The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJanuary 17, 2006,~} ~,~.uQ~~~, MEETING AGENDA _ Arcadia City Council/Redevelopment Agency ~ „e TUESDAY, ]ANUARY 17, 2006. This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at this meeting. The complete staff report and ali ottier written documentation relating to each item on this agenda are on fiie in the offce of the C"ity Clerk and the reference desk at the Arcadia Public Library and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any questions regarding any matter on the agenda, please call the office of the City Cierk at (626) 574-5455. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at (626) 574-5401 at least three (3) business days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting. ~ 6:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room ROLL CALL AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -(5 minutes per person) CLOSED SESSION STUDY SESSION a. INVOCATiON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Report, discussion and diredion regarding Alta Street housing projed RFQ/RFP, 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber REPORT FROM STUDY AND/OR CLOSED SESSION (AS NECESSARY) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATlON FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WANE READING IN FULL PRESENTATION a. Presentation of Certificate to Arcadia High School Coach Jim 0'Brien and Cross Country Team. b. Presentation of Certificate to Student Ambassadors Amy Crismer and Michael Lau., PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to any Public Hearing item on this agenda; you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL 2006-2007 Statement of Obiectives and Proiect Use of Community Develooment Block Grant (CDBG1 Funds. Recommendation: Approve the allocation of funds and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandums of Understanding. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -(5 minutes per person) REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the Januarv 3. 2006 Reaular Meetina. Recommendation: Approve b. Aooropriation for Traffic Sianal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street Recommendation: That the Retlevelopment Agency Board authorize an appropriation of $58,000.00 in Redevelopment Funds for the project. CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL c. Minutes of the January 3. 2006'Reaular Meetina. Recommendation: Approve d. Authorize an appropriation of 58.000 from the General Fund's unaoorooriated fund balance for Unique Manaaement Services to retrieve fines, fees and materials for the Librarv. Recommendation: Approve e. Authorize an approoriation of ~10.000 from the Capital Outlay Fund for imorovements and upgrades to the Library service elevato~. Recommendation: Approve f. Authorize an aoorooriation of $24,713 21 from the Air Qualitv Management Fund and approve the ourchase of one (1~ 2006 Chevrolef half-ton hvbrid oickup truck in the amount of ~24.713.21 from Rotolo Chevrolet. Recommendation:. Approve g. Award of Contract - Traffic Sianal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street. Recommendation: That the City Council autho~ize the City Mana9er to enter into a contract with OAk Engineering, Inc: in the amount of $156,975.00 for the Traffic Signal Installation at Pirst Avenue and Santa Clara and appropriate $11,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund for the project. ' _ . h. Award a one (~year contract extension in the amount of ~10.000 to Envirocvcle. Iric. for e-waste colledion throuahout the Citv. Recommendation: Approve ~.~' - _ ~. ]• . and Jackson Lewis for $40.000. Recommendation: Approve k. Authorize the Citv Manager to enter into a contract for continuina services with Moreland & Aswciates in an amount not to exceed ~45.000 for attountino consultina services. Recommendation: Approve I. Approve a purchase order in the amount of S66 200 to Dangelo Co for the nurchase of valves brass fittinas and related accessories. Recommendation: Approve m. Authorize the ourchase of eight mobile digital computers for the Police De~artment from Amrel in the amount of ~44.599. Recommendatlon: Approve 3. CITY MANAGER a. California. Recommendation: Approve AD]OURNMENT The meeting will adjoum in memory of Spencer Francis to ]anuary 31, 2006, 6:00 p.m., for a joint meeting with the Arcadia Unified School District at Arcadia High School Library, 180 Campus Drive. Recommendation: Approve .~ ~.~~"°RV,, ANNOTATED AGENDA - ArcadiaCityCouncil/RedevelopmentAgency ~~~ xr'~ ~ ¢,~'YO oo TUESDAY~ ]ANUARY 17, 2006 ,a~e° STUDYSESSION a. Report, discussion and diredion regarding Alta S[reet housing proje[[ RFQ/RFP. APPROVED A motion was made hy Agency Member Chandleq semnded by Agenry Member Marshall, and carried on 3• 2 roll call vote [o go with staff's recommenda[ion of [he top 3 bitlders for the moderate-income project on Kovacic, Segal - AI[a 5[reet, and to accept no further from [he remainders ~ "no" VUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING • CITY COUNCIL a, 7nneann7 5[atement of Obiec[ives and Proiect llse oF CommuniN ~eveloomen[ Block Grant (CDBGI APPROYED Funds. 5 - 0 Rerommendatian: Approve the allocatlon of funds and authorize [he City Manager to exeate the Memorandums of UndersWnding. 2. CONSENTCALENDAR-ARCADIA0.E~EVELOPMENTAGENCY a. Minutes of [he lanuarv 3 2006 Reoular M~etino. APPROVED Recommendation: Approve 5 - 0 b. Aoo o'ation for Tra~c Sianal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Cla a St eet APPROYED Remmmendation: That the Redevelopment Agency Board au[horize an appropriation of 558,000.00 in 5- 0 Redevelopment Funds for the projec[. ~ CONSENTCALENDAR-CIfYCOUNCIL e. Minutes of the )anuarv 3. 2006 Reaular Mee[ina. APPRO4ED Recommendation: Approve 5 - 0 d. Authorize an aooroona[ on of SB 000 fmm the General Fund's unaoorooriated fund 6alance for Un a e APPROVED Manauement Servi~es tr~ retrieve fines fees antl mate'als fo Ihe Cb arv 5- 0 Recommenda[ion: Approve e. Au[ho 'ze an aoo ooriaCO of S10 000 fmm [he CaoiWl Outlav Fund for imorovements antl oa ades to APPROVED [he Librarv service elevator. 5- 0 Remmmendation: Approve L Authorize an aoorooriation of E24 713 21 from the Air O aliN Manaaement Fund and aoorove the APPROVEU rrna<o nf on ~>> >nne rna~.nict half-ton hvbnd oickuo tmck in the amaunt of 424 713 21 from Rotolo 5- 0 h rolet Recommendation: Approve g. Award of Con[ract - Traffc Sianal InstallaCon at F st Avenue and Santa Clara Street APPROVED Recommen0ation: Thaf the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a rontrac[ with OAk 5• 0 Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $156,975.00 for the Traff[ Slgnal Ins[alla[ion at First Avenue and Santa Clara and appmpriate $SS,OW from Ihe CapiYal OWay Fund for the project. h. Award a one (ll vear mntract eMension in the amount of S10 000 to Envirocvde. Inc. for e-waste AP7ROVEU [411eRion throuahout the CiN. 5- 0 Recommendation: Approve I. A tho'z ~he Citv Manaaer to amead a one (11 vear Pmfessional Servires Aoreement th )ohn L Hu te~ APPROVED and Assodates Inc in the amount of S67 700 for Municioal S[orm Water (N7DE5) and Industrial Waste 5- 0 QW) Proaram suooort services. Recommendatlon: Appmve j. Authorize [he CiN Manaoe to enter into a Professional Services Aareement with the law frm Cebert APPROVED Cass 4 Whi[more~ aoorooriate S50 000 from the Generai Fund's unaoomD ~ated fund balance for leaal 5- 0 oerson el Serrices and au[horize new mnt act fiscal amounYS with Liebert Cassidv Whitmore for SIO 000 and ]a<kson Lewis for 540.000. Recommendation: Appmve k. A h n r n r in n ra f r rontinuin s rvices with Moreland & A ciate in APPROYED n am un no t x e 4 00 for ac untin consul ~ rvi 5- 0 Remmmendation: Appmve Aoorove a ourchase order in the amount of S66 200 to Danoelo Co. Por the our[hase Of valVes brass APPROVED fttinos and fela[ed ac~essories. 5- 0 Recommendatlon: Approve m. APPROVED 5-0 QTY MANAGER a. Consideradon of ADR 200541 to mnstmct a Sstorv 154 486 so. k North Tower addition. a 348 soace APPROVED, AS 4level oarkino oaraae and a 4,160 sa. ft. Education CentedClassroom a[ the Methodist Hosoital of AMENDED Southem falifomia. 5 • 0 Recommendation: Approve aa:ooa~ ~,.uP°~.vu MIN UTES ~ ~ ~ Arcadia City Council/RedevelopmentAgency pn ~ TUESDAY, ]ANUARY 17, 2006 ~ , 0 0m,n~q o~ n°e~• 6:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -(5 minutes per person) STUDY SESSION None. a. Report, discussion and direction regarding Alta Street housing project RFQ/RFP. Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, and Brian Saeki, Economic Development Manager, presented the report; staff noted that at a previous meeting, the City Council acted to direct staff to move forward with a RFQ/RFP process for moderate income housing on the Alta Street Property; an oudine of the criteria used for selection and the names of the all applicantr who submitted proposals was presented (Trademark Development Company, LLC; Bourne Construction Inc.; Bowden Developmen[ Inc.; Henry Nunez & MRC Development; Dynamo Constructors, Snc.; San Ga6riel Hahitat for Humanity); staff finally presented the list of the top three proposers: 1) Trademark Development Company, LLC; 2) Bourne Construction Inc.; and 3) Bowden Development Inc. Council/Agency Members Kovacic and Segal requested that the proposal for Habitat for Humanity, one that did not meet the minimum criteria for selection, be induded in the next steps of the process. Council/Agenc.y Members Chandler and Marshall noted that the proposal for Habitat for Humanity did not meet the minimum criteria standard determined per Agency Board direction, and that the Council/Agency voted previously for a"moderate income" project; they further noted that the proposal submitted by Habitat for Humanity was for a"low income" project. Mayor Wuo noted that he was not in favor of changing his previous vote in order to support the inclusion of the Habitat for Humanity proposal in the next stages of the RFP review process. Motion A motion was made by Agency Member Chandler, seconded by Agency Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to move forward with staff's recommendation of the top three proposals for the Alta Project, artd to accept no other proposals for continuation in the RFP process. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Coundl/Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, and Wuo ABSENT: Council Aqency Members Kovacic, Seqal 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber INVOCA7ION Reverend Mathew Chong, Church of the Good Shepard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dennis Lee, President of Arcadia Methodist Hospital ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo ABSENT: None REPORT FROM STUDY AND/OR CLOSED SESSION (AS NECESSARY) Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, reported that the City Councii met tonight in Study Session to discuss one item. The City Coundl voted 3-2 (KOVacic & Segal - against) to authorize staff to proceed with the top three proposals for a moderate income housing project at the Alta Street site. 01-17-2006 48:0008 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS NOne. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAI4E READING IN FULL A motion was made by Coun~il Mem6er Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried without objection to read all ordinances/resotutions by title onty and waive reading in full. PRESENTATION a. Presentatlon of Certificate to Arcadia High School Coach Jim 0'8rien and Goss Country Team. b. Presentation of Certificate to Student Ambassadors Amy Crismer and Michael Lau. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY WUNCIL a. ~ 2006-2007 Statement of Obiectives and Proiect Use of CommuniN Develooment Block Grant (CDBGI Funds. Recommendation: Approve the allocation of funds and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandums of Understanding. Staff Report Don Penman, Assistant Ciry Manager/Development Services Director, presented the report; staff noted the general guidelines to which the City of Arcadia must adhere in order to fund specific projects using Community Development Block Grant funds; staff is recommending a total allocation of $482,777 for a variety of eligible projects. Publi~Testimony None Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshafl, and noting no further Public Hearing objection the Mayor Gosed the pu6lic hearing. City Council None. Deliberatlon Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll cail vote to approve the allocation of funds of $462,777 and authorize the Gty Manager to modify the program allocation should amendments become necessary and execute the Memorandums of Understanding, which are submitted to the County at a later date. Roll Call AYES: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Marshal, Kovacic, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. AUDIENCE PARTiCIPA7ION -(5 minutes per person) Said Issa, appeared to speak regarding the Caruso and WestField projects. Gordon Maddock, appeared to speak regarding a potential Planned Unit Development Ordinance in Arcadia. Bernetta Reade, Arcadia First, appeared to speak regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Review deadline for the Caruso Prol~• Ed Casey, representing We~eld, appeared to speak regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Review deadline for the Caruso project. Ruth Lagasay, foothill Middle Schooi PTA President, appeared to speak regarding activities and accomplishments at the school. Lonell Spencer, appeared to speak regarding "City Council New Year's resolutions" discussed at the last City Council meeting. 