No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 19, 2006i `• CITY OF ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 AGENDA 6:00 p.m Location: City Council Chamber Conference Room, 240 W. Huntington Drive CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Roger Chandler, Mayor /Agency Chair Mickey Segal, Mayor Pro Tem /Agency.Vice Chair Peter Amundson, Council /Agency Member Bob Harbicht, CounciUAgency Member John Wuo, Council/Agency Member CLOSED SESSION /STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) prior to the start of the Closed Session /Study Session. Any person wishing to address the City Council /Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete a 'Public Comments card available in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed form should be submitted to the City Clerk/Agency Secretary In order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City CounciVRedevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City Council /Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to confer with legal counsel regarding potential litigation — one (1) case. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chamber RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION INVOCATION Reverend Ron Fraker, Victory Chapel, Church of the Foursquare Gospel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Chandler, Segal, Amundson, Harbicht, and Wuo V , REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY /AGENCY COUNSEL ON CLOSED SESSION /STUDY SESSION ITEMS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGERIEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL 1. 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. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: 91 COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 6537. Recommended Action: Approve PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) Any person wishing to address the City Council /Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete.6 "Public Comments" card available in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed form should be submitted to the City Clerk/Agency Secretary prior to the start of the 7:00 p.m. Open Session. In order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City Council /Redevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City Council/Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. X29 1A& Ja&0T1I441=15A&4Dre7Mil[aF_1I ? `4 K0 1z6 = I ilt oil4 =Tn1 All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City CouncilfRedevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Recommended Action: Adopt C� a. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 5. 2006. Recommended Action: Approve n ARCADIA SELF STORAGE BUILDING. Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: C. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 5,2006. Recommended Action: Approve MANAGEMENT. Recommended Action: Adopt e. ORDINANCE NO. 2218 AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING A NEW PART 3 TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE IV RELATING TO DOG PARK RULES. Recommended Action: Adopt f. Action: Introduce g. APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COMBINATION VACUUMMETTER TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,776.74 FROM MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATE $251,776.74 FROM THE SEWER FUND. Recommended Action: Approve h. Recommended Action: Approve k. ACCEPT THE REVISIONS TO THE 2006 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (WSA) FOR THE CARUSO PROJECT AT THE SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK. Recommended Action: Approve 2006. Recommended Action: Approve NOT TO EXCEED $20,000. Recommended Action: Approve ACCEPT ALL WORK PERFORMED BY SILVIA CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR THE STREET REHABILITATION OF E/B HUNTINGTON DRIVE FROM HOLLY AVENUE TO THE WEST CITY LIMIT AND SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECTS AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. Recommended Action: Approve ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be October 3, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. PURSUANT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRE A DISABILITY - RELATED MODIFICATION OR ACCOMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING, INCLUDING AUXILIARY AIDS OR SERVICES, MAY REQUEST SUCH MODIFICATION OR ACCOMODAT.ION FROM THE CITY, CLERK AT (626) 574 -5455. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ASSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE MEETING. f Ai J CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 CLOSED SESSION a. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C) TO CONFER WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION — ONE (1) CASE. MOTION TO EXCUSE COUNCIL MEMBER HARBICHT FROM TONIGHT'S MEETING. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 06 -01 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN . COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 6537. RESOLUTION NO. 6537 AMENDING'THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SECTION OF THE ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN TO REPLACE LANGUAGE WITHIN PERFORMANCE. STANDARD #44 OF THE COMMUNITY NOISE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: a. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006. NO REPORTABLE ACTION WAS . TAKEN APPROVED . 4 -0 ADOPTED 4 -0 Harbicht absent APPROVED 4 -0 Harbicht absent b. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN APPROVED 4 -0 AGREEMENT WITH AMERICA WEST MANAGEMENT FOR Harbicht absent MANAGEMENT OF THE ARCADIA SELF STORAGE BUILDING. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: c. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006. APPROVED 4 -0 Harbicht absent d. ORDINANCE NO. 2217 AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL.CODE TABLED UNTIL BY ADDING A CHAPTER 10 TO ARTICLE III PERTAINING TO FURTHER NOTICE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT. e. ORDINANCE NO. 2218 AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING ADOPTED 4 -0 A NEW PART 3 TO CHAPTER 4, .ARTICLE IV RELATING TO DOG PARK Harbicht absent - RULES. f. ORDINANCE NO. 2219 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE INTRODUCED 4 -0 ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC Harbicht absent ORDINANCE. 9. APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COMBINATION VACUUM /JETTER TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,776.74 FROM MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATE $251,776.74 FROM THE SEWER FUND. APPROVED 4 -0 Harbicht absent h. AWARD A ONE (1) YEAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT APPROVED 4-0 EXTENSION TO JOE A. GONSALVES & SON FOR STATE Harbicht absent LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,000 BEGINNING OCTOBER 2006. L AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL APPROVED 4 -0 SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PAUL T. NELSON FOR Harbicht absent ORGANIZATIONAL . CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000. j. APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR CONTRACT. EXTENSION TO REPUBLIC APPROVED 4-0 ELECTRIC INC. FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Harbicht absent SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,000. k. ACCEPT THE REVISIONS TO THE 2006 WATER SUPPLY APPROVED 4 -0 ASSESSMENT (WSA) FOR THE CARUSO PROJECT AT THE SANTA Harbicht absent ANITA RACE TRACK. I. ACCEPT ALL WORK PERFORMED BY SILVIA CONSTRUCTION INC. APPROVED 4 -0 FOR THE STREET REHABILITATION OF E/B HUNTINGTON DRIVE Harbicht absent FROM HOLLY AVENUE TO THE WEST CITY LIMIT AND SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECTS AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 1 I i CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Chandler, Segal, Amundson, , and Wuo ABSENT: Harbicht A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Segal, seconded by Council Member Wuo, and carried on roll call to excuse Council Member Harbicht from tonight's meeting. CLOSED SESSION /STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to confer with legal counsel regarding potential litigation — one (1) case. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION The Mayor convened the Open Session meeting at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Reverend Ron Fraker, Victory Chapel, Church of the Foursquare Gospel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Chandler, Segal, Amundson, and Wuo ABSENT: Harbicht A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Segal, seconded by Council Member Wuo, and carried on roll call to excuse Council Member Harbicht from tonight's meeting. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY /AGENCY COUNSEL ON CLOSED SESSION /STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1 09 -19 -2006 11'1 Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, noted that the City Council met to discuss item a. on the Closed Session Agenda. No reportable action was taken. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Bill Kelly, City Manager, requested that Consent Calendar item 2.d. be placed on a future Council agenda. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has requested that the item be tabled pending its update of floodplain maps. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council /Agency Member Amundson, seconded by Council /Agency Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPRO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 06 -01 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 6537. Recommended Action: Approve RESOLUTION NO. 6537 AMENDING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SECTION OF THE ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN TO REPLACE LANGUAGE WITHIN PERFORMANCE STANDARD #44 OF THE COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Recommended Action: Adopt The staff reported was presented by Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and Jason Kruckeberg, Community Development Administrator; staff noted that the purpose of tonight's action is to amend the General Plan to remove outdated criteria pursuant to noise thresholds; the Planning Commission reviewed this recommendation at their August 22, 2006 regular meeting and recommended approval of the General Plan amendment by the City Council. Council Member Amundson inquired as to the number of vehicles required to raise the noise levels by one (1) decibel and how traffic synchronization would impact the noise levels. Staff noted that vehicle analysis regarding increasing decibel levels was not available at the small increment level and that the traffic synchronization should mitigate some of the ambient traffic noise. No member of the public appeared to provide testimony on this item. 09 -19 -2006 48:0091 A motion was made by Council /Agency Member Segal, seconded by Council /Agency Member Wuo, and carried unanimously to close the public hearing. A motion was made by Council /Agency Member Segal, seconded by Council /Agency Member Wuo, and carried on roll call vote to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 to amend the General Plan Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards by adopting Resolution No. 6537. AYES: Amundson, Wuo, Segal, and Chandler NOES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) George Fasching, appeared to speak on lighting assessment district issues. Doug Faling, appeared to invite members of the public to the Arcadia High School Music Club car wash. REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Clerk Jim Barrows thanked the Public Works Services Department for their prompt service delivery in repairing potholes near Baldwin Stocker Elementary School. He noted that Chief Deputy City Clerk Vida Tolman had accepted the City Clerk position at the City of Pico Rivera and thanked her and Marina Simonian, Deputy City Clerk, for their efforts in upgrading the City Clerk's office. He last noted the birth of his grandson, Tyler Evan, and congratulated his family on their new addition. Mayor Chandler read a statement regarding the recent court decision on the Westfield initiatives, prepared by Council Member Harbicht who was absent from tonight's meeting. Council Member Wuo noted the success of the recent Taste of Arcadia event. Council Member Amundson noted that the City had not obtained the Bekins Self - Storage facility through the use of eminent domain; he further noted his interest in hearing from residents regarding their opinion of the City's design review process. Council Member Segal invited residents to the upcoming five (5) year anniversary celebration of the Historical Museum. Mayor Chandler noted the recent "Badge of Courage" award given to Arcadia Police Chief Bob Sanderson; he also displayed the new Arcadia Public Library's Annual "READ" poster which features members of the City's Public Works Services Department. 3 09 -19 -2006 48:0092 2. CONSENT CALENDAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006. Recommended Action: Approve b. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: C. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006. Recommended Action: Approve d. ORDINANCE NO. 2217 AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A CHAPTER 10 TO ARTICLE III PERTAINING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT. Recommended Action: Adopt e. DOG PARK RULES. Recommended Action: Adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2219 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC ORDINANCE. Recommended Action: Introduce M MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATE $251,776.74 FROM THE SEWER FUND. Recommended Action: Approve AWARD A ONE (1) YEAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEM BEGINNING OCTOBER 2006. Recommended Action: Approve AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PAUL T. NELSON FOR Recommended Action: Approve 4 09 -19 -2006 48:0093 j. APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION TO REPUBLIC ELECTRIC INC. FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,000. Recommended Action: Approve k. ACCEPT THE REVISIONS TO THE 2006 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (WSA) FOR THE CARUSO PROJECT AT THE SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK. Recommended Action: Approve ACCEPT ALL WORK PERFORMED BY SILVIA CONSTRUCTION INC. GAP CLOSURE PROJECTS AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. Recommended Action: Approve In regard to Consent Calendar item 2. h. Council Member Amundson inquired into the process by which the Council is informed of potential legislative issues; Bill Kelly, City Manager noted the existing process and further noted the process by which Council will be informed in the future. