Sewage Discharges - Sewage discharges that are caused by
blockages or other problems within a privately owned lateral.
SSO Reporting Timeframes
4. Category 1 SSOs - All SSOs that meet the above criteria for Category 1 SSOs
must be reported as soon as: (1) the Enrollee has knowledge of the discharge,
(2) reporting is possible, and (3) reporting can be provided without substantially
impeding cleanup or other emergency measures. Initial reporting of Category 1
SSOs must be reported to the Online SSO System as soon as possible but no
later than 3 business days after the Enrollee is made aware of the SSO.
Minimum information that must be contained in the 3-day report must include all
information identified in section 9 below, except for item 9.K. A final certified
report must be completed through the Online SSO System, within 15 calendar
days of the conclusion of SSO response and remediation. Additional information
may be added to the certified report, in the form of an attachment, at any time.
The above reporting requirements do not preclude other emergency notification
requirements and timeframes mandated by other regulatory agencies (local
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 2 of 5
Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems 5/2/2006
County Health Officers, local Director of Environmental Health, Regional Water
Boards, or Office of Emergency Services (OES)) or State law.
5. Category 2 SSOs - All SSOs that meet the above criteria for Category 2 SSOs
must be reported to the Online SSO Database within 30 days after the end of the
calendar month in which the SSO occurs (e.g. all SSOs occurring in the month of
January must be entered into the database by March 1st).
6. Private Lateral Sewage Discharges - All sewage discharges that meet the above
criteria for Private Lateral sewage discharges may be reported to the Online SSO
Database based upon the Enrollee's discretion. If a Private Lateral sewage
discharge is recorded in the SSO Database, the Enrollee must identify the
sewage discharge as occurring and caused by a private lateral, and a
responsible party (other than the Enrollee) should be identified, if known.
7. If there are no SSOs during the calendar month, the Enrollee will provide, within
30 days after the end of each calendar month, a statement through the Online
SSO Database certifying that there were no SSOs for the designated month.
8. In the event that the SSO Online Database is not available, the enrollee must fax
all required information to the appropriate Regional Water Board office in
accordance with the time schedules identified above. In such event, the Enrollee
must also enter all required information into the Online SSO Database as soon
as practical.
Mandatory Information to be Included in SSO Online Reporting
All Enrollees must obtain SSO Database accounts and receive a "Usemame" and
"Password" by registering through the California Integrated Water Quality System
(CIWQS). These accounts will allow controlled and secure entry into the SSO
Database. Additionally, within thirty (30) days of receiving an account and prior to
recording SSOs into the SSO Database, all Enrollees must complete the "Collection
System Questionnaire", which collects pertinent information regarding an Enrollee's
collection system. The "Collection System Questionnaire" must be updated at least
every 12 months.
At a minimum, the following mandatory information must be included prior to finalizing
and certifying an SSO report for each category of SSO:
9. Category 2 SSOs:
A. Location of SSO by entering GPS coordinates;
B. Applicable Regional Water Board, i.e. identify the region in which the
SSO occurred;
C. County where SSO occurred;
D. Whether or not the SSO entered a drainage channel and/or surface
water;
E. Whether or not the SSO was discharged to a storm drain pipe that
was not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system;
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003-DWQ
Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems
Page 3 of 5
5/2/2006
F. Estimated SSO volume in gallons;
G. SSO source (manhole, cleanout, etc.);
H. SSO cause (mainline blockage, roots, etc.);
1. Time of SSO notification or discovery;
J. Estimated operator arrival time;
K. SSO destination;
L_ Estimated SSO end time; and
M. SSO Certification. Upon SSO Certification, the SSO Database will
issue a Final SSO Identification (ID) Number.
10. Private Lateral Sewage Discharges.
A. All information listed above (if applicable and known), as well as;
B. Identification of sewage discharge as a private lateral sewage
discharge; and
C. Responsible party contact information (if known).
11. Category 1 SSOs:
A. All information listed for Category 2 SSOs, as well as;
B. Estimated SSO volume that reached surface water, drainage
channel, or not recovered from a storm drain;
C. Estimated SSO amount recovered;
D. Response and corrective action taken;
E. If samples were taken, identify which regulatory agencies received
sample results (if applicable). If no samples were taken, NA must
be selected.
F. Parameters that samples were analyzed for (if applicable);
G. Identification of whether or not health warnings were posted;
H. Beaches impacted (if applicable). If no beach was impacted, NA
must be selected;
1. Whether or not there is an ongoing investigation;
J. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the overflow and a schedule of major milestones for
those steps;
K. OES control number (if applicable);
L. Date OES was called (if applicable);
M. Time OES was called (if applicable);
N. Identification of whether or not County Health Officers were called;
0. Date County Health Officer was called (if applicable); and
P. Time County Health Officer was called (if applicable).
Reporting to Other Regulatory Agencies
These reporting requirements do not preclude an Enrollee from reporting SSOs to other
regulatory agencies pursuant to California state law. These reporting requirements do
not replace other Regional Water Board telephone reporting requirements for SSOs.
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 4 of 5
Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems 5212006
The Enrollee shall report SSOs to OES, in accordance with California Water
Code Section 13271.
Office of Emergency Services
Phone (800) 852-7550
The Enrollee shall report SSOs to County Health officials in accordance with
California Health and Safety Code Section 5410 et seq.
3. The SSO database will automatically generate an e-mail notification with
customized information about the SSO upon initial reporting of the SSO and final
certification for all Category 1 SSOs. E-mails will be sent to the appropriate
County Health Officer and/or Environmental Health Department if the county
desires this information, and the appropriate Regional Water Board.
B. Record Keeping
Individual SSO records shall be maintained by the Enrollee for a minimum of five
years from the date of the SSO. This period may be extended when requested
by a Regional Water Board Executive Officer.
3. All records shall be made available for review upon State or Regional Water
Board staff's request.
4. All monitoring instruments and devices that are used by the Enrollee to fulfill the
prescribed monitoring and reporting program shall be properly maintained and
calibrated as necessary to ensure their continued accuracy;
The Enrollee shall retain records of all SSOs, such as, but not limited to and
when applicable:
a. Record of Certified report, as submitted to the online SSO database;
b. All original recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation;
C. Service call records and complaint logs of calls received by the Enrollee;
d. SSO calls;
e. SSO records;
f. Steps that have been and will be taken to prevent the SSO from recurring
and a schedule to implement those steps.
g. Work orders, work completed, and any other maintenance records from
the previous 5 years which are associated with responses and
investigations of system problems related to SSOs;
h. A list and description of complaints from customers or others from the
previous 5 years; and
i. Documentation of performance and implementation measures for the
previous 5 years.
6. If water quality samples are required by an environmental or health regulatory
agency or State law, or if voluntary monitoring is conducted by the Enrollee or its
agent(s), as a result of any SSO, records of monitoring information shall include:
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 5 of 5
Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems 5/2/2006
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
C. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical technique or method used; and,
f. The results of such analyses.
C. Certification
All final reports must be certified by an authorized person as required by
Provision J of the Order.
Registration of authorized individuals, who may certify reports, will be in
accordance with the CIWQS' protocols for reporting.
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003 will become effective on the date of
adoption by the State Water Board.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true,
and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State
Water Board held on May 2, 2006.
Song Her
Clerk to the Board