2 01-17-2006 as:oaos REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS CHANDLER Noted that the developer on the Caruso project completely eliminated the housing element from the proposed project. KOVACIC -Responded to Mc Spencer regarding a comment made at a recent Council meeGng; inquired regarding the eztension process for the Draft EIR on the Caruso project; Congratulated the Arcadia Cross Country Team for their achievements; thanked Mr. Issa for his gik; and noted that he and Council Member Segal noted "no" on the decision made by Council during tonight's Study Session. MARSHALL Thanked all members of the public who came to speak during tonight's meeting; congratulated the Arcadia Cross County Team for their recent accomplishmentr; discussed the vote during the Sfudy Session; noted that Council had directed staff to pursue developers for a"modera[e income" housing project and that the Habitat for Humanity proposal did not meet the established minimum criteria. SEGAL Announced the upcoming exhibit on Arcadia Educators at the Arcadia Historical Museum. WIlO Wished everyone a Happy Chinese New Year's on January 29, 2006 and congratulated the Arcadia Cross Country Team; thanked staff for a wonderful Board and Commissioner's Dinner. Mr. Kelly noted for the record that there will be a deadline extension for comments to the Draft EIR for the Caruso projed, however the eutended date is not certain at this time. 2. CONSENTCALENDAR-ARCADIARE~EVELOPMENTAGENCY a. N]inutes of the Januarv 3 2006 Reaular Meetina. ~ Recommendation: Approve b. AqZrooriation for Traffic Sianal InsWllation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street Recommendation: That the Redevelopment Agency Board authorize an appropriation of $SS,OD0.00 in Redevelopment Funds for the project. CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL t. Minutes of the lanuarv 3 2006 Regular Meetinq Recommendation: Approve d. Authorize an ao~rooriation of ~8.000 from the General Fund's unao~roRriated fund balance for Unioue Manaaement Services to retrieve f nes fees and materials for the Librarv. Recommendation: Approve e. Authorize an aooro~riation of 810 000 from the Caoital Outlav Fund for improvements and uo4rades to the Li6rary service elevator Remmmendation: Approve f. Authorize an ao r~ooriation of 824 713 21 from the Air Oualitv Management Fund and aoorove the ourchase of one (1) 2006 Chevrolet half-ton hvbrid oickuo tru~k in the amount of S24 713 21 fram Rotolo Chevrolet Recommendation: Approve g. Award of Contract - Traffic Sianal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contraR with OAk Engineering, Inc. in [he amount of $156,975.00 for the Traffc Signal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara and appropriate $11,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund for the project. h. Award a one (]Zyear contract extension in the amount of $10 000 to Envirocvcle Inc for e-waste collection throughout the Citv Recommendation: Approve i. Authorize the CiN Manager to amend a one (11 vear Professional Services Aoreement with John L Hunter and Associates Inc in the amount of 567,700 for Municioal Storm Water (NPDES) and Industrial Waste (IW) Program supoort services. Remmmendation: Approve 01-17-2006 48:00010 j. Authorize the Cipj Manager to enter into a Professional Services Aoreement with the law firm Liebert Cassidv Whitmore• aoorooria[e S50 000 from the General Fund's unaoorooriated fund balance for leaal oersonnel services~ and au[horize new contract fiscal amounts with Liebert Cassidv Whitmore for E10.000 and ]ackson Lewis for 440.OD0. Rewmmendation: Approve k. Authorize the Citv Manaaer to enter into a contract for contlnuina services with Moreland & Associates in an amount not to exceed S45 000 for accountina mnsultina services. Recommendation: Approve I. Aoorove a ourchase order in the amount of 366 200 to Danaelo Co for the purchase of valves 6rass fttinas and related accessories Recommendation: Approve m. Authorize the ourchase of eight mobile dioital comou[ers for the Police Deoartrnent from Amrel in the amount of 844.599. Recommendation: Approve Motion A motion was made by Coundl Member Marshall, seconded by Coundl Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to ~ approve item 2.a. through 2.m. on the Redevelopment Agency and City Council Consent Calendars. Roll Call AYES: Coundl/Agency Members Marshall, Segal, Chandler, Kovacic, and Wuo NOES: None. 3. CIfY MANAGER a. Conside2Uon of ADR 2005-11 to construct a 5-s[orv 154 486 sa ft North Tower addition a 348 soace 4 le~el parking aaraae and a 4 160 w ft Education Center/Classroom at the Methodist Hosoital of Southem iCal fomia• Recommendation: Approve Mr. Penman and Corky Nicholson, Acting Community Developmen[ Administrator, presented the repoR; staff noted that the Methodist Hospital of Southern California fled ADR 2005-11 for the Methodist Hospital Master Plan; the hospital is proposing to modemize and improve their existing facilities at 300 West Huntington Drive; the project will be constructed in phases through 2013. Mr. Kelly noted that although Mayor Wuo and Council Member Segal serve as part of [he Hospital's Foundadon and/or Board of Directors, the Gty Attomey determined that they are they are not in violation of the Brown Act if they vote on this item. Dennis Lee, President of Arcadia Me[hodist Hospital, appeared to speak about the impact the co~struction costs for a left tum lane on Huntington Drive/Centennial would have on the proposed expansion. In response to an inquiry, staff noted that a left hand tum is currently needed at [he intersection section of Hundngton Drive and Centenniel Way. MoUon A moUOn was made by Council Member Segal, seconded 6y Council Member Kovacic, and carried on roll call vote to adopt the Negative Declaratlon; approve Architecturel Design Review 2005-011 including Increments One and Two of [he 2005 Master Plan subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, which indude the following amendments: On conditlon of approval #2: As part of Increment One and prior to an occupancy permit for the parking structure, the hospital shall agree to the dedication of property to provide for a designated lek turn lane along Huntington Drive East, as determined by the City Engineer; and on condiUOn of approval k3: The designated leR turn lane shall be cons[ruc[ed by the hospital on HunUngton Drive Eas[ at Cen[ennial Way as part of Incremen[ Two if the lane is not mmpleted as part of the "proposed" Shops at Santa Anita development, subject to a future de[ermination by the Ciry Council regarding the Hospital's fair share contribution toward the cost for the left turn lane. Roll Call AYES: Coundl/Agency Members Segal, Kovacic, Chandler, Marshall, and Wuo NOES: None. oi-i ~-zoos 48:00071 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. in memory of Spencer Francis to January 31, 2006, 6:00 p.m., for a joint meedng with the Arcadia Unifed School District at Arcadia High School Library, 180 Campus Drive. ' lames H. Barrows, City Clerk U~~a,~~.a~. ~: Vida Tolman Chief Deputy Cty Clerk/Remrds Manager Oi-17-2006 , ~ • a, r :::.~,:;:.~ c~~~°°~~Y°~~~~ STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director~ Prepared by: Silva Vergel, Senior Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: 2006-07 Statement of Obiectives and Proiect Use of CDBG Funds Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY • The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) has advised the City that we will receive approximately $426,595 in Community Development Block Grant Funds for fiscal year 2006-07. Costs and project summaries must be submitted to the County by February 1, 2006. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the projects as set forth below for fiscal year 2006-07. DISCUSSION The City has been a participant in the Community Development Block Grant program for approximately 32 years. Criteria for participation in the program has changed during the years, becoming more restrictive in order to encourage programs that meet the goals and objectives for use of the funds. As .a result of these changes, Federal regulations allow a maximum of 15% of a grantee's aggregate funds ($63,989) to be used for public service programs and require a minimum of 70% of the total funds are to be designated for projects which support activities that benefit low and moderate income families (in previous years, the public services threshold was set at a maximum of 25%). Program administration expenses cannot exceed 10% of the annual allocation. Due to the general economic health of this community, Arcadia does not have any neighborhoods that meet the low and moderate income standard that qualify for CDBG funding. Therefore, the city is unable to implement certain projects, such as street improvements, that are generally eligible under the guidelines but not eligible in Arcadia. • Handicap accessibility projects are eligible, though, staff is not recommending any in this grant application. In addition to the above, the City will receive $56,182 in "unallocated funds". These are • funds that have not been utilized from previous years and must be used for projects that will benefit Low/Moderate families. However, none of these "unallocated funds" can be used toward public services. The following is a summary of this year's projects (FY 2005-06) and the proposed projects for FY 2006-07: Housing Rehabilitation' Congregate Meals" Sr. Citizen Social Services** Meals on Wheels" Youth Program** Administration Total Current Projects Fiscal Year 2005-06 $421,457 $ 25,809 $ 25,000 $ 5,127 $ 13,000 23 000 $513,393 Proposed Projects Fiscal Year 2006-07 $395,802* $ 23,500 $ 23,475 $ 5,000 $ 12,000 23 000 $482,777 ' The 2006-07 Housing Rehabilitation budget reflects $56,182 remaining from last FY. ** Public Service Program subject to only 15% of the 2006-07 allocation. The following is a list of current projects that are being undertaken during this fiscal year: • Meals On Wheels -$5.000 (Public Service Proqram) The funds for this program helped offset operating expenses incurred by the American Red Cross to deliver two meals a day to approximately 40 homebound residents in Arcadia. Proqram Administration - $23 000 (Plannina/Administration) These funds offset the cost of annual general management, oversight, and coordination of the CDBG programs. Youth Services Proqram -$12,000 (Pubfic Service Proqram) This is an ongoing program directed to help youths 18 years and under who come from low-income families. This program sends youths to day camp, music club, educational field trips, summer camp and may subsidize band equipment and uniforms. 2006-7 CDBG Funds • January 17, 2006 Page 2 • Conqreqate Meals For Seniors -$23.500 (Public Service Proaraml This is an ongoing program providing senior citizens with a nutrition program that features hot noon-time meals, Monday through Friday at the Community Center. Information and Referral Proqram - $23 475 (Public Service Proaram This ongoing program provides senior citizens with essential information to maintain independent living and healthy lifestyles. Specific services include: government benefits assistance (Medicare, social security, income tax, Medi-Cal, SSI), housing, transportation, legal assistance, in-home services, health services, and educational opportunities. Housinp Rehabilitation - _ $395,802 (Low/Mod This is an ongoing program assisting low/moderate income homeowners for necessary home improvements. A maximum grant of $12,000 is recommended per household. This amount is proposed for an increase from previous years' grants of $10,000, due to increased construction costs. The CDC has recommended that the City Council approve these programs with the • provision to authorize the City Manager should amendments be necessary. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS FY 2006-07 Due to the success of the fiscal year 2005-06 programs, staff is recommending the ongoing programs be continued and funded as represented in Tabie 1. Table 1 Project Name Fiscal Year 2006-07 Proposed Pro'ects Meals on Wheels $ 5,000 Pro ram Administration $ 23,000 Youth Services Pro ram $ 12,000 Con re ate Meals Pro ram $ 23, 500 Information/Referral Pro ram $ 23,475 Residential Housin Rehabilitation $395,802 Total $482.~7~ • 2Q06-7 CDBG Funds January 17, 2006 Page 3 This is a public hearing. The City Council should open the public hearing and receive • testimony from the pubiic as to the types of projects which the public feels should be undertaken by the City. FISCAL IMPACT There is not a financial impact to the City to implement CDBG programs, as ail funding including grant administration comes from the grant. However, staff does inGude CDBG program appropriations in the operating budget and is required to obtain City Councit approval prior to expenditure of funds. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the allocation of funds as outlined in Table 1; or as modified by the City Council 2. Authorize the City Manager to: a. Modify the program allocation should amendments become necessary b. Execute the Memorandurqs of Understanding, which are submitted to the County at a later date. • Approved: ~'~'° ti~ William R. Kelly, City Manager 2006-7 CDBG Funds • January 17, 2006 Page 4 ~~ d, ~- - q fuery~~W AsN~ S. If W Co~8aalty oiH°~`' MEMORANDUM Library and Museum Services Deparhnent January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Janet Sporleder, Director of Library and Museum Services~~ Jaclde Faust-Moreno, Library Services Manager SUBJECT: Authorize an appropriation of $8,000 &om the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for Unique Manaeement Services to retrieve fines. fees and materials for the Librarv• Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Staff is recommending the City Council authorize an appropriation of $8,000 from the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for Unique Management Services (UMS) to provide services that aze designed to recover material and fines for overdue or lost materials from delinquent patrons. BACKGROUND The Arcadia Public Library circulates a variety of material, including books, pamphlets, books-on-tape, music CD's, etc. Most items circulate for three weeks. If the item checked out is not retumed on time, the Library sends out two norices in order to recover the overdue material. A first notice is sent two weeks after an item is due. The second notice is sent one month later with an invoice attached covering the cost of the item plus a processing fee. Despite the notices, many items are never retumed. The Boazd of Trustees of the Arcadia Public Library, concerned with optimizing the recovery of items loaned out to the public and knowing that many libraries have successfully contracted with agencies to recover overdue material and fines, directed staff to explore the idea of contracting with a collection agency. In August 2005, the Library entered into a three-month trial with Unique Management Services (UMS), an agency that caters to the library community using a"gentle nudging approach", to provide material-recovery services on a budget neutral basis. The Library continues sending their initial two letters. Once the items aze 57 days late or the items have been retumed late with fines totaling over $25.00, the Library sends a report to LTMS. LTMS sends out three notices, and makes several phone calls to the Library patron before submitting the account for credit reporting. This trial was a success. The fines recovered more than cover the cost of the service. Plus, the materials recovered will now be available for others to utilize and will not need to be replaced. DISCUSSION The Library Boazd has determined that it is advantageous to continue with the service. As good stewazds of the Library collecrions, the Board believes that it is vital to recover items that are checked out but not returned. Replacing this material is expensive in terms of time and materials because an item that is not returned must be removed from the computerized catalog, a replacement must to be chosen, ordered, cataloged anew then processed for circulation with labels and baz coding attached to the item's record. During the three-month trial, staff received very few complaints &om the community. It is noteworthy that items aze now being retumed in a more timely fashion as the community realizes their account will be sent to a collection agency if the material is not returrted. The projected cost for the service for the current fiscal yeaz is $8,000. The service contract will be included in the Library's operating budget in future years. FISCAL IMPACT Adequate funds aze available in the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for fiscal year 2005/06. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Authorize an appropriation of $8,000 from the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for Unique Management Services to retrieve tines, fees and materials for the Library. Approved: ~~ William R. Kelly, City Manager Gpt,lPO$,,,y . ~ r ~ I~ewy~rYM A~ry~l lr 1 q) . bm4Altyot~°e°' ~ . STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy; Public Works Services Direct r~ Prepared by: Tom Tait; Field Services Mana er Dave McVey; General Services Sup intendent SUBJECT: Service Contract for Improvements and Upqrede to Librarv Freiqht Elevator Recommendation: Appropriate $10,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund ~ for improvements and upgrades to the Library service elevator SUMMARY The Public Works Services Department is responsible for ensuring that all facility elevators, which include the Library, a~e serviced and inspected once a month by a certified licensed contractor. Additionally, the State performs annual safety inspections on all city facilities. that have elevators and ensures operating permits are current. Last November, the State notified the City that the freight elevator at the Library is deficient due to age and requires improvements and upgrades to conform to State standards. Requests for bids were sent to three (3) certified licensed elevator contractors to bring the Library freight elevator into conformance with State Standards. Arritech Elevator Service was the only bidder to respond at $9,980. Staff has attempted to contact the other bidders and has left messages to find out why they did not respond to our request for bids. They are not returning our calis. Amtech's bid meets the terms and conditions of the bid proposal and staff recommends thet the City Council appropriate $10,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund for this work. In staff's opinion, the bid received is reasonable and within our initial repair estimate. Once funding is appropriated, staff will process a purchase order and schedule this work. DISCUSSION The 2005-06 operating budget includes normal building maintenance costs and contract work repairs for the Library on an as-needed basis. As part of the State's annual elevator inspection of city facilities, 4hree (3) elevators at the Library are inspected. The oldest elevator, a freight elevator that was built in 1961 as part of the original Library, was identified by the State as deficient due to age and requires improvements and upgrades. Staff was not aware of the required improvements and upgrades during the budget process and did not include this work in this year's Operating or Capital Improvement Budgets: The Library's freight elevator is heavily used on a daily basis e. Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 2 by staff for moving books and other items between the basement and the first and second floors. State Standards require installation of new cables and other associated mechanical devices and attachments. This contract will provide for the installation of this new equipment bringing the elevator into compliance with State Standards. If the elevator is not repaired, the operating permit will be revoked and the elevator will be removed from seroice. Amtech Elevator Service submitted the sole bid to pe~form the required improvements and upgrades tq the freight elevator and is properly licensed and in good standing with the State's Contractor Licensing Board. Amtech Elevator Service has provided similar work for the City and has provided excellent and affordable service. Amtech's bid meets the terms and conditions of the bid proposal. Staff has attempted to contact the other bidders and has left messages to find out why they did not respond to our request for bids. They, are not returning our calls. In staffs opinion, the bid received is reasonable and within our initial repair estimate and staff recommends that the City Council appropriate $10,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund for this work. FISCAL IMPACT The improvement modifications 2005/2006 Capital Budget. An Outlay fund will be required tc eleyatoc RECOMMEDATION of the Library freight elevator were not included in the additional appropriation of $10,000 from the Capital complete the required repairs for the Library freight The City Council appropriate $10,000 from.the Capital Outlay Fund for improvements and upgrades to the Library service elevator. APPROVED: " ~ - William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT:DM:dw ' ~L1P ~C! . . `~ ' . ) + . o! ~.. .:.w. . . ~ ... ' . ~~.ti~ ~. uo~ ~ . °°~mua,~Ya~~~e°' STAFF REPORT - ~. ~ - Public Works Services Department - - January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Fublic Works Services Direct r Prepared by: Tom Tait, Field Services Manager Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase one (1) 2006 Chevrolet Hvbrid Pickup Truck Recommendation: Appropriate $24,713.21 from the Air Quality Management Fund and approve the purchase of one (1) 2006 Chevrolet half-ton hybrid pickup truck in~the amount of $24,713.21 .' from Rotolo Chevrolet SUMMARY This year's Equipment. Replacement Budget includes a$35,000 appropriation for the replacement of a pickup truck in the Fleet Services Section of Public Works Servioes. Recently, staff was made aware that if the pickup truck were replaced with a hybrid model pickup truck, the vehicle would qualify as an alternative fuel vehicle and would be eligible for AB 2766 funding from the Air Quaiity Management District (AQMD). Based on this information, staff solicited bids for the purchase of one (1) 2006 Chevrolet half- ton hybrid pickup truck. Sealed bids were opened on November 30, 2005. One bid from Rotolo Chevrolet was received at $24,713.21. Sfaff is recommending that the City Council appropriate $24,713.21 from the Air Quality Management Fund and award a purchase order contract for one (1) 2006 Chevrolet half-ton hybrid pickup truck in the amount of $24,713.21 to Rotolo Chevrolet. Following the purchase of emergency response equipment, two way radio, emergency lights, etc., the balance of the $35,000 appropriation in the Equipment Replacement Budget will be returned to the Fund balance. DISCUSSION The City has two (2) alternative fuel pool vehicles in our fleet to help reduce air pollution and conserve fuel. In our continued efforts to help clean the environment, staff proposes to purchase another alternative fuel vehicle, which is a full-size half-ton hybrid pickup truck. The Fleet Maintenance Section of Public Works Services will use this vehicle for daily road service repairs, pick up and delivery of vehicles, parts and equipment related to Fleet Services. This truck will provide the same service as a conventional truck and reduce annual fuel consumption costs. Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 2 Hybrid pickup trucks operate in either gas and/or electric mode, and achieve an average i of 21 miles per gallon: This vehicle also has the capability,to produce an,auxiliary.' , electricity to energize additional equipment or power tools on a stand-alone syste`m: The '' gasoline engine and a regenerative braking system that captures heat "energy° " produced by the braking motion charges the vehicle's electric battery pack. According to the manufacturer, the battery pack will last six to eight years. In addition to reduced engine noise, harmful fuel emissions are significantly reduced while operating in the electric mode. The City of Arcadia receives an annual appropriation of AB 2766 Subvention Program funds from the State of California to actively participate in programs that improve the air quality in Los Angeles County. Staff proposes to purchase one (1) altemative fuel vehicle for the replacement of an existing pickup truck scheduled for replacement in the 2005-06 Equipment Replacement Fund. Notices inviting bids were sent to five (5) dealerships and published in the adjudicated paper. As advertised; the City Clerk publicly opened the sealed bids on November 30, 2005 with the following results. '~ Bidder"" Rotolo Chevrolet Lake Chevrolet Clippenger Chevrolet, Wondries Chevrolet Location Fontana Lake Eleanor Covina Pasadena Amount $24,713.21 No Bid No Bid No Bid " General Motors is the only manufacture that produces gas/electric pickup trucks in a half-ton model. ~ Staff recommends that the City Council appropriate $24,713.21 from the Air Quality Management Fund and awa~d a purchase order contract for one (1) 2006 Chevrolet half-ton hybrid pickup truck in the amount of $24,713.21 to Rotolo Chevrolet. FISCAL IMPACT The FY05-06 Equipment Replacement Fund has $35;000.00 budgeted for this vehicle. Since this vehicle qualifies as an alternative fuel vehicle and AB 2766 funding from AQMD can be used for this acquisition, following the purchase of emergency equipment for the truck, the appropriated funds will be retumed to the Equipment Replacement Fund. Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION 1. Appropriate $24,713.21 from the Air Quality Management Fund 2. Approve a purchase order contcact for one (1) 2006 Chevrolet half- ton hybrid pickup truck in the amount of $24,713.21 to Rotolo Chevrolet. 3. Authorize the Purchasing Officer to issue a Purchase Order for this acquisition. Approved: ~ y~~ William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:dw : .. '~ s ~? . ~ . . °~ ~ . ~~~ +~C~Rl'ORAT8fl~,0og STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council Chair and Redevelopment Agency Members FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director~ Philip A. Wray, City Engineer ~RN By: Rafael Fajardo, Assistant Engineer '~`~ By: Brian Saeki, Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: Award Contract - Traffic Siqnal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street Recommendation: (A) That the Citv Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with OAk Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $156,975.00 for the Traffic Signal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Ciara and that the City Council appropriate $11,000 from Capital Outlay Fund for the project; and (B) that the Redevelopment Aqencv Board authorize an appropriation of $58,000.00 in Redevelopment Funds for the project. SUMMARY Currently, the intersection at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street is a 4-way stop. As a result of new development in downtown and in the general vicinity, the traffic volumes through this intersection have increased warranting the installation of a traffic signal. Signalization of this intersection is also part of the traffic mitigation measures from the Fairfield Suites and Hilton Garden Inn hotels completed in 2000, based on the Peak Hour Warrants. A traffic signal was originally budgeted in the 2001-02 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Program at a cost of $150,000, of which, $139,000 was to be funded by the Redevelopment Agency and $11,000 was paid by the hotei developers for their fare share cost of the signal. A location map of the project is attached for reference. The project was originally bid in June 2005 and only one contractor responded. It was staffs opinion that the bid was high and was subsequently rejected by the City Council on August 2, 2005. The project was re-advertised and bid a second time with bids opened on December 6, 2005. The City received five (5) bids. OAk Engineering, Inc., who has successfully completed similar projects, submitted the lowest responsible bid in the amount of $156,975.00. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract for the Traffic Signal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street to OAk Engineering, Inc. and appropriate and additional $58,000.00 in Redevelopment and $11,000 in Capital Outlay funds to cover the construction, administration and inspection costs. Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Board Members January 17, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The traffic volumes on Santa Clara Street have steadily grown over the years as an alternative route to Huntington Drive and due to the overall new development in the area. The installation of a traffc signal system at the intersection of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street was prompted in part by the construction of the hotels on Second Avenue south of Santa Clara Street. In fact, the developers were required to pay their fare share of the cost of the improvement ($11,000) as part of the Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. A Traffic Signal Warrant Study was conducted and the peak hour traffic volume warrant is met. The City Council approved the budget for the installation of the traffic signal at the intersection of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street as part of the FY 2001-02 Capital improvement Program in the amount of $150,000. Because the signal is located within the Project Area boundaries and could be paid with Redevelopment funds, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board were required to make certain findings to authorize the use of Redevelopment funds to pay for public improvements in accordance with Section 33445 of the Health and Safety Code. These findings were made by the City Council and Agency Board at their July 17, 2001 meeting via City Council Resolution No. 6239 and ARA No._997. The project was delayed while the initial planning on the Gold Line Foothill Extension took place. Since it was determined that the tracks will cross the intersection at grade, staff has worked with the Gold Line Authority to coordinate the signal design with the rail crossing design. The signal has been designed so that the stop lines, crosswalks, signal poles and train gates all agree with the Gold Line Plans. , DISCUSSION The work will consist of the instal~ation of new traffic signal poles and mast arm, mast arm mounted street name signs, vehicle.and pedestrian indications, vehicle detecto~s, traffic signal controllers and cabinets, LEDs, battery backup power supplies, safety lighting, conduits, conductors and pavement striping and markings. The project was originally bid in June 2005 with a bid opening on July 5, 2005. The City received one bid in the amount of $217,000. It was staff's opinion that the bid was too high. On August 2, 2005, the City Council rejected the bid. Upon further investigation, staff has found that traffic signal work has become more expensive because material and labor costs have risen, fewer traffic signal contractors are in business and the current traffic signal workload in Southern California is very heavy. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works recently experienced the same results in both their own traffic signal construction projects and in consultation with other cities. , Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Board Members January 17, 2006 Page 3 The project was re-evaluated for cost reduction measures and re-advertised for bids in October and November. In addition to the normal notices and advertisements, staff contacted several contractors to make them aware of the project. Bids were opened on December 6, 2005 with five (5) bids received as follows: Bidders Amount OAk Engineering, Inc. $156,975.00 Christopher R. Morales $175,111.00 Terno, Inc. $178,959.00 Camet Electric, Inc. $247,000.00 C.T. & F., Inc. $321,681.00 Staff has reviewed the low bid and investigated the contractor's background and recent projects for competency, and has determined that OAk Engineering, Inc. can satisfactorily perform the required work. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $156,975.00 to OAk Engineering, Inc. for the Traffic Signal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street. The original budget was $150,000. Using the low bidder's construction cost, the revised project estimate is as follows: Construction $156,975 Design & Coordination $21,025 Constr. Admin. & Contingency 30 000 Total $208,000 An additional appropriation of $58,000 is required to complete the project. Because of the improvement is located within the Project Area boundaries and the City Council and Agency Board made the appropriate findings to use Redevelopment funds for public improvements, staff is recommending that the remaining $58,000 be allocated from unreserved Redevelopment funds. It is the opinion of the Agency's legal counsel that Agency Board may increase the budget of a previously approved project pursuant to the findings as indicated in Section 33445 of the California Health and Safety Code. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 class 1(d) from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT The project was budgeted in the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program at $150,000. The revised cost estimate for the project is $208,000. An additional ' >- Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Board Members January 17, 2006 Page 4 appropriation of $58,000 from unencumbered Redevelopment funds is requested to construct the project as bid. In addition, the $11,000 deposit from the hotel developers, was deposited into the City's General Fund requiring that the City Council also appropriate $11,000 from the Capital Outlay fund. RECOMMENDATION A) That the Citv Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with OAk Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $156,975.00 for the Traffic Signal Installation at First Avenue and Santa Ciara and that the City Council appropriate $11,000 from Capital Outlay Fund for the project; and B) That the Redeveloqment Aqencv Board authorize an appropriation of $58,000.00 in Redevelopment Funds for the project Approved By: ~ `~ WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER DP:PW:RF:BS:pa Attachment ~ ~. ...~;..~.._ ' ~.~ i.~w~. . .~ i ~ em40lty oS~~e. .. c` °~ ~ STAFF REPORT . ~ 1': . .. ~+ , 5' . . , . ~ ' ` Public Works Services Department January 17, 2006_ TOc Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direc r - Prepared by: Toyasha Black, Manage ent alyst James Armijo, Administrative Intern SUBJECT: E-Waste Collection Proqram Contract Extension Recommendation: Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $10,000.00 to Envirocycle, Inc. for e-waste collection throughout the City . SUMMARY The Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 made it illegal to dispose of electronic waste, or "e-waste" into the normal solid waste stream. California law classifies the nonfunctioning CRTs (cathode ray tubes) from televisions and computer monitors as hazardous waste. E-waste from discarded computers, monitors, printers, televisions and other electronic equipment pose a risk to our environment if improperly disposed of. To comply with the new act, last March, the City Council approved a Professional Services. Agreement with Envirocycle, Inc. for up to $20,000 to provide curbside collection of single-family televisions and computer units. To continue the effective management and safe disposal of e-waste, staff proposes to expand the E-Waste Collection Pilot Program that ran from April to October 2005. The program expansion will include extending curbside e-waste collection service to multi-family residences, as well as an aggre§sive marketing campaign to increase awareness and encourage participation. In addition, the program will include the collection of televisions, computers and other types of e-waste (e.g. phones, VCR's, camcorders etc.). Based on the excellent service provided by Envirocycle, Inc. during the E-waste Collection Pilot Program, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $10,000.00 to Envirocycle, Inc. for e-waste collection and marketing services throughout the City. ::_ ti•. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in the year 2000, 4.4 billion , r .~_.. . _. pounds of electronic waste was generated. Computers, televisions, VCRs, stereos, '"copiers and fax machines are common electronic products. The rapid introduction of `" new. and"ever-changing electronic products is not expected to decrease and therefore ' the~ effective management `of the quickly outdated products is essential. Certain ' components of some electronic products contain materials that designate them as haza~dous and currently, California law classifies nonfunctioning CRTs (cathode ray . tubes) from televisions and computer monitors as hazardous waste. The Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 made it illegal to dispose of electronic waste, or "e-waste" into the normal solid waste stream. For the City of Arcadia, the result is a growing challenge to reuse, recycle and/or properly dispose of this equipment for our residents. Last year's E-Waste Collection Pilot Program, conducted frorri April through October 2005, was a resounding success. In the six-month period, the program made 300 pick-ups collecting 27,255 pounds (14 tons) of e-waste in the process. Initially, staff budgeted $20,000 to provide for this Program. However, this forecast was made prior to the Califomia lntegrated Waste Management Board adopting emergency regulations to supplement a funding system for the collection and recycling of televisions and computer units: As a result, the State, not the Ciry, pays Enyirocycle Inc. for the proper disposal of televisions and computer units. The City's share for the Program includes the cost per stop and other e-waste not covered by the State (i.e. phones, VCR's, camcorders, etc.) Therefore, the total expenditures for Phase I of the E-Waste Collection Pilot Program (April through October) were only $5,000. (This Program was limited to singfe-family residents.) Phase I of the E-Waste Collection Program perFormed favorably compared to similar programs in other areas and remains the only one of its kind in the' local region. Therefore; staff recommends that Phase II of the Pilot Program be extended to include the following: 1. Service all single and multi-family residences. ' 2. Collect other electronic waste such as, phones, VCR's, camcorders, etc. 3. An aggre.ssive marketing campaign implemented to increase awareness and encourage participation. The e-waste collection charges are based on per pound of the material coliected and household stops made. Regidents will 6e notified via flyers/mailers to inform them of the collection dates and procedure. We will also use the City's Hot Sheet, quarterly newsletter; and the local newspaper to advertise the Program. Curbside pick-ups will be scheduled the first (1st) and third (3rd) Thursday of each month by using a toll free number or email address provided by the vendor. The E-Waste Collection Program will run from January 2006 to January 2007 or until funding is no longer available. At that time, staff will evaluate the program and, based on the results, will make new recommendations on the Program. Staff will continue to research other cost effective/efficient alternatives for e-waste recycling. ° k. . . ~ - ... ~ . , The.environmental impact study is not necessary for this evaluation. ' n ~° FISCAL IMPACT , Funds in the amount of up to $10,000 are budgeted in the 2005-06 Solid Waste Fund. " RECOMMENDATION 1.` Award a one (1) year Contract Extension in the amount of $10,000 to Envirocycle, Inc. to provide residential collection of electronic waste.' 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved by: --=-'...--~ William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TB:JA:dw ~ ~ I O ~......_ . .......,. ~..