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Amundson, Public Works Services Director Pat Malloy noted the process by which runoff water is reclaimed in Arcadia. A motion was made by Council /Agency Member Segal, seconded by Council /Agency Member Wuo, and carried on roll call vote to approve Consent Calendar items 2.a. through 2.1. with the exception of item 2.d. AYES: Segal, Wuo, Amundson, and Chandler NOES: None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the City Council /Redevelopment Agency will be October 3, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. James H. Barrows City Clerk M Vida Tolman Chief Deputy City Clerk 09 -19 -2006 CIA c� A JkC �RpOgATID 9 �10o' STAFF REPORT Development Services Department September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jason Kruckeberg, Community Development Administrator - SLK SUBJECT: Consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 for the modification of criteria related to the Community Noise Assessment Performance Standards within the Arcadia General Plan. Recommendation: - Adoption of Resolution #6537 SUMMARY Performance Standard 44 of the General Plan states that if a project's impacts cause certain noise thresholds to be exceeded, mitigation to reduce the resulting noise to at or below City standards must be implemented. In the City of Arcadia, existing noise thresholds are currently exceeded (and have been since at least 1995) along eight identified street segments and potentially eight additional street segments (identified later in the report). It can reasonably be assumed that with ambient growth in the last decade, these additional segments in all likelihood now exceed the City's noise thresholds. The potential also exists that the interior maximum noise threshold and possibly the threshold for hospital sleeping areas, may currently be exceeded even with implementation of all available feasible mitigation. The purpose of the project is to amend the General Plan to remove these criteria as they are superceded by existing conditions and do not reflect an accurate measure of an individual project's impacts. No additional safeguards, noise attenuation techniques, or performance standards will be altered as a result of this amendment and the criteria will be replaced by new language that accurately reflects impacts. The Planning Commission reviewed this recommendation at their regular meeting of August 22, 2006 and unanimously recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment as shown in the staff report. r GP #06 -01 – Noise Amendment September 19, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND Because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the City must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies when applying them, and it has broad discretion to construe its policies in light of the plan's purposes. In Sequoya Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland ( 1993) 23 Cal.AppA 704, 712, 717 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 and Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984)153 Cal.App.3d 391, 406 -407 [200 Cal. Rptr. 237], the Court states that no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the general plan, and that state law does not impose such a requirement. A general plan must try to accommodate a wide range of competing interests — including those of developers, neighboring homeowners, prospective homebuyers, environmentalists, current and prospective business owners, jobseekers, taxpayers, and providers and recipients of all types of city - provided services —and to present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions. Noise in a community is usually well represented by median noise levels over a 24- hour period. The most commonly used measurement for jurisdictions to use in evaluated noise is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Environmental noise levels are generally considered "low" when the CNEL is below 60 A- weighted decibels (dBA), "moderate" in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and "high" above 70 dBA. General Plan's and noise ordinances typically utilize dBA because the A- weighting system de- emphasizes very high and very low frequencies and provides a better correlation with human hearing levels. Examples of low daytime noise levels are isolated, natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate -level noise environments are urban residential or semi - commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher noise levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential - commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). When evaluating changes in 24 -hour community noise levels, a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people (Hendriks, R. 1998. Technical News Supplement: A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, California Department of Transportation [Caltrans], Sacramento, California. October.) To ensure that an acceptable community ambient noise level is preserved, the City's approach falls into two categories: (1) the control of nuisance noise at the source, and (2) integrating noise - buffering techniques into new development to protect noise - sensitive receptors. Policies EH -14 through EH -20a contained in Chapter 5.0 of the GP #06 -01 — Noise Amendment September 19, 2006 Page 3 General Plan (Environmental Hazards) pertain to noise regulation. Basic approaches to minimize the adverse effects of noise from both mobile and stationary sources, along with measures that can be implemented should regulatory mechanisms be ineffective, are included in the Development Review Program portion of Chapter 6.0, Implementation and Monitoring, of the General Plan. Community Noise Assessment Performance Standards are described in Standards 44 through 51 of Chapter 6.0 of the General Plan. These standards state that maximum exterior noise for residential areas and hospital sleeping areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL (see Attachment 1). Interior noise for residential uses is not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL, while maximum interior noise levels in sleeping areas of hospitals cannot exceed 50 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise levels up to 70 dBA CNEL for residential uses are conditionally acceptable, defined as: 'The potential for project approval should not be encumbered by land use /noise compatibility issues, provided the applicant has included measures or conditions that are acceptable to the Development Services Director and the project ultimately results in land use /noise compatibility" (pps. 6 -23 to 6 -24, 1996 General Plan). The Performance Standards for noise apply to all new development. As stated on page 6 -20 of the General Plan, any project that meets or exceeds one or more of four specified criteria is required to prepare an acoustical analysis and provide necessary mitigation to meet the noise - compatible land use development performance standards contained in Table 6 -D (Attachment 1). These criteria include: ■ Addition of more than ten percent to the volume of average daily traffic of any arterial street. This traffic volume addition is more than incremental and could result in measurable noise increases. • Addition of 1,000 or more vehicles in the peak hour on adjacent roadways. This traffic volume addition is more than incremental and could result in measurable noise increases. • Projected noise levels, as identified in the Arcadia General Plan Environmental Impact Report, exceed the noise - compatible land use performance objective contained in Table 6 -13. Because the noise - related performance objective will be exceeded, site - specific analysis and mitigation will be required to meet specified objectives. • The potential for on -site operations to exceed the noise - compatible land use development performance standards contained in Table 6 -13 on adjacent properties. The potential to exceed noise development GP #06 -01 — Noise Amendment September 19, 2006' Page 4 performance standards on adjacent properties is a significant impact that must be mitigated. The General Plan EIR (February 1996) identified locations within the City that are impacted by substantial levels of traffic' noise (Attachment 2). Those locations that exceeded the 65 dBA CNEL exterior thresholds at the time of preparation of the General Plan EIR (1995 -1996) include: ■ Huntington Drive west of Golden West Avenue ■ Baldwin Avenue south of 1 -210 to Huntington Drive ■ Huntington Drive between Campus and the "Y" ■ Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Ave. and 2 nd Avenue ■ Live Oak Avenue between 2 " Avenue and the Monrovia city boundary ■ Baldwin Avenue between Longden Avenue and Las Tunas Drive Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Foothill Boulevard ■ Foothill Boulevard between Temple City Boulevard and the Monrovia city boundary Eight other locations were measured at exactly 65 dBA CNEL in 1995. These locations included portions of Duarte Road, Las Tunas Drive, Baldwin Avenue, Colorado Boulevard and Huntington Drive (see Attachment 2 for these segments). Generally, the inclusion of double -paned window glass and air conditioning will reduce interior noise levels by 25 dBA. While interior noise measurements along the roadway segments currently experiencing exterior noise levels of 65 dBA or above have not been taken, if roadway noise levels currently reach 70 dBA, an interior noise level of 45 dBA could be expected at those locations, which is the maximum threshold allowed under the development standards. DISCUSSION Performance Standard 44 states that if a project's impacts would cause the identified noise thresholds to be exceeded, mitigation to reduce the resultant noise to at or below City standards as specified in Attachment 1 must be implemented. In the City of Arcadia, existing noise thresholds are currently exceeded (and have been since at least 1995) along at least eight identified street segments and potentially eight additional segments, as noted above. It can reasonably be assumed that with ambient growth in the last decade, these additional segments in all likelihood now exceed the City's noise thresholds. The potential also exists that the interior maximum noise threshold of 45 dBA for residential, and possibly the 50 dBA threshold for hospital sleeping areas, may currently be exceeded. GP #06 -01 —Noise Amendment September 19, 2006 Page 5 Mitigating existing roadway noise that exceeds City standards would be infeasible. The only way to reduce exterior traffic noise at sensitive receptors (e.g. residential or hospital uses) along the identified street segments would be to reduce traffic to a level such that traffic noise would not exceed 65 dBA. This would be at least a pre -1995 level for many segments. Mitigation could include closure of these street segments during peak -hour periods, but this would only serve to increase traffic (and associated noise) on alternative routes. As this mitigation would have its own significant impacts, it would not be feasible and could, in fact, create a problem worse than exists currently if residents and visitors chose to time their trips so as to avoid road closures or use streets not designed for larger traffic loads. Reducing interior noise would require retrofitting all existing construction that does not utilize double -paned windows and air conditioning, but in areas where exterior noise may currently exceed 70 dBA, this mitigation may not be sufficient to reduce interior noise at certain locations to below City thresholds. In addition, such retrofitting would require noise measurements at each and every residence along affected roadways, which would not only be impractical but extremely costly. Performance Standard 44 as currently written mandates that any new project proposed in the City that meets any one of the four criteria specified above would be required to mitigate both exterior and interior noise, even if the project's contribution to noise is negligible. This requirement places an onerous burden on project applicants to provide mitigation for conditions that exist without the project, and that would be infeasible to implement for the reasons stated above. Typically, jurisdictions provide policies that address motor vehicle traffic noise or street noise through more general means. For example, the City of San Diego has Noise Element policies that encourage noise compatible land uses along major streets, support alternative modes of transportation where feasible, designate truck routes away from sensitive receptors and require traffic calming in sensitive neighborhoods. The City of Pasadena has similar General Plan policies that focus on reducing the effects of noise through careful site planning, provision of alternative transportation modes, and encouraging noise - compatible land uses. Arcadia's General Plan is much more prescriptive than most General Plans on this issue. In the 1996 General Plan EIR, a significance threshold for noise was developed that states that the project would have a significant impact on noise if it results in an increase of 3 dBA or more in an area that already exceeds the applicable City standard. The subsequent EIR for the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion also included this threshold of significance. In evaluating projects, the City has interpreted this threshold to specify a less- than - significant impact of a 3 dBA increase for all areas where the noise increase would meet or exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level r - t _ GP #06 -01 — Noise Amendment September 19, 2006 Page 6 standard at sensitive land uses, and a 5 dBA CNEL noise level increase for areas where noise levels remain below the City's noise level standard.' Performance Standard 44 should be amended to more accurately reflect existing conditions and address impacts of projects that increase existing noise levels more than 3 or 5 dBA. Mitigation would continue to be required to be included in project design as recommended in Chapter 6.0 of the General Plan, but project applicants would no longer be mandated to mitigate existing conditions if the increase falls below these thresholds. The actual language proposed to replace existing text in Performance Standard #44 is shown below in the Recommendation Section. The requested amendment will codify language that reflects noise thresholds of significance that are consistent with thresholds identified in the General Plan EIR. The amendment does not represent a significant shift in policy, merely clarification of ambiguous language and deletion of an infeasible requirement for project applicants in the City of Arcadia. Staff believes that it is unfair and unrealistic to mitigate impacts from existing roadway noise whether or not the individual project results in a substantial increase in roadway noise on currently impacted sensitive uses or areas. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. The 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 impact to the environment. Section 11 of the Initial Study addresses noise. The proposed modification to the General Plan language changes a method of determining noise impacts. The modified standard will replace existing text within Performance Standard number 44 of the General Plan and will provide a more accurate test of how a project affects ambient noise. The proposed revisions are shown below. FISCAL IMPACT None An increase in noise between 3 dBA and 5 dBA would be noticeable, but would not be considered significant. GP #06 -01 —Noise Amendment September 19, 2006 Page 7 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN 1. The Development Services Department recommends that Performance Standard #44 under the Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards of the General Plan (Page 6 -19 to 6 -20) be amended to read as set forth below (removed text in strikeout, new text in bold): For purposes of community noise assessment, potential changes to the existing noise and traffic conditions can adversely affect the ambient noise conditions. These can be characterized by measurable increases in noise levels and indirectly by increases in traffic volumes. Any PFGj8Gt that meats eF analysis and provide 6UGh mitigation as 0 6 RGGessaFy to Fneet the nois-e 8: Unless otherwise exempted, proposed projects shall prepare an environmental analysis under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and an acoustical analysis for proposed new construction to pursue the noise standards identified in Table 6- D. Among the other required elements, the analysis shall discuss how the project will pursue the following guidelines: No more than 3 dBA CNEL increase for all areas where the proposed project's noise level would meet or exceed the City's dBA CNEL noise level performance standards as shown in Table 6 -13. No more than a 5 dBA CNEL noise level increase for areas where the proposed project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards as shown in Table 6 -D. A,o i j GP #06 -01 — Noise Amendment September 19, 2006 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 to amend the General Plan Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards by adopting Resolution #6537. Approved: " ___ J William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution #6537 2. Table 6 -D of General Plan (Noise Performance Standards) 3. Figure 4.11.3 of the General Plan EIR (Roadway Noise Levels) 4. Environmental Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program RESOLUTION NO. 6537 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SECTION OF THE ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN TO REPLACE LANGUAGE WITHIN PERFORMANCE STANDARD #44 OF THE COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 was initiated by the City of Arcadia to amend the Implementation and Monitoring Section of the Arcadia General Plan, to replace language within Performance Standard #44 of the Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA" ), and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant; accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2006, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and RVPUBVb1KS1703227.1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing on said General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Development Services Department to the City Council; 2. All information and testimony presented at the City Council Public Hearing on September 19, 2006; 3. The decision of the Planning Commission on August 22, 2006 regarding General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council finds: _Z_ 6537 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 1. That the granting of said General Plan Amendment will provide a more accurate and tangible method of measuring the impacts of noise caused by projects within the City of Arcadia. 2. That the approval of the General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the City because the Initial Study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by the proposed project. 3. That the granting of the General Plan Amendment will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3: That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the following changes to Performance Standard #44 of the Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards, in the Implementation and Monitoring Section of the General Plan (removed text in strikeout, new text in bold): -3- 6537 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 n For purposes of community noise assessment, potential changes to the existing noise and traffic conditions can adversely affect the ambient noise conditions. These can be characterized by measurable increases in noise levels and indirectly by increases in traffic volumes. Any pr-gjeet th t meets aeeias ana a i s h m.t. ntie to out th y a noise Y till ! an d de r o rf .inn 4 !7 r-Els se in use Tab le 6 D: Unless otherwise exempted, proposed projects shall prepare an environmental analysis under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and an acoustical analysis for proposed new construction to pursue the noise standards identified in Table 6- D. Among the other required elements, the analysis shall discuss how the project will pursue the following guidelines: No more than 3 dBA CNEL increase for all areas where the proposed project's noise level would meet or exceed the City's dBA CNEL noise level performance standards as shown in Table 6 -D. No more than a 5 dBA CNEL noise level increase for areas where the proposed project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards as shown in Table 6 -D. Y_ . r -4_ 6537 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 1 2006. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney Mayor of the City of Arcadia -5- 6537 RVPUB%MKS \703227.1 I ' 1 6.0 Implementation and Monitoring -� Table 6-D • Interior/Exterior Noise Development Performance Standards Schools Classrooms Maximum Maximum (and Use Exterior Interior Rural, Single Family, and 65 dBA CNEL' 45 dBA CNEL' Multi- Family Residential Store, etc. 65 dBA L., Schools Classrooms 45 dBA L Playgrounds 70 dBA CNEL — Libraries — 45 dBA L. Hospitals /Convalescent Facili- Store, etc. 65 dBA L., ties: — 45 dBA CNEL Sleeping Areas 65 dBA CNEL 50 dBA CNEL Living Areas — 50 dBA L. Reception, General Of- fice, Clerical Hotels/Motels: Sleeping Areas — 45 dBA CNEL Reception, General Of- — 50 dBA L fice, Clerical Places of Worship 65 dBA CNEL 45 dBA L Open Space/Recreation: Wildlife Habitat 60 dBA CNEL - -- Quiet, Passive Areas 65 dBA CNEL • -- Active Recreation Areas 70 dBA CNEL — Commercial and Business Park — 45 dBA L. Private Office — 50 dBA L General Office — 55 dBA L Restaurant, Retail — Store, etc. 65 dBA L., Ware housing/lndustrial 70 dBA L,,, ' CNEL and L., noise rating scales are described in the Arcadia General Plan EIR . Source: City of Arcadia, 1995. r!aa502l pro,iea Igpih +it +l iryrli 6ryd. rvpd ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN 6 -21 September 23, 1996 Los Angeles Co Iy ; .___ City of j sie¢a Ma'm CS Z '; ' 6 IdrMaele CO w z �l y _ 13.I@i5 AM . GRAMIV B, AVE I City of C _�o'� Moomvia Z � v > 3 > C'uy of 66 m< i o R O f ORANGE B�xaMade c GROVEAVE Cryo f Pasadena DDTHILL FRWY- LORADO BLVD. Los Ao - ® �'�� �jY C a \- ,L70RMA BLVD. A1O L� Aima CANU DA ND DUARTE RD. •- . GsY I LAB A'S DA u 0 FOO THILL BLVD. COLORADO BLVD. HM4TIN=N DR. An O a �Y LEGIIro: g n � � fi r Cary of A=&a c° © Spk m of hflurace _419• ® Noix Lemi 100' from Cmxrlme (dBA C EL) y} (CTA502) Sauce. LSA ASSOCi MS, fir. � LSD scam is Fmt Existing Roadway Noise Levels Figure 4.11.3 ( 120( 240( V CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: GP06 -01. Noise Development Performance Standards General Plan Amendment 2. Project Address (Location): N /A. Citywide. 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: .City of Arcadia — Development Services Department Community Development Division — Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5423 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Jason Kruckeberg Community Development Administrator (626) 574 -5442 (626) 447 -9173 (fax) Jkruckeberg @ci.arcadia.ca.us 6. General Plan Designation: N /A. Various. 7. Zoning Classification: N /A. Various. 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 sheet(s) if necessary): The City of Arcadia General Plan provides policy -level direction regarding noise in the City. Specific standards regulating noise are also included in the Arcadia Municipal Code, Article IV, Chapter 6 (Noise Regulations). Within the General Plan, Community Noise Assessment Performance Standards are described in Standards 44 through 51 of Chapter 6.0. These standards state that maximum exterior noise for residential areas and hospital sleeping areas shall not exceed 65 average weighted decibels using the Community Noise Equivalent Level (d BA CNEL). See Table 6 -D for more information. Interior noise for residential uses is not to exceed 45 GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 1 dBA CNEL, while maximum interior noise levels in sleeping areas of hospitals cannot exceed 50 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise levels up to 70 dBA CNEL for residential uses are conditionally acceptable, defined as: "The potential for project approval should not be encumbered by land use /noise compatibility issues, provided the applicant has included measures or conditions that are acceptable to the Development Services Director and the project ultimately results in land use /noise compatibility" (pps. 6 -23 to 6 -24, 1996 General Plan). The Performance Standards for noise apply to all new development. As stated on page 6 -20 of the General Plan, any project that meets or exceeds one or more of four specified criteria is required to prepare an acoustical analysis and provide necessary mitigation to meet the noise - compatible land use development performance standards contained in Table 6 -D. These criteria include: • Addition of more than ten percent to the volume of average daily traffic of any arterial street. This traffic volume addition is more than incremental and could result in measurable noise increases. • Addition of 1,000 or more vehicles in the peak hour on adjacent roadways. This traffic volume addition is more than incremental and could result in measurable noise increases. • Projected noise levels, as identified in the Arcadia General Plan Environmental Impact Report, exceed the noise - compatible land use performance objective contained in Table 6 -D. Because the noise - related performance objective will be exceeded, site - specific analysis and mitigation will be required to meet specified objectives. • The potential for on -site operations to exceed the noise - compatible land use development performance standards contained in Table 6 -D on adjacent properties. The potential to exceed noise development performance standards on adjacent properties is a significant impact that must be mitigated. Performance Standard 44 states that if a project's impacts would cause the identified noise thresholds to be exceeded, mitigation to reduce the resultant noise to at or below City standards as specified in Table 6 -D must be implemented. In the City of Arcadia, existing noise thresholds are currently exceeded (and have been since at least 1995) along eight identified street segments as noted below. • Huntington Drive west of Golden West Avenue • Baldwin Avenue south of 1 -210 to Huntington Drive • Huntington Drive between Campus and the "Y" • Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Canyon and 2n Avenue • Live Oak Avenue between 2n Avenue and the Monrovia city boundary • Baldwin Avenue between Longden Avenue and Las Tunas Drive • Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Foothill Boulevard • Foothill Boulevard between Temple City Boulevard and the Monrovia city boundary In addition, eight additional street segments were measured at exactly 65 dBA CNEL in 1995. These street segments are shown on Figure 4.11.3 and include portions of Duarte Road, Baldwin Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Huntington Drive. It can reasonably be assumed that with ambient growth in the last decade, these additional street segments in all likelihood now exceed the City's noise thresholds. The potential also exists that the interior maximum noise threshold of 45 dBA for residential, and possibly the 50 dBA threshold for hospital sleeping areas, may currently be exceeded. GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 2 The purpose of the project is to amend the General Plan to remove these criteria and modify the text of Performance Standard #44 to reflect a more accurate measure of an individual project's impacts. The proposed modified standard will limit new development to an increase in the ambient noise level of between 3 dBA CNEL for areas that already exceed the General Plan standards and 5 dBA CNEL for areas that do not currently exceed the standards set forth in Table 6 -D of page 6 -21 of the General Plan. This amendment is a clarification necessary to ensure that the City's Municipal Code reflects actual conditions in the City. Due in part to its consistency with other General Plan policies, the revised Standard #44 will be just as effective, if not more so, than the existing Standard. No mitigation measures, noise attenuation techniques, or performance standards will be altered as a result of this amendment. Further, the Arcadia Municipal Code will not be modified by this proposal. New development in the City will continue to be required to address potential environmental impacts related to noise, as required by applicable laws. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings). The project is updating Arcadia's Community Noise Development Performance Standards and is applicable to the entire City. Land uses in and adjacent to the City include residential, commercial, commercial recreation, racetrack, industrial, institutional, and open space. Nearby jurisdictions include Monrovia, Temple City, Pasadena, unincorporated Los Angeles County, El Monte, Sierra Madre, and Irwindale. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 3 lr 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 Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ] Aesthetics [ ] Air Quality ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources ] Geology /Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials ] HydrologyNVater Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning ] Mineral Resources [ X ] Noise ] Population & Housing [ ] Public Services ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Circulation ] Utilities and Service Systems ] Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 ] 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicant legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DELCARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECCARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed Name '7 31 06 Date For GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 4 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' 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 Impact' 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 well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant impact" 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 analyses adequately discussed analyzed i in Section e earlier 17 atRh of ativ Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D) }. checklist. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist 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. 6. 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 should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study— July 31, 2006 5 4F ! 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. 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 significance. GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards .Initial Study — July 31, 2006 6 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? ❑ Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . ❑ As the project is an amendment to the implementation of development performance standards within the General Plan, no specific physical improvements or other components that might affect scenic vistas, scenic resources, or light and glare are proposed. Therefore, no direct impact on aesthetics will occur. No new development is contemplated or permitted by this amendment. The Noise Section of the General Plan (within Section 5.0 Environmental Hazards) proposes noise attenuation when noise levels exceed acceptable standards at noise - sensitive uses. However, since the Noise Performance Standards are policy- oriented, no specific design or location of such noise attenuation is possible or appropriate. Any potential effects of specific noise attenuation methods visible within scenic vistas and /or highways will be addressed upon their proposal. 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? ■1 ■ ► b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ GP #06 -01 -Noise Standards Initial Study- May 16, 2006 7 5 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ■❑ Fi t The amendment to the Noise Performance Standards within the General Plan will have no impact on the built environment or physical environment in the City of Arcadia. There is no farm land or agricultural areas in the City of Arcadia, thus there are no impacts. 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑ of people? GP #06.01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 8 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 4. Arcadia is in a non - attainment area, an area that frequently exceeds national ambient air quality standards for several "criteria pollutants ". However, the project simply entails elimination of several out -dated criteria within the City's General Plan. No physical improvements are proposed. No new development is contemplated or permitted by this amendment. Therefore, the project will not be affected by or result in adverse air quality impacts, will not cause objectionable odors, and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ DI 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 Wildlife 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 California 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 policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ GP #06 -01 -Noise Standards Initial Study - July 31, 2006 - 9 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No physical improvements or other development is proposed that might impact endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats. Objectives, policies, and implementation measures included in the City's Noise Ordinances will work to minimize noise in the vicinity of the City's remaining semi - natural areas. Revision of the noise Performance Standards will have no adverse impact on Biological 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? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ❑ ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? The project is an amendment to the Performance Standards within the Noise Section of the General Plan. No specific physical improvements or other components that might disturb historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources or human remains are included. No impact will result. I 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 earthquake 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 05 1 GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study —July 31, 2006 10 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? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? C d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of ❑ the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? 1 ■1 El X El El El El No Impact 04 15 E y Portions of the City are subject to slope instability and the potential for seismically induced landslides. However, the project does not include any specific physical improvements that might be affected by seismic ground failure. No impact will result. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in any specific physical development that might be affected by fault rupture. No impact will result. The City of Arcadia is not located near any substantial bodies of water that could be subject to seiche or tsunami. There has been no known volcanic activity in or near the City. No impact will result. 7 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 two 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? 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 significant risk of loss, ❑ injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y ►Z/ ra ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 12 1 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The project is the consideration of a modification to the Noise Performance Standards of the General Plan. No physical improvements or other components that might alter risks regarding hazardous substances are proposed. No impact will result. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) During project construction will it create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ from delivery areas: loading docks, other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered, other outdoor work areas; or other sources? d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses ❑ ❑ ❑ of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat, water contact or non - contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply, and groundwater recharge. e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to ❑ ❑ ❑ , biological integrity of waterways or water bodies. f) violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? GP #06 -01 -Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 13 g) 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 local groundwater table level (e.g., 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)? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ h) 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 siltration on or off -site. i) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? ❑ j) Substantially alter the existing drainage patter 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? k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? 1) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? m Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? n) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard areas as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i■i 1■ 01 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u No Impact .1 a El Z El Z El Z El Z ❑ ❑ ❑ GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 14 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injuring or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 7 10. q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, ❑ ❑ ❑ tsunami, or mudflow? No specific physical improvements are proposed that might be affected by or result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or any rate and/or amount of surface runoff. No impact will result. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not map any of the City as subject to 100 -year flooding. Nevertheless, since the project is the consideration of an amendment to the General Plan, no specific physical improvements are proposed that might be affected by water - related hazards. No impact will result. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 project does not propose any physical improvements. The objectives, policies, and implementation measures elsewhere in the General Plan and Municipal Code will work to minimize potential existing and future noise compatibility issues. No conflict with the General Plan or zoning will result. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 15 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 11 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed amendment to the General Plan will only impact criteria related to noise related performance standards, there will be no impact to Mineral Resources in the City. 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? GP #06 -01 -Noise Standards Initial Study- July 31, 2006 16 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards within the General Plan provide a number of safeguards to protect sensitive uses within the City of Arcadia from unreasonable noise. Performance Standard #44 specifically addresses criteria related to potential increase in ambient noise (mostly traffic related) as it may impact sensitive uses. Under the current standard, projects must provide mitigation back to accepted noise standards when the noise thresholds for certain sensitive uses (outlined in Table 6 -D on page 6.21) are exceeded. However, in the case of existing noise caused by traffic, these standards have been exceeded in a number of areas since the General Plan was adopted in 1995. Since its development, this standard has not been applied to all development within the City. Strict application of this standard is not feasible and is inconsistent with the General Plan goals and policies. Instead, this standard has served as a goal but not a mandatory requirement. The purpose of this amendment is to remove this standard to the extent it has become inconsistent with other City goals and policies. For example, the City has a stated goal to encourage to increase senior housing projects, low income housing projects and mixed -use development. These types of development are not feasible with strict application of this standard. With additional recent changes to the General Plan such as increasing the 'density for senior housing projects, allowing mixed -use development in the Downtown area, and allowing certain housing types in commercial zones, the potential for noise related impacts increases. Further, many of the higher density residentially zoned areas are adjacent to roadways carrying a great deal of traffic. Additionally, the Gold Line will be running trains through portions of Arcadia as early as 2008. As a result of these changes, it is imperative to have a noise policy that continues to protect and safeguard sensitive uses, while maintaining the ability to build up to allowed General Plan land use intensity. This General Plan Amendment proposes replacing the existing criteria, which are outdated and infeasible, with a new policy that requires changes to the ambient noise to be reviewed and, if necessary, mitigated. Most human beings do not notice noise increases of less than 3 dBA. Sound experts generally agree that the human ear detects changes of 3 dBA or less as barely perceptible, a change of 5 dBA is perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as either twice or half as loud. The proposed modified language will ensure that new projects do not lead to an increase in noise impacts by limiting new development to an increase in the ambient noise level of between 3 dBA CNEL for areas that already exceed the General Plan standards and 5 dBA CNEL for areas that do not currently exceed the standards set forth in Table 6 -D of page 6 -21 of the General Plan. This policy is already mentioned in the General Plan EIR as being reflective of "less than significant' impact. GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 17 f . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Standard #44 is not considered a natural barrier to growth, the removal of which will induce additional growth. Instead, Standard 44 is not capable of being implemented and is infeasible. The revision of Standard #44 will not permit or allow any additional new development, instead, the revision of Standard #44 is necessary to establish noise standards compatible with the City's General Plan. The revised Standard will provide for mitigation at least as effective as that currently available. To ensure that noise standards are met, noise levels shall be periodically monitored by the City for dBA and dBC in accordance with the latest version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.9 /Part 1 and Part 3. If the criteria found in Performance Standard #44 were simply removed from the General Plan, this would be viewed as a potentially significant impact. However, the fact that replacement language will be provided in Performance Standard #44 will lead to a less than significant impact. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan accompanying this Initial Study provides the proposed language. No other safeguards, mitigation methods, or any of the remaining seven (7) noise related performance standards of the General Plan will be impacted. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The project is revision of criteria related to noise performance standards. No physical improvements or other components that might generate traffic, other mobile noise sources, or stationary noise sources are included. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ ID the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is revision of criteria related to noise performance standards. No physical improvements or other components that might generate traffic, other mobile noise sources, or stationary noise sources are included. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is revision of criteria related to noise performance standards. No physical improvements or other components that might generate traffic, other mobile noise sources, or stationary noise sources are included. 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 is Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact The project is revision of criteria related to noise performance standards. No physical improvements or other components that might generate traffic, other mobile noise sources, or stationary noise sources are included. 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? 12. The project is revision of criteria related to noise performance standards. No physical improvements or other components that might generate traffic, other mobile noise sources, or stationary noise sources are included. 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 roads 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 project is an amendment to the General Plan and will not result, either directly or indirectly, in any population growth. The project is only related to noise and will not displace any housing. No impact will result. Standard #44 is not considered a natural barrier to growth, the removal of which will induce additional growth. Instead Standard 44 is not capable of being implemented and is infeasible. The revision of Standard #44 will not permit or allow any additional new development, instead, the revision of Standard #44 is necessary to establish noise standards compatible with the City's General Plan. The revised Standard will provide for mitigation at least as effective as that currently available. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable GP#06 -01 -Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 19 r Less Than y . service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? No specific physical improvements or other components that might interfere with fire protection or increase demand for fire protection services are included. Existing objectives, policies, and implementation measures elsewhere in the General Plan will continue to encourage efficient emergency response while being sensitive to potential noise effects. Similarly, the project will have no significant impacts on police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities will result. 14. 15. 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? No physical improvements or other components that might increase demand for parks or other recreational facilities are included. No impact will result. 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 congestion at intersections)? b) . Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 20 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No specific physical improvements or other components that might interfere with fire protection or increase demand for fire protection services are included. Existing objectives, policies, and implementation measures elsewhere in the General Plan will continue to encourage efficient emergency response while being sensitive to potential noise effects. Similarly, the project will have no significant impacts on police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities will result. 14. 15. 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? No physical improvements or other components that might increase demand for parks or other recreational facilities are included. No impact will result. 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 congestion at intersections)? b) . Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 20 ro Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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 ❑ 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)? h■ L. 0 El N 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)? No specific physical improvements are proposed that might generate vehicle trips or traffic congestion. The Revision to Standard #44 will be consistent with existing general plan goals which will limit new development to an increase in the ambient noise level of between 3 dBA CNEL for areas that already exceed the General Plan standards and 5 dBA CNEL for areas that do not currently exceed the standards set forth in Table 6 -D of page 6 -21 of the General Plan. No physical improvements or other components are proposed that might create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. There will be no impact on transportation options, parking, or emergency access. No impact will result. 16. 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? GP #06 -01 -Noise Standards Initial Study - July 31, 2006 21 rv• r, i Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact . Incorporated 17 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ provide which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The project is an amendment to the Community Noise Development Performance Standards. No physical improvements or other components will result from this amendment that might alter demand for or have any impact on water, wastewater, sewerage, stormwater, or solid waste. No adverse impact will result. 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 GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 22 . , 4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated California history or prehistory? No specific physical improvements or other characteristics are included that might 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 scarce or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? The project is intended to address an outdated and ineffective portion of the General Plan that unfairly impacts new development in the City. The decision on this project has no relation to short or long term goals as the criteria proposed to be removed from the General Plan is already being exceeded by current conditions. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ❑ ❑ ❑ but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the project will not result in significant environmental effects. In the case of aesthetic issues, standard City policies and procedures will ensure that potential cumulative impacts are avoided. In the case of emergency response, providers will continue to respond adequately, while working to minimize noise. No significant cumulative impacts will result from the project, nor will the project contribute to any potentially significant cumulative effects. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ® ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 23 4 . Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact The project is the amendment of Performance Standard #44 of the General Plan to remove several criteria related to noise and replace these criteria with a more realistic and feasible performance standard. The removal of these criteria could be construed as impacting residents who live in close proximity to street segments that already exceed the City's noise standards as shown on Table 6 -D. The problem with the existing criteria, however, is that it is not providing the safeguard for which it was intended. Many street segments throughout the City have ,exceeded these standards since at least 1995. As a result, the proposed amendment will provide a feasible method of reacting to new projects and ensuring that there will not be a significant impact on existing ambient noise to surrounding sensitive uses. New language will be added to the General Plan, within Performance Standard #44, that will require that new projects do not lead to an increase of 3 dBA CNEL for areas that already exceed the General Plan standards and 5 dBA CNEL for areas that do not currently exceed the standards set forth in Table 6 -D on page 6 -21 of the General Plan. The current policy is already mentioned in the General Plan EIR as being reflective of a "less than significant" impact related to increase in noise. The proposed amendment to the General Plan is consistent with the 1996 General Plan EIR. GP #06 -01 —Noise Standards Initial Study — July 31, 2006 24 - File No.: GP 06 -01 CI TY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE _ ARCADIA, CA 91007 ti r (626) 574 -5400 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: General Plan Amendment 06 -01: A General Plan Amendment to modify Performance Standard #44 of the General Plan, which provides guidelines related to noise caused by proposed projects. The purpose of the Amendment is to replace existing criteria within Performance Standard #44 that currently does not accurately reflect noise impacts of projects. No additional safeguards, noise attenuation techniques, or performance standards will be altered as a result of this amendment and the criteria will be replaced by language that better evaluates impacts. B. Location of Project: Citywide, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles C. Name of Applicant, Project Sponsor, or Person Undertaking the Project: Development Services Department (Attn: Jason Kruckeberg) City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 The City Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public hearing of the City Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the City Planning Commission's findings is as follows: The approval of the proposed project will provide for conformance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. The mitigation measures will reduce any Potentially Significant Impacts to Less Than Significant Impacts or to No Impacts. The City Planning Commission hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. For a copy of the Initial Study, the location and custodian of the documents and any other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration, are as follows: City of Arcadia Community Development Division /Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5423 Date Prepared: August 22, 2006 Jason K ckeberg, Comm. De Administrator Date Posted: California Environmental Quality Act - Page 1 of 1 - Negative Declaration .•r} § d { 2 k B k 0 ( k ( / ( a � z � k 9 \ . Z , �P ;�c� ; ■ |E »�- 2 S. }�| �>0A) |E > -0 |r ° \. _� \� \(() =, - \}§ gi n§ 22� || �`3 ■ «!m= «, !�� §(�[ /`!; - CL 0 - ;§ |E[[¢ }k�lz |; _ _� ® -Eg® -\ .; _- �� |�� \\} __ \ 0 �� }�(k ( \�k� &�f §} \!\ { / {} | 2 ~ '� � / f !z| ,. °� >§ �\ E�! ■o , {�k(�) § J ) () fig 19 CLM E ;� \& {§7 )# {((k *`$Ef . -e f &Bi\/ -- - { ` '���� ° |)) _ } �n�} 0 BTr \ + #I! |_ °�i�\ }# \} )(E� \E \R(( } {.\ ` \� } \�`ji !.� ( }\7 \�/ _� . ® §!7 }2 }\( 0 \&G( i/ w CD } \�� (/ . 2E\ }\{ f} !! f� \ er ! >e _ »{ m . (/\ / ( {/ ■ID . EUo !( ! \I o 2m] C) . I En }� \\ to )/ > /\ � § d { 2 k B k 0 ( k ( / ( a � z � k 9 \ 0 9 sj `l ee g�i; CD a v o 0 CD o � N 3 D '^ c 'm do m0 O O 0 o a D� �a o � d m 0 m 3 m 9 m N O 7 N n D H n RESOLUTION NO. 6537 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE IMPLEMENTATIN AND MONITORING SECTION OF THE ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN TO REPLACE LANGUAGE WITHIN PERFORMANCE STANDARD #44 OF THE COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 was initiated by the City of Arcadia to amend the Implementation and Monitoring Section of the Arcadia General Plan, to replace language within Performance Standard #44 of the Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "), and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant; accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2006, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing on said General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Development Services Department to the City Council; 2. All information and testimony presented at the City Council Public Hearing on September 19, 2006; 3. The decision of the Planning Commission on August 22, 2006 regarding General Plan Amendment No. 06 -01; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council finds: -2- 6537 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 1. That the granting of said General Plan Amendment will provide a more accurate and tangible method of measuring the impacts of noise caused by projects within the City of Arcadia. 2. That the approval of the General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the City because the Initial Study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by the proposed project. 3. That the granting of the General Plan Amendment will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3: That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the following changes to Performance Standard #44 of the Community Noise Assessment Development Performance Standards, in the Implementation and Monitoring Section of the General Plan (removed text in strikeout, new text in bold): -3- 6537 RVPUB\MM \703227.1 For purposes of community noise assessment, potential changes to the existing noise and traffic conditions can adversely affect the ambient noise conditions. These can be characterized by measurable increases in noise levels and indirectly by increases in traffic volumes. "ny M}ejee` "t mee`s ed any e f the f 11.. e r - ite r- i a sh b ll ♦e «e . e pr an aseus ana Y .: d de el, fi nn�. ♦e et the O n + noise - eempatible land t ise development pc F ♦ d....dn nt ed Table 6 D! Unless otherwise exempted, proposed projects shall prepare an environmental analysis under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and an acoustical analysis for proposed new construction to pursue the noise standards identified in Table 6- D. Among the other required elements, the analysis shall discuss how the project will pursue the following guidelines: No more than 3 dBA CNEL increase for all areas where the proposed project's noise level would meet or exceed the City's dBA CNEL noise level performance standards as shown in Table 6 -D. No more than a 5 dBA CNEL noise level increase for areas where the proposed project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards as shown in Table 6 -D. OF. -4. 6537 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 19thday of September, 2006. Ir s Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: A4, P. 4e;"- Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 5- 6537 RVPUB\MKSV03227.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6537 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 19th day of September, 2006 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Amundson, Segal, Wuo and Chandler NOES: Council Member Harbicht ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 J, k STAFF REPORT Arcadia Redevelopment Agency September 19, 2006 TO: Chairman and Agency Board Members FROM: Don Pen an, Deputy Executive Director and Development Services Director'�al SUBJECT: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into an Agreement with America West Manaoement for Management of the Arcadia Self Storage Building Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Agency staff has been negotiating with the owners of the Arcadia Self Storage building at 35 W. Huntington Drive for the purchase of this building. Staff has reached an agreement with the owners for the purchase and the Agency Board has authorized the Agency to open escrow for this acquisition. Escrow is scheduled to close on September 29, 2006. Staff does not have the experience to manage a facility such as this, so at least in the interim staff is recommending that the Agency enter into a contract with the current owners, under the name of America West Management, to operate the facility on a month -to -month basis. BACKGROUND Agency staff has been negotiating for many months with the owners of the Arcadia Self Storage building at 35 W. Huntington Drive for the purchase of this property. Eventually this property is proposed to be sold pursuant to the Rusnak Land Acquisition and Development Agreement to the Rusnak Automotive Group for the expansion of the existing Mercedes Benz dealership at Huntington Drive and Santa Clara. Staff recently has reached an agreement with the owners of this property and the Agency Board has authorized staff to complete the transaction. Escrow is scheduled to close on September 29, 2006. Since staff has no experience in managing a facility such as this, staff is proposing to enter into a contract with the current management of the facility to operate it on a month -to -month basis. The company principals of America West Management include some of the current owners of the property. America West Management has extensive Chairman and Agency Board Members September 19, 2006 Page 2 experience in the self- storage industry. They currently operate thirty -one (31) facilities in four states including nine (9) in Los Angeles County. Additionally, ten (10) of the facilities are managed for unaffiliated owners. With the tight time frame for closing escrow on this property and the extensive experience America West Management has in operating these facilities including the Arcadia Self Storage, staff believes it would be most prudent to contract with them to continue their management of this facility on a month -to -month basis. In the future, staff could solicit other proposals should the Agency retain ownership of the building longer than anticipated, which we would estimate at this time to be no more than six months to one year. BUDGET The basic monthly management fee will be 6% of the. Gross Collected Income from the property or $1,500, whichever is greater. There are other miscellaneous fees associated with specific oversight of activities should the property require any repairs such as water leaks. The funds for the contract will be available from rent proceeds from the storage units and leases on the property, so there will be no fiscal impact on the Agency. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Agency Board authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Management Agreement with America West Management for management services of soon to be Agency property at 35 W. Huntington Drive in a form approved by Agency Counsel. Approved: � William R. Kelly, Executive Director .'q' d STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 5, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City anager /Development Services Director Philip A. Wray, City Engineer I it) SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2217 Amendino the Arcadia Municipal Code by addina Recommendation: Introduce SUMMARY The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The' Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initially mapped all known special flood hazard areas and created Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). At that time, there were no known flood areas in Arcadia so no FIRM was created. FEMA has recently restudied the San Gabriel Valley region for special flood hazard zones and has identified a small portion of Arcadia as being a special flood hazard zone. In order for property owners in the City of Arcadia to remain eligible for flood insurance, the City must adopt floodplain management regulations for development in the flood zones. Ordinance No. 2217 proposes floodplain management regulations in conformance with the NFIP. The regulations are proposed to be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code under the Public Safety Section. Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance. DISCUSSION In 1968, the Federal Government adopted the National Flood Insurance Act administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Act established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that enabled property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and Local community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. FEMA studied and mapped flood hazard zones to varying degrees throughout the region and adopted them on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Arcadia had no �0 16 Staff Report Ordinance No. 2217 September 5, 2006 Page Two known flood hazard zones so no FIRM was every established for the City. The entire City was designated flood zone "X" defined as areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplains. This means that the chance of flooding is extremely remote and that no flood precautions are necessary. Recently, FEMA restudied the San Gabriel Valley region and made changes to or created new FIRMS based on new information. A FIRM has been created for Arcadia that designates three areas as Flood Zone "D ". See the attached portion of the FIRM. The areas designated Flood Zone "D" are the foothills surrounding the very north neighborhoods north and west of Canyon Road, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District spreading grounds east of Highland Oaks Drive and an area bounded by Santa Anita Avenue, the railroad, Huntington Drive and the Santa Anita Wash. Flood Zone "D" is defined as an area in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible, and means that historical data indicates that there has been or is a slight chance of flooding but the extent is unknown. This is intended to alert the City to use caution and require minimum flood protection standards when administering new construction in these areas. In order for property owners in the City of Arcadia to remain eligible for flood insurance, the City must adopt floodplain management regulations for development in the flood zones. City Staff has reviewed and commented on the FIRM for Arcadia and worked with FEMA to prepare a floodplain management ordinance. The ordinance sets minimum standards for construction, subdivisions and utilities within special flood hazard areas such as Flood Zone "D ". The standards are simply a means to insure that any building site within the special flood hazard area will be reasonably safe from flooding. This ordinance, if adopted, will become Article III, Public Safety, Chapter 10, Sections 3010 through 3024 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact of this Ordinance. The provisions of the Ordinance will be administered through the normal plan review process in the Development Services Department, Building Division. That the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2217 amending -the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a Chapter 10 to Article 111, pertaining to Floodplain Management. r� Approved By: "A WILLIAM R. KELLY City Manager DP:PW:pa PRELIMINARY FIRM SEP302005 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS (SEE LISTING OF COMMUNITIES TABLE) MAP INDEX PANELS PRINTED: 36, 40, 50, 75,100,125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 275, 300, 325, 350, 365, 370, 375, 400, 405, 410, 415, 420, 442, 444, 450, 462, 464, 465, 466, 468, 470, 475, 500, 525, 575, 600, 610, 625, 630, 635, 640, 645, 651, 653, 654, 656, 657, 658, 659, 665, 670, 694, 700, 701, 702,703,704;706,710,711,713.715,720,750,775,800, 805, 810, 815,' 820, 830, 835, 840, 845, 875, 900, 925, 950, 975, 1000, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1034, 1040, 1045, 1067, 1069, 1075, 1086, 1088, 1089, 1095,1109, 1239, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1275, 1280, 1285, 1288, 1290, 1295, 1305, 1310, 1315, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1335, 1337, 1339, 1345, 1375, 1400, 1415, 1420, 1430, 1440, 1445, 1475, 1485, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1502, 1508, 1507; 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1536, 1537, 1538, 1539, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1557, 1559, 1561, 1562, 1566, 1567, 1569, 1580, 1585, 1590, 1595, 1605, 1610, 1615, 1620, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1645, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1668, 1670, 1695, 1700, 1725, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1754, 1760, 1765, 1770, 1780, 1785, 1790, 1795, 1810, 1815, 1820, 1829, 1830, 1835, 1837, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1851, 1853, 1861, 1875, 1880, 1907, 1909, 1920, 1928, 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1955, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1970, 1980, 1988, 1990, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2055, 2060, 2076, 2202, 2204 . MAP NUMBER P 06037CINDOE 0 oe: EFFECTIVE DATE Month 00, 0000 Federal Emergency Management Agency ORDINANCE NO. 2217 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A CHAPTER 10 TO ARTICLE III PERTAINING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Article III, Chapter 10 is added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read as follows: "3010. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE. The Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560 and 65800 conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Arcadia does hereby adopt the following floodplain management regulations. 3011. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: A. Protect human life and health; B. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 1 C. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; D. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; E. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; F. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage; G. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and H. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. 3012. DEFINITIONS. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable application. "Area of special flood hazard" - means the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. "Base flood" means a flood, which has a one percent chance of being 2 equaled or exceeded in any given year (also called the "100 -year flood "). Base flood is the term used throughout this chapter. "Building" - see "Structure ". "Development" means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. "Flood or flooding" means: 1. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: the overflow of inland or tidal waters; the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; or mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined herein and are akin to a river of liquid & flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water & deposited along the path of the current. 2. The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in this definition. "Floodplain or flood -prone area" means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source - see "Flooding ". 3 "Floodplain Administrator" is the individual appointed to administer and enforce the floodplain management regulations. "Floodplain management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage and preserving and enhancing, where possible, natural resources in the floodplain, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, floodplain management regulations, and open space plans. "Floodplain management regulations" means this chapter and other zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as grading and erosion control) and other application of police power which control development in flood -prone areas. This term describes ,federal, state or local regulations in any combination thereof, which provide standards for preventing and reducing flood loss and damage. "Governing body" is the local governing unit, i.e. county or municipality that is empowered to adopt and implement regulations to provide for the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry. "Historic structure" means any structure that is 1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 4 2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or 4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs. "Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle ". "Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. "New construction ", for floodplain management purposes, means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by the City, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. I "One- hundred -year flood" or "100 -year flood" -see 'Base flood." "Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle, which is 1. Built on a single chassis; 2. 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; 3. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light -duty truck; and 4. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. "Start of construction" includes substantial improvement and other proposed new development and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufacture home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as 6 garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground; this includes a gas or liquid storage tank or a manufactured home. "Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures, which have incurred "substantial damage ", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations or state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or 2. Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will 7 not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure ". 3013. GENERAL PROVISIONS LANDS TO WHICH THIS CHAPTER APPLIES. This chapter shall apply to all areas identified as flood- prone within the jurisdiction of the City of Arcadia. 3014. BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING FLOOD -PRONE AREAS. The Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any' base flood data available from other Federal or state agencies or other source to identify flood -prone areas within the jurisdiction of the City. This data will be on file at the City of Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007. 3015. COMPLIANCE. - No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. Violation of the requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall prevent the City Council from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 3016. ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever U imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 3017. INTERPRETATION. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be: A. Considered as minimum requirements; B. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and C. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 3018. WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering. considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the City Council of the City or any officer or employee thereof, the State of California, or the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 3019. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. A development permit shall be obtained for all proposed construction or other development in the City, including the placement of manufactured homes, so that E it may be determined whether such construction or other development is within flood -prone areas. 3020. DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this chapter by granting or denying development permits in accord with its provisions. 3021. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR. The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not be limited to the following: A. Permit Review Review all development permit applications to determine: 1. Permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied; 2. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained; and 3. The site is reasonably safe from flooding. Roza in =aml! shIMMEM Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood data available from other Federal or state agency or other source. 3022. PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION. STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION. If a proposed building site is in a flood- prone area, all new construction and 'substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall: 10 A. Be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. B. Be constructed: 1. With materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; 2. Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; 3. With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 3023. STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR OTHER PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT. If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development, including manufactured home parks or subdivisions, is in a flood- prone area, any such proposals shall be reviewed to assure that: A. All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area; B. All public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and C. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards. 3024. STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES. A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall 11 be designed to minimize or eliminate: 1. Infiltration of flood waters into the systems, and 2. Discharge from the systems into floodwaters. B. On -site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during flooding." SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. This Ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. Should any section of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any portion thereof other than the section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy or summary of same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days of its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2006. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: c 9t 71WILA„ f � City Attorney 12 4, el , ORDINANCE NO. 2218 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW PART 3 TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE IV RELATING TO DOG PARK RULES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Part 3 to Chapter 4, Article IV to read as follows: "PART 3 DOG PARK RULES 4425. REGULATIONS. The following regulations and provisions shall apply within the Dog Park, and all persons who bring dogs to the Dog Park shall comply with the following regulations and provisions. a. No person shall enter at times other than those established as the hours of operation. The hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to dark, unless the City Manager determines, for good cause and upon finding that there will be minimal inconvenience to persons and minimal interference with the quiet enjoyment of nearby property, that the hours of operation shall be increased on a particular day or a period of days on a limited basis. b. Small dogs (25 pounds or less) shall remain in designated area. C. Large dogs (26 pounds or more) shall remain in designated area. 1 d. Owners must be in attendance at Off -Leash Area while their dogs are present. e. I Owners are required to have a visible leash at all times. f. Owners are personally liable for any damage and/or injury caused by their dogs. g. No aggressive dog behavior is allowed at any time (i.e. jumping up on people or approaching other dogs in a menacing manner). h. All dogs must be older than 4 months and be vaccinated for rabies prior to entering an Off -Leash Area. i. No female dogs in heat are allowed in the Off -Leash Area. j. Owners are required to immediately pick up and dispose of their dog's waste. k. Dogs must be maintained on a leash while entering and exiting a designated Off -Leash Area. 1. Professional dog trainers/handlers are not permitted to use the facility for instruction. m. All dogs must wear a collar with current tags. n. Spiked dog collars are prohibited. o. No food of any kind is allowed in the Off -Leash Area. p. Children 12 years old or younger must be supervised by an adult. Parents and/or guardians of children shall not permit children to run, shout, scream or wave their arms or otherwise excite or antagonize dogs. q. No animals other than dogs are permitted in the Off -Leash Area. r. Owners must obey all other Park Rules. 2 S. Persons and animals use the Dog Park at their own risk. 4426. PENALTIES. Failure to comply with any provisions of this part shall result in the immediate removal of the violator from the Dog Park. A violation of any section of this part is deemed to be an infraction and is punishable as such according to the provisions of this code and state law." SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this 19th day of September , 2006. 1SI R ER CHAND v ayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: -�• _, +i.i _ c. •,,. ;fit E r := APPROVED AS TO FORM: I City Attorney 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2218 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 19th day of September, 2006 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Amundson, Segal, Wuo and Chandler NOES: Council Member Harbicht IS/ JAMES H. BAR R OWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia STAFF REPORT Recreation and Community Services Department September 5, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Rp Roberta M. White, Director of Recreation & Community Services SUBJECT: Ordinance No 2218 Amending the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a new section Relating to Dog Park Rules. Recommended Action: Introduce SUMMARY At it's August 9, 2006 meeting the Recreation and Parks Commission voted to forward the rules for the Arcadia Dog Park to the City Council and recommended that the rules be incorporated into the Arcadia Municipal Code so they could be enforced by allowing violations to be considered infractions, which can be punishable according to the provisions of the code and state law. BACKGROUND After City Council approval, the Arcadia Dog Park was constructed in the southeast area of Eisenhower Park, during the 2003 -04 fiscal year. Initial rules were established for the off -leash Dog Park and they were posted at the park. The fenced half -acre Dog Park was dedicated on July 17, 2004. Shortly after the dedication it was apparent that small and large dogs needed separate areas to enjoy the freedoms of the off -leash Dog Park. To solve the problem on a temporary basis, City Council voted to have alternate days for small and large dogs. In addition, during the next budget year the City Council voted to add a one - quarter -acre park for small dogs adjacent to the existing Dog Park and that area was dedicated on July 15, 2006. Small dogs (under 25 pounds) now have their own area to roam in and the larger dogs now use the original park, allowing all dogs to use the Dog Park seven days a week. DISCUSSION Both off -leash areas of the Arcadia Dog Park feature mature trees and grass, water faucets, sanitation facilities and seating areas for dog owners. We held off formally adopting the Dog Park Rules until the small dog park was completed, so that the rules could be applied to both areas every day. �r The Recreation and Parks Commission and the Arcadia City Attorney have reviewed the Dog Park Rules being proposed in attached Ordinance #2218 and they are being presented to City Council for approval. If the Ordinance were adopted, the Arcadia Municipal Code would be amended by adding a new Part to Chapter 4, Article IV relating to Dog Park Rules. Although the Dog Park is self policed and owners are responsible for cleaning up after their own dogs, occasionally a dispute arises that needs to be resolved by the authorities. Having the Dog Park Rules in the Arcadia Municipal Code will allow violations to be considered infractions, which can be punishable according to the provisions of the code and state law. FISCAL IMPACT Adopting the Dog Park Rules would require that the rules signs be redone, including listing the AMC number. It is estimated that the cost of the four Dog Park signs will not exceed $600. Sufficient funds are available in the City sign account to purchase and install the new signs. RECOMMENDATION Introduce and then adopt Ordinance No. 2218 Amending the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a new section Relating to Dog Park Rules. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager C:Z. °a,ty °{K° STAFF REPORT Police Department DATE: September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police`' Prepared by: Nancy Chik, Management Analyst- SUBJECT: SUMMARY The Uniform Traffic Ordinance (UTO) was last updated over ten years ago and there have been many changes made in the Arcadia Municipal Code that are not reflected in the UTO. The penalty clause outlined in 3211.1 needs to be modified to conform to Section 1200 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Section 11.19 must be amended to reflect the proposed changes in the placement of the annual all night street parking permit, and two new sections were added regarding the parking of commercial vehicles. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Outdated information has been modified in the UTO and Section 3211.1 needs to be changed in order to be consistent with Section 1200 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. "Section 3211.1. VIOLATIONS A MISDEMEANOR OR INFRACTION. Any violation of the provisions of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance shall be punishable pursuant to Section 1200 of the Arcadia Municipal Code." Section 11.19 must be revised to reflect the proposed changes in the placement of the annual all night street parking permit. The modification offers the permittee the option to either place the permit on the left side of the rear bumper or the lower corner of the rear driver's side window. "Section 11.19. Same. Display. No annual all night street parking permit hereafter issued under this Article shall be effective at any time when the same is not affixed to the left side of the rear bumper or the lower most five -inch comer of the rear window on the driver's side of the vehicle for which it is issued." Two new sections were added that pertain to the parking of commercial vehicles. The Police Department receives numerous complaints regarding large commercial vehicles parked for an extended period of time on City streets. These additions will limit the parking of commercial vehicles of up to one hour, unless actual loading and unloading operations are taking place. "Section 13.15. Commercial Vehicle on Truck Route. No person shall park or leave standing any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of six thousand (6,000) pounds upon any street or portion thereof which is established as a "truck route" for a period of time exceeding one (1) hour except when necessary for the purpose of making pick -ups, or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained therefor and actual loading and unloading operations are in progress. Section 13.16. Commercial Vehicle Prohibited. When any such truck route or routes are established and designated by appropriate signs, the operator of any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of six thousand (6,000) pounds shall drive on such route or routes, and none other. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the operator of any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of six thousand (6,000) pounds from having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted streets when necessary for the purpose of making pick ups or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on such restricted streets or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained therefor. Provided that any such commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight of six thousand (6,000) pounds shall not be parked or left standing on any such restricted street in excess of one (1) hour unless actual loading or unloading operations are in progress." Parking penalties for the commercial vehicle violations will be established by resolution at a future City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Introduce Ordinance No. 2219 amending, various sections of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to the Uniform Traffic Ordinance. Approved: William R. Kelly, City M nager ORDINANCE NO. 2219 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3211.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "Section 3211.1. VIOLATIONS A MISDEMEANOR OR INFRACTION. Any violation of the provisions of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance shall be punishable pursuant to Section 1200 of the Arcadia Municipal Code." SECTION 2. Section 3214.11 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 3214.11 SECTION 11.19 ADDED. Section 11.19 of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance as adopted by Section 3211 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "11.19 Same. Display. No annual all night street parking permit hereafter issued under this Article shall be effective at any time when the same is not affixed to the left side of the rear bumper or the lower most five -inch corner of the rear window on the driver's side of the vehicle for which it is issued." 1 SECTION 3. Section 3214.15 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Sections 13.15 and 13.15 to read in their entirety as follows: "Section 13.15. Commercial Vehicle on Truck Route. No person shall park or leave standing any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of six thousand (6,000) pounds upon any street or portion thereof which is established as a "truck route" for a period of time exceeding one (1) hour except when necessary for the purpose of making pick -ups, or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained therefor and actual loading and unloading operations are in progress. Section 13.16. Commercial Vehicle Prohibited. When any such truck route or routes are established and designated by appropriate signs, the operator of any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of six thousand (6,000) pounds shall drive on such route or routes, and none other. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the operator of any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of six thousand (6,000) pounds from having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted streets when necessary for the purpose of making pick ups or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on such restricted streets or for the purpose of delivering materials to b used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, IV) remodeling or construction of any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained therefor. Provided that such commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight of six thousand (6,000) pounds shall not be parked or left standing on any such restricted street in excess of one (1) hour unless actual loading or unloading operations are in progress." SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of the City of Arcadia within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty-first (31 following its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2006. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: _07� Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 3 I i DATE: September 19, 2006 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dire Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase one (1) Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck Recommendation: Approve the purchase of one (1) Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck in the amount of $251,776.74 from Municipal Maintenance Equipment and appropriate $251,776.74 from the Sewer Fund SUMMARY On June 20, 2006, City Council approved the 2006 Sewer Master Plan Update and adopted Resolution No. 6521 for a sewer rate adjustment that would fund annual sewer operation and maintenance costs as well as projected Capital Improvement Projects. The Sewer Master Plan Update incorporates all of the necessary elements to enable the City to achieve compliance with the newly proposed Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for sanitary sewer systems including the addition of an additional maintenance crew and equipment. Staff recommends that the City Council award a purchase order to Municipal Maintenance Equipment for the purchase of one (1) Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck in the amount of $251,776.74 and appropriate $251,776.74 from the Sewer Fund to the 2006 -07 Sewer Capital Equipment Fund for the purchase of this truck. DISCUSSION On June 20, 2006, City Council approved the 2006 Sewer Master Plan Update and adopted Resolution No. 6521 for a sewer rate adjustment that would fund annual sewer operation and maintenance costs as well as projected Capital Improvement Projects. The Sewer Master Plan Update included all of the necessary elements to enable the City to achieve compliance with the newly proposed Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for sanitary sewer systems. Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council September 19, 2006 Currently, the Utilities Division of the Public Works Services Department maintains the City's 138 miles of sewer pipeline. A two -man crew and one truck clean all sewer lines once every two (2) to three (3) years while providing maintenance to problematic areas to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows and backups. The approved Operation and Maintenance Program includes the addition of one (1) new Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck to expedite the current maintenance schedule and significantly reduce the possibility of a sanitary sewer overflow or backup. As a result, the City will be able to perform maintenance to the entire sewer system once every year and continue to maintain the problematic areas on a more frequent basis. Municipal Maintenance Equipment and the County of Sacramento have agreed to allow the City of Arcadia to purchase the Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck on a cooperative purchase agreement with the County of Sacramento from a 2005 bid. This benefits the City by allowing the purchase of the 2006 model truck with enhanced amenities for the price of a 2005 model truck. Staff has determined this vendor is a qualified company to provide this type of equipment that meets City specifications and performance requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council award a purchase order to Municipal Maintenance Equipment for the purchase of one (1) Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck in the amount of $251,776.74 and appropriate $251,776.74 from the Sewer Fund to the 2006 -07 Sewer Capital Equipment Fund for the purchase of this truck. FISCAL IMPACT The Sewer Fund has sufficient funds to appropriate $251,776.74 to the 2006 -07 Sewer Capital Equipment Fund. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the purchase of one (1) Combination Vacuum /Jetter Truck in the amount of $251,776.74 from Municipal Maintenance Equipment. 2. Appropriate $251,776.74 from the Sewer Fund to the 2006 -07 Sewer Capital Equipment Fund. 3. Waive the formal bidding process and authorize a cooperative purchase with Municipal Maintenance Equipment using the County of Sacramento purchase order. Approved: - yl )(4 wJ William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT: DM Page 2 of 2 -�, •h :71 Office of the City Manager DATE: September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing & Special Projects Manage By: Yvonne Yeung, Management Aide q4 . SUBJECT: Award a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement extension to Joe A. Gonsalves & Son for state legislative advocacy services in the amount of $36,000 beginning October 2006 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Each year, state legislation has an enormous impact on cities, often times in a direct and invasive way. Since 1998, Arcadia has become more involved in the state legislative process by contracting with Joe A. Gonsalves & Son to provide the City with legislative advocacy services. Representatives from the firm track proposed legislation and contact legislators on issues pertinent to the City of Arcadia. Joe A. Gonsalves & Son is a Sacramento -based lobbying firm that represents many local municipalities, including a few of our nearby cities. Based on the City's continuous satisfactory experience with the firm, it is staffs recommendation that the City Council approve a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement extension to Joe A. Gonsalves & Son for state legislative advocacy services in the amount of $36,000 beginning October 2006. DISCUSSION Beginning in 1998, the City of Arcadia has contracted with Joe A. Gonsalves & Son to help us stay abreast of proposals in Sacramento that would impact local services. After the City analyzes proposed legislation, notice is sent to Joe A. Gonsalves & Son noting Arcadia's support or opposition of specific bills. Representatives from the firm then make personal contact with legislators and lobby those individuals to ensure that the City's position is communicated. Finally, Joe A. Gonsalves & Son keeps track of each piece of legislation throughout the entire legislative process and continues in their lobbying efforts until the bill is either passed or defeated. Joe A. Gonsalves & Son September 19, 2006 Page 2 Over the years, Joe A. Gonsalves & Son has proven to be accessible, knowledgeable, and extremely helpful in making important contacts with legislators, tracking the proposed legislation we request, and alerting the City of changes in legislation that may be either beneficial or detrimental to local government. Additionally, the firm has provided guidance regarding potential grant funding opportunities. In 2006, numerous pieces of state legislation of particular interest to the City of Arcadia were introduced. Several reform measures pertaining to redevelopment and eminent domain have been brought before the Legislature, including Assembly Bill 1990 (Walters) and Senate Bill 1206 (Kehoe), both to which Arcadia is opposed. There was Assembly Bill 2987, the telecommunications reform bill sponsored by Assembly Speaker Nunez, which raised concerns of many cities across California the effects it would have on local revenues from franchise fees and local control of right -of -ways. Finally, the successful passage of the transportation trailer bill, Senate Bill 1132, means that Arcadia can anticipate receiving a repayment from the State of over $400,000 in Proposition 42 funding from fiscal years 2003 -2004 as well as 2004 -2005 which we could use on various street improvement projects. Throughout the development of these crucial legislative issues, Joe A. Gonsalves & Son has continued to work very closely with legislative staff and members of the State Senate and State Assembly to reflect the City's concerns, represent the City's interests, and keep us apprised of the development as these important issues progressed. FISCAL IMPACT The annual cost to retain Joe A. Gonsalves & Son is $36,000.00. This amount reflects no increase over previous contracts, and the money is currently available in the adopted fiscal year 2006 -2007 budget. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to award a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement extension to Joe A. Gonsalves & Son for state legislative advocacy services in the amount of $36,000 beginning October 2006. AYU � ]� If09 ° " °a,�y °t STAFF REPORT Police Department DATE: September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police { By: Nancy Chik, Management Anal yJ SUBJECT: SUMMARY In April 2006, Paul T. Nelson was contracted by the Police Departrnent to conduct an organizational cultural analysis of the Department for the purpose of improving service to the community and to develop a mission statement and set base values for the Department. The initial contract was not to exceed $14,500 and was to expire on September 30, 2006. However, the Department wants to expand Mr. Nelson's service to include his assistance in restructuring personnel assignments, employee mentoring, and developing service delivery models. The additional service will increase the contract to an amount not to exceed $20,000 and extend the term to June 30, 2007. DISCUSSION Mr. Paul T. Nelson is an organizational culture consultant and he was contracted by the Police Department to diagnose its current culture, determine if changes needed to be made in service delivery to the public, and to evaluate the types of internal relationships. The purpose was to increase efficiency in the delivery of service to the public and to improve employee relationships and morale as part of the Department's effort to recruit and retain personnel. Mr. Nelson conducted a two phase internal study and diagnosis of the Department's culture and processes. Phase I of the project required him to interview staff members for the purpose of determining their personal understanding of Department processes, job satisfaction, and to solicit their thoughts and ideas as to how service delivery to the public can be improved and Recommendation: Approve how to create greater efficiency and better employee interaction. Phase II of the project is ongoing, and calls for reporting of the results of Phase I interviews and to determine plans of action through a process of consultant feedback to individual members, staff meeting training, establishment of new projects and processes, and the development of a Department mission statement and a set of core values. The Department initially anticipated a budget not to exceed $14,500 for the term of his contract. However, as the project has progressed, the Department has determined it is advantageous to expand Mr. Nelson's role to help solidify the results of his findings. His expanded role will include his assistance in restructuring personnel assignments, developing service delivery models, and employee mentoring. The additional services will extend the term of his contract through June 30, 2007, and will increase the amount of his contract to an amount not to exceed $20,000. FISCAL IMPACT Funds have been budgeted in the FY 2005 -2006 and FY 2006 -2007 for the initial anticipated cost of the contract. However, with the extension and expansion of the contract, the additional funds will be debited from the Police Department's current operating budget. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Paul T. Nelson for organizational cultural analysis of the Police Department for an amount not to exceed $20,000. Approved: lXx William R. Kelly, City Manager 7xd, °o,�YotN STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dir ior r ks l Sery Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public ces Director Dave Thompson, Streets Superintendent SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Maintenance Services Recommendation: Approve a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $130,000 to Republic Electric Inc. for traffic signal maintenance and repair services SUMMARY On November 2, 2004, the City Council approved Republic Electric as the City's new signal maintenance contractor. Republic Electric is reaching the end of their second (2) contract extension and has submitted a written offer to extend the existing contract for an additional one (1) year. The contractor's offer of extension reflects a 2.5% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to help offset the increasing cost of fuel and operations. All other conditions of the Agreement will remain in effect. Based on the excellent level of traffic signal maintenance services provided by Republic Electric, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $130,000 to Republic Electric for traffic signal maintenance. The Public Works Services Department contracts with Republic Electric Inc. for the preventative maintenance and repair of 60 signalized intersections within the City. This service includes routine maintenance and repair of all traffic signals and intersection safety lighting. Additionally, Republic Electric performs extraordinary repairs, which include emergency repair of damaged signals that pose a safety hazard to traffic. Damaged traffic signals in need of immediate repair include those caused by a traffic collision, vandalism, and electrical failure. Throughout the term of the contract, Republic Electric has responded and repaired all problems in a prompt and efficient manner. Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council September 19, 2006 In addition to routine and extraordinary service, California law requires traffic . signals to be energy efficient. In order to comply with this regulation, the City is in the process of converting all traffic signals from incandescent bulbs to more efficient Lead Educed Diodes (LED) lamps. The cost of an LED lamp ranges from $100 to $200 as opposed to $10.00 to $20.00 for incandescent bulbs and the labor costs associated with the conversion has also increased because electrical wiring is now a function of the work performed, thus requiring a more sk illed laborer who is ce rti fi ed, an m ore t is needed to complete the conversion. As the incandescent bulbs burn out, the contractor is replacing them with the LED lamps, which is adding to the cost of our contract. A new signalized intersection at First Avenue and Santa Clara Street will result in an added cost for (approximately $1,000 /year) routine monthly maintenance. Based on the excellent level of traffic signal maintenance services provided by Republic Electric, staff recommends the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $130,000 to Republic Electric for traffic signal maintenance. The total contract amount will be disbursed as follows: $60,000 for routine maintenance and $70,000 for extraordinary repairs. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the 2006 -07 Traffic Safety Operating Budget for the maintenance of the signalized intersections throughout the City. Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $130 to Republic Electric for traffic signal maintenance and repair services. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract extension in a form approved by the City Attorney. APPROVED: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT: DT:dw Page 2 of 2 �yteogy� @°a1, STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dire or Prepared by: Tom Tait, Field Services Manager SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT THE REVISIONS TO THE 2006 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (WSA) FOR THE CARUSO PROJECT AT THE SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK SUMMARY The population growth in the State of California has resulted in additional water demand on water systems. Senate Bills 610 (Costa) and 221 (Kuehl) amended State law to require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county land use planners prior to approval of certain land use development projects. This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) follows the guidelines in California Water Code Sections 10910 -10912 for the approach, required information and criteria for determining supply in the water supply assessment. On January 3, 2006, the City Council approved the WSA for this project. However, the developer has revised the scope of work for the Project; and as a result, the City must now approve a revised WSA. A copy of the revised 2006 Water Supply Assessment for the Caruso Affiliated /Magna Entertainment Corp Project (Project) at the Santa Anita Race Track is available for review in the City Manager's office. The City's estimated overall water demand by the year 2030, including the demand on our water system from the Project is projected at 19,355 acre -feet per year (AFY), which is 2,000 acre feet greater than current water demands on our system. Based on the demonstrated reliability of the City's water supply sources, the WSA concludes that sufficient water supplies are and will be available to meet the City's future demands including this Project. Based on this report, it is recommended that the revisions to the 2006 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Caruso Affiliated /Magna Entertainment Corp Project at the Santa Anita Race Track be accepted by the City Council. k, Page 1 of 3 Mayor and City Council +' September 19, 2006 DISCUSSION The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is required by Senate Bills 610 and 221 for major proposed developments in a city or county to provide a detailed assessment to show that a sufficient water supply is available to meet new water demands and written verification to substantiate the assessment. State law further requires that the City Council approve the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) at a regular city council meeting and that the Water Supply Assessment (WSA), once approved by the City Council, be included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Caruso Project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000. On January 3, 2006, the WSA was approved by the City Council at its regular schedule meeting. Following the revised scope of work submitted by the developer, minor revisions were made to the 2006 WSA. These revisions included the removal of the residential component of the project and included an additional 25,000 square feet of office space. Based on the water use rates in the WSA, the overall annual water demand from the project was reduced approximately 55 acre -feet. The preparation of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project at the Santa Anita Race Track was a collaborative effort between Public Works Services Department and Stetson Engineers Inc., in conformance with the law. The data in the WSA's appendices reflect the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Fiscal Year 2004/05 Budget and the Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond Basin Judgments respectively. In compliance with applicable laws, the City's WSA includes the.following • Description of the service area, including current and projected population and other demographic factors • Identify and quantify to the extent practicable, existing and planned sources of water available to the City over five (5) year increments • Provide a description of any groundwater basins from which the City pumps groundwater • A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation • A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage for an average water year, a single dry water year and multiple dry water years The Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond Basin have both demonstrated to be reliable sources of water during droughts. In addition, the City has access to treated imported water from the MWD. Based on the demonstrated reliability of the City's water supply sources, sufficient water supplies can be reasonably concluded to be fully reliable and available to meet the City's future demands including this Project. Page 2 of 3 Mayor and City Council September 19, 2006 The City Attorney has also recommended that the revisions to the 2006 Water Supply Assessment for the Caruso Affiliated /Magna Entertainment Corp Project at the Santa Anita Race Track be presented to and accepted by the City Council. It is therefore recommended that the revisions to the 2006 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Caruso Affiliated /Magna Entertainment Corp Project at the Santa Anita Race Track be accepted by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The WSA will be included in the City's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Caruso Project that is currently being prepared by the Development Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Accept the 2006 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Caruso Project at the Santa Anita Race Track. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT:dw Page 3 of 3 � STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Directow Philip A. Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator JO Prepared by: Tim Kelleher, Senior EngineeringAssistant7 -A, l\ SUBJECT: Acceptance - Street Rehabilitation of E/B Huntington Drive from Holly Recommendation: Accept all work performed by Silvia Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Street Rehabilitation of E/B Huntington Drive from Holly Avenue to the West City Limit and Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents SUMMARY On May 16, 2006, the City Council awarded a contract to Silvia Construction, Inc. in the amount of $769,622.75 for Street Rehabilitation of E/B Huntington Drive from Holly Avenue to the West City Limit and Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects. There were a total of two (2) change orders decreasing the total contract by $1,268.47. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the required work has been performed to staffs satisfaction for a final cost of $768,354.28. Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the project as complete and authorize the final payment in accordance with the approved contract documents. BACKGROUND Roadway analysis conducted as part of the City's pavement maintenance system prioritized eastbound Huntington Drive from Holly Avenue to the westerly City limits to be rehabilitated. A budget of $1,206,000 consisting of $1,120,000 Proposition C Funds and $86,000 TDA funds for street rehabilitation and new sidewalks was approved over a two year period in the 2005 -06 and 2006 -07 Capital Improvement Programs. Staff prepared plans and specifications and opened bids on May 2, 2006. There were eight (8) bidders with Silvia Construction, Inc. being the low bidder. On May 16, 2006, the City Council awarded the contract to Silvia Construction, Inc. in the amount of $769,622.75. Because the award of contract was requested before the beginning of the 2006/07 fiscal year, the Council also appropriated $486,000 in Proposition C funds in Mayor and City Council Staff Report September 5, 2006 Page 2 advance of the FY 2006/07 Capital Improvement Program. The project budget in the FY 2006/07 program was actually higher at $650,000 but that total was not necessary. DISCUSSION This rehabilitation of eastbound Huntington Drive involved the typical aspects of construction normally associated with these types of projects. However, it included a significant amount of new sidewalk. Therefore, included in this project was the construction of new sidewalk on the south side of Huntington Drive between Hungate Lane and Sunset Boulevard. Construction began July 19, 2006 and was substantially completed by the end of July 2006. The final construction costs were two percent (2 %) less than the original contract and the contractor successfully fulfilled the requirements of the plans and specifications. There were two change orders for extra work not anticipated. One change order was to repair a broken streetlight conduit and the other was for additional striping not on the original plan. The total cost for these extras was $1,610.00, and is included in the final construction cost. FISCAL IMPACT Proposition "C" Funds and TDA Funds in the amount of $1,206,000 were appropriated for this project in the 2005 -06 and 2006 -07 CIP. The original contract amount was $769,022.75. With adjusted quantities, the final construction cost for this project is $768,354.28. Additional costs were incurred for engineering, inspection, contract administration and materials testing in the amount of $53,050.86 bringing the total project cost to $821,405.14. Funds are available to cover all costs. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accepts all work performed by Silvia Construction, Inc. for the Street Rehabilitation of E/B Huntington Drive from Holly Avenue to the West City Limit and Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects as complete and authorizes the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents. Approved: ur� William R. Kelly, City Manager DP:PAW:TOK:pa