~ \ /. January 17, 2006 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council ~ FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Directdr I ` Prepared by: Thomas W. Tait, Field Services Manager Susannah Turney, Environmental Services Officer SUBJECT: Plan Review, Stormwater and Industrial Waste Insaection and Other Limited Services Related to the. Citv's Municipal Storm Water (NPDES) and Industrial Waste (IW) Proarams Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to amend a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement with John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $67,700.00 for Municipal Storm Water (NPDES) and Industrial Waste (IW) Program support services SUMMARY On February 15, 2005, City Council approved a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $57,170 for consulting services with John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. (JLH) to provide administration, inspection and' plan checking services for the City's Municipal Storm Water and Industrial Waste (IW) Programs. The scope of the proposed contract extension has increased due to the City's requirement to complete inspection of commercial facilities (restaurants, automotive service facilities and other industrial locations) to ensure that these facilities employ required storm water BMPs and are in compliance with the NPDES Permit. Additionally, permit renewals for approximately 60 businesses are due for re-inspection as part of the City's Industrial Waste Program. However, this is a pass through cost, thus the City will be reimbursed for these costs. Industrial waste plan checking, permitting and inspection costs are fully recovered through service fees, which cover all program costs. In addition, NPDES plan checking and construction inspection costs are recovered through` service fees as well. Staff estimates that $66,503 or 98% of the proposed total contract extension amount will be recovered through permitting fees, plan check fees and inspection fees. As a result, the proposed contract extension will ensure that the last year of the current five (5) year NPDES permit cycle will be completed and the City will maintain the same level of service with both programs. Mayor and City Counci~ January 17, 2006 Page 2 To continue to provide consulting services associated with the Municipal Storm Water (NPDES) and Industrial Waste (IW) programs, staff recommends amending John L. Hunter and Associates agreement and award a contract extension in the amount of $67,700. John L. Hunter and Associates has all of the qualifications needed to successfully perform this work and have demonstrated their qualifications during the past eight (8) years of service to the City. To maintain compliance with the conditions of the existing NPDES Storm Water Permit, John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. (JLH) will continue to support the City with implementation of Best Management Practices; reporting requirements, and administration of the following three required programs: 1. Identify Illicit Connections and Illegal Discharges to Storm Drains 2. Development Planning and Development Construction Plan Checks 3. .Perform Commercial and Industrial Inspections Over 50 cities intos Angeles County have Industriaf Waste Discharge Programs (IW) to reduce the likelihood of blockage or damage to the sanitary sewer system. These programs supplement the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Industrial Waste Discharge program, which does not provide for the protection of locally owned sewage collection lines. The basic elements of an IW program are: 1. Enforcement of lndustrial Waste Ordinance.(AMC) 2. Industrial Waste Inspections of Permitted Facilities 3. Investigations of Industrial Waste Dischargers 4. Permitting and Plan Checking 6. Annual Fees to Offset Program Costs For the Industrial Waste Program, JLH has already identified the City's current industrial waste generators,. compiled a database, issued discharge permits, assisted in the development of an industrial waste ordinance and created plan checking protocol. During this contract extension, JLH will continue to assist the City in these activities. Inspection requirements of the NPDES Storm Water Program can be combined with essentially identical e~ements of the IW program, which reduces costs for the City. Thus, allowing staff to assume greater responsibility for both the administration and management of the City's NPDES and Industrial Waste programs. Although a contract increase of $10,530 is reflected in this next year's agreement, these program cost increases are based solely on the volume of inspections of commercial and industrial businesses to be completed ' over the next contract period, mandated , by both the NPDES Storm Water , Permit and by the City's Municipal Code requirements for Industrial Waste. Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 3 The City's NPDES program's cost portion of the total extension amount is $28,860 or 43%, an increase of $2,485 over the previous year. The Industrial Waste portion is $38,840 or 57%, an increase of $8,045 from the previous year. The NPDES portion ($2,485) of the contract increase is due to the unfunded mandate of field inspections for all commercial and industrial businesses in the City of Arcadia. All inspections must be completed by December 2006, per the NPDES Storm Water Permit. The industrial Waste portion ($8,045) of the contract increase is because of the necessary permit renewals which are coming due beginning January 2006.~ In 2001, the City began issuing Industrial Waste Discharge Permits to businesses. These Permits are valid for five (5) years and now they must be re-inspected to ensure that they are conforming to the City's Municipal Code as it relates to Industrial Waste discharges. Staff continues to be responsible for the public outreach for both programs, field response to all illicit connection/discharge complaints and issues, program management of NPDES and Industrial Waste documents and permits, preparation of the annual NPDES report, and overall program maintenance - which was previously handled by JLH. Based on an estimated amount of NPDES & IW plan reviews, IW inspection fees and IW permitting fees - the net cost to the City for both the Municipal Storm Water and Industrial Waste (IW) Programs for the proposed contract extension is estimated at $1,197. This net cost reflects the unfunded mandates of the current NPDES permit, for which cities are required to comply, while funding their storm water programs solely from the General Fund. No hourly rate increases have been proposed by John L. Hunter & Associates for the next contract year, and no additional program responsibilities have been assumed by JLH. , JLH has successfully designed and administered NPDES and industrial waste programs for several Los Angeles County municipalities and has eight (8) years of success with the current programs in Arcadia. Staff recommends amending John L. Hunter and Associates agreement and awarding a contract extension in the amount of $67,700.00 for continued assistance with both the Municipal Stormwater NPDES and the Industrial Waste Programs. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for these programs are included in each year's annual operating budgets. Staff estimates that $66,503 or 98% of the proposed total contract extension amount will be recovered through permitting fees; plan check fees and inspection fees. The remaining 2% is not recoverable because funding sources have not yet been created to account . for program management costs such as routine field site inspections for construction projects, staff training etc.. ' Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 4 1. Amend a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement with Johm L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $67,700 for the continued assistance with both the Municipal Storm Water {NPDES) and Industrial Waste Discharge programs. 2. Authorize ~the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attomey. Approved by: ~~ William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT:ST:dw ~`J ~~-~:~:;~~ ARCAD H~ t9a ~R~'ORAT69~ ~ ~ ~ STAFF REPOI~T Administrative Services Department DATE: January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and Ci1y Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Authorize the Citv Manaqer to enter into a Professional Services personnel leqai services; authorize new contract fiscal amounts with Liebert Cassidv Whitmore for $ 10,000 and Jackson Lewis for $40 000 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and authorize an appropriation of $50,000 from the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for personnel legal services. Additionally, staff is recommending the City Council authorize new contract fiscal amounts with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for $10,000 and Jackson Lewis for $40,000. BACKGROUND The City has utilized the legal services of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for many years. As the City is a member of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's legal consortium, personnel legal services have been provided under the consortium agreement. Recently, a representative from the law firm informed staff that a professionai services agreement is now required for the City to continue utilizing their firm for personnel legal services. Staff is therefore requesting the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for personnel legal services. Additionally, several new personnel issues have arisen since the 2005/06 budget was adopted. Staff made contact with all of the law firms utilized for personnel legal services to discuss pending cases and are projecting legal costs to exceed the amount currently budgeted. As a result, staff is recommending the City Council authorize an appropriation of $50,000 from the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2 personnel legal services. Also, staff is recommending the City Council authorize new contract fiscal amounts with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore ($10,000) and Jackson Lewis ($40,000). FISCAL IMPACT Adequate funds are available in the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for fiscal year 2005/06, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the law £rm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore; appropriate $50,000 from the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for personnel legal services; authorize new contract fiscal amounts with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for $10,000 and Jackson Lewis of $40,000. Approved: --.-__--=-J William R. Kelly, City Manager ~, k. ~ ARC ,hc~RPpRATE9'~eoA STAFF REPOR'T Administrative Services Department January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct r, ? SUBJECT: Accountina Consultinq Services Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for continuing services SUMMARY Due to recent staffing vacancies and pending retirements within the Administrative Services Department, there is a need for additional technical accounting support services. Staff is recommending we continue contracting with Moreland & Associates for these services. DISCUSSION The City is currently recruiting for vacant positions, however critical timelines are pending and additional accounting support services are necessary to complete the June 30, 2005 audit during the month of January. The City has been contracting with Moreland & Associates, a large regional CPA firm providing consulting and accounting services through December 2005. Moreland & Associates was selected as the remaining firms that would be viable options would have a conflict of interest as they are either currently performing audit work or recently have completed audit services for the City. Moreland 8~ Associates services have been excellent and for continuity purposes, it is recommended we continue with them. Additionai services are required and will exceed a contract amount of $15,000. As a result, City Council action is required. It is recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract that will not exceed $45,000. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are available in the 2005-06 Budget for this proposed contract and the Department is experiencing significant salary savings. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Moreland & Associates not to exceed $45,000. Approved: ~ ~~M Wiliiam R. Kelly, City Manager ~~' ~ 9 ~ ~ Avryit5~1~0f c°~~°a~ty~t¢`°`' STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor-and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy: Public Works Services Direct~r ~~~IJl~' / Prepared by: Jim Brophy, Warehouse Manager SUBJECT: Purchase of Brass Valves and Fittinas Recommendation: Approve a purchase order in the amount of $66,200.00 to Dangelo Co. for the purchase of valves, brass fittings and related accessories SUMMARY The City warehouse maintains an inventory of brass valves and fittings to supply the water seruices section with needed repair parts. To ensure brass valves, fittings and related accessories are purchased at the best price and delivered in a timely manner; staff conducted a competitive bid process for the day-to-day purchase of brass fittings and accessories. The City Clerk opened sealed bids on December 27th, 2005. Staff has evaluated all of the bid documents and found the most responsive/responsible bidder to be Dangelo Co. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Dangelo Co in the amount of $66,200.00 for the purchase of brass valves, fittings and relatecl accessories for the City's water distribution system. DISCUSSION The warehouse is responsible for the purchase and distribution of all water valves, brass fittings, and other related accessories used on a daily basis by staff and contractors responsible for the installation of these materials. It is critical that the warehouse mainfain the proper on-hand inventory levels to prevent an interruption in services. Most items used in conjunction with water service needs are considered a revolving inventory item, and must be replaced to continue the smooth day-to-day operations of the water service section. On July 6, 2004, the City received three (3} bids with only one (1) qualified bidder fr,om National Water Works for $253,518.72. Based on the single bid and an extremely high bid amount, City Council rejected the 6id on July 20, 2004 and instructed staff to re-bid the contract. Mayor and City Council January 17, 2006 Page 2 Due to the volatility of inetals, market suppliers are reluctant to commit to a twelve- month cont~ect without either a clause be able to inflate the price of inetals at the current fair market value or an escape clause in the contract. Therefore, the new bid is for a six (6) month period and contains a 30-day notice of cancellation by either party. . ' This contract provides less risk to the supplier and therefore locks them into a contact that reflects foday's market costs. . Notices inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper. As advertised, the City Clerk publicly opened the sealed bids on December 27~h, 2005 with the following results. BIDDER LOCATION BiD AMOUNT Dangelo Co La Habra, CA $66,180.27 Western Water Works Supply Chino, CA $69,983.32 National Water Works Corona, CA '-$73,659.83 Hughes 5upply Valencia, CA NO RESPONSE Staff has evaluated all of the bid.documents and ~found the most responsive/responsible bidder to be Dangelo Co. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Dangelo Co in the;amount of $66,200.00 fior the purchase of brass valves, fittings and related accessories for the Cities•water distribution system. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are available in the 2005-2006 Operating Budget. RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the City Manager to approve the purchase of brass valves, fittings and related accessories in the amount of $66,200.00. 2. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. APProved: t~~„ .; William R. Kelly, City Manager PM::MA:dw , ~ . ,r,~ , Police Department DATE: January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police Nancy Chik, Managerrient Analyst~ SUBJECT; Purchase of Re~lacement Mobile Diqital Comnuters Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of eight mabile digital computers for the Police Department from Amrel in the amount of $44, 599. SUMMARY The current mobile digitai computers (MDC's) are over five years old and are in need of replacement. Staff recommends the purchase of eight new Amrel brand MDC's for a total of $44,599. BACKGROUND 8~ DISCUSSION In 2000, the City Council approved the purchase of hardware and software to install a mobile digital computer system into police vehicles. MDC's for patro~ units have become the standard for field operations for police agencies across the country. MDC's allow officers to immediately access criminal justice data from computers mounted in the patrol cars. this rapid access of data enhances officer safety, promotes efficiency, and reduces the amount of voice radio traffic, thereby keeping radio frequencies clear for urgent or emergency activities. At that time, the Department purchased 18 Amrel brand rugged notebook computers, and they have proven to be a reliable ptoduct. The Amrel brand computers can only be purchased directly through the manufacturer and therefore is considered a sole source vendor. The MDC's are now over five years old and need to be replaced. Instead of purchasing all new MDC's at one time, the pepartment plans on replacing half of the MDC's this fiscal year and the other half during the next fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT Staff has budgeted $50,000 in the FY 2005-2006 Equipment Replacement Program for this purchase. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the purchase of eight mobile digital computers for the Police Departrnent from Amrel in the amount of $44,598. . Approved: ~~Q~~ William R. Keliy, City Manager ; v ~. ,, 3 . c~ , v ~ Aue~~~f.~I~Y91 ~°'uairy of K~a ° `~ STAFF REPORT Development Services Department January 17, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City ManagerlDevelopment Services Director~ Corky Nicholson, Acting Community Development Administrator ~' SUBJECT: Consideration of_A__DR 2_005-11 to construct a five (51 storv, 154,486 sq ft North Tower addition a 348 sqace four (4) level parkinq qaraqe and a 4160 sp ft Education Center/Classroom at the Methodist Hospital of Southern California Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY In August 2005 the Methodist Hospital of Southern California filed Architectural Design Review 2005-11 for the Methodist Hospital Master Plan. The hospital is proposing to modernize and improve their existing facilities located at 300 West Huntington Drive. The project will be constructed in phases through 2013. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this request. BACKGROUND Construction of the Methodist Hospital began in the 1950's with the main hospital and the East Patient Tower. The West Patient Tower was constructed in 1965; the parking structure and Walter Hoefflin Wing in 1979; the Surgical Wing in 1987 and the most recent five (5) story Berger Patient Tower addition in 1996. On December 6, 2005, the City Council approved the hospital's request to utilize three (3) temporary modular structures for classroom space and toilet facilities while the demolition and construction of a new education center is being completed. ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 1 , DISCUSSION The Methodist Hospital leases the subject property from the City of Arcadia. The property is unzoned and the General Plan designation is "Public Facilities and Grounds". The hospital's lease provides that the "City shall have the right to approve or disapprove the general design, layout, plot plan and architectural features of all buildings and structures to be located upon the premises." Due to recent hospital closures in the area and SB 1953 Seismic regulations the hospital is proposing a Master Plan to 2013 to accommodate the ever changing needs of the City and surrounding communities. The proposed expansion will take place in two increments (phases) and the hospital is requesting the City Council's approval for the following: Increment One 1. Construction of a four (4) level parking structure with 348 spaces south of the existing hospital. The parking structure requires the removal of the exisfing education center for the construction of the structure. 2. Construction of a 6,319 sq. ft. education center/classroom to replace the existing center/classrooms demolished to accommodate the parking structure. Increment One is scheduled to begin after approval by the City Council. The education center/classroom buildings have been demolished and it is anticipated that completion of the parking structure and new classrooms will be completed by the end of 2006. Because these are not care or hospital facilities, they are required to secure permits from the City and subject to City inspection. Increment Two 1. Construction of the five (5) story 154,486 square foot north patient tower with a basement and mechanical equipment penthouse; 2. Remodel approximately 4,300 sq. ft. of interior space; 3. Seismic upgrade to the existing central plant, relocation of the entry; 4. Addition of: ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 2 a. an elevator to the existing parking structure; and b. Two new emergency generators and an electrical shed located at the below grade service yard According to the applicant, construction of Increment Two is scheduled to commence March 2007 with completion early 2009. This portion of the project is subject to review, approval and inspection by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Pro'ect Desi n Increment One - Parkinq Structure The parking structure and new classrooms are the main construction activities in Increment One. The parking structure will be located south of the East patient wing and the education center buildings have been demolished to allow for construction of the structure. The four-level parking structure contains 348 parking spaces. Automated gates will restrict access to the parking structure. The parking spaces will be 9' x 18' in size with a 25'-0" back-up area. The City's commercial parking standards are 9' x 20'. Although the property is unzoned, generally the City would appVy the commercial parking standards to this and other unzoned sites such as City Hall and the Library. Because the structure will be used for staff parking only and not for the general public or visitors, there is minimal parking and traffic turnover. It is the opinion of the Development Services Department that the 9' x 18' parking spaces are adequate in size for this type of use. The overall height of the parking structure is approximately 37'± with a 50'+ elevatorlstair tower. Light standards are approximately 21'-0" above the parking level. The material for the structure will be painted concrete plaster with ornamental rails and metal accent screens to allow for landscaping to grow vertically on the structure. The materials and colors will complement and be compatible with those on the existing Berger Tower and the proposed North Tower. Increment One - Education Center/Classroom The education center/classrooms located south of the auditorium and Lewis Hall have been removed for the future construction of the parking garage. As part of Increment One a 6,319 square feet education center/classroom space will be constructed to wrap around the existing auditorium and hall. ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 3 The architectural style will be similar to the design of Lewis Hall and the auditorium with stucco finish and seam metal roof. Increment Two - Hosqital The proposed 154,486 square feet North Wing will be five (5) stories with a basement. The overall building height is 80'-0" with a penthouse parapet up to 95'-0" and a machine/elevator room parapet up to a height of 105'-0". The Berger Tower is 78'-0" in height and 93'-6" in height to the parapet of the Penthouse. The additional 10'-0" for the elevator room parapet is to provide elevator access to the roof area. The basement will house new dietary services, and mechanicallelectrical support space. The first level will provide emergency services, 28 bay Emergency Department, 18-bed observation unit and a new lobbylentry located at the northeast corner of the building. The second level will have two 10-bed intensive care units and the replacement inpatient pharmacy. The third, fourth and fifth levels will be comprised of 38-40 bed medicallsurgical inpatient care units. The total number of existing licensed patient beds is 460 but because partions of the hospital are currently unusable due to seismic considerations, there are currently 334 usable beds. The final project will provide a total of 389 patient beds. The north tower will have a setback along Huntington Drive West ranging from approximately 10'-0" (48'-8" from the center line) to 65'-o" from the property line. There is a special setback along Huntington Drive West of 65'0" from the centerline of the street. There will be a minimum of 210' setback from Huntington Drive East (a minimum of a 40'-0" setback is required from the center line of Huntington Drive East). The design and use of materials for the North Tower complement and are consistent with the materials used on the Berger Tower. The exterior will be cement plaster with acrylic finish in two complimentary colors to match the adjacent Berger tower. Horizontal aluminum accent strips will be incorporated in the design. According to the Project Narrative, the Master Plan has the West Wing being demolished in 2013 while the East Wing will be converted to ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 4 K Administretive/Business office functions. A long-range option is to demolish the East Wing and construct a new South Patient Tower. New landscaping shall be provided adjacent to and around the Parking Structure and within the parking to the northeast and west of the structure and within the north parking area and the North Patient Tower. Parkina Analvsis As part of the Master Plan, a parking and traffic analysis was prepared for the Methodist Hospital by Kaku Associates. Based on the information in the report, there are approximately 1,000 parking spaces on the entire site serving the Hospital, the Red Cross building, nursery school, and other related uses. This includes "roughly 650 surface spaces and 350 parking structure spaces. Currently the hospital utilizes surface parking located across the street at the Medical Office and at Santa Anita Race Track. The use of the Race Track property has intensified since demolition/construction activities have commenced on the hospital site. The proposed parking structure along with the existing parking structure located at the northwest corner of the site is proposed to be reserved for hospital staff only. The new structure would reduce the number of adjacent surface parking by approximately 12 spaces. In addition, changes in the Emergency Room area would reduce the existing parking supply by approximately 38 spaces. Kaku Associates estimated the future parking supply to be approximately 1,261 spaces including the new structure and redesign of the on-site parking. Parking surveys were conducted over 17 hours on two non-race days and over four hours on one race day. Several assumptions made by the consultant were based on information furnished by the hospital: • Outpatient parking demand is not expected to increase significantly in the future. • Other uses on the hospital campus (Red Cross, Meals on Wheels and the child care center) are not expected to change following the Master Plan implementation, therefore, the 30 parking spaces allotted for these uses should be included in the forecast. • A buffer of 5% should be applied to staff, visitor and outpatient forecast demands as a circulation contingency to ensure that drivers will be able to find a parking space with reasonable ease. ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 5 • The tvpical dav represents 60% bed occupancy (273 beds), based on past trends. • The desiqn dav represents 80% bed occupancy (311 beds), which based on past trends, is rarely exceeded. . The peak dav represents 95% bed occupancy (370 beds), which is the realistic peak occupancy, given the specialized nature of certain units (i.e., postpartum, neonatal intensive care unit, intensive care unit and transitional care unit). According to the parking analysis, "The planned parking supply would accommodate the estimated parking need associated with occupancy of 90% of all planned supply by approximately 70 spaces. Based on information from the hospital, it is extremely rare for more than 80% of available beds to be occupied simultaneously. In the event that the hospital should find in the future that bed occupancy rates approaching 90% become typical, the options... jdescribed in the report] should be considered." The proposed site will have 1,261 spaces. The desiqn dav parking demand for the proposed 311 beds is projected to be 1,158 spaces and on the tvqical day the demand would be 928 spaces. The peak parkin4 demand for 370 beds would be 1,332 spaces. If additional parking is required, the following options have been identified: Option 1: The parking lots in the loading dock area on the north side of the hospital could be enlarged and reconfigured to provide an additional 22 spaces. Oqtion 2: A Lease Agreement could possibly be entered into to utilize the Medical Office building parking lot across the street. Based on surveys, the maximum occupancy was 58% of its capacity. Because of the separation of the site by Huntington Drive West, it would be recommended that use of this parking supply be limited to employees only. The Development Services Department notes that although the existing and proposed parking is not optimal, according to the Traffic and Parking Analysis report, if there is ever a need for more parking, options have been identified that should address the issue. Traffic Analvsis Three intersections were analyzed to test the potential traffic effects of the project: ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 6 S • Huntington Drive/Colorado Place • Huntington Drive/Santa Clara Street • Huntington Drive/Campus DrivelHolly Avenue The three study intersections are forecast to continue operating at LOS E or better on typical non-race days. On race days, LOS F is forecast at Huntington Drive and Santa Clara Street. The report concluded that implementation of the Methodist Hospital Master Plan would not create a traffic impact at any of the three study intersections. The existing entrance to the hospital site on Centennial Way will remain. A designated left turn lane on East Huntington Drive at Centennial Way will be provided. The existing Emergency Department driveway on West Huntington Drive will be moved to the North to align with the drive aisle along the south end of the existing parking structure. The ambulance driveways on Huntington Drive West will be reworked to align with the new ambulance bays of the new patient tower. Based on potential future traffic flows and reasons related to pedestrian safety, Methodist Hospital should provide dedication and construction of a separate eastbound left-turn lane on Huntington Drive East approaching Centennial Drive. This would require widening the roadway by approximately six (6) feet and redesign of the easterly portion of the surtace parking lot. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed hospital expansion. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildiife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Master Plan including Increments One and Two for the Methodist Hospital of Southern California subject to the site plan as submitted dated November 28, 2005 and the following conditions: ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 7 1. The ambulance driveways on Huntington Drive West shall be redesigned to align with the new ambulance bays of the new patient tower, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. As part of Increment One and prior to an occupancy permit for the parking structure, the hospital shall dedicate property to provide for a designated left turn lane along Huntington Drive East, as determined by the City Engineer. 3. The designated left turn lane shall be constructed on Huntington Drive East at Centennial Way as part of Increment Two if the lane is not completed as part of the "proposed" Shops at Santa Anita development. 4. The northeast parking lot shall be redesigned to accommodate the designated left turn lane and plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and approval. 5. That the two parking structures shall be designated for staff/doctor parking only. 6. The existing Emergency Department driveway on West Huntington Drive shall be moved to the North to align with the drive aisle along the South end of the existing parking structure. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration; 2. Approve Architectural Design Review 2005-011 including Increments One and Two of the 2005 Master Plan subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report; 3. Grant a modification to allow the North Tower to encroach within the special setback along Huntington Drive West. Attachments: Negative Declaration North Tower Addition - ADR 05-11 Approved by: ~~~~- ~ ~K William R. Kelly, City anager ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital Expansion January 17, 2006 Page 8 ; File No.: ADR 05-11 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Name, if any, and a brief description of the project: ADR 05-11 Methodist Hospital of Southern California expansion B. Location of Project: 300 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA C. Name of Applicant, Sponsor or Person Undertaking Project: A. X B. Other (Private) (1) Name NTD Stichler on behalf of Methodist Hosoital of Southern California (2) Address 9655 Granite Ridqe Drive Suite 400 San Dieqo CA 92123 The City Council having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the pu6lic meeting of the City Council, including the recommendaiton of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project wilf not have a siginificant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the City Council's findings are as follows: Community Development Divisian City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 (626)574-5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constiture the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declartion are as follows: Community Development Division City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 (626)574-5423 Date: December 27 2005 Donna Butler Communitv Development Administrator Date Received for filing Staff Form "E" 4l03 The City Council here6y finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgement. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: File N0. ADR 05-11 ~ '`""`~~"` ClTY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 d ~muci.y e~A°e CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: ADR 05-11 - Methodist Hospital of Southern California expansion 2. Project Address (Location): 300 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: NTD Stichler on behalf of Methodist Hospital of Southern California 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92123 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia -- Developmenf Servrces Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post O~ce Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butfer, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: Public Facilities & Grounds 7. Zoning Classification: Unzoned 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Architectural Design Review 2005-11 to construct a five (5) story, 154,486 sq. ft. North Tower addition, a 348 space four (4) level parking garage and a 6,319 sq. ft. Education Center/Classroom at the Methodist Hospital of Southern California CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -1- 4/03 File No. ADR OS-11 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projecYs surroundings.) North: City Hall Civic Center - unzoned South: Chamber of Commerce - unzoned East: Arcadia County Park and golf course - zoned S-2 West: Santa Anita Race Track - zoned S-1 and Medical Office Building zoned C-O H6 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): OSHPOD for the hospital building ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant ImpacY' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Mineral Resources Population & Housing Recreation Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance [ ] Air Quality [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Noise [ ] Public Services [x ] Transportation / Circulation DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [x j I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the CEQA Env. Checklist Part t -2- 4/03 File No. ADR 05-11 mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a"Potentially Significant ImpacY' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. .~ ~ = %:~-~~~'" ~ ~ti ,/. ~ ~_I 'g`nature Date Donna L Butler Citv of Arcadia Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No ImpacP' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No ImpacY' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A"No ImpacY' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as weli as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant ImpacP' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant ImpacP' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -3- 4l03 File No. ADR 05-11 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant ImpacP' to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklfst were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document shouid, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. CEQA Env. Checkiist Part 1 -4- 4/03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Signi£canl Less Than Significant With Signifcant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 54 1 AESTHETICS - Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ^ ^ ^ ~ to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ^ ^ ^ ~ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ^ ^ ^ ~ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project wil! add a new frve story patient tower and a four levef parking garage and srngle-story educafion cenfer to the sub/ecf property. However, there are no scenic vistas within the area and 1he site is currently developed with the existing hospital with multi-sfory pafienf wings. There are no sensrtive users withrn close proximify to the subject site with the exception of the hospda! rtself thaf would be affecied by the proposed additions. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ^ ^ ^ ~ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ^ ^ ^ ~ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ^ ^ ^ ~ their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? There are no agriculturaf resources within the City of Arcadia. CEQA Checklist 5 4-03 .; File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Signifcant Less Than Significant With Signifcant No Impacl Mitigation Impact Impact Incorpo2tion 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ^ ^ ^ ~ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ^ ^ ~ ^ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ^ ^ ^ ~ pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ ~ ^ concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ^ ^ ^ ~ people? The proposed project is a Masfer Plan that consrst of additions and upgrades fo the facility in two increments. Increment One consists of an approximately 348 space 4 level parking garage and a conference%ducation center of approxrmately 6, 939 square feet. The conference%ducation center is a replacement of the existing building being demolished to accommodate the parking garage. The parking structure will accommodate employee parking currently located across the sfreet on the Santa Anita Race Track site. lncrement two consists of a 154,480 square feet (ive-story patient tower that will replace current existrng facilities. The hospital currently has 334 "usable patient beds" but is licensed for 460 beds. The final project will provide a total of 389 usable patient beds an increase of 55 beds (based on °usable"beds). Pioposed buildout is anticipated to be 2013. Consfruction activities associated with the project would potentially result in temporary adverse impacts fo regional ambient air quality. During construction contractors wilf be required to practice BMP including water three times daily to reduce off-site transport of fugftive dust irom a0 unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. CE(]A Checklist 6 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 4. Less Than Potentially Significanl Less Than Signifcant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation During constructron a!! paved areas and staging aieas shall be swept daily by fhe applicanL During consfruction, genera! contractors shall maintain and operate construcfion equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. Heavy duty trucks shall not idle in excess of frve minutes dunng construction. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ^ ^ ^ ~ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ^ ^ ^ ~ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ^ ^ ^ ~ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ^ ^ ^ ~ resources, such as a tree preservation poiicy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ^ ^ ^ ~ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The hospital property is completely buik out and there are no impacts to 6iological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ^ ^ ^ ~ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5~ CEQA Checklist 7 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Signifcant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ^ ^ ^ ~ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologica~ resource or ^ ^ ^ ~ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ^ ^ ^ ~ formal cemeteries? The propased expansion is located on property which is fully developed. It is nof anficipated that fhere are any cultura! or hisloric resources on the site. If, however, during consfrucfion unknown cuftural resources are discovered all work in the area of the ~nd shall cease and a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shalf be retained by the project sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations on its disposition and prepare appropriate field documentation, including verification o( the completion of required miligation. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ^ ^ ^ ~ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earihquake fault, as delineated on the ^ ^ ^ ~ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ~ ~ ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ~ ~ v) Landslides? ~ ~ ~ ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ^ ^ ~ ~ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soit that is unstable, or that would ^ ^ ^ ~ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result CEQA Checklist 8 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentlally Signifcant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact . Incoryoretion in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Tabie 18-1-B of the ^ ^ ^ ~ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properry? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ^ ^ ^ ~ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The site is not located within the Alquist Priolo Study zone and is fully developed wifh the existing hospital and ancillary uses. The hospita! buildrngs shaU comply with al! seismre safery standards required by OSHPOD. In addrtion, the parking structure and non-hospital relafed buildings must comply with al! applicable regulations of the City's Building Codes. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ^ ^ ^ ~ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ^ ^ ^ ~ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ^ ^ ^ ~ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ^ ^ ^ ~ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ^ ^ ^ ~ such a plan has not been adopted, within lwo miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? CEQA Checklist 9 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ~ Signifcant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ^ ^ ^ ~ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ^ ^ ^ ~ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ^ ^ ^ ~ death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The site is fully developed and not located within two miles of privafe or public airport facilities. The hospital is parf of the City's emergency response plan, bui hospital operations will continue as usual6y the proposed expansion. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ^ ^ ^ ~ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ^ ^ ^ ~ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ^ ^ ^ ~ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ^ ^ ^ ~ of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Otherwise substantialiy degrade water quality ^ ^ ^ ~ f) Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge ^ ^ ^ ~ CEQA Checklist 10 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 ~ Less Than Potentially Signifcant Less Than Signifcant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impacl Impact Incorporation requirements? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on ^ ^ ^ ~ a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ^ ^ ^ ~ or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ^ ^ ^ ~ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or ^ ^ ^ ~ mudflow? k) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water ^ ^ ^ ~ that would violate any water quality standards or waste dischrage requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stromwater sewer system persmit? I) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff ^ ^ ^ ~ water that would violate any water qualiry standards or waste dischrage requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? m) Allow polluted stormwater runoff from delivery areas or loading ^ ^ ^ ~ docks or other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered, or other outdoor work areas, to impair other waters? n) Potential for discharge of stormwater to cause significant harm on ^ ^ ^ ~ the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies including municipal and comestic supply, water contact or non- contact recreation and groundwater recharge? o) Dischrage stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the ^ ^ ^ ~ biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? p) Significantly alter the flow, velocity or volume of storm water ^ ^ ^ ~ CEQA Checklist 11 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Signifcant Less Than Significant With Signifcant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact . Inwrporatlon runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off-stie? ^ ^ ^ ~ The site is fully developed and is not located within a flood inundation zone. Complrance with al! NPDES and SUSMPS requiremenls is mandatory. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ^ ^ ^ ~ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ^ ^ ^ ~ community conservation plan? The site is designafed in the General Pfan as Public FacrRres and is "unzoned. The hospital has been on this site for over 50 years and sard use is consistenf wrth the Genera! Plan and land use plans of the City. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availabiiity of a known mineral resource that ^ ^ ^ ~ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ^ ^ ^ ~ resource recovery site deiineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? There are no mineral resources in this area. 11. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ^ ^ ~ ^ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ^ ^ ~ ^ vibration or groundborne noise levels? CEQA Ch ecklist 12 4-03 Fife No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than ~ Potentialry Signifcant LessThan Significant With Signifcant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ~ Incorporation c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ^ ^ ^ ~ project vicinity above Ievels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ~ ^ levels in the project vicinity above Ieveis existing without the project? e} For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ^ ^ ^ ~ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, woutd the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ^ ^ ^ ~ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? It is anticipated that there wil! be short-term noise impacts from construction related activities. The site is a sensitive receptor site and fhere wil! be increased daytrme noise levels as a result of consfrucfion. Construction hours are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7.~00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The developer wil! be required to implement BMPs to reduce construction noise levels including rnsuring construction equipment is properly mufiled according to industry standards; schedule high noise- producting acfivifies between the ours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m to minimrze disruption on sensitive uses, etc. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ^ ^ ^ ~ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roeds or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ^ ^ ^ ~ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ^ ^ ^ ~ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The site is currently developed with the Methodist Hosoprtal. There will be no impact on housing or populafion within the area. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the CEQA Checklist 13 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Signifirant Less Than Signifcant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation provision of new or physically altered governmentai facilities, need for new or physically altered governmentai facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ ~ Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ~ Schools? ^ ^ ^ ~ Parks? ^ ^ ^ ~ Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ ~ The overall master plan/construcfion wil! not have an increased impacl on exrsting services. The proposed bed count wil! be increased by only 55 beds. ft is anticipated that the new expansion will replace existing hospita! facilities. 14. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ^ ^ ^ ~ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ^ ^ ^ ~ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? There will be no impact on recreafionaf services. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ^ ^ ~ ^ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestinn at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ^ ^ ^ ~ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ^ ^ ^ ~ CEQA Checklist 14 4-03 File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Signiflcant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ^ ^ ^ ~ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ~ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ~ ^ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ^ ^ ^ ~ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The Methodist Hospita! Master Plan proposes fo modernize and improve the exisfing facikies to better serve the public. The project wil! be constructed in phases through 2013 and some of the older existing hospital buildings wi116e demolished, renovation wrl! take place in some facilrties and a new patrent tower will be constructed on the site. Although there is a total patient bed of 480, because portions of the hospital are currently not used, there are currently 334 lrcensed, usable patient beds. There are 1, 000 existing parking spaces on sife parking and parking will be increased fo approximately 1,261 spaces as a result of the construcYion of a second parking structurre soufh of the hospitaf building. 8ased on a parking study submitted by Kaku Associates the forecast requiremenf for parking is i, f 58 spaces on a design day (with 80% of the patient beds occupiedJ. Accordrng to the study, wrth a future parking supply of 1,261 spaces the parking need for both the design day and the typica! day would be satisired. The parking study identifies two options should the hospital find in the future ihat bed occupancy rates approach 90%. These are set forth in the November 2005 Parking and Tra~c Analysis Report prepared by Kaku Associates for ihe hospital. 76. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ^ ^ ^ ~ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ^ ^ ^ ~ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CEQA Checklist 15 4-03 v i` File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially SigniFlcant Less Than Signifirant With Signifcant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ^ ^ ^ ~ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ^ ^ ^ ~ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ^ ^ ^ ~ which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecPs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfiil with sufficient permitted capacity to ^ ^ ^ ~ accommodate the projecYs solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ^ ^ ^ ~ related to solid waste7 The project shall comply with all NPDES, SUSMPS and other city, state and loca! regulafions. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ^ ^ ^ ~ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California hisiory or prehistory? b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ^ ^ ~ ^ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? CEQA Checklist 16 4-03 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? File No.: ADR 05-11 Less Than Potentially Significanl Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ^ ^ ^ ~ CEQA Checklist 17 4-03 v ~ ,~ > ~yeoq,yy NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ ^,R_~ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION > ~au.~ry o[N°a. Notice is hereby given that the City of Arcadia has completed an Initial Study of a proposal by the Methodist Hospital of Southern California to construct a five (5) story, 154,486 sq. ft. North Tower addition, a 348 space four (4) level parking garage and a 4,160 sq. ft. Education Center/Classroom at the Methodist Hospital located at 300 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's StatF has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area wide significance. The proposed project will not affect highways or other facifities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. A scoping meeting will not be held by the lead agency. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negafive Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file at City Hall, Development Services Department, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California and are available for public review. Comments will be received untit January 17, 2006. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on January 17, 2006 the City Council will consider the project and the Draft Negative DeclarationlMitigated Negative Declaration. If the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the City Councii may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Date Received for Filing: December 29, 2005 Donna L. Butler Staff Communitv Development Administrator (Clerk Stamp Here) Title , Form "D" Notice of Intent 4/03 , A ~N~eoqy4 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 0 00auI~Y ofH~B•• Notice is hereby given that the City of Arcadia has completed an Initial Study of a proposal by the Methodist Hospital of Southern California to construct a five (5) story, 154,486 sq. ft. North Tower addition, a 348 space four (4) level parking garage and a 4,160 sq. ft. Education Center/Classroom at the Methodist Hospital located at 300 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. ~ This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The p~oposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area wide significance. The proposed project will not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. A scoping meeting will not be held by the lead agency. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file at City Hall, Development Services Department, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California and are available for public review. Comments will be received until January 17, 2006. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on January 17, 2006 the City Council will consider the project and the Draft Negative DeclarationlMitigated Negative Declaration. If the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Date Received for Filing: December 29, 2005 Donna L. Butler Staff Communitv Development Administrator (Clerk Stamp Here) Title Form "D" Notice of Intent 